2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 November 12, 2009
5:40 PM
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Present Commissioners, Laurie Kennedy-Routhier, Angela Padilla, Sally Stephens, Pam Hemphill, Andrea Brooks, Philip Gerrie, Vicky Guldbech – ACC, William Herndon – SF Police
Absent Commissioners, David Gordon – DVM
2. General Public Comment
Richard Fong – Commends Commissioners for their work in the past year and wishes happy holidays to all.
Comr. Stephens – Change in order of agenda items. Item 6 A will be first.
6. Unfinished Business
A. Discussion and possible action to recommend to the Board that they give SF tenants the right to have pets.
Comr. Gerrie – Discussions to save healthy adoptable animals from euthanasia has been ongoing in this Commission. Efforts to save animals can be divided in three parts. Animals coming into shelters, how they are taken care of while there, and third provide homes for adoptable animals. The first and third parts are being focused on. Keeping animals out of shelters in the first place by reducing owner-surrenders and abandoned animals coming in. The second part is how shelters operate to achieve highest possible release rate. The third part is providing homes for adoptable pets. This recommendation proposes that well-qualified prospective tenants not be discriminated against if they have pets. To give tenants the right to have pets is a win/win/win/ for landlords, tenants, and pets. Landlords will make more money by having a wider more reliable population. Units are rented longer by pet-owning tenants and vacancies are filled faster. Tenants won’t have the stress of finding pet-friendly apartments or having to give up their pets if they have to move. Euthanasia rates will fall, as harder-to-adopt owner surrenders decrease and adoptions rates increase.
One person from the tenants group has come to speak tonight and three from the landlord groups. We had decided that the landlords would speak first.
Lisa – SF Apartment Association – Proposal brings up many problems, mostly health issues. Tenants with severe allergies to cats or dogs will move into no-pets buildings. They will not rent if any animals are allowed. Landlords would be powerless to protect such tenants from problems caused by pets. Comparable to mold and mildew issues which a landlord can remedy. Another health issue is bedbugs. Health department says that bedbugs can be brought in by animals going for a walk. Fear of dogs is another issue. Some tenants have a fear of large or small dogs. Allowing dogs with behavior issues would aggravate those fears. Lack of security may lead a tenant to file a petition with the Rent Board for a decrease in rent. Case of Diane Whipple shows that not all owners take good care and control of their pets. These incidents would become more common as more irresponsible tenants become irresponsible pet owners. Landlord’s insurance does not often cover all breeds of animals. If a landlord is mandated to rent to a tenant with a rottweiler, a breed not covered by insurance, and the dog attacks another tenant, insurance will not cover that. Landlord could be taken to court.
Andrew Long – SF Apartment Association – Against mandate. Open to incentives for landlords to allow pets. Against mandate because many people have severe allergies to pets. If mandate passes, sees litigation cases arising. People with allergies living in pet-free buildings will be essentially evicted. Condominium owners are allowed to have pets but renters in condominiums can still not be allowed to keep pets. Condominium Associations can fine owners for violating covenants and rules of the association. Open to amending lease rules for fining tenants for minor violations. Under the Rent Ordinance, only one recourse for a problem with a tenant, to evict. Did checking. Found over 50% of dogs at the pound were pit bulls. Over 50% of dogs at the SPCA were transferred from counties outside of SF. SPCA is importing a problem and imposing it on landlords. Don’t make it our problem with mandate. Wants Commission to drop mandate but open to incentives.
Comr. Gerrie – Hear worst case scenarios. What percentage of tenants are actually allergic to cat dander?
Andrew Long – Doesn’t know. 10%?
Comr. Gerrie – This is not a mandate.
Andrew Long – Take away our right to enforce a no-pets policy, that is a mandate.
Comr. Gerrie – We are asking that you not discriminate against responsible pet owners.
Andrew Long - Once a tenant has a pet it becomes a right whether or not the tenant is responsible. Mandating is giving something out of our pocket we may not want to give. These kinds of laws encourage owners to take their buildings off the market, especially when the owner lives there. If mandated in our building, in which my partner is highly allergic to cats, our choices are to move out or not rent the units.
Comr. Stephens – What do you with those with allergies to cigarette smoke?
Andrew Long - Smoking is not allowed in any of our buildings including the common areas. Other landlords may allow smoking.
Comr. Stephens- What if no smoking was mandated as in Belmont?
