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 the capital planning committee, we are embarking on a similar the valuation process of city-owned buildings. with respect to the housing authority, that is not city- owned either. but we are working closely with them on the rebuilding that you mentioned. it would address safety issues. for those not slated to go through that process, we can look at conducting that kind of evaluation. a lot of affordable housing is privately owned. that was proposition a that failed. that was trying to get public money to help those privately owned, but serving a very key public purpose. >> which organization? >> it is updating the evaluation we haven't done half of the earthquake in the 90's. >> we don't have levees that will break, but a lot of the neighborhoods are in the southeast part of the city, and we are also undergoing the rebuild. so when you talk about safety issues, that is very broad. it can be opening up a dead-end streets. i am concerned and i am raising him how voice to this concern about how we are defining public safety. you may have wondered to housing residents at a meeting and public comment participating. but if you think about it, sunnyvale has over 700 units. and the families and the children. i saw that you took into consideration senior housing. i guess is most likely probably private. i would like for you to be thoughtful going forward about your analysis including housing units. i think from what i see, it looks very thorough. it would be nice to see this added level of detail that would have an impact on a fairly significant swath of san francisco. >> really have the luxury with buildings that are publicly on of being able to actually do a more thorough inspection right away. we don't have to worry about private ownership interest. we are undertaking that process to look at public buildings and making sure we are protecting them at a parallel path as well. i know that the mayor's office on disability has worked with the department of emergency management to do an overlay to identify the places that the members of the disabled community live the that we know where the housing units are. so that they have a plan for helping those folks, evacuating them if we have a seismic event. we are definitely doing those kind of things on a parallel track with the public sector buildings. >> i want to assure you that the report to the housing into effect and we had to narrow it down to something that was finite that we could get our arms around. it was only the privately owned property. it should scare all of us that 85,000 housing units are expected to be unusable. many of those will be lost forever after the next big earthquake. housing is the key part of where we are most vulnerable. half of the housing units were built before world war two. by and large, the commercial buildings are newer. a higher percent of those were built under codes that will give a higher level of protection. the report was completed and handed in. it is available online and is a very comprehensive project. we would be happy to come and sit down with you and go over this if you like. we are happy to do that as well. keep in mind that the reason is is important that we move forward is that when we have our next big earthquake, 95% of residential owners do not have earthquake insurance. in the past where we have had casualties, fema has stepped in. we will not see that in the future. not only is it more expensive to repair a damaged building them to retrofit it, but there is a big question of where the money is going to come from. we still have thousands of people living in temporary housing. and our residential buildings are safer to stay and, we will have less of a need for temporary housing. the huge issue is resiliency. what will san francisco look like after the earthquake. we saw the terrible consequences in new orleans, who when of the ideas of how we have been gauging this is if we have a much safer san francisco were the majority of people who can continue to reside in their houses, where businesses will be able to open the where social services are available, the economics of the city can get back and work faster. it will be much more apt to come back quickly. >>