2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, May 11, 2006
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Laurie Routhier, Sherri Franklin, Joanne Kipnis, Mara Weiss DVM, J.R. Yeager, William Hamilton, Richard Schulke, Vicky Guldbech, Bill Herndon
2. Public Comment - none
3. Approval of Draft minutes from April 13, 2006 meeting
Commissioner Schulke moved to pass the minutes as amended
Seconded by Commissioner Franklin
Unanimous.
4. Chair’s Report and opening remarks
Commissioner Routhier announced Commissioner Kipnis was leaving the Commission and thanked her for her service. Commissioner Kipnis said it was a tough decision to make and hopes it will be temporary and may some day reapply to the Commission.
Public Comment
Richard Fond – Suggest the Commissioner Kipnis receive certificate of Highest Honor from Board of Supervisors.
5. Committee reports/Commissioner’s reports
Regarding tax break legislation for landlords who allow renters with pets - sponsored by Commissioner Schulke:
Commissioner Routhier commented that she spoke with the City Treasurer about this topic and was informed that all property tax issues are addressed at the state level, indicating that there is not really a way this Commission could move forward with this item. It was suggested though that there may be other options/incentives for landlords (to allow pets) in terms of some type of rebate or incentive.
Commissioner Schulke reported that he spoke with Supervisor Sandoval. Was informed that Proposition 13 may require a state initiative to be able to create this type of legislation, and confirmed that it is unlikely that this Commission could proceed with a tax break proposal. Schulke thinks it is still important to try to free up more rental property somehow in San Francisco for people with animals.
Commissioner Schulke offered that the public was invited to contact him directly with any additional comments or suggestions.
Public Comment
Robert Young – Approve of legislation; suggests implementing rebate to get around Prop 13.
Eric Brooks – Feels this proposal is long overdue; The danger of the legislation is its becoming a profit source for landlords; some tenants may not be able to comply or afford the requirements. Suggests rebate approach.
Roslyn Lord – support leg. CA richest economy in the world must be a way for landlords to get benefits.
Ran Forman – city needs to attract top level talent with pets; might bring in more families to the city.
Pam Earings –Spoke abut NY time article re: tax break – article stated San Francisco as least pet friendly city in terms of rentals
Sally Stevens – Referred to article in peer review journal that discusses of pet friendly rentals. Article stated that the vacancy rate for pet friendly listings is lower, pet friendly landlords spend half the time marketing their rentals, time to rent is 10 days less, and on average “damage” to apartments caused by pets is only $39 more than non-pet apartments – the cost of which is always covered by the pet deposit.
Feels this legislation is a win-win for everyone.
Rex Reginald – Thinks rebate is a great idea. It is important to get this done in whatever way we can – this idea could go nationwide. He will work on proposal that will get around Proposition 13 and will forward it to Commissioner Schulke. Any comments can be forwarded to Rex at [email protected]
Mary Ann Buxton – start with housing projects
Commission Discussion
Yeager – Supports the idea of making more housing available to pet owners. However it may run into more resistance if we use the term “rebate.” The City may resist giving money for this, as opposed to other social issues the city is facing.
Hamilton – referred to NY Times article – Stated the title was “Nitpicking Nation” and clarified the article was more about roommates looking for roommates without pets, and not about landlord restrictions.
6. Status and tracking of letters of recommendation to Board of Supervisors
None
7. Old Business
Follow-up report by Commissioner Hamilton and discussion regarding a proposal to seek city funding for the production and mounting of permanent public signs deterring abandonment of pet cats/kittens in areas where this is commonly done and directing pet owners/guardians to Animal Care and Control instead.
Hamilton: Discussed issue with Department of Parking and Traffic and was told it would not be a problem and that the cost of such signs would be $150 each. Was also told that the area where the signs are suggested to be places is under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco. Called the Port – told that Port Property belongs to the State. State would probably approve the designs if the code being violated was added to them. Would also have to fill out an application for building permit if holes would need to be dug for poles to display the signs.
Was also informed that building permit and Port Commission could be by-passed if private owners of fences granted the City permission to post the signs on the fences.
Hamiltonis willing to pursue this if fellow Commissioners support this proposal.
Commission Discussion
Schulke - Where will this funding come from? Also wonders if these signs can be posted in parks as well.
Yeager: Suggests that money might be better spent on a broader public education campaign that would reach more people.
Public Comment:
Ron Cole – doesn’t think this Commission has the authority to do this (put signs up) according to enabling legislation. Suggests floating a resolution to a Supervisors and asking for permission to do this.
Mary Ann Buxton– feels signs can be educational but that animal abandonment happens all over the City – how do you address that? Problem areas are not just industrial areas.
