Thing and having better data. You need identifiers. A conversation led by digital and data sf to stay with the project the entire way through. A lot happening. That is my presentation. I am happy to take questions. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much, ms. White house. Commissioner walker, please. Thank you so much for this. As i have watched i will make a joke i can see the new building out my window. You know, we are all anticipating realizing it is coming on so quick, we have hiccups in our own Data Management project we have been doing, and it was really helpful because it makes me feel more comfortable all of these processes that we have been engaged in towards that end are being used in a way that makes sense. Part of our moving from together will facilitate a better coordinated effort which is what we have all wanted to do with our permit tracking project. This is heartening. It is going to be beautiful. It is already beautiful. I love the way that there is a courtyard and we are taking care to make space for the folks who work in our departments, open space. It is amazing. This is quite commendable. You delivered a 45 minute presentation in 15 minutes. I talk fast. You are amazing. Anyway. I dont know that i have any questions at this point. I think that it is really wonderful to watch how quickly this has gone up. It is amazing. The housing especially because it is so tall, but i think that all of us are excited to do it. I love the idea of doing a pilot in our existing location. I think that is going to be really helpful. Thank you for doing this. I will study this. If i have other questions, i will call you. Hats off to whoever made the decision, tom, or your department to go with blue beam. It is a fantastic tool. Part of the reason why 4749 is doing so well because it is using blue beam. It is effective. Hats off to you for using it. The commissioner does not it is on the board of blue beaming. Beam. I share all of the positive feelings about this, and i would like to go back on page 7 where you do say no one department owns the entire Customer Experience. You know, is there any way to rectify that, when nobody opens it, it is a source of problems. Very often what Different Companies or agencies do is say maybe nobody really is in charge of it all, but whoever have the dominant takes is lead so it is seamless and does own it and the Customer Experience is such they go to the primary. One of my two questions is there any possible way to solve that short coming of nobody owns it . Yes, that is a great question. I want to make the point that on form 1 through 8 item and submits items the 70,000 permits, d. B. I. Is the owner and takes that responsibility. There is an owner in that case. Whether or not public works owns 20k. They will be together in the space in the new world. I feel like that makes sense to me they will be together, which is an improvement. Right now they are in different be locations. How much more coordination is needed . That feels like a lot. Once it is all an electronic plan review, departments will make comments in blue beam and comments with the customer in blue beam to reduce the issues of projects moving between the horizontal and vote vertical world if that helps. It does. I like the idea of there being a seamless Customer Experience. Sometimes for the sake of clarity one dominant agency which sounds like it would be d. B. I. Takes the primary role and delegates appropriately. It may facilitate that desirable improvement in Customer Experience, and certainty as to how do i do this . Who did i go to first . I do think that would be something that would be worth trying to evaluate so that our goal of good Customer Experience really happens. The second question, you know, i hope blue beam works as well as possible. We are experiencing some concerns about some of our Technology Efforts right now, but my only other question is what happens when things go down . Where we don are the potential e fields . On the cueing system, it is cloud based. It is constantly reaching when it goes down and when it comes back up it only happened once since early august. You dont lose the data. It stops you from getting in the line while it is down. Blue beam i dont know the answer to that question for blue beam but i can look into it and get back to you. Were you talking about any other types of systems. Okay. Again, i dont want to be a tech technifobbe. I am interested in being sure redundancies are built in so we have smooth transitions and as we establish confidence that they are notness not necessary scary, i would like to be certain that we have all contingencies protected. Thank you. I am having trouble hearing you. I will speak more directly into the microphone. I want to hear the question. I got bits and pieces. Again, it is just i am something for technology, as such, i want to be sure that especially as we introduce new things we are very careful to add redundancies into the system, which potentially could, for the sake of efficiency be removed when they proof to be unnecessary, but, you know, again, we have had challenges with some of our ventures into improving technology, and i want to be sure that as we add something as significant as these new vendors, new systems, that at least at introductory periods and for a test time we are very cautious about having backups and redundancies. Yes, thank you for repeating. The answer on that, and i am not an Information Technology professional. I have hired someone on the team with 20 Years Experience implementing electronic experiences with the city. Cary bishop is knowledgeable. The way to do that is not to have a big bang. It is the pilots. That is the approach we are taking as we impliment electronic plan review. How can we try small pieces, not having a big bang. Those comments are very welltaken. Commissioner lee, please. Going 100 electronic plan review is very exciting. I have been on the commission over 10 years. When i first started i had discussions with constituents and colleagues in moving towards 100 paperless applications and permit applications, but my question i have two questions. First question pertains to overthecounter permit