001Call this meeting to order. Welcome to the May 22nd, 2025 electronic meeting of the Environmental Commission. We'll conduct this meeting like an in-person meeting. So during roll call, please indicate your location. Public comment is welcome and will be via telephone only. To speak at public comment, call 888-7880099. Enter meeting ID 954-34739065. To raise your hand, press nine. To unmute, press star 6. This information is available on the published agenda in the public notices section of the city's website and broadcast of this meeting on ctn channel 19, AT&T channel 99, and online at a2gov.org/watchctn. Aaron, will you read the land heritage statement? Yes. I acknowledge that the land the city of Ann Arbor occupies is the ancestral traditional and contemporary lands of the Anesab, including Adawa, Ojiway, and Badawami and wild wind dot peoples. I further
002acknowledge that our city stands like almost all property in the United States on lands obtained generally in unconscionable ways from indigenous peoples. The taking of this land was formalized by the Treaty of Detroit in 1807. Knowing where we live, work, study, and recreate does not change the past, but a thorough understanding of the ongoing consequences of this past can empower us in our work to create a future that supports human flourishing and justice for all individuals. Thank you. And will you do the roll call? Yes. Uh vice uh chairperson Brown, he said he would be absent today. Council member Cornell from W five in Ann Arbor. Uh, chairperson Curtis here. Lakesite, Tennessee. Commissioner Dale here in Ann Arbor. Commissioner Graham here. I sorry. What was that in Ann Arbor? Uh, yes. Not traveling. Thanks. Council
003member Malik here. Calling from Ann Arbor's second ward. Commissioner Marson here in Ann Arbor. Commissioner Marski will be absent. Commissioner Mitchell here in Ann Arbor. Commissioner Nadri, I should check. She's in the meeting room. Second. Yes, she is. Sorry, Sarah. Okay, we'll give her a second to come in. Uh, Commissioner Peterswood here in Traverse City. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Smith will be absent today. And Commissioner Wing here. Absent. And, uh, Commissioner Nedri. I'm here. Thank you. In Ann Arbor or near nearish nearish Ann Arbor. Yeah. Mon city waters. It's cool. All right, we have a quum. Okay, great. Uh, does anyone want to make changes to the agenda? Is there a motion to approve the agenda? So move. So move seconded by Rita Mitchell. Okay. All in favor of approval agenda, raise your hand, say
004I. I. I. Unanimous. Okay. Does anyone want to make changes to last month's meeting minutes? Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes? Anya second by council member Malik. Good. All in favor of approval of the minutes raise your hand say I. I. Okay. I looks unanimous. Uh next item of business is public comment. This is an opportunity for people to speak for up to three minutes. Please call 888-788-0099. Enter meeting ID 954-34739065. To raise your hand, press nine. To un unmute, press star six. City staff will select callers who have raised their hand one by one using the last three digits of your phone number. When speaking, please move to a quiet area and state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. There may be a delay up to 30
005seconds before a connection is established. Aaron, do we have callers? Um, yes, we do. Um, caller ending in um 326. Go ahead. Uh, you can unmute by pressing star six. Hello, this this is uh Jeff Kroka. Can you all hear me? Yes. Um, since 1980 I have lived at 506 East Kingsley and have been the communications officer of the 04th Ward Historic District Association. In 2021, I helped to form a group called the Green Team to create native plant gardens downtown to attract pollinators and address our concern that the downtown was a native plant desert. We approached the DDA and got permission to create two gardens on plots of land that boarded the library lot. In 2022, we got permission to expand to four gardens. And in the attachment I send, you will see a
006map of that along with people who are involved. It was meant to help begin the transition to an urban park that was promised to voters in 2018 with the passage of Proposition A. Since that time, uh, our group has spent many hundreds of hours of volunteer time at no cost to the city. In the spring of, uh, 2023, we added murals to the gardens. Uh, and I have attached a a picture of that, um, uh, in my email. This year, we have followed the development of the comprehensive plan, hoping that the library lot would be included in the plan. There are some references to natural features in the plan, but the references are primar primarily aspirational. For example, goal ten and infrastructure and services says one balance development with protection and integration of critical natural
007features to foster a healthy biodiverse ecosystem. And number two, protect, enhance, and manage critical natural features or open space that provide ecological benefits. and three encouraged tree cover and landscaping to help mitigate the urban heat island effect. There is also a reverence in the reference in the plan of the pros plan from 2023 to 20 2027 which clearly indicates that the downtown is significantly underserved with 4.11 acres per thousand residents compared to the citywide ratio of 179.9.6 acres per 10,000 residents. Unfortunately, if passed in August, ballot proposals A and B would eliminate the native plant gardens and replace them with huge residential towers on top of a rebuilt library and a vaguely worded public space. The result would be a massive heat island in comp combination with the residential tower on top of the old
008credit union. I would encourage you to that space and sort of take a look and see what it would be like. Uh so on the one hand we have a few lofty aspirations in the comprehensive plan calling to protect natural features but then providing no credible protection for natural features as a result of the increased density. In conclusion, there needs to be much stronger language in the comprehensive plan to save natural features from getting eliminated by the measures to increase density including the perennial gardens at the center of the city. Thanks for your consideration. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, we have um caller ending in 464. You can unmute by pressing star six, please. Yeah. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, thanks. I'm always paranoid that that you can't. Uh my name is Linda Brower
009and I am in Ward 5. First of all, thank you to everyone who worked on this resolution. I can see that a lot of effort and thought went into it. I spoke at your March meeting where you discussed the first draft of this resolution and and I appreciate this final draft. It really is alarming that page five of the draft comprehensive land use plan states that it replaces the 2004 natural features master plan which we all know was a detailed comprehensive set of standards to protect all natural features both on public and private land. I fully support your efforts through this resolution to ensure that the new comprehensive land use plan incorporate and strengthen those protections. There is nothing in your resolution I disagree with. I hope you will all vote for it. I do
010have one concrete suggestion. In the resolution, there is a table enumerating the nine types of natural features along with methods to implement their protection. Number three is floodways and flood planes. And the goal summary states, identify, restore, and sustain flood planes, especially those of highest concern, reduce storm water volume and flood occurrences, support watershed groups, and implement watershed plans. However, your implementation recommendations for this goal states only. Review and modify city codes and policies to ensure that best management practices are implemented. Restore city-owned wetlands. promote stewardship by educating the public on the identification and value of native plants and activities that can benefit flood planes. I think that's good, but I would ask that you strengthen that to specify a concrete policy that the city can codify, i.e. to pro prohibit any further construction in
011remaining unbuilt floodplane land, especially those parcels owned by the city where it obviously has total control. Notably, there are three large city- owned parcels in the Allen Creek flood plane. Given that the comprehensive plan largely concerns itself with the built environment and how to densify it, it seems essential that your efforts to ensure that natural features protections are woven into the plan should specifically recommend preserving any remaining unbuilt flood plane land as open green space infrastructure. The city should be asked to clean up the flood plane parcels it owns and plant them with native flood plane plants. We can't educate the public to ID and and value the native plants that um benefit flood planes without saving the flood planes. So I hope you will recommend that very specifically. Finally, the current the current draft
012of the comprehensive land use plan is far from comprehensive and it's kind of heartbreaking that it's far from comprehensive. So, I applaud your efforts to make it more comprehensive by explicitly incorporating protections for natural features. Again, thank you for all your work on this. Thank you. Oops, there's the timer. Uh, caller 644, um, you can press star six to unmute. Hi, my name is Kathy Boris. I live at 1726 Charlton in the fifth ward. I'm calling to support resolution 25-0633. The current draft version of the Ann Arbor comprehensive plan has little to say about natural features. But most significantly, the draft comprehensive plan proposes to replace the natural features plan, currently a plan in its own right by giving natural features just a few nods in the comprehensive plan. This particularly ill-conceived effort to streamline