Andrew Long – Wouldn’t be bothered because already a non-smoker.
Comr. Stephens – As to insurance, if you had added pet addendum to your lease that had all the rules for allowing pets would that address some of the liability issues? What if the tenant agrees to be fully responsible for their pet?
Andrew Long – Many insurance companies will cancel if any recognized dangerous breeds are allowed. Pet addendums wouldn’t change that. The landlord of Diane Whipple paid millions of dollars to her estate. A pet addendum would not have made any difference.
Comr. Stephens – What about a certain percentage of units allowing pets?
Andrew Long – Is already a percentage that allows pets. If more people that have pets are looking for housing more units will come on line. Let the market regulate. Open to incentives for allowing pets.
Comr. Stephens – What would be an incentive?
Andrew Long – For an existing tenant, a 5 % increase on their base rent. If unit is rent controlled and below market a tenant should be willing to pay 5%.
Comr. Stephens – See difference between saying one has a right to have a pet versus saying one cannot be evicted for having a pet. Or, cannot rent to someone just because they have a pet. That doesn’t mean you have to rent to someone with a pet.
Andrew Long – Doesn’t see the difference. If you can’t evict for just having a pet…
Comr. Stephens – Not just for having a pet but if a pet barked all day or is a vicious dog that would be a cause for eviction same as when a tenant has loud parties all night.
Andrew Long – Some landlords have had severe problems with tenants with pets. It is very hard to evict in this town. Tenant’s groups think you just hand them a piece of paper and they leave. A landlord must hire a lawyer. A friend spent $20,000 evicting one tenant. SPCA is creating a problem by importing dogs from out of county. Unfair for landlords to be burdened with imported dogs.
Comr. Brooks – Receives calls daily from tenants looking for pet-friendly housing. Market forces are not providing more housing for pets with low incomes. Do you have tenants sign a pet addendum?
Andrew Long – Rent control causes market rates to be much higher than without rent control. Lease has a box to check that says “no pets”.
Comr. Brooks – In the buildings that you have that do allow for pets, do you check for references? Do you have a pet policy?
Andrew Long – Buildings that I allow pets in are not rent controlled. Checks prospective tenants with pets to see if they seem reasonable and responsible. Only allows cats. Has had no problems except for one time where apartment was trashed.
Comr. Brooks – Did you know this tenant was trashing the unit while she was there?
Andrew Long – That is why we evicted her. Her cats were not fixed and had kittens. She did not clean up their mess. If she had been in a rent controlled apt. she would still be living there.
Comr. Padilla – Do you have restrictions as what dogs are allowed?
Andrew Long – Absolutely. Won’t rent to owners of pit bulls nor rottweilers.
Comr. Padilla – Because they are dangerous?
Andrew Long – Yes, potentially dangerous. Insurance companies will cancel my insurance if they find out they are there.
Comr. Padilla - Do you know this for a fact?
Andrew Long – My agent said I couldn’t rent to owners of dangerous breeds.
Comr. Padilla – Are you a dog behaviorist? Do you know these breeds are dangerous?
Andrew Long – No but it is general knowledge certain breeds are dangerous.
Comr. Padilla – It is insulting to this Commission to say that all dogs of one breed are dangerous. Important to base statements in empirical fact . Not hearsay.
Andrew Long –Regardless of what breed, you are forcing landlords to do something they do not want to do.
Comr. Padilla – Regarding the 5% increase in rent…
Andrew Long – That was just an idea for rent-controlled units. Can already do that for units not rent controlled.
Comr. Padilla – As to the tenant that was trashing the unit, why didn’t you call animal control to report her for breaking animal welfare laws?
Andrew Long – Her father had guaranteed she would be gone in a short time.
Comr. Gerrie – Have you looked at the Pet-friendly study done by FIREPAW published in 2005?
Andrew Long – No
Comr. Gerrie – This scientifically based study shows that, across the country, landlords that rent to tenants with pets make more money mainly because of longer tenancy, quicker turnover, bigger pool of qualified tenants.
Andrew Long –Heard reference to that study at previous meeting. SF is densely populated and has rent control which makes that study not accurate for SF. If that is true, just publicize that study versus mandating it.
Comr. Gerrie – I am not mandating. Just giving tenants the right…
Andrew Long – That is mandating, to nullify the no-pet clause.
