i'm the partner of the fishbowl. with the computer games as they are now, they have a hard drive which certain pads or whatever and then there's also an online component which you can download moran mals. so we do do the online component because it has more diversification in terms what have our customers want to hunt. that's pretty much it. i don't know of anybody who is playing anybody in south dakota. it's just what we download. it's a new game that they can issue. president newlin: any other questions from the commission? ok. i hear a motion? public comment? no? ok. vice chair joseph: if i could ask for clarification -- >> if i could ask for clarification. do you have to be online. so it would be helpful for

staff if when the motion is made you address whether this is a condition you want to keep in the permit or not. president newlin: ok. thank you. >> i just wanted to give you guys the heads up. vice chair joseph: don't go there. president newlin: do we have a motion? vice chair joseph: i move to approve with the internet. this is 2010 going into 2011. president newlin: ok. do we have a second? commissioner cavellini: i'll second with the worldwide web. commissioner cavellini: aye. vice chair joseph: aye. commissioner meko: aye. commissioner perez: aye. president newlin: aye. >> thank you. president newlin: good luck. item number seven.

president newlin: aye. commissioner joseph: good luck the president newlin: i just had a question. what is the boundary? the cross street with richmond? they changed the boundaries. all right. item 7, police department comments and questions. >> good evening, commissioners and staff. i attended the halloween work shop and i thought they had a lot of good information there. i like the dialogue, the back and forth. i look forward to working with them in the future for either best practices or other safety areas. as far as issues that have been going on in the district, a couple things they had mentioned. one is on october 10 at 424

clay street, the bar, this is kind of an example where you see one of the establishments really doing something good, responding appropriately. a guy went in there, ored three beers one at a time and they gave him the bill, the big bill of $12 and he got ire at and he wanted to get out and he threw, they said, a large metal fish. it's obviously heavy. at that point the manager and a customer held him down until the police came. so they acted appropriately. a lot of times when we're up here we talk about what the clubs are doing bad but this is something they did right. and in front of the club on broadway, two people were stabbed. nonlife threatening. the victims whether -- were not

exactly cooperating with the police. so they were released. i would like the super -- center fold, i would like to see them out in toronto -- front managing the crowds a little better. and aggravated force at post and grant. victim said he got into a verbal fight just after he left a night club. i don't have the name of the night club. i could speculate but i don't think that's appropriate. we're looking into that to see exactly what the name of the club was. october 17 at the parlor, 2801 leavenworth, a suspect, or actually one of the patrons, a lady was dancing on the dance floor, somebody knocked into her. spilled her drink, and came back with a new drink and then she felt like it had been drugged so she was wondering when the person went to go get the drink that they put something m it. so they made a report on that.

and the incident at 561 gary street as far as a female patron felt like somebody approximate had -- had put something in her drink as well. and at show girls a patron got into a verbal fight with the doorman. the doorman went inside and all of a sudden somebody came from the inside and got in a fight and weat -- beat him up. i don't know if there is any correlation between the doorman and this person. and the last is named powa. october 21, around 11:00. the impala security pointed out a car that was going at a high rate of speed at broadway and kearney streets, blowing through all the red lights and almost running people down. security was able to point out the car and the officers were able santo go make the arrest. another example of one of the

clubs stepping up and doing the right thing. that concludes. any questions? president newlin: any questions from the commission? no. thank you very much. have a good night. thank you. any public comment on the police? comments and questions? seeing none, item 8, commissioners' comments and questions. commissioners? none? ok. i just, a couple of things i have. i want to ask you if you haven't already done so to notify staff as to what your attendance anticipation is for the remainder of the year. i've decided along with staff to not schedule a meeting for december 28, but i'd also like to know if we're going to have a quorum problem before that so thep don't go ahead and have to schedule stuff and then we have to cancel the meeting. secondly, i know we have a lot of passion on this commission, but i'd like the commissioners

to be recognized before they start shouting out questions to the public. and lastly, every year we have to take the sunshine task force lesson plan and the first fibe minutes of that plan every year states that people don't have to state their name when they come to the podium. so, it's, it's not required. so just if we want to ask them, fine. but if they don't want to tell it or they forget to tell it, it's not a major issue. there's no violation there. and lastly new business requests for future agenda items? seeing none, we will call the tuesday, october 26, at the same time commission meeting officially closed. thank you very much.

>> 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