on a coordinated effort to provide resources including inspections and the huge difficulty in figuring out what to do. i am not kidding, one after the other on almost every barrier. businesses need the information of what they need to do, and they need the tools and space to do what is readily achievable. they need to be educated so that going forward, they don't inadvertently cause things to go wrong either for this abilities, or themselves. i ask your assistance in moving forward on a plan like that. other merchant and i are going to the state commission. have very little resources to do this.

it is an issue for the stake and all of the businesses. i believe implementation needs to be put in place and it needs to be not lawsuit driven, it needs to be real. >> next public comment? any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item. >> you're on the item number five, presentation and discussion on new service and support animal regulation and a proposed ordinance regulating service and support for animals. we would also like to remind members of the public watching on tv that when public comment is called, you may call 554-9632

to make public comment. >> can hear me ok? i and the deputy director of the mayor's office of disability which primarily deals with issues not related to construction. there is a lot of confusion, and quite a bit of interest from the business owner community about service and support to animals. what is allowed, what are the rights responsibility. we have a short power point for use of that we can discuss some of the issues. can we show the power point here? as many of the no, it applies to

small businesses that provide services to the public. title 3 covers public accommodation. everybody knows about -- we obviously hurt public comment about the confusion and frustration that it may cause for many business owners. business owners have an obligation to provide equal access of their services by making reasonable modifications. that means in some cases, we get to suspend some rules to provide a better access for equal access to a person that needs the suspension of that rule. the service animal provisions are a reasonable modification. many of you may have heard that

the ada has come up with new regulations. we call them the 2010 standards. currently, as of march 15, 2011, defines a service animal as a dog that has been individually trained to perform work or do tasks for a person with a disability, and it includes physical, sensory, psychiatric, or other disability. the current standards in 2010 only defines the animals as a dog and in some cases, a miniature horse. that is only considered a reasonable modification, mean that there is a narrow area that

would not accommodate -- the business owner can still say no. that is very different to what we have been accustomed to. the federal standard has substantially narrow the definition of a service animal and keeps creating even more confusion. in addition, i will show you some images. on the top, you see a gentleman with bipolar disorder that has been pretty famous in the news. that is the service parrot. the parrot is trained to calm him down by speaking certain

messages to him. he has a special backpack to be able to carry that. under the regulations, that animal is no longer allowed in. you see golden retriever, it is an alert dog. that dog has been trained to push a button on the photoperiod that as a service machine that has been used traditionally for many years. here you see him -- it is no

longer protected under the 2010 regulation. oftentimes when i talk about how miniature horses being allowed under the new regulation is for people that are blind, they can only work for seven or eight years. and can continue working for 30 years. [unintelligible] as the breeds of dogs note in the 2010 regulations, there is no restriction on the way, size, or breed of dog.

i have a conference of chart for you -- comparative chart for you. under the 1990 regulations, it should have been any animal. regardless of species, size, weight, or breeding. now, it is only dogs of any size and a miniature horses. under the previous regulations, 20 years ago, animals must be under the control of the person with a disability and it is a very broad definition of what he meant to be in control. someone can claim that there dog or cat is voice controlled.

now, the new rules and standards clarify that dogs or miniature horses must always be harnessed or on a leash when they are in public. the only exception happens when they are not able to hold on. even those cases, it is very rare. all of the additional requirements and inquiries remain the same. the person with a disability is responsible for the care and supervision of the dog, including cleaning up after the dog. if a dog is not house broken or behaving properly, the individual with a disability is responsible for that behavior. under the current laws and before, an animal could be excluded only if the owner

fails to control the animal. if a dog starts working without interaction and the owner is unable to silence the dog, they can be asked to remove the animal. if the animal is distracting in the usual flow of business, a restaurant, a dog is wandering around begging, that is unacceptable, inappropriate behavior. if the animal as the house broken or otherwise poses a health and safety risk, some dogs are not very well kept. the animals are not very well controlled in a public environment. in these types of regulations,

despite popular belief, there is no -- even the more it is illegal for an entity to require documentation. the only exception is housing. they can only ask the following questions. the number one question you are allowed to ask is, is this animal required for disability? our office recommends to ask, is this your pet? as you will hear from many folks that have come to speak tonight,

this is not a pet. it is essentially an assist device to allow the person to function in life. another question you can ask is, what services this animal provide? a person may not want to necessarily disclose the type of disability, but this is an indirect way of getting to the person's disability. business owners do have the right to ask that. emotional support from animals, the 2010 standards clearly say that dogs that are used as theft deterrents as those be a comfort are not considered service animals. emotional support of animals are very different from psychiatric service animals.

