what i'd be right in saying that? >> -- what i'd be right in saying that? >> the concept of what is readily achievable is that you are finding a solution for disability access that is readily achievable, and readily achievable could be that you make the entryway to new building code standards. that could be readily achievable, or it could be that it is the buzzer at the entrance way that says "please ring for service," or if it is a food establishment, they will bring more food to you outside then. by access specialists, with expertise, there is pretty much always a readily achievable solution. so it is just saying that the property owner is required to do what ever is readily achievable, no less than readily achievable,

based upon what they are able to afford to do it. president o'brien: but that is not what the legislation is doing. it is affecting timing. it is changing it on a timely basis, so you may not have done something before that was readily achievable, and now we are going to make sure of that you are doing whatever is considered to abate readily achievable when you renew your lease. he may have decided it is not readily achievable before, but now he is going to be charged with being forced to do what is concerned -- considered readily achievable. i just wanted to make sure i understand the impact of it, because i would say there are a

lot of businesses that would be concerned about that, and i have worked on both sides, by the way. i have worked where they actually put a bill in and did other things, to make its statewide, some stuff that they could do, but i have also seen situations we're is just not possible, and the timing is not going to make the difference. i have a concern about that part of it at least. but that was one of the four dimensions, right? so i would just say i have a concern about that one. clerk: commissioner clyde? commissioner clyde: the way i understand it, upon renewing the lease, they have to bring it up to code as much as possible, as readily achievable, or notify

the commercial tenant coming in of their potential liabilities under the ada. >> i would correct that in that they have to do both. commissioner clyde: they have to do both? if they are renewing the lease, and month-to-month leases are common, so as long as the tenant does not change, it does not, but as soon as the tenant changes, then they have to bring it up to as high a compliance standard as possible. >> the way the legislation is now. they would have to adjust the entrance. we did not even bring a bathrooms and things. one of the things that we can hearing from small businesses was that these kind of drive by lawsuits often got triggered by noticing the entrance. that is the reason. commissioner clyde: a kick, but

going back to commissioner o'brien"s -- ok, going back to commissioner o'brien's, statement, they have obligations. >> exactly. if they are not doing improvements to trigger a dbi inspection, and they think they are in the clear. commissioner clyde: a kick, i would just weigh in and say that as a commercial landlord, this is reasonable. this is part of doing business. our laws have changed. we are required to do this. there are tax credits and programs to help find these improvements. unlike that there is an expedited permit process around this. i think that is really important. again, it is triggered by a change in tenants, so the

landlord has the opportunity to plan for it. and it is also in the landlord's benefit because they are being sued as well as the tenants. landlords are subject to these. reading carmen chu's letter, i am concerned that this is targeting small businesses. obviously larger businesses have more resources, probably legal departments that are going to protect them from, you know, potential lawsuits, but, again, as written, they are currently excluded. that might be an amendment that you could consider. you know, leases are private, so the arrangement between a landlord and a tenant, a tenant improvements are generally part

of leases, particularly long- term leases. i do not see any thing with the disclosure. making sure it is in all. making sure this ada requirement really should be in every lease. i do not understand why it is not, so i would say that i support this, and i am really glad that the commission has identified the square footage issue. identifying ada improvements and wanting to exempt them. clerk: director? director: i think i ended up making my comments. clerk: commissioner riley? commissioner yee riley: there

are times when you on a building, and they rented out to a commercial business. the timing is an issue. anytime you renew a lease, you have to make all of the necessary corrections so the billing will be in compliance, so what if the landlord does not have the money to make all of the necessary work to bring the building up to compliance? how does this law compared to the federal law? >> this refers to what the federal law is, so it does not add. those buildings should be complied if they are renting to a small business that is open to the public. director: under the federal law, the property owner has an ongoing obligation to make sure that their property is ada accessible, so, again, just

like the small business, the landlord has the choice of doing something or not doing something and still being subject to a lawsuit, and what we have seen in the lawsuits, that the property owners are also being sued, and having to do the same sort of payment outlays to the plaintiff and the lawyer, but because of how the lease is designed, then the physical structure, during the fiscal so again, under consultation and calls that we have received in our office that we have talked to many small property owners that said how come -- no, it was how come you didn't inform me of my obligation? again, looking to the city government and the local government of like informing them of what their obligation is. so i think again kind of going back to the concept of what is

readily achievable, i think ultimately there is an ongoing obligation. so the longer you have your property that you don't do something can also incur your potential liggins outlay -- litigation outlay. looking at what men of the inspectors are recommending is not extraordinarily expensive. >> i was told that the federal government, if the landlord cannot afford to make the correction right away, they have up to five years to do the work. is that true? >> that is not what i have heard. i mean that could be -- we r.f.p. to take a -- we will have to take a look at that.

