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