opportunities and get opportunities. our goal is to make sure that there are viable lists always available, and that is the goal of the dhr, to make sure we have all lists available whenever there is a need. we are also resource- constrained, so we want to be wise and how we allocate our resources. this department has specific needs. we have engaged in a real partnership with the director, and i'm hoping we can continue that commitment. >> thank you. if there are no more comments from the commission, we can close this item. >> is there any public comment on item 4? >> good morning, sean kegren, rba. i want to add some historical

context. about five years ago, the department began an expensive and exhausting bpr process. that process came up with a list of goals, objectives, and recommendations, performance standards for the department. naturally, some of those goals and objectives took more resources. that led to a conversation about an increase in fees. there were hearings here, and at the time, there was a compromise -- to be blunt about it -- increase in fees for increase in services. that is how it was sold to the industry. we have been paying our fees but we have not quite got the service. shortly after, the economic collapse occurred. there was a need for change. this department went through a very difficult time, and we understand, cuts needed to be made. but now that we are beyond

that, now that the financial winds seem to be changing, it is important that we wrap up this department and we do it in a prudent and responsible fashion. this department and the commission has a commitment to the industry, to its staff, and its commitment to the tenants to make sure if it maintained itself in a response of and professional manner. moving forward, the commission needs to keep an eye on the ball and continue to monitor this situation. again, and understaffed department is not fair to the tenants, certainly not fair to the staff, and creates undue stress and delays, which nobody wants to see. >> thank you. >> any further public comment on this item?

seeing none. item 5. >> if i may, looking ahead, i know there will be a lot of public comment. i would beg to adjust the order. if there is no objection from the commissioners. i would like to move to item 5 right now -- item 6 right now. the other item where there will be public comment, again, item -- item 8. >> 6 and then 8? >> yes, thank you.

>> we are taking a couple of items out of order. right back, we will address item 6. discussion on ada issues affecting small business owners regarding state bill 1608. >> i have included in your package the actual centreville 1608 regarding the ada issues. i have also provided on a separate sheet for the public another summary of senate bill 1608 by our inspector in house. we are continually working with the small business administration in the city. we have not yet had our first meeting yet, which will include planning, dpw, and other

departments that will be affected, will need to work together to help the small businesses achieved some measures of ada issues. we are also providing in-house training on senate bill 1608, for the cab's inspectors in- house, in the beginning part of june, and we will notify the commissioners of this training. in a nutshell, we have the attorney general's opinion upon senate bill 1608 regarding what local departments can and cannot do regarding the ada issues. there are four items. no. 1 is local building departments are not responsible for enforcing the access requirements of the americans

with disabilities act. however, they are required to enforce state and local building codes which have incorporated the federal requirements. would our state is doing is trying to make their requirements match the federal requirements. they have not set a date to do that by and they have not quite achieved that yet. no. 2 was local departments are not authorized to a letter to enforce the federal access requirement, however, they are required to enforce state and local building codes which have incorporate the federal requirements. so if there is a part of our state code that agrees with federal requirements, we are required to enforce that. as i've mentioned in past meetings, our local building department -- the san francisco building department is not

proactive in going out and finding ada complaint. we are reactive. people can call in and file complaints with us. we do have an ada complaint inspector that tries to go out to resolve the matters with a property owner and the complainant. but if it is there a federal requirement, again, the local building the department cannot enforce it unless it is in federal code. that has to be enforced by the attorney general. that is the california attorney general. so, again, the civil code requires local jurisdictions to apply certified specialists under the caps program, and it also states we have the

responsibility, commencing on july 1, 2010, shall employ it for retain one building inspector who is a certified access specialist. we do have a certified access specialist on staff, and have had one on staff for several years dow -- now. his duties are to provide consultation to the local agency, permit applicants, and members of the public's on compliance with state-related construction accessibility standards. that is the key issue, construction-related. if they are doing construction or they are building a retail space, improving it, needing a permit for that, that is what our inspector does. help them make sure that they meet all of the state requirements in that plan check.

again, commencing on january 1, 2014, we shall employed or retained a sufficient number of building inspectors that are certified access specialists to conduct permitting and planned check services to review for compliance with state construction related accessibility standards. we are hoping, again, the local building officials of california are hoping that the state will not amend their accessibility standards to more comply with the federal, so that we have only one standard to enforce, and then we can go out and enforce ada throughout the jurisdiction. the only accessibility standards that the building department is authorized to enforce our those contained in the california building code.

