HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 DogAppealDettenriederCI'TY CLERK FILE # 500-40
AGENDA STATEMENT
CZTY COUNCZL MEETZNG DATE: March 20, 2001
SUBJECT:
Vicious Dog Hearing Appeal
Report Prepared By: Amy Cunningham~ Administrative
Analyst and John Bakker, Attorney at Law, Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver, and Wilson
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Animal Control Report
2. Hearing Minutes
3. Wilson Vicious Dog Hearing Findings
4. Letter of appeal from the Dettenrieders
5. Memorandum from Animal Control
6. Photographs
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open public hearing
2. Receive staff report and public comment
3. CloSe public hearing
4. Deliberate
5. Determination on appeal
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None
BACKGROUND: On January 30, 2001, staff received a report from Alameda County Animal
Control regarding a dog bite incident occurring on January 28, 2001. The report stated that a woman was
walking her two leashed dogs, "Bailey" and "Samantha" down the street when a third dog, "Cher," an
approximately one year old pit bull, charged and bit the dogs. "Cher's" owners came outside, separated
her from the other dogs, and locked her in the back yard.
"Bailey" received a two-inch laceration on the head and a laceration on the left ear. "Samantha" received
a four-inch wound to the chest, two puncture wounds to the right front leg, and two puncture wounds to
the hindquarters.
The animal control officer' s report recommended that a vicious dog hearing be conducted. The hearing
was scheduled and conducted on February 8, 2001.
Those present at the hearing included: Debra Beck, owner of "Bailey" and "Samantha"; Graham and
Tammie Wilson, owners of "Cher"; Brigit Craig, neighbor; Guy Houston, neighbor; Inga Miller,
newspaper reporter; Scott Marshall, newspaper reporter; Barbara Bowman, Animal Control Officer;
Deena Hambleton, Vicious Dog Hearing Secretary; and Amy Cunningham, Hearing Director. The
hearing was conducted in accordance with Chapter 5.36 of the Dublin Municipal Code, Animal Control.
COPIES TO:
ITEM NO. ~
H/cc-forms/agdastmt.doc
The animal control report was read into the hearing record, and the Hearing Director gave all interested
parties an opportunity to present relevant information.
At the hearing, Graham Wilson, one of the owners,Of "Cher", stated that he and his wife feel terrible about
the incident. (Minutes, Attachment 2) Mr. Wilson' thought that perhaps the neighborhood kids had
opened the gate. Immediately after the incident occurred, Mr. Wilson installed a padlock on the fence to
ensure that the gate could not be opened from the outside and that "Cher" would not escape again. They
also assumed responsibility for all of "Samantha" i'n'd~Bailey.' s" veterinary costs associated ~vith the
r , e n the
process of signing "Cher" up for dog training classe)s
/ ....
(
Debra Beck, the owner of "Bailey" and "Samantha", statbd that this was an unfortunate accident and that
she holds no animosity towards the Wilsons. The animal control officer asked Mr. Wilson if "Cher" is
aggressive towards small children, and Mr. Wilson responded that "Cher" had been around small children,
including his own, and never acted aggressively. (Minutes, Attachment 2) The Wilsons have had "Cher"
for the past year, adopting her when she was 3 months old, and have experienced no other events such as
this.
Following the hearing, the Hearing Director declared "Cher" "vicious" pursuant to the definition
contained in Dublin Municipal Code §5.36.290(A)(3). That section provides that a dog is presumed
vicious when it engages in "an attack on another animal, livestock or poultry which occurs on property
other than that of the owner of the attacking dog." The Hearing Director found that "Cher" bit and,
attacked Ms. Beck' s dogs, "Bailey" and "Samantha.'
