not need is more luxury condominiums that are going to go up to $7.50 million. housing for the 1%. what we need is housing for the 99%. this morning, there was a hearing on the acute rise in the number of homeless families. that is to we need housing for, people who are homeless, especially families that are homeless, and that is a stark contrast. if in the morning, we're talking about the need for housing for homeless families, and then in the afternoon, we're talking about building condominiums for rich people, and i think we need to not be talking about condominiums for the wealthy. further, i think this project will in danger golden gateway. this is similar in many ways to park merced, in that it has a number of low-rise units, which

i understand are up the zone, and i would anticipate that those are going to be demolished at some point, and we will see luxury high-rise condominiums built their -- there, and there will be a loss of many units due to hotelization. this is being rented out to corporations, for their pilots' and their attendants back, and that is not only taking affordable rent-controlled housing for the people need it, it is also robbing the legitimate hotels from their business, and it is robbing the city from its hotel tax revenue. it is technically legal that they can do that, as mr. paul pointed out, but i think a quick fix in the lot to redefine the

rental of less than 30 days, even if the rental is greater than 30 days, that is less than 30 days, it is a violation of the apartment conversion law. but nonetheless, we should not be rewarding golden gateway for these illegal conversions. we should not be setting the stage for golden gateway to become another parker said fight, and we certainly do not need more luxury housing for the very, very wealthy. thank you. president chiu: thank you. our next speaker is john, and if he is not here, we will go to another. supervisor mar: i think he will be the last speaker, and then we would jump to item two and then continue. >> good evening, supervisors.

my name is frederick. i would be categorized as an expert on sales on the north waterfront. i have had the privilege to represent 72% of every condominium sold north of washington, all of the way up to the waterfront, $1 million, and i have also had clients to purchased at other sites, so i a provided for you in actual fact sheet based on what the costs are today, and these are interest rates from first republicbank and what it would actually take to buy one of these. it shows that if you purchased a condominium for $2.50 million, you have to put down a down payment of over $600,000, a total monthly payment over $13,000 per month, and you need an income of $469,000 to qualify

for that. in addition to that, the lender would like to have three years of liquid ownership to support the property, so you will have to come up with $1.10 million to acquire the property. if you look at the high point that the developers suggested at several hearings, he is looking for a value of as much as $7.50 million. again, you are looking at a monthly total cost of $27,000 per month an annual income of $937,000 per year, including the reserves. $5 million to be able to acquire that $7.50 million property. i should point out that this represents not 1% but the extreme or luxury. if you look at how these properties are used in san francisco,

people that afford these are extremely successful business people who have inherited a lot of money and really don't use it as a full-time residence. what we are propose to go do is basically eliminate it from use by the general public or the normal person who lives in san francisco. my second hat that i wear is i am head of something called recreation of open smaces of the waterfront. there are 1400 apartments here and 2,000 people that have been using the swim and tennis club for over 30 years as their church and neighborhood networking place. that is going away. these people will not have a choice to use that. the condo owners will dominate that. you will take this neighborhood facility away and condemn this to the future of luxury property owners. president chiu: i wanted to thank the port staff and

planning staff. colleagues, without objection can we continue this item until after the end of item number two? without, objection, thank you. moving towards item number two on the agenda. ms., miller would you call it? >> item number two, regulation of dog walkers operating on hard property. president chiu: and the sponsor is "sportscenter" wiener -- is supervisor wiener. this will take a couple of minutes while we readjust here. we are not recessed. we are just going to begin in a moment.

president chiu: we are going to begin item number two. if people would take their

comments outside of the meeting room, we would really appreciate it. thank you. the sponsor of this item is supervisor supervisor wiener: -- scott wiener. supervisor wiener: cue close that door? people are like congregating. we are going to get started if everyone could please refrain from conversation. thank you very much. welcome, everyone, to the land use and economic development committee. thanks to chairman mar for

scheduling this hearing. today we will be hearing my legislation. professional dog walkers who use city property such as parks to conduct their business. anest maded one third of san francisco households have dogs. dogs need space for exercise including parks. i have fought hard to ensure dog access to our public spaces, including an attempt earlier this year. our dog population rely on a critical commercial service. professional dog walkers allow people who work to care for their dogs. dog walkers are with these dogs most days. they care for them. they walk them, and they are often like family both to the dogs and to the clients. dog walkers are a key part of

