2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
COMMISSION OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND
WELFARE
Mailing Address: 1390 Market
Street, Room 822
San Francisco, CA 94102
Voice Mail: (415) 252-3817
MINUTES OF MEETING - NOVEMBER
8, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
(a) Chair Elissa Eckman convened the November
8, 2001 meeting of the Commission of Animal Control to order at approximately
5:32 p.m, at City Hall, Room 408, San Francisco, California.
Commissioners in Attendance: Chair Elissa Eckman,
Vice-Chair Cheryl Bentley, Secretary June Wilson, Catherine Tchen, Frederick
Hobson, Sherri Franklin, Carl Friedman, Animal Care & Control, Sgt. Bill
Herndon, SFPD, Jack Breslin. City Attorney Rosa Sanchez was in attendance.
Coms. Breslin, Friedman and Herndon left the
meeting at 7:05 p.m.
The meeting was convened at 5:32 p.m. and Commission
Chair Eckman presided during all aspects of the meeting. All eight Commissioners
(or their lawful designates) holding valid appointments being present, the
quorum requirement of Section 6 of the Commission’s Rules & Regulations
(50 percent of those eligible to vote) was satisfied.
The Chair requested, without objection, to move
from the Call to Order to Item 4A of the Committee reports and Old Business
Item 5A to accommodate the ex officio members who had to leave early, but
had specific input on these items.
ITEM HEARD OUT OF ORDER:
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
[Discussion Item]
Com. Herndon was pleased to pass out the completed
posters for the Commission, and indicated that because Crime Stoppers didn’t
meet last month, he would be presenting the posters this month. He stated
that the media company had agreed to a reduced price of approx. $65 a site
to display ten posters, and that placement of the posters will be what ever
is available, with Com. Friedman explaining that you can’t designate the spots
you want them in due to heavy competition for the spots.
Com. Franklin offered to send out friends and
herself to approach store owners, etc. for permission to hang the posters
and increase exposure, and Com. Herndon stated he would have more posters
reproduced. Com. Friedman suggested targeting problem areas.
The chair opened the meeting to public comment,
hearing none, the meeting was returned to the Commission.
ITEM HEARD OUT OF ORDER:
5. OLD BUSINESS
[A] Discussion and possible action on the
Commission’s future recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning
live animals sold at Farmer’s Markets in the City (for example, game birds,
chickens and ducks). [Chairperson Eckman and Com. Wilson] [Discussion/Action
Item]
A very lengthy discussion ensued with some highlights
as follows:
Com. Friedman stated his Department received
a complaint regarding the Farmer’s Market on Alemany, that a vendor comes
out Saturdays and sells live chickens from his truck and puts the live bird
in plastic bags, ties the bags, and the animal suffocates. He indicated that
an ACC officer and SFPD Officer (Denney) had been sent out, and that in his
inspection, the animals were put in paper bags, not tied up in plastic bags.
He also indicated that in last month’s Commission
meeting there was discussion regarding legislation that was believed to have
been in the CCSF Health Code concerning this issue, but indicated that there
was not, that it was not codified in the SF Health Code. He explained that
he and Com. Breslin and their respective departments had come up with basically
a permit for Heart of the City Farmer’s Market, that in order for a vendor
to sell live birds, they would have to adhere to certain conditions, but that
it was just an addendum to their permit to be able to have and operate the
market.
He indicated the enforcement of the guidelines
had been: Initially any citizen that had a complaint would go to the market
manager and the manager would talk to the vendor. If that didn’t solve the
problem, then his officers with a health inspector would go down there.
He indicated that further monitoring of the
conditions at Alemany Farmer’s Market will continue.
The Chair opened the meeting to public comment:
Officer Denney indicated he had accompanied
the ACC officer, who conducted the investigation, to the Alemany Farmer’s
Market about midafternoon, and that live ducks and chickens were being sold,
that there was a van "stuffed to the gills with live chickens" in
plastic crates, but that he hadn’t seen any evidence of live birds being tied
in plastic bags.
Com. Breslin stated that once a month, around
noontime, he walks through the Heart of the City Market to see if the operation
is taking place, and indicated that about half the time it is, and that he
is observing mostly for sanitation and overcrowding, and that it hasn’t been
as problematic as it had in the past. He had seen one person buy a chicken,
but they took it away in a brown paper bag.
Com. Tchen stated that the only way to have
a real evaluation/inspection of this vendor is to arrive early in the morning
when the vehicle first arrives, so that conditions can be observed when the
vendor first arrives with a full load.
