OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
Jan. 23, 2001 GGNRA ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
This is the official transcript of the entire Jan. 23, 2001 Advisory
Commission meeting.
Corrections, comments, questions? Write Editor,
GGNRA WatchDog
BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Meeting of the
ADVISORY COMMISSION
for the
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
and
POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE
Golden Gate Club
135 Fisher Loop
The Presidio of San Francisco
San Francisco, California
Tuesday, January 23, 2001
REPORTER: JAMES W. HIGGINS, CVR
The meeting was convened, pursuant to Notice, at 7:30 p.m., Chairman Richard Bartke presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
RICHARD BARTKE, Chair
AMY MEYER, Vice Chair
MICHAEL ALEXANDER
SUSAN GIACOMINI ALLAN
GORDON BENNETT
ANNE-MARIE BOOTH
BETSEY CUTLER
DOUG NADEAU
TRENT ORR
LENNIE ROBERTS
DENNIS RODONI
FRED RODRIGUEZ
DOUG SIDEN
JACK SPRING
EDGAR WAYBURN, M.D.
ALSO PRESENT:
For the Golden Gate National Recreation Area:
BRIAN O'NEILL, General Superintendent
RICH WEIDEMAN, Chief, Office of Public Affairs
STAFF LIAISON:
MICHAEL FEINSTEIN
CONTENTS PAGE
Call to Order
Approval of Minutes of 11/28/00 Meeting
Rescind 1979 Commission Pet Policy as Illegal and
Unenforceable (per 36 Code of Federal Regulations 2.15
requiring all pets to be on restrain in National Parks)
Chairman Bartke
Public Comment:
Statement of:
Gavin Newsom, Supervisor
Board of Supervisors,
City and County of San Francisco
William Saunders
Tony Hall, Supervisor
Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Barbara Nanney, representing
Senator Jackie Speier
California State Senate
Susan Walsh, representing
Assemblyman Kevin Shelley
California State Assembly
Jake McGoldrick, Supervisor
Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Tom Ammiano, President
Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Aaron Peskin, Supervisor
Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Ed Sayers, President [ correction: should
be "Sayres" - Editor, GGNRA WatchDog ]
San Francisco SPCA
Arthur Feinstein, Executive Director
Golden Gate Audubon Society
Leland Yee, Supervisor
Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Joan Booth
Crissy Field Dog Group
Martha Walters
Crissy Field Dog Group
Mark Leno, Supervisor
Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Jennifer Schwinn
Chris Griffin, Esq.
Representing
Crissy Field Dog Owners Group
Anne Farrow, Co-Chair
San Francisco Dog Owners Group
Karin Hu, Ph. D.
Wendy McClure, Co-Chair
San Francisco Dog Owners Group
Linda McKay, Chair
Fort Funston Dog Walkers
Gerardo Sandoval, Supervisor
Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Laura Cavaluzzo
Kathy Roth, M. D.
Lydia Boesch, Esq.
representing Fort Funston Dog Walkers
Margory Cohen
Greg Hurline [ correction: should be "Herlein" - Editor, GGNRA WatchDog ]
Richard Schulke, Chairman
Animal Control and Welfare Commission
City and County of San Francisco
Misha Weidman, Esq.
Linda Horning
Mildred Bollin
Christy Cameron, Esq.
Francine Podenski
Gary S. Fergus, Esq.
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
Louis Gwerder, III
Brian Irian, Esq.
Sheila Mahoney
Cindy Del Corto
Pamela Baldwin
Chairman Bartke's Motion
Lynne Newhouse Segal, J. D.,
Commissioner
Recreation and Park Commission
City and County of San Francisco
Charles Bonny
Jamie Hoff
Lisa Vittori
Andre Armand
Carol Arnold
Norman Buten
Jack Keating, Esq.
Christine L. Garcia, Esq.
Commission Discussion
Revised Motion
MOTION: CARRIED
Commissioner Wayburn's Motion
Commissioner Alexander's Motion to Postpone
Commissioner Bennett's Motion to Postpone
MOTION: CARRIED
Committee Reports
Presidio Committee Report
Election of Officers
Election of Chairman
MOTION: CARRIED
Election of Vice Chair
MOTION: CARRIED:
Adjournment
P R O C E E D I N G S
7:30 P.M.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I call to order the Advisory
Commission for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
and the Point Reyes National Seashore.
We're really glad that all of you can come out
tonight, even if it's raining. Many of our meetings are
very popular, but this may be one of the most popular.
The agenda is on the desk out there. If you haven't got
one, you might want to pick one up because we have several
things on the agenda.
I'm told that there are still some people
outside who can't get in. Unfortunately, this is the
biggest building that we have, so I don't know what we
could do about it. But we want to continue with the
public process because this is the meeting that was
announced, and everybody is here, so we're going to go
ahead.
The first item on the agenda is the approval of
minutes, and that was our meeting of November 28. Are
there any corrections or comments from members of the
Commission regarding the minutes?
COMMISSIONER WAYBURN: Mr. Chairman, just a
couple of them. The word "indicator" has been used
indiscriminately, I feel, and I can't move to do anything
about it at the present time. But I would urge that,
whoever puts these minutes together, not indicate so many
indications.
With regard to these particular minutes, on
page 4 there is a note in line 10 that I asked if a motion
had been made. I also asked that any such motion be
postponed to a later meeting because it hadn't been
scheduled, and you said that you would table any motion
that was made. I would like to have that clarified, what
I was asking about.
On page 12, line 7, the words
"...Superintendent indicated that the congressional
delegation has a full understanding of the issue," then
the word, "since," should be "...and they have the option
of influencing what deliberations occur on the fiscal year
2001 budget."
I ask that those be changed.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. That correction can be
made. Any other corrections or comments on the minutes?
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I have.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Michael.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: Mr. Chairman, on page
9, the item in which I am quoted as saying I also
discussed the soundwall. I would like to clarify that
because I realize that I used the term that mislead
people. This is in regards to the Mountain Lake Project.
What I had intended to say, what was in my mind, was that
I was requesting a look --
[Loud remarks from audience.]
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I was requesting a
look at a, at a berm, a planted berm, that would to absorb
sound and keep it from people who were using Mountain
Lake. I realized, afterwards, that what came across was
the idea of a concrete wall that would wall off 19th
Avenue. That is not what I intended. I would like that
explained.
Further down on page 9, I think we should alter
the language on the south towers of the Bridge. There was
some confusion in referring to the south tower. I think a
lot of people thought that what was going to rebuilt was
the tower, the south tower, that everybody thinks of. In
fact, what they were talking about, when they referred to
the south towers, were the piers of the approach bridges.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I think that should be
clarified.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Change "towers" to
"approach"?
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: The piers of the
approach bridges.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: Finally, on page 12,
in regards to the new business plan for national parks, it
wasn't that I only was trying to clarify that Point Reyes
was part of the pilot program, but asked, but I -- my goal
was to ask that GGNRA be part of that new plan.
I have a couple of other inconsequential
corrections that I'll submit to staff.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Anything further on the
minutes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: They will be accepted with
those corrections.
I might point out, for those of you who haven't
been to one of our Commission Meetings before, that the
Commission Members are nominated by various groups in the
Bay Area, and appointed to conduct public hearings and to
give advice to the Secretary of the Interior regarding the
national parks in the West Bay Area. We're not park
employees. We do not get paid for this job. We are
citizens, as you are, with an interest in the parks.
Having said that, there's one other change I'd
like to make in the agenda, and that is down under item 4,
Marin Committee Tamalpais Transportation Report. There
are people here from CalTrans, from Marin County, and
other places, wanting to know if we have any comments on
their process. We have received a report from the Marin
Committee. Does any Commission Member have anything
further to say other than what the Marin Committee has
said?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: All right. Then it's the
sense of the Commission that the comments in the Marin
Committee Report can go forward, and the gentlemen who are
here waiting for that item can go home.
The next item on the agenda is the 1979
Commission Pet Policy. I'm going to try to put this into
something of context, or how it looks to me. I have a
friend who is a fighter pilot, who refers to OBE, which
means "overtaken by events." And I think that's probably
where we are.
The Pet Policy was adopted actually by the
Commission in 1978, but it's called the 1979 Policy
because, for some, that's when it was printed. It was our
effort to try to accommodate off-leash dogs in our park.
And we've continued that effort now for 22 years, but we
got caught, because that's not the law. Anyway, that's
why we're here today.
In late 1999, Golden Gate proposed a 12-acre
closure at Fort Funston to protect several plant and
animal species, and birds, and the dog owners protested.
There were negotiations, the Park Service offered a
compromise. That didn't work. And, so, two groups, the
Fort Funston Dog Walkers and the SF Dog filed suit. The
matter is not gone to trial, but there was a preliminary
order from the federal judge that the Park Service should
hold public hearings. The Park Service did hold those
public hearings.
[Loud voices from the exterior of the building.]
The last I have heard, which was as of
yesterday, the Park Service has made a motion to dismiss
the case because it's now moot. That motion is scheduled
to be heard on February 22, but there is a case management
conference scheduled for February 1, which could bring it
to a head even earlier.
During the past 12 months, this Commission has
heard from the dog walkers on four separate occasions. In
each case, we've heard from dog owners, how important
their dogs are to them. We've heard that the city has not
provided space for off-leash dogs, that the state and
county parks have also not provided space for off-leash
dogs. We've heard, at great length, and we're convinced.
The senior staff, in the mean time, from our
park, has met with the other land-owning agencies, such as
the city, San Mateo County, State Parks, to see if there
could be some place where this use could be accommodated.
First of all, you have to understand that our
Commission is only advisory. Whatever we do, we only give
advice. We don't run the parks; we don't manage the
parks. Nothing we do could change or abrogate federal
law.
I think there's been some misunderstanding
about. People have thought that maybe this Commission
makes the rules; and, unfortunately, we do not.
[Continued loud voices from the exterior of the
building.]
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: Mr. Chairman, I am
unable to hear what you were saying, and I would like to
hear what you are saying.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. I'll try to speak a
little louder.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I'm not asking you to
speak louder. I'm asking for a certain level of respect
for this Commission's work so that the Commissioners, at
least, can hear what you are saying because we are going
to be asked to act on what you are saying.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. I'll go ahead with the
context that I'm trying to put the issue into.
At the end of our November meeting -- and many
of you may have been there -- a suggestion was made that
we delete the so-called 1979 Policy because we'd been
informed by the U. S. Attorney that it was illegal and
unenforceable. A couple of members of the audience asked
that it he rescheduled because they wanted to speak on
that point. And, so, tonight is the night when we have
scheduled it for people to speak on that point.
In the meantime, we've received lots of
letters. Thank you, those of you who wrote. Written
communications are always much easier for us to handle
because we can do it at our own pace. You can take as
long as you want to write. You can put all kinds of views
in there. We can keep them, we can copy them, we can mark
them, and we can share them. I went through the last 46
of them this weekend, and there are five points that
continually came up that I think ought to be clarified.
First of all, there seems to be a belief that,
because this was called a "recreation area" by Congress,
instead of national park, there is a different law
applying to it; and there is not. Congress has said that
all parks must to be administered by the same national
standards. And you must remember that Golden Gate was
brought into the Park Service not because it was in an
urban area, necessarily; but because of it's very rich
biodiversity and the number of listed species.
[Loud chanting from the audience outside the
building.]
In fact, in that regard, Golden Gate even
exceeds Yosemite. There also was a belief that this is an
urban park. It is not. An urban park is a city park or a
county park, and that's -- this is a national park that
happens to be in places abutting an urban area. There is
a great deal of difference.
The second point that was made several times
was that off-leash dogs are allowed in some other national
parks. And, as I understand it, the allowance is for
those weeks of the hunting season when the dogs are
actually being used for hunting and for which they have
purchased a permit in advance. So I don't think that that
is what you really want. Besides, Golden Gate is one of
the 335 parks that Congress has not allowed hunting in.
So it just doesn't apply.
The third is having to do with the transfer
from the city and the MOU has been mentioned.
[Loud booing from the audience.]
I'll tell you what we have from the time when
the transfer was made from the city to the National Park
Service, for those of you that may have missed it at our
last meeting.
From October 1973, we have the Voter Pamphlet.
We have the ballot arguments. We have Proposition F. We
have the endorsement of Willie Brown. From November 6,
1973, we have the vote results, which were 75 percent in
favor. We have the spending on the propositions, in which
Proposition F was the least supported, under $700 in
support; and, yet, it received 75 percent of the vote. We
have an April 29, 1975 document entitled, "Agreement." We
have a May 22, 1975 and a September 17, 1975 Deeds, two
deeds. We have a June 21, 1977 San Francisco comments on
the Golden Gate General Management Plan, and we have the
San Francisco Master Plan. In none of those documents are
pets mentioned, or dog walking mentioned.
The letters that we have seen referred to an
MOU, and what is it and where is it? We haven't seen it,
either. And I think what people are thinking is that the
MOU is actually the document which we have, which is
entitled "Agreement." We do have a copy of the Agreement
in front of us.
The fourth point is that Congress intended dog
walking in Golden Gate. Now, I'm not one of the
commissioners that went back and reviewed the records of
what Congress said on that point. But I'm told by those
who did that there's nothing in the record on that point.
The fifth is: The Code of Federal Regulations
can be changed for individual parks. I checked with the
U. S. Attorney yesterday and I was told that, yes, they
can, and that's found in 36 CFR 1.2 (e); but it cannot be
changed by the park for itself. The park, by itself, must
make a a proposal. It goes up the chain of command, which
takes quite awhile because it requires an Environmental
Impact Statement. This park did that a couple of years
ago on your behalf and it was denied.
So the question before us tonight -- we don't
need to hear from you again about how important dogs to
you or to us, because we know that. We don't need to hear
again about how off-leash dogs ought to be allowed in that
park because we've heard that. What we want you to do is
to join with us in formulating a public policy about what
we can do about it. What we want to hear from you is what
we can do, given the strictures within which we are
operating.
I'm going to begin the public hearing. I've
already received enough people signed up to last for a
number of hours. If everybody reduces their comments to
three minutes, it will still take a number of hours to get
through the ones that have signed up just with the ones
which I have in front of me, and there are still people
signing up outside. I will call more than one name at a
time so that those who are outside, or somehow not close
to the podium, can begin to work their way up. When you
get to the podium, speak from the podium because we are
recording this. Give us your name and, if you represent a
group, please tell us what group you're representing; and,
then, reduce your comments to three minutes.
Now the purpose of public hearings always is to
steer public policy. And, so, if you want to help us to
steer public policy, please focus on what this hearing is
about, which is: What can we do together to solve this
problem? We don't need a public hearing about the 1979
Dog Policy. That thing, we're told, has been a dead
doornail for 20 years. Well, we tried. But the question
now in front of us is: What can we do about it? What is
there that we can do? And, at the end of the discussion
from the public, the Commission will try to formulate
something, a plan of action, on what we can do to both
protect the park resources and to give you what you need.
Some people have asked to speak in advance of
others, and I'm going to call on those now. Supervisor
Gavin Newsom is here.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
GAVIN NEWSOM, SUPERVISOR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERVISOR NEWSOM: Mr. Chair, Commissioners,
thank you very much for this opportunity to speak
tonight. It goes without saying that the depth and
breadth of concern is extraordinary. There are literally
hundreds and hundreds of people streaming in from the
parking lot as we speak. This has to have exceeded, I
imagine, Mr. Chair, all of our expectations in terms of
concern. It goes without saying I believe very strongly
that any decision you'll make tonight, short of making a
decision not to make a decision to reverse the 1979
policy, would be an extraordinary mistake.
[Applause.]
In an unprecedented move, an unprecedented move,
the City and County of San Francisco did not pass one, did
not pass two, did not pass three, but four emergency
measures, yesterday at the Board of Supervisors, telling
you to delay tonight's vote.
[Applause.]
I don't think that's ever happened in the
history of the City and County of San Francisco's Board of
Supervisors. That's a pretty extraordinary statement.
I have three resolutions in front of me. I
won't read them. But suffice it to say, one goes so far
as to suggest -- it's not a threat, but it is unanimous
consent at the Board -- that, if a decision is made to
remove the privilege, the right, of off-leash dog runs at
GGNRA, the City and County of San Francisco will take
action, looking back towards the 1972, '73, '75, et
cetera, to look at reversionary policy, the prospect of
taking back some subtle form of jurisdiction so that we
can maintain the right in the City and County.
[Applause.]
Not only was that passed unanimously, those are
the words of the resolution, not mine. But I'm told that
the Mayor was desirous of signing these resolutions before
the Friday deadline because he, indeed, is supportive of
the spirit behind those resolutions, the words behind
those resolutions. So you have unanimous consent. That's
pretty extraordinary.
[Applause.]
And I hope that, I hope that speaks loudly.
Look! I have only a few moments, and I appreciate
literally a thousand-plus people here that wish to speak
more passionately than I. But you've really got to take a
hard look at this. Don't make a mistake. Don't wedge
your relationship with the city by doing something that I
believe, very strongly, is unnecessary. That the City and
County of San Francisco feels is unnecessary.
Conservation? Yes. You've done an extraordinary job in a
lot of respects, but at what cost conservation? We've got
to balance the needs of the community. We've got to
balance the needs of dog walkers.
[Applause.]
Without getting into too much detail, I do want
to make you aware, and I'm sure many of you are aware, in
a very small, dense, urban environment as San Francisco,
with 220 parks and recreational facilities, only 17, now
18, parks in our community allow off-leash dog runs. The
effect your decision would have tonight on the
neighborhoods of San Francisco is short of extraordinary.
It will have a prolific, a profound effect on the quality
of lives for thousands of San Franciscans. Not just the
150-plus thousand people with dogs in San Francisco, but
the thousands and thousands of residents that use our
neighborhood parks. Do not make a shortsighted decision.
Work with the City and County of San Francisco.
Collaboratively, we can do much more than by dividing the
community and by dividing the so many voices that are left
out of tonight's proceeding. I highly urge you to delay action. On behalf of
the City and County of San Francisco, we'll repeat the
mantra: This is unnecessary, and do not wake this
sleeping dog.
Thank you all very, very much.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Will the Supervisor accept a
question, please?
MR. SAUNDERS: I have a few comments here.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Excuse me, sir, you're out of
order. The Supervisor still has the floor.
MR. SAUNDERS: I have a suggestion here.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: You're out of order, sir.
Mr. Supervisor, did the Board yesterday
understand that it doesn't mean hardly anything whether we
vote for or against the motion? Because, first of all,
we're advisory; and, second of all, the U. S. Attorney has
told us that our policy had been dead for more than 20
years. Did the Board understand that?
