supervisor mar: that sounds restrictive but if it's something neighbors and youth accept. it sounds like having only ten people visit you a month or having that limit restricts your right to be with your friends -- >> this is supposed to say overnight. you can have folks during the day. actually san francisco, the -- it's not for them but the ordinance in uniform visitor policy requires eight. so we felt between 10, between 14 and 8, was a nice compromise with the neighbors. these were all things we offered on the table to mitigate their concerns and have them support this project in hopes they would withdraw their appeal. >> what are the visiting hours? >> sure, visiting hours -- actually house rules are behind me but i believe they're 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and then after that, your guest is considered someone who's staying with you overnight. >> it's like worth noting visitor policy is the idea to

support you have good, strong peer relationships as anyone in supportive housing but particularly it's important for young people, also young people are going to be expected to be out during the day at school and at work and taking care of their lives. so we're trying to strike the balance between having the right amount of access for visitors and overnight guests and the same kinds of experiences anybody can have in their apartment and at the same time the youth center and program are there because they're headed towards a goal, right? they're trying to get their lives together and work on stuff. i think it's also worth noting that larkin street and c.h.p., we have no interest in doing anything else but creating a strong working connection -- strong working relationship with the community that's best for the young people and we think that's best for the community and the young people doing community cleanup every week since december 2010. they're not going to be the ones living there but they're invested in the community. all of these mitigations are about creating the best project possible and matching up against the concerns or addressing some

of the concerns of the neighbors. we will continue to do that going forward but we need to go forward. >> no problem. i wasn't asking questions because i was finding fault. i was curious to know what they were. frankly, they sound like regular visiting hour when's you go to the dorm in college when i was that age. we couldn't even have overnight guests. but you're right, serving a purpose to be focused on something and i think structured parameters are healthy, particularly for young people that may not necessarily have come from an environment where there's structure around them. i just want to add one last thing, we're hoping the project request move forward. this project has been caught up in this entitle tment -- entitlement the last 18 months. every month we delay, delays us from starting construction and opening doors for the 24 youth right now at risk of being homeless. and we're really hoping that despite the late filing of the appeal, which we know is moving

forward, we can find a way to move this project forward as quickly as possible so they can come to resolution. >> supervisor mar: thank you. i had one question to miss adams and i appreciate the full staffing and really increasing the staffing level based on some of the concerns and neighbors. if you could talk about how edward ii management and services compares to other comparable projects in san francisco or other places? >> sure. larkin street, as you know, operates the bulk of transitional housing programs or permanent supportive housing programs for youth. so this staffing pattern probably matches more consistently with our transitional living programs. you heard reference to avenues of independence. we have a house located in richmond. we have a number have a number f housing programs, and there are congress get sites where the use are living on site. this is generally a 24-hour staffing pattern.

and in one program, we have the support of house and model. there is only one house manager and limited staff space. we have been operating this program since 2000. we took the lessons from that program to this project to increase staffing for a common space for young people, to not have a house in the tenderloin. and so i would say that this staffing pattern is what you would see in most of the programs. >> thank you both. >> i have a question for the city attorney. the appeal that was filed on friday, that is timely --

with the city attorney? >> we found that the appeal was filed in a timely fashion. the board has to have approval over this particular item. >> i would like to comment that nobody should read anything until this appeal -- i would like to express my continuing frustration, which many in this city share, that these appeals in san francisco have become the wild west and there is no apparent time limitation. they are made in the last minute.

we have a long planned hearing tomorrow, and this threatens to continue with the hearing, potentially, and i really look forward into having some local reforms, which would include time limitations on the ability to file these appeals, when they have not absolutely decided on the merits, in orderly fashion, thank you. >> i see on my scheduling the conditional use the appeal hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, september 13, and the appeals hearing at the board -- this incentive is scheduled for mid october. another any other comments, can

we have a motion on this item? >> i moved to for this item to the full board with no recommendations. >> without objection. thank you for coming out. i will have to use to call you -- calling him a smaller. >> this is a resolution for the adoptive findings of the pipeline project. >> we have nathan -- and chris nelson from the public facilities commission. >> the good afternoon, supervisors. i am chris nelson, the senior vice manager of the san joaquin project. >> can you keep the comments down in the back and if you need

to leave the room, please do so, quietly. >> the water system improvement program has put in place many improvements in the regional water system, required for the reliability of service in the sierra and the local reservoirs for the city. into -- i am here to help you with a unique planning part of that program. this planning is to improve the reliability of some of the existing facilities. this is a little bit different, without a specific scope, and framed so that this will address the work that we will need to do in the next 20 years to keep the

system reliably operating. it will extend the service life of a pair of three pipelines -- a set of three pipelines, and implement rehabilitation or this is required. until the deficiency of the aging pipelines become apparent. i would like to talk to you about the signings of the california environmental quality act to adopt mitigation, as well as the board of supervisors for these actions. and to give you an idea of where the project is located, this is well outside the city limits. this is along the regional water

system that brings water from the sierra to the local customers and the city of san francisco. it is the red stripe on the third screen, along the blue line that traces the full route of the transmission system. the fourth screen shows you the affected communities which are tracie, manteca, modesto, oakdale, and river bank. most of the property through which the pipeline -- the right of way is agricultural. this is developed primarily through modesto but in terms of the uses, this is agriculture, most of the way.

