HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11152005 - D8 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS " Contra
FROM: Glenn Howell, Animal Services Director Costa
DATE: November 15, 2005
�� u
srA' K� Cont y
SUBJECT: Dangerous Animal Ordinance �ov
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. ADOPT Ordinance No. 2005-24 to replace Article 416-12.4 of the County Ordinance
Code to regulate the ownership or possession of potentially dangerous and
dangerous animals.
2. CONTINUE public hearing to establish potentially dangerous animal permit
application fees, permit fees, late fees, inspection fees, microchip fees and to
increase all other animal related fees to December 13, 2005.
3. DIRECT the Director of Animal Services to submit documentation indicating the
estimated cost of providing the services for which the fees are levied to the Clerk of
the Board by December 2, 2005.
4. DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to publish notice of the public hearing on the
establishment of new fees pursuant to Government Code section 6062a and to
make cost documentation available for public review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The costs of enforcing this ordinance are intended to be covered by the imposition of new
fees related to potentially dangerous and dangerous animals.
BACKGROUND:
On October 25, 2005, the Board of Supervisors introduced Ordinance No. 2005-24, which
would impose new regulations governing the ownership or possession of potentially
dangerous and dangerous animals, as well as prohibit convicted felons from owning or
possessing dogs posing a threat to public safety. The ordinance is attached. The October
25, 2005 Board Order on this ordinance provides additional background.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: SIGNATURE:
MCOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR � RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOA N APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
C U K4
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT l AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: f
ATTESTED ° ' '� C�C.�Ul � •� I �1 C�
CONTACT: Glenn Howell 335-8370 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOAR6 OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
CC: County Administrator �
County Counsel �
tcBY TY
R 1
Page 1 of 1
ADDENDUM TO D.8
NOVEMBER 15, 2005
On this day the Board of Supervisors considered adopting Ordinance No. 2005-24 to
replace Article 416-12.4 of the County Ordinance Code to regulate the ownership or
possession of potentially dangerous and dangerous animals; and continue the public
hearing to establish potentially dangerous animal permit application fees,permit fees, late
fees,, inspection fees,microchip fees and to increase all other animal related fees to
December 13, 2005, as recommended by the Animal Services Director.
The Chair noted that Board approval of this item would approve the adoption of the
Ordinance.,but that the adoption of a fee schedule would not be considered until the
Board's December 13,, 2005 meeting.
The Board asked for public opinion and the following people spoke:
Skip Swanlund, Antioch Animal Services, 1036 Oak Grove Road,No.73.,
Concord, asked the Board for more time to consider the proposed Ordinance, and
expressed concern that landlords could use the Ordinance as grounds to not rent to
anyone owning a dog weighing over 20 pounds;
Gilbert Lee Jorgensen,Martinez resident, spoke in support of the ordinance;
Ruth Stoiberg, Clayton resident,voiced concern that the law could be used to
harass dog owners. She urged the Board to incorporate language to require that
evidence of an attack be seen by an officer of Animal Control;
The following people sent letters to the Board for consideration:
Laura M. Hoffineister,,Mayor, City of Concord, urging the Board to adopt the
new Dangerous Animal Ordinance;
Christine O'Neill, 10 1 Southwind Drive!,Pleasant Hill, supporting the proposed
Ordinance,, and sharing her story on an incident with a pit bull;
Rose Lemberg, strongly in favor of adopting the proposed Ordinance, saying it
would strengthen the county's existing laws;
Brenda F. Barnette, Chief Executive Officer,Animal Rescue Foundation(ARF),,
expressing concern and offered suggestions for the proposed Ordinance;
Sally Morgan Welch, agreeing with the Animal Rescue Foundation(ARF)
representative that the proposed Ordinance should be rejected as written.
The following people sent their comments through electronic mail:
November 15, 2005
Agenda Item D.8: Dangerous Animal Ordinance
Page 2 of 3
Nancy Pereira,Advertising Consultant, Contra Costa Times,urged the Board to
consider delaying the Ordinance for a month to make the Ordinance more
effective and more enforceable;
Diane and David Dickson,Martinez residents, asking the Board to consider issues
contained in letter that Tony LaRussa's Animal Rescue Foundation(ARF)would
be sending to the Supervisors;
John de Benedictis, Orinda resident, asked the Board to delay approving the
Ordinance and to provide more clarity;
Sunny Goodier, Brentwood resident, expressed several areas of concern;
Evie Vierra asked the Board to wait to adopt the Ordinance until concerns and
suggestions of the Animal Rescue Foundation(ARF)could be addressed;
Rozy Fridas and Kristina Fridas, support the Animal Rescue Foundation and
agree with the letter from Ms. Brenda Barnette, ARF Chief Executive Officer, to
the Board dated November 11, 2005;
Jeri and Tom Danielsen,, also in support of Ms. Brenda Barnette;
Marguerite Judson urged the Board to appoint an Animal Welfare Commission to
include the Director of Animal Services with community members from each
district who have expertise in companion animals or agriculture animals;
Lisha Ruud also urged the Board to appoint an Animal Welfare Commission;
Trish Katz asked the Board why ARF was not included in the development of the
proposed Ordinance;
Wayne and Wanda Kind asked the Board to delay approving the proposed
Ordinance;
An anonymous citizen urged the Board to vote"No"on the proposed Ordinance
and requested the Board refer the proposed Ordinance to a committee to create a
more thoughtful document.
Supervisor Gioia noted that the opponents of the Ordinance are often people who have
not fully read the Ordinance. He said that the Ordinance specifies what makes an animal
dangerous, and does not require a permit based on breed but only in instances where an
animal has exhibited dangerous behavior. He said that the there is specific criteria for
Animal Services to use for the designation of dangerous animals as part of a due process.
0 2
November 15, 2005
Agenda Item D.8: Dangerous Animal Ordinance
Page 3 of 3
Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested there should be an opportunity for further outreach to
determine if the language of the Ordinance could be modified so that it could be better
understood by those who are having problems with it.
Chair Uilkema asked if this proposed outreach would take place before the fee hearing in
December.
Supervisor Piepho said that there have already been a number of opportunities for
outreach and comment.
Supervisor Glover said it is time for movement on this issue.
Glenn Howell., Director of Animal Services, commented that many other parts of the state
already have laws similar to what is being proposed here; he noted that only the part of
the Ordinance that deals with felons is something new.
Supervisor DeSaulnier moved approval of the item,which was seconded by Supervisor
Gioia. The Board of Supervisors took the following action by unanimous decision with
none absent:
ACCEPTED all four recommendations as stated in the November 15,, 2005 Board Order;
and DIRECTED the Animal Services Director to do further outreach with ARF and
other organizations and, if necessary,bring any suggestions for changes to the language
of the Ordinance back to the Board by December 13, 2005.
• 3
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-24
Dangerous Animals
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows(omitting the
parenthetical footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the
County Ordinance Code):
Section I. Summary. This ordinance repeals Article 416-12.4 of the County Ordinance
Code in its entirety and replaces it with a new Article 416-12.4,to regulate the ownership
or possession of potentially dangerous and dangerous animals.
Section H. Article 416-12.4 of the County Ordinance Code is repealed in its entirety and
replaced by a new Article 416-12.4, added by this Section]EI,to read:
Article 416-12.4. Dangerous Animals
416-12.402 Potentially dangerous animal.
Any animal, except a dog assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement
duties,that demonstrates any of the following behavior is a"potentially dangerous
animal:"
(a) Any animal that,on two separate occasions within a 36-month period,
engages in any unprovoked behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to
prevent bodily injury when the person and the animal are off the properly of the owner or
keeper of the aminal.
(b) Any animal that,,when unprovoked,bites a person causing a minor injury not
resulting in muscle tears or disfiguring lacerations or requiring multiple sutures, or
corrective or cosmetic surgery.
(c) Any animal that,when unprovoked.,kills., seriously bites, inflicts injury, or
otherwise causes injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner or keeper of
the attacking animal.
(d)Any animal that,when unprovoked,has engaged in any behavior that
constitutes a physical threat of bodily harm to a person or domestic animal or poses an
immediate threat to public safety. (Orris. 2005-24 §2, 87-74 §2).
416-12.404 Dangerous animal.
(a) Any animal, except a dog assisting a peace officer engaged in law
enforcement duties,that demonstrates any of the following behavior, is a"dangerous
animal:,,
(1) Any animal that..when unprovoked,inflicts severe injury on or kills a human
being who is conducting himself or herself peacefully and lawfully. A"severe injur}e'
within this chapter means any physical injury to a human being that results in muscle
tears or disfiguring lacerations or requires multiple sutures or corrective or cosmetic
surgery.
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 1
(2) Any animal designated as a potentially dangerous animal that, after its owner
or keeper has been notified of this designation, exhibits any of the behaviors described in
Section 416-12.402.
(3) Any animal that is associated with conduct that results in the animal's owner
or keeper being convicted under Penal Code Section 597.5 (a) or any animal used during
or in the commission of a crime that constitutes a misdemeanor or a felony..
(4) Any animal that attacks livestock off the property of the owner of the
attacking animal.
(b) For the purposes of this section, a person is peaceably and lawfully upon the
private property of an owner or possessor of the animal when he or she is on the property
in the performance of any duty imposed upon him or her by the laws of this state or any
city or county, or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States,or when he or she
is on the properly upon express or implied invitation. (Orris. 2005-24 §2, 87-74 §3).
416-12.406 Hearing Procedures.
(a) If an animal services officer determines there is probable cause to believe that
an animal is potentially dangerous or dangerous,or that the owner or keeper of an animal
previously determined to be potentially dangerous or dangerous has violated any animal
permit conditions,the animal services director shall hold a public hearing to determine
whether grounds exist to designate the animal potentially dangerous or dangerous,or to
determine whether permit conditions have been violated, and if so,what orders and
penalties should apply. If the owner or keeper of the animal does not dispute the charges
alleged,he or she may waive the right to a hearing and,if eligible,immediately apply for
an animal permit under this article.
(b)At least five business days prior to the hearing,the animal services director
shall serve the owner or keeper of the animal with a notice containing a statement of the
charges, and the date, time and place of hearing. Service shall be by first-class mail or
personal service.
(c) Evidence received at the hearing must be relevant and of such nature as
responsible persons are accustomed to rely on in the conduct of serious affairs. Written
statements by a county officer or employee, an officer or employee of the state, or an
officer or employee of any law enforcement or fire protection agency acting in the course
and scope of their official duties or employment,written records of the animal services
department, and statements under penalty of perjury maybe accepted as evidence that the
fact(s) or condition(s)expressed therein do or do not exist.
(d) The animal services director will consider the following factors in determining
whether an animal is potentially dangerous or dangerous:
(1)Whether any injury or damage to a person by the animal was caused or
contributed to by the actions of that person, including acts of physical abuse,tormenting,
teasing, or assaulting the animal.
(2) Whether a person injured or damaged by the animal was committing a
trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the animal,or
was committing or attempting to commit a crime.
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 2
(3)Whether any injury or damage to a domestic animal was caused or contributed
to by the actions of the domestic animal,including acts of teasing,tormenting, abusing,
or attacking the animal.
(4)Whether a person injured or damaged by the animal had gained uninvited and
unauthorized entry onto fenced or indoor properly of the animal's owner or keeper. As
used in this section, "unauthorized entry'does not include entry into a fenced.residential
front yard unless the yard is locked or posted to prohibit entry.
(5)Whether any injury or damage to a person by the animal was caused while the
animal was protecting or defending a person within the immediate vicinity of the animal
from an unjustified attack or assault. (Ords. 2005-24 §2, 83-10 §4, 80-97 §2).
Section 416-12.408 Findings After Hearing
(a) After notice and hearing upon charges following the procedure described in
Section 416-12.406,the owner or keeper of the animal will be provided with written
notice, served by forst-class mail, of the determination and order issued by the animal
services director. If a determination is made after hearing that an animal is potentially
dangerous or dangerous,the animal will be designated potentially dangerous or
dangerous and may only be owned,kept or maintained by the current or any subsequent
owner or keeper upon issuance of a potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit as
provided in Section 416-12.412. The animal services director retains discretion as to
which animals are eligible for a potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit. If an
animal is eligible for the permit,notice of its eligibility will be provided with the notice
of determination after hearing. If a determination is made after hearing that the owner or
keeper of the animal has violated the conditions of a previously issued potentially
dangerous dog or dangerous dog permit,the permit is immediately revoked and the
animal is subject to humane destruction by injection at the discretion of the animal
services director ten calendar days after mailing written notice of the determination.
(b) If there are no additional instances of the behavior described in Section 416-
12.402 within a 36-month period from the date of designation as a potentially dangerous
animal,the animal's potentially dangerous designation shall be removed by the animal
services director. (Ords. 2005-24 §2, 80-97 § 2).
Section 416-12.410 Destruction of dangerous animal.
Upon a determination that an animal is dangerous after the notice and hearing
provided for in Section 416-12.406,the animal services director may further find, in
writing with supporting reasons,that an animal is so dangerous, or that other special
circumstances exist, such that maintaining the animal poses a substantial threat to public
health and safety. Ten calendar days after mailing notice of a finding under this section,
the animal services director may dispose of any such dangerous animal by humanely
destroying it by injection. (Orris. 2005-24 §2, 87-74 § 5).
Section 416-12.412 Potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit required.
If a determination is made after hearing that an animal is potentially
dangerous or dangerous and is eligible to be owned, kept or maintained under a
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 3
potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit,the owner or keeper of the animal
must submit a completed application, including payment of all required fees,that
certifies compliance with all applicable permit conditions within 15 calendar days after
written notice of the determination is mailed,unless an extension of time is granted by
the animal services director. An animal whose owner or keeper Is,to comply with the
permit conditions within this time frame maybe impounded and humanely destroyed by
injection at the discretion of the animal services director. (Orris. 2005-24 §2, 84-97 § 2).
Section 416-12.414 Contents of animal permit application.
An application for a potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit shall
include:
(a) The true name and address of the applicant and of the owner or keeper of
the animal, and the names and addresses of two persons who maybe contacted in the
case of emergency.
