literally disappear. birds are used essentially to disperse the seed. many plants have very hostile environments at their roots because they don't want competition, so the seeds fall on the ground, nothing happens. they have evolved their seed to attract birds so that the birds will eat the seeds and take them elsewhere. and birds are critical for not only maintaining the ecosystem but regenerating habitats that have been injure d. and birds consume the enormous quantities of insects and many of them eat their weight in insects per day and this reduces negative insect action on gardens, crop, and forests as well as reducing insect-borne diseases like west nile virus. and unfortunately, many, many birds are being killed by collisions with glass.

why don't we see these birds lying all over the ground? that's one of the first questions people ask? and one of the main reasons is that there are many skavrn skavrn jers out there -- there are scavengers out there that recognize this is a good food source and taking dead birds almost as soon as they hit the ground and occasionally birds that are injured. one of the first things you have to do when you are studying collision is to actually document that and to take bird carcasses that you have acquired from somewhere and put them in known situations and see how fast they disappear because otherwise you really won't know if you are getting reasonable numbers or if most of the birds have gone before you got there. ironically one of the things that has been driving increased bird collision mortality in the last couple of decades has been the movement to green buildings

including the leed standards which have been mandated in many cities. we value natural lighting. it saves energy and it connects people with the outside. fortunately, it is actually very possible to have both natural lighting and not injure birds. noreen just told you how bird vision is in many, many ways superior to ours, but why is it that birds are running into windows and other kinds of glass? why can't they see it? in fact, people really don't see glass unless it's very dirty. people recognize glass by different kinds of symbols, if you would. it's probably very difficult for

anybody here to tell whether this is a picture of some trees and a reflection of trees in a mirror or tree viewed through glass. the way that people can tell that this is either a reflection or a transparent window is because we see the mullion and we understand that right angles mean artificial architecture. birds do not understand that. there is no way that bird has been able to evolve to recognize glass. people learn about it from the time they are small, and every year some number of people are injured when they slam into glass walls and doors. i have done the same thing myself, so i know. if mirrored glass were the primary culprit, san francisco would have already solved the problem because mirrored glass is not in the ark tech's tool

box and this is transparent glass. and this is completely representing the habitat that's right outside that window. birds will try to fly through windows to something they see on the other side. this does not have to be vegetation. if you think about birds flying through cities, they are often going past buildings and sometimes try to fly to sections of buildings or around them as well as into courtyards just because they want to explore that. another factor involved is the passage effect. if you have watched a bird flying into a tree, they don't stop and hover and think about how to get in there.

they just zip right into the trees. bird, especially small birds, are very used to flying into small, dark space. these are pathways for them. these are nest flights for them. glass can often resemble the passage way. they see the dark space behind it and this swallow is flying sideways through a gap between two barn doors that is less than 2 inches wide. this is why when we talk about bird friendly construction, we're so concerned about how big and expansive glass we're looking at. the final issue that compounds the problem is light. this is a picture of the 9/11 light memorial from september of this year. if you look if the beams, all the little white dots are birds. for reasons that we don't entirely understand, birds are attracted to light. primitive humans used to light fires to attract birds in for

hunting. what's in a beam of light, birds seem unable to free themselves and keep flying. in this particular instance when this memorial was proposed, the new york city audubon society worked with the manhattan heart conservancy and stay up all night while this memorial is going and if large numbers of birds become trapped in the beams, they turn the lights out for 5 or 10 minutes. this time they turned the lights off about five or six time. the nice thing about it was that the opinion of everyone in the press and so forth was that, yes, we don't want to honor the dead from 9/11 by killing birds. the appropriate thing is to turn out the lights. as noreen said, as many as a billion birds are killed across the country every year. one of the reasons most people don't really grasp the scale of

this issue, i am sure most of you have heard a bird hit a window. almost everybody has. people think this is a rare event. think how many birds have to hit windows for many, many people to have actually been there to experience it. almost every building in the country killed some numbers of birds. homes are estimated to kill between 1 and 10. obviously large buildings kill larger numbers. as ann marie mentioned, san francisco is address iing conces to other large cities. it is no coincidence as you can see here that chicago is on the mississippi flyway. toronto across the great lakes as of january 1 of this year has

mandated bird friendly construction. and originally had voluntary guidance and those became mandatory this year. minnesota is developing bird friendly construction standards. san francisco is there to lead the way. the guidelines that i have seen develop by the planning department are far more detailed and thoughtful than ordinances and guidelines that i have seen from other cities. i'll let anmarie tell you more about that. >> thank you to both of our guests iffer sharing some of the -- for sharing some of the science behind the issue. we have reviewed the research available and today we're giving to you the draft recommendations on how this research could be applied locally. the document summarizes proven successful remedies such as window treatments, lighting

