Environmental commission advances biodiversity resolution urging natural-features protections in comprehensive plan

Ann Arbor — The Environmental Commission on March 24 reviewed a draft resolution from its biodiversity work group asking that the city’s comprehensive plan include explicit protections for natural features such as wetlands, floodplains, heritage trees and native forest fragments.

The resolution, introduced by a biodiversity work-group member identified in the meeting as Rita (Environmental Commission member), asks the city to “protect, conserve, restore, enhance, and manage natural features” and to use existing natural-features protections in the city’s Unified Development Code as a baseline for future measures. It also calls for cross-department integration and for development of methods to assess and track gains or losses in biodiversity over time.

Why it matters: Commissioners and residents said the decision will affect how growth and housing density are balanced with green infrastructure that provides flood control, carbon storage and neighborhood access to nature. Linda Berauer, a caller who identified herself as a long-time Ann Arbor resident, told the commission: “I consider it essential that the comprehensive plan includes robust protections for natural features.”

Commissioners emphasized that the resolution is not intended to prohibit development but to guide it. John Merskief, who described himself as a member of the biodiversity working group, said the resolution “is not prescriptive” and that the intent is “to steer development to the areas that are going to have the lowest impact” and to encourage mitigation where impacts occur.

Key details and debate: The draft resolution includes several “whereas” clauses describing ecosystem services and cites floodplain protection as a priority; callers pressed for explicit mention of floodplains and for retention of city-owned floodplain parcels as open green space. Commissioners discussed whether to strengthen mitigation requirements for large, old trees and native soils; some members warned that stronger mitigation language could make the resolution harder to carry forward to City Council. One commissioner suggested rewording to align with the spirit of recent U.K. legislation that requires larger developments to increase biodiversity, while others stressed the need to preserve old trees on private residential lots as those trees are at risk during infill development.

Process and next steps: Commissioners treated the document as a first reading and said the biodiversity working group will revise the draft based on tonight’s comments. Council Member Malek (present at the meeting) and other participants described the comprehensive-plan process as ongoing; staff and commissioners said a draft comprehensive plan is expected to be available within months and will follow the Planning Commission and council review process.

Community context: Speakers linked the resolution to other city plans and programs referenced during the meeting, including the city’s natural-features protections in the Unified Development Code, the city’s carbon-neutrality roadmap (discussed as the “A2Zero” or A2 0 plan during the meeting) and the Greenbelt program, which holds some funding for parkland acquisitions inside the city. Commissioners noted the local history of natural-features regulation, observed that existing protections apply primarily to projects requiring site-plan review, and discussed gaps for ordinary residential work that does not trigger the site-plan process.

What’s next: The biodiversity working group will incorporate the commission’s feedback and return the resolution for further review. Commissioners asked council members present to share any council or planning-commission perspectives that could improve the resolution’s passage.