>> next speaker, please. >> thank you. >> we discourage barking. >> hello again. i want to just comment on mr. ginsburg's comment about how we've become a great area for dog parks and that we lead, you know, in that area. so as a member of the friends of upper douglass dog park, we want to make compromise. we understand our neighbors, and

we really think to allow people, not dog walkers, nothing against you, but for people who live in the city, they need to be able to walk their dogs before they go to work and after they get home. so i think that the 7:00 a.m. is really a good time that cat anderson suggested. i'm concerned about the ending hour, because people typically don't get home till 6:00, 6:30, to be able to go and get to the park and exercise, so we are not in favor of the current hours being proposed. we'd like to have them extended a bit more. i thank you all. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is linda blondis, and as an amateur

paleoanthropologist, homo sapiens would not be homo sapiens had he not domesticated the dog. dog is critical to our being human, and if you read the books, you'll find -- i'm reading donald joe hanson now. so we owe them. they owe us. and we need to have them have a place where they could play, be dogs, make friends, and upper douglass dog park has been wonderful. it has enabled my dog to make friends, me to make friends. it feels like home. and i am blissfully retired these days, but when i was working, i often did not leave work until 8:00 at night, and my dog still had to go do his doggy things. so i don't know what the

neighbors are complaining about, but, you know, when you move next to an airport, you don't complain about the planes. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> okay. bruce. and then i'm going to call off some more names. i have michael and robert and gene and gregory. go ahead. >> hi, i'm bruce. i live just off port cola drive. i used to live directly across the street from the park and use the park with my dog betty sue. first, i'm deeply disturbed that the proper rec and park rules for implementing a procedure like this were not followed in the first place. the district supervisor is supposed to get his buy-off on it. i spoke to the supervisor, that did not happen. secondly, they are supposed to give public notice and have a community meeting where both sides can come in and make their

case. no public meeting took place. the proponents of this proposal gave a reason that they feared for their safety and they were afraid they would be attacked by the park users. you know, if that's really the reason, then the solution to that is you have a park ranger or police officer represent at e meeting. you don't try to create public scrutiny and slip this under the radar. at the last meeting, the current proposed closing time is 7:30, and that was kind of picked out in the air arbitrarily and was no real basis for that 7:30 time. i, for one, have to work late often, and i don't even get off work until 7:30, so that doesn't work for me. i spent the last few days at the park in the evenings chatting with some of the other park

users to see why they came to the park so late and i found out a whole lot of people have jobs down the peninsula. they don't even get home till 7:30. i spoke with one person who works in a hospital, her shift doesn't end until then and others work in retail. to me, what would be a good time, 7:00 to 9:00, would work for everyone. >> next speaker, please. >> greetings, commissioners, thank you. so first off, i moved to san francisco in 1999. i purchased my home in 2007. i'm also the vice president of the victorian alliance san francisco, where we have

actually pulled together $400,000 in preservation grants. as many of you guys may know, a large amount of that money has gone directly to recs and park. upper douglass park is a rare and valuable asset. it's large and fenced in, and it provides a place for new dog owners and existing dog owners to train their dogs. it's also a safe place for people to walk their dogs late at night, as we've seen the homeless issues growing in dolores park, my wife doesn't feel safe walking there. she does feel safe walking her dog after work in upper douglass. i'd like to reframe this conversation for everyone here. in 1871 the parks commission was set up to preserve and create public use land and some interesting statistics have come out. per the san francisco animal care and control, there's

120,000 dogs in san francisco. per the u.s. census bureau, the latest one, there's 113,000 children. so the takeaway here is there's now more dogs than kids. if this conversation was happening around reducing children's access to parks, i think it wouldn't even have gotten to this point with the commission, which is what we're kind of discussing here. so i hope that helps you guys in making your decision. one other thing i'd like to throw out, because we're a city of compromises, here's a couple compromises to consider. san francisco police code section 2909 of the noise ordinance says -- >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> commissioners, general manager, i'm greg holland, san francisco resident. i never thought i would be in front of you today speaking about this matter, but i'm a fan of upper douglass dog park, and

i take issue with the process that's undertaken or not undertaken to make this proposal to reduce the hours. you know, the optics are important, and if you reduce the hours, we face the optics that current home owners are dictating how and when the rest of us use their parks. those are bad optics. also, if you approve this on the face of it, don't we run the risk of saying not in my backyard? if this wins, it joins all the other negativisms. classism, racism. i realize when i go to the park it's filled with people from all neighborhoods and they are diverse and beautiful and so are their animals, but that's what makes the park so special, so i encourage you to reject the reduced hours for the upper douglass dog park and i

