Ann Arbor Environmental Commission 4/24/2025

001Looks unanimous. Cool. Uh, next is public comment. Um, this is an opportunity for people to speak for up to three minutes. Please call 888-7880099. Enter meeting ID 95434739065. To raise your hand, press 9. To unmute, press star 6. 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. Sean, do we have uh callers? Uh we do. I'm going to leave this up for just a second. Uh if anybody wants to call in, please take a picture of it on your phone um or write down the information really quick and then I

002will stop sharing so that I can see who has their hands. All right, I'm going to stop sharing in 3 2 1. All right. Um, and it looks like our first caller is uh ending in 532. Again, first call is number ending in 532. Uh I have allowed you to speak. Please unmute again. Caller with number ending in 532. You can unmute by pressing star six. All right, seems like we might be having some technical difficulties. So, I will call on someone else and we will come back around to you if you still have your hand up later. Uh, our next caller is number ending in 644. Uh, caller number ending in 644. I have allowed you to speak. Please unmute by pressing star six. My name is Kathy Boris. I live at 1726 Charlton

003in the fifth ward. I have a really short comment. I'm calling in to support agenda agenda item 0633. I agree with the environmental commission that the city council should direct the planning commission and planning staff to incorporate the 2004 natural features master plan into the comprehensive plan that everyone is working on right now and also that they should take actions to elevate natural features to a priority in the sustainability program. I want to thank everyone on the environmental commission for their work on the letter to city council and on the resolution itself. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. All right. Um I believe our next caller is Ann Banister. Uh and I'm allowing you to talk. Uh, you can unmute by pressing star six. Hello, this is Ann Banister. Am I online now? Can

004you hear me? We can hear you. Yep. Okay, thank you. Um, like the previous caller Kathy uh Boris, I am calling also to express my strong support for the resolution recommending inclusion of natural features sustainability in the Ann Arbor city planning and development. I hope you all will approve it as written with my only recommendation for adding that there is no building in the remaining open flood plane land in our city. Uh it's dangerous to build out in the open flood plane lands remaining in town in this time when we're having increased frequency and severity of rain events due to climate change. So, we do need that change to the tonight's resolution. Um, but I'm happy to see that the U revised comprehensive or the revised resolution does mention flood planes in passing, but it

005doesn't emphasize its importance enough. Um, but the the resolution tonight, the goal, as I understand it, is to ensure that Ann Arbor's future planning includes and integrates naturebased actions as essential to supporting our ecosystem, our biodiversity, and our our human quality of life. Um I I'm happy to see that you all are would like to see more collaboration actually between the city's comprehensive plan and uh working with city council, the planning commission and the environmental commission to do these following things. It would be great if if you all could work together to incorporate the existing natural features master plan into the comprehensive plan. It would be great to improve the natural features master plan so that it's applied to all types of future land use, not just developments that require site plans. It would be

006good to modify the A20 carbon neutrality plan to include actions that address natural features and biodiversity for greater sustainability and retain and enforce existing regulations that protect trees, shrubs and other vegetation in our historic district. So, thank you for listening and just a reminder that u a lot of Ann Arborites believe that green space benefits all of us in a wide variety of ways and the space is found along our streets in our city parks as well as residential and commercial areas that have remaining open spaces. Open imperous spaces, whether public or private, provide nature-based services that benefit all of us by slowing and filtering our storm water, filtering our air, providing cooling shade, sequestering carbon, providing habitat, and contributing to our physical and mental wellalth or mental health. So I all of us let's

007speak up for the trees, the bees, and the human beings and not neglect Ann Arbor's green heritage. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Uh and a reminder to all who are calling in, please keep your comments limited to around 3 minutes. Thank you. All right. Um our next caller I believe is number ending in 411. Again, call our number ending in 411. You should be allowed to speak now. Please unmute by pressing star six. Uh, Mr. Chair, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hello. Yes. Oh, thank you. Uh, thank you very much. Uh, this is James Dore and I live in the third ward of Ann Arbor where I'm calling from my home. And I just want to echo the previous two speakers uh um uh urging uh uh support pretty much uh

008uh intact with the resolution that is before you this evening. Um I think uh hearing the remarks that uh there are some uh changes requested by the planning department. There's going to be some give and take and this is kind more of a first reading or at least the staff's first reading and final action happened last month. Uh maybe this give a opportunity for the commission to take a look at this. But uh um I think I want to emphasize a concern that former council member Banister brought up a moment ago and that is I do hope uh uh there is some uh um more explicit language regarding flood plane uh uh management uh in in the um plan. Um I was looking at the chapter 55 regarding uh uh various levels of uh flood

009plane uh um management and uh u priority. Uh it is something I think that has been neglected a little bit uh in terms of discussion. Um but otherwise you have a great document here and I hope that the changes that is being requested don't uh dramatically change things very much. uh you have looks like the hard work of many people here to get something thoughtful. I do hope that something is included uh this is included in the comprehensive land use plan. I'm very concerned about page 60 which is related to parkland that says that underutilized spaces should be considered for uh um reassignment possibly. I'm not using the words correctly but I'm speaking away from my screen. Uh parks generally have natural features on there. They're there for a reason and uh we should be

010very vigilant about any sort of reassignment. I think what you have in front of you is a good start in uh uh retaining uh um the character of our city and protecting our important natural features. I just want to applaud your hard work and I look forward to commenting more fully next month. But again, in closing, uh you have I think nearly a perfect document here. Maybe possible strong language regarding flood plane. Um, I look forward to the final uh uh document next month and uh thank you for your time and thank you for your due diligence as always. Appreciate your work. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. All right. Uh I believe our next caller is a number ending in 534. Again, that's number ending in 534. You should now be allowed to

011speak. Uh please press star six to unmute. Good evening. This is Tom Stalberg calling from 1202 Traver Street here in Ann Arbor. Um calling to support your resolution. Uh a lot has already been sent that I agree with from other callers, so I'll try to be brief. Uh this is a major revision of our comprehensive plan. Anything that doesn't make it into this comprehensive plan at this point is not going to happen. So this is vital that this gets included. Uh our land recognition is only words. If we aren't good stewards of the land, we need this in our comprehensive plan and we need a firmness that expresses the importance of our natural features to the future of the city. I'd also like to add my comments about the flood plane issue. It is federal

012and local policy not to develop new residential in the flood plane. That needs to be emphasized. I agree with other callers. The uh climate change is bringing to Ann Arbor who's in a river valley more storm water, more frequency of severe events, and more severity in those events. There's not enough we're going to be able to do about it. we're going to behind be behind the eightball on on that. So, that needs to be a focus. It needs to be included as well. I thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Um, let's see here. Uh, caller ending in 532. I don't see your hand anymore, but I know you uh were trying to speak earlier. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. Otherwise, we don't have any hands raised at the

013moment. Oh, there is another hand. Uh, number ending in 134. Again, number ending in 134. You should be able to speak. Please unmute by pressing star six. Um, thank you, Mr. Reynolds and Chair Curtis. Um, I'm Ken Garber. I live at 28 Hole Court. Um, it sounds like second reading on the natural features resolution has been postponed. Um, so I look forward to the discussion tonight. I only just became aware of this resolution. I want to thank everyone who worked on it. Um, I'll just state what you probably have already heard and already know. The draft comprehensive plan is meant to replace the 2004 natural features masters plan master plan. But looking through the comp plan language, there's very little about natural features except for generalities. And some of the current language hints at weakening

014our current natural features protections uh in the name of encouraging more development, especially housing. We badly need new housing, but housing development and natural features protection can be compatible. Um most new development should be in locations that will make the least ecological impact, especially on the remaining biodiversity in our city. This resolution is not prescriptive as I read it uh but should serve to call council and planning commission's attention to natural features protection as uh as the planning commission works out the final comp plan language. Um, just a personal note where I live, northeast Ann Arbor, just in the last few weeks, two areas that I've often used to find quiet and solace, the parcel just east of Nixon Road, adjacent to uh, Clay School and the area north and west of the U of

