2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 October 8, 2009
5:40 PM
Call to Order and Roll Call
1. Present Commissioners, Laurie Kennedy-Routhier, Angella Padilla, Sally Stephens, Philip Gerrie, Pam Hemphill, Andrea Brooks, David Gordon – DVM, Kat Brown – ACC
Absent Commissioners, William Herndon – SF Police, Bob Palacio – Rec& Park
2. General Public Comment
Richard Fong – Talked with Jeff Adachi at the Public Defender’s Office about he being willing to handle pit bull cases. There is public defense for pit bull cases.
Martha Hoffman – SPCA feral cat volunteer – Thanks Comr. Hemphill for work on providing awareness and access to feral feeding areas during the Outland concert.
3. Approval of Draft Minutes for September 10, 2009
3. Public Comment
Richard Fong – Wants added his recommendation on his comments made on the Outlands concert that a trough be under fence as well.
Minutes approved unanimously with correction from the public
4. Chairperson’s report
A) Update on Joint Zoo Operating Committee
Comr. Stephens – JZ met twice in September. On the September 29 Meeting reported that: black rhinos are being moved into their new exhibit, a brief discussion of person that got into the bear grotto, discussion limited to what could be said until police investigation completed, revisiting idea of free admission after 4:30 and considering shortening hours in the winter due to darkness, a presentation of captive breeding program, and species survival program, focusing on maintaining genetic diversity for 100 years. Inquired about distinction between individual survival versus species survival. Asked if recommendations in the 2000 Performance Audit concerning acquisitions had been implemented. They didn’t know off hand and would find out. The November 9th meeting will be at the Zoo and will have a presentation on enrichment. At the September 11th meeting the budget of $17 million for fiscal year 2010 was discussed. There will be a decrease of $500,000 in the animal department $6 million budget. Questioned possible impact of budget cuts to animal welfare. No layoffs are planned. Tanya Peterson offered to meet and to discuss, personally, the details. She also wants to focus on animals that are doing well and finding better homes for the others. In particular, finding a new home for the giant eland . Other zoos reluctant to take it because it is expensive to feed. Maybe possible to bring in a companion eland for the existing one instead.
Comr. Gerrie – What is an eland?
Comr. Stephens – A very large type of antelope. The vet advisor on JZ, Dr. Spinelli , offered to look at the different animals on how they are faring and sources of enrichment. He would like to look at one or two a month starting with the more controversial ones. Intends to pursue that with Dr. Spinelli.
Comr. Brooks – When will the vet be starting to look at the controversial animals?
Comr. Stephens – He is looking at his availability.
Comr. Gerrie – That sounds like a big change in philosophy for Tanya, keeping only animals that do well versus keeping animals of a certain kind.
Comr. Stephens – Unsure. Proof remains in the actions. Previous directors would not have even said that.
4. A) Public comment. None
5. Status and tracking of letters of recommendation requesting action by the Board
A) Update on Commission’s recommendation of an ordinance banning declawing in SF.
Comr. Stephens – Supervisor Mirkarimi is carrying it. It will be heard at the City Operations and Neighborhood Services sub-committee on Oct. 26. If it passes it will go to the full Board on the 27th. Assuming it passes, it will need a second hearing a week later around mid November. The Mayor has 10 days to sign or veto it. If vetoed, it goes back to the full Board. They need 8 votes to override the veto. If passed it has 30 days before going into effect. It must be in effect by Jan 1, 2010. The reason it is so late in being introduced is the sub-committee only meets twice a month on a Monday. The last Monday in September was Yom Kippur and the first Monday in October was Columbus day. The sub-committee is Dufty as Chair, with Daly and Elsbernd. Let your Supervisors know how you feel.
Public comment. None
6. New Business
A) Discussion only on how to increase the number of tenants who can keep pets
Comr. Gerrie – Study in 2005 was done by FIREPAW about how renting to tenants with pets was economically viable and could increase bottom-line profits. The study showed the tenants with pets took better care of their units and stayed longer. The study is called, ‘Companion Animal Renters and Pet-Friendly Housing in the US”. The common perception is that allowing pets causes more problems. This study shows the opposite. This study also refers to other studies that the main cause of pet relinquishment to shelters is moving. We are looking into recommending to the Supervisors that…
Comr. Brooks – That there be no discrimination against pet owners as renters in housing.
Comr. Gerrie – Bottom line is to allow SF tenants the right to have pets regardless of what a lease might say. We are have been working on the details for several months and now want to hear what the public has to say.
Comr. Stephens – To make clear the “we” is only Comrs. Gerrie, Brooks, and myself which is not a quorum.
Comr. Brooks – We hope to have presentations from landlord and tenant groups about the concerns. There are some different catalysts which led up to this. Dovetailing with no-kill is providing more homes for pets especially foster homes. Personally works daily with disabled and seniors who are challenged to find housing with their pets. This causes stress that affects their health. We want to help and look at the specifics on how to achieve more pet-friendly rentals options in SF without mandating.