(b) An accurate description of the animal for which the permit is requested.
(c) The address or place where the animal will be located.
(d) The purpose for which the animal will be possessed or kept.
(e) An application fee for the animal.
(f) Such other information as the animal services director may require.
(Orris. 2005-24 §2.1 80-97 § 2).
Section 416-12.416 Investigation.
(a) Upon receipt of a completed permit application,the animal services
director may investigate the application and may grant a potentially dangerous or
dangerous animal permit if the director finds the following conditions satisfied.:
(1) Facilities exist at the location to adequately secure, feed, house and
maintain the animal.
(2) Possession and maintenance of the animal at the location is not likely to
endanger the peace,quiet,health, safety or comfort of persons in the vicinity of the
location.
(3) Possession and maintenance of the animal at the location is not likely to
be detrimental to agriculture,native wildlife,or the public peace,health or safety.
(4) Possession and maintenance of the animal at the location has not resulted
in, and is not likely to result in,the animal being subjected to neglect, suffering, cruelty,
or abuse.
(5) Neither the applicant,owner,nor the keeper of the animal has had a
potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit or any other license required under this
division revoked, or been convicted of a violation of this division or any law regulating
animals within three years.
(6)Possession of the animal at the location specified will not violate any law,
ordinance,or regulation.
(b)An inspection fee for evaluating the facilities where an animal is
maintained will be charged to the applicant, owner or keeper of the animal for each
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 4
inspection deemed necessary following the initial investigation. (Orris. 2005-24 §230 80-
97
§ 2).
Section 416-12.418 Review of permit denial.
Wiseven calendar days-after the mailing of written notice that a
potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit has been denied,the owner or
applicant may file with the animal services director a written request for review of the
denial decision. Only one request for review may be made. The request shall state all
grounds for review and present in writing the evidence relied upon to'support granting
the permit. The animal services director may further investigate the aplication and shall
reconsider the application. The permit denial is stayed pending reconsideration. The
applicant for a potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit bears the burden of
proof to justify issuance of a permit. If no appeal of the denial of the permit application
is filed, or if the animal services director upholds a permit denial after reconsideration of
a permit denial,the animal services director may impound the animal and humanely
destroy it by injection 10 calendar days after mailing written notice of the denial. (Orris.
2005-24 §2, 83-10 §§ 59 7).
Section 416-12.420 Permit renewal and expiration.
A potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit issued to the owner or
keeper of the animal is valid for not more than-one year from the date of its issuance. A
permit maybe renewed for subsequent years following the same procedures as are
applicable to an original permit. No person holding a potentially dangerous or dangerous
azumal permit has the right to an automatic renewal of that permit. Failure to renew a
permit prior to its expiration will result in a late*fee and the animal maybe impounded.
and humanely destroyed by injection. (Orris. 2005-24 §2,.80-97 § 2).
Section 416-12.422 Permit conditions.
All potentially dangerous and dangerous animal permits are subject.to the
following conditions:
(a) Permittees must comply with all relevant state laws and ordinances.
(b) The potentially dangerous animal must be properly licensed.and
vaccinated.
(c) The permit is nontransferable.
(d) The owner or keeper of the animal may not be a minor.
(e) The animal shall not be possessed or maintained at any location other than
that specified in the permit.
(f)Permittees shall display on the property where the animal is kept a sign
containingaw &ng that there is a potentially dangerous or dangerous dog on the
premises. The dimensions, colors,lettering, and graphics of the sign must comply with
standards established by the animal services director. The sign must be located where it
will be visible to the general public.
(g) The animal must be securely maintained at all times. Permittees shall
immediately notify the animal services department if the animal is at large as defined in
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 5
section 416-4.402, or if the animal has attacked another animal,bitten a human being, or
has died. If the animal is not securely confined indoors,it must be confined as provided
below unless the animal services director modifies the conditions of confinement where
warranted:
(1) Confined in an enclosure consisting of a fence or structure suitable to
prevent the entry of young children,and suitable to confine a potentially dangerous or
dangerous, animal as determined by the animal services department. The enclosure shall
be securely locked,have secure sides and bottom sufficient to prevent the animal from
escaping, and shall be of sufficient size to provide the animal with adequate exercise
area; or
(2) Muzzled,and leashed with a substantial leash not to exceed six feet in
length and under the control of a responsible adult who is familiar with and in control of
the animal when off the property of its owner or keeper; or
(3)Humanely confined in a vehicle so that it can neither escape nor inflict
injury on passers by.
(h) The animal shall not be loose or allowed to endanger the peace,health, or
safety of people, domestic animals or native wildlife.
(i) The animal shall not be subject to neglect, suffering,cruelty,or abuse.
(j) The location where the animal is possessed or maintained must be kept
clean and sanitary; and the animal must be provided with proper and adequate food,
water,ventilation, shelter and care at all times.
(k) The animal services director must be allowed at any reasonable time to
-
inspectthe animal and the place where the al is located.
(1) Payment of all required fees in accordance with a fee schedule adopted by
resolution of the board of supervisors,under section 416-12.426.
(m) The animal's owner or keeper must allow and pay for the animal to be
sterilized and have a microchip implanted by the animal services department for
identification purposes.
(n)For potentially dangerous animals only,the following additional
conditions apply:
(1) The potentially dangerous animal must complete an obedience course
approved by the animal services director, at the owner's expense,within 60 days after
release of the animal to its owner or keeper, or within a reasonable time as agreed upon
by the animal services director.
(2) Permittees shall notify the animal services department within 48 hours of
the potentially dangerous animal being sold, transferred or permanently removed from
the location designated on the permit,and provide the name, address, and phone number
of the new owner or keeper of the animal and the new location of the animal.
(o)For dangerous animals only, the following additional conditions apply:
(1) A dangerous animal securely confined in an enclosure shall not be
tethered.
(2) Unless a dangerous animal is securely confined indoors or in an outdoor
enclosure on the property where the animal is maintained as described in Section 416-
12.422(f)(1) above,the animal may only be removed for the purposes of obtaining
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 6
veterinary care,being sold or given away, or to comply with any provision of law or with
a directive of the animal services director.
(3) Within 30 days after the animal is designated dangerous, the owner or
keeper of the animal must give written notice,with a copy to the animal services director,
of the animal's dangerous designation to the local police and fire departments, and the
local branch of the U.S.Post Office and all utility companies that provide services to the
Premises where the animal is kept.
(4) The owner or keeper of the dangerous animal must present to the animal
services director proof that the owner or keeper has procured liability insurance from an
insurer licensed to practice in the State of California,in a single incident amount of not
less than$100,000 for each animal, for injury to or death of any person or persons, or
loss or damage to any property caused by or resulting from any act of such animal.
Liability insurance shall not be canceled unless the owner or keeper ceases to own or
keep the animal prior to expiration of that insurance. Coverage shall be evidenced by a
certificate issued by the insurer. The owner shall also provide documentation from the
insurer warranting that the insurer will provide the county at least 30 days advance notice
of cancellation of insurance.
(5)Permittees shall give the animal services department at least 48 hours
advance notice of the sale, transfer or permanent removal of the animal to a location not
designated in the permit,and provide the name, address and phone number of the new
owner or keeper of the animal and the new location of the animal. (Orris. 2005-24 §23,
87-74 §6� 80-97 §2)0
Section 416-12.424 Animals from other jurisdictions.
No animal that has previously been determined to be potentially dangerous,
dangerous or vicious after an administrative hearing by another jurisdiction shall be kept,
owned or harbored in Contra Costa.County unless the animal's owner or keeper complies
with the county potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permit requirements under
this article. Potentially dangerous or dangerous animal permits must be obtained prior to
bringing the animal into the county. Animals in violation of this section are subject to
impoundment and humane destruction by injection after notice and a hearing under
section 416-12.406, except that the only issues for hearing are whether the animal ever
received a potentially dangerous,dangerous or vicious animal designation in another
jurisdiction, and whether the animal's owner or keeper complied with the permit
requirements under this article. (Ord. 2005-24 §2).
Section 416-12.426 Fees.
Animal permit application fees,permit fees,late fees,impound fees,
inspection fees,microchip fees and sterilization fees shall be established by resolution of
the board of supervisors. (Orris. 2005-24 §2, 80-97 §2).
Section 416-12.428 Impoundment
(a) Any animal subject to potentially dangerous or dangerous animal
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 7
proceedings maybe impounded at the discretion of the animal services director pending
hearings and determinations made under this article and until any required permit is
obtained. The animal's owner shall be charged for all impoundment costs and fees
unless a determination is made that the animal is not potentially dangerous or dangerous.
(b) No impounded animal designated as potentially dangerous or dangerous
shall be released to the custody of its owner or keeper unless all fees assessed pursuant to
this division have been paid and all permit conditions under Section 416-12.422 have
been satisfied.
(c) At the discretion of the animal services director, any animal impounded
pursuant to this section maybe returned to the custody of its owner or keeper pending
hearing and decision if the director determines the return poses no threat to public health
and safety. The owner,if authorized by the animal services director,may gain custody of
the animal by posting a cash bond or other security in an amount to be determined.by the
animal services director as necessary to assure the return of the animal to the animal
services department. The bond or-security will be forfeited if the animal is not delivered
into the custody of the animal services department upon a finding that the animal is
potentially dangerous or dangerous. (Orris.2005-24 § 23, 80-97 § 2).
0
Section 416-12.430 Exception.
Nothing in this chapter shall Limit the right of any person or officer to take any
proceedings against a potentially dangerous or dangerous animal or its owner or keeper ,
that are otherwise permitted or provided bylaw. (Orris. 2005-24 § 2, 80-97 § 2).
416-12.432 Restriction on future ownership.
(a) Any person who owns,possesses,keeps or harbors an al determined
to be potentially dangerous or dangerous pursuant to Section 416-12.408 without a
dangerous animal permit may, after opportunity for hearing and a finding of good cause,
be subject to restrictions on his ownership of other animals of the same species for a
period of five years after the original determination of danger.
(b)At least 15 calendar days prior to imposition of restrictions,the animal
services director shall mail or otherwise deliver to the person on whom restrictions are
proposed a notice containing a statement of the reasons supporting the imposition of
restrictions and specifying the proposed restrictions and notice of the person's right to
request,in writing within five calendar days of receipt of the notice, a hearing before the
director as to the existence of good cause for imposition of restrictions. If a hearing is
requested,the director shall mail to the requesting party notice of the date,time and place
of the hearing. If, after hearing,the director determines that good cause for imposition of
restrictions exists,the director shall impose the specified restrictions 10 calendar days
after mailing notice of the decision. If no hearing is requested,the director shall impose
restrictions 15 calendar days after mailing of the original notice. (Orris. 2005-24 § 2, 87-
74 § 4).
Section 416-12.434 Penalties for violation of dangerous animal per t.
It shall be a misdemeanor for any owner or keeper of an animal previously
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 8
designated as dangerous to violate any of the conditions of the dangerous animal permit
under Section 416-12.422,punishable as provided by law. If an owner or keeper is
convicted of violating this section,the court may,upon good cause, order the dangerous
animal seized, declared a nuisance and destroyed. Any person convicted in violation of
this section shall be prohibited from owning,harboring or keeping any animal within
Contra Costa County for a minimum of five years. (Ord. 2005-24 § 2).
Section 416-12.436 Prohibited dog ownership by convicted felons.
(a) Any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the
United States, of the State of California,or any other state, govt:_-i-i_-Nl__ t, or country,who
owns,purchases,receives, or has in his or her possession or under his or her custody or
control a dog that poses a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare if misused by a
convicted felon is guilty of a misdemeanor,unless the person possesses a current, valid
prohibited dog permit for that dog as provided in section 416-12.438. A convicted felon
under flus article shall not include felons whose convictions were set.aside pursuant to
Penal Code section 1203.4. "Misuse"by a convicted felon means use of a dog in a
threatening or aggressive manner, or in the commission of a crime.
(b)Any dog whose owner or keeper is in violation of this section shall be
impounded,or impounded subject to destruction,at the owner's expense.
(c)A dog that poses a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare if
misused by a convicted felon under this section means any of the following:
(1) A dog weig more than 20 pounds.
(2) A dog who has been designated a potentially dangerous or dangerous
animal under Sections 416-12.402 and 416-12.404 of this code.
(3)A dog designated by the animal services director as posing a danger to the
public's health,safety or welfare if misused by a convicted felon based upon the
following factors:
(i) The nature of any complaints regarding the dog.
(ii) The strength of the dog, including j aw strength.
(iii) The dog's tolerance for pain.
(iv) The dog's tendency to refuse to terminate an attack.
(v) The dog's potential propensity to bite humans or other domestic animals.
(vi) The dog's potential for unpredictable behavior.
(vii) The dog's aggressiveness.
(viii) The likelihood that a bite by the dog will result in serious injury. (Ord.
2005-24).
Section 416-12.438 Prohibited dog permit
Any convicted felon who wis��s to own,purchase,receive or have in his or
her possession or under his or her custody or control a dog weighing more than 20
pounds under section 416-12.436(c)(1), or a dog that the animal services director
designates as posing a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare if misused by a
convicted felon under section 416-12.436(c)(3),may apply for a prohibited dog permit to
own,keep or maintain that dog. If there is probable cause to believe that a dog poses a
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 9
danger to the public's health, safety or welfare if misused by a convicted felon,the dog
maybe impounded pending a determination made under this article and until any
required permit is obtained. If the animal services director designates a dog as posing a
danger to the public's health, safety or welfare if misused by' a convicted felon,written
notice of this designation shall be mailed to the owner or keeper of the dog. The owner
or keeper must pay an application fee and apply for the prohibited dog permit within
fifteen calendar days after the mailing of the written notice of designation. The animal
services director may deny a prohibited dog permit if he or she determines that the dog
poses a danger to the public's health, safety or welfare,or may condition the issuance of
the permit upon the permittee's written agreement to comply with conditions of
ownership to be determined by the animal services director. These conditions of
ownership may include,but are not limited to,those found under section 416-12.422. A
prohibited dog permit may subsequently be revoked by the animal services director if
there is probable cause to believe that the convicted felon's continued ownership of the
dog poses a danger to the public's health, safety or,welfare. (Ord. 2005-24).
