A proposed edit to the natural‑resources language that would add “preserve native plant communities” alongside invasive‑plant removal was rejected by staff and the commission as written.

Planning staff told the commission the proposed phrase was “too broad in the context of a land use plan,” saying that “every single development activity removes native plant communities” and that the suggested wording could be interpreted to block many ordinary development activities. Staff recommended alternatives, such as a discrete policy about rare plant communities or encouraging landscaping with native plants, rather than inserting a broad preservation requirement where the invasives policy appears.

Commissioners concurred. Commissioner Ian Sharp said the proposed language was “an overreach and unnecessary,” and other commissioners noted that broadly worded requirements in general plans can create costly legal disputes or force developers to cancel projects. Commissioner Mary Norton, who had supported adding native‑plant language, said the city’s recent public communications on native plant use motivated her suggestion, but she accepted staff’s caveat that the proposed insertion risked unintended consequences.

Outcome: The commission did not adopt the suggested insertion as written and recorded a thumbs‑down on the proposed language. Staff advised that if there is interest in stronger native‑plant protections, that should be pursued in a separate policy or program where scope and implementation tools can be clearly defined.

Why it matters: Wording in a regional plan can be read as policy guidance or as a standard that later decision‑makers rely on; broad preservation language could constrain development substantially if interpreted strictly.

Source: Staff presentation and commissioner discussion, Sept. 29, 2025 Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.