Comr. Stephens – Education for tenants about being responsible pet owners is an important factor as well as educating landlords that some of their fears are not supported by the data. The study Comr. Gerrie mentioned was in a peer-reviewed, scientifically based journal. At the least, hope to reach out to landlords to educate them and see if pet-friendly units increase that way. Another aspect is whether or not to mandate it. Hope to hear presentations from landlords and tenants by next month. We hope to explore the issue and find common ground.
Comr. Gerrie – One of the factors that started us looking into this was the increase in owner surrenders due to foreclosures. Also, the higher the rent, the more landlords seemed open to pets.
Comr. Brooks - Also the state of the economy in general that affects people being able to move into more expensive dog-friendly places.
Comr. Stephens – Another consideration is if it was a mandate would there be exemptions as to minimum number of units in a building or if a unit was owner-occupied. We need to hear opinions on that. Should we include exemptions or just make it a right to have pets?
Comr. Gerrie – Would this be our recommendation to the Supervisors that they tell the Rent Board to amend their policy?
Comr. Brooks – It depends on how specific we are.
Comr. Stephens – A couple of years ago this Commission took up this issue by looking into landlords being allowed to charge more if a tenant wanted to have pets which was an end run around rent control. That didn’t go well with the Supervisors then. All that is allowed is to charge up to two months rent in a security deposit.
Comr. Brooks – When this issue was taken up in the past there wasn’t any outreach to the tenant groups. It fell apart when it was apparent it was trying to get around rent control. We hope to bring forwards the different groups and work together to create something than can stick.
Comr. Hemphill – I was a landlord and rented to tenants with animals. It covered a spectrum. Sometimes it was a disaster. Sometimes it was great. We need to sort that out. Unsure on how. I had to meet the animal before I would rent.
Comr. Stephens – A pet resume is helpful.
Comr. Gerrie – We are not suggesting that landlords have to take in any animal but only those that are not a nuisance as covered in nuisance clauses in existing rental agreements.
Comr. Padilla – Is currently a pet-friendly landlord in SF. Is open especially to tenants with large dogs. Have found that humans are more destructive than animals are on a property without exception. Any damage done by a pet was always covered by the deposit. Damage done by humans has sometimes exceeded the rental deposit.
6 A) Public Comment
Peter Eisen – Executive Director, Small Property Owners of SF – 2000 + members generally accept pets. But if the owner lives in the building or a neighbor will be disturbed, a new lease may have a no-pets clause out of necessity. Had worked in 2007 with Comr. Hamilton to increase rents by 5% for a pet. Doesn’t agree that there are no problems with having pets. Personally, still allows pets. If money is deducted from the deposit for pet damages, tenants will complain to the Rent Board. Rent Board will usually rule in the tenants favor. Open to working with the Commission.
Lisa Fricke – SF Apartment Association – Pets can cause considerable damage to flooring in an apartment. Insurance policies restrict breeds of dogs that are covered. Other tenants can have reactions to pets such as phobias, allergies, or just not like dogs. Another concern is noise from barking dogs. That cannot be easily fixed and is a nuisance to neighboring tenants. Opposes mandatory policy for those reasons.
(Submits letters to Commission from landlords and some tenants opposing mandating pets.)
Comr. Routhier- You oppose a mandate. Do you have any suggestions on how to increase the number of pets allowed in housing?
Lisa Fricke – Not at this time but is willing to sit down and talk about ideas.
Andrew Long – Board member of SF Apartment Association – Lives in the building with tenants and owns a dog. Strongly opposed to any mandate to force landlord to accept pets. Should be strictly voluntary. Has had problems with dogs and cats in the past. Because of which, doesn’t rent to people with dogs anymore. Doesn’t rent to cat owners because partner is allergic to cat fur. Should work on carrots such as was proposed two years ago to increase rents for allowing pets. Should encourage landlords by incentivizing versus mandating. The right to have a pet should be negotiated through the Rent Board for an extra fee as is an extra parking spot. Cannot micro-manage. Every building is different.
Michelle Horneff-Cohen – President – Professional Property Management Association – Association opposes any mandate to accept pets. Recognizes the effort to decrease euthanization in SF is a valuable goal. Opposes mandate for following reasons; damage done by pets, fear of pets by other tenants, noise, fleas, allergic reactions, and liability made by pets to other residents. Reminds Commission that pets are not a protected class. Open to working with Commission for alternatives.
Comr. Stephens – Disputes occur between tenants all the time. Most buildings have mechanisms for dealing with those disputes. How is it different for pet disputes?
Michelle Horneff-Cohen – Leases have agreements on accepted noise levels etc. Breaching an agreement allows the landlord to act. If having pets is mandate, landlords with have no rights. There is no-pet clause in our leases. But we encourage landlords to add an addendum for pets. A mandate takes away our rights.
Comr. Stephens – What if an addendum was mandated? There has to be some provisions for a dog that barks all the time whether it is a lease or an addendum.