understand that in many of these lawsuits, the suits are being done in federal court, they are still applying state law applying playoff damages. >> i read supervisor charamen chu's letter, and she raised some legitimate concerns. if the property owner decided to pass the cost on to a tenant, that would be a lot of money for a small business to come up with. >> what would happen if they renew the lease? they are going to have to do the work, and the work is going to seriously disrupt not just the tenant in that space, but disrupt all the tenants inside the building? are they just going to have to figure out a way to get this done? >> that would be one answer to

it, yes, because that is what the law would say. the other is the concept of at the lease renewal or the new lease signing, having a plan in place for doing the work on the entrance. that sort of came up in the last few days, and that is something we are looking at, that maybe the plan in place could address the needs of the small business. but i don't know. if the work has to be done, it has to be done. >> you see, i could support where it is today. when you exceed a certain threshold, you have to do handicap work. it is like 20% or 30% of the value of the work that you are doing has to be exclusively budgeted for handicapped issues , and they can be reasonable.

i have a guy who has an elevator. nobody is going to ask him to replace that elevator unless they are going to do a whole new construction. a guy sitting there, he is doing business, and he is hanging in there. he is a small business guy even if he is a landlord owner. in a lot of cases he could be a small business. it could be a mixed use building. they live upstairs, a space down stairs that they use to pay the mortgage. the lease is coming up for renewal. they have to get an architect. they have to go to d.b.i. and make sure they don't do anything that structure really -- structurally doesn't compromise the building. we could oversimplify the process by commissioners, thinking this is nothing more than a step.

once you touch the front of a building and you go down to d.b.i., you are not going to be dealing with anything insignificant. i can assure you. you will have to hire an engineering firm of some sort. it is very, very dicey, and i think commissioner chu raises a legitimate flag here that we should tread carefully. i also don't like the tone. i find it very hard not to walk away thinking landlords, money guys. they can pay for this and afford it. now it is a cooperation. if somebody is coming in doing a big improvement, the tenant and the landlord negotiate it on a best effort. we all want to get handicap access for everybody. we believe in that is his a noble goal. it is a pain for the landlord and the tenant. they try to work together. i worry about this being big

brother stepping in. so many people could be negatively impacted by it. i am not going to be able to support it as it is right now. i will make that clear. unaltered, i wouldn't be able to support it. >> commissioner dooley? >> i think one of the main parts of this if i have it right is this is going to be a way to have the landlord and the prospective tenant or tenant have a very clear understanding given to them of what is federally required. this is not anything beyond what they are already legally mandate todd do. in that respect i think it is a positive thing. too many times i have worked with many people who had been sued, and most of the time they said we didn't know about this, both landlords and tenants. i like that this helms take a

little bit -- helps take out that unfortunate element of surprise. you don't know anything about it until you get hit with a lawsuit, which from what i have heard is incredibly traumatic. so i think yes, it is an ongoing obligation, and hopefully they should be able to work this out in terms of come applying to the federal standards. i feel there is only directing back to the federal standards, and they can apply to have more time to get it done or whatever the federal law allows. and so i just see it is a very positive thing to let people out there on both sides, tenants and landlords, actually know, get a piece of paper that tells them that this is the law. and if that is done at the time

of a lease, there is no time like the present to get that message out there. so i actually think it is good legislation. >> commissioner reilly. >> i support the intent of the legislation. i think it is time we do something because there are so many lawsuits that the small business owner has to pay for. but i think that the detail needs to be looked at, like the timing, when they have to do it . also yrks is this for small business only -- also, why is there for small business only? >> mostly what we hear from businesses, is a lot of the smaller businesses, the ethnic businesses are the ones target, and they have far fewer resources to deal with the lawsuits. that is the intent for the

small business focus. >> i think if we were to draft some legislation, it should apply to larger businesses as well. >> the city often deviates between small and all businesses. it is just a policy issue. >> commissioner clay? >> i just want to refer to one of our early discussions around this issue when we requested that information regarding come appliances with the a.d.a. be actually put on the envelope for our business tax renewals. it took a long time to get something included, and really we are past the time. i just want to say this is about come appliances with the law. this is the law. the disability community, anyone could become disabled and have a hard time getting in and out of places. really it is modest, so i'm prepared to support it again

with the recommendations of the commission. but honestly, people's obligation is today. it is not when their lease is up for renewal. that really is an accommodation. people are required to have done this if it was possible or readily achievable. i just want to make sure that is expressed at this commission. >> commissioner o'brien. >> very quickly, i would support it, but i would like to amend this action that says upon renewal of a lease. i could support the disclosures . the conversation to let the people know. i have no problem with that, attach it as an extra sheet to any commercial lease. this lang that puts everybody on notice. but mandating that they make it, that is the one i have a problem with. if we could amend that for now. maybe it could come up later on, but for now, until i understand more of the effect

that might have such as a small family-owned, mixed use building, are they going to be subjected to it? >> would you accept to do it upon renewal or the submission of a plan and renewal? i mean at the renewal? by the time a lease comes up that the landlord has to submit a play if there is an identified barrier in the front door and the back tore. the entrances and the exits, if they are not compliant, if there is a barrier, would you accept that? >> i think coming up with a plan is tantamount to the same thing. most people don't want to have a building that is not compliant. if they had a choice, they would rather have a compliant billion. there may be a section who just