SUPERVISOR NEWSOM: The Board understands that,
in our capacity of legislatures --
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
SUPERVISOR NEWSOM: -- in the City and County of
San Francisco, but your voice matters. By definition, it
matters.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Let me ask another question.
[Applause.]
SUPERVISOR NEWSOM: Tonight's decision sends --
you can send the right message or the wrong message. So I
want to hear --
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Let me ask about the message
that you send.
SUPERVISOR NEWSOM: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Our staff has been meeting
with your staff, and the other land-owning agencies. What
I would like to know is: What did the Board decide to do
to increase the number of areas that people can walk
off-leash dogs in this city, as most cities do?
SUPERVISOR NEWSOM: Yeah. We've had a task
force meeting for the last 24 months, and I honestly could
say, to the extent that we have failed, we have failed to
address this issue proactively. But to the extent that
you can exacerbate that failing tonight, it would have a
profound effect on the quality of lives of San Francisco
residents. You cannot, Mr. Chair -- and I'm sure you can
appreciate this -- redress the problems of the past. But
you have an obligation, I think, and an opportunity, to
fix the course for the future by making this advisory
measure tonight, loud and clear, that you will not tinker
with those failures of the past and set this appropriate
course. I would highly urge you to do so.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Well, sir, we will commit
ourselves to continuing to meet with you to resolve those
questions if you will commit your staff to meet us
halfway.
SUPERVISOR NEWSOM: I'd rather meet you -- I
will meet on this issue. I will absolutely commit not
just interest, I will commit myself, my staff, and I'm
sure I can speak for every member of the Board, a very
newly elected body, that we all will commit to working
together collaboratively with you if you do the right
thing tonight. And that's the one condition. Please do
the right thing and we will work with you. That's an
assurance.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: We're now making some
progress.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Supervisor Tony Hall is here.
He is speaking next.
Sir, you're out of order. Would you please sit
down and take your turn.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SAUNDERS
MR. SAUNDERS: I have a suggestion. I have a
suggestion, for what it's worth. I believe that one thing
that concerns the Board is that someone will bring in a
dog, who is off the leash, and will bite somebody, and
there will be a suit against the Board, or rather against
the people who run the parks. And I have a suggestion to
avoid that, and that is to ask of everyone, who wishes to
walk a dog off the leash, to put in a card that states
that under no condition will they hold the Fort Funston,
or any other government groups, responsible for the
problems with a vicious dog. And under those conditions,
I believe that it would be much easier for people to walk
their dogs if they would put in such a letter.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: May we have your name, sir?
[Applause.]
Supervisor Hall.
STATEMENT OF
TONY HALL, SUPERVISOR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERVISOR HALL: Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm
Supervisor Tony Hall.
[Applause.]
Thank you.
I represent the 7th District in San Francisco,
which encompasses Fort Funston. Moreover, District 7 is
home to a number of dog owners who are outraged at the
possibility that this Commission might rescind the 1979
Pet Policy.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: You understand --
SUPERVISOR HALL: I urge this Commission to
refrain from eliminating the pet policy. At the very
least, you should delay your decision and consider
seriously the tremendous effect that such an action would
have on the surrounding neighborhood parks in San
Francisco. Dog owners currently have the ability to use
the GGNRA lands as an area to exercise their dogs and let
their dogs run free. If the Commission eliminates this
ability, these dog owners will be forced to utilize
neighborhood parks which, in turn, could create a problem
between children, who use the neighborhood parks, and dog
owners. The impact on the local parks will be
overwhelming.
I would also like to remind the Commission that
the rescission of the pet policy would be a violation of
the National Park's obligations to the City and County of
San Francisco. As such, if the Commission does rescind
the pet policy, the City would have the right to exercise
its reversionary interest in the deed transferring Fort
Funston, Rodeo Beach, Crissy Field, and all the other
properties included in the 1975 transfer to the National
Park Service.
Please be cautious in your decision tonight, I
urge you, on your rescission of the pet policy.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Is the representative from
Senator Jackie Speier's office here? Yes. Would you come
up, please. She will be followed by a representative of
Assemblyman Kevin Shelley.
STATEMENT OF
JACKIE SPEIER, STATE SENATOR
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
PRESENTED BY BARBARA NANNEY,
ASSISTANT DISTRICT COORDINATOR
MS. NANNEY: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank
you very much for allowing me to speak tonight.
My name is Barbara Nanney. I am the Assistant
District Coordinator for State Senator Jackie Speier.
Senator Speier represents Western San Francisco
and also Northern San Mateo County. Fort Funston and
Ocean Beach are included in the Senator's district. She
very much wanted to be here tonight. I actually thought
she was going to be here, but there's an energy crisis and
she was unfortunately unable to come. She asked me to
read a letter this evening on her behalf.
"Dear Advisory Commission members:
"On behalf of concerned constituents, many of
whom are here in this room tonight, I
respectfully urge you to reject the resolution
before rescinding the 1979 Pet Policy allowing
off-leash dogs on GGNRA properties.
"As you will no doubt hear tonight this evening,
the potential closure of GGNRA areas to
off-leash dogs is a highly charged and
emotional issue. Thousands of dog owners have
come to depend on places like Fort Funston to
exercise their dogs on a regular basis. They
take their responsibility for their canine
companions seriously and cherish the experience
of playing with their dogs off-leash at
recreational areas such as Fort Funston.
"Members of dog groups such as SF Dog and Fort
Funston Dog Walkers take their responsibility
to care for GGNRA properties seriously as well.
Fort Funston Dog Walkers host a monthly cleanup
of Fort Funston and provide bags for dog owners
to pick up after their pets. I believe dog
owners have amply demonstrated their commitment
to maintain the cleanliness of Fort Funston and
other GGNRA area.
"As you know, the National Park Service
currently allows off-leash dogs in many
national parks across the country when those
animals are used for hunting purposes. In
addition, special regulations allow for
hang-gliding and off-trail bicycle riding. The
people before you this evening are asking for a
similar special regulation for their animals.
[Applause.]
"Of the 1,500 comments received by the GGNRA
late last year regarding the permanent closure
of 12 acres of Fort Funston, approximately
1,100 were opposed to the closure. It is clear
that the majority of San Franciscans favor
retention of the pet policy allowing dogs to
run off-leash. I strongly urge you to listen
compassionately to their pleas and reject the
proposal before you this evening.
"Sincerely,
"Jackie Speier."
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Would you accept a question,
please.
[Applause.]
As I announced at the top, we're here to solve
the problem. And what we get from the letters from the
many people who are here, and who are not here, is that
one of the reasons for the pressure on the national parks
is that the state park does not allow off-leash dogs.
Would you please convey the question and suggestion to the
Senator that we would like her cooperation. If she is
asking for us for something, she has to meet us halfway.
MS. NANNEY: I can speak on Senator Speier's
behalf and say that she is committed to finding a solution
to this. I would just have to voice the comments of
Supervisor Newsom that she hopes that you will do the
right thing tonight by not rescinding your pet policy, and
she is more than willing to come to the table to help find
a solution to more off-leash dog areas for San Francisco.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Did she understand that the
pet policy has been illegal for more than 20 years?
[Loud booing from the audience.]
MS. NANNEY: Senator Speier has been briefed on
this issue by the National Park Service, and has been told
that. However, we also understand that there are special
regulations that can be created for individual parks, and
that is what the Senator is looking for.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Is the representative from
Assemblyman Kevin Shelley's office here?
STATEMENT OF
KEVIN SHELLEY, ASSEMBLYMAN, MAJORITY LEADER
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY
PRESENTED BY SUSAN WALSH
MS. WALSH: Good evening, Commissioners,
Superintendent. My name is Susan Walsh. I'm here to
represent Mr. Kevin Shelley, the Majority Leader of the
California State Assembly. He represents the western half
of San Francisco, Assembly District 12.
I am here to urge you to take his written
statement submitted to you this evening very seriously.
And I'm going to read a short statement from him.
"I regret not being able to join you in person
tonight because of legislative work in
Sacramento. But I am pleased to express my
strong support for retaining the existing pet
policy for the GGNRA. I pledge that I, and my
offices, will do everything possible to
preserve off-leash dog walking for the health
and happiness of thousands of dog owners and
their pets throughout the Bay Area."
[Applause.]
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Now we're getting somewhere.
I have two more Supervisors who wish to speak. I have
Jake McGoldrick, and then Tom Ammiano.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
JAKE MC GOLDRICK, SUPERVISOR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERVISOR MC GOLDRICK: Honorable
Commissioners, my name is Jake McGoldrick. I'm a member
of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
I don't want to be repetitive here tonight.
Being myself in a position to hear a lot of comments on
various issues, I know that redundancy is something that
we'd all like to avoid. However, there is no redundancy
in the ability of people to their dogs and have them go
someplace to be able to run. Notwithstanding the fact
that you have something that you feel is a legal
obligation, I think that you have a social obligation
standing here before you, with all these people, and I
think it's very important that you take that first and
foremost into consideration.
As you know, and as my esteemed colleagues on
the Board of Supervisors have already stated here a few
minutes ago, we are considering, amongst other measures,
the possibility of excercising our right to be able to
take this land back, and I don't think we want to get
involved in that. So I hope you'll make a decision here
that will be very reasonable on behalf of the people here,
as you can see, who have a need that is far more important
than a provision you yourselves have to admit may no
longer be operative -- is obviously no longer operative
and should not be put into operation in this city.
[Applause.]
So please do whatever you have to do to change
your rules and regulations, and please abide by what is an
overwhelming sentiment in this city -- I'm sure you will
all agree -- that there is very strong evidence here.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Do you commit yourself to
helping us find some place to have off-leash dogs?
VOICE: Repeat the question.
SUPERVISOR MC GOLDRICK: Excuse me, could you
repeat the question, please?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Yes. You spoke about the
social obligation, as your other board members have done.
Do you accept that as an obligation of your own?
SUPERVISOR MC GOLDRICK: An obligation to try to
find someplace for people to be able to run their dogs?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Yes.
SUPERVISOR MC GOLDRICK: Absolutely. And I
think the first place for them to be allowed to run their
dogs is on the lands where they've been running the dogs
for nearly four decades. And I think you ought to deal
with that.
[Loud cheering and applause from the audience.]
I think what's very important is that there be
some opportunity for us to develop a cooperative
relationship, rather than a relationship here, which
obviously is not in the best interest of the people who
live around here, irregardless of what level of government
we're dealing with. We would be very happy, we would be
very happy to enter into a dialogue with you about how we
can accomplish what is a need for the people of the city
of San Francisco. We hope that you will, in good faith --
obviously, we will -- enter into that dialogue with you.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: All right. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MC GOLDRICK: Let's talk. Let's
talk.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Tom Ammiano is next.
STATEMENT OF
TOM AMMIANO, PRESIDENT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERVISOR AMMIANO: Esteemed members, I've been
on the Board of Supervisors for six years. In dog years,
that's 25.
[Laughter.]
I know that this is a particularly difficult
time for you, and I do appreciate your patience and
forbearance, but I think it's really time to listen to the
people. In New Jersey, we say dawg; and, in San
Francisco, we say off-leash.
[Applause.]
We, on the Board of Supervisors, are under some
state and local mandates called Sunshine and the Brown
Act, which means that many things are discussed openly and
in public. And I think that had that applied to this
esteemed board perhaps we wouldn't be at this moment where
there's a line drawn in the sand.
[Applause.]
I would advocate, I would advocate more public
discussion of issues, such as this, because now it's
coming across as very autocratic and draconian. As
Supervisor McGoldrick stated so well, it seems like the
dialogue has stopped and there's silence on one side, and
there's a lot of anger on the other side. And, if there
is anything the Board of Supervisors can do -- I know that
my colleagues are here, Supervisor Hall, Supervisor Yee,
Supervisor Newsom -- we are open to that. But it seems to
me that people have spoken.
PG&E talks about power and rolling blackouts.
There's another kind of power here and it's people power,
and it must be listened to. I implore you to listen to
it, and I assure you that I will help facilitate any
dialogue that is necessary so that there can be balance,
because balance is what it's all about.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I have received a request that
Supervisor Aaron Peskin be allowed to speak.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF AARON PESKIN, SUPERVISOR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERVISOR PESKIN: Superintendent,
Commissioners, my name is Aaron Peskin.
I want to start by acknowledging and thanking
the Mother and Father of the GGNRA, Ms. Meyer and Mr.
Wayburn, for giving us this park, that we can have this
debate about tonight.
[Applause.]
And Superintendent O'Neill, I've known you for
many years in my old capacity at the Trust for Public
Land, where, indeed, I helped you acquire lands that are
now part of the GGNRA.
In my 15 years in public land use, not in my 14
days in public policy, I've been involved in acquiring
lands throughout the Western United States. And I have
seen instance after instance where, under the enabling
legislation that created, say, Great Basin National Park,
where historic livestock grazing was continued to be
allowed under the enabling legislation. That human beings
and legislatures could make legal constructs that would
allow the kind of historic activities there to continue to
flourish. I know we can do the same thing here.
Let me add my voice to the chorus of voices that
you've heard from the Board of Supervisors. If, indeed,
we need to change certain laws in order to make urban
parks than the Yosemites and Yellowstones of the world, we
can do that, and this Board of Supervisors --
[Applause.]
-- is committed to trying to bring the various
user groups together and make the legal constructs that we
need to make in order for us to continue to accommodate
what we all want to see at Crissy Field and Fort Funston.
So thank you very much. I look forward to a
constructive dialogue. I hope that you will not rescind
the pet policy tonight. I think, in the next three or
four months, we can bring the parties together and achieve
what we all want.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
COMMISSIONER MEYER: Mr. Peskin, you seem
familiar with some aspects of the national parks. And I
want to, by way of question and just dialogue with you,
you may or may not be personally familiar with the section
of the law that we have been confronted with, as a board,
telling us that what we passed, as a recommendation, in
1979 did not, was not legal, was not either -- it was
illegl and unenforceable. And that section 36 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, 2.15 Pets, which says that a -- to
simplify it -- a dog has to be on a leash in a national
park. Now you have spoken of one way of getting at this,
which is to look into the future possibility of seeing how
this, you know, how this law, were it comes from and why.
But one of the things we are faced with is that we have,
at this time, lands in this park under the jurisdiction of
the National Park Service to which we are, as a
commission, only advisory. We have lands that are very
large for their habitat, for their ability to support in
this park the largest collection of rare and endangered
species of any park in the country.
[Interrupted by loud booing from the audience.]
So that, we have an unusual set of obligations.
VOICE: How many dogs are on the endangered
species?
COMMISSIONER MEYER: The need to have dialogue,
I appreciate what you have said. But what we've heard so
far is city people, state people. I didn't hear the state
-- the state people sent aids, and no one wants to ask an
aid, well, what would you do in the state park system?
[Interrupted by loud booing from the audience.]
What would you do? Because it's not the
responsibility of an aid to answer. But the fact is that
the state has a system which does not allow dogs off leash
at all on the lands that are far more numerous than ours.
So if you are willing to participate in a dialogue, are
you willing to participate in a dialogue that crosses over
many levels of government, and also many different types
of users? Certainly, from the audience, we have a large
number of off-leash dog, or dog owners who would like
their dogs off leash. And we also have people who, for
other reasons, want to use the parks in other ways, or
have had some conflict about it.
We are under obligation to follow the direction,
as my chairman has said, of our attorney, who has told us
that what we have had as a recommendation that was used
for 22 years by the National Park Service is, in fact,
illegal and unenforcable. That's where we are.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN: Commissioner Meyer, let me
respond to that. And let me respond to that in the
following way, and let's see what everybody thinks.
I am the president of a nonprofit called Great
Basin Land and Water, which spun off from the Trust for
Public Land. For the last 80 years, the Pyramid Lake
Paiute Tribe of Indians, the cities of Reno, Sparks, the
counties of Washau, the state of California and the state
of Nevada have been fighting and litigating over the water
rights in the Truckee River. In 1990, under the
leadership of Senator Bradley and Senator Reed, all of
those various constituents came together and they put
something together that the United States Congress passed,
Public Law 101618 because there was agreement. And I
suspect that we can do the same thing.
Are there going to be some compromises? You bet
there will be. Will we continue the historic use that so
many people enjoy and that is so vital to so many people
in San Francisco, and throughout the Bay Area? Yes. Will
we protect some things that need protection? Sure. We
have to have that conversation and once everybody agrees
to it, we have to make it law. And, so --
[Applause.]
-- Commissioners and ladies and gentlemen, I
have no doubt that your solicitor is giving you correct
legal advice. I have not doubt that the 1979 Pet Policy
was, you know, conflicted with, you know, other laws.
That's not the point. The 1979 Pet Policy really isn't
the issue. The issue is: We made the 1979 Pet Policy
because we wanted to legitimate what had gone on. And,
indeed, since that point, everybody from the Western
Regional Director, on down the line, has continued to nod
and wink, including the Superintendent; and, now, it's
coming home to roost and we've got to do something about
it. But it's a human construct and we can do it. I know
we can do it, and we want to do it. So let's do it.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you, Supervisor. I
think now we're making some progress.
Michael.
[Applause.]
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I have a questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Supervisor Peskin, you're my Supervisor, and I'm
very glad that you are. I think you understand the issues
here because you've been on both sides of this issue. I
--
[An alarm began to sound in the room.]
I'm going to pause while we find out if we have
a problem or not.
SUPERVISOR PESKIN: Mr. Alexander, you might
have to call me with that question tomorrow.
[Pause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I'm told that that is a false
alarm and there's not a need to evacuate, but you can make
your own decision on that.
[Applause.]
SUPERVISOR PESKIN: Commissioner, go ahead. I
can try to answer.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: All right.
[The alarm continued to sound.]
We are told, as you have said correctly, we are
told by legal counsel, who advises us, that the policy,
which was passed in 1979, long before I ever came on this
Commission, is illegal. I feel like I am caught between a
rock and a hard place on this. I am hearing from
Supervisors don't rescind. And I think what you and I
will agree is an illegal recommendation. I see that as
simply a procedural step. I am most interested in having
a dialogue on this issue. I think there are solutions,
but why is the procedural step, which simply, I think,
clears, clears some confusion out of here? The reason
this is all come up is that it was cited in a lawsuit
against the Park Service as a justification for keeping
the policy. We -- and, when it came to our attention,
that it was an illegal justification, we became obligated
to rescind it. Can we -- why can we not rescind this
policy tonight, and then move forward into a discussion
about the appropriate solution?
[Loud negative comments from audience.]
Aside from the symbolic feeling that people have
about it, as a substantive matter, would that help, would
that help us to start talking and working towards a
solution?
[Loud negative comments from audience.]
