pay like a permitting fee per employee, and aim just getting up and i do fully support it, but with training, as long as we are allowed to do our training in house. supervisor wiener: is there a copy of the revised? ok. and then -- >> hhi, good afternoon. i own a small company called little buddha walking. -serviced on is basically disabled, and i do one walk per day. i think anywhere between seven and 12 or so dogs is kind of my comfort level. i have to say, it is hard to sometimes pick of the dogs, and you have to keep the dogs really safe.

for me, it is a big deal, as is the vehicle expense. i spent about $250 per month on gas, which i think is pretty good, considering, but, you know, for holidays or people boarding dogs, or the flexibility, it is just not there. and that troubles me a little bit. i want to be able to make a living. i had 10 dogs at the park today, and there was not one second that i did not feel that i did not have the dogs under control, that i knew where they were. that they were probing. we go to the same park every day. all in all, i do want to say thank you for this legislation. i know a lot of people have worked on it. there are a lot of stakeholders in the community, so --

[bell] thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. the next speaker, which is the last speaker, unless there is someone that i missed. >> hi, my name is -- and i agree that dog walkers should be licensed, and i believe that all dogs should be licensed. since there are more dogs in the city, they need the money, and they should be licensed, and they should only be allowed to be walked in large parks. this must be in force. we go quite often on the number one bus, and this is in other areas of the park, other than the specified areas where the dog walkers should be, so that is what i wanted to say today. thank you. supervisor wiener: is there any

more public comment? seeing none, mr. chairman, can we close public comment? supervisor mar: public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: this is a difficult time of day for many dog walkers. i had some come to give me feedback, and i have gotten some that i thought " -- i does want to thank everyone who has participated. it has been an interesting process, and i think you for teaching me. first, mr. chairman, i would like to see if we can take the amendments that we have here, which i have outlined, if we can accept those amendments? >> to just clarify, there is the

proposed recommendations, and i think all of them are recommended accept the number. >> i would like to accept those and then have been an amendment or not have an amendment. >> -- president chiu: so on the amendment, without objection. [gavel] supervisor wiener: in this one area that says that the permittees cannot walk more than seven dogs at one time, i will say that having heard from an enormous number of dog walkers, i would say probably 80% advocated for eight dogs. probably about 10% advocated for a lower number, and may be about 10% advocated for a lower number. i did receive what i view is a pretty overwhelming majority asking for the eight dog limit.

there has also been quite a few dog walkers, and it was raised today as well when they talked about the issue of the personal dog. in other words, you have a dog that tags along and can help you manage the other dog. that is kind of the one dog that is always there. i think it would be a mistake to go with six dogs. i think that is two -- too low. it is just not economically feasible. so i would suggest, colleagues, but there are two issues to decide. whether we also allow for a personal dog as recommended by the small business commission, so, colleagues, i am really curious to hear your views on these. >> -- supervisor mar: that

additional dog that is not paid that belongs to the dog walker, that makes sense to me. it was brought up by a number of people. it seems like a divided number in the audience, but i think to be sensitive to small businesses, bumping it up to 8, i think i could live with that, and i think some people said it did not matter that much, but i think the recommendation of eight, that sounds like an amendment that i would be supportive of if it was made by my colleagues. >> supervisor cohen? supervisor cohen: this is very interesting, because i grew up with a dog, but i have never thought about six versus eight or nine. when you go to the airlines, and you have a personal carry-on items, a carry-on plus a personal item, you know there

are passengers that try to pack -- pushed that envelope, so i am kind of thinking about how do we really know this is a personal blog? i do not know, but i am sure the community will monitor itself and regulate this, but i am just giving you my true thoughts on the issue. >> a dog is licensed? supervisor cohen: that is actually a really good idea, something i gave all lot of thought on. i am sure many of all of you know that a large part of this is in district 10, so it has been a very popular issue in the neighborhood, and so, supervisor wiener, thank you.

i have your emails. my comment, from what i can here, i am willing to go with eight, eight dogs and then a personal dog, and then, of course, that is just the beginning of all public policy, that we come back and amend and tweak, and it changes need to be made, we can do that. >> ok, so i guess an additional amendment would be 39.07 a, and i will provide the clerk with this in writing. the permit team may not walk at one time more than eight dogs for consideration plus one dog owned by the dog walker, period.

but dog owned by the dog walker must be visibly identified as such. it is what was recommended? >> i think that would follow along with the guidelines with eight dogs plus the one personal dog, clearly identified as the personal dog to the dog walker, and we can set those procedures. supervisor wiener: would you like to add anything? >> i know there are concerns about the small businesses. if you do the math, seven dogs

is a pretty significant amount. that, more than any of my employees may. it is still a pretty lucrative business proposition, and the number of dogs has to deal with the ability to clean up, to make sure that the dogs are not running out into the street, to make sure that there is not a pack mentality, so from an animal welfare -- welfare perspective, as well as a public safety perspective, i think once you get to nine dogs, you are pushing it, but i defer to the committee. supervisor wiener: thank you. ms. ballard, did you have anything to add? anything further, calling this? supervisor cohen: given to what stabbed just said, let's start with something, and then we can come back and we can make changes.