013and simplify the comprehensive plan should be resist resisted at all costs because the natural features plan is the only city planning document that we have that specifically serves to protect our trees, wetlands, flood plains, groundwater, steep slopes, as well as native plant and animal ecosystems. If the natural features plan as currently written falls away or is reduced to just a few paragraphs in the revised draft comprehensive plan that is sent to city council for approval, then our natural features are not likely to survive and we will have abandoned the fight for a livable city. So, please approve resolution 25-0633 tonight so that natural features will continue will continue to be featured and defended in one of our city's most important official planning documents. Thank you. Thank you. I see a few other callers but no
014hands raised. Again, it's uh you can press nine to raise your hand. Erin, I just want to mention I think it's star nine. Oh, star nine specifically. Thank you. Okay, caller 265, you can press star six to unmute. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Uh my name is Ellen Ramsburg. I live in Ward three and I want to add my support to um the resolution that the environmental commission has been working on to include uh the natural feature sustainability into the comprehensive land use plan. I agree totally with the last two speakers that there's sadly a lack of addressing natural features in the draft of the new comprehensive land use plan. And um I hope that anything you do can strengthen that. After all, the comprehensive plan is not just a plan for built
015development, but it's also a plan for sustainability of all of our natural systems. uh protection of natural features should be integral to the to the comprehensive plan and should always be taken into consider into consideration in the development of the built environment. Um protection of natural features I would like to see um protected on private lands as well as public lands. The reduction in setbacks, open space requirements, and increased um building footprints have already resulted in the loss of mature trees, tree canopies, shrubbery. A prime example of that is at 904 Lincoln where a house was demolished, but the first thing that was demolished were all of the trees on the lot um because setbacks have been reduced and they were no longer um protected. I would also like to see the the environmental commission
016work on adopting a strong tree ordinance for preservation and enlargement of our tree canopy. Decada, Georgia has a really really excellent um tree ordinance and I'd urge you to look at that. Um it beautifully captures reasons for strong protections of tree canopies and adding to tree canopies. I'd like to thank you all for your hard work to uh to be protectors of our natural world in this community and I applaud the resolution. I hope that that will be uh approved tonight and I hope that anything we can do to strengthen it in the comprehensive land use plan will be considered. Thank you. Thank you. caller ending in 411. You press star six to unmute. Uh, Commissioner Curtis, uh, um, environment environmental commission staff, can you hear me? Yes. Great. This is James Deore, um, calling
017from Ann Arbor in the third ward, uh, where I live. And uh I've uh addressed this commission before in the past couple meetings. And I just want to say thank you again for uh working hard uh and bringing forward a beautiful document um a very strong document that uh reflects a lot of hard work and I think this is something that's powerful that needs to go before city council and it's important that be raised directly with council since I agree with previous speakers there's some issues uh regarding uh um the comprehensive land use plan um in particular they make a mention regarding the green belt and they're mentioning acquisitions outside the city, but not important land acquisitions within the city that uh that still need to be made and important natural features covered and natural
018systems uh covered with those acquisitions as well. There's still a lot of highquality parcels still out out there. Um this is a great document. I agree with what uh um uh former parks commissioner Barau mentioned a little while ago and I speak with heart as a former parks commissioner myself. I think there should be you'd see some greater language in terms of uh uh regarding the flood plane and the flood way. Um, I hope that when you're able to communicate uh that to council that that uh the intent moving forward, but what you have here is a very strong document and I really appreciate the hard work by everyone involved here and uh um I guess what I could say is this is the strength of the commission. Um as you um I see on
019the agenda, you're looking at uh um re uh uh align yourself to be with the sustainability commission. I realize there's a lot of work ahead of you with that regard. One important thing to take into consideration, you are a very powerful commission. You're a great group of people with a lot of ideas and a background that are just invaluable. It is important that yes, while the city can provide direction, you continue to provide leadership on your own right and don't hesitate to bring ideas forward um that can uh lead to progress within the city and protecting our environment. I agree with what Miss Randall said regarding a stronger tree ordinance. That's one way in terms of helping the sustainability issue. All in all, um I really appreciate the leadership you provided. And one more thing
020regarding the comprehensive land use plan. Yes. Uh natural features on private land like trees need to be protected as well. I realize it may create some difficulties but is important that as we move as we move forward that uh we have a strong system in place and uh new development if it does occur must work with the n our natural environment. All right folks thanks for considering my comments and have a great night. Bye-bye. Thank you. We do not have any additional callers. Thanks, Aaron. So, let's move on to um unfinished business, which I think is the resolution. So, I know so what I'd like to do um is just kind of go through the resolution and what we have changed from the last meeting and talk about it. I know the council member said
021they have a couple of uh suggestions they want to talk about, but that we'll get to those after I go through what's changed just to get everybody to a baseline and then we can talk about those changes if that's all right. Um Erin, can you bring it up on the screen? Yeah. Do you want me to share the redlinined or non-redlined? Uh let's do do the non- redline. That might be easier to go through because the red line gets kind of long in some areas. Okay. Um, I move the motion, Brook, so we can put it on the table. You need a second. Okay. Um, say that again, Chris, to one has to make a motion to present the resolution. I need a second so you can discuss it. Okay. Is there a second for
022the resolution? I second. Okay. Thanks. So, we had a meeting uh last week with uh city staff from planning and OSI to discuss some of their comments from last month's meeting. Um and I think Erin, you can just scroll through the whereas as I talk. Um we we were able to resolve the different whereas statements to come to uh consensus of what we would suggest and what the the uh city staff members that were there agreed to. um they weren't really we didn't feel like they were very consequential changes. It was more word smithing so it was pretty easy to get through. Um we did spend a decent amount of time on the resolve clauses about um what we were looking for what mostly planning staff was looking for somewhat what OSI was looking for.
023And um what planning really asked us to do is to not have as many general statements and put specifically in the the resolution the specific comments we wanted to see in there. Um so that's why in some areas it it grew a decent amount. Um but it was we did take a lot of we took out some very big statements also. So, um, can you scroll down just a little bit more, Aaron? Um, one of the items we took out from under the first one is, um, an item to request that the whole natural features master plan be maintained. We thought that was probably, um, too big of a reach from what we were looking at. After talking to city staff, we didn't think that would probably be possible going forward. So, we did strike
024that out of the document. So, you don't see that anymore. Um, scroll down a little bit more, Erin. You can stop about there. Um, from talking to city staff, uh, they feel strongly that the language they put in there, their intention was to not have, um, the comprehensive um, plan degrade the current natural features that we have in Ann Arbor. U,, but we we are concerned about the way the comprehensive plan was worded. So, we put in a few statements about that. Um, okay, if you know, for one, let's put a bullet in there, an in opening paragraph saying what is written in the comprehensive plan is replacing the natural features master plan. It does say the natural features master plan's not being maintained, but it doesn't really say what will be going in there.