On February 14, Animal Control Officer Bowman and the Hearing Director visimd the Wil. son's home'to
inspect the gate and fencing that contains "Cher." They noted that there were no signs of Chewing or
other damage on the fence or gates that-would indicate that the dog was attempting to escape from the
enclosed yard. Two pin locks and the padlock were in place on the exterior of the gate.. One gate king pin
(right-angled metal rod) reached through the interior fence brace and anchored itself into the concrete
driveway on the left side of the gate. "Cher" was also observed to be friendly towards humans. (Minutes,
Attachment 2 and Photographs, Attachment 6)
Findings from the Vicious Dog Heating were issued on February 14, 2001 (Attachment 3), and the
following restrictions were imposed:
(1) The owner shall take adequate precautions to ensure that the dog is only out of the fenced backyard or
residence when muzzled, in a chest harness, with a six (6) foot leash and under the direct control of an
adult.
(2) The owner shall purchase and install a second gate king pin that matches the existing one located on
the left side of the gate by February 28, 2001. Upon completion of the gate modification, owner shall
contact Animal Control for an inspection.
On February 26, Animal Control inspected the modifications to the Wilson' s gate. They found the gates
to be "strong" and in adequate condition to contain the dog. The Wilsons had installed the second gate
king pin on the interior of the gate as required and had installed a second padlock on the exterior gate.
Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code §5.36.080, Eric and Lisa Dettenrieder appealed the Hearing Director' s
determination on the grounds that "Cher" "constitutes an unreasonable risk to the health and welfare of
the citizens of Dublin." (Attachment 4)
In the accompanying memorandum (Attachment 5), Animal Control Officer McComb had deemed that
the gates and fence are adequate to contain the dog. Animal Control Officer Bowman believes that the
additional precautions, muzzling the dog and the use of a chest harness to maintain further control of the
dog when outside of the yard, will protect the public.
The findings issued as a result of this hearing are consistent with past findings. In previous cases, dogs
involved in similar bite/attack incidents for the first time faced restrictions such as: compliance with the
leash law; prohibitions on the dog being outside of the fenced yard except under the control of a
competent adult; fence inspections to insure that the fence is adequate to contain the dog; and requiring
necessary fence repairs to be made at the owner's expense.
In October of 1999, the City Council upheld on appeal similar restrictions imposed on a dog after a
Vicious Dog Hearing in which a loose dog bit a person on the leg. The findings required that 1) the owner
take adequate precautions to ensure that the dog is only out of the fenced backyard when on a leash and
under the control of an adult; and 2) the owner contact Animal Control for inspection for the fencing and
make any modifications required by Animal Control. The restrictions placed on that dog, which bit a
human, are less restrictive than those placed on "Cher."
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the Public Hearing, obtain
any necessary information from concerned parties, deliberate and determine whether or not the findings
and determinationof the February 8, 2001 hearing should be upheld. If the City Council determines that,
said findings and determination should not be upheld, the City: Council will need to make findings
regarding the merits of the appeal and determine whether other restrictions should be imposed, or actions
taken.
TYPE OF REPORT:
DATE OF REPORT:
RepoFting Officer:
Owner
Victim
Guardian/
Witness
013001
Bowman
Wilson
Last Name
Address
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
FIELD SERVICES
/
Bite DETAIL NUMBER: 346
DATE OF INCIDENT:
Graham -' D
First N(ame " MI
Dublin
City
H,.,ome Telephone:
Beck
Last Name
Work Telephone:
Debra A
First Name MI
019901
DOB Age
94568
ZIP Code
Page 1 of 2
~ _,/_
DOB Age
_ II IIII ~IPI II Dublin 94568
Address City ZIP Code
Work Telephone:
Home Telephone:
First Name MI
Last Name
DOB Age
Witness
Address
Home Telephone:
A~d~e~
E3UBi,,!N F~OL,!O~oqnl~lb~o~e:
City
Work Telephone:
First Name MI
City
Work Telephone:
ZIP Code
DOB Age
ZiP Code
Animal: Dog
Color: Brown
Age: I year
Name: Cher
Licenses Number:
Animal Quarantined:
none
Home
Breed: Pitbull
Sex: Female
Weight: 70 Ibs
Rabies Tag No,: Valid
City: Dublin
Master Sheet No,: n/a
Vicious Dog Hearing Recommendation
Yes XX
No
Page 2 of 2
Approximately 1535 hours, 012801, I received a detail from dispatch to respond to a dog bite incident at _. IIII II , Dublin.