Section III. Effective Dade. This ordinance becomes.effective 30days after passage,.
and within fifteen days after passage shall be-published once with the names of the
Supervisors voting for and against it in the Contra Costa.Times, a newspaper published in
this County-.
PASSED and ADOPTED on o
Ile,/,►'.D�- /SOOA �oa5 hv
the foilowmgvote:
AYES: Gioia,Piepho,DeSaulnier,Glover and Uilkema
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: JOHN SWEETEN
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
and Co ty Administrator
By:
Deputy Chai oard of Supervisors
[SEAL]
BL
K Unimal Serviceslda»gerous dog ordinance final.wpd
Ordinance 2005-24
Page 10
J,
11/15/2005 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Consider with item D,8: Dangerous
Animals
COB Public Comments To: JPenn@cob.cccounty.us
cc:
11/14/2005 12:44 PIA Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacommentsform.ht
m
Forwarded by COB Public Comments/COB/CCC on 11/14/2005 12:44 PM
<cco@contra.napanet.net
> To: <comments03cob.cccounty.us>
cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
11/14/2005 10:20 AM hftp://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacommentsform.htm
Username: evie
UserAddress: viera
UserTel:
UserEmail: evieviera@aol.com
AgendaDate: 11/15/05
Option: Selected
Agendaltem: 2005
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4 0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV 1; NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Date: 14 Nov 2005
Time: 10:20:35
Comments:
Please wait to adopt ordinance 2005-25
until concerns and suggestions from Brenda
at ARF can be addressed. . thank you
evie viera
11/15/2005 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Consider with item D,8: Dangerous
Animals
COB Public Comments To: JPenn@cob.cccounty.us
cc:
11/14/2005 12:44 PM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments, form.ht
m
Forwarded by COB Public Comments/COB/CCC on 11/14/2005 12:44 PM-----
<cc0@contra.napanet.net
> To: <comments@ cob.cccou nty.us>
cc:
11/14/2005 10:20 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/de
Username: evie
UserAddress: viera
UserTel:
UserEmail: evieviera@aol.com
AgendaDate: 1-1/15/05
Option: Selected
AgendaItem: 2005
Remote Name: -
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4 .0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Date: 14 Nov 2005
Time: 10-020:35
Comments:
Please wait to adopt ordinance 2005-25
until concerns and suggestions from Brenda
at ARF can be addressed. . .thank you
evie viera
J
J r
?00,00�
1/15/2005 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Consider with item D,8: Dangerous
Animals
<cc0 a contra.napanet. To: <comments @ cob.cccounty.us>
K10
net> cc:
` Subject: -Data posted to form 1 of
11/14/2005 11:11 AM h ;//W�,co.contra-costa.c .0
ttp a s/depart/cao/agendacomments form.ht
m
Username: Sunny Goodier
UserAddress: Brentwood, Ca
UserTel
UserEmail: wsprings@goldstate.net
AgendaDate:
Option: Selected
AgendaItem: D.8
Remote Name: 04 do
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Date: 14 Nov 2005
Time: 11:11:46
Comments:
Dear Supervisor
After reading the text to the proposed new dangerous animal ordinance, I have
several areas of concern.
The potentially dangerous definition under 416-12.402 (d) seems very broad and
undefined so that it could include most any "behavior" that happens to alarm
someone.
Section 416-12.4220(3) utilizes, jaw strength,,' "potential propensity to bite"
and "potential for unpredictable behavior" to define a dog's dangerous status.
This is really subjective and unenforceable language.
All reviews and appeals are heard by the same authority that originally
brought the dangerous or potentially dangerous charge. Is this proper due
process?
At the last public hearing -on this ordinance, our animal services director
stated that, in his view, many of the dogs that would be deemed '-"potentially
dangerous" were simply untrained dogs which could be rehabilitated by the
completion of obedience training. However, this ordinance spells out a very
complex process of requirements on the animal owner of "potentially dangerousit
dogs in addition to obedience training including permits, fees, inspections,
and other restrictions under rapid time limits in which the failure of the
owner to successfully negotiate any step leads inexorably to the seizure and
death of the animal.
0 /�ts,
1111512005 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Consider with item D.8: Dangerous
Animals
<cc0@contra.napanet. To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
` Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
11/14/2005 11:11 AM htt ;//�,�,co.contr -c t
p a os a.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments form.ht
m
Username: Sunny Goodier
UserAddress: Brentwood, Ca
Us erre 1:
UserEmail: wspringsCgoldstate.net
AgendaDate:
Option: Selected
AgendaItem: D.8
Remote Name: Samoa"
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; windows NT 5.1; Sv1)
Date: 14 Nov 2005
Time: 11:11:46
Comments:
Dear Supervisor
After reading the text to the proposed new dangerous animal ordinance, I have
several areas of concern.
The potentially dangerous definition under 416-12.402 (d) seems very broad and
undefined so that it could include most any "behavior" that happens to alarm
someone.
Section 416-12.4220(3) utilizes, jaw strength, "potential propensity to bite"
and "potential for unpredictable behavior" to define a dog's dangerous status.
This is really subjective and unenforceable language.
All reviews and appeals are heard by the same authority that originally
brought the dangerous or potentially dangerous charge. Is this proper due
process?
At the last public hearing on this ordinance, our animal services director
stated that, in his view, many of .the dogs that would be deemed "potentially
dangerous" were simply untrained dogs which could be rehabilitated by the
completion of obedience training. However, this ordinance spells out a very
complex process of requirements on the animal owner of "potentially dangerous"
dogs in addition to obedience training including permits, fees, inspections,
and other restrictions under rapid time limits in which the failure of the
owner to successfully negotiate any step leads inexorably to the seizure and
death of the animal.
"Phil Hayes" To <gayle@a bos.cccounty.us>
>< ha es seiu-uhw.or
P Y � 9
cc
11/14/2005 09:47 AM
bcc
Subject FYI-Rally Tomorrow in Martinez
Supervisor,
Attached you will find a flier for a rally that is occuring tomorrow at the
651 Pine Street Location at gam. The purpose of the rally is to call on the
county to support the wage increase for IHSS workers made available when
extra resources were allocated by the state budget deal this past July. You
attendance is not required, but we mainly just wanted to let you know what
was happening and why. If you have any questions, please feel free to call
me.
Sincerely,
Phil Hayes
Regional Political Organizer
SEIU-UHW
510-774-5846
11_15 200SCO CO O IAN T FO S T CAFE O_.dcc
16
SOU
A. UFIVV
4 16Un¢ed Healthcare Workers
Upcoming Event
64:
Contra Costa County IHSS Homecare Workers! �
Join us for our Fair Wage Informational Picket and Rally
leg: e
6
4V.:
When:, Tuesday, November 15tH
� Picketing will start at 9:00 AM �1
� Rally will start at 9:45 AM sharp
� Where: At the office of the Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, Martinez
Whv: SEIU-UHW has been in bargaining with the County since August to �
improve wages and benefits for homecare providers in Contra Costa County. The
County has been stalling in order to keep from having to spend their 17.5% of a
'49: wage increase. They are leaving millions of dollars in the coffers of the state and
6 federal governments — money that could immediately pay for almost all of a $1.00
per our raise. Homecare workers have been taken for granted for too long and
� deserve better.
he state has done its art!
hy won't Contra Costa Count ?
� Please join with the other homecare workers, consumers,
eg �
advocates and community supporters to send a messy e to the
�l Contra Costa Board of Supervisors that IHSS Homecare
workers deserve better than a t ree-year wage freeze!
�l
�( For further information call Mary Sacramento at 1-800-585-4250, Ext. 4524 �
61 SEIU UHW - West, 560 Thomas L. Berkley Way Oakland CA 94612 �(
www.seiu-uhw.ora ...........
W." W W W
11/15/2005 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Consider with item D.8: Dangerous
Animals
To-, Clerk of the Board
Contra Cost County
From: Christine O'Neill-Stitt
10 1 Southwind Drive
Pleasant Hill, California 945231
(925) 922-0534
Please enter into Public Record(D8�for the Adoption of the large-dopordinance #,2005.:
24
hearing. I cannot attend but I would like to share my family's story with the Board of
Supervisors.
The Sunday evening of the Martin Luther King holiday in January O5, my thirteen-year-
old daughter, Caroline,Stitt was walking our family pet sheltie, Sunny, on a leash. She
was walking in the back of our homeowner's property on the sidewalk that surrounds our
townhouse. It was dark and Caroline was alone.
Within a matter of moments two Pit Bulls broke through their rickety wooden fence and
attacked our pet- from two different directions. Both Pit Bulls dragged him apart-
tearing open his belly, exposing his organs and intestines. He was like a rag doll being
shaken over the lawn area. Blood was found on the lawn and on the sidewalk in large
amounts. To make matters worse,my daughter could not and would not let go of the
leash. She believed that if she ran the Pits would chase after her. Caroline absolutely
believed that after the dogs finished attacking Sunny they would attack and kill her. Our
neighbor,Jan Cornea came out and chased the dogs away. According to Jan, the time
period was approximately free to ten minutes when she arrived.
The Pleasant Hill police and the Animal Control came to our assistance. Our case #is OS-
00 1247. The entire neighborhood assisted us. One neighbor took our pet to the Contra
Costa Veterinary Emergency Center with two of my daughters, and other neighbors
waited with me for the police and animal control. This was not the first time these
animals had attacked. The Vicious Dog Hearing(lead by Bill Chinn)was attended by
others who had been attacked in and around our neighborhood by these same animals.
The owners,the Favro.Family, did not want to put down the Pit Bulls.
The Favro Family evidently also does not want to pay the bill either. At the Vicious Dog
Hearing I handed the Favro, family the bill for our pet's medical treatment. Mrs. Favro
told me that this was an inappropriate time to give their family the bill. They received the
.bill anyway.
The Contra Costa Veterinary Emergency Center amounted to $1489.00, and the week
treatment at the Veterinary Surgical Associates Center, (Sunny remained in special care
for a week after surgery)amounted to $7068.00 for the Total of $8,557.00. After being
told that Sunny needed months of extensive special care with no guarantee of a positive
ZTO/T00 Qn S103V .zaTpV V sousxsH OLfi8696596 XV3 LT:VT 5002/VT/TT
OLb8696SE6
outcome(and a great deal of pain) it was agreed that we would put our much beloved pet
down. Caroline and I stayed with Sunny while he was euthanized a most emotionally
painful experience.
We have never been reimbursed for these medical expenses. Because Caroline was not
physically bitten, attorneys are not interested in representing us—even though the
psychological toll is great and the pet that our family owned for ten years was destroyed.
Please take our experience to heart when making your determination. Vicious dog
attacks are frightening, painful and expensive. The night that our dog was attacked,the
emergency vet office had two other cases of Pit attacks. The Animal Control Officers
can substantiate our story as they testified as to the intensity of the attacking animals and
their viciousness.
Please,, it is now time to show leadership in this very painful dog issue to help control and
supervise vicious large breed dogs.,
ZTO/900 In $133V JOTPV V SOUR319H OLV96965Z6 XYA LlItT 500Z/tl/Tl
M-M
t
i
• I �
i
I
' � Ik
I
I
Nj i
F
k
i
k !
r
L1000) rb
V .
•� l I ,
-~ ;
CI
1
� i (
i
1
t
ZTO/'BOO C j SIDOV JOTPV V SODUNSH OLV9696SZ6 YVd LT=VT 9099/tT/TT
Contra Costa Veterinary Emergency Center
1410 Monument Blvd. Suite 108 Bili for Services
Concord,CA 94520
now""--im-
Fax: 925-796-4982 DATE INV. NUM
Tel: 925-798-2900 1/19!2005 16186
C. O'neii 8, R. Duquette
101 Southwind Dr
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
925-922-0534 Acct no.: 11657
Daryl Schawel, DVM
Qty Date Patient Description Price Ext tx
1 1118/2005 Sunny Examination-Admitting 45.00 45.00
1 1/18/2005 Sunny I Examfinpatient evaluation 35.00 35.00
1 I 1/18/20051 Sunny Hospitalization-kennel/shift I 27.001 27.00 1
11 1I18/20051 Sunny Nursing care/shift Px on IV fluids 1 78.001 78.00
1118/20051 Sunny I Injection-IV w/cath 35.00 I 105.00
� 1 1/18/2005 Sunny I Injection-IM or Sq I 34.00 34.00
11/18/2005 Sunny I IVAC/shift I 24.00 24.00
1 1/19/2005 Sunny I Mannitol infusion I 56.00 56.00
I _ 1 1/19/20051Sunny I IV Fluids/Unit I 27,001 27.00
_I-
201 1/1912005 Sunny _ �Tech Services/min I 1,501 30.001
11 1/19/2005 Sunny I End shift am-hzd. waste 6.001 6.00 1__. I
subtotal 467.00
tax 0.00
Pmnt-i&--- -- Amt: 0.00 1 -dgwg��
bill total 467.00
note: Bill VSA
P�mnt 2: Amt: 0.00 prey bal 0.00
note: total due 467.00
payment 0.00
NEW BAL 467.00
7QAGA
81��d sousKsB�' '8
OLfi8696SZ6
JaTPXV3 8i�fiT SOOZ/4T/TT
ZTO/6001�J
ontra Costa Veterinary Emergency Center
1410 Monument Blvd. Suite 108 Bill for Services
Concord, CA 94520
Fax. 925-798-4982 DATE INV. NUM
Tel: 925-798-2900 1/17/2005 1 r 16120
C. O'neil& R. Duquette
101 Southwind Dr
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
925-922-0534 Acctno.: 11657
Mathew D. Harsh, DVM
Qty Date Patient Description Price Ext tx
I- 1�1l17/2005� Emergency Fee Sam-12am 30-00 30.001
Sunny
1 1/17/2005 Sunny Examination-Admitting 45.00 45.00
A
F
"0'.- 1 111712005 Sunny Exam/inpatient evaluation 35.00 35.00
I
1 I 1/17/2005 Sunny Hospitalization-kennel/shift 27.00 I 27.00
r i 1 1/17/2005 Sunny Nursing care/shift Px on IV fluids 78.00 78.00
93.00 93.00
1 1/17/2005 Suripy Catheter-IV+Setup+Fluids
1 1/17/2005 Sunny IVAC/shift 24.00 24.00
38.00 38.00
1 1/17/20051 sunny Analgesia Jorb ugesic/Buprinex
'� 1 1/17/20051,Sunny Analgesia- Morphine sulfate 40.00 40_00�_I
1 1/1712005 Sunny Fluids w/one additive per bag j 61.00 I 61.00
1 1/17/20051 Sunny--. Radiographs-Two Views 145.00 145.00
1 1/1 7/200�tSunny CBC/GHP 138.00 138.00
1
1 1/17/2005 Sunny I STAT 8 52.00 52.00
'j X 21 1117/2005 SunnyIPCV(fSLab 28.00 56.001 1/17/2005 SunnyPand PT 72,00 72.00
L 2 1 1117/2005 Sunny Injection-IV-IV w/cath 35.00 70.00
1 1/17/20051 Sunny I Surgical Prep- I 12.00 I 12.001 1
1 I 1/17/2005 Sunny End shift am- hzd. waste 6.00 6.00
1 1/17/2005Sunny inv thru 8AM 1-16-050.00
subtotal 11022.00
Z
tax 0
Pmnt 1: Disc Amt: (1,022.00) bill total 1,022.00note: Discover Cardprev bal 0.o
Prnnt 2: Amt: 0.00 total due 11022.00
note: payment (11022.00)
NEW BAL 0.00
29321
ZTO/900 121 slOOV JOTPV V 9OM49H OL696965Z6 YVA ST:VT SOOZ/VT/TT
VETERINARY SURGICAL.ASSOCIATES
1410 Monument Blvd., Suite 100
Concord, CA 94520
(925)827.1777
Cfient Information Patient information
Chris O'Neil,##29445 "Sunny", ##31764
101 Southwind Dr sheltie, neutered mare
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Weight: 35.00 lbs, 15.909 kgs
Referring Veterinarian: Dr. Matt Marsch
Invoice Number: 89451 Date,*. 02-04-2405
•9i!. M•'`:: !'"Y !.i ..aa..t.