Com. Bentley asked about space requirements
for the birds, and stated that an avian vet had advised her that the minimum
space requirement should at least allow a bird to spread its wings, and that
she has seen violations of this.
Com. Friedman indicated that there are no strict
rules or guidelines, but that in the guidelines developed for Heart of the
City, he believed they required 12 square-inches for every pound of bird,
but stated that it was not a law, but rather a guideline. He further stated
that enforcement is a problem because there are no clear guidelines, but that
sanitation is an issue that can be dealt with. Coms. Friedman and Herndon
both discussed the problems with enforcement.
Com. Tchen stated these were the problems facing
the Commission several years ago and that was why a total ban was recommended,
and suggested the Commission consider asking the Board of Sups to take action
on the Commission’s previous recommendation, and that enforcement would be
easier with a total ban.
The Chair inquired about the permitting requirements
for these vendors, and whether there are regulations that govern a vendors
who sells in San Francisco.
Com. Breslin stated that the location of the
breeding site has to be under permit to the State Department of Health Services,
and that the State is responsible for all wholesale food operations in California;
and that the Farmer’s Market itself is under permit to the Health Department,
but not the individual vendors.
Com. Tchen inquired as to which organization
supervises the rules for transportation.
Com. Breslin indicated virtually nobody, that
the trucks themselves fall between the cracks, and that the State Health Department
has been wrestling with this problem for years.
Com. Friedman suggested he would try and find
out who holds the permit for the Alemany Farmer’s Market and see if they would
sign on for the same guidelines created for Heart of City, and also ask the
market manager to check on these vendors and make sure that they live within
the guidelines.
Eric Mills, Action for Animals, addressed the
Commission, and stated that a lot of these birds are being used for religious
sacrifices. He further stated that federal laws require that animals be rendered
unconscious before they’re slaughtered, but that these birds have no protection
whatsoever, and urged the Commission to ask for a complete ban on the sale
of live animals in San Francisco.
The Chair, hearing no further public comment,
returned the meeting to the Commission and further lengthy discussion ensued
regarding the various approaches the Commission could take regarding this
issue, with discussion centering around the more controversial "big picture,"
of a total ban of the sale of live animals in San Francisco, and the less
controversial "smaller-stepped approach," of banning sales only
at Farmer’s Markets and on city-owned property.
Com. Friedman suggested the Commission might
want to start in smaller steps by banning the sale of live animals for food
at Farmer’s Markets, and felt that might be less politically controversial
than a total ban, even though that may be what the Commission wants. He further
stated that if the Commission was looking to make headlines, a total ban was
the way to go, but if the Commission is looking to make some small important
changes, to consider biting off a little bit at a time.
The Chair indicated the Commission would probably
receive flack either way, and mentioned the possibility that people might
simply start patronizing the more established markets in SF, rather than the
Farmer’s Markets.
Com. Friedman suggested a possible argument
could be: That markets that sell the birds at a fixed location have premises
that are inspected by the Health Department, but vendors who sell at Farmer’s
Markets are unregulated operations, that anyone can pick up a load of birds
and sell them. He further suggested contacting the property owners who lease
this space out to the markets and ask the property owners to prohibit the
sales of live animals, that that might be more effective than trying to get
an ordinance.
After further Commission discussion, Com. Hobson
moved, (seconded by Franklin), "Renewing our call for a prohibition of
the sale of live animals for food consumption in the City and County of San
Francisco."
Further lengthy discussion ensued regarding
the exact wording, etc. to use, and the Chair suggested doing a draft letter,
reviewing it, and then have the City Attorney review it for language content.
Com. Wilson suggested videotaping the vendor and bringing the video to the
Board.
Com. Friedman urged wording it carefully, because
some animals have to be fed live mice and rats, and that the zoo may have
requirements as well. Com. Hobson amended the motion to "...for human
consumption..."
Several commissioners indicated support for
the idea of the smaller-stepped approach of a ban on sales at Farmer’s Markets
or city-owned property, and several commissioners supported the "big
picture" approach of a total ban.
Com. Bentley stated that although the total
ban might not be passed by the Board, that it would serve to bring more public
awareness to this problem, and perhaps a ballot initiative. Com. Hobson indicated
that there might be more support from the current Board of Sups for this issue
than there had been in the past, and that press coverage might heighten public
awareness and encourage people not to buy live animals, with Com. Tchen stressing
the importance of keeping this issue before people and in the press.
