Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 16, 2012 1:31pm-2:01pm PST

1:31 pm
i watched them and introduce myself to some of them, but this has been a profound invasion of my life, and i am forced to have that dog barking all day long. i could not attend the meeting the other night at the diamond heights association. i know you weren't there, supervisor, at the invitation of track. i have led -- live there in my present apartment since 1995, so i feel betrayed by everybody because it is under the radar, and with all the calls that i made to your office, and one lady, and she said the park is here tuesday, you should probably get some plans to cope with it. i had a conference call with the planning department, some very nice ladies. their names escape me. i am not prepared in two minutes to spill my guts. i've been listening to this for
1:32 pm
years. somebody discovered apart and putting on the internet, and their dogs that are there day and night. supervisor mar: thank you, sir. your two minutes are up. >> i just have one less thing to say. supervisor mar: please wrap up, and very quickly. >> i am disappointed, supervisor mar, that you did not respond. supervisor mar: supervisor cohen as a question. supervisor cohen: what exactly is the issue? >> the issue for me is the amount of dogs scattering, and the park should never have been an off leash park. the biggest issue is the residents were not consulted. i had no knowledge of this until i heard a dog barking. it has been under the radar.
1:33 pm
supervisor cohen: i am going to bring up sarah ballard from recreation and parks to talk about the noticing. we will have to share my. go ahead, please. >> i do not have my notes with me, but i believe it was in 2008 that we convened with a dog advisory council, which set out to finalize the off leash areas, and there are 28 in the system, and they all went republic process and then were publicly adopted by the commission. supervisor wiener: and this was when this was a dog park >> i think so, because we have not added any new ones since then. supervisor mar: we just have to have ms. ballard respond.
1:34 pm
my information is that this will really help with the training said that the dog walkers and others really will keep their dogs under control much better. supervisor wiener: i have spoken with mr. gilbert's, and it is one of those unfortunate situations where we have a very popular dog park there, and there is a sound issue. i am not an expert on sound, but it travels to mr. dilbert's unit. mr. dilbert has indicated that this may be should not be a dog park, but that is a much larger question. i would say that this legislation by creating regulations and by limiting the number of dogs, training standards, etc., i am not saying it will resolve mr. gilbert's problems, but i think it will be
1:35 pm
an improvement in the overall diversity of dog walkers, so we have a few more speakers. cathy, demetrius, chris, and barbara ammano. >> hi, i am cabin from the recreation center. we walk dogs in san francisco. thank you again for hearing all of oz. i am still in favor of eight dogs for the dog walking. we have talked about the economics last time. i am here to ask a few more questions about the fees regarding this licensing and was wondering what it meant for a business to be licensed as opposed to a walker who would be an employee. supervisor wiener: i will answer that question. every business has to have a business license. if you are a hair salon, you
1:36 pm
have to limit business license, but you also have to have certain licensing to do that, so basically currently, without this legislation, anyone conducting a dog walking business is required to have a business license, period, and this would require a permit specifically for dog walking. >> so for myself or for the judgment misspoke earlier, who has seven employees, would each employee have to file to get a dog walking license? supervisor wiener: everyone would have to have a permit, but only the business itself would have to have a business license, and this is a the provides for working under someone else's business license. you can work without having your own if you are an employee in the dog walking business. >> what about the permit. is there a fee?