MA
++ ,;i�:;Z.,yr. v.y..,.+..• +•(+ ..• s ... •.rt��r•.:h j•:eK,w,.-o•,.•. x�/.t ••,st•. V.Y:t�...... ,e •.
R' J M:�I.JI;+. �+r['_• ".�. �4 J tr'+•`:V'�: ►•{1• f '7. *^�••J �;I;�t;''•`••���J. '�T,` Ji�M •a'�'i0►•'�`ti YrV`r�l�.,'i L K
AJjy !.c •J 1�J.'. •• �ti _ �.. PJM. j � •: y:$•"{' 't'!i •Y�'!'p"� l�•71x+4 '+ ' f J.�J'' � � •t••
i ' t.i r Misr '• �T
�'�t�t.�IZ A•♦ ;t�.. � • 2 P� �'��•'*•t.:'r•' :1.N.��j,,•� �:Ki• � J. it
�I�, �• ":'�, � } i
.r.3:w..v a.a^ :Ju��.::?v rtti4tr«..:.,,;.A.,.�•t... ..wt�r•.iir.4w.. Z. :•«.�•nti•.w w w.jr�.a;�•:«., 2.�t..•.w.•t. ..i` • +.. ,u,. 2.>2,.. � +•.! ry:,f. M+s•a+ii.+.+'+e•r
01-17-2005 1 Payment-Discover '1,00 -1,500.00
Previous Balance: 0.00
Subtotal: 0.00
Payments: 1,5030.00
[discounts: 0.00
Ending Balance: -11500,00
Current: 5,558.00 Over 30: 4.00 Over 60: 0.00 Over 90: 0.00 Over 120:
0.00
Thank you for trusting us with Sunny's care. If you have any questions or concerns, please give our office
a call any time,
02-04-2005 �
'TO/900I �� �• .z �p�, �8 sc�u� s� OLV9696SZB X d 9T tT soot/ti/1
d
VETERINARY SURGICAL ASSOCIATES
1410 Monument Blvd., Suite 100
Concord, CA 94520
(925)827-1777
Client Information Patient Information
Chris O'Neil,#29445 "Sunny',#31764
101 Southwind Dr sheltie, neutered male
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Weight: 35.00 lbs, 15.909 kgs
Referring Veterinarian: Dr. Matt Harsch
Invoice Number:89115 Date: 02-04-2005
25M IVP pa....
ntity
01-17-2005 1 Doctor Evaluation 1.00 20.00
01-17..2005 1 Hospitalization/Day 1.00 90.00
01-17-2405 1 Induction, Propofol 1.00 50.00
01-17-2005 1 Propofol (per cc) 8.00 16.00
01-17-2005 1.,Isoflurane Each 1/2 HR 5.00 350.00
01-17-2005 1 Pain mgnt-CRI M/K 1.00 700.00
01-17-2005 1 Pain mgnt-Epidural 1.00 65.00
01-17-2005 1 Sedation, Valium 1.00 15.00
01-17-2005 1 Skin-Wound Management 1.00 400.00
01-17-2005 1 Soft Tissue(Hospital) 1.00 0.00
01-17-2005 1 Panel+CBC (in Hospital) 1.00 94.00
01-17-2005 1 Injection 1.00 25.00
01.17-2005 1 IV Catheter 1.00 40'.00
01-17-2005 1 IV Fluids (Each Add'nI) 1.00 15.00
01-17-2005 1 IV Fluids(IVAC/Day) 1.00 25.00
01-17-2005 1 Surgical Preparation 1.00 30.00
01-17-2005 1 Bair Hugger 1.00 15.00
01-17-2005 7 Basic Equipment(H) 1.00 0.00
01-17-2005 1 Operating Room Fee 1.00 100.00
01-17-2005 1 Basic Pack 1.00 100.00
01-17-2005 1 Monitor, Dynamap 1.00 30.00
01-17-2005 1 Monitor, EKG 1.00 30.00
01-17-2005 1 Monitor, Pulse Oximeter 1.00 30.00
01-17-2005 1 Suction Unit 1.00 30.00
01-17-2005 1 Cautery 1.00 30.00
01-17-20Q5 1 Ventilator 1.00 25.00
01-17-2065 1 Monitor, CO2 1.00 15.00
01-17-2005 1 Separate Inst.(Each) 2.00 30.00
01-17-2005 1 Syringe-Lavage, Cornwall 1.00 20.00
01-17-2005 1 Cath Feed W/CAP 8F 42"SH 1.00 3.00
01-17-2005 1 Drapes (4 Paper) 1.00 10.00
01-77-2005 1 Extra Blade 1.00 3.00
02-042005 1
ZTO/L00¢j S133N JaTpN V sousnsa OLb8696SZ6 XVd ST:VT 900Z/6T/TT
VETERINARY SURGICAL ASSOCIATES
1410 Monument Blvd., Suite 100
Concord,CA 94520
(925) 627-1777
Client Information Patient Information
Chris O'Neil,#29445 "Sunny",#31764
101 Southwind Dr sheltie, neutered male
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Weight: 35.00 lbs, 15.909 kgs,
Referring Veterinarian: Dr. Matt Harsch
Invoice Number: 89115 Date:02,,04-2005
Da��� �',°�, poctoD
01-17.,2005 1 Extra Gloves 1,000 5.00
01-17-2005 1 Irrigant/Bottle 2.00 20.00
01,.17,,2005 1 Hetastarch 6%, SOOmI 1,00 61,00
01-17-2005 1 Laparotomy Pads 18x18 2,00 20,00
01-17-2005 1 Penrose Drain 2,00 4,00
01-17-2005 1 Suture (Regular) 7v00 70,00
01-17-2005 1 PM Hospitalization 1100 90,00
01-17-2005 1 PM Injection 3,00 75,0*0
01-17-2005 1 PM IV Fluids(IVAC/day) 1,00 25.00
01-18-2005 1 Doctor Evaluation 1.00 20.00
01,,18,-2005 1 Hospitalization/Day 1,00 90,00
01-18-2005 1 Panel+CBC(in Hospital) 1,00 94.00
01-18-2005 1 Urinalysis(in Hospital) 1.00 20.00
01-18-2005 1 Injection 3,00 75,00
d1-18-2005 1 IV Fluids(Each AddnI) 1.00 15.00
01-18-2005 1 Plasma, K9, 120 ml,ff 1.00 125.00
01-19-2005 1 E.C. Care Concord 1.00 467.00
01-19-2005 1 Doctor Evaluation 1,00 20e00
01,19-2005 1 Supplemental Nursing/day 1.00 60.00
01-19,-2005 1 Hospitalization (1/2 Day) 1,00 40.00
01-19-2005 1 Panel+CBC(In Hospital) 1.00 94.00
01-19-2005 1 Urinalysis (in Hospital) 1.00 20.00
01,19-2005 1 Injection 3.00 75-00
01-19-2005 1 IV Fluids(Each Add'nl) 1.00 15,00
01-20-2005 1 Induction, Propofol 1.00 50,00
01,20-2005 1 Propofol (per cc) 9.00 18.00
01-20-2005 1 Isoflurane Each 1/2 HR 3.00 210.00
01-20-2005 1 Pain mgnt-CRI Fent 1,00 100-00
01,-20-2005 1 Preop Meds(Nonscheduled) 1.00 30.00
01-20-2005 1 Sedation,Valium 1.00 15.00
01-20-2005 1 Skin-Wound Management 14,00 300,00
01-20-2005 1 Soft Tissue(Hospital) 1.00 0.00
02-04-2005 2
ZT0/900 1E 8133V JOTPV V SOUUNSH OL696965Z6 XVA 6T*tl SOOZ/vI/TT
VETERINARY SURGICAL ASSOCIATES
1410 Monument Blvd., Suite 100
Concord, CA 94520
(925)827-1777
Client Information Patient Information
Chris O'Neil,#29445 "Sunny", #31764
101 Southwind Dr sheltie, neutered male
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Weight:-35.00 lbs, 15.909 kgs
Referring Veterinarian: Dr. Matt Harsch
Invoice Number.89115 Date: 02-04-2005
;r NETW0 % wIA*
gzAi
41 550 W__ - !,N. ON
Ar
0a 0 2005�"11 rw �1 Band-Wet To Dry Large 1 �1,00 35*00F7M#
01-20-2005 1 Indwelling Urinary Cath. 1.00 25.00
01-20-2005 1 Minor Pack 1.00 30.00
01-20-2005' 1 Monitor, Pulse Oximeter 1.00 30.00
01-20-2005 1 Separate Inst,(Each) 1.00 15.00
01-20-2005 1 Drapes(4 Paper) 1.00 10.00
01-20-2005 1 Extra Blade 2.00 6.00
01-20-2005 1 Extra Gloves 2.00 10.00
01-20-2005 1 Feeding Tube 1.00 5.00
01-20-2005 1 Laparotomy Pads 18x18 2.00 20.00
01-20-2005 1 Suture(Regular) 6.00 60.00
01-24-2005 24 Doctor Evaluation 1.00 20.00
01-24-2005 1 Invoice reviewed 1.00 0.00
01-24-2005 1 VMS Services 1.00 2,673.00
Previous Balance: -1.500.00
Subtotal: 71068.00
Payments: 0.00
Discounts: 0.00
Ending Balance: 5,568.00
Current: 5,568.00 Over 30: 0.00 Over 60: 0.00 Over 90: 0.00 Over 120:
0.00
Thank you for trusting us with Sunny's care. If you have any questions or concerns, please give our office
a call any time.
02-04-2005 3
Zi0/600121 a130Y JaTpV 19 souaHsg OL68696996 XVd 6T*6T 900Z/VT/TT
VETERINARY MEDICAL SPECIALISTS
1410 Monument Blvd, Ste 100
Concord, CA 94520
(925) 771-1180
Client Information Patient Information
Chris O'Neil,#3015 "Sunny O'Neil",#3269
101 Southwind Dr, sheltie, neutered male
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Weight: 35.00 lbst 15.909 kgs
Referring Veterinarian: Dr. Jeff Todoroff
Invoice Number: 12759 Date: 02,,04,,2005
01-19-2005 276 Consultation- in house 1.00 50.00
01-19-2005 276 CBC (in hospital) 1.00 38.00
01-19-2005 276 I-Stat CG8+ 1.00 30.00
01-19-2005 276 Chemistry panel (in-house) 1.00 75.00
01-19-2005 276 Specific Gravity,Urine 2.00 38.00
01-19-2005 276 Ticarcillin inj (per vial) 1.00 58.00
01-19-2005 276 Critical Care 12 hour 1.00 75.00
01-19-2005 276 Albumin 25%50ml 12,5G 1.00 65.00
01-19-2005 276 PCV/TS 1.00 20.00
01,.19.,2005 276 IV Fluids (per addit. Bag) 1.00 40.00
01-19-2005 276 IV Catheter 1.00 40.00
01,-20-2005 5 In Hospital Exam 1.00 25.00
01-20-2005 5 Critical Care 24 hour 1.00 160.00
01-20-2005 5 Single lab test(in hospital) 1.00 15.00
(M,.20,,2005 5 PCV/TS 1.00 20.00
01-20-2005 5 Blood collection set 1.00 20.00
01-20-2005 5 Transfusion administration 1.00 80.00
01-20-2005 5 Blood- Fresh Whole 1.00 200,,00
01-20-2005 5 Diphenydramine inj per mi 1.00 20.00
01-20,-2005 5 Ticarcillin inj (per vial) 7.00 58.00
01-20-2005 5 Misc-Injections 1.00 20.00
01-20,,2005 5 Wound Care 1.00 20.00
01-20-2005 5 I-Stat EC8 2.00 69.00
01-20-2005 5 IV Fluids(per addit. Bag) 2.00 80.00
01-20-2005 5 Potassium Chloride40meq/ml 1.00 20.00
01-20-2005 5 Mannitol 200mg/ml Btl 100m1 5.00 20.00
01-20-2005 5 Heparin injection per ml 3.00 20.00
01-20-2005 5 Hetastarch 500m1 bag 1.00 70.00
01-20-2005 5 Blood Pressure 1.00 40.00
01-21-2005 5 In Hospital Exam 1.00 25.00
01-21-2005 5 Specific GravityUrine 1.00 19.00
01-21-2005 5 Miso-Injections 1.00 20.00
02-04-2005 1
ZTO/OTOin 9100E JajpV +g sousKsg OL68696SZ6 XVd 6T:6T SOOZ/DT/TT
VETERINARY MEDICAL SPECIALISTS
1410 Monument Blvd. Ste 100
Concord, CA 94520
(925)771-1180
Client Information Patient Information
Chris O'Neil,#3015 "Sunny O'Neil",#3269
101 Southwind Dr. sheltie, neutered male
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Weight: 35.00 lbs, 15.909 kgs
Referring Veterinarian: Dr. Jeff Todoroff
Invoice Number: 12759 Date: 02-04,-2005
�12A.I.