>> i appreciate that. i have to say, when i introduced the legislation and i stated seven dogs, one of my colleagues, who shall remain nameless came up to me and said, "seven dogs, that is too high," and i said, "it is currently in affinity." i think supervisor cohen's poin t is a good one. president chiu: should we adopt that? ok. supervisor wiener: since we cannot do this today, i will say that we should move this to january. if somebody publicly commented today, my understanding is that they cannot comment on the ninth. is that right?

present -- supervisor mar: our city attorney. >> because this is put for notice, you would have to allow people to comment at least on the fee aspect. supervisor wiener: so we have heard a lot, and unless you are feeling the burning need, i think this will be a shorter item next time, so thank you, everyone. supervisor mar: thank you. ms. miller, we are going to continue a item number one, but we will recess for about three minutes so that we can change the room.

supervisor mar: there were a number of speakers mentioned, and i want to know if these people can come and speak, and then i will start with the cards. ms. hester? >> sue hester we thought that we had a long shot, so it is the courteous thing to do. we will wait until they are done so they do not have to wait. supervisor mar: so let me read cards. john, bob, aldo, nanette, jim

chapel, jennifer warburg, ernestine waters, bob, tim, julia sullivan, thomas ryan, dave stockdale. i have called a number of cards. i still have quite a few more, but if people could come forward. thank you. >> hi, my name is nannette. i am a middle class single mom who lives in the district, and i am here as a member of the golden gateway club. we are excited about the renovation that is going to happen at the club. we come here because we love to

swim outside. our kids take swim lessons and good to camp there in the summer. although there are likely disappointed tennis players. i believe that the new club will serve as majority of members in a much improved facility. for most of us, the new club proposes a much better, larger pool facility, greater recreation and more kids programs as well as popular exercise and yoga classes, which we all look forward to enjoying their. in addition, the new park's that's around the club will add the public recreation and be an amenity to the surrounding residents, and mothers and families city-wide. however, it is just as important -- sorry. just as important as the experience that the parks will provide elsewhere in the city, imagine coming to the farmers'

market to shop on saturday morning and then walking across the and barker derryl to active, urban park, while having lunch at a partially-type restaurants, where kids can play nearby in an enclosed yard. experiences like this along our waterfront are rare and worth fighting for. it is no wonder we are having a hard time keeping families here. please keep in mind that the waterfront should be for all of us, not just the people who are lucky enough to live there and want to keep all for themselves. i think it is time for a change, time to update the club to better serve the old and the young. it is time to create a public park or the kids can play in the sculpture garden. it is time to open up jackson and pacific to the waterfront. it is time to improve security with pedestrian walkways and outdoor cafes, and it is time to move ahead with 8 washington.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is bob, and i am with the barbary coast neighbor association representing thousands of residents and businesses located in the northeast waterfront area. i'd like to focus on the fact that the property being proposed for development is currently subject to an 84-foot height limit. the developers of the eight washington project as proposed would like more. they would like more height, up to 136 feet along drums street, which will create significant shatters in the area. they want more balkan, which will block the iconic views of telegraph hill. now, we certainly agree that seawall lot 351 should be more than a parking lot, and we believe that this blog can support attractive development that conforms with the existing height limits. about one year ago, there was a

project by the neighborhood, and others came together with asian neighborhood design to develop the northeast embarcadero vision plan. this plan looks at all of the lots that are being -- all of the seawall lots that could be developed along the north waterfront area and looks for what would be a logical development associated with these particular lots, and that is the development would conform with the existing height limits. the development consists of facilities such as hotels, parks, a bicycle center, moderate priced housing, restaurants, cafes, so we believe that these types of development would clearly provide the port with potential revenue. they would also be advantageous for both the city and the residence as a whole, so, again,