encourage everyone here to understand in all of our neighborhoods here, we hear dogs bark. we hear car horns honk, but in every neighborhood, there are people and there are families and people with families and dogs who deserve access to hour public parks at times that fit their job schedules and times that fit their schools and times that fit every family. thank you for hearing me. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm robert brust. many of you know me. i am the district state representative on prozac and i've spoken with many of you. i tried to get a handle around this issue early on, but i was thwarted by -- by, i think, a lack of communication from the department. i appreciate what you have done and tried to come up with a

compromise. i appreciate what sarah had said about the process, but i disagree. there was not an open process on this. i was not informed of this. the local friends of upper douglass dog park, i had a long conversation last night with george, who's the new president. he does not remember being advised this was going until, like, a week before it went to your commission, the committee, and it's just -- that is the, i think, the crux of it. the whole process was appalling. i would accept and support a 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. hours, but i think it's just insane that this group of neighbors, advocates for upper douglass, refuse to

meet with the dog people. and -- and here we are. it was not ready to go before you. it really was not. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> commissioners, general manager, my name is michael. i'm an, i suppose, well-off resident of noe valley. i treasure this park. my family treasures this park. my three furry children treasure this park. when my day starts, when i leave for my office, about 7:00 a.m. in the morning, so those that are willing to compromise for later in the evening, i appreciate that, i understand that side of the equation. i'm on the other side of the equation in terms of the day. i enjoyed the woofing from the encouraging director or manager,

but when we look at statistics that were cited about how we are such a wonderful city by comparing our 10,000 population residents to the statistical average of dog parks, i don't think that statistic captures availability, and this park is not available 24/7. it's not available during a substantial part of the year. it's not available during morning hours on wednesday or thursday. there's an odd closure on wednesday for maintenance. when i go, i never see maintenance there on wednesday. if there is maintenance there on wednesday, it occurs during very narrow hours during the course of the day, and yet the park is not unlocked again until 9:00 a.m. or later on thursday. so for me, wednesday's out, thursday's out. there's a long winter closure. we still don't understand why.

my dog can get muddy feet. it really doesn't mind it. we support keeping the hours you have in place and not changing them. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, as jane is coming up, i'm going to go ahead and call some more names. i have david, heather, b.j., richard, and megan. >> thank you for entertaining this today. my name's gene falk. i, too, use the park at all sorts of hours and can't imagine having those hours limited, but i'd like to address directly the process, and i agree with those who have spoken before me, and i disagree with the way this was presented by -- and i'm sorry, i didn't get your name. first of all, she cites meetings that were held in 2018. when this issue was raised again

in 2019, the park's own process, the -- sorry, the park's commission process was disregarded. you look at the memo you received from mr. bishop, and it goes point by point what the process is to bring these to you and -- sorry, supervisor mandelman does not feel like he was consulted. two, community meeting, no. why? because they were -- they, home owners, felt, quote, uncomfortable and unsafe. well, have a policeman in the room and have an impartial moderator and that takes care of that. but what's even worse is what the rpd agreed to do instead of that meeting, and the answer is

it agreed to an online survey conducted by the home owners. that's right in mr. bishop's statement. now, i have a whole list of other things that proceeded from that, including why that survey's a piece of junk, and i could go on. notice, however way you look at it, feels like there's a thumb on the scale and the optics are already are uncomfortable. >> next speaker, please. next speaker, please. overhead, please. go ahead. >> hi. my name's dave olson. i've lived in san francisco for 30 years, resident of district 8 for 20 years, and i've owned

dogs for two years. and i go to this upper douglass dog park all the time. i'm often there in the tail end of the evening. i work traditional work hours. i don't have a horrible commute, so i'm there between 7:30 and 9:00 p.m. i even bought a light-up ball for my dog so we can play in the winter when the sun sets after 7:00 p.m. so closing the park -- and you can see these videos, you'll see that these are taken at 8:40 p.m. on friday, sunday, monday, and tuesday. you'll see that there's plenty of parking on the street. when you show the videos of the park, you'll see that there are plenty of people using this park between 10 and 20 every night at 8:40 p.m. i have a thumb drive, i'm happy to submit this to the city, if you can have this as evidence, but there's lots of constituents that need this park that late,