psychiatric service animals have been trained to do something very specific. and emotional support animal may not necessarily be trained to do something specific. whether they be well behaved in public or in a good citizen manners. they may have obedience training, but not necessarily to perform a specific task. there is a reason why people with disabilities or emotional disabilities will be able to get out of their house to go on about their business simply because they have an animal that helps with anxiety. if those things were not confusing enough, there are state and local laws and

california state law that expands the definition. the rules are more inclusive under the housing act. we are now in this very complicated situation where you have an emotional support animal having essentially the rights of a person being protected in housing or being protected on the flights for the airlines. the same thing with other service animals that are not dogs. we have been in conversation with the department of unemployment and housing in the state of california. and they have talked about the fact that they intend to continue holding true to the original definition of a service

animal, the more extended definition. we are sort of in a holding pattern right now, and we have alerted all of our city departments. we hold the same service and support animal policies as we have had, say you still see service burdens horse service cat's or emotional support dogs in a public library. the dilemma, as they explained, they provide a baseline of civil rights. you can always do better. if it is a local law, we're

required to go with it. as i said, and they are going to extend the definition about not just a service animal, but assistance animal. that is a california term. so what is the possible solution? live been working with the communities, working with people with disabilities for people and advocates, other stakeholders can minimize the confusion and frustration to provide a clear- cut rules addressing the concerns of stakeholders. the small business community is a big part of that dialogue and conversation. what is really interesting, once

the new rules have become public, many other jurisdictions are providing local ordinances that clarify the definition because this has been such a strong outcry of other service and animals that are no longer protected. what we need to hear from you and from the stakeholders you represent, and business owners have that with service or support animals. what has worked? what are some of the specific circumstances that may affect a particular business? is it a restaurant and grocery store? what are the facts about service and support animals in a place that serves food?

what type of education or campaign horse and it would be helpful for them to have? what type of solutions? what type of items would you like to see that would help protect some of your interests? what are your concerns? with that, i hope i give you a brief overview. i am open to questions in discussions with you. >> commissioners? >> i like your out reach. a merchant organization would love to give you feedback. do we do that with the office of disability? do we get that type of information through regina? great.

>> i have a specific question about the department of public health. they have been very aggressive in requiring cited prohibiting dogs in food service establishments. i believe, i would decide to know, is your office working with the department of public health and around confusion and clarifying this? >> under the ada, public health laws in establishments that are serving food are supposed to be suspended. the department of justice is very clear about service animals, basically saying that is a reasonable modification to allow a service animal even in this situation where there is food that is being served.

again, as long as the animal is under control and behaved appropriately. the department of public health was invited to night to join us as part of this conversation, and we will continue to work with them directly. it is a matter of education and back and forth as we craft an ordinance. >> i would like to say that i understand working together. the practical difficulty, i believe, and small businesses, the sensitivity of questioning someone with a service animal is extremely delicate. there is a situation where the health inspector comes and and we are ethics bending the benefits of a food service to the establishment because the

animal is well behaved and maybe there has been a very brief conversation, or not. for this place, this gray area. how do we know that our staff is respecting the rights of the people coming in. in the public health department understands the situation we are in. have been serious about enforcing the no animal rule. >> no pets or no animals? >> the are popping up all over town, and it is fairly recent, too. >> they want it in a very prominent place because apparently, there have been complaints about dogs on the premises. >> it is something we wish to --

>> i guess they furnish material to the businesses. and maybe we can get some clarity. the other thing i want to bring up as the issue of service animals on public transportation. >> these other questions we get asked a lot. a service and support animal policy, they address with their drivers. if you want to talk about this, this is what will happen. >> any other questions from other commissioners? >> it looks like the federal authorities scaled-back quite dramatically. i would describe it as a very restrictive, almost in a way

that is contrary to the interests of the physically disabled community. why did they tell in this down so much? what was the impetus behind them are moving so many classifications? i am trying to understand why they did that. >> i can only speculate. the organizations that train, is kind of a big business.

>> there is not a very strong body -- >> i will open it up for public comment. >> more people died by suicide

at the golden gate bridge than any other site in the entire world. you don't often hear the statistic because it is not something that the city is proud of. the importance, the validity, and the dignity of an emotional assistance dog. it is established in scientific literature -- is understood as a fact check can be someone in public that might be alone or get somebody to as " the group that might otherwise be terrified to be around a bunch of strangers.

the only people i have come in contact with our people that like to tell other people what to do. i want to suggest that if allowing emotional assistance dogs in public can take even a small bite out of the other was terrible statistic the our city is known for, isn't it worth it? i think it is. >> i am a longtime resident of san francisco, and i am the person disabled by aids/hiv.

this is my service animal and i want to lend my support to the argument and put another face on a situation that would severely restrict and hinder my access. and these new regulations would be enforced. he is probably my greatest resource for a marginal support. it is as this lady said, there are days because of my illness that i would not leave the house if it weren't for him. i don't think it is a healthy way to live. he has been trained in retrieval assistance. part of my disability involves neuropathy. i have trouble manipulating objects.

there are times when the level of assistance to me -- that is, without -- i can't put a price on that. i hope you will consider the arguments made by joanna in a good light. i want to continue wonderful life that we have had up until this point. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is robert and i have lived in san francisco for over 25 years. but also was diagnosed with six

months to live in san francisco 24 years ago. i am lucky to be here. he is a small jack russell terrier. if it wasn't for him, i would not be here today. i have very severe depression and desperation. there was a time when i had nowhere to satay. i was living out of a suitcase. i thought he oved m -- loved me so much. i love him so much. i could not accept or understand i could leave him. i knew nobody could take care and love him a and how much he brings to me. thanks to him, i go out. e