polk street. don't go to the mission. polk is the place. what happened is that the firemen had to take control. the police do not even try. the captain says there is nothing that he can do. he only has five officers. the sergeant says that there is nothing they can do. then they describe how somebody tried to get taken away because of the complaint from the bar owner. and all of their friends came and stopped the policemen from taking her away, and then the have to call and five more police. this time, the brief fire man stepped forward, without anybody even calling them, trying to take control of the street and

cleared it. it is very dangerous. we had a meeting with the city attorney this week about shutting down these places as a public nuisance, about how people came out of the bars on another occasion, lit fire to cloth, then threw it at a car. propane tanks are used under the senior housing, under their windows. this situation is horrible. last weekend, i had to go to abc for a hearing to try to. -- to try to prevent the license from being put in on the same block. they said, well, abc is fine with that, the board of supervisors found it was a public convenience, annual approved it, so whose fault is it what is happening to us? abc, of course, and you.

you know that i am not mean when i come down here. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. secretary avery: thank you, item number six, the disability access of small businesses and landlord obligations. >> hello, again, could afternoon. i am not justin -- justin will give a brief introduction. >> good afternoon, just in from out president chiu's office. i am here today to talk about the proposed legislation, working closely with members of the small business committee and people with disabilities. the primary staff person is ill today, so you will also be

hearing from regina. i can cover parts of the legislation from the planning code, but i think it is straight forward. we're trying to help small businesses avoid the often painful and sometimes business closing lawsuits that are generated as a result of issues with the implementation of the americans with disability legislation. there have been other supervisors we have worked with over the years on these issues, carmen chu among others, and this is part of an ongoing effort by the city to address the problem with these businesses have to close because of speculative lawsuits. with regard to the planning code changes, the legislation exempts the parts of the business related to excess ability from the floor space,

and we are completely in agreement with modifications suggested by staff and we will track the restaurant legislation when it comes to us next year to make sure the line up appropriately. i am available to answer any questions, i will stay through the item, but i did not want to go on and on. thank you. >> so the legislation before you exempts floor area dedicated to disability access from the calculations from small self- service restaurants, limit it to two dozen square feet, as well as seating areas for coffee areas, limited to 400 square feet. the staff recommendation it is instead of making it specific to these only uses to exempt access for disability from the gross

area calculations. this access is necessary for the operation and focus of the building -- and function of the building and in many ways ada access is required by law. it is fairly straightforward, the recommendation, and it does not change the planning code much, but i would like to have bought regina from the office of small business give comments on this as well. >> good afternoon, commissioners. when the legislation came about, discussing it with the supervisor's office about ideas, one thing is we saw many of the lawsuits or pre-lawsuit, businesses that try to do it accessibility improvements, their inability to do the accessibility improvements that they would really like to do, especially in the small self- service restaurants because of the construction of size.

but that is one of the reasons why this particular section was added to this particular piece of legislation, but i really want to support the staff recommendation this concept is applied across the board to all businesses, because i think we will see probably as time goes on more businesses are going to be required to allocate more and more space towards accessibility. so increasing accessibility and not having the space size reduce a business's ability to achieve that i think is the direction that we want to encourage. president olague: i guess i will open this up for public comment. i am sorry, i saw you sitting there. i am not sure which department or with. b>> hi, i am with the mayor's

office of disability. president olague: i'd love to hear from you because i was wondering if somebody was here to represent them. >> sure, the access to small businesses is a huge issue. anything that makes it easier for small businesses to provide that access wheat support. as most of you know, any time you have a small area and a few inches across the street, you need to provide 1 foot of ramp for every inch of rise that is false -- that is off the street. that takes up a fair bit of space. that is not usable space. you cannot put anything on it, you should not put anything on it, so it is not space that a business can make money off of. exempting it is something that we would support. president olague: thank you.