SUPERVISOR PESKIN: I think the answer is: No.
but let me tell you why the answer is no. The answer is
no because it's a bad way to start a conversation.
[Applause.]
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not posturing. I'm
not being political. What I am saying is this: Look!
I'm sure that this piece of paper that has existed for 22
years may technically not be legal under 36 CFR 2.11.
That's not the issue; that's not the point. The point is:
How do we get Superintendent O'Neill out of a tight legal
fix by changing the law? That's the issue. And before we
change the law, how do we reach some agreement that
accommodates a variety of interests and preserves the
historical use of the beaches and all, and so many areas
that have been used by off-leash dogs.
So what I would say is this: Why don't we start
the conversation and propose how we might make things
different, rather than start the conversation by saying
we're rescinding this policy? So what? It's been there
for 22 years. Why not keep it for another year, or two,
while we figure it out?
[Applause.]
Thank you, Commissioners, and good luck.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
I'd like to move on now with out public hearing.
And, as I do that, I will do as I said before: I will
call two or three names in advance, and then --
VOICE: Supervisor Yee is here.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Yes, I know. I know, I know,
I know, but we have hundreds of people who have signed up
to speak, and we've got to get some order to this or we're
never going to finish. I think we've got enough sign-ups
to keep us here for seven hours. There are still some
people who have signed up for preference on the calendar,
and the next one is Ed Sayers.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
ED SAYERS, PRESIDENT
SAN FRANCISCO SPCA [ correction: should be "Sayres" - Editor, GGNRA WatchDog ]
MR. SAYERS: Thank you very much. I'm Ed
Sayers, President of the San Francisco SPCA, representing
95,573 members.
[Applause.]
I just want to also reiterate our appreciation
for having a hearing, because hearing would imply
listening. And despite what we've read in the media, we
believe that, upon listening and giving due diligence to
what you have heard, you will allow user groups to work
with you, and contribute to the process of an equitable
plan for recreational activities in the park.
Our commonality with you is the love of these
spectacular natural areas and our shared concern for the
responsible stewardship. Through dialogue, we will have
solutions. But if the doors remain closed, we will have
only reactions, emotions, likely litigation, and no real
solutions.
Off-leash recreation for dogs is a positive,
responsible, quality-of-life experience that, as you can
see from this turnout, from the media coverage, is an
experience that is deeply cherished. You, as committee
members, are representative of the life balancing that we
are all engaged in: Work and professional commitments,
family and school commitments, community and volunteer
commitments. So in the course of our 80-hour weeks, we
have this one hour of off-leash recreation with our pets
at Fort Funston or Crissy Field and it's cherished
exhilaration that resonates to the quality of life in the
Bay Area.
[Applause.]
Many of us who bring our dogs to Fort Funston
literally have to spell Funston in front of our dogs
because they become so excited when the hear the magic
words, "Want to go to Funston?" The fact that we tell
them, the fact that we receive their joyous answer, is all
part of the passionate reaction to the prospect that this
exquisite sliver of our busy, overcommitted lives is going
to be prohibted if the pet policy is rescinded.
[Applause.]
The Citizens Advisory Commission worked
diligently on that policy 22 years ago, and it has served
the community well for over two decades. We are fortunate
that we do have some of the policy's authors still serving
on the Commission. Today, the challenge we face is how to
modify that policy to address the user-group issues and
the responsible protection of the resources. Yes, there
are national implications and there are national
complexities to be faced in that challenge. But there is
significant relevance to all parks to learn from our
process.
Off-leash recreation for dogs is not going to be
unique to San Francisco. It is going to be an issue for
hundreds of communities over the next five years. And we
not only get to address the complexities of our issues but
set the example for the rest of the country.
[Applause.]
We are not fully informed on what the GGNRA
faces by its lack of compliance with the National Park
Service Guidelines, or the liabilities that arise from
that. But we can become informed through an inclusive
process, and I guarantee you will be amazed at the
creativity and the commitment of the representatives of
the dog advocates, as well as advocates of other
constituents that share the love of these park lands.
Inclusion with the community has been the
foundation of the success of the San Francisco SPCA.
Today, we are the only city in the world that guarantees
to save the life of every homeless dog or cat in San
Francisco.
[Applause.]
It is a national model that is now being modeled
in dozens of communities around the country. When it
comes to animals, San Francisco will never be in alignment
with national policies. We will always be leaders in
shaping new policies based on empathy for what our animals
contribute to our lives.
[Applause.]
Yes, the city of St. Francis, the city where
people leave their hearts, the only no-kill city in
America, is very special in its regard for animals, and we
should all be extremely proud of our compassionate
reputation.
This is a hearing. Please listen carefully.
Please postpone your decision this evening. And please
accept our invitation to participate in a process with you
to create equity for all constituencies in the use of
GGNRA. We can be a team. We have a shared vision:
responsible enjoyment of these spectacular lands.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you, Mr. Sayers. We
accept that invitation. Sounds like we're all on the same
team.
I would like to caution people in the audience.
I understand your enthusiasm, but it's taking up a lot of
time. I was given a list of literally scores of people,
who are outside in the weather, who would like to speak.
So I'd like to move this along as fast as possible.
The next speaker is Arthur Feinstein. And after
that, Supervisor Yee.
STATEMENT OF
ARTHUR FEINSTEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
GOLDEN GATE AUDUBON SOCIETY
MR. FEINSTEIN: Commissioners, I am Arthur
Feinstein. I'm the executive director of the Golden Gate
Audubon Society.
[Applause.]
Thanks. I appreciate that, not the boos. Thank
you.
Obviously, there is a lot of passion here, and
we've been involved in this issue for many years, as have
all of you. And it's not one that's going to have an easy
answer. But I am here to remind people that are more
things in this world than us and our dogs, and our
children. There are other living things that have been
here before we were here, and they deserve a little bit of
recognition, and a little bit of appreciation, and a
little bit of understanding that they, too, need to share
the same world that we do. And on these beaches --
[Interrupted by remarks made by audience.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: May I ask for your courtesy,
please. We're going to try to be courteous to everyone.
These are our neighbors and let's hear everybody out.
MR. FEINSTEIN: And on these beaches that we're
fighting over, there are critters that depend on them for
their existence. There are endangered species. There was
laughter before, but there really is. There are species
that have existed for thousands of years that are down to
the last hundred or two hundred that may just go extinct.
I think that, if this was not an issue that
you're passionately, individually concerned about, you
would say: Oh, wait a minute! I'm very sympathetic to
endangered species, but is it time to let that go? I
don't think so. I'm not here to say no dogs on the beach.
In the past, we've taken that position. I think looking
at this crowd and what we're hearing now, and the
pressures that are on San Francisco, there needs to be
discussion about how to work this all out. I think the
Supervisors --
[Applause.]
I think the Supervisors have recognized that
they have an obligation to find some city parks where this
can happen so that the precisous resource that we have --
VOICE: Har-har. Har-har.
MR. FEINSTEIN: -- that the city parks take
their share of the burden of having off-leash dogs so that
there is less pressure put on places that have very
important, special natural resource values for species
like the snowy plover, and others, the bank swallows that
we're also concerned about, that have no place else to go.
There's only two bank swallow colonies in the entire --
[Interrupted by remarks made by the audience.]
MR. FEINSTEIN: Come on, Folks. I'm not making
things up. I'm just telling you the facts.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Excuse me. May we have your
courtesy, please.
MR. FEINSTEIN: So I'm suggesting that we do all
work together, but one of the goals -- and I'm glad to see
that a lot of the speakers previous to this have been
saying that, which is: We are all interested in being
stewards of our resources here at the National Park
System. And that stewardship includes saving some of
these lands, and I hope the majority of them, for the
critters that have no place else to go. And if the dogs
need, if there needs to be a compromise and some of the
lands on the national park lands be open to dogs, let's
work that out. But let's remember that there are the
critters that need their own part of the shore, and let's
not be greedy -- huh? -- because they don't have a choice,
we do.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
Supervisor Leland Yee.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
LELAND YEE, SUPERVISOR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERVISOR YEE: Honorable Commissioners, I
guess this is a rather heated issue, and so on. You know,
the test of leadership is how you bring people together.
And I think that what you have before you is an issue that
basically is dividing and tearing San Francisco apart. I
hope that, somehow in some way, that you will allow the
city to work with you to try to bring people together.
I think that one of the difficulties about San
Francisco is that we don't have a whole lot of real estate
to accommodate everybody's needs. I think that one of the
beauties of San Francisco is that some way and somehow all
of us have found a way in which can allow the different
interests of San Francisco to still have their say in this
city.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed
unanimously a resolution that did several things: No. 1,
it asks the representatives on this body, from the Board
of Supervisors, to plead with your colleagues, and to ask
you to put this issue off, so that there can be further
discussion about the dog policy.
Secondly, it asks that the San Francisco City
Attorney look at ways in which we can somehow accommodate
the different needs so that we can, in fact, have a more
balanced approach to dealing with those individuals who
want their dogs off-leash, and those individuals who want
the dogs on-leash.
I think that one of the things that I have tried
to do in my capacity on the Board of Education and the
Board of Supervisors is, in fact, to find ways in which we
can, in fact, bring people together.
My heart goes out to you because it is an
extremely difficult task. But my heart goes out to all
those individuals who are behind me, and other individuals
that are outside, because they are asking you for some
compassion and for understanding. Somehow we've got to
find a way so that all of us can live together. It is
absolutely unacceptable, it is absolutely inappropriate
that somehow we will divide our community over this
particular issue.
A city that somehow knows how, got to somehow
figure out a way in which we can accommodate those
particular needs. Don't, tonight, close that door to that
possibility that all of us can walk out of this room with
hands together. You cannot somehow shut out these
individuals who absolutely need their place in the sun.
And, so, the Board of Supervisors want to work
with you. We are not in a mode of somehow fighting
against you whatsoever. You are part of that solution,
but we are also part of that solution. Help us somehow
come together for a final solution that all of us can live
with.
Thank you very, very much.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I'm going to ask again that
you hold your applause because it just takes up time. I
know that you're enthused, but the boos and the applause
-- this is not a melodrama, even though it seems like it.
I'm going to call the names of three people, and
please come up and speak. The first would be Joan Booth.
And, by the way, I'm reading your handwriting so I'll do
the best I can. Then Martha Walters and Jennifer Schwinn.
After that, then, I'll call some more.
STATEMENT OF JOAN BOOTH
CRISSY FIELD DOG GROUP
MS. BOOTH: Thank you. I'm Joan Booth, and I'm
with the Crissy Field Dog Group, a very recently formed
group, which has come together remarkably rapidly.
I have something that I would like to leave, for
the record, which is an on-line petition, which currently
has 3,400 signatures on it, printed out as of this
afternoon, gathered in three days.
[Applause.]
I'd like to make a very important point. Two
years ago, Mr. Bartke, you said that an appeal was made to
the federal government to grant a special legislation for
the GGNRA. I cannot believe that, if a similar appeal
were made today, it would not be looked on much more
favorably from several points of view. Firstly, you would
have behind you, if you would allow us to support you and
help you, all of the people in this room. You obviously
would have the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Two
years ago, I suspect you did not have the people of San
Francisco with you because you were -- we were not called
upon to join you. We would be now, and we would be
prepared to support you.
I speak for, I think, the people in our group.
We certainly would be prepared to support you and give you
all the help we can. We have 3,400 names here all of whom,
I'm sure, would be prepared to sign on to that. That's
not very many people, but the fact that they were gathered
in three days I think is very indicative of the level of
support that you would receive from the people of San
Francisco.
Secondly, and I speak personally against my own
political inclinations here, because I did not vote for
the current administration, however, I think that, guite
frankly, you would receive a more favorable hearing in
Washington today than you did two years ago from the
secretary of the Interior. The new administration, I
suspect, is more likely to look favorably on such an
appeal.
Finally, I think the point is very important to
make, with regard to San Francisco and the special
qualities of this city. San Francisco is an exceedingly,
densely populated city. And to say to the dog owners of
San Francisco and the Board of Supervisors that we need to
open more off-leash areas in city parks is absolutely
true. If that's possible, we need to do that. However,
the thing that makes San Francisco as a densely populated
city, livable for many of us, is not the city parks; it is
the GGNRA lands, which are much more extensive and are
very special.
[Applause.]
Those are lands, for me, as a dog owner -- I
have a Labrador Retriever. This is a breed that needs to
run, and a dog that needs to swim. These are not things
that can be done in the city parks. The GGNRA lands are
absolutely crucial to the happiness of my dog and to many
other dogs.
And, finally, I would speak to questions that
Ms. Meyer made with regard to state parks. Absolutely, we
would love to see off-leash areas in state parks. But
quite frankly, that is not a solution to the problem here.
Because those of us who take our dogs for a walk everyday
are not going to go to the state parks. We're looking for
places within the city, and that is why we need the GGNRA
lands.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I'm going to ask, yet again,
that you hold your applause. I'm also going to ask the
speakers be careful to keep within three minutes.
Because, at the present rate, we're going to be here well
after midnight. I think all of us begin to lose focus
before that.Martha Walters, and then Jennifer Schwinn,
followed by Chris Grothe.
MS. WALTERS: I think her name is Griffith.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Griffith.
MS. WALTERS: Griffith. Also, Supervisor Leno
is here. He wanted to speak after I did, if that's okay
with the commissioners.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA WALTERS
CRISSY FIELD DOG GROUP
MS. WALTERS: Good evening, Commissioners. My
name is Martha Walters, and I'm speaking on behalf of the
Crissy Field Dog Group and of my dogs, Buddy and Jimbo.
I've had the great privilege of walking several
generations of dogs off-leash on Crissy Field for over 23
years.
Tonight, I would like to address the issue of
banning dogs off-leash in the GGNRA, and, in particular,
Crissy Field. Specifically, I will maintain that it has
been the intent of the Park Service to incorporate
off-leash dog activities in the planning process for
Crissy Field, and that the Park Service and the Golden
Gate National Park Association have worked together to
implement these plans. Recently, I have carefully
reviewed the following Park Service documents that are
relevant to the Crissy Field issue: The 1994 Presidio
General Management Plan Amendment, the 1996 Crissy Field
Environmental Assessment, and the 1996 Finding of No
Significant Impact Report, or FONSI. There are numerous
citations in these documents that address off-leash
activities. Due to time constraints, I will give a brief
overview of these documents.
The Crissy Field Environmental Assessment
considered all of the environmental impacts for off-leash
dog walking at Crissy Field. Page 4 of the Crissy Field
FONSI states, quote:
"The Park Service will work with the SPCA and
dog-walker representatives to begin an active
education program as soon as possible. The
Park Service will enforce voice control and
clean-up requirements and will monitor the
results of these efforts."
According to Park Service personnel, the Park
Service has played a very active role in discussing
off-leash-dog-related issues at Crissy Field with a number
of city dog organizations, for the past several years. In
addition, Crissy Field restoration activities have
included barrier fencing around the dune fields and the
2-acre marsh to prevent dogs and other animals from going
into these areas. Clearly, the Park Service has favored
off-leash dog activities in feasible areas at Crissy Field
for many years.
I truly hope that we all can reach viable
solution soon and keeping the dogs off leash in
appropriate areas of the GGNRA.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: And you yield to Supervisor
Mark Leno?
MS. WALTERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Supervisor.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
MARK LENO, SUPERVISOR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERVISOR LENO: First of all, let me thank you
very much for having these few moments to speak. I
appreciate very much your task tonight because I'm so
often in your hot seat. I just want to say, clearly --
and I'll try not to repeat anything that others likely
have said -- this is a very important issue. A very, very
important issue to my constituents and to all of San
Franciscans. We deal on a micro level what you're dealing
with on a macro tonight.
I've had ongoing meetings in my office with
those folks who are using, among the many parks in San
Francisco, Duboce Park, excuse me, Dolores Park and Duboce
Park, for a variety of purposes. Sometimes these purposes
cross each other and we're trying to work out some
reasonable solution to that. And I think that's what
we're trying to do here tonight: Work out some reasonable
solution.
When the voters of San Francisco voted for the
charter amendment in 1973 to approve the transfer of the
lands, they required that the deed include the restriction
that the property be reserved by the Park Service, quote,
"... in perpetuity for recreation and park purposes, with
a right of reversion upon breach of said restriction."
The deed itself contains the following
reversionary wording, quote: "... to hold for so long as
said real property is reserved and used for recreation and
park purposes."
"Recreation" is the recurring theme throughout
the enabling legislation. Throughout all of the enabling
legislation it's about recreation. And that was done for
a purpose, and I think that purpose was to include that
wording so we wouldn't have to be in a gathering like we
are tonight. When the first ever urban recreational areas
were created in the National Park System, it was the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Gateway
National Recreation Area. The difference in the wording
of the statutes is telling. Whereas in the Gateway
National Recreation Area it speaks merely to preserve and
protect for the use and enjoyment of present and future
generations. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area
envisioned an open space that would be forever reserved
for recreation. Additionally, the land would be planned
and managed pursuant to public review and public process.
That is what was clearly intended, though this is what has
transpired.
The closures at Fort Funston commenced in 1991
when 7 acres of recreational space were fenced off. This
was supposedly for the protection of bank swallows. In
1993, three additional acres were closed. Again, the
understanding was that bank swallows needed protection.
In 1995, 25 additional acres were closed and the same
reasoning was given. However, in each of these cases,
there was no public review and no public input and no
notice to the city, along with no Environmental Impact
Analysis. Now, in March 2000, the Park Service closed 10
additional acres.
A resolution that I introduced at the Board of
Supervisors yesterday, and approved by unanimous vote --
and I know that many of my colleagues have spoken before
me tonight -- states that should you -- and we really
truly hope that, for all of the reasons you will have
heard tonight, you will not rescind the 1979 Pet Policy --
we will have no choice but to begin taking the necessary
steps to exercise our reversionary interests in the deed
transferring Fort Funston, Crissy Field, and all
properties of the 1975 transfer to the National Park
Service, or to seek specific performance of the deed
provisions, specifically recreation and park purposes.
So I hope that you will please understand the
serious impact this will have on life in San Francisco,
within our neighborhood parks, because dogs are meant and
born to run. If they can't run in a park, they're
certainly not going to run in the streets. So we have to
make sure that they run in the parks.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Supervisor, will you accept a
question? Perhaps you missed the question that was posed
to your fellow Supervisors. During the past 22 years,
this park has bent the law as far as it could to
accommodate off-leash dog walking. During that period of
time, the city and the state have begun banning off-leash
dog walking. What we want from you is a commitment that
you will work with us to change that around and to make it
happen.
SUPERVISOR LENO: Without a doubt. That's why
we're here, to work together.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR LENO: You bet.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Now we're getting some place.
