would trigger the requirement. this is not subject to the location-related control. and to make room for new technology, the zoning administrator would be able to do this based upon the recommendations. this summarizes the controls for the ordinance. the department has committed to further education and outreach, partnering with golden gate audubon to disseminate educational materials on these design options. san francisco is fortunate to be one of the tent cities that receive funding as part of the urban treaty for migratory birds. the grant will reinforce the partnership with these agencies as well as the california

academy of sciences in educating people, educating people on the issue and the solution. lastly, i want to inform the board and the public about a couple of voluntary programs. the first is the creation of a voluntary rating system, for those who want to certify their building as burr-safe. this provides recognition for this ordinance. the voluntary program has been described in the document, and we will be developing this with a grant money. the second voluntary program -- this is the work of supervisor david shoe. this program is sponsored by the department of the environment and others.

the commission encourages this program and the policies in the document before you. committee members, that does summarize the issue, and before i conclude i would like to acknowledged this photograph, as the city has benefited from dozens of photographs such as this one, that have been submitted by local photographers. the work on this effort has been enlightening, and there is much more to learn on this topic as research continues. we are confident that we have compelling evidence for the adoption of this ordinance. supervisors, the commission recommends that you adopt it -- adopt the proposal before you. i can turn this poem over to noreen from golden gate audubon.

>> i would like to be an author -- and i have an amendment that i will read at the end, that is basically on page 5 and page 6 that will give more flexibility for the project so that this is not an absolute use of only the vertical, non-propeller type turbines. these controls shall apply to all the structures, whether the use is public or private, and this is under control of these standards, and then a minor amendment that i discussed with ms. rogers, with the audubon society. they really want to see more wind and solar and more alternative energy projects.

on line 12 and 13, they allow certain exceptions to be applied to -- to give them more flexibility, the with the goal of maintaining the bird-safe buildings. but with more alternative wind- energy projects. >> thank you for the great partnership with the city as well. >> i know that we have received correspondence, with concerns about the legislation, including the statement that the research is not based on the migration patterns,, but can

you respond to this? >> this is based on national research across the country that has been done on the east coast, canada, or chicago. and there have been local monitoring efforts but it has been very difficult to do this. we could talk about the rigorous monitoring program. there is the ongoing research project specifically on the building, and this is under way so they cannot release the data. they have adjusted the building design, which they will regulate in this proposal. they have external screens that can be designed for energy efficiency. but after monitoring the issue and determine that there was no problem there -- during the

migratory time during the fall -- san francisco animal care and control have selected numerous songbirds with a catalog of those, trying to make a note about what caused the death. and that is primarily the information that we were talking about, with the national sciences, this is not so much locally specific. we take great pride in the people who are here, and the behaviors that we exhibit in san francisco. good behavior is much more consistent and much more predictable. >> and why is there more research, why do we have this

here and not on the west coast. >> this may have to be -- there have been projects that were up before the board of supervisors. they aren't working to overturn this, with these decisions -- and they had issues within the moratorium, with a building at the end of the pier. when this issue was raised, it was very sensitive to respond to, and the ports commission had laborious conditions that would have been much cheaper for the architect. >> this has been proposed

through sequa. >> they are similar. since it has been on an ad hoc basis, there has been variation, because many different consultants would review different pieces of research that had been done. we spend and dedicated two or three years looking at the issue and consolidating it, looking at what we hoped were research considerations. a lot of people talk about high buildings, and that is not what their research we reviewed seemed to indicate was the problem. it seemed to indicate that the problem was more birds congregating in a specific area, open space, and that is why we did the board collision zone in the lower 60 feet of the building -- the bird collisions

-- collision zone. supervisor wiener: with changes, the board would monitor that it changes where appropriate? >> yes, and as i mentioned, there is already inherent flexibility. somebody signs off that this is a new approach that would satisfy the objectives of the ordinance. they would be able to approve the project with that approach in mind, and since we initiated this work, at least for the last year, we have been reviewing the pipeline projects with the night that this might be adopted. -- with an eye that this might be adopted, a treasure rhineland, bayview hunters point, and they were consistent, -- adopted, treasure island. supervisor wiener: thanks. supervisor mar: we do have a

letter from the director, and i would suspect that she will speak a little later. i forgot that the minor amendment i am making is on page 6, lines 3 to 6, under wind generation, and my colleagues already have the non substantive language, and under the wind generation, is that wind generators in this area comply with the planning department permit requirements, including monitoring what impact that the department may require, and it strikes the four words, that we work this out with your office but also with the woman and the mayor's office as well, so we are hoping that this amendment is one that everyone can support. thank you, ms. rogers. mispick >> good afternoon, it

