the q bar. so in addition to bringing a night club perspective, he brings a perspective of a neighborhood bar owner. i will note that based on what i have been able to ascertain, castro has never had a representative, never had a resident or a bar owner from the castro on this commission and the castro of course is one of the entertainment and nightlife hubs of the city. now, what really makes mr. eicher exceptional beyond everything else is his absolute demonstrated ability to work effectively with neighborhoods, to fit nightlife into neighborhoods. when he first took over the q bar, the previous owner had had enormous conflicts with neighbors. mr. eicher came in and resolved those issues to the point where those neighbors came to the rules committee to testify for him. he joined the board of the local

neighborhood association and the two major neighborhood associations in the neighbor whose presidents came to the rules committee and testified for mr. eicher. that didn't just happen. that's because tim has the ability to work with neighbors and to make sure that we have responsible nightlife. tim also organized the bar owners in the castro to form an organization called castro after dark. castro after dark organized the bar owners so they kim prove nighttime safety -- can impove nighttime safety so when there are trends in crime, the bar owners can respond to that. that's exactly what we should be modeling in other neighborhoods. that the bar owners are actually contributing to public safety in the neighborhood. he did all of these things back when he was a new bar owner. no one told him to do it, he just knew it was the right thing to do. and that's exactly what we need, a fresh perspective. i will say that i've been

disappointed in the last few days because i've heard some of the advocacy for mr. lee, some of the folks who on the outside of have been advocating, i've heard of them making a comment that there are too many gay people on the entertainment commission. i was very surprised to hear that. of course in the lgbt community, entertainment is extremely important so there's no surprising that there's a high interest level on this commission. but i went and did a little research on some of the mainly commissions in the city and although i can't say with 100% certainty always who's gay and who's not, i have a good sense. so looking at major commissions, as far as i can tell, the airport commission has no lgbt people and has never had an lgbt person. the ethics commission i don't believe has an lgbt person. the fire commission has no lgbt commissioner. the planning commissioner with the appointment of commissioner ole has no lgbt people. looking at some other major commissions, board of appeals has one lgbt representative, the

police commissioner has one. the m.t.a. board of directors has one. the portland commission has one -- port commission has one. the redevelopment agency commission has one. so to say that there are too many people on one commission when we know there is a dearth of representation on some of the most powerful commissions on this city to me is a problem. so i just wanted to put that out there. we have a very, very qualified lgbt candidate put forward by the rules committee who will make us proud on this commission and, colleagues, i ask for your support for mr. eicher. supervisor farrell: thank you, mr. chiu. you know, colleagues from my point of view, i was on the rules committee when we considered the candidates. both mr. lee and mr. eicher obviously very well qualified. mr. lee has extensive experience in the city, as does mr. eicher and supervisor wiener spoke very well about it. but from my point of view, it is

really simple and a rule we really adhere to, until i think about this time, this appointment on the rules committee, was that when we have qualified san francisco candidates as supervisor wiener mentioned, to grant a residency waiver requirement for someone, it's just something we don't do if we have a san franciscan willing to represent. i know mr. lee has been in district two for a long time and i believe and understand he moved out for personal reasons and i very much respect that. on a very personal level. however, the fact remains he is asking for a residency waiver requirement. what are we seeing -- saying as a board here if we're going to overturp the rules committee, grant residency waiver requirements over a san franciscan? it's something i cannot do and that's why i continue to support mr. eicher. supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. president. i have to say that this is one of those matters that has been very difficult to figure out what the right approach is.

quite frankly, two individuals that we're talking about are individuals that are extremely qualified and i think that it's important to note that because it's very difficult when you have one spot and you have more than one person who is qualified to be on this commission. i think that we have to also be careful about the way we talk about this and what i would say is for me the question before this board and from the motion is, you know, whether or not to support a motion that essentially goes after or goes against the appointment of a qualified applicant and, you know, that's the struggle for me. i don't know that i have a basis to vote against a qualified application -- applicant. if the situation was reversed

and someone was trying to replace mr. lee, i would have the same concern. i don't know that i have a basis , that i would have a basis to oppose a nomination. that said, on the issue of the residency, even though i will be opposed to this motion, that is not a factor for me in this instance because i do think that as a general rule, even though we want residents from san francisco, from time to time with we do make exceptions and -- we do make exceptions and i don't think it's necessarily fair to criticize or at least to hold that against mr. lee because i do think that there are very good reasons why he's not able to live in san francisco right now. and i think that out of fairness