SUPERVISOR LENO: Okay. Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: This is Jennifer Schwinn, then
Chris Griffith, and then Steve Courlang.
STATEMENT OF
JENNIFER SCHWINN, MEMBER
CRISSY FIELD DOG GROUP
MS. SCHWINN: Hi! My name is Jennifer Schwinn,
and I'm a member of the Crissy Field Dog Group.
We ask you to consider the large number or
people and dogs who lives will be negatively impacted
today if you rescind the pet policy. There are an
estimated 150,000 dogs in San Francisco, which correlated
to approximately one dog for every five people, and one
dog for every two households. Rescinding the pet policy
and forcing them to rely only on the remaining city parks
will cause tremendous overcrowding and create a
degradation in their quality of life.
I had a much longer speech prepared, but you
asked for suggestions. I think first and foremost you
need to delay the decision and cooperate with the city and
citizens of San Francisco, and the state of California, in
seeking a Part 7 Exemption under a new administration in
Washington, which is expected to be more amenable to such
an exemption than the past administration has been.
Secondly, I'd create a citizen task force to
work with you and support the exemption, and use the
petition we submitted tonight, which shows an overwhelming
support for off-leash dogs walking in GGNRA.
And, lastly, we ask you to change the
regulations to fit people's lives, rather than asking
people to change their lives to fit the regulations.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Chris?
STATEMENT OF
CHRIS GRIFFITH, ESQ.
REPRESENTING
CRISSY FIELD DOG OWNERS GROUP
MS. GRIFFITH: Hi! My name is Chris Griffith,
and I'm an attorney. I'm representing the Crissy Field
Dog Owners Group.
What I wanted to talk to you about briefly was
this issue of the legality of the pet policy. I
understand that the U. S. Attorneys have informed all of
you that this policy is illegal and unenforceable. First,
I would ask you this: If it is unenforceable then why
rescind it? Why not wait until you have a complete
planning process and have talked to all these people here
today that want to help plan for these parks?
What I'm asking is that you maintain off-leash
dogs walking during the time period that you negotiate
with the city, and with other agencies, to develop a plan
that is workable for all. That you do not rescind the
policy tonight and put up signs tomorrow and start giving
out tickets.
The other thing that I would like to address is
this legality. And I want to say that the U. S. Attorneys
are just people like the rest of us, and they are
fallible. They do not make the laws, nor are they
ordained with the power to interpret them. And I beg to
differ with their opinion, as do many other attorneys in
the room tonight. The enabling statute for the GGNRA, as
I'm sure you have all read, says that this Board and the
management of the park is to preserve the public use and
enjoyment of certain areas, and provide for the
maintenance of needed recreational open space.
In addition, the federal law, the United States
Code that governs the National Park Service says that each
area within the National Park Service shall be
administered in accordance with the provisions of any
statute made specifically to that area. And this is not a
policy that it is against the law. It also says that the
Organic Act, which you might know is the act that governs
all the Park Service, all the park system, says that, to
the extent -- says that there are general provisions that
apply to the whole park system, and to the extent that
those general provisions are in conflict with another
specific provision applicable to a specific park, they are
not enforceable. And that is exactly what we are dealing
with here: a general regulation in the CFR that is
applied broadly to all of the parks and is in conflict
with the enabling statute for the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area.
As you all know, Part 7 in 36 CFR allows to take
care of that. I won't talk about that further, since I
think we've already talked about it. But I do want to
point out that the committee, out of this group that put
together the pet policy in the late '70s, recognized the
special needs of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
and they said:
"Ordinary guidelines outlined in the Code of
Federal Regulations do not really apply in an
urban area. People and their animals have been
visiting the park for too long to apply an
all-inclusive arbitrary policy."
And those are your words, this Commission's
words, not mine. So I ask you to delay rescinding the
policy until there is time for a careful and inclusive
planning process.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
[Applause.]
Steve Courlang is next, and then Anne Farrow,
and then Lindsey Kefauver. Are any of those three people
here?
(No response.)
I've asked you to not applaud, please, because
it delays things. Steve Courlang, Anne Farrow and Lindsey
Kefauver.
STATEMENT OF
ANNE FARROW, CO-CHAIR
SAN FRANCISCO DOG OWNERS GROUP
MS. FARROW: Good Evening. My name is Anne
Farrow. I walk at Fort Funston, and I'm the co-chair of
San Francisco Dog Owners Group. But I want to let you
folks know we did not bring all these people here; this
item on the agenda did.
I'm not going to repeat some of the things that
have already been said. The people who have already
spoken have spoken clearly what I wanted to say. I think
I'll just ask you a couple of questions.
Why, if the Advisory Commission was aware that
the pet policy was not the way to assure our rights, did
this Commission not go through the necessary legal steps
to be sure that an exception to the Park Service General
Regulations was granted? This, I think, is what the
solution is, is to go through the steps for a special
exception to the General Regulations.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
[Applause.]
I don't see Steve, so Lindsey Kefauver, Wendy
McClure, then Linda McKay. You're going to be Lindsey
tonight? Okay, tell us who you are.
STATEMENT OF
KAREN HU, PH. D.
DR. HU: I'm Dr. Hu. Many of you saw my last
study about the recreational use at Fort Funston. Today,
I'm going to talk about the recreational use of non-dog
places, like Lobos Creek Valley. Or maybe I should call
them doggone places. Because there used to be dogs there,
but now they're gone.
I'm a native San Franciscan, and I grew up with
Lobos Creek Valley literally in my backyard. After
school, friends and I, or just me and my dog, would go
there, out to the woods, out to the meadow.
How many of you visited Lobos Creek, anybody?
It's a pretty rare place, but it's beautiful.
There's gentle, rolling mounds of native plants. At the
entrance, there's a sign, with pictures of two rare
plants. Good photographs, clear photo. And it's
fortunate to have the photos because you might not be able
to actually see the plants unless you have sharp eyes.
You see, visitors are required to stay on the
constructed walkway to gaze out at the plants. It's
somewhat like a Disneyland exhibit. Actually, it's more
like Martha Stewart does native plants. I say that
because it's a habitat. It's not a restoration. It's not
at all like the original. The original is sand dunes, it
was sparse vegetation. The habitat is a plot of land,
fenced off, densely planted, a romanticized native plant
habitat that requires lots of busy hands to build and
maintain. Let's be honest. This is not habitat
restoration. This is recreational gardening.
[Laughter.]
Do I begrudge the green team this garden? No.
Even while I'm not allowed to bring my dog there anymore,
there should be a place for recreational gardening. There
should be a place for threatened and endangered species.
There is room enough for all of us.
It was also like Disneyland because it wasn't
like this when I -- it wasn't crowded. In fact, I was the
only person there. No one else in sight. This is amazing
in a city that has 15,000, over 15,000 people per square
mile. I was puzzled. Where are those folks who don't go
to Fort Funston because of all the dogs? I would expect
at least one of them to be at the Lobos Creek Valley. It
was a Sunday afternoon, the sun was out, the birds were
singing. The birding is excellent there. So, here are
the native plants, here are the birds, where are the
visitors?
Subsequent visits have the same findings. No
one, with the exception of two boys skating on the
walkway, was seen.
I continued my search for these hypothetical
dog-fearing park visitors at Lands End. I went on a sunny
weekday afternoon. I saw fewer than 30 people. There was
one child. The majority of visitors were solitary men
enjoying nature.
[Laughter.]
Now, if you went to Fort Funston and you only
saw 30 people, you would wonder: Where is everybody? Are
they all at a GGNRA Meeting? Conclusion: Please stop
talking about those hypothetical thousands of other
visitors, the ones who are not counted because the dogs
have chased them away. They exist, but they already have
95 percent of the park.
[Applause.]
You've squeezed us into smaller and smaller
places and now you want us to go. Please, don't kick
people out of the park.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Next speaker is Wendy McClure,
followed by Linda McKay, and then we have Supervisor
Sandoval following that.
STATEMENT OF
WENDY MC CLURE, CO-CHAIR
SAN FRANCISCO DOG OWNERS GROUP
MS. MC CLURE: Hi! I'm Wendy McClure. I'm
co-chair of San Francisco Dog Owners Group. My focus,
with the San Francisco Dog Owners Group, is advocating for
city off-leash recreation. I, personally, and all of us
in the executive committee, have worked very closely with
officials over the last 4 years advocating for more
off-leash use.
And, before I begin, I'd like to thank
everybody here that's a pro-dog supporter for being here.
The executive board of SF Dog has worked really hard to
get all of you here tonight, and we thank you. It's
overwhelming to all of us. But I'll cut to the chase
here.
It's obvious this is an important issue. And
it's not just important for the citizens and for the Board
of Supervisors, but it's important to SPCA, Animal Care
and Control, the Police Department, for all San
Franciscans, Rec & Park. It's because it does impact our
city.
Think about it. There's 750,000 people logged
in at Fort Funston alone; 87 percent of those folks are
accompanied by dogs. That's something like 652,000 people
that would impact the city parks if you close just Fort
Funston alone. And you can say to me: Big deal! It's
not your concern. But it is your concern because you have
been invited into our city numbers of years ago to take
care of this land that is our land, for our citizens here
at San Francisco. We trusted you, and you've betrayed us.
[Applause.]
I ask you, I plead with you, to do the right the
thing. Do the right thing and uphold your agreement with
the citizens of San Francisco.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: We have Linda McKay and then
Supervisor Sandoval.
STATEMENT OF
LINDA MC KAY, CHAIR
FORT FUNSTON DOG WALKERS
MS. MC KAY: I'm Linda McKay, chair of the Fort
Funston Dog Walkers.
I had a whole speech planned on what a Section 7
is; but, clearly, you understand it because it's been
discussed this evening. What I'd like to offer, you're
asking for solutions, there's several.
We turned out 1,100 letters just on 12 acres on
Fort Funston. I can guarantee you many people in this
room don't care about those 12 acres. I can't imagine the
volume of mail that you're getting on this particular
issue. So I'm a little surprised that a Section 7 Rule
was requested and that we weren't informed because we are
such a resource in that area. Can you imagine the volume
of mail that we can turn out to Washington for that kind
of ruling, and the cooperation you find with people when
they understand that you're working on our behalf to bring
something to us that's really, really important?
I have to tell you I'm bothered by the feeling
that you're the enemy. I'm not comfortable at all with
that, and I would really like to move past that with you.
So I think that you can definitely look to our support for
that.
The other thing is that we have an organization
at Fort Funston. There's one formed at Crissy Field.
These are organizations that can do outreach education,
cleaning, whatever is required to make those parks more
usable for other people who are willing to do, and have
always been willing to do. We've been in existence since
1992, have monthly cleanups, and try to tell people what's
going on and educate new people. Unfortunately, we're the
only people doing that. Many people who come to the park
don't understand where the safe and dangerous areas are
because it's not well marked. So those are rules that
we're willing to play and will continue to play.
Thank you for your time.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Supervisor Sandoval has asked
to speak. He will be followed by Laura Cavaluzzo, Kathy
Roth, and then Lydia Boesch.
STATEMENT OF
GERARDO SANDOVAL, SUPERVISOR
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL: Good evening. Thank you
for the chance to say a few words. I'm a person of few
words, actually, so I will get straight to the point.
I urge you to not rescind the current policy.
In particular, I urge the members of the San Francisco
delegation not to rescind, not to vote to rescind the
current off-leash policy.
I think it's pretty obvious that you've got a
political problem on your hands. You could run for mayor
on this issue, and somebody will.
[Laughter.]
No, but seriously. It's bad public policy, and
you know that, and you can tell that by the amount of
people who are here tonight. It no way gives you an idea
of the amount of people who have e-mailed and have called
and have written and have come by the office. And, so,
it's a small fraction, especially since it's raining. You
know you've got a problem here. You got so many people.
So, again, I would just ask you to not rescind
the current policy. I think we all need to work better.
We need to work together, and we need to look for another
solution that meets everybody's needs.
Thank you very, very much.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Supervisor, just as an aside,
more than one of us on this Commission has been a mayor,
and we don't want it again.
[Laughter.]
I asked your other Supervisors, who were here
earlier, and I'll ask you: During the last 22 years,
we've bent the law as far as we could to accommodate
off-leash dog walking. During that same period of time,
the city and the state restricted off-leash dog walking.
Will you do what you can to reverse that?
SUPERVISOR SANDOVAL: You're asking me if I'll
make a tough choice to rescind the city's policy, and yes;
I will.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I think the name is Kathy
Roth, and then Lydia Boesch. Oh, no, Laura Cavaluzzo.
Laura? She's coming up. Then Kathy, I think it's Roth,
and Lydia Boesch.
STATEMENT OF
LAURA CAVALUZZO
MS. CAVALUZZO: Commissioners, Superintendent,
my name is Laura Cavaluzzo, and this is my third time
standing before you to express my thoughts on this issue.
I've spoken about the physical, mental and
societal benefits of off-leash recreation and how very
much the Golden Gate National Recreation Area means to my
quality of life. I've skewered the National Park
Service's Fort Funston bank swallow protection plan using
research and words of the government's own scientists.
And my statements, and those of thousands of my fellow San
Franciscans, have apparently made no impact on you at all.
So this time, rather than try to tell you anything, I'm
going to ask you some questions, instead, and I'll be very
interested to hear any answers you might have.
How can you call our off-leash dogs an
environmental threat after what the Park Service itself
has done to our beach at Crissy Field?
[Applause.]
How can you recommend our banishment from Fort
Funston under the guise of eco-preservation while
sanctioning the bulldozing of habitat at Fort Baker to
build a hotel?
[Applause.]
How can you call yourselves a citizens Advisory
Commission when some of you are former employees of, and
most of you are appointed by, the very department you're
supposed to be monitoring?
[Applause.]
How can you claim to be a liaison between the
citizens and the Park Service when you blithely dismiss
the needs and concerns of thousands of citizens without so
much as word of explanation?
[Applause.]
How can you say that off-leash recreation is
illegal in national parks when 45 national parks allow
dogs off leash for the purpose of hunting?
How can you say that the 1979 Pet Policy was
never enforced when letters from Park Service Regional
Director Stanley Albright to Senators Cranston and Seymour
confirms that it was the guiding policy on these lands as
recently as 1992?
And finally, why, when this policy has been in
force for more than 20 years, are you suddenly in such a
rush to rescind it?
[Applause.]
When we gave the National Park Service our
beaches and bluffs, the citizens of San Francisco were
promised that our recreational access to these lands would
be protected. Instead, the Park Service has taken the
recreation out of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
and replaces it with artificial native habitats we must
look at from behind fences; hotels in which we have no
need nor desire, nor the wherewithal to stay; and trails
and beaches we can not enjoy with our dogs. Your job was
supposed to be to insure that this kind of abuse never
happened. If you can't or won't do that, we, the citizens
of San Francisco, request that you step down.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: The next speaker is Kathy
Roth, then Lydia Boesch.
STATEMENT OF
KATHY ROTH, M.D.
DR. ROTH I was going to stand here and talk, as
a medical doctor, about the mental and physical health
benefits of walking your dog, the exercise you get from
it, the social interaction, and the health benefits of
owning a pet. It doesn't sound like that's really the
thrust of what's going on tonight. So, instead, I'm going
to stand here as an environmentalist.
I've been an environmentalist for many years. I
care passionately about native plants and birds, and I'm
usually on the other side from the user groups. I think
that this user group is a little different. We don't have
any concessionaires. It's not like the jet skis in Lake
Tahoe, or in the national parks. There's nobody making
money off what we do. There's nobody selling gasoline
over it. We don't have a manufacturing group with a
lobby, or any of that.
There's a lot of people who took time out from
their busy lives to stand here tonight, and it just seems
to me there's a lot of land, all of San Mateo County, all
the Golden Gate lands in Marin, and all of Point Reyes,
where dogs are not allowed off leash. It seems that
somewhere in that stretch of coastline there must be a
place where dogs can run off leash in a significant amount
of space that's not right where the endangered species
are.
Thanks.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Lydia Boesch will be followed
by Margory, looks like Cohen; and, then, Greg Hurline.
STATEMENT OF
LYDIA BOESCH, ESQ.
REPRESENTING
FORT FUNSTON DOG WALKERS
MS. BOESCH: Hi! My name is Lydia Boesch, and
I've had the extraordinary pleasure and privilege this
past year of representing the dog walkers at Fort Funston
in all of this controversy. It has, indeed, been the most
fun case I've ever worked on in my life.
I've wrote a speech, too. I'm not going to say
it. But one thing I do want to give you, first, is when
Leland Yee left here, he was accosted by the hundreds of
people outside, and they gave him these tablets, these
posters, that they signed because they couldn't get in.
We've gone through and done a rough count, and there's 600
signatures on here.
[Applause.]
They need to be a part of the record, but I want
to make good and sure that, to whomever you ask me to give
them to, you know, we make an accounting of them and that
they're safe.
You know, the one thing I want to say is that,
as an attorney for these people, I have studied the
statute. I have studied the regulations. I have studied,
I have studied your internal policies. I have studied
what the Department of Interior said. I have studied the
documents with the transfer from the city. I know this
stuff inside out, and I respectfully disagree with any
opinion you're getting that says that off-leash dog
walking is illegal at Fort Funston. It absolutely is
legal. Every authority I can find says that it is a
legal, accepted activity at Fort Funston, and we've got to
deal with that. And we are here -- you know, you are here
as our citizens Advisory Commission, and you're here to
work with us. And, so, you know, please don't just listen
to what the U. S. Attorney or Solicitor tells you because
there is more than ample authority to support this as
being a legal activity.
Like Linda McKay, we don't want to view you as
the enemy. You know, the last year, when this lawsuit
started, I went to Amy's house to deliver a letter. We
really were trying to work this out with you guys. Amy
told us that if we went to court, if we went to the media,
then you guys would rescind our off-leash dog walking
privileges. And, Amy, I don't know if you realize it, but
that's -- Amy, I confirmed it in writing. And, to me,
that's a violation of our fundamental, constitutional
rights.
[Applause.]
You know, I'm not saying that for the truth of
the matter asserted. I'm saying it because we have seen
that. We feel like you guys are against us, and we don't
want you to be against us. We want to work with you. And
I think you can see, from this, from this, there is ample
support, there's ample enthusiasm for this issue.
Thank you for listening and please be willing to
work with us, as we get through this.
[Applause.]
COMMISSIONER MEYER: I think there's a matter of
truth here. What I told you was: If this case of the
Fort Funston, what has become the case of the Fort Funston
Dog Walkers, came to a level of attention which brought in
the U. S. Attorney and the media, and it came up to that
level, you would probably lose the whole thing. This is,
in fact, what has happened: That the U. S. Attorney said
that what we had passed as a recommendation in 1978 is
illegal and unenforceable.