Commission Discussion
Franklin– Concerned that signs may otherwise induce people to dump in these areas.
Yeager – Feels a sign offering reward for reporting dumping of animals might have a positive effect.
Schulke – Feels a reward program is a good idea and should be pursued.
8. New Business
8a. Discussion to develop legislation that would include and protect animals in domestic violence cases.
Sponsored by Commissioner Franklin
Moved to discuss: Hamilton
Seconded: Kipnis
Franklin: Referred to law passed my State of Maine. Has received many calls and e-mails on this. There is no actual mandate or legislation in San Francisco.
Currently in San Francisco we do have an agreement with/via three safe houses that Animal Control and Care takes victims’ animals into custody and holds them until the victim(s) get resettled.
This legislation would give judges the ability to include pets on a restraining orders, authority to impose penalties if the order is violated, ensure that any victim of domestic violence including any animals will receive protect from the abuser.
Studies have shown (that there are) links between animal abuse and child abuse. Statistics also show that 1 in 4 abused victims will not leave because they fear for their pets’ safety. Maine coalition to prevent domestic violence reported that children observed violence towards animals.
Feels that this is an issue that the Commission should tackle.
Commission Discussion
Yeager – Works with people in the area of Domestic Violence. Will put Franklin in touch with these people.
Weiss – asked for clarification of safe house agreement.
Guldbech – explained the safe house agreement is that these particular animals are taken to ACC and logged under her name (Guldbech) and if the alleged abuser attempts to redeem the animal(s) she is notified immediately as well as the police to prevent redemption by the abuser.
Schulke – supports this idea and applauds ACC for their current role.
Hamilton– would feel this program could be even more successful if it were better known so that abuse victims could direct social workers or police to take their animals to ACC for safe keeping.
Public Comment
Pam Earing – Has Paw Pact list and sent NYT article and brief letter to 29 people (legislators) highlighting statistics re: bill in Maine and asked if they would support it in California.
Virginia Handley – Maine is an excellent bill. We can introduce this in CA in January (2007) Will take a long time. Wonderful that someone is working on this now and gives this to Board of Supervisors to introduce this.
Laurie Ritcher – works with victims of domestic abuse and is aware of the situations with animals being abused. Cited a few studies regarding connection between human and animal abuse. Also citied reasons that many victims stay with abuser is for fear for their animals’ safety.
Commission Discussion
Kipnis – Suggests contacting the people in Maine who worked on getting the legislation regarding their strategy to get this approved.
Franklin – will gather Maine legislation and more stats to formalize our legislation for Commission discussion.
Herndon – asked for clarification on companion animal language – does this legislation include horse/cow or are they considered livestock.
Franklin – believes Maine legislation is to protect any animal that is in danger of abuse.
8b. Discuss making additions to Commissions on-line list of animal resources and referrals to consider links for pet-friendly housing in San Francisco; explore publicizing the list in order to create awareness of the public and nonprofit agencies.
Brought forward by Commissioner Hamilton.
Motion to discuss: Franklin
Seconded: Routhier
Hamilton – would like to add resources for Pet Friendly Housing; suggest press release to announce this new resource list
Public Comment
Ron Cole – check out SPCA open door policy. Check out Berkeley study/research paper on pet owners who were required to sign a contract between tenant and landlord. Contract is very critical.
Sally Stevens – referred to CARP – Companion Animal Rental Program – brochure how to get housing and keep it, and a flyer for landlords as well.
Commission Discussion
Hamilton and Routhier - discussed canine good citizen’s course/obedience test as being useful for obtaining housing.
Schulke - offered to use his list to publicize the referral list
9. Public Comment – items not included on the agenda
Virginia Handley – updated Commission on pending CA legislation
AB 450 – requires emergency management system to take in account needs of pets and service animals in a disaster – would like to see this on Commission agenda
AB 2110 – Hounding of rabbits – had a hearing yesterday and went into a “suspense” until it could be determined if the state can afford it
AB 2862 – Pet shops
A bill on Elephants also went into “suspense”
Cockfighting bill went into suspense
Anyone can subscribe to an e-mail alert: contact [email protected] and she will add names to the list.
Ron Cole – Canine good citizen test – a very minimal test and only for on-leash dogs
10. Calendar Items
Agenda for the next meeting must post agenda 10 days prior to meeting because of officer elections. Agenda items are due by May 26.
11. Closing Review of Task Allotment and Next Steps
Next Steps -
§ Hamilton will work on signage on animal dumping and resources for web site
§ Schulke will stay on top of pet Friendly legislation
§ Franklin and Guldbech will work on domestic violence legislation
Schulke/Kennedy - Motion to adjourn meeting, in honor of Kipnis’ service on the Commission
12. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned 7:07 p.m