we are here, though, to help people comply with these codes. our people will be trained, staff will be trained, so that they can go, not to physical inspections at a private property, but people can come into us, and we will help them determine if they have an access problem, or they can ask us questions and we can rely upon those issues to help them solve some problems. one of the major problems, as i have stated in the past, is the entryway into the building. that is something that we are working on with the department of public works, planning, the small business organization, to find a problem for these businesses to help -- even if it is a temperature problem or a removable solution, something to

help them, so they are not getting hit with these lawsuits. we are also working with the mayor's legislation department. there is a state bill that is out there regarding these lawsuits. we will be working to help the mayor's office support the enforcement of this so that these drive-by lawsuits are better managed, or do not have that -- happen as often as they did. we will be attending that meeting, which is next tuesday. we have staff attending that. so, again, we are trying to do our best on this issue and will be training our inspectors and engineers on the federal and state access accessibility loss, however, again, we cannot enforce federal laws.

happy to answer any questions, but i give you a handout from our caps inspector and the senate bill in your package regarding this. there is also information from -- it is the actual california chamber of commerce. they provide information to the small business community on the access laws and has a website available to them. i have provided that information to the small business administration so that people can actually go there and access the web site. >> the budget for the training for theplan checkers and engineers is for this year or next year? >> this year. for every year thereafter, it is

part of the certification process for any building inspector or planned checker to have eight hours a disability training. however, whenever the state changes their accessibility laws, there are always new seminars available that we will be going to. i will bring it up later in the meeting. training available in october on some of the access losaws. >> i want to be respectful of some of the businesses that are here. if we could go to public comment and then bring up those questions later. >> public comment on item six. >> you have three minutes. >> good morning. my father is the owner of hamburger haven. he has owned the business for over 40 years.

we were recently hit with an ada lawsuits. it is a tax you have to pay on for business these days. the first thing i want to start with, vivian day, you mentioned you cannot enforce the federal law, which we understand, but is there something the city or county can do to educate owners about their rights and responsibilities under the ada? there is a huge misconception out there that there is a grandfather clause. every business owner believes said they are grandfathered in. if your business had been established prior to 1990, the aa will not -- ada will not apply unless you make changes. readily achievable at is up to interpretation. if the elevator lips are readily

achievable, pretty much everything is. what is the county doing to educate small business owners? if you know anything about that. >> the building department is responsible for construction- related. the small business administration does have a program where they do educate, and outreach program on the ada issues. we have been at several public meetings with them to help educate what can be readily achievable, but every business is different. >> exactly. the problem with the small -- with the small business association is they do not have the resources to go out and do the elrich required to speak with the business owners regarding this issue. all they have done -- speaking to regina -- they have sent out pamphlets, and they give us telephone calls. it has been clear that this has had little to no impact at all.

so what is the county going to do? maybe this is not the robotic to speak to, but eventually there will have to be resources put into this matter. the first thing i would like to say is, there has to be education. the education comes from the outreach that will be required through the sba. you will have to hire fewer workers to discuss this issue and then you will have to put this into the lease agreement, and then have the building or health inspector look at this issue. besides education -- the cast inspector is not going to work -- because you can still get sued. everyone keeps rejecting the right to curb provision because every business is going to wait until they are going to get sued, but no business owner knows about it. hamburger haven had a sign on its store from s at saidue us.

-- said sue us. it is a very narrow store. you have to have two restrooms. that is not the reality. there is no one from the city to do with the issue because we keep saying it is federal law. the county does not want to get involved. we are dealing with this in a matter where you have private plaintiffs attorneys who are going out and enforcing the law, and that was the intention of the law, but what is fair to be done is the county refuses to have any activity to educate the business owners to say you can prevent these lawsuits from happening by complying with the law. how are you going to comply with the law if you have no idea what you're supposed to do? >> thank you for your comments. if you could stick around -- if

that is ok with the commissioners. dermott, i know that you have to go. would that be ok with the other speakers? ok. thank you for coming this morning. i know you have to get back to your business. >> good morning, commissioners. in 2006, we received a lawsuit in excess of $180,000. there was a step in the front door and a customer claimed mental distress. the case dragged on for approximately two years. the landlord did not want to get involved. in 2008, it was settled out of