What we started this meeting with, but it could
hardly be heard in the noise here, was that the policy
recommendation we made is not here. It's gone.
MS. BOESCH: But, Amy, it's been -- you know,
all of that was premised, and I'm sure you recall that,
when you had the hearings back then, you said it's because
walking dogs here, I mean, that works in an urban setting,
but the general regulations didn't apply in an urban
setting. And we agree with that and we're just trying to
go from there to where we need to go. We think a Section
7 special reg is exactly what we need to do. But let's
talk about it and let's work on it. Let's just don't let
this be a one-sided thing.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. Let's move on with the
public hearing. Thank you very much. We'd like to
receive those legal authorities because we have not
received them yet.
I think the name is Margo --
MS. COHEN: Margory Cohen.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Cohen?
MS. COHEN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: And then Greg, and I can't
read this one, Hewlitt, Hurline, and then Janet Harrison.
I can read that one. Okay, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF MARGORY COHEN
MS. COHEN: My name is Margory Cohen. My
residence is in San Francisco with two Scottish Deer
hounds. My dogs have appeared in the opera, on stage with
ACT. I have professional dogs. I'm a writer, a trainer,
a handler.
The fallout from the lack of off-lead, safe
recreation is huge. Walking off-lead with a dog is
American as apple pie and motherhood. The idea that we
would spend as much time as we do driving cross town to go
to this land to walk with the dogs off lead, safely, and
then not take care of it, is a misunderstanding. I'm
touch with trainers and other dog writers, vets, and
people in the business throughout the country.
In New Jersey, there are towns where it's not
legal to walk with your dog in the town square. It
horrifies me to think that, if a the leash law is imposed
in San Francisco, that will happen here. Because, really,
what the no-dog signs are saying is no people. The person
who walks alone on the beach is safe with a dog. A woman
alone isn't safe on the beach. A man is open to assault.
Anyone who has a service dog will also be denied access to
the beach.
I extend my card to you. I'm available to you,
to the Supervisors. I'm ever available to meet with you
as a private individual, as someone whose life is
completely involved with dogs professionally and
personally.
So come with me and my dogs as we look at the
land, and -- you know, God has -- you know, there's an
Indian tribe where they talk about the Great Traveler
coming to the earth and walking along, and he made the
rivers and the trees, and all of this that you want to
protect. And when he came, he came with a dog. God had a
dog.
If you put that sign on the beach, even the
Great Traveler couldn't walk there. So, here's my phone
number. I'm up for you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you very much.
Greg Hurline, Janet Harrison and Misha Weidman.
STATEMENT OF
GREG HURLINE [ correction: should be "Herlein" - Editor, GGNRA WatchDog ]
MR. HURLINE: My name is Greg Hurline, and I'm a
computer consultant form Cow Hallow.
My wife and I have a dog named Sophia. The
nature of my job and the fact that I work from home
restricts my social life quite a bit. Instead of going
out for a drink or dinner with my coworkers, my wife and I
take our dog out for extended walks. We use Crissy Field
in the Presidio four or five times a week. This gives my
dog a chance to exercise and socialize with other dogs,
and my wife and I get to talk with other people out
walking and enjoying our wonderful scenery. Being able to
enjoy the GGNRA, with out dog off leash, is a major
quality-of-life issue for us.
I was planning to tell you more about the
socializing aspect of our dog walks, for both humans and
dogs, and about how important that is. But as evidenced
by recent quotes from both the GGNRA and some members of
this Commission, you've evidently already decided to
ice-pick the 1979 Pet Policy. Presumably, you've taken
this position because the GGNRA lawyers have told you that
it's illegal. Presumably, this sudden reversal of policy
has nothing to do with the fact that local dog friends
held the GGNRA accountable for its Fort Funston closures
without appropriate public notice. Presumably, this
closure is a result of the increased number of dogs and
people using GGNRA lands, as evidenced by a quote of the
National Park Service ranger on television last night.
I hope we've dispelled some of these
presumptions tonight. Hopefully, you've listened, as our
lawyers described the legal basis for retaining the pet
policy. Hopefully, you've listened as we've described the
specific procedure for how federal law and the pet policy
can happily coexist.
Hopefully, you've listened to the City Board of
Supervisors, who unanimously passed a resolution
yesterday, asking you all to delay a recommendation until
there is sufficient time for the city to participate in
the policy evaluation.
Hopefully, you now understand that a Memorandum
of Understanding, which has not been found despite
references to it and despite multiple Freedom of
Information requests, still is out there and we don't know
the specific details of the binding legislation that
regards the transfer of land to the GGNRA.
Hopefully, you've listened to the other dog
friends here tonight, and the dog friends yet to speak,
who have asked you to work with us to preserve a policy
that has worked for over 20 years.
However, if you haven't listened and you do vote
to rescind the pet policy, then let me make you familiar
with a saying that's made its way into common use. Dog
friends know all to well what it means to hound something.
My dog, Sophia, hounds me everyday when she thinks it's
time for her to go out for her walk. Ladies and gentlemen
of this Commission, members of the National Park Service
who are here tonight, we will hound this issue. We will
hound this issue through the legislative process. We will
hound this issue through the political process. We will
not go away; we will not lie down. We will not go on
leash.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Janet Harrison, then Misha
Weidman, followed by Patricia La Cava.
Listen! We have literally hundreds of people
who have signed up. So please stop the applause and let's
get on with the public hearing. These are your neighbors
and they want to speak as much as you do. So let's get
with Janet Harrison, Misha Weidman, and then Patricia
LaCava.
MR. SCHULKE: Pardon me, for jumping in. I'm
Richard Schulke, and I'm the City Animal Commissioner for
San Francisco. And I'm also an insulin-dependent
diabetic, and I don't know how much longer I signed up on
the list I would be able to hang in here. I was hoping
folks wouldn't mind if I jumped in. I would be very
brief.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: That's fine.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
RICHARD SCHULKE, CHAIRPERSON
SAN FRANCISCO ANIMAL CONTROL AND WELFARE COMMISSION
MR. SCHULKE: Thank you.
Very quickly, Commission Chair, Superintendent
O'Neill, Commissioners, Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is
Richard Schulke, and I am currently the chairperson of the
San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission. I'll
keep my remarks brief.
I'm here to speak to you today about the
incredibly outraged community of San Francisco
constituents who are concerned with the impending changes
at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I have
never, in 8 years, heard so many absolutely both livid and
extremely concerned folks, seniors, children, people who
have AIDS and other chronic diseases, and just regular
folks, who have literally begged me to try and convince
you to hold off on the decision to rescind the '79 Pet
Policy, which will result in making the GGNRA lands, which
were donated by San Francisco citizens, not available to
any off-leash dogs, even in areas such as Fort Funston, in
which generation after generation after generation of
folks have let their dogs run and romp in the joy and
exuberance that all dogs need to experience. Not to
mention the devastating and crushing effect this will have
on our city parks and designated off-lease areas of all
the dogs that use the GGNRA off-leash area are suddenly
forced to use the municipal areas instead.
The current pet policy is not, perhaps, the best
or legal policy available, but it has allowed the
coexistence of urban animals and wild animals in the
recreation area. And, believe me, I know how incredibly
difficult it is to serve on a citizen volunteer Advisory
Commission, with many different groups demanding your
attention and your conscience. But I fervently hope that
you will delay this decision tonight until, at the very
least, continuing to confer with the San Francisco city
officials, members of its Board of Supervisors, and user
groups who represent the San Francisco citizenry. Either
way, I respect the difficult job you have before you, and
I will respect whatever conclusion you come to. Even
though I will probably have to work with all my heart to
overturn it by any legal means necessary.
I would hope that the GGNRA would be willing to
work with San Francisco in finding a policy that protects
the animals that use the GGNRA, as their habitats, and
still allow access to its urban neighbor animals. San
Francisco is the city that knows how. Please work with us
to find a way how that allows for all animals to enjoy
this recreation area.
I thank you for your time.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Janet Harrison? I've called
that name about three times. I don't see her.
Misha Weidman, Patricia LaCava.
STATEMENT OF
MISHA WEIDMAN
MR. WEIDMAN: Hi! Actually, I'm Misha Weidman.
I speak on behalf of my wife and my two 13-month-old
children, and my dog, Kit, which I rescued from the SPCA
about five years ago, and that is very important to our
family.
Like many people tonight, I had a speech, which
was going to talk about the importance of dogs and
balancing all the interests that I know you folks have to
do, and I'm prepared to throw it out. One of the reasons
why I'm prepared to throw it out was because, Mr. Bartke,
when you started this meeting, I thought you gave a very
considered and dispassionate discussion about what the
issues were. And it also seemed to me that you were
asking genuinely for help. And the impression that I got
from that was that you, in fact, supported the position
that the other people here are taking.
I should add one other thing, too; and that is:
This is the first time I've spoken or really being
involved in any public issue. That's how important it is
to me. I don't profess to know all of the ins and outs of
the political or legal machinations, but I thought your
summary was very useful, and I took it as stated.
So I'm a little bit confused. Because, on the
one hand, as I said, I got the impression that essentially
all of you understood the problem. You understood the
importance of dogs and you were looking for a way to
essentially implement what obviously all of us want. At
the same time, over the course of the hearing, I detected
what seemed to me to be some hostility on the part of the
board members to other political functionaries who came up
and talked, specifically, the Supervisors from San
Francisco. And the hostility -- and perhaps that's an
unfair word, revolved around the fact that there weren't
other off-leash parks that were available in San
Francisco. But, surely, you can't be suggesting that the
fact that that is also a problem somehow legitimates a
policy of off-leash -- of only on-leash dogs or banning
dogs at Fort Funston.
So that's the reason for my confusion. I would
also like to ask, respectfully ask, the board a question;
and that is: Forget the law, for a moment. Do you
support off-leash dogs at Fort Funston? And it's not a
rhetorical question. I'm asking it earnestly.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I'm afraid we don't have the
authority to make that kind of decision.
MR. WEIDMAN: Okay. So fair enough. I
understand. I understand, in that case, but I'm
disappointed by the lack of an answer. But I do
understand that you're an advisory board. You've asked
for help in what you can do. I have some suggestions in
that case.
The first thing is do nothing. No one has a gun
to your head. It seems to me that that is the first thing
that you could do. The other thing is that you are not
subject to fines or imprisonment. I don't think that the
U. S. Government is telling any of you that they're going
to lock you up, or fine you, if you simply fail to change
the law and you choose not to enforce any legal law.
The third thing is that, if you really do
understand what people have been telling you tonight, then
what you should do is try to actively support something
that I believe you all know is right and reasonable. I
certainly support reasonable restrictions on dog use at
Fort Funston, if there needs to be. And I may be
unpopular for saying this, but if there needs to be
seasonal closures to protect the bank swallow, I would
certainly respect that. But I don't need to repeat what
everyone else has said here about the importance of this
facility to many, many people in San Francisco.
Finally, what you could do is, frankly, resign
in protest, rather than enforcing, rather than enforcing a
law that is really totally unfair.
Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: The question was asked whether
we understand what you're saying, and I think that we do.
But I think, perhaps, something that I said at the top did
not get understood; and that is: This Commission, we're
citizens, we're volunteers. We don't get paid. We're not
park employees. We have no employees. We don't enforce
the regulation.
The only thing that was on our agenda is that,
22 years ago, we attempted to help you by creating a
policy that was a recommendation to the staff. We've been
told, since, under the gun to our head of a federal judge,
who said that policy is illegal; and, therefore, we said:
Okay, we shouldn't have it on the books if it's not legal.
I've been given only one brief from, or on behalf of
off-leash dog walkers. I checked out all those
authorities. I'd be happy to receive the ones mentioned
by Lydia Boesch because I'm not familiar with those.
But you should understand that we are advisory.
We don't run the parks. And whatever we do tonight is
simply going to be advice to the park staff. Now, have we
got that?
[Audience responds.]
COMMISSIONER SPRING: Patricia LaCava is next,
and then Hiedi Zombroni, followed by Mildred Bollin. Are
any of those three people here? If you are here, would
you make your way up to the podium. Meanwhile, I'll call
some more names and see if more people are here. Christy
Cameron, Linda Horning. Any of those here? Siabhan Ruck?
Judy Walsh? Are any of those people here?
Who are you?
STATEMENT OF
LINDA HORNING
MS. HORNING: My name is Linda Horning. And
actually, everybody has been so eloquent I was thinking
about forfeiting my time, but I did sort of want to say
something.
You guys have sort of been portraying yourselves
as these really ardent environmentalists. And, in a way,
I really, I really respect you for it. I want someone who
is sort of working on the branch of the government to be
like you, to be sort of tough and do what you think is
right. But I think that you have, you have gone about
this whole thing in a sort of sneaky way, and there's been
this polarization thing that has not been helpful. And
I'm, in a way, kind of happy to see, tonight, that we've
sort of turned this into a love fest.
But I want to say something, since you are all
on this committee, and you're all going to be having a
voice about this. And I think that you've received some
misinformation, and I hate to put too fine a point on it.
But about those bank swallows, they've been referred to as
an endangered species. You've heard many times how the
dogs or the dog walkers are ruining the habitat. But do
you remember the storms of the last few years?
I don't know if any of you have actually been
down to the base of those cliffs. Around 300 yards away
from where the bank swallows have their little nesting
places, there was a parking lot that got washed away in
the storm. The cliffs that the bank swallows live in are
falling down. The surf is causing them to collapse. It's
not the people; it's the water. It's the storms. You can
go there on any day and every week a new portion of that
has collapsed. And I feel, you know, I mean, if I was
living in a house and my house started collapsing around
me, I would move. I would think: Hey! Maybe this isn't
such a great place.
In all seriousness, I think this is part of the
picture, and I just want to make sure that that gets put
into your minds. You know, when you think about these
endangered birds, this is part of why they're endangered.
Not by dogs that bite. The natural environment.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Siabhan Ruck?
MS. BOLLIN: Bollin. Am I next?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I lost my place. Mildred
Bollin?
MS. BOLLIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Gotcha.
STATEMENT OF
MILDRED BOLLIN
MS. BOLLIN: Good evening, Commissioners. My
name is Mildred Bollin, and I'm a resident of San
Francisco, and a recreational user of Fort Funston and
Crissy Field.
I have a large rescue dog that is both companion
and a source of security, for me, as a senior citizen, who
lives alone. My dog, Sadie, requires exercise. As a
large Dobie, she needs to run. I also need exercise. At
my age, I cannot run beside her with a leash; however, I
can walk and she runs out, and back and forth to me. She
chases a ball and brings it back. I walk along and she
gets her run in. We both get the exercise we need.
In addition to the physical health benefits,
which exercise provides for both of us, which everyone
knows by now is so important, it also provides great
emotional, mental health benefits for us both. People and
animals need exercise for emotional and mental health. In
addition, we both get an opportunity to socialize with our
own species. Many seniors get out each day, walking their
dogs, and it is their opportunity to talk and know other
people. I cannot stress enough importance on many senior
citizens' lives to have this interaction with others.
Sadie also gets a chance to meet and play with
other dogs. You cannot miss the interest and happiness in
a dog's eyes as they romp and play with their own species.
This also lessens aggression and frustration in dogs.
This does not seem to me so much to give back to the
animals that give so much to us, that give us
companionship and security, and love and devotion, for
some of their closest friends.
I ask you, tonight, for the sake of all San
Francisco senior citizens, to please, please, please
reject this resolution.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Who are you?
STATEMENT OF
CHRISTY CAMERON, ESQ.
MS. CAMERON: Commissioners, Superintendent
O'Neill, my name is Christy Cameron. I frequent both Fort
Funston and Crissy Field, sometimes with my dog, sometimes
without. I am also a resident of San Francisco and an
attorney.
As an attorney, I won't go into in detail, but I
agree with many of the lawyers who have concluded that the
pet policy is not illegal and unenforceable. In
particular, the erroneous statement that it's illegal and
unenforceable improperly relies on a statutory
misinterpretation that the general mandate of the Organic
Act controls over the specific recreational open-space
mandate of the enabling statute.
One of the things that concerns me is the timing
of this revocation of a policy that is over 20 years.
It's very unusual, the timing. And I want to tell you
that some of the anger that you're perceiving from this
group of people is that it is being perceived as
retaliation for certain dog owner groups exercising their
legal right to petition the court. This retaliation is in
itself a civil rights violation. And, honestly, I wonder
if you even realize that?
[Applause.]
It's not necessary to repeal it at this time.
It's been around for 20 years; and, if, as you say, you
want to work out a solution, it doesn't need to be
repealed. And I want to point out that the Park Service
has repeatedly promised that it would allow off-leash dogs
recreation in various parts of the GGNRA, and you now
propose to break that promise. I appreciate that your
lawyers may believe that you can get away with breaking a
promise, but I ask you to consider, in addition to the
legality -- which is questionable -- what is the morality
of breaking that promise.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: The next three names are Mike
Singer, Francine Podenski, and Karin Hu. Any of those
three people here?
(No response.)
After that comes --
STATEMENT OF
FRANCINE PODENSKI
MS. PODENSKI: My name is Francine Podenski.
I've enjoyed what is now known as the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area with several generations of my dogs during
the 30 years that I've lived in the area. I had prepared
a speech tonight, and, for awhile, I wasn't going to read
it; but I decided that I am. I'm just warning you.
The National Park Service has, for some time,
been pursuing policies that appear to me to be designed to
eliminate traditional recreational activities within the
boundaries of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area
through a sort of divide-and-conquer approach. Previous
assaults upon our liberty and the pursuit of our happiness
include eviction of the long-established Muir Beach Horse
Stables and the horseback riding community that had been
there for generations; building a very large conference
center at Fort Baker in spite of significant protests from
that local community; and ruining the Crissy Field Beach.
Culturally and historically in the United
States, there are certain traditions which are sacred.
Among those are motherhood, apple pie and the family dog.
More often than not, dogs have resided at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D. C. -- most recently
"Buddy" resided there; currently "Spot" is in residence
there. This is a time-honored American tradition, and
it's a cherished way of life in our country.
At the most basic level, the issue that we face
this evening is a human quality-of-life issue. Generally,
dogs don't take themselves to the park. This is a
family-centered recreational activity, the lack of which
negatively impacts not only our dogs, but entire families
and our entire community.
This evening, we are here to discuss the
National Park Service's kicking the family dog. And for
that matter, kicking the American family. The government
itself has appropriated space within the GGNRA -- at least
that's my understanding -- for off-leash training
activities of their own dogs; but wishes to include, or
exclude, local families from these similar uses and
traditional uses. The do as I say and not as I do, did
not sell in kindergarten, it didn't sell in high school,
and it has not sold well since.