Michelle Horneff-Cohen – Doesn’t see a mandate working. It must be voluntary. Is a pet lover and owns pets
Marina Franco – Board member of SF Apartment Association – Represents between two and three thousand landlords in SF. Supports previous speakers comments. Has two issues not brought up. Understands one goal of a mandate is to encourage more people to adopt and foster pets from shelters. If pets are mandated not known if owners would obtain pets from shelters versus breeders and pet stores. Comr. spoke of landlords getting more money from pet owners. If that were true everyone would rent to pet owners. Were these studies done in high density areas such as SF or done in rent controlled areas? Allowing pets increases headaches such as a barking dog.
Comr. Padilla –Do landlords in SF allow smoking in buildings?
Marina Franco – It can be allowed but generally it is not because second hand smoke can be considered a nuisance.
Comr. Padilla – You don’t oppose landlords that do allow smoking in their buildings?
Marina Franco – No.
Comr., Padilla – Do you have a policy against allowing small children in your units?
Marina Franco – Children are allowed because that would be discrimination.
Comr. Padilla – It took a mandate to allow that. At one time white landlords would not rent to black or latino people. Landlords would not rent to people with children. Recently landlords would not rent to unmarried couples. All required mandates. Hearing a fear of mandates but often mandates are required to make change. Feeling is that tonight’s issue is another issue of inclusion. Feel that tonight’s fear of mandates is a fear of a unwillingness to work this out amicably not because there is something inherently wrong with having pets in units in the City.
Marina Franco – Are you saying it is a constitutional right to have a pet?
Comr. Padilla – That hasn’t been determined just as there was not a constitutional right to live together unmarried or have small children until the courts decided that issue. The question here is, is there a way to allow pets with reasonable addendums, warranties, and remedies? Responding to a fear of a mandate and not willing to work things out.
Marina Franco – Want to work together with Commission to find remedies without needing to mandate. Problems start then.
Sharon Shai – SF landlord – Have had major damage from pets in the past. Commission’s intention is good but how it is being done is questionable. Doesn’t want a mandate or it to be called discrimination. Knows people highly allergic to cat hair. Fleas are a potential problem. What is being said by opening it up to animals. What animals? Small dogs? Big & small dogs? Cats? Snakes? Rodents? Tenants defining what is a pet will cause problems. When major damage is done to an apartment, the security deposit does not cover it. If it is mandatory, who will be ultimately responsible for damages done or quality of life to a neighbor? The landlord gets the call late at night when two tenants have issues. Consider this before you make your decisions.
Hope Johnson – SF tenant with a pet – The Diane Whipple dog-mauling case will come up. The landlord groups have expressed a lot of concerns against mandating. A possible alternative would be to designate a certain percentage of housing for pets. Not all housing. A possible incentive for landlords would be reduction in costs through permits and fees. The animal is seldom the problem versus how the tenant keeps care of it. Perhaps education in taking care of pets? Lastly, for new landlords, to visit the old tenants housing to see what condition it was left in after having a pet in it.
Martha Hoffman – SF landlord – Wouldn’t mind an ordinance against discrimination but would not like a mandate. Perhaps a financial incentive for pet-friendly landlords to get a tax break or some kind of levy charged to pay for animals that can’t find homes?
Nadine May – SF renter – Has two cats. Liked Hope’s idea of a percentage. Receives many e-mails from renters that have taken in an animal due to the owner evicted, sick, or otherwise unable to take care of it. They live in fear of the landlord finding out. Asks landlords to have some compassion. Don’t evict someone that has a pet when they are not supposed to. Don’t evict them. Sit down and try to work with them so the animals don’t have to go the shelter.
Richard Fong – Remembers last time issue was raised when four sitting Commissioners were removed. Will it be property owners, with political clout, versus tenants again? The courts should decide what is discrimination if a tenant meets all the requirements to have a pet. Not the Commission.
Susan Wheeler – Daughter’s cat now lives with her because her daughter’s new landlord does not allow pets. The cat may have gone to a shelter if it wasn’t for her taking it in. Has another cat from someone that lost their apartment. Lots of tenants want to keep their animals. Maybe not all units but perhaps a percentage of pet-friendly units would be the way to go.
Dennis Shai – What about having the SPCA or some agency have a list of all landlords that will rent to tenants with pets?
Comr. Padilla – Thought the SPCA maintained a website of pet-friendly apartments?
Comr. Routhier – The SPCA has a program called the Open Door Program. Unsure of current status of the site. Gives advise to good pet-owning tenants on keeping their pets. Also give advise for landlords to have positive relations with their pet-owning tenants.
Anonymous female – That website is not currently available.
Tina Ahn – SPCA – Website is going back up this week. Trying to figure out how to keep up the renters referral list.
Comr. Padilla – This was a site where individual landlords could post units?
Tina Ahn – Yes that will be a part of it.
Public comment closed
Comr. Stephens – Is there a difference in saying you can’t discriminate against having a pet versus saying you have to rent to a pet owner?
Comr. Padilla – There is a difference but from a landlord’s perspective it is a distinction without a difference. You can say all units will accept pets but then renters can be screened. If the renter is otherwise not qualified, you don’t have to rent to them. Renting selection can be based on other reasons than owning a pet.
