Nov 10, 2021 Planning and Zoning

GET AWAY. OKAY.

[1. Call to Order]

[00:00:02]

CAN WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE?

[2. Roll Call NOTE: One or more Commission Members may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. DAVID ZIMMERMAN, CHAIR MARIE JONES, VICE CHAIR CAROLE MANDINO DR. ALEX MARTINEZ DR. ERIC NOLAN LLOYD PAUL DR. RICARDO GUTHRIE]

WOW, WE HAVE EVERYONE.

ALL RIGHT, SO AT THIS TIME, PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY SUBJECT WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION.

IT IS NOT SCHEDULED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON THAT DAY DUE TO OPEN MEETING LAWS, THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR ACT ON ITEMS PRESENTED DURING THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE WAIT FOR THE CHAIR TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD.

THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME ? OK. DOES NOT SOUND LIKE THERE IS.

SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ON

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on Wednesday, October 27, 2021.]

THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO, I MOVED THAT WE APPROVED THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2021.

DAVE, THIS IS ALEX, I WILL SECOND IT.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM COMMISSIONER MANDINO AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

UM, OUR ONLY ITEM REALLY TODAY IS ITEM FIVE, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CARBON

[A. Public Hearing #1: Carbon Neutrality Major Regional Plan Amendment STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required by the commission. A second public hearing will be held on November 17, 2021.]

DOES STAFF HAVE A PRESENTATION? WE DO THANK YOU, TERRY ZIMMERMAN.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS SARA DECHTER, I'M THE COMPREHENSIVE AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

I AM GOING TO PRESENT CASE NUMBER PZ-21-00124, WHICH IS A MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE FLAGSTAFF REGIONAL PLAN 2030 TO ADDRESS CARBON NEUTRALITY.

THIS PLAN AMENDMENT WAS INITIATED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN APRIL OF 2021.

IT IS OUR ONLY MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT THIS YEAR.

IF I CAN GET MY SLIDES TO ADVANCE UP, THERE WE GO.

THIS ITEM IS A MAJOR PLANNED AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL ADDED A CATEGORY OF MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT IN 2015.

I'M SORRY IN 2017 THAT ANY TIME WE ADD OR DELETE A GOAL OR POLICY IN ANY CHAPTER OF THE PLAN, IT MUST BE DONE THROUGH A MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT.

AND SO THAT IS THE TRIGGER FOR THIS TO BE A MAJOR AND NOT A MINOR AMENDMENT.

SO MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENTS HAVE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT'S USUALLY REQUIRED.

THERE IS A 60 DAY PUBLIC REVIEW WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN SEPTEMBER, A NOTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC AGENCIES, INCLUDING UTILITY COMPANIES LIKE UNISOURCE AND APS AND OTHERS.

A CITIZEN REVIEW SESSION WHICH WAS COMPLETED AT THE END OF OCTOBER.

AND THEN THERE ARE TWO REQUIRED HEARINGS WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

THE LOCATION I KNOW THIS IS A VIRTUAL MEETING, BUT WE DO HAVE AN AVAILABLE LOCATION AT THE AQUAPLEX TONIGHT IF ANYONE IS ATTENDING THE MEETING IN PERSON.

AND JENNY NIEMAN IS AND JENNA FROM SUSTAINABILITY ARE THERE TO HELP PEOPLE PARTICIPATE.

NEXT WEEK'S MEETING, WHICH WILL BE THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING, THE SECONDARY LOCATION, WILL BE THE MURDOCH CENTER ON BRANNON AVENUE IN FLAGSTAFF.

AND IF PEOPLE LISTENING TODAY HAVE QUESTIONS AND WANT TO ATTEND THE SECOND HEARING, THEY CAN REACH OUT TO MYSELF OR JENNY NIEMAN.

THE LAST ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR A MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT IS THAT A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL IS NEEDED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT.

SO THIS AMENDMENT PROPOSES CHANGES TO CHAPTER FOUR, PRIMARILY OF THE REGIONAL PLAN, WHICH IS THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION SECTION OF THE PLAN.

THIS IS JUST A BASIC LIST.

THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGES TO THE NARRATIVE.

THE SCIENCE AROUND CLIMATE CHANGE AND CARBON NEUTRALITY HAS ADVANCED VERY QUICKLY IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, AND SO THAT SECTION IS BEING BROUGHT UP TO DATE.

[00:05:03]

REVISIONS TO SEVERAL POLICIES UNDER BOTH OF THOSE GOALS, AS AS WELL AS FOUR POINT ONE.

AND THEN THIS IS THE MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT TRIGGER THAT THE THERE ARE THREE POLICIES BEING ADDED TO THIS CHAPTER, AND WE'LL GO OVER THOSE IN MORE DETAIL.

IN ADDITION, AFTER THIS INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS MADE, THERE WAS ONE POLICY IN THE REGIONAL PLAN THAT WAS FOUND TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

AND SO IN WORKING WITH OUR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STAFF, WE REVISED WE PROPOSED A REVISION TO T.8.1 WHICH WE WILL ALSO GO OVER IN A FUTURE SLIDE.

SO THIS IS THE RED LINE OF OUR NEW REVISED AND NEW POLICIES UNDER ECE&C.2, WHICH IS ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION GOAL TWO.

SO INSTEAD OF SAYING REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, THE NEW GOAL WOULD SAY ACHIEVE CARBON NEUTRALITY FOR FLAGSTAFF COMMUNITY BY 2030.