applications. As you mentioned we have 65,000 overthecounter walk ins every day. How do you envision that happening with electronic plan review . Do you expect people to come with a thumb drive or what do you expect people to do . I will say in a month or two i will have more details for you. I am happy to provide those to director hughie to report back. We are thinking that through with your department and Digital Services right now. I can tell you and this gets to your question as well. I think the way it works we are starting with the middle permits. They are lower voluming. I would like to leave overthecounter permits alone until we see it is working with submittal permits first. This turn and is working well. It is important not to disrupt that. We have been talking about it behindthescenes start with big then medium. Then get to otc when they work well and staff is comfortable. I can tell you when we get to that eventually, and i am not sure on the timeframe. When we get to that i like the idea of starting with it being all in person so you are home, you know you want to apply because of the great communication to tell you, and you go and you go to the citys website, fill out the basic information and submit your plans. It is a question if that city website tool will be integrated with pts or if they will need to move them from where they go into a blue beam. Then you need to come in. When the plans are quality controlled while you get there, you will walk around from station to station and give a project id. That is every project created. I think that is the way to go. Moving the slow pilot in testing. I have heard there is a future state of the world where you dont need to come in for many things and it can be done electronic. I think weed should go step by step. This doesnt mean that blew beam does not automate the jobs. There is a need for the routing. None of that is in blue beam. There is a lot of work to do here in the new world. My comment on that is be aware. Sometimes the documents that the architect engineers sends across are huge. Uploading and downloading will take time. That is something to be cautious of. My second question on that is how busiest time at the department and correct me if im wrong. Usually morning and end of the day when most of the contractors pick upper mitts. Where do people wait if they have to get with a group . If there are like 30 in line where do they wait . If you are going from counter to counter, you are not going there all the time. You will have down time to wait until a counter is open. Where do they wait . If you but up the floor plan. The building was designed with many areas to wait. I will point at it so you can see. [ inaudible ] i will tell you there is Text Messages capability. You can be entered in multiple cues. We know longer need people to sign on every sheet of paper. The system will say here is a routing pass and they could put the person in the cue and send them off. They wont be called when they are sitting with public works and when they mark they have arrived they can be called. It will help organize the floor and it is a critical part. You can get a text message it is a 30 minute wait and you can go get coffee. Thank you for your presentation this morning. Your enthusiasm is contagious. We are excited and really appreciate the fact this is how big of a job this is the you think about moving that many people and relocating them and the different needs and wants and asks of particularly the people whose life you are going to impact. A quick question. On the space you mentioned 40,000 feet is the new space. What is our existing space right now . That is a good question. I looked at this awhile ago. That is okay. It is hard to compare. Thank you. Good morning. Project manager. We have done various studies comparing the current and future space, to your question. It is comparable to the current space. It is difficult to compare because currently you are spread throughout five or six floors with pay mix of public and private space. Here it is a different setup. Areas are mostly for staff and then the public is mostly on second floor except on fourth floor there will be an interface for inspections. You know, one thing that struck me that was difficult to see in the old space was the size of the cubicles and the tightness. Have you spent attention on the Work Environment for the different staff . The architect before they began the work, they walked up and down and met with d. B. I. Staff and planning staff. One thing is new building there will be consistency on all floors on office and cubicle and workstation sizes. There is no code at the new building. The workstation sizes for every person will be smaller than existing space and to comment there, there will be more meeting rooms than current spaces to help with private conversations or meetings with staff. More of an open floor plan . That is correct. They take a lot of pride in designing. It is what they do, they design the offices. They are customer like any other architect. Part of their work flow is to design and engineer so they understand the work flow. They are designing that. There is nothing extraordinary about how they are designing the space. Actually, throughout the project we have heard concerns about the height of the cubicle panels, and understanding that, we have actually raised the height of those panels to help address some of the unhappiness that staff has commented on. That is my question. You have got feedback they were too low. Initially, the design was too low. It is not to make little of it. I finished an Office Building myself. We did this radical design along the lines, and the new Office People who moved in there from the old space, you know, there were people in the space for 10 years. It was a huge change for the seasoned veterans. To that point have we an outlet for the there is people who are unhappy with the space. I am getting in the weeds. Too dark and their older space was more conducive to them. Is there an outlet they can make a formal complaint and have the opportunity to move around and things like that . I think you are looking at the outlets. I think. Being respectful to the senior staff