015M's North Campus Research Center have been completely leveled. They now look like the surface of the moon and all biodiversity has disappeared. Um, now these are uh, school district and university areas. they're not under the city's um jurisdiction. Um but it's a reminder that thoughtless development continues in our city constantly. Um let's make sure this doesn't happen in areas covered by our our ordinances and um placing the um natural features master plan uh or in a uh an improved form into the comp plan. I think will serve that purpose. Thanks for considering my comments and for your uh public service on the commission. Thank you for your comments. All right, we have another caller ending in uh 306. Again, number ending in 306, you should be allowed to speak now. Please unmute by pressing star

016six. Hello. Can um just making sure that I I'm able to be heard. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Um yes, so I am in agreement with the other comments that have um already spoken in favor of the resolution in favor of um preserving the natural features. Um I I live on Georgetown Boulevard which is right near the Thirstston Nature Center and um what has happened in our neighborhood with respect to how our elected officials have basically disregarded the the history of the flooding does make me certainly um very hesitant with moving forward with how the comprehensive plan is written without any sort of protection for natural features. Um so I would like to add is is please do prioritize natural features and green spaces in the comprehensive city plan. Please adopt the proposed resolution

017by the biodiversity um subcommittee. Um please do keep in mind that the preservation of green spaces in urban environments is important and healthy um both physically and psychologically. Um trees do absorb heat and mitigate flood flooding and storm water and erosion. Um all important and when we're considering climate change. Um when you do look at cities of the future, there's a lot or they're they're trying to bring in these green spaces to to work as absorbing heat pockets. Um green spaces and should be considered a waste disease. Um, they make a city more attractive, more appealing, and they provide places for outdoor recreation and overall greater psychological well-being for its citizens. Um, overall, I I guess I would like to see the comprehensive P plan being driven more by um the citizens and communities of

018Ann Arbor and less so by the actual developers. Um, and I would like to see that elected officials and staff um, have a requirement that a percentage of all these civil engineering projects do go into beautifification um, gardens, public art, hiking, walking trails so that we don't wind up with just a hodgepodge of ugly buildings and concrete and asphalt and no green space. Um, there are other other progressive cities that do have this sort of requirement and I I guess I'd like to think it's reasonable and that we wind up with a a a beautiful place um that does honor the the tree city that Ann Arbor is. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. All right. Uh, and I am seeing caller with phone number ending in 532. Uh, once again, I've

019allowed you to talk. Uh, you should be able to unmute now. Hi, thank you. Uh, this is Marta Maneli calling. I live at 1045 Cedarbend Drive in the first ward of Ann Arbor. I am also calling to support the proposed resolution to include natural features sustainability in Ann Arbor's city planning and development. I understand that uh this document may be amended uh and I will look forward to seeing the revision. Um but uh it is vital that um any final resolution should be passed and should allow and require the city to have a more comprehensive and integrated approach to planning that includes important environmental policies upfront uh from the beginning and not as an afterthought. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm not seeing any other hands. So, if anyone would like to speak, please

020raise your hand now. All right, we have no raised hands. Thanks, Sean. Um, I think our next order of business is the resolution, but as you bring that up, I just want to thank all the callers for calling in. It's great to hear all your feedback and also there are comprehensive planned feedback sessions at the different downtown libraries. There was one today, there's one next week and the following week. It's great to get your comments in there. The more comments, the better. The more different times you put it in, the better. It It all helps. So just as a general introduction, I don't want to repeat everything what all our callers just said. We we do need biodiversity in our urban areas. There are benefits to humans that are intertwined with our ecological health. Um

021we also understand and recognize the environmental benefits of highdensity housing. And as a city increases density, we must also increase protections for natural features to remain in balance. If we increase density and we don't increase our natural features productions by either keeping them the same or degrading them and it's it is difficult to tell from what's in the comprehensive plan, we will end up out of balance and that will take a long time to recover if it's ever possible to recover. So Sean, why don't you I know everybody's probably had time to take a look at this. Why don't you just scroll through it slowly and if people have questions are comments, please raise your hand and we will go through it that way. And the changes we made from last month to this month,

022we did address some of the comments for the first meeting. Um we made some updates to reflect what was in what we saw in the comprehensive plan. There are some reordering of paragraphs and we did add footnotes to where we pulled the information from because uh this this document's not just a collection of our thoughts and opinions. There was actually research done from a variety of different sources. Sean, is this the redline version? Looks like it might be, which is I believe it is. Yes. Um, can you open the Can you open the comments or Yeah, they're over here on the side. Uh, they're not scroll. They're not showing with where they go, unfortunately. I'm not quite sure why. Um, if you if you click on the version, then there's a solid line that appears

023next to There you go. the the comments, the author's comments on the right hand side. Or if you just click on the yellow box, it puts it up on the screen, too. Pretty small read. I agree with you, Chris. Where is this? Where's this available? This copy is in legisar. Uhhuh. Thank you. Something you can do, Chris, to make it easier to read is you can expand your screen to to blow up what Sean is showing. Well, I'm looking on a big large desktop screen and I still can't read it, but I can find the copy. Yeah. Uh, John Murky, you have a comment? Yeah. Um, I would suggest that we focus on the comments in the therefore section. Uh I was a member of the core team that developed this and I sent some

024comments on the comments to the core team. Um most of the comments related to the whereas statements uh at least I personally agree with and I think we can incorporate or at least address um in a second reading. Um but I think the really substantive comments um relate to the their fourth section. So, if we're um I think it's worthwhile scanning through the new version, but I really suggest that we focus on the there the uh the therefore section. Council member Cornell, totally agree with you, Mr. Mki. I just I want to I think the public comment that we heard tonight warrants um maybe uh desponding some misinformation that's out there. Um, the comprehensive land use plan does include the natural features master plan. So, hearing that it needs to include this is really concerning

025to me because it does. It also includes the treeine Allen Creek urban trail master plan, our comprehensive transportation plan, our parks and wreck open space plan, our downtown plan, the state street corridor plan, the land use element, our and our sustainability framework. And so I think some of what I heard tonight um indicates that there's a lack of awareness of this um you know all of what fed into this I think some of what's in the current draft also um OSI did not review this before it came to this body um in this format and so some of it reflects a request for work that OSI is already doing and then I just wanted to from a um comment standpoint regarding thirsten um that is and our public schools property and the city has no

026jurisdiction to control what the public schools does with their land. So, while I appreciate the sentiment of that caller, I just wanted to um I guess clarify that the city's master plan does not apply to property that the public schools own. So, thank you. So just to answer a couple of comments there, the natural features master plan is listed in the comprehensive land use plan is being replaced by the comprehensive plan and not being used going forward. So that is slightly different than saying it's going to be included. It's going to be replaced and not used going forward. Thank you. And and the same is true for some of the other plans you mentioned. Uh yes, that is true. Not all of them are going forward. Only a few of them are going forward. Some

027of them are not. I don't have a complete listing of all those Let's keep going down to the next comment. John Not finding this Brooks on the legar on the calendar. Chris, go to the meeting minutes for or the agenda for today, Chris. There's three files linked for the resolution. The resolution, the cover letter, and then the red line document. You want the red line document. Agenda. These are lot. That's just a printed agenda. Just to add a comment, the reason the historic districts are on there is because um Aaron Donley did some checking for us a few months ago and to to cut down a tree in the historic district, you need to get a permit. Unless the tree is diseased or they're tree trimming from city staff or DTE or somebody, you can't

028just go cut down a healthy tree in the historic district if it's of a certain age. Um, we found out that they typically get zero to three requests per year and it's closer to zero than three. So, if we have trees coming down in the historic district that are not diseased, which we don't know, we don't have the detail, they're not pulling permits. Um, so there is some there is appears to be a gap there and that's why that was put in there. All right. And I appear to have uh clicked on all of the comments that are in here. Um if anybody would like me to go back to any of them, please let me know. John Mki, Commissioner Mki, thank you. Um I don't think that we mentioned um the following when we

029discussed this in the first first reading of this resolution. Um and that is that the idea of incorporating natural features in the comprehensive plan was due in part to the fact that the United Kingdom has passed legislation. Um so it applies to the entire United Kingdom. um for the next 30 years that all new development um for uh large sites as well as um small sites of a specific size must increase or maintain or must increase let's see I'll read you a summary um of the the um of the uh legislation the environment act 2021 in the UK mandates a biodiversity net gain requirement for new developments. This means developers must ensure that after a project biodiversity values are at least 10% higher than before the development. This is achieved through a combination of on-site