The name, "Golden Gate National Recreation Area"
from the point of view of all of my family and friends and
neighbors signifies a recreational area. This is an urban
recreational area. It's not a wilderness area, and it's
not a nature preserve, and it's even a national park -- at
least not the way I see it.
Have we been misled by the phrase over these
years, the phrase "recreational area"? Does the enabling
legislation mean nothing? Are you, some of you, now
trying to change the intention of the GGNRA years after
its formation? Are we soon going to be hearing Golden
Gate National Park as a title of this place? And do
really any of you here, or in other parts of the country,
really believe that you can totally ignore the original
agreements under which we originally transferred this land
to your care?
If the National Park Service is, for some
reason, unable to find a way to honor the original
conditions under which we donated our lands to your care,
I would really ask you respectfully to inform us of that.
Because, if you're incapable of doing this, or for some
reason prevented from doing, because of higher authority,
of fulfilling your responsibilities in this regard, we
have included in the original land transfer documents a
remedy for this eventuality. Now I truly hope it's not
necessary for us to enter into a polarity where we are,
the city and we citizens are, fighting to take back our
land. I don't think that's a good way to go.
I, too, offer my time and my energy to finding a
solution. But I think we have to get past the perception
-- maybe you don't mean this -- but it is the perception
that you're doing backroom deals and sneaking around, and
you're not victims. I keep hearing from you: Oh, we have
to pass, we have to pass this resolution. It's out of our
hands. Well, I would like to -- I'd just like to
emphasize that you're not victims. You're our
representatives. You can take a stand. You don't have to
do what an attorney from the government says you have to
do. You're there to represent us and to have that
dialogue, and we will help you. We will support you in
doing that.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Did Michael Singer or Karin Hu
show up?
(No response.)
Okay, moving on, Gary Fergus; Louie Gwerder,
III; Brian Irwin.
STATEMENT OF
GARY S. FERGUS, ESQ.
BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON
MR. FERGUS: Thank you very much.
My name is Gary Fergus. I'm a lawyer with
Brobeck, Phelger & Harrison. I'm here on my own behalf.
We started out with I think it was the OTE,
overtaken by events, and there were a couple of points
that I think are very important to make.
First of all, going to the legality, I guess I
have, as a lawyer, address that issue, and I cite you
specifically to Section 1(c) of USC Section 16:
"Each area within the National Park System shall
be administered in accordance with the
provisions of any statute made specifically
applicable to that area."
Early on, you mentioned that, I believe,
Chairman, that there is no reference, with respect to the
legislative history, that could be found with respect to
this is an urban park. Did I mishear you?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Yes. What I said was that we
found nothing in the record that refer to pets or dogs. I
did say that, properly, an urban park is a city or a
county park. This is a national park, which happens to,
in some places, abut an urban area.
MR. FERGUS: Well, I cite you to -- it is the
92nd Congressional Second Session, 1972. It is the House
Report that was adopted when the legislation was passed,
and it says:
"Section 1. The purposes for creation of a
recreation area and established the Golden Gate
National Urban Recreation Area."
That's at page 4859.
[Applause.]
On page 4857:
"As a national urban recreation area, this new
component of the National Park System will be
confronted with problems which do not
frequently occur at other national park and
recreation areas."
This is the enabling, this is the report from
the House. It goes on to say, on page 4852:
"It is expected that the predominant use of the
recreation opportunities offered by the Golden
Gate National Urban Recreation Area will be the
people residing in the nine county San
Francisco Bay Region."
There is a quote on the bottom of page 4852
discussing the uses of this area:
"On a nice day, it will satisfy the interest of
those who choose to fly kites, sunbathe, work
their dogs, or just idly watch the action on
the Bay."
Finally, it says on page 4851:
"It is an ideal location for a national urban
recreation area for many reasons, but foremost
among them must be that the Golden Gate
National Urban Recreation Area is located in
the heart of one of the nation's major urban
complexes."
So there is ample legislative history in support
for the fact that this is unique, and it's enabling
statute for this particular park supersedes the
regulations 2.15. And I beg to differ with the opinion
that you received from the Solicitor. I think there is a
very strong legal question that this policy is legal as
issued right now. That there cannot be a regulation that
was issued under the Code of Federal Regulations that is
inconsistent with the enabling statute. And obviously,
looking at legislative history, as to what was the intent
of the legislature at the time they passed it, is very
critical in understanding what is the enabling statute.
Finally, I would say there are many of us who
believe that there are alternatives, seasonal use, perhaps
time of use. And there are a lot of people here who are
willing to work.
I realize my time is up. I think you, but I
believe that -- I urge you to question the premise that
there is, in fact, no question that this is an illegal
policy. I believe it is legal. I believe that, at a
minimum, there is enough doubt that you should take that
under very close consideration.
Thank you for your time.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: What's your name?
MR. GWERDER: Louis Gwerder. Do you want to
talk to that man some more?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: No.
STATEMENT OF
LOUIS GWERDER, III
MR. GWERDER: My name is Louis Gwerder, III.
I've lived in San Francisco for 46 years. I grew up on
the Great Highway, across the street from Ocean Beach. I
love animals. I feel that animals with the first dubs to
the seashore are the ones who live there Ann feed there.
Four years ago, I personally was walking on
Ocean Beach when I saw a sea lion pup attacked by an
unleashed dog.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Next is Brian, I think it's
Irwin or Irvin, and then Cindy Del Corto, and Sheila
Mahoney.
STATEMENT OF
BRIAN IRIAN, ESQ.
MR. IRIAN: It's Irian, Mr. Commissioner.
I'd like to take just a couple of moments.
Everybody seems pretty tired, and I'd to admit that I also
am a lawyer, but I'm not from San Francisco. About three
times a week, my wife and I make the trek from Redwood
City because there is no where in San Mateo County where
we can go with our dogs off leash.
[Applause.]
We used to own three Vizslas. We know own two.
But except for the lady with the Wolfhound, they can run
with the fastest of them. And I've never seen them run up
the cliff and bother a swallow.
I'd like to start out with something that I
think is somewhat self-evident. You said at the beginning
that your counsel has advised you that you must do
something about this because it's an illegal policy. As
my brothers and sisters in the law have so eloquently
stated tonight in different words, a town that's too small
for one lawyer does just fine with many. And there are
many here. I'm not trying to do that as a matter of
posturing, but I'd like to get beyond where we've all
been.
You're not helpless. You're an advisory
committee. You're not being paid. These aren't your
jobs. They can't fire you if you just decide to do
nothing. And I can tell you, going up Highway 280, rarely
do I go 55, and I'm not stopped. But I do have just a
couple of quick points, because I'm, you know, I'm tired
of this.
You know, I've been doing this for 16 years.
Other attorneys have been doing this for just as along.
It really comes down to this: You can do nothing and
nobody is really going to say anything about it. Or you
can do something, polarize the situation. In the law,
there is something called a temporary injunction. The
nature of it is to preserve the status quo. For each of
the Supervisors that came up here, you questioned them.
You asked them: Are you willing to meet us halfway? I'm
asking that question in return. Because, if you're
willing to meet us halfway and do nothing just for
tonight, you have the entire City and County of San
Francisco, you have representatives from the state, you
have the innumerable people here, who are willing to meet
you halfway and say, if you won't do anything tonight, we
can move on to item No. 3 and most of us can go home.
Is there anybody here who wants something done
tonight?
[Audience responds in the negative.]
Anybody outside, anybody in the other rooms?
Because if anybody wants this taken out tonight --
Okay. I've just taken a little empirical
evidence. Please, ladies and gentlemen, let's just shake
hands on it. Let's do nothing for tonight and work on it.
Nobody is going to arrest you; nobody is going to fire
you.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
Cindy Del Corto, then Sheila Mahoney, and
somebody named Barbara.
STATEMENT OF
SHEILA MAHONEY
MS. MAHONEY: My name is Sheila Mahoney, and I'm
a homeowner and a long-term resident of San Francisco, an
animal physical therapy volunteer at the SPCA, a member of
Fort Funston Dog Walkers and SF Dog.
Normally, I'm a very rational person, but I came
here really angry today. I addressed the Commission in
November, or whenever it was, on the Fort Funston Closure,
and I read the transcript of your last meeting. You
didn't listen to us. You totally ignored the enabling
legislation issue and the legislative background. You
didn't even try to counter the arguments refuting the four
justifications given for the enclosures. You just made it
an anti-dog thing. You told us that it was a done deal.
So I am a bit surprised today by some pockets of openness
that I see. I hope it's real.
I know that you just want this all to go away.
The public outcry and the turnout tonight should convince
you that rescinding the dog policy will not make it go
away. The easiest and best way to keep the promises made
over the years, and to resolve this once and for all, is
to recommend that the GGNRA formalize that pet policy as a
special rule under those famous regulations. Just add it
to the rules that permit dogs to run off leash while
hunting in 45 other national parks and recreational areas.
Show us tonight your good faith by not rescinding the
policy and let's work together getting that special
exemption. Everybody here will write a letter to whatever
federal officials we're supposed to write.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Did Cindy Del Corto show up?
Barbara, Pamela Baldwin, Laurissa Jensen.
STATEMENT OF
CINDY DEL CORTO
MS. DEL CORTO: I'm Cindy Del Corto.
I guess most everybody here represents San
Francisco; I'm here to represent San Mateo County. Not
only are you affecting the city of San Francisco, but this
decision is going to affect San Mateo County. And for
those Commissioners that represent San Mateo County, I
hope that you have spoken to the officials down there and
let them know, you know, this is coming down their way,
too.
I also came here to listen to the voices of
reason and hoped that they would prevail, and I hope that
you are listening to people in this hearing. As our
appointed representatives, you should table this, take it
to the U. S. Attorneys, and say: Look! We've got a
problem. We need to collaborate with the cities and the
counties to get this issue resolved. Rescinding this pet
policy tonight is going to have a drastic effect on
hundreds of thousands of people in this area. I truly
hope that you take this to heart, not lose the vision that
you had in 1979 when you enacted this pet policy --
although it's illegal -- and remember those times when you
brought this in under the enabling act of the GGNRA, that
it was done in that period. Tonight, maybe you can regain
that spirit and bring this to the powers that be so that
we can all collaborate to keep our dogs to enjoy the
off-leash lands of the GGNRA.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Barbara or Pamela Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF
PAMELA BALDWIN
MS. BALDWIN: Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen. I'm Pamela Baldwin, and I've been asked to
read a letter. But before I do that, I'd like to share
just 30 seconds of who I am.
I'm a wildlife artist and I specialize in
painting endangered species, and give a portion of
everything I make to those people and groups that are
trying to help those species. And in order to start my
day properly, I take my two 21-month-old Labrador
Retrievers out to that thing called water and let them
swim. And one is ball-centric, so all she does is go back
and forth with a tennis ball. But I'm willing to make a
deal with you, if we can add a little levity to this,
Superintendent? If you keep your raccoons and skunks that
come into my yard on leash, I'll keep my dogs on leash.
[Laughter.]
This is a letter that is signed by William
Herndon, of the San Francisco Police Department:
"Commissioners,
"I am the hearing officer for the City and
County of San Francisco on all matters of
vicious and dangerous dogs that are addressed
under the Health Code. The Health Code
addresses not only biting dogs, but also
menacing behavior. I have held this position
for about 7 years and have heard hundreds of
cases. We've received national and worldwide
attention from television, radio and the
printed media.
"Dog Court, as the media likes to call it, has
addressed many problems that have been ignored
by other communities. I was also involved as a
member of the City and County of San
Francisco's Off-leash Dog Task Force.
"The City and County of San Francisco has
experienced a huge reduction of all biting
incidents [which we would love to have your
spokesmen reflect when they're talking on
television about how many people are being
bitten]. Last year, I believe, we were down
over 30 percent and are on track for a larger
reduction this year. These reductions, I
believe, are a result of the combined effort of
the dog community working with the city
officials to promote responsible dog ownership.
"Off-leash dog areas are a key ingredient to
proper animal management. Dogs need to run,
play, jump and exercise. These needs cannot be
properly met at the end of a leash. It is
imperative that off-leash dogs areas be made
available to the public. Without them, we will
see a rise in bites and numerous other problems
that result from dogs not being properly
socialized.
"It is a very important thing to remember that
to every dog is attached a person, and that
person is the one who needs to be responsible
for that dog. Off-leash dog walking areas need
to be increased, not eliminated.
"I am available to any member of the Commission
or member of the public if I can be of any
assistance with this issue, or any dog-related
issue.
"Sergeant William M. Herndon
"Hearing Officer, Park Station
"San Francisco Police Department"
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I'm going to call two more
names, and, after that, I'm going to ask what your
pleasure is for the rest of the evening. Laurissa Jensen
and Claire -- might also be Jensen, something like that.
What I propose is this: That the Commission
take no action having to do with the policy tonight, but
that we all recognize it for what it is. It was a
recommendation, which didn't have the force of law. It's
been brought to our attention that it's illegal and
unenforceable, but I propose that we do nothing, at least
until after the following steps are taken:
Dr. Wayburn has recommended that we refer this
matter to the National Park's Advisory Board in order to
raise it to a national level, because we're well-informed,
but we're not the only park that has the same concerns
going on.
Secondly, that we ask the staff to continue to
meet with the other land-owning agencies, as they have
been for the last couple of months, to find out if they
can't loosen up their restrictions the way we have so that
there is more area because there are more dogs.
Third, that we make the application that's been
referred to several times tonight -- excuse me -- not that
we make it, but that we discuss with you how it's made,
when it's made, if it's made, which comes under 36 CFR
1.2(c).
And, finally, that the Superintendent be asked
by this Commission to meet with the interested parties,
including the elected officials and the congressional
offices who are also aware of this, and to do so within
the next 120 days.
Now this is a little bit unusual because, when
we have a public hearing, we like to hear from the public
that came and signed up to speak. But we're only on page
10, and we literally have dozens of pages left to go. And
if this is something that the Commission would be
interested in and that you would be interested in, then I
will ask this: Is there anyone that wants to speak like
in opposition to this, or some such thing?
[Unidentified voice spoke from the audience, but
not recorded.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Yes. My proposal is this:
That the Commission take no action tonight having to do
with the policy.
Secondly, that we -- actually, first, that we
refer this matter to the National Park's Advisory Board,
as Dr. Wayburn has suggested.
Secondly, that we ask the Park Service staff to
continue to meet with the other land-owning agencies, such
as the city, San Mateo County, State Parks, to see if they
won't loosen up their regulations to help relieve some of
the areas that are under our jurisdiction.
Third, that we discuss with the interested
groups the possibility of submitting an application under
36 CFR 1.2(c), which is that which has been spoken to
tonight, which would permit one park to do things
differently than other parks do, based on local
circumstances.
Fourth, that we ask the Superintendent to meet
with the groups that have volunteered to meet, and with
others who have a stake in this, including the elected
officials and the congressional offices, and to do so
within 120 days.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Now please understand that
that's a proposal from one individual, and I don't have
the consent of the rest of the Commission Members to do
that. But I'd like to make this meeting productive,
rather than divisive.
[Applause.]
COMMISSIONER BOOTH: Commissioner Bartke, I'd
like to support you before I have to leave. I think
that's an excellent proposal. We have heard you, I have.
And I just want to say that we really are supposed to be
here to hear the citizens, and I'm really sad to see that
it's seems that a lot of people feel that it's us against
you, and you against us, but I've been listening to you.
I support that, Rich. I think that's an
excellent step.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER BOOTH: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER WAYBURN: Seconded.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Moved by Anna-Marie Booth,
seconded by Dr. Edgar Wayburn. Before the Commission
takes a vote, though, are there people who want to speak
about this proposal. I saw this gentleman in the front,
first.
Do you want to come up to the microphone and
tell us who you are?
MR. BUTEN: I appreciate it, and I commend you
on what you just said. You referred to some interest
groups. Could you be more specific about who those
interest groups are? Because we want to make sure that
they deal with basically the people involved, and whether
the people involved have access to you and can express
their opinions?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I was thinking that certainly
the groups who have been identified tonight would all be
included. But what I'm concerned about is that there
appears to me to be a number of people who use our lands,
with their dogs, who don't belong to a group and we've got
to find a way to talk to them, too. And I'm not sure how
that would do, but the staff, I think, could work on that.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
LYNNE NEWHOUSE SEGAL, J. D.
COMMISSIONER
RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION, SAN FRANCISCO
MS. SEGAL: And there is one group that you
didn't mention, and I'm very pleased with your decision
for tonight. I'm Lynne Newhouse Segal. I'm a San
Francisco Recreation and Park Commissioner. Commissioner
Meyer formerly served in my position.
This is a great decision. I'm a little upset
that, when you said that you wanted to talk to all the
groups and anybody who felt that they were not represented
in your comments should come forward. That's when I
decided to come forward.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay.
MS. SEGAL: Because we are -- I want all of you
here to know that the San Francisco Recreation and Park
Commission has been here since before 7 o'clock. I'm not
speaking for the Commission because we could not take a
vote on this. We can only vote on things that are
noticed. We have very specific rules. But the Department
knows that I'm here.
I'm the chair of the Parks and Planning
Committee of the Commission where all the decisions on
parks go first. I want to tell you all, and remind you
all, as I'm sure that Commissioner Meyer knows, and as I
told Commissioner Alexander and Anna-Marie Booth, that,
for all of the dogs that are not allowed to run off leash
in the GGNRA, that will come at the expense of soccer
fields and playgrounds in our parks in San Francisco.
And please help us out. We know it's a problem.
We know there are more dogs now than there were 29 [sic]
years ago when you made this other policy. Please help us
out. Be good neighbors and thank you very much. I
appreciate your decision tonight.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: We gotcha.
[Applause.]
MR. SINDELL: Commissioners, I'm the father of
two and we're owned by a Boxer. Any Boxer owners?
What you say, it sounds great and it probably is
great; but I think it's real important to the public --
maybe I'm slower than everyone -- really understands what
we're agreeing to by acclimation before we go home
tonight.
Point 2 of the proposal was to refer this to the
National -- what was the organization?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: That was actually point 1,
that we refer this matter to the National Park's Advisory
Board, which is a Commission similar to this on the local
level, except it's national, and because we know that
there are other national parks that are dealing with the
same problem.
MR. SINDELL: My only question is, then: Would
that be giving it to their authority, or would you still
retain authority?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: No. Well, we don't have much
authority, but it doesn't give anything to their
authority. It's raising their concern that this is a
problem here, and it's probably a concern elsewhere and it
ought to be dealt with on a national level.
MR. SINDELL: So that would not take it out of
local hands?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: It would not. I would not
expect an answer back from them within the 120 days that
we expect a local answer.