as other people have mentioned. and the process. i mean, seriously, in terms of there being a fair process here, having a biased survey online that is run by somebody who has a particular outcome, 9:00 to 6:00 p.m., really? so you guys are all pretty smart people. you wouldn't be here, right? i'm a pretty smart guy. i wouldn't be able to live in san francisco. just take a look at this on face value of it. this is just -- this is just underhanded and tricky. and i have paid attention to these things, and i only learned about this about beginning of june. so there was no fair public comment involved in this whatsoever. so do me a favor, punt this, let's have a community meeting, and there are people that don't want it open until 7:00, there are people that need it open before 7:00. all this should be evaluated. >> thank you. >> next speaker e pleasplease.

>> hi, so i'm second generation sf. couple things, estes park and jackson park need some love. i'm here because of douglass. i'm representing six dogs in three households within two blocks of the park, because they are all at work. i'm their dog walker. i should be walking their dogs right now, but i'm not. i had coverage, because those dog walkers are also all working. unless you're reading all those emails about how important this park is. we don't use it for almost a third of the year because of this winter closure thing, which i still don't fully understand, because it's always muddy in douglass park, so i don't understand how much muddier it can possibly be in december as opposed to august. we need this park.

i need you to know that the person and group of advocates who don't like this park are also the people who work -- who started a company that if you remember four years ago at mission soccer field kicked little kids off of it, because they reserved it, and it was more important for them to have a soccer game than small children who play at the soccer field every day. these are the same people. they don't care. and it's incredibly frustrating to see them walk their dog with no leash and no collar around the neighborhood and say that they are scared of us, because they are not. they are in -- i see them every day at 7:00 a.m., and i see them every evening. they are not scared of us, and they are not scared of their dog getting hit by a car either, so i think that this needs to have a community meeting, because they are not scared of us, because we see them all the time. thank you.

>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is richard, and i've lived in the city 43 years. i've gone to this park with my dog. i have two dogs before that. since 2000, both on leash and off leash. i have difficulty getting around. and this park gives me the opportunity to go there with my dog, let the dog play, and gives me an opportunity to meet new people. i could say something, but i have a lot of issues and people already talked about that. one thing i would say is, i would ask you to question the

winter closure, because i look and they don't do very much during the winter. the park is actually pretty good now. we've got involved many times, weeding, and raising monies for the landscaping, the resurfacing of the park. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> my name is b.j. wilkinson. i live three blocks from douglass park, and i have lived there since 1980. before that, i was in noe valley, but three blocks from this park. when it was available, i always had dogs since i got my dogs in 1980 and needed a place to walk them off leash and a place for them to play. year 2000 i was forced to retire because of a diagnosis with a

life-threatening illness, and my dogs have gotten me through it since then. it's difficult for me to drive. right now, i have to drive some place else on wednesdays, and in the winter, when it's raining, i have to drive in the fog and the rain to another place so i can walk my dogs. there's no good reason that i've ever heard why it's close the in the winter, and certainly, there's no good reason now why it's closed in the times of the best weather, when we have these late summer afternoons, the best time of the year in this city. when it was so hot last week, and my house was over 90 degrees, my dogs and i and everybody else that didn't have air conditioning were suffering. only place we had to go late in the evening was to douglass park, along with other people in that same condition. those people who have to go to work in the morning and those

people who can't get home late in the afternoon, they can't with here. they are at work. and it's important for you to take into consideration all those people who use it during those hours. and the complaints that have been made do not sit with those hours. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, and as she's coming up, i'm going to call off a few more names. i have william, laura, nancy, and rocket. that's all i have. >> hi. my name is megan smith. i'm a 30-year resident of noe valley. i've been using this park since 1994. i like to use it early in the morning. i'm asking you please don't change the hours. i'm also as a resident of noe valley, one of the blind sided people. i found out about -- [ dogs barking ] -- i found out this may, may of 2019. we have a newspaper, the "noe

valley voice," next door noe valley, there's been no community meetings that i've been aware of -- >> can you hold up? >> excuse me. are we okay over there? all right. go ahead. all right. see if we can control them all. >> go ahead. >> all right. so i'm one of those residents that apparently this handful of people, once i heard about this, i really took a good look at 27th street. there's, like, ten houses there. they all have garages. i don't even understand what the issue is. that's how blind sided i am, but i'm asking you, please, don't change the hours, and if there is this process, i'd like to go through the proper procedure with supervisor mandelman and the community meeting. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, william.