030and off-site habitat enhancements or by purch purchasing statutory biodiversity credits if necessary. The biodiversity net gain is legally secured for at least 30 years. Um there is also a um legal enforcement requirement and um the metric uses something called the defa biioiversity metric 4.0 to actually assess biodiversity values. And so what we're what we're thinking here is not that we take a wholesale uh uh adoption of what the UK has done, but what we're simply saying is that if the entire United Kingdom, including, you know, larger cities like London, mid-size cities like Ann Arbor and rural areas can mandate a an increase in biodiversity, then at least we should be with our master plan recognizing the values um and the contributions of biodiversity and natural features um here in the city of Ann Arbor. That

031was the first comment I had. Um I encourage people to to look that up to see um more what the UK has done. Um the second comment um I have is with regards to um this statement about the A20 um living carbon neutrality plan. Um just a few comments there. the plan already recognizes the carbon sequestration value of trees. Um that's why we have an action in the plan um calling for um the planting of 10,000 trees and it's my understanding that that program under Shawn has been wildly successful and we've already met that target. Um what we I think as a biodiversity team recognize is that it's not just new trees that contribute to sequestration. Indeed, it's older trees that contribute them the greatest amounts to sequestration. We also achieve sequestration through soils um

032through flood planes and um and um wetland areas um in and in and many other ways associated with natural features. And those have then a positive benefit on biodiversity and then consequently on a lot of other things um our food network on human health on human mental health and so on and so forth. So there there is a precedent um in the A20 plan with the 10,000 trees. There are some additional um elements in the A20 plan um that for example there's u um one action um about equity programming. Um I think that includes uh aging in place. Um and there's activities that are um that the city is pursuing in that matter. So um there there is a precedent if you will with the A20 plan um doing this. Um in terms of the

033comment about um the governance process and the prioritization process. Uh I know that uh OSI um has uh an update every year on its website about the priorities for the year. Um indeed as mentioned here um the number of actions in the plan is 44 and it says that they're working on 40 different or excuse me um 70 um total actions. So obviously um it's it's already a living plan. So there is the possibility of including new pe new new aspects new actions and re prioritizing those. Um so there is there is already a process in place for doing that. Um indeed um there is also a governance process that's posted on the city website. By the way uh the the uh the governance document still includes the word proposed. So it is not really

034entirely clear if that was actually finally um approved or not. Um but in that document it calls it says at the very end that it's recommended that the A20 plan be formally updated every three years um in order to uh recognize this change in the uh in in the basic um environment meaning political um etc. uh and also that uh this was would be a learning process um to assess what actions are actually um proving successful, which are not, which one needs to be abandoned, which new ones need to be adopted. So I I think um we would like to see uh this be incorporated into the A20 plan. Um the the fall back would be that there would be some other plan master features um plan as has been discussed before um that that

035be more formally adopted like the A20 plan um where you have assumptions um the entity that's responsible timetables indicators of success and so on and so forth. That is really what drives um outcomes and we would love to see outcomes like the outcomes that the UK is hoping to achieve. um with its legislation. Thank you, council member Dale. Yeah, thanks. Um to build on that a little bit and and to also respond direct to directly to some of the comments um the staff comments on our draft. Um a few things. One thing um there's a comment let's see this is all on the fourth page about the portion that says um utilize continuous to enforce and continuously improve the natural futures regulations blah blah blah blah blah um and the comment was that the UDC

036is already regulating this and that the plan doesn't recommend expansion of those protections or additional categories of protection and so I think the first thing is well we're recommending that it include Um so we understand that it doesn't and that's part of why we're calling attention to it, right? Um but then then our next section talks about ensuring that the con comprehensive plan um includes these things ABC and um the comment on that is that the comp plan has those elements um which if if it's if that's it might be true but I missed it if that's that is and particularly the our R our um B under that I don't sort of point to it about developing metrics to assess and track gains and losses in biodiversity and set targets. So, you know, I

037think that there's like yes, I know that there's language in there that's speaking specifically to balancing, you know, development um pressures and the need for housing with ecosystem services and those sort of things um and to utilize best practices. But I think that part about having metrics and tracking with the intention of increasing biodiversity is specific. Um and so I think two things there to me those two statements conflict. So like if above we're saying you know the comment was not not our statement sorry that the comments that the comments added into our document saying that the draft plan does not recommend expanding protections or additional categories of protection. If if that's the case, then I don't think you can also say that the plan has elements that address things like saying we should develop

038metrics to assess, track, and gain and biodiversity because you would need you would need both of those. To me, there's there's a miss there. Um, and so I I think to me like that's that's more specifically what what I am hoping comes from this is the need the need to have those metrics and be and be tracking that the fact that even as maybe in some cases you know trees do come down and and and you do have to balance all that how do you set a metric with the biodiversity and that speaks to what um John mentioned um and I and that's very tricky and it's something we're talking about how to do at the university and set those metrics and criteria. So there's like a a value that you can you can set

039to ecosystem services biodiversity. So it's it's not an easy thing but it seems like a something that's aspirational we should be working towards. Um, and that gets a little bit now into uh the next section down where where our recommendation was to update the A20 um living carbon neutrality plan to to make that a focus. And I I I take the point of the commenter um the staff comment in there that that that A20 plan specifically is is not meant to be like a task list. um and that that many of the the actions that support that are not particularly like directly listed in in the A20 plan. So, I I I understand that and [Music] um and I think there could be maybe a a reworked portion maybe up for discussion that says, "Okay,

040but but these things should be showing up in as priorities in those in those staff work plans, right? is to start exploring establishing those biodiversity and ecosystem metrics um so that so that we can track it. So th those are the things that stood out to me about uh the comments that we received on this and and maybe how we can think of it and move forward. Thank you. Um, so just a comment as far as OSI not getting this document until recently. As far as the A20 update, that's pretty close to word for word for what was in the first reading. Um, so they had notification then or could have and also on the biodiversity work group, we have an OSI rep on that work group and it was so there's been plenty of

041opportunities for it to get to OSI leadership. I don't know if it happened. I have no way of knowing that, but it wasn't like we intentionally kept it from them to surprise them. Council member Cornell. Yeah, thank you. You provided a really nice segue. I think when we start to ask for um specific work to be done or set specific expectations of staff, it has to go to staff first. And I think that it's a failure that it did not go to staff first. So the idea that like somebody sat in this group, whatever. I think the idea that this had multiple hands on it, but nobody really thought to directly engage OSI. Dr. Sultz is incredibly um responsive. It just that just feels like an oversight and and would have probably all of these

042comments could have come in before it came to us again. And so my hope is that this goes to OSI and there's a collaborative discussion around how much will it cost to do some of the things that are being brought up? What is already included that might not be? this feels like information sharing that um would benefit the community in terms of the work that OSI does and does well and is already doing that perhaps this resolution suggests isn't happening. And I think that that's um I don't want to say language choices, but perhaps some direction that was suggested that wasn't necessary that would have um just been good to have had a conversation about before. It's always it's always good to invite more voices. Commissioner Graham, am I muted? Do you hear me? Yeah,

043we can hear you. So, in my view, there are two parts of our major parts of our ask. One has to do with biodiversity and that certainly involves OSI and that's something to be designed and worked on just as you say council member over some months or a couple of years. The other part has to do with protecting natural features that exist in the city and extending that protection from just applying to large track site plants to all properties and all projects in the city. Why do we want to do that? And by the way, the nature committee and the commission started talking about doing this almost eight years ago. This is not a new idea. This is something we've really wanted to do. We've been losing big trees on residential properties throughout the city

044with no control whatsoever. The natural features um code language applied not to residential properties that exist. We want it to apply. We're going to lose thousands and thousands of trees across this city if the current ideas backing the comprehensive plan get written in code without any natural features protection. We are asking that they be applied that little mini natural features plans be done for every project in every residential neighborhood on every site. And if there are big trees there, they are either not cut or they're mitigated. We need to increase the cost of that mitigation so that a lot of those big trees survive. Otherwise, we're going to have a whole lot fewer trees in the city when this whole idea that the comprehensive plan intends to pursue is done 20 years from now. There