e" Pq_ 4r _�esc�Pt�o .. _ Q' a `tity` C�aSge
01,21--T005 5 Ticarcillin inj (per vial) 1.00 58.00
01-21-2005 5 Plasma 120mls, K9 1.00 138.00
01,,21-2005 5 Transfusion administration 1.00 80.00
01-21-2005 5 Wound Care 2.00 40.00
01-21-2005 5 IV Cath (Jugular) 1.00 80.00
01-21-2005 5 Heparin injection per ml 7.80 20.00
01-21-2005 5 IV Fluids(per addit. Bag) 1.00 40.00
01-21-2005 5 Potassium Chloride 40meq/mI 13.00 20.00
01-21-2005 5 Tube feedings(24hr) 1.00 50.00
01-21-2005 5 Critical Care 24 hour 1.00 160.00
01-21-2005 5 PCVITS 2.00 40.00
01-21-2005 5 l-Stat ECS 2.06 69.00
01-21-2005 S Single lab test (in hospital) 1.00 15.00
01-21-2005 5 Euthanasia 1.00 _ 50.00
01-21-2005 5 Beuthanasia Sol'n/ml 1.00- 20.00
01-21-2005 5 Monterey Group Crem (Dog) 1.00 48.00
01-21-2005 5 Invoice complete 1.00 0.00
01-22-2005 5 WKD Doctor Evaluation 1,00' ' 50.00
01-22-2005 5 I-Stat ECS 1.00 35.00
01-22-2005 5 PCVITS 1.00 20.00
01-22-2005 5 Hetastarch 500ml bag 1.00 70.00
01-22-2005 3 Heparin injection per ml 2.60 20.00
01-24-2005 5 Credit Account 1.00 -2,673.00
Previous Balance: 0.00
Subtotal: 2,673.00
Payments: 20673.00
Discounts: 0.00
Ending Balance: 0.00
Current: 0.00 Over 30: 0.00 Over 60: 0.00 Over 90: 0.00 Over 120:
0.00
Thank you for trusting us with Sunny O'Neil's care. If you have any questions or concerns, please give
02-04-2005 2
ZTO/TTOf2j 8133Y JaTpV +g soueKsg OG686965Z6 X4d 6i�6T 5001/6T/Ti
VETERINARY MEDICAL SPECIALISTS
1410 Monument Blvd.Ste 100
Concord, CA 94520
(925)771-17 80
Client Information Patient Information
Chris O'Neil,#3015 "Sunny O'Neil",#3259
10'1 Southwind Or. sheltie, neutered male
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Weight: 35.a0 lbst 15.909 kgs
Referring Veterinarian: Or. Jeff Todoroff
Invoice Number: 12759 Date: 02,.04-2005
our office a call any time.
02-04-2005 3
ZT0/9T00 S133F JaTpF V soue31sa OLV86965Z6 XV3 0Z :VT SUUZ/fiT/TT
PamperDi@aol.com To gayle@bos.cccounty.us
1 1/11/2005 05:07 PM cc
bcc
Subject Re: Dangerous Animal Ordinance No.2005-25
Dear ('ayle:
I rea.ffiy appreciate the. Boards efforts in continui 0 ng to fry to improve
Contra Costa. county's safety and(ifestyt,e-
I kinow it's d�fic�tlt to 9et anY ordinance_passedbut it's even more
difficult tv get it rescindedor changedin an-y wa.y. IlVhiehis wf y I feel
it's important to take a. �:ttCe more tim.e on this orchna-nce a..,ndmad e
sure i.tis wri,tten. so that e can accomy(ishwhatwe rearfy wa.nt
acfiieved
I reaCtzedl'm suggesting a very vague timer:ne. But, I Piave. �ieardo.f
tie tetter that 7'vny LaRussa's An:ima.CR.escue foundation: is send"11.9
f
the Supervisors and-Fdqpyrecia,te you ta(i'n.g. the tirrt.e to consider the
issues contam" .edin the fetter.
7fiank youtime onthisIPP_for -your issue.
Diane andDavid-Dickson
1 05 Ginsberg 7err.
JVlurtinez., C..A.
925-372-6670
"Nancy Pereira"
To gayle@bos.cccounty.us
<npereira@cctirnes.com>
cc
11/14/2005 10:27 AM
bcc
Subject Delay approving Ordinance No.2005-25
<>Hello Supervisor Uilkema,
I understand that at you next board meeting on Tuesday November 15, Ordinance No. 2005-25
is slated for review. I ask that you please consider a one month delay in approving. This delay
could give the time needed to thoughtfully consider how to make the Ordinance more effective,
more enforceable,, and a piece of legislation that our county could be proud to share with other
communities.
Thank you for listening.
-from a concerned resident & animal guardian
Nancy Pereira
Nancy Pereira
Advertising Consultant
Contra Costa Times
(925) 943-8201 direct
(925) 977-8410 fax
npereira@cctimes .com
"John de Benedictis" To <distl@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us>,
<johndeben@comcast.net> <gayle@bos.cccounty.us>,<dist3@bos.cccounty.us>,
11/11/2005 10:39 PM <dist4@bos.cccounty.us>
cc
bcc
Subject Dangerous Animal Ordinance No.2005-25
Dear Supervisor,
Please delay approving Ordinance No. 2005-25 which is scheduled to be adopted at your
meeting next Tuesday, November 15. It could be better written and should not place
responsibility on one individual with limited resources.
Regards,
John de Benedictis
Orinda, CA
1/15/2005 Board of Supervisors Meeting
consider with item D.8: Dangerous
Animals
<ccoecontra.napanet. To: <comments @ cob.cccounty.us>
net> cc:
` Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
11/14/2005 11:11 AM h ://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/de art/cao/a endacomments form.ht
� p 9 --
m
Username: Sunny Goodi er
UserAddress: Brentwood, Ca
UserTel:
UserEmail: wsprings@goldstate.net
AgendaDate:
Option: selected
Agendaltem: D.8
Remote Name:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Moz i l la/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Sv1)
Date: 14 Nov 2005
Time: 11:11:46
Comments:
Dear supervisor
After reading the text to the proposed new dangerous animal ordinance, I have
several areas of concern.
The potentially dangerous definition under 416-12.402 (d) seems very broad and
undefined so that it could include most any "behavior" that happens to alarm
someone.
Section 416-12.4220(3) utilizes, jaw strength, "potential propensity to bite"
and "potential for unpredictable behavior" to define a dog's dangerous status.
This is really subjective and unenforceable language.
All reviews and appeals are heard by the same authority that originally
brought the dangerous or potentially dangerous charge. Is this proper due
process?
At the last public hearing on this ordinance, our animal services director
stated that, in his view, many of the dogs that would be deemed "potentially
dangerous" were simply untrained dogs which could be rehabilitated by the
completion of obedience training. However, this ordinance spells out a very
complex process of requirements on the animal owner of "potentially dangerous"
dogs in addition to obedience training including permits, fees, inspections,
and other restrictions under rapid time limits in which the failure of the
owner to successfully negotiate any step leads inexorably to the seizure and
death o f -the animal.
1/15/2005 Board of Supervisors Meeting
Consider with item D.8: Dangerous
Animals
COB Public Comments To: JPenn@cob.cccounty.us
11/14/2005 12:44 PM cc:
Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
http://www.co-contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cao/agendacomments form.ht
m
Forwarded by COB Public Comments/COB/CCC on 11/14/2005 12:44 PM
<cco@contra.napanet.net
> To: <comments@cob.cccounty.us>
cc:
11/14/2005 10:20 AM Subject: Data posted to form 1 of
:l/www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/de
Username: evie
UserAddress: viera •
UserTel:
UserEmail: evieviera@aol.com
AgendaDate: 11/15/05
Option: Selected
AgendaItem: 2005
RemoteName:
Remote User:
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Date: 14 Nov 2005
Time: 10:20:35
Comments:
Please wait to adopt ordinance 2005-25
until concerns and suggestions from Brenda
at ARF can be addressed. . .thank you
evie viera
RozymaryRN@aoLcom To distl@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,gayle@bos.cccounty.us,
{ dist3@bos.cccounty.us,mailto:dist4@bos.cccounty.us
11/13/2005 08:55 PM
cc
bcc
Subject Re Dangerous Animal Ordinance No.2 5-25
Supervisors,
I would like it known that both my daughter and I support ARF and are in agreement
with Brenda Barnette. I have enclosed her e-mail so you may understand what we are
agreeing with.
Rozy Fridas &Kristina Fridas
Mother &Daughter
In a message dated 11/11/2005 4:54:04 PIVI Pacific Standard Time, b barn ette(a"),arf.net writes:
Dear Friends,
Everyone at ARF applauds the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors for their interest in making our
community safer from dangerous animals.However,we have some concerns and suggestions and feel
that a one month delay could give the time needed to thoughtfully consider how to make the Ordinance
more effective,more enforceable, and a piece of legislation that our county could be proud to share with
other communities.
I have written a letter to each of our Supervisors asking them to delay approving Ordinance No.2005-25
which is scheduled to be adopted at their meeting next Tuesday, November 15. I have
included a copy of the letter below for your review.
If you agree that it would be wise to extend the time before Ordinance No. 2005-25 is adopted
until the concerns and suggestions included my letter to the Supervisors can be considered, it
is urgent that you let our County Supervisors know right away , before the meeting on
Tuesday.
Contact information for the Supervisors:
Supervisor John M. Gioia
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
2425 Bisso Lane, Ste. 110
Concord, CA 94520
Ph: (925)646-5763
Fax: (925) 646-5767
mailto:dist4(a,bos.cccoun .us
Sincerely,
Brenda F. Barnette
Chief Executive Officer
Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation
Direct Phone: (925)296-3108
htti)://www.arf.net/
ARF is a No-Kill Adoption Shelter& Education Center
dedicated to bringing animals and people together
LETTER TO CONTA COSTA SUPERVISORS
Dear Supervisor,
On behalf of more than 30,000 supporters of Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF) and
animal lovers who reside in our county, I would like to express our thanks and appreciation for your
interest in making our community a safer place to live. I would also like to express concerns about, and
offer suggestions for,the proposed dangerous animal Ordinance No. 2005-25.
The entire responsibility for this ordinance is placed exclusively on the Director of Animal Services,
with the one exception in Section 416-12.434, in which it stipulates that the court may take action by
ordering Animal Services to make changes. Under 2005-25, Animal Services must provide site
inspections, re-inspect annually, approve permits, hear potential violations, revisit potential violations a
second time if the citizen feels that the decision was unjust and listen to their appeal, approve obedience
training classes/instructors and the list goes on. Parts of Ordinance No. 2005-25 is an onerous and
Byzantine structure that is being proposed This i in addition to a very full existing list of responsibilities
for the Director of Animal Services.
I have no doubt that Glenn Howell could accomplish these goals,but only if there were enough hours in
the day. I have known Glenn for several years and hold him in high regard. Glenn is knowledgeable
about animals. However, Contra Costa County could have another future excellent administrator in the
role of Director of Animal Services who is an effective administrator,but who is not an animal expert or
enthusiast.
We would like to suggest some strategic steps that could improve the County's ability to protect the
safety of residents:
We propose that Contra Costa. County appoint an Animal Welfare Commission to include the
Director of Animal Services, along with community members from each district who have
expertise in companion animals or agricultural animals, and who would be willing to serve the
community.
The Animal Welfare Commission would be a representative body acting as the eyes and ears of the
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors with regard to animal issues within the County. The Commission
would be an advisory body and would make recommendations to the Board.The Board of Supervisors
would be responsible for all policy decisions and development.
The Animal Welfare Commission could hold hearings and submit recommendations
regarding animal control and welfare to the Board of Supervisors, including
recommendations for ways to protect the public from dangerous animals. The
Commission could study and recommend requirements for the maintenance of animals in
public, private, and commercial care. The Commission could work with the Tax
Collector to develop and maintain dog-licensing procedures and make
recommendations.
Regarding the specifics of the proposed Ordinance,there are several areas which cause deep concern:
We are troubled by an ordinance that requires a permit (Section 416-12.414), and an annual
inspection of the premise where the animal will be housed (Section 416-12.416), to own a
potentially dangerous or dangerous animal, and states that the permit to own a potentially
dangerous or dangerous animal is nontransferable (Section 416-12.422). However, it creates a
48 hour delay in notifying the County of the sale or transfer by the owner of the potentially
dangerous or dangerous dog to someone else who is not pre-approved and whose premise has
not been inspected (Section 416-12.422 (n) (1)). This defeats the purpose of the permits and
inspections.
Section 416-12.418 is problematic in mandating that the person who makes the original decision
about a potential dangerous or dangerous animal permit is the same person who decides if there
are grounds for an appeal and then hears that appeal. For an appeal to be effective and reflect
due process, we believe a different party needs to review the case than the one who made the
original finding.
Although Section 416-12.436 is a description of dogs who cannot be owned by convicted felons,
we are very troubled by the subjective and probably unenforceable language used in this
ordinance to define dangerous dogs. For example, to specify "a dog weighing more than 20
pounds" as potentially dangerous or to list a dog's tolerance for pain, strength of a dog,
including jaw strength, the dog's potential propensity to bite humans, the dogs' potential for
unpredictable behavior and the likelihood that a bite by the dog will result in serious injury are
un-provable and un-measurable unless you engage in something kin to racial profiling and use
breed descriptions.
