>> I'D LIKE TO CALL THE APRIL 19,
[00:00:09]
2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER.[2. Roll Call NOTE: One or more Commission Members may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. MARIE JONES, CHAIR CAROLE MANDINO, VICE CHAIR DR. RICARDO GUTHRIE BOB HARRIS, III MARY NORTON IAN SHARP MARCHELL CAMP ]
CAN WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL PLEASE?>> RICARDO GUTHRIE IS EXCUSED.
>> THANK YOU. I WANTED TO MAKE THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF LAST WEEKS.
WELL, FIRST I'M GOING TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
WE CANNOT ADDRESS, THE COMMISSION CANNOT ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT IS BROUGHT UP, BUT YOU CAN SPEAK IF YOU NEED TO ON SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
ARE THERE ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF COMMENTS? I DON'T SEE ANY. THEN THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES,
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on Wednesday, April 12, 2023.]
WE NEED A MOTION FOR LAST WEEK'S MINUTES.>> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
>> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR YOU CAN SAY AYE.
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES.
[A. PZ-21-00126-01: Specific Plan request, by Northern Arizona Healthcare (NAH) Corporation, of approximately 172.6 acres located at 1120 W Purple Sage Trail for the NAH Health Village currently zoned Rural Residential (RR – 74.62 acres), Estate Residential (ER – 97.76 acres), and Single Family Residential (R1 – 0.25 acres). STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff believes that the proposed NAH Health Village Specific Plan is in substantial conformance with the required findings and recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation approving the adoption of the NAH Health Village Specific Plan, subject to the thirteen conditions identified in the staff summary. This is a continuation of the last public hearing. Please refer to the March 22 agenda for the original staff summaries and attachments. A new staff memo, draft development agreement, draft public open space easement, and mitigation requirements from the approved Transportation Impact Analysis are attached.]
[B. PZ-21-00126-02: Concept Zoning Map Amendment request, by Northern Arizona Healthcare (NAH) Corporation, of approximately 98.39 acres located at 1120 W Purple Sage Trail for Phase 1 of the NAH Health Village from Rural Residential (RR – 40.47 acres) and Estate Residential (ER – 57.92 acres) to Highway Commercial (HC – 63.18 acres) and Public Facilities (PF – 35.21 acres). Of the 14 parcels included in this request, all but three (APN 112-10-036, 112-10-037, and 112-05-125) are currently within the Resource Protection Overlay (RPO). These remaining three parcels will be added to the RPO as part of this request. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff believes that the proposed Zoning Map amendment is in substantial conformance with the required findings and recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation approving an amendment to the Zoning Map for a total of 93.39 acres from the Rural Residential (RR) and Estate Residential (ER) to the Highway Commercial (HC) zone for 63.18 acres and to the Public Facility zone for 35.21 acres. Additionally, three parcels (112-10-036, 112-10-037, and 112-05-125) will be added to the Resource Protection Overlay (RPO), subject to the eleven conditions in the staff report.]
NOW THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THIS IS A CONTINUATION FROM LAST WEEK'S MEETING ON TWO ITEMS, A SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR NAH CORPORATION.I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYTHING FROM STAFF.
I WANTED TO JUST ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST BECAUSE WE DID CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS LAST WEEK AND WE HAVE INDEED HAD SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 100 AND A COUPLE OF 100 COMMENTS BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SPEAKING AND LETTERS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED.
I'M SURE ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE REALLY PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THOSE AND FACTORED THOSE IN.
WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, IF SOMEBODY DOES WANT TO SPEAK I WOULD ASK THAT IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY SAID AND IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY SPOKEN, THEN WE WOULD HEAR YOUR COMMENT.
LET ME JUST CONFIRM THAT WE REALLY HAVE HEARD THE THINGS THAT EVERYBODY HAS SAID.
IF THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THEN WE'D LIKE TO NOT DO THAT.
LET'S SEE. I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A QUESTION.
>> PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU TALK INTO YOUR MICROPHONE.
>> THERE MIGHT BE TWO QUESTIONS FROM TWO COMMISSIONERS FOR STAFF.
>> I THINK JUST WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS TO HEAR FROM LEGAL COUNSEL ON EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE, THAT TYPE OF THING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE TWO THINGS IN FRONT OF US.
IS IT THAT WE HAVE TO SEND IT TO COUNSEL WITH A YES OR A NO? ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS? I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
>> SURE. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER, CHRISTINA RUBALCAVA, SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY.
WITH RESPECT TO WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON, YOU HAVE THE TWO ITEMS AND EACH ITEM HAS SPECIFIC FINDINGS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE BASING YOUR DECISION ON THOSE FINDINGS.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL THAT THE COMMISSION WILL BE MAKING ON BOTH ITEMS. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION AND EACH SPECIFIC COMMISSIONER PARTICULARLY IF IT WINDS UP BEING A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL TO STATE DURING THE DISCUSSION PERIOD YOUR PARTICULAR CONCERNS THAT LED YOU TO VOTE IN THAT WAY.
THAT WAY, WHEN COUNCIL TAKES THIS UP ON MAY 2ND, COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF YOUR THOUGHTS THAT WENT INTO THAT DECISION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THESE KIND OF GENERAL QUESTIONS, BUT IF THERE ARE MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN READ YET ON THE AGENDA BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AGENDAIZED SO THAT WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE THERE IF YOU WANT TO GET INTO SPECIFICS.
[00:05:05]
>> ARE THOSE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS? CAN WE VOTE TO POSTPONE?
>> I THINK THERE IS THE OPTION TO DO THAT.
I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS VERY EAGER TO GET TO COUNCIL AND WOULD APPRECIATE.
OF COURSE THE APPLICANT WOULD PREFER A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, BUT IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT IT'S NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME THE APPLICANT WOULD PREFER THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL SO THAT THIS CAN MOVE FORWARD TO COUNCIL.
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN NOTICED FOR COUNCIL AND WE'RE SET TO GO THERE MAY 2ND.
>> THEN THE LAST QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS IF WE VOTED FOR APPROVAL, COULD WE ADD SUGGESTIONS OR REVISIONS TO THAT?
>> I THINK YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN.
I WOULD PREFER PERSONALLY THAT THOSE COME BY WAY OF DURING DISCUSSION, YOU STATE YOUR CONCERNS OR YOU STATE ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
AS YOU PROBABLY SAW, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AND WE'RE ACTUALLY HOPING TO SIMPLIFY THAT LIST BEFORE WE GET TO COUNCIL, BUT I KNOW COUNCIL REALLY APPRECIATES THE WORK OF THIS COMMISSION.
WE'LL LISTEN TO THIS MEETING AND WE'LL HEAR ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU MAKE.
>> JUST TAGGING ONTO THAT A LITTLE BIT, SO WOULD THAT BE AN APPROVAL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS?
>> I THINK WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD MAKE IS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IF WHOEVER MADE THE MOTION WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS IS A MOTION FOR A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, HOWEVER WE ASK THAT WHEN THIS IS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL, COUNCIL CONSIDER IN PARTICULAR AND THEN WHATEVER THE ITEM IS, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY AN EASIER WAY.
ANOTHER WAY IS JUST SIMPLY TO ADD ANOTHER CONDITION.
WE'RE GOING TO SIMPLIFY THE CONDITIONS ANYWAY AND COUNCIL IS GOING TO HEAR THIS.
I THINK EITHER WAY IS FINE, BUT PROBABLY IT'S GOING TO BE EASIER IF WE DON'T DO A FORMAL CONDITION.
>> FEEL LIKE THAT ANSWERS EVERYBODY'S QUESTIONS, AS FAR AS GOING FORWARD.
DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT STAFF HAS TO TELL US BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
>> PREPARED THE MEMO, TRAINED TO ADDRESS AS MANY, ENDED UP WITH A LOT LESS TIME [LAUGHTER] TRYING TO PREPARE ANSWERS.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, STAFF IS HERE TO ANSWER THEM.
>> MARY, I SAW YOUR EMAIL SAYING THAT THERE WERE TWO MEMOS THAT WERE LISTED AND THAT WE COULDN'T ACCESS THEM.
THEN WE GOT AN EMAIL LATER FROM ALEX SAYING THAT SHE FELT THE LINK WAS FIXED OR SOMEBODY SAID IT WAS FIXED.
BUT I DIDN'T SEE THE TWO MEMOS LISTED ANYMORE.
THEN BECKY, YOU SAID THERE WAS A MEMO FROM STAFF, BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME WHAT THAT MEMO WAS.
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST HIGHLIGHT THE MEMO?
>> IN TERMS OF THE MEMO, IT'S JUST RESPONDING TO THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE 4 12 23 MEETING.
FIRST IS A DRAFT COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL ON MAY 16TH IS ATTACHED FOR THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW.
THIS DRAFT WAS ONLY RECENTLY COMPLETED FOR NOTICING FOR THE COUNCIL REVIEW COMING IN MAY.
A DRAFT OF THE EASEMENT FOR THE OPEN SPACE AREAS WITHIN THE PROPOSED NAH HEALTH VILLAGE WAS ALSO ATTACHED, AS REQUESTED PREVIOUSLY.
A LIST OF THE REQUIRED PHASE 1 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS WAS ATTACHED.
THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOES INCLUDE THAT SAME REQUIRED MITIGATION.
ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS THAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.
AS CHRISTINA JUST MENTIONED, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS WE'D LIKE TO GET RESOLVED BETWEEN NOW AND COUNSEL DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF TODAY'S MEETING.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS.
THOSE CONDITIONS WERE ALSO REITERATED IN THIS MEMO, BUT YOU HAVE THOSE CONDITIONS IN THE PREVIOUS REPORTS AS WELL.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE EDITED WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN ITSELF.
OUR GOAL IS TO GET THAT WORK COMPLETED HERE SHORTLY.
LASTLY, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING, REGARDING THE OUTDOOR FITNESS EQUIPMENT.
THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGED THAT PROGRAMMING FOR LAND USE AREA 1B HAS NOT OCCURRED BEYOND CONCEPTUAL DESCRIPTIONS AND DEPICTIONS.
[00:10:01]
I THINK THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, WHAT WAS THE EXACT EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD BE INSTALLED? AND WE'VE AGREED THAT WE HAVE NOT YET PICKED OUT THAT EQUIPMENT, BUT THAT NAH SHALL CONSULT WITH THE CITY'S PROS DIVISION IN DEVELOPING THOSE PLANS FOR THAT RECREATION AREA AND MEETING THE GOALS AND POLICIES SET FORTH IN THE CITY'S PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN.THAT'S THE LANGUAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO DATE.
BECAUSE ALL OF THE SITE PLANNING WORK FOR THAT AREA HASN'T BEEN COMPLETED YET, THERE ARE A LOT OF FINAL DETAILS WE WON'T HAVE.
