>> the way it is described, >> it's on page 5. >> yes. okay. so to simplify the process was to advise the director to put it forward. obviously we would hope that would include the commissioners expertise and recommend someone. >> commissioners, we can decide internally and we can put it forward to you to make a recommendation. that's an internal procedural matter. >> okay. i move to support this. >> second. >> roll call.

>> commissioner avmd adams, dooley, commissioner dwight, reilly, commissioner sarkissian, commissioner white. aye. >> and that passes unanimously with 6-0. >> great. thank you very much. >> we appreciate it very much. next item, please. >> item no. 6. a pregnancy and discussion on research regarding disability access and readily achievable. commissioners, i want to introduce to you ronald rodriguez who is a usf law student who approached us to do volunteer work this summer. we took him up on the opportunity and to build on the work that cushion was do ing around disability access

and what is readily achievable. he's here to discuss the work he's done. >> you are live on sf governor tv. >> i'm ron rodriguez, a research analyst for small division. today i'm discussing disability access and the in nature of readily achievable and how it's defined. i was tasked with -- i'm sorry. >> they put it up on the slide. >> i was tasked to inquire about what the nature of readily achievable is and the intent was. we've kind of and more specifically i was trying to determine whether permit fees and other externalities can be entered into this. the question is answered in the affirmative and these types of cost can be considered when

making that determination. the discussion today is going to be revolved around my findings and the current situation more specifically the current situation in san francisco and california in general and what that standard is and then i will give our recommendations as far as where we want to go with our next step. so the current environment in san francisco. there are hundreds of lawsuits being filed annually just in the north district alone there were between 250-300 lawsuits filed last year. these lawsuits mostly target small businesses. as i had this discussion earlier a lot of them are around polk street, a lot of these are very targeted. a lot of these plaintiffs and plaintiffs attorneys they have come, it's been done a number of times. it's assumed that this is almost a business model of some sort and very costly for

businesses to be in compliance. and what makes it even more difficult is the permit process that san francisco has here in the city. so, a difficulty that businesses have is they are trying to navigate through this process upon layer that they have to comply both wcda and ada. that being said, i want to move on to title 3 and the actual language of the act. so, there are two standards. one for existing structures and the other for new structures. the most relevant to our case is for existing structures and the act states that an alteration must be made if it's readily achievable. as you know most of the buildings in san francisco are over 50 years old. the one i reside in is 100. so it's almost a century. it not a public accommodation

but it gives you an idea of how old the structures are here. readily achievable. what does that mean? it wasn't the intent to have a very specific hard line definition. but the cfr does provide some hint as to what that means. so as i mentioned it's not precise, but it does state that it should be without difficult and not costly. so factors that they give the court to consider they are such that for instance, the effect on the expenses of resources, nature of the businesses, the amount that the business em employees and these are all factors of the determination. we are still not sure what that entails and what that means. my job was to dig more into that. the courts haven't explicitly stated what it means as i keep mentioning. i

went to the legislative intent. as most attorneys know the legislative intent gives an idea of how it should be construed and applied. looking 32 you the -- through the commentaries, it was noted that the ada was not meant to be a hinder on businesses, it wasn't supposed to hinder growth. some of the quotes i found that were depend rated -- generated in this repeated team, president bush at that time stated it was to provide some sort of flexibility for the businesses. it wasn't meant to be a do or die kind of a decision. that's kind of the issue that we are facing here locally because of the permit process and the fees that are incurred as a result. so, moving on with that in mind, i kind of looked at how the courts have interpreted

this standard here. and as i mentioned they haven't dealt with it directly. there was no holding or outcome that said permit fees, we are going to allow them therefore it is or isn't readily achievable. as such we had to go in and sup set up parameters as to what they have allowed and what they have not allowed. this is an exhaustive list of any sort. this is a paper with did and outline. some of the general ideas are opportunity cost. these are things that should be calculated that should be considered. so opportunity cost. so when a business has to close for a period of time, there is an opportunity cost there. they are not generating revenue. those aren't being paid. that was a huge consideration. the impact of the alteration on the nature of the business expenses on operations. these are all things that the court

found out were really important in making this determination. and then, but as i mentioned beyond this there was no mention of permit fees but we kept digging and although there is explicit language in these opinions, but it's not in the holding. they are just reasoning and talking, but it is important. we did find a number of cases that mention permit fees and the regulatory process. the general idea is that these cost, these types of cost are necessary to making a fair judgment or coming up with a fair value in terms of what's readily achievable. the court as i put up there proof of contracts that include plan impact statements are determined whether they are achievable or not. that brings to what we can clear as i

mentioned that these permit fees and other externalities can be considered in this standard and what our next step what we would like to do is to try to make it, create a more business friendly environment. kind of take way some of the stumbling blocks that have been set up by these different layers of regulations. come up, the task of coming up with somewhat of a definition of what that meant means we can move forward in trying to make a rule to this various specific local issue of what that means. so that businesses can, there is no ambiguity, no confusion as to whether or not they are compliant. one 1 vision of near future goal that we would like to do is set up guidelines, a

