2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 October 9, 2008
5:36 PM
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Present, Commissioners: Sally Stephens, Pam Hemphill, Angela Padilla, Andrea Brooks, Philip Gerrie, Laurie Kennedy-Routhier, William Herndon – SF Police, David Gordon DVM.
Absent, Commissioners: Vicky Guldbech – ACC, Bob Palacio – SF Rec & Park
2. General Public Comment
Richard Fong – Attended Chinese Recreation Center meeting about rebuilding on the site. Currently site hosts a colony of feral cats. Feral cats also being fed at other China town parks. Concern is what happens and what can be done for the existing cat colonies when their homes are being built upon? Is Commission supportive of having a requirement of the Capital Project Improvement to allow a cat colony at the new building?
3. Approval of Draft Minutes from September 11, 2008 Meeting
Minutes approved unanimously with minor typographical corrections from the Chair and from the public.
4. Chairperson’s report and opening remarks
Comr. Stephens – Will have to leave early tonight with no bearing on what is being discussed at the time.
5. Status and tracking of letters of recommendation requesting action by the Board.
A) Update on status of letter sent to the board over animal welfare issues at the SF Zoo.
Comr. Brooks – Ordinance based on Commission’s recommendation did not pass the Board. Voted against 7 to 4. Mayor Newsom stated that he wanted to change the format of the existing Joint Zoo Committee. Two additional seats added. One of the seats would be chosen by our Commission. E-mailed Dufty’s office to find out the details of the process of how that would work. Hoping to hear back by next month.
6. Unfinished Business
A) Update of letter to be sent to the Board regarding the Outside Lands Festival in GG Park and its impact on wildlife.
Comr. Hemphill – Considers the scale of the event, fencing, night lighting, and noise, a huge problem for wildlife. Would like to send proposed letter that wildlife be considered in future planning of events of this type in the Park.
Comr. Padilla – Supports sending the letter.
Comr. Brooks – Letter will go to both Supervisors and Rec & Park?
Comr. Hemphill – Yes.
Comr. Stephens – Concerns about the letter itself. Technically, hearings were not held. It was an agenda item. Outside Lands people were not invited to speak. Had talked about lack of consideration for wildlife and lack of planning. Unsure if we had discussed lack of planning. Do we know if wildlife was actually affected? Don’t know if ACC heard of any impacts. Issue of event not being free. Ongoing debate of the use of parks being active or passive. Sees future musical events in the Park being good for the City. Wildlife concerns were not addressed but should have been. Would like letter to not be specific to say that wildlife was impacted rather it was likely there was some impact. Doesn’t see conflict between events and having wildlife in the Park.
Comr. Hemphill – This letter is specific to this event as it kept wildlife from water and hunting for food. Impact hard to determine. If an animal could not get food or water for 10 days it might die unnoticed in the bushes. Some animals might be weakened. It is unhealthy for the animals because of its commercial nature. People come to the parks to enjoy the park. This event was a total lack of planning. They didn’t talk to ACC. No provision was made for the animals. Would like to see them considered as part of future planning.
Comr. Routhier – Supports letter because it raises awareness and to consult with ACC.
Comr. Herndon – For the checklist of the people planning the event, add ACC. Could accomplish a lot by bringing them in and having them sign off.
Comr. Hemphill – A side issue is about the use of public space for commercial purposes. It shuts out the public from using the parks.
Comr. Stephens – These events are one of the unique aspects of SF. It is a balancing act. It’s OK to have events that are charged every so often. Supports Comr. Herndon’s suggestion to include ACC. Wildlife should be factored in.
Comr. Hemphill – No one speaks for wildlife. People speak up for dogs and cats.
Fish & Game as well as ACC might be notified.
Comr. Herndon – Might not want to include Fish & Game because you want it to be under the control of SF. Don’t want to invite the State in.
Comr. Hemphill – There might be a Fish & Game law about harassing wildlife to be considered.
Comr. Herndon – I believe it is intentional harassment of wildlife. This wouldn’t be classified as such.
Comr. Hemphill – If you want to get rid of raccoons you turn on bright lights and play loud music at night.
Comr. Stephens- That is long term. The music went late only two or three nights.
Comr. Routhier – As to Supervisors, they want to see City agencies working together. They would probably approve including ACC. Not probably Fish & Game.
Comr. Gerrie- Supports letter as written. Has read in the paper on how happy City officials are about money raised by this type of event, planning more in the future. This sets a dangerous precedence by not looking into the impact on wildlife. It’s hard to prove a negative but I would veer that fencing such a large area does impact wildlife. To prove it would take much effort and a long time. I haven’t read anything negative about this event. I feel this is an inappropriate use of the Park on many fronts but my concern here is for the wildlife.