to him i want to say i don't think that's something that i certainly see as a minus because this is someone who for very valid personal reasons is not living in san francisco right now. but has, you know, a long history of a presence and involvement in the city. so that's not an issue for me. and, again, for me it comes down to the fact that either one of these candidates would do a tremendous job. with respect to mr. eicher, i know that there are some impressive people who are supporting him including our current commissioner and there are people whose opinions i certainly value. but the same thing can be said of mr. lee. so i think it's a very difficult one and my hope is that we as a board have an opportunity where in the near future we have a chance to have these two individuals serve. i actually think that having them serve at some point together would be a tremendous

asset for that commission and for the city. but that's the reason why i will be voting against a motion but it's certainly not an indication of my -- what i think about mr. lee who i think has a great deal that he brings to the table and if the motion prevails and his name comes forward i will be happy to support him at that point as well. so thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. president chiu. colleagues, one of the most challenging parts of this job is not necessarily voting on legislation but voting on the individuals who come before us. and the commission appointments are a real challenge that i face in this. i actually met with tim eicher on the request of supervisor wiener and i was very impressed with mr. eicher and i found him a really great person who's done a lot of great work in the castro and owns several businesses, some outside of san

francisco asle. he runs castro after dark. i know he comes with strong expertise. but i also had, later, -- i did not make a commitment to mr. eicher because i wanted to look at other commissioners as well. i see that lee's wealth of experience extends for decades and as someone that's been a performer, entertainer and someone who has organized events and done a lot of work like mr. eicher has in fundraising and working with community groups, i felt that his experience was somewhat superior, especially looking at the entertainment industry as one of the economic engines we have in this city. and that's something that i want to be able to see that we can have good voices on the entertainment commission. i know mr. eicher would help with that too but i felt that steven lee by experience would make him somewhat better.

but i find it troubling and difficult to vote against mr. eicher but that's what i would like to do with my vote today. and i really look at the qualifications of individuals for our commissions, that's what's most important. the things that are said by people outside of this body don't necessarily reflect any of the viewpoints of people in this body and i think it's best at times that we can keep those points of view outside of here because it might be -- some of those might be attributed to any one of us. i don't think that's a good way to bring forward some of our discussions on these items. thank you. supervisor cohen: thank you. colleagues, this is a very difficult decision. you heard many thoughtful responses to the reasons why we should or should not support one over the other. i just wanted to take an opportunity to weigh in because for me, the representative of the district on the southeast part of san francisco, also the physical representation of a

minority community here in san francisco, it's important that we have equitable distributions of power when it comes to not just money but commission appointments and it's also important that we have a fair distribution of ethnic -- equal ethnic representation. now, when -- part of my decision to support mr. lee was aided in the fact that he had an outstanding, not only experience, but understanding of the southeastern neighborhoods, has spent time there. i was concerned that mr. eicher was very castro-focused and, scott, i understand that this is important to you and it hurts me to not be able to support you, but i feel compelled to sit and explain to you my reasons why

and things that were important to me. one, as i mentioned, mr. eicher was very focused on the castro and i find that the entertainment commission does a poor job in representing anyone in any neighborhood outside of the center core of the city. and so mr. lee represents that. he also represents an ethnic community which i believe will bring diversity to the entertainment commission. now, i agree with you, at first blush i was uncomfortable with the fact that he did not live in san francisco but upon further review turns out that he lives several years, i think approximately 30-plus years, and had to move outside of the city for family reasons, to take care of an ailing family member. now, i've become sensitive to the waiving -- to the waiver issue because a lot of african-americans live outside of san francisco and that's also an ethnic minority that is not represented on many of the boards and commissions.

and i'm asking you in future days, i will be bringing to you many candidates for consideration, some of which will be needing a waiver, a residency waiver, and i ask for you to consider my request. again, i'm asking to you consider this request as we begin to tackle the challenges of the african-american out migration. and i see these issues not one in the same but similar. so that's it for me and i will be supporting steven today. thank you, colleagues. supervisor kim: thank you. as many of you know, i did support steven lee at the rules committee last month and he's someone that i've known for a long time. he's a venue owner in district six. and as someone who for the past three decades has lived and worked in san francisco, i actually want to address more the residency waiver issue.

