2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 

Commission of Animal Control and Welfare

Minutes from August 10, 2006

 

I.      Call to Order & Roll Call by Chair Richard Schulke

 

Present:  Commissioners Richard Schulke, Mara Weiss, DVM, Laurie Routhier-Kennedy, Sherri Franklin, JR Yeager, William Hamilton, Christine Garcia, new Comr. Sato (welcome) and Capt. Goldbeck

Absent:  Commissioner Capt. Herndon (Family matter)

 

II.  Public Comment

 

None

 

III.          Approval/Comments of Draft Minutes

 

Skipped approval because both Comrs. Yeager & Garcia (although they turned in the minutes) missed the Sunshine Ordinance time requirements.  Both minutes from June and July are posted on the website pending approval.

 

IV.            Chairpersons Report and Opening Remarks

 

A.  Attendance of Rec. and Park and Health Dept. at Meetings

 

Has been working with Sup. Peskin re: Dept. of Health and Recreation and Parks Dept. requirement to have representatives at meeting.  We’re happy to introduce from Dept. of Health Mr. Kennith Sato and appreciate his input.

 

 

V.  Commissioners’ Reports

 

Commissioner Garcia

 

A.  Update on Pursuit of Office Space (mailing address), Computer and Phone Amenities

 

City Administrators Office is holding our mail.  Ben Rosenfeld from the GSA office claims our office is “on his radar” on the top of his list.

 

B.  Request for Commission Letterhead and Envelopes

 

Assuming that the spending of the commission’s budget is pending voting approval of the commission, Comr. Garcia proposes using some money on letterhead and accompanying envelops.  Requested people to think about it.

 

C.  “Neighborhood Watch” Proposal

 

C1.  Mohammed Sulliman (a dog fighter who continues to fight dogs in SF) is an inspiration for this ordinance.  A new law whereby The County of San Francisco confers a private right of action for private citizens to prosecute cases for animal welfare misconduct which occurs in the County of San Francisco.  Thus, private attorneys would be authorized to enforce animal welfare misconduct statutes through the liaison of the San Francisco Animal Care and Control Department (“ACC”).

 

C2.  Comr. Schulke would like to read it and opens it to Commission comment.  Would also like the City Atty present at next meeting for her opinion, and likes the idea.

 

C3.  Comr. Franklin has seen these victimized animals, agrees that city would be able to do more if they had more resources and looks forward to reading it.

 

C4.  Comr. Hamilton is impressed with the work on the proposal and hopes that it is an agenda item for net month.  Also asked which laws were involved (i.e. local and state?) both Capt. Goldbeck and Comr. Garcia responded yes, both and where the codes may be found.

 

C5.  Comr. Kennedy had question on application and fundamental workings of ordinance.  Comr. Garcia responded with a comparison to how Environmental laws work, allowing others to prosecute.

 

C6.  Capt. Goldbeck added that there are many private attorneys who want to help ACC but there is no mechanism in place right now for this.  She really likes it.  Suggests that it would go to DA’s office first to prosecute prior to private attorney.  Informs commission that they have a database of the animal cruelty cases so the ordinance should incorporate the procedure.

 

C7.  Comr. Yeager clarifies for understanding that this would allow somebody who has witnessed such an event to prosecute.  Comr. Garcia responded that people would then have the ability to do something and see it through after witnessing such abuse.

 

C8.  Comr. Weiss asked if we needed a named plaintiff.  Comr. Garcia responded that the two other jurisdiction (e.g. People of the State of California via Private Attorney Jane Doe)

 

C9.  Public Comment:  Richard Fong expresses a concern for balance.  Will private attorneys also be able to step in and help the Public Defenders?  Comr. Schulke stated that any private attorney may step in already to help defendants.  Comr. Garcia says that this legislation brings balance to where an imbalance presently exists.

 

Comr. Schulke recommended this be put on next month’s agenda.  Capt. Goldbeck thought inviting somebody from the City Atty and/or DA’s office would be good.  Unanimous approval of Motion to move this to next months meeting.

 

VI.      Old Business

A.  Media Guidelines

 

Commissioner Kennedy

 

Would like this item held over to next month.  Unanimous approval of Motion to move this to next months meeting.

 

B.  Safe Pet Program:  Domestic Violence and Animal Companions

 

Commissioner Franklin

 

B1.  Had meetings with City Attorney and Capt. Goldbeck and Friedman and would like to see if we could take it to the next step, The Board of Sups.  Language:  “To make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to formalize a safe pet program to ensure its longevity.  To educate and set guidelines for first responders.  Additionally, to endorse and lobby for statewide legislation, to extend companion animal protection in domestic violence cases.”  Side Note:  The person working with Mark Leno was sick and couldn’t be at the meeting.

 

B2.  Comr. Schulke clarified that we are requesting the Board of Sups. to make this a state law case.  Thinks that it’s a wonderful idea.

 

B3.  Comr. Hamilton would like to understand the difference between this proposal and the existing penal codes.  Comr. Franklin and Kennedy clarified that it is distinguished by creating a protocol of how to provide care for the animals in this situation. 

 

B4.  Capt. Goldbeck explains that this will extend into Court proceedings in related domestic violence hearings so that a companion animal may be included as a protected family member in restraining order requests or custody dispute cases where domestic violence exists

 

B5.  Comr. Yeager states how the current informal SF agreement to bring pets to safety would now formalized and asks if first responding officers would be required to follow this ordinance.  Capt. Goldbeck says yes.  With this new law, ACC would be legally entitled to go in and get the companion animal.

 

B6.  Comr. Kennedy Thanked Comr. Franklin for this proposal.  Comr. Yeager agreed.  Comr. Garcia nodded in agreement.

B7.  Public Comment:  None

 

Unanimous approval of Motion to make this recommendation to the Board.

 

VII.    Old Business

 

A.  The licensing of professional dog walkers

 

Commissioner Schulke

 

A1.              Comr. Schulke – Proposed municipal - licensing of dog walker services requiring things such as, no more than eight (8) dogs per walk, current dog license, a leash per dog, safe transportation (well ventilated), adequate insurance and/or bonding, all feces picked up and properly disposed of, licensing fee will be split between Park and Rec (for maintenance of dog runs) and misdemeanor/fine penalty.  Side Note: NAPS (National Assoc. of Professional Pet Sitters) couldn’t be there today.

 

A2.  Nancy Stafford, co-director of Pro Dog, a professional dog walkers association.  Their objective is to inform, mentor and advocate for their profession.  Re: Dog License requirement - Pro Dog prefers not to police clients.  Re: Insurance – concerned about cost and the definition of “professional dog walker.”  $250 is reasonable but they would like to see the entire amount to ACC.  (FYI) DPA=Dog Play Area.  Voiced concern about how to ensure that the fees did not go to the general fund.

 

A3.  Comr. Kennedy asked how the climate (e.g. whether or not there is support) was from the dog walker community.  Ms. Stafford explained that there is much support.  She also gave number statistics about how SF is a dog friendly city.  Supports this idea: asked about the value of a fee for this prof. Dog walking license and also about incentive.

 

A4.  Comr. Hamilton asked how Ms. Stafford would define a professional dog walker.  Ms. Stafford said that the term is broad, but it was somebody who relies on dog walking as his or her main source of income.

 

A5.  Public Comment:  Ron Cole would also like to see the definition of a professional dog walker (i.e. defendant on # of dogs or hours or proportion?).  Mainly because if there is no definite term, then how will it be enforced.

 

Ms. Jane Doe (no name mentioned) said the licensing fee shocked her.  Suggested a sliding scale because $250 is a lot of money.

 

Joe Hague, professional dog walker, member of Pro Dog and negotiating rule making committee with GGNRA.  He likes it, supports the sliding scale, and likes the professionalism attached to this.  Asks that ACC inspect the vehicle that is used (i.e. rubber mat in back, screens, etc.)  Says that it should go to each walker (not company).  Comr. Kennedy asked if most prof. Dog walkers are insured and Mr. Hague said yes. He is insured through APDT (Assoc. of Pet Dog Trainers).  Comr. Weiss asked about the coverage and Mr. Hague explained that it is very comprehensive.  In response to Comr. Hamilton, Mr. Hague explains that some walkers come in from other cities to walk in the city and federal lands within SF.

 

Comr. Garcia departs to catch a plane to Washington DC for the national Animal Rights conference.

 

Richard Fong questions the enforcement and prosecution of this ordinance.

 

Aaron Brown, a professional dog walker, likes this.  Concerned about the $200 fee.  He already pays for classes on dog behavior, car maintenance, insurance, etc.  He wants to keep this profession, and it already costs quite a bit and would like to keep costs down.

 

Roselyn Lord (?) and is supportive of this, but the $200 fee is too high and expresses discomfort about policing dog licenses from clients.

 

Jeff Hunt, professional dog walker:  Has problem with limiting a persons’ income if they can handle more than eight (8) dogs since there is a limited window to walk dogs.  He suggests ten (10) as a limit.  Asks if there are going to be unwavering specific guidelines for the vehicle.

 

A6.  Comr. Kennedy supports this idea: asked about the value of a fee for this prof. Dog walking license and also about incentive.  Comr. Yeager suggested a sticker.

 

A7.  Comr. Hamilton asked about the impact on ACC for enforcement and citations and Capt. Goldbeck thinks they can come up with a reasonable processing plan.

 

A8.  Comr. Sato clarified that this is on county lands, but not federal.  Some discussion was made regarding the number of dogs with Capt. Goldbeck.

 

A9.  Comr. Kennedy commented on dog numbers, poop pick up and numbers impacting the spread of robust excitement.

 

A10.  Comr. Schulke looks forward to working with the community, ACC, NAPS and Pro Dog in working out agreeable language.

 

VIII.  Public Comment

 

Philip Geary:  Wanted to discuss the Natural Areas Program (NAP) and explains that NAP promotes the welfare of animals which is relevant to this commission.

 

L-Danyielle Yacobucci says that SFSPCA is against the Natural Areas Plan (NAP).  She will send bullet points to anyone regarding this plan for interested people.

 

Nancy Stafford said that 1/3 of the City Parks will be designated areas under NAP, allowing dogs (but the dogs must be on leash).

 

IX.      Closing Review of Task Allotment and Calendar Items

 

A.        Comr. Garcia’s Neighborhood Watch proposal

 

B.         Comr. Schulke’s desire to create more landlord/pet friendly environments

 

C.         Comr. Schulke’s professional dog walking item

 

D.        Comr. Yeager’s idea on the $ reward system for people who lead to the arrest of animal abuse.  Also, AB 150 support.

 

X.        Special Honored Adjournment

 

Comr. Schulke moved to close meeting in honor of Sergeant Herndon who is not here because his uncle has passed away.  Comr. Franklin and Hamilton seconded and the special motion was unanimously approved.  Comr. Schulke officially closed meeting.

 

If you have any questions/comments about the minutes, please e-mail [email protected]