Mark,
Thank you for copying us on your recent memo to Tom Burns. It would be great to get some positive direction from the Planning Department regarding our situation.

Meanwhile, regarding our red tag, we have received a summons to appear before the Superior Court of Santa Cruz as defendants in a lawsuit against us by the County of Santa Cruz for an unlimited amount in excess of $25,000. (Case # CV148327)

We have contacted an attorney, Robert Bosso, for advice.

Of course, this is very disturbing since we have been working so hard to resolve our red tag. At the same time we have continued to find safe, loving homes for the many pet goats that need them, providing a very important service to the residents of the County and, we believe, to the County itself.

Our goats are not red tagged due to any health, safety, or nuisance issues such as noise or odor. The red tag is based strictly on a zoning regulation and, according to Dave McLaughlin, one neighbor who has relentlessly complained to Zoning. (The red tag also refers to our having five dogs and roosters. In fact, we have no roosters, and we only have four dogs. We have two residentially-zoned parcels which add up to an acre and a half. As we understand it, two dogs are allowed per parcel. Furthermore, two of the dogs are fourteen year old, fifteen pound Chihuaha mixes -- hardly the stuff for a $25,000 lawsuit.)

When we purchased our property eight years ago, there were two horses living here. Since we were looking for a place to keep goats, we checked with the Planning Department. We were told that since we were purchasing over an acre, and goats were considered "small animals", it would be OK.

When we were first red tagged in February of 2000, Code Compliance Officer Kevin Fitzpatrick suggested that we could establish the historical agricultural and animal-keeping use of our property prior to the 1982 ordinance by presenting affidavits from long-time residents. To that end we collected eight affidavits attesting to animal keeping on our property extending back to 1965. Of course the property began in the 1920s as a farm (the historic Bartlett Pear Orchard.) At our Appeal, the Planning Department rejected our historical use claim, suggesting that the citizens who signed these affidavits could not be trusted and observing that there was no specific documentation of the keeping of goats.

To come into compliance, we fenced our neighbors hillside and moved our goats to their 5-acre property, which was a heavily wooded hillside, thick with brush, berries and poison oak. This seemed to be a perfect solution until June of 2002 when our neighbors were red-tagged, we were also red-tagged again. They told us that the Planning Department said they could keep four horses on their property, but no goats!

Our neighbors were concerned about the fire load on their property, and the goats handled much of that quite nicely in the six months they were there. They were sad to see them go.

In September of 2002 we attended an Administrative Hearing with the Planning Department. Despite the acknowledged historic use of the property, they told us that the only way we could possibly come into compliance was to remove all of the goats. We explained that we had contacted every farm sanctuary, livestock rescue organization, etc. on the West Coast, and none of them had room for our goats. We had contacted various water districts and goat fire control organiztions as well. We had advertised for homes for the goats, but to no avail. The only "homes" we could find were with individuals who would eat them or land clearing businesses that would breed and sell them for meat. We had contacted County Animal Services Director Mike McFarland, who said that if we were to take our goats to them they would be destroyed. Code Compliance Officer Christine Allegretti affirmed "putting down" our goats might be the only way resolve our red-tag. Killing the goats was not an acceptable solution to us then or now.

Thus, we were presented with the choice of destroying our goats, incurring a $2,500 per day fine, or signing a Stipulation Order. Dave McLaughlin expressed sympathy and understanding and seemed willing to work with us to resolve the problem. For example, Mr. McLaughlin asked "How long do goats live?", implying that we would be given plenty of time to find homes for them. He repeatedly urged us not to sell our house and move over this. We offered to join our parcels so we would have over an acre. He advised us against that, as this might be a bad idea for us economically. Meanwhile, we were waiting for the County to rezone our Highway 9 parcel from Commercial to Residential. Since the red tag was for having goats on commercially zoned property, we thought that this rezoning might help us. Under this duress, and with these encouragements, we signed the Stipulation Order.

