2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Minutes from January 11, 2007
5:35pm
I. Call to Order and Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Richard Schulke, Mara Weiss, DVM, Laurie Routhier-Kennedy, Sherri Franklin, JR Yeager, Sherri Franklin, William Hamilton, Christine Garcia, Sgt. Herndon and Carl Friedman
Absent: Kenneth Sato and Park & Rec. Dept. representative
II. Public Comment
None.
III. Approval of Draft Minutes from the November, 2006 Meetings
Moved to next month when a hard copy of the minutes is brought before the public as opposed to the web copy available on-line.
IV. Chairperson Richard Schulke’s Report and Opening Remarks
A. Commission Elections
Informed the public that the Commission has changed the election date to be in January each year instead of the first month that appointments are made. This month we will be electing officers of the commission.
B. Dog Walker Legislation
Much progress has been made on this new legislation and will be discussed more this month.
C. Lack of Recreation and Parks Representative.
This is an ongoing issue on the Animal Control and Welfare Commission and new steps will have to be taken in order to get the Park and REc. Dept. to participate.
V. Committee Reports/Commissioner’s Reports
A. Official Commission Letterhead/CommissionerRouthier-Kennedy
Comr. Kennedy discussed the new stationary for the commission and specifics of the stationary. She mentioned having a new e-mail address and need to designate somebody to check the e-mail.
Comr. Hamilton asked about limitations or rules using the stationary.
Comr. Schulke said that pursuant to the general commission rules, the use must be related to official commission business
Comr. Garcia added that room number 362 is the office number for the commission for their mail to be added to the letterhead.
B. Discussion about inviting guest speakers for Commission Hearings/Commissioner Yeager
Comr. Yeager discussed the item on the agenda last month regarding off leash dogs on the GGNRA land (not content, but presentation). Noted that, as one unfamiliar with the topic, he felt blind-sighted by the lack of the framing of the issue by the invited speakers. One-sided presentations are unfair for the education of the commission. An open and fair forum here is necessary for the integrity of this commission.
Comr. Hamilton asked if there are any written rules regarding invited speakers, or if it was a gentlemen’s agreement to invite opposing sides of an issue.
Comr. Schulke responded that it was a gentlemen’s agreement and apologized about November’s meeting for not giving more of a heads up. He said he invited the GGNRA and they said they were not going to come because they did not believe that SF had any jurisdiction which is what they have said in the past. He mentioned that he will make efforts to reach out to the other side for next month to make it more balanced. The rule is that if you want to have speakers come, you just contact the chair and say you would like to have speakers. People are not turned down, at least by Comr. Schulke.
Comr. Franklin asked for confirmation of whether or not it was listed action item. It was not an action item.
Comr. Yeager added that there was no motion to allow the discussion.
Public Comment:
Phillip Gary mentioned that he had similar feelings to
JR. He believed that the way the presentations were made in November did not seem appropriate and had the appearance of bias to him. He stated that the 5-10 minute allotment was going on to 45 minutes. He wanted to speak, but the time that was given to invited speakers consumed the majority of the time. He reminded the commissioners that this is the "Animal" Control and Welfare Commission and not the "Dog" Welfare Commission. Mr. Gary had to do research himself on the Snowy Plover and felt his research was more informative of the issue than what was presented in November. He believes that there does not need to be "sides" in this issue and that there is room for everybody (the area at issue is just a small part of the GGNRA anyway).
Sally Stevens stated that she was invited to speak and agreed that other people spoke at length, but raised a very important issue. She said that she would be concerned if the commission made it too restrictive for people to come and speak in future times.
Commission Additions:
Comr. Schullke reiterated his apologies and that next time, invitations for speakers will be sought from all sides.
Comr. Hamilton noted that the fact that Comr. Yeager raised this issue that will be memorialized in the minutes will be a good guide for the future.
Comr. Yeager clarified that in the future, it will be announced to the commissioners that only one-side will be presented and then the commissioners themselves can take it upon themselves to educate the public on the unavailable side of the issue.
Old Business:
A. Proposed Recommendation to make Available More Pet Friendly Rental Housing in San Francisco/Commissioner Hamilton
Comr. Hamilton read the specific language of the new ordinance for the board of supervisors to approve a pet friendly rent control waiver for land lords to charge a surcharge of not more than 5% of the rent. All current lease agreements allowing pets would not be effected by this ordinance. He addressed answers to all the outstanding questions/issues that people had for previous suggestions to this pet-friendly housing issue such as the amount of money ($) appropriate to effectuate this change and the codification of animal discrimination. The alternative to this bill is that animals will be left in the shelter without adoption and eventually euthanized due (in part) to this pet-friendly housing issue.
