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 thanking supervisor wiener and his staff for taking on this issue. i know that it's been a great deal of work and there has been

a great deal of discussion and feedback that has been presented on this item and i am happy to be a supporter of this legislation. i think that it's something that the city and county of san francisco should do and i also want to thank all the staff that have been working on this issue and providing feedback on how to strike the right balance between the needs of dog owners and at the same time some of the business concerns that dog walkers have. i know that one of the big questions has been on the number of dogs that should be allowed to be walked and as someone who has a dog myself, i know that you want to make sure that it's the right number so that it's not too many but at the same time you want to recognize that you're talking about a business that's being run and so you want to strike the right balance and

find that right number. i don't know exactly what that number should be, to be honest. but i think that what we have right now seems to be a fair compromise that takes into account all the different interests and i've spoken to a number of dog walkers and there are differences of opinion as to what what that number should be and the thing about that number is that it's something we can also revisit as this matter goes forward. so i'm happy to be a supporter and again i want to thank supervisor wiener for his work. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. president. i also like to thank supervisor wiener for his work in crafting legislation that did not exist out of thin air and it took a lot of effort and work in your office. you and yourself, to make that happen. and grappling with numerous interests as well as a number of dogs per walker must have been

very challenging. so i want to acknowledge your work in that and also the work of the city departments to help with that effort as well. i do have a concern about the number of dogs per walker here. it's something that initially i thought should have been something that can promote business but also be something that would be manageable for the walkers and to take care of a number of dogs as well as be something that would be helpful for the dogs and their welfare as well. i considered, you know, a larger number to be somewhat more difficult to manage on both the walkers and the welfare of the dogs and also the impact to our parks a mainly consideration as well as the parks development has been involved in these discussions. i feel a lot more comfortable with a number like six. i know that's something that's been considered and considered too low by the committee and i

want to see where we can go with that today but that seems like a good balance. i think it was a recommendation that had come out of the animal care control center as well. that i think provides some indication of what makes a lot of sense for the welfare of the dogs. i think the park department was amendable to that number as well. also i think that if we have a lower number of dogs per walker, it might open up the industry, the dog walking industry for possibly more jobs for people to walk dogs as well. that i think is something that was grappled with by the small business commission, but i think it's something worth considering as well today. so i'd like to propose an amendment, i'd like to think of it as a friendly amendment, six, and see where that goes. six dogs. that amendment would be online

-- on line three of page seven of this ordinance. that's my motion. president chiu: supervisor avalos has made a motion to set the number of dogs at six. seconded by supervisor elsbernd. let's have a discussion. supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you for taking the time. and i do understand the argument for six and there were some folks who supported that. but for several reasons i don't support the amendment. i don't support going to six. i'll explain why. i think it's really important to be clear that the current limit and what it's been for -- i guess forever -- is infinity. so whatever cap we put on it is going to be a lot lower than what it currently is. we're also -- this is new legislation. although this has been done in 10 or 12 other cities, this is

new for san francisco. brand new regulatory scheme. and when you're doing that, i think it's important to tread a little bit lightly, understanding that you can always make changes in the future. and so i wanted to be careful in this legislation not to be overly restrictive. i've heard and so did the small business commission, so did the land use committee, heard from a lot of dog walkers, keeping in mind that there are dog walkers who only walk two or three dogs, dog walkers who walk a lot more. and i think that there was a pretty broad -- not consensus but a strong majority of dog walkers who expressed concern that six dogs would have a significant negative economic impact on the ability of people to earn a living, to run their business. now, i think the small business commission went too far when it recommended nine. and obviously i started out with seven. i've always thought that seven

or eight would be a good approach. but i do think that six would be very damaging economically to a lot of dog walkers and so i'm not supportive of going there. so i will not be supporting this amendment to go to six. i think eight is a good number. i think six is definitely too low and as the author of the legislation who spent an enormous amount of time working with all the stakeholders, i would ask colleagues that this amendment be rejected. supervisor farrell: thanks, president chiu. i don't know what the right number is here. i don't think i can find this so i'm going to defer to committee and what came out. the one thing i will say, though, is to keep what supervisor campos mentioned is, we do have the opportunity to change it as time goes on and the one thing i am aware of is they're trying to undergo a

process where they're going to place a number on dogs and the one thing especially as a supervisor who represents a district that has a lot of land adjacent to the ggnra lands, if we have a number that's much higher than the ggnra's number, then we could have an influx of dog walkers into our parks and out of the ggnra land. but that's a discussion for a later date. they're going to go through their process but for now, want to respect what the committee did and supervisor wiener's legislation so i will not be supporting the motion. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. again, i don't know what the right number is and i actually -- there's part of me that certainly appreciates and supports what supervisor avalos is trying to do and i do want to thank animal care and control and rec and park because they have to deal with this issue and the issue of what happens if federal government has a lower number and we have a larger number a concern. that said, i will defer to