THE DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DETAILS THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED BY NAH.
THESE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOCUS ON WATER, SEWER, STORM WATER, AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, BOTH ON AND OFF THE ASSOCIATED SITE.
COST ESTIMATES FOR ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE NOT YET BEEN DEVELOPED.
THE REASON BEING IS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN CIVIL PLANS FOR ALL OF THE COST ESTIMATES.
I HAVE ROUGH APPROXIMATE COST ESTIMATES FOR WHAT THE OFFSITE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ARE.
IT RANGES ANYWHERE $35-45 MILLION.
THE REASON WHY I HAVE THOSE NUMBERS IS THAT THAT PARTICULAR BUDGET WAS PREPARED FOR A GRANT APPLICATION.
BUT AGAIN, FULL CIVIL PLANS HAVE NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED, BUT THAT'S THE ROUGH ESTIMATE $35-45 MILLION FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
IF THE GRANT IS NOT OBTAINED, NAH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT THOSE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETED.
LASTLY, THERE'S ALSO A 16-INCH WATER MAIN THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND IT GOES THROUGH THE NAH SITE, CONNECTS TO A WATER MAIN JUST OUTSIDE OF FORT HILL, GOES THROUGH THE NAH DEVELOPMENT SITE AND WE'LL CONNECT THROUGH BIOLA ALL THE WAY DOWN TO UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS DRIVE SOUTH.
ALONE, THAT WATER MAIN WOULD PROBABLY BE IN THE RANGE OF ABOUT A $3,000,000 PROJECT, BUT IT WOULD BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT ROAD PROJECT.
THAT WATERLINE IS WITHIN THAT $35-45 MILLION ESTIMATE.
IT'LL BE COMPLETED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
THERE ARE SOME EFFICIENCIES GAINED THERE.
IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A STANDALONE COST.
THERE IS A WATER STORAGE TANK THAT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED.
THE COST FOR THAT IS ANYWHERE BETWEEN $1.5, $1.7 MILLION.
IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO PERUSE THAT.
WE ARE ALSO THE CITY, WE OFTENTIMES WILL PARTNER WITH A DEVELOPER WHEN INFRASTRUCTURE IS BEING PUT IN.
MAYBE A DEVELOPER NEEDS A 16-INCH WATER MAIN OR MAYBE WE WANT A 20-INCH OR AN 18-INCH.
WE WILL PAY THAT ADDITIONAL COST KNOWING THAT IT'S A REALLY BIG EFFICIENCY FOR THE CITY.
SEEMS TRUE WITH THE WATER TANK, WE'RE WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH NAH ON THAT LOCATION.
THE CITY IS ALREADY IN NEED OF ADDITIONAL WATER STORAGE, SO WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY FOR THAT WATER STORAGE TANK.
WE HAVE BUILT-IN PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO COME UP WITH THAT SITE, WERE UNSUCCESSFUL NAH IS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT PORTION.
BUT WE MAY ALSO WORK WITH THEM ON ADDING ADDITIONAL WATER STORAGE.
AGAIN, ALL OF THOSE ARE DETAILED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THE LAST ITEM IN TERMS OF BUDGET AND FINANCING, IS NOT REALLY CONSIDERED AN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT AND THAT IS THE CAPITAL COST OF THE FIRE STATION.
A LOT OF WORK WAS DONE AND A LOT OF INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE PREVIOUS REPORTS IN REGARDS TO THE ANALYSIS THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN REGARDS TO THE FIRE STATION.
IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT A FULLY STAFFED LADDER COMPANY IS NECESSARY AT FIRE STATION 6.
WE KNOW THAT FIRE STATIONS 6 IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THAT ADDITIONAL PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.
IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, NAH HAS AGREED TO COVER 50% OF THE CAPITAL COST FOR RELOCATING THAT FIRE STATION.
THE CITY WILL TAKE ON THE OTHER 50% COST.
AS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THE CITY IS COMFORTABLE WITH COVERING AND HAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED FUNDS FOR THOSE ONETIME CAPITAL COSTS THAT WERE ATTRIBUTED TO FIRE RELATED SERVICE.
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL $1.4 MILLION FOR ONGOING PERSONNEL COSTS.
WHAT WE HEARD FROM OUR MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR WAS THAT THERE IS A GRANT THAT THE CITY IS LOOKING AT PURSUING THAT WOULD COVER THOSE COSTS FOR A THREE-YEAR TIME-FRAME.
AFTER THAT, THE CITY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE ONGOING PERSONNEL COSTS,
[00:15:03]
WHICH A BUDGET HAS NOT YET BEEN SET, SO WE DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT FUNDING SOURCE COMES FROM FOR THAT 1.4, IT'S NOT ALLOCATED.IT'S REALLY EASY WITHIN A BUDGET PROCESS TO ALLOCATE ONETIME CAPITAL.
IT'S A MUCH DIFFERENT DISCUSSION AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO SIT HERE AND TELL YOU TODAY THIS IS HOW THIS PERSONNEL COST IS GOING TO BE COVERED BECAUSE IT COULD BE COVERED THE FIRST THREE YEARS BY A GRANT, IT COULD BE COVERED THE NEXT SIX YEARS BY SOME OTHER FUNDING SOURCE, AND THEN IT COULD GO INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING TO RECOGNIZE WITH FIRE SERVICE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IS THAT FIRE SERVICE DOESN'T ONLY JUST SERVE NAH, IT WILL SERVE THE BROADER COMMUNITY AND THE OVERALL COMMUNITY AND OTHER AREAS OF GROWTH WITHIN THE CITY WILL BENEFIT FROM THE EXPANSION OF FIRE STATION 6.
CURRENTLY, WE DO ASSESS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR FIRE SERVICES.
THOSE INCLUDE CAPITAL COST FOR FIRE STATIONS.
OUR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE POTENTIAL OF TWO NEW FIRE STATIONS IN THE FUTURE.
THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES THAT CAN GO TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION OF THAT 50% AS WELL AS NAH'S CONTRIBUTION POTENTIALLY.
THAT CAPITAL COST ARE THOSE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ALSO COVER THE COST OF EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS.
THEY JUST CAN'T COVER STAFFING.
AGAIN, STAFFING IS REALLY THAT UNKNOWN QUESTION.
OUR MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR GAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
THERE'S LOTS OF TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX THAT CAN BE USED FOR PERSONNEL AND STAFFING, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT ADJUSTS AND CHANGES YEAR-TO-YEAR AS THE BUDGET IS COMPLETED.
THAT IS THE BULK OF WHAT IS IN THIS MEMO AND THEN I JUST PULLED OUT ALL OF THE CONDITIONS. SORRY.
>> IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET A COPY OF THE MEMO RIGHT NOW?
>> I CAN EMAIL IT TO YOU RIGHT NOW.
IF THAT WORKS FOR YOU, I'LL GO PRINT IT OUT.
>> I HAVE A COPY HERE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO PASS IT AROUND OR MAKE A FEW COPIES.
>> HOW MANY COPIES WOULD YOU LIKE?
>> I'M SENDING IT TO THE COPIER RIGHT NOW.
NO. NEVER MIND, CAN'T PRINT, SORRY.
[LAUGHTER] FOR SOME REASON I'M NOT CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT?
>> IF I CAN JUST INTERRUPT FOR JUST ONE SECOND, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS AND APOLOGIES FOR THE BLINKING SCREENS THAT WE HAVE.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE AUDIO, THE STREAMING, EVERYTHING IS WORKING NORMALLY EXCEPT FOR THE TVS IN THIS ROOM.
GOOD THING, WE JUST DON'T HAVE PRESENTATIONS TODAY, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
BUT SORRY ABOUT THE FLASHING SCREENS THERE.
JUST, I KNOW I HAVE THESE IN FRONT OF ME AND I'M READING THEM AND I KEEP REREADING THEM.
CAN YOU TELL US THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MOTIONS? THE TWO ITEMS. PZ 21 00126-01 AND -02.
>> SURE. PZ 210-01-2601 IS THE SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST.
THAT SPECIFIC PLAN WILL SERVE AS THE GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE NIH HEALTH VILLAGE AND THAT PARTICULAR ACTIVITY CENTER.
IT IS BOTH A REGULATORY DOCUMENT AS WELL AS THE POLICY DOCUMENT.
IT FURTHERS THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE REGIONAL PLAN AS WELL.
PZ 2100126-02 IS A CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT THAT FOR THE REZONING OF 98.39 ACRES LOCATED AT 11:20 WEST PURPLE SAGE.
OF THAT TOTAL, 98.39 ACRES, 63.1 ACRES WOULD BE REZONED HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, AND 35.21 ACRES WOULD BE REZONED TO PUBLIC FACILITIES.
THAT PUBLIC FACILITIES IS REALLY FOR THAT OPEN SPACE BECAUSE IT INCLUDES AN ACTIVE RECREATION COMPONENT.
>> I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS AND MAYBE THIS WOULD BE HELPFUL, CAROL.
THIS APPLICATION FOR REZONING WAS MADE WITH THE OPTION TO DO A SPECIFIC PLAN OR A CONCEPT PLAN.
THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS ACTUALLY WHILE WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING A MOTION ON REZONING A PORTION OF THIS SITE, WE'VE BEEN MAKING A MOTION FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH ADDRESSES THE WHOLE SITE. THEY'RE [OVERLAPPING]
[00:20:03]
>> LET ME BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC.
THE REGULATORY COMPONENT OF THIS SPECIFIC PLAN ONLY APPLIES TO THE AREA CURRENTLY BEING REZONED.
THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THIS SPECIFIC PLAN APPLIED TO THE REMAINDER OF THE AREA, AND THIS SPECIFIC PLAN WILL BE USED AS PART OF YOUR REGIONAL PLAN ANALYSIS FOR THE REZONING OF PHASE 2.
BUT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASE 2.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE ARE [NOISE] FUTURE REZONINGS FOR OTHER PORTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT WE WON'T BE REVIEWING SPECIFIC PLAN AGAIN, THAT WILL HAVE BEEN DONE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?
>> NO. WE WILL BE REVIEWING A PHASE 2 SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WILL ALSO INCLUDE REGULATORY COMPONENTS FOR PHASE 2 AS WELL.
WHEN YOU SEE PHASE 2 MOVE FORWARD, IT WILL BE BOTH THE SPECIFIC PLAN AS WELL AS THE REZONING AS WELL.
>> THIS LEADS INTO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I DID HAVE.
THERE WILL BE A SECOND SPECIFIC PLAN OR A JUST A PHASE 2 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN?
>> OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE REZONINGS FOR THOSE PARCELS WITHIN PHASE 2 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS PHASE 2 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH IS THE SAME, I SUPPOSE.
WOULD THERE BE A SECOND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR WILL THERE END UP BEING AMENDMENTS TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT COVERS THINGS IN PHASE 2?