Guest Speaker Ted Gouleckson with the SF Tenants Union: They do not like this because they believe it will result in many rent increases and will not help the animals. He educated the Commission on the process of getting rent increases passed in SF. He suggested that the Commission should do something similar to what the Board of Supervisors passed mandating that "Landlords must accept family members into a housing situation." He noted that, in order to really help animals, the City should just mandate that the landlords must accept some reasonable amount of animal companions in a living unit (such as 1) or perhaps expanding the service dog definition. He stated that one problem that he foresees is that landlords are always allowed to revoke provisions (i.e. those that allow animals) and then reinstate the provision (after 30 days) with a rent increase. A second issue is where there is a current dubious animal situation where there is nothing written, but animals are allowed, and then many cases will go before the rent board involving alleged waiver of rights. He believes pets will be kicked out of apartments by this rent increase allowance due to these issues. He also states that the cost of the rent increase itself will dissuade people from adopting an animal because that could be the budget for caring for the animal. One option he has in increase the security deposit. The max is 3 mos. rent. Locally, SF could raise it to that maximum. The best thing we can do is treating it the same way that we treat additional occupants. We say "Landlords you cannot unreasonably withhold the right to have a pet."
Guest Speaker Deline Wolfe with the SF Rent Control Board: She said she is not giving an opinion one way or another, but will just educate on the how the board processes this suggestion. She is not so sure that the tenants are supportive of this item. Currently, there are no provisions on how the rent board now deals with rent increases for pets. If there is no provision in the rental agreement, this commission should make sure that no increases will apply where it currently is not prohibited in a rental agreement. There are no rent increases allowed for companion animals, so that should still be clear. She said that she has mediated rent increases as "additionally services" and says that landlords would be protected if this pet-friendly rent increase was defined as an additional service. Another concern is that if we define all the types of animals then perhaps fish and birds (currently under the radar) may be subject to rent increases.
Comr. Franklin had a question about revoking pet-friendly terms of a lease. Ms. Wolfe stated that it was only for health and safety issues and did not think that pets fell under that rubric. That is a material change in the terms of the tenancy. Wolfe stated that she and Ted are not lawyers and professional advice should be sought for those questions.
Comr. Routhier-Kennedy asked if Wolfe thinks that the landlords have not been accepting animals primarily because they wanted more money. Ms. Wolfe explained that she is not sure and that it is a market issue.
Comr. Hamilton raised the waiver issue of whether or not landlords would try to raise rents when they "should have know" that the tenants had pets. Wolfe explained that to get to this answer it could be a costly legal battle, she does not know how many landlords would go to Court, and that the courts would eventually decide.
Comr. Garcia asked if the 3 month security deposit set by state law was sufficient to cure any damage done by an animal. Wolfe said that there was no amount of money that would cure damage and that it depends.
Peter Reichs, with the Small Property Owners of SF, mentioned that he thinks that this is fine, but that there needed to be more language like "landlords wishing to allow pets" so it does not confuse people to think that it is necessary for animals to be allowed in rental units.
Commission Additions:
Comr. Hamilton said that originally the rental increase was suggested at 2 ½% and the landlords disagreed with that because it was "way too low" and they were satisfied with 5%.
Carl Friedman wants this commission to think about details of this and sees no pets allowed in rental units as a #1 reason about why people are dropped off at the shelter. He hopes that this concept stays high on this commissions’ mind so that someday it will prevent the killing of animals.
Comr. Weiss says that a 5% increase would pose a substantial burden on her economically to afford having animal companions. She also mentioned including language for protecting the tenant for a month to month lease.
Comr. Yeager had questions about the revocation issue and impact on people currently living with animals.
Comr. Franklin thinks that that language regarding the status quo of living with animal is key. She stated that perhaps mandating that a certain percentage of their units being pet-friendly.
Sgt. Herndon says that it may encourage people to just bring in the animal and hope to get away with it. Also, he thinks that it has to be as much money as possible to make it economically beneficial for the landlord to make landlords accept animals into homes.
Comr. Garcia is philosophically torn with this issue of: 1) having to evoke compassion out of landlords by giving them an amount of money they will be happy with, and 2) wanting to just force the landlords to be compassionate and making it illegal to discriminate against animals in housing.
Public Comment:
Unnamed female says that it is important to perhaps say in the legislation that the ordinance is not retroactive.
Marla Mathe says that this is well intentioned, but thinks it’s fatally flawed. She thinks that if this passes we will see fewer animals fostered and adopted. Money is an issue. She mentioned speciesism. She would be open to a modification in the security deposit. She is not convinced that money for landlords is not the issue. The issue is education.
Stan Manassie from Animal Fund in SF said that we should make San Francisco the first pet-friendly city. He raised the issue of insurance and said that the landlord could just add that to their insurance. This is a liability and insurance issue.
Tanya Aveculdemacha loves animals, is an animal guardian and is a vegan who does not wear or use animal products. As a tenant counselor at the Housing Rights Committee she counsels low-income tenants and that none of her clients would be able to afford the rent increases under this proposal. She is concerned about the language of this proposed ordinance and says that this is an extreme financial burden for many people. She suggests reconsidering local Tax credits for landlords.
Unnamed male who moved here from Boston who lives at 1234 __ Avenue. He thinks that 25$-50$ rent increase is a great idea.