design, and lighting operation. the draft presents a three-prong approach to the problem. first t establishment of requirements for the most hazardous conditions and we think we can identify those. second, the use of an educational checklist to educate project sponsors and the tenants about the hazards. and the creation of voluntary programs to encourage more bird friendly design. for these reasons, the draft proposal would place controls on buildings in three discrete -- wait a second. i am missing a whole summary. this is describing a situation in manhattan. this is a summary that some research that is a summary of 10 years' worth of data of bird-building collisions. they have been watching bird-building collisions in manhattan for a very long time. and this research found that some things we understand and know like the amount of glass as the amount of glass increases,

in number of bird-buildings increase and that is common sense and something we expect, but also showed us things we did not expect such as that more important than the height of the building may be the location of the building to it surroundings. and this is the morgan mall in manhattan and it has a facade of glass that is next to a one hectare park and that building has the most bird-building deaths per year, hundreds per year, much more than the 10 per year of average buildings. based on this study man other studies, we are recommending the control be placed on these three discrete circumstances. first, if the facade has more than 35% glazing and is located on, in, or adjacent to green open space and then number two, again, if the building has a large glass facade, more than 35% glass and located on the pier or adjacent to water and three, if the project contains a

bird trap. let's look at some of the bird traps. bird traps include things such as clear corners on buildings, clear glass passage waist and glass wind break on the top of buildings. these present bird within aapparently clear flight path that is literally a dead end. under the proposal, bird traps facing the water or open space would require bird safe treatment and the proposal would require treatment such that the amount of untreated glass is reduced toless than 35% for facing the bird hazard or 100% of the glass would require treatment in this case. there are a litany of potential treatments that would satisfy the requirement including frosted glass, and frizz led glass which is small little dots. screens like this building in san francisco, or other screens

that are tightly patterned. beyond the treating and glazing of patterns and other techniques such as angled glass and awnings than effective in limited applications but less effective as a general application. while they are effective in certain areas, these treatments would not be reliable enough to mitigate the potential hazard for the high risk areas next to water and open space. how far, the draft standards as they are currently written do provide for flexibility and will allow them to allow alternative treatments when recommended by qualified biologists. in these areas that are determined high risk for birds, the proposal would seek to minimize lighting and use wind generators that present a solid appearance. that summarizes the requirements, decreasing the amount of untreated glass in high risk areas to less than 35% and treating 100% of the glass

and bird traps. now let's talk about the second tier of the three-tier proposal. outside of the requirements the draft proposal would be primarily advisory and education on pages 32 and 33, the proposal. you is bird safe building checklist. the checklist identifies conditions where the requirements would apply and also help project sponsors understand the features of the project that may create risk to birds. completing the checklist would be required for buildings with a substantial glass facade of 35%. and if the building is not situated in a high risk area and doesn't prevent a bird trap t only obligation for the buildings would be for building owners to consent to provide future occupants with information on how to keep their buildings bird safe. this is important in that there are many building features that contribute to a bird safe building that are beyond the control of the designer or architect. things such as keeping interior

plants away from windows and minimizing light usage. over time as building designers and of course wants become more aware of the hazards, we hope they choose to reduce the risk of buildings and birds and educating tenants can help mold building occupants into allies. finally let's look at the third tier of the proposal, voluntary programs. and along the lines there and the draft proposal and the rating system for project sponsors. and this system is modelled after a system that's already in place in toronto that enables marketers to market the buildings as bird safe and provides certificates and bird-related art for such buildings. the voluntary certification program outlined in the proposal contains three category of buildings. first, the minimum level and the bird safe building. and this would apply to my building that meets the conditions for bird safety.

at this level bird hazards and bird traps are not created or remedied with the treatment. bird safe flying design is used and future tenants would be educated in how to keep the building safe. the higher level bird safe flight buildings would meet the minnium requirements and in addition reduce the total glazing to less than 35% and the building owners would also commit to the lights out practices during the migratory season. the highest level proposed in the plan would exemplify the features and reduce the amount of glazing. if the commission is interested in offing this certification, staff would research grant programs to support this work and work with architectural and orbing rthological communities to insure these are set at reasonable markers. there is another voluntary program currently in place, lights out san francisco, that is in collaboration with pg&e and certain downtown buildings

owners. this effort is currently being re-examined by board president chiu and he will be giving us more information in the future on that. commissioners, that summarizes the proposal. you. to establish requirements for certain limited but most hazardous conditions and the use of the educational checklist to educate project sponsorses and the future tenants about the hazards and the creation of voluntary programs to encourage bird friendly design. i would like to thank the american bird conservancy and the golden gate audubon society for sharing their expertise and this draft document benefitted from the submission of dozen of photographs from local photographers such as this image. you. in conclusion, over 30 years of research has resulted in a great deal of data on bird-building clinton-gores and we are confident we can help san francisco protect it own birds

as well as passing migrants without comprising the high quality design. we are available for questions. president miguel: a number of cards for public comment. >> good afternoon, again, commissioners. rose pilsen. i have been worried about certain birds in town and anmar anmarie's document mentions the doors of the city and -- which way do i put this?

and it takes a while for parents even though they are smart to learn the environment and they have slammed into windows in that area. and this came from wikipedia and this is judy irving's poster. and one thing i want to say is in addition to anmarie's chart that addresses building for specific bird traps, i had suggested a couple of other things such as keeping lights on all night with the might m.i.a. grastory season with these here.

