-- speakers. >> good evening, commissioners. i have read the standards and it is an excellent development by the planning department. i recommend

>> by each year, and the magnitude of this problem can be discouraging, but there are people will adopt them. these are awfully increase because they have promoted a greater use for energy conservation. the construction and eliminating the construction with part of the magic to sign, and the ecosystem. protecting them from insect damage. they are a national treasure that gives pleasure to millions of americans, in their backyard. we have these designs from the beginning, with the mortality from the existing buildings, and the solutions being developed

all the time. we will always wished for more information than we currently have. we cannot wait tax. we have to make a difference now. the legislators are the key to solving this problem. they not only have access to the latest building construction materials, but they're also trendsetters in the way that we build our communities. we are adopted for the state of minnesota. we urge the adoption of these standards without further delay. my colleague has testified before the commission, and is more than happy to come back to assist, and thank you for your

time. >> fellow commissioners, i would like to start with a personal anecdotes that i think is relevant. my mother, who was instrumental in getting these safety standards to the table, was diagnosed with cancer in 2008, eight months after she started working with abc. she passed away 10 months later. two years ago, today. when i received an e-mail from the woman who now holds this position as the campaign manager, who said that the hearing would be today, i thought that there was something that was meant to be about this. and that not normally believe in this concept. i would also like to talk about

what i see as the inherent value of these animals. they play a vital role and i think it is important for san francisco to realize this is just one part of the global puzzle, one part of the global past that the species make. this is the monetary interests against the animal rights. if the animals -- if we lose the animals we lose something more important than money, life itself. i encourage you to honor life, and to pass the safety standards. thank you. >> and is there any additional public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> this is a little bit difficult, for the reasons we're

sitting here, this is a good day. this shows something in the commission, but this commission has supported from the very beginning, with the department. for the first time, they have brought people together with industry and policies to come together and say that these are the reasons why we can and the reasons why we can't. i want to thank the department, for putting a presentation together with the scientific presentation that we will approve of in different ways, to make a good argument for something that no one can really argue about. i would move that we support this ordinance, and that we

learn as we go along that there is always room for improvement. >> commissioner? >> i have a few questions. we have been through this before but i do not see a lot of dead birds on the streets in san francisco. somebody wrote a letter, recently, and this was interesting. he talked about the areas around the academy of science, that there have not been any substantiation of bird strikes in downtown san francisco. having looked into the strikes and how many that there are? >> there have not been the degree of monetary efforts. we have increased this in the policy document. but there has been some monitoring and important observations have been made on the problem. there has been monitoring effort going on, for the last couple of

years and in fact, we met with the ornithologist and the treatments they have been doing, and the ornithologist told us that they knew that there would be a problem with the building before they moved in. and they began developing a program at this time. we are happy with the work that they have done and we will look forward into the results. in addition to this, we have heard from san francisco animal care and control staff, with numerous migratory songbirds. these of the victims of building strikes. and we have the photographs from the audubon society, showing the building strikes from different while a lot -- wild and resident birds, downtown and throughout the city. and there are widely publicized deaths of the falcons downtown.

this is something that has happened every time that the new babies have been born. they don't see that the glass is solid, and they perished on the glass. i know that we could certainly stand for more research. but we have 30 years of research and as you have heard here, it seems to be that this problem is something that happens regardless of the location, based on the behavior of the birds. >> we did talk about this, and you must be talking about 55 ifill street, this one is not that knew, anyway. this is probably 30 years old. i am not certain about this. it seems like you have to establish a problem before you come up with solutions.

i think that there is a lot of glass construction buildings and one reason is because you can fill the glass up there, and to do the building in a style that we did before, this would be very expensive. but it would make sense to have some standards where you try to break the glass up a little bit, not only for the birds but so this looks a little butter, rather than having these clear glass buildings at all look the same, so i am supportive of this. part of what i don't believe in, someone earlier on in the presentation said that the tall buildings that were lit up or less of a problem than the vegetative areas. it seems counterintuitive, when

you can see this, if i am covered, i will not fly into what i can see. and i think this has to be voluntary, people are in there working, janitorial work and you are doing this for -- we have lights in the building and this is a good measure. we have a busy street, and there are reasons that they light up the buildings. it is great to see city hall led up at night. is it mandatory that they have this year, or is this voluntary? >> for the last treatment, this would be required if they were within 300 feet of the urban

bird refuge. >> it seems minor i just do not want to drive the cost of construction in san francisco. this is competitive and there is another reason not to -- i would rather see a situation where we do approvals and staff takes this into consideration. we would like the glass to be changed without requiring the change. as we go through this approval process, this also protect the birds. let's not absolutely required for them to do this. >> this is creative and you are making some good points. this would be to inform the design process of front, because

when we try to inform them, and they move along in the design process, the design gets more costly. and we feel that the arm -- there are many different solutions. one of the most -- one of these is with a glass, and thomas this increase the cost of the building with a low-rise, and this was predominantly glass. we saw the cost of construction increased by less than 1%. less than 1%. this is less than what you could expect from the variations in construction materials. you do not know what the cost of the materials will be by the time that you finish. and there are many solutions that are inexpensive, including

the solutions of the grandparents, to use windows with insect screens on the outside. i do not think that they will bankrupt any project. >> drawing the shades and the shutters. you are supportive of this legislation, -- >> we have developed this with senior management, and the department is presenting this to you. commissioner sugaya: i had a house -- and the dining room have floor-ceiling glass. this was landscaped by thomas church.

