it was identified that the dolores median was a potential historic resource and did need more review if you were to make specific changes to the median. if we work to do work that touched the median, it would require additional historical view. that is my understanding. that would be about $8,000 to $10,000. if you did decide what changes, it would not affect up. it would be $10,000 to do the historical view for the quarter. -- for the corridor. supervisor wiener: i think it is written. in terms of dolores and san jose, i have heard some concern about the impact on traffic flow especially on one area where people access to hundred

80 -- 280. can you comment on the impact it will have on traffic flow? >> let me put at the diagram -- the input of the diagram -- let me put up the diagram. >> we do have an overhead. >> on page 40, there is an photo looking towards san jose. you can see in the southbound direction, there is currently one lane of traffic. the plan has two options with what to do.

this would create a sort of a large plaza area that connects to the sidewalk and creates a public space. in the southbound direction, it is the same. in the northbound direction, it removes a travel lane. there is one that keeps that from going north or east, i guess. and this one those southwest. this was analyzed in the environmental review and found not to have significant impact. the other plan is a little less radical. it is more or less the same, but it takes the lanes in the northbound direction to one lane. supervisor wiener: it will

require a sharper right turn. right now, it is a soft right turn? >> that is correct. it is a very wide pedestrian crossings if you can see right here. you are crossing the only one lane of traffic. maybe 30 feet of runway. this would make that down to one lane. he would be crossing 10 feet or 15 feet. >> have there been pedestrian safety issues? >> i am not sure. supervisor mar: i wanted to complement you and others for the great work. even though work on the alleys and small streets are really exciting.

some of the existing projects i hope can really be a fly hidden pockets of the neighborhood, too. it sounds like the effort to create a strong identity in the district, it is different and more industrial than some of the areas. some of the goals might be different. is that correct? >> another in here is what you would do with the industrial permits use streets. and because you have trucks coming in and out of there, the goals are a bit different. you want to retrain -- retain access, the workers to eat lunch. supervisor mar: i like the opportunities for public life, expanding the pavement to parks

and use of existing roadways for more public gatherings bases. any other comments? let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? we have mr. francisco decosta. >> from time to time i come to the land use subcommittee meetings. so that i can give some input. my experience comes from working on the procedure of san francisco where there were a number of landscape architects working with me on project. what you see here is the management plan. these are conceptual plans.

conceptual plans are just that. conceptual. one of the ways to address conceptual plans is to have the people from the communities these stakeholders. when the gentleman was explaining to you where there was going to be this road that has very heavy traffic, it is for the public. one of the things you have to think very deeply is about the particulars. if millions of cars are passing on the road, even though it is green over there, whether they will be breathing. you mentioned a few things like hot we need a green spaces. we need our young planners to be innovative.

we need to create hope and green spaces. but the most important foehn is maintaining in. not just palm trees and a few flowers. nobody is maintaining that. if you go to bay shore, you have these benches and the garbage is all over the place. they park in garbage all over the place. and some unruly elements always occupied the venture is so that nobody can come there. you can do your exercise, you can relax. but because of the unruly elements, you cannot use it. it is very simple. the conceptual plans are good.

but most important is to have the stakeholders. what is really important is for the stake holders to come here and say, supervisors, you represent us, but we are participating in quality of life issues, and this is our input. we're very happy to work with the planners. that is what we need to see. supervisor mar: is there anyone else that would like to speak? public comment is closed. i did want asked them to talk about the three-year process of stakeholder involvement and community-based groups. and the other question, a capital committee being formed. how is maintenance going to be funded over time?

in >> to start with the first question, the community process, we held a number of projects. we tried to get the word out. we get mail in to try to get people to the workshops. we also individually work with organizations in the mission district area. we tried to work very closely with emergent organizations because they don't come to her a lot of public meetings. we focused on issues specifically relevant to them. in a sort roundtable of discussions with various merchant organizations. your second question was about the capital planning group.