>> HOW LONG DOES THIS SPECIFIC PLAN REMAIN IN EFFECT?
>> FOREVER. UNLESS IT'S AMENDED OR RESCINDED.
GENERALLY, WHEN WE ADOPT A NEW REGIONAL PLAN, WHICH IS THE OVERARCHING DOCUMENT, IT'LL SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THESE SPECIFIC PLANS.
OUR SPECIFIC PLANS WERE DONE THAT SAME WAY IN THE LAST DOCUMENT.
UNTIL IT'S AMENDED OR UPDATED, IT WILL REMAIN IN PLACE.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK THEM TO DIFFERENT QUESTION WHILE EVERYBODY ELSE IS READING THE MEMO.
IN THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FROM OUR MARCH 22ND MEETING IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT OUTLINED 12 CONDITIONS.
BUT TODAY'S AGENDA AND THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS ITEM SAYS THAT THERE'S 11 CONDITIONS.
WHEN I WENT BACK TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES FROM OUR MARCH 22ND, IT SHOWED THE 11, NUMBER 9, AND THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WAS DROPPED OFF, WHICH READ, TO MITIGATE THE PROPOSED BUILDING DEVELOPMENT, A 60 FOOT FRONT LANDSCAPE BUFFER FROM BEULAH BOULEVARD SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE INTENT OF PRESERVING AS MANY MATURE PONDEROSA TREES AS POSSIBLE.
WAS THAT [OVERLAPPING] SHOULD BE BACK IN THERE? OKAY.
>> AGAIN, THIS WAS HASTILY DONE.
>> I JUST GOT LOST ALONG THE WAY.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT REQUIRES A CHANGE IN AMENDMENT TO OUR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING OR IS THERE ANY PROCEDURAL THINGS THAT WE NEED TO FIX ABOUT THAT?
>> IT'S CORRECT IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF SUMMARY, CORRECT?
>> YEAH. IF YOU USE THE ORIGINAL STAFF SUMMARY FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT, WHATEVER WHICHEVER WAY YOU GO, THEN THEN THAT SHOULD BE FINE.
I JUST THREW THESE IN HERE JUST AS A CONVENIENCE.
>> EVEN THOUGH WE APPROVED MINUTES LAST WEEK, WHERE IT WAS LEFT OUT.
>> IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT LAST WEEK.
THIS IS JUST A BRAND NEW REPORT THAT I FINISHED ON THURSDAY.
I COPIED AND PASTED FROM MARCH 22ND.
>> YES. IN THE MINUTES THAT WE APPROVED LAST WEEK FROM MARCH 22ND, THAT'S WHERE IT WAS DROPPED OFF.
>> OH, IT WAS DROPPED OFF THE MINUTES?
I DIDN'T REALIZE THE CONDITIONS WERE ADDED TO THE MINUTES.
>> THAT WAS THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 22ND MEETING THAT WE APPROVED LAST WEEK.
>> IT MIGHT BE BEST TO HAVE BECKY CAN GO AHEAD AND VERIFY WHAT WAS IN THE MINUTES AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE WITH THIS ITEM.
[00:25:01]
WE CAN GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AND DO A MODIFICATION IF WE NEED TO.>> OKAY. WE'LL HAVE TIME FOR MORE QUESTIONS LATER.
IF ANYTHING COMES UP, YOU CAN JUST ASK.
BUT LET'S MOVE ON THEN AND ASK IF THERE ARE ANY NEW PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THIS SEARING.
ANY CARDS? NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. WELL, THEN THIS IS OUR TIME TO.
>> I'M SORRY, MARIE, I WILL INTERRUPT?
>> JUST SO YOU KNOW, THERE WERE IT LOOKS LIKE FIVE MORE EMAILS THAT WERE SENT IN THAT HAVE NOT MADE IT TO YOU ALL.
I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE THOSE, BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE THERE.
>> WAS OKAY IF WE TAKE A MINUTE AND THEY'RE NOT REAL.
>> I CAN READ THEM OR TIFFANY CAN READ THEM.
>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. YEAH, WE'D LIKE TO KNOW.
>> IT SAYS, DEAR P&Z COMMISSIONERS, I AM WRITING IN REGARD TO THE ARIZONA HEALTH CARE REQUESTS FOR THE REZONING OF LAND NEAR FORT HILL.
MY REQUEST IS THAT YOU DELETE ANY APPROVALS UNTIL CITY STAFF SHOW HOW THE PROPOSED NEW HOSPITAL PROJECT WILL IMPLY IMPACT THE FLAGSTAFF CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN.
CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2030, THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN HAS NOW BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FIVE-STEP REGIONAL PLAN TO CITIES PRIMARY PLANNING DOCUMENT AND P&Z MUST FIND THAT A PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN.
IN ORDER TO APPROVE IT, THE CITY SHOULD ADHERE TO THE FLAGSTAFF CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN, AND TAKE THE TIME TO FULLY VET THE PROPOSAL UNDER CONSIDERATION.
THE NEXT ONE IN LIGHT OF THE EXPONENTIALLY INCREASING SEVERITY OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS.
THE FACT THAT YOU ARE EVEN CONSIDERING THE NAH PROPOSAL IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE, NAH APPEARS TO HAVE NO PLAN FOR REDUCING CARBON.
HOW CAN THAT BE ENLIGHT OF THEIR 2022 CLIMATE PLEDGE? IN IT THEY STATED THE SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVE BRINGS TOGETHER THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY IN A COMMITMENT TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS AND MAKE HEALTHCARE FACILITIES MORE RESILIENT TO THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
NAH DOES NOT SEEM TO BE BACKING UP THERE CLIMATE PLEDGE IN ANY WAY, EXCEPT FOR A VAGUE MENTION OF POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTIONS.
CLIMATE MITIGATION MUST HAPPEN NOW.
EVEN 2030, THE CITY'S GOAL FOR CARBON NEUTRALITY MAY BE TOO LATE.
WE MUST DO ALL WE CAN TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING.
CONSTRUCTING THIS BEHEMOTH WITH NO CARBON REDUCING ENERGY SAVING OVERALL PROMISES IS ADDING TO OUR HUMAN-CAUSED DISASTER.
AS THE FIVE-STEP PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS, YOU CANNOT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR THIS CLIMATE DESTRUCTIVE PROJECT TO GO FORWARD.
PLEASE DO NOT. PLEASE DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR CITIZENS OF OUR CITY, OUR COUNTRY, AND OUR WORLD.
THIS ONE SAYS THAT THEY'RE SUBMITTING A LETTER ON BEHALF OF DOUG MAPLE.
THIS IS A LITTLE LONGER, SO BEAR WITH ME.
NORTHERN ARIZONA HEALTH CARE IS LOSING AN AVERAGE OF ALMOST FIVE MILLION PER MONTH AND HAS DONE SO FOR SEVERAL MONTHS UNTIL LAST YEAR, NAH HAS BEEN A PROFITABLE NOT-FOR-PROFIT FOR DECADES.
WHAT HAPPENED? SEVERAL THINGS.
PERSONNEL COSTS HAVE DRAMATICALLY INCREASED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF COVID IN EARLY 2020, AND MORE THAN HALF OF THE NURSES, RESPIRATORY THERAPISTS, AND OTHER LICENSED HOSPITAL STAFF HAVE LEFT.
TRAVELERS AND OTHER TEMPORARY STAFF HAVE COME TO REPLACE THEM AT A VERY HIGH PRICE.
MANY DOCTORS IN ALL SPECIALTIES HAVE ALSO LEFT CREATING A DEPENDENCE ON VERY EXPENSIVE LOCUM TENONS REPLACEMENTS.
AT THE SAME TIME, REVENUE HAS DECREASED.
SPECIALTY SERVICE LINES SUCH AS SLEEP MEDICINE, NEUROLOGY HAVE BEEN DIMINISHED OR LOST ALTOGETHER, TRANSFER OF PATIENTS FROM OTHER HOSPITALS INTO NAH HAS DECREASED.
THE NEW ECONOMIC FACTOR THAT IS MOST PROBLEMATIC IS THE HIGH COST OF LIVING IN FLAGSTAFF.
THE MEDIAN COST PER HOME IN FLAGSTAFF HAS NOW OVER 600,000 AND THE AVERAGE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT IS MORE THAN 300.
HEALTH CARE CAREER SUCH AS NURSING OR PHARMACY WILL PROVIDE FOR A COMFORTABLE LIVING IN MOST PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.
HOWEVER, IN FLAGSTAFF, HOUSING COSTS HAVE PUT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OUT OF REACH FOR THE AVERAGE NURSE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE CARRYING EDUCATIONAL DEBT.
NAH HAS BEEN PROMOTING A NEW HEALTH AND WELLNESS VILLAGE ANCHORED BY A COMPLETELY NEW HOSPITAL ON AN ENORMOUS PROPERTY SOUTH OF TOWN.
A PLAN THAT WILL OBLIGATE THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF TO INVEST OVER 50 MILLION TO CREATE NEW ROADS OR OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE.
HOWEVER, IF NAH CANNOT ADAPT TO THE NEW ECONOMIC REALITY NOW, THAT WILL QUITE PREDICTABLY LOSE MONEY FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY THE NEW HOSPITAL OPENS ITS DOORS.
[00:30:01]
THE FLAGSTAFF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS BEEN STUDYING THE PROPOSED NEW MULTIPURPOSE PROPOSAL WITH THE DUTY OF DETERMINING WHETHER IT IS RIGHT DEVELOPMENT TO SERVE THE SPECIFIC NEED AT THE RIGHT TIME.IT MUST ALSO CONSIDER THE FATE OF THE EXISTING HOSPITAL, WHICH AT THIS TIME IS ONLY A VAGUE PROMISE TO HAVE CONSULTING FIRM COME TO DISCUSS OPTIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, BUT ONLY AFTER THE CITY HAS COMMITTED TO THE NEW PROJECT.
NAH CLAIMS THAT THE NEW FACILITY WILL SECURE THE FUTURE OF FLAGSTAFF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.
AT THIS TIME, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER NAH HAS AN ECONOMIC MODEL THAT CAN SURVIVE THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
IN MY OPINION, THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS BASED ON TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HEALTH CARE THAT ARE NO LONGER VALID.
ASKING TAXPAYERS TO INVEST TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND A COMPANY THAT IS LOSING MONEY AT A BREATHTAKING CLIP IS COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE.
THE OTHER PIKE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WERE ASKED BY NAH TO SUPPORT 450 MILLION AND BONDS FOR THE NEW FACILITY, AND AFTER MUCH DELIBERATION, THEY REFUSED.
THE FIVE-STEP PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHOULD FOLLOW THEIR LEAD.
IT IS TIME TO REASSESS THE HEALTHCARE NEEDS OF NORTHERN ARIZONA AND DESIGN A SYSTEM THAT ADDRESSES THE NEEDS OF ALL OF ITS COMMUNITIES IN LIGHT OF THE NEW ECONOMIC REALITY.
