The Planning & Transportation Commission on Dec. 10 voted 5–2 to forward to City Council a revised draft bird‑friendly design ordinance (draft code section 18.40.280) that narrows the scope of applicability and removes some of the more prescriptive requirements staff originally proposed.

What staff proposed and why: Planning staff framed the ordinance as implementing a long‑standing comprehensive plan policy to reduce bird collisions by requiring bird‑friendly treatment for new construction, major remodels and some window replacements within defined ‘‘bird‑sensitive areas.’’ Staff explained the design options (permanent visual cues such as frits or dots, vertical lines, or exterior features such as insect screens) and described supply‑cost challenges with treated glazing for single‑family houses, plus environmental concerns about widespread short‑lived films and adhesives.

Public comments and evidence: Dozens of residents, business representatives, conservation groups and architects testified. Bird advocates cited campus and regional examples where fritted or patterned glazing dramatically reduced strikes, and showed monitoring data from office and transit sites. Resident groups and business associations urged caution and argued local data are limited; they requested narrow standards that focus on high‑risk glass (large panes) and large commercial buildings rather than ordinary single‑family windows.

Commission action and edits: Commissioners debated many options. The commission agreed to several key edits before forwarding the measure:
• Remove the 300‑foot buffer from the bird‑sensitive area definition and instead apply the ordinance geographically as the draft already addressed (east of Highway 101/west of Foothill and other City‑defined bird areas).
• Exempt residential building portions below 35 feet in height in the urban area (so most single‑family and low‑rise residential windows would not be immediately subject to glazing mandates).
• Narrow replacement‑window applicability so that ordinary window replacements (e.g., broken pane replacement) are not automatically required to use treated commercial glazing; new bird‑hazard installations or significant remodels remain subject to standards.
• Remove the draft’s specific accreditation and “five years’ experience” requirement for alternative‑compliance consultants and replace it with a simpler requirement (staff to refine language), to avoid an unrealistic certification barrier.
• Ask staff to add a short note for Council acknowledging limited local collision data and recommending Council weigh guidelines versus an ordinance (the commission explicitly requested Council consider cost‑benefit and alternative approaches).

Vote and next steps: The PTC vote to forward the ordinance with these amendments passed 5–2. Commissioners James and Heckman voted no, citing insufficient local data and concerns about imposing costs on property owners without clear evidence of local benefit. The revised ordinance language and a staff memo addressing feasibility, cost and evidence will be transmitted to City Council for its review and action.

Quote: "We’re trying to balance protecting birds with protecting residents and businesses from sudden, large costs," Commissioner Chang said while proposing the amendments. "Staff’s research was invaluable — now Council needs to weigh whether an ordinance or guidelines are the better path for Palo Alto."