supervisors. -- >> good afternoon, supervisors. there are about 400 species of birds in the city. some are well adapted to urban life, but others are migratory and go south in the fall to their winter feeding grounds as far as south america and then return north in the spring to breeding grounds as far as the arctic. san francisco is on the pacific flyway, major for many birds. those least familiar with the urban setting are at greatest risk from hazards in the environment. over 1 million birds depend on the san francisco bay each year. u.s. fish and wildlife stated that 50% sent of the birds that

travel the pacific flyway spend some time in or around the bay, which includes san francisco. during migration, on foggy or stormy nights, birds that migrate using the stars and moon to navigate become confused by light pollution. birds can become confused by glass in the urban environment. they have worked to make changes to reduce bird mortality. in 2008, the san francisco planning commission, animal control, and welfare commission, department of the agreement and board of supervisors supported the voluntary situation. this made san francisco the west coast leader. the program has since spread to over 25 cities. while lights out for boards has been positive, it needs to expand. -- lights out for birds.

in 2009, golden gate audubon participated as part of the mayor's task force on urban wind. they call for property owners to do monitoring and to share the results. documented, biological monitoring information from new wind technology is needed to inform the public as the demand for alternative forms of energy grows. this has involved in two birds in flight. -- this has involved to include birds in flight. birds do not recognize glass as a solid object to be avoided. they fly into glass avoiding a predator, defending territory, or when attempting to reach vegetation reflected in or on the other side of the glass. a professor of ornithology and

conservation biology has steadied and published extensively on birds and windows for over 30 years. this doctor says the reflective glass as windowpanes in houses or walls of multistory commercial buildings is a passive, invisible killer of wild birds worldwide. among the dead are the abundance as well as the rare, the threatened and endangered species. investigators have gathered extensive evidence documenting sheet glass as a glowing -- growing source of avian mortality and a suspected contributor to over robert population decline. preventing these unintended fatalities will require education addressing preventive techniques, addressing the installation of glass in buildings, and enforcement of legislation to protect wild birds as anesthetic and environmentally valuable natural resources. the planning department worked

with the american board conservancy and golden gate audubon to develop these standards for bird-safe buildings. there was a presentation on draft standards which were open for comment from october 2009 through july of this year. i am sorry. october 2010 to july of this year. this past spring, we encourage to the planning department to apply for a grant in support of migratory birds, and in july, san francisco was recognized as one of only 10 u.s. cities under the urban conservation treaty for migratory birds, and as ann mentioned, it was granted. in july, the planning commission approved the standards or board- safe buildings, covering lighting, glass, when a

technology, and other items -- standards for burdett-save buildings -- bird-saafe buildings. we encourage you to seize this opportunity to adapt these standards. san francisco can be a leader for the future of birds and the people of the city. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you, miss, 43 years of working in the partnership with the city, as well. i did want to ask, various institutions, did they give any input through the three-year process, or even for that when the period for comment? >> i think they went directly to planning. supervisor mar: ms. rogers may

be able to respond. >> i will lead to introduce another person, ms. lovejoy. -- i would like to introduce another person. >> as was mentioned, we received over 20 to wonder letters on these proposed policies, so the was quite a bit of interest, and the majority of folks were in support of what we were proposing. to let you know, we did contact the american society of landscape architects and others, in the san francisco aia, the california business properties administration. we contacted the commission on the environment and policy committee. we talked to the academy of science, as we mentioned earlier, and listed some of the research efforts, and they are interested and also doing outreach activities with us on the topic. the sierra club, other bird

organizations, like the bird conservancy, also local organizations, san francisco animal care and control, and talked to them about some of the birds they were fighting. the state of california building standards coated gaiseric committee, the department of building inspection -- building standards code advisory committee. we actually did inc. number of the initial comments of aia in our initial policy. we made changes based on some of their technical recommendations, and we also had meetings and met with a number of architectural interests in the city to get their feedback. we talked to before most

researchers and scientists on this topic, and they had input on this policy, as well as other developers, land use attorneys, and others. supervisor mar: thank you so much for the great land use -- for the great outreach. colleagues, any more questions? let's open this up. we are going to open this up for public comment, and we said a two-minute maximum. are there any other department of speakers? i have one speaker card, michael lyons, and i know that margie is here from aia, as well, and if anyone else would like to speak, please come forward. >> good afternoon, land use. ♪ spread your tiny wings and fly

away and make these buildings safe make it safe for me and building news, and if you knew i would, i would fly away birds with you spread your tiny wings and fly away, and make an -- it bird safe. the buildings, make it safe for me and you, and if you knew i would, i would fly away with you, too ♪ supervisor mar: mr. lyons. overhead.