THIS IS THE IDENTICAL THING, SO I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT AGAIN.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT CAME FROM SOMEBODY ELSE, BUT IT'S THE IDENTICAL LETTER THAT I JUST READ.
SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT.
>> WHO DID IT COME FROM THE SECOND TIME?
I SHOULD HAVE READ THE FIRST SENTENCE.
IT SAYS THIS WAS POSTED ON NEXT DOOR BY DOUGLAS MAPLE AND I CONCUR.
SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE. IT WAS A DIFFERENT PART OF THE EMAIL, SO I DIDN'T SEE IT. I APOLOGIZE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THE ABILITY TO SUBMIT MY PUBLIC COMMENT IN THIS MANNER.
MY ANXIETY LEVEL WOULD NEVER PERMIT ME TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC OR EVEN ONLINE VIA AN ONLINE METHOD.
I AM VENAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT AND BELIEVED THE LISTED IN FACT, STATEMENTS BELOW SUPPORT WHY THE PROJECT IS COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE.
THE TOWER WOULD STAND TWO TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THIS TALLEST SURROUNDING TREES.
THE UNSIGHTLY MONOLITH WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE VISIBLE FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD, MOUNTAIN DELL, AND UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS.
THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM I17 TO THE POINT THAT IT WOULD OBSTRUCT THE VIEW OF OUR TOWNS BEAUTIFUL PEAKS FOR EVERY RESIDENT RETURNING HOME AND ALL OF OUR VISITORS COMING FROM PHOENIX.
NUMBER 2, NAH SUBMITTED ITS LIMITED TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT, WHICH SELECTIVELY OMITTED THE IMPACT THEIR PROJECT WOULD MAKE ON THE FORT HILL PARK AND ACCESS TO ACTIVITIES ACROSS THE AIRPORT INTERCHANGE.
THIS DISHONESTY, AND PURPOSEFUL ACTION INTENDED TO I THINK HE MEANS OBSTRUCT THEIR NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE AREA AND THE CITY IN GENERAL ARE HEINOUS.
TO ADD TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ISSUE, A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE WILL DISRUPT TRAFFIC FOR AN UNDETERMINED LENGTH OF TIME.
THEIR PLAN IS TO OCCUR OVER 20 YEARS.
OUR SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE CLOSEST TO THIS PROJECT AND WILL BE THE MOST DISRUPTIVE BY THE CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION AND DETOURS.
IN OUR COMMUNITY, WE HAVE CITY EMPLOYEES, HEALTH CARE WORKERS AT RAILROAD EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE REQUIRED RESPONSE TIME WHEN CALLED TO WORK.
MY NEIGHBOR THAT WORKS FOR BNSF HAS TO DRIVE FROM HIS HOUSE AND FLAG TO WINSLOW AND WILL BE FIRED IF HE IS UNABLE TO MAKE THIS TIMEFRAME EVEN A FIVE-MINUTE WAIT AT A DETOUR, A ONE-WAY TRAFFIC SECTION WILL CAUSE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS.
NUMBER 4, IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS IS PROPOSAL STATEMENTS WERE MADE THAT THERE WOULD BE NOT BE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE AREA BECAUSE OF THIS PROJECT. THIS IS FALSE.
THE CURRENT DRAINAGE FROM THIS LOCATION DIRECTLY FLOWS DOWN TO AN ACTUAL FLOODPLAIN.
THIS FLOODPLAIN IS OUR NEIGHBORHOODS PRIMARY ACCESS TO OUR COMMUNITY, OUR MONTHLY FAMILY MAILBOX AND A SECTION OF FOOTPATH.
WHEN WE EXPERIENCED HEAVY MONSOONS AND SIGNIFICANT SNOWFALL, THIS AREA BECOMES IMPASSIBLE.
THIS WINTER ALONE, WE HAVE SEEN FREQUENT INTERRUPTIONS TO OUR ONE CITY SERVICE.
WE ACTUALLY RECEIVE, WHICH IS TRASH COLLECTION BECAUSE OF STANDING WATER AND SNOW, THE AMOUNT OF PARKING LOTS AND NON-WATER PENETRATING MATERIALS USED IN THIS PROJECT WILL EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE THE WATER DRAINING DOWN THE STEEP HILL TO THIS FLOODPLAIN.
WE WILL EXPERIENCE LIMITED OR COMPLETE INTERRUPTIONS IN INGRESS AND EGRESS TO OUR HOMES.
THE STRUCTURE IS NOT BEING BUILT IN CARBON-NEUTRAL METHOD OR MATERIALS, THE LOSS OF LARGE STAND OF TREES IS ALSO DETRIMENTAL.
PLEASE CONSIDER THAT NOT FOR PROPER HOSPITALS SHOULD NOT BE MAKING MONEY FROM RETAIL SHOPS, GROCERY STORES, HOTELS, OR FROM DEVELOPERS WHO BUILD HOUSING PROJECTS.
THEIR SOLE FOCUS SHOULD BE PATIENTS AND THEIR HEALTH CARE.
DOES THE HOSPITAL ACTUALLY DIRECTLY PAY MONEY TO THE CITY? THEY DON'T PAY PROPERTY TAXES LIKE OTHER BUSINESSES DO.
[00:35:02]
I DON'T THINK THERE ARE CELLS TEXAS ON THEIR SERVICES.HOW DOES NAH TRULY ADD TO THE CITY'S REVENUE STREAM DIRECTLY RATHER THAN INDIRECTLY? A REBUILD AT THE CURRENT SITE WOULD BRING THE SAME, HOWEVER, IN TEMPORARY JOBS THROUGH CONSTRUCTION.
ANY ADDITIONAL JOBS WITHIN THE FACILITY WOULD ONLY HAPPEN IF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IS SUDDENLY MORE SUCCESSFUL AT SECURING ALL THE LOST EMPLOYEES I.E NURSES, DOCTORS, EBS WORKERS, SURGICAL TEXTS TO THE NAH SYSTEM.
ALLOWING NAH TO CONTINUE WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN PLACE WILL GIVE NAH THE ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD UNCHECKED AND GIVE NO VOICE OF THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES.
NAH ALREADY HAS THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THE BED COUNT AND AVAILABLE SERVICES.
CURRENTLY AT VVMC, THEY HAVE AN ENTIRE FLOOR IN A SHELL STATE THAT COULD BE BUILT OUT IMMEDIATELY FOR ADDITIONAL PATIENT BEDS.
NAH CAN REMODEL THEIR CURRENT SITE IN A VERTICAL STREAMLINED METHOD THAT WOULD GIVE ALL PATIENT ROOMS ACCESS TO THE KEY SERVICES OF THE ICU ED SURGERY, RADIOLOGY LABORATORY, CATH LAB, AND IR.
AN ADDITIONAL TOWER OVER THE CURRENT ICU, AN ED WOULD SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.
RESTORING THE SECOND AND FOURTH FLOORS OF THE WEST CAMPUS TO OBSERVATION BEDS, I.E, FOR PATIENTS WHO HAVE INTENDED STATE OF LESS THAN 23 HOURS AFTER A SURGERY OR PROCEDURE, AND MED SURGE BEDS WOULD ALSO INCREASE FMC TOTAL BED COUNT SIGNIFICANTLY.
NAH IS NOT BEING HONEST WITH THIS COMMITTEE ON SO MANY LEVELS.
THEY WILL NOT EVEN BE WORTH COMING ABOUT THEIR PLANS FOR THE CURRENT FACILITY, I THINK IS WHAT MAKES THAT.
THERE'S NO ACTUAL NEED FOR A NEW SITE EITHER THE CURRENT AND APPROXIMATELY LAST TWO YEARS OF PATIENTS CENSUS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE NEED FOR THIS ENORMOUS PROJECT.
DUE TO NAH AS SENIOR-LEVEL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, WE HAVE LOST OUR ONLY NEUROSURGEON.
YES, THERE IS NOT A FULL-TIME INDEPENDENT OR EMPLOYED NEUROSURGEON FOR THE ENTIRE NORTHERN ARIZONA WORKING IN EITHER HOSPITAL.
AT THE BEST, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO GET A TEMPORARY LOCUM TENON DOCTOR TO INCONSISTENTLY WORK CHIEF.
BECAUSE OF THIS FMC CAN NO LONGER CALL THEMSELVES A LEVEL 1 TRAUMA CENTER.
CHOOSING OTHER REASON THIS GIGANTIC PROJECT DOES NOT NEED TO BE APPROVED.
IF I UNDERSTANDING THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE LAST MEETING, NAH IS STILL NOT WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MOUNTAIN LINE BUS SYSTEM AND THE MONEY IS NEEDED FOR THE LADDER TRUCK NEW STATION AND STAFF NAH, ASKED FOR A CREDIT OF 500,000.
DOES THIS MEAN THEY WOULD NEVER GIVE ACTUAL MONIES TO THE CITY TO SUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE SOLELY CREATED BY THEM.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION THIS MATTER.
PLEASE DENY THEIR APPLICATION FOR THIS PROJECT AND ACCOMPANYING ZONING CHANGES IN SUPPORT OF BETTER FLAGSTAFF.
THAT'S THE REST OF THEM YOU RECEIVED.
I THINK WHEREVER YOU ARE IS READY TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP.
BUT I KNOW I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS I'D LIKE TO SHARE, BUT I'M REALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO DIVE IN. GREAT. THANK YOU.
>> I GUESS THE FIRST ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE SPECIFIC PLANS SINCE WE HAVE TO APPROVE THESE SEPARATELY.
>> I THINK THE WAY WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT SO FAR AS TO TOGETHER.
THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS.
BUT AS FAR AS HOW WE TALK ABOUT THE WHOLE PROJECT, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO SEQUESTER THEM.
THAT'S MY OPINION, BUT HOWEVER YOU THINK TOO IS FINE.
>> I WAS JUST TRYING TO PUT MY THOUGHTS INTO SOME ORDER AS I WENT THROUGH EVERYTHING.
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PLAN WITH REGARD TO SECTION L ON SUSTAINABILITY ABOUT THE THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION.
THAT WAS ON PAGE 78 OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
IT STATES THAT IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT ALL FUTURE BUILDINGS REVIEW THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS FOR BUILDING PERFORMANCE AS A WAY TO VALIDATE AND IMPROVE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND OPERATIONS AND EACH BUILDING SHOULD CONSIDER AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATIONS WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF OCCUPANCY.
THAT'S WHERE ALL THE DIFFERENT METHODS AND CERTIFICATIONS WERE LISTED LIKE LEAD AND INTERNATIONAL LIVING FUTURES INSTITUTE.