THIS IS THE OBJECTIVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED IN JUNE OF 2021 THROUGH BY ADOPTING THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN.

SO SOME OTHER CHANGES ARE ONES TO SIMPLIFY AND MAKE SOME OF THEM EASIER, LIKE ENCOURAGE REDUCTION OF ENERGY AND MATERIAL CONSUMPTION PERIOD.

THERE'S MANY THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THAT ON MANY FRONTS, NOT JUST THE SECTORS LISTED TO PROMOTE INVESTMENT THAT CREATES A MORE CONNECTED AND EFFICIENT COMMUNITY, DECREASES EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION AND BUILDING ENERGY, AND STRENGTHENS CLIMATE RESILIENCY.

THIS IS ANOTHER REVISION WHERE WE'RE JUST ADDING A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THAT CARBON NEUTRALITY REPORT.

AND THEN THESE ARE THE TWO NEW POLICIES WHICH ONE, OF COURSE, IS DIRECTED, 2.3 IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE CITY TO REVISE, REVIEW AND REVISE OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS AND E&C 2 .4 IS DIRECTED TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPMENT, PROMOTING DEVELOPMENT THAT HELPS THE COMMUNITY ACHIEVE CARBON NEUTRALITY.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ASK? SHOULD I PAUSE? IF YOU WANT ME TO PAUSE AT EACH OF THESE, I CAN CHAIR ZIMMERMAN OR I CAN JUST KEEP GOING. LET'S JUST PAUSE FOR A MINUTE AND..

SURE.

AND JUST A REMINDER, I CAN'T SEE THE CHAT, SO JUST INTERRUPT ME WHEN YOU WHEN YOU WANT ME TO PAUSE OH, THANK YOU, BECKY. YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING YOU JUST SAID THAT I WANT TO CLARIFY.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE FOCUS ON LANGUAGE IS ON CARBON NEUTRALITY, NOT SO MUCH CARBON EMISSIONS, DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? I THINK THOSE TWO THINGS GO HAND IN HAND, BUT I WOULD I'LL KICK THAT QUESTION TO JENNY, WHO'S THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

JENNY, CAN YOU, ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION? HI, SORRY, I WANT TO CONFIRM Y'ALL CAN YOU HEAR ME AND THERE'S NOT AN ECHO? THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN ECHO, BUT WE CAN HEAR YOU OK.

OK, LET ME I CAN TRY AND FIX THAT REAL FAST.

I'M JUST GOING TO SWITCH MACHINES THAT ARE WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT THE WHOLE SET UP HERE AT THE AQUAPLEX I, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? LOOK, I MEAN, I JUST. OK, WE'LL GO WITH THE SMALLER ECHO.

SORRY ABOUT THAT, FOLKS. YEAH, THANKS FOR THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER NOLAN.

SO YEAH, OUR OUR GOALS AS A CITY ARE BASED AROUND CARBON NEUTRALITY.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND JUST REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS IS THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE AS A CITY WE ARE NOT GOING TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS TO ZERO.

WE DON'T SEE THAT AS FEASIBLE IN THE COMING DECADES, PARTICULARLY NOT WITHIN THE 2030 TIMELINE THAT WAS SET BY THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY DECLARATION.

SO THAT WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY COUNCIL IN JUNE OF 2020.

AND THAT IS REALLY THE GUIDING DOCUMENT THAT WE USE FOR THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN.

AND THEN AGAIN, THIS REALLY FOLLOWS AND IS WORKING TO ALIGN THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN.

SO YES, OUR FOCUS HERE IS ON CARBON NEUTRALITY.

THAT IS, OF COURSE, A BALANCE AND AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE GOING TO TRY AND BECOME CARBON NEUTRAL WITH OUR AMBITION.

SO IT'S STILL GOES.

IT'S STILL DEALS WITH THE EMISSIONS QUITE A LOT.

IT JUST DOES NOT SAY WE'RE GOING TO GET TO ZERO EMISSIONS BECAUSE THAT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF OR REALLY ANY CITY BY 2030.

[00:10:03]

JUST ONE THING I WANT TO BRING UP, AND I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS.

IT'S JUST IT'S COME ONTO MY RADAR, SO I JUST WANT TO SHARE IT WHEN IT COMES TO CARBON OFFSETS, IF THAT IS PART OF THE STRATEGY.

AND MAYBE THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ALREADY.

BUT I'M WONDERING LOOKING INTO CARBON OFFSETS IF YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE REGROW A FOREST AND YOU CAN CLAIM THAT AS A CARBON OFFSET BECAUSE YOU'RE HELPING TO TAKE CARBON OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE. WHAT HAPPENS THEN, IF THAT FOREST GOES LIKE IT'S ON FIRE AND THEN THAT CARBON GETS RERELEASED, LIKE THERE'S NO WAY TO GUARANTEE THAT.

SO I'M WONDERING, IS THERE ANY SORT OF AN INSURANCE POLICY THAT'S BEING THOUGHT OF IN TERMS OF CARBON OFFSETS WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE EMISSIONS? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER NOLAN.

IT'S A GREAT QUESTION WE SO THAT THERE'S THERE'S A NUMBER OF PRINCIPLES WHEN WE THINK ABOUT CARBON OFFSETS, THAT SORT OF SCENARIO REFERS TO PERMANENCE.

RIGHT, RIGHT. A FOREST THAT MAY CATCH ON FIRE.

THAT'S NOT A PERMANENTLY GUARANTEED OFFSET OF THAT CARBON.

