Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 4, 2013 2:30am-3:01am PST

2:30 am
term. i lost the term. environment. the environment statement because several people that commented of the stern grove being so overcrowded. on a personal note i have a service dog also. like the man before me, if she didn't get her off leash time she would not be able to do her job. she would be a complete jerk without her off leash time. >> thank you. before the next bigger recall the final batch of names. these of the tory, [inaudible] tonya lampert, then [inaudible], andrea patterson, ruben garcia, elizabeth oconto. go ahead. >> good afternoon. i'm john keating. i want to thank you for your public service. all
2:31 am
the more so on this important issue. i come to you from 2 perspectives. one is as a native whose spent all my life looking at the parks of our parts and see life that give us our unique civility. [inaudible] tog on my heart that this was a major loss for our city. for the reasons so many have spoken . the loss of civility that we find at ocean beach and other places where people can freely linger. my 2nd perspective is as the attorney who is principally involved in the litigation that forced park service to engage in the public input process. that was important for another reason.
2:32 am
that may give you some comfort in what you're doing. what you're doing is a bold move and require that the gg nra do things that they don't ordinarily do which is to listen to you and listen to the public comments. normally we have a system [inaudible] federal agencies of courts and states and towns. in the litigation of fort constant and later in the [inaudible] litigation, the court made a finding that broke that cycle of deference. the court said that when there's a showing of bad faith you no longer need to afford the park service the deference in the view of whether they considered comments properly. so that is why you are doing the right thing and you are friends of the gg nra when you make them comply with the law. thank you very much >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is daniel [inaudible] thanks for doing this. i'm not a homeowner. or
2:33 am
business owner. in fact i'm not even from here. i'm a composer and classical pianist in brazil. 2 years ago i adopted my 1st dog extremely active red golden retriever who completely changed my life. one of the only ways i can really tire her down is actually [inaudible] off leash run both equally important. the goal was to [inaudible] it's a vibrant and the dogs care good care that owners provide to their dogs many [inaudible] in the dog world. newly search is being done on [inaudible] dogs have emotions. i hope future research will encourage again and in good treatment of animals. [inaudible]. communication is what maintains them a healthy
2:34 am
community and this is exactly what is not being done by gg nra. so dogs are friendly and they deserve their space to. i can't imagine the impact that will have in [inaudible] dog parks that are crowded. doug parks and off leash parks should be designed for recreation and that includes our dog. thank you. >> thank you very much. next he could. >> my name is lisa vettori. i actually also want to thank the park service for so efficiently recycling the last plan. because by doing that they generally have 2 make any real, do any work. listen to the public. i'm a former park service employee. i work for the park service and did a lot of volunteer projects with them all through the 80s and 90s. i am so sad about this. because basically they just said fark you and i'm sorry if you need that. you know, when they came
2:35 am
in here in the 80s, they had a [inaudible] talk about inclusion and about diversity and including everybody including all the different activities. i really appreciate the person talked about managed about planning and layering. that's what i started working with them and learning about. i agreed with a lot of us are environmentalists and i agreed without restoration. i did tons of it. i probably did more restoration than most of the people in the park service. now i feel like the park service is basically becoming a big mean bureaucracy who doesn't really care about its promises. i am sad about that because i think we could be something different and we can also show something different. it really is about finding different ways to do
2:36 am
restoration in cooperation with the rest of the [inaudible]. i think this is a park service setting this up for fellow. he pushed all the user groups into one place. for example i chrissy field, so they would interfere with each other. i'm actually not [inaudible] on from baker beach and for all the other places that people are not talking about because i need to walk. i need to walk far every day in order to maintain my health. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hello supervise my name is [inaudible] up in a san francisco residents since 1900 homeowner and a dog owner. let's go on his short trip. the journey in our minds imagine for a moment it's a beautiful day in sunny out until we can. maybe it's one of those [inaudible] who goes to ocean beach? everyone goes to ocean beach. people with dogs go people without dogs that's a great thing. it's beautiful.
