Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Services Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Chino council for transparency and action after ARC intake and euthanasia concerns
Summary
Multiple residents urged the City Council to demand transparency and oversight of ARC, the regional animal services provider, raising specific concerns about a dog named 'Maverick' and asking the council and city attorney to intervene and require regular reporting on intake and euthanasia rates.
Several Chino residents used the Jan. 20 public‑comment period to press the City Council and staff for more transparency and oversight of ARC (the regional animal services agency serving Chino and neighboring jurisdictions).
Maureen Mendoza (speaker 17) submitted written public comment and described a case involving a dog identified as Maverick (ARC animal ID A004301). Mendoza said the ARC intake report contained inconsistent descriptions and an incorrect quarantine date, that medical and behavioral history forms lacked an ARC employee signature, and that Maverick—an adopted dog returned to ARC—is facing euthanasia despite ongoing training and advocacy. Mendoza requested council and city‑attorney intervention to ensure ARC follows statutory holding and euthanasia standards, to extend Maverick’s foster period, and to require periodic public reporting on intake outcomes and euthanasia rates.
Donna Marchese (speaker 20), who said she volunteers at ARC, also urged more volunteer recruitment, more and more convenient donation drop‑off locations, and public reporting showing numbers of animals picked up, returned, adopted, fostered and euthanized. Marchese asked the council to consider recording ARC meetings or moving them to a venue that can be recorded.
Council response: The council acknowledged the comments, and one council member moved to pull the consent calendar item related to animal welfare codes (consent item 6) for additional staff review. The City Attorney (speaker 19) advised the body about state regulatory standards for quarantine/observation periods (citing Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations and noting at least a 10‑day observation for dogs and cats, with discretion for the local public health officer); legal staff said a 12‑day local quarantine provision meets the at‑least‑10‑day requirement.
Outcome and next steps: The council withdrew the consent item from immediate adoption and directed staff to coordinate subsequent municipal code revisions with other cities as part of a second phase; staff said that coordination is planned. Residents asked for more public reporting and clearer holding and euthanasia criteria; staff and council indicated they would take those operational concerns under advisement and follow up through staff processes.