Noni Richen – President Small Property Owners of SF – Represents groups of landlords that own between 1 to 4 and 1 to 6 units. Often the landlord lives in the same building. Allows for cats but not dogs. Bad experiences with dogs. Commission’s proposal has caused a stir. Sent out a query in association’s monthly newsletter about being for or against mandating pets. Received record number of responses against. Open to incentives. Don’t force landlords to save abandoned animals from euthanasia. Perhaps not aware of possible risks. If one tenant is injured or kept awake by another’s pet he can go to the Rent Board and demand that his rent be lowered due to diminished services. Many pet owners are irresponsible. Animal rescue people bend the law by allowing more animals in their homes than allowed by the City. Diane Whipple was murdered by vicious dogs and the property owner was sued. We are just small mom & pop businesses and reject being open to these risks. Every time a new regulation is passed by the City, property owners withdraw a few more units from the market. Knows of several units off market within a block of own apartment building. Strongly opposes comparing owning pets to civil rights. Was beaten up when a student for being a Jew. Comparing owning pets to civil rights trivializes those that fought and died for their rights. Owning an animal is a choice not a right. Property owners should have the right to accept that choice.
Comr. Brooks – Those that do accept tenants with pets, is there a pet addendum that spells out a clear agreement between landlord and tenant?
Noni Richen – Tenants have access to free lawyers services. Small landlords have to pay $300 to $400 for a lawyer. Sometimes easier to take property off the market.
Comr. Padilla – Wants Diane Whipple taken off the table. Knew her and her partner. Reason landlord had to pay was he was on notice for the poorly behaved dogs in his building and he did nothing. Unfair to say that because of one incident that owners of well behaved dogs and cats should not be able to rent is comparable to saying that you shouldn’t rent to straight white guys because some of them murder their wives.
Noni Richen – A mandate will tell owners they must accept pets, and thus this is the problem.
Comr. Padilla – Pet behavior requirements are okay for tenants.
Noni Richen – That’s not what Comr. Gerrie’s recommendation says.
Comr. Gerrie – This is just a starting point for the Supervisors. They will decide how to implement guidelines for increasing rentals to tenants with pets.
Noni Richen – My experience is that some tenants have a sense of entitlement. They can do whatever they want.
Comr. Stephens – How do pets differ from dealing with a tenant who throws loud parties?
Noni Richen – Not that much different. Don’t want to be told that they must accept pets.
Tommi Avicollo Mecca – Housing Rights Committee – Issue of pets is not new. There are four reasons to revisit it now. 1. Economic crisis has increased owner-surrender and abandoned animals according to published reports. SF has seen a 13% rise in owner-surrendered pets since start of housing crisis. 2. Tenants who would adopt from shelters cannot or risk eviction if they do and their landlords find out. 3. Even people with disabilities who are allowed pets under the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act find it hard to find landlords that will rent to them. 4. Federal law allows tenants in public housing to have pets and State law permits mobile park homes to have them. Only tenants in the private market do not have the right to have pets. That is arbitrary and unfair.
Pros of having pets. Pets provide health and psychological benefits to their owners. Seeing eye dogs provide life-saving assistance. For persons without disabilities, pets help us to live longer as cited by the Minnesota Stroke Institute 10 year study that showed having a cat reduces chance of dying from heart disease. Baker Medical Research in Australia found that pet owners have lower blood pressure.
Landlord objections. Main reason landlords oppose pets are; 1. Damage done to apartment by pets. Disputes over security deposits go to small claims court not the rent board, 2. Noise and nuisance caused by pets, 3. Allergies of other tenants, and 4. Difficulty in getting insurance for some breeds. 1. Damage by pets. Landlords have two months rent as a security deposit, apx. $4000-$5000 in SF. Landlord can subtract money for repairs when tenant leaves. Companion Animal Renters and Pet-Friendly Housing study known as FIREPAW is only major study done on pets and housing done in the US. FIREPAW study showed apx half of landlords reported no damage at all from pets. The half that did report damage averaged $430, easily covered by $4000 security deposit. FIREPAW study shows there was no more statistical damage done by tenants with pets. Average difference was under $40. Tenants with children had, on average, $150 more damage that tenants without. 2. Conflicts between tenants over pet noise or upkeep in common areas only required one extra hour of landlord time per year to resolve. Child-related issues took more time. Pet-friendly landlords also spend less time marketing their units as tenants stay longer. 3. 15% of people are allergic to dogs and cats but 1/3 of them live with pets anyway. Personally is allergic but hasn’t had trouble living in building with dogs. Reasonable accommodation can and should be made for allergy sufferers needs more thoughtful consideration. The California Apartment Law Information Foundation, a landlord group says: “ Rarely is a tenant’s allergy so severe that animal contact causes respiratory distress; in these cases the allergic tenant may request another accommodation.” It is already an option under the law. Has not heard of bed bugs brought in by pets. 4. Checked about insurance. Talked with Dori Einhorn of Einhorn Insurance. Her company does not charge extra for any breed of dog. But does not insure dogs that have a history of aggression.