they want to make sure they are happy in their new location, you know. A little kind of consideration in those scenarios. I am not trying to open it up. The administrator has been very involved and engaged. We have had multiple executive Team Meetings to meet with directors. We have champion meetings where every department is represented. Now we will really work with the representatives from every department to talk about the physical move and logistics and if they have concerns or complaints that might be seen as minor. If you are taking your old Work Environment and moving that you are happy about it. I would make a plug. There is an intracity share point site to access for information about the project. When we get questions that we know answers to we will update on that page as well. When is the actual final date of 1660, when are the doors closing there . Probably t to two months we n give you that. We are really open. Anywhere we can address that feedback we have tried hard to do that. Obviously, the building is going up so it is harder to address things that are big, but, yes, we welcome feedback. Appreciate that. It is interesting to watch the transition and people Walking Around completely lost and not feeling connected to the Work Environment. We have to be conscious and help people through that transition. I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation. Any Public Comment on item 6 . Seeing none. Item 7, discussion and possible action regarding a proposed ordinance is 90174 amending Green Building cold to establish requirements to install Energy Saving features, amending environment code to require new construction and major renovations to include natural gas in addition to other requirements. Welcome back. Good morning, members of the commission. Good morning. I will keep this brief. I thank you for the opportunity to come back before the commission with this item and for the feedback that we received in the october meeting. Really the feedback was two categories, clarifications of the ordinance and second ensuring greater outreach, particularly to new construction residential. That was much appreciated the conversations we had consequently, and i really appreciate the chance to be back with you today to cover those two items. Briefly, i would just talk why we are here today with this particular ordinance. San francisco and mayor breed is committed to goals of ensuring new construction has no operational emissions by 2030 and that our environment city wide gets to zero emissions 2050. It is Climate Change and the impact on san francisco. The sources of emissions in buildings really in municipal buildings are entirely from the combustion of natural gas and in private sector buildings they are more than 80 from natural gas. The reason that natural gas is the pretomnant source of the Carbon Emissions with generating electricity which is the primary way to provide energy to the buildings. Second, there are substantial Public Health implications from the combustion of natural gas in the buildings. It is one data point. The estimate is more than 6 billion of value will be in california through this transition to zero emission buildings in construction as well as elimination of emission the transportation sector. Third point, the resilience of buildings is improved, the occupancy is improved through use of electricity. That boils down to more than 70 chance of a major seismic event in 30 years. They could restore gas Service Within approximately six months after the seismic event in the order of the 1906 earthquake and fire. Electricity could be restored in approximately one week. It is in that context that we have today if you apply for a permit today existing requirements if you build a residential building there are numerous screen building requirements no additional efficiency requirements if you build an all Electric Building with gas that needs to be 10 more efficient. This body has previously voted to Carry Forward those requirements in the form every choiring Green Building rating systems. That is already the case also in the upcoming code for new residential construction. There are two ordinances current leap pending before the board of supervisors. One is not before you today but companion to this legislation to convince the city to not install gas systems in new buildings. This ordinance before you is the modification of the efficiency requirements for buildings including gas for residential and also expending the requirement to apply also to commercial new construction as well. The practical effect is extending the requirement to commercial reconstruction. There are a diverse array of all Electric Buildings across the community including small residential infill, affordable housing, schools, Office Buildings and dormitories at sfsu. Separate from this ordinance is the question that president mccarthy, you are predicting in our discuss to us meeting which is one of the broader questions around new construction in general and existing buildings and those are not directly addressed by this ordinance but definitely a priority for outreach and engagement in the community and it is our understanding mayor breed is in the process of issuing invitations for participation in a building de carbonization tax force including invitation to president mccarthy or delegate, if you would prefer, in order to begin the robust discussion. The broadker questions of complete approach and implications and how we can get there in a practical manner as well as addressing how can we make practical progress while ensuring racial and Society Equity in the existing building stock . There is a lot of work to do and discussion to have and that is beginning in the next few weeks. Thank you for your time. Any questions . Is Battery Storage part of this whole package . The ordinance does not require Battery Storage. Title 24 Energy Standards do provide credit. In order to build a building with natural gas you could use Battery Storage to meet the 10 compliance margin for new construction. Is it possible for the single family, family less than three floors and multifamilies greater than four floors to neat those efficiency requirements . Yes, it