Comr. Gerrie – In our discussions, we never used the term mandate. It was always “open to” under the guidelines of the lease’s nuisance clauses. Also the idea was working things out amongst the tenants of a building to solve any disputes or problems due to allergies or noise etc. Believe that about a half of City units are pet friendly.
Comr. Hemphill – Can you clarify? You are not using the term “mandate”?
Comr. Gerrie – The public has been using that word. Our wording was not to discriminate against people that have pets. That is a different tone. If a tenant has the right to have pet it would have to be decided case by case.
Comr. Brooks – Even if we don’t use that word it is what we are talking about. Looking forwards to dialoging with the landlord groups and finding ways to incentivize. Concern particularly of population with limited income unable to pay for extra fees for having their pets. Want to highlight that responsible guardianship is a key factor. If there are problems, remedies can be easily accessed. Some of the issues brought up are harder to deal with than other issues. Noise complaints are an easier issue than allergies by neighbors for instance.
Comr. Stephens – Only first discussion and will continue to dialogue and look at points brought up.
7. Unfinished Business
7 A) Discussion only of no-kill
Comr. Stephens – Comr. Padilla introduced a draft of the Companion Animal Protection Act to review.
Comr. Padilla – Interested to hear comments on draft discussion-only legislation. Has been making progress on the non-profit willing to take a lead roll. Will be traveling to Utah soon to review their program. Hope to bring back good ideas from there.
Comr. Hemphill – Overwhelmed by legal detail. Concerned that it could create harm to the shelters. Creates perception of unreliability of shelters that may result in animals being abandoned. The word “companion” in the title does not include wildlife that come to the shelter. Curious as to what set off this response.
Comr. Padilla – Came from the community. Fruit of the discussions from at least the past 11 months. Concern about whether there is transparency in the shelters. Whether shelters use uniform standards for veterinary evaluation. Whether there are ways for the shelters and rescues to work together to create a situation where more animals get out alive.
Comr. Hemphill – There was no specific incident that started it?
Comr. Padilla – Yes there was. The less than ideal rates of live release. Also, the many accounts from the public of adoptable animals rescued that were slated to be euthanized.
Kat Brown – ACC – Proposed legislation is lifted directly from the no-kill advocacy of Nathan Winograd’s organization. It had it origins in an initiative intended to be submitted to the voters by supporters of the no-kill program.
Comr. Padilla – Yes. I used Nathans’ CAPA to start but made several changes such as no private right of action. Changes in the pit bull regulations. Changes in what kind of animals could be euthanized for what kind of diseases.
Comr. Hemphill – His emphasis was on dogs and cats also.
Comr. Padilla – Yes. There are two tracks in the shelters. Wildlife is not adopted out to the public. It does include other animals such as birds, reptiles, rodents, etc that are adopted out to the public. Not wildlife. Wildlife in shelters is made available to appropriate sanctuaries.
Comr. Hemphill – Why is this restricted to one subset of animals? What if there is another oil spill and affected wildlife are brought in, they are not listed as a concern.
Comr. Padilla – This is focused on animals that come into shelters that could be adopted but wind up not being adopted by the public. Invited Comr. Hemphill to convene hearings on a wildlife protection act to look at the wildlife. Doesn’t know how much wildlife winds up in our shelters.
Kat Brown – Fair number comes to ACC. Concern is not only where they are to be placed but taking care of them while there. If more attention is focused on dogs and cats will others loose out? ACC is seeing more and more wildlife. If mandated to concentrate of companion animals, it will take away from limited resources for forgotten animals.
Comr. Hemphill – Wildlife come into shelters throughout the country. Why do you want to exclude them?
Comr. Padilla – It’s about saving adoptable animals.
Comr. Hemphill – It’s about saving as many animals as you can.
Comr. Padilla – It’s about saving domestic companion animals not wildlife.
Comr. Hemphill – Why? It does include feral cats.
Comr. Padilla – Yes, good point. Some ferals are rehabilitatable. Perception is ferals are more in line with domestic animals. Wildlife cannot be rehabilitated to live with people.
Comr. Hemphill – Wildlife may be able to return to their homes which is less costly. Do we just euthanize them because we don’t have any money to take care of them?
Comr. Padilla- These are great questions but this act does not look at that.
Comr. Hemphill – That’s my big complaint. Why is this act so exclusive to cover just some animals including ferals? Should include language to provide effective care for them.
Comr. Padilla – I’m open to that. Feels like sandbagging. Has not been the subject of conversation to date. Should be parallel legislation. Doesn’t fit with what has been talked about which is getting companion animals out of shelters and into homes. We have not heard about it to make recommendations as we have with companion animals. Previously you had talked about small adoptable animals which this does include.
Comr. Hemphill – Would like wildlife to be included in this. Looking at the economics of shelter being open 7 days a week for adoptions. Great ideas but also expensive. If act supports feral cats should also include wildlife.
Kat Brown – ACC intake report for 2008-2009. Took in 5,000 cats. 2,500 dogs. 2,600 wild animals and other animals taken in were1,335.
Comr. Gerrie Wonders if there was any consultation with ACC and the SPCA when drafting this.