that is something the city is just starting. the basic idea there is that what we want to be able to do is identify with available funding where we can coordinate streets cave project so that when we build them, we'd do if in no way that is efficient in terms of the cost, in terms of the construction schedule, and more complete in terms of the resulting history. that there is more of a complete scope of work. one example of where we have done this in the past is where you have had a number of different agencies working on projects. the point of this group is to look well in advance, projects that are in the planning stages, not necessarily funded.

and how do we bring these together to go after finding? we are specifically looking at me tense with that group. how do we maintain these streetscapes over time? that is the role of committees to worship programs. that is wide -- committee last georgia -- stewardship programs. >> we are very strategic about how we do make improvements.

where it makes sense to build a plaza, we look for adjacencies. the way that people are adjacent to the space and can help us maintain it. it all came with agreements on how to maintain them. that dialogue is always there. if the project moves forward, it has been very clear with the dialogue that we also have to talk about maintenance and how we can get them to be cared for. the question about the streets. we have done as much as we can to try to keep people out of the streets. i was going to joked earlier that he last bench was taken up on market street a year ago.

it is not working. we still have all of these social issues that we had. we have to be strategic about it. and even then, the folks that you might not want to be there are sort of ingratiating the street and making it better. that is kind of the dance we are trying to do. it is a very careful dialogue about how we do that and whether it is successful. the prevailing thought about how to make our streets more comforting. supervisor cohen: i think you guys have built a wonderful

plan based on a set of assumptions that are not necessarily in sync with the people that live particularly in the eastern neighborhood. representing that, i think about me and my friends, my neighbors, the residents. maintaining the plaza becomes less of a priority when people are trying to maintain a life, they are trying to keep their kids in school and keep a roof over their head. is there some way you can take this consideration in the mission district in particular?

people are just cannot and giving their station, they are not going to be as concerned about the maintenance of the plaza. you make it nice and you put a fresh coat of paint and at a palm trees, people will want to take care of it. i agree that there are some people that will. it is a small group, though. when we look into the capital plan, there are palm trees that are dying in the southeast part of the city. so i would ask that you may be reevaluate this assumption.

>> the story about whether they will or not is something that someone has to test overtime. the infrastructure is not there to support it. supervisor mar: any other questions, colleagues? can i get a motion? it is not a committee report, so a recommendation to move this forward? without objection?

would you call item no. 2? >> the reports and recommendations. >> this is an important hearing on the plan for seismic safety. we have the city administrator and lorenz -- laurence cornfield. the purpose is to provide -- i believe the fourth major report studying the risks facing the city and it recommends a number of actions that the san francisco city government and leaders should take to reduce the consequences of a future earthquake. i want to thank the volunteer is advisory committee that has been

added for many years to build a culture unpreparedness within the city that relies on residents and the block by block efforts to keep us safe. >> amy brown, active city and administrator. i want to echo your thanks for those the could not be here with us today, and the dozens of san francisco residents and experts that gave up very generously of their time to look at these seismic rifts and catalogued them, it is a rather sobering picture that emerges. and also identified actions. the report culminated in december of last year.

in january of this year, taking those 17 recommendations in looking at how best to go about implementing that. they engage the specific departments that the executive director charges me to involve the department of emergency management, the fire department, the controller's office, and looking at how best to package those 17 priorities and in the implementation time line that we can move forward with in a way that makes the most sense. we have also started to reach out to the public even more so which involved a lot of people already. but to reach out to different

groups to try to do the education that is recommended, also hopefully garner in support as we move forward. i very much look forward working with the mayor's office and working with the board of supervisors as we move forward on those very important recommendations. i am also very pleased to say that in another six weeks, we will have the benefit of the deputy director that has worked very hard on this process and really knows this stuff inside and out. with that, mr. corn field is here. it really outhirdauthor --

authored a lot of the reports. >> we are all heading in the same direction. i am a real estate adviser year in san francisco. i was the co-share of the citizen's advisory committee, who also very active with the resiliency efforts. how do you want to introduce yourself as well? >> i am a consultant and one of the project managers.