let me emphasize that the asian neighbors and design plan takes an integrated approach of looking at potential development for all of the lots that would be, i think, very agreeable with most of the residents. there is, at this point, only one chance that we have to develop these parcels along the waterfront, and we are concerned that that chance is potentially slipping away. just recently, as you are probably aware, the planning commission has opened the door to tossing out well over a 40 year consensus policy that consisted of not raising the height limit along the northern waterfront. we believe that compromising these height limits would allow high-rises along the embarcadero and that that would be bad public policy. in the end, we hope that the board of supervisors carefully considers the slippery slope that we are on that would be created by spot zoning for large

buildings all along our city's finest boulevard, the an orchid barrel. in summary, in closing, we urge you to oppose any increase in the existing high limits along the north waterfront area. thank you. >> sir, i just wanted to mention that you mention the community's vision of the waterfront study, and a number of other seawall lots aside from 351. it looks to me that it is 320, 321, 322, and 324. the residents who commute -- did the community mission, for what would be done with those jon? >> yes, and i believe they're all covered in that report, and it consists in general of the items that i mentioned in my talk. supervisor mar: ok, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

tim on behalf of the housing action coalition, and we have supported the eight waterfront project for years. it is consistent with our goals, and we believe and offers benefits to both waterfront and the entire city. despite the heated rhetoric and controversy, which is being discussed is just a very simple question. should the law 351 remain a parking lot or not? this has been opposed by relatively small group of people, and good people, let's be clear. they are not bad folks, but they are overwhelmingly older, white, upper-middle-class, and they live in one of the most pleasant neighborhoods of our city, and these poor souls are aggrieved and distressed because new housing is being proposed for their neighborhood, but it must be noted that their housing displaced earlier residents. it was not sand dunes back there

when the golden gate was developed. by contrast, the eight washington project displaces no one unless you consider the private swimming and tennis club. we also noted that many of the opposition comes from those who have lived in rent control housing, and this is a curious platform from which to oppose new housing. the accusation is that it will become a luxury housing, something we would freely concede. after all, some of this is the most valuable land in northern california. but on the other hand, through all of our policies, the city has said its land is developed for private housing, it must pay for a large basket of benefits for the whole city, which this one clearly does. among other things, this would include rent payments to the city, $10 million in funding, and by the way, one is broke, and new park, and a new park and children's playground, in a

recreational facility, and new public access to the waterfront. these are not small benefits, and i would ask you, with the city obtain a comparable rate of return from a surface parking lot. on the proposed zoning heights, we are utterly mystified. this site is immediately adjacent to the tallest buildings on our city's skyline. the planning department has said repeatedly that these are appropriate and modest height increases at this location, so in the simple land use toys that faces is, we see two alternatives. one that can birds a current surface parking lot into a development that provides a long list of the elements for the whole waterfront and the whole city and one that prevents any change, keeps the parking lot, but in effect results in the city providing a large economic subsidy to one of its most privileged in neighborhoods, and if the city were to choose this option, we think the city would be the clear loser in this

outcome. thank you. >> i am a program manager. on behalf of the organizations, i want to express our support of the 8 washington project, not only for the waterfront but for the entire city. they have extensive review it and appreciate how the changes to the design over the years have improved the project. we would ask you first to consider how well the eight washington project conforms to the plan, the city is a guiding land use document from the 1990's. this plan itself was the subject of public hearings and input. a couple of years ago, following objections, the planning department conducted yet another study that supports the basic design principles of this project.

this site has most likely been analyzed, reviewed, and been the subject of more public hearings than any other in the city history. on the question of the proposed amendment for the zoning height, we are puzzled at why these should be controversial, given the location. the washington project would still only be a small fraction of the height of the embarcadero building, and one of the striking ironies about this controversy, it would be only one half the height of the closest residential building, the 40-year-old golden gate bridge apartment, where many of the opponents live. in the context of this area, the proposed building heights are modest compared to its much taller neighbors. the opponents of this project will never accept any revision that allows the conversion of seawall lot 351 from a parking lot to any other use.

we have yet to hear the project upon its mckay's for how keeping a parking lot on this public land is a better outcome for our city than this proposal. thank you. -- we have yet to hear the project opponents say how keeping a parking lot is better. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is paul. i am one of those who is concerned about a policy that seems to be sneaking into san francisco, which is one establishes an area plan, one sets up a program that says that area plan needs to be reviewed to see if it remains consistent, but we do not review it because it is too difficult and too complicated to do a good plan

review periodically, but we have got this really need lot or a set of what that is not as developed as it might be, and contrary to people who say i love a parking lot down by the embarcadero, that is not true. there are lots of good uses for that lot. one program jon at-bat specifically and has some nice ideas. -- one program looked at that. they are a real opportunity site for a major development that is done completely absent a form to plan review, a revision of an existing plant, a real understanding that if we do this, how does it play out in the long term with the san francisco long term goals and objectives?