>> mr. president, commissioners, good morning or good afternoon. i became aware of this controversy over -- i don't use douglass park. but i became aware via social media. and i was hearing things similar to the testimony that these people have been giving you today, so i came here today to ask you to vote no on this proposal to change the hours of douglass park, but then i heard your rec and park representative talk about community-driven policy, and robust dialogue, but that doesn't seem to jive from what i'm hearing from the people here, so i'm going to suggest perhaps rather than voting yea or nay, to table the project and

let more information be let out to the public so we can understand what is going on. but that being said, i'm still going to ask you to vote no on this item. >> thank you. >> okay, next speaker. nancy. >> hi, my name is nancy stafford. i'm an sf dog board member, and i would say please don't change the hours without further public process. not everyone works 9:00 to 5:00. commuters, retail workers, and other service providers need access. this park is closed every wednesday and several months in the winter with proposals for more closures. would you close any other recreational facility on such a regular basis? this number of closures is unreasonable. rpd has 62 athletic fields, 71 basketball courts, 132 children's play areas, over 200 tennis courts, and 31 dog play

areas in 25 parks. approximately 40% of our 358,000 households have dogs, with 24% have two or more. a conservative estimate of dogs in san francisco is 175,000 dogs. we are rpd's largest constituency. we are in the parks rain or shine, yet we are grossly underserved in the city of saint francis. please have the required meetings required for any changes at upper douglass, and i'd like to comment on the 120,000 dogs that was first proposed, i believe, around 2004 by carl friedman, who was the head of animal care and control at the time. that's 15 years ago. the city has grown, dog population has grown, so the 120,000 is grossly an underestimate, and i have to say, i did all these figures, did all this research on the

american pet -- avma who has estimates on dog owners, american veterinary, the pet products population, and i kind of went in between and my estimates are very conservative. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> thank you. my name is laura. san francisco resident for 14 years. i have three to four points i would like to make. point number one, this item should not be on the agenda today for reasons everyone has already stated. modified hours will not alleviate the adjacent home owners' concerns about all-day ambient noise, yet they will restrict public access to the park during required off-peak hours as determined by rec and park's own survey.

this compromise, while understanding a way to resolve the issue, it's a lose-lose proposition, benefits neither side, and has no evidentiary basis. point number three, if the commissioners push forward, despite the concerns, i would suggest nothing less than 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. operating hours is reasonable. when i commute to work in menlo wash, i have to catch my bus at 7:00 a.m. i return home no earlier than 7:00 p.m. i have to feed my family dinner, especially during summer when it's light, we deserve access to this beautiful space. in any future meetings, i hope, regarding this topic, i would request the home owners provide their disclosure packages to prove they did not knowingly move to this situation. and i would like an objective neutral party to conduct a sound assessment to determine if noise from this park is any more

significant than noise from any park of the city. [ applause ] also, as my addendum, please fix the restrooms. they've been broken over a decade. and we need to pee also. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please, and as they are coming up, i have david, andrea, and james. and then after that, anyone who hasn't filled out a blue card, come on up and you can speak. go ahead.

>> in doing so, they deem their own interest in a speedy resolution to be more important than the interest of the many people who actually use this park. if the department can do this at upper douglass, they can do it at any other park in the city. our shared spaces are what make it possible to maintain a high quality of life, despite the challenges of living in a city whose cost of living far exceeds that of any other in the nation. when the city is allowed to bypass the rules governing these spaces, it's unacceptable. regardless of the outcome of the proposal, please do not repeat these tactics of secrecy and shortcuts, where the results affect so many san francisco residents. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> hi, commissioners. i'm andrea buffa. i helped start the organization save our recreation a few years

ago when they were trying to restrict dog walking there, and i live in glenn park. i'm quite close to this park, and i use it sometimes. my neighborhood park, sunnyside park, previously was an off-leash area and now is an on-leash area. i guess i want to change what i was planning on saying, because i'm one of the threatening dog people, and i understand it's super hard to come to a public meeting and be in the minority, maybe even have people boo you, maybe have people act inappropriately in the audience, but that's part of the public process. we need to teach people on our side how to act right and be okay with people and express anger somewhere else, and the other people need to know that, yeah, it's hard. i've been in that position, too, and it's hard and it's part of making changes you want. you probably know the trend around the world is to keep parks open later and more hours,