MR. SINDELL: Then a hardy congratulations.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Mr. Bonny.
STATEMENT OF
CHARLES BONNY
MR. BONNY: I'm Charles Bonny. I live here in
San Francisco. I want to say that I believe I've heard an
awful lot of nonsense this evening. I'd like to point out
that we are never going to have a world in which there are
only humans and dogs. We've got a lot of critters that
have to be considered besides dogs, and I very much
dislike this having people come here, pushing dogs, as
though dogs were the only thing that had any kind of
importance.
I want to point out to you people that you have
a compromise already. It's not a band of dogs, it's dogs
on leashes, to protect the creatures that live in the
national recreation area.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
Speaking on the proposal --
[Loud remarks from the audience.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: You know, there is an adage
that, if you cannot be polite to others, it reflects a
weakness in your position. And please don't get into that
trap.
Are you up here to address the policy which I
have just suggested?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just want to take one
moment of time. I've been on Crissy Airfield for 21
years, from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and I've never seen a
dog attack anything. Fort Funston, the same way. I've
been involved with dogs for 55 years.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Is that speaking about the
proposal we have in front of us.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Look! We're the stupid
ones on the earth. The animal kingdom obeys the natural
laws, and it works. Sorry, I think we're barking up the
wrong tree.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: You don't think we should do
this policy, then?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think we're misusing
time. Time is for life and dogs and people and animals,
and everything that's alive, belongs in fresh air and
sunshine. People look forward to it. We'd have a
healthier population, a happier, well-adjusted taxpayer
base, economic base.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. I got it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: A dog has never attacked
anything. They're out there and they're happy and they're
exercised. I use to lead Sierra Club Dog Hikes on Ocean
Beach. We'd have 20 owners, 20 dogs. They all palled.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Yes, ma'am. Next speaker.
STATEMENT OF
JAMIE HOFF
MS. HOFF: I have something to say about that.
I ride a horse, I have a dog. I ride a horse in the Fort
Funston area, on the beach. I've been attacked by dogs
several times. Fortunately, for me, the dogs haven't bit
the horse. Fortunately, for me, our horse isn't afraid of
dogs, yet. I've had other riders who have actually had
dog attacks on their horse and have been severely bitten.
I've seen a horse who has been attacked by a dog and its
muzzle was ripped open and had to get several stitches.
I've seen and, you know, it wasn't myself. And another
rider, we've been attacked by dogs. And a friend of mine
was attacked by five dogs, all off leash.
I'm not against off-leash as long as the dogs
are under control. I want to make it clear that I like
dogs. I like to bring my own dog riding, but it's under
control. If it's not under control, then, if you see
horses coming, would you please put it on a leash. Don't
trust the dog to go and behave itself because it's too
many times I've had dog owners yelling to no avail at
their dogs to come back, and they don't.
So I have no other recourse but to buy a bull
whip to snap at the dogs. Not to hurt the dogs, but to
scare them.
My friend, who has had five dogs attack her,
they had the owner yell at her and say it was her fault.
She was just walking on the beach, the dogs came at her.
Her horse is under control, the dogs are not. And he
tried to grab her horse by the halter. I don't know what
he was trying to do, but I've had several instances where
dogs have come after me. In some cases, the owners try to
get the dogs back; and, in some cases, they don't.
And the biggest problem, I feel, are the dog
walking services, who have an excess of 10-plus dogs.
It's way too many dogs for one person to handle.
Sometimes, they are good about controlling them;
sometimes, they are not. Sometimes, they let the dogs come
at the horses. In one incident, I was trying to stay in
the surf, the dog kept, you know, or the owner, or the dog
walker service guy, did not do anything to retrieve the
dog.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Why don't we suggest that the
equestrian community have its input into this process
during the next 120 days.
[Applause.]
MS. HOFF: I wrote a letter and I have asked
others to write a letter, too. But, you know --
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Anybody who wishes to speak to
the Commission -- oh, your name, please.
MS. HOFF: Jamie Hoff, H-o-f-f.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Gotcha. About the proposal --
MS. VITTORI: Two refinements. Just two
refinements. I want to find out two things.
No. 1, this is a recommendation to Brian
O'Neill. How is Brian O'Neill going to respond to it?
And the second thing is, is this going to go out
to Park Service employees?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Pardon me?
MS. VITTORI: Is this going to go out to Park
Service employees so that, in the field, it's understood
that dogs can be walked freely and responsibly?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Well, you know, that's the
problem that brought us here tonight.
MS. VITTORI: No. I'm asking about park staff.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I know. But whereas the
Commission doesn't have to obey the rules, the park staff
does. We will ask that the -- maybe this is implicit in
the suggestion I made, not to be explicit, is that we ask
that the staff not take any precipitous action to do
anything until it's done these things within the next 120
days.
MS. VITTORI: So you're going to ask the staff
to hold off to do anything --
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Hold off signs, citations, and
so forth, until they come back with a plan.
MS. VITTORI: Thank you very much.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
ANDRE ARMAND
MR. ARMAND: Ladies and Gentlemen and
Superintendent O'Neill, I've stayed long to express an
idea because I don't -- I have not heard anything about it
mentioned here. And it is in the area of remedies.
We are all here tonight fighting for our
privilege to walk our dogs off a leash because of the
irresponsible attitudes of a very small percentage of dog
owners. You have stated in your, in the review of the
agreements here, that dogs were allowed under control, off
leashes, and I stress the term, "under control." Yet
nowhere have I seen any kind of an effort by the Trust or
the Commission to educate the public on what control is.
Nor have I seen any kind of rules and regulations in place
which would help be a leadership statement on what is
allowable and what is not.
To my understanding, Seattle had a very bad dog
dropping problem, and they classified a dog's dropping as
litter. And those in control of the dogs who did not pick
up that litter were cited for littering. Now that
littering bill is a thousand dollars. I want to tell you,
if you had that kind of a rule here, all of a sudden there
wouldn't be any dog poop anywhere.
[Applause.]
And I would strongly suggest that you do
something besides waiting for 120 days for some more to
come out. The reason we're here now is because no action
had been taken all these years to either help these people
create peer pressure that would bring those owners into
line, or you people instituting some fines for them
digging holes in environmentally sensitive areas, or
fining them for not picking up their dog litter. If you
had done that 20 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you. May we have your
name, please.
MR. ARMAND: My name is Andre Armand.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you. Each of the
speakers needs to tell us who you are so we have a record
of it.
STATEMENT OF
CAROL ARNOLD
MS. ARNOLD: I'll be very brief. My name is
Carol Arnold. I work as an environmental professional. I
have a Masters Degree in Environmental Studies. I've
worked in the conservation field for many, many years.
I want to emphasize -- well, first, let me tell
you I have many passions in my life; but two of the most
important to me are probably first and foremost the
environment, and the second is my dog. And I want -- I'm
probably the person who agrees the most with Mr. Arthur
Feinstein in this room on many, many issues. Some of you,
I even know professionally.
However, I see very strongly, as Mr. Bonny said
-- I think it was Mr. Bonny -- we all live in an urban
area. There's a lot more here than just dogs, and that's
very true. However, because we do live in an urban area,
we can't just run -- and dogs are as important to us as
our right arms, and you have to believe that. Just take
that on face if you're not a dog owner. It is heartfelt.
You just can't run your dog around a living room, which is
about all we have available to us. Most of us don't have
backyards. We have to go to urban parks and we see, or I
see, as a strong environmentalist, an urban park. I know
you don't like to call it that, but I believe strongly
that that's what it is. That's Fort Funston and Crissy
Field. We have to be able to go there to exercise our
dogs.
The environmental issues can be dealt with. We
can make compromises. We can protect the threatened snowy
plover and the endangered -- I mean, the endangered snowy
plover -- no, threatened snowy plover and the endangered
bank swallow without tearing each other apart. We can do
it, and I strongly believe in doing it.
So I just wanted to correct -- and if you could
pass that on to the National Park Advisory Commission that
there are some very strong environmentalists amongst dog
owners, who believe very strongly. I think most of the
people here would probably consider themselves
environmentalists.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
NORMAN BUTEN
MR. BUTEN: Hi! My name is Norman Buten.
I just want to reiterate, to a certain extent,
what this lady just said; and that is: As dog owners, we
do have a very responsible attitude in terms of dog
litter. In fact, when we see a dog coming and the owner
didn't pick up it's litter, we almost ostracize that
person, or reprimand him to pick up their doggie do. And
I think most people agree over here, even among the dog
owners. I'm prepared to be open to a heavy fine for
people who don't pick up their dog litter.
The bottom line to all off us this is: We're a
responsible bunch of people. We're prepared to behave as
responsible members of the community to promote a
harmonious community. And that is picking up the dog
litter and doing whatever it takes to live well with other
people within our community, including environmentalists,
for the birds, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
VOICE: Are all these people just going to speak
or are we back to the list?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: That's what I'm wondering.
Are we back into the public hearing, or are we speaking on
the proposal?
[Many voices speaking simultaneously.]
STATEMENT OF
JOHN KEATING, ESQ.
MR. KEATING: I just have a short comment as to
the proposal, which I think will give the Commission a
higher comfort level in voting for it, and then a
suggestion on how to do this.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Who are you?
MR. KEATING: John Keating. I'm the attorney
currently on the other side of the litigation in the Park
Service and Fort Funston Dog Walkers matter.
You have been told that you had to rescind the
policy tonight to get an advantage in the dog litigation.
What I'm going to tell you is that it won't do you a damn
bit of good if you do -- it won't do you a damn bit of
good if you rescind the policy. It won't have an effect
in the litigation. Your attorneys have tried this a
number of times in the litigation, and it's been rejected.
It is a very simple reason why you don't need to do it to
achieve an end in the litigation. And the reason is: At
Fort Funston, you're closing off all access to the park
area. You're not just closing off off-leash dog use.
Therefore, the litigation is not going to be dismissed
just if you limit off-leash dog walking because we're
going to want to walk our dogs there with leashes, and
other people, the kids, are going to want to down the sand
dunes.
So I hope you understand the tortuous
intellectual process we've been in here, where you're
thinking that you have to do something to achieve an end,
when it's not going to give you that end.
The second point --
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: You understand, of course,
that the Commission is not a party to the lawsuit. We've
been to none of the hearings, nor do we intend to.
MR. KEATING: I understand that. And I'm not
trying to give you advice. I'm just trying to tell you
that maybe it won't have the intended effect anyway. So
--
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: But I'm trying to tell you
it's not an intended --
MR. KEATING: Right.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: It would not be a goal of
ours.
MR. KEATING: Mr. Alexander indicated that you
had been informed that possibly would be a benefit for
rescinding the policy. I'm not suggesting that that's why
you're doing it. I'm just saying that, if in the back of
your minds that was a benefit, you don't need the benefit.
Secondly, all of that can be put on hold so you
don't need to deal with the Fort Funston matter. So we
can sit down and work out a solution, a temporary
solution, until that process of meeting and getting a
cohesive policy is set up. We've repeatedly requested to
sit down. So, the point is that we're willing to talk
with you. You don't need to do it.
Now here's a suggestion: You might want to
consider keeping the process local at the first stage
before you bump it up to the National Advisory Board.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
CHRISTINE L. GARCIA, ESQ.
REPRESENTING IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS
MS. GARCIA: Really quick. My name is Christine
L. Garcia, and I'm representing In Defense of Animals. My
only request is that you add In Defense of Animals as an
interested committee, or interested party, in that
committee that you're referring to.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Good. Got it.
MS. GARCIA: I also wrote down all my
information, and I'm offering my legal, professional
services, just as everybody else is, to facilitate the
amending of 36 CFR 2.15 and 36 CFR 1.2. So please call me
if you need any legal anything.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. We're now ready for a
vote. Discussion from Commission Members on the motion
that's in front of the Commission.
COMMISSIONER MEYER: Mr. Chairman, I think that
you've brought forth a number of different things, which
require different treatment. The first one that you
brought forth, and I'd like to see it separated from the
others, is the one concerning the recommendation to the
National Park's Advisory Board, because it's one area of
thinking.
Another one has to do with reaching out to, as
soon as possible, to have discussion with many groups
which would start the process going of trying to come, to
figure out how, what we can do to improve the situation
here with regard to the groups that are involved, and,
ultimately, with other groups in the region. I think this
needs a lot of work at a committee level. I don't want to
slow the process, but I think that you need to prepare a
directive for committees to get some suggestions. We
have, for example, coming up this week, the Presidio
Committee. We also have, next week, the San Francisco
Committee. And this would, you know, help within the
Commission.
Another thing that you said, you made a complete
round trip from where we were at the beginning of this
meeting. And I think it's important to state what we
stated, and you've tried to state at the beginning of the
meeting but there was so much noise in here, that what we
have is a statement made by the U. S. Attorney concerning
a policy which we had -- it's not a policy; that's too
strong a word -- a recommendation which we had made, which
was acted on for a period of time by the National Park
Service, to have dogs be allowed to go off leash in
certain areas. And I think in not voting on that, we need
to discuss that separate matter. That, if we don't vote
on it, it's because the U. S. Attorney has essentially
rendered what we did 22 years ago moot, because we have to
follow his advice.
That's at least three separate sections. Did I
miss something?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Can you meet with other public
agencies.
COMMISSIONER MEYER: And, then, the fourth one
would be other public agencies. One would be with groups
and interested parties, and to pick up the full range of
interested parties. The last would be to work with other
agencies. I simply think you have to break those into
four separate matters.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Trent.
COMMISSIONER ORR: Well, first, I just have a
question. Are we done with the public hearing? Where are
we as a matter of process? Because I don't know whether
what I want to say is what I want to say now or --
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Well, I made a proposal and it
was -- it's been moved and seconded.
COMMISSIONER ORR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: If the people want to continue
with the public hearing, we may do that. I have
literally, probably, three or four hundred names of people
who have signed up.
COMMISSIONER ORR: Right.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: And we can go through that.
I've made a proposal which is now in the form of a motion
made and seconded. So I would deem that, if the motion is
adopted, this issue on our agenda is put to bed for now.
COMMISSIONER ORR: Well, then, let me speak to
the motion. I share a concern that Commissioner Meyer
just raised, which is: I'm personally uncomfortable with
the elevating the issue to the National Advisory Board at
this point because it sounds to me like the other three
things you're suggesting -- that is the meeting with the
other land-owning agencies in this area, the meeting with
interested organizations to deal with what would be a
reasonable application for an exceptional rule here in the
park; and then the third, which is the Superintendent
meeting with interested groups and elected officials, and
so forth, in the next 120 days -- I mean, that seems to me
to address this. I haven't heard tonight, and I haven't
heard from the Park Service, that this is an issue in
other parks. And I'm not prepared to send this up to a
higher level when it sounds to me like the rest of your
proposal would deal with it locally.
So I suppose one thing I would say is I would
prefer that to be broken off as a separate motion, or
voted on separately. Because, otherwise, I'm
uncomfortable with voting for the whole thing.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I think it's on the question
of parliamentary procedure that, on the request of a
member, the chair is permitted to split them into separate
votes. And, so, at your request, I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER ORR: Thank you.
[Applause.]
COMMISSIONER ORR: Then, if I could just briefly
address the second three. I think I've already said I'm
not prepared to send this up to the national level because
I just don't think we have the information, or that that's
a necessary step at this point.
I want to stress a couple of things here about
what I've heard; and one is: You know, the people who are
interested in off-leash dog walking, obviously, you feel
very strongly about this. We've heard that loud and
clear. I have to say that, in this process, we're going
to have to involve -- we heard from the woman from the
equestrian community; we've heard from Arthur Feinstein.
We've gotten a lot of letters from people. I've actually
heard -- I'm involved in the environmental area, and I've
heard from various people that knowing the crowd that was
going to be here -- and given some of the behavior here
tonight, I can understand this -- people did not want to
come and speak. I mean, people said to me: Why should I
come there when I'm going to be booed and hissed and
treated rudely?
In this process, which I'm going to support, you
have to understand that there needs to be representatives
from the environmental organizations, from interested
parents groups, from senior centers, from whoever it is,
because this is a national park that belongs to everybody,
whether you say it's an urban park or a national --
however you define it, this park belongs to the American
people. It's used by people from across the country and
throughout the world.
So I just want to make clear my feeling that,
you know, this has got to be addressed in -- you know,
don't expect this to be a series of closed meetings in the
same way that we've been accused of having sort of secret
meeting between just the canine community and the Park
Service, or members of this Commission. It's really going
to have to be all inclusive, and that may take some time.
[Applause.]
Supervisor Peskin used the word "balance," and
that's exactly what we're going to have to do here. And I
plea to everyone here to come in and -- you know, the
thing that I don't like to hear people belittling
endangered species, and belittling plants, protecting
endangered plant communities as hobby gardening, and that
sort of thing. I mean, I think you do yourself a
disservice in making those sorts of arguments.
So, again, as we go into this process, I would
plead with people to realize that there are a whole
complex set of issues here that have to be fit together,
and we may not end up with off-leash walking everywhere
that everyone would like it to be. Just as we probably
won't end up with restored habitat everywhere some people
would like it to be. But, again, that's the process I
envision. The only reason I'll be voting for this is
because I expect that to be the process we go through, and
I guess I'll get off my soapbox at that point.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
Betsey.
COMMISSIONER CUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I congratulate you for your thoughtfulness in putting
forth this suggestion, and I fully support it, as well as
Commissioner Orr's, and Commissioner Booth's and
Commissioner Meyer's comments.
The hallmark of our democracy is participation,
and we've had a lot of that tonight. I, for one,
appreciate it. Despite some of the comments to the
contrary, I fully appreciate all of your comments -- not
the rudeness, I might add.
I would like to emphasize my own concern that
the process, this 120-day process, or perhaps longer if it
needs to be, be fully inclusive, as Commissioner Orr was
starting to suggest, not only with the canine community,
but the equestrians, the people walkers, whatever you call
walkers, pedestrians, and every other stakeholder.
Because this will only work if all of the stakeholders are
at the table, and if all of the representatives of the
stakeholder groups come to the table fully prepared to
compromise. Because this will be a system where not
everyone gets, not anyone gets, everything that they want.
With that in mind, I fully support your
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
Dr. Wayburn.
COMMISSIONER WAYBURN: I would be perfectly
happy to see this divided. I disagree with Commissioner
Orr as to putting it up to the National Park's Advisory
Board to the Secretary as putting it upstairs. I think
that this occurs in other parks, particularly in other
urban parks, as well as in San Francisco. I don't believe
we're unique. I think that it's worthwhile passing this
onto the Advisory Commission to the secretary. This was
done on another matter, on wildlife in the national parks,
and a special commission, chaired by the late Starker
Leopold, made recommendations for a policy which has been
followed ever since.
