Loading...
1235.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 1235 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE APPEAL FILED BY GORDON AND NANCY INMAN AND ORDERING REMOVAL OF THE BOXER (LULU) 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 ("RHMC"), entitled "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 female Boxer named LuLu("the dog"), owned by Gordon and Nancy Inman("Owners"),who reside at 11 Caballeros Road in the City of Rolling Hills ("City"). Section 3. The incident giving rise to this appeal constitutes the third incident investigated by the City since the first incident on February 2, 2013. The first incident occured on February 2, 2013 at 10:15 a.m. when the dog lunged and barked at Mohan Bhasker's 90 year old father and his caretaker while walking near and around 11 Caballeros Road. On February 8, 2013, Mr. Bhasker filed a report on behalf of his father. In response to that incident, then Interim City Manager, Steve Burrell, ordered that the dog be confined to the Owners' property or be under the control of a leash when off the property. The second incident occurred on August 13, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. when the dog began fighting the dogs being walked by Kathleen Hughes. The fighting resulted in a bite to Ms. Hughes' leg. In response to that incident, then Interim City Manager Burrell ordered that the dog be permanently removed from the City subject to a stay if the dog was enrolled in and completed an obedience/behavior modification training program. The order permanently removing the dog from the City would be extinguished upon enrollment and completion of the training program, but would be reinstated if the dog was later to escape again and be the subject of a complaint: That LuLu shall be permanently removed from the City. That the permanent removal order will be stayed if you enroll LuLu in an obedience/behavior modification training program approved by the Director of Animal Control. A certificate of completion and sta.tement from the dog trainer certifying LuLu is not likely to commit an attack on a person or other animal shall be submitted to the City Manager on or before October 31, 2013. Failure to provide LuI,u the required training and to submit the certificate by this deadline will cause immediate reinstatement of the removal order. Once a certificate of completion and certification by the dog trainer is received the Order Permanently Removing LuLu from the City will be extinguished. However, the e�sting confinement order will remain in place, and if LuLu was later to escape again and be the subject of a complaint, the removal order will be reinstated and LuLu will have to be removed from the City within 10 days. Section 4. The course of events that led to this proceeding are summarized as follows, more detailed descriptions of which can be found in the City Council staff report dated March 25, 2019 and the attachments thereto, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Resolution by reference as though fully set forth: the City received a complaint report on January 29, 2019 from Virginia Letts (12 Caballeros Road) alleging that, on January 27, 2019, Mr. and Mrs. Inman's dog LuLu (described as "brown/black" dog)ran out barking and growling and then bit Ms. Letts' left thigh breaking the skin and resulting in bleeding. Ms. Letts reported that the Mrs. Inman came out and said she saw the bite on Ms. Letts' left thigh with two puncture wounds and extensive bleeding. Ms. Letts further reported that her daughter called her doctor, who advised Ms. Letts to wash the wound for thirty minutes and to take prescribed antibiotics. Section 5. Pursuant to RHMC Section 6.24.040, the City Manager, Elaine Jeng, immediately forwarded a copy of the complaint to the Owners with notification that the dog was the subject of an aggressive animal investigation. Resolution No. 1235 -1- Section___6. Pursuant to RHMC Section 6.24.040(B), City Manager Jeng conducted an investigation that at a minimum consisted of review and consideration of the complaint, statements, information, and other evidence presented by the Owners, Ms. Letts, witnesses, and other parties and considered the factors set forth in Section 6.24.010(d). The course of the investigation is summarized as follows: A. On February 4, 2019, City staff called Mrs. Inman. In the conversation with Mrs. Inma.n, city staff informed Mrs. Inman that an animal complaint report was submitted by Ms. Letts for an incident that occurred on January 27, 2019. Mrs. Inman noted that she was at the scene of the incident but was not aware that Ms. Letts was bitten by the dog, noting that she walked Ms. Letts home. Shortly after the incident, Los Angeles County Animal Care & Control (Animal Control)visited Mrs. Inman and inspected the Inman's broken gate. Mrs. Inman noted that the broken gate