025And just an acknowledgement that the comprehensive plan is shorter, but they're not trying to degrade it. Um, we think that would be, you know, people get concerned when they go see a 47 48 page document go down to a few paragraphs in PowerPoint. So, that was kind of a concern there. Um, in the next section, which starts as a a purpose and then scrolling down to a general description and then a four-page table that is very close to word for word from the natural features master plan. We thought, you know, the one thing that's not in here is if you're not degrading and you're trying to maintain, well, what is the current status? And it when you take the natural features master plan out, there was nothing in describing the current status. So, that's why
026we put this in there. Um, it's not word for word because in the table and the the text, it refers to a master plan and we don't have a master plan. It's just a plan. So, we took the word master out. That's pretty much the only difference besides one word that was misspelled in the existing document. Um, so why don't you scroll down to the end of the table, Aaron. Um, so that really is just describing what we have today uh throughout that table. Um, so this section starting in 101, we looked at the specifics we were looking at and where they would fit between within the comprehensive plan and some of them went to 101, some 102, 103, and also a couple of comments in 41 and 42. We looked at what we were
027trying to work on and where they would fit within the comprehensive plan, the text that was there, what would make the most sense. So, I'm just going to read through the ones in 101. Uh the city should consider adding protections for soil compaction and heritage trees. Uh second bullet, the city should incentivize development in areas with low natural features but high in other desirable values such as walkable, bikable, public transportation with employment opportunities. Um third bullet, the city's nature areas have had restoration over the past few decades and are seeing an improvement in biodiversity. To expand that improvement, the city should look for opportunities to create wildlife corridors. air or land doesn't necessarily mean buying land um throughout the city. Corridors can include existing private property which could receive a wildlife corridor designation. Uh the
028fourth bullet, the city should consider developing goals and strategies to reduce mortality of birds across the city from collisions with bird with windows in conjunction with the city's bird city status. And then in 10 two and the first one was really about 10 one is about critical natural features. Um 10 two is about um storm water runoff is really kind of the theme of 10 two and we'd like to see one additional in there. The city should consider a program to encourage the removal of turf grass and other invasive plants from city and residential property which will allow more water absorption by the soil encouraging the use of native plants. Um 10 three it talks about really the urban heat island effect. So, we'd like to see a couple of more in there. Uh, for
029projects that do not require a site plan where tree removals are proposed, the city should require funds added to the canopy loss fund, the cost should be a sliding scale from a high price for native trees, a lower price for non-native trees, and a credit for invasive trees. The net result for all projects in an arbor should be a ne negligible increase in total cost. And the second bullet, the city should finalize the 2023 urban forest management plan and strive to achieve the canopy coverage goals listed. Increase residential from 37% to 60%. Increase recreational and open spaces from 48 to 50%. Um there's also a note in the comprehensive plan goal 10. So we'd like to see it talks about different things there. We thought we should include a list of examples of green infrastructure.
030uh should include conversion of mode grass to native parks and also removal of invasive species. Uh the note has a listing of different items, but those two seem to be missing from the list. Um in 41, it's uh in economically disadvantaged areas with low access to parks and natural features, the existing parks and natural features should be protected regardless of their usage. 41 talks about um repurposing park different areas in the city including parks that is based on usage and and we don't feel that's correct in economically disadvantaged areas. Um if they don't have time to go to parks doesn't mean we should take their parks away. We should find ways to create so they have time to go to the parks or go for walks in nature areas. Um in 42 uh the city
031should identify non-motorized routes from highdensity housing to the nearest park and nature areas. That does not mean purchase land. Just identify the route. Is there can they use the border to border trail? Can they use sidewalks? Do they have to walk on the street? Because we don't have sidewalks yet there. Someone moving into a building, an apartment building or condo, something. We should be able to tell them what it's going to take. Um let's see. Let's see. The next one is ensure that the um see the last one talks about um getting the different cities to um make natural features a a sustainable priority with strategies, actions, and plans. OSI's done some of that on some of their work, but we haven't seen that everywhere, and it really hasn't really gotten into the natural features
032world much, so we'd like to see that in there. Um, item D, which was another place before, is sequestering greenhouse gases emissions and increasing biodiversity in the city is one we'd like to see in there. Last month, that was that statement was somewhere else in the document, but we removed most of that paragraph and just pulled that bullet point here. questions, comments before we go to the council members changes or suggest council member suggestions for changes I guess I should say. Would one of the council members like to ask questions or Chris I see a hand. The fundamental thing everyone at this table and listening needs to understand the natural features regulations that we have had for the last 20 plus years have applied to only those projects in the city that require site plan
033approval. That is a process through the planning staff and the planning commission and then approval by uh the city council afterward. Most of those projects over the last 20 years have been larger housing projects on large tracks of land. There has never been any protection for any natural feature on any residential neighborhoods that are established and have long existed. We think there should be. The fundamental things we're saying here also mean that we want natural features protections expanded in the city to address the loss of them on private property that is not large development that does not require site plan. We don't want to lose trees in densification. We do not want to lose tributary buffers in densification. We don't want to lose wetlands or wetland buffers in density densification. This has never proved to
034be a impediment to developers in a city. The cost has been minimal though not insignificant in order to push them to take fewer trees to stay out of wetlands to not flatten a flatten a site to not cover the site with subsurface. soils to not fill wetlands. We want the same thing to happen in the rest of the city. Now, so please understand this is a we are asking for an expansion of these regulations. It is not difficult to do. Um, and it may be one way to soften the uh tearing up of the fabric of some residential neighborhoods by this densification process. Thank you. Just so everyone understands, it's not it's one thing to say, okay, it's great, we'll keep our natural feature stuff, but if it doesn't apply to where all this densification
035is going to go on, it's not working. Thank you. Other comments? Go ahead, C Commissioner Mitchell. Thank you. Um, I just want to say what Chris said in a slightly different way and that is that we currently get a lot of value from the natural features that exist on private property. We may not even know and have may not have measured it exactly. And so what we're concerned about is the potential for increased impermeable surfaces and crowding out of features that we all know and love. And it's one of those things where it's like once they're gone, they're gone. Um we do need to protect them because that those natural features are protecting us in many ways. um not only us um but the creatures and and um plants that live with us. So I'd
036like to us to um look at the this as a way to collaborate um among ourselves so that we support the natural features that we need. That's all. Thank you. Other comments? Council member Cornell or Malik, you want to talk about you'd like to see changed? Yeah. Council member Malik, do you because you have a change actually to some of the content. I have a change to the resolved. So, do you want to discuss the content piece first? That might make more sense. Sure. Sure. So, um, thanks everybody who worked on this and thank you uh for the hard work over the last several months and as well as the comments tonight. Um the one proposal I have for a an edit um is on page 12. It would be uh the statement that corresponds
037to comprehensive goal plan goal 10.3 and this is the extension of natural features protections to private land. Um, the reason I have an edit to this section is because there have not been many um, situations in the state of Michigan where municipalities have done this. Um, however, the few that have have not withtood legal challenge. Um, as this section is worded now, I believe this too would not withstand legal challenge. Um, so my edit is to say rather than um, let me pull it up here. Rather than to say the city should require funds added to the canopy, I would propose it say the city should explore requiring funds added to so on and so forth only because it's not clear that this would be an acrosstheboard illegal or across the board it wouldn't withstand
038legal challenge. I'm no lawyer, but I do believe there could be a path forward on this. Um, and I agree that this is an important um component of this resolution and I agree with Commissioners Graham and uh Commissioner uh Commissioner Mitchell in that, you know, this is an important aspect of this resolution. So, I don't want to, you know, remove it or anything like that, but I do think if we want this to be something, you know, that gets implemented down the line, the city and the future sustainability commission will probably have to get creative and it will require a lot of work to um find a path forward that achieves the goals of this bullet point as well as withstands legal challenge in the state of Michigan. Um, but I'm open to feedback and