THAT'S WHERE THE ENERGY STAR 75 CAME IN AND ALL THE OTHER OPTIONS WHICH HAVE VARYING LEVELS OF SUSTAINABILITY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND INDOOR HEALTHY LIVING.
I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF THE WORD RECOMMENDED AND SHOULD BUT I ALSO SEE THAT IN THE DRAFT DA UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN UNDER
[00:40:02]
SUSTAINABILITY IT REQUIRES AND THIS IS WHERE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK.IT WAS TALKED ABOUT THE BUILDING FOR NAH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ENERGY STAR 75 RATING.
DOES THIS NEW SUPPLEMENT IN THE DA ABOUT ENERGY STAR 75 NOW OVERRIDE AND REPLACE THAT SECTION?
>> IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO.
THE DA FURTHER WHAT WAS IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
I DON'T SEE THAT THEY CONFLICT.
>> ENERGY STAR 75 IS GOING TO BE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
OBVIOUSLY, ANY DEVELOPER CAN GET ANY OF THE OTHER CERTIFICATIONS.
THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO GET ENERGY STAR 75.
HAVING SAID THAT, THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE PHASE 1 SPECIFIC PLAN IN THIS REASONING ONLY OR IS THAT ALSO GOING TO CARRY THROUGH TO ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENTS OR WAS THIS SOMETHING YOU WILL HAVE TO READDRESS AGAIN WHEN WE GET TO PHASE 2 OF THIS SPECIFIC PLAN?
>> IT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD READDRESS WITH PHASE 2.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ARE YOU READY? I KNOW MINE IS GOING TO TAKE A MINUTE.
I JUST WANT TO SHARE MY THINKING ABOUT THIS AND IT'S REALLY SHIFTED A LOT AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND PROBABLY HAS WITH YOU ALL.
FIRST OF ALL, JUST CONSIDERING THE WHOLE IDEA OF A NEED FOR A NEW HOSPITAL.
BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A NUMBER OF COMMENTS AND ALSO PART OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE APPLICANT.
FIRST OF ALL, DURING THE LAST YEAR I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH HOSPITAL CARE, BUT RATHER INTENSIVE HOSPITAL CARE.
I HAD THE BENEFIT OF INCREDIBLE INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE AND IT WAS A REALLY VERY POSITIVE EXPERIENCE FOR ME.
IT'S THE THING I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE.
I FEEL THAT MORE THAN ANYTHING AND I REALIZED THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THAT HEALTH CARE.
I REALIZED THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT HOSPITAL WE HAVE AND THAT IT'S OUT OF DATE AND I DON'T QUESTION THAT ASSESSMENT.
WE OF COURSE, THE COMMISSION ISN'T PART OF THAT ASSESSMENT.
WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO ANY OF THAT INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THAT ASSESSMENT WAS MADE.
WE ALSO DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT ANY OTHER SITES THAT WERE CONSIDERED FOR THIS.
BUT I GUESS THE FIRST THING IN MY MIND IS THAT I NEED TO MAKE SOME SEPARATION BETWEEN THE IDEA OF THE HOSPITAL AND THE NEED FOR A HOSPITAL AND THIS PROJECT LOOKING AT IT FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PERSPECTIVE.
WHEN THE APPLICANT DID CHOOSE PROPERTY THEY DECIDED THEY CAME UP WITH THE IDEA OF THIS HEALTH VILLAGE CONCEPT.
IT'S ALSO POSSIBLY TWO HOTELS.
IT'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
FROM THE COMMISSION POINT OF VIEW, I HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AS A MIXED USE PROJECT THAT HAS A HOSPITAL AS AN ANCHOR.
NOW IF I WERE LOOKING AT A PROJECT THAT I WAS A MIXED USE PROJECT AND IT HAD SAY, THE BIGGEST WALMART IN ABROAD AS AN ANCHOR OR AN OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER AS AN ANCHOR THEN I WOULD BE LOOKING AT IT AS A MIXED USE PROJECT AND I WOULD BE EVALUATING ON THAT.
SHOULD I BE LOOKING AT IT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THE ANCHOR IS A HOSPITAL WHICH I AGREE WE NEED? OR SHOULD I BE LOOKING AT THE FINDINGS BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT IS A MIXED USE PROJECT THAT HAS A NUMBER OF THINGS?
[00:45:01]
SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS OF THIS PROJECT ARE PROFIT CENTERS AND THAT'S A CHOICE THAT THE APPLICANT MADE WHEN THEY PICK THIS SIDE AND DESIGNED IT THIS WAY.WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS, I'M TRYING TO SEPARATE TO SOME DEGREE THE NOTION THAT THIS IS A HOSPITAL BECAUSE IT'S A LOT MORE THAN A HOSPITAL.
I WANT TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE FINDINGS AND WHAT STOOD OUT TO ME. LET'S SEE.
TALKING ABOUT THE REZONING HERE, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE REGIONAL PLAN AND ANY OTHER PLANS SUCH AS THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN.
>> ACTUALLY, THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN IS NOT.
>> NOT THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. YEAH.
>> BUT THE POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED.
>> THE POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED.
LET'S SEE. THIS IS VERY COMPLEX.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I REALLY ADMIRE ABOUT THIS PLAN AND APPRECIATE ABOUT THIS APPLICATION.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE WAY JUST AS A PLAN, AS A CONCEPT ZONING, AS A MAP FOR HOW THIS PARCEL WOULD BE DEVELOPED, I APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE, THE IDEA OF INTEGRATING THIS OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL AREA WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND WITH THE COMMUNITY.
THE ACTUAL BUILDING AS A CONCEPT, I REALIZE IT'S JUST A CONCEPT DRAWING AT THIS STAGE, BUT I THINK IT LOOKS VERY ATTRACTIVE.
I PERSONALLY CAN UNDERSTAND AND DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE HEIGHT OF THIS BUILDING, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT IS, BUT YOU DON'T REALLY SEE IT EXCEPT FROM A CERTAIN VANTAGE POINTS, AND THE RATIONALE FOR HAVING A TALL BUILDING, I THINK MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, THAT IS, IN FACT, TO MY EXPERIENCE TOO, OF HOW AN INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM REALLY FUNCTIONS WELL IN TERMS OF THE SPACE.
THAT IN ITSELF IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR ME.
WHAT DOES STAND OUT TO ME AS A PROBLEM ARE THE ISSUES HAVING TO DO WITH SUSTAINABILITY, LET'S SEE IF I CAN TALK ABOUT THIS IN AN INTELLIGENT WAY.
THE IDEA OF CARBON NEUTRALITY FOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
I DID A FAIR AMOUNT OF READING TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND MORE HOW THIS IS BEING DONE IN THE WORLD AND IN THIS COUNTRY, AND TO ME, IT SEEMS FAIRLY COMPLEX ABOUT HOW YOU ACHIEVE CARBON NEUTRALITY.
ONE ORGANIZATION I READ ABOUT WAS THE KAISER PERMANENTE, A BIG HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
THEY HAVE ACHIEVED CARBON NEUTRALITY, AND THEY CAN DOCUMENT THIS.
HOW THEY ACHIEVE IS IN A NUMBER OF WAYS, PART OF IT IS THE BUILDING AND PART OF IT IS HOW THEY MIGHT RECYCLE AND REUSE THINGS.
DO THEY USE SHOPS CONTAINERS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TIMES? AT WHAT POINT DO THEY THROW THINGS AWAY? WHAT IS THEIR SUPPLY CHAIN LIKE? HOW DO THEY ACQUIRE THINGS? IT'S OPERATIONAL THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING.
WHEN I THINK ABOUT THAT WHOLE PROCESS FOR ONE THING, I DON'T FEEL AT ALL LIKE I'M QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE HOW THAT'S WORKING, WHAT I WOULD BE ASKING FOR SPECIFICALLY.
I SEE THAT IN TERMS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF HAS,
[00:50:02]
THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THOSE.I HEAR A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT I GUESS, EXCUSE ME IF I DON'T CHARACTERIZE THIS EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT I WOULD TEND TO SAY IT HAS TO DO WITH THE IDEA THAT THERE'S SOME SENSE IN WHICH THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE SHOWING A GREATER COMMITMENT TO CARBON NEUTRALITY AND A GREATER COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY THAN IT IS SHOWING THAT IS THERE SOMETHING MORE IT SHOULD BE DOING? EXCUSE ME, MY MOUTH IS DRY.
AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS I WOULD BE ASKING FOR.
WHAT STANDS OUT TO ME MORE THAN THOSE THINGS, LIKE THE SPECIFIC SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES, IS THE FOUNDATIONAL IDEA THAT THE LAND THAT THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THIS APPLICATION IS ON THE EDGE OF TOWN.
IT'S TAKING A FACILITY THAT IS RIGHT NOW CENTRALLY LOCATED.
IT'S VERY ACCESSIBLE AND IT HAS INFRASTRUCTURE SERVING IT BROADLY AND IT'S MOVING TO A PLACE ON THE EDGE OF TOWN, WHICH HAS MUCH LESS INFRASTRUCTURE SERVING IT AND EVEN MORE GLOBALLY ON THIS.
TO ME, IT IS A SPRAWLING APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT, AND IF I GO BACK TO THE IDEA THAT, WHAT IF THIS WERE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS PUTTING A BIG WALMART IN THERE, IT WOULD BE A SPRAWLING ON THE EDGE OF TOWN, IT WOULD NOT BE REALLY EMBRACING THIS PHILOSOPHICAL IDEA THAT'S BEHIND, I THINK SO MANY OF THE GOALS AND POLICIES IN THE GENERAL PLAN THAT ARE ABOUT, WE SHOULD BE DENSIFYING IN OUR CENTER, WE SHOULD NOT BE SPRAWLING OUT TO OUR EDGES.
THAT IS A PLACE WHERE I FEEL LIKE THIS APPLICATION.
I HAVE A HARD TIME MAKING THE FINDING ON THAT THING.
NOW, THAT'S JUST ONE ITEM AMONG A LOT OF ITEMS HAVING TO DO WITH SUSTAINABILITY, BUT IT'S TO ME A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE.
THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT SUSTAINABILITY IS FOR ALL OF US AND TO US IN FLAGSTAFF AND I GUESS I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK, AT WHAT POINT DO WE DECIDE CERTAIN POLICIES AND GOALS WE HAVE ARE GOING TO RISE TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS? THAT'S WHAT'S ON MY MIND WITH THIS.
THIS ALSO TIES INTO A SECOND ISSUE, WHICH I HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY THIS IS SO INTRACTABLE, BUT TO NOT HAVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVE A HOSPITAL IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
IT'S NOT JUST, WILL THERE BE A WAY TO GET THERE? IT'S JUST THE WHOLE IDEA OF I'VE LIVED IN PLACES WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, I'VE RELIED ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THERE'S AUTONOMY ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
YOU CAN GO AND YOU CAN GET ON A BUS.