I am fearful that allowing such fallacious descriptors to be written into an important ordinance
undermines the good intentions of the entire Ordinance and unnecessarily places it and future animal
legislation on a slippery slope.Behavior by specific dogs is provable and a more suitable basis for
defining dangerous dogs.
Supervisor,we applaud and support the intention of this Ordinance to protect our community. However,
I urge you to vote "NO" on Ordinance No. 2005-25 and refer it back to committee so that a more
thoughtful document can be presented and a subsequent ordinance adopted that will be a source of pride
for all of Contra Costa County.
Sincerely,
Brenda F.Barnette
Chief Executive Officer
AAS
77
AF%ft
L 1170
November 115 2005 j? ;�
NOV 1 4 Animal Rescue
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair Foundation
651 Pine Street, Room 108A sipl-RWISt
A GAYLE-B. UN.-KEMA
T
�.j BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Martinez, CA 94553 3 CG 1 J IN,T Y
Tony La Russa
Dear Supervisor Uilkema, Chairman
Gregory L.McCoy,Esq.
On behalf of more than 30,000 supporters of Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue President
Foundation (ARF) and animal lovers who reside in our county, I would like to Steve Blanding
express our thanks and appreciation for your interest in making our community a Treasurer
safer place to live. I would also like to express concerns about, and offer Brenda de la Ossa
suggestions for,the proposed dangerous animal Ordinance No. 2005-25. Secretary
Bradley N.Blake
The entire responsibility for this ordinance is placed exclusively on the Director of William A.Blase,Jr.
Animal Services, with the one exception in Section 416-12.434, in which it Maria Brunner
stipulates that the court may take action by ordering Animal Services to make Glenn Colacurci
changes. Under 2005-25, Animal Services must provide site inspections, re-
inspect annually, approve permits, hear potential violations, revisit potential Michael Duffield
violations a second time if the citizen feels that the decision was unjust and listen Grant E.Finlayson,Esq.
to their appeal, approve obedience training classes/instructors and the list goes on. Neal Mitchell
Parts of Ordinance No. 2005-25 is an onerous and Byzantine structure that is
being proposed in addition to a very full existing list of responsibilities for the David Pratt
Director of Animal Services. Cindy Rainey
John Schiavo
I have no doubt that Glenn Howell could accomplish these goals, but only if there Marsha Servetnick
were enough hours in the day. I have known Glenn for several years and hold him Keith Thomas
in high regard. Glenn is knowledgeable about animals. However, Contra Costa
County could have another future excellent administrator in the role of Director of Amy Trask
Animal Services who is an effective administrator, but who is not an animal HALL OF FAME BOARD
expert or enthusiast.
Jack R.Barry
We would like to suggest some strategic steps that could improve the County's Bill Goldberg
ability to protect the safety of residents: Frank Johnson,III
Mark McGwire
We propose that Contra Costa County appoint an Animal Welfare Dan O'Brien
Commission to include the Director of Animal Services, along with
community members from each district who have expertise in companion George Riggs
animals or agricultural animals, and who would be willing to serve the
community. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Brenda F.Barnette
The Animal Welfare Commission would be a representative body acting P.O.Box 30215
2890 Mitchell Drive
as the eyes and ears of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors with regard Walnut Creek,CA 94598
to animal issues within the County. The Commission would be an (925)256-IARF-Phone
advisory body and would make recommendations to the Board. The (925)977-9079-Fax
Board of Supervisors would be responsible for all policy decisions and mrowarf.riet
development. TAX ID#68-0240341
limb
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema,Chair
November 11,2005
Page 2 of 2
The Animal Welfare Commission could hold hearings and submit recommendations regarding
animal control and welfare to the Board of Supervisors, including recommendations for ways
to protect the public from dangerous animals. The Commission could study and recommend
requirements for the maintenance of animals in public, private, and commercial care. The
Commission could work with the Tax Collector to develop and maintain dog-licensing
procedures and make recommendations.
Regarding the specifics of the proposed Ordinance,there are several areas which cause deep concern:
We are troubled by an ordinance that requires a permit (Section 416-12.414), and an annual
inspection of the premise where the animal will be housed (Section 416-12.416), to own a
potentially dangerous or dangerous animal, and states that the permit to own a potentially
dangerous or dangerous animal is nontransferable (Section 416-12.422). However, it creates a
48 hour delay in notifying the County of the sale or transfer by the owner of the potentially
dangerous or dangerous dog to someone else who is not pre-approved and whose premise has
not been inspected (Section 416-12.422 (n) (1)). This defeats the purpose of the permits and
inspections.
Section 416-12.418 is problematic in mandating that the person who makes the original
decision about a potential dangerous or dangerous animal permit is the same person who
decides if there are grounds for an appeal and then hears that appeal. For an appeal to be
effective and reflect due process,we believe a different party needs to review the case than the
one who made the original finding.
Although Section 416-12.436 is a description of dogs who cannot be owned by convicted
felons, we are very troubled by the subjective and probably unenforceable language used in
this ordinance to define dangerous dogs. For example, to specify "a dog weighing more than
20 pounds" as potentially dangerous or to list a dog's tolerance for pain, strength of a dog,
including jaw strength, the dog's potential propensity to bite humans, the dogs' potential for
unpredictable behavior and the likelihood that a bite by the dog will result in serious injury are
un-provable and un-measurable unless you engage in something kin to racial profiling and use
breed cizsc-riptiuns.
I am fearful that allowing such fallacious descriptors to be written into an important ordinance
undermines the good intentions of the entire Ordinance and unnecessarily places it and future
animal legislation on a slippery slope. Behavior by specific dogs is provable and a more
suitable basis for defining dangerous dogs.
Supervisor Uilkema,we applaud and support the intention of this Ordinance to protect our community.
However, I urge you to vote "NO" on Ordinance No. 2005-25 and refer it back to the committee so
that a more thoughtful document can be presented and a subsequent ordinance adopted that will be a
source of pride for all of Contra Costa County.
Sincerely,
/0 r� ? /$r�X4,0M
Brenda F. Barnette
Chief Executive Officer
CITY OF CONCORD CITY COUNCIL
1950 Parkside Drive,MS/01 Laura M.Hoffineister,Mayor
Concord,California 94519-2578 Susan Bonilla,Vice Mayor
FAx: (925) 798-0636 Helen M.Allen
Mark A.Peterson
William Shinn
OFFICE of THE MAYOR �d Mary Rae Lehman,City Clerk
Telephone: (925) 671-3158 ConcNi Thomas Wentling,City Treasurer
' Lydia E.Du Borg,City Manager
November 10, 2005
L � NOV I
Hon. Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair _-
Contra Costa CountySupervisorsBoard of
c/o Office of the Clerk of the Board
651 Pine Street -- -------- _
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Adoption of New Dangerous Animal Ordinance- Support
Dear Chair Uilkema and Members of the Board:
As Mayor of the City of Concord,I urge you to adopt the new Dangerous Animal
Ordinance that the Board will review on November 15,2005. Residents of the City of
Concord have been subjected to numerous attacks_by uncontrolled dangerous animals
that have inflicted serious and near-fatal injuries. These incidents include but are not
limited to:
• On March 29, 2005 11-year old JaQuan Rice of Concord was viciously attacked
by two pit bulls that had previously been designated, "potentially dangerous"
under local animal control regulations. The boy experienced severe injuries in the
attack, including extensive lacerations to his arms and legs.
• On May 18, 2005 Concord resident Rosemary Villegas, a U.S. Postal Service
lettev CaiTIC'r, 1�Ii:I� l:�ki12g her 1'r`i'..ii:C:� o 10-^r�i.�'', Avenut=%.01 1n 0akl-anL� 'Nh?i aril±
bull-German Shepard mix scaled asix-foot fence and attacked, seizing her leg and
sending her sprawling to the asphalt. "I didn't know what happened until I was flat
on the ground and screaming," the Concord resident said to the Contra Costa
Times.
• On Thursday, May 12, 2005 Kathy Howarter, Concord resident, was walking her
dogs on Walnut Avenue in Concord at 7:00 pm. Two pit bulls that were on the
loose attacked Ms. Howarter and her dogs. Fortunately, neighbors rushed out to
assist Ms. Howarter when they heard her screams. Ms. Howarter was in her
words, "terrified by the incident." She escaped with a sprain and her Labrador
Retriever sustained bite wounds in the attack.
e-mail: cityinfoQci.concord.ca.us • website: www.cityofconcord.org
11/10/OS
Hon.Gayle B.Uilkema,Chair
Page 2
• In April 2005, a Concord Police Officer was forced to shoot and kill a pit bull that
charged him in Newhall Park in Concord.
• In June 2004, 88-year-old Mabel Wong of Concord was almost killed in a brutal
mauling by a friend's pit bull. This account appeared in the San Francisco
Chronicle:
"An 88-year-old Concord woman was fighting for her life Tuesday after a neighbor's
pit bull pulled her from her walker and brutally mauled her for as long as 45 minutes
before anyone noticed, authorities said.
Mabel Wong was in critical condition at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek,
where doctors treated her for extensive injuries to her face, ears and arms suffered in
an attack so vicious that an animal control officer said she was lucky to have
survived.
"It's the most gruesome thing I've come across in this line of work," said Lt. Abe
Gamez of Contra Costa County Animal Services. "I'm amazed she's still with us."
Wong was taking a shortcut through her neighbor's backyard on Sheffield Place, as
she had done many times before, Saturday when at least one of her neighbor's six
dogs attacked her, Gamez said. It took 30 to 45 minutes before a group of people,
including Wong's grandson, who were watching a movie inside, heard the commotion
and called paramedics after finding Wong in the yard.
She was covered in dirt, apparently from being dragged around, her ears had been
ripped off, and she had deep wounds to her upper face and arms when paramedics
rushed her to the hospital." Concord: Woman, 88, Badly Hurt by Pit Bull, Neighbor'S
Doi Pulled Her from Walker,Mauled Her,Demian Bulwa, San Francisco Chronicle,
June 30, 2004.
The County Animal Services Department has responded quickly to incidents in Concord
but., in our opinion, needs more proactive tools to deal with the threat posed by dangerous
animals. The County's proposed ordinance changes are comprehensive and would
provide effective proactive tools for the County Animal Services Department to regulate
and control potentially dangerous and dangerous animals.
Under the revised ordinance, owner of animals who are designated potentially dangerous
must comply with permit requirements related to proper maintenance of the animal
before they are allowed to keep the animal. These requirements were formerly applicable
only to animals that were designated as dangerous after a noticed hearing. The ordinance
also gives authority to the animal services department to impound potentially dangerous
animals pending a hearing, subjects animals designated as potentially dangerous or
dangerous in other jurisdictions to the conditions of ownership for potentially dangerous
or dangerous animals in this county,creates a misdemeanor violation for owners who
violate the conditions of a dangerous animal permit, and prohibits convicted felons from
11/10/05
Hon.Gayle B.Uilkerna,Chair
Page 3
owning or possessing dogs that pose a threat to public safety unless they obtain a valid
permit. These are important and necessary steps that must be taken to protect the public
safety, health and welfare.
The City of Concord earlier this year requested that the State Legislature adopt legislation
that would allow local animal control agencies to adopt regulations banning pitbulls. No
legislator opted to bring forward such legislation in the last session but State Senator Tom
Torlakson did co-author SB 861 with Senator Jackie Speier that would allow breed-
specific spay/neutering programs and controls on breeding. This legislation was signed
into law by the Governor and will become effective on January 1, 2006. It is our
understanding that the County is preparing ordinance amendments to implement SB 861.
It is the City of Concord's intention to assist and support the County adopt such
amendments that would fully and effectively implement SB 861.
In summary,the effective control of dangerous animals is an issue of urgent public
health and safety. The County's proposed Dangerous Animal Ordinance will
provide essential proactive tools to the Animal Services Department to control
potentially dangerous and dangerous animals in Concord and other communities
within the County. I urge you to adopt this ordinance and to consider future
admendments that would fully implement SB 861.
Very truly yours,
Laura M. Hoffineister
Mayor
cc* Hon. Senator Tom Torlakson
Hon. Assemblyman Joseph Canciamilla
Members of the City Council
Lydia E. Du Borg, City Manager
Mark Deven, Assistant City Manager
Peter Dragovich,Director of City Management
Glen Howell, Contra Costa County Animal Services Director,4800 Imhoff Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Nov. 15,2005
Dear Supervisor,
I am not sure whether I will be able to speak at this meeting, so I am putting my thoughts on
paper and I hope you can find the time to read what I am writing.
I am here today because I strongly support the proposed ordinance regarding large,aggressive
dogs that will be discussed. I have had more than a few incidents with these dogs attacking my
leashed dog/s. In October,2002 while out walking with my then 3 leashed dogs(I now have
only I left of the group)my smallest dog, a 22 pound terrier mix(neutered)was attacked by an
unrestrained pit bull who left its property and confronted us in the street. The person had let this
dog out of the house which had NO fencing whatsoever. In the horror of the assault,my small
dog was repeatedly grabbed at the neck and shaken by the pit,I truely thought my dog was going
to die. The result was my dog was injured and required an emergency vet visit,I was bitten as
was the person who let the pit out. Because I live in a marginal area(near the Shell refinery)
with people of unknown backgrounds,I felt it necessary to be tested for HN since there was a
significant amount of blood drawn. Gratefully,after 6 months the test remained negative. My
dog was treated for his wounds and recovered.
Since that time I have carried a stun baton at all times when out walking the dog. I had to use it
in April,,2004 when a pit bull jumped from a moving car and attacked my dog on the sidewalk
on Pacheco Blvd. The baton worked as it was intended to,the pit quickly let go of my dog's
neck and ran off with the owners of said dog in pursuit.