don't bother. but to put it in the form of a plan or saying you have to do the work is tantamount to the same thing to me. >> director? >> again, i want to kind of revoke us back on what our office is doing, working with supervisor chu, and the readily achievable component. we have been going out and talking to businesses to do the inspection because the readily achievable solution is doable. there are doable solutions on the readily achievable come opponent. commissioner o'brien, we can take a role call vote on your recommendation, but i'm just -- i think there -- the readily

achievable component needs to be de-mystified. we are actually protecting the property owner in relationship to this piece of legislation from what may be less than $1,000 in a readily achievable solution to a $20,000 potential lawsuit. since our office has been very involved in working with many of the small businesses who have been involved with this, supervisor chu very carefully crafting under the federal a.d.a. and keeping it at the entrances, not making the landlord's responsibility being with the bathrooms, with the counters, with the tables, with the path of travel, that type of thing.

i guess i just want to maybe potentially leave it at that. >> commissioner riley? >> i support this legislation. i think it is a good one. but for supervisor carmen chu to take the time to write the letter to all of us, and she has some concerns that i think are legitimate. i would support it, and i'm sure that supervisor chu's office and david chiu's office will have to work on this together to address some of her concerns and come up with the final legislation. some of her concerns are also my concerns. >> commissioner? >> are some of these solutions like the door bell solution as we call it, these don't require going to the planning commission, correct? >> no. >> you just do your thing, and

you assert that you are in compliance, and if you are ever called out on it, you would have to prove it? >> right. >> people would make the blanket assumption that anything is going to be expensive. if this brings to the forefront requiring an action plan, and knowing that it isn't necessarily going to cost several thousand dollars, but maybe a $500 solution or $550. >> would you mind putting a cap on that figure? a door bell -- i would like to know how many situations where a door bell is going to be all that needs to be done when

somebody goes in and says they needed to start an improvement. the figure earlier was $1,000. if you have to do anything to turf the front of that building, it will most likely kick in a permit. that will have to be stamped by an architect or engineer, and you are already down there are 1,000 before you walk in the door of their office. don't misunderstand the seriousness of it. most of these things will not be trivial. they will not be simple as a door bell in all cases. if the argument is it is really not that much, then put a figure on it. if it is deemed to cost that much, and if it goes above and beyond that, they don't have to do this on the renewal of a lease. i just don't want to have a situation where, instead of a

lawsuit coming in, it is suddenly diverted over to the landlord's responsibility without any record for what it might cost without regard to the law of unintended consequences. >> director? >> i think one of the things i hear much is frustration. because of the way the federal law is written, we can't put anything deaf at this time. >> right. >> that is the freight frustration around the federal a.d.a. by us putting anything definitive would put us at odds with the federal law. so again, how the federal law is written and that concept of readily achievable is up to the property owner, the business of what they can readily achieve to do accessibility

improvements to the property and the business. >> and i would just like to say i totally support this legislation, and i'm glad this is coming forward. i have been dealing with this in a lot of neighborhoods all over the city, especially my own. in one instance where somebody did have a lawsuit, but they did the ready availability, all they did was have a door bell there or knock on the door, and they bring out a ramp, and they took care of the situation, and they took care of the situation right then and there. >> so they were non--structural solutions. >> right, non-structural solutions. >> creative solutions. >> anymore comments? do we have public comment on this matter? >> members of the public may speak to the commission for up

to three minutes. please state your name. >> david. not someone who usually comes to your commission, but i happened by and had some specific comments consistent with your discussion, which was very good and interesting by the way. first to the point that one of the commissioners raised about new tenants. the way i read this, it is not just a new lease, but the extension of an existing lease. perhaps one thing that could be clarified in the legislation, for renewal of an existing lease, that the landlord would have to make the improvements by either october 1 or effective with the day of the lease extension, as opposed to new tenants, for which it seems to me that the landlord should make the improvements no later than the date that the business opens, which might be sometime after the tendency takes effect

. i don't know how that squares with the federal requirements, but just as a suggestion to distinguish those two. another thought about the findings in recollection 1, it may not be required, but assuming that this commission recommends this legislation or some version of it, at a finding that this commission did review it, and it is not inconsistent with the small business goals of the city. nor does it conflict with our economic development strategy or other overarching goals, that this is in fact a way to promote come appliances with federal law in a local way.

i had some other suggestions for technical typos -- not necessarily typos, but ways to improve it. i will communicate those. thanks for your time. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner dwight? >> i would think that most leases, at least on the small business level don't require t.i.'s. every time i have moved my business, it is like i am moving in two weeks. it is not like a big restaurant opening or some big improvement thing. so therefore, i think the bar is pretty low to make these things happen, that there should be a plan. why wouldn't there be a plan to make the appropriate accommodation, wheer