1:37 pm
supervisor wiener: if i am a dog walking business, and i have 10 employees, i could have the employees pay for their own, or the employer could purchase them for each dog walker, but each dog walker would have to show that they went through the training or are grandfathered in. >> and it would be up to $250? supervisor wiener: thereafter, of the to $100. >> for me, personally, that is quite a bit of money. we only walked the equivalent of one dog walker's worth of dogs, but we of three people that are dog walkers in my company. myself and two others. the one person is our main employee, and the other person is basically her manager, does all of the scheduling, does not actually walk every day but will cover for the other person, so
1:38 pm
given this legislation, i would have to buy a dog walking permit for both of those people even though only one of them walks on a regular basis. my proposal would be something like where the business actually gets all of the dog walking permit stuff into place and then you'll have a separate tier for employees were all they have to prove it is the trading, because under all of the other regulations, i as the corporation owned the vehicle, the insurance, the liability insurance, and we add that walker to the liability insurance, so our walker does not have any of those other things, and it would be very hard for her to prove that she has all of the other stuff. in regard to the fees, i think it would be interesting to look at just like one tear basically a independent contractors and dog walking businesses getting that overall permit and then getting an employee permit that
1:39 pm
would be associated only with that company. thank you. supervisor wiener: think you. mr. demetrius? >> hi, good afternoon. my name is ahmed demetrius, and i own a little buddha's dog walking. i get it that people are not amenable to 12 to 13 dogs. i do not think that somebody can control that many dogs. i've been there are ways to do it. but i think you can let dogs out of the car in small groups. you can have a clear field of vision, and i am really good at picking up the group. i am locked -- like a hawk guy out there about it, so i just wanted to thank you because i know you've done a lot of work
1:40 pm
and have talked to a lot of people who have different opinions, but i want to encourage you to keep the number as high as possible. i know that in other cities and jurisdictions, the number is a little bit lower, but i think it is really important to consider the urban density of san francisco, really like the density of dogs per square mile and people and the number of parks. i think a higher number more realistically allows us to meet that need and work within that framework. i know for me, one of the reasons that i hate having smaller groups is just the driving in the city. and for the dogs, i think when there is any group smaller than eight for me, i think it is a little bit boring, and i think it is for them, too. i would really like to operate my own business, because i'd
1:41 pm
like to do it my way, and i'd like to take my time, and under these new regulations, it is not or did possible to do that, but you are the experts that are saying six dogs is a good? i hear seven, up from animal care and control, and bay are not friends and have not been there for a long time. i do not know if you have been to animal control. it is a terrible place for a dog. it is cold. it smells funny. dogs are getting euphemized. seven of my dogs are not going to act the same. when i heard that mentality about pack mentality, it struck me. -- when i heard that comment about pack mentality, that struck me. economically and the stakeholders all over the city, using the parks.
1:42 pm
supervisor wiener: thank you. i have two remaining speaker cards, chris and barbara. >> we have a very small dpa that we are charged with. supervisor mar: what is that? >> a dog play area. it is slightly over 10,000 square feet, the minimum. so we have a real issue with individuals being able to enjoy the park, and what happens is is so small, as many are -- there are others, mckinley, st. mary's, there are other small dog parks, when even a group of seven or eight comes in, and another group of five or six comes in, and then another group, and you get these large groups.
1:43 pm
even the, there is dogs doing their business all over, and they cannot track that. we are charged with keeping them clean. recreation and park does zero maintenance. zero minutes. i am sure this is true that other dog play areas. so we have to deal directly with the problems of irresponsible dog walkers. dog owners, as well, but the problems, we have been waiting for this legislation because the people in our group have really felt the impact of safety when these dogs come in. it fills up the space in very quickly. dogs running around, running into each other. my dog has been hit twice, both times when large groups of dogs or released inside. we love the dog walkers, we love the dogs, but we have a problem with this. we are wondering that there can be two tiers for this, that for small dpa's, it can be no more
1:44 pm
than five to a group or six to a group, just something that will help in small places. there is no way to get away in a small space. one last thing, if we do not have my dedication for the dog walkers, if there is not a number posted on their vehicle, or they do not have it posted on themselves, this is a completely toothless law. there are people that come to me and say, "chris, we have a problem dog walker." we do not know this person is. find out. how do we do this without costing the person? we need to read some kind of identification on the vehicle or on the person. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you, and i believe that ms. ammano -- amato is the last person.