no, it should work. >> sorry about that. i apologize. my name is michael lyons. i am the conservation director at the golden gate audubon society, and i would like to add to some of the things that maureen said and that ann marie said, too. the overhead that i put up that you cannot see well is an estimate of migratory bird mortality in the united states, and it is roughly 5 billion to 6 billion per year, according to the one of my service, and you can break that down too many sources. the last of habitat. outside catskill about 1 billion birds a year, and collisions -- outside cats kill about 1 billion birds a year.

instead, there is this idea of a death by a 1000 cuts, in this case, death by very large cuts. today is a positive step to reverse one of those cuts, a positive contribution, which if others followed in the aggregate will have significant positive effects on my return bird -- on migratory bird populations. if we want to be concerned with our local and national migratory bird populations, then these are the kinds of steps we need to take. one step at a time reducing the impact on birds in order to make california a safer place for them. so we would ask you again to support this, to pass it along, to recommend to the board that they pass it. we think that it is fair. it is pragmatic, and as ann marie says, it does not negate

all mortality, but it is a positive step. i also want to express great gratitude for the city planning department for all of the work they have put on this. we appreciate it. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> thanks for accepting comment. my name is -- i am an avian researcher. i am involved in band recovery data. these bands are mostly recovered by bands that are found deceased, and we know that very often they have been killed by collisions with glass buildings. my experience is that people who work locally in the field of avian study and wildlife rehabilitation -- these birds have nearly identical considerations and behavior's with those that migrate in san

francisco. their flight mechanisms are the same. their vision is the same. the types of obstacles the encounter in the urban environment are the same. the only difference is the particular flyaway that they use. -- fly-way that they use. there are measures for reducing building bird strikes. in my opinion, there is no comparison. for the over 20% of americans to identify as a bird watchers, -- as bird watchers, they spent quite a bit of money. but economically, that does not come close to the biological use of birds as controllers of rodents and insects. birds are the primary control for these. there are tremendous losses on a scale we can only try to imagine. we are literally dependent on birds. in the 1970's, when glass-

encased facilities became popular, we did not realize that birds would not recognize them and fall -- and fly at them in full flight. we did not know that then, but we do now, and there are many studies that prove it now. we have today an opportunity to mitigate for that. supervisor mar: thank you so much. how is it going? >> supervisors, margie, aia san francisco. i just wanted to correct one thing from earlier. i called the planning department and wanted to make some of that initial commentary when we heard that the legislation was first being developed, but we were not part of that initial advisory process. i just want to clarify that. the planning department working

closely with advocate groups has created a piece of legislation that is aspirational but, frankly, not operational, given today's environment. we support creating bird friendly buildings, but they have to be on terms that are actually achievable. the design of a building is a complicated process, design, client goals being just a few of the challenges that architects have in creating a building. architects did they try to create buildings with the lowest possible carbon footprint and using sustainable products. unfortunately, the legislation before you includes many design strategies that are not economical in this climate. one of the favored solutions is a type of glass, which may be what you have here, i am not sure. i actually called the distributor on friday to get a copy to show you, and i was told that a sample is not going to be available in the united states for six months, a sample, much

less fabrication. the glass is made in germany, so it will be expensive and will add immeasurably to the energy of the project. another deadline it solution were bus shelters with clear glass with white lines through it, not something most people are going to want in their homes if they are paying a premium for a great view. other screens and design solutions like screens and netting are simply not an option in many of the residential projects coming forward in the next two years. supervisor mar: ms. driscoll, is that just because of the cost or the availability of the technology? >> both. the planning department has put forward a variety of options, but there are cingular issues with each one of the options that they have laid out, -- there are singular issue is. here is what is workable and the

environment. while the department was very helpful in looking at some of the zoning issues, i think these are something you have to face in the economic environment, as well as forcing some real changes and some real interpretation of the issues, so you have an embodied energy issue of bringing a product from germany, but you also have a problem with some of the glass samples that are very bird friendly. i like that better rather than "bird safae." supervisor mar: please, wrap-up. i know there are some others who want to make comments. >> the efficiency of this glass versus its ability of what is qualified as bird safe. it needs to be clear when it is passed on to the planning department and put out for the architects to try to make this

determination, because it is clearly a trade-off. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> we actually went to show you some of the things being proposed. -- we actually want to assure you. -- to show you. i am emily, a local architect in san francisco. i find myself sort of caught in the middle. this is a particularly sensitive issue for me personally. my mother worked at the center for birds of prey, and i appreciate the plan to broaden efforts to do something about this important issue. -- and i appreciate the planning department efforts. the city is already very difficult to build in. the potential is a