Com. Breslin stated that from a strategic standpoint,
if some opposition could be avoided by having legislation that applied only
to CCSF-owned property, that might nullify objections from private industry,
and then the Commission could build on that rather than running into controversy,
and some commissioners felt that a total ban would simply not be passed by
the Board.
Com. Tchen suggested writing a recommendation
for both: The first being the previous recommendation submitted to the Board
calling for a total ban on the sales of live animals; the second being a ban
on sales at Farmer’s Markets or City-owned property, thereby still getting
the message out, and giving the Board of Sups a choice.
Coms. Bentley and Tchen suggested raising human-health
issues in re the high rate of disease in these animals and the health risks,
etc. Com. Breslin indicated that the Health Department’s position was: "It’s
an animal rights and welfare issue, it is not a health issue," and he
expected the department would take that position again. Coms. Tchen and Hobson
indicated that the health issue is an important one to bring to the public.
After further discussion, Com. Hobson called
the question on the following two motions, the first motion being seconded
by Com. Bentley, the second motion being seconded by Com. Franklin.
1) To renew the Commission’s recommendation
for a prohibition on the sale of all live animal species sold for human consumption
in the City and County of San Francisco.
2) A motion calling for the prohibition of the
sale of any live animals sold for human consumption on any property owned
by the City and County of San Francisco, and at any site funded by the City
and County of San Francisco.
At which point further discussion continued,
and the City Attorney made a point of order, indicating that the question
had been called several times and suggested that if the Commission wanted
to continue the discussion, that the item could be moved over to the next
meeting.
The Chair then called the question: "Those
in favor of not voting on the question," with four voting in favor, (Coms. Eckman,
Wilson, Franklin, Tchen).
The Chair then moved, seconded by Com. Wilson,
to continue the discussion and possible action of Com. Hobson’s motions, and
the wording of these possible recommendations to the Board, to the December
meeting. The motion passed, with five voting in favor, (Coms. Bentley, Eckman,
Wilson, Franklin, Tchen), and one opposed, (Com. Hobson.)
The City Attorney requested Items 6A and 6B
be taken out of order because she had to leave.
ITEM HEARD OUT OF ORDER:
6. NEW BUSINESS
Com. Wilson requested instructions as to the
disposition of Commission records currently in her possession. The City Attorney
responded, that upon review of the Records Retention & Destruction Policy,
the Board of Supervisors has declared that their boards and commissions are
to retain their files permanently, and suggested that the Commission contact
the Clerk of the Board and request that space be given to the Commission for
records storage.
The Chair stated, without objection, that no
action was needed, and requested Com. Wilson contact the clerk and ask for
storage space.
The chair opened the meeting to public comment,
hearing none, the meeting was returned to the Commission.
[B] A discussion concerning whether a section
for extemporaneous "Commissioner Comments" should be allowed on
the agenda. Notice would not be given as to the content of these comments,
and advisement from the City Attorney had been requested concerning compliance
with the Brown and Sunshine Ordinance. [Com. Hobson] [Discussion/Action
Item.]
Com. Hobson gave an overview of this item, and
stressed the importance of Commissioners being able to speak extemporaneously
about issues that have come up after the written requirement and that have
not been included in the agenda.
He further stated the Commission had received
conflicting opinions from the City Attorney’s office, and cited Section 67.17
of the Sunshine Ordinance. He suggested that the Commission call it "Public
Comment by Commissioners," and that a section be reserved after the Chair’s
Report for this, and urged the Commission to consider this.
The City Attorney, Rosa Sanchez, stated that
Section 67.17 does address public comment by members of policy bodies, that
their right to make comments will not be infringed. She further stated that
the City Attorney’s recommendation had not changed, and that the City Attorney
is not suggesting to restrict the Commission’s public comment, that the Commission
is free to do so on any item that’s agendized and noticed to the public, but
that in conjunction with Sec. 67.17 is 67.7, which addresses specifically
the notice requirements of agendizing what business the Commission will transact
or discuss, and explained that the City Attorney is not suggesting Commissioners
refrain from commenting on anything, but that if the Commission is to follow
the Sunshine to the letter of the law, everything that will be transacted
or discussed needs to be agendized for the public, so the public will be notified.
She further indicated that the Commission did
not have to follow the City Attorney’s advice and could put in a section for
"Commissioner comments," but that if the Commission chose not to
list what it will talk about, someone could take the Commission before the
Sunshine Taskforce because it didn’t meet the agenda requirements.