Dr. Renee Pitchens speaks against this proposal. When the relationship of "pet owners" was legally changed and recognized as "pet guardians" it demonstrated the perception on animals as family members and this proposal does not recognize this relationship. We should be working against prohibitions on pets. We need to educate landlords and work on SPCA on getting pets passports and perhaps pet resumes to make it easier for landlords to accept pets.
Susan Dire Reynolds, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Marina Times and the North Side SF Newspapers, couldn’t disagree more. She is also a landlord. Small children do far more damage than animals. She thinks that people should not have pets if they cannot afford a $150 rental increase. She says the same about children.
Phillip Gary is against the surcharge. He has not heard anything that has convinced him that this rental increase will result in more pet adoptions. He thinks that an amount that the tenant will get back at the end will be fair.
Lauren Waters wanted to address landlord incentive. She says that this is a liability issue. Also, some landlords are bound by poor insurance policies that do not protect insureds that have certain breeds such as pit bulls and rottweiler mixes.
Sally Stevens likes the idea to focus on the pet passport and pet resumes. She also suggests that the city get a pool of pet friendly insurance companies to create a means for the landlords to look to regarding the liability issue.
Sean Pritchard, San Francisco Apartment Association, represents landlords. He says that if the land lord removes/revokes something then the tenant gets a rent decrease. Also, he says that the association likes this idea. He thinks it’s a "win win" situation. The rent board is already overwhelmed with cases. Comr. Yeager asked if there was a way to survey the landlords to see if the landlords will accept animals because of this.
Elisa, dog guardian, says that a flat fee that goes into a separate account that would be refundable after leaving would be favorable. She thinks that this is an education issue.
Commissioner want to address all these concerns in the new draft of the pet friendly ordinance. Surveying landlords will be a great idea. This item is continued to next month.
B. Proposed recommendation to License Professional Dog Walkers in San Francisco/Commissioner Schulke
Comr. Schulke reviewed the suggested language of the Professional Dog Walkers ordinance line-by-line and answered and addressed numerous questions and issues with the help of the public and the commission. Numerous people spoke without announcing their name and many of the comments follow issues:
1) Definition of Professional Dog Walker - language? as main source of income, as a business… 2) Enforcement? – park police, discussion about how licenses aren’t enforced as it is in SF 3) this should not be a misdemeanor because people who lose their beautician license just can’t cut hair, but they are not sent to jail 4) there is still concern about the wording of "encouraging" dog walkers to tell their clients to license their dogs, etc.
All suggestions were considered and taken under advisement for the final draft of the professional dog walking permit.
Proposal to ensure the ongoing programs of two established animal welfare programs, Give a Dog a Bone and the San Francisco Rescued Orphan Mammal Program, by recommending to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that they approve earmarks of a portion of the ACC annual budget for these programs/Commissioner Hamilton
Comr. Hamilton pulled this item from this month’s meeting.
D. "Helping Hands for Animals" Proposed Ordinance Update/Commissioner Garcia
Comr. Garcia gave an update of her meeting with the District Attorney’s Office and conversations that she had regarding the proposed Helping Hands for Animal Ordinance. The DA Office suggested a slightly different angle to help animals, by making it a policy that the City of SF makes it a priority to prosecute animals abuse cases and welcomes volunteer attorneys to assist in the implementation of this policy
DA Rebecca Prozan appeared from the District Attorneys Office and said that she is available to answer any questions if people would like to see her after the meeting.
VII. New Business
A. Elections of Commission Officers/Commissioner Schulke
Comr. Yeager spoke regarding how the elections held last year in April seemed to have been decided ahead of time and that he was not privy to any organized plans to vote for certain individuals. He added that he has not had any conversations with people this year either about prospective candidates. He nominated Comr. Schulke for Chair and Comr. Garcia for Vice-Chair (because he recalled the Commission encouraging Comr. Garcia to be Secretary because it was a promising stepping stone to Vice-Chair). Comr. Yeager was nominated as Secretary, and he was very interested in the position, but not enthusiastic about recording the minutes each month.
The Commission voted unanimously for Comr. Schulke as Chair, Comr. Garcia as Vice-Chair and Comr. Yeager as Secretary.
Comr. Garcia will continue to draft the minutes because it is not a burden.
B. Report of budget to date – discussion on how funds are allocated, how it is accessed, and how it will be reported in the future/Commissioner Yeager
This issue was raised at the same time as discussing Comr. Yeager’s lack of enthusiasm to draft the minutes each month
C. Status of getting someone other than Commissioner to take and prepare minutes/Commissioner Yeager
The Commission discussed this item briefly, and Comr. Schulke informed the Commission and public that the issue was getting a secretary (from the pool of San Francisco employees only) who would attend our meeting at this time. The subject was to be raised again later for updates of any interested SF government employees.
VIII. Public Comment
None.
IX. Calendar Items
Next meeting is reserved for the Dogs off-leash in the GGNRA area issue.
X. Closing Review of Task Allotment and Next Steps
Next meeting is reserved for the Dogs off-leash in the GGNRA area issue.
XI. Adjournment
8:40pm
If you have any questions/comments about the accuracy of the minutes, please e-mail [email protected]