Comr. Padilla – Yes as to the hearings we had. To this draft, not yet. Intends to consult with them after getting input from fellow Commissioners first.
Comr. Gerrie – Had an attorney look this over and gave feedback. Part 3 is on the books under the Hayden Law. In part 4 it is too broad and is conflicting. Part 5 is under the Hayden law. Part 6 is under the vet purvue. Part 7 is under the Public relations Act and the Sunshine ordinance. Section 10 of part 7 is under the Hayden Law. Part 8 is under the Public Relations Act and Sunshine Ordinance as well. I quote the original author of the CAPA who wrote in a local paper that “ he has little faith that the Commission will do the right thing.” Find this confrontational. He also says we are backing down from showing leadership. I associate his statements with what is being proposed. He states relative terms as facts. He is consistent in his message but I lack confidence in anything he proposes. If there was anything to be drafted it should start locally. Not from this outside source. Any drafts should come locally from ACC and SPCA. In his articles he uses strong words such as “ squandered, tragically, betrayed, sordid, etc.” to describe the current actions of the shelters. Recapping. Big sections of the draft are already on the books. Believe in talking to the parties involved and not calling them names and accusing them and us of not doing the right thing. Down on this whole thing. Do see hope in the new PSA sponsored by Maddie’s Fund and HSUS. It seeks to improve the image of shelters. It is a three year campaign to promote the adoption of shelter animals across the country. It has three components. 1. Shelter adoptions being the preferred way to acquire pets. 2. Shatter stereotypes of shelter animals being unhealthy and poorly behaved. 3. Significantly increase shelter adoptions. This has already started to air. All 4 million animals currently being euthanized every year could be helped by this. Excited by this larger umbrella that could solve our problems without name calling.
Comr. Brooks – Supports the draft document if it can help save animals. Doesn’t matter who it came from originally. It is a starting place to create something beneficial for the City. Are there parts of the draft that will create something new?
Comr. Routhier - Reading the first line of the draft. “End the killing of savable animals..”
There are cities that do have high kill rates. Nathan Winograd highlights in his book solutions to cities that euthanasia is out of control. This is not the case in SF. Had a hard time reading the draft document and unable to respond. This draft is not a reflection of SF. Feels everyone should have an open mind and heart working collaboratively and together to save as many lives as possible. Would like to see the infighting come to a close. The draft does not help that. Nathan’s inflammatory language is for communities that are far from where they could be. Would like to see what, if anything, that comes out of this Commission be a reflection of the people of this City.
Comr. Padilla – Doesn’t understand why everyone feels so threatened by this draft.
Comr. Routhier – The inflammatory language. This language doesn’t help bring people together around common goals. We need to work and collaborate together as a goal. The document needs to reflect the efforts of people in SF working together in order to work with it.
Comr. Padilla – Open to editing it. Laws are made with starting with a uniform act. One example was the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. It was adopted by the fifty states and each state tinkered with it to suit each state and then adopted it. Nathan tried to write a uniform act that would then be customized for each situation. Took his act and made changes that he probably would not have approved of. Have not heard anything as to the actual content of the legislation. Doesn’t want to back away from it stating the intent is stop the needless killing of savable animals.
Comr. Stephens – Doubts if we didn’t know that Nathan had written this would we be reacting in the same way.
Comr. Routhier – Reads the draft and reads that SF is not doing a good job for its animals. Need to make sure that people do work with the shelters – that the animals do have a safe place to go. This document does not reflect the good work of the shelters in this City.
Comr. Gerrie – This effort has demoralized the SPCA and the perception of the SPCA. Fewer volunteers. Less money coming in. Fewer animals are being saved due to the negative articles against the SPCA. ACC and the SPCA should have been consulted first. Their public testimony was against any legislation at all. Would like to be supportive of this document and legislation but feel it is divisive. Am not in support of this approach to saving animals. Have a hard time words such as “needless killing.”
Comr. Stephens – Arguing wordsmithing. Easier words can be used. Arguing two different things. One, much of this is already on the books. Two, it is divisive. Want to make sure that goals of this City 15 years ago continue to be part of the City. Supports it and do some wordsmithing. Remembers a comment about when wildlife is brought into the shelter they are in bad shape therefore the euthanasia rate is high. What could be done for them?
Kat Brown – The City could help if we had the resources. Diagnostic resources and medical. SF does not have a rehab for wildlife except for Jamie Ray and ROMP. Timely transport is a problem. Songbirds must be transported to Peninsula Humane Society. With resources we could transport right away. It now takes 12 to 24 hours. With resources we could have a nature wildlife center in SF. Do we have the will? A protection act for wildlife?
Comment on first page of SF CAPA; offended that it says the shelters in SF are not doing the job the community expects. Requirements that shelter animals have adequate care implies that they don’t have that.
Comr. Stephens – Didn’t read it that way.
Comr. Padilla – This is just declaring it to be our policy. Not that you are not doing a good job.
Kat Brown – Remind me of the Hayden Bill of 1998. To even bring this up is not a vote of confidence in your local shelters. In SF, we have been the model. We deserve better than this. SPCA has a 87% live release rate for dogs and cats. It’s not that high for other animals nor wildlife but it is one of the highest and best in the country. It feels adversarial.