The Chair stated that if the Commission chose
to disregard the advice of the City Attorney and put in a section that the
City Attorney is advising is contradictory to what the Sunshine Ordinance
states, the Commission could do it if it wants, but could be subject to a
lawsuit, and the discussion continued.
Several commissioners mentioned the importance
of being able to discuss last-minute issues that come up. Com Hobson indicated
that he thought the Sunshine and Brown Act were meant to guarantee that the
public is not shut out of decisions and/or actions, and that it was not intended
to deprive and/or limit public comment by members of a board.
Ms. Sanchez stated that her office is simply
advising the Commission on what the law says. That it’s up to the Commission
to follow the advice or not.
Com. Hobson moved, seconded by Com. Franklin,
to create a section entitled, "Public Comments by Commissioners,"
that would follow the Chair’s Report on the Commission’s agenda. The motion
passed with four voting in favor, (Coms. Bentley, Franklin, Tchen, Hobson),
and two opposed (Coms. Eckman, Wilson.)
The Chair stated her objection for the record,
that she believes this violates the Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act.
(Whereupon the City Attorney excused herself
from the meeting.)
The following additional housekeeping matters
were raised:
Com. Hobson indicated that after roll call,
there should be a section in the agenda to approve absences.
Coms. Tchen and Bentley indicated there should
be a section in the minutes indicating if commissioners leave early and the
time they left, with Com. Hobson stating arrival and departure times should
be noted in the minutes.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 2001
MEETING
[Discussion/Action Item]
Corrections were indicated to the October minutes
as follows:
Com. Hobson indicated that under Item 2, second
paragraph, the sentence should read, "Com. Hobson moved to eliminate
the last sentence of Item 6A, and add, ’the motion to rescind failed, the
prior recommendation stands.’"
Com. Tchen stated the minutes should reflect
the early departure of Coms. Friedman, Herndon, Breslin.
(End of audio recording.)
Note: The following agenda items that were passed
over are now addressed by the Commission. Unfortunately, the recorder did not
switch tapes, therefore, there are no tape recordings of these items.
3. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT AND OPENING REMARKS
[Discussion item]
A. Chair would like to acknowledge Paul
Reidinger, a food critic for the Bay Guardian newspaper, for commenting
about the cruelty of factory farming in a recent column.
The Chair thanked Paul Reidinger for
commenting about the cruelty of factory farming.
B. Jan Baxter, of Support Office Services,
would agree to continue preparing the Commission’s minutes.
4. Status and tracking of letters of recommendations
approved by Commission to be sent to the Board of Supervisors [Discussion Item]
1. Live Animal Market [Kuehl Bill Compliance]
2. Removal of Trees
3. Recommendation to Board requesting elimination
of fares for animals traveling on MUNI
4. Letter sent to Board re UCSF lack of cooperation
with City’s resolution concerning animal testing.
5. Letter sent to Board of Supervisors recommending
amending Section 41.12 of the SF Health Code to provide for duties of "Guardians."
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
[Discussion item]
5. OLD BUSINESS
[A] Discussion and possible action on the
Commission’s future recommendations to the Board of Supervisors concerning
live animals sold at Farmer’s Markets in the City (This item heard out of
order. See page 2 of these minutes.)
[B] Continuation of the discussion concerning
keeping the horse stables located in Golden Gate Park and whether the Commission
should write a letter to the Board of Supervisors, with a copy to the Mayor,
requesting the stables remain open. [Coms. Franklin and Wilson] [Discussion/Action
Item]
6. NEW BUSINESS
[A] Commission Housekeeping matter:
[B] A discussion concerning whether a section
for extemporaneous "Commissioner Comments" should be allowed on
the agenda...
[C] Discussion and possible action regarding
a follow-up of the draft pamphlet concerning declawing.
[D] A discussion concerning the manner
in which the Commission’s budget should be administered. As it stands now:
1) The Chair, at the request of the Commission,
has made arrangements with Support Office Services, a City contractor, to
prepare the minutes at the rate of $30 an hour. Com. Hobson requested this
be voted on
2) The Commission needs to approve a copy
shop and method for delivery and dispersal.
3) The Commission needs to decide how incidental
expenses are to be determined, a system for pre-approval of expenditure,
and for accounting.
[Chair Eckman on behalf of the Commission]
[Discussion/Action Item.]
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
8. CALENDAR ITEMS
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned, motion by Bentley,
seconded by Franklin, at approximately 8.25 p.m.
Dated: 17th November,2001
Amended: 20th December,2001
June Wilson, Secretary