2:37 am
now let's take a different journey st. peter different, dave. it's after maybe half hour before sunset. the weather is overcast typical san francisco evening. kind of cool maybe it's a drizzly maybe it's [inaudible] a breeze coming up. who is out on the beach? the people with a beach ball and swimming suits? no. the people out on the beach are the dog walkers. have a great time out there who do that every single day of the year because that's what our dogs need and love. now let's take a 3rd visit the gg and ra says we can have our dogs there anymore. who's going to be on the beach? it's going to be a young kid getting drunk, maybe. the homeless people, yes, maybe. the intravenous drug users, yes maybe. people looking for trouble, yes, maybe. it's going to be vandals, yes maybe. going to be bad elements. that can't be a good thing. today the nps
2:38 am
made a decision to not be here. i wonder if that speaks to the level of cooperation and a level of willingness to actually hear some things or simply saying organa do what we want and you all can go away. thank you. >> thank you. next. >> good afternoon, supervise. my name is andrea patterson. i live in bernal heights in san francisco. i have a dog, and 85 pound [inaudible]. i've been walking in the gg nra lands for like 20 years. i love all of them. especially fort constant. i've got a really bad back. i can't go to the gym. i can't run. walking is all i can do. it's hugely important to me. anyway, i think most of it's been said but i want to thank you, supervisor winner, and
2:39 am
supervisor avalos, and that's go get some. good job. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is robin garcia and i'm a san francisco resident since 1991. almost from the beginning i had a dog so i've been in almost every dog battle that this dog this city has. and we had a lot. i don't want to repeat what all the people said, but [inaudible] the gg nra is just going to pass out what they wanted to. a few years ago we had those hearings it were really not public comments. we really got no way to really quantify what was said in those [inaudible] but my guess because i was there many times, most people maybe 321 or 4 to 1 were for basically keeping the
2:40 am
status quo the way it is. that's what i came [inaudible] we cannot let the federal government come here and tell us how were going to [inaudible] rc. the gg nra is part of the federal government that they too had to take into consideration the interest of the residents of san francisco. this is not your 70. this is not one of those faraway national park. this is in the middle of our city. all i could to see [inaudible] once or twice a year at ocean park. just like moving the san one way or the other and then we come [inaudible] that golden retriever [inaudible] that doesn't make any sense. so we need to bring clarity to this. we need to involve our elected officials [inaudible] and what i really want to [inaudible] i don't know what we would be doing without what you are doing to make sure that interest of the residence
2:41 am
[inaudible] the way we like to live in our city which is different than other cities. so thank you very much and i support the resolution. >> thank you. next speaker. >> from elizabeth [inaudible], dog owner property owner. i moved to san francisco about 9 years ago i just adopted to dogs about 2 years ago. the population of dogs increasing in san francisco, which actually we need more space for them to be able to run a free, we humans have adopted them as part of our family, and therefore, they are also citizens of san francisco. they don't have a voice in this meeting and we the people are their voice. i am hoping that we can keep the off leash area for our dogs and continue the portal of humanitarian and being humanism in san francisco.
2:42 am
when i say. i've traveled all over or gone and california with my dogs and i think san francisco has the best off leash area for dogs. i hope that continues. thank you. >> thank you. before we get to [inaudible] a few more cards to go. john keller, gwen mccullen, margaret [inaudible] barbara: and suzanne [inaudible] though i had >> my name is [inaudible] i'm a voter from district 7 in speaking for myself. i took an numerous classes at city college including the ecology of the gg nra. i also completed an internship in the gg and ras were. one thing that struck me while being in these boxes how many dogs are off leash and how they run all over the natural area including those that are fenced off for protection. it's very difficult to publish rehabilitation of native species and protect those endangered such as [inaudible]
2:43 am
if dogs are digging and chasing which our natural instinct for them. i'm not opposed to dogs in the gg nra butmany ways.impact the scintillators. i'm an animal lover and a dog sitter but these are not urban dog parks. they're part of a national park system. a species that live here have little other habitat left. they deserve our protection. thank you. >> thank you. next he could. >>i'm a longtime symphysis go resin. i have a dog. i was born here. i think the most important thing for the supervisors to consider is that were not in a void here. the more we restrict the gg nra the more it's going to affect the dog parks here in san francisco. so already lots of dog walkers are just populating
2:44 am
mclaren park, but more than that though to fort concent right now. as you restrict more that area at fort constant good i live near mclaren park right now i live in [inaudible] now. it's going to impact how many dogs you have in mclaren park and the other parts of the city. i really want the supervisors to think about working out something with the gg nra about that. because somebody has to give. they're either has to be more dog parks in the city parks were more in the gg nra. they're tipping the balance by what they're doing. so i support supervisor wieners resolution. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comment on items one and or 2? relating to the gg nra dog policy? seen on, public comment as close. i want to thank all numbers of the public for coming out today. as a great turnout and we really appreciate the feedback.