i think it's true that in rules committee we give deference to that's that live in san francisco but recognize folks that either have strong connection or history to san francisco or folks that had to move for reasons that they may not have been able to control. i just want to note that in this we recently appointed one member to the medical marijuana task force and two members to the immigrant rights commission, one to the bay area regional interoperable communication system, one to the health authority and one to first five commission that we had to do residency waivers for. so it's not true that we have not been able to do that at rules committee this year. however, i know that as a committee we have always looked much more favorably at those who are actually san francisco residents. i think that's something that is an important factor, when we look at our commissions and task force. i just think in this case with steven, his 30 years of experience here in san francisco, he recently had to move due to actually family

obligations down to the peninsula and i know that he very much wants to come back to san francisco and spend every day here. but just want to address that issue in particular. supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president. back to supervisor kim, i think the list you put forward is misleading. those people that you've listed that we gave residency waivers to, we did not have qualified san franciscans who also applied for those seats. those were the lone applicants. they -- we didn't have anybody else and if we were going to fill the seat we had to grant the residency waiver. it's a complete am -- a complete misapplication of the facts here. we have a qualified an freanan that would be knocked out. it's not a fair comparison. it's a red herring and i would urge you to set that point aside. supervisor kim: i'm sorry, i don't remember all of the appointments but i do know that for the medical marijuana task

force we did have qualified applicants that live in san francisco and we -- and myself included supported the candidate that did not live here in san francisco. president chiu: any further discussion, colleagues? ok. at this time why don't we consider supervisor mar's motion to strike mr. eicher's name and substitute mr. lee's name into this appointment. so this is a vote on the motion to amend. roll call vote. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: no. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: yes. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. >> there are six ayes and five no's. president chiu: the motion to

amend passes and now on the underlying motion as amended. supervisor wiener: thank you, mr. president. thank you, colleagues, for considering my arguments and for considering on mr. eicher's candidacy. but having lost that motion to amend, i will be supporting mr. lee and will be supporting his residency waiver. when i met with mr. lee i told him early on that i was supporting mr. eicher out of support for mr. eicher in believing he was the best candidate. but i do believe that mr. lee is qualified as well. i respect his work in the community and so i will be voting yes on his cands dasy. -- candidacy. president chiu: any further discussion in if we could take a roll call on the underlying motion as amended. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye.

supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the motion is approved as amended. colleagues, it is just about 3:30. i do understand we have one special accommodation. supervisor chu, is your party here? why don't we go to you. supervisor chu: thank you very much, thank you, colleagues, for hearing this accommodation. i'd like to invite michael forward. and actually megan and anybody else can come and stand behind michael. today i have the great honor to be able to recognize the work of michael funk. i think many of you may know him through his work with youth in our city but in particular for me he's been a real jewel and someone who has made a big

impact on sunset district kids. he is the person who founded and is the executive director of the sunset neighborhood beacon center. for 15 years. he's going to be leaving the beacon center and starting a new chapter as a director of the after school division at the california department of education. but just before we talk about that, i know he's going to continue to do great work up there. i just want to talk about how important his impact has been in our neighborhood. not only has he founded that organization that provides services but i just wanted to give you a sense of how many lives he touches. there are about 1,500 youth that are served through this center, through their after school programs, and many more special events that happen in the neighborhood. 300 adults who are served there as well. whether it is computer illiteracy classes, language skills, arts, even knitting for adults. or whether for kids, it has to do with supporting film making, after school activities, fun

activities for kids to get involved with. i'd like to say always that people don't think often about the sunset dwict and -- district and the needs of youth in our community but michael has always been an advocate to say there are kids in the sunset that do need extra support and so i just want to thank you for being such a strong advocate, for making such a big impact on so many people's lives in the neighborhood. he is going to be joining the after school division at the california department of education so his work with youth will continue on and i know that he'll have a hugely positive impact there. but we will miss you very much. you are leaving behind a very, very capable staff. i know that megan's going to be taking your place and i look forward to working with her. but today i just want to say thank you so much for all of your work. i think that i speak on behalf of the 1,500 kids and the many parents that have come through your program. thank you very much.

president chiu: before our awardee speaks, i know supervisor avalos had a few word ezz wanted to say. supervisor avalos: thank you for acknowledging the great work of mr. michael funk. i had the pleasure and honor of working with mr. funk about 11 years ago when we were working on re-authorizing the children's fund and i got to know your work and the work of your colleagues in the sunset district and neighborhoods have so many children, it's essential that we have organizations like yours and yours has been able to thrive and grow and provide really great service and i think it's it says a lot about your character and want to make sure we have a city that really supports young people agreing up and having positive youth development experiences. so i know you're going on to great things. and i look forward to seeing what comes out of your work at the state level. i also want to acknowledge while you're working on supporting these programs in the sunset district, i know you're a father