In instances where a tenant’s dog does bite, the landlord is not liable if the landlord believed, and the dog had a history, that dog was not dangerous and was friendly.
Landlords in SF already have a legal remedy with tenants whose pets do damage or cause a nuisance. SF Rent Ordinance allows a landlord to evict such tenants.
Advantages to landlords: 1. Faster turnover of apartments . FIREPAW study showed that pet-friendly apartments rented in 19 days on average vs. 29 days for non-pet-friendly units. 2. Bigger pool of tenants. 3. Reduced turnover rate. Tenants with pets stayed on average 46 months compared to 18 months without according to FIREPAW. 4. Less damage. Pets do less damage than kids. 5. Less money of advertising/less time on marketing. Owners spent half for pet-friendly places than non-pet-friendly places.
Only asking for Commission to make recommendation to Supervisors to support tenants right to have pets. Good for tenants,pets, and landlords.
Comr. Stephens – Do you have any objections to pet addendums as what a landlord can and cannot do with pets in his building?
Tommi – Not clear on what would be different in a pet addendum versus what is already covered. Tenants can currently be evicted for same issues, noise, nuisance, etc.
Comr. Herndon – Sounds like, according to your presentation, there is no downside to allowing pets. Landlords need to make money. It appears landlords should be jumping at the opportunity to rent to people with pets.
Tommi – Don’t know. Sounds like there a lot of misconceptions. Heard stories, tonight, of all dogs being vicious and nasty. Would never rent to anyone with a dog from hearing such stories. Landlords don’t know of studies such as FIREPAW. I didn’t know about it until doing research for this talk.
Mara – Presenting for disabled tenants. Taken aback by blanket hostility of landlords tonight. Wondering how providing incentives for landlords to rent to pet owners will cancel out the allergy issue. Misconceptions about which dogs are most dangerous. Dog walkers, dog groomers, etc get bitten by smaller dogs than from the dangerous breeds cited. A badly treated dog of any breed will bite. Thanks Comr. Padilla for correcting the record on Diane Whipple. Her landlord failed to act. Own first dog was nine years old and very gentle. Wondered where 50% of pet-friendly landlords were. Maybe their tenants never move. Could not find a home for her dog and herself seven years later. Friends advised to put her dog to sleep, dog being 16 years of age, because it would be easier to find a place. Current dog was prescribed due to being disabled. Has found massive discrimination towards the disabled. Has been turned down by landlord after landlord. Some landlords were willing to rent until they knew there was a service dog. Her service dog has been through beginning and intermediate training classes. Is not a barky dog. Went through 11 landlords willing to rent until they learned of her service dog. Had recommendations from previous landlords. Offered maximum deposit. Had also offered $1000 pet deposit, until learned that it was illegal. Offered as a vote of faith that her dog was not a problem. They still said no. As to equating civil rights with the right to have pets. Sees it as a civil right to live a healthy life and cope with disability as best as possible. Service dog is an integral part of her life. Often only companion when house bound. Landlords prejudice against dogs seems deep seated, not about money. Doesn’t correlate with the facts.
Comr. Herndon – Current law says landlords cannot discriminate against service dogs, you don’t need to tell them you even have a dog.
Mara – Technically that is true. Individual landlords may have pet restrictions as to size, breed etc. They ask if you have a pet. The answer is no, it is a service animal. That can be seen as lying and grounds for eviction. Wouldn’t want to be less than honest. Prefer to take the high road of being up front. Doesn’t know if a current tenant is allergic or has a fear of dogs.
Comr. Brooks – Works with disabled and seniors, with pets, seeking housing. Helps with paperwork and pet resumes. See widespread discrimination.
Comr. Stephens – A landlord argument might be that they were not discriminating because of the pet but for some other reason.