Comr. Padilla – You might have felt adversarial with Nathan and others. I’m the last person to be adversarial. 87% is great but can do better. Some cats & dogs still don’t make it out alive. We are only trying to improve on that.
Kat Brown – I agree. We can do better. Doesn’t agree that this is the way to go.
Comr. Stephens – Understands that it can seem adversarial on the receiving end. Was not the intent from Angela. Maybe from Nathan. Thinks it is useful to do something like this. Other things could be added. Perhaps to not have a limit on how many dogs a rescue group can keep in their house excluding hoarders. Perhaps making TNR an official City policy. Perhaps including a date when whatever is passed goes into effect. Perhaps, not transferring animals to other shelters where they might be killed. Perhaps, broadening not transferring animals for medical research. Perhaps, if an animal is transferred to another shelter, being notified of its disposition. Perhaps limit on the total length of stay in a shelter. Warehousing is a legitimate concern.
Comr. Padilla – Struggled with that one. How do you limit a stay to a certain amount of time and not a day longer? How do you determine that? Recently took a dog that had been in a shelter for fourteen months.
Comr. Brooks - How do we balance the quality of life against not euthanizing?
Comr. Padilla – Responding to earlier comments by .Comr. Gerrie about some sections already on the books. Examples are of new domestic violence laws and hate crime laws. There are already laws against being violent or cruel to others. People, at the time, voiced similar concerns that those laws were already there. Wants to highlight that new legislation overlaps existing legislation but is specific in a special chapter. Hate crime laws are covered against violence and assault but have a special element. Sections of this legislation are in Hayden, Sunshine, or Public Records Act but this would be separate piece of legislation attempting to harmonize and codify in a single place all of the rules relating to shelter and some rescue group operations. Overlap is intentional. Having the City attorney go over this would be to make sure it doesn’t conflict with State law.
Comr. Stephens - This is a one part of a two-pronged attack. Setting down policy to the animals covered in this act. The other prong being the oversight and coordinating the programs to make this work. Without that, this is pointless. Working with an existing non-profit that can do the oversight and get grants to do the programs. This is aimed at companion animals and their rescue groups that could do more with more resources. In terms of finances and finding foster homes. This is taking what already exists and coordinating it better and boosting it where needed. Having a large non-profit get grants and then distributing it to the rescue groups. Legislation is only one part to this issue. Wildlife is another concern. Hopefully we can work to get a wildlife rehab center in SF. In the meantime, we can work on the companion animals. Draft can be word-smithed better but don’t want to lose overall goals.
Comr. Gerrie – In interest of acting locally and doing what is best for SF, I make a motion that this legislation be vetted through ACC & SPCA to craft something I can support. Currently feels imposed from the outside. Concerned about having a second prong that doesn’t exist yet.
Comr. Padilla – The group exists.
Comr. Gerrie – The supporting group exists but is outside of ACC & SPCA. Hearing mixed messages. Talk of working together yet saying they are not doing the right thing.
This should have been brought to them first. Not us. They are doing the work. Not us.
Comr. Padilla – Some of us are.
Comr. Gerrie – I want to support something but haven’t been behind this. I want to support something that works.
Comr. Stephens – Doesn’t feel it is time to make this motion. Should also include Pets Unlimited.
Comr. Padilla – Intent was to bring this to ACC & SPCA after presenting it to the Commission. Bring it to the rescues as well.
Comr. Routhier – Seconds motion.
7 A. Public Comment
Richard Fong – Now is a good time to get grants because of the interest in health care. Similar kind of insuring – want to ensure that every animal gets care.
Renee Pittin – SF document is good, word-smithing may be necessary to make it less confrontational. Is a work in progress, all will help improve it. Is consistent with SF law. Working on it will bring people together.
Kathleen McGarr – Asks to have her statement added to the minutes. Refer to the end of the minutes.
Jake Steinman – Board member SPCA - Supports SPCA as an organization. SPCA is committed to the best care to the most animals. Pained by vicious ridicule and scorn aimed at SPCA when going through hard economic times. Healthy debate is good but personal attacks are unproductive. Ask that such attacks cease. In spite of divisiveness,
SPCA still wants to form partnerships with rescue groups. SPCA plays critical role in animal welfare ecosystem. Said that SPCA should do more because they have more resources. Unfair comparison. SPCA found homes for over 4000 dogs and cats last year. SPCA runs Maddie’s adoption Center, Leann B. Roberts veterinary hospital, which houses shelter medicine, spay/neuter program, feral cat program, foster care program, and animal assisted therapy programs. Holistically addresses the needs of 1000’s of animals in spite of financial realities of recession.
Lisa Vittori – Problem has been going on long before the recession. Inequality of resources has been at least 15 years. Agency has taken resources but not taken responsibility and lived up to their promises which have caused strong emotions.
Shows two triangles – First triangle, has SPCA on top with the fewest animals and rescues on the bottom with the most. Second triangle has SPCA on the bottom with the most amount of money and the rescues on the top with the least amount of money. Relationship is where the resources are and where the need is.