Comr. Herndon – Feels letter should be more general. They may come back wanting to know just what wildlife is being affected. Growing up in SF, near Mt. Sutro , had many raccoons in own back yard. They are used to people. Working at City Hall at night, raccoons would be in the dumpsters. They have adapted.
Comr. Hemphill – Used to have skunks and raccoons in backyard but no longer. Thinks they have gone to the parks due to increased building.
Comr. Herndon – There’s been no building near Sutro tower in decades. As to permits for these sort of events, there are checklists. ACC could be added. Could achieve intent of letter by having ACC participate in the planning. ACC would have to sign off for permit approval.
Comr. Hemphill – So I can just add, “Please add ACC to the checklist for future events”?
Comr. Stephens – Could include such as “bowls of water every 20 feet” or “access for feral cat feeders”.
Comr. Hemphill – That’s fine but what about coyotes?
Comr. Herndon – Another concern is to clean up the garbage nightly to avoid scavenging. Voicing such concerns would benefit the animals.
Comr. Stephens – Doesn’t see having an event and having wildlife to be mutually exclusive. Having ACC on the checklist would help to accommodate wildlife.
6 A) Public Comment
Richard Fong – Supports letter but concerned about it being too specific. Bob Palacio talked about “memorandum of understanding” to include costs for wildlife welfare. Having ACC on checklist is more work for ACC added by ACWC. Rec & Park should be considering wildlife.
Martha Hoffman – SPCA feral cat volunteer – Has been working in the parks since 1993. Recent event was 10 times bigger that any before. Half the Park was closed off. Animals were seen running the fence at night. They could not get in or out. Feral cat people could not get in. It was outrageous. Concert belonged at Candlestick Park . They didn’t need to go late with music and lights. It was awful. West end of Park was closed off to traffic. Letter is great. Commission should consider ongoing working group on wildlife. No one is speaking for them.
Marc Toft – Supports letter. Letter advocates for wildlife and for public space.
Julienne Johnson – Strongly supports letter. Supports involving ACC as well.
Kathleen McGarr – Supporter of Wildcare in San Rafael . City needs to pay attention to other animals besides companion animals in SF. Supports letter.
John Denny – Wary of calling in Fish & Game. They take charge.
Lisa Vittori - Appreciates Commission to be pro-active and to assert moral authority. Popular events bring less critical attention than unpopular events.
Public Comment closed
Comr. Stephens – Suggests that feral cat feeders, specifically, be allowed access in the future.
Comr. Hemphill – That is already been acknowledged and worked out. Speaking for Fish & Game, they deal with poaching.
Comr. Padilla – Moves to send letter with additional language added. Seconded by Comr. Gerrie.
Comr. Stephens – Questions if public comment is needed on the motion.
No Public Comment
Motion passes unanimously.
6 B) Discussion of proposed ordinance to ban renting of pets in SF.
Comr. Brooks – Thankful for support. Did not find other similar businesses besides Flexpetz operating in U.S. Did find a similar business in Japan . Made a mistake in agenda by recommending a resolution for the Board to pass an ordinance banning pet rental in SF. Only a recommendation is needed from our Commission.
Comr. Padilla – Do we just make a recommendation? Or do we draft an ordinance?
Comr. Brooks – We can send a recommendation. I’ll attach model legislation that was recommended in Massachusetts . That will include cats as well.
Comr. Herndon – Would this legislation affect the homeless who share animals when panhandling?
Comr. Padilla – This would only affect for-profit businesses.
Comr. Hemphill – How does this exclude animals rented for movies?
Comr. Stephens - Animals used in movies are privately owned. Had a dog who was in a commercial.
Comr. Routhier - Would want to add the actual legislation passed by Massachusetts which included specific definitions of types of businesses etc.
Comr. Brooks – We can recommend that all companion animals be considered.
Comr. Routhier – How would this affect leasing horses?
Comr. Gerrie – The definition “companion animals” would exclude horses. I think.
Comr. Herndon – Under the definition “service animals” it includes all animals. Even a “service” chicken. If we write the definition we can be specific. In San Mateo County one needs a permit for a “confined” animal – defined as any animal weighing more than 300 lbs.
Comr. Hemphill – Costs for renting from Flexpetz run all together about $380 a month for renting a dog for minimum of four days.
Comr. Brooks – It is obviously marketed towards busy professionals.
Comr. Gerrie – Renting animals in this way is a level above other forms of animal rental. Such as horse rental. Would be against the for-profit aspect of this.
Comr. Brooks – Latest blog says they are still planning to expand to over a 100 cities. As things developed in Boston and Massachusetts their spin changed. Their latest was they were an “innovative adoption agency” or, people are renting with hopes of adopting.