is. In the interest of time i abbreviated this presentation. I am not talking about all electric but mixed. Costeffectiveness studies that i pointed at in more detail at the previous meeting included construction strategies and expected costs. In a state wade context for statewide context for low wise and nonresidential buildings. Those mixed use buildings will be better than all Electric Buildings . No the preferred approach on average would be to build all electric. However, i took your question. No, no, no i dont mean construction cost, Energy Efficiency. Isnt that the idea . Sure. You are saying the mixed buildings may be better than all electric. They would be Higher Energy efficiency standard. All Electric Buildings are the most Energy Efficient. To reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions. You are talking about emissions. All electric should have no emissions. Thats right. The mixed gas and Electric Buildings have to be more efficient than electrical ones. Is that possible . That is what im asking. To be more efficient in emissions . The mixed fuel buildings. Requiring it to be 10 more, 11 more and 28 more efficient. Is that possible . Is that achievable . It was detailed at length in the costeffectiveness study we discussed at the october meeting, yes, it is possible. I want to clarify. I think you were talking about different metrics. You were describing whether a property could have few error less intense Carbon Emissions than all electric property. I believe he was describing the overall Energy Efficiency. There are two different metrics. One is Energy Efficiency. I believe we are talking about the actual usage of electricity or energy regardless of sours. Yes you could use more energy in all Electric Building than mixed fuel building. The emissions would depend upon the source of that electricity. An all Electric Building receiving all Renewable Energy would have no emissions. 10 more emission based building would have more based on gas usage. This is only about new buildings. It does not apply to major renovations . Thats correct. Any plan to extend the experiences here to substantive renovation . The outreach to discuss how to address existing buildings on policy and financing and incentive front, public communication, all of that is about to begin. It is consistent with the goals laid down by may or breed and the goals in our Greenhouse Gas emission goals to address renovations, to address this comprehensively. This is focusing on new construction. The issues are quite more straightforward and we are going to take time to work through major alterations as well as ultimately minor alterations. Thank you. I just want to go on the record. We have lost three commissioners. They had appointments. We are down to four. Commissioner walker, commissioner moss. Thank you for announcing that. Thank you, mr. Hooper. I appreciate that we met on this and started the dialogue in discussing this. There is a lot of work to be done. Last night i was at a meeting with 70 small builders which we introduced this. It was a robust conversation. A lot of what ifs. I understand you are aware of what the concerns are, particularly because of the city and county, and particularly san francisco. It is down to the practical progress that we make, to use your terminology and the outreach to the different stakeholders. Going forward, i think smaller buildings will be impacted. We are trying to figure out and mr. Hooper will help us. We will try to get good data how that will affect buildings between four to 12, and they are pretty much important to us here. The actual cost, we are not remotely close to agreeing on the actual cost. Is the Electric Building more expensive than gas . I agree i went from the journey where i now understand there is a lot of all electric water heaters. This is all very doable. The big one, of course, is the upgrading of power, and particularly my without ages today. That was discussed the infrastructure is not here for us to go all electric. A lot of people would make that argument last night and i it is an easy one to make. Pg and e brought a letter saying we are all for this, but is the infrastructure there to do it . That is a huge concern. One particular case on the record the infrastructure wasnt in place on a particular building. We dirt get the address so i dont know how factually this is. They had to upgrade the power on the street and transformers and it ran into huge amounts because the infrastructure wasnt there. We have these issues. As you said, you know, the practical progress we make to identify how we can insentify this across the board from large and big projects. The bigger projects can achieve these goals. It is the smaller projects and the projects in the city here. With that, i am supportive of what you have in front of us today and as you take this journey and i am excited to hear you are putting together the Mayors Task Force on this. I would love to i it is on sit d maybe a couple other people that would like to sit on it. Every time you deal with these legislations we are with everything discussed upfront. I know you are on a fast track with this. What is frustrating here in the commission we dont get a chance to really havent these ideas. They have to go straight up from the different committees up to the board of supervisors. You are right to get this done in january. Good luck and thank you for your time. I appreciate your helping us get an understanding and practical progress for the future along with the Mayors Committee to help us with future legislation coming down the pipeline. Thank you. With that if there is Public Comment . Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none. Is there a motion to approve . I move to approve. Second. We have a motion and second. I will do the roll call vote. roll call . The motion carries 41. 