>> any questions, i am happy to answer them. president olague: thank you for being here. i would like to open this up for public comment. david line? >> good afternoon. i am david levine, a private lawyer. i have had the pleasure of representing any number of small businesses afflicted with these lawsuits. my clients as a rule are in favor of the disability act, however, what they are finding is they are being burdened by unexpected litigation costs that they simply were not anticipating when they moved in. with this legislation seeks to do, particularly in the park with the leases as to costs that may come up as a result of disability access, is a very worthwhile goal and we are here to support it today.

we hope that there is a day with the city or perhaps the state goes further and reallocate its costs between landlords and tenants with regard to disability access, but for the time being we believe, and i think i speak across a fair number of small business owners, we believe this is a good for step towards getting the word out as to who needs to -- as to who need to pay for the costs so that small business owners can open up their businesses with their eyes open and not unexpectedly hit with costs. on behalf of the group i represent, we urge you to support this. thank you for your time. president olague: thank you. is there any additional public comment on this item? >> linda chapman. i like to comment because i was a civil rights specialist with disabilities as a specialty for a while. but i was also on the federal

executive boards disability council. i read with concerned these articles about the persecution of small businesses by lawyers and people who are really not out to get access for people but what money can be gotten out of it. my specialty was really employment. i have not researched exactly what is happening here. but one of the principles was that whether it was an employer or a business that has an access issue, one of the questions it is, is it an undue burden? how feasible is it to do? it is not like you have to make everything accessible. some things cannot reasonably be done with the amount of costs that would go into doing it. this applies to employers. unless you are huge. the department of the army could do anything, but a small employer or business does not.

there are limitations. i certainly read that there are some lawyers who were making cases on the take, so on. even in the employment office, we would find that sometimes. one day, i lock my door and cried and said, what happened to it edgar matters? she had this devastated look. i think of violet. there are people who would come in, cash settlement, a cash settlement, people who would say, i want to thank you for the wonderful investigation, but really they are giving out checks and that is what i am after. that is something to think about here. i cannot really opine on whatever legislation is proposed to happen because i have not researched it, but there are limitations on what is supposed to be done. i used to read about crazy cases, like in sacramento, some

people who were disability advocates, nonprofits, demanded to remove all of the trees on the streets because they were barriers. bearing that in mind, i hope that you will try to adopt the moderate approach. president olague: is there any additional public comment on this matter? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner borden: this was one of the number one issues at merchant meetings that was in place. unfortunately, there were attorneys taking advantage of the fact that a lot of small businesses are not able to meet or to not currently meet compliance and were going in, sending somebody into basically lodge a lawsuit or get compensation for its. i think it is important because there are small retail spaces. we have this conversation all the time, places that are 400, 5

powder square feet, and to create the access is very costly, especially if it does not allow them to expand their foot. -- barefoot. to accommodate these accessibility improvements that are needed. with that, i would move for approval. commissioner fong: second. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have some questions. it looks like if i am reading the ordinance correctly, in addition to excluding the square footage required for disability access copulation, maximum allowable space-bar footage that is allowed for these establishments -- maximum allowable space-bar square footage that is allowed for these establishments, leasing to small business accommodations to bring in ground floor entrances, compliance with federal access laws. is that part of the legislation, too? >> it is, it is not part of the

planning code, but it is under the san francisco campaign and government code. commissioner antonini: okay, it is my understanding, and i may be wrong, but i always understood that these accommodations were to be done at the time that there were certain amount of improvements done to the structure and it would be a percentage of the total improvement cost with the most important access being done first. obviously, entrance access would be the top priority, and down the line, restrooms later, but it was not required at least making -- correct me if i am wrong, but this would be in addition to current state or federal laws? is that true? >> it would be any time a new lease is signed. if it was not up to compliance,