san francisco's commercial support structure. they are small business owners and deserve our support. the purpose of this legislation is to set basic standards for professional dog walkers who use city parks and property. i work closely with a group of shareholders to drag legislation, including several dog walker organizations, the spca, the neighborhood parks council and several city departments. since introduction i have received a very significant amount of useful feedback primarily from the dog walker community, but from others as well. i thank those who took the time to provide that thoughtful feedback both at the small business commissions, which is recommending the legislation with changes, as well as many

e-mails. among other things, this legislation requires training through a formal program and apprenticeship. itemizing subject areas to be covered but not endorsing any particular kind of training or philosophy. there is a diversity of styles of dog walking, and this legislation does not choose one over any other. the legislation requires that dogs be safely transported and that dog walkers have access to first aid materials. it requires dog walkers to carry commercial liability insurance. they carry one leash per dog on their person and keeping the pooper scooper law. they must carry that permit with them on their person when they work on city property. and then the topic that has generated far and away the most discussion, the legislation limits the number of dogs that

can be walked at one time to seven. there has been some misinformation floating around i want to clarify. the legislation will not require each dog to be individually crated in each car. the director of animal care and control will set vehicle standards. the legislation was not drafted by dog tech, which provides a dog walker training prap. some have suspected that dog tech helped draft the legislation, and that is not true. the legislation provides for an all tiff apprenticeship program. i do want to note i am introducing a number of amendments to the legislation. i want to note the most significance ones so that people don't come up during comment and say i should do

something that i am already doing. these are from feedback, including from the small business commission. these amendments include changing the requirement that dog walkers wear their licenses around their neck to a requirement they carry them on their person. i have changed the implementation date to january 1, 2013. i wanted to give plenty of time for animal care to do this. in addition, the director of animal care and control will have the discretion to extend the implementation date for up to six months if she determines that extra time is required. the amendments will require that in order to conduct an

apprenticeship, in other words to teach another dog walker, the dog walker muffed at least three years of experience as a walker. you can't have a brant new dog walker train a new one. it lowers the threshold for dog walkers into the regulated cat combore from walking four or more dogs to two or more dogs. i got feedback that it would be unfair to distinguish dog walkers and require only those walking four or more at a time to get a permanent, so it has been lowered to two. in terms of publishing the names of people who violate the ordinance. that will be limited to people who violate the ordinance three or four times in a 12-month period. in other words, serial

violators. the big popic of discussion is the number of taugs. there has been a debate between six and eight for a while. the legislation compromises at seven, but i welcome feedback today for people to expression their issues on that. and i look forward to hearing from my colleagues to see what they think about it. i will note that the golden gametime national recreation area and presidio trust have contacted me. they are going to be implementing their own dog walker legislation, and they end to cap the number of dogs at six. they have been very clear about it, and that is what they intend to do. with that i look forward to today's hearing. we have a few preliminary speakers.

president chiu: so the amendments you will be proposing at the end, my understanding those are going to be present today, and they are substantive? >> they are actually not -- thank you for minding me of that. the committee is not able to vote on the amendments today because of a technical error on the knowing of the fee aspect of the hearing. i will ask that the committee adopt the amendments and continue the matter to january 9th, trip i would imagine we would vote on the entire ordinance. but i believe we can adopt the amendments today. president chiu: thank you. >> i have zrinted the amendments, and i have copies of the amenitied ordinance.

if you witch to speak in public comment, you should fill out a yellow card and hand it to the clerk, and we will call you. before we go to subcomment, i want to have several departments comment. first i want to invite up rebecca katz, director of animal control and then the director of small business. >> good afternoon, supervisors. supervisor wiener asked me some questions around this legislation, and we have discussed it at length. i'm not sure if you are familiar with the guidelines we have had on the website for years in which we have had tried to have a sort of

self-regulating system. we would toys dalk walkers who would come play with our guidelines. in terms of having leashes, picking up after animals and being responsible. i think the community, in particular the and welfare -- control and welfare commission had talked about dog walker legislation for many years due to concerns about the welfare of animals in the care of commercial dog walkers, as well as impacts on the park. as well as information we had received about animals being lost, cared foreand other things. that is how this all began. there was a real call for regulation of this, and i know there are business reasons for the regulation as well. in terms of any questions that you may have about the

particulars of the legislation or animal welfare and control's position, i would be happy to answer them. one thing that has come up, and supervisor wiener is aware of this, is our resource chacks and our ability to over see and provide services related to them, in particular enforcement. people who have concerns about anything related to animals generally call us. it has an impact on our resources, which are limited. that is the one area that we have specific concerns about. i just received today a letter from the golden gate awed bowen -- audobon society. i hope there is more regulation. it is needed.