31. Okay. Commission near lee. That still carries with four, right . Does it need four . It needs a quorum. Was this on the agenda last month. I missed a lot of this. I apologize. Let me ask. Is the intent to lower emissions essentially right . We are trying to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, lower emissions. Going all electric will cut the emissions to zero for a building. Are we saying that we are allowing mixed fuel buildings only if they are more Energy Efficient than an all Electric Building . You are saying that you are allowing people to have gas in their home only if they can prove their building is more efficient than if it were all electric . Yes. This is what i am getting at. My question is it is possible to be more Energy Efficient than all Electric Building with a mixed fuel building . It is possible. You can comply. That the only thing i am concerned about. I am concerned that we are putting this legislation out there and saying it is not possible to meet this and you are forcing everybody to go electric. It is like lip service. We will allow you to do this if you can, but it is impractical. It is possible. I mean i have to, you know, i am not trying to drink the koolaid. This is where it is going, commissioner lee. How we manage the knockon effects. It is a journey we have to take here. To your point i have concerns as well that i hope the task force will address. This is the first step. We have a ways to go. 10 here. It is not a bad way to do this. We can put our toe in the water, as it were. Mr. Hooper and the department promised that they would work through the issues as we aroused them. In fair mess when we sit down and we get where we need to get, will we be 100 happy with this . I dont know but i do understand. By the terms of the ordinance it is not that the mixed fuel has to be 10 bet they are than all electric. The elect building would need to meet the california standards. They may need to take Energy Efficiency steps. Mixed fuel has to be 10 better than the building. Then i will change my vote. Do we have to. I would like us to recall the vote. I would recall the vote. roll call . Motion carries unanimously. Next item is number 8. Discussion and possible action regarding the proposed ordinance amending Building Code to extend for additional 6 months the time for existing buildings to have primary entries and paths of travel to the building accessible to persons with disabilities or receive a city determination or reasonable hardship and to extend the period for granting extensions for those deadlines. I brought this up a few fews months ago because of the high rate of noncompliance in the accessible business entry program. It is still where we have nearly 8,000 noncompliant. We have 3,000 that are compliant. Due to a recent notification that went out, it is about the fourth or fifth notification we have sent to owners, we are now getting about 140 or 150 responses in each week. Owners are a little more focused and they are more responsesive. We still believe that trying to give people another six months for compliance makes sense. We have been talking about that internally with the abe coordinating committee and a couple conversations with supervisor yee who has expressed an interest inputting forward an ordinance in january that would add six more months time. I will say we have had some expression of concern from at least one member of the Disability Access community who is not enthusiastic about giving more time. I am not sure if that person iss aware how much burden this sometimes puts on Small Businesses with leases where the owners make the responsibility for making the entrance compliant on them. It does become a little more complicated than i think the supervisor who originally introduced this had intended. The department, obviously, wants as much compliance as possible. We want more customers who are disabled to be able to get into these buildings, but we appreciate the fact that in some circumstances this is not a simple thing to do. In smaller numbers it is possible to do. We would like to go after those to make those higher priority so the ones with financial im feasibility are not airstriking point that is a bureaucratic nightmare for the Small Businesses or property owners. It is probably not going to be until january that this ordinance will move forward, but i want to let you know we are moving in that direction. Point of clarification. Is it december when the deadline is, what date . December 1st was the deadline for the compliance. There is a table with slightly different compliance deadlines depending on which category you fall into. This reality is this proposed ordinance will give everybody six more months to comply. Realistically meaning next july or august. I am going through it myself. I have three buildings which are compliant that i have to prove that they are compliant. It is not easy. It is my fourth time now dealing with one particular address. It was all done under a different permit finalized. It is not easy. So i definitely would be for. I am sure there is a lot of what you are talking about here people trying to get compliant and cant get there. I would be interested to know if there is a way to identify that. I have two buildings right now and i am rushing to get it done before december 1st here. We appreciate those who are responsive. Since the most resent notification we are getting more response. That is good news. The size of this universe is a total of 11,000. You know, right now there are still will 8,000. Last week it was 7994 that are still in the noncompliant category. For example what is the complaint there . What is the penalties if you are not compliant . Would you know them off the top of your head . Well, i think we would have to have a directors hearing and have to ascertain what kinds of monitoring fees to actually get someone into compliance once the deadline date is passed. We have been trying to give people as much time as possible. It is not always easy to get the certified person to do the survey that you may need in order to get there. We have some simple cases where they introduce an Automatic Door opener. There are a lot of sidewalk issues that come up that public works. That is my point. Two of the applications are actually in d. B. I. And signed off but are sitting in dpw. They will not be out by the first. What happens there . We keep appealing to public works to see if they can come up with a little more efficient system to move this along. I will say that kevin