Comr. Hemphill – Has a problem with the issue of a right and a mandate. Thinks allergy issue is exaggerated. If two prospective tenants apply for a unit. The landlord can just choose the one without a pet. Unsure how this will help. Need more cooperation from apartment owners. Opposes a mandate.
Comr. Gerrie – Those particulars are for the Supervisors to work out. Doesn’t see the right to keep a pet as overriding existing safeguards against lease violations. Landlords can do more thorough back round checks about prospective tenants with pets.
Comr. Hemphill – How do you know this will change anything about renting to pets?
Comr. Gerrie -I don’t ,
Comr. Hemphill – Has a problem with the “right” word to keeping pets. Maybe “encouraging”. It needs more discussion.
Comr. Stephens – Also uncomfortable with the word “right.” Would prefer “cannot refuse solely if they have a pet.” Would not want a landlord to have to rent to someone with a pet overriding existing nuisance or damage clauses. Landlords could still rent to a non-pet owner but might be open to litigation. Prefer language “can not refuse to rent to or to evict solely because of a pet.”
Comr. Hemphill – Wonders if this would extend to an existing tenant wanting to keep a pet.
Comr. Stephens – Hopes we can recommend something more specific. Hope we can have additional information for the Supervisors on what issues were brought up.
Comr. Hemphill – Would like more specifics on encouraging and acquiring pets.
Comr. Stephens- There needs to be outreach to educate landlords about the FIREPAW study and to tenants about responsible pet ownership.
Comr. Herndon – Has been a landlord for many years. Thinks it best left to the landlords to decide. Had been happy to rent to pets with certain criteria such as spelled out in the guidelines for landlords and tenants in the Open Door policy of the SPCA. Bad experiences with pets have made landlords reluctant to add possible additional management problems. Allowing service animals is the law.
Comr. Routhier – Was on Commission when issue was brought up a few years ago. Was a political hot potato then. Hopes current discussion will lead to more tenants having pets. Open to hearing ways to make that happen. Would like to present to Supervisors more information. That is part of our job. Spell out the pros and cons of the different arguments and bring solutions to the table. Doesn’t know what possible solutions are.
6. A Public Comment
Lurilla Harris – Was once a landlord. Had one rule, that they had to have a pet.
Ted Gullicksen – SF Tenants Union – Supports points made in Tommi’s presentation. Tenants with pets and those with service animals find it hard to find places to rent in SF. Especially so for low income tenants. Past efforts at outreach have not worked. The concept of ending discrimination for pet owners is enshrined in State and local laws. Find it disingenuous that many property owners of TIC benefit by State law against pet discrimination. Issues seems to be not about animals but more about difficult tenants.
Lisa Vittori – Agrees with Laurie. Feels it is premature. Needs to be more spelled out. Will only provoke a floor fight and media coverage. Media disdain. It easy to make this into a joke. Current proposal is more radical than what was proposed two years ago. Then, the proposal was for existing tenants to offer the landlord more money to bring in pets. Knows many people in rent-controlled apartments that would be happy to pay more money to have a pet. Their rents are artificially low and they could afford it.
Dr. Elliot Katz – President - In Defense of Animals – See issue as an extension of civil rights against discrimination based on race, sexual preference, etc. Dog & cats have become members of the family. Pets often gives love and companionship that owner is missing. People wanting that love are being discriminated against if not allowed to keep their pets. Should not be afraid to take the recommendation to the Supervisors. Media will treat it as a joke, carrying about other species. Here it is both, carrying about other species resulting in a benefit to our own. SF should take the lead against this form of discrimination.
Rosalind Lord – Chair of the Animal Advocacy working group of the Green Party – Supports Tommi’s presentation. Have has always had pets. Never heard of anyone being allergic to pets outside of their own apartment. Wonders if there has been any studies of people with out pets living in pet-friendly buildings. Should be more fact finding before making claims. Supports more investigation of health issues. There is a prejudice against pit bulls and rottweilers. Have only encountered,personally, well behaved dogs of those breeds.
Michelle Horneff-Cohen – President of Professional Property Management Association – Opposes any mandate. Wants clear definition of what is a pet versus a companion animal. Personally loves pets but sees keeping them as a choice. People get angry when their ability to choose is taken away.
