Home › News › Local News
Extra pets in Simi could prove costly for resident
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsKeeping more than four pets in Simi Valley could cost you more than $1,500 if someone files a complaint with the city.
That's what happened to Cherie Hammond, who has three dogs and five cats. After a complaint was filed, she was told that she was "over the cat limit."
The city's Department of Environmental Services charges a fee for pet owners who have more than four pets, be it cats, dogs, potbellied pigs or a combination thereof. The fee goes toward a public hearing where the owners can plead their case to keep them.
It doesn't matter if someone has five or 50 pets, the "special use permit" fee is always $1,525, city officials said.
It never occurred to Hammond that indoor cats would be a problem. She recently inherited four felines from her mother, which put her over the city's limit.
"I understand dogs are an issue because they bark outside, but when you have cats inside, they don't bother anybody," Hammond said. "If we didn't inherit them, I would never go out and get these many animals."
Hammond will go before an administrative hearing Thursday to get a permit to keep Mud Pie, Honey Bun, Buddy, Tillie and Yoshie in her Galena Avenue home.
While staff is recommending approval of the application, she is paying $1,525 plus $145 for a "categorical exemption," stating that there will be no significant impact on the environment because of the cats.
Hammond lives with her two daughters and said the emotional cost would run higher if she had to get rid of the animals.
"It's easier for me to pay them money," she said.
With two cats reaching old age one will be 15, the other 19 the family can't imagine getting rid of them and would probably not find a home, Hammond said.
The city is aware that there are many people with four or more pets, "but we don't hear about them," said Heidi Fischer, a senior planner in the Environmental Services Department.
Fischer said they get several applications like this each year, usually prompted by a complaint.
Several months back, an application went before the Simi Valley Planning Commission for a resident on Lundy Drive to keep three dwarf goats, considered farm animals under current city rules. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 that she could keep one goat. The applicant, Debbie Wortman, ended up keeping the goats and moving out.
Fischer will present the application before a zoning administrator, who will make the final decision.
"We inherited them, we're attached to them, we want them to live out their lives with us," Hammond said.
The meeting will be held at 4 p.m. in the Development Services building, 3855-A Alamo St.
Anyone can attend and be heard on this matter.
Posted by Hueneme_girl29 on May 30, 2007 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another way for "the man" to make some money. As long as the animals are well cared for - who cares how many a family has??
Posted by Comments on May 30, 2007 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually Kerif I care as do many other citizens. I love animals but I truly don't believe that it's fair to have more than 4 animals in a domestic space. Unless you have a farm or lots of property it's just not right. And, for those of us who live neighbors who have multiple animals it does infringe on our lives. Nearly all my neighbors have dogs and most have more than one. These dogs are left out in yards ALL day long while the owners go to work. The dogs bark and bray and sound so sad and pitiful stuck in teeny little spaces. We are guarateed to be woken up in the middle of the night at least 3 days a week by the dogs who were forgotten and left outside.
I personally have NO problem limiting the amount of pets one can have.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 30, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gotta agree with Comments on this one too. That is just way too many. If you want lots of animals then MOVE to a farm !!!!
Comments. FYI, I had a neighbor whose dog did the same thing barked all hours of the night. And it was a LOUD bark ! Find the neighbors phone number out and when the dogs wake you then give them a call and BARK INTO THE PHONE !!!! Maybe they will get the darn hint ! It worked for me !!!
Posted by mary4227 on May 30, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Welcome to the Simi Valley Homeowners' Association. Where, after you spend over $500,000 for the privilege of owning a home in this wonderful city, you have to conform to its totalitarian rules. Yes, I am certain that there are people out there who have many animals of which they can not properly care for, but at the same time, how about the city enacting an ordinance that punishes those who don’t take care of the one animal they neglect?
I am certain that the “Spirit” of the rule is for the city only to act based on public complaints, but usually the only neighbors who call the city to complain are the ones who a) have nothing better to do than stir up hate and discontent, and/or b) those who have a personal grudge against those whom they are complaining about. As far as I can tell, the city and some of its residents feel that a two-thousand square foot home and its yard is certainly not enough space for three dachshunds, a cat, and a pot-belled pig. This is absolutely ridiculous, maybe the city should take the money they are wasting on this issue and develop a task force for locating clandestine Meth Labs in Simi homes. Oh wait, Simi doesn’t have a drug problem, only problems with too many pets and motorhomes!