court. they got $40,000 of our insurance for personal injury. i believe he got 70% of that money. some advocate groups got the rest of the money. my brother ended up having to sell his house. he was depending on the bar for his income. he sold his house to pay for the money involved. we could've done a quick fix, but you are still leaving yourself liable for another suit down the road. as it stands, ada compliance is a moving target. we made the tavern fully complied in 2008, but i believe there have been changes. we have been twice visited by gates and other wheelchair people with a measuring tape. it feels like harassment when you see someone coming in with a

bagful of tools and asks for a beer and then starts to measure everything to see that you are fully compliant. you feel very vulnerable and that there is no one there to help you out in these circumstances. it does not encourage anyone to open business in the city, dealing with this. i believe three years ago i came to a meeting here in city hall jesse fink. he is proactive in a lot of this stuff. we spoke to the small business commission. on that day, ichiu was going ton this thing an immense amount, but i have not heard anything since. naturally, it does not affect us as much, because we believe we

are compliant, but there is nothing that can really keep us in the right place. whenever there are new regulations, the city should tell me that i am not in compliance. >> is there any comment? thank you for your testimony. next speaker please. >> hello, my name is gwen sanderson. i own a video store. we have had for about seven years. i am under a lawsuit now, hoping to resolve it by the end of may. i do not have any money to pay the people, and i did my best to comply. i was approached in january 2011

for the first time and hit the ground running, calling everybody, talking to regina, getting inspections, and getting it and workshop. this is incredibly complicated. architects across the country do not agree on solutions for no ei talk to agreed on a solution for myspace. i think this department is in the position to make the most dramatic change on this, just by putting any kind of regulatory structure in place at any stage come anywhere in this issue. no volunteer effort in the past over the last 10 years -- in 2004, for instance, has helped any business that has gone and since then. volunteer efforts are not going to do anything because it has to be official. i see this department as being responsible for businesses mistakenly thinking that they

are compliant from past grandfathering, approval that have gone on that have not addressed specifically at those approvals are not going to be in federal compliance. i think it would be great if the businesses could be officially notified that that is the case. approvals in the past and approvals going in are specifically addressed as city or county code. you may need to check into state or federal, or be referred to under the resource. that would make a huge difference. all the businesses adapt to weird spaces in this city. these people can do this until kingdom come. the way it is now, these unlicensed, uncertified people working for these litigants will

reshape the city, instead of the city being in charge. when the businesses come to this department for approval, they are soft because the city does not do that. that is the best placed this department could before, areas where this will not be approved. we are not going to level hills. the hardest and most difficult thing -- let's draw a line there and say, these things cannot happen. we are not going to raise chinatown. put some lines in place, in the places that are easiest to do. and work with the businesses to provide a plan we can work with. let us figure out what needs to be done in our spaces and then bring it to you for approval like a permit-issue process. and then let us go back and enforce the that we have something to work around and some kind of plan in place where we can say, we are working on

it. for instance, i got a portable ramp -- >> i have to ask you to finish your comments. >> i would be happy to talk to people afterwards but there needs to be a regulatory process around this and has to be official. >> thank you for your comments. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is michael levin, an architect in san francisco. i came here to discuss item 8 which is regarding section 1205 of the building code. i have a prior commitment and i respectfully request being able to address public comment to this issue, if possible. >> it is entirely up to the

commission but we need to go through some procedural steps to allow this to occur. >> are they that time-consuming? >> you would continue the current matter, you would call the next matter, open it up for public comment, continue that, and then continue to this one. >> sorry, michael, but no. it would be too much. we appreciate you coming down. >> thank you for your consideration. i will leave my comments for the record. >> thank you. next speaker. seeing none. >> are there any further commissioner comments? >> greater than greater than i

think some of this is frustrating for everybody. as director day mentioned, our department is responsible for building permits from renovation and new construction, but we are also responsible for applying the codes. in this situation, it is a matter of educating and letting the public know, proactively -- and on this issue maybe we could work with the mayor's office on disability. we have not accessed appeals, which works within our department, to put together an out rich program to the business community in conjunction with the small business commission. it is a problem that is growing

and affecting our business community i think might be a good idea that they may have been out reprogram designed around that maybe we can get this bill drawn and the mayor's office on disability and practically put an outreach program together. would help to have businesses know what is happening. it is an important program making our business is accessible to everybody.

>> i want to thank the business owners that have come out. this is a difficult position. i still feel that maybe we should discuss with other city departments when we can do locally, even to lay out neighborhood assessments, like dpw, about how this compliance, public right of ways, some of the comments that were raised previously -- as far as i know, we are not going to raise chinatown or widen all the sidewalks and alleyways where some businesses are located. things like that, what can be