At 1550 hours, I arrived and made contact with Wilson and he stated the following:
A~ i1530 'hours, my kids came into the house and said our dogs were out. I went out front and saw a woman
across the street holding a small tan dog in her arms and a neighbor holding the leash of a small black dog.
I saw my do.g, Cher, had a hold of the black dog. Her jaws were locked onto the dog's chest. My mother-in-
law pulled 'Cher off the little black dog but was having trouble holding onto to her. I ran over and retrieved
Cher from her, locking Cher back into my back yard. I believe the dogs got out because someone did not
latch the gate properly. I think Cher did this because she is not socialized. We rescued Cher from someone
who was mistreating her. We have had Cher for only a year;
On 012901, at I205 hours, I made phone contact with Beck and she stated the following:
I was walking both of my cocker spaniels on leash when I saw out of the corner of my eye a pit bull to my left
side. Before I knew it the pit bull was on top of my white cocker spaniel, Bailey. The pit bull bit Bailey .twice. I
pushed the pit bull off Bailey and picked him up. The pit bull charged at me growling and baring its teeth. I
was very frightened by this action but was more concerned for my dogs' welfare. My black cocker spaniel,
Samantha, acting in my defense, nipped at the pit bull's leg. The pit bull turned and attacked biting on
Samantha. I couldn't get the pit bull off Samantha and I started screaming for help. There was another dog
hanging around barking at us but it did not join in the scuffle. A man and woman came running from across
the street. The man. pulled the pit bull Off Samantha. They told me. to back off because they were having
trouble restraining the pit bull. I walked away and sat on the curb waiting for help to arrive. I then took my
dogs to seek medical attention.
Beck's dog Bailey received the following injuries: one-,+wo inch laceration on the head and a laceration to left
and two puncture wounds to her i
I verified Wilson dog, Cher, had a current rabies vaccination. The dog was home quarantined.
Wilson was issued a warning for Biting or Attacking, Dog Attack on a Animal X 2 and Dog at Large X 2.
Wilson ten days to license both dogs. I will follow up on' licensing.
A record check revealed this was a first incident.
I recommend a vicious dog hearing.
I gave
Officer Bowman
MINUTES
Victims: Bailey & Sarn,~intha
Date of Incident: 01/~ 8/01
Date of Hearing: 02/08/0 1 C
Present:
Amy Cunningham, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin
Deena Hambleton, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin
Barbara Bowman, 4595 Gleason Drive, Dublin
Debra Beck, 7696 Arbor Creek Circle, Dublin
Graham Wilson, 7548 San Sabana Road, Dublin
Tammie Wilson, 7548 San Sabana Road, Dublin
Inga Miller, 4770 Willow Road, Pleasanton
Guy Houston, 7611 San Sabana Road, Dublin
Scott Marshall, 127 Spring Street, Pleasanton
Brigit Craig, 7575 San Sabana Road, Dublin
Amy Cunningham opened the hearing by explaining the rules of conduct and procedures'
for this hearing.
She then summarized the report presented by Animal Control (detail #346), and asked
those present if they had any additional information to present. It was noted that "Cher"
has a valid rabies vaccination, is now licensed and is still on home quarantine. Barbara
Bowman, Animal Control Officer, asked to make 2 corrections in the report. She stated
that the dog attack on an animal should read 1 count and the gash in "Samantha's" chest
is to read 4 inches. Debra Beck, owner of "Bailey" and "Samantha," stated that the
report is correct.
Graham Wilson presented a copy of a letter from his mother-in-law, Justine Fox, written
in support of "Cher." He also stated that he and his wife feel terrible about this event. He
presented photos taken of his fence, showing that in addition to the 2 existing pin locks
on the gate, he had installed a padlock on the gates after the incident occurred. He stated
that he and his wife were considering building a chain link fence inside the existing
wooden fence. He also stated that kids in the neighborhood might have opened the gate
as a prank. Barbara Bowman said that the padlocks need to be installed on the inside of
the gates so that no one can cut the locks from the outside. She also stated that
approximately 30 minutes before this incident she was patrolling that area, and noticed
several boys out on the street, playing roller hockey.