045are very few wetlands on existing residential neighborhoods. There are some, including vernal pools, which are very valuable and important. There are relatively few, but some very important woodlands that aren't native forest fragments. There are some native forest fragments that fly over the top of existing housing. By needy forest fragments, I mean something that is a faximile of the ecosystems that grew here prior to the arrival of Europeans in 1824. We need to sustain those things. We need to restore and build upon those things to bring biodiversity, our native biodiversity back into the city. There is no reason that we have to proceed so aggressively to build housing uh that we have to give up our trees and our native forest fragments and the places and open spaces and so on that are part of this

046city. Now obviously the range of zoning that applies to all of the residences in the city can be condensed. things that are near the downtown, things that are near the transit corridors, clearly, things that are open parking lots, things that are already commercial buildings, things are already big buildings, you can make them bigger. But if you start going in some of the less dense residential neighborhoods, you're really going to, first of all, get a lot of political flak by cutting down so many trees and doing it by right, as they say. I'm uh I we simply have to protect our natural features in the city as a part of an integral code language part of regulating and controlling how this development proceeds or we're going to wreck our city. And I appreciate there's a need

047for more people here. You want more tax income? I get those things. Uh but there has to be a balance and that's what most of all what we're saying and an completely uncontrolled progress into the future is not going to work. Sorry to be uh barking. Commissioner Dale, you still have your hand up. Council member Cornell. Yeah. I just I want to maybe turn the temperature down just a little bit. The idea that we cannot add density in neighborhoods without losing all of the trees and it being devastating is a false is false. And I think that we can agree that as a city we share values and the idea that city leadership or city staff doesn't also live here and care very much about the place where we live and also want to preserve

048trees is just it's a false equivalency. I just I think that we're saying 20 years from now we will never have another tree because we're going to add some houses. I I'm not sure what's going to happen next week, much less 20 years from now. So, I would just urge caution and maybe care in how we predict things 20 years from now and paint a devastating picture when we could also be having a conversation around the ecological benefits of having more people live here versus commuting here. Let's just be careful about that. That's that's all. Commissioner Graham, you're muted, Chris. Sorry. Council member Cornell, I don't know what ecological benefit comes from building densely densy dense housing, especially if there are not there are not controls written into the code to make sure that development

049you're talking about increases biodiversity and protects old trees. protects native forest fragments. The the ecological benefit of having them goes uh I'm uh let's talk about a project on Lincoln in North Burns Park where the zoning already has been changed. Uh an old house that needed work was torn down. It had trees on the property. The property is completely clearcut down to bare soil. In that neighborhood, the traditional zoning allowed a duplex to replace a single family house. And because the zoning had been changed, there was a duplex put on the front half of the property and a duplex put right behind it on the back half of the property. No trees were planted. um almost no parking. There was some in the back. Whether it was enough for the tenants in that property, I

050don't know. But that's exactly what I'm talking about. There could be big buildings on my property and no trees anymore. I This is not going to take 20 years to play out. It's starting already. And I'm just asking if you mean what you say that you think there's no problem then let's write into code the ability control based on natural features side by side. Thank you Commissioner Dale. Um yeah I think uh well I I I agree with Jen too. I mean from like I have a urban planning background and have lots of uh there's lots of stuff out there that says the best you can do environmentally is live close to where you work and in as smallest space as possible right um and so yeah I'm you know absolutely but I think that

051I think that that is even more why having some sort of being able to have metrics for biodiversity is important because not all green space is created equal and not all tree stands are created a equal. You know what I mean? There there's you to to pick and choose um what areas to focus on or how to even just build on a site, you know, um to to avoid certain species. It's it should be part I know it is part of the consideration, but it's not codified to the degree that I think that that we're hoping it could be. And in order to do that, you need the biodiversity metrics um to to to be have a more informed decision to sort of just understand what those trade-offs are. Um so I I just I

052think that that's I don't think we're talking that different of a language, you know, for for any of this. I think for me, part of it is just having having more explicitly calling for that information to be part of the decision-m process. Commissioner Murski I I would posit that uh within the biodiversity committee as well as in the commission as well as in the city there's a range of uh opinions and thoughts on these matters. Um and what we tried to do in crafting this is come to something that we see as uh a common denominator, something that can be supported broadly um within all of those groups. Um we recognize that density um is supportive of uh carb carbon reduction. Um you need certain density in order to be able to support mass transit.

053um you can't have low density and have sufficient mass transit. If you have higher density that enables people to move into the community and um or the ones in community to live closer to where they where they work, there's a lot of benefits um to to density. Um, one of the ideas, um, or let's say in the spirit of the UK legislation is that if you do development on what is currently a surface parking lot that accommodates let's say 50 cars, um, there's essentially zero biodiversity on that on that site. So mandating that there is an increase or an a a a maintenance of the biodiversity on degraded sites, let's call them brownfield sites, um means that you can do development there without a cost of increasing the biodiversity. Um so what it does is

054it encourages um the kind of development that we think should take place. uh where if you you have a a surface parking lot with 50 spaces, like I said, you can probably put 150 um apartments in that in a you know, multi-story, multi- uh um multi-use um development. So, that that's the kind of development that we think makes a lot of sense. Um, we're not recommending any kind of taking um where we would then say the city does not allow people to do um development. Um, we're not saying that they can't take down a tree. We're simply recommending that there be mitigation in the cases when trees are removed, particularly landmark trees or in a new class that we've recommended before, heritage trees. So, um I I I think there are voices of moderation reflected

055in this document. Um I being on the core team, I I will uh say that it's u my also I'm partly to blame for not encouraging this to have been uh considered um by OSI, but you know, we've been talking about this for over a month. We in the committee for um two months. Um we have had OSI representation in the meetings. Um and so you know we have now an opportunity in the next month to talk about some of these things with OSI as well as staff more broadly. So hopefully that will happen and um hopefully the document reflects um this middle ground that I I believe that we found with the the the document as well as the cover letter that um provides some additional explanation for it. That's all. Thank you. Commissioner

056[Music] Cran. Sorry, Brooks. Um, and you know, we've been doing very careful analysis and site work, mostly behind the scenes by the planning staff for more than 20 years to assess natural features on development sites in the city. That assessment has been based on definitions developed in the code and especially in the natural features master plan which is going by the wayside and um it establishes a set of mitigation requirements, a set of policies really on three levels. High concern, medium concern, low concern. In the case of high concerned things like heritage trees, that is old native trees, every effort was made by the planning staff to discourage developers from taking them. If they decided they couldn't avoid taking them, they had to be mitigated. That is to say, a fee had to be paid

057for each tree that was taken. Or if there was room to replant trees on their site, they would have to do multiple trees in order to replace one big one. Bearing in mind, the big one has a great deal more carbon sequestration, has a great deal more value to our environment than new than a dozen new trees that won't produce the same kind of results for many years. not in any of our lifetimes. This process has worked over dozens of sites with great success. I am so sorry that we didn't trumpet our horn about what we've been doing, how well it's been working, what the effects have been. The same kind of process can be applied to all development in the city going forward. The biodiversity part of it would be important to do, but

058that's going to take some design time. The natural features process is here. It works. It's available to do. The one statement in your comprehensive master plan that really bothered me even though there were some salutary ones about natural features, it said the majority of natural features are on our parts. No, it's flatout wrong. The majority of natural features in the city are contained in the old trees across the city, mostly in residential neighborhoods. They're contained in the native forest fragments that aren't in our parks. Uh we cannot proceed down this road without really well-crafted code language that extends the protections we've given to the vacant properties that are now all gone in the city. I don't object to densification at all. I know I get it. But I don't get it if the kind of

059thing that happened on Lincoln Avenue happens across all the residential neighborhoods. It doesn't work. Thank you. Forgive me for being emotional. Hard not to be. Sean Reynolds. Yeah, thank you. Uh I'd just like to provide a little bit of uh staff context uh very briefly. Um, and I I'll preface this by saying that I have not had any discussions with the planning department um around this resolution. So, I'm not speaking on behalf of the planning department at all. Um, but from uh OSI's um side of things, uh, I think we would really appreciate um very specific recommendations on actions uh that could be taken towards uh carbon neutrality in regards to protecting biodiversity and natural features. Um the uh comment uh in there of um let me pull it up so I can uh say

