up their cell phone, and that tends to really stress the system. in that case, you would want to have more capacity to accommodate it, not less. i hope that addresses your question. i would be happy to talk about any other aspect of this that you might have questions about. president chiu: colleagues, any questions? supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: know. president chiu: ok, why do we not go to those who want to speak on behalf of the project sponsor? >> mr. santiago, an executive director of support services. i am also on the faculty at san jose state university in the public health sciences department. we also provide services. in fact, we just recently

received funds to provide kinships services as well as child interactions services where across the street at 201 leland, and this is 199. i just want to say that the evidence, the public health evidence, just does not support risk for either of my staff or the children or the families. the other thing that i want to say is that we are concerned about good service everywhere, because we want to be efficient and competitive, and we want to be able to access our patient data, our client files, electronically, through the ipad or other devices, and we are customers of at&t. this one it will be accessible through these data networks, and i again support anything that will allow us to have the technology to be more efficient. thank you. president chiu: next speaker.

>> once again, my name is -- and i have been living in the area. i have been using at&t for many years, and because i do not have a home phone, i rely on myself and, and my friends and family call me on my cell phone, but sometimes i get a job calls. i have no reception. i feel like it is really, really bad, but the reason i keep at&t is because i like the phone and can use a overseas, china. if they were able to provide better service, i would support that. thank you. president chiu: are there any other members who want to speak on behalf of the project sponsor? all right, at this time, i like to bring up some to speak on behalf of the appellant. >> i just want to repeat a

request that because we got such short notice for this meeting, we'd like to ask for a continuance of this decision until december so we can submit additional supporting materials, including an expert report. i want to ask a question. are you a paid consultant or with at&t, or are you an independent consultant? who spoke earlier. maybe some money from at&t. president chiu: you are not allowed to ask questions to any of the parties, but if any of my colleagues want to ask, they can. >> ok, so my request is for a continuance because we did not have time to prepare in such a short time, whereas the other cases also had one month to do that. i also had a question about the earlier comment about using dph to check on sites, unless you

provide a language access, that is not going to help anybody, especially in this community. if at&t feels this is a concern, i think they should be talking to the community about it but not brushing it away. many people do have other concerns, but the main one is that we continue the request that at&t considerably recology site in order to satisfy their proposal to have it for their interests along the highway. this was their original proposal when we had the leland avenue street fair. again, we need more time to

prepare, and we would ask for the indulgence of the supervisors. president chiu: thank you. colleagues? supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: yes, i would like to ask bill to come up and state for the record whether he is an independent contractor or not. >> yes, i am an independent contractor. my clients include at&t, at&t competitors. at&t has asked me to be here today to represent the findings of the measurements we took. supervisor cohen: so you stand by these findings, and you put your career on this? >> i do. that is the purpose of the stamp. thank you. supervisor \ cohen: thank you.

president chiu: supervisor chu: i just want to be clear that we cannot work with the health aspects as long as they meet federal guidelines. i know those were some of the comments made by individuals today. in a previous item where we have this come up before us, we actually have the organization -- it was a different carrier at the time, commit to working with our community and the department of public health to make sure that if individuals did want to make sure that after installation that it did still meet the requirements that the fcc provided that we would go ahead and do that, so i just want to see if at&t and with our department if you would be committed to making sure that we do provide those services to individuals. >> absolutely, supervisor.

we are happy to do that. supervisor chu: and no we have our office of language access here, and i am wondering if we might be able to utilize some of their services to make sure that the messages carried out and that the people who do wanted are aware of what those services are. i see adrian nodding her head in the back. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any of the questions? supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i did want to ask if at&t would consider the request for a continuance, particularly since this is mano language, urging at least two -- this is mono language, notifying them that there is no danger but

also that this is necessary. i do not know that you have met the burden that it is necessary to me, and i am just wondering if you're open to a continuance as the appellants have asked? >> supervisor mar, we have already granted one month's continuance with the planning department process, and we believe this has been time enough for them to address concerns. the health issues were discussed at our community meetings, so this is something that at&t is not interested in, a continuance. president chiu: supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: i just want to enter into the record that we continue this twice during the process with ms. tran, as well as at&t trying to come together with the collective response. i think it is in the best interest of both parties, and it

has been a little bit challenging. president chiu: colleagues, any further questions on this item, or should be closed -- should we close this item? cummings, these items are in the hand of the board. supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: i want to thank all of those elected in their time, particularly those who have come to testify, and i think planning staff, and i would again like to implore the department to come up with a city-wide strategy on how we as a city family can begin to better deal with the long term planning of our technology and our technology infrastructure.