I have also been verbally assaulted by various men about my carrying the baton. A few months
ago when someone'sPi it ran out from its property with the owner coming after it,I did NOT
need to use the baton,but was yelled at for carrying it and this person threatened me with the
words,, "You use that on my dog and I'll KIyou!"
In myopinion,this proposed ordinance does not go far enough. Where I live,there are numbers
of pits, some snarling and-barking as my small dog and I pass by. The ones visible to me have
not been neutered. I'm not sure how much good that actually does,but certainly this breed
should not be reproducing at all, so neutering is a necessity in that regard at least.
PLEASE do all you can to put this ordinance in place. It's better than the status quo. I
would--so-eniovbein l-etowaik-u'n-u--u-g-ln--my'#'--ghette"nu-11-1-1---lr--wuu-tnputtveas Imn able to do�9gnuut
in my daughter's area(Alamo-where I have yet to see any misbehaving dog,period).
And don't forget about young guide puppy in training,"Redford"who suffered severe injuries by
a pit bull. I have enclosed a copy of my letter to Animal Control of San Francisco.. Guide Dogs
pot0ce..40L"awftAv. -ofLnwney,-to uain- ential dogs for sem- .Red€ord�-probably
For The Blind a-good-deal
won't be able to do what he was born for due to his injuries and the terror he felt while being
attacked.
Thank
you,
d
June 8,2005
Director Carl Friedman
Animal Care&Control
1200 15th St
San Francisco,CA 94103
Dear Director Friedman,
I am writing in regards to the pit bull attack that occured to Guide Dog puppy in training
"Redford"at the Baypoint BART station. I was saddened to see on a newscast this young pup
with such severe injuries. The information given on the news was that San Francisco Animal
Control would have jurisdiction over the offending pit bull because the owner is a resident of
'0
your city.
I went to Contra Costa's law library in Martinez to look up the exact penal code and its wording
regarding attacks on Guide Dogs so I could be informed before writing this letter. I was at the
library on Friday afternoon,June 3. 1 realized later it was at the time young Nicholas was being
mauled to death by his family's pit or pits.
In the penal code bond I read,the code being 600.2, it states that it is indeed a crime for any dog
to injure or cause the death of a service dog. I shall be following the case in which"Redford"
was the victim and I will expect your office will do wha is necessary to see that the law is carried
out and offending pit bull's owner will be heavily fined and will be sentenced to either serve
time in jail,or better yet be mandated to at least 1,000 hours of community service,perhaps
cleaning the kennels of your facility would be a good choice. Wanton attacks on Guide Dogs
and other service animals should be treated with the greatest penalty the law allows,period.
My dear"career changed"guide,Nueva was once jumped by a pit bull as we walked down a
*Ulf
Martinez sidewalk(Nueva was leashed as always). It was remarkable that she wasn't injured. It
41
was a very frightening experience however,and just imagine what it is like for a visually
impaired person to endure this situation. Their Guide is their eyes and their mobility, in a real
way their lifeline.
I had previously copied a news item out of W.Va re a pit attack. I have highlighted the
paragraph stating that this city has an ordinance requiring pits,rotts,and hybrids be muzzled
when outside. If a city in West Virginia is smart enough to do this,,what does it say about the
intelligence of the great city of San Francisco.
Sincerely yours,
Sheryl Phair-Gordon
954 Walnut St
Martinez,, CA 94553
cc: Guide Dogs For The Blind
Web Mail Printable Message Page 1 of 2
From: Rose Lemberg<lernberg@pacbell.net>
To: JohnGioia@earthlink.net
Subject: Ordinance 2005-25
Date: Nov 14,, 2005 9:10 PM
Attachments: Re Ordinance 2005-25.doc
John,
My very brief letter is below and is also attached as a Word file. I'm sorry that I didn't have more time
to work on it,but I did read the ordinance quite carefully.
Thank you very much!
Rose Lemberg
----------------------------------
831 Balra Drive
El Cerrito, California 94530
November 14, 2005
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
Honorable Members of the Board:
Re:Agenda Item D.8 El Ordinance 2005-25
I regret that I cannot attend this hearing to deliver these remarks in person.
I strongly favor the adoption of this ordinance, which would regulate the possession of
3potentially dangerous animal S2 and 3dangerous animals,2 and the possession of dogs by
convicted felons.
F There needs to be a way of dealing with problem animal owners and their animals
before someone is hurt, not after the fact.
F- The county's current law on 3potentially dangerous animals2 does not give the Animal
Services Director any latitude.
F This ordinance would strengthen the county's existing laws and gives them some
teeth.
F It affects only those dogs that are a threat to humans and/or to other animals.
http://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/printable jsp?msgid=789&x=-2071002245 11/15/2005
Web Mail Printable Message Page 2 of 2
Thank you for considering this ordinance, which should make our county a safer place.
Please vote to approve it today.
Sincerely yours,
Rose Lernberg
http://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/printable jsp?msgid=789&x=-2071002245 11/15/2005
"Jeri Danielsen" To <gayle@bos.cccounty.us>
<jdanielsen@astound.net>
cc
11/12/200510:25 PM
bcc
Subject Ordinance No.2005-25
Dear Supervisor Gayle B.Uilkema,Chair,
We support Brenda Barnette of ARF in her suggestions as listed below in her letter to you and the other
supervisors.
Thank you for your attention,
Jeri &Tom Danielsen
jeri@theDanielsens.us
This is only a test. Had this been your actual life,you would have been given instructions on
where to go and what to do!
Dear Supervisor,
On behalf of more than 30,000 supporters of Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF) and
animal lovers who reside in our county, I would like to express our thanks and appreciation for your ✓~
interest in making our community a safer place to live. I would also like to express concerns about, and
offer suggestions for,the proposed dangerous animal Ordinance No.2005-25.
The entire responsibility for this ordinance is placed exclusively on the Director of Animal Services, with
the one exception in Section 416-12.434, in which it stipulates that the court may take action by ordering
Animal Services to make changes. Under 2005-25, Animal Services must provide site inspections,
re-inspect annually, approve permits, hear potential violations, revisit potential violations a second time
if the citizen feels that the decision was unjust and listen to their appeal, approve obedience training
classes/instructors and the list goes on. Parts of Ordinance No. 2005-25 is an onerous and Byzantine
structure that is being proposed This i in addition to a very full existing list of responsibilities for the
Director of Animal Services.
I have no doubt that Glenn Howell could accomplish these goals,but only if there were enough hours in
the day. I have known Glenn for several years and hold him in high regard. Glenn is knowledgeable
about animals. However, Contra Costa County could have another future excellent administrator in the
role of Director of Animal Services who is an effective administrator,but who is not an animal expert or
enthusiast.
We would like to suggest some strategic steps that could improve the County's ability to protect the
safety of residents:
We propose that Contra Costa County appoint an Animal Welfare Commission to include the
Director of Animal Services, along with community members from each district who have
expertise in companion animals or agricultural animals, and who would be willing to serve the
community.
The Animal Welfare Commission would be a representative body acting as the eyes and ears of
the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors with regard to animal issues within the County. The
Commission would be an advisory body and would make recommendations to the Board. The
Board of Supervisors would be responsible for all policy decisions and development.
The Animal Welfare Commission could hold hearings and submit recommendations
regarding animal control and welfare to the Board of Supervisors, including
recommendations for ways to protect the public from dangerous animals. The
Commission could study and recommend requirements for the maintenance of animals in
public, private, and commercial care. The Commission could work with the Tax Collector to
develop and maintain dog-licensing procedures and make recommendations.
Regarding the specifics of the proposed Ordinance,there are several areas which cause deep concern:
We are troubled by an ordinance that requires a permit (Section 416-12.414), and an annual
inspection of the premise where the animal will be housed (Section 416-12.416), to own a
potentially dangerous or dangerous animal, and states that the permit to own a potentially
dangerous or dangerous animal is nontransferable (Section 416-12.422). However, it creates a 48
hour delay in notifying the County of the sale or transfer by the owner of the potentially
dangerous or dangerous dog to someone else who is not pre-approved and whose premise has not
been inspected (Section 416-12.422 (n) (1)). This defeats the purpose of the permits and
inspections.
Section 416-12.418 is problematic in mandating that the person who makes the original decision
about a potential dangerous or dangerous animal permit is the same person who decides if there
are grounds for an appeal and then hears that appeal.For an appeal to be effective and reflect due
process, we believe a different party needs to review the case than the one who made the original
finding.
Although Section 416-12.436 is a description of dogs who cannot be owned by convicted felons,
we are very troubled by the subjective and probably unenforceable language used in this
ordinance to define dangerous dogs. For example, to specify "a dog weighing more than 20
pounds"as potentially dangerous or to list a dog's tolerance for pain, strength of a dog, including
jaw strength, the dog's potential propensity to bite humans, the dogs' potential for unpredictable
behavior and the likelihood that a bite by the dog will result in serious injury are un-provable and
un-measurable unless you engage in something kin to racial profiling and use breed descriptions.
I am fearful that allowing such fallacious descriptors to be written into an important ordinance
undermines the good intentions of the entire Ordinance and unnecessarily places it and future
animal legislation on a slippery slope. Behavior by specific dogs is provable and a more suitable
basis for defining dangerous dogs.
Supervisor, we applaud and support the intention of this Ordinance to protect our community. However,
I urge you to vote "NO" on Ordinance No. 2005-25 and refer it back to committee so that a more
thoughtful document can be presented and a subsequent ordinance adopted that will be a source of pride
for all of Contra Costa County.
Sincerely,
Brenda F.Barnette
Chief Executive Officer
Marguerite Judson To gayle@bos-cccounty-us
<nauticaldogs@yahoo.com>
cc
11/12/2005 03:18 PM
bcc
Subject Dangerous Doug Ordinance No.2005-25-Oppose
Dear Supervisor Uilkema,
As a resident of Contra Costa County who has lived
with rescue and purebred dogs for fifteen years, and
fostered over a hundred puppies and kittens as a
volunteer for several animal welfare agencies, I would
like to express my thanks and appreciation for your
interest in making our community a safer place to
live. I would also like to express concerns about, and
offer suggestions for, the proposed dangerous animal
Ordinance No. 2005-25.
The entire responsibility for this ordinance is placev"
exclusively on the Director of Animal Services, with
the one exception in Section 416-12.434, in which it
stipulates that the court may take action by ordering
Animal Services to make changes. Under 2005-25, Animal
Services must provide site inspections, re-inspect
annually, approve permits, hear potential violations,
revisit potential violations a second time if the
citizen feels that the decision was unjust and listen
to their appeal, approve obedience training
classes/instructors and the list goes on. Parts of
Ordinance No. 2005-25 is an onerous and Byzantine
structure that is being proposed. This is in addition
to a very full existing list of responsibilities for
the Director of Animal Services.
Although Glenn Howell could accomplish these goals, if
there were enough hours in the day, Contra Costa
County could have another future excellent
administrator in the role of Director of Animal
Services who is an effective administrator, but who is
not an animal expert or enthusiast.
I agree with the recommendations made by ARF that some
strategic steps that could improve the County's
ability to protect the safety of residents:
propos(
that ry~Cont ta County appo
We propose' int an
q
Animal al Welf are Commission to z clude the Director of
community members from
each district who have expertise in companion animals
or agricultural animals, and who would be willing to
serve the community.
-- The Animal Welfare Commission would be a
representative body acting as the eyes and ears of the
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors with regard to
animal issues within the County. The Commission would
be an advisory body and would make recommendations to
the Board. The Board of Supervisors would be
responsible for all policy decisions and development.
-- The Animal Welfare Commission could hold hearings
and submit recommendations regarding animal control
and welfare to the Board of Supervisors, including
recommendations for ways to protect the public from
dangerous animals. The Commission could study and
recommend requirements for the maintenance of animals
in public, private, and commercial care. The
Commission could work with the Tax Collector to
develop and maintain dog-licensing procedures and make
recommendations.
Regarding the specifics of the proposed Ordinance,
there are several areas which cause me deep concern:
-- The ordinance requires a permit (Section
416-12.414) , and an annual inspection of the premise
where the animal will be housed (Section 416-12.416) ,
to own a potentially dangerous or dangerous animal,
and states that the permit to own a potentially
dangerous or dangerous animal is nontransferable
(Section 416-12.422) . However, it creates a 48 hour
delay in notifying the County of the sale or transfer
by the owner of the potentially dangerous or dangerous
dog to someone else who is not pre-approved and whose
premise has not been inspected (Section 416-12.422 (n)
(1) ) . This defeats the purpose of the permits and
inspections.
-- Section 416-12 .418 is problematic in mandating that
the person who makes the original decision about a
potential dangerous or dangerous animal permit is the
same person who decides if there are grounds for an
appeal and then hears that appeal. For an appeal to be
effective and reflect due process, we believe a
different party needs to review the case than the one
who made the original finding.
-- Although Section 416-12.436 is a description of
dogs who cannot be owned by convicted felons, we are
very troubled by the subjective and probably
unenforceable language used in this ordinance to
define dangerous dogs. For example, to specify "a dog
weighing more than 20 pounds" as potentially dangerous/
or to list a dog's tolerance for pain, strength of a
dog, including jaw strength, the dog's potential
propensity to bite humans, the dogs' potential for
unpredictable behavior and the likelihood that a bite
by the dog will result in serious injury are
un-provable and un-measurable unless you engage in
something kin to racial profiling and use breed
descriptions.
-- Allowing such fallacious descriptors to be written
into an important ordinance undermines the good
intentions of the entire ordinance and unnecessarily
places it and future animal legislation on a slippery
slope. Behavior by specific dogs is provable and a
more suitable basis for defining dangerous dogs.
Supervisor, I applau and support the intention of
this Ordinance to r ct our community. However, I
urge you to vote "NO" n Ordinance No. 2005-25 and
refer it back to om 'ttee so that a more thoughtful
document can be presented and a subsequent ordinance
adopted that will be a source of pride for all of
Contra Costa County.