060it directly. Uh update the Ann Arbor A20 living carbon neutrality plan to make natural features of sustainability priority with associated strategies and actions. Uh we do have associated strategies and actions around biodiversity in there already. Um and so this I I think this um uh recommendation just came off as a little bit vague. uh and we would appreciate more specific recommendations on actions um that you would like to uh recommend that council perhaps direct us uh to take. Um and then the other thing I will say from the staff perspective uh is that I have heard um from Aaron Donnelly uh that our planning department is uh willing to attend uh the meeting in May uh to have more discussions with you around this um uh uh proposal uh and the comprehensive plan. Um so

061just wanted to make that offer note. Thank you. Commissioner Murski. Yeah. Very briefly, um, it would be great if maybe someone from the planning department would be willing to meet with the biodiversity uh, uh, working group before the May meeting. I think it might be more productive if we did that. Same thing with uh, OSI so that when we bring something to the second reading that we've already hopefully clarified a lot of the issues. Um, in terms of specific actions, um, Sean, thank you for sharing your thought with us earlier this afternoon in that regard. Um, I haven't given this a whole lot of thought, but one area that I thought that potentially um could be included as a as an action is um to reduce um the number of in space of of invasive

062species, particularly trees, buckthornne, and honeysuckle. Um, I walked through a natural area that is actually a a private preserve. Um, it is just south of the DAO field in um the arboritum um between Riverview and I forget the name of the other street. Um and um I uh happened upon the person that was maintaining the area and um he had just removed um a um a large number of invasive trees um from a section of that area. And he said what was so striking to him was that there were essentially no uh there was no understory. There were um no wild flowers. there were no progeny of the large trees in that area because the invasive species are so dense that nothing basically survives underneath them. And indeed that was exactly the case with my

063backyard when I bought my house. It's the currently still the case with my neighbor's yard. And you've got a couple of large old m old mature trees and then you have a canopy that is about 30 ft high that is extremely dense that is buckthornne and honeysuckle. So that is an area where I think um this is just one possible action that we could take. I know that NAP is doing some invasive um species control with uh control burns um in Parklands, but this is something that really needs to be done um on a broader scale and this is just one possible example of something that we could talk about. So I think um to your point Sean, you have an excellent point and I think with some back and forth and some brainstorming between

064now and our main meeting, we could come up with some some potential ideas for that. Thanks. Yeah, Sean, I just want to echo what John Murki said. U we'll be better off having smaller meetings with biodiversity with one with planning and one with OSI because I don't want to drag this past May. We should in the May meeting, we want to vote on something. And if we have planning coming in May, then you're talking June. We might not have a an environmental commission in June. It's, you know, or that'll be our last meeting. So, we want to get this done sooner than that. Um, and just as far as invasive species go, because I do a lot of that work for NAP, is when the soil when you have woody invasives or any invasives for

065an extended period of time, the biggest problem is the soil is damaged and it will come back. If it takes if the woodies were there for 20 to 30 years, you're probably talking 20 to 30 years to get the soil to come back unless we start doing plantings or other amendments to the soil. And that's where, you know, that's probably what the neighbors have to do. It takes a long time. That's why it's really important to start and get it done because it's not going to get any better by just sitting around. It just takes longer the next time. Council member Malik. Hi everybody. Uh first of all, I guess just thank you for this uh great discussion tonight. Um, I put probably more time into preparing for tonight than I I normally do. Um,

066and I still feel like I have lots and lots of questions. So, I credit that to this conversation and it's very thoughtprovoking and I really appreciate that. Um, from my part, um, I definitely, you know, before our next meeting do want to, uh, get to the bottom of some of these questions we have asked to the group like, uh, from OSI and from our planning team. So, I think it's great that uh we would invite them to meet with some of the subgroups. I think that's the totally appropriate. Um something I've struggled with related to, you know, the comprehensive plan and stuff is what exactly goes in the plan versus what is kind of comes later. um it's kind of been described to me, you know, that the comprehensive plan is this very high level

067uh document so that it wouldn't get into a lot of details and that's tricky because you want it to be detailed. You want it to say exactly what you want for the next 20 to 30 years. You know, that is our vision for the city. Um and even, you know, Commissioner Graham has mentioned like incorporating things into code. Well, the comprehensive plan, it's my understanding is not code. Code would come later. So it is kind of finding that balance between what is actually appropriate for a comprehensive plan, the vision part versus what does come later. And I totally understand, you know, the desire to have guidance in the comprehensive plan for what should come later in the zoning code. So um just finding, you know, where that line is, I think is something I personally

068need to work on. Um, and then lastly, uh, Commissioner Dale, I really appreciate you bringing up the biodiversity metrics because it is my understanding, you know, that that is something that could be worked on all over the place, not just in Ann Arbor, but statewide, nationally. Um, I was just at the uh, Michigan Healthy Climate Conference this week and the uh, you know, push for metrics for whether it be something as big as emissions tracking or something like biodiversity that came up constantly. we need better metrics and we need it. We need them now. Um, so I really appreciate you highlighting that. Um, but that's I guess all for me at the moment. Like I said earlier, I really appreciate this conversation tonight. Um, and I really value being on the environmental commission. And with

069that, uh, just noticing it is 8:15. Uh, I'll hand it back to you, Chair Curtis. Any other comments on this topic or should we move on to the next topic on the agenda? Commissioner Graham, one last one. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Malik. Maybe you can come to our meeting. Uh, state law requires the comprehensive plan. It underpins sets the parameters of makes the code that we write legal. It's required by state law. If it doesn't say somewhere in there that we're going to protect natural features as part of all projects in the city, that won't happen. Uh things have been going the wrong direction the last couple years and I can go back to January 23 and tell you exactly how they've been going the wrong direction about this matter. But thank you very much

070and I um and thank you John Murky about invasive species. You're one of the greatest advocates for a much broader interest in that problem in the city. I um I just want to say that even that's been a terrific success story. When I first started in business and began doing battle with these plants, um almost none almost zero of my clients knew anything about that invasive buckthornne out in the backyard and what the problem was. problem being so much shade is cast that you no longer have any herbaceous flora underneath nor any regeneration of trees coming up through them. Um there's been a great sea sea change in the city of Vancouver about invasive species. Most of my clients now know what they are and are happy to have me get them out of there,

071but I better be ready to replace them with native plants. Thank you, John. Thank you, Commissioner or Council Member Malik. I'll shut up now. Brooks. So, I would say Chris, because I talked to a lot of people out in the nature areas, they all know the term native, invasive species. They might not have a clue if I held up a plant and I said, "It's a dames rocket or a peie." They might not know the difference. I got it. But it's invasive. It's okay to pull it. So, it's a start. Yep. So, um Okay, let's move on to the next topic of draft bylaws. Sean, if you can pull that up. Yes. Are you walking through that document, Sean, or how is that going to happen? Um, I think we I can scroll through it

072uh slowly and you all can comment. Um, but I do have um as I am pulling it up a couple of comments to share with you about this item. Um first of which is that uh we are uh not bringing this to uh you for a reading or for uh any sort of motion to pass at this time. Uh this is uh simply informative. Um we are hoping uh that uh after tonight you will um have some feedback uh that you can provide to us that we may incorporate as we are um uh updating this draft. Uh um so if you uh have any feedback or would like to um put some red lines into the document uh you can send that uh over to Aaron Donnelly uh before the May meeting uh when it

073will be discussed further. Uh but this is just an initial showing of it to you for information purposes. So Sean, can you say concisely how this document differs from the current bylaws of the two commissions? Uh I was not personally involved in the drafting of this document. Um so I am not sure. I know that it draws uh heavily um on uh other bylaws uh since you know our commissions have generally similar bylaws across the commissions. Um but I believe there are some uh uh you know it's mostly language that's specific to sustainability uh as opposed to environmental or uh energy commissions. Council member Malik. Thank you, Chair Curtis. Uh, and Mr. Reynolds, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but just I guess for a bit of background to um so when it