it would have to come up to compliance. bucommissioner antonini: think e planning part of this, maybe you could answer that question? >> thank you, with the mayor's office on disability. you have stated the state law very accurately. the confusion that has occurred, especially in small businesses that do not have in-house counsel is the american disabilities act, title 3, imposes an ongoing bertin, with your doing renovations or not. there is an ongoing burden to make access improvements that are readily achievable. readily achievable is a fairly low standard. there is no precise definition, but it means you can do this without hurting your bottom line too much. so when small businesses have

moved in and they have made minor renovations and department of building inspection did not require access improvements, they thought they were done. they thought they were fine. but if they had been there five years or 10 years or 20 years and they had profits, they have been doing well over any of that time, they had under 8ada obligations to make improvements in access. one of the highlights of the legislation is the landlord has an equal obligation to make those improvements with the same standard, readily achievable. this legislation is helping to make a little more transparent those obligations, and that is why -- and that liability when you are in business. commissioner antonini: i think

that answers my question. part of the language, it says requiring landlords leasing to small businesses to bring these entrances and compliance. it seems if fairly broad reaching because it does not talk about all of the state laws that he spoke about, it talks about the economic feasibility, so i assume that as part of the legislation. it cannot be an undue burden on both the tenant and landlord because it may be a big improvement, it could be a big burden on the owner of the building also. >> absolutely, and undue burden is not the standard. undue burden is a fairly high standard that applies to government and state entities, for example. here, it is readily achievable. the catch is that it is readily achievable every year. so if you had a year of very good profits, you are on the hook for having done that even if right now you reinvested those profits in a different way

and you cannot have a lot of liquidity. that is why so many of these lawsuits can be successful. so there is a great deal of ignorance about the obligations under the ada. certainly when it first came into effect, there was a lot of publicity and a lot of places knew then what to do. especially the last four, five years, a small-business owner starting out, there is not enough information now. commissioner antonini: thank you. my only concern is the first clause of the legislation will be dealt with by the board of supervisors, presumably, requiring commercial landlords. you are right, under the law, they are already required to some degree to do that, but i want to make sure we are not passing legislation that provides opportunity for further litigation by those who are interested in sometimes for

predatory reasons picking on small businesses. >> yes, and those are very good points, that we cannot require something beyond -- we cannot require anything beyond what the deal requires, but in terms of what the 88 requires, -- what the ata requires, there would not be that requirement is the landlord did not have the money that they would meet the readily achievable standard. that would allow the landlord to pass the cost off to the tenant, of course, which is one of the concerns of small businesses. and there are several conversations still to be had about this legislation as it is going through the board of supervisors process to try to make this more clear for everyone. commissioner antonini: okay, thank you for your comments, and i would also ask that the supervisor's office convey my

questions and those of any other members of the commission to president chiu as to concerns about parts of this and making sure that we're working in the best interests of both the landlords and tenants and also, of course, disability access. >> to echo what susan said, and i neglected to thank her earlier, she has been a great partner on this legislation. the most basic way i understand it, this legislation does not go beyond state and federal requirements. we're just trying to make it more transparent, clear, the process, and these are sections of the legislation not in the planning code. but as the director said, we

will continue to communicate on that issue. we have had a number of meetings in the office with folks who are interested in that aspect of the legislation, and we're happy to bring you into that as we move forward with that. commissioner antonini: okay, thank you, appreciate it. commissioner sugaya: i am fully in support of the legislation, but as long as we're talking about it, one of the things that i think comes to mind that -- it has nothing to do with the legislation, but i am going to talk about it anyway, the equivalent facilitation. i think sometimes there needs to be more done in terms of how alternatives can be used to meet the requirements of access. one of my pet peeves is when you have sloping sites and you

require modification to the sidewalk, for example, as one way to gain entry to a retail front, one of the issues that comes up with me is than you are working to sidewalks and it is more than the 12-1 in resulting slow. you have a public sidewalk undulating up and down, especially downtown, at ratios that exceeded 12: 1, by far, just to get access into the building. it seems to me in those kinds of situations, there could be something a little more creative to be able to walk out of those buildings. just a little pet peeve of mine. i am not against entering the building, you know, on a level surface of 12-one, but sometimes it affects the public realm,