>> i am not usually happy with planning, but i am today with the research that has been done and many of those like myself never thought much about the birds until a few months ago. it did come up about 222 washington street and at that time it was even found amusing to several decision makers who will not be named here. i think that the human species has a duty to look out for the other species as long as it's feasible. so thank you very much and keep up the good work. president miguel: thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i am judy i have beening and i made the wild parrots of telegraph hill.

and since the birds can't be here to speak to you, i brought a couple. i was able to borrow this hat so that the birds would have a say as well at this hearing. i wanted to congratulate the planning department for this launch of this wonderful new ordinance and i am looking forward to working with you and planning staff on making sure that the ordinance is as strong as we can possibly make it. i would be in favor of having the ordinance extend beyond buildings that are just fronting parks or water because as you know, most of the new construction which will be mostly glass won't be on water and won't be next to parks.

so let's think about broadening and strengthening these original conceptions that you have been presented with. and also it's really important to do the education and the certification program is great. and ecological consciousness and more developers will want this kind of certification. and i think it's a very good organize really strong. in addition to being a filmmaker, i am working on a film now about birds that fly not necessarily in downtown but around our city coastline, pelicans, and i am also chair of the parks, trees, and birds

committee for telegraph hill dwellers, so i'm going to be involved. you'll see me again. maybe i'll have a different hat. and congratulations and thank you very much for making sure that san francisco maintains it cutting edge as a green city. thank you. >> i am dave doggin and a long-time san francisco resident and the founder of the online smart citizens and very much in favor of the proposed bird safe building standards and want to commend the planning department and staff and their efforts with this project so far. and as you may know, san francisco sufficients from severe increasing light pollution and thick, unsightly sky glow, garish clutter and

high levels of glare that reduce safety and visibility. the adoption of the standards and addressing the problem. and with the well being of the birds and with the nighttime standards and i thank you very much for your support. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. commissioner antonini: thank you and maybe some obvious questions and often times a low wide building than a tall, thin building and the example in new

york and the morgan mall which was the worst. and it was said these tall, thin buildings are a threat and maybe it's more a question of the glazing than it is the form of the glazing and the idea of no lighting at all when it's foggy would be more of a hazard if something is completely black and if there is some light t bird might stay away from it. i certainly would walking in a bedroom and it's pitch dark, and you run into it and at least if there's a shadow or dim lighting you have a clue there might be an object there. so i think that some of these problems with the light have more to do with the types of buildings and with the glazing and the types of glazing we do

and less with the light itself. and paris is the city of lights and they have had lighting as much as you can for a century or more. i don't know that we had a lot of problems with bird crashes into some of the structures, but many of those were more traditional, probably not as much glazing and for that reason it's becoming more of a problem and i am happy about frosting and flitting the glass or changing the angles a little. and i hope this is not an excuse for uglier building in the future and we can build something aesthetic and bird friendly. also, there was a little mention of some of there and they are attracted to that and that is sort of bird psychology and may be going too far, but i would be

against restrictions on the to improve the quality of the lighting and less glare and more efficient lighting that uses less energy and that would meet both goals i think. and i am really happy with a lot of the things you are doing here. it's very interesting. thank you. president miguel: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i believe the standards are definitely moving in the right direction. i wish there would be ultimately one lead standard that people have to consider and it depends on what points they get for it, but it would be really adapted nationally for the performance. and for san francisco it is highly appropriate since we are striving and wanting to maintain the status of being a green city

and i would ask we spend some attention to the strong presence of mid block open spaces that obviously our many parks, having one in the middle of the block i live in and every possible bird including the frequent visit of the parrots who fly over from telegraph hill and swoop through the mid block open space with their unmistakable noise so i know when they are there. that make me think we need to spend attention on the roof decks, roof deck railing design and take it to the level where we are not too overly restrictive and do indeed as best as we can to create the balance on residential buildings including birds who fly in mid

block spaces. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i would like to follow up on commissioner moore's comments and i think national would be great, but we should move ahead anyway. and it is part of the problem now anyway according to the presenter. so more work there would be great. the attention to regulations is god and making leed a requirement brought a lot of people along because they had to do something in order to get faster permitting or whatever or various cities are using in addition to the regulations incentives and we should continue to take a look at that. and then with respect to light

i ing, i haven't participated in a lot of organizations and the one gentleman testified that are concerned about lighting at night and pollution and light pollution in the evenings and whatever we can do to strengthen that and lights out san francisco would be a good thing. i know in my apartment i look out on a building that has lights that light up the small tower that is sitting on top and i have absolutely no reason, can't fathom why the homeowners association would want to light up their -- it's more than utility tower. but i guess they want to have it known all over the city where they are. and that is the kind of thing where you can go and just turns out and isn't like an off building that you are trying to advertise.