074comes to both the environmental commission and the energy commission, the environmental commission is in ordinance whereas the uh energy commission is established only by resolution. I think that's the correct distinction. Um, so that's why we're um editing the environmental commission bylaws to add the energy commission bylaws. Um, so to your question, uh, chair or commissioner Graham about what's different. I believe for the most part they did kind of just fuse the two together. Um, there are some things that, you know, were updated to be relevant to, you know, to to today with OSI and stuff adding more clear language. Um, and then the last part that I think is new is kind of creating the annual work plan and then having like the subgroups that fall each year based on that work plan. Um, so

075that's kind of my understanding what is different in these compared to what was previously there, but I am happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. That is my understanding as well. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Brown, you have your hand raised. Yeah. Thanks, Shai. Um, in section 4.1, um C, it specifies two non- voting members of city council appointed by city council to members of the commission. But that's a that's a change from previous practice because um council members were voting members and that's true of the energy mission as well. Yep. Thank you. I will uh note that and confirm um what the uh if the intention is for non- voting or voting members there. Appreciate the the call out. So Sean, I think the intention is non voting for the council members if especially on

076things that they would be voting on again on council. That was my understanding as well, but I I'll confirm on that. Um, also 41A says 11 members. Right now there'd be seven from environmental and seven from energy. So is the assumption that three people that are existing members are do not want to go forward or is that known yet? Uh well there are also going to be two youth members so that would be 13 members total. 13 but I'm on 41A talks about 11 which is not the youth members. There are seven on environmental that would be of the 11 and seven energy that would be of the 11. Oh seven non- youth members currently. I see right correct. Thank you. I will double check on that number as well. And maybe three people have

077expressed a desire not to continue. It's very possible. I don't know. Council member Malik, good uh good flag there. Um I don't remember if this was discussed in environmental commission or maybe it was energy commission. Actually, Commissioner Murky, maybe that's what you're going to talk about, but it's my understanding, you know, that there would even combined commissions was greater than what's currently stated that, you know, nobody would be forced off or anything. Um, I don't know if we would need kind of like a transition sentence added in here that explicitly states that, you know, that says in the event that there are more than, I guess, 15 total that essentially you would just wait till they rolled off until you got down to the actual number stated here. Uh, so that's definitely a good question

078for um I guess maybe even our legal team um in terms of if we would need like a sentence that specified this transition period where we may have extra commissioners. Commissioner Murski. Thank you. Uh, Council Member Malik, I don't recall that being discussed in the energy commission meeting, but it's an excellent point and um I think um it's something that needs to be addressed. I like your suggestion. Uh I I am not confident that everyone on both commissions that is currently a member will want to serve on a combined commission. Some may elect to only want to serve on a working group and that may be a solution. So, we may not have a problem, but if we do, uh, I like your proposal. I just wanted to point out that currently the energy commission

079has no youth members. So, there was there is no conflict there. That's all. Thank you. Uh, I will continue scrolling, but please let me know if you'd like me to stop. Before we move on, Sean, um, last meeting, Commissioner Marson suggested term limits, which is what PAC uses to make sure they have rotation of members. Is that something that's going to be considered with for sustainability? I think sustain or PAC is the only one that has term limits that I'm aware of. Um, I'm just double checking to see if that language is in here. Uh, I see three-year terms, but I don't see anything about a limit on number of terms. So, I will check on that as well. Thank you. Commissioner Murski. Uh, I'd like to express um my own opinion on the idea

080of term limits. Uh, as some might expect, having served multiple terms on both commissions, um, I I personally think that there is value in not having term limits because there's a lot of institutional knowledge that I think would be lost. Uh, my experience on both commissions is that the turnover is fairly high. Um and um so you're generally um getting you uh new blood. Um we'll certainly have that with uh youth commissioners because they have to be under the age of 25. So you're automatically getting getting um u fresh ideas and new blood um from that perspective. Um so uh ultimately uh council I assume will making this decision. Um maybe there is a clause in here um where the mayor could make a recommendation um and this may already exist. I I frankly I

081can't remember in the existing bylaws of either commission uh that the mayor could make a recommendation um to council that members not be um reappointed. I know that gets maybe a little bit touchy, but maybe that's the way to address it if there is some stagnation and there aren't enough um new voices um cycling through the commissions or the this commission at least. That's all. Commissioner Dale, um two things. One, I I sort of echo uh Commissioner Mursky's comments. I think I've been on I've been on for a couple of terms, but I still really appreciate the people who've been on longer and sort of the the historical knowledge they have of some of the processes and um and things that have come up at different phases um you know throughout throughout the history of

082the city and and the commission. So I I echo that. And then um the second one is a question, maybe I missed it, but so if the terms are moving to three-year terms, I believe it's two year on the environmental commission. I'm also curious about how that would work with transitioning like bringing the two like I'm assuming that people's don't like for example, I'm just using mine as an example. If I am if I have one more year on this term, but then the new one is three-year terms, then do I get that extra year now that it's become three years? I'm just sort of curious how that how that works with people when that means shifting what the term would have been. But that's, you know, logistics of of again the transition and and

083all of that. Yeah, right now environmental is threeear terms. Also, I already knew I learned something from somebody. Thank you. And it it does say they're going to try and rotate like one-third per year, but I would have to assume that's based on when people's terms expire currently and it would just continue on at that point. So, if you had two more years, you'd have two more years on sustainability or one more year one. And if someone's renewing now, they'd be at three years on sustainability. That would be my assumption. I can't see any other way to make that work. Yep. That that is my assumption as well. Um but I will confirm that as well. Um I will scroll somewhat quickly through the ethics and conflicts of interest because I believe this is all

084exactly the same as it is in the environmental and energy commissions. Um but if you have any questions about them, please please let me know. Yes, Commissioner. Yeah, there's one thing that frankly neither commission has done well to my knowledge and that is this annual statement on conflicts of interest. Um I don't ever remember that actually happening. I remember doing it one time. Um, and it may have even been when I applied to or not did applied but what you know filled out the the application for the energy commission. I don't ever remember. It's where is it? Yeah, there it is. 5.7. Um so that's just uh something that maybe needs to be controlled centrally um where there's a notification that goes out to um staff liaison and chairs of every commission saying um it's

085the new fiscal year or it's January 1st please uh conduct this uh annual uh disclosure. Just wanted to point that out. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. All right. Uh, moving on down to the officer section. So, on 61, there is a difference there with what's in environmental. Environmental, you could be a commissioner could be chair for three years, then vice chair for three years, and toggle back and forth. one. This has a three-year total between either either officer and then you have to be a non-officer. So, it's just different than what's there today. Yeah, thank you for highlighting that. I believe the rest of that section is identical to previously. Um I don't believe there are changes to the meeting section either. Yes, Commissioner. Um, it says that seven members constitute a quorum. Um,

086is that number fixed or would that be based on a percentage of the commission? If there was a period of time where let's say a number of commissioners um um resigned or somehow their term was up and they decided not to re-up and let's say there were only um 11 voting members. Do you still need a quorum of seven or is it um the greater of or what would be maybe the lesser of of of No, it wouldn't be the lesser. Um the lesser of either seven votes or x%. I didn't say that right, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying. Greater than 50%. Yeah. Greater. Yeah. X percent, right? Yeah. I mean that's the case that's the case certainly with the energy commission right now with seven seven members. Yep.