Bob Coleman – Golden Gateway Tenants Association – Association has1250 units downtown near Embarcadero. At one time, in the 60’s, a quarter of the units allowed pets. Ownership changed to private management and now pets are not allowed. Represents tenants who want the right to have pets and wants recommendation forwarded to the Board. This is not mandating just giving them the choice. Pets are therapeutic, humanizing, and make for a healthier community. Believe community has matured and won’t cause a fracas in City Hall. Passing it will be something to be proud of in SF.
Julene Johnson – Fixsanfrancisco.org – Struck by previous speakers comment about taking choices away from people. Equally concerned about taking choices away from animals. Helped start an owner-surrender socialization program at ACC in March,2009.
Was a direct response to sharp increase in owner-surrenders coming into ACC. Goal was to work with surrendered animals affected by the economy and foreclosures. Doesn’t know what summer owner-surrender numbers are. Would like monthly reporting of those numbers.
Elizabeth Miller – Professional Property and Management Association – Lives in building she manages. Personally has two cats. Doesn’t see it as a right to own pets. Landlords should not be forced to allow pets. Animals do damage. Application for a unit doesn’t tell how they will be with their pets. Doesn’t tell what kind of pet owner they are. Building owner does not currently allow dogs. Recently a tenant moved in with a companion animal. Owner lets the dog run all over the building. Barks constantly. Urinated everywhere and dug up a flower garden. Should be building owners right what they will allow in their building. Is it discriminating if an owner allows cats and not dogs? Is it a right? A choice? A mandate?
Eric Brooks – Animal Advocacy Working Group – Green Party – Anecdotes from landlords looses sight of immediate need for action to help homeless animals. Recommendation needs more specificity. Hung up on the word “rights”. Flipping it to say landlords cannot discriminate might solve that problem. That would mean on a lease a landlord cannot ask if a tenant has an animal but could ask, depending on the building, if a tenant has a dog over 50 lbs. Or if an animal is spayed or neutered. Avoiding the yes or no question means they are not discriminating. This would also help disabled people seeking an apartment keeping landlord from saying no.
Richard Fong – Doesn’t see this approach working. Perhaps a permit system issued by ACC to approve pets. Incentives are not the way to go.
Andrew Long – Has a dog and loves dogs. This legislation will not work. Landlords oppose and will end in a fight with the Board and litigation. Open to talking about incentives.
Public comment closed
Comr. Gerrie – Would like to table the recommendation until the next meeting. Will do some fine tuning.
Comr. Hemphill – Do pet cv’s ( curriculum vitae) exist?
Comr. Brooks – Yes, have many examples. Have lots of types of documentation that an animal owner can put together.
Comr. Hemphill – How detailed are these forms? For example how a cat uses the litter box?
Comr. Brooks – Basically it outlines an animal’s personality and how the owner takes care of the animal. This form is mostly used for dogs as they need to be outside more than cats. Also have examples of pet addendums.
Comr. Stephens – We have been trying to outreach to landlords. Has spoken to Janan New briefly.
Comr. Gerrie – Appreciates hearing from everyone and wants to work with all parties. Intends to come back with a more detailed proposal at next meeting.
3. Approval of Draft Minutes for October 8, 2009
3. Public Comment
Lisa Vittori - Clarifies relationship of triangle analogy mentioned in last meeting. First triangle has SPCA on top with fewest animals and rescue groups on the bottom with the most. Second triangle has SPCA on the bottom with the most money and rescues on the top with the least amount of money. Relationship is where the resources are and where the need is.
Minutes approved unanimously with correction from the public.
4.Chairperson’s report and opening remarks
A) Update of Joint Zoo operating Committee
Comr. Stephens - Joint Zoo meeting last Monday at the zoo. Reports that man who entered grizzily grotto went to trial and was acquitted. Ruling was there was no animal endangerment even though if the bear had approached the man the bear would have been shot. Update by Jacqueline Jensek on meerkats heart disease and current research on that. Other zoos have become aware, following SF zoo’s lead, of identifying possible heart problems with their meerkats before it becomes a major problem. Dr. Jensek also gave a presentation on enrichment of zoo animals for their psychological as well as physical well being. Curators may suggest enrichments but zoo vets have final say. Includes being able to dig in the ground or go in mud wallows or in trees mimicking natural situations. Also ropes or branches are placed inside occasionally to provide something new to explore. Changing feeding and foraging also is enriching as well as changing social groupings. Stimulation includes all five senses when possible. Training animals to accept medical testing such as drawing blood willingly has been successful, by being rewarded with a treat when poked with a stick on the back side rather than be darted or tranquilized. When animals need to be moved by crate they will crate-train them by getting them used to the crate beforehand. Putting treat inside. Before JZ meeting, Dr Spinelli, JZ veterinary advisor and I met with one of the bear keepers about enrichment for the bears. Dr. Spinelli intends to visit the animals that there has been concern about. Intends to work with him to write a report or assess how the animals are doing.