was the reason that the dog escaped. B. On February 4, 2019, City staff called Ms. Letts. In the conversation with Ms. Letts, she noted that initially she was not aware that she was bitten by the dog. After the dog charged Ms. Letts, Mrs. Inman came out from her residence and took the dog away. Ms. Letts called Animal Control and gave a report. Ms. Letts expressed to City staff that she is concerned for her safety when walking on her street. Ms. Letts also reported that on Friday, February 1, 2019, Mrs. Inman left a plant outside of her house with note apologizing for the incident. C. On February 4, 2019, City staff received a call from Ms. Hughes, a neighbor of Ms. Letts. Ms. Hughes reported that she previously filed a complaint against the dog. Ms. Hughes reported that the dog came off its leash from the backyard and got into a fight with Ms. Hughes' dog and then bit Ms. Hughes. Ms. Hughes noted that the Owners came out to stop the dog and offered to pay for Ms. Hughes' torn and bloody jeans. A week later, on February 11, 2019, Ms. Hughes spoke at the City Council meeting indicating that her incident involving the dog occured in 2013. D. On February 21, 2019, City staff conducted an in office meeting with the Owners to discuss the dog's history. At this meeting, city staff provided the Owners with a copy of the complaint against the dog dated February 8, 2013 and filed by Mr. Bhasker on behalf of his 90 year old father and a copy of the complaint against the dog dated August 14, 2013 and filed by Ms. Hughes. The Owners provided City staff with eight photographs of the gates around their property to secure the dog, including tlie gate from which the dog escaped when the dog bit Ms. Letts. The photographs show the repairs of the gate and the new door before the front lobby of the Owners' residence to add a layer of security before accessing the front door. Two separate photographs were provided showing the dog with the Owners' grandchildren when they were an infant and a toddler. The Owners also provided literature on dog training services and noted that they would be sending the dog to a trainer. Mr. Inman indicated that due to recent medicial procedures, he was unable to exercise the dog on a daily basis and that according to literature from the dog training service, exercise is a very important part of the solution to almost all behavior problems. E. On February 25, 2019, City staff received an email from Pam Crane (10 Caballeros Road) regarding the dog's temperament. Ms. Crane expressed that the dog attack incident involving Ms. Letts on January 27, 2019 was very unfortunate. She further expressed that she was present at the dog attack incident involving Ms. Hughes in 2013 and that Ms. Hughes' leg got in the way of the scuffling of the two dogs, which were not intending to bite any person. Ms. Crane expressed that the dog is a sweet dog with high energy that needs lots of exercise. F. After March 5, 2019, City staff located and reviewed a letter dated August 27, 2013 from former Interim City Manager Burrell to Mr. Inman, and a follow up letter dated October 24, 2013 from former Interim City Manager Burrell to Mr. Inman with an order permanently removing the dog from the City. The removal order was stayed because Mr. Inman sent the dog to an obedience/behavior modification training. The letter also noted that if the dog were to escape again and be the subject of a complaint, the removal order would be reinstated and the dog would have to be removed from the City within 10 days. Section 7. After reviewing the evidence gathered during the investigation, City Manager Jeng determined that Ms Letts' complaint was meritorious and that the Owners violated the conditions placed on the dog by former Interim City Manager Burrell; the dog escaped and was the subject of another complaint. In view of RHMC Sections 6.24.040(C) and 6.24.060, the City Manager ordered that the dog be removed from the City within 10 days from March 8, 2019. On Monday, March 1 l, 2019, the City issued a removal order to the Owners to remove the dog 10 days from March 8, 2019. Resolution No. 1235 -2- Section 8. Pursuant to Section 6.24.070, the Owners appealed the City Manager's order. A hearing on the appeal was scheduled for and conducted on March 25, 2019. The City Council received a written sta.ff report containing numerous attachments, including the following: 1) animal complaint report dated February 6, 2013; 2) animal complaint report dated August 14, 2013; 3) animal complaint report dated January 29, 2019; 4) photographs provided by Owners; 5) Doggie's 911 literature provided by Owners; 6) letter from Ms. Crane; 7) City letter to Owners dated February 12, 2013; S) City letter to Owners dated August 14, 2013; 9) City letter to Owners dated August 27, 2013; 10) City letter to owners dated October 24, 2013; 11) City letter to Owners