Board of Administrative Appeals

Agenda prepared by: City Clerk (925) 779-7009 BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PANEL Council Chambers 200 “H” Street AUGUST 2, 2012 3:00 P.M. 3:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Diana Busenbarrick, Chairperson Deborah Simpson, Vice Chairperson Andrew Schleder Mike Schneider PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. CONSENT CALENDAR A. APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS MINUTES FOR JUNE 7, 2012 Recommended Action: Motion to approve the minutes STAFF REPORT 2. APPEALS A. CITATION NO. 30277 – Appeal of Administrative Citation issued regarding No Current Dog License on Display, No Proof of Rabies Vaccination, and Permitting a Dog to Roam at Large for Pamela Wilson, 4920 Chaps Court, Antioch, CA [§6-1.15, §6-1.12.2, §6- 1.20(c)] STAFF REPORT PUBLIC COMMENTS WRITTEN/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES BEFORE ENTERING COUNCIL CHAMBERS. The meetings are accessible to those with disabilities. Auxiliary aides will be made available for persons with hearing or vision disabilities upon request in advance at (925) 779-7009 or TDD (925) 779-7081. Agenda and related writings provided to members are available for viewing by the public during normal office hours at the City Clerk’s Office, located on the 1st Floor of City Hall, 200 H Street, Antioch, CA 94509.  BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PANEL Regular Meeting June 7, 2012 3:00 p.m. Council Chambers Chairperson Busenbarrick called the meeting to order at 3:02 P.M. on Thursday, June 7, 2012 in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairperson Busenbarrick, Board Members Simpson, Schleder, and Schneider Staff Present: City Clerk, Denise Skaggs Acting Deputy City Clerk, Christina Garcia City Attorney, Lynn Tracy Nerland Minutes Clerk, Kitty Eiden Antioch Animal Control Officer, Ada Gomez Supervisor of Animal Services, Monika Helgemo PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson Busenbarrick led the Board, staff, and public in the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR A. APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS MINUTES FOR APRIL 26, 2012 On motion by Board Member Schneider, seconded by Board Member Simpson, the Board of Administrative Appeals approved the Minutes of April 26, 2012, as presented. The motion carried the following vote: Ayes: Schneider, Simpson, Busenbarrick Abstain: Schleder 2. APPEALS A. CITATION NO. 30040 – Appeal of Administrative Citation issued regarding No Dog Licensing, No Proof of Rabies Vaccination, and Excessive Barking of two dogs for Jennifer Campbell, 5116 Equestrian Way, Antioch, CA [§6-1.20(b), §6-12.2, §6-1.18] City Attorney Nerland clarified the process for hearing the appeals. Animal Control Officer Gomez presented the staff report dated June 7, 2012, recommending the Administrative Appeals Board uphold the Administrative Citation for the violation of Antioch Municipal Codes § 6-1.20(b), 6-12.2 and 6-1.18. A 08-02-12 BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS Regular Meeting June 7, 2012 Page 2 of 6 In response to Chairperson Busenbarrick, Officer Gomez clarified with regards to foster dogs, any person owning, harboring, or possessing an animal for 30 days or longer was required to license the animal and provide rabies vaccinations. APPELLANT Jennifer Campbell speaking to the violation for not licensing foster dog, “Bogart”, stated he was only in her care for approximately 10 days; therefore she was not responsible for licensing. She noted both dogs were current on their rabies vaccinations. With regards to “Trinity”, she was not current on her license; however, she intended to license her immediately after she was spayed. She reported the majority of time, she had taken her pets to work with her and she had purchased and attached a kennel to her garage side door to secure the dogs when they were left at home. She noted leaving the dogs in the kennel was done on a trial basis to determine if they could be left while she went to work and that was when the barking complaints began. She further noted her surrounding neighbors indicated they had not heard her dogs barking. She stated “Bogart” had since been adopted. She reported after purchasing bark collars for “Trinity” which had not worked, she had her surgically debarked to resolve this issue. She stated she accepted responsibility however, due to the cost incurred to remedy the situation, she asked for a re-evaluation of the citation. In response to Chairperson Busenbarrick, Ms. Campbell stated many attempts to contact Antioch Animal Control were unsuccessful, as she had not received any response to messages she had left. She noted working 8-6, Monday – Friday did not allow her the opportunity to take proof of the vaccinations to Animal Services. In response to Board Member Schneider, Ms. Campbell clarified “Bogart” was in her care for approximately two weeks. In response to Board Member Simpson, Ms. Campbell stated she had attempted to call Animal Services to ask about