Comr. Brooks – Thanks Comr. Stephens for her efforts and work. Would like ACWC to be more engaged and present questions rather than just hearing what is going on. Would like to hear feedback from DR. Spinelli about problems we were concerned about. Has there been any efforts to prioritize animals from rescue situations?
Comr. Stephens – Open to questions to bring to JZ or the zoo staff.
4 A) Public Comment
Eric Brooks - SF Green Party - SF Zoological Society can be seen as a bad tenant. Allowing for someone to enter in the bear grotto is unacceptable. One of many past incidents. We need to be proactive before next contract comes up to make changes to the contract. Should find a better tenant that would be active in changing it into a rescue zoo. Animals should be from local habitats and to help restore animals to those habitats.
Dr. Elliot Katz – Have you reached out to Deniz Bolbol, about her concerns, and who had wanted your position on JZ? I had told her, not to worry, that you would be in contact to work with her and put her concerns forward. Have you had dialogue with her?
Comr. Stephens – Not as much as I intended. Plan to do so in the future.
Dr. Elliot Katz – Have you been to the zoo and seen any animals that need improved conditions?
Comr. Stephens – Have not seen changes in the animals we had concerns about last year.
Dr. Elliot Katz – You need to visit the zoo for yourself and bring concerns to this Commission not just reporting what was said at JZ.
Comr. Brooks – All Commissioners should be attending JZ meetings and visiting the zoo itself. Not just Sally.
5. Status and tracking of letters of recommendation
A) Commission’s recommendation for an ordinance to ban the declawing of cats
Comr. Stephens – Board passed, on first hearing, 9 to 2 in favor. On second hearing 8 to 2. It is now with the Mayor for his signature. Expectation is he will sign it. Berkeley, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica have passed similar resolutions. Thanks to Renne Pitten, who first approached us to get it going, Susan Wheeler, past ACWC Commissioner, that worked with me to get this to the Supervisors. Jenny Conrad, from the Paw Project, met with Supervisors as well. Jean Hovey, flew in from Denver to talk with Supervisors. Thanks to all who wrote and e-mailed in to Supervisors to support the ban. Hope Johnson did a lot of work. The mayor has ten days from last Tuesday to sign or veto it. The board has enough time and votes to override a possible veto.
5 A) Public Comment
Julene Johnson – Thanks Commission and all that worked to get the ban passed.
6 B) Discussion only of no-kill
Comr. Stephens – Commission’s working group met with Jan McHugh-Smith of SPCA and Rebecca Katz of ACC. Want to do more outreach to the Rescues. Comr. Padilla had to leave early tonight so unavailable to talk more about it. Her proposal was only meant as a starting point. Types of issues that have been brought up are: should rescues, that have to euthanize, have the same requirements of accountability as the shelters? – In Angela’s draft there was some repetition of the Hayden Act, which was a State funded mandate, which required that public shelter hold animals for a certain period of time. Concern is if we come up with a requirement that is more restrictive than what is in the Hayden Act the State might say that since you are obeying your own law we are not obligated to give you the money we were giving you. We need more detail on behavior standards. Requiring ACC to provide spay/neuter to all their animals is an expense they may not be able to provide. Should we include a banning of small animals in pet stores?
Was discussion of changing the number of animals in a household and concern about hoarders. Legitimate rescues are a possible exemption for short term housing. Issue of a wildlife rehab center has been talked about but it also involves a huge expense. Possibly having part of the SPCA’s new hospital for a site. Talks with the SPCA might be a new source of revenue earmarked for wildlife. Talk about a sales tax on pet supplies, pet toys, and maybe pet food as a funding source for low-cost spay/neuter. Requiring shelters to be open on holidays requires overtime which is an additional cost. Draft implied that ACC would be required to perform TNR. That needs to be cleared up. Releasing of a feral back into an unsafe area is a problem. If any legislation requires ACC to provide additional services, funding for appropriate staffing needs to be included. Another issue is breeder regulations. A license fee to cover oversight to make sure it is done right. These are some of the issues that have come up. Also working on a non-profit to provide oversight. A skilled facilitator would be helpful to get all parties working together. We need to move beyond the rancor of Nathan and the SPCA. We need to focus on what is workable. Hope is that we will have worked on these issues when we come back in January.