039I'm open to others thoughts on this. Commissioner Graham. Sorry. Thank you, John. This is not a legal document. It doesn't have to stand uh muster with the attorneys. Um but the fact of the matter is that in the instances over all these years where uh replacement trees for example could not be fit upon a site in the quantity that was required by the standards of the natural features provisions in the UDC. There is a fee paid based on a tree canopy fee um that would be paid uh to the city. All of those funds over the years, as I understand, have gone into the general fund. They haven't gone to support natural features work in the city or for heaven's sakes, our natur program in state parks, in the city parks. They should be going
040there. One of the things we're trying to do here is to get into code the idea that every project that goes forward from this point has to result in a net increase in the biodiversity of the city. if not the property that mostly especially for big buildings will require a fee be paid um in order to reach a 10% increase on that property and biodiversity that fee should go to natural areas work in Ann Arbor not to the general fund so I you know I have no objection to your language change but this is something to be worked out in code um to change exactly where these funds go and what they should be used for. Thanks, Chris. I'll say, yeah, I don't object to the suggested change. Um, I'm not really sure why it's
041needed because as as Commissioner Graham said, we've been doing or the city's been collecting money for canopy loss fees for a long time on larger projects, but maybe there is something on the legal side for the smaller side. And I'm not a lawyer. I I don't have didn't even try and look any of it up. So, if this is what the recommendation is, I would support the wording that's there. Yeah, Chair Curtis, that's my understanding as well. It's not that the collection of fees would not withstand. It's the requirement of all projects on private land that don't require a site plan requiring them to pay a fee into the into the um fund based on tree change or natural features change on their property. Uh gets into some gray area, which is why I say
042it's not totally impossible to achieve this, but it's definitely something worth exploring. And I think, you know, softening the language to say that it's clear that we're exploring this route rather than it must or require or whatever, you know, I guess should require was the previous language, uh, is kind of where that's coming from. Okay. Commissioner Mitchell, thanks. I um have a little hesitation on this in that the word explorer can be soft and I worry that someone might just ask one question and say, "Well, I explored and stop." Um, and so I'm concerned about um proceeding in a solid investigative way that um, Council Member Malik indicated that um, that results in the kind of thing that we want, which is to make improvements as opposed to having an an overall decrease in um,
043tree canopy and the other um, natural features that associated. So, I'm just saying I'm hesitant about that term and I don't know if there's another one, but um explore feels like it could be easily a one and done. Council member Cornell, thank you. And thanks. I want to echo um Council Member Malik's gratitude for all the work that's gone into this. Um I'm comfortable with the wording um as proposed on the screen right now. I think my concern in some of this is um we know that Ann Arbor is an incredibly expensive place to live. We know that um basically property values and housing prices have doubled um within the last 10 years. that already creates a barrier to folks who want to be our neighbors and live in our community. And so the idea
044that we would continue to place burdens on you know people just wanting to live in our community to to have a home in our community feels um it doesn't feel right honestly. And so when we talk about exploring requirements, to me that is taking the thoughtfulness and the time to take a step back and align our goals and what we're trying to accomplish with this with more thoughtfulness around the audiences that would be impacted um in what impact that this might have on um our broader goals, right, of of making our community more inclusive to creating more housing opportunities here. I I think could explore is a thoughtful way to acknowledge that we sitting here don't have all the answers and um should feels um very prescriptive versus could feels like let's have a conversation
045about it with with people who may have a different mindset. That's the definition of inclusion. Commissioner Graham, you're on mute, Chris. Thank you. Finally. This is not a fee that would be leveled on us or me as a homeowner. This is a part of a development process that would be required of someone developing a property. Let's say they have a uh they've own they own it or they have an arrangement where they get to own it if a plan is approved. The fee applies to them and the negotiation about what happens on that property is a negotiation from our point of view about what happens to the natural features on that property. If they want to obliterate them, they can. they pay a fee. If they don't if they want to pull back and do
046the things necessary to keep old trees on that property, then they pay no fee. This is not a homeowner thing. This is a developer thing and as it always has been. And what we built into the original natural features regulations was that Mr. developer petitioner. You come to us with your piece of land and you want to do X on it. Show us three plans and they show them to the planning staff, not to the planning commission or the council members for heaven's sakes that demonstrates the stand that they're complying with the standard in the ordinance, the UDC. You will minimize your impact on natural features on this site and show us how you're doing that. If your project says and you and your project and the planning staff conclude that you've done that, but
047you still have to take old trees, then you pay a fee. The developer pays the fee, not some homeowner. We we want that kind of process to apply across the city. If we'd ever had any idea that established residential neighborhoods would be assaulted about densification in the way the planning commission and the planning director and the council appear to be talking, we would have put this into place years ago. The big damage to natural features was happening in big development sites. Big damage is going to happen if we densify all the residential neighborhoods that have lasted for many years. I am sorry to be emotional about this. I've been working on this matter for 30 years for you, the city of Ann Arbor. Thank you. I'm just going to say just because it says code
048could explore um doesn't mean that we're going to ignore it and forget about it going forward. Um at least I won't and I have no problem reminding people about it going forward if it gets uh sidelined. So I I think other people would do that too. So, Council Member Malik, thank you, Chair Curtis. And I I agree. That's kind of what I was hoping to add is that um you know, we will keep this on the agenda, if you will, and we will keep it a relevant topic moving forward, that it won't just be could explore, we say we try and then we say we check that box and move on. I don't think any of us here will allow that to happen. And Commissioner Graham, I I don't want you to apologize ever for
049being emotional. I see it as being passionate on this topic, and I think we all appreciate that in this group. So, thank you, Commissioner Mitchell. I just want to say I appreciate that last comment in particular because I think that um and yours also um Chair Curtis that we it'll be incumbent on us and on council and on the planning commission to pursue this um so I can step back from my um concern but I I will have that concern and will be among those who continue to press I would expect nothing less. Anyone else want to make comments? Council member Cornell, I feel like Rita or Commissioner Mitchell really set me up for my um suggestion for the resolved clause. Um and hearing tonight's callers actually um reinforced it as well. Um my recommendation
050is that this goes to planning commission at this point. It is um the body that is charged on behalf of the city to receiving feedback on the comprehensive land use plan. They are um the most uh they are the experts in what is changing and evolving in that plan. Currently, um I'm uncomfortable with this proceeding without any input from from the planning commission since that's where all of that information is being collected, where the public engagement is happening and where um you know the the plan is sort of evolving is within that body. So I would like their input on it and you know I think at that point hearing from this I I would be more comfortable representing this body at the council table if we had input from the planning commission and I
051think they're the ones who are daytoday paying the most attention in terms of the you know what feedback is being received how it is being synthesized how it's informing um the comprehensive land use plan. This has tremendous impact on a comprehensive land use plan. This in my opinion should receive um some attention for them from them before it comes to the full body of council for consideration. Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Um Miss Cornell, um the environmental commission uh advises the city council It doesn't doesn't have anything to do with high commission. Well, I we would really like to work with them. We'd really like to work much more than we have with planning director. I ran the natural features committee for nearly 20 years. In the last 10, while we were trying to work out
052improvements to natural features ordinances, natural features provisions in the UDC, we invited the planning director to every meeting, sent him minutes. He came to one over all those years. He came to a meeting last week with us, biodiversity committee. He said, quote, I am not interested in expanding natural features protections in the city, unquote. I don't think his planning commission is going to be interested in this either. I don't think there's anybody on the planning commission that isn't strongly prodevelopment. It doesn't think that natural features productions are an impediment to development, which is silly and not in accord with most people in the city of Ann Arbor think who actually loan property here and live here. I we we're going to pass this resolution tonight and pass it on to you. If you want to
053send it to the planning commission, you can. But I would advise you to uh take our side and try to get your fellow council members to stop drinking the developer Kool-Aid. We don't want greed doing densification in this city. We want really fun, exciting natural features protecting, biodiversity protecting, uh, design with nature development to happen in this city. And you can do that. You don't have to go this willy-nilly break neck change everything course of action. Thank you. I'm just going to say I think what I heard council member Cornell said they're going to get feedback from planning. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to accept all the feedback that planning gives. Um I think very appropriate for council but the council needs to ask the planning commission. We don't go to the planning commission
