Dear Council Members,
Currently Menlo Park contracts with the County of San Mateo to provide animal control and animal shelter services via the County contract with Peninsula Humane Society (PHS). Because of Menlo Park residents' problems with PHS procedures and policies, I urge the Menlo Park City Council to not contract with the County and instead issue their own RFP to contract with an agency such as the City of Palo Alto for animal control and shelter. City of Palo Alto contracts with Pets in Need, 871 Fifth Ave., Redwood City, located close to the Menlo Park border. By contrast, Peninsula Humane Society’s Animal Control is at 12 Airport Blvd, San Mateo, 14 miles from Menlo Park. PHS adoption center is in Burlingame, 17 miles from Menlo Park.
Several Menlo Park residents are dissatisfied with the PHS animal control services. It is not clear if the PHS Animal Control Officers are not responsive because of understaffing, the distance to Menlo Park from their San Mateo base, or other reasons. In cases of dog attacks, the PHS Animal Control Officer decides if a case merits a hearing. If the victim or owner disagrees, he or she can request a hearing upon paying the county $350, and at the hearing plead the case against the owner of the attacking animal, and the assessment of the PHS officer.
The County is responsible for organizing an “independent hearing” i.e. independent of the view of the PHS officer. However, the County employee responsible for setting the hearing is a prior PHS/partner organization employee who worked there for over two decades. The City of Menlo Park is not involved in setting the hearing, yet the decision handed down is that of the City. City attorneys are invited but the Menlo Park attorney did not attend the hearing for Cleo that I requested. At the hearing for Cleo, Cleo was not declared a dangerous dog, and no restrictions were placed on the owner or the dog. Cleo is not required to be muzzled.
As a comparison, our neighboring city, Palo Alto, takes all animal bite cases to a public hearing at no cost to its citizens. In recent Palo Alto hearings, a Palo Alto Police Captain adjudicated the hearings, while the lead Animal Control Officer participated, as well as the citizens who were animal owners and the human and animal victims of the attacks. Their hearings are public and can be accessed via a website https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Police/Animal-Control. There is no opportunity to view public hearings scheduled by San Mateo County.
In cities served by Palo Alto, if an animal is declared dangerous at a hearing, and the animal is moved out of the jurisdiction of Palo Alto Animal Control, the ACO will contact Animal Control at the new jurisdiction to report the dangerous animal’s new location.
My dog Sparky, a toy poodle, died after being viciously attacked by Cleo. In a split second my 15 lb Sparky was carried tens of feet away from me by a 110 lb husky “Cleo” and shaken violently. Cleo’s person stood there, doing and saying nothing for over three minutes. She finally very calmly instructed Cleo to “drop” (in a foreign language) and the dog complied. The next time I met the duo was a couple of weeks after the incident, with Cleo being walked ahead of her person on a loose leash, yet again. Having recently lost control of Cleo, the woman clearly did not feel the need for a muzzle or a choke collar that would give her additional control. I shuddered to think this was bound to repeat-- something had to be done.
As I spoke with my neighbors, I learned Cleo has a history. Months back a neighbor’s cat “Annilese” was killed in her own driveway by Cleo, and a dog, Memphis was viciously attacked resulting in him losing 17 teeth. There were accounts of “near miss” situations: an owner resorted to tossing his pet over the fence to protect it from Cleo.While walking their dogs, many have witnessed Cleo viciously barking and lunging at the gate facing the sidewalk. Multiple neighbors mentioned Cleo escaping on multiple occasions. These accounts were presented at the hearing in the form of emails, and by neighbors who spoke at the hearing, including owners of Annilese and Memphis. A copy of the recording (hearing date: Jan 11 2021) can be obtained for $5 by emailing lmorton-feazell@smcgov.org
Too many things have gone wrong when the city decides to take no action to protect the public from a dangerous animal and the animal’s owner. Cleo killed two pets and seriously injured a third within a single year-- and on just one street. Cleo may have more victims, particularly since she moved on our street as an adult just a few years back. We don’t know where she came from. As if spurred on by her acquittal on January 11 2021, Cleo escaped yet again on Feb 6th ending up on a neighbor’s porch. Luckily his cats were inside at the time, but PHS Animal Control refused to intervene when called on.