ATTACH}lENT 2
Ms. Beck stated that this incident was an unfortunate accident, and that she holds no
animosity towards the Wilsons. She also presented photos of her 2 dogs that showed
their injuries. She informed the attendees that her dogs are healing well.
Ms. Cunningham noted that the report stated that per Mr. Graham, "Cher" is not
socialized. She wondered if "Cher" was being raised to fight before being rdscued by the
Wilson family. Mr. Wilson stated that he and his wife feel that while "Cher" is great
with people, she needs to be trained how to behave around other dogs. Mrs. Wilson
stated that their dog is wonderful with their children, and that she is always kept on a
leash when outside. Ms. Bowman asked what type of collar is used on "Cher." The
Wilsons informed the group that they used a choke collar. Barbara Bowman suggested
that a chest collar be used.
Ms. Bowman asked the Wilsons if "Cher" has been aggressive toward small children.
Mr. Wilson stated that "Cher" has been around small children including his own, and has
not been aggressive.
Ms. Cunningham inquired about the condition of the Wilson' s fence. Mr. Wilson stated
that his fence is "o.k." He also informed the attendees that there is a kennel in his
backyard. It is a storage shed, about 9210 feet square, and about 7-8 feet high, on a
concrete base.
Ms. Cunningham declared 'the dog to be vicious according to City of Dublin .Mun. Code
5.36.290 (A)(3). She informed the attendees that she would go with Ms. Bowman to
inspect the Wilson' s fence and gate' before issuing the findings. She requested that
"Cher" remain on home quarantine.
One of the Wilson's neighbors, Brigit Craig, stated that she has a 2 year old child and
wants a guarantee that the child will not be hurt by this dog. She stated several times that
her children and other children are afraid of "Cher".
Ms. Beck stated that she still has some fear, but is hopeful that no more incidents will
OCCur.
Ms. Cunningham closed the meeting.
Respectfully,
Deena Hambleton, Secretary
Note: On February 14, 2001 at 11:00 am, Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Bowman
inspected Mr. Wilson's gates and fence. Ms. Cunningham found the fence and
gates to be in good condition, with no signs of chewing on either the gates or the
fence. She also made note that "Cher" was friendly to humans. The dog sh~owed
no signs of a. ggression towards her or Animal Control Officer Bowmare "Cher"
did not growl or bark when they arrived at the Wilson' s home. Ms. Cunningham
also noted that the Wilson's dogs, "Cher" and "Sonny" appear to be w~ell taken
care of. They have adequate food, water and shelter.
Ms. Cunningham made the following suggestions:
"Cher" should be enrolled in a training class that focuses on dogs that are(dog "
aggressive.
2. Mr. Wilson should proceed with his plan to build a dog run which would provide a
second chain link fence on the inside of the exterior wood fencing.
Ms. Cunningham imposed the following restrictions on the Wilson' s dog:
1. "Cher" is only to be out of the fenced backyard or residence when muzzled, in a chest
harness, and on a six (6) foot leash and under the direct control of a competent adult.
2. Mr. Wilson shall purchase and install a second gate king pin that matches the existing
one located on the left side of the gate. This gate modification shall be completed by
February 28, 2001, and Mr. Wilson shall contact Animal Control for an inspection.
'Any violations of these conditions shall be cause to conduct another hearing.
CITY OF DUBLIN
RO. Box 2340, Dublin, Cab rnsa ~45
/
"FINIiiNGS
VICIOUS DOG HEARING
- Dog: Cher
Owner: Graham Wilson
Victims: Bailey & Samantha
Date of Incident: 01/28/01
Date of Hearing: 02/08/01
City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dubfin, California 94568
WHEREAS, a hearing in accordance with Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section 5.36
was conducted on February 08, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Owner of the dog was present at the hearing; and
WHEREAS, on January 28,200 I, "Bailey" and "Samantha" were attacked and bitten by
"Cher"; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with DMC Section 5.36.290(A)(3), a dog is presumed
vicious when:
"An attack on another animal, livestock or poultry which occurs on property
other than that of the owner of the attacking dog"; and
WHEREAS, based upon the information presented at the hearing, the dog was declared
vicious according to the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 5.36.340 of the Dublin Municipal
Code, the following restfictions are imposed to address this nuisance:
The owner shall take adequate precautions to ensure that the dog i.s only out of the
fenced backyard or residence when muzzled, in a chest harness, with a six (6) foot
leash and under the direct control of a competent adult.