Posted by lyn_uk1 on May 30, 2007 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am an animal lover but definately agree there should be a limit on how many animals you own. mary4227's comments are ridiculous. These are homes in Simi Valley NOT small holdings/farms. And, Mary before you comment, NO I do not live in one of these homes and yes, I do have pets!! However it only takes one barking dog to be a nuisance!
Posted by mary4227 on May 30, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lyn, I am not condoning having a multiple animals in a home. I was being sarcastic. Realistically, I only have one indoor pet. My point is that the city is wasting money on a law that not only cannot be realistically enforced, and enforcement would never be fair and evenhanded. Finally, the city cannot stop one dog from barking – only open communication and cooperation with your neighbors can. Further, I would like to add that people who are in properly zoned neighborhoods (like the Bridal Path) could realistically have numerous animals without it being harmful to the animal or the neighbors. It is easy to put a number on the amount of animals one should have, but I know that if I suddenly had to take my parent’s two dogs in and risk a fine for being over the animal limit, I would do it because I don’t have the heart to put them up for adoption, and/or euthanize them. Basically, there are better things that the city could be wasting their time on – like drugs, overcrowded rental homes (which cause more problems than too many animals), low income housing, etc.
Posted by Comments on May 30, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mary,
Your irrational comments make it hard to take your point seriously. Just because some citizens are concerned about this issue doesn't mean that we're not concerned about the drug problem in this area. One can be concerned about both. Should we focus on drugs to the exclusion to everything else? Where in the article did you read that Simi doesn't have a drug problem? Where are you getting your facts?
I have never complained to the city and won't - even about my neighbor who has 9 (yes NINE folks) chihuahuas who are out in the yard all freaking day long. Talk about yapping. We do have an HOA who thankfully have spoken with these folks, who claim that they will be finding homes for the dogs. We'll see...
And Dr. DNA, I haven't killed anyone or anything. I'm not breaking any rules. No one is telling you to flush your fish down the toilet. Talk about another ridiculous knee jerk, irrational response. The rules apply to everyone. If you are breaking them and get caught it's up to you to find a suitable home for your extra "pets." If you flush the fish then you're the killer, not me.
I understand the desire to have pets, I will never however understand the desire to have as many as some do without the proper property for them to roam. I also don't ever feel that those pets should infringe on your neighbor's freedom. And finally, I would qualify most of the pet owners and supposed pet lovers around me as negligent. Leaving a pet alone for 12 hrs all day is negligent. These folks come home, open the back door, fill a bowl with water and another with food and then close the door. If the dog is lucky it gets to come inside when the family goes to bed. Hmmmm, lots of love there.
Posted by meleemel on May 30, 2007 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the more important issue is how the pets behave. You could have 5 dogs in one home that are better behaved than 1 dog in another. I have 3 dogs and 1 cat. My neighbors haven't been put out or disturbed by our animals. However, we have a neighbor who has 1 dog. That dog jumped over the fence into another neighbors yard, and killed a cat! We have another neighbor who has 1 small dog and it barks all day and all night. The people don't usually get home until sometime around 8 or 9 at night and the poor thing is left outside to annoy the neighbors! I think the real issue is the owners. If I knew my pets were disturbing my neighbors I would do whatever possible to correct the problem. Unfortunately there aren't many pet owners that would do the same. Those are the people that ruin things for the rest of us responsible neighbors & pet owners.
Posted by tonsbeek on May 30, 2007 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree meleemel - I have 3 dogs and they are inside most of the time and aren't abandoned to the back yard to make noise all day and night. Yet our neighbor has one and it's always barking.
Gee, why doesn't the city also regulate children, they are left outside to make noise and some people have more than they can care for too.
It all goes back to being responsible.
