and this is shaking we expect used in design for new buildings in san francisco. this is the worst that can occur but is certainly still a severe test. we've used the software program we use -- hazas to do that analysis. those results then feed into a second study which we call the post earthquake fire study, and then we also have the socioeconomic work done. those zoined to be, stine as we see it in san francisco today following these very scenario earthquakes. >> so parallel with that is our task three report, which is a study on what should be the repair and rebuilding guidelines for san francisco? how do you make a decision between to repair or retro fit at the time dealing with

damage? and that report is also near complete. but once ewe've done those, we have an understanding of where we are today. we also then look at best practices as carried out by other communities. actually worldwide. but also in terms of ideas that have been proposed by others. some have worked, and some haven't worked so well. we rely on the advisory committee through this process considering all the information, and through that we've comp with a tentative list of mitigating actions and those feed into the reports which were the major product of this whole study, and that would be the community -- a list of recommendations on what we see as necessary for san francisco to repair its earthquake riff. so in setting objectives, this is a difficult task. it's difficult in that some

people like long-term, highly-idealistic sort of objected i was, field goal north star of where we're trying to go with this andos want very detailed, measureible steps. we want to look at some that are a little bit long they are in terms. this is a new version that has come out of our last advisory meeting and seems to be working relatively well for us in terms of writing the report, but our advisory committees will still want to look at these and weigh in as well. after future significant earthquakes in san francisco, ewe'd like to residents to be able to live in their own home. a baseline of 9 a% of an from sis cans will be able to shelter in place. they may not have utilities but they don't have to leave san francisco and during recovery. 95% policy makers will have to

make. balances what can be done with what is it we really want out of san francisco afterwards? but that doesn't really affect our recommendation so much as you see some of the results become rather clear when you look at what will happen. the residents will quickly have m access to privately-run services. 80-something per vent of san fran sis cans rely on -- >> citizens need those kinds of social services or substitute services in order tore maintain their loo life near san francisco. those also include things like having access to detailout manies and dialysis machines, oxygen machines and food. those are what we see necessary to be relatively functional relatively quickly after an earthquake. so that no building will

collapse catastrophically. we realize the damage will cover in varying degrees. now we would've some collapses for sure and for whatever reason the other buildings will come through unscathed. but as a politic we want to find buildings that would collapse and retro fit them to the point where they at least won't collapse. and i'll show you the buildings we're concerned about in slides. and the economy will return quickly to functionalty. these people need neighborhood businesses to keep the neighborhoods in business but we also need to have the san francisco economy and knowledge-based so people will not be easily displaced. so that's something we learned from our socioeconomic studies.

and it's a key economic driver in the city, so coming back soon enough and having the facilities becomes a key strategy in terms of its recovery, for san francisco. >> and perhaps it wraps these offices. the sense of place is something that defines both physically by the nature of our buildings, the architectture and scails and ar ticklation the historic buildings. also socially in terms of who is here and the terms of the economic makeup of the study. earthquake and all disasters tend to have those that can affect people disproportion natalie. and it's ar ticklated over and over again. in other policy documents for the city. so when we -- when we looked at losses -- first of all, losses depend on time of day, they

depend on the magnitude and location of the earthquake, intensity of shaking. the loss of life vary from low of 70 in a magnitude 6.5 earthquake or 6.9 on the hayward fault to nearly 1,000 fit occurs with a magnitude of 9 on the san andres. it's certainly not the kind of losses we see in developing countries or other cities in the united states for large earthquakes. but still the loss of life is something that is a significant return. >> when you look at this and industrialize software we use has average values for typical buildings and those five or 10 or 20 buildings in san francisco that has fatal flaws and have large occupant as is during the day, because they are commercial or in the evening, because they are

residential. finding those buildings and retro fitting them to prevent a catastrophic event is priority. and falling hazards within buildings. the data on this is not very good, but one of the studies that have been done shows about half of the jurebs in an earthquake come from these falling hazards, interior. not every building falls down so the sources of injuries come from contents falling down within buildings. so the non-structural hazards are also a familiar concern. so when we look at safety? san francisco, the concrete buildings, they were built around 1980 is the source of about 50% of the casualties. that becomes one of our policy directions. our second is the residential wood frames buildings that have a soft story. those are ones that programs

are already underway to start dealing with. then the other buildings make up the smaller percent. we can look at losses in a variety of ways. we try to look at them in terms of how they impact san francisco. we feel that in a magnitude 7.2 earthquake. san francisco will lose about 85,000 housing units. buildings with multiple residents and as well as single family houses. when we look at them to see where do those losses occur and what type of build sngs we find first of all 34% or 1/3 or three-and four-unit soft buildings. those are not the ones we're addressing yet. 1/3 are in the types of buildings being considered now by the city. those are soft-story buildings where if five or more -- wood frame buildings, they account

for about 2/3 of the housing losses we would expect to occur in san francisco. an then a a smaller amount. about 1/5,22% are one or two-family units. there's a large number of those buildings that perform relatively better. so in terms of the priorities we would be recommending to you, the larger buildings become the first place to start reducing housing losses, the smaller buildings can come at a later date. >> economic losses are always published, and sometimes the numbers are so large they seem meaningless to us. but the building damage to those we would estimate between $17 and $54 billion. that's cost to repair damage to the buildings. then there's business losses. and this becomes a golfy number in my opinion, $5 billion-$15 billion.

it's goofy, because it flies privately-held buildings. the infrastructure has a hugal impact on business. so if we were doing an infrastructure loss study, you would find out buildings would go up a great number of injuries. we can look at san francisco and see losses as high as $70 billion when you include those two elements for just the privately-owned buildings. but we also see. we look at damaged -- damage to buildings, we look at dealing with child care and schools. these are all built with normal buildings within san francisco, and we have the same range of vulnerabilities such as soft stories or concrete frames. we see concerns with assisted living buildings where people are absolutely dependant on the provider in that building for their well being.

that mentioned before, social services, oftentimes private social services within the city are older buildings with -- and these types often uses are important to the citizenship and need to be considered. and then last, effects on community character both physical and social are real in terms of both the losses we would expect and the things affected would change the city dramatically from the perspective today, not for the better, perhaps if we looked at it 20 years from now, but that's another discussion for another day. revenue losses from multiple sources are at stake as well. not just from property losses but failed tax revenue and taxes rumenting from the tourism industry. the city's revenues are at risk as well. so our recommendation, our

approach to something that we're calling a market-based approach. and the idea of the market-based approach is that if you left people to have good information and how to understand how their buildings that they own or represent or up a will behave in an earthquake, they then start to make decisions on their own at how they value that earthquake risk. it's also not necessarily enough, though. so we described a four-step approach. this is one that could be laid out over a number of years -- so with good information, standards that help us decide which buildings perform well and which do not, framing of the people who were involved in this kind of process from engineers and contractors to real tores and homeowners and others so that they better

understand this information and can make good decisions. and meaningful incentives, steps are involved at this time. the second is after that process has a chance to run for a few years, you begin nudging the market by some requirements. the fist level of requirements we would suggest is requiring an evaluation upon fail. much of this is already done under normal circumstances. people will liar a contract tor look at their buildings is to the see whether they are buying problems like a leaky roof or shortcomings. so this will add to that to look at the site performance of the building and add that bit part of the buyer orel constructor we would expect more and more retro fits to occur and there would be more experience and other people would want to retro fit their building as well. and the third step would be to require retro fitting upon

sale. we know from experience, other programs statewide, but not everybody will retro fit if it's voluntary. so this begins now to make the retro fit mandatory. so doing it at a time where the cost can be rolled into the financing. but that would make owners -- or it would make the building more expense i have towards the buyer. that's expectation we would have to let carry out and allow fair decisions between what that cost would be. triggering upon sale would affect 1%-2% of buildings sold annually. it won't necessarily solve the problem until over decades. we would then go to the fourth step and require that -- as the

-- one allows us to know a lot more than we know now so we know when the more directive or city requirement -- over time. but we think fund nonal this, the city has to say this is fortunate us and establish that there is a decline and the decline will be a few decades away and the buildings will have to meet these standards so people know the city is serious. we believe the steps in terms of which buildings should be dealt with would be a priority system built upon use as well as building type. so an example of use might be housing. the building type might be 23407b deductible cement frames with 50 or more units. something along that line. this allows us the need to cover san francisco as well as to deal with the safety. >> we'll make additional

recommendations about falling hazards some are already covered by code for new buildings. fire code is huge for san francisco. can't talk about earthquakes without talking about fire. our modeling losses will be released soon but show housing losses that can be very, very high. fire is one of those estimate that is has a huge uncertainty in terms of the average, which we'll report. but on a dry, windy day, losses could be much, much worse on a rainy day, they might be much less. 3w we'll present average conditions and the average conditions are startling. the number of fires associateed with a magnitude 7.2 earthquake are the same as the number of fire houses we have in san francisco. the number of buildings lost or housing lost on the order of shaking as well.

the ground failure has been issued for san francisco and we know the marine district has poor soil and parts of the market has v poor soil. it's difficult for small business and building owners to deal with. this property line that you can't necessarily deal with yourself. we'll be making larger rectdations for those who thereof deal with it alike they do under undernew buildings. but new mexico terms of the smaller buildings, the more neighborhood conditions, we're perhaps taking a safer road and saying this really has to be studied. it has to be studied both from an administration point of view and how do you organize or finance multi-owned property or what kind of work do you do? from the geotechnical point of view that are on the horizon that perhaps will help us tremendously in dealing with that issue in the future.

the status of our product. the loss study i described to you is what i would say is at about a 90% level now. complete accept for two things. one is the fire losses have to be ruled in. and the review by the project panel which is underway now. the fire following estimates i would say is about 80% because author of that report is now incorporating the comments that the management staff gave him, and it will go before the project panel for their review as well. but those two steps are complete the status report -- this report drafted is not 95%. it's been reviewed by the project engineering panel. the author is taking those comments into account doing the

final revision i think will be done today. the author led in an effort to look at earthquake damage in new zealand and lost a couple weeks of his time. so it should be completed shortly. the risk report the task report when we rule all of this together becomes more meaningful. the draft becomes 507. and will be ruled by the advisory committee on two occasions. stand community action plan and stopets hear that out task and it -- it will come out of that report and be done another about the same time. so our next step, so you know where we are. the advisory comple meet next week on the 13th. at that time we will review the 50! report and go over the 95 version of the fire fightings version and the 95 version of

the task three report of the latter two reports are very technical but a summary will be of interest to the advisory committee what the yes cases are and that allows us by november 1 to finish the fire-following analysis and for the author of the task three report to complete that work. november 10 we have another advisory committee meetinging. that's the time when the 95 version would be rufede and the 95% version is the one they review in october. additional information and responding to their guidance, and at that time we will start laying out the action plan in terms of steps that need to be taken over time. november 15, we expect to finish the task two report. and then december. we have an advisory committee december 28, that's when we expect the final review of the task four report and plan for

the seismic safety and gives us the last week of the month take comments into account at that time and come up with a final resix. -- revision. not showing on here but important to the process is the review by the d.b.i. staff. and that goes on in real time and real version. i didn't want you to think it's being ignored. but it's not, because it's an insight as to how the city really works that's important to us. >> so president murphy, i thank you wand that i submit my report. >> thank you. mr. to be snn questions? commission center commissioner flinch? >> thank you. so when it says complete the report, is that the same thing as issuing? >> i'm sorry. >> when it says complete the report, does that mean issue? >> yes. there's sort of -- two -- yeah. when it is complete that means conclusions have been agreed upon and we sfwained them and the report is done nap regard.