the citation and get a fax number to send in the vaccination certificates. She noted after she had received the citation, she immediately had “Trinity” licensed and she had her father drop the paperwork off at Animal Services. Ms. Campbell provided the Board with receipts for the bark collars and kennel as well as the veterinary bill for spaying and debarking “Trinity”. She reported she had only left “Trinity” since she had been debarked and she would no longer be fostering dogs. In response to Board Member Schneider, Mr. Campbell stated Trinity cannot bark and she was completely enclosed when left alone during the day; therefore the situation was completely rectified. In response to Board Member Simpson, Ms. Campbell stated that since she had received the notice to correct, she had tried to leave work to deliver the paperwork and she had been unable to do so. She noted she had then asked her father to purchase the license for “Trinity” BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS Regular Meeting June 7, 2012 Page 3 of 6 as soon as he was able to do so. She further noted she took responsibility for the delay in getting the paperwork completed. In response to Chairperson Busenbarrick, Ms. Campbell stated she understood the importance of becoming informed of City Codes related to pets. REBUTTAL Officer Gomez reported the license for “Trinity” was purchased on April 4, 2012 and the Administrative Citation was given on March 17, 2012. She clarified the Animal Shelter was opened on Saturdays from 10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M. She commented that she had never received any messages from Ms. Campbell and her only contact with her was when the appeal was filed and she provided the City with proof of rabies. She noted she received an email from the reporting party on May 18, 2012 stating the barking had improved, however, he continued to deal with some barking. In response to the Board, Officer Gomez noted from her experience vocal cords could grow back. She reported she had made sure the complaining party had verified the address and she had verified the barking herself, the second time she responded to the residence. She reiterated the City’s request was for the Board to uphold the citation. She reported the City requires a dog to be licensed 30 days after coming into the City; however her citation was for 10 days. REBUTTAL Ms. Campbell clarified due to debarking; “Trinity” was unable to make any noise. Board Member Schneider stated Ms. Campbell had made considerable financial effort to remedy the situation; therefore he supported the citation be mitigated. Board Member Simpson stated she felt the appellant had the opportunity to rectify this situation through Animal Services on a Saturday. She noted she was given a warning and 10 days to comply, which she had failed to do. She noted she had managed to file the appeal in a timely manner. Board Member Schleder agreed that the Appellant had spent a considerable amount of money to remedy the situation, which should be considered. Chairperson Busenbarrick commented most costs incurred were the price of dog ownership and the citation was for a correctable situation. A motion was made by Board Member Simpson and seconded by Chairperson Busenbarrick to deny the Appeal of Citation Number 30041. The motion failed by the following vote: BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS Regular Meeting June 7, 2012 Page 4 of 6 Ayes: Busenbarrick, Simpson Noes: Schneider, Schleder City Attorney Nerland clarified the appeal failed due to the fact it is the appellants responsibility to get three votes to uphold the appeal. Therefore at this point, she would be responsible for paying the $500.00 citation. She noted she had the burden of proof to overturn the appeal, which had not occurred. On motion by Board Member Schneider, seconded by Board Member Schleder, the Board of Administrative Appeals upheld the appeal waiving the Citation for §6-1-12-2 No Rabies Proof x 2 dogs. The motion carried the following vote: Ayes: Busenbarrick, Schneider and Schleder Noes: Simpson City Attorney Nerland stated staff would prepare a modified Decision indicating the Board’s action, which would be signed and sent to the Appellant. Chairperson Busenbarrick declared a recess at 3:42 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 3:47 P.M. with all Board Members present. City Attorney Nerland announced the Board of Administrative Appeals was a volunteer board made up of residents of the City of Antioch who receive no compensation. She reported the dog owner, Mr. Flores, arrived today and requested an interpreter. Acting Deputy City Clerk Christina Garcia had volunteered to serve in that position and Mr. Flores had agreed. B. APPEAL to reverse “Potentially Dangerous Animal” decision for dog “Mono” (A506433), for Adan Flores, 1150 Rockspring Way, Antioch [§6-1.22 (A)(b)] Animal Control Officer Gomez presented staff report dated June 7, 2012, recommending the Board uphold the Declaration of “Potentiality Dangerous Animal” under Municipal Code § 6-1- 22 (A) (b). City Attorney Nerland reported on the dais was a revised proposed Decision for the Board in this matter. APPELLANT Mr. Flores stated he believed his dog was not aggressive and reported his dog had no incidence of biting since he was a puppy. He provided the Board with a description of the Samoyed breed indicating they were good with children and showed a video of “Mono” playing with children. He noted the report indicated there was no medical needed for the bite received. He stated that when he initially signed the paperwork, he did not understand the definition of surrendering the dog. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS Regular Meeting June 7, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Chairperson Busenbarrick clarified with the concurrence of Shelter staff that if the dog was surrendered, it would be euthanized. Mr. Flores stated he had reconsidered surrendering his dog and planned on complying with the Terms and Conditions within the Declaration of “Potentially Dangerous Animal”, however, he had been unemployed and doing so was a financial hardship. He reiterated he did not believe his dog was potentially dangerous. REPORTING PARTY - VICTIM Sarah Brambrey, Antioch resident, reported the dog “Mono” had gained access to her backyard at 3:30 P.M. by breaking out fence boards on April 30 2012, and noted when she entered the yard at that time, the dog exited back through the fence. She further noted when she went into the backyard later that morning; the dog charged her and had bitten her hand. She then contacted the Antioch Police Department who arrived and took a report. She stated as a result of the bite, she had been hospitalized with cellulitis. She commented that she believed the dog was dangerous and if given the opportunity to roam the neighborhood, it would harm others. She clarified the report indicated “no medical needed” referred to her declining an ambulance. REBUTTAL Officer Gomez clarified the issue before the Board was that the dog being off its property and whether it had the potential to be dangerous. In response to Board Member Simpson, Officer Gomez stated Officer Ward had observed that the dog had come through three fences to enter Ms. Brambrey’s yard. In response to Board Member Schneider, Mr. Flores stated his financial situation had not changed. If the citation was upheld, he would be unable financially to comply with the terms and conditions therefore he would have to surrender the dog. He reiterated the dog was playful and he had never been aggressive in the past. In response to Board Member Simpson, Mr. Flores stated the cost of the kennel would cause a financial difficulty. He noted he would be able to buy insurance however he had not called to get prices. City Attorney Nerland clarified for this hearing, the Board would determine if the dog was “Potentially Dangerous” or “Vicious”. She noted the owner’s course of action following that determination could occur at a future time. Chairperson Busenbarrick closed the floor to public comment. BOARD OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS Regular Meeting June 7, 2012 Page 6 of 6 Board Member Schneider stated the owner had failed to take any action to secure the dog therefore he supports the City’s recommendation to deem the dog “Potentially Dangerous”. Chairperson Busenbarrick stated with the medical expenses and photos presented by the victim, she felt the dog was “Potentially Dangerous”. Board Member Schneider stated a dog that size could have done significantly more damage; if he meant harm. Board Member Simpson stated part of the medical treatment could have been precautionary. She noted for a dog that size she did not feel the bites were vicious in nature. Supervisor of Animal Services Helgemo discussed steps taken to reach the conclusion “Mono” was a “Potentially Dangerous” dog which then placed a stipulation to provide a kennel for the dog to prevent him from getting loose when left unattended. She noted other stipulations were the general costs associated with pet ownership. She stated it was the dogs’ action that put him in violation and noted she had witnessed this dog being very reactive and fence fighting with other dogs. She stated if the dog were declared a “Potentially Dangerous” animal and after three years there were no complaints and he does not violate any of the stipulations, the “Potentially Dangerous” title would come off of the dog “Mono”. Chairperson Busenbarrick stated she felt the terms are common sense pet ownership responsibilities. On motion by Board Member Simpson, seconded by Board Member Schneider, the Board of Administrative Appeals unanimously upheld the determination that the dog was “Potentially Dangerous” and denied the appeal. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None WRITTEN/ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Busenbarrick adjourned the Administrative Board of Appeals meeting at 4:42 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Respectfully Submitted, __________________________ DENISE SKAGGS City Clerk