2:45 am
supervisor agree through staff would like to make a comment on items 1 and 2 and supervisor is a cosponsor of resolution. >> thank you supervisor went. legislative aide to supervisor lenin bree. from justify. i'll be very brief because i think the members of the public actually articulated the case very well today. supervisor breed as you mentioned is a cosponsor of the [inaudible] which would've loved to been here unfortunate she's just returning from travel overseas. briefly, she shares a lot of the same concerns but the gg nra's plan. particulate the impact it could have a dog owners who like you to use gg and raise for recreation and also for spawning impact of restricting those areas would have on our part. district 5 includes a large portion of golden gate park and the panhandle and alamo square and we don't want to see them
2:46 am
suffer in a undue burden from dogs were not restricted from all the other great areas in the city. so she supports the efforts taken again she wishes she'd be here and thank you again supervisor winner was a cane and supervisor apples for meeting on this important issue. >> thank you very much. at this point the items are back in the hands of the committee. so, again i want to thank everyone for coming out today. i think what's clear, just not just from today, but i think anyone who's been spends any amount of time in the community in san francisco, this is a city where there are so many people and families with dogs. it is, dogs are absolutely significant and important part of the san francisco community, and it's important that we support our residents who have dogs and we need a place to walk them. but
2:47 am
this resolution, and the opposition to the gg nra proposal, isn't just about accommodating people with dogs. it's also about making sure that we as a city are taking care of our own parks. and that we are looking out for the entire city. the fact is that whether one loves dogs or doesn't love dogs, and there is a diversity of views in the city, even if someone isn't particularly enamored of dogs, it's still important for our city park not to be overcrowded. we have many great parks in our city. we have many federal parts that are recreation areas. as part of the gg nra. it's important that the people with dogs or without dogs have full access to all of those parts. the gg nra proposal is so restrictive in terms of dog access and work on push
2:48 am
such a significant reduction of dog access on these federal properties that will create an imbalance. it will move many dogs into our city parks. we will see urban crowding. we will see more wear and tear. we will see more tension among dog owners. as you have overcrowding of dogs and between dog owners and non-dog owners. this plan is not adequately take into account the needs of san francisco residents and the needs of our park system. i respectfully request that we put this resolution, opposing the plan out of committee with positive recommendations. supervisor avalos >> thank you supervisor winner and i'm now cosponsor of this resolution. i had cosponsored the resolution 2 years ago as well. i spoke at fort mason a couple years ago and remember the crowd yelling take it back,
2:49 am
take it back. we talked about when we can actually take back the golden gate recreation area lands from the gg nra compared him not sure if we could actually do that financially, but i think the message that people are dissatisfied with the plan comes in loud and clear. i would also put myself as an environmentalist. someone who has worked hard to support the urban and natural environments. the natural environment that is in the urban environment, and i think there's a way to balance our needs around the environment with dogs. especially knowing that if we were to shut out parts of golden gate national recreation area that would have a major impact on our parks here in san francisco. i would affect everyone who wants to use them. i think having the most use of the public then
2:50 am
have access to for dogs ever dogs to be off leash is something that san franciscans have been accustomed to that doesn't make a lot of sense to change that right away. this is a symbolic resolution. it's taken a policy. it doesn't bind the gg nra to do anything. but i'm actually very comfortable with making statements, especially when they're backed by hearings that we have here at the board of supervisors, hearings that last a couple hours at least. so thank you all for coming here. thank you for making san francisco a home . i'm very concerned about how san francisco is becoming more and more difficult for everyday people to live in. i think having access to parks of the city with dogs is an important way we can make this place a little livable city and i support this resolution for that and many other reasons. thank you. >> think. supervisor avalos at then have a motion to for the resolution, item number 2, to the board with positive recommendation and to file the
2:51 am
hearing item number 1? should have okay. motion to file the hearing and motion to move the resolution forward with positive recognition >> okay. we'll take that without objection. thank you. >> [applause] >> because now there are 2 of us here. if one of us leaves the room we lose a quorum so were going to take a
2:52 am
2:53 am
2:54 am
2:55 am
2:56 am
2:57 am
2:58 am
>> -- say we're going to be building wonderful, affordable housing and neighborhood serving housing with fixed use lots /tp-f businesses on the ground floor, we have a portion of that this legislation does that who have to make sure we're building a corridor that's not going to have a lot of negative influences that have come with check cashing places and liquor stores as well. folks who are here and there will be many of them who represent the interests of who need access to medical cannabis who will say you can link
2:59 am
medical cannabis to all these other impacts, and i would tend to agree with you on that. we can't seem to get them off the corridor or off places where their smoke is not going to get into the youth centers there and the other stores there, we know that's the mix at times medical marijuana or marijuana smuggling comes in and it creates this real sense of unease in the neighborhood and so i've actually dealt with politics on this in a real strong way the last cupping years. last year and over this past year three medical cannabis dispensaries are come into the
3:00 am
neighborhood. i did not take a strong position against them. i actually said there should be access to medical cannabis in my district. i didn't think we should have three all approved at once or two in one block, but i thought that we need to explore ways to have access all over san francisco and i believe there should be access all over san francisco, i was not going to say there shouldn't be access at all in district 11. i accept it. now there are -- one mcd that's there wants to spin off and have an mcd across from an existing mcd and another mcd wants to be on the same block where the other two are. i don't think many makes a lot of sense. i don't think it's reasonable to expect while access is limited in many parts of san francisco, that we create more places for


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on