supervisor wiener: thank you. we have an ongoing change with animal care and control with resources and all sorts of aerial. i made an effort in the last budget cycle to get more resources for rec and park. i have already been in contact with the mayor's office. animal re-- control needs more resources. >> that goes with any legislation related to us, not particular to this. other questions, i know there are concerns about numbers in terms of whether it should be higher or lower, consistency and so forth. our number on our website is six. i know there is a push for eight other more. i can take questions now or later. >> thank you very much.

supervisor wiener: regina from the office of small business. >> thank you. good afternoon chair mar, supervisors wiener and cohen. i want to thank supervisor wiener for introducing the legislation. i think you are going to hear from many in the industry about the need to do something. and an active interest in something that will bring more consistent in terms of the industry. the commission did hear this matter on november 14th and did recommend -- i will hit on the points that supervisor wiener did not identify in terms of amendments. the commission did recommend allowing eight dogs. the commission looked at this not only from the rec and parks side, the animal care and control side, but also from the

business sector side. knowing there will be businesses that will be reducing the number of dogs they will be walking, and hearing from dog walkers in a certain size threshold. the commission is recommending an eight limit and that is proim aerial around what the -- primarily around what the commission things is safe for the dogs and economically for the business as well. they allowed for a personal dog for the dog walker. many of them use that dog to help keep the other dogs in control. so we did also recommend that.

and then the other point that the commission didn't discuss but as a director recommendation, as the legislation is currently written, it is making an assumption had that there is one business model for dog walkers. my recommendation is to allow that if a business wants to hire employees -- because right now as the permanent plig -- application is written, that they have a business registration form. this doesn't allow for a business model if somebody wants to hire employees. >> i did make that change. >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear that. so my apologies on that. those are probably -- and then you addressed the taking a look at dog walkers who have been already in business in terms of

contracting. >> yes. i believe i accepteded all of the recommendations of the small business commission except for the number because i wanted to defer that for discussion today. i am happy to answer questions for the supervisors for information information. >> if you have data to pass on, i'm curious about the industry itself. how many registered dog walkers you think there are, how long in the ski. evans received letters from people who have six or six people to single operators. >> i will provide that. i don't have it at my fingertips right now. >> and i know we will have a number of professional dog walkers speaking. i know numbers have been given

to me as perhaps 500 dog walkers. it ranges from the sole proprietyors to the larger businesses. >> supervisor cohen? >> what endity is going to be enforcing the eight doing limit rule? >> my -- checking. >> the legislation states. this covers rec and park and port property. it has responsibility to police its own property. animal care and control has the power to enforce it. primary enforcement is for rec and park. >> are we going to hear from rec and park? i would be curious to hear from

them. i know they are strapped for cash, and i would like to see how they plan to do that. >> the next speaker is rec and park and i think we all would acknowledge that they don't have the staff. >> i want to make one other comment and express my thanks to supervisor wiener. his commitment to see that the departments have the resources that they need. i wanted to express appreciation for that as well. >> i actually have another question, not so much for me but perhaps for the commission. supervisor, if you could briefly go over the fees or how it will be disseminated, who will get it? flesh that out for us a bit. >> we set a maximum fee because

the feet is -- the fee is what it takes to oversee the program. the first year it is a maximum of $250, and then after that a maximum of $100. the departments will have do an assessment. it would be collected by animal care and control. >> and it would go back into the management of this program? >> yes. >> if i had eight dogs and one private doing, would i pay the same price? >> if you are getting a permanent as a professional dog walker, you pay the fee, period no matter the size of your

business. you have to have a permit, no matter if you are walking under someone else's business license. we kept the fee rather low so that if you are only walking a couple of dogs it wouldn't be a major impediment. >> thank you. >> next up is ms. beelard from rec and park. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to speak. the keep is supportive of this legislation and want to thank supervisor wiener for his leadership on it. our job as you have heard us say is to balance a variety of needs in the parks. sometimes those needs are competing. it is our job to provide a safe and fun experience for dogs, dog walkers, dog owners, non-dog owners and we feel like

this legislation strikes a good balance and achieves that goal. as supervisor cohen pointed out, we are resource challenged and have had frank conversations with the supervisor about that. as he mentioned, he tried to get us an add-back for park patrol last year. we look forward to working witt you supervisors as well. one thing i would say from the park's perspective on the number of dogs, we defer to the experts in terms of what number is best. but that consistency across parks and jurisdictions we believe makes it a, user friendly, and much more easy for our staff to enforce. thank you. >> thank you. i think we have folks from the port and the p.u.c. here.