CC MINS 19940802 ADJM I N U T E S
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 21 1994
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Mayor Kuykendall,
notice having been given with affidavit thereto on file, Roll call
was answered as follows:
PRESENT: BYRD, McTAGGART, LYON, BROOKS & MAYOR KUYKENDALL
Also present were Prosecuting Attorney Craig Steele, City Attorney
Carol Lynch, City Manager Paul Bussey, Administrative Analyst II
Rick Otto, City Clerk Jo Purcell, SPCA Officer Doug Buck,
City Attorney Lynch administered the oath to those persons
designated to give testimony in this matter.
APPEAL OF VICIOUS DOG DETERMINATION (104 X 1101)
Mayor Kuykendall announced that the City Council had read the
transcript of the June 8, 1994 Vicious Dog Hearing. From the
evidence and testimony presented at that hearing the City Manager
issued his determination that the dog in question could exhibit
vicious and /or dangerous behavior at unpredictable times and was
apt to bite or injure without cause. Based on that conclusion, the
City Manager determined that the dog could no longer be kept in the
City.
Prosecuting Attorney Craig Steele briefly summarized the evidence
presented at the hearing: Proof of Service of a Dangerous Dog
Hearing on Philip Potamitis; a June 6, 1994 letter from Craig
Steele to Philip Potamitis informing him of the June 8 hearing; a
Public Health Outside Agency Animal Bite Report listing Mr. Michael
Hersch as the person bitten; medical progress notes on Mr, Hersch' s
bite; a January 20, 1993 letter from Philip E. Potamitis to Mr.
Michael Hersch; a Public Health Outside Agency Animal Bite Report
listing Ms. Ozra Daie Sharifi as the person bitten; and a Los
Angeles SPCA Violation Report Sheet listing Mr. Philip Potamitis as
the violator. Also presented in evidence were photographs of Mr.
Hersch's bite.
Continuing with his presentation, Mr. Steele referred to his July
28, 1994 memorandum to the Council which detailed the June 8, 1994
Dangerous Dog Hearing held pursuant to Section 6.08.150 of the
Municipal Code.
In closing, Mr. Steele said that the evidence was undisputed that
the dog in question had attacked and bitten two innocent persons
without provocation in a very brief period of time. Both persons
were injured and required medical
of an experienced SPCA officer
aggressive behavior was abnormal
owner had consistently failed t o
properly retrain this dog. The
removed from the City.
attention. It was the testimony
that this type of dangerous
in dobermans. Further, the dog
take the necessary action to
dog is dangerous and must be
While recognizing that pets often become a part of the family and
as such It would be difficult to order that a family pet be
removed, it was recognized, however, that public safety was perhaps
the most important duty of local government. When as in this case
a family pet cannot be kept in a manner that assures the safety of
those persons in close proximity, public safety takes precedence.
Therefore, he recommended that the decision of the City Manager in
this matter be upheld, and that the dog be ordered removed from the
City or impounded and euthanized.
Speaking for the dog owner was their attorney Matthew Kundinger,
who said that the had an expert present to challenge the testimony
of SPCA Sgt. Tori Matthews. He said that the dog doesn't have a
vicious propensity and that he can be kept in a manner so he
doesn't pose a threat and is willing to take certain steps.
Jo j hana Brueske, 441 So. Wether ly Drive, Beverly Hills 902111, owner
of the Academy of Dog Behavior, said she was hired by the Potamitis
family to assess their dog, She described her meeting with the dog
and the dog owner and described the fencing installed to prevent
the dog's exposure to their neighbor Mr. Hersch. Ms. Brueske said
that she found the dog to be obedient and suggested to the owners
that the dog have a course of obedience, that the owners tighten up
on control so the dog heeds their instructions and that the dog
should be trained to stay within its boundaries. Additionally, she
recommended that the dog have adult supervision.
In closing, Ms. Brueske said it was her professional opinion that
the dog was not vicious.
Philip Potamitis stated what he was willing to do to prevent
another occurrence of biting: installation of additional fencing,
putting a muzzle on the dog when taken out for a walk, and a
willingness to have the dog neutered.
There were no other witnesses for the appellant.
In response to a inquiry, Mr, Hersch stated that the dog had not
been confined to the residence, but was out on the deck and side
yard.
There being no additional testimony, Mayor Kuykendall declared the
hearing closed.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 21 1994
PAGE 2
Councilman McTaggart moved, seconded
based upon the evidence presented on
that the dog should be considered
Manager's vicious dog determination b
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: BYRD, MCTAGGART, LYON,
NOES: NONE
by Councilwoman Brooks that
these two biting incidents,
vicious and that the City
le upheld. The motion carried
BROOKS & MAYOR KUYKENDALL
RESOLUTION NO. 94 -58 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF A DANGEROUS DOG
DETERMINATION REGARDING THE DOG KEPT AT 6878 CREST ROAD (CITY
LICENSE NO. 2316) AND ORDERING THAT THE ANIMAL BE REMOVED FROM THE
CITY OR IMPOUNDED was presented by title and adopted on motion of
Councilwoman Brooks, seconded by Councilman Byrd. Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 P . M. on motion of Councilwoman Lyon.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
A:8294VDHM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 21 1994
PAGE 3