supervisor wiener who has been dealing with this for quite some time and if it does turn out that six should be the right number i think we'll have an opportunity to modify the number. i also have spoken to a number of people in the industry where i am confident that if it is the right person doing it and if it's done properly that the current number that's being proposed, eight, could work. but again, i think this is a work in progress and i think that we need to monitor the situation but today i will be deferring to supervisor wiener who has worked on this. supervisor elsbernd: in a genuine attempt to try to address your concerns which really are my concerns, this is why i support supervisor avalos' amendment. if the feds came down and said six, i'd be very concerned about

the impact on growth and other parks near there. if maker of the amendment is amendable, instead of reducing it from eight to six, we say eight but then put language in that says, if the federal government imposes a lower number on federal lands in the city and county of san francisco, we move down to the lower number. so we don't have to go through this whole process all over again and talk about how many dogs people can walk, respectfully i think we have a few more important things to worry about. let's put that language in now so it happens automatically. president chiu: is that an amendment to supervisor avalos'? further discussion. supervisor avalos: i'll accept that. i'll defer that. president chiu: so you're withdrawing your motion to reduce it down to six and it is a friendly amendment by supervisor avalos to state that

eight is the number but if the federal government comes in and gives us a lower number, the lower number shall apply. supervisor wiener: thank you. thank you for trying to come up with a middle ground. i don't support the current version of the amendment for a couple of reasons. first, i don't want to -- the ggmra and the city, they're going to have their own policies which may or may not be identical. i don't want to let them automatically drive what our policy is. we know that we have significant disagreements with the ggnra in particular around dogs issues. so i have -- did i meet with the trust and the ggnra around this and they do intend to have dog walker policies. they very much like this legislation. not necessarily the number, but everything else about it. but they are both going to take

-- it's going to be probably several years before they have it in place and with ggnra in particular, they're tied up in nots now around their whole rule making process for the dogs so it's going to be quite some time and i think that time would be the appropriate time for us policymakers, if appropriate, to revisit the issue and if we decide to align our number, then so be it. but i don't think that putting something auto in there, we don't know what that's going to be, we don't know the impact it's going to have on people's ability to run their businesses, we don't know what the impact will have on the price of dog walking services because the lower the number gets, the higher the price is going to be, and there are a lot of san franciscans who may not be able to afford those services. so i think it's too unpredictable so i don't support the amendment. supervisor mar: thank you, mr. chiu. i'm supportive of supervisor wiener's leadership on this. i didn't realize how much work he put in on this issue, as we had two full hearings at the land use committee. but also the small business

commission and i see the thoughtfulness that went into the recommendations that were considered. i'm glad you have worked on the dog licensing issue because the director of the animal welfare and control was here earlier and you've worked out kind of with the dog pack and the other groups, there she is behind me, a lot of the issues. i'm not supportive of the amendment by supervisor avalos but i understand the logic but i realize that you're juggling a whole bunch of different things. it's a good piece of legislation and now infinity is the number that dog walkers can use, i think it's a good regulation that balances the need of the small businesses but also public safety and environmental health and the welfare of the dogs and the families that the dogs come from as well. i'm supportive of supervisor wiener's legislation as amended by supervisor chiu -- chu. supervisor avalos: thank you. just to be clear, i'm withdrawing my motion.

and i actually -- i i'm a little bit squeemish about following the lead of the golden gate national recreation area. i can see that point that supervisor elsbernd wants to make and the difference between what comes into play for ggnra versus our park and how the pame county -- and how the impacts will be but i'll wait and cross that path when it comes. if six is not going to be accepted, i will defer -- i'll vote on the overall legislation and i may support. thanks. president chiu: if we could allow supervisor avalos to withdraw his motion without objection, that will be the case. further discussion, anyone going to mention the number seven? supervisor kim: i was going to propose that we move back down to the original number of seven that supervisor wiener

originally proposed. i do feel very uncomfortable with eight. i think six is the ideal number but i want to respect the author of the legislation. i'm not sure if we have the number there. if not so, i understand the work that went into this. i know that a lot of compromise, a lot of different parties, small business advocates to dog lovers and park advocates have been involved in this process. i think eight is a very high number. but -- president chiu: so sounds like you are making a motion to amend the number to seven. i believe that's been seconded by supervisor avalos. is there further discussion on this motion to amend? supervisor chu: thank you. i just want to thank supervisor wiener for his leadership on this. it's never easy to tackle any dog issues. and speaking of dog -- and being a dog owner myself and walking birdy, i think one is my limit. i couldn't really tell you what the right number would be. i do have --