0954RESOLUTION NO. 954
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
AFFIRMING TH� DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER AND ORDERING THE
PERMANENT REMOVAL OF A DOG (PUMBAA)FROM THE CITY
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. The proceedings described in this Resolution were conducted pursuant to the
authority and procedures set forth in Chapter 6.24 of Title 6 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code, entitled "Dogs Attacking Persons or Animals." All "section" references in this
Resolution are to sections contained in Chapter 6.24.
Section 2. The subject of the proceedings described in this Resolution is a black chow
named Pumbaa ("the dog"), owned by Ricardo and Mariam Huete ("Owners"), who reside at
36 Chuckwagon Road in the City of Rolling Hills ("City").
Section 3. The course of events that led to this proceeding are summarized as follows,
more detailed descriptions of which can be found in the staff report dated May 24, 2004 and
the attachments thereto, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference
as though fully set forth:
A. Pumbaa has been the subject of a confinement order since October 12, 2001, at
which time the City Man.ager ordered the dog confined to the property due to Pumbaa's attack
on and injury to a dog owned by Mr. and Mrs. David Long at 40 Chuckwagon Road.
B. Upon receipt of a complaint on February 19, 2004 from Mr. and Mrs. Donovan
Black, an investigation conducted by the City Manager and the Los Angeles County
Department of Animal Care and Control (the "Department") determined that on February 17,
2004 Pumbaa had, while off the Huetes property, engaged in an aggressive act (an attack)
against the Black's dog on the Black's property. The investigation of this incident further
revealed, based on statements from neighbors, that despite the October 12, 2001 confinement
order, the Owners were routinely allowing the dog to roam free of restraint off their property
in the neighborhood. Neighbors indicated that Pumbaa has a tendency to exhibit aggressive
behavior towards other dogs. Further, the investigation revealed that Pumbaa was unlicensed
at the time of the February 17 incident referred to in paragraph A. Pursuant to Section 6.24.030,
the City Manager, in his letter to the Owners dated March 26, 2004, determined that the
nuisance allegations had merit and based on the severity of the 2001 attack on the Longs' dog
and the consistency of the reports and complaints, ordered Pumbaa removed from the City.
Section 4. Pursuant to Section 6.24.040, the Owners appealed the City Manager's order
of March 26, 2004. A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for and conducted on May 24, 2004.
The City Council received a written staff report containing numerous attachments,
correspondence from the Owners and correspondence from Mr. and Ms. Lynn and Sheri Gill,
Ms. Sharon Minkes and Mr. Dave Long. Testifying at the hearing were the Owners Dr.
Ricardo Huete and Ms. Mariam Huete, Dr. Mark Minkes, Mr. Dave Long, Mr. Donovan Black,
Ms. Nancy Black, and Los Angeles County Animal Control Officer Dennis Smith. The City
Council reviewed and considered all of the written and oral evidence submitted in the matter
prior to making its decision.
Section 5. Based on all of the foregoing, the City Council makes the following factual
findings:
A. Pumbaa is well known in the neighborhood for roaming off the Owners'
property, and for his aggressive behavior towards other dogs. Neighbors without exception
expressed their fear of the dog's aggressiveness and his propensity towards attack behavior.
B. While running loose, Pumbaa attacked a dog on the Black property. At that
time, Pumbaa was unlicensed, itself alone a ground for removal from the City pursuant to
Section 6.24.030. Mr. Donovan Black and Ms. Nancy Black witnessed the incident. The dogs
were separated before Pumbaa inflicted any injuries to the Black's dog.
C. Despite the City Manager's October 12, 2001 order that the dog be confined to
the property unless under the control of a leash by a person capable of handling the dog, the
Owners allowed the Pumbaa to roam free off their property and failed to take reasonable
precautions or measures necessary to confine the dog to their property. The testimony
supports the finding that the dog was seen on numerous occasions off the property and
exhibited aggressive behavior. Mrs. Huete admitted to Officer Smith and to the City Manager
during the investigation, and to the City Council in the course of the hearing that she allowed
Resolution No. 954 -1-
Pumbaa to run free off the property. Although she testified that she only did so late at night in
order to give the dog exercise, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the finding that Pumbaa
has been frequently seen roaming during daytime hours.
D. The Owners do not dispute any of the foregoing findings, and admit to being
aware of the behavior of the dog, and of complaints by people in the neighborhood. The
Owners assert that Pumbaa has never attacked or injured a person, but that he only exhibits
aggressive behavior towards dogs with whom he does not get along, and has not injured
another dog since the 2001 incident. The Owners testified that Pumbaa has been confined
since the February incident.
Section 6. In addition to the foregoing findings, the City Council draws the following
conclusions from the evidence:
A. Pumbaa has displayed a history of antisocial and aggressive behavior. Residents
in the neighborhood fear the dog. The two incidents described above show the dog to be
hostile. Animal Control Officer Smith testified that in his experience and based on his
knowledge, Pumbaa is likely to commit future attacks if roaming free.
B. The Owners were given an opportunity to keep Pumbaa by confining him to
their property unless leashed. The evidence is overwhelming, including admissions by the
Owners, that they failed to take reasonable precautions to control their dog and in fact violated
the City Manager's. order.
C. The City Council finds that if allowed to remain in the City, Pumbaa would
continue to pose a risk of harm to other animals. The precautions proposed by the Owners
are, in the judgment of the Council, insufficient to ameliorate the risk posed by the dog. Even
if confined, Pumbaa could easily escape if a door is accidentally left open or ajar. Based on his
past behavior, it is reasonably foreseeable that if he escapes, the dog will leave the property
and engage in aggressive behavior.
D. The continued presence of Pumbaa in the City poses a risk to the life and safety
of other domestic animals in the City. However repentant the Owners may be, the facts fully
support and justify the City Manager's order that the dog be removed from the City.
E. Nothing herein prevents the Owners from acquiring another dog that is more
suited to the environment of the City and more compatible with other domesticated animals.
Section 7. The City Council hereby upholds the decision of the City Manager, and
based on the evidence received de novo at its hearing of May 24, 2004, pursuant to Section
6.24.040 hereby orders the dogs permanently removed from the City by not later than July 14,
2004.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED th
ATTEST:
MARILYN 6RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 954 -2-
MAYOR
1
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ��
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 954 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER AND ORDERING THE
PERMANENT REMOVAL OF A DOG (PUMBAA) FROM THE CITY
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on June 14, 2004,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Black, Hill, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell
and Mayor Heinsheimer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Lay.
ABSTAIN: None .
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 954 -3-