1183 RESOLLTTION N4. 1183
A RESOLUTION OF TI� CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS AFF�RMING THE DECISION OF 'THE CITY
MANAGER IN THE OSTRIKER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL
CASE ORDERING THE CONFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE
OWNER,S' PROPERTY AND MODIFYING THE DECISION BY
ALLOWFNG 'TI� OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A LEASH
UNDER SPECIF'IED CIRCUMSTANCES.
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 pi�rsuant ta the
authority and procedures set forth in Chapter 6.24 of Title 6 of the Rolli�g Hills Municipal Cade,
entided "Aggressive 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 maie Spaniel named
Azul ("the dog"}, owned by Dr. Jeffrey Ostriker {"Qwner"), who reside at 27 Caballeros Road in the
City of Rolling Hi�ls ("City"}.
SecEion 3. The course of events that led to this proceeding are summanized as follows, more
de�ailed descriptions of which can be found in the City Council staff report dated March 14, 2016 and
the attachments tl�ereto, a�l of which are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference as though
fuliy set forth:
A. Upon receipt oF a complaint on December 18, 2D 15 from Mr. Matthew Chaisson, $ Crest
Road East, an investigatian conducted by the City Manager and the Los Angeles County Department of
Animal Caxe and Control {the "Depar#ment") determined that on December 11, 3015, Azul had, while
off the Ostriker's property, engaged in an aggressive act (an attack) against Mr. Chaison's chicken,
killing it in an unprovoked attack. Pursuant to Section 6.24.050, the City Manager, in his tetter to the
-�' Ostriker's dated February 3, 2016, determined that the nuisance allegations had merit and based on the
severity of the attack and the fact that Azul killed the chicken, ordered Azul permanently confined to
the Ostx�iker's property and uder a restraint of a leash by a person capable of controlling Azi�l when off
the Ostriker property.
Section 4. Pursuant to Section 6.24.070, the Owners appealed the City Manager's orde�r of
Febr�ary 3, 2416. A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for and conducted on March �4, 2Q16. The
City Council received a written staff report cantaining numerous attachments a�d correspondence from
the Owners and a report from the Los Angeles County Depart�nent of Animal Care and Control.
Testifying at the hearing were the City Manager and the Owners. The City Couricil reviewed and
cansidered alI of the written and oral evidence submitted in the matter prior to making its decision.
Section 5. Based on all o:f the foregoing,the City Council makes the following factual findings:
A. Az�il by all accounts has a history of aggressive behaviar towards chickens. Evidence
suggests that Azul has beeri in�olved in aggressive behavior towards Mr. Chaisson's chickens prior to
this event, but Mr. Chaisson chose not to fi�e a complaint for an attack prior #o this e�ent. This is the
first confirmed attack by Azu1.
B. The evidence shows that Azul killed Mr. Chaisson's chicken during the Decernber 1,
2015 incident.
Section 6. In addition to the faregoing findings, the City Council draws the following
conclusions frorn the evidence:
A. Animal Control Officer Laridas thraugh her report conf rmed that Azul killed the
chick�n. Hawever, she found Azul frFendly and there is no history tha�he has attacked humans or other
types af animals other than chickens.
B. The City Council finds that if aliowed to roam free near the Chaisson's property or any
other property where chickens may be located, Azul may pose a risk of har.m to chickens. An attack by
a dog against another animal is unacceptable in a community without a leash law. Tlae evidence shows
�hat the atta.ck occurred, and that future aggressive behavior is possible.
R�sa�ution No. 1183 _i_
C. At the hearing of March 14, 2016, the Owners were directed by the City Cauncil that
Azul must be permanently confined to the Owner's property. The Owner must also maintain the
perimeter fencing in proper working order.
D. Dr. Ostriker testified that he is disabled and unable to walk his dogs by u�ilizing a leash.
E. Dr. �s#riker testified that if permitted to walk Azul without a leash,he will not travel near
the Chaisson's home with Azul. Further, Dr. Ostriker stated for the record that he will assume financial
responsibility for any damages if Azul harms a chicken while off leash.
Section 7. The City Council hereby affirms the decision of the City Manager requiring that Dr.
Ostriker permanently confir�e Azul to his property and maintain the perimeter fencing on the property in
proper working order. The City Council hereby modifies the decision of the City Manager based on the
evidence received de novo at its hearing of March 14, 2416 pursuant to Section 6.24.070 relieving Dr.
�striker of the requirement that Azul be restrained by a leash when being walked by Dr. Ostriker
himself, so long as he remains more than 300 feet from the property line af the Chaisson home and any
other residence that keeps chickens. Except when being walked by Dr. Ostriker himself, Azul must be
restrained by a leash by a peson cabpable of con�rolling Azul when off the Ostriker property. Violations
of any of tl�e provisions of this Resolufiion or failure of confining devices that cause Azul to escape the
confinement of the Osktiker property shall be investiga�ed pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.24A9Q
of the Rolling Hilis Municipal Code.
PA5SED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11�'day of April, 2016.
ea Diermger
Mayor
ATTEST:
�1 „ �� „ ���, � �°
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Resolution No. 11$3 -2-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ROLLING HII,LS )
The foregoing Resolution No. 11$3 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HII.LS
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE
OSTRIKER/CHAISSON AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL CASE ORDERING THE
C�NFINEMENT OF AZUL TO THE OWNERS' PR�PERTY AND MODIFYING
THE DECISION BY ALLOWING THE OWNER TO WALK AZUL WITHOUT A
LEASH LTNDER SPEC�F'IED CIRCUMSTANCES.
was approved and adopted at a :regular meeting of the City Council on April 11, 2Q16, by the follow�ing
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembe�rs Black,Mirsch,Pieper, Wilson and Mayor Dseringer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
�
Heidi Luce
City Clerk
Resolution No. 1183 -3-