THERE ARE SOME VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR CARBON OFFSETS, AND WE ARE ALSO USING THOSE FOR CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL TO ENSURE THAT A SITUATION LIKE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, RIGHT, THAT ARE OFFSETS OR OUR CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL.

HAVE THESE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THEM IN TERMS OF PERMANENCE, AS WELL AS IN TERMS OF THINGS LIKE ADDITIONALITY, ET CETERA.

SO WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ON THIS ON THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN JUST SORT OF SETTING OUT THAT WE WILL ABIDE BY THOSE PRINCIPLES.

GREAT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND SO I WOULDN'T I THINK THAT JENNY JUST BROUGHT UP A GOOD CLARIFICATION THAT I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON.

WHILE THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT GOING TO PROVIDE ALL THE DETAIL OF THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN, THIS AMENDMENT IS JUST MEANT TO BRING IN POLICIES THAT SUPPORT THAT PLAN.

THAT PLAN IS A LIVING DOCUMENT THAT COUNCIL MAY AMEND AS NEW TECHNOLOGIES EMERGE AS OTHER THINGS COME INTO PLAY AND AS SCIENCE IS DEVELOPED FURTHER IN TERMS OF ACHIEVING CARBON REDUCTION AND CARBON EMISSIONS, TOO.

SO I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.

THERE IS AN ADOPTED CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN THAT'S A STRATEGIC DOCUMENT, AND THIS IS A CHANCE TO TAKE THIS OTHER POLICY, AND IT DOES HAVE POLICIES AS WELL.

BUT THIS IS A CHANCE TO TAKE THIS MAJOR POLICY DOCUMENT FOR THE CITY AND MAKE SURE IT CONTINUES TO ALIGN SO THAT THERE'S A MATCH BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

SO MAKE SURE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN IS THE AMENDMENT IN THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN, AS IT IS WRITTEN, IS ALREADY ADOPTED.

AND MAY BE REVISED AT FUTURE DATES WITH THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.

GREAT, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS SLIDE OR SHOULD WE MOVE ON? I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, SO WE CAN CONTINUE.

GREAT, THANK YOU. SO THERE'S FEWER CHANGES TO GOAL E&C.3.

THE GOAL IS BEING REWRITTEN TO BE MUCH MORE IN LINE OF THINKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND NOT JUST RESILIENCY TO CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT ALSO MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION, WHICH ARE ALSO PART OF THE BROADENING OF THE SCIENCE AROUND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO BE PREPARED FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND THEN THERE IS ALSO A MODIFICATION TO E&C3.2, WHICH IS EQUITY.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN THE REASON IT DOESN'T SAY WE'RE GOING TO GO ALL OUT, NO HOLDING BACK, TRYING TO REACH CARBON NEUTRAL CARBON, TRYING TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE OUR CARBON EMISSIONS IS OFTEN THAT IT ALSO HAS AN EQUITY LENS TO IT. AND HERE WE HAVE ADDED THAT OUR VULNERABILITY REDUCE OUR COMMUNITY'S VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE, BUT ALSO ESPECIALLY REDUCE DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE MAY BRING FOR PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES WITHIN FLAGSTAFF.

SO THIS LANGUAGE CLARIFIES THAT WE MEAN BOTH OF THOSE THINGS WE WANT AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL WIDE TO HAVE LESS LESS IMPACT AND LESS VULNERABILITY.

BUT WE ALSO NEED TO BE PAYING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO COMMUNITIES THAT ARE VULNERABLE

[00:15:04]

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROVISION? I'LL CONTINUE. THERE ARE ALSO TWO NEW POLICIES UNDER E&C.3, AGAIN REACHING BACK INTO THE EQUITY SIDE OF THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN OF NOT ONLY REDUCE THOSE DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS, BUT GO FURTHER AND IMPROVE THE ABILITY OF VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES TO ADAPT AND THRIVE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE PRESSURES THAT WE KNOW ARE COMING.

AND THEN ALSO ATTEMPT TO EQUITABLY DISTRIBUTE BURDENS AND BENEFITS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION AND POLICIES AND INVESTMENT TO ALL SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO WE SHOULD ALL BE DOING OUR PART.

I WILL SAY THAT PRIOR TO THIS, THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THERE IS ONLY ONE POLICY THAT TALKS ABOUT EQUITY IN OUR CURRENT REGIONAL PLAN.

IT IS A MAJOR AREA OF FOCUS FOR THE REVISION OF THAT PLAN, BUT THIS ADDS THREE A REVISION AND THEN THREE AND TWO ADDITIONAL EQUITY BASED POLICIES AROUND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PARTICULARLY CLIMATE CHANGE.

ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CONTINUE? OK. UM, THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION GOAL FOR TALKS ABOUT THE INTEGRATION OF AVAILABLE SCIENCE AND IN PARTICULAR, WHAT'S BEING ADDED HERE IS THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT VULNERABILITIES AND RISKS THAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING CLIMATE CHANGES AND RESULTS AND RESULTING CHANGE TO SYSTEMS SUCH AS STORM, WATER, WATER, YOU KNOW, WATER DRINKING, WATER DELIVERY AND QUANTITY AND OTHER FEATURES OF OUR NATURAL AND OUR UTILITIES BASED ON THE LANDSCAPE THAT MAY RESULT FROM CLIMATE CHANGE.

THIS, OF COURSE, WOULD ALSO INCLUDE OUR WILDFIRE PROTECTIONS.

QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.

OK. THE CHANGE TO POLICY T8 ONE, WHICH IS IN OUR TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER, CHAPTER 10, IS REALLY A CLARIFICATION.

THE WAY THE POLICY CURRENTLY READS IS PROMOTE EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY TO MAJOR TRADE CORRIDORS, EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS THAT ENHANCE THE REGION'S STANDING AS A MAJOR ECONOMIC HUB.

THIS COULD BE INTERPRETED AS BIGGER ROADS, WIDER, FASTER MOVING VEHICLES.

AND THAT IS NOT HOW STAFF HAS BEEN INTERPRETING THIS IN ALL CASES.

AND SO THIS CLARIFICATION SAYS THAT THE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY BEING LOOKED FOR IS NOT A VEHICLE VEHICLE DELAY OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS, BUT REALLY NETWORK CONNECTIVITY.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS AND PLACES THAT PEOPLE CAN CONNECT TO.

SO PLANNERS SOMETIMES TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE LOOPS AND LOLLIPOPS.

THOSE ARE NOT VERY WELL CONNECTED VERSUS A GRIDDED SYSTEM LIKE DOWNTOWN IS VERY EFFICIENTLY CONNECTED.

AND WHEN AN AREA IS EFFICIENTLY CONNECTED, WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS IS THAT IT WILL REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, WHICH IS ONE OF THE KEY INDICATORS OF OUR CARBON EMISSIONS.

AND IT WILL ALSO IMPROVE MODE SHIFT, WHICH MEANS PEOPLE CHOOSING MODES OF TRANSPORTATION THAT ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON FOSSIL FUELS.

SO THAT LANGUAGE HAS CHANGED HERE FROM JUST BEING BROADER OF TRANSPORTATION TO BEING MORE SPECIFIC THAT WE MEAN NETWORK CONNECTIVITY, NOT JUST OTHER KINDS OF TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIVITY. AND THAT IS NOT ONLY TO THOSE PLACES, BUT ALSO THAT THE NETWORKS WITHIN THEM FUNCTION IN A WAY THAT SUPPORTS OUR ECONOMY AND PROVIDES THAT CONNECTIVITY THAT WE KNOW INFLUENCES OUR CLIMATE ACTION AND CARBON NEUTRALITY GOALS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE BEFORE I MOVE ON? I DON'T SEE ANY AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. SO WHY IS THE PLAN AMENDMENT NECESSARY HERE? WE COULD HAVE JUST ADOPTED THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN AND BEEN DONE.

HOWEVER, THE CLIMATE ACTION WORK IN ITS EVOLUTION WILL BE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY HERE TO NOT BE TO AVOID CONFUSION AND INCREASE OUR TRANSPARENCY, AND ALSO PROVIDE A SWIFT WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE POLICY THAT WAS ADOPTED AS A STAND ALONE IS BEING INTEGRATED INTO OUR CITYWIDE POLICIES AND THAT WE HAVE DONE THE KIND OF ANALYSIS OF CONFORMANCE THAT WE DID WITH THIS CASE SHOWS HOW AND WHERE THOSE TRADE OFFS WILL BE IN A WAY THAT WE WAS NEW AND IS INFORMATIVE AND WILL HELP THE CLIMATE ACTION GOALS MOVE FORWARD.

[00:20:03]

THEY OPTIONALLY WENT TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT WITH THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION, BUT THE STATE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION REVIEWED IT AND THEN RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO INITIATE THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH THE COMMISSION DID IN APRIL.

DRAFT LANGUAGE WAS PREPARED IN THIS.

THIS WAS SUBMITTED BY APRIL 30TH.

IT WAS DEEMED COMPLETE AT THE END OF MAY, AND WE TRANSMITTED THE APPLICATION AT THAT TIME TO OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND UTILITIES STARTING IN LATE JUNE.

THEY'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THEM, BUT THAT THEY'VE ALL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT AND WE ENSURED IT ARRIVED ON TIME.

NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WERE HELD DURING THE 60 DAY PUBLIC REVIEW AND THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED SUBSTANTIVELY COMPLETE BY JULY 28TH.

SO NOW WE'VE HAD OUR CITIZEN REVIEW SESSION AND WE ARE IN HEARING ONE OF OUR TWO PUBLIC COMMISSION MEETINGS OR PUBLIC MEETINGS WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THAT'S OUR ROADMAP.

REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENTS REQUIRED IMPACT ANALYSIS, WHICH LOOKS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE IMPACT ANALYSIS YOU MIGHT SEE WITH A DEVELOPMENT CASE.

IT'S GENERALLY A LITTLE BROADER, AND IT'S THINKING ABOUT HOW THE CHANGES BEING PROPOSED MIGHT BE IMPACTING THE NET AMOUNT OF LAND USE, LAND AVAILABLE FOR CERTAIN USES, OR HOW WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS OR AWAY FROM ACTIVITY CENTERS.

AND SO SOME OF THOSE ANALYZES THAT ARE LISTED IN TITLE 11 WERE WAIVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR BECAUSE WE COULDN'T PERFORM THE KIND OF ANALYSIS FOR THIS TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE DECISION MAKING AND WOULD BE PART OF HOW WE COULD LOOK AT THIS.

WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CHANGES TO WASTE WATER AND WATER MANAGEMENT THAT WILL RESULT FROM THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN.

BUT THAT IS AN IMPACT ALREADY IN PLACE BECAUSE WE'VE ADOPTED THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN AND BECAUSE THE CITY IS THE MANAGER OF THOSE RESOURCES.

