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, whether it is a door bell, a portable ramp or some more dramatic thing? but at least one acknowledges it has to be done and in some amount of time. maybe the plan is that it is going to take three years to get this done, or five years for me to afford it or whatever. it sounds like there are already some loopholes there. it does sound like there should be a tacet understanding that there is an obligation and a liability. it seems like we all fly under the radar, don't ask, don't

tell. and even worse so in lease extensions. lease extensions, there is no scrutiny of lease extensions in my experience. it is like are you willing to rent it to me again, and what are you going to nick me for on rent increases? that is all we talk about. i support it in spirit. i understand that commissioner o'brien has some issues about how you define what is going to happen, but i think you can leave it open and say look, a plan has to be in place. >> i would move to approve this. with the addition of including a plan, an action plan. it is to follow the legislation, but add a plan as well, because we do have to

deal with the timing of the work, the disruption of the business and potential disruption as well. >> the lease renewal might come up in your busiest season, before or after. have a plan, and include all buildings. to the point notification is the biggest issue, and we really should move forward now. again, we owe it to the disability community, the greater community. >> the obvious work around would be to do a plan for 18 months. you could game that system. that is not the intent, but you could put it on a short fuse. >> can i just say that is if you are thinking about the

relationship to the law and city government, but individuals with disability, if you are out of compliance at any time, they can sue you. >> they ought to get in compliance sooner or later. >> commissioner riley? >> i think i support it, but i also want them to take a look at some of the issues, how to adds a business disruptions, and as the commissioner says, to improve all buildings, not just small business. and to address the notification. i think it should be in multiple languages because of the diversity of the population of our city. >> there is a motion on the floor with those recommendations. >> do you want to repeat that, chris? >> when you talk about the plan, the plans are included. >> ok, good. >> commissioners, that would be

a motion to approve with an allowance that they could have some type of implementation plan. is that for only lease renewals, or does that include new leases and lease renewals? >> it's both. because -- it's both. >> we can approve it with the recommendation the legislation be revised to address those areas. >> that is what we are doing right now. >> multi--language. >> chris, do you want to read back the motion? >> ok, commissioners, that would be approve with

allowances for an implementation plan period. notices should be multi-language, and did you include that it should apply to all buildings? >> yes. >> director, is that what you need from the motion? >> i just have some questions around what we mean by implementation plan. i think we need to have a little more specificity on that . do you need an implementation plan to do what is readily achievable if it means just a door bell, a sign and a ramp? >> ok. so, that being said, can we include readily achievable in this motion or no? that is the question.

that landlords are required on these triggers, new lease or renewal to bring their entrances up to the readily achievable standard. >> readily achievable can be having a plan to get up to ready achievable, correct? so it could be to take this many starts over a certain number of years, correct? >> no. ready achievable is what can you do right now. with the certification plans and things that are not ready achievable, you make a plan to do them. >> so there is a plan already built in, can be? >> possibly, yes. i just think that we need more specificity around what you mean and what the intention of the plan is.

>> and obviously we haven't included the net -- necessity. we haven't required that a commercial tenant provide a cast certification for their businesses. >> that is not in this legislation. it is a tool they can use to demonstrate that they have gotten as readily achievable and compliant as they can, and in addition are addressing over time the other things. at some point it has to be a requirement like indoor plumbing was a requirement at some titan. it wasn't an option. >> i am wondering -- let me ask this question. so for an interest of a

landlord to make their entrance or exit achievable beyond the readily achievable standard, which may require getting building permits and may require some disruption, are you thinking -- my question is, is that when a play may be in place because it is going to have a larger involvement? >> and then how does that work with the federal law? what do they say? what if they walk in the door and say you are not in compliance? i don't recall that they have longer plans. >> well, i mean i think that this particular legislation isn't necessarily completely addressing the ongoing obligation. >> right. >> so it is saying at this snapshot of time, that you are

making sure that your entrances and exits are readily achievable. and if you are sued, you are going to have to prove it. i think the idea that -- how can i say? we see within these two lawsuits, the efforts that are being made by the readily achievable component are being recognized. >> so how would you articulate that in text? >> i'm just asking what the plan is, if it really means -- if the landlord's intention is they have an interest to go beyond the readily achievable and have to present the plan to the prospective tenant saying

we may have to close the business for a day to deal with x, y and z. >> right. so we are talking about disclosure. like a landlord really has only obligation to make full disclosure to their tenant, existing or a new one, of their obligation under the a.d.a. right, on both sides. >> i am confused now. >> i don't know why we would really even need to at that. at the time of the renewal or the new lease, they are required to show readily achievable. >> right. >> it is done. they have to make a plan anyway. >> right. >> so we can take the plan out,

is that right? >> yes. >> all right. take the plan out. >> that is what the cast inspection is it. >> right. >> so was that a motion? >> it is, to support this legislation. >> i would like to second that. are so i have the motion then a motion to approve, notices should be multi-languages, and it should apply to all buildings? >> correct. >> yes. >> role call. yes, yes, yes, no, yes, president adams. >> commissioners that motion passes 5-1. >> thank you. commissioner, item 9. discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board

of supervisors file number 111077, police code security plans for commercial parking garages and lots. commissioners, in your binder is a list of questions that we compiled from the previous meeting. this was continued from the january 9 meeting. we also include the ordinance along with the legislative digest. this will be a presentation by catherine rauschuber from david chiu's office. >> i won't repeat the longer presentation from last month but summarize quickly. basically the entertainment community sort of came to our office and supervisor wiener and the city attorney with the issue that a lot of the night-life related violence takes place in parking lots and b