Comr. Herndon – If pet renting was banned in SF, could they open up shop in a neighboring city?
Comr. Brooks- My goal is to follow Boston ’s model and bring it to the State level once it is passed in SF.
Comr. Gerrie- If one wants to be with animals, ones time would be better spent volunteering at a shelter.
Comr. Brooks – All the agencies already exist that do what they are claiming that is innovative.
Comr. Routhier – Many agencies and groups encourage taking an animal home on a temporary basis before adopting. This is different because the same animal could be loaned out to many different people providing no stability.
Comr. Padilla – How many dogs does this agency have and where are they kept? Are they violating laws about kennel licenses?
Comr. Brooks – Doubt claims that dogs are kept in foster homes.
Comr. Stephens – As to movies, those animals are usually with the same trainer. This type of renting would give different messages of what was acceptable behavior.
Comr. Hemphill – Question about “Renting pets jeopardizes public safety” .
Comr. Brooks – Dogs that are stressed are more likely to act out in public and possibly bite.
Comr. Routhier – Issue to raise with the Board is if they allow pet renting businesses in SF are they liable for any lawsuits?
Comr. Brooks – Will work on these details.
Comr. Gerrie – Sees problems with the concept – providing a diverse range of dogs to satisfy demand. From the smallest to the largest. Can’t see it working.
Comr. Routhier -Sees a lot of details that could be included in the recommendation. How much is enough for the Supervisors to act on? Suggests keeping it concise.
6 B Public comment
Lisa Vittori – Knows several people that have joint shared ownership. Would now want this ordinance applied to them. Animals become stressed from different causes. A good owner knows how to manage. Differentiate between for-profit and people that are just dog-walkers. Would want that to continue.
Public Comment closed
Comr. Brooks – Emphasis is on “commercial” business.
6 C Update on Commission’s study on no-kill in SF.
Comr. Stephens - Apologizes on having to leave early. Comr. Brooks chairs meeting.
Comr. Padilla – Anticipates November 13th meeting will be devoted to no-kill. Variety of speakers invited. Speakers will address prepared questions of qualitative and quantitative measures. Such questions as; “ What counts as live release?”, “What standards are there for adoptability?” , “To what extent are shelters partnering with rescue groups?’ Goal in discussion is not to be accusatory but to achieve a standard of best practices. Invited speaker today is from Fix San Francisco.
Michael Iachini – Reads mission statement of groups’ vision of SF as a no-kill city. Currently SF has an enviable 84% live release rate. Rate could be higher, up to 92% based on other no-kill city statistics. Wants to raise live release 8%. Not easy as the 8% needs the most work. Should work on City’s animals before bringing in outside animals to adopt. Can be done. Transparency is essential. Legislation can be key to require shelters to provide policies and outcomes to the public. It is achievable.
The no-kill equation. Ten points. 1. Feral cat trap-neuter-release, TNR, program. 2. High volume, low cost spay-neuter. 3. Rescue groups. 4. Foster care. 5. Comprehensive adoption programs. 6. Program to help retain pets in their new homes. SF used to have a behavior hotline available to anyone. We now only have a hotline for adopters from a single shelter. Need more adopter’s hotlines. 7. Medical and behavior rehabilitation. 8. Public relations and community involvement. 9. Volunteers. 10. Compassionate director.
Some of the steps are in place in SF but need to be stronger. Fixsanfrancisco.org is committed to making SF a no-kill city. Fix sanfrancsico.org supports the Adoption Pact between SPCA & ACC. Supports using the energy of volunteers.
Comr. Routhier – Can you define “no-kill”?
Michael Iachini – No-kill means any animal you can save you do save. There is disagreement of what that means. We like the 92% number for SF based on other cities.
Comr. Routhier – In the effort of transparency, is the term “no-kill” appropriate?
Comr. Hemphill – Likes the idea of “adopter’s hotline”. Can that be staffed by volunteers?
Michael Iachini – Yes.
Comr. Herndon – Sees a problem with having enough homes for all the animals.
Michael Iachini – Nathan Winograd will speak to that next month. He disagrees with not enough homes. He believes it is necessary to be more innovative in finding the homes. Has been done. Some cities have achieved this goal with higher animals per capita.
Comr. Routhier – Would like no-kill effort to extend to all animals not just cats & dogs.
Michael Iachini – Wants to help all animals. Needs more volunteers experienced with other types of animals.
Comr. Hemphill – Today’s Chronicle want ads have over 120 ads for different breeds of dogs. Sees the market for pure breeds a problem as well.
Michael Iachini - Everyone should start at the shelter.
Comr. Padilla – What can we do about backyard breeding? Breeders flood the market with animals that often wind up in shelters.