1:45 pm
>> my name is barbara. i feel i am a representative of a dog owner with one dog to obeys the rules and maintains the park. i agree with chris that it is so small that we really should limit to five dogs per dog walker. i was one of the original writters of the park and rec dog parks rules. it was very helpful to us, but we never envisioned people coming in with six or seven dogs. it is not something we were conscious of, so we ask you a minute to the small dog parks that the limit is odd, and also, i respectfully ask that you include in the legislation four. as requirements for the dog walkers. one is that they do have their permit visibly so that you can
1:46 pm
read it from 20 feet away or 10 feet away at least, and so that the permit is on their vehicles so we can see that they are registered and that every dog that is what has a city license. it should be a requirement, and then the dog walkers, because they are working, they should not be on their cell phones, socializing. they should be watching the dogs and making sure all of the program is picked up. thank you, and thinking for the dogs. supervisor wiener: any other further public comment? seeing none, mr. chairman, can we close public comment? supervisor mar: yes. supervisor wiener: as we have worked on this issue, we have communicated with several hundred dog walkers and owners and have heard pretty much every opinion, as with everything animal related in the city, there are a lot of different
1:47 pm
opinions, which is one of the things that makes this city great. just a few things that i wanted to respond to. there were several suggestions about tiering the groups, either by the dog park itself or smaller or larger or by the experience of the dog walker, more experience can walk more, and some have mentioned based on the size of the dog, and one of the things i kept in mind while crafting the legislation was making it as simple and enforceable as possible. the more complex to make it, the more difficult it is to administer, so when you are a parked patrol officer, and we say you can have more dogs when it is under 10 pounds, it is more difficult for it to be in force, and with the experience level, it would just increase the complexity of administering this. keep in mind that we are starting from scratch. other cities have this. we have never had this at --
1:48 pm
before. there was a complete void. even though we are putting in place, perhaps you could think of a more sophisticated, new ones, and complicated system. i think in terms of starting out with a regulatory scheme, i think it is, in my view, to keep it at least somewhat simple and basic. in terms of the size of the dog play area, i actually, when i first started talking about this, had envisioned a two tier system, for large parks to have aids, small parts to have six, and in talking to recreation and park, they felt that would be extremely difficult to administer. and so we went with the one decides on that one. so i have proposed several amendments that i described at
1:49 pm
the beginning. i am also going to suggest that we amend the maximum number of dogs, which is currently nine, eight plus a personal dog, and just make a flat eight, and not worry about whether it is a personal dog or a non personal dog, said this would be a certain sections to be amended to delete the phrase "plus one dog owned by the dog walker." it would read "departed team may not walk at one time more than eight dogs." and then it will also delete the second since of that subsection, said that would be that amendment plus the two i described at the beginning and that are in the written materials that i distributed. so i move those amendments. supervisor mar: thank you.
1:50 pm
comments before we act on the motion of the amendments? i guess i would like to say that some of the public comment, and thanks everyone for speaking. i am glad that sarah ballard is here from the recreation and park department and hopefully brings a different input back to the commission and the general manager, as well, to consider, especially, mr. gilbert, and others points of view is about a better regulation of dogs within the dog parks. i am glad that the small business commission has given us a very clear recommendation, but there has been so many different people calling, emailing, writing letters, i am really concerned about the number that went up to nine or eight plus personal, so i am appreciative that supervisor wiener is bringing it back down
1:51 pm
to eight or seven plus one. it does not seem that everyone is happy with this, but it is a good compromise. and the other two amendments, i appreciate them. i also want to commend where back of ktaz, in protecting the public and the animals, as well. it has been a good process, and i think this will make it better for our neighborhoods and the dogs and the dog walkers. supervisor cohen, do you have anything? supervisor wiener: just quickly, i know there are some people who would want to have six. the current limit is insanity, so aids is a lot lower than in affinity.
1:52 pm
i am trying to also be sensitive to the native people running their businesses, and every dog that you reduce it, it does make it more challenging to run a business and make a living. this is an expensive city to live in, both for the dog walkers and also for the clients. the more we lower the number of dogs, the more expensive dog walking services will be, so this is one of the things in determining the number. no matter what you do, there are going to be people who are unhappy with it, and there are some very divergent and an irreconcilable views on this. seven or eight would be a reasonable number. supervisor mar: thank you. so, colleagues, if there are no further comment on the amendments, without objection, the three amendments? [gavel] supervisor wiener: i would move that we move this forward with a
1:53 pm
positive recommendation. supervisor mar: for the january 12, 2012, board of supervisors meeting. january 10, 2012. this is sponsored by the mayor and president david chiu. we have jason elliot. >> i can speak briefly on the mayor's position. i was coming up to talk to emory -- ann marie from planning. let's take a few minutes as people are leaving. we are joined by president chiu.