054and say okay give the council your opinion. We don't we don't work for the planning commission. We were established as an environmental commission almost 30 years ago because there was a very pro-development mayor who was appointing highly developmentoriented people to the planning commission and there still were people on the council that really like the environment in Ann Arbor. And so led by Chris Cole, the council decided we'd establish an environmental commission to to advise the council on a different set of policies. And instead of the mayor appointing appointing uh environmental commission members, they were appointed by the council and have been ever since. This the the origin of the environmental commission was to protect the environment in Ann Arbor and it was protected against uh the arrogance and over uh enthusiasm of the developing development
055community operating here wanting to operate here. Here we are again. So Chris, I agree that the way the bylaws are set up, the environmental commission recommends to city council. We can add something in there after that saying city council can get feedback from planning commission. I don't think that's any different whether we write it or not. That's exactly what they're going to do and that's what they should do. Um so I I have to figure out how we put the words in there. They'll have to they'll do what they do. Yeah. Uh Rita well um we are reviewing bylaws today and when I looked over the draft even coming up for the sustainability commission the point is that there's an advis advisory capacity to council and that's where we are right now and I think
056that that's where we should stay and and I agree with um commissioner Graham that council we would pass this to council that council would assess and I would welcome them to send it to planning and I would absolutely welcome working with the planning commission um with planning staff to really work out and collaborate in ways that can be creative and do the kinds of protective things that I think we all have as a vision for the city. At least I hope we do. Um, so I I don't see why how there would be a benefit to the modification for us to why we would why would we modify um what our statement is because it can happen anyway and I certainly welcome the collaborative approach. Council member Cornell, I think I think it's appropriate. I'm
057I'll just restate it. I I do think it's appropriate for this whereas for um to modify this or I'm sorry the resolve clause to ask council to direct the planning commission to offer input on this. The planning commission owns the comprehensive land use document um at this stage as it's you know in draft form and it seems like direction from staff should come from planning commission raising my hand again and then come to council. That was the Yeah. Well, again, it goes to sorry, it goes to the council first, and you all ask the planning commission for their input, but I'm suggesting to you that the planning commissioners has no interest. You might as well skip the step. You all, the council, needs to reassess what policies you're pursuing. You need to think very carefully
058because you're going to raise a serious hornets's nest here. You keep going on the course you're going. People are not going to put up with the kind of tree destruction that's going to happen in this city in its established residential neighborhoods. Not going to happen. Council member Cornell. I'm going to point out again that that is not what this resolved clause directs. That's not how this directs the action. What it directs is that council not include planning commission and take action with the city administrator to direct staff. So for the sake of accuracy in terms of you know I appreciate Mr. Graham saying that um we're going to do what we want to do. But that is not how these resolutions work. That that is not what this resolved clause actually directs us to do.
059So if the intention is for it to go directly to city council that is one thing but city council will not take that direction. in this resolve clause and turn around and take it to planning commission. So just just to be clear procedurally there is there is a reason to include that language. Yes, I'm Why don't may I make a suggestion? Why don't we start trying to put the language in and see what it looks like? I think that might make the most sense. Um, so I think the way I hear it is something like recommends that city council um direct the planning staff to provide feedback on the items in this resolve clause. um the planning commission planning commission. Yeah, not planning staff that the planning that we are asking um council to direct
060the planning commission to review this and provide input based on their knowledge of the current draft of the um comprehensive land use plan. It is still evolving. So, I would prefer if we're going to change this that the council ask all of the city staff and the planning commission, even the Azure folks. Yeah, there's there's what their views and opinions are about this. The planning commission stacked. They don't they're not interested. You need to find you need to get it's like it's like addressing your plan to the people who own property in residential neighborhoods. Most of us have never heard about this thing until the last couple months. Has been going on 3 years. I that's a that's absolutely unacceptable. I think you need to look throughout the city for their opinions on these suggested
061policies to the council. I, you know, just the plane commission, you might as well save your breath. It shouldn't be that way. Forgive me. Maybe I'm overstating. I want to acknowledge really quickly, Mr. that the city staff has spent time working on this directly with you and the and the subcommittee. No, they have not city. Yes, I Yes, they have one meeting last week. Yes. Okay. I don't I I just I I take a bit of uh I it is not the job of city staff to provide opinions on when you said all of city staff should weigh in. That that's an inappropriate request. Well, you take your leaders, but not just the planning commission, please. Um, I'd say most of the resolution fits into planning, but there are some areas that do not. Um,
062and so if we want planning commission to review the ones that would be appropriate to planning, you know, but some of it fits more under the OSI leadership, which should probably not be planning. Um, so as long as planning would skip something like that, I think that would be appropriate. I mean, and some of them might be a little bit more closer to forestry on when talking tree canopy, you know, or environmental for storm water. So, there's different groups in the city. It's probably not all just those other groups don't fall under planning commission. Um, Commissioner Mitchell, um, I, uh, like what you just said about the broader, um, city staff groupings being involved. And I think at this point it would be useful to actually consider the language that we're talking about um in
063a way that we can make a decision. Yeah. Council member Malik. Yeah. I was just going to add um most of this resolution while it covers lots of you know environmental and natural features topics it's all couched within kind of the framework of the comprehensive plan. Um so I think that's kind of where this suggestion is coming from is the planning commission is the owner of the current draft comprehensive plan. So if this body wants changes in the draft comprehensive plan related to natural features, city staff don't have that ability to make changes. It is the planning commission. They are the owners of the draft comprehensive plan at the moment. So I think that's where this is coming from. It's, you know, the majority of this resolution is, you know, pointing to current uh goals
064of the draft comprehensive plan um and emphasizing certain parts of the draft comprehensive plan and asking to re-emphasize or add emphasis to other parts. So, I think that's kind of where this proposed edit has largely come from is saying, you know, direct the planning commission to review the feasibility um in developing and implementing the following policies. Um because it is still a draft plan, there is still opportunity for it to change moving forward. Um I think this is quite timely. We anticipate the second draft of the comprehensive plan to come out June 10th um and then further iterations after that. So I think this is a timely uh resolution especially if it is you know going directly to planning commission or direct going to council and then to planning commission sorry. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner
065Mitchell, your hands up. Oh, mistake. Okay, no problem. Uh, Council Member Malik, thanks for the clarification. That's a good point. Um, and I'll say I did watch some of the um planning commission's review of the comprehensive land use plan, at least the ones associated with uh, goal 10. And not all the planning commissioners are 100% on development. there's at least one that was very pro- environmental focused or had some leanings towards environmental. So, it's I'd say there's it's not all unfriendly faces there. Um Aaron, do you want to can people understand what Aaron has written in there or should she delete the stuff that's redlined out so it's clear? It reads uh direct the planning commission. Yeah. I don't see it. Oh. Um, highlight the It's not red anymore. Okay. Not read anymore. She accepted
066it. Uh, Commissioner Marson. Yeah. you know, not to prolong this, but I mean, are we asking them to review the feasibility of uh the following policies or are we asking them to consider including these policies in the comprehensive plan? The latter carefully consider including Thank you, Van. Good suggestion. You want to specifically call out Oh, we we said the comprehensive plan down here. Okay. Um, so if we have that, this goes away. Is that right? [Music] Uh therefore be resolved that the environmental commission recommends that the city council direct the planning commission to consider the inclusion of the following policies in the comprehensive plan. policies and practices. I don't know. Policies and do we want to call out um discussion with the environmental commission in this because if if they just review I mean it