087My understanding is that the quorum is always uh half or greater than 50%. Um so I this seven uh likely comes from the 11 plus two youth members earlier of voting. Um so half more than half would be seven. Um but I will double check if we need to word this um so that it says the presence of a majority of voting members um in case there are instances where we have less than 13. Thank you. Yeah. on the environmental commission now it's quorum is eight but we only have 13 seated members so and you know energy is in a worse shape so it does make a difference it would definitely make things a lot easier to deal with if it said you know greater than 50% of the seated members of the commission or

088something like Um, all right. This article 8, I believe, is where a lot of the differences come in. Uh, Commissioner Murky, uh, my understanding of the structure of boards and commissioners, uh, commissions is that we essentially represent the voice of residents and it is a bottom up process. So we are hopefully uh selected as being representative. That's one of the reasons also why we have youth members and that ideas should percolate um from the commission as well as people talking to commissioners and with through our networks and we bring policy recommendations to city council. um and city council's role of setting broad objectives and plans for staff. Um this sounds to me like it is turning that on its head and I would appreciate um either a comment tonight from staff or our council members

089why we're starting from staff and saying commission you should work on this. Um it's my also understanding that uh commissioners are for example not to work on draft language for ordinances and things like that. So um I'm wondering what exactly would be if you will uh dedicate uh delegated or given to the commission to work on. It could be investigate a certain type of policy. For example, we heard what the UK is doing with natural features and biodiversity. Please look into that. Um, I mean, in in a case like that, there may be a high degree of overlap, but I'm wondering why this starts out with uh a top- down process as opposed to a bottom up process. Yes. Uh, thank you for that. Um, I have not been involved uh in the creation of

090this, so I don't know that I am equipped to answer that question. Um, I will leave space for the council members to potentially speak up if if they feel equipped, but um, I will bring that question to the staff for sure. Oh, council member Cornell. Yeah, I think that in talking with staff about what would be the most valuable is aligning the work that we understand that where we are in terms of our climate goals. It's it's it our goals have always been incredibly aggressive and the idea that we could have a body behind our climate goals that actually would accelerate the work that the staff is doing would be at least in this regard really helpful. And so if staff could say this is something that we don't have capacity to do but we've

091identified as a priority. Can you please help us with this? Bring your expertise to the table. help us get this across the finish line or inform where we're going that that would be a lot more um valuable and productive to what the city's already doing and and I'm supportive of that. I think that that's the point of what we're trying to do when we bring citizen voices and take the bottom up approach as you put it John as um Commissioner Murski if we bring that forward that that's the the purpose of these in terms of supporting what staff is trying to do the city is trying to do and really put some tailwind behind it. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Merski, if I may respond to that. Um, that's not the way I read and understand

092this. Um, first of all, um, uh, Commissioner um, Queen, you um, mentioned climate. Obviously, the sustainability commission will do a lot more than just climate. It's clean water, it's clean air, it's natural features, biodiversity, um, etc. So, it's much broader than climate. Um I don't think you may just using climate as an example and that's fine. What I would like to see is a catchall process um or a collaborative process but this is literally reads as a top down. So um there's staff is going to recommend a list of priority topics. It's going to be provided to city council. City council will review and approve the plan and the plan will be presented to the commission for implementation. that does not allow or at least in its strict reading does not allow for a bottomup

093uh uh element of of our work and I would like to see the language of this change so that uh there is room for the commission to also bubble up policies. I mean just look at how A20 came came to pass. A20 came to pass when there was no Missy Stoultz, there was no OSI, there was one quarter headcount in uh the city that was working on energy areas. Um um Commissioner Brown may remember this. Um we had Nate Gistler who's now with U of M um spending about 25% of his time um facilitating energy commission meetings. So the whole idea of uh declaring the climate emergency and calling for a climate action plan bubbled up through the energy and environmental commissions and that led to um the creation of an A20 plan and the

094hiring of Missy and uh the staffing of the department. This if you read it strictly this doesn't really allow for that. So, I'm I'm just asking that the language here be reviewed to show that there's actually a give and take here and that the commission has uh let's say the latitude to be able to um develop its own recommendations and um work on on topics that are not in a work plan that is dedicated or um delegated from staff, approved by council, and then given to the commission. Thank you. I appreciate that. I will uh bring that comment to the staff working on this. Um Commissioner Dale. Yeah. Uh Commissioner Murski probably said it better than than I will, but that that's the sort of where I was going to. I um I would also

095I would really like to know what would be most helpful and have that um direction and the priorization from staff. I think that would be wonderful. I want I want to be helpful and I agree we have some expertise and and maybe some of us have the time and capacity to help out um in that way. So absolutely and I I also agree that part of it to bring what what that expertise means and we might have additional ideas of what we're hearing from people that we're out in community and being those representatives. So yeah, if it can just be a wording change to sound more collaborative and that together um together that work plan will be developed, I think that that would be fantastic. Yeah, thank you. Uh Commissioner Brown. Yeah, thanks Sean. I

096have two comments. One is that um there's something missing from our scope of work and that is public health. The environmental commission had explicitly one of the topics it was asked to cover is public health issues, you know, like PAS and the Heron River, the um the Chromium 6 release, the Gellman plume, things like that. So, I would I would appreciate having that included in there as well. Yeah. Thank you. And then the second thing is um um in our in our current bylaws uh we've always had a clause which um in allows the commission to call a public hearing. Now I'm not sure what the definition of a public hearing is compared to a meeting. But um that the public hearing language is not in this sustainability um you know proposal the bylaws. Thank

097you. Yeah. Uh no I did a search. Okay. I just I thought I had seen it. Um so I was just double checking but yeah I'm not seeing it either. I see a non- workinging meeting but yeah. Thank you. Um, Commissioner Graham. Um, the structure of the environmental commission was completely different than the other commissions right from the beginning. And um I think I remember it was really established in another era of very aggressive development ideas and a very strong mayor who um uh didn't really want to listen to uh doubling up environmental concerns against um overzealous development And the environmental commission has always been advising the council directly. It hasn't been advising staff to advise the council. We've always worked independently. And I would guess at least 50% of the things we've worked on

098while I've been involved have bubbled up out of our group, whoever they've been over all those years and haven't come uh either with specific instruction from the council and certainly not from staff. So these are changes being made here that are pretty significant for the environmental commission. I'm not opposed. I I I think it could be um a lot of synergy between a lot of very different people putting these two things together. But I agree with John and Anna that we need to be able to bubble. Thank you. Thank you. It's going down to the rest of uh article 8 and article 9. Right. Uh and then article 10 uh amendment to the bwels and article 11 and that appears to be a blank page at the end. So uh Commissioner Mski, thank you. Uh

099as to uh point 11.1 um there was discussion uh in both the energy and environmental commissions that one of the reasons for the combination of the two commissioned into one sustainability uh committee was to better align with uh the organization um of city departments and structure. Um I would ask the city to re-evaluate um at the same time the the the current structure as it says right here that um uh both the office of sustainability and public services shall be the providers of administrative support. Um it seems to me there's a possibility that some of the functions could be combined under one head or the other. Um that's just a a seed for thought and um right now there isn't uh essentially in alignment because the energy commission in the past works strictly with the

100office of sustainability and the environmental commission worked almost exclusively not entirely with public services. And so now we're combining one entity, but we're not realigning uh city department structure to correspond with the commission. So that just want to point that out. Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. So the plan is that the new commission will align with OSI. or is it going to align with public services? Currently, we sort of have both for the environmental [Music] commission. I think you're in public services and you're OSI, right, Sean? Correct. Yes. Uh I'm unsure what the um intention is. Uh it is written here at public services and OSI uh would be primary providers of administrative support. Um, but I will look into if that needs to be changed to one or the other. Both is fine.

101Are there any other questions on the bylaws? Okay, let's move on. Next order of business is report outs from committees. Uh, first one is biodiversity. Well, we worked on the resolution. I'll probably say that next month also. Uh, circular economy. Steve, you're next. Yeah, we met on um April 16th. Um, we meet every u I think it's the third Wednesday of the month at 4 pm. So, um, first thing I'd like to, um, first thing we discussed is, um, is the the city. If you look, the city has an entire web page on, um, student moveout. this year they have a remarkable coalition of local organizations cooperating to uh to try to uh minimize the waste and divert you know divert furniture, bicycles um clothing as much as possible uh you know from getting to

102the going to the city landfill. So, um you know that started um that started on April 14th um with um with sports equipment being dropped at um St. Andrews Church um and April 23rd yesterday there was a bike drop off if you if you wanted to drop off a bike that happened and then it's continuing through April 25th to 26th and then May uh 1st through the 8th. So, um, the city staff and, um, needs to find volunteers, you know. Um, so there's a web page up on the city site where you can volunteer for this or you can talk to Sarah Mason or Jenny Paskki about volunteering to help with this. So, I'm going to help out when I'm back in town. And, uh, it's a really big operation and it's much better organized