Sincerely,
Marguerite Judson
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
APP
t
Lisha Ruud To gayle@bos.cccounty.us
<Iyruud a@yahoo.com>
x, cc
11/12/2005 07:35 AM
tt
bcc
Subject Delay ordinance vote
Dear Supervisor,
On behalf of more than 30,000 supporters of Tony La
Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF) and animal
lovers who reside in our county, I would like to
express our thanks and appreciation for your interest
in making our community a safer place to live. I would
also like to express concerns about, and offer
suggestions for, the proposed dangerous animal
Ordinance No. 2005-25.
The entire responsibility for this ordinance is placed
exclusively on the Director of Animal Services, with
the one exception in Section 416-12.434, in which it
stipulates that the court may take action by ordering
Animal Services to make changes. Under 2005-25, Animal
Services must provide site inspections, re-inspect
annually, approve permits, hear potential violations,
revisit potential violations a second time if the
citizen feels that the decision was unjust and listen
to their appeal, approve obedience training
classes/instructors and the list goes on. Parts of
Ordinance No. 2005-25 is an onerous and Byzantine
structure that is being proposed in addition to a very
full existing list of responsibilities for the
Director of Animal Services.
I have no doubt that Glenn Howell could accomplish
these goals, but only if there were enough hours in
the day. I have known Glenn for several years and hold
him in high regard. Glenn is knowledgeable about
animals. However, Contra Costa County could have
another future excellent administrator in the role of
Director of Animal Services who is an effective
administrator, but who is not an animal expert or
enthusiast.
We would like to suggest some strategic steps that
could improve the County's ability to protect the
safety of residents:
of
We propose that Contra Costa County appoint an Animal
Welfare Commission to include the Director of Animal
Services, along with community members from each
district who have expertise in companion animals or
agricultural animals, and who would be willing to
serve the community.
The Animal Welfare Commission would be a
representative body acting as the eyes and ears of the
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors with regard to
animal issues within the County. The Commission would
r
be an advisory body and would make recommendations to
the Board. The Board of Supervisors would be
responsible for all policy decisions and development.
The Animal Welfare Commission could hold hearings and
submit recommendations regarding animal control and
welfare to the Board of Supervisors, including
recommendations for ways to protect the public from
dangerous animals. The Commission could study and
recommend requirements for the maintenance of animals
in public, private, and commercial care. The
Commission could work with the Tax Collector to
develop and maintain dog-licensing procedures and make
recommendations.
Regarding the specifics of the proposed Ordinance,
there are several areas which cause deep concern:
We are troubled by an ordinance that requires a permit
(Section 416-12.414) , and an annual inspection of the
premise where the animal will be housed (Section
416-12 .416) , to own a potentially dangerous or
dangerous animal, and states that the permit to own a
potentially dangerous or dangerous animal is
nontransferable (Section 416-12 .422) . However, it
creates a 48 hour delay in notifying the County of the
sale or transfer by the owner of the potentially
dangerous or dangerous dog to someone else who is not
pre-approved and whose premise has not been inspected
(Section 416-12.422 (n) (1) ) . This defeats the purpose
of the permits and inspections.
Section 416-12 .418 is problematic in mandating that
the person who makes the original decision about a
potential dangerous or dangerous animal permit is the
same person who decides if there are grounds for an
appeal and then hears that appeal. For an appeal to be
effective and reflect due process, we believe a
different party needs to review the case than the one
who made the original finding.
Although Section 416-12.436 is a description of dogs
who cannot be owned by convicted felons, we are very
troubled by the subjective and probably unenforceable
language used in this ordinance to define dangerous
dogs. For example, to specify "a dog weighing more
than 20 pounds" as potentially dangerous or to list a
dog's tolerance for pain, strength of a dog, including
jaw strength, the dog's potential propensity to bite
humans, the dogs' potential for unpredictable behavior
and the likelihood that a bite by the dog will result
in serious injury are un-provable and un-measurable
unless you engage in something kin to racial profiling
and use breed descriptions.
I am fearful that allowing such fallacious descriptors
to be written into an important ordinance undermines
the good intentions of the entire Ordinance and
unnecessarily places it and future animal legislation
on a slippery slope. Behavior by specific dogs is
provable and a more suitable basis for defining
a
dangerous dogs.
Supervisor, we applaud and support the intention of
this Ordinance to protect our community. However, I
urge you to vote "NO" on Ordinance No. 2005-25 and
refer it back to committee so that a more thoughtful
document can be presented and a subsequent ordinance
adopted that will be a source of pride for all of
Contra Costa County.
Sincerely,
Lisha Ruud
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
Trish Katz To dist4@bos.cccounty.us,distl@bos.co.contra-costa.ca.us,
y <tkatr1715@sbcglobal.net> gayle@bos.cccounty.us,dist3@bos.cccounty.us
11/12/2005 11:12 PM cc bbarnette@arf.net
bcc
Subject Dangerous Animal Ordinance No.2005-25
Dear Supervisors:
Thank you very much for writing the above proposed ordinance. I have known three people
whose dogs have been attacked by other dogs in a public area. Two of these dogs were Guide
Dog Puppies-in-Training(for Guide Dogs for the Blind, San Rafael).
While I urge you to pass this type of ordinance, I am wondering why a major animal welfare
group such as ARF was apparently not included in the development of the ordinance. I have read
Ms. Barnette's letter to you, and I feel ARF's concerns about parts of the ordinance are valid. I
also think their suggestions are worth review by the Board.
I believe our County's ordinance may receive much attention from other cities and counties
across the country,particularly if it is thoughtfully written and as enforceable and fair as possible.
I am concerned about any language that could pinpoint a particular breed and make it serve as a
scapegoat for the behavior of all dangerous dogs. Two of the attacks of which I have personal
knowledge involved Pit Bulls, and I believe there is a definitely a problem surrounding this
breed. However,I am concerned about the people who own these kinds of dogs. There are too
many who own dogs for extremely selfish reasons and have no concern for either the health and
safety of their dogs or the humans who may cross their path. But there are also responsible,
caring people who recognize the traits of their chosen dog breed and work hard to do right by
these breeds.
I respectfully request that you consider the comments and suggestions from ARE And I urge
you to pass this kind of ordinance, for the protection of humans and our pet animals alike.
Sincerely,
Trish L. H. Katz
3449 Serpentine Drive
Antioch, CA 94509
"Wayne and Wanda King" To <gayle@bos.cccounty.us>
<wwking@earthlink.net>
cc
11/12/2005 1 1:35 PM bcc
Subject Ordinance No:2005-25
Dear Supervisor Gayle B Uilkema, Chair
am an animal lover and I would ask that you please delay approving Ordinance NO:2005-25 on Nov
15th and refer it back to the committee so a better Ordinance can be presented back to you.
Thank you
Wayne King
LJHarrisFox@aol.com To Bayle@bos.cccounty.us
11/12/2005 08:45 AM cc
bcc
Subject Ordinance no.2005-25
Vote"NO"on Ordinance No.2005-25 and refer it back to committee so that a more thoughtful document can be
presented and a subsequent ordinance adopted that will be a source of pride for all of Contra Costa County.
102 0 %' •i•t�t�•� { t J r-•�}� y.F � i r,'1 T t T i� f 3� �"•r � . ,• t 1 � !` - _
01
ar•e•alwr� E*r ww•wss'w.d•if�lls�llC' �f em-.A"t Irm I• 1.rO`•WF M...rLY r.N r..,.r...•..:.st"...Mll'f'i��1t.h471{.iCi:'N��1••:•we•..,WM.IMJu►tM.1+.�r�YtiNr�M'Nt 1'L.'fY..�
{
J
t ,
-ate"�. t� t � �• j r
�- ' • i y r 1
f•
i W—.
Ci o n c o r
i 7�.�,w�1{. '.q .l11+.. •aw:'ts tiv'S1.aLr,••ir.7 r••.a•!M!!.: .. .•.. .•♦ .,y•1'r.%,•. ....• -a.•...sw.••.r-y•.+..►+:....�•.�•'1,•f•i•t•t•••rA v»•••NI n'1/+�aiM++r1r.��MMs
++ r.1��Mw.IRrtfr•T••.F Jwi i'x�►. ..�..__ _ _ .._.rt •�r ,ap' 1•1, rr,.r-••.s w-..�'•.f-_•�-•_._._-.....-,..-_........ ._ _._... .��-�..
'; C
j�� '� `1 .- •Pi4• k !�` �• t4 .}1• /{+.-'�;' t 'i t t i 1r, �'_y!• rl
�' ..�.w.........r.r+r.+.+.....,.�......r.-•--••---..�•�.-_....rte.•-__--•--'_—_-•--...._�_..._---...__._.._...... ._..._ r...,........�.r•.,. �.. .. .. .-, i
1 .. .• ......... ...:..IMI-1
{I yv 11M�t-T7/+'t� �'� �• w��rTrM/M/M/l.�MlI.fYQM'�.aMrl�.'R-&,"wAn•�y.4•F.'ri'•F--�/Wr..q+w1.r�i-r+!t•Y t irk-*44 L:•t�i•'t�.w M•rf•.••_....- . ,
;' r-s-�vrt.r,.,,t .o ...�I........w•�.,....-n.,�,,.w...r.r.s•r.wr�•taM��lw.r r t
T 0"
�f
4•
e tof
•,�� �.+� •-•. . �t�fjp(�'r• � 1 v:
t�wra•wwrtss-.t aw�ta+•ss•rar_w.c►w+a,rs.+r•wr•swr+wwn.ae•r•a•rr•�.s-t'!•t1wlt�p.m PArWW-a,..•.w•w+••�.,,w•:.�..,•.•� .. a , ...,--, .-..-.,•rr..._. :..,.:-,_ ....„...,,...�. ..r r:s-•-.•-..s.►•••..rr•••.- .-�� .•w.+_- •rr'r'r�r �:
�t
ov
�t
�' ���R�Irti'••.gVr"lt�w•r•rWy))�•r Y.�/1�.,.F.1t1'l..tN/►av h'tw�»+.YTr/�..•a..rrrY.fiia•rsi s+F•Mrsr+a.•w.•w...a.•.s.tir'.r+r..vt-.w.w w.-.. :.r,,• ,..:. r� -.. ::/....a i,•..... �,t.--......,w�•....I.....-Fr'�I"4T�-1►w+1'.gMarTr..►s�m.h• �.
�) 1
l f:
I
4w
IF J. •.,t••_•_. � ^Jj r•� .. �+ter �,
wlwwr.,we�ew�rlwrw.•pw•�•�r.e.r.�w�r+�.�trr aL>r,.s .+rwM•w.»r..rr�arNw.vw•r�w .<....a,.. .., ..r r.. .. .v ,•-._t. ... _.,.,....r-. .s•s•-w..,..,w a,-,,..-..�.wr nr ,..•..a.r+rrww r+tu�.r•.,e•.rs
I
1� jtl
(I' E N• d R IT'
t � F L` /I I'F ► 4 (t '� f y{ 3 „t' � jt ' +I
'! �� �.":. •
2 v5, Ci 7 1.
t1/13: 0.
1 V 4 .•
i
N o
f
I!
i
�! M�irllli,Ai�11:fr»r..t it•w•wI�r1R•wyr..•/�•.s,xT•:r t�"i rvntr•sar•Yi-J•.i••MO.71•ar�M'C•rfLMw-.•:YM�+w_MlM1'r•1r+Tf t+A.r!M'!, si _ i.
�, r'.•Mr.K�..t': '!7J•.tM"./'-{�.i i.•• K" ��'.t..�...s� nsi:• -. ..-..r- �••.,... ....
'" ^6711 '•++.pV••.
I IN•=.M lI.•wPVw••a
f
f
i.
"r-
--i"i-,-,
Nll
r
µ �t
's E;
µ r
NOV 14
ii t L •�
it t
i�
1�
r
i SUPERVISOR GAY!E R.U1L_t"ELt0A
n Y
;
r,
11
�It"i>rA1r �•
�'^�Jr�yt�•��'��Y�'iSl•�'7�".71.'�'.1•.fal���.`:1! ... •e.• _
�nt�crTa.�I'�'i4'f'f:�tT'AM�!•I►e•sw�Stc/r�l�..:.r• 'f p. .. � r r,-.. • _
r.• r i.., Ait". �liifi....,.r.T:+�h:7tltlTtp:n+ "l �If1
r 0, T C. 1,;
p i F1
410 v T" '-
crn.OF cow-olm
ti..� .
Hoffijiei,�(er,N1
1950 ParWide,Drlvtr.,MS,40
wordCalifoTylla 9 4
')5,)
A 4
-ter -on
A i... rt
1:4 n-i 1-1)hilITI
sr J,ehp-w n 'CATv Clc-rk
A
A I *k
0MCT,OF THE MAYOR h r)T-r_-,k �Verid'lit
S V��—- :P JW C
4 t: 11j"i ow 11c,
4L f .;:j,"
#
Telepborw: (1925*.S 671-"1`
D B r CAN'
Novemher 10...
H
r4
J IJ
Cont "ect-,a
C/o C)
c { t�� E■ , t r# d�. {. .. t rL+� t}v.�'rr
6 P
Mart
. k J�4
Q S ub.,0 11%1 A d o f 01 e 4
Dea-r C11-6f anivt N''.1embc,
P
As
vA
mirnal"Mavor of Ole C'I.A. C.,mi.cord... 1' L I
0
v Owl
v I The. CA
Orth nance that the Dwird "fill re-vit�,v C%.� 0,V ty of
U
mm
a s;
uoncoj-d havc,:1- I_fIC-Im '41biected, to
I lot
w.&Wus
that have fliffic-ed and near-'* 1.
t ^I t''f- �-. -:t.� ` �1•-Lt - +11-i♦ 4{ * -, �•�"�v '*•} --' �f L+ !+ F�?. !•- *� f t �E-tacked
C-T
0
u"11-%S1 1U, the
j. l
3.t t I J i rl (a,x
S
i r
F1 d 1,1
"4, 1 IL
%
z
jj.VV' w as flat
S C n cl t
t
1A i- .ti �...ost")h 4o-,-y u 4A
fir u
t 0 1 7
A -o I I k*n h r
al 1 1.
a
Th
4- 4 4A- 6
j j-' • • )Ut to
0 1j
a r
--ords, rr'I'l-tw d b-v f h, 'jwi6�_)),
us
v: I r I
t. I t