067would be nice to have an exchange but a joint meeting. Yeah. A lot of planning commissions have no idea what natural features are. no idea what we've been doing the last 20 years. I I think in procedurally we could request that they consider a presentation at their meeting or there could be a subquorum group that meets. I would need clarification. And Erin, Miss Donnelly, you may know that, but I don't think that a joint meeting between the two commissions is a is advisable for a few reasons. I think the other concern I would have is from the planning commissioner side, they've just had a series of weekly meetings that are five plus hours long. Uh they're not going to want to meet on anything associated with something on something this important. Brooks, I appreciate what
068you're saying, but uh this is the Environmental Commission talking. I understand that, but shown to be dead. Perhaps like an invite to a meeting. I don't know maybe the proper language but um you know consider the inclusion of the following policies in the comprehensive plan and consider a presentation from the environmental commission. I'm not sure the correct language, but I think council member Cornell was correct in the thinking of, you know, maybe offering a joint thing but not requiring it or anything like that, but offering it or offering dialogue, maybe something along those lines. Dialogue would be better than presentation that they just sit and listen to. I agree. We need an exchange. What about like in collaboration with the environmental commission? I Yeah, I was going to say, can we keep it um somewhat
069vague and just say work with the environmental commission? Yeah, good. And do we need to reference sustainability commission just to be sure? So environmental sustainability. Yeah, because of the timing that's going on. That's a good point. Yep. All right. So, I'll turn off that. Oh. We got formatting problems. Oh my gosh. Okay, I'll fix that later. But here's how it reads. So therefore, be it resolved that the environmental commission recommends that city council direct the pl the planning commission to consider the inclusion of the following policies in the comprehensive plan in collaboration with the environmental/ sustainability commission. That's That's fine. Rita, you okay with this? You're muted, but that was I'm okay. Okay. Yes, Chair Curtis, if you're if you're comfortable with that, I would I would move to approve this resolution as amended. Mo
070of order. Our council members voting members of this commission. Yes, they are. Okay. Second. Okay. All in favor of approval, raise your hand, say I. I. I. Hi. Looks unanimous. Thank you. Okay, great. Approve of changes. And now someone else gets to talk besides me. So, are we voting on resolution as amended? We just did. Oh, they thought we raised our hands to agree to that specific change, but not passage of the resolution. Well, you can have a second vote. Do people Everyone want to Mr. Roberts is sitting on my shoulder. I appreciate that because I'm new at this and I never use Robert's rules in industry. I got a book for you. I'll get it to you. Oh, no. I'm gonna read it. Miss Donald, you may want to look back. Who seconded my
071motion to approve the I did. Yeah, that's what I was saying. I think we may need to amend that if you're if you didn't truly second that amendment or second that um vote. I did. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, that was a a true second. Yes. Okay. Great. Okay. Um yeah, we can move on to the bylaws. We haven't still taken a vote, Mr. Chair, on the whole resolution. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the whole resolution? Let's It's already on the table. Just take Let's take a vote. Everyone approval, raise your hand, say I. Thank you. I There goes Mr. Robert. Okay, now we're on to the B new bylaws. Great. So, these are bylaws for sustainability commission we're talking about. Yes. Yes. Okay. And what changes happened since the last time we met?
072Yes. So, yes. I apologize. So, they look a lot different than the ones from last time, and that was the result of me getting ahead of the attorney's office. And so, um, they have been revised to be more, um, more closely matched to what I would say our current bylaws are. Um, so I'll go ahead and share my screen. Share the line version. Yeah. What was that? Are they on legar? Yes. Yep. Thank you. Um, so you'll see the bulk of the changes are going to be in the membership part in this article 3, the purpose, objectives, and duties. Um, if I toggle, I can't remember. Does it move the screen if I toggle or does it stay on the red lines? Is anything happening? It it moves the screen. It does. So you can
073see the clean version when I toggle. Yes. Okay, great. Um, so this per this first paragraph is the intent. So the it's kind of the the mesh of the two. So it includes kind of the original language protects and enhance air, water, land, but there's also some wording around um the city's sustainability goals in A20 and efforts to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030. Um and then we move into the powers and duties. And so you'll see that's where um the annual work plan comes in uh the staffled work plan. Um and then how uh the work plan will kind of be organized around um metrics to um to determine progress uh towards meeting those um the work plan. Um and then we move into some of the specific powers and duties. Um and some of
074these have changed kind of based on um maybe staff is now has the capacity to do some of the work that we were doing previously and others it's just changing because now we're addressing both energy and environment. Um and some of like the wording has changed. Um so like instead of sewer we now use water reclamation. Um so you can see kind of some of those red lines as well. Um and then membership will go from 15 to 13 voting members. So we are proposing to have city council be non- voting members. Um and then 11 voting members plus two youth voting members. Um so yes it would still be 15 but it would be 13 voting members. Mhm. and then the liaison and then uh there we did include a paragraph about um you
075know the initial membership as of June 1, 2025 and then you know after that with we'll start getting back to the um the staggered start as we bring on new new folks. So it reads the initial membership shall consist of those members appointed to and serving on the energy commission as of June 1 with terms expiring as stated and their respective prior appointments going forward. members shall be appointed to staggered terms. So approximately one-third of the members with three-year terms expire each year. And then um this is not new language, but we just moved it around. Um and then you can see a lot of this is similar. These articles I just took out the review of the bylaws on an annual basis. Um, I don't know if that had to be in there. Um,
076but it seems like if we want to look at the bylaws, we can. We don't need to make ourselves do it on an annual basis. Um, and then the other Oh, there's a paragraph added in the meetings. Um and then the other big change was around um so previously we had article 8 and article 9 which was the agenda and order of business which was removed and then the committees and workg groups were just reworked a little bit here. Um, so that's the other big I would say area of change. And so this is where kind of it gets into the details of the work plan and how working groups will be kind of formed around the work plan. Um, and there is yeah so um I did try to tweak it. So I I
077heard the feedback from the last meeting about like there needs to be it's very the way it was presented was it was very top down with like staff kind of telling the commission what to do and so it's not meant to be that way. Um I I I agree that there should be a mechanism for feedback and so um I tried to kind of include some of that language that yes like and I'm happy like we staff is happy to have feedback on what might go into the work plan and we'd love to make that work if possible. And then that those are the I would say those three sections are the big changes. So yeah, any any questions, thoughts? Commissioner Mitchell. Thanks. Um, Erin, I'm not sure I quite understand the um work plan
078design because it looks the same to me and maybe I just didn't read it correctly. There was a line in there that they would get um input from the commissioners before um on the annual basis before the new work plans was developed that was missing before. Okay. So, it's not solely um staff organized. The staff should be asking for our feedback. I mean, they might reject our feedback, but at least we'll be asked for our feedback. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Well, I'm not sure that goes quite far enough. Uh we wouldn't have a climate action plan if the energy commission hadn't out of their own initiative suggested doing it. and really fought to make it happen. We wouldn't have an operating MRF in the city if the environmental commission hadn't intervened in what was
079a disastrous end of our blast facility. We initiated that. I It's not just feedback to uh city staffs telling us what to do. We have we we should have absolute freedom built into the bylaws to initiate um items of discussion and items for the work plan. Yeah, I understand that. I think the intention was that I think there's been a lot of instances where a lot of hard work has been put into something and then the city hasn't been able to implement it. And I think that's what we're trying to avoid. Um, we're really trying to leverage the work that the commissions are doing in a way that can be used in the city and I think finding the balance. Um, I I I guess we'll need to strike a good balance there. And so
080I'm happy to take feedback on language. I would I'll I'll say that the first so the the sections um section three the purpose objectives and duties and then the membership are the pieces that are going to go into like the ordinance and then the remaining sections of the bylaws are like more flexible too. So, like if we wanted to change some of that language at a later point, um we wouldn't have to necessarily change it in the ordinance because it would be like part of the bylaws. But I I hear what you're saying is my point. Um um Commissioner Mitchell, how do we assure that flexibility? It sounds like there's a a plan to have a work plan identified at the beginning of let's say whatever our term year is and then how much flexibility
081is is there in that in the work plan topics? Yeah, I I think staff is still kind of working on the logistics of that. Um, I think if if we move forward with the ordinance, the first reading of the ordinance in June, then essentially this would be kicking off in July. So staff would probably be coming with an idea of a work plan in at that time. And then I'm thinking it could be a discussion. I guess I don't know like the logistics specifically yet. Um, we're going to be kind of working it out as we go this first year. Missy did tell us she's drafting uh the sustainability commission's work plan. I can't remember any time when staff has drafted such a work plan for the environmental commission and I've been on it for