and at least once a year, i would say there would be a dead bird. at least once a year. mainly from the corridor side. i am the witness to this issue here. and i would just say this in support of the legislation. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: the presentation showed that with this being the condition, you have to respond to the many creative ways to respond to the condition. there were exceptional examples just above glazing, and i am not talking about the retrofit, but this is recognizing the conditions for the open space corridors, responding in a certain way. there are many other ways, to

meet the requirements of what we have. we are tilted against each other -- and there are many other ways. but the idea is to encourage creativity, with these costs. >> i just wanted to thank erica, for their work on this. i will be honest. i started out a skeptic. i was concerned that we were adding a layer of regulation that was not necessarily justifiable. but as we look at the research, it is clear that there is a serious issue. this is not something that you would normally consider in the building.

there are all sorts of other issues and this struck me as unusual at first. this is something that we should talk about. we have a fair amount of work looking at the different solutions and we have a program here that is workable. it is important that the regulation is only one part of the program. the graph form was very excited about this to educate the architects. and the recognition program. i think that this is something that is quite positive that does not result in a substantial cost increase. commissioner miguel: i would like to complement the department on the book that they produced, government information, if this is federal or on down, this is often poorly conceived and badly written. this is easy for the general

public as well as affective, that they will understand. this is greatly appreciated. >> i think that this is long overdue. we have been having conversations for several years about this subject. irving is one of the first people who brought this to our attention. she produced the film on the parents of telegraph hill, and this show the people who were not already educated to the subject. people who were already plugged in, and that raise this. this was very informative, and it was kind of devastating, very devastating when you read this

stuff. i was not aware that billions of bird deaths per year were from the building collisions, and this was a conservative estimate. there are just a lot of facts here that are devastating. one says that migrant songbirds have been documented to face mortalities of hundreds of birds, and this is 96. this is in the two pages -- two chapters that you have here, so there is a lot of evidence to support the lights out program. i believe that he worked hard to try to bring this forth in our department. he has a lot of work on hawks, that were injured, and so, i

think, unfortunately, i am not certain, to incentivize this, this is something we can look at as people become more educated about the issue. this should be mandated and we have to do what ever that we can to preserve this species. we are not the only ones on the planet, and once people become educated, maybe we can look at ways, with the creativity and looking for creative ways to deal with this issue. these are important and hopefully there are things that we can do to make this appealing to developers, and the architects and other people who are invested. >> i wanted to talk about a young woman who has shared her personal story with us, i want

to thank you for your mother for speaking up to this early on. >> commissioner? >> i would like to see some work on substantiating the actual bird strikes, demonstrating the problem that we have, although i think you are on the right track i wish this was more voluntary and not mandatory, but i understand this is a very minor costs, but i hope that this is not another layer that can be used by the opponents of certain projects to say, we will take this issue on. and i have my doubts about this. we need a little bit more work, and with what you have provided -- we have documented the killing of wild birds in north america. this comes from several sources.

this is not an issue that needs further documentation, because we have enough documentation to act. and if this is in a modest way, i appreciate all of your work on this. >> you have a motion that and it -- emotion and a second to approve with modifications the approval of the amendments, with the commission policies, and birds safe buildings. commissioner? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes, 5-1. that will place you on item 8. san francisco socio-economic profile since 2000.

>> some folks didn't get handouts. >> i got one at home. >> i don't have one, either.

>> good evening. commissioners. i am the senior planner and i would like to thank the commissioners for giving us this opportunity to presents -- which typically operate behind the scenes. this represents the planning department in its role as the local data affiliate and the census bureau. we were directly to the department of finance, to make certain that these numbers are accurate, and today, the information and analysis group will talk about changes, for the

socio-economic variables, focused on the 2009-2005 community survey, where available. we have the 2010 census data. where we live in san francisco and how much that we turn, and how we get to work. what kind of housing we live in. what kind of housing that we need. and why these numbers matter. these other basic blocks that inform planning. the summaries that you will soon hear with planning, not just planning in the planning department but also the other city agencies that plan for the city services and programs, for the schools and facilities, fire protection and water and sewer,

for the transportation infrastructure, and the other service provisions. we evaluate planning policy and regulations. and we have the direct and indirect results of the land-use commission. we also have trends and issues in housing and commerce, transportation and parking, etc.. this is to help shape the future planning policies. the presentation that you will hear today will be the first in a series that we are preparing on the census data, based on the memo that we submitted to the commissioners in late may. this was a few months ago. without much further ado, here

is john a.. the information and analysis group. >> and how can you resist that? >> good evening. we will talk briefly today and -- we will talk about the issues and the report, the demographics, and the economic characteristics along the lines of what was in the report, as we talk about what we would like to study in the future.

first, you may be aware of the census restructuring, and we have a once in a decade effort, and 15% -- they ask a lot more questions in the long form. how they got to work and that kind of thing. the long form, as we look at the shorter american community survey, and the continuous basis. they asked that year round, and we got very fine data from that survey, this gives us the implements -- we will now, each

year, beginning this, with the data sets. we have this with the law firm census. for you guys, this is the first part of the data. will star with the basic population rate, and this one shows this for the city, with the district -- and with 2000 and 2010, we grew by 20,000 people. and now this is 805,000 people. the growth was not distributed evenly, as you are well aware.

there was a loss in population in the ninth district. most of you could not see a change of all. we have the san francisco residents, and we see the proportion of the population. the bottom once of the younger folks under 5 years old, going up, with the e-mail on the right, and san francisco does not have all of that, and we have all the school age groups. the largest proportions are under 25.