conceptual map of what a permit fee would have to, like what that would look like as far as cost estimate so there can be a forecasting of some sort. we just want to make a community that's business friendly and we don't want to hinder growth. that being said, thank you for your time and patients. -- patience. thank you. >> commissioners, any questions? commissioner dooley? >> did you spend any time in the connection between the codes and the city and the federal in terms of historic buildings not being -- to be altered but yet therefore will not be in compliance with ada? >> so they could be altered and they don't comply? >> well, in san francisco, we have our own codes that do not allow certain buildings because they are historic to

be altered, but ours is a much broader definition of that than the federal ada. so that has caused a lot of problems for businesses that are in historic buildings and they can't make any alterations because they would be in violation of the san francisco codes. >> right. with regard to historic preservation, with regard to conflicting laws and it has to do with any sort of safety issue, then generally it's not achievable at all. but in terms of just historic facade i have seen cases where that has been the case, but it has been deemed like not readily achievable because of the significance of the building. >> and if i may, did you want

to finish your thought? >> no. >> to add, commissioner dooley, part of the focus on readily achievable was to really go back to the beginning and see what we could uncover, but also to take the idea of the concept of our permit fees and our process. if it tends to take, what's required to do the access improvements out of readily achieve able, that's the question for the city to take a look at as to whether or not we want to continue to have a process that will take things out of the readily achievable because of our cost in time >> commissioner white in ? >> i don't know if there is a question for you regina. if there is a building that the

not ada and cannot be converted, achievable. are they allowed to still open business to the public even if they are not ada compliant and they can't change that? >> you are always to explore what your readily achievable options are. so, again, kind of what is a redly achievable and what's readily achievable for you doesn't have a specific definition. but that is why if a business is opening and let's say the entry way is going to be very difficult, there is two or three steps going up, that they really need to consult with a certified access specialist to help figure out what the readily achievable options are. also, if there

are things again going back to the process of what either we may require or the cost of doing those improvement may take it out of the readily achievable, then there does need to be some plan of what is immediately doable now and then maybe down the road what it may take if it's structurally is doable. sometimes there are situations where the building department has said it's technically in feasible, but, if it is doable, then what's down the road. what's your plan down the road to be able to make it fully accessible. >> interesting, but there is no set here is what is readily achievable and this is not. >> because it's all based upon your economics. >> interesting. >> commissioner sarkissian?

>> thank you for this presentation. i have a question to ask you about your findings. you've stated that economics is not the only thing that the court takes into account. and considers also the impact on the business, for example. could you explain that to us and tell us what your findings have been and what the courts have held in that regard? >> sure. the impact for example on operations. if you have to make an alteration and it results in a loss of revenue, a significant amount of revenue or if you are losing money. if it impacts the operation in anyway, then that's not readily achievable. it's too much cost. the expenses are too much. like for instance i saw a case where there was an argument of rearrangement of the racks.

that should be readily achievable but it cost the company several thousands and the court found it was not readily achievable because of the impact on the revenue. >> thank you. commissioner dooley? >> would this in theory kick in the whole consideration at only after a business has been sued for non-compliance. is that where we are going with this to get some parameters so that when that happens, the businesses remain will not have to go through the process? >> right, we want to take a proactive approach because that determination is really made at the trial level and after expenses have been incurred with attorney fees and we are trying to be

proactive about it. i was talking to regina and discussed the ways to incorporate that and a fair amount of forecast that can be done in terms of permit fees and other cost that an n arise out of the issue. >> yes, commissioner, part of what we are taking a look at from the research findings, it made me think perhaps there are some guidelines that we can put forth to businesses to help them sort of understand or take a look at how to decipher what is readily achievable and what's not readily achievable and to have that understanding especially if they are looking with a cast inspector. not all cast inspectors really do put in readily achievable options because some of them are

concerned about doing full accessibility. there are some consistent cease in their report. that's the before hand and of course understanding the readily achievable component if you are in a lawsuit so that you can better argue for your settlement. and then lastly sort of taking a look at using this information to take a look at what we can do at the local level and encourage ways, begin to define , using this information to help us define better than what we have been doing on the local government's role and responsibility about assisting businesses and achieving accessibility and are we helping make it readily achievable or are we not helping it make it readily achievable. >> is this going to be kind of wrapped up with the task

force work with katie tang that we've been doing to move forward with some of these ideas that could actually be done on a local level? >> it maybe wrapping up with the one document that we've been creating. christian had put in some thoughts around the need for creating a little more specificity around readily achievable. so, and that was the intent of the assignment that he gave ronnie to take a look at and do the research on because he didn't have the time to do that. so whether the task force takes that on is to be determined. the information does need to be incorporated into the master document that we've been developing. >> thank you very much for doing this. every little piece helps move us forward. >> thank you. i appreciate that. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much for this.