08220 years. We've drafted our own with the advice and complete participation of staff involved with us. Clearly, I'm not saying we have to do it. It's nice to have, especially on energy issues. They're very complicated um staff's leadership, but um it should not be structured in a way that forecloses our own initiative. We're not here for that. We're not here to work for city staff. We're here to represent people of city of Ann Arbor and advise the council what we hear, what we learn, what we think. We're appointed for that purpose, not to work with city staff. Mhm. Can you repeat which sections of the bylaws are going to be in the ordinance? Um, yes. I believe it will be I mean it's generally the purpose and duties the membership and um yeah the the
083purpose and duties and the membership. Okay. Yeah, it'll be um I'm trying to remember the ordinance number currently. Um but yeah, I'd have to you could go and look and confirm and it will look pretty similar to what's in there. So stuff on the work plan or whatnot that would not be in the ordinance. So it would be easier to change if we get into something and we realize it's not working. We could pivot easily easier if we need to. So the um there is a yes and no. Um so as written there is um I'll share again. I'll share the clean version. So in the powers and duties um it does say that the work shall be directed by an annual annual work plan um but then there is a later section that goes
084into a little more about the details of the work plan and the working groups around that and that's the section that I meant I think it's article 8 um that is a little more flexible and just one thing maybe slightly off topic of the bylaws from how the work groups work from the commissioner side it's very easy for us to use Google docs to share information. That doesn't work very well for Ann Arbor city staff. So, if we're going to be working with someone on city staff and they want us to work in SharePoint, then they need to be setting that stuff up because we can't do that for as an external body or some needs to be set up. Yep. I would I'm sorry, Sarah. Oh, yeah. I'll go. Um, Erin. So, I guess
085what is kind of rubbing me the wrong way is the word directed. Um, so it says that our work shall be directed. I would maybe use another term like guided or informed. Um, because directed, it does make it sound almost like we're working for the city, which we're not. We're not getting paid, right? We're here. A lot of us are very passionate about very specific issues and um have a lot of knowledge in that arena. So, um, and then I I will echo what Chris said. I do think that sometimes we can come up with ideas that are outside the box. Um, and even if, you know, we propose those to the city and it doesn't work, there's still merit, you know, in having the conversation and maybe we come to a point, you know,
086of innovation that we wouldn't have. It might not be exactly what we had in mind, but um, so I guess maybe making that part of the work plan is like having a bit of it open-ended. um to encourage innovation or new ideas um to help like push environmental stewardship forward. Yeah, thank you. I would view this whole document as the document including section 8. I I don't see how you strip that out and leave the things after section 8. I mean I the language you're talking about is the language. So I hope you can get it improved a little commissioner Mitchell. Yeah. Um I would like to understand a little bit about how the work groups will work with the work plan because it seems like in order to have a work plan identified you
087would have had to identify the work groups already. it it feels very structured that way. Is that the intent? Because I thought also later on it re indicates that there's um some flexibility in starting work groups if I interpreted that correctly. Yes. Yep. Um we are still working on what that is going to look like. Um but yes, the intent is that there could be work groups developed that aren't, you know, not directly part of the work plan if there is um majority uh commissioner support. Um but I I can't answer specific questions about like the work plan or the working groups quite yet because we we are still very much in brainstorming mode on that. Is it possible for us to brainstorm with you? Yeah, sure. I mean, yeah, I'm of course happy to
088take feedback and I in talking with Joe um the leazison to the energy commission, I think we are intending the July meeting to be a discussion and kind of brainstorm sort of thing. Um but yet but yes, that's we there's no solid plans around around that quite yet. Mostly it's good. Mostly it's the way it should be. Do we know when the July meeting is going to be held? Um I don't because we do need to figure out what day and times we're going to meet. Um I think that the ordinance probably needs to be passed first before we start making those plans. Um, I think there was a general preference of CTN to keep it either at this time or the Tuesday at 6 PM time and there were a couple open other open
089slots. Um, but there are are a lot of commissions that meet that um are going to max out the CTM time. Um, so there are a lot of not a lot of open time slots, but it would likely be this current time or the time that the energy commission has been meeting. So just one question um on the workg groupoups, is there going to be a recommendation in the bylaws that everybody be on at least one work group? you know that that affects the hours per month people should anticipate spending when they volunteer to be on the sustainability commission. It's not just one meeting, it's two meetings plus other work or something like that. I don't believe that's in there now. Um yeah, that's something we could consider. other questions or comments. Commissioner Dale. Um
090I'm I'm just not sure I heard or followed. Um so will there be some rewarding of this section in 3.2 or in article 8 about how the work plan the level of input that the commission gets on setting that work plan. Because in 3.2 it doesn't doesn't say anything about how the work plan is created. It just says that once once it's there, it will direct it will direct what the sustainability commission's tasks are, but it doesn't say anything about how it's created. And then article 8, it just says that it will give us our input will be considered. So is is there going to be is there going to be some massaging of that and do we get to have another round of looking at some of that language? Um, yes. So, I could
091consider I could certainly consider putting some language in on article 8 around how the work plan is formed. Um, yeah, if folks have specific feedback. Um, now or if you want to send it to me in the next week. I think um the first reading of the ordinance is going to be June 2nd and then um the bylaws will be included probably with the second reading on June 16th. And so um yeah, I I think if I have feedback soon, we could we could I could take it back to other staff and we could consider that. Definitely. My hand's still up, so I'll just just continue. Thank you. Um, but yeah, I mean, it's certainly not intended to be like staff is going to tell the commission what to do, but I can I understand
092how that that is reading. Um, so yes. Yeah. Yeah. And you and I'll just, you know, say for the record, I'm really excited actually about the idea of having a work plan that we that we do collaboratively to put together. I think that will help us to be more effective all around. I I think that's fantastic. And I know the staff have so much on their plates already. So, as much as we can, you know, be working on the some of the same things, I think it will be more productive for everybody. Um, but I I would definitely feel more comfortable if there's something specifically in there about this being like like Chris and Rita were saying of of us being able to bring ideas to the table and it being more than just sort
093of considered. I'd love to see the word collaborative or something in there, right? Together draft priorities or something like that. And it should be a working document. It should evolve through a year. I I shouldn't be something that's so fixed that it's uh immutable for a year. Yeah, I mean it it will I think the first year will be a learning experience in a lot of ways. Yes. Great. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, um, next it's report outs from committees. Um, I'll start with the biodiversity. Well, we worked on the resolution and we had multiple meetings last month and, uh, I think that's all we got accomplished, but that was enough. Um, circular economy, I know Steve Brown's not in I know they had a meeting a couple days ago. Um, I
094didn't get any meeting minutes back, but I know they were meeting on it then. Um there was a discussion about a clothing swap on June 3rd through 7th and they're looking for volunteers for that. Um water quality Sarah I was actually pretty fancy and I put some slides together because this is our last uh last group last meeting as the environmental commission. Correct. Yes. Yeah. Um Erin, do you have those? Can you put them up? Yeah, I do. Um, might take me a second. Yeah, it would take me longer. All right, here we go. Oh, yeah, there we are. Oh my gosh. I think I'm zoomed in on my screen. Yeah, huge. Not the only one. It sounds like that better. Yeah. Still zoomed in humongous or is that good? You're good. I think it
095was on where dots are. Yeah. Okay. So, I just wanted to kind of give an overview of what we've done in the past year. Um, so I think probably the goal that I feel most strongly about is our outreach goal. Um, we've been tracking a lot of different water quality issues within the city. Um, staying up to date with what CARD, which tracks the GMAN plume is up to. Um, we've made connections with the Washna County Water Commissioner's Office. Um, we had a member from the Heron River Wershed Council that kept us informed and up to date on what they're working on. Um and I think within the last year we did have RRD come and give a presentation and I also gave that presentation on water uh frameworks. Um so I felt like we
096we had a lot of sort of good um good outreach over the past year. Um we had a goal to work on nutrients and ecoli issues. Um we did that through coordination with the middle here on partners group where we had um Steve Brown attending those meetings and bringing us updates on what was going on there. Um and then we also started our chlorides work group. Um so salt and chloride in our watersheds um is a huge problem for aquatic life. Um, so we worked with Kelly McCabe. Um, she's from Hiron River Wershed Council to identify some goals that we want to work on going forward. Um, we identified some creeks that are being impacted by chlorides and um are making plans for uh next fall um what we can do to help reduce salt.
