2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Minutes from March 8, 2007
5:35pm
I. Call to Order and Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Richard Schulke, Mara Weiss, DVM, Laurie Routhier-Kennedy, Sherri Franklin, JR Yeager, William Hamilton, Christine Garcia, Sgt. William Herndon and Capt. Vicki Guldbech, Kenneth Sato from the Health Dept. and Bob Palacio from Park & Rec. Dept.
Absent: JR Yeager
II. Public Comment
Eric Mills Coordinator of Action for Animals informed us that Bob Hattoi (spelling?) died on Sunday. He was very helpful on Environmental and Animal issues. He will be missed. The latest animal bills up for voting in California is being passed around.
III. Approval of Draft Minutes from February 2007 Meetings
Passed to next month.
IV. Chairperson Richard Schulke’s Report and Opening Remarks
“Welcome” to the Recreation and Park Representative Bob Palacio. We appreciate him being here. Bob Palacio is happy to be joining us. Comments re: support of Spay Neuter bill for pit bulls. Thanks to Duffy and others for planting more trees.
V. Old Business
[Discussion/Action Item]
A. Professional Dog Walkers
Chair Schulke discussed each and every element of the Professional Dog Walker proposed ordinance. Special Thanks to Comr. Kennedy who helped draft. Letter written by Brent Platter about eight (8) dogs being too much, is read into the record.
Comr. Kennedy said that punishable by misdemeanor is too harsh. Comr. Hamilton agreed. Comr. Guldbech said that perhaps you can do three infractions, then misdemeanor.
Sgt. Herndon said that there is an issue as to the definition of it being a “person who walks dogs for compensation” for probable cause/arrest pursposes.
Comr. Hamilton explains that this is more of an “honor system” ordinance so that people have an idea of regulation standards in the industry.
Comr. Kennedy noted that the city attorney will review anything that we pass along to the Board of Supervisors.
Comr. Weiss, DVM added that in the first aid kit, also included should be a muzzle, a name of dogs vet and any medications if any for the dogs.
Comr. Schulke believes the fines are a little high, and he likes the idea of the escalating fees for tickets.
Comr. Palacio noted that the limit of dogs should coincide with the dog limit in Golden Gate Park, which is not currently eight (8).
Public Comment:
Robin Gibson made a comment about the number of dogs that has been chosen and disagrees with eight (8).
Elesa Baker disagrees with the industry regulations because it is limiting personal livelihood. Additionally, the number eight (8) is too small.
Richard Fong spoke about district 3 and wonders how is this going to be enforced?
Lisa Vittory asks if we can take this out of the hands of Rec. and Park. Other professional credentials should be considered as well.
Susan Epstein says they should have Quick Stop in the first aid kit. Suggests making sure that people already have a business license so that they can use forms currently in place. She thinks that six (6) is a responsible number
Alan Hopkins takes kids out bird watching and thinks that the parks are for people and not for dogs.
Luke Brown, dog walker in SF, requests $500k insurance coverage, instead on $1million. He says six (6) dogs is fine.
Nancy Stafford, from Pro Dog, thinks that the guidelines are reasonable and recommends the SPCA’s program on Dogs and Kids.
Joe Hauge, from Pro Dog, says that eight (8) dogs is great because the walker can take their own dog out with them.
Sally Stevens, from SF Dog, is concerned about the idea of a misdemeanor, and believes that $1million insurance may be too high.
Eric Mills thanks the commission for taking this issue on.
Commissioner Comments:
Comr. Routhier asked about the cost of insurance and suggests a $500k policy.
Comr. Garcia said the infraction should cost more than a parking ticket.
Much discussion among all the commissioners and public ensued about who will be enforcing this ordinance, where the money goes, and also other issues that we need rec and park to advice on for enforcement.
A vote was taken and all were in favor of tabling this issue until next month.
B. “Pet Friendly Housing”/Landlord Properties
Comr. Hamilton read the entire proposed ordinance into the record and reviewed the survey reports from the land lords.
Comr. Weiss discussed the rent increase hardship and opposed it for that reason.
Comr. Garcia says the impediment of pet friendly housing is the landlord, not the law. She said she does not want to support this legislation because there is no guarantee that landlords will allow animals in their apartment complexes, only that if they do, they are allowed to charge more. She stated that this legislation codified discrimination against animals.
Public Comment:
Gloria Rogan works in the industry and has a pet. Discusses how landlords are running a business.
Eric Brooks, former legislative analyst with IDA, thinks that 5% is awfully high.
Unnamed male #1 from a prior meeting stated that a tenant should pay a little extra for a pet.
Unnamed female #1, a colleague of Eric Brook’s friend, states that it would be good to have tenants’ representatives here at the meeting.
Philip Geary appreciates all the work that was put into this and is opposed to paying a surcharge for animals.