SO WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER IMPACT ANALYSIS TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S SORT OF ALREADY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A POPULATION IMPACT AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY GROUND DISTURBING IMPACTS. SO CULTURAL RESOURCES WAS ALSO WAIVED.

WE DID WANT TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND IMPACTS FOR TRANSPORTATION.

THIS IS, OF COURSE, A VERY QUALITATIVE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS AND NOT AN MTIA THE WAY WE'RE USED TO SEEING THEM.

AND SAME FOR HOUSING. AND SO THOSE ARE PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

OVERALL, MOVING TOWARDS CARBON NEUTRALITY WILL PROMOTE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION IN LINE WITH THE POLICY SETTING GOING ON IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY AND FOR HOUSING IT WILL PREPARE US FOR IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE MIGRATION AND OTHER IMPACTS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SET OF IMPACT ANALYZES? GREAT. THERE IS ALSO PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ANALYSIS THAT TALKS ABOUT INCREASING THE RESILIENCY AND PREPAREDNESS OF OUR SYSTEMS AND ALSO REDUCING OUR ENERGY COSTS, ESPECIALLY AFTER INITIAL INVESTMENT.

THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS ALSO TALKS ABOUT CARBON NEUTRALITY IN THE FACT THAT THERE WILL BE A VARIETY OF BOTH COSTS TO ACHIEVE CARBON NEUTRALITY AND BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY, BOTH ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL, TO HAVE A BETTER AS A TOURISM BASED ECONOMY THAT IS VERY USEFUL TO US AS WELL.

AND SO IT DOESN'T GO TO THE FULL AMOUNT OF QUANTIFYING THOSE, BUT DESCRIBES THOSE IN A MANNER THAT ALLOWS US TO LOOK AT THEM QUALITATIVELY.

AND THEN THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT OUTSIDE OF THOSE IMPACTS LISTED IN THE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ANALYSIS, THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO POLICE AND FIRE.

SO OUR FIRST FINDING FOR PLAN CONFORMANCE IS FIRST FINDING FOR THIS CASE IN A MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT, THERE'S NOT AS MANY FINDINGS AS A REZONING CASE.

THE FIRST ONE IS THAT WE HAVE PLANNED CONFORMANCE DOES THE WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE IN THE PLAN FIT THE OVERARCHING GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE PLAN, EVEN IF IT'S MOVING FORWARD A LITTLE FASTER OR CHANGING HOW WE GET THERE? WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS IS IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT JENNY, IN HER APPLICATION, DID A VERY THOROUGH POLICY BY POLICY ANALYSIS OF EVERY POLICY IN THE PLAN.

SHE DID RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE A FEW PLACES, MUCH LIKE EVERYTHING IN OUR REGIONAL PLAN,

[00:25:05]

SO, YOU KNOW, DARK SKIES ARE MENTIONED IN THE PLAN, AND THERE'S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSIONS OF COMPROMISE THAT THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO GO FOR THE MOST EFFICIENT LIGHTING POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GIVING UP OUR DARK SKIES IMPROVEMENTS AND STATUS.

SO THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE DISCUSSED IN THE PLAN CONFORMANCE.

NONE OF THOSE CAUSED A MAJOR CONFORMANCE ISSUE.

AS YOU KNOW, EVERY CASE HAS SOME THINGS THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THEM AND USUALLY A FEW THINGS THAT SORT OF ARE NEED A MITIGATION OR AN ALIGNMENT.

BUT MANY OF THOSE HAVE BEEN AGREED ON BECAUSE THE STAFF OF THE CITY HAS ALREADY BEEN WORKING FOR OVER A YEAR ON THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN ITSELF.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ONE? OK. CONTINUING DOWN THE LIST OF POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING POLICIES AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MITIGATION, AS WE SAID WITH DARK SKIES, DARK SKY LIGHTING IS OF PREEMINENT IMPORTANCE AND THERE'S ALREADY BEEN THE FLOODS PROJECT.

IT'S BEEN WORKING ON MEETING THOSE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AS BEST WE CAN WHILE MAINTAINING DARK SKIES.

THERE'S ALSO PLENTY OF GOALS AND POLICIES ABOUT INCREASING DENSITIES IN THE PLAN THAT ALREADY EXIST, BUT THERE ARE ALSO POLICIES ABOUT VIEWS AND PROTECTION OF VIEWS, SHEDS AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

THAT CONFLICT EXISTS IN THE REGIONAL PLAN NOW.

IT IS NOT BEING INTRODUCED BY THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND SO THAT THAT TENSION IS THERE AND ONE THAT WE BRING TO YOU ON A REGULAR BASIS WHEN IT COMES UP IN CASES.

T.8.4 AND T.8.5, WHICH COME UP UNDER THE FREIGHT GOALS AND POLICIES ALSO HAVE SOME IMPACTS ON THE SIZES OF INTERACTIONS AND THINGS THAT CAN REDUCE THE WALKABILITY OF AN AREA.

AND SO THE TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STAFF IS AWARE THOSE THAT'S A PREEXISTING TENSION WITHIN THE PLAN THAT IS ALREADY PART OF DESIGN REVIEW ON A REGULAR BASIS.

