be two tiers for this, that for small dpa's, it can be no more 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. >> 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 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 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 -- 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 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. the proposed amendment before you today -- can i ask, if i was to go over the specific amendments? supervisor chiu: i am going to ask the committee to consider. why don't you go through them? >> art will be provideed up to the first three-quarters of a million dollars. they could choose whether to provide the rest on site or to pan to the fund. these buildings -- the have more midsize ground floor spaces between 1500 and 3000 square feet.

they could choose what to do if their requirement or larger. they could choose in any case between on-site art or payment into the fee or any combination. the requirement has been amended so the department may pursue enforcement which would allow us to apply administrative penalties for those who do not comply. and the requirement i believe is to be expanded so the affected districts would be larger. also, different from what the planning commission heard, it removed mandatory consultation. now with over 25 years since the

adoption of a planned issue is ripe for revisiting. with amendments, this ordinance will provide up getting to ensure the city benefits from public are continuing today and into the future. concludes my presentation. supervisor wiener: can you give us some idea of how large are those projects? >> if you think about the standard san francisco lot is 25 feet by 100 feet. that would be to thousand 500 square feet. and -- supervisor wiener: it would be like filling one building. one block building, that is 10 stories high as about 25,000 square feet? roughly? >> roughly.

supervisor wiener: that is held for for me to know. >> a would-be and if you add another zero. 10 more, 10 of those 2500 square-foot lots or a 10 story lot on a standard lot. >> will have opportunity for folks to explain what their understanding is. nitthat is what we currently state as the size of a project in the area that would be relevant for this. ok? any of the questions? there are a number of folks from the arts commission i would like to recognize. is mr. johnson here? >> he was here earlier.

>> we have to other individuals -- two other individuals. the deputy and directors. would you like to go first? want to thank you and your staff for the work you have been doing for the better part of the year to get this done. >> same back to you. good afternoon. is it -- is a pleasure to be here to speak today about the legislation. it is the culmination of many uighurs work with the office. during the process of developing the amendments, the arts commission consulted with organizations such as san francisco beautiful, board members from the american institute of the aia, the urban land institute, business office and management associates, the mayor's office of workforce

development along with numerous individual artists and organizations. the general consensus was that these organizations and individuals are in support of the legislation. based on the belief that a robust and dynamic art environment can activate and enliven downtown and contribute to the population of the popularity of the area as a destination day and night. it is well-documented that the arts are highly cost-effective of driving economic revitalization in urban areas and we hope to see this complement our efforts to activate the mid-market area. we consulted with land-use attorneys on the effects of this legislation and as it is written, we have their support. this proposed change to section 429 will give developers more options. it will allow for greater flexibility and [unintelligible]

enliven downtown. it will not result in any increase o fthe -- of the 1% fee. this is consistent with the recommendations put forth by the our task force and it achieves many of the objectives of the arts college of the city's general plan which i believe was written over 10 or 15 years ago. the goals and objectives are to reflect the belief that the arts are an essential component of city life and contribute $1.40 billion to the city as reflected in the board supervisorresolution. to enlighten, activate, and animate the downtown with our work and cultural facilities, to celebrate the vibrant diversity

of san francisco, to a balance the arts as a hot -- cost effective way of driving revitalization, to preserve and protect san francisco's cultural heritage, to create new cultural destinations through city planning, to utilize existing funding sources for the arts in a new way and you complement the efforts to develop the market area. there will be an inclusive public process orchestrated by their commission to establish guidelines for the use of the trust. it will identify places where public is involved and in the case of capital improvements to cultural facilities will specify what kind of facilities half are eligible for capital improvement and what the funds may be used for.

last thing, concluding, the proposed trust and its uses are more consistent with the original intent of using the our requirement to establish a downtown art gallery than previous legislative amendments that allowed for the art money to be used for the building of the city hall dome or the architectural design of the men. thank you for your consideration. thank you for your support. supervisor chiu: when they talked about the administrative expenses there was a 20% cap on cost and that was taken out of the draft and is referred to as reasonable expenses. do you expect that will be greater than 20%? >> we would try to keep our costs in line with what the city's 2% mandates.

leelanwe would track our time bn hours and expenses. it would not be our policy to create all level of these structures. >> does it matter if we put that back in? >> i have no objection. i don't think the commission would. it is consistent with the art enrichment ordinance that is over 40 years old. >supervisor chiu: i would add that. >> the art director will say some -- some words. >> thank you. this is my first day as director of cultural affairs so i am catching up to speed with the legislation.

i do know we work closely with the planning department and community partners to vet the amendment so we could keep in the spirit of the legislation by providing additional flexibility but not adding additional burden to developers. i am -- in the spirit of the amendment would increase the flexibility to benefit local artists and enhance expanding the benefit. also by increasing the area of the benefit district. i also wanted to relay on behalf p.j. johnson, he expresses his support to the supervisors for consideration of the proposal. thank you. supervisor chiu: before we go to public comment, what i would like to do is summarize the amendments i would like us to

consider, some of which were summarized by ms. rogers. the first page of the three page document i sent ism -- an amended on page 5 which would address the current requirement that right now, non-residential projects with -- there are required to provide a million dollars in public art. we had a number of meetings with stakeholders and what we decided would be appropriate is if we reduced that number to $750,000 but for slightly smaller open spaces between 1500 and 3000 square feet we would require the spaces to spend at least half a million dollars on public art. the second amendment and that first amendment was non- substantive. the second is as well. building inspection was asked for language to specify that as the arts commission has the right to a charge for a minister

of costs. this is the third technical amendment to cap the amount of administrative expenses, not to exceed 21% of the cost for any one project. the one policy decision we have is in the third page of this discussion, which is the planning commission recommended that this 1% fee began to be implemented citywide. put differently, the requirement is on the c3 and extending that citywide. we got a little bit of concerns for developers outside the area. what i would like to recommend is this 1% fee requirement be applied citywide to all buildings over 75,000 square feet and this requirement has a date for projects whose first to middle dates or after january 1, 2013. giving the