Michael Iachini – Nathan is against legislating back yard breeders. I am for it.
Comr. Gordon – Legislation would be difficult because animals are considered private property. Veterinarians could educate about adopting from shelters versus breeders. Demand side could be more useful than the supply side.
Michael Iachini – Thinks outreach through veterinarians is a wonderful innovative idea.
Comr. Routhier – SPCA has done a good job in adopting out quality animals through matching dogs & owners and educating the public. Public turns to shelters and rescue groups as a result for adoptions.
Comr. Herndon – The SPCA is a private organization. Would no-kill apply to them?
Michael Iachini – No-kill should apply across the board to all groups that adopt out animals – setting consistent standards.
Comr. Padilla – The board could pass an ordinance applying to all shelters. Our Commission should first recommend that standard. Private entities are regulated all the time by what the Board decides or the Commission recommends.
Michael Iachini – SPCA has a pet evaluation matrix on their website. ACC does not. It is a public agency and should show how they decide what animals to save.
Comr. Brooks – Supports working on creative solutions. Perception is that there are not enough homes. Works for agency that does foster care and cannot meet the needs to place animals. Not being negative but it is difficult to find homes and volunteers to meet the need. Works on housing advocacy and receives calls from people unable to find housing with their animals. Since clients are disabled, can fight for them.
Michael Iachini – Agrees it is overly optimistic that all treatable animals can find homes. It takes a lot of work. All components need to be in place. More community outreach is needed.
Comr. Herndon – Personally works to place dogs of friends. Hard to find homes. If it is hard now it will be harder with more saved dogs. Feels frustrated.
Michael Iachini –Advocate for spay-neuter programs to lower numbers.
6 C) Public Comment
Anonymous female – Thanks Comr. Padilla in care in who is invited to speak on no-kill. Issue is important and timely.
Carisa Brungraber – Foster parent for RattieRatz Rescue Welcomes opening the door to this issue. Is optimistic.
Lisa Vittori – Glad discussion is taking place. Medical care costs is issue for more adoptions. Rescue groups in SF pay for their own medical care. People in rent control housing cannot get pets. Social factor might be reaching people of color. Get American Kennel Club, AKC, responsible for backyard breeding, involved.
Nadine May – Thanks Comr. Padilla. Heard only 15% of adoptions are from shelters. General impression is that shelter animals are less than perfect. So people buy animals instead of adopting. Tells story of 15 year-old cat that was adopted. Encourages everyone to think beyond envelope for adoptability.
Marc Toft - Volunteer at ACC. Disagrees not enough homes for adoptable animals. Currently at ACC one out of three cages has an animal in it. There is the space. The wherewithal and the animals.
Martha Hoffman – Moved by the cooperative feeling of the no-kill discussion. Wonderful to see.
Julienne Johnson – Thanks commission.
Public Comment closed
Comr. Routhier – Brainstorm to save more animals than just cats & dogs.
7 General Public Comment
Lisa Vittori – ACC has waved the adoption fee for rescue groups. They still have to pay the medical costs. People surrender their animals for marginal reasons. Wonders if anyone can do animal social work.
8 & 9 Items to put on Calendar for Future Commission Meetings and Task Allotments
Comr. Gerrie – Wants to know the process of designating one meeting for just one topic. Thought it was decided together versus by one person.
Comr. Routhier – In the past a particular month would be so designated if the agenda was full.
Comr. Gerrie – Questions designating the November meeting for the broad no-kill issue. Commission does not meet in December. Wants to get Flexpetz recommendation to the Supervisors soon.
Comr. Routhier – Thinks Flexpetz could go quickly.
Comr. Brooks – Need to address two things. The Flexpetz and our how our Commission would make a recommendation to fill a seat on the Joint Zoo Committee. Ideally both items could be done quickly.
Comr. Hemphill – Wonders what could be done soon as part of the no-kill issue. A spay-neuter recommendation? A behavioral hotline? Shouldn’t no-kill be spread out over several meetings?
Comr. Padilla – Next meeting will be more informational. Not one in which we deliberate or make decisions.
Comr. Brooks – We may want to have a special meeting on no-kill outside of our monthly meeting.
Comr. Padilla – We could have a special meeting in December.
Comr. Hemphill – What is the anticipated outcome?
Comr. Padilla –Ultimately a set of best practices and recommendations to the Supervisors. Immediately, what can be done now to improve the adoption rate and decrease the kill rate. This is an ongoing discussion.
Comr. Brooks – Fine line between ongoing discussion and moving forward. Calendar will possibly be voting on Flexpetz recommendation and update on filling the Joint Zoo seat followed by speakers on no-kill and discussion.
10. Adjournment 7:35 PM
Respectfully submitted by
Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary