should be present and notice of all the world. -- and notice of parole. i am entitled to know. if the city will start mailing the information, and he is part of this and on the board of directors. i have a right to know, the city should stop defending him because they know he is a miscreant employee. that is all i have to say. >> is there any other public comment. hearing none, we will move on to item 11. >> present marshals not present this evening. we've agreed to put this matter over for one week. do i have an agreement? i will move to continue line

item 11 to next wednesday evening. >> without objection. >> any public comment? we move on to the next item. >> item number 12, adjournment. >> so moved. seconded. >> thank you.

>> good morning, today is thursday, october 7, 2010. this is a special meeting of the building inspection commission, at this time i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices first item on the agenda is roll call. president murphy? >> present. >> vice president. >> commissioner lynch? >> commissioner mar? commissioner mayor and walker are excused. we have a quarm and the next item on the agenda is

president's announcements. >> i don't have announcements. >> seeing no announcements, item 3 g is electric report. >> yes. good morning, commissioners, viffian day. commissioner. i don't have any updates on the -- but i do have a permit on the tracking system. we did get our rfp out, they are reviewing it so we should have it back before the end of the month. so we are doing something on the permit tracking system. thank you matic system which is the customer cuing system within the department, we're waiting for one more piece of equipment to be installed on the fifth floor before we put it into protection which hopefully will be around the first of november. >> do you know how many bids we're going to get on that? >> on the permit tracking

system? i do not know. i do know there are more companies in existence. there are several other companies that are now doing this type of work, software programming for this. so we're hoping we will get a good, sufficient number of bids for this. >> and some good pricing, i hope. >> ok. do we have any public comment on the director's report? >> good morning commissioner. the district court on the queue matic. i would like to sort of see how that is going to work. we have concerns about thou routing's going to be so, we don't get stuck waiting for the architectural plan check and then have any other stages checked. and we really haven't seen this

process, so i was hoping from what the director said the last meeting that this would come to -- for us to have a look at it before actually implement it, so i'd like to see that happen before actually going, because once it's in and you know what it's like to change and reverse it after i would just hope we would do that. >> thank you. >> yes. the next pac meeting is scheduled for later this month, i believe it's on the 21st. 7 and yes. and yes. we will have l will be -- we will have a demonstration of that meeting of the queue matic system. >> commissioner homestretch nova? >> i'm sorry. >> has there been any material change from where it began earlier this year come fired what's going out now? >> in the queuematic system, no. it's just queuing system. the original queuing system was

set up back in the b.p.r. process, which was over two years ago. and we've tweaked it internally. to make sure that the -- if a station is available for review, and another station is on hold, that the customer would be routed to the station that is available first. and so we will be testing it before we put it into full implementation with you know test cases as soon as we get all of the equipment installed. >> the full body of the permit tracking system that is going out? >> oh, you're talking about the r.f.p.? >> yes. >> the body of the r.f.p. has changed significantly with d.b.i. taking over control of the core system, the core software system and others coming on as modules to tho that system, so we will be purchasing that hardware, the core system and enterprising license for the whole city in other words maintain both the

hardware and software for the city and special implementation will be done for each department as they come on in the system. >> any further questions? seeing none? >> and just as general information, i believe it was asked at the last meeting regarding the p.a.c. meeting. those meeting a jendas and minutes are on our website. so i just wanted to make that clear. carolyn, the director secretary takes care of those meetings, and if anyone has questions about how to find it on the website, you can give carolyn a call. >> thank you, anne. >> thank you. >> any further public comments? seeing none. >> ok. we can move on to item number four, public comments, the b.i.c. will take public comments on the jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> any public comments?

seeing none, then. >> seeing no public comment that the time we are going to move items number seven and eight to be heard next regarding the cap program so, that we can let these people give their presentation. the item number seven is update on community action plan for seismic safety. we have mr. tom toen from a.t.c. here. >> mr. president, members of the commission, good morning and thank you for having me on your agenda for today. what i would like to do is to make a brief presentation. i've made a few power points to keep myself on track.

and lit only take a few minutes. but i wanted to describe the approach that we're taking to the caps project. secondly to discuss the status of it and tell you lastly what we see are the third or final steps. this graphic fetishes you'll look on the handouts i think it's the second to the last page is a little larger version of it that you might follow. basically what i wanted to point out is the process we're following, one, is that our first step is to establish what are the policies? what are the objectives that the city has during a performance during an earthquake? to do that we look at several sources of information. the san francisco general plan and the community safety on in familiar provides that kind of policy ginets for the city. we also -- guidance for the

city. we also rely greatly on our advisory committee. it consists of 50 or 60 people. they don't attend every meeting but meetings throughout the year and their insight gives us attitudes and insights of individual groups within the city, and the third source has been spur. as you know spur has published reports on what it sees as recommendations as the way the city of san francisco should perform after an earth quake and for existing buildings have set recovery targets based on their sense of priorities. after that we are not doing anytime consequence but this is the miffedology if you will. our two report which is near the complete is the study on the losses we expect would happen in san francisco before reasonnably respectible earthquake scenarios. though there's lots of data, and rather than doing

everything fourl times, we've told the story using a magnitude 7.2th quake on the an andres an andres fault. 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 p