1:54 pm
president chiu: thank you, colleagues. we're considering a piece of legislation that would help to improve and expand upon a very successful public art program that has been in place for over 25 years in the downtown area. at this point, the city currently requires all development over 25,000 square feet in the downtown district to pay a fee that is equal to 1% of costs to purchase on site are. in the middle of last year in june of 2010, we introduce this legislation that would provide the flexibility and expend the options for ways for this public art fee to be used. the planning commission voted unanimously to support this legislation with modifications that we will discuss today. under the legislative proposal
1:55 pm
if the project sponsor's wish to, they would have the option to contribute some or all of the portion of their feet to a newly created public artwork trust fund. developers would have greater flexibility and money could be spent on a broader array of activities and installations by artists. this would include the installation and preservation and restoration of temporary and permanent public art. and performance and programming. a number of folks are here to help present. i would like to invite back up mr. elliott to say a few words from your perspective. >> thank you. mrs. legislation that the mayor's office and his office work together to introduce. it was led primarily on a staff level by the arts commission and
1:56 pm
much thanks to president of the art commission p.j. johnson. it started as an idea about how to broaden the scope of what the 1% for the art fee could be used to do, are there better or more creative ways or a broader set of ways to spend this money in the downtown area to enrich that part of the city? what is before you with us -- the amendments that are forthcoming, represents a compromise that the mayor is comfortable with and supportive of. we met with members of the development community and arts community. the planning department, we went to the planning commission and received unanimous vote of approval -- a voter approval. today represents a compromise that will broaden the eligible uses of this stream of revenue and will enhance the downtown
1:57 pm
area. through the public art trust fund. >> thank you. mr. president, all members are present. there are a number of commissioners who are here. commissioner miguel was instrumental in moving this forward. i would like to ask the planning department until -- to make a presentation and i understand there are a number of folks representing the arts commission. >> good evening. this requirement that is before you grew out of the downtown plan which was adopted in 1985. the assumption was there would be a significant downtown imprint -- employment and growth. this new commercial development would provide new revenue sources.
1:58 pm
programs were created at that time, this is an impact fee. and then there are also some aesthetic requirements like open straight -- straight art. what do we have today? i would like to share what we have from this requirement. we have learned a lot. more than 25 years after the adoption we have seen a growth of a downtown gallery. it is an improvement for tourists and workers alike. the spirit of the 1% requirement is to ensure the public has access to high-quality in variety of art. and to increase awareness, our republic -- department developed an inventory. bob 25 pieces of art were in publicly accessible locations.
1:59 pm
there is one project missing the required part and we are pursuing our enforcement options. this inventory has shown a high level of compliance with the requirement. someone said some of the pieces resulted from this requirement have been in the inaccessible areas like lobbies but that has not been borne out by the survey. our conclusion from raise it -- revealing their results is the requirement has improved the district and the provision of permanent monumental works of art. that said, the commission when they heard this item in the fall felt the time was right to reevaluate the requirements in light of the results in new circumstances in san francisco. we have seen growth expanded beyond the traditional downtown district for office and we have seen residential growth move into the c3 district. at a october 27 hearing, the
2:00 pm
commissioners supported the ordinance with modifications. they raised several issues. i wish to relate on their behalf their appreciation to the amendments that will be made today. these address the commission's concerns that have been made subsequent to additional outrage which the commission requested. and they're concerned can be summarized into four issues which i will outline but not discuss in detail. first, ensuring the production of more of this continuous permanent monumental art and making sure it is balanced with the possibility of adding an ephemeral art. second they went to update their requirements so it applies to all large development, not just with any -- within the c3 district. also identified as truly public spaces with these works of art. finally, they were concerned over adding s that a review to our private property.