the parent organization will actually be doing the publishing and laying it out their sort of copying editing process that goes on. terms of the recommendations and time to speak about it, it's done at that time. >> commissioner ehedge noke. >> on the next steps, i guess i'm just scures as to -- curious as to we, at the beginning of the year, had asked for target time lines. and some of these are not of a category that seems that it's being accelerated at the end. is there some fault that created the sort of incompleteness or some category that from back -- i think in february, that we had looked at

extending and then it went into spring and then went into summer, and then here to fall, and now we're receiving it at the end of winter time? >> the actual date has slipped my mind. but in about april, if i recall correctly, we had this study by the project interviewing panel. this was the study done about 10 years ago, if you will. when the caps project was active at that time, the loss study was done. but before it was ruflede technically, the project was terminated. and this was something that i don't think that we understood going into this. and when we looked at the results, we didn't like some of the results. it very clearly overestimated housing losses in western san francisco. it didn't take the proximity of buildings, the interaction of

buildings closely-spaced together in such a way. and we felt the loss assessment was overstated and went to a process of bringing back online this that i -- improved the way we could express the vulnerabilities and loss estimates. that took several nonts do. it took time to do, because the version being used under study, because of when it was done, 10 years ago, it's no longer supported, and it doesn't even run on modern computers, so we had to have a computer of that vintage brought back into service in order to run that study. so that's where we lost the time and it was completing the task two throort lost us the time. >> thank you. >> what worries me a rilt here is the huge percentage of these buildings which are two units, single-family two units and

even five units is dr. we have talked about it before like a year ago, 1 1/2 years ago, about, and i'm not sure you guys have addressed this. is are -- if the property owners out there have been justly represented in your meetings. i've been to the meetings. don't see too many people there that are owners, or for that matter, tenants. have we addressed you know, the illegal units in these projects? especially in the stop story building. i know my street alone, the block that i live on, there's two or three units that are illegal. and these would come under that

category. what do you guys plan to do with these units? do you plan to have to move these people out? are the units going to be legalized? because that's one question, and you know, the other one, you know, i like the recommendation. i like, you know, nudgal market by requiring evaluation upon sale by a decline. -- by a dead line. well, there's a percentage of buildings in san francisco that never go on the market. and probably never will. they stay in families for -- i don't want to say centuries because san francisco is a relatively new city. but for a long time. and they may outlive a couple of earthquakes. so i don't see an awful lot of these earthquakes getting condemned because of that.

and the other, you know, the other -- i remember there was one meeting i went to. there was a rep there from california insurance, and he gave a talk, but he really didn't say very much. you know, what initiatives do we get to retro fate building. a three-unit building we receipt fit it and go through the whole ba will you about tenants but angry neants that don't want you coming in, messing up their units. and you know, what -- will they get an insurance break from the insurance company, because now they are building this supposedly earthquake-proof? >> i know to get earthquake insurance right now is -- it's just impossible.

and if you do get earthquake insurance, you're responsible for the first $50,000. which, you know, in most earthquakes, that could be the max of your damage. you're not going to get anything. so i am curious if you guys have talked about that. >> well, we, mr. president, we have discussed each of these issues. let me just say in terms of the people on the committee, we have had consistent representatives from booma. we have a couple building owners who have been there and stay abreast of what we're doing, and we've had a representative from the apartment association. we have three or four who are rental tenants in buildings as well. like this sort of careful on how i say thfments in some ways i would say some participants within the committee are observers. they want to know what's going

on and advice -- and advise back. it's how does your might be look at this kind of problem? how will you as an organization represent this problem to your snebs >> and i think that the jury is out on how well that works. my personal view, which i admit is a bit naive, perhaps. is that the real risk in these buildings is one that's being held by the owners right now. they tend to lose their assets. they tend to be the people in try to, because they've got to understand how their assets are really at risk. and i would like. i hope we can threapt to them. regardless of how they like or dislike the approach we take, having a fundamental understanding of risk when it's not addressed ask terribly important and we're relying on important and we're relying on those organizations to make