because of the increasing documentation of the physical health benefits, the mental health benefits, and the safety benefits of having parks in our neighborhoods. so i agree with what others have said about the community process. i don't know how it got this far, and there's no reason to keep it going any further. so i hope that you take this off the table or vote no on the proposal. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners. my name is david emanuel. i live right at the border of glenn park and noe valley, and my dog park is the upper noe rec center. we are a dog run, decompressed granite. i do go to upper douglass occasionally. it is closed i think about four months, maybe longer, and when it is closed, our dog run and the surrounding ones do feel

pressure. people are always welcome, and we don't mind it, but it does impact the smaller parks. i think there's been a little bit of a disservice the way the department has represented the resolution to you. it actually, this resolution, has three different or four different now time recommendations. one is from the department staff, one is from a friends group, one with is from a neighbors group, and the other is from your own operations committee, and what's missing here is more of a debate and a real community-driven process. i know the department likes to call it a community-driven process, but there hasn't been an opportunity for a majority of the park users and neighbors to really come and give you some feedback or meet as a group. i think there is a solution. i think you've heard today that many people are willing to do a compromise, and i think we can reach that. we should take a step back and try to look at a compromise. i think in the community there could have been one worked out,

but now that you've heard all this feedback, i would hope that you reject the hours in this resolution and determine something different that is more accessible for people. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> i'm bringing the kids with me. yes, these are my kids. in my life -- >> i need you to speak into the mic. >> my name is james wright. larry mazzola knows me from seiussww in san francisco. yes, i know how to organize a community, because i've been a rank and file member of sciu for 30 years. the people at the park knows me as the guy that picks up poop buckets and fills holes that are there even after wednesday after the park has been closed for a day. somehow the buckets are still full of poop, holes are still in

the park. one thing that can kill a dog, send a dog to a vet, one place we shouldn't have foxtails in all of san francisco, we've been weeding foxtails every year that park has been open to try to get them out of there. yes, they are native, but there's many other places that one particular native grass that kills a dog could be. functioning restroom would be nice for the humans. the dogs have a three-acre restroom, a place for the humans to pee would be nice. they are all trimmed up, that's probably not best to do, but the restroom that's there, that's a historic restroom could be open for people to use it. if san francisco, we're not going to be specific, but come on. why not? even if we take out the water

fountain and put a handicap restroom. we finally got a parking spot next to the park, so one place if you're handicap, you can let your dogs off leash, exercise, socialize. humans can socialize, dogs can socialize. we can actually start trying to get along with each other. i know, shocking. but come on. this is san francisco. >> thank you. >> and i'm opposed. >> is there anyone else that would like to make comment? come on up. it's okay, as soon as she's done, you can come up. >> hi, my name is mary williams. i live at the apartments right at the top -- i live at the apartments right at the top of 27th street. i can see the park from my window. i can hear it, and i can tell you that it's never bothered me

at all. it's very minor, ambient noise, and certainly in the evenings, i never hear any barking. never heard barking in the early mornings. also, i was not even aware of this survey that supposedly went out to the neighbors. i don't know how i missed it, but i wasn't given any survey. my partner works in menlo park. he's gone from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. five days a week, so if these changes are made, he would not be able to spend this time with our dog at all during the week. and so, yeah, i just wanted to offer my experience as a very close neighbor, as a counterpart to anything else you may have heard. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is brian edwards.

long-time resident of san francisco. pretty spirited debate and conversation about the dog park. >> can you speak into the microphone? >> sure. thank you for your time. the reality of the situation is, it's a good dog park. it's kind of a gem in san francisco. three acres, fenced in, you've heard it all. you've heard the conversation about airplanes and airports and moving into the area. fact of the matter is, there needs to be a community area, and this upper douglass provides that. people can talk, dogs can play. you've heard all this. from 7:00 to 9:00 is not

>> on this particular issue, we formally here have a dog committee, and we would meet out at the state, at the county

fairgrounds. a long while ago, before it was even a dog park there or officially so. so right now i'm just trying to say that i like dog runs. i like dog parks. i like the social activities for dogs and of humans, but there's a problem here that seems that needs to be addressed that's structural. it's more or less dealing with what can be done to this given area. there are a lot of flaws of the area. people going up along the side, there's a slope down, the dog can slip down and break their limbs. that's what dr. michael had talked about before.