[INAUDIBLE] I'M WONDERING WHAT WOULD BE WHAT MIGHT BE ENVISIONED AS A CHALLENGE OF DARK SKIES FOR CARBON NEUTRALITY? IS THAT THE AMBER LIGHTING, EVEN THE AMBER LED LIGHTING THAT THE SLEDS PROJECT HAS BEEN WORKING TO IMPLEMENT IN THE CITY IS STILL NOT AS ENERGY EFFICIENT AS THE MOST EFFICIENT LIGHTING, LIKE WE ARE GIVING UP SOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY TO MAINTAIN DARK SKIES LIGHTING IN THE CITY. SO IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT THAT, THE AMOUNT OF POWER BEING PULLED BY THE LIGHT, SO TO MAINTAIN THAT NARROW BAND, IT TAKES MORE ENERGY.

I SEE, SO IT'S NOT A MATTER OF SAY DIMMABLE LIGHTS.

NO, NO, IT'S REALLY THE TYPE OF LIGHTING IN AND OF ITSELF.

THAT'S FROM [INAUDIBLE] MY UNDERSTANDING JENNY'S BEEN MORE INVOLVED IS THAT THAT'S IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS STICKING A FILTER ON A LIGHT.

OK. I CAN I CAN CONFIRM, YES, IT'S JUST WHAT SARAH SAID, IT'S, WE LOSE SOME EFFICIENCY WITH DARK-SKY PROTECTION, BUT THAT IS A VALUE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT WITH CLIMATE PROGRAMS REALLY SINCE THE FIRST CLIMATE PLAN AND THAT IS LIKE MANY TRADE OFFS THAT YOU ALL DEAL WITH, ONE THAT WE JUST HAVE TO BALANCE.

OK CHAIR, MAY I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION? YEAH. AND THIS IS COMMISSIONER NOLAN, SO I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS THIS TO ME LOOKS LIKE WE'RE COMPROMISING PART OF OUR CARBON NEUTRALITY IN FAVOR OF DARK SKIES.

AND I UNDERSTAND WHY FOR A LOT OF REASONS, I WAS AN EDUCATOR AT THE OBSERVATORY.

SO EVEN FROM AN EDUCATION POINT OF VIEW AT THAT CAMPUS, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR DARK SKIES. SO WITH THAT ON THE TABLE, I'M WONDERING, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S IN THE LANGUAGE THAT CAN LEAN TOWARDS ALWAYS MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SEE IF A NEW TECHNOLOGY CAN BE DEVELOPED? SO THAT WAY, WE'RE NOT JUST SETTLING FOR WHATEVER THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY IS FOR AMBER LIGHTS. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT QUESTION, JENNY, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER? I'M HAPPY TO I, COMMISSIONER NOLAN, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

IT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. I THINK THAT THE CARBON I WOULD SAY THAT THE CARBON NEUTRALITY GOALS ARE VERY STRONG ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ALL OF THESE THINGS.

AND I THINK THAT THEY ARE SORT OF THE GUIDING THING THAT IS STRONG ENOUGH TO PUSH US

[00:30:02]

THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TECHNOLOGY AREA, AND A LOT OF CREDIT ACTUALLY GOES TO OUR ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION STAFF FOR ACTUALLY WORKING WITH A MANUFACTURER TO ESSENTIALLY LIKE MANUFACTURE LIGHTS SPECIFICALLY FOR FLAGSTAFF THAT DO THIS.

SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THE INCENTIVES ARE ALREADY THERE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN BECAUSE IT IS HAPPENING. IT'S BEEN, I THINK, A FIVE OR NINE YEAR PROCESS TO FIGURE OUT A GOOD SOLUTION FOR US. OK, GREAT.

AND THE MAIN REASON WHY I BRING THAT UP IS THAT I DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT OF THE FLAGSTAFF LOCATION OR CAMPUS, BUT THE ANDERSON MESA AND THE DCT THAT'S AT HAPPY JACK, THOSE ARE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY.

SO I GUESS WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THAT.

WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO GO CARBON NEUTRAL.

HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT INTERFERING WITH THE RESEARCH THAT'S BEEN THAT'S BEING CONDUCTED AT THOSE OTHER LOCATIONS WHILE BALANCING OUT, OBVIOUSLY THE CARBON NEUTRALITY COMPONENT FOR WHAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITHIN CITY BORDERS.

SO I GUESS I'M JUST KIND OF LOOKING FOR, YEAH, WHAT CAN HELP TO BALANCE THE VALUE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO CARBON NEUTRALITY.

YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE COMPROMISING TOO MUCH.

BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO PUT THE OBSERVATORY IN A COMPROMISING POSITION BECAUSE OF THE GREAT WORK THAT THEY DO.

SO THANK YOU.

OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DO NOT SEE ANY.

GREAT, I'LL MOVE ON TO FINDING TWO, FINDING TWO IS THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS FINDING.

AND SO THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS DESCRIBED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ARE AN INCREASED UNDERSTANDING AND POLICY ALIGNMENT WITH COMMUNITY PRIORITIES, PARTICULARLY BETWEEN THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY CARBON NEUTRALITY AND THE REGIONAL PLAN AND INCREASED TRANSPARENCY SO THAT THE IMPACT ANALYZES THAT HAVE BEEN PREPARED PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON HOW TRADE OFFS BETWEEN DIFFERENT POLICIES AND DIFFERENT COSTS AND BENEFITS MIGHT BE PLAYING OUT AS PART OF THIS AMENDMENT AND IMPROVED RESILIENCE AND PREPARATION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BOTH IN THE CITY'S ACTIONS AND IN THE REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY DECISIONS AND UPDATES TO OUR ZONING CODE. OH, I'M SORRY, WENT BACKWARDS.

ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IS A LARGE BENEFIT THAT'S BEING ADDED BY THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS A STRONG BASIS FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE ACROSS SECTORS.

SO TODAY IS PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER ONE, AND OUR NEXT PUBLIC MEETING IS NOT HAPPENING ON A REGULAR DATE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, IT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING A WEEK FROM TODAY AT 4:30 P.M.

INSTEAD OF FOUR P.M.

AND IT WILL BE THE LOCATION WHERE PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO GO IN PERSON IS GOING TO BE THE MURDOCH CENTER, 203 EAST BRANNON AVENUE.

AND SO THE COMMISSION IS NOT BEING ASKED TO TAKE THIS ACTION TONIGHT.

SO I'LL PUT THIS SLIDE BACK UP NEXT WEEK.

BUT NEXT WEEK YOU WILL BE ASKED IF YOU WANT TO APPROVE THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, WHICH IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED AT THE PRIOR MEETING, WHICH WAS THE CITIZEN REVIEW SECTION.

THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER GUTHRIE HAD WANTED TO SEE CHANGED UNDER E&C2.6, 3.6 WHERE HE WANTED THE WORDS ATTEMPT TO TO BE STRUCK FROM THAT PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. AND I CAN GO, I CAN GO BACK TO THAT POLICY IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AGAIN.

BUT THAT IS STAFF PUT THAT BEFORE YOU JUST TO REMIND YOU THAT WAS A REQUEST THAT WAS MADE. IT'S NOT IN YOUR POCKET, BUT YOU CAN MAKE IT AS A COMMISSION IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU WANT TO PROCEED NEXT WEEK.

BUT FOR TODAY, WE JUST HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

AND IF AND THEN WE CLOSE THIS HEARING AND OPEN A NEW ONE ON THE 17TH.

WE NEED TO TAKE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC IF THERE ARE ANY LIKE.

UH, YES, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYONE AT THE AQUAPLEX OR IF THERE'S ANYONE ON THE LINE SO.

I WILL CHECK WITH THAT LATER, BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'LL MOVE ON WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, I SEE COMMISSIONER GUTHRIE, HIS HAND IS RAISED.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANK YOU, SARAH, FOR THE PRESENTATION.

MY QUICK QUESTION WAS WHETHER WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE THE SLIDES THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON OR SHOULD WE WAIT TILL NEXT WEEK AND THEN GET THEM THEN? IN NEXT WEEK, IT'S JUST THE SAME SET OF SLIDES.

SO I WILL SEND WHAT YOU HAVE.

[00:35:05]

OK. I'D BE GLAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ADDED YES.

ALL RIGHT. GENERALLY, THERE'S A LINK WHEN THE AGENDA'S SOUL SET OUT, THERE'S A LINK TO THAT TO THE PACKET, WHICH WOULD ORDINARILY INCLUDE THE INFORMATION ON THE STAFF PRESENTATION, CORRECT? BUT THE INVITATION INFORMATION IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION.

RIGHT, SO I DIDN'T SEE THAT LINK, AND SO I WAS ASKING FOR A COPY OF THAT NOW.

THANK YOU. OH, I'LL GET IT ADDED AS A LINK, WE CAN ADD IT AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE TO THE MEETING FOR NEXT WEEK.

THANK YOU. THAT'LL WORK, THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? CHAIR, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, SARAH.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER LIKE THE LOCAL WITH THE DARK SKIES? IT'S AN INTERESTING INTERSECTION BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE TWO HIGH VALUES THAT FLAGSTAFF HAS, AND HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING COMPROMISES IN AREAS THAT MAKE SENSE? ARE THERE ANY OTHER AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE OBSERVATORY WHERE WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER PRIORITIZING CARBON NEUTRALITY IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS HIGHLY VALUED IN FLAGSTAFF? I THINK THAT THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE MENTIONED WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT POLICIES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING, ONE IS BOUCHARD'S ACHIEVING CARBON NEUTRALITY IN THE LONG TERM. THERE'S SORT OF TWO STEPS.

THERE'S FIRST TO BE CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2030 USING OFFSETS.

AND THEN THERE IS TO DECREASE THE RELIANCE ON OFFSETS IN THE FUTURE.

SO TO DO THAT, THERE IS DEFINITELY A NEED FOR CONTINUING ON THE PATH TO INCREASE DENSITY.

AND THAT MAY MEAN THAT THERE ARE SOME VIEW SHEDS THAT AND PARTICULARLY PRIVATE VIEWS WHICH ARE NOT REALLY PROTECTED BY THE REGIONAL PLAN.

BUT THOUGH WE TALK ABOUT THEM FROM TIME TO TIME, THAT'S THAT'S AN AREA WHERE IF WE'RE WORKING TO ACHIEVE OUR CARBON NEUTRALITY IN THE LONG TERM, THERE MAY BE SOME VIEWS THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERATE COULD BE ALTERED OR EVEN BLOCKED BY LARGER BUILDINGS.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE THAT'S PROBABLY IMPORTANT IS THE INTERSECTION DESIGN.

ONE OF, YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE BUILDING LARGE INTERSECTIONS FOR FREIGHT MOVEMENT, THEY ARE HARDER TO BUILD THEM. ALSO FOR PEDESTRIANS, THOUGH NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

AND OF COURSE, THE TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN WORK AROUND SAFE PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS IS, OF COURSE, AN ONGOING DISCUSSION IN THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION THAT PLANNERS TO STAY REALLY TUNED INTO AS WELL.