dated March 11, 2019; 12) Owners' letter to City dated March 15, 2019; and 13) City letter to Owners dated March 18, 2019. The City Council also received documents from the Owners, including the following: 1) a quote for an invisible fence; 2) a letter from Sandy Riggs (dog walker for the dog) dated March 23, 2019; 3) a letter from Stephen Nuccion, M.D. (an Orthopedic and Spine Center physician) dated March 13, 2019; and 4) Mr. Inman's medical records realting to MRI of his left shoulder dated June 14, 2018 and MRI of his lumber spine dated May 30, 2018 and instructions for scheduling surgery. Testifying at the hearing were Mr. Inman (the dog owner) and Pam Crane (neighbor). The City Council reviewed and considered all of the written and oral evidence submitted in the matter prior to making its decision. Section 9. Based on all of the foregoing,the City Council makes the following factual fmdings: A. Since February 6, 2013, three complaints relating to the dog's aggressive behavior have been filed with the City. B. On August 27, 2013, former Interim City Manager Burrell ordered the dog permanently removed from the City but stayed enforcement upon completion and certification of training unless the dog "was later to escape again and be the subject of a complaint." C. On January 27, 2019, Ms. Letts sustained an injury to her left thigh. Ms. Letts submitted a photograph of her injury reflecting puncture wounds on her left thigh. The photograph verifies the serious nature of the incident D. On February 21, 2019,the Owners submitted photographs of the gate from which the dog escaped on January 27, 2019. E. On Maxch 25, 2019, Mr. Inman testified and did not deny that the dog is responsible for the attack against Ms. Letts. In mitigation, Mr. Inman argued that the dog is an emotional support animal necessary for his emotional and physical well-being. Mr. Inman submitted letters from an orthopedic and spine center physician as to Mr. Inman's emotional and physicial condition and need for the medical and emotional support dog and from the dog's walker to the effect that the dog is not aggressive towards people. Mr. Inman expressed a willingness to install an invisible fence around his property and also submitted a quote for such fence. Section 10. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council draws the following conclusions from the evidence: A. The dog has a history of aggressive behavior. B. The dog escaped from the Owners' property and was the subject of another complaint since former Interim City Manager Burrell's stayed order removing the dog from the City. C. The dog attacked and bit Ms. Letts' left thigh on January 27, 2019. D. The City Council finds that the dog poses a serious potential to harm humans and other domestic animals within the City. The evidence shows without doubt that the attack on Ms. Letts occurred and that future aggressive behavior is likely regardless of reinforced gates and an invisible fence. E. The Owners have violated the conditions imposed by former Interim City Manager Burrell, resulting in injury to Ms. Letts and causing fear and alarm among their neighbors. Former Interim City Manager Burrell's order removing the dog from the City is thereby reinstated. F. The Council is sympathetic to Mr. Inman's feelings for the dog and his asserted need for an emotional support animal. That said, and however beneficial that may be to Mr. Inman, the dog presents a real and serious threat to humans in the community. On Resolution No. 1235 -3- balance, and given the history of attacks, the consequences of a potential future attack outweigh the benefits that the dog provides to Mr. Inman. Notwithstanding Mr. Inman's affection for the dog, if necessary, Mr. Inman can replace the dog with another emotional support animal; the same cannot be said for the effects of potential future attacks—which could include injuries or further death—which cannot be undone. Section 11. Consequently, and based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby affirms the decision of the City Manager requiring that the Owners permanently remove the dog from the City immediately. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April,2019. ;` ;i� -��� � r�� � ,,�;� °.�,. � �!��_�'� k, �''��'�:�%��� LEAH MIRS,�''I-1'' Mayor � ATTEST: - ity ' rk Resolution No. 1235 -4- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) The foregoing Resolution No. 1235 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER IN THE APPEAL FILED BY GORDON AND NANCY INMAN AND ORDERING REMOVAL OF THE BOXER (LULU) FROM THE CITY was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on April 8, 2019 by the following roll call vote: AYES: BLACK, DIERINGER, PIEPER, WILSON AND MAYOR MIRSCH NOES: � ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk r � � M N i i P W � � 11 f � f � � / 1 � Resolution No. 1235 -5- r �