Hearings are critical in ensuring that the animal is licensed and ownership established, and the public is safe from dangerous animals. After the hearing for Cleo, the letter stating the decision from the hearing was addressed to two names: “person walking the dog” and the “owner of the house” (Preeti-- were there actual names on the letter?). Who was to be held culpable? Clearly the hearing officer was not provided with the license stating the name of the owner. Based upon my interactions with PHS and the County, it was not clear if Cleo was licensed before or after the hearing. PHS had records of two dogs at the address, and they sent another license form after the attack on Sparky. Does that imply that Cleo was the third dog? At the hearing PHS Animal Control Officer did not clarify the number of dogs they had records of living at the address except stating that multiple dogs do not raise an alarm, since dogs die. However, in case of attacks, if all PHS does is send a license form and a warning letter for each attack, the owner could potentially fill out a new name for each attack. The fact that Cleo lives alone at the address and PHS had multiple dogs registered (not including Cleo), points to such a possibility. The names and attack histories of the other dogs PHS thinks live there is unknown since the hearing officer did not inquire. These issues in the very least exhibit PHS Animal Control’s loose recordkeeping.The Menlo Park Police Department could and should play a role in any animal bite cases.
In Palo Alto, the Animal Control Officers are in the Palo Alto Police Department and provide complete Animal Control services to the cities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. Animal Control can be contacted regarding matters such as stray dogs; sick, injured, or dead animals (including wildlife); aggressive animals; animal bites; animal cruelty or neglect; animals in distress; livestock or pet show permits; and other animal related municipal code violations. Pets In Need manages the Palo Alto animal shelters.
Another important purpose a hearing serves is to take any previous incidents into consideration and decide if the animal is a threat to the community going forward. In that light, although the hearing officer heard from the owners of Annilese and Memphis, other neighbors who had interactions with Cleo, none of them were mentioned in the decision letter. Since the hearing was for Chloe and PHS had previously failed to take any of these incidents to hearing these other attacks should weigh into the decision particularly since they were within the year (statute of limitations being 3 years). The multiple emails from neighbors describing Cloe as aggressive and vicious and continually escaping her house, did not find a mention in the decision letter either. Additionally the hearing officer did not solicit information from PHS of any other prior dog aggression incidents of which PHS may have been aware. Although three attacks (two of which resulted in deaths) should be enough to declare an animal “dangerous”.
Cleo had escaped the house yet again after the hearing, but is now said to have left for North Carolina. It is likely that my having expressed intent to file an appeal to the decision, led to Cleo leaving town, for now. However Menlo Park has no way of truly knowing that Cleo has left and that she does not come back. Cleo’s living situation was unusual: she lived on a rental property (not with the owner of the house). She does not belong to the tenant either. This is highly irregular since most people cohabitate with their pets, unless an animal is kept for sport.
I share these experiences so they are used to inform the upcoming animal control contract the city is set to consider on May 25th. The hearing for Cleo brings to the fore the multiple ways in which PHS failed us:
1. PHS did not take the case to hearing when Annaliese was killed and Memphis bitten.
2. PHS claimed lack of cooperation from owners as the reason for not taking the above-mentioned case to hearing, which was refuted by the owners at the hearing.
3. PHS did not take the subsequent third case of Sparky to the hearing.
4. PHS did not verify licensing and number of dogs at the address.
5. PHS refused to retrieve unattended and unleashed Cleo on Feb 6th 2021 (after the hearing), and claimed not having received the call from a neighbor afterward; implying a lack of record keeping in the very least.
Additionally the fact that future neighborhood safety should guide all decisions is lost on all: Animal Control, County of San Mateo, and the hearing officer. Failing to advise Cleo’s owner to cover up the gap under the gate through with Cleo maimed Memphis the dog, or recommend a double gate after Annaliese was killed following Cleo’s escape, and failing to ask or require the owners to post a “dangerous dog” sign that would have allowed me and others to be vigilant of Cleo, is indicative of their inability to understand their function. Failing to take any of these actions yet again at the hearing is merely baffling and seriously undermines confidence in both the county and PHS.
The County failed us by refusing to investigate these lapses and appeared to be trying to cover up Cleo’s licensing issues (emails available). The County’s Grand Jury report from 2016 points to similar issues: http://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2016/animal_control.pdf. The report points out the ~70 year long relationship between PHS and the County and is critical of the county’s role (pages 3 and 8). It points to many lapses by the County prior to the report. The history of faltering on audits and inspections continues, since a midterm audit (2017-2018) of Animal Control was likely not done. Only an RFP for the audit was found in public records, not the audit report.
Furthermore the County squarely places the responsibility and hence the liability of the decision upon the city. Menlo Park should be able to afford a better arrangement for its pets and their humans, one where its citizens do not have to pay $350 for a hearing organized by an ex-PHS employee resulting in no additional safety for the neighborhood. I urge the Council to give earnest consideration to all options available at this time.
Preeti Sharma