i also live in san francisco. i expect to be here when the next earthquake strikes with my family, so this is personal as well as professional. >> we wanted to tell you a little bit about caps and what the process was to get where we are. and certainly to let you know that we are eager to help educate the rest of the board and if any of you have more questions, we would certainly be happy to sit down with you. about 10 years ago, the city was very fortunate that there was not only a need to identify ways of making our cities safer, but there was money available for this.

this was a little known source of funds. it was refunded from the state every time. the money gets transferred to the state and a small part of it comes back. because of the huge building boom, there was a significant amount of money. he started the process that was interrupted about seven or eight years ago. it got back on track under mayor newsom. last december, they deliver the complete package of the capture reports. -- caps reports. the consultant to work in coordination with a volunteer advisory committee of about 80

people. about half of them showed up at the meetings from all walks of life and interested in san francisco. at the end of the day, there was unanimous support for the recommendations. there is a lot of people thought going in there. let me turn it over to laura and have heard tell you a little bit about that. >> the project did a couple of major things. one was to look at the city and analyze what kind of damage we are likely to expect. the second part of the project was to develop policy recommendations about how to reduce that damage and those consequences. very briefly, we produced four major reports into technical appendices. there is a lot of material and i

can summarize it all. but i will give you a snapshot about both of those parts. we analyzed for possible earthquakes that could strike the city. it is a lot of reading. i will give you a quick snapshot of the magnitude 7.2 earthquake half of the western shore. we found that such an earthquake would cause more than 26,000 buildings to be unusable until they are repaired or replaced. more than 3000 would need to be demolished. that scenario would spark about 73 fires that would require professional firefighting response and would burn more than 88 million square feet that had not previously been damaged. it would cause about 1500 injuries that require hospitalization and that to about 300 deaths.

it would have far-reaching consequences in terms of housing, business, and many other things. we found that earthquake will leave about 83,000 housing units and replaceable. we know from the low-income and rental housing, they are the slowest to come back after a major disaster. we also have predictions on what will happen to businesses. basically, the city is vulnerable to earthquakes. we have old buildings that are likely to be damaged. we worked with our committee and we all came up with 17 key recommendations. i will not describe them all, but i will go through three important ones. the city should require a retrofit of all the stuff story buildings. one of our reports is dedicated to describing the risk of these buildings in detail and

analyzing what is required to fit them. we know that retrofits are very effective. we know that this type of building is responsible for about 1/3 of the housing units that would not be usable after an earthquake. it would make a significant impact. another recommendation is that all buildings be required to be evaluated. this would allow people to know what they should expect from a building when they are going to make a purchase or a rental decision. it is not factored into their decisions because people think is either terrible or fine. seismic risk really doesn't run into the market price of a building and we think it should. a big recommendation is that we think the city should have a plan over many years to analyze

all of the buildings in this city and require a retrofit of important buildings that have an unacceptable seismic vulnerability. our city has been built over many decades and it will take many decades to solve the problem. we think san francisco has taken a very important step in facing this problem and analyzing what the problem is, the scope and characteristic of the problem. even though the plan we recommended to spans many decades, it is important to start now. supervisor mar: supervisor cohen has a question. supervisor cohen: i am curious to know, this is the first time i am seeing the policy recommendations. and also this charge. i wanted to know if there was a

specific plan for public housing residents or evaluating the housing the public stock, particularly those that are slated for rebuilding. >> the project only covers privately owned buildings and. we did not cover buildings under by the city. recovered some affordable housing, but i am not exactly sure how much was covered in the analysis. >> i would assume that it is not in the analysis. dr. lee did not analyze government buildings or infrastructure. it comes to reject from damage to privately owned buildings. >> if i might add to that. through