Bob Jenkins – SF Zoo – Has seen healthy discourse produce positive results when on Capital Hill. Language defining animals should be consistent. Domestic animals and pets are two different things. Encourage reexamination of the sections on the disposition of surplus animals and terminology of biological education. SF Zoo takes surplus animals for educational purposes.
Jan Mchugh-Smith – SF/SPCA – Recent reduction of staff eliminated 16 positions and 22 reduced hours. SPCA still committed to doing good including work to prevent animals from coming in the first place. Spent $1.1 million on charity care keeping animals out of the shelter. SPCA has many programs: Humane Education program, Community Vet program, Shelter program, Feral cat program. Look forward to looking at proposed legislation. Section on feral cats would be a community benefit. Lot of repetition in already existing laws. Need to look at fiscal impact. Need to look at long term health of SPCA which is reason for staff reductions., Legislation would have huge fiscal impact on ACC as well. SPCA is doing great work. Tired of the criticism. Wants to find other ways to work together.
Carisa Brungraber – SPCA president’s response to Northside’s article is available on their website. Northside has another article that respond’s to the president’s. Has copies for public and Commissioners.
Hope Johnson – Fixsanfrancisco.org – Has problem, as former SPCA volunteer, with letting SPCA be a part of the process due to their past choices. Example is Maddie’s Adoption Center. It has been a money suck. Now, the new hospital is also an economic failure. Jan McHugh-Smith admitted it is losing a million dollars a year. Because of these choices doesn’t think SPCA should be a part of present proposed legislation. Everyone that has separately investigated the SPCA has found issues going on. Wants focusing on their issues to help but it isn’t happening. Proposed legislation would provide transparency so everyone can see what is going on. Not just one individual.
Susan Wheeler – Thanks Comr. Padilla for bringing forth the legislation. Sets forth very good standards. Parts of the Hayden Act have been suspended by the governor so it doesn’t necessarily repeat parts of it.
Nadine May – The people of SF represent the effort behind this legislative effort. Not Nathan. Doesn’t see Fix San Francisco as accusatory at all – is an indigenous group. We have attempted to work with and mediate with the local shelters. Reads, “ SF is the first city to achieve no-kill, to not kill any adoptable dogs or cats. SF has set the standard for the country. SF has pledged to find homes for not just easy-to-adopt, puppies and kittens but harder-to-adopt older animals.” This is a SPCA fund-raising letter from 2003. SF was there, we were no-kill, but we lost it. Rescues are almost broke. If they are not there, live-release rate will drop.
Justin Pinkerton – Fixsanfrancisco.org – Can’t consider feral cats always feral. Some can be socialized. HSUS/ Maddie’s video is great for animals for adoption. Problem is many animals don’t get to be adopted. “Needless killing” language is still killing. SPCA has resources to bring outside animals in but not resources to take the animals that the rescues do.
Martha Hoffman – Has been working in rescue community since ’93. Helped found the Feral Cat program. Thanks Commission for their work. Thanks and supports Comr. Padilla and the proposed legislation. Supports additional recommendation of Fix San Francisco.
Lucky Gutierrez – Proud volunteer of the SPCA. Being a man of color, has benefited from civil rights and hate crime laws. Has issue with that struggle being equated to shelter dogs. Thanks Comr. Gerrie for his words. Hopes everyone can just work together.
Anna Williams – Aware that no-kill issue has been debated for many months. Would like to inject some modesty. Is struck by the language the public is using. Feels it is grandiose. Comr. Stephens stated she wants to save all adoptable animals. Heard people saying they are working day in and day out to save animals. Others saying about the needless killing in SF. Need context. Companion animals are less than 1% of animals killed in the US. Number is fractional compared to animals used to feed us and provide other products for us. To think about needless kill in SF, need to think about the animals we consume everyday. Thinking of no-kill, do we give our dogs & cats vegetarian food?
We need to marginalize this issue. This is an issue of saving some dogs & cats. This is not saving animals. Hopes some of this energy could be leveraged into our industrial agricultural system.
Cynthia Cox – Fixsanfrancsico – Companion animals may be only 1%. We are not here to talk about larger issues. 1% killed is 1% too many. Thanks Comr, Padilla for her work and comments of other Comrs. If even one is dying needlessly, is one too many. Volunteered with SPCA for 16 1/2 years. Left over a year ago when Cat
Behavior program was eliminated. Worked with cats to make them adoptable.
Public comment closed
Comr. Stephens – Unclear on what intent of Comr. Gerrie’s motion is. What is meant by vetting? Does it mean to require ACC and SPCA approve of it? Or, just ask their opinion? Angela made it clear that she intends to talk with ACC & SPCA. No problem with her doing that. Unsure if it needs to be required which is what the motion is doing. Will vote against it on that basis. Think what the intention of the motion is to have ACC & SPCA agree on what to include in this legislation and only that can come back to this Commission. It may work out that way. Don’t want to have anyone have right of refusal.
Definitely want their opinions. Concerned about requiring it by vetting.