WHEN YOU WANT TO GET ON A BUS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL SOMEBODY YOU DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO I GET FROM HERE TO THERE, IT'S THERE, IT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION, YOU CAN DO IT.
IT JUST SEEMS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE.
NOW, I'VE HEARD THE SUGGESTION THAT PROBABLY THERE WILL BE A SHUTTLE.
I UNDERSTAND THE SHUTTLE, BUT THAT IS STILL PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION, THAT IS NOT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BUT THAT THERE MAY BE A BOND TO RAISE MONEY TO IMPROVE BUS SERVICE, AND PROBABLY FLAGSTAFF BEING FLAGSTAFF THAT'S A REALLY GOOD REASON TO THINK THAT THAT WILL PASS.
BUT WHAT IF IT DOESN'T PASS? WHERE ARE WE WITH THAT? ARE WE A CITY THAT HAS A HOSPITAL THAT IS NOT SERVED BY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION? THIS REALLY, IT'S LIKE ONE SMALL ISSUE, BUT IT REALLY HANGS ME UP AND I HAVE A HARD TIME KNOWING WHAT TO DO WITH THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION.
[00:55:08]
SOME OF THE HEALTH CARE.THE APPLICANT GAVE US EXAMPLES OF HEALTH CARE VILLAGES.
IN OTHER PLACES, THERE WAS ONE IN MINNESOTA, ONE IN MICHIGAN, ONE IN NEVADA.
AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT HENDERSON NEVADA, HOW WELL THAT SERVED BY INFRASTRUCTURE.
BUT THE OTHER TWO FOR SURE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF DEVELOPED AREAS, DEVELOPED CITIES.
THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES ARE NOT AS RELEVANT AND OTHER THINGS I'VE READ ABOUT HEALTH CARE VILLAGES IS THE IDEA THAT THEY SHOULD BE ACCESSIBLE.
I THINK THAT THAT IS A UNIQUE PROBLEM TO THIS APPLICATION, THAT IT DOESN'T SOLVE THAT.
LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE I HAD HERE.
SORRY, THIS IS TAKING A LONG TIME, BUT ALL THINGS TAKEN A LONG TIME AND JUST A LOT ON MY MIND AND I'M REALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS.
THAT'S PROBABLY GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME FOR NOW.
I'LL STOP THERE AND LET OTHER PEOPLE HAVE I'M HOPEFULLY THAT WE CAN REALLY HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT.
I HONESTLY HAVE TO SAY THAT I'VE COME INTO THIS MEETING UNDECIDED.
BUT THOSE I WANTED TO JUST EXPRESS THE THINGS THAT I'M GETTING HUNG UP ON.
ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO. CAROLE.
>> THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO.
I AGREE WITH MOST OF YOUR POINTS.
HOWEVER, I FIND THAT A SEVEN-STOREY HOSPITAL DOESN'T SERVE THE NEED OF THE COMMUNITY.
THAT'S NOT JUST FROM VIEWSHED ISSUE, THAT'S FROM THE ISSUE OF ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HAS TO BE PUT IN PLACE WITH THE CITY.
I KNOW WE'VE IDENTIFIED SOME THINGS THAT WILL HELP WITH THAT.
BUT THAT STILL MEANS WE STILL HAVE TO SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY ON THE CITY'S BEHALF TO SERVE A SEVEN-STOREY TOWER, WHICH I THINK COULD BE LOWERED OR REDESIGNED.
THE HOSPITAL COULD BE REDESIGNED TO FIT MORE WITHIN THE STANDARDS OF FLAGSTAFF.
PART OF THAT IS THAT I LOOKED DOWN THE ROAD AT PHASE 2 OR PHASE 3 AND WITH THE PLAN TO BUILD HOTELS ON THAT PROPERTY, AND IT COULD BE FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW THOSE HOTELS COME IN AND THEY ASK, THEY WANT TO BUILD SEVEN STOREYS, THEY WANT TO BUILD 160 FEET BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY OUT THERE.
THAT'S REALLY CONCERNING TO ME.
I THINK THAT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WE'VE GONE ABOUT LOWERING HOW HIGH BUILDINGS CAN BE IN THE REGIONAL PLAN.
I THINK THIS JUST GOES AGAINST THAT.
I ALSO AGREE WITH YOU FROM THE POINT OF TRANSPORTATION, I THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEPENDENCY OF AUTO TRAVEL FOR THE MAJORITY OF FLAGSTAFF RESIDENTS, AND THAT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH THE NET-ZERO EMISSIONS PLAN BY 2030.
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THE UNDERSERVED MEMBERS OF OUR POPULATION WILL BE ABLE TO GET TO THE HOSPITAL IF THEY NEED SERVICES.
I THINK IT'S THE SPRAWL THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED IS THE CONCERN OF MINE, MOVING THIS OUT TO THE VERY EDGE OF TOWN IS A PROBLEM TO ME AND I'M NOT CERTAIN WHY WE NEED A VILLAGE.
I AGREE WE NEED A NEW HOSPITAL.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE PERFECT LOCATION FOR A HOSPITAL.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THE HOSPITAL WANTS TO BE IN THE HOUSING BUSINESS AND THE HOTEL BUSINESS AND THE RETAIL BUSINESS.
I THINK THAT THE HOTEL OR THE HOSPITAL SHOULD BE BUILDING A HOSPITAL IN ACC.
[01:00:04]
MAYBE, YOU MIGHT PUT IN THE WELLNESS TRAIL, BUT MAIN FLAGSTAFF IS THE WELLNESS TRAIL.WE HAVE WELLNESS TRAILS ALL AROUND.
I DON'T REALLY NECESSARILY BUY INTO THAT CONCEPT.
I'M LOOKING AT THE REST OF MY NOTES.
FOR ME, I FEEL THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE A SCALED-DOWN PROJECT THAT BETTER MEETS THE DESIGN AND FITS THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK I STATED THIS LAST TIME, WHILE I UNDERSTAND RESIDENTS OF THE VERDE VALLEY LOVED THE LOCATION, I'M HERE TO SELL AS A COMMISSIONER FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AND NOT FOR THE REGION.
WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE HOSPITAL SERVES A LARGER COMMUNITY.
THEY'RE BUILDING WITHIN OUR CITY AND SO I THINK THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION THAT, IT NEEDS TO BE AND MEET OUR BUILDING NEEDS.
ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I THINK WILL HAPPEN IS THAT IF THIS HOSPITAL IS RELOCATED ON THE EDGE OF TOWN, I THINK THE DOCTORS IN TIME WILL BE VACATING THEIR OFFICES AND THEIR LOCATIONS THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY TO ALSO BE RELOCATED ON THE EDGE OF TOWN.
THAT DOESN'T SERVE ANYBODY'S INTERESTS FOR THE CITY.
THAT'S, GOING TO BE YOU TALK ABOUT URBAN SPRAWL.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF VACANT CS WITHIN THE CITY AND I DON'T SEE THAT SERVES THE CITY WELL.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS HERE FROM COMMISSIONERS?
I THINK THEY'RE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SPECTRUM OF WHAT YOU TOO HAVE POINTED OUT.
THE FIRST ONE I'LL STAY IN MOST OF THE OBJECTIONS THAT WE GOT IN OUR E-MAILS HAD TO DO WITH CARBON NEUTRALITY.
I GUESS CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT THE CITY HAS ANY REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PROJECT ON ITS OWN TO BE CARBON-NEUTRAL, I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT, THAT'S A GOAL OF THE CITY COLLECTIVELY TO BE CARBON-NEUTRAL, BUT NOT INDEPENDENTLY FOR EACH PROJECT.
I'VE ONLY BEEN ON THIS P&Z COMMISSION FOR A FEW MONTHS, BUT NOT A SINGLE PROJECT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD WHERE WE'VE SAID, THIS PROJECT MUST BE CARBON-NEUTRAL FOR US TO PROVE IT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE SHOULD PUT ON THIS ONE.
SHOULD IT ADHERE TO, TRYING TO BE BETTER? YES. SHOULD IT BE GOOD STEWARDS? YES. CARBON-NEUTRAL. I THINK THAT'S ASKING TOO MUCH.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU SAID.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AS A MIXED USE BASE.
YES, THERE'S A HOSPITAL, THERE'S A LOT OF EMOTIONS TO THIS.
WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE COME IN AND TELL US EITHER NADH IS THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD OR THEIR EVIL.
WE'VE HEARD BOTH SIDES, BUT IN THE END, IT'S A MIXED USE SPACE.
WE HAVE TO DIVORCE OURSELVES OF THE EMOTIONS BEHIND THIS AND LOOK AT IT.
AS, IS THIS SPECIFIC PLAN A GOOD MIXED USE SPECIFIC PLAN? IN MY READING OF IT.
I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER AND I'VE HELPED SEVERAL OF THESE BEFORE.
THIS IS WELL-WRITTEN. IT WAS DONE.
THERE'S A GOOD GROUP BEHIND IT.
I FELT LIKE IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT A SPECIFIC PLAN SHOULD HAVE.
I DIDN'T WALK AWAY WITH A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS.
I THINK ONE THING THAT GETS LOST AND WHAT A SPECIFIC PLAN IS, HAS THE WORD SPECIFIC, BUT IT'S A PLAN.
WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ALL THE DETAILS OF WHAT THE INSIDE ROOMS ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT'S MORE OF A PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.
I GUESS I WOULD ASK THE QUESTION, FOR EXAMPLE IS IT OUR ROLE TO DENY A MIXED USE PLANS SUCH AS THIS BECAUSE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES ARE A PROBLEM? OR IS IT OUR ROLE TO DENY THIS BECAUSE UNDERSERVED PEOPLE CAN'T GET TO A HOSPITAL.
THOSE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, BUT IN THE END, IF IT'S A MIXED USE BASE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
I'LL STOP RIGHT THERE AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE SPEAK A LITTLE BIT.
>> I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OF AN ISSUE WITH IT BEING ON THE EDGE OF TOWN BECAUSE OF
[01:05:08]
THE FREEWAY ACCESS AND BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IT IS AND BECAUSE IT IS A REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD LOCATION FOR THE HOSPITAL.HAVING A VILLAGE AND HAVING A MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS, GIVES EVERYBODY A LITTLE BIT OF CONTROL ON WHAT GETS BUILT AROUND IT.
INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING SOME RANDOM REZONING OR BY RIGHT DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES OUR WAY LATER ON.
IT GIVES US SOME, I'M A FAN OF MASTER PLANS FROM MY EXPERIENCE.
THE THING IS THAT THE CITY JUST YOU CAN'T BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE.
IF WE PUT THE HOSPITAL OUT THERE AND THERE'S DEVELOPMENT THERE, YES, IT CREATES IN A SENSE, SOME SPRAWL, BUT PERHAPS THE LEGACY CAMPUS, IF IT IS UTILIZED FOR HOUSING, WHICH IS WHAT IS ALREADY ZONED FOR.