Posted by hustin1 on May 30, 2007 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just another way for the City to get money. Honestly, I don't know how some people sleep at night. If the animals aren't bothering anyone AND are properly taken care of, who the heck cares how many there are? Get a life or take a look at your own. At any rate, get your nose out of other people's lives, unless they affect you.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 30, 2007 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DrDNA, Do your fish bark? Do they disturb your neighbors? I think NOT !!!!!! Be realistic. please.
Why is everyone changing the law here? If one person has six dogs and gets cited, then another person has six dogs and gets away with it then its making exceptions !!!! The LAW is the LAW. And I would much rather listen to the laughter of children playing then a dog barking all day !
I had a neighbor about six houses up that thought she could raise rats for her snakes ! oh yeah ! About 300 of them !!!! Big health hazard here. The authorities were called and she had to get rid of them.
And there is a ordinance about nuisance noise which would be a dog barking!!!!!!! They could get cited . I love animals and have a dog and a fish. My dog is well taken care of. Well fed and groomed. So dont call me an animal hater!
Posted by JimmyM on May 30, 2007 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is there any part of our lives that the city council doesn’t want to control?
Mary 4227 has it right!
“Welcome to the Simi Valley Homeowners' Association. Where, after you spend over $500,000 for the privilege of owning a home in this wonderful city, you have to conform to its totalitarian rules.”
Posted by KathrynAsh on May 31, 2007 at 4:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FYI, the Ventura animal control has been going door to door around Simi on Saturdays, leaving citations for people without dog licenses. A neighbor of mine was in tears because her three yorkies weren't licensed and the fine was huge, atleast a few hundred dollars. It's a shame that Ventura County and Simi Valley are targeting pet owners. I guess it's another reason to leave, Simi Valley's getting to be no better than the snoody places in LA.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 31, 2007 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SimiValley is NOT the only city that has this ordinance!!! Its all over the county!!! If you can afford three Yorkies then you can afford to pay the license for them. Also if you LOVE your pets then get them Micro-chipped !!!!!!
Posted by littlepowers on May 31, 2007 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another "not in my backyard rule"
SIMI VALLEY, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!
STOP FORCING UR WAY OF THINKING ON OTHERS WITH THESE USELESS FINES!!!
Posted by AnnaWhaat on June 1, 2007 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Your way of thinking? Its a ordinance!! Meant to be followed by all living in the city there ! And if they do not give fines then how is the SPCA suppose to manage. Wouldn't you feel better knowing the dog next door to your children had its rabies shots? Just in case one of your kids were bitten?
Posted by littlepowers on June 1, 2007 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AnnaWhaat - licensing fee to make sure the animal has it's shots are there to protect people. But to try to limit the amount that they have?
People should be allowed to have as many animals in their homes as they want, provided that they take the necessary steps to keep them healthy.
Posted by junemelody on June 1, 2007 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Mary,
I couldn't have said it better myself!! I am and my family have finally, after much American dreaming, achieved the purchase of a beautiful home in a ranch area of Simi Valley. And they STILL bug us up here about what we can have in the way of pets and vehicles...
As for the rest of the yuppie knuckleheads that attacked you about how they also "care" about the drug problem in Simi, if that is so,please tell me when was the last time you guys went up to City Hall to worry about that, or something that really matters? Like the fact that we had a young kid die of an oxycodone overdose just near our house recently!
I think as long as we are taking proper care of our pets, they are not overrunning the property (collectors) or barking day and night, or creating a smell, etc, we should be left alone. If you think otherwise, you are going to have to think of a better argument than mine. Now every neighbor who has a "grudge" against his neighbor will be calling them in for a good laugh. And that is all that is going to happen.
I have lived in Simi all my life and the past 10 years or so have been heck with all the yuppies moving in and telling us to "get rid of our motorhomes" or "limiting our pets". I didn't understand the motorhome thing when we were in a lesser pricey neighborhood..everybody on our street had an RV or a camper and it affected all of us when the only people who cared were the rich ones that made the rule..why can't they just have their own HOA rules in their own areas about RV's since NOBODY, I mean, NOBODY in our neighborhood at that time agreed with the ordinance. Nor did we have enough money to put them in storage or hire a great big cement truck to drop in another driveway.