Shelly Austinteey thinks that if you have a passion for something you would go to the extreme to pay and supports this.
Sally Stevens, SF Dog, thinks that this is a solution is search of a problem and would like to see alternative solutions.
Commissioners Comments:
Comr. Schulke says that he would prefer a 2% increase instead of a steep 5%. Comr. Hamilton responded that the landlords said that 5% was minimal for them to be responsive. Says he supports this because it may help animals, but has reservations about the percentage.
Comr. Guldbech said that it was a great idea and paying for animals is a reality. And said it should be simple.
Comr. Garcia expressed her desire to consider alternatives such as a website to applaud rent friendly landlords and the possibility to request pledges from the landlords and members of the public, but not this ordinance.
Comr. Franklin saw this as just targeting people in their apartments and not people going out and looking for apartments.
Comr. Hamilton says it just “sweetens the pot” and perhaps would educate people. Says that it is comparable to a surcharge.
Comr. Weiss discussed the financial burden. She states we don’t need this.
Voting:
Comrs. Franklin, Schulke, Routhier-Kennedy and Hamilton Voted in Favor, Weiss Opposed and Garcia Abstained. Motion passed.
C. African Clawed Frogs at the Lily Pond in Golden Gate Park
Eric Mills presented the argument to exterminate all the African Clawed Frogs in the Lily Pond at Golden Gate Park. He says that this is a serious problem and we need to just eradicate the problem once and for all. He has brought numerous speakers to the meeting. He believes that San Francisco needs to push this along.
Commissioner Comment:
Comr. Routhier-Kennedy asked why they discontinued the draining. She also asked if the frogs would migrate if they drained the pond. Mills conceded that they may.
Comr. Hamilton asked if Fish and Game had jurisdiction over city parks. Mills says the money is there, but the will to kill frogs isn’t.
Comr. Schulke said that it would probably be best to get rid of them.
Comr. Garcia stated that she wanted an alternative way to trim this population issue. She suggested frog birth control, frog adoptions and also stated that cannabilism was a natural way of keeping their own numbers down. She does not like the idea of scooping them up and killing them.
Public Comment:
Phil Rossy – Has been working with Fish and Game and has removed a substantial amount. They do not see any activity in the pond right now. Says a temporary fence would be inviting the public to mess around with the frogs. There are populations in Kern County, Orange County and LA County where there have been no attempts to eradicate them there. He says theat the frogs breed more when it is hot from April to November. Supports the removal of the frogs from the ponds
Stacey Peralta – Graduate student who did a field study on turtles. She discussed the types of breeder that ACFs are. She said that Western pond turtles co-exist with the ACFs. She speculates on the future and does not think that the Western Pond Turtles will be able to compete with the ACFs. She refers to them as a “voracious species.” She supports the removal of the frogs from the ponds
Allen Hopkins – He said ACFs have caused the declined of other species. He says we need to think about diversity. He thinks a stitch in time saves nine. He supports the removal of the frogs from the ponds
Paul Haskins – He is an observer of the lily pond. He thinks that they are doing a wonderful job trapping the frogs. He calls them explosive breeders. He says only licensed researchers and zoos can keep the frogs. He says they became widely distributed in the 60’s because of the pregnancy tests back in the day. He supports the removal of the frogs from the ponds
Eric Larsen – from California Fish and Game. He provided information for us to read. He says that the current state is a method of controlling the population but not a method for eradication. He stated that the fish population is pretty much non-existent. He says that adoption is a nightmare because he does not trust owners to keep them contained. He stated that the infestation is a City of San Francisco’s issue. Frogs are euthanized with MS222 a nerve agent which is a powdered chemical applied to the water. Rodental chemical is what the pond would be treated with for the tadpoles, larve and eggs. He supports the removal of the frogs from the ponds – the process would take one week.
Sally Stevens from SF Dog – Notes that cement is porous so we should consider that. She supports removal of the frogs.
Unknown Male #1 – supports the removal of the frogs from the ponds – because it increases the habitat of another frog
Commissioner Comment:
Most commissioners believe that this is an invasive species and that the pond is infested.
Voting:
Comrs. Franklin, Schulke, Routhier-Kennedy, Weiss and Hamilton Voted in Favor and Comr. Garcia Opposed. Motion passed.
VII. Public Comment
Virginia Handley from Animal Switchboard wants to report that the 2nd legislation has begun. Support – we should subscribe to the e-mail legislative alert. AB 64, AB 667 needs to be amended to refect how SF dealt with it,
VIII. Task Allotment
Dog Licensing project - Rec & Park, Police Dept and ACC will get together
Hamilton handed him a note to contact the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and Randy Shaw and he was
IX. Calendar Items
Tabled the Dog Licensing to Next Month.
X. Adjournment
8:20pm
----------------------------------------------------
Any comments regarding the Minutes, please e-mail [email protected]