too, in a negative way. secretary avery: commissioners, on the motion for approval -- [roll-call vote] secretary avery: thank you, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you wore on item number seven, case 2010.0256, fisherman's wharf public realm plan. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, i am with this the design group. pleasure to be here today to get you up to speed on what we have been doing with fisherman's wharf. we will give the presentation, and i want to make the point that it is one of the more important elements of the work that we are doing in the public realm and the planning

department. the better streets plan, the streetscape plan, the market street redesign, broadway redesign, the master plan, the beloved pavement to parks program, and the work that we're doing on the cesar chavez. there is more to come. i think that you will see today that the fisherman's wharf public realm plan that it is particularly a wonderful example of collaboration between the planning department and its sister agencies, what the fishermen not worth benefit district, with the fisherman's wharf community itself, the sister agencies in the state, and others who have been involved in this. we are excited to bring that to date. it is a remarkable coming together, i think, for the vision of fisherman's wharf. neal has done a wonderful job bringing all of these folks together. i wanted to take a quick minute

to introduce a frederick, back here. he joined us three months. yes from copenhagen. he is on a work study. -- he is from copenhagen. he is on a work study. with that, we will give the overview of the fisherman's wharf public realm plan, and available for questions if you have them, thank you. >> commissioners, thank you very much. before i begin, this has been a truly collaborative process within the city agencies, and i would like to thank nicklaus, who was the lead designer for this, and the planning department as well as all of our sister agencies, mta, dpw, mod, and of course the port, and we have got an ongoing funding from san francisco. i think we have a unique

public/private partnership that i hope will be a model for future work. what is the public realm plan for fisherman's wharf? there are five basic components -- that jefferson street redesign, the street skate redesigns, the design guidelines for new development to come into the area, public open space plan, and parking and the circulation plan. in addition, there are two other small minor adjustments. we have benefited in this process, piggybacking on the work done by the committee benefit district. we were able to move quickly through vision in an towards manifestation of these visions. this reflects the plan by all the committee stakeholders in the area. the engagement process was extremely important at fisherman's wharf.

anyone who has any interest in the history realize this is as a difficult area to raggle with over the past 50 years. there have bed that over a dozen plants attempted and failed. it is an area rich in history, which also means there are a lot of families with deep roots that have a stake in the area. bringing all of those parties to the table required engagement process that really required -- i actually moved down to fisherman's wharf about a year. just talk over their concerns and ideas. there are numerous challenges. the number one destination in san francisco, upwards of 12 million visitors per year, extremely important destination for the tourist industry, but also for sansome systems. a lot of sentences and go down to fisherman's wharf as well.

-- a lot of san francisco residents go down to fisherman's wharf as well. i would like to highlight the identity. you get down to fisherman's wharf, where is it? frank, who is the fourth generation commercial fishermen in the area, he has a boat, the lovely martha, that his great- grandfather built, that he is passing on to his son. he stands down at the harbor and he has people coming up to him and ask, where is fisherman's wharf. there is a lot of work to be done to strengthen the sense of identity of fisherman's wharf. the public realm suffers from a disconnected spaces, and it is hard to know where you or encouraged to be and invited to

be. the walking commissions, especially off jefferson, are particularly pork and not reflective of many of the conditions of the conditions that we strive for in san francisco. part of that has to do with plan architecture at one moment in history, not the 1960's and 1970's, and can be typified as to turning back onto the street and not really activating the sidewalk in a way that we strive for in a city-positive way. there are a number of tremendous destinations immediately adjacent to fisherman's wharf. you would never know that north beach is only five, 10-minute walk from fisherman's wharf. there are tremendous strengths and opportunities. there is no other spot in san francisco where you have the historic fishing fleet that is still an active commission. still an active fishing fleet.