and he was a chair of the dog committee at the time, so there's been a lot of hashing back and forth. so i would recommend seriously have a look at that hole that some people talk about, the grass is not mowed down, and we heard from dan mower about the artificial turf. i'm usually against artificial turf, but in this case, the possibility, as other facilities, i think we can do it. so the hours themselves, i would say until 8:00. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon, thank you. i'm a home owner, taxpayer, muni-bart rider, and i work for the state. by the time i get home and get my dog to the park, and i live two ballot blocks away, it's 6:

6:30. i have a wig cog, she needs to run. this is one of the only places she can get out and have the freedom to run. it's a good group of folks. i want to reiterate we should have had the full meeting and time for public comment, et cetera. it's a great place. i'm not, you know, unsympathetic to the neighbors there. however, you know, it's not that bad. it's not that loud. it's, you know, most of us love our dogs dearly and we respect the park, you know, that's why we're pulling foxtails, that's why i pick up extra poop, you know, it's a good bunch of people, and we need this park, and by the time i get up there and i let my big dog run, it's going to be past 7:30, and so i would just urge the committee or you to please have the open

meeting so that everyone can talk, or at least listen to us. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners? commissioner mazzola. >> thank you. i'd first like to thank everybody for coming out and your testimony today. as far as the process that people are complaining about, i think sarah laid it out that, you know, 67 other parks have the same process, you know, that the commission did not initiate this, the community did, so this happens to be the process. but with that being said, from everything i've heard today, i don't see a really good enough reason to change the hours of

the park. you know, it's not like there's unsafe issues, not like kids are throwing keggers out there and noisy all night. it's dog barking. that's what a dog park is. to me, if there's going to be a change, shouldn't close it any earlier than 9:00. i think parks are there to be open, and if it's not a reason for being unsafe, i don't think there's a good enough reason that i've heard to change it. so i would vote to keep it the same. i'd go against the staff's recommendation and operating committee to keep it open till 10:00, but if there was a middle ground to be reached, i would vote yes on 9:00, but nothing earlier than that. those are my comments. >> thank you. commissioner anderson? >> commissioner anderson: hello, everyone. i want to thank everybody for coming out, and i also want to acknowledge those who can't make it. i understand how difficult it

is, and i want you to know that i have read the materials. we've gotten myriad of emails and reports, comments, and videos, and i hear you, so i went out to the park last week and i walked around, and first i want to thank and commend the community that helps rec and park take care of that space. i noticed the dog poop buckets and extra baggies, the signs about foxtails.

clearly, the individual users are not a problem. the dog walkers are very professional. i just want to preface that i read the noise ordinances, too. that's one of the reasons why i as chair of the operations committee requested a start time of 7:00 a.m., because that's sort of when the noise ordinance says, okay, it's not quiet time anymore, we can start getting busy. that's how i came up with 7:00 a.m. we came up with 7:00 a.m. it wasn't arbitrary. in the beginning of the noise ordinance, it's prefaced that noise is very subjective and different people experience it differently, and sort of those sudden noises are really the things that get people excited, usually, and in the preface it

suggested that people who are dealing with the issue deal directly with one another. and that was something i suggested when i went out in the hallway on june 6th. i asked if people could come together and talk about this. my friend on the prozac, i want you to know that i take our responsibilities to find a pathway where everyone is happy. this is not something everyone is happy. doesn't matter how many community processes we have beyond today. not everyone is going to be happy. so we're trying to find something that seems sort of fair. and we have to make tough decisions, and we don't take anything lightly. so i do think that people still need to continue to talk with one another about this. and the thing i want to say that i observed about dog walkers, which i would hope that the

community would keep talking about was they are allowed to take up to eight dogs on a

leash. nothing we can do. almost an insoluble problem. having said that, i'm also someone that does not run away from tough decisions or from making mistakes, so i am willing to say that maybe it would be better if we did change the hours that it be 7:00 a.m., because again, that dove tails with the noise ordinance, until 9:00 p.m., which i heard a lot of people suggest. again, though, i don't really think it solves the problem so much, because i think it's the sudden awful noises that are bothering people. that's where the community comes in. we also don't have -- there used to be sort of a, you know, barking dog neighborhood committee. those were dissolved a few years