I THINK IT WAS ZONED FOR HIGH DENSITY.
THAT SOLVES THAT INFILL ISSUE THAT THE CITY HAS THE GOAL OF CREATING, WHICH IS INFILL AND HOUSING IN THE CENTER OF TOWN.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
WHAT MY WISHLIST IS IS THAT AS FAR AS THE SUSTAINABILITY, AND I'VE GONE THROUGH THAT, I HAVE COME THROUGH THAT PORTIONS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND DID SOME RESEARCH, FOUND THE INFORMATION ABOUT KAISER PERMANENTE IN THEIR HOSPITAL IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA THAT THERE CARBON-NEUTRAL AND ALL OF THESE THINGS.
I THINK THE GOALS THAT ARE WITHIN A SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE ENERGY STARTS 75 ARE ADEQUATE. BUT THEY'RE ADEQUATE.
I WISH NAH, WAS TAKING A REALLY STRONG LEADERSHIP ROLE IN REALLY CREATING SOMETHING THAT WAS ABOVE JUST THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
I WISH THEY WERE BECOMING A LEADER IN THIS AREA OF CREATING A HOSPITAL WELLNESS CAMPUS THAT WAS A HIGHER LEVEL OF COMMITMENT TO THOSE GOALS.
PART OF THAT WOULD BE BUYING INTO SOME OFFSETS.
THE OFFSETS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS IS THE SOLAR PANELS.
I WISH I KNOW THEY'RE LOOKING INTO IT.
THERE WILL BE SOLAR PANELS IN BY YEAR 3 OR YEAR 5.
THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY WISHLIST.
I WISH THAT THERE WAS SOME HOUSING THAT WAS GOING TO BE DEDICATED TO HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES.
I WISH THAT THERE WAS MOUNTAIN LINE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH THIS IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A HUGE REGIONAL BENEFIT, THE CITY CARRIES THE ENTIRE BURDEN, THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL SHOULDERING OF THESE EXPENSES WERE THE ONLY ONES SUPPORTING THIS.
FROM TUBA CITY TO THE VERDE VALLEY.
OF COURSE, EVERYBODY WANTS A GREAT NEW HOSPITAL.
BUT IT IS THE CITY AND THE CITY'S TAXPAYERS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR THIS.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE RAYS GRANT A LOT.
BOTH OF THESE ARE PREDICATED ON BEULAH BEING EXPANDED.
YES, THEY'VE APPLIED, EVERYBODY'S APPLIED FOR THE RAYS GRANT. THAT GETS AWARDED.
I DID SOME RESEARCH ON THAT TOO, THAT GETS AWARDED ON BY JUNE 28TH.
I WISH ALL THESE DECISIONS WERE GOING TO BE TABLED UNTIL WE KNEW IF THAT FUNDING WAS COMING THROUGH BECAUSE THAT COULD BE A DEAL BREAKER.
I WOULD IMAGINE $45 MILLION FOR NAH TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TO EXPAND BEULAH. THAT'S A LOT.
IT CONCERNS ME ABOUT WHERE OUR FUNDING IS COMING FROM WITHIN THE CITY, THOSE SOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, WHAT THAT MEANS.
I DID WATCH THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING LAST NIGHT WHERE THEY'RE COMING UP ON DOING THE BUDGET.
THEY'RE COMING UP ON A DECISION OF LOOKING INTO THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE.
WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN NOW, WHAT IT'S GOING TO MEAN IN THE FUTURE, AND HOW WE PAY FOR THIS UNIDENTIFIED $1.4 MILLION JUST FOR THE FIRE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE FROM YEAR TO YEAR? IT'S THE FINANCIAL COMMITMENT FROM THE CITY THAT CONCERNS ME THE MOST.
NOW, IS THAT OUR JOB ON THIS COMMISSION TO DICTATE?
[01:10:03]
NO. WE'RE LOOKING AT APPROVING A CONCEPT ZONING CHANGE, AND A SPECIFIC PLAN, BUT IT IS STILL A FULL PACKAGE DEAL.SOMETIMES I THINK WHEN WE SIMPLIFY IT, IT'S EASIER TO APPROVE, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS RAMIFICATIONS THAT REAR THEIR HEAD, AND THIS CAME TO MIND WHEN WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING IN NOVEMBER ABOUT CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE ACTIVITY CENTER, AND IT SEEMED A PRETTY EASY DECISION.
BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IN MARCH THAT WE HEARD FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT WELL, BECAUSE YOU CHANGED IT TO A HIGHER INTENSITY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES NEVER INTENDED OR NEVER HAD THE BUDGETING TO SUPPORT THAT CHANGE.
THAT'S WHERE I START TO GET VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT ALL OF THIS AND THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY.
>> YOU HAVE TO HOLD THIS BUTTON DOWN THE WHOLE TIME, SO [NOISE] I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS AND THE CITIZENS' COMMENTS.
I AM ALSO VERY NEW TO THIS, SO WELCOME TO THE FIRE.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WHAT I CAN'T GET PAST IS THAT THE HOSPITAL BASICALLY WANTS TO MOVE TO CHANGE THEIR BUSINESS MODEL FROM JUST A HOSPITAL TO AN ACTUAL HOSPITAL WITH PROFIT CENTERS, SUCH AS HOTELS AND SHOPS.
I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE GOING TO BRING IN DEVELOPERS, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S GOING TO HELP THE HOSPITAL, IN YOUR BUSINESS MODEL AND HOW YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE MONEY IN THE FUTURE.
BUT WHAT I CAN'T GET PAST IS WHY THE TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PICK UP AT LEAST WHAT WE KNOW OF 10 MILLION FOR THE FIRE STATION, THE FIRE TRUCK, AND THE FIRE BATTALION.
THAT'S JUST THE FIRST YEAR OF THE FIRE BATTALION.
I KNOW THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN RAISE THIS MONEY.
BUT WHAT I KEEP GETTING STUCK ON IS THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN REALLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE INFRASTRUCTURE HERE.
WE PUT IN FOR GRANT, WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL JUNE.
BUT WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS ZONING.
EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE COSTS THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE COVERED BY THE TO-BE-DETERMINED IMPACT FEES.
THIS REZONING MOVES THE PROJECT FORWARD WITHOUT A DEFINITIVE ANSWER OF THE TOTAL COST TO FLAGSTAFF CITIZENS.
>> YES. I AGREE WITH MOST OF THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, AND I WON'T REHASH ALL THOSE.
I THINK THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT WASN'T REALLY BROUGHT UP THAT CONCERNS ME IS THE FACT THAT NIH HAD BOUGHT UP ALL OF THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS ZONED RURAL AND ESTATE RESIDENTIAL WITH INTENTIONS OF REZONING IN ALL THIS.
BUT I DON'T FEEL IT'S FAIR TO ALL THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT MOVE THERE AND WANT TO LIVE THERE IN THEIR RURAL AND ESTATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND HAVE THAT SECLUSION TO NOW BE NEIGHBORS TO A LARGE COMMERCIAL CAMPUS.
>> THANKS BOB. I WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS HERE BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD TO, I WANTED TO ALSO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE CHANGING THE ACTIVITY CENTER FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD TO A REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTER.
I HONESTLY DON'T THINK I FULLY APPRECIATED THAT WHEN I VOTED ON IT, THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT.
AS ANOTHER COMMISSIONER WAS SAYING, AT THE TIME I REALLY APPRECIATED THAT IT WAS BEING SEPARATED BECAUSE IT FELT OVERWHELMING TO HAVE TO CONSIDER ALL THIS STUFF AT THE SAME TIME.
I UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS DONE THAT WAY.
BUT IN RETROSPECT, NOW THAT I'VE BEEN THROUGH ALL THIS MATERIAL, I SEE THAT DIFFERENTLY.
I'M NOT SURE I WOULD HAVE VOTED THE SAME WAY.
BUT ANYWAY, THAT JUST FOR ITS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE.
[01:15:03]
LET'S SEE. ALSO, A COUPLE OF RANDOM THOUGHTS.ONE IS I CAME ACROSS, PROBABLY EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THIS, AND I JUST FOUND IT.
BUT I GUESS THERE'S SOME CHALLENGE.
TWO THINGS, ONE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ALSO FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
SOME CHALLENGES FOR US TO BECOME CARBON NEUTRAL, SPECIFICALLY FOR HEALTH CARE.
I GUESS THOSE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE OPTED INTO.
I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE HAD BEEN CONSIDERED.
BUT I THINK THAT AIMS FOR THE SAME EFFECT THAT OUR CITIZENS WANT.
THE OTHER RANDOM SIDE HAS TO DO WITH THIS PROCESS.
AS I WAS SAYING BEFORE, CITIZENS WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING.
THAT WASN'T AN AGE DECISION TO EVALUATE WHETHER THEY COULD DO SOMETHING WITH THEIR CURRENT CAMPUS, AND THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAD A STALLION.
NEITHER WAS LOOKING FOR SITES FOR A NEW HOSPITAL.
BUT THE WAY THE PROCESS GOES IS THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE PROBABLY MADE YEARS AGO.
MEANWHILE, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE SPENT TO GET TO THIS POINT, TO HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN GOING FORWARD, AND TO HAVE TO DO ALL THIS WORK GOING FORWARD.
IT'S REALLY INTIMIDATING WHEN SOMEBODY HAS PUT THIS MUCH EFFORT AND MONEY INTO SOMETHING AND THEN YOU'RE EVALUATING IT AT THIS POINT.
I'M JUST THROWING THAT QUESTION OUT THERE, AND I KNOW THAT WEIGHS HEAVILY ON ALL THE COMMISSIONERS.
ONE OTHER THOUGHT THAT A COMMENT REMINDED ME OF HERE, THIS IS ACTUALLY VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE NEW HOSPITAL.
I THINK THIS IS A CONSIDERATION, ESPECIALLY SHOULD THIS GO FORWARD, IS THAT BUILDING A NEW HOSPITAL, A NEW HOSPITAL IS GOING TO BE HAVE A LOWER CARBON FOOTPRINT THAN THE OLD HOSPITAL.
IT'S GOING TO USE NEW TECHNOLOGY.
IT COULD BE ENORMOUSLY BETTER.
AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE REPORT, IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT, USELESS WATER, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
IT'S ALREADY A NEW HOSPITAL IS ALREADY GOING TO BE, I HAVE A LOWER CARBON FOOTPRINT THAN THE OLD HOSPITAL.
THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE OLD HOSPITAL SITE IS I GOT INTERESTED IN THIS PROJECT EARLY ON BECAUSE I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE OLD HOSPITAL, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO IT, AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT.
NOW THERE ISN'T THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, A COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY, AND ON REDEVELOPMENT OF THAT SITE.