As for knee jerk reactions, I am all for them..and for the free country we are SUPPOSED to be living in.
What a joke.
Junebug
Posted by littlepowers on June 1, 2007 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said Junebug,
and btw, ur no longer allowed to pave over ur driveway anymore.
Posted by mary4227 on June 1, 2007 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is funny how quickly people forget free speech when it doesn't agree with their beliefs. This would be a boring world if we all agreed all of the time. Variety is the spice of life.
Like many people, I would like to live my life without having the city micromanaging it by catering to the needs of the vocal minority. I would like to see the city dedicate more money to problems that are a visible detriment to our community (e.g. drugs), and dedicate less money towards efforts that are attempting to prevent problems that aren't prevalent in the community (e.g. people who raise rats in their residences). Individuals cannot expect a society to protect them from everything with rules (I suggest reading the book 1984). When did self-reliance go out of vogue?
Annawhaat – I appreciate what you stated, but I doubt that the SPCA would get a dime from these ordinances (I really wish they would), being that they are city codes designed to bolster city revenue. The ASPCA survives on donations and support by private citizens. I am a contributing member myself. Just because the city steps up inspections on dog licensing won’t protect your children from rabies because 1) there will not be follow-up inspections to ensure continual licensing, and 2) dogs aren’t the only biting mammal that spreads rabies. Your comment rabid dogs reminds me about when the city was working on banning street vendors, and there was a comment addressing stating that the vendors need to be stopped because kids could get Hepatitis laced corn – the idea that the city can protect children from Hepatitis laced corn or rabid biting dogs is a long shot, and in any case if it were to happen the rules wouldn’t prevent it.
If we micromanage people’s lives in the interest of saving “just one life” we would defeat the purpose of living – we are all going to die, the methods change but the outcome never does!
Posted by AnnaWhaat on June 2, 2007 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
geez having over three or four dogs is too many ! The flies are flying everywhere , the fleas are jumping from yard to yard. And its just not right in the city. I stand behind my beliefs. If you have your dog licensed they do follow up each year letting you know its time to renew them. If you add a room onto your house you have to get the right permits. If you have trailers or RV's taking up all the parking spaces out front of your house then where is everyone else suppose to park? How often does the street sweeper get to clean the street????????and on and on and on............
Posted by Ventura22 on June 3, 2007 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a joke! That's an outrageous amount for a permit. Where does that money go? Where's the accountability here? Time to demand better answers from those who levy fees like that on the citizens. I urge all of you in that city to vote. Looks like not enough of you already do, or this kind of nonsense would not be occurring.
If they are really that serious about the issue and there are truly legitimate reasons to strongly regulate pets( and it appears that there are some valid concerns), they would simply enforce a limit and just tell residents you can have(for example) 5 cats and/or dogs and that's it. Other cities in CA have done that and it solves the problem equally and fairly for all residents.. No BS and games, like outrageous permit fees. That only alienates the citizens even more and punishes those who don't have a thousand bucks to throw away. Very poor way to treat all citizens equally and fairly. This borderline corruption and taxation without representation going on here...at a much smaller level of course.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on June 4, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do they or dont they already have an ordinance in place as per how many pets one can have per household???? Now Im a bit confused.
Posted by JimmyM on June 4, 2007 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If we were just talking about on street parking it wouldn’t be so bad, but our illustrious city council wasn’t happy with that. They recently passed a law restricting where you are allowed to park on your own property. Increasingly the city council is acting as if they are a homeowners association writing a new set of CC&Rs for the whole city. Some of us insisted on no homeowners association when we bought our homes because we do not feel that there is a need for this type of intrusive overbearing regulation. We are capable of getting along with our neighbors without having the city come in and regulate every little thing that someone might disagree with.
Posted by meleemel on June 5, 2007 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AnnaWhaat,
We're not talking about prairie dogs here.....we're talking about our pets that live in our houses, lounge on the couch when we're not home & hog the bed at night! My dogs are very well taken care of.......better than some CHILDREN I've seen around Simi Valley!! I know there are some animals around Simi Valley that could use a bath & some flea powder, but that again goes back to responsibility....not quantity!