the fifth screen gives you an idea of the configuration of the system in the corridor and this varies from 100-200 feet wide, depending on whether we have power transmission facilities as well as the water drinking facility. and 50 miles of pipeline and the 3 miles of buried pipeline that underneath the surface in the yellow circle indicate the fourth pipeline, and the water system improvement program was installed. the last slide, this is the timeline for the review for this particular project.

we published the project just last year for public review, and the planning department approved this, and the public utilities commission adopted the issue and the monitoring report in december. the first work under this plan will occur starting in late fall. and i can answer any questions that you have relating to the scope. >> let's open this up for public comment, and is there anyone who would wish to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we move this forward without recommendation to the full board, without objection? thank you, mr. nelson.

miss miller, can you call in #3? >> it ordnance amending the planning code for the mortality -- we have several presentations. thank you. >> that afternoon. i am pleased that this is before you today for potential adoption. we believe this to be a reasonable solution to the problems of the last few years. the commission has considered how the wild birds are part of the environment, with reviews to these specific buildings, and we have a presentation.

until now, this has been dealt with on a case by case basis with sequel, which is an extensive process. the commission adopted a policy document for the ordinance that would implement the policy and establish universal rules to discuss this issue. you'll be translating 30 years of research into local policy. will this mean that i know -- no bird will ever fly into san francisco again? no, but this will greatly reduced collisions outside of those environments cherished by the residences -- residents. we are not the first to consider building buildings in this manner. this is guided by work from minnesota and chicago, with

expert advice from christian shepard. the local expert will speak after me, and there is erica lovejoy, will be implementing the $70,000 grant from the fish and wildlife -- today i will cover for topics. the first as a review of the events that led for -- led to today, with the problems and the available solutions and then i will discuss the draft ordinance. in 2009, the commission heard a presentation about the birds program. specifically about bird building collision production, and in 2010, at the request of the commission, which drafted

documents. and this is the adopted document, for prosing -- proposing standards for the bird-safe buildings. in june of this year we drifted -- which drafted the ordinance, and then we have the document that you now have in your hands. today, we haven't ordnance from the comments of over 2200 people and the staff conducted outreach with building owners and architects, and environmental interests. let's look at this issue and why this is important. you may ask yourself, why should we share. and the staff is looking at this as we began the investigation.

the number of birds that died from building strikes is a staggering number in north america. aside from habitat loss, building strikes of the largest mortality issue for the birds. we fully expect the rate of the collisions to go up. so what is it about buildings that pose this threat? people read the features like these to understand what is not on the diagram. birds can see certain kinds of glass, but generally, they cannot see anything that is reflective or transparent. they believe they have a clear flight path. reflections can trick the birds into thinking that there is a clear sky ahead, and transparent

glass cannot be perceived if they believe they can reach their destination on the other side. we spoke about some potential solutions. this is the tower in chicago that uses the overhang to block the view. this building has a more solid appearance and makes it more safe for the birds. the franc gary building on the right to -- on the right is used for asset appeal. and we see how well netting can work to help this appear invisible. the setting may repel pests that may damage the building, and on the lower left, these images can complement the building, and on

the right use a local museum in golden gate park. this makes the buildings bird- safe. other issues include the markings you see on the clear bus shelters, and this building has been recognized in a bill that would require birds a treatment in all buildings. this presents a very open and aesthetic situation and this is one of the many applications for the bird-safe treatment. these are being produced by scientists and other companies, with fewer options with the ultra-violet pattern, and if you want to look at this i will provide this to the court, and

is what creates a power source as well. so let's talk about the proposed problems, and we will discuss this proposal. the focus of the presentation is on the draft ordinance and they're also be one slide on education and outreach, and the creation and expansion of the voluntary programs for merck -- more bird-safe practices. let's look at the context so that we can understand the principles for the ordinance. in reviewing the research, there are fewer risk factors. the greater the threat, a very common sense. bird behavior is consistent. whether the bird is in san

francisco, or chicago, they will react the same. there have been nighttime strikes for tens of thousands of birds, this is the winter collision for this year. this applies to the buildings and the cars, with these collisions. the frequency of collisions, this has a lot of lush vegetation, and in the tall buildings, they are adjacent to the open spaces. with these guiding principles in mind, we went to the scientists to develop the local qualities.

the draft ordinance has a few circumstances. where the buildings are located near the wide-open spaces. the second time -- second kind of control, there is a certain design elements that prevents special hazards in and of itself. there are some historic structures in small-scale residential homes. the first control for the location-related home -- this is new areas -- near areas that are dominated either by vegetation or open water. these are the refugees. there is a clear flight path facing this refuge. this would be required for new

construction, placing the ability. it is only required for the area where this is most likely to occur. this is called the byrd collision. and further, the ordinance does not require 100%. the reduction approach would account for 10% of the area to remained untraded. -- and treated -- untreated. further, the commission requests that the generators that appear solid be used in this area. the second kind of requirements is for, regardless of the location -- this flight path is

literally a dead-end. the ordinance regulates these features with greenhouses' and nominees, the peneus that all of which have to have larger than 24 square feet. 100% of these features need to be treated. >> and if this is smaller than 24 square feet, you can use whatever glass? >> not trying to stop every bird strike but trying to lower the potential. and there are some exceptions. historic buildings, that would only be subject to these controls with 50% or more of the existing glass. or, if a new building was to be added with a new feature. in this case, the resources

would be followed, and the use of features like screens and netting would be encouraged. residential buildings that are 45 feet in height. these buildings are typically small, and the rest is known to decrease with the amount of glass required. if more than 50% was glass, it 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 >> thank you for the great partnership with the city as