i understand the there has been report issued at the behest of president chiu in years prior, but as we continue to move on into the twenty-four's century and becoming a community dependent on technology, we need to think about ways to be smart about our planning, so we need to begin to dive into how we address technology. said thank you to all of the members of the public for coming to express your concern. as i mentioned earlier in my remarks, we have been a part of this process since the beginning and have supported two continuances in the process to allow for community meetings and for the project sponsor and the appellants to address their concerns. as many of you know, the board of supervisors is, like supervisor chu indicated, pre- empted from considering potential health effects of cell

phone antennas in our decision on whether or not to have the antennas, and i want to encourage the committee members to take their concerns to the federal level and to educate and to lobby our delegation in washington, d.c., as well as on the state level, because, unfortunately, things are out of our control here. our hands are tied. i think on our own behalf, it is difficult to be forced to take a position that is against my constituents' interests and what they would like, but i believe that at&t has adequately demonstrated that the need of the antennas is necessary and do not cause a some of the an aesthetic or other impacts. therefore, ask the colleagues' support the planning department's decision in this case, and i would like to motion that we approve this item. no. 28, and table items 28 -- 29

and 30. president chiu: supervisor cohen has made a motion, seconded by supervisor farrell. if we could take a roll-call vote on that item. clerk calvillo: supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor wiener, supervisor avalos, supervisor campos, president chiu, supervise chu, supervisor elsbernd, supervisor kim, supervisor mar. there is one no. president chiu: the cu passes.

and with that, madam clerk, could you please read today's in memoriam. clerk calvillo: the in the morning is for one woman. president chiu: is there any more business? clerk calvillo: there is no more business. president chiu: ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. there is no more business.

president o'brien: good evening. public comment will be taken on each item. speaker cards are available at the front table. as always, we would like to thank sfgov tv for their constant support of our meetings. roll call. [roll call taken.] president o'brien: all members

are present. item two, discussion of possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 11104, administrative code, health code, regulating commercial dog walkers on park property. this is an ordinance, by adding article 39 through 39-13 to license and regulate commercial dog walkers operating on park property. today we have a presentation by supervisor scott wiener. in your packet we have behind the ordinance, we have correspondence that you've received from the pb that has previously been mailed to you. >> good evening, commissioners, and thank you for your work on behalf of the city. i know commission work is sometimes the most tough work there is, an i think i speak

for all of my colleagues in thanking you for doing that work and helping small business in san francisco. thank you as well for taking the time to consider dog walker legislation. this is important legislation that's taken a lot of time to put together, and i know we're going to have a continuing dialogue about it. so i just want to go over a few points with you. i think there's a pretty broad desire both within the dog walker community and outside of the dog walker community to have some basic standards in place. dog walkers provide an absolutely critical commercial service for the approximately -- for many of the approximately 1/3 of households in san francisco who have dogs. this is a service without which an awful lot of people could not have dogs. and so it's important that we foster this industry and that we also recognize that the vast

majority of dog walkers do a really good job and are trained professionals. unfortunately, there are some dog walkers, a minority, who maybe don't always do the best job and maybe could use a little bit additional training. for quite sometime, for years, well before i was on the board of supervisors, there's been a discussion about putting in place a permitting system to have some basic standards around commercial dog walkers who use city property, specifically park property, and in this legislation, also poor mpuc property. in addition to protecting consumers to make sure that they can know that the dog walkers they're hiring have met these basic standards, this will also help protect our parks, which are important assets that we all need to use an that we want dog walkers to use. but we want to make sure we're all able to use it responsibly

and together. so approximately six months ago i began a series of conversations with a number of stakeholders, including animal care and control, rec and park, neighborhood parks council, the spca, several professional dog walker associations as well as s.f. dog and crissy field dog. i've also had innumerable individual conversations with dog walkers, with others, who have expressed their feedback on the subject. there's been extensive outreach and work done on this legislation. now, with that said, we're continuing to do outreach. and not a day goes by when i don't get some sort of feedback from a dog walker or from someone he will about the legislation. and i want to assure everyone who contacts me or my office that your feedback is taken into account. and i received some excellent

ideas from members of the public about this legislation, and i know it will be a process and we're going to come up with the best work product possible. the goals of the legislation, of course, is limited to people who are walking for pay four or more dogs in a park p.u.c. property or port property. we want to have basic qualifications, which means that going through some sort of training program or alternatively an apprentice schip program with an experienced dog walker. anyone who has been a dog walker with a license for three or more years will be grandfathered in. they don't have to go through the process because they're already experienced. basic safety standards in terms of transporting dogs, in terms of caring for the dogs while you're walking them in a park or other city property, an

insurance program, which many dogs already have, which protect the dog walker as well as dog owners and members of the public. a permitting system to make clear who the dog walkers are who have met these qualifications. enlisting dog walkers to help us get dogs licensed, but not holding them accountable by punishing them for failing to do so. in other words, urging them to help us to license dogs, but not in any way punishing them if they walk dogs that aren't licensed, because that would be unfair to put that burden on dog walkers. and then what might be the most controversial part of the legislation, to limit the number of dogs a commercial dog walker can walk at one time to seven dogs. now, as i mentioned, we've had a lot of dialogue about this and we'll continue to do so. i want to make very, very clear to the commission as well as to

those interested in legislation and particularly to the dog walker community that this legislation is a work in progress. and i am very, very interested in getting feedback from people to make this as strong and as tight and as effective as possible. for example, the seven-dog limit, there's been a debate over the years between six dogs and eight dogs. it's like this eternal debate that happens. what should be the maximum number. we went with seven dogs in the introduction version of the legislation. seemed like a good compromise. that is a number that is open to discussion. and i've heard some very good interesting arguments on the subject. we need to make sure that animal care and control has the resources that it needs to administer this program. right now animal care and control is a woefully underfunded agency, particularly given what animals mean to this city.