>> can we take public comment? >> yes. >> even though this is a presentation by ronald. we have to take public comment. we have to see if there is anybody from the general public who would like to make a general comment on this. is there anyone from the public who would like to make a comment on item 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. ronald, thank you. this is very good and trying to help us trying to get our head wrapped around all this ada. it's not easy. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner. >> next item, please. >> item no. 7 is the directors report. and speaking of ada, just to let you know that we are starting to get some inquiries from the city of fairfax, san diego and los angeles about the program that

the city has to help businesses obtain cash inspections. the work is getting out there about the great work our city is doing in terms of being proactive on this. then legislation and policy matters formula retail. the planning department supervisor mar's office have been meeting. things are coming closer in line. we will find out just to the degree of what that is on thursday at the planning commission meeting. but i think the one area that there will still be some not close agreement is around the numbers of businesses that would make that designation of what's considered formula retail. so, after thursday's meeting i will be able to provide you with more information in temperatures of just where the two proposals are lining up or not lining up and then what's going before the board of

supervisors to make the final decision on. and ted eagan is also providing his report on economic analysis on thursday's meeting. i also want to let you know that supervisors wiener did introduce this. because of the resolution there isn't a 30 -day hold and it's already been heard at committee and passed at the board of supervisors last week. but, his interim control was dealing around the definition of formula retail and i have highlighted out that what he is doing interim control for the castro ncd and looking into the planning department to look at it citywide but proposed to be in form ula

retail if it subsequently removes one or more distinguishing formula retails from the project proposal. he had requested that the planning department take a look at that as part of it's formula retail definition. so that did pass out of the full board of supervisors last week. then commissioner dwight, you talked about the design center last meeting. supervisor cohen initiated interim resolution requiring that conditional use authorization for office conversion and landmark buildings in pdr 1 in pdr districts, that they have to go through conditional use currently not. so and also to report that the land use committee did not recommend

to move out of committee the legislation that would have done the mark designation for henry adams. if there was more that you would like to, we can discuss now or off line if there is more that you would like to see the commission discuss, give consideration here on the matter? >> no. i think it go the the appropriate level of attention and i think we'll continue to i think, i'm glad that that particular situation worked out the way it did rather than it did visor verse because it put it's in a better place rather than scrambling what to do. while i'm a huge fan, displacing all of those existing tennants would have been very problematic. so i think it raised the awareness of the issues to the public as well as city hall. i think

we'll just monitor where it goes from here and weigh in if we have to. >> all right. that is the update for that item. and so, the interim zoning controls for the office conversion in landmark buildings will be heard at the board of supervisors office on thursday. i provided you with status update of other legislative items that have been before you where they are and then in terms of the office, we do have nag ar, who was tempting in the office until march of 24 last year, but the total hours that she could be a temporary worker in our office had accumulated so we had to stop her position, but now that we are in a new fiscal year and she is available again, will be rejoining the office on july

22nd. and then i have given you a status update on the 2, 1823 positions for the policy analyst and the james position and i'm starting the process for the 1822 which was the position that christian originally hired into. so if there is any questions, i'm happy to take them. >> is it basically you and marsdz martha a n at the moment? >> correct. we have one part-time person coming in working at the counter. it stul -- still does mean even with that person it's closed at some point. >> it's tight. >> how long do you think the process is going to take for replacing these two people missing and what is the next step? >> the next step for jane's

1823, the two, the commission secretary position and jane's old position, both the applications have been submitted. applicants that net minimum qualifications have gone through their testing. i'm hoping that this week i will get. it's a rule of three so i will get to interview, not i, but the interview panel will interview the top 3 test takers and so, i'm hoping to get the name of those at least for jane's position this week. then for the commission secretary position, there is a second questionnaire that we send out either friday or today by hr to the top 3. and then it's somewhat of a

process. >> a process and after your interview of the three finalist, usually how long does it take? >> then it can take another, i mean you have to talk to people about when they are able to start right away or their needs to be a little bit of a transition and then dhr's process is about 2-3 weeks. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. next item, please. >> next item is item no. 8. president's report. >> i don't have anything to report at this time. thank you. next item. >> item no. 9. vice-president's report. >> i don't have anything to report either. >> next item. >> item no. 10. commissioner's report? >> commissioner reilly? >> yes. i have been communicating with the in

term florence lou. we met last meeting and he submitted to me an action plan. i will be meeting with frances chen on wednesday to go over the plan. let's see how i can help. >> okay. thank you. commissioner dooley? >> i participated last week at a discussion at qad forum on chain stores. that included myself, eric mar, john ram and day workman from the chamber of commerce. >> good. when does that air? >> it aired already. >> was it radio? >> it was radio on forum on 9 am show. you can hear it online. >> would you like for me to

send the link, commissioners? >> yes. that would be great. any other commissioner reports? okay. next item. >> we have item no. 11. general public comment. >> do we have any members of the public who would like to make any comment on any future small business commission meetings? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> next item. >> item no. 12, new business. this allows members to introduce new agenda items for future business. >> do we have any future business? >> seeing none. next item. >> item 13 is adjournment. >> do we have a motion to adjourn. >> i move. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> we