Since then we have received no constructive advice from the Planning Department, but have been assessed a $3,000 fee, due with our next property tax bill. Now, with this lawsuit, we will be forced to leave the area and lose a great deal more -- our home, our local friends, family and community, my current livelihood and our service saving goats in Santa Cruz County.

We have worked hard to comply with the County's requirements. We have established a web site, placed several ads in the Santa Cruz and San Jose newspapers, found homes for many goats,and established a working relationship with the Santa Cruz SPCA, where we currently keepa number of goats available for adoption. We have actively looked for another place to live, both within and outside of Santa Cruz County. We have had offers in on three different properties. We rented a property on the Hupa Indian Reservation in Humboldt County, and began to move there until we were advised by a nearby veterinarian that the area was, for various cultural and animal health reasons, not suitable for animal rescue. We have advertised out plight on our website, spent scores of hours searching the web for property and are on several realtor's publish lists for RA-zoned properties. Meanwhile, people keep coming to us for help with their goats.

There is a great and growing need for goat rescue in Santa Cruz County. We recently counted the number of goats we have successfully placed over the past eight years, and it was 87. Much of this rescue is done on-line and on the phone, moving the goats directly from the relinquisher to the adopter. In the first year the numbers were few. But in the past twelve months we rescued 50 goats and placed 35 of them. More and more people are beginning to appreciate goats for their personalities as pets and their usefulness as brush eaters.

While the need has grown, our resources have shrunk. When we first started Goat Rescue, the economy was good and I was making an excellent living in Silicon Valley as a Business Systems Architect. Six months ago, after two years of unemployment, I finally found work as a Special Education Teacher, earning about a third of my former income.

In the beginning we financed Goat Rescue ourselves. Over the past couple of years we have been asking for, and sometimes receiving, donations. Sometimes we may get $20 to $100 for taking or placing a goat. This helps offset our veterinary, feed and transportation costs. Lately we have also been getting help with some veterinary expenses from the SPCA. Aren't we helping the County? Wouldn't they have to provide some of these services at public expense if it were not for us? What is the County's obligation toward its pet goat population?

We do not have the resources to fight the County in or out of court. At the same time we find it ironic that we are being so energetically prosecuted by the County while doing something so beneficial to it voluntarily, for no personal gain.

In an October 3, 2002 response to an email from us, Alvin James wrote, "The zoning regulations do reflect a preference for horses in the R-1 zone district and, apparently, is a reflection of the public testimony received when the animal regulations were adopted by the Board of Supervisors." (Please see our website for the complete text of that correspondence.) If pet goats had the same privileges as horses, there would be no more basis for our red tag and, hopefully, the County would drop its lawsuit. Dave McLaughlin told us that in order to have pet goats similarly exempted, the Board of Supervisors would have to adopt a resolution to that effect. Can you advise us how to pursue that?

We think there would be a lot of benefit from a zoning policy that allows a small herd (3 to ten per acre) of non-breeding goats to be kept on residential properties of one-plus acres. Permitting goats on these properties would reduce the fire danger without causing pollution or burdening the landfills. There are many more large parcels in Santa Cruz County where goats are currently not allowed due to zoning.

Were such a resolution to be adopted, we could keep a few goats on our property and retain our historic animal keeping use. Our neighbor could keep some goats on his five acres. We could continue our service to goats and the community and we would be in compliance with zoning regulations. Finally, many other Santa Cruz County property owners would be able to keep pet goats legally as well, much to the pleasure and benefit of all.

Sincerely,
Jim and Jane Hyde 135 Coon Heights Road Ben Lomond, CA 95005 831.336.31117

P.S. For more information about our educational and rescue work, and stories and pictures of many goats, please see our website at www.goatrescue.org. The text of this letter is also posted on our website.

Attachment: Jane with Pumpkin and Tiny. When they were about three months old, they were left in dog kennel in front of Cali Feed in Soquel. The SPCA picked them up, where we found them, sickly and scrawny. We nursed them to good health. We placed them at a loving home with two other goats on a large and beautiful property in the Santa Cruz hills. Don't they look happy?

Copies sent to: Jan Beautz Ellen Pirie Mardi Wormhoudt Tony Campos