City Planning Commission members on Wednesday heard a staff briefing on a proposed bird‑friendly design code amendment that would require commercial and multifamily buildings exceeding 10,000 square feet to meet bird‑collision performance standards and adopt dark‑sky lighting practices.

Leslie Lilly of Watershed Protection, who led the presentation, said the proposal responds to a City Council resolution directing staff to update the city's Lights Out program, assess feasibility, and seek stakeholder input. Lilly described Austin's location on the Central Flyway, noted that hundreds of species pass through the region and cited national and local estimates of collision risk — including staff references to studies estimating that about 1,000,000,000 birds die annually in North America from building collisions and that, during a recent fall migration night, roughly 4.5 million birds passed over Travis County. Lilly said collisions are driven by reflective and transparent glass and by artificial light that draws birds into urban areas at night.

Staff recommended a three‑part approach: a land‑development code amendment to require commercial and multifamily buildings larger than 10,000 square feet to meet a bird‑safe design performance standard measured by the American Bird Conservancy threat‑factor rating (staff proposed a threshold of 20 or less for façades up to 100 feet); integration of bird‑friendly criteria into Austin Energy's green‑building program; and targeted residential outreach and education. Lilly said the package would also include dark‑sky lighting requirements and a waiver pathway for deeply affordable housing projects.

The presentation included benchmarking from other jurisdictions. Lilly cited New York City's 2021 ordinance (which applies strong façade requirements at certain heights), Arlington, Virginia's density‑bonus approach, and feasibility studies from Madison and Berkeley. Staff also summarized preliminary cost estimates: Madison and New York presentations suggested modest project‑cost increases (New York staff cited roughly 2–3% in some analyses), and Lilly offered an illustrative example that treating the façade on a hypothetical 3‑story, 10,000‑square‑foot building could add on the order of $12,000 in material cost in a simplified calculation. She emphasized that energy‑efficiency co‑benefits and growing manufacturing capacity could reduce costs over time.

Public speakers — including neighborhood residents, students and local conservation groups — urged the commission to press for strong standards and to include residential measures where feasible. Lily Raresich, a long‑time downtown resident, told commissioners: "These bird‑friendly strategies include everything from specially designed glass to window coverings for untreated glass. These losses are detrimental not only to the birds themselves, but also to us who lose the services, like pest control and pollination, that they provide." Sara Ruiz (District 5) described finding multiple dead or injured birds at a low‑rise building during migration seasons, and Dr. Steven Fletcher, a university professor and master birder, described migration patterns and called the issue an opportunity for Austin to lead on stewardship.

Commissioners pressed staff on evidence and implementation. Commissioner Ahmed asked for data on effectiveness; Lilly pointed to American Bird Conservancy‑led monitoring, which shows large reductions on treated buildings (she said some buildings have documented collision reductions approaching 90% once protective treatments or design changes are applied). Commissioners raised technical questions about how the threat factor is measured (product‑ and material‑based testing in American Bird Conservancy protocols), whether thresholds should be set per material or by composite façade weighting, and how enforcement and review would fit into existing plan‑review workflows. Staff explained that the 10,000‑square‑foot threshold aligns with the scale at which commercial plan reviewers currently examine glazing and lighting, making enforcement more feasible at first, and that the green‑building program can provide a path to broaden residential adoption when appropriate products are available.

Several commissioners flagged equity and affordability concerns and asked staff to include waiver or incentive programs to avoid imposing disproportionate costs on renters or deeply affordable housing. Commissioner Hiller urged staff not to omit affordability considerations when presenting the package, and Lilly acknowledged those concerns and pointed to lower‑cost options such as insect screens and other DIY measures included in the backup materials.

The commission did not take action on the proposal Wednesday; Chair Woods and staff said this presentation was an informational briefing to collect feedback and that a formal code amendment could be returned for deliberation and possible action after additional stakeholder input and draft language.

Votes at a glance: The commission did not vote on the bird‑friendly proposal during this meeting.