jenson, the public works staffs does come to these meetings trying to work with agencies to make this happen. We may need to revisit some of the slopelike issues. We know as director pointed out when this first passed is the city has some neighborhoods with a lot of slopes that are greater than 4 , and many of those with probably qualify for technical infeasibility or financial infeasibility. We are trying to work with public works to shrink the total size of the universe so we dont have those properties dragging down the compliance ratio. Your legislation is not parallel to the timeframe when you go into violation. What happens after the first . You are in violation, right . Yes, technically that is true. If we are able to introduce this in january, then we can hopefully give people the additional time until next july or so. Do you want to weigh in on that . If you are in violation, you are in violation. How do you undo that . First of all, i cannot issue 7,000 and then also we should tell the pilot association, they dont need to hire someone. We have at least 30 or 40 of them coming in already. We have a new construction. You are coming in and trying to eliminate as much as possible. We have problem to find a professional to do those work. Most engineers and architect dont want to do the liability. That is what we need to educate people to do it. The architect wont sign off on it. They didnt design it. You did it two years ago and you are asked to prove it is correct. You show the permit was done on this design, you are asking for an architect to sign off. A few years ago you can fill out the application by the owner. Some of them would come in yesterday and get three of those done. I know it is difficult, you know. It is good to help the Small Business, now it is hurting them more. I am if you are going to extend it out, i am worried about the down time. Commissioner. I think we are all sympathetic. The community has every right to have access to all facilities, and yet we are also looking at a world where the Small Business community and vacant storefront issues and other things are equally compelling issues that are constantly coming up both here and at the board of supervisors, so when you have these dramatically competing two rights, you know, it is creating a very challenging situation clearly. Have we been able to really put the data together to say that of the nearly 8,000 cases here are how many of them are small units, Small Businesses that have these problems versus medium to larger ones that hopefully would have more capability to address the issues better . Just as we have addressed the whole seismic thing from different tiers, are we trying to be as sensitive to all parties and all conditions, and, you know, that is one question. Second question is related to the idea of we would like our compliance rates to be higher. I dont particularly care what the ratio is. I care about are we meeting the objectives. And where we have situations where they are listed as noncompliant because they havent filed anything. But if they were to file, they may very well have conditions where they could never meet it. You know, just as as assistance to the community to really have great outreach so that people understand when that appeal of infeasibility is ledge i mat, not an execution. We would recognize an excuse but ledge itty mat. Taking this fear, this threat off rather than worrying about it from the point of view of compliance numbers. Second question. Do we have the capacity to pro actively approach, you know, what we suspect are buildings that may really have severe compliance issues . Well, i will say taking your second question first that the ordinance includes the Access Appeals Commission which will be the body to hear those cases where somebody specifically thinks that technically they would have to reconstruct their building to comply with the entrance requirements for disability purposes. If they cant manage equivalent facilitation such as providing the service in a different way, then they would probably be very good candidates. We dont yet have the data points to your earlier question that really tells us exactly what those percentages are. I will say Staff Resources are Still Limited relative to drilling down that far. We suspect that out of the nearly 8,000 noncompliant possibly close to half of those are in compliant buildings, especially downtown but havent filed the screening form waiver that we keep asking them to file. That 11,000 may be actually closer to 5 or 6,000 of concerned. Then what percentage of that fall into the technical infeasibility . That would depend on the neighborhood relative to the slope issue as i mentioned. If it is 4 or more, we are pretty likely not to be able to see the terms of compliance being met. I dont know really yet what that number is. I am actually asking the Public Works Department to provide mapping so that we could overlap those two data sets and see how many of the 8,000 really fall into that particular category. All in all, i can say the department is trying to be very sensitive to all parties here. We certainly want more access to storefronts. We certainly want these Small Businesses to have access to the customers who make up the disabled community. We are not doing anything here to try to minimize that, but i do think that reality also says to us that we are not there yet and we are at the deadline for december 1. It seems reasonable to extend that for at least another six months period to see if we are in a lot better position. I understand the constraints of staff time, but being able to drill down on the numbers and try to get firmer sensibilities of, you know, here are the ones that would never qualify potentially. Here are the ones that are in compliance and havent filed paperwork, and here are the remaining pool of cases and of them by size, you know, here are the very challenging small units that, you know, maybe what we are really trying to do is create some opportunities for extensions for the ones with the most challenging situations, and not have any give on ones that are just too lazy to submit the paperwork. They are different problems. For us to deal with these tandem