OKAY, GREAT, SO INTERSECTIONS VIEW SHEDS, DARK SKIES, BUT ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY COME UP AGAINST ANYTHING JUST YET.

JENNY, AM I MISSING ANYTHING? UM. I APOLOGIZE.

TRYING TO FIGURE OUT TWO COMPUTERS HERE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT SARAH GAVE A REALLY GOOD SUMMARY OF IT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AS SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY PRESENT IN THE PLAN IS, YOU KNOW, AS THIS COMMUNITY THINKS ABOUT DENSITY AS IT'S RELATED TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND OPEN SPACE, WE OFTEN HEAR CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

WE TALK ABOUT THIS IN THE APPLICATION, BUT WE FEEL REALLY STRONGLY THAT DENSITY CAN ACTUALLY SUPPORT COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND OPEN SPACE BY, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY WITH OPEN SPACE. IF WE HAVE MORE DENSITY, WE HAVE LESS SPRAWL, RIGHT? WE HAVE LESS SPRAWL INTO THE FOREST AND INTO OUR REALLY PRIZED OPEN SPACE.

SO THAT'S NOT A CONFLICT THAT WE BELIEVE IS THERE, BUT COMMISSIONER NOLAN THAT THAT IS A CONCERN THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT IN THE PAST AND HAVE GRAPPLED WITH A LOT, YOU KNOW, AS THE THE SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM, BUT AS WELL AS THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AS A WHOLE.

AND YOU KNOW, OUR COLLEAGUES IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THINK A WHOLE LOT ABOUT AS WELL AS I KNOW YOU ALL DO ON THE COMMISSION.

OK. GREAT, BECAUSE I GUESS THE ONLY FOURTH THING WOULD BE THE EQUITY COMPONENT, BUT YEAH, I THINK YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

I SEE COMMISSIONER JONES.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I RELATED TO TO TO WHAT JENNY WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT WITH COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

I HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH LATELY ABOUT THE COMMUNITY.

[00:40:04]

AND SO I MEAN, I WAS SEEING THAT IN PARTICULAR AS A I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT WHERE THAT WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT.

I HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH ABOUT IT LATELY, BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, PRESENT A KIND OF A CONFLICT TOO.

THAT I MEAN, AND IN THAT CASE, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RELATIVELY SMALL PART OF FLAGSTAFF, BUT STILL I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT ONE.

YEAH, I WOULD WEIGH IN, I WOULD WEIGH IN ON THAT AND JUST, YOU KNOW, THE OLD, THE OLD SAW IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE MOST EFFICIENT OR THE MOST UM ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY BUILDING IS A EXISTING BUILDING.

SO, YOU KNOW, YOU GET A LOT MORE.

THE BIG CARBON BANG FOR YOUR BUCK OUT OF PRESERVING EXISTING BUILDINGS, DOING RETROFITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THEN YOU DO DEMOLISHING EXISTING BUILDINGS, PUTTING UP ALL NEW ONES. THAT IS SUCH AN EXCELLENT POINT.

THERE'S A LOT OF STUDIES THAT BEAR THAT OUT.

YEAH. SO WE MIGHT ADD HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION TO OUR LIST OF, OUR LIST OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED.

I CAN'T RECALL, JENNY, IS THAT MENTIONED IN THE CARBON NEUTRALITY IN THE PLAN? THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER JONES, WE TALK ABOUT THE VALUE OF CERTAINLY RIGHT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND KIND OF INFILL RIGHT AND OF ADAPTIVE REUSE.

YES, ABSOLUTELY.

PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED, RIGHT? ARE THESE REALLY PRIME AREAS FROM A TRANSPORTATION PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT? SO THAT'S THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF IT, RIGHT, IS THAT A LOT OF OUR OLDER BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY REALLY WELL LOCATED.

SO WE DO TALK ABOUT THAT ADAPTIVE REUSE AND ALL THE EFFICIENCIES THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO OUR EXISTING BUILDINGS, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE DEEMED HISTORIC.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE, I WILL EXTEND AN INVITATION IF THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC ONLINE THAT HAS QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO FEEL FREE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

OK, HEARING NONE, I THINK THAT.

MOVES US ON TO OUR FINAL ITEM, EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS

[6. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS]

ARE THERE ANY MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO THE COMMISSION? OK. THANK YOU, JENNY.

I HAVE ONE ITEM I JUST LIKE TO EXPRESS, AND THAT'S TO THE STAFF AND COMMISSION.

ALEX DID FORWARD CONVEY TO ME YOUR YOUR THOUGHTS FOR THE LOSING MY MOM LAST MONTH, AND IT'S BEEN A HARD, HARD TIME, BUT, YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING PART OF THE COMMUNITY OF SUPPORT.

IT MEANS QUITE A BIT TO ME, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? THANKS, DAVID.

SO SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS AND LET US KNOW IF YOU NEED ANYTHING.

AND THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR WORKING WITH SARAH NYE AND JENNY ON THIS KIND OF CRAZY SCHEDULE WE HAVE GOING ON SO REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE WILLING TO HELP OUT AND HAVE THESE MEETINGS AND AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

SO THANK YOU.

AND THEN JUST REMEMBER THAT THE NEXT MEETING STILL IS NEXT WEEK.

[00:45:05]

CORRECT. YES.

OK. WELL, IF THERE IS ANY OBJECTION, WE MAY STAND ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.