for this specific business. i would like to see a little liberalization and people allowed to have their families around up to, say, 10:00. depending on the neighborhood, obviously. >> if business is really well and we can support opening up earlier, that would also be an option. opening at 5:00 this just a conservative estimate for us with payroll and everything. >> it is great to see the city supporting an innovative and creative business model, investing the success of the business model. i would like to see the city making a corresponding investments. >> any further public comment?

seeing none, public comment is closed. of pay. this is an action item. can we have a motion for someone? >> i would like to move to support this change for the planning code. >> i would second that. >> we will take roll call on that. >> we have a motion to support recommendations. on that motion. [roll call vote]

it passes unanimously. >> director? >> that is okay. >> we will move on to item number three, please. >> commissioners, you're a hot item number three, approval of the meeting minutes and exploratory documents. >> motion to approve the june 13 meeting minutes.

>> i second. >> any objections? motion approved. next item. >> the general public comment. this allows members of the public to comment on matters within the commission's per view and suggesting of future consideration. live also like to remind members of the public that we have a bridge line that opened today. >> any public comment on any matter not of the agenda this evening? >> i am currently being sued for

ada access. i'm a turn key business. i don't have financial resources, so i have been spending a lot of time. none of which is prudent to me being sued. i am going through a lot of difficulty myself, but what gets me the most is that they are methodically working through my neighborhood right now. another merchant and i are trying to go out tomorrow to get ahead of that. i think you will are sort of aware of this. it is too late for me to stop a lawsuit from going forward. some my current goal is to get the business is the head of the plaintiff. the businesses that i now have

no idea about the legal obligations or probably what is going on. and provide them with some kind of tools or direction. we have been helping the small business office gather information for people. i would ask you to really move 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.