097Um, so that was a pretty big um achievement for us. Um and then we also are being involved with the um Ann Arbor comprehensive plan workg groupoup meetings um for storm water. Um so those were sort of our four target areas and what we were able to accomplish. Um and then the next slide Erin. Um these were some issues that we've just been tracking. Um so Gellman generally but we we had a highlighted focus on um an MS4 permit issue with um 14 dioxane seeping into um storm water um our MS4 outlet into the Hon River. So we were tracking that pretty closely and are still brainstorming ideas on what we can do about that. Um we're tracking a POS issue at uh this is actually a Scio Township property. Um but there's some chance
098that liable party might be Gman. So it's it's just a big big issue we're tracking. Um we've been following um some coronated groundwater issues near the Eaton Argus area. Um and then um Steve has been working on a benzene smell that keeps popping up at West Park. Um we've been working on a lakes and empowments monitoring resolution. Um reviewing um chapter 33 which is Ann Arbor storm water ordinance and then as I said chloride we're focusing on three specific creeks within um Heron River wershed and looking into some options um for the future to help us do salt smarter in the city. Um, and then my last little thing, I think going forward we may rebrand um, in honor of the sustainability commission, maybe to sustainable water work group. I don't know. What do you
099guys think? Yeah. Okay. Sweet. Um, okay. So, that's all that's my update. Very good. So awesome job, Sarah. Yeah, thank you. I'm glad to update you all on like everything because yeah, so many different issues that have come up in our year and it's just been really really fascinating to be in the role. So very good. Thanks. Uh John Miski reported the energy commission did not have a meeting last month because they did not have quorum. Um parks commissioner Marson. Hi. Yeah, we just met on Tuesday. Um and uh summer season uh in parks and wreck uh starts this weekend. Hard to believe today, but true. Um we had a presentation on the border to border trail west of Barton Nature Area. Um the county and its various organizations are uh starting the are in
100the planning phases for how that how the trail is going to align with here on River Drive. And then we passed a resolution to enter into an agreement with uh GEI consultants um for stewardship services in the city parks. And this is to the tune of $375,000 that came from um some federal funds. What stewardship and what what exactly are they going to be doing? Uh the work I think is uh TVD, but I believe it's going to be um sort of invasive species removal and uh assorted things. Um this was a grant that was put in a couple of years ago. Um and it's a joint thing between parks, forestry, and um there might have been one other body, I don't remember, um involved in it. And so, uh, they were awarded the contract
101or awarded the funds, uh, the grant and, um, there was some question earlier this year whether the because it's federal funding whether it was really going to come through. It appears that it will. And so, um, uh, yes, so work is going to proceed. the summer season. Chris, if I can add on the GEI consulting work, it it it's going to be in uh some of the natural features like supporting NAP staff, removing invasive species, maybe doing controlled burns, things along those lines. So, similar what NAP staff would do, but it's only in six of the um nature areas and economically disadvantaged areas. I believe it was six, but yeah, thank you. Oh. Um, anything from council that they want to add? No. I I would just for my part, I'm excited to see the
102changes um with the sustainability commission and the collaborative work we can do with the previous energy commission. And I think the ideas and energy and conversations in this commission have been really terrific and I'm looking forward to continuing that. and I'm grateful for everyone who's volunteering their time to be part of this group. Uh last was chair I'd say as we all know this is our last meeting for the environmental commission. It's been my pleasure to serve as chair for the past year. It's been a learning experience for me and I'm I'm also looking forward to sustainability to see what um see what the future holds. Change is always different and scary and fun. So let's see what happens. Um, Erin, I think next is a report out from staff. Yeah, thanks. I was also
103going to take a second to recognize um what this commission has done over the years to make our community better. I know it takes a lot of time and a lot of patience uh to do the things you do. Um, I was actually talking with Joe about doing a more um in-depth acknowledgement in the meeting in July because the energy commission didn't get a final meeting because they didn't have a quorum. So, that's want to give them that opportunity to um so yeah, looking looking forward to continue to working with you all. Um, and I did want to say I believe this is Commissioner Peters Wood last meeting on to bigger and better things. Um and uh Commissioner Wanging as well. She wasn't here tonight, but we're moving on. Um for my update, um I
104had two updates from OSI. So A20's week is coming uh next is it next week. Is next week June already? No, in two weeks. Okay. June 1st through 7th. Um you can check on their website. They have all kinds of amazing activities, familyfriendly things to do. um sustainability forum uh May 29th at the the downtown library. Um they'll be talking about the SEU um so you can come and learn all about it and next steps uh for that. And then what I didn't have on my updates um we did uh this will be a public service update. We finally got our stormwater MS4 permit. It's been maybe 20 years since we got our last one. So, uh, I believe that's publicly available, um, on my envirro. Um, folks can check it out. Um, but yes,
105it it's open for public comment right now. And that's all I have for my updates. Okay. Thanks. Um, next is our second public comment. This is an opportunity for people to speak for up to three minutes. Please call 888-788-0099. Enter meeting ID 954-34739065. To raise your hand, press nine. To unmute, press star six. City staff will select callers who have raised their hand one by one using the last three digits of your phone number. When speaking, please move to a quiet area. State your name and address at the beginning of your comments. There may be delay up to 30 seconds before a connection is established. Aaron, do we have callers? I don't see anybody in the queue. Okay. Anybody else have anything they want to say while we're still an environmental commission? This is your
106last opportunity to talk for Good night to the two cats that are on air this evening. Thanks for your leadership, Brooks. You did a great job. Agreed. And thank you for your support for our commission. Agreed. Bro has right. Okay. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Seconded. Anya. Okay. We're done. We're out of here. In a month and a half or two months. Thanks all. Thank you everybody.