ago. so maybe you guys should work on getting it re-upped or maybe ask the people on prozac to fill that role. that's what they are there for. and then finally, after walking around the park that day, and by the way, you all did a pretty good job, but i still stepped in poo, but that wasn't okay, wasn't too major, but then i needed to go to the bathroom. there was no place to go to the bathroom, so i would really like to suggest a porta potty or something in the interim and fix the bathrooms and they will be all gendered and then everyone can go to the bathroom. finally, i would just like to comment on something i think we all feel about public discourse. it's really easy to sit at your computer and say things, and some people get really mean spirited and think because, you know, they are sitting at their desk that somehow people don't understand the emotion that's

getting darted at them through email and social media. i've seen it, you know, i've been misrepresented. that's fine. it's all part of the sort of, you know, deal here. but i really think that we should think about our public discourse. i like to think of san franciscans as being the most progressive, compassionate people in the world. we should show that to one another. so to accuse property owners by being evil just because of being property owners is wrong, and accusing dog owners as evil because they love furry children is wrong. we're all right here. we just have to figure out how to get along. so my recommendation is work harder to work together, talk to the dog walkers about not parking in front of these homes, and i would recommend that we amend the hours to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner mcdonnell.

>> commissioner mc donnell: thank you. so i have a couple of concerns. one, in reading the staff memo and report, at least as it lands on me, it seems to presume someone was concerned about the hours, the hours should be changed, and so it goes from someone expresses concern to let's figure out what the new hours need to be, versus what it should have triggered rightfully, in my opinion, would have been a community process. i would disagree slightly with my colleague, commissioner mazzola, because what, as madeleine said, what is consistent across all of our parks and consideration of changing hours is a community process. what's missing in this moment is a community process. the memo says guidelines a community must follow when following, support from a

district supervisor, rpd staff, operations managers, and community meetings must be held to gather feedback on the proposed change. when you race to the conclusion, the summary of who is in favor and who is opposed, doesn't represent the supervisor, and it certainly doesn't represent the engagement of community meetings. certainly, can understand anyone having concerns about whether or not a community meeting would be civil or not. that's a reasonable concern, but it shouldn't prevent, in my opinion, the holding of said meeting, need to put in ways to mitigate police presence or other means to ensure it is a safe and civil place to have discourse. this is the city of saint francis, this is the people's republic of san francisco. that's just how we do it, and we

have to figure out how to do it in ways that we all feel comfortable, no matter what our views are, even when they are opposing. so all of that said, i'm not in favor of in this moment changing the proposal. sorry, changing the hours from what is recommended, because we didn't do what we said as a department we should do, which is a community process. so my point of view is, we need to go back to the beginning, have a community process, land on what we should do. >> thank you, commissioner low? >> commissioner low: i'm happy with the process how we got here and i believe my colleague commissioner anderson intended to make a motion and i would second, having the park hours from 7:00 a.m. and close at 9:00 p.m. i would second that. >> seeing no other commission

comments, we have a recommendation, a motion, to change the hours from the current ones to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and we have a second. all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> commissioner buell: the motion carries. i'm sorry, commissioner -- i'm looking at commissioner mcdonnell looking at me like are you a no. >> commissioner mc donnell: i'm a no. >> commissioner buell: we have two noes and four yeas. [ roll call ] >> commissioner anderson. >> commissioner harrison. >> can i call for a substitute motion? >> you can make a friendly amendment. >> go ahead.

you can make a -- >> you can offer a friendly amendment. >> why can't i do a substitute motion? >> commissioner buell: we need a parliamentarian here. we have a motion on the floor. >> because you have to get me to agree to a substitute motion. i don't agree. i'll consider a friendly amendment. >> friendly amendment is keep the hours the same. >> just vote it down. >> commissioner buell: let's continue the roll call. >> clerk: commissioner mazzola. >> commissioner mazzola: no. >> clerk: commissioner buell. >> commissioner buell: aye. >> clerk: the motion does pass. hours are 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. >> commissioner buell: thank you. >> commissioner mazzola: can i ask a question? >> clerk: yes. >> commissioner mazzola: this park has a fence around it.

other parks don't have fences around it. are there hours on those parks, and if so, what happens if someone goes into that park anyways? >> commissioner buell: go ahead. >> there are hours on all of our parks, and many of the parks do not have fences. those are enforced primarily by complaint, either a call to our park rangers or sfpd, and there are also patrols through the park by park rangers and sfpd. does that answer your question? >> commissioner mazzola: yeah, okay. >> commissioner buell: okay. let's move on then on the calendar. >> clerk: we are now on item 10. which is general public comment, continued from item 4. and i'm going to hold up just a minute.