My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN032784
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
CCMIN032784
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:49:59 AM
Creation date
11/9/1999 11:20:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Adoption of Ordinance No. 1131, Nuisance Animal Control Ordinance <br /> '(~ntro'. 3-13-84, 4-Ayes, 1-Absent) <br /> Mayor Butler stated that Ordinance No. 1131 was introduced on March 13, 1984, by a <br /> vote of 4-Ayes, 1-Absent, and that it was now in order to adopt the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Mayor Butler presented four letters he had received regarding this matter; two in <br /> favor and two opposed to the adoption of the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Ms~ Joann Kieffer, 504 Pine Hill Lane, expressed opposition to the ordinance and <br /> cited a neighbor's complaint against her dog, even before she owned a dog. She felt <br /> the ordinance would be abused by neighbor against neighbor. <br /> <br /> Ms. Donna Buck!ey, 420 Division Street, stated she was opposed to the ordinance. <br /> She asked who would determine when dog barking becomes a nuisance. She stated the <br /> ordinance can be abused and that neighborhood disputes will increase. <br /> <br />C~ Ms. Nancy Kenney, 5958 Via Del Cielo, stated she supports the barking dog ordinance, <br />CD feeling that it is the responsibility of the dog owner to properly take care of their <br />~_~ animal. <br />]1] Mrs. Robert Emberton, 1627 Paseo del Cajon, stated she is opposed to the ordinance. <br />m She asked who determines which dog in the neighborhood is causing the nuisance. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mercer stated he has some concerns regarding enforcement of the ordi- <br /> nance; that he is looking for something more substantial that defines what a barking <br /> dog is, and also allows neighbors some security. He stated he is concerned that there <br /> is not an appeal process built into the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Police Chief Eastman stated that an appeal process is not possible under the <br /> criminal justice process. He assured Council that this ordinance will be fairly en- <br /> forced; that his officers will try to mediate any nuisance before even issuing a warn- <br /> ing, and that citations will be issued as a last resort. He stated this mechanism is <br /> needed to take care of animal problems within the City, and stated that good judgement <br /> will be used in each case. <br /> <br /> After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Mayor <br /> Butler, that Ordinance No. 1131, amending Title IV, Chapter 3, regarding nuisances <br /> by animals, be adopted. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mercer, Wood, and Mayor Butler <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: Councilmember Mohr <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mercer requested staff to prepare a report at the end of four months <br /> showing number of occurrences, names and addresses, and disposition of the incident. <br /> <br /> SPECIAL REPORTS <br /> There were no Special Reports presented at this meeting. <br /> <br /> REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS <br /> Actions Taken by the Board of Adjustment, Design Review Board, and Flanning Commission <br /> at their meeting of 3-14-84 <br /> FIr. Harris presented his report (SR 84:143) dated March 15, 1984, regarding this <br /> matter for the information of the Council. No action was required or taken by Council <br /> on the item. <br /> <br /> 8. 3/27/84 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.