THERE'S A REALLY STRONG OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS.
CHANCES ARE, BECAUSE THOSE WILL BE REDEVELOPED AND REPURPOSED, THAT THEY WILL BECOME MUCH MORE EFFICIENT, SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS.
I SEE ON THE HORIZON, EVEN THOUGH THERE WOULD POSSIBLY BE THIS PERIOD OF WHERE IT'S JUST EMPTIES OUT AND DEPRESSING THAT.
IT BECOME A VERY EXCITING PART OF FLAGSTAFF, AND IT COULD BECOME THE HEART OF THE SUSTAINABILITY AREAS.
I SEE THAT AS A REALLY STRONG POSITIVE FOR THIS PROJECT.
I DIDN'T WANT HIM NEGLECT TO MENTION THAT BECAUSE THAT SEEMS VERY POSSIBLE TO.
>> TELL ME I CLARIFY ONE THING.
>> I JUST I HEARD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY BEARING PART OF THE COST, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I KNOW THE DEA HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU VERY RECENTLY, BUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, NEH IS RESPONSIBLE TO MITIGATE ALL OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.
THAT IS PART OF THE PACKAGE THAT IS BEING PROVIDED RIGHT NOW.
IT SHOWS NEH BEARING FULL COST FOR ALL OF THOSE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.
JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CLEAR.
>> BUT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO THE SITE, CORRECT?
>> NOT TRANSIT. YOU'RE CORRECT.
THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE IMPACT ANALYSIS. THANK YOU.
>> YES. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.
THAT THE TRAFFIC THINGS MITIGATIONS ARE COVERED,
[01:20:01]
BUT I WAS REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO PUBLIC TRANSIT.I GUESS WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE COULD MAKE A MOTION.
WELL, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT MORE.
WE SHOULD START WITH THE, LET'S SEE, THE FIRST MOTION IS THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
>> I WANT TO HELP YOU WITH THE SECOND ONE.
>> I CANNOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS AS DESCRIBED IN THE ZONING CODE AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
PERSONALLY, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE, BUT I'VE BEEN IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT WE DENY INSTEAD OF POSTPONE PZ 20, I HAVE THE WRONG THING WRITTEN DOWN, 0012601.
SPECIFICALLY, I FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE CLICKABLE SPECIFIC PLANS.
AGAIN, I AGREE WITH YOU, MARIA, ABOUT THAT IT'S PROBABLY MORE SUSTAINABLE THAN THE HOSPITAL IS NOW, BUT IT STILL DOESN'T HAVE THAT CARBON NEUTRALITY, DOESN'T MEET THE CARBON NEUTRALITY BY 2030.
I FEEL LIKE PART OF THAT IS NOT ONLY THE PROJECT REDUCTION FOR INCREASE IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, BUT THE URBAN SPRAWL AND THE TRANSPORTATION CARBON EMISSIONS THAT WILL OCCUR.
I ALSO FEEL THAT THE HOSPITALS TRANSPORTATION STUDY DID NOT INCLUDE TIMES WHEN FORD TED HILL HAS EVENTS AND WHAT THE TRAFFIC WILL BE DURING THOSE BUSY TIMES.
I FEEL LIKE THE STAFF REPORT STATES THAT IT'S ACCESSIBLE AND CONVENIENT TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEW HOSPITAL REMAINS AN UNDRESSED SERVICE AND IT'LL AGAIN, THE DEPENDENCY ON AUTO TRAVEL FOR THE MAJORITY OF FLAGSTAFF RESIDENTS AND EVEN THOSE COMING FROM OUT OF FLAGSTAFF.
JUST CONCERNS REMAIN ABOUT HOW UNDESERVED MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY WILL ACCESS THE HOSPITAL AND HOW THAT RELOCATION CAN AFFECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION.
I FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTERESTS, HEALTH SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY WITH THE LOCATION THAT THEY'VE CHOSEN.
THAT COULD MEAN INCREASED AMOUNT OF TIMES FOR PEOPLE WITHIN FLAGSTAFF TO GET TO THE HOSPITAL, ESPECIALLY SOME OF THOSE AREAS THAT WHEN SNOWBALL HAS ONE SCHEME IS ACTIVATE SNOWBALL AND SOMEBODY HAS AN ACCIDENT, THEY ALREADY HAVE LIKE 30 MINUTES TO THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC ON 180, AND THAT'S JUST GOING TO BE ALMOST AN HOUR FOR THEM DURING THAT TRAFFIC WITH 180 AND THEN DOWN TO THE HOSPITAL.
I FEEL THAT THE AFFECTED SITE IS PHYSICALLY UNSUITABLE IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN, SHAPE, AND SIZE, WITH THE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS AND PROVISION OF PUBLIC AND EMERGENCY ACCESS.
THE PROS NEW HOSPITAL IS DESIGNED TO BE 160 FEET TALL AND SEVEN STOREYS, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS THE BEST INTEREST IN OUR COMMUNITY.
THIS EXCEEDS EVEN THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS WHERE THE COMMUNITY OBJECTED FORMERLY, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE STRESS ON THE CITY'S FIRE DEPARTMENT OR ON TAXATION FOR THE CITY'S FIRE DEPARTMENT.
MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO THE HOSPITAL TO CONSIDER A DIFFERENT PLAN AND LOWER THE BUILDING HEIGHT THAT COULD SERVE THE PUBLIC IN THE SAME WAY.
[01:25:03]
AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO SEE US SCALE DOWN THE PROJECT, SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO DENY PZ 210-01-2601.>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THIS FIRST CASE.
>> JUST A CLARIFICATION, CHAIR, IT'S A MOTION TO FORWARD TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OR DENIAL.
>> THANK YOU. FORWARD TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK DOES IT HAVE TO BE A SECOND BASED ON ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAID?
>> NO, I THINK IT'S JUST THE MOTION.
>> YOU WERE GIVING YOUR REASONS.
>> RIGHT, SO THAT COULD BE RECORDED, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FOR JUST MY THINGS.
>> I'M NOT INCLINED TO VOTE AGAINST THE HOSPITAL.
I WANT TO VOTE FOR A HOSPITAL.
THE REASON I THINK I WANT TO VOTE TO DENY THIS IS, I GUESS I SEE THIS.
WE'LL SEE IF THIS IS TRUE OR NOT.
I THINK CHANCES ARE PRETTY GOOD.
THIS IS GOING TO GO THROUGH COUNCIL.
I THINK THAT COUNCIL HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT QUITE A LOT ON THIS, AND I GUESS WHAT I TEND TO SEE THIS PROCESSES.
I VERY MUCH DOUBT IF WE DO PASS THIS MOTION, I VERY MUCH DOUBT THAT THE APPLICANT IS JUST GOING TO SAY, WELL, BRINGING EXACTLY THE SAME CASE TO COUNSEL.
I IMAGINE THAT THEY'LL TRY TO ADDRESS THINGS.
I GUESS I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN MAKING THE BEST APPLICATION THEY CAN AND TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE ISSUES.
I THINK THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THE ISSUE ITSELF.
IT'S A WEIRD SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE I DO SUPPORT THE HOSPITAL AND I SUPPORT A NEW HOSPITAL.
BUT IT'S THE FINDINGS THAT I FEEL THAT DO HAVE TO DO WITH I WOULD SAY GENERALLY SOME OF THE SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES AND GOALS AND ALSO THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO COMPLETELY DISAGREE.
I THINK IN THE END, I HAVE TO TRUST STAFF.
STAFF HAVE HAD FAR MORE TIME REVIEWING THIS THAN WE HAVE, AND THEY BELIEVE IT'S INSUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIRED FINDINGS.
I CAN'T FIND MYSELF SAYING NO STAFF, YOU GUYS ARE WRONG.
I FEEL LIKE THEY'VE HAD THE TIME, THEY'VE HAD THE ENERGY.
SO I WOULD VOTE NO ON THIS ONE. I THINK.
WE NEED TO SUPPORT A HOSPITAL, BUT MAYBE THE ONLY WAY TO GET A HOSPITAL DONE IS TO BUILD THIS LARGER PROJECT AROUND IT TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE.
I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION.
>> I'LL GO NEXT. I THINK THAT THE ITEMS THAT I HAVE ISSUES WITH ARE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE UP TO A DISCUSSION IN CITY COUNCIL.
I THINK THE THINGS THAT I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH AND EVEN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED HERE ARE BEYOND OUR PURVIEW AND THEY'RE GOING TO END UP NEEDING TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL.
WHAT I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED WAS THAT WE VOTE TO MOVE IT FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION BUT WITH CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO FUNDING ISSUES FOR FURTHER SUSTAINABILITY ASKS THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND ON YOUR EMOTION, YOU HAVE FAR MORE ISSUES WITH THE FINDINGS WHICH YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO, AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.
BUT I WOULD ALSO VOTE NO ON THIS MOTION FOR THOSE REASONS BECAUSE I'D RATHER SEE US GIVING COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT WE HAVE HAD ISSUES AND DISCUSSION ABOUT.
>> THAT WAS WHY ORIGINALLY I HAD WANTED TO POSTPONE SENDING THIS TO COUNSEL ALL TOGETHER SO THAT THOSE ISSUES CAN BE RESOLVED,
[01:30:05]
BUT THE APPLICANT WOULD RATHER US DENY OR APPROVE, AND SO MY THOUGHT IS THAT WE SEND IT TO COUNCIL WITH THE DENIAL AND THEN THEY CAN HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.THEY STILL GET TO GO TO COUNCIL AND PRESENT TO COUNCIL.
>> I THINK THAT'S SOMETIMES THE MISUNDERSTANDING IS REGARDLESS, SOMEHOW WE VOTE, IT'S GOING TO COUNSEL POSTPONING IT OR ASKING COUNCIL TO TABLE ONCE IT GETS TO THEM UNTIL SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED OR THE RAYS GRANT IS AWARDED, OR SOME OF THESE UNKNOWNS ARE FIGURED OUT.
BUT THAT WILL BE UP TO THEM TOO.
>> I ALSO WANT TO STATE THAT COUNT THEM FOR A HOSPITAL.
I'M NOT AGAINST THE HOSPITAL, BUT I THINK THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH MEETING ALL THE FINDINGS ON MY PART.
>> IT'S WEIRD EVEN UP INTO THIS MOMENT, I FEEL I CAN GO EITHER WAY ON THIS.
I GUESS THE REASON THAT I TEND TO LEAN TOWARDS DENYING IT IS JUST TO MAKE THE POINT THAT I HEAR THE REASON FOR COMMISSIONS AS TO HOW THAT CITIZEN PRESENCE ON THESE THE CITY DECISIONS.
I FEEL TO SOME EXTENT MY AIM IS TO REPRESENT THE CITIZEN'S PERSPECTIVE POINT OF VIEW AND I HEAR A VERY