of kids and your kids live far away and you have been a determined dad to make sure you can give to your family as well and i think it's also a big part of who you are that i want to acknowledge you today as well. thank you very much and i wish you god speed. >> it's been an honor and a privilege to work in this city works the city that has a commitment to children, to work with my team and representatives of the sun set. i've been working in the sunset for 20 years. in one fashion or another. hard to leave. this is the last week. great to leave it in good hands asing me sandusky now the new director of the sunset neighborhood to be considered. thank you so much for the honor to come here today and for the kind words, everyone. sun--

president chiu: thank you, supervisor chu. with that, colleagues, why don't we go back to our agenda and skip over our 4:00 special orders. we will be entertaining a motion to continue the america's cup item for two weeks, given the second appeal. we will take up that motion at 4:00 and why don't we know at this time move to our committee report at item 40. >> item 40 was considered by the land use and commission development committee at a regular meeting on monday, january 9, and was forwarded to the board as a committee report. it's an ordinance amending the

health code to license and regulate commercial dog walkers operating on park property. supervisor wiener: thank you. so this legislation has been in the works for almost a decade. the idea has been floating around and so i, working with a broad coalition, actually put pen to paper and reatcreathed this ordinance -- created this ordinance. dog walkers provide a critical service to the approximately 1/3 of san francisco households who have dogs. without professional dog walkers, many people would not be able to have a dog, given their work schedule or their family schedule. so it is important for us to embrace, support this industry. it's also important to do whatever we can to make sure

that professional dog walkers are as uniformly high quality as possible. a significant majority of professional dog walkers do a great job. there are some who maybe aren't so experienced and can cause problems. in addition we want to protect consumers, those who purchase dog walking services, by making sure that they can be confident that their dog walkers are qualified. and we want to protect our park and other public properties from overuse and make sure that we're balancing the needs of all users at our parks. this legislation resulted from an ex treatmently -- -- extremely collaborative process among stakeholders. i worked closely with various dog walker groups, with individual dog walkers, with dog walking businesses, with dog owner organizations, with the spca, which is supporting this, with animal care and control, rec and support.

the dog walker, dog owner groups as well as the spca are supporting this legislation. we had two hearings with a lot of feedback at the land use committee. also a well-attended hearing at the small business commission. this legislation would set basic standards for professional dog walkers by requiring training or apprenticeship, by requiring certain safety standards for equipment and for vehicles, require dog walkers using city property to have a permit from the city. in addition, this would limit the number of dogs that a professional dog walker can walk at one time on city property to eight. a couple of things, first of all, the number of dogs has been a continuing topic of discussion . there was a long debate between six and eight dogs. when i introduced the

legislation i compromised and put seven. when it went to the small business commission, the small business commission recommended a limit of nine, eight dogs plus the walker's only personal dog. the land use committee initially accepted that and then yesterday the land use committee at my request reduced that number to eight. so that's where we are today. one other thing, there is an amendment that supervisor chu is requesting relating to licensing of the dogs. the current legislation requires that once a year dog walkers would be required to provide certain information about dog licensing to their clients in order to encourage an increase in the percentage of dogs who are licensed. supervisor chu is proposing an amendment that would require the dog walkers, when they provide that information, to ask their clients for the dog license number of their dogs and then they would have to maintain that

information. we don't want to be punitive so if the person is refusing to give it, we're not going to punish the dog walkers but it does, again, just encourage licensing of dogs. so, i do want to offer that amendment as requested by supervisor chu. that has been distributed. i understand that supervisor avalos may have an amendment as well. but i would ask that perhaps before we take that amendment that we consider the amendment that supervisor chu has requested and then move on. thank you. supervisor chu: i believe that supervisor wiener has articulated the item already. already it is required that dogs are licensed. that is already law. this amendment doesn't change any of that. however, we do -- do i think there is a benefit to being able to increase compliance with dog licensing. currently we believe that we have about 15% to 0% of our dogs

that are actual -- 20% of our dogs that are actually licensed. this amendment would add one extra step to have that conversation with the dog owner. it would ask for a dog walker to ask for dog license information and maintain that information. i'm very sensitive to the fact that many dog walkers are weary of being held necessarily responsible or having their permits revoked because of the indiscretion of the dog owners and so this ledge -- legislative amendment really is sensitive to that commonet. and so again the -- component. and so again the amendment simply does require that the dog walkers also ask for the licensing information of the dog owners. president chiu: supervisor chu has made a motion to amend. any discussion on the motion to amend? supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to begin by