Comr. Gerrie – My idea is that we are working with them. Not that they have an up or down say. We need their input. We need to work with them while the legislation is in its raw stage and make it more tailor made. It would be good to have them behind this. They are taking care of animals day in and day out. We need their voice. We need to work with them.
Comr. Brooks – If that is intent, can we not have a motion and just go with her word that she intends to do that?
Comr. Hemphill – Seems it should have been done before it got to this stage. Would back the motion because it should have happened before it was a formed document.
Comr. Padilla – Being an attorney, used to going through many drafts of a document before it is done. Expressed clearly that this is a draft for discussion only and invited lots of input. Brought it to the commission first because we are independent of any group and can exercise our own judgment. Appreciate all the Commissioners feedback. Now can take it to all the players in SF impacted by it. Doesn’t care if there is a vote or not. However, doesn’t think it should be approved by any entity. Intent is to get feedback from everyone.
Comr. Gerrie – What if the word “vet” is changed to “consult”?
Comr. Padilla – There are four categories covered. Public shelters, private shelters, 501c3 rescue groups, and informal rescue groups. Motion only covers three of those groups. Motion would make sense if all 4 groups were consulted. Unfair to privilege larger 800 pound gorilla over smaller ones.
Comr. Hemphill – 800 pound gorilla has much wider experience as regards to legality and history. Vetting isn’t a negative word. It’s just commenting on what is and what isn’t a good idea.
Comr. Routhier - If Comr. Padilla is uncomfortable about speaking with those agencies, maybe someone else could?
Comr. Padilla – Is completely comfortable with speaking with them.
Comr. Stephens – How do you want this motion to be? With or without the rescue groups? Vetted? Consulted?
Comr. Gerrie – Believes the rescue groups have played a role in this draft but the 800 pound gorilla has been excluded.
Comr. Padilla – Completely wrong about that. Have had no independent consultation with any rescues.
Comr. Gerrie- Would still like to focus on this. Concerned about the second prong of this being overseen by a 501c3 because ACC & SPCA have not stepped up to the plate.
Comr. Stephens – Doesn’t need to be done by a resolution. If she doesn’t do it, maybe then requiring it.
Comr. Brooks – Seems like an odd thing to do, to require consultation. Seems a bit strange. But can vote.
Comr. Stephen s – An “aye” vote would require Angela to consult with ACC, SPCA, and Pets Unlimited.
Ayes, Comrs. Routhier, Gerrie, and Hemphill
Nayes, Comrs. Brooks, Stephens, Padilla, and Gordon
Motion did not pass.
Comr. Hemphill – But it will happen anyway!
8. General Public Comment
Lisa Vittori – Has been recently working with restaurants that throw away large amounts of meat everyday. Has been retrieving and storing several hundred pounds of meat. Would like to find an outlet through the rescue groups. ACWC has had a schizophrenic view of the SPCA over past two years. First had decided, since they were not public, government had no jurisdiction. Wants to get all the hard feelings out in the open and fix it. Need to treat SPCA as a public agency consistently. Playing games with what their role is.
Carisa Brungraber –RattieRatz – Points our earlier discussion of what is a domestic animal versus a pet. Many small animals are considered both. Knows personally that there are wild and domestic rats. Wild rats do not become domesticated. Wants to speak for little animals that are misunderstood.
Bob Jenkins – Didn’t want to imply that were three different kinds of animals just that not all animals fit into all three categories. Welcomes any one on the Commission for a tour of the zoo.
Public comment closed
9 & 10 Items to put on the Calendar for future Commission Meetings and task allotments
Comr. Stephens – Continue discussions on no-kill and pet-rentals.
Comr. Brooks – Asks public to respect each other and respect that there are differences. Everyone is passionate about animals.
Comr. Stephens – Adjourns meeting in memory of Florence Sarret who died at age 95. Was a tireless advocate for dogs. Was a co-founder and chair of SF Dog. She was a member of almost every task force and attended every meeting that involved dogs and/or parks. She was an amazing inspirational woman.
11. Adjournment 8:45 PM
Respectfully submitted by
Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary
Letter submitted by Kathleen McGarr fixsanfrancisco.org;
October 8, 2009
We recommend adding provisions to the Companion Animal Protection Act presented September 10, 2009. Not ordered for priority.
- Institute Trap-Neuter-Release policy to protect current TNR program.
- Require behavioral testing standards to remove loopholes to compliance avoidance.
- Incorporate small animals (rabbits, reptiles, rats). They have a high kill rate and are killed for space.
- Require emergency plans for shelter animals. Maximum capacity reached during disasters.
Require shelters report outcomes of all animals (number adopted, returned, euthanzied, killed, transferred, taken by rescues) and follow-up. Require regular reporting of outcomes( was animal adopted, returned, euthanized, killed, transferred, or taken by rescues after being transferred to shelters or rescues). Require quarterly reporting. Transparency and regularly published outcomes necessary to ensure no-kill.
Provide priority to San Francisco animals. City can help other communities learn to lower kill numbers and implement TNR and inexpensive spay/neuter programs.
Kathleen McGarr – Fix San Francisco