103than it was in the past. So the city's found the resources to do that. Uh which is which is good because um the solid waste if you look at the metrics from year to year um the student move out is a big bump and what ends up in the landfill. So this is a this is an important operation that we should all try to volunteer to help with. Um um um you can look at the um to volunteer you look at this um um engage um website that the city has a2ggov.org/projects. So you can look at that and you can um you just look around the website. Um we're thinking about um we're thinking about um we haven't done much work on construction and demolition recycling lately um but we're getting around to the point

104where we'll resume work on that um this year and um we heard that um um Lisa Dish on council is working on CND type issues. So she's going to update us uh the the working group on the next meeting on May 21st. And um and just uh lastly there's um you know the Washington County is working on its materials management plan strategic plan. Um they are focusing right now on residential recycling and then multif family and then commercial recycling and uh um Theo Eggermont in the U is leading this initiative and Sarah Mason is the city's representative on that body. So they have public meetings. Um if you look at their web website um you can see that um you can um you can you can attend the public meeting if you'd like. Um and

105that is it. Okay. Next is water quality. Commissioner Nudri. Hello. Um yeah so we had a Phoenix schedule that I had to cancel due to child care. Um but I was able to um go to uh the city's storm water comprehensive plan meeting um which was last month. Um highlights from that we worked on drafting a vision statement for that. Um and also took a look at some resiliency data looking at like climate effects and how it's going to change um storm water uh in Ann Arbor. Um so that was a really good useful uh exercise to go and be a part of. Um but yeah, water quality work group took a spring break. Um our next meeting will be May 16th. So that's all. Thanks. Uh energy commissioner. Thank you. Uh the energy commission

106had a working session uh in its last meeting. Um it was uh focused entirely on incentivizing driving accelerating electrification particularly in new buildings. That's a trend that we already see happening. Um but um it's not uh entirely the case and in particular hotel developments are still in uh the general areas primarily heated with natural gas. Um there aren't a lot of this we do not have I'll put it broadly the community does not have a lot of latitude because of um state leg uh legislation and codes. Um we primarily came to the idea that um the best thing we can probably do is education and engagement with developers, architects, engineers, builders. Um and um there looks to be the seed for a collaborative effort to put on um a session in the fall that the

107Wolfpack is already working on. So, it would be a collaborative effort between the energy commission or potentially our future commission um the city U of M um and the Wolfpack to u pull a convening um and we're looking at trying to get out of town speakers and the university is actually working on a project um that could be an exemplar for um developers. uh the city the university is do doing a convention center and hotel up on north campus and that's very similar to obviously other hotels and very similar to multif family um development that's the the the major type of development that's going on in the city right now so um we're going to be pursuing that um so there looks to be some promise there that's all okay for parks and Marson emailed

108me her update that's pack met last Tuesday. Here in Riverdale is returning to Gallup Park on May 18th from 12:00 to 4 p.m. Volunteers are needed. Parks is transitioning to warmer weather. Pools, canoe liveries, and golf courses are open or opening and parks is hiring summer staff and pack recommended approval of the fee adjustments and a proposed budget for the 2026 27 fiscal year. Uh, is there anything from council that they need to update us on? Okay. Um, and I have nothing else from chair. So, I think next is report out from staff Sean. Yes, thank you. Uh, let me pull that up really quickly. All right. Um, from community services, the comprehensive land use plan draft is complete. Uh so that is available up on our uh A2 engage uh platform for review and

109public comment. Uh you can also send uh feedback to planning at a2ggov.org. Uh from OSI our uh the Ann Arbor Earth Day Festival is coming up this Sunday, April 27th from 1 to 4:30 p.m. at Leslie Science and Nature Center. Uh we are going to be there tableabling along with NAP uh and lots of other organizations. Um, you can learn more about that at discovercienceandne.org/2earthday. Uh, and the A20 heat pump concierge platform uh has been announced. Uh, users can input home information to generate additional heat pump system design options in a process that takes approximately 5 minutes. Um, you can learn more about that at osi.at2gv.org/heatpump concierge. uh from public services, the stormwater comprehensive plan is underway that is going to consolidate numerous existing plans into a single unified plan to guide city staff and

110inform decision-making and stormwater design. Uh and the latest information on that can be found also on the engagement hub at um engaged.2ggov.org. Uh and then unfortunately missing from this document that was included uh but I was asked by Sarah Mason from solid waste to share uh is that um let's see here the we also have on that A2GV uh engaged.2GV.org uh platform. Uh there is engagement around the food scrap drop off bin project uh aiming to make composting more accessible and convenient for multif family residents who don't have curbside service. Uh so you can learn more about that project uh and share ideas for locations for those bins at engage.at2gv.org uh or by emailing Mallerie Lawson Lawson.org. And that's all I have for you. Okay. Um next is items for next agenda. It will probably

111be a lot like tonight's agenda. We'll go through the resolution and maybe the bylaws will be on again. Depends on what it comes up there. Um, next scheduled meeting is May 22nd. And now we have our second public comment. Uh, this is an opportunity for people to speak for up to three minutes. Please call 8887880099. Enter meeting ID 954-34739065. To raise your hand, press 9. 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 and state your name and address at the beginning of your comments. There may be a delay up to 30 seconds before a connection is established. All right. Uh we have caller with number ending in 6330.

112Again, that's 630. You should now be able to speak. Uh you can unmute by pressing star six. Um hi, good evening. My name is John Godfrey. I live in W three. Um, and I want to add my voice thanking you and commending your work on behalf of the residents of Ann Arbor to preserve and protect the natural futures of our city which are facing unprecedented challenges from both climate change and the city's effort to accelerate development throughout. And I want to support in the strongest terms the envir environmental commission's recommendation to council that the 2004 natural features plan be included in the new comprehensive plan and that natural features protections in review process be expanded for all new development projects whether or not a site plan is required to do so serves the public good

113and must be welcomed by all residents who prize our natural heritage. But I want to also extend a word of caution. The goals of the draft comprehensive plan include doubling Ann Arbor's population in the next 25 years. Incredibly, the draft's plan includes no credible demographic or economic data or analysis to even support this as a feasible goal. But imagining for just a moment that this unprecedented development were to happen, it would wholly defeat our climate goals which are embedded in this very comprehensive plan. The water, sewer, and storm water systems that we rely on to protect our environment would be overwhelmed. And the massive capital costs that would be needed to upgrade our aging systems would divert funds from operational sustainability initiatives. Construction on the envisioned scale would generate insupportable embodied carbon costs and will

114rapidly accelerate loss of green space, landscape, the urban canopy, and other natural features that we prize and will undermine our sustainability goals. In other words, our goals are self-contradictory. The plan is badly out of balance. Our environment needs protection, not depletion. And the organization of our citizen committees should serve the interests of city residents and not the interests of city department structure. Ann Arbor deserves an independent environmental commission to do this work on our behalf. Thank you for your voices and thank you for your service. And thank you for your comment. Um, I am not seeing any other hands raised at the moment. We do not have any more hands raised. Okay. So for the next agenda item, the last one was the communication. And so Sean, why don't you We received a number of

115letters in support of the resolution or emails in support of the resolution. Um I think Sean maybe just splash them up on the screen, go one by one so people can see them. I think they at least deserve that much. We don't need to spend a lot of time on them. Can you blow those up a bit, Sean? Chair Curtis, do we usually do this for um public comment that is submitted for each meeting? We normally don't get any public comment through email. I think this is the first time since I've been on the chair or I've been on the commission that we've gotten public comment via email. I'm just curious if there's a formal policy because I can I'm old now and I have readers. I'm just wondering if this is the best way

116to do this or if that's if we have precedent to do it. That's what I was trying to establish. I don't from what Aaron Don like find out there really was no precedent. Some groups just say acknowledge that they all receive them and don't open them at all. So, we could skip it if people would prefer to do that. These are all posted on Legar, right? That's where Sean is clicking through. So yeah, correct. I honestly I even with my readers on I can barely see that. I'm I'm not saying that it's a bad idea. I've just not seen it done and I'm wondering if that was unique to this commission. That's why I was asking. Okay. Why don't we just let people look at them on Legisar? So that is the end of the

117agenda. Is there a motion to adjourn? My readers and I will move. Okay. Seconded by John Murki. Let's All right, we're done. Thanks everyone. Sorry about