But, on the local level, I had quite a bit to do
with establishing the Golden Gate National Recreation
Area. It was I who went to Congressman Phillip Burton
with the proposal. And the policy that Commissioner Meyer
and I made locally was: Doesn't San Francisco deserve a
recreation area? And the resounding answer that we got at
that time was: Yes. And this is what Congressman Burton
acted on. He further said that he would like to have a
national park where the people could go by public
transportation to their national park.
I confess to be a dog owner and a dog walker
myself. And I have had Vizlas for the past 35 years. The
Vizla loves to run. She always comes back. This was a
policy that we negotiated with the Park Service
originally, and I personally think it's valid at this
time.
I support what you said about having the Park
Service negotiate with other interested parties. I'm
perfectly happy with dividing this into two parts: local
and national. I think the Commissioners should all be
reminded that what you have suggested is not permanent,
but interim policy, to have effect only for the next 120
days, during which time all of the interested parties can
make their suggestions.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you, Doctor.
[Applause.]
Lennie Roberts.
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to just speak to the first item, which
was to refer this to the National Park's Advisory Board.
I think it would be premature to do that at this time.
There may be an appropriate time later, after we have
wrestled with these issues, with all the stakeholders, as
Commissioner Cutler suggested. And I certainly support
the idea of having all the stakeholders that we can
possibly involve be involved. Because we have, as a
national park, we have a responsibility to all the users
and to accommodate the public use and enjoyment of the
parks. Where there may be uses that conflict with the
general public enjoyment, we have to look at that. And I
think we need to have representatives who have a broad
perspective.
We also have, of course, the responsibility to
protect park resources. And, in reference to that, I just
wanted to point out that I spoke with Terri Thomas today,
who has been, up until recently, in charge of the park's
resources. We have in GGNRA 69 rare, threatened, or
special-status species of wildlife. Sixty-nine species
that are listed either as endangered, threatened or
special status. We have 38 rare, endangered, threatened,
or special-status plants. So this is 107 species, which
is far greater than Yosemite has. And this is not
Yosemite in terms of granite cliffs, but this is an
extremely special place because we have so many habitats
that are very precious habitats.
So that is just one of my biases as an
environmentalist. We do need to be concerned about that,
as well as the use and enjoyment of the park by the people
not only of our local area, but also the broader area.
So I will support the suggestions that we have
made, but I think we should hold off on the National
Park's Advisory Board, the referral.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Michael Alexander.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I agree with
Commissioner Roberts about that. I'm very pleased to hear
Dr. Wayburn say that he is comfortable with separating
that issue, the issue of bumping this up to the National
Park's Advisory Board.
I'm going to ask that we table that at this
time. The reason is: I think we need a lot more
information. I think we need to go through at least the
committee process. I think we need to hear more about
exactly what that Board has done in the past on issues
that are complex and controversial, and get a better
understanding of that. I'd be very happy to bring it back
if it appears that that is an appropriate way to go. But
I don't think that there is any critical timing -- and
please tell me if there is -- to get it underway this
month. We can always bring it back next month.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I know of no critical timing
on that. We have -- what I plan to do is to take up the
other issues first, and then take up Dr. Wayburn's
suggestion secondly. So, if you --
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I will hold my table,
then, out of consideration for your process.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: And I want to say that
I am in support of the other recommendations.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Jack Spring.
COMMISSIONER SPRING: I think that what you're
suggesting now is the proper thing to do, and take those
issues separately.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. Doug Nadeau.
COMMISSIONER NADEAU: I agree about the National
Park's Advisory Board. Over the years, when we've talked
about doing something about our dog policy and making it
legal, every time we've talked about it, we talk about
what a can of worms this is nationally. And I'm afraid
that, if we took it at this point to the National Park's
Advisory Board, it would, it would be very difficult.
I keep thinking about the Point Reyes Wilderness
Proposal that we crafted many years ago, when we, locally,
came up with some recommendations that were totally
counter to National Park Service policy, and we persisted
and said this makes sense in this urban area, and we
changed national policy. It was actually -- we changed
the law. And I think we can do that here, and I think we
should try to do that.
[Applause.]
I guess this is surprise, surprise! Because I
was ready to vote at the last meeting to rescind the
policy, but that was mainly to sort of clear the decks. I
do, I do believe that we can accommodate off-leash dog
walking in our park.
[Applause.]
I just want to make one more point. I really
want to thank Trent Orr and Lennie Roberts for what they
said. You guys need to listen very closely to those
things. This is not just some trashy urban park. It's an
important place, and those are all important point.
The final point that I would like to make is
that I'm a little bit worried because this could be a can
of worms from a national standpoint. That rather than
spending a lot of time workshopping this with multiple
organizations -- I mean, this could take months -- and
then coming up with a policy, and then going to Brian, who
has to run this up the flagpole, through the Regional
Office and Washington, I'd like to suggest that, before we
do that, Brian meet with representatives from our Regional
Office and the Washington Office, maybe with some Advisory
Commissioners present, and maybe even with some members of
the Board of Supervisors present, to talk about, without
getting specific about what the policy is, what are the
chances of this getting through. I would like some
assurances. In fact, I wish John Reynolds was here
tonight -- he's our Regional Director -- or someone from
Washington, because this does have national implications.
But I'd like to get a reaction from those folks before we
spend a lot of time working with these good folks in the
audience, and others, and crafting something in detail.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I think that's a good
suggestion, but I do not want to delay the process. I
would like to do it concurrently, if we can do that.
COMMISSIONER NADEAU: That's my point.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. Fred Rodriguez.
COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ: In your questioning of
the various Supervisors, and other representatives, I
think what you were looking at is saying that this is a
problem that is just, is beyond just this group here.
We're dealing with what's going on within the GGNRA, but
there's a lot of pressure created by actions that have
been taken elsewhere. The fact that there is no place in
San Mateo to run dogs, that you need to come up to San
Francisco to do it, it would be good to bring these
players to the table. We had more than a majority of the
Board of Supervisors here, and you have on this
Commission, right now, at least three people who were on
the Rec & Park Commission in San Francisco, and a former
Superintendent, and there are ways of including what goes
on in city policy.
I also just want to comment about all the energy
that has been used up here this evening. I would hope
that we could capture it for other purposes, as well,
that help to promote and preserve the GGNRA. Hopefully, a
collaboration that wouldn't end on this issue, but would
form a base on which to build on other issues and further
advocacy.
[Applause.]
And just as a passing comment, because I know
there's just so many attorneys, that I do not, for one
moment, feel that, if there were an off-leash ban, we
would not be using the area for recreation. I think that
there's a lot of recreation that goes there. But I think
it is important to hear what the desires are of people
that are in the community and see where we can fill those.
But not because I feel it's going to be rescinded or taken
from us.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
Dennis Rodoni.
COMMISSIONER RODONI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome your suggestion to bring a closure to
this item tonight. I do think that a no-action is
appropriate on the proposal for rescinding the resolution.
And I would like to comment, though, that I think possibly
the recommendations could be combined into one. I do not
see any particular benefit in separating the public
agencies from the group that would be -- okay, I wanted to
make sure of that. Because we've got a tremendous offer
of cooperation tonight from Supervisors and State
Assemblymen, et cetera, et cetera; and I certainly would
like to encourage the Superintendent in this work group --
however it should evolve -- to include all those bodies,
public agencies and private individuals, so that we could
reach an agreement with that group. And I do include, as
Trent and Lennie suggested, that we have to include every
user to be a part of this group to get a fair resolution
for everyone.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Right.
COMMISSIONER RODONI: And, so, I would welcome
voting on this resolution; but I would remind the Chair
that there is line over there that hasn't gotten any
shorter. So we need to address that.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Yes.
Gordon Bennett.
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: I just want to make sure
that we include Marin County is this. There are these
same issues in Marin County, and we should -- we've
spoken, San Francisco has spoken, to San Mateo. Those
groups should be included and also Marin County.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Absolutely.
[Applause.]
Miss Meyer.
COMMISSIONER MEYER: Dennis, the reason I tried
to separate those two is because they're really two very
different trains of thought. One is that, before we can
go and say to people in the Region we need to talk to you
and we want to know what you want to do, we need to find
out from the various groups, user groups, interest groups
-- stakeholders is probably the right word -- what they're
thinking and what the range is of what can be done before
one can make any representations to another county, or
another agency. And that's why I separated the two.
COMMISSIONER RODONI: The Superintendent to
approach the exception issue, without going through the
process first, so we knew what the exception was that was
acceptable to all of the groups, so that was my point.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. Speaking for myself, I
don't know if any of this is going to work. But I made
the proposal because you asked for it. So I will now
rephrase the motion in this way:
First, that we ask the park staff to continue to
meet with the other land-owning agencies regarding other
places where this activity can take place.
Secondly, that the Superintendent meet with all
the interested parties, stakeholders -- a better word --
including the elected officials and the congressional
offices, and let's add, specifically, the agency of the
City and County of San Francisco, within 120 days.
Third, that among these discussions be the
possibility of an application through the Park Service for
a change in the CFR affecting this park.
Fourth -- and this is the one that I made
explicit, rather than implicit -- that the staff make no
changed in its enforcement during the next 120 days.
Those are recommendations and that's the motion
that's been made and seconded. Are we ready to vote?
COMMISSIONER SIDEN: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SIDEN: Let me ask for
clarification on when you say "stakeholders," because
there are groups that are not organized. I had one person
call me whose dog was leash, but was attacked by dogs not
on leash, and she's not part of an organized group. Is
there someway to bring in those who also use the park, but
maybe not organized into groups?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I think we've said that those
people are included as stakeholders. Stakeholder does not
mean necessarily groups. But all the groups that have
been mentioned tonight, all of them, plus all the users of
the park. Okay?
COMMISSIONER SIDEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: We're ready to vote. All in
favor say aye?
[Members voted: 14 ayes]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Opposed say no?
COMMISSIONER MEYER: No.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: The motion is adopted.
[Motion carried: 14/1, Meyer dissenting]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: We now have before us the
recommendation by Dr. Wayburn. This has also been moved
and seconded, that we forward this issue to the National
Park's Advisory Board.
Discussion on that motion?
COMMISSIONER WAYBURN: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WAYBURN: I recommend a special
commission to study and make recommendations. This is not
just to the Advisory Board. It's that the Advisory Board
and the Director, if necessary, appoint this special
commission of knowledgeable people. This does not reach a
conclusion at this time, and it is not just pushing it
upstairs.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. I will reword the
motion, then, that's in front of us, which is: We ask that
the National Park's Advisory Board appoint a special
commission to study and recommend on this policy.
COMMISSIONER WAYBURN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Michael.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I'm really quite
concerned about this. I don't want to -- I don't want to
see us voting. I think we may well be split on this. I
don't want to see us voting no on it. And, again, I need
to understand what is the critical -- is there a critical
timing here? If there isn't, can't we just table this for
a month so that we have a better understanding of it?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Well, under Parliamentary
rules, if you table it, it's tabled until the Board voted
it back off the table. If you want to postpone it to a
definite time, that's a different kind of a motion. I
would suggest --
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: I would ask that we
postpone it for a month.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: One month?
[Unidentified member of the audience speaking
but not recorded.]
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: No. You're not
understanding what I'm, what I'm -- I'm talking about
something quite different and very specific.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: The motion that is being
considered by the Commission at this time had been a part
of the former motion, but it was split out; and that is:
This body requests the National Park's Advisory Board
appoint a special commission to investigate and advise it.
Commissioner Alexander has suggested a postponement for
one month. I've not yet heard a second.
COMMISSIONER CUTLER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Seconded. Discussion on the
-- I believe, on a motion to postpone, you can only
discuss the postponment, not the motion itself.
Gordon.
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: I'd like to hope that we
can solve this on a local level, so I would like actually
to postpone it for the 120 days that we have to look at
the local measures.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: That would be a substitute
motion?
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. Is there a second to
the substitute motion?
COMMISSIONER RODONI: Second.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: It's been moved and seconded ,
the substitute motion, that we postpone the referral to
the National Park's Advisory Board for 120 days.
Now, discussion on the -- oh, man! It's later
than I thought -- on the substitute motion.
Do you have a question?
VOICE: Are you referring this for a decision or
for --
VOICE: Advice.
VOICE: Okay, advice, but not like telling you
what you have to do?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: That's correct. It's simply
-- the question remains local.
Susan.
COMMISSIONER ALLAN: Mr. Chairman, I think that
it just makes sense. We'll work on this for 120 days and
we'll have something.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I hope. Okay. The substitute
motion, then, is to postpone the referral for 120 days.
All in favor say aye?
[Members voted.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Opposed say no.
COMMISSIONER ORR: No.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: That motion is adopted.
[Substitute Motion (Commissioner Bennett)
carried: 12/1, Commissioner Orr dissenting.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Is there anything else on this
item to come before the Commission?
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: The next item on our agenda --
excuse me. Somebody asked that the Superintendent
respond. He's willing to do that. We will ask him to do
that.
SUPERINTENDENT O'NEILL: I want to, first of
all, thank the public for, in most cases, your decorum and
appreciation. I really do appreciate the thoughtful
comments of people, like Ed Sayers and Linda McKay, in
understanding the delicacy and difficulty of the issue
that we have to deal with here. We have a park of
extraordinary diversity and extraordinary resource values.
And there are many, many difficult issues to try to thread
through. And I think this Commission, and I know the park
has, has tried to be very resourceful in how we have
addressed that given constraints that have to work within.
I think we want to continue that attitude of being
resourceful, but realizing that we have to thread a very
difficult needle here on how we do it, and certainly
representing the Park Service in the spirit of wanting to
see if there's an answer that is appropriate, that's
respective of other user interests, is respectful of
resource stewardship that we all have a concern with, and
that the discussions involve all of the key stakeholder
interests. Because, clearly, we heard from a lot of
people who felt intimidated about coming tonight because
of what they expected would be the decorum, and I don't
think we got a full representation of all those views
tonight. I think it's important, if we have this
dialogue, we understand who those stakeholders are and
that they feel like they have a voice that's being heard,
respected, and dealt with as we address it.
So, clearly, from the Park point of view, I'm
very supportive of moving forward in the spirit of
tracking on those three issues. We have to make it clear
that, in 120 days, we'll see where we're at. And we have
to deploy what we call discretionary authority. There's no
such thing as not citing egregious situations. I think
you all will agree that there are certain situations out
there that need to be dealt with on the spot. Under no
circumstances are we going to give up that right and
obligation that we have to the public that uses the park.
So we will continue to use that discretionary authority,
and we will do it in a very responsible way.
We have to make it clear, also, that the Fort
Funston 12-acre issue is not subject to this resolution.
That's in the courts, and that has to complete itself in
the courts. And that that is important that that is a
separate issue from this broader question.
Other than that, I think we all here are
interested in rolling up our sleeves in trying to find
creative ways to deal with the challenges that we've got.
And I just want to underscore the fact that we feel
blessed in this community to have a national park that has
the resource values that are every bit as important and
significant as the Grand Canyon or Yosemite. And we need
to respect those resources in how we use them in
responsible ways.
Thank you.
[Applause.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
Perhaps one last thing on this item. I want to
express my deep appreciation for those who gave up their
time to speak after they had signed up to speak. All of
the names will become part of the official record. We
have the names of everybody who signed up, even those that
were outside in the rain. They're all part of the record.
Looking at our agenda, Item 4 has already been
taken care of. Under Item 3, the Presidio Trust
Director's Report, he has submitted a written report; and,
so, having submitted a written report, I excused him from
being personally here.
The Superintendent's Report, Brian?
SUPERINTENDENT O'NEILL: I'm too tired to give
one myself.
[Laughter.]
It was a long night last night and an early
morning. And we've got a written report and you can read
it and you can ask me any questions you want from it.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Okay. Moving on, committee
reports. Are there any committees, other than the Marin
Report, which we already received?
Michael.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PRESIDIO COMMITTEE
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ALEXANDER, CHAIR
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: The Presidio Committee
met on December 14. We heard a lot about the long overdue
repairs to the PUC Pump Station Building on city property,
next to the east end of the Crissy Field Promenade. The
Department of Public Works is preparing to repair the
plaza, which has been broken up for many years.
Unfortunately, what we are going to get are apparently
ugly concrete slabs poured over the broken up plaza.
Afterwards, we hope that the chain-link fence will be
removed.
We received an update on the Presidio Vegetation
Management Plan. It is moving towards a finding of no
significant impact.
We discussed the Presidio Trust Implementation
Plan and its status and the process it will follow. We
received an update on the Presidio Interpretation Plan and
reviewed the interpretation themes from last Spring's
symposium. We received an update on seismic work at the
Presidio Visitor Center Building, and we heard an advisory
on the ground-cover issues at the east end of Crissy
Field.
That's my report.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Any other committees wish to
report?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Now item 5 on the agenda is
the election of officers. This Commission has two
officers, the chair and a vice chair.
The floor is now open for nominations.
COMMISSIONER CUTLER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Betsey.
COMMISSIONER CUTLER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
nominate Richard Bartke to be the chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Any further nominations?
COMMISSIONER MEYER: I move the nomination be
closed.
[Laughter.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: I thought I heard a train go
through here.
It's been moved and seconded that the
nominations be closed. All in favor say aye?
[Members voted unanimously.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Opposed say no?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: The chair recognizes
nominations for the office of vice chair.
COMMISSIONER WAYBURN: Mr. Chairman, I nominate
Amy Meyer for vice chair.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Amy Meyer has been nominated.
COMMISSIONER ORR: Second.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Any further nominations?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER ORR: Move that the nominations be
closed.
COMMISSIONER WAYBURN: Second.
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Moved the nominations be
closed, and it has been seconded. All in favor say aye?
[Members voted unanimously.]
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: That completes our agenda for
this evening, unless there is anything that is not on the
agenda that we have to deal with.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN BARTKE: No. This meeting will be
adjourned in memory of Senator Alan Cranston, Congressmen
Sidney Yates and Bruce Vento, and Colonel "Bud" Halsey.
(Whereupon, at 11:15 p.m., the meeting of the
Advisory Commission was adjourned, to reconvene at 7:30
p.m., Tuesday, February 27, 2001.
[note: that meeting was since canceled, next meeting is at 7:3\0
p.m., Tuesday, March 27, 2001.
see http://www.nps.gov/goga/admin/pub_affairs/advisory/
- Editor, GGNRA WatchDog]
C E R T I F I C A T E
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before the Department of Interior, National Park Service,
of the meeting of:
The ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
AND POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE
were held as therein appears, and that this is the
original transcript thereof for the files of the
Commission.
James W. Higgins, CVR
Official Reporter