it doesn't have enough enforcement staff and i've committed to working with the agency, with the mayor's budget office. already been in touch with the city administrator and the budget office about next weir's budget and the need to help animal care and control to be able to administer this program but also its other responsibilities. one of the reasons we put "the apprentice"ship alternative in is so people have maximum experience that they need. the effective date is currently april 1, 2012. i am inclined to extend that date because i want to make sure that animal care an control has all the time it needs to set the program up. that we have all the time we need in this legislative process to make sure we get it right and to make sure the dog walkers are able to adjust to a new ordinance.

in terms of vehicle safety, there's a provision for safe transport of animals. some have concluded that that means that we're going to require all dog walkers to have big advance, so that each dog can be individually crated. that is not true. there will not be that requirement. and we're going to have continuing discussions to see how we can clarify that language in the ordinance so we can make clear what it does do and what it doesn't do, the goal being, of course, the dogs are not injured while they're being transported. and then in addition, the current version requires that dog walker wear the permit on a lanyard when they're in the park. some dog walkers have embraced that and view it as legitimizing them. some don't like that. and i prefer that we simply require that they carry the permit on them, but not display

it at all times. that's a conversation we'll continue to have and we'll either keep it the way it is or make a change to it. finally, i do want to note, the city is in a little bit of a tug-of-war for about a year now with the golden gate national recreation area, which is proposing to dramatically reduce off-leash dog access. i've taken a lead in pushing back, because if they dramatically reduce off-leash access in these federal properties, we're going to see a major influx of dogs and dog walkers into our city parks, which will have more wear and tear on the parks. i have reached out to ggnra and asked them to consider honoring our permits so the dog walkers don't have to go through two separate systems. they've responded to me that until they finish their environmental review process, they're not able to agree to anything.

in the future they are pro tensionly agreeable to honoring our permits. i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. president o'brien: go ahead, commissioner. >> i have just a few things. we've been receiving a lot of input from the dog-walking community. seems as though the number seven seems to be a significant problem, versus number eight. so, you know, we've just heard so much from people about that, that i think we should consider eight. seems to be one where peep feel they can at least city keep -- have a decent income and move forward with that. that is one thing. and i think the lanyard idea is a great idea or some kind of i.d., only because i am a dog owner and i'm out a lot.

i just think it will protect those who are involved with the program in a really -- doing all of this from having the rogue dog walkers out there, which, you know, i don't know which ones are which, but i can kind of guess. i just think some kind of i.d., button, anything, just so that you don't have to ask. it would make it easier for enforcement and also for those of us who are out and about with our own dogs. i think identifying is a great idea. the last thing is i'd really like to encourage "the apprentice" schip program. i've been reading that there's only at this point one dog-walking training program, which seems like we're kind of handing them a little bit of a monopoly at that point. so, you know, i would really urge you to get in touch with

the professional dog walkers associations and try to get a program up and running that would really dot a-- do theapen trystship. that's where people really understand what's going on with their dogs. >> i appreciate that. in terms of the eight dogs, i do think that i am open to that number. and as i mentioned, the six vs. eight discussion, that's been happening for a long time. but it's definitely within that range of reason in terms of what the debate has been. so i'm not ruling that out at all. and i meant to mention before the issue of dog tech, which is the training program i think you were referring to. there is -- there was a rumor out there that dog tech had participated in drafting the legislation, which, you know, could be viewed as furthering or creating some sort of monopoly. dog tech did not participate in

drafting this legislation. they were not part of any of the meetings. they did not draft it. the dog walkers involved were the dog walker associations who i met with repeatedly. and i agree with you, that there need to be alternatives, which is why we -- i believe and the group believes that having this apprenticeship alternative would be a great way to accomplish that. an hopefully there will be a greater diversity of programs offered by professionals in the future. >> i also think that it would help out in terms of if they are limiting how many, that if there were some way that "the apprentice" program could be a fairly modest fee that would add to the income of the very experienced walkers, who would be involved with the apprentice. i think that would be a really positive thing for the walkers. >> so you're suggesting that we -- because the way i had been envisioning it was that if

someone was equaled to do an apprentice schip program, it means they have to have a certain number of years of experience. the new dog walker, i'd say, would you apprentice me, an maybe you'd be nice and do it free. maybe you would say if you pay me some money. but i have been tending to just leave it to people to negotiate their own arrangements. there could be a different option, and i wouldn't rule that out. >> thank you. >> commissioner adams? commissioner adams: yes. so you're not going to have the mandatory rule, right? >> yes. commissioner adams: that's what i wanted to hear. >> that would be over the top and that's not the intent. commissioner adams: i like the non-skid surfaces and rubber rugs. i do think the crates would create an unnecessary burden, so thank you. >> i agree with you. president o'brien: commissioner o'connor.