Posted by AnnaWhaat on June 6, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Meleemel, That didn't answer my question. Was there an ordinance already is place for SV pertaining to the amount of animals one can own in the city limits. Most cities do have an ordinance.
Posted by SueSue on June 19, 2007 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW! Everyone easy does it. I just started reading these comments and couldn't get through all of them. This article said "IF SOMEONE COMPLAINS TO THE CITY". If that happens then they pay a fee/fine. The "city" doesn't just go around and look or listen for too many animal. "If someone complains" says to me that things are a bit out of hand for the owners. I have 3 rats and a hamster, AND I live in Simi Valley, should I pay the fee? I think not. That being said, there is a woman who lives right behind me who has 1 rat, 1 cat, 1 snake and a dog, should she pay? Yes, why? Because her home smells so bad you don't even have to go inside her place, just get near her door, which I don't do if I can help it. However, she will only have to "pay" if someone "files a complaint with the city". I would rather complain to her first then the manager then the city. Oh yeah, we live in apartments. Try talking to the person first then call animal control, then call the police dept., if none of the works THEN call the city.
Posted by JimmyM on June 21, 2007 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why should the enforcement of this law be dependent upon the temperament of my neighbors?
The city council has been quietly making many changes and additions to the municipal code without pushing for enforcement. That way they will not have to deal with dozens of angry citizens at once. The few people who get “stuck” because their neighbors complain can be easily dealt with one at a time. Latter when they begin more aggressive enforcement people will be told that the law has been on the books for years.
There’s no beating city hall!
Posted by SimiAnimalLover on July 3, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After reading all these comments, I'm still sitting here shaking my head. I couldn't get a neighborhood animal watch program off the ground here in Simi. Years of dealing with a backyard breeder who didn't license his dogs proved a futile waste of my energy and time - despite his dogs barking from 4AM throughout the day until midnight most times... and now if 'someone complains about a resident having more than four dogs, they will be fined'?... HUH? Having dealt with this and Code Enforcement not being able to do anything they can't visually see if it's behind a 6' privacy fence, exactly how will the city access this fine? Public Health couldn't do anything about the rat problem the open troughs of corn (for the game birds) or the open bowl dishes of dog food attracted... instead I was told to contract with an exterminator to solve the rat problem coming from the neighbor's yard.
What's ironic (at least to me) is that I have to store my (licensed) RV outside of Simi Valley in order to keep it because it cannot stay on my street in front of my house... we run the risk every time we bring it home to clean and restock because of the ordinances here in Simi now!
And yet?... dogs run off the leash and unlicensed in the park close to our house as their owners "exercise" them every day. Twice in the past few years I have run to help seniors who have slipped and fallen on sidewalks from dog feces left there by owners who allow their dogs to run off leash and don't pick up after their dogs.
Some of the seniors have told me they no longer feel safe walking the park - between the poop piles and the aggressive dogs that run free.
I watch joggers and walkers now carrying 'dog sticks' as they call them... large heavy 4' canes with leather handles attached. Who wants to carry that extra weight just to take a walk or jog? I see dog owners carrying them also - just to ward off unfriendly dogs.
I could understand something this fine if it were equitable or allowed mitigating circumstances. With the huge unwanted overpopulation of pets currently in the California shelters, we're instituting fines of this magnitude? The older pets simply aren't adoptable and if taken to the shelter, it's highly likely they will be held for the Hayden Act requirements, then euthanized. There's simply not a market for the older animals. The rescues plead with people to adopt the 'unadoptables' as it is now!
Talk about making a bad problem even worse!
Posted by Freedomland on June 30, 2008 at 2 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hello all, the laws should alow everyone have as many pets as long as they are loves & cares for (will be less animals put to death). Please remember this is a Freedom Country, do not restricted with soo many rules same as the Comunist Country (must report every moved you make).
The point is if the Animals well cares for then live them be.
If they're too loud then works or talk with the neighbor to find a good solutions (like call Cesars Millan the Dogs Whisper) but do not condem the Animals to their Death. Is the Humans had the same Laws ? Oh only 3 kids for each family, and send the 4th & 5th kids.... to the Adoption Agency.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.