Comr. Brooks – Agrees. Wants to move forward. We can only do so much. People have to let go of anger. Every life is important. Too much emphasis on not being perfect. We have to create a culture of how we can move forward and work together in the new year.
Comr. Hemphill – What about the finances for all these recommendations?
Comr. Stephens – Ultimately there will be numbers. Need to start with grants and seed money from private contributions. If we can’t get the money there is no point in trying.
Comr. Gerrie – Would like it if all concerned could be in a locked room to work it out. Monthly Commission meetings is a hard way to accomplish the task. We have been meeting about this issue for over a year.
Comr. Hemphill – Would like some energy devoted to wildlife. Wildlife is in a separate-but-equal category.
Comr. Brooks – You are welcome to bring your proposals for wildlife into the discussion.
Comr. Stephens – To Comr. Gerrie, issue is complicated and has taken a long time but may probably be the most important thing we do.
Comr. Gerrie – Would like to be more supportive but issue has been hard to be fully behind.
6 B) Public Comment
Dr. Elliot Katz – Has Maddie’s Fund been approached?
Comr. Stephens – Will be talking with Avanzino tomorrow.
Dr. Elliot Katz – He could be the carrot that brings everyone together. He will only give them money if they come together. Suggest that Comr. Stephens step down from the seat on JZ and focus on companion animals. Seems like a lot to be taking on.
Eric Brooks -Green Party – Suggests creating a certification body to assess the adoptability of animals. Read that after the recent increase in surrender’s to the shelters, rescue groups started fudging on no-kill by what animals were adoptable. Perhaps vet reports on euthanized animals could be kept justifying their euthanization. Likes idea of ban of the sale of small animals at pet stores. Suggestion that pet-friendly rentals not include rentable rooms in owners own house.
Julene Johnson – Fix San Francisco – Recently attended the No More Homeless Pets national conference in Las Vegas. It was sponsored by Best Friends Animal Society. Conference, was attended by 650 people. Representatives from many shelters across the US came to tell what they were doing to increase save rates. Many shelter save rates are now above 90%. Jacksonville has ended the killing of cats and dogs, and does 5500 spay/neuter surgeries per year. They could do 11,000 surgeries a year. NYC has reduced killing. Feels SF is being left behind by all the people doing good work across the country. Currently over 70% of cats in California are being killed at shelters.
Lisa Vittori – Has been giving surplus meat to rescue groups who are thankful because they say they don’t have any money. Rescues pay for spay/neuter and vet bills out of pocket. They pay to place in foster homes. Shelters relying on rescues to do work that should be paid or financed. Has been told that SPCA offers deals for the rescues but vet bills are still too high. Rescues spend their own time and money rescuing animals from the animal shelters. They shouldn’t be doing this service for free.
Cynthia Cox – Fixsanfrancisco.org – Comments on 2008 California Dept of Public Health’s report that over 250,000 cats were killed in 2008 and 160,000 dogs were killed in California. Commission has met for some time on this issue but it is important to do it right and do it together. Every day that we delay, animals are being killed.
7. General Public Comment
Bob Jenkins – SF Zoo – Encourages Comr. Stephens to go after any agenda item on JZ deemed worth pursuing. Comr .Stephens for animals welfare and Dr Spinelli viewpoints and input are sorely needed on JZ. The recent bear incident was handled without harm to anyone due to professionalism of the zoo staff even though all were in potential danger. Learned that Supervisor Elsbernd will work with City Attorney’s office to introduce legislation to enhance, expand, and strengthen animal protection legislation of animals in City parks. That is not just zoo animals but any animals in any City park. This may affect Comr. Hemphill’s concern over the concert’s fencing and noise in GG Park.
Eric Brooks – Green Party – Doesn’t think saying there was no harm from the bear incident is good enough. Wants to get rid of Zoological Society’s staff.
8 & 9 Calendar Items and task allotments
Comr. Stephens – Comr. Gerrie will be working on pet rental. Further discussions on where to go with no-kill.
Adjournment 8:55 PM
Respectfully submitted by
Philip Gerrie
Commission Secretary