¢
The owner shall purchase and install a second gate king pin that matches the existing
one located on the left side of the gate by February 28, 2001. Upon completion of
the gate modification, owner shall contact Animal Control for an inspection.
3. Any violation of these conditions shall be cause to conduct another hearing to
determine whether further restrictions are required.
4. In accordance with Section 5.36.340, this decision shall be final.
rr cm NT s
Administration (925)833-6650 · City CSuncil (925)833-6605 · Finance (925)833-6640 · Building Inspection (92S)833-6620
Code Enforcement (925) 833-6620 . Engineering (925) 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services (925) 833-6645
=nnnnmi~ D~vplnnrnr~nt (gPR~ 833-66R(~ · Prolice (925~ 833-6670 · Public Works (925) 833-6630
4. Any violation of these conditions shall be cause to conduct another hearing to
determine whether further restrictions are required.
5. In accordance with Section 5.36.340, this decision shall be final.
Signed:/~//~.z:' / .~,gj(?)~/'~----'
Am~gl~, Director/Designee
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
You have the right to appeal this decision to the City Council. Any appeal must be filed
within five (5) calendar days from the date of issuance of this decision. A Notice of
Appeal must be filed with the City Clerk and shall state specific grounds as to why the
decision should not be approved. Failure to file an appeal within the specified time limit
shall constitute a waiver of the right to appeal and the attached decision shall be final.
'4fd~y: ~7'y ~,~ RECEIVED
/9 Ply dUJJ~z~
:/'7'>, ,~-'ra~j,z~,/ FEB 1 G 2001
CITY OFDUBLIN
February 16, 2001
DUBLiN pOLiCE SERVICES
To: City of Dublin, Richard Ambrose City Manager
Dublin Police Services, Amy Cunningham Administrative Analyst
R_E: Vicious Dog Heating findings dated February 14, 2001
Owner: Graham Wilson, dog Chef
APPEAL OF DECISION
I (We), the undersigned appeal the decision of the Vicious Dog Hearing on February 8,
2001 and findings dated February 14, 2001 to the Dublin City Council. Grounds for the
appeal are that the dog Cher, owned by Graham Wilson, constitutes an unreasonable risk
to the health and welfare of the citizens of Dublin. The dog has been deemed "vicious" by
the officer who presided over the case. We appeal to the Dublin City Council to review
the case and render a decision which protects the citizens of Dublin.
This is a timely appeal according to the rules of the City of Dublin and expect the Dublin
City Council to hear the issue as soon as possible.
ATTACtP,~NT 4
Alameda County Shei f's Office
FIELD SERVICES, 4595 GLEASON DRIVE, DUBLIN, CA 94568.
(925).803-7040 * FAX (925) 803-7044
CHARLES C. PLUMMER, SHERIFF
MARSDi~,~-CORONER - PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR
MEM'ORANDUM
/
(
/
Date: 02-26-01
From: N. McCombe, Animal Control Officer
To: Amy Cunningham
Re: Gate inspection~' ; , Dublin
Approximately 1400 hours, 02-26-0 I, I received detail number 327 to do a gate inspection at
~ in Dublin.
I arrived at approximately 1452 hours and made an inspection of the gate. I found the gate t° be
strong and was secured with two padlocks on the outside.
If you have any questions regarding this inspection, please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
ATTACHMENT 5
A:XMVC-OO1X.JPG (local)
Page 1 of 1
A:XMVC-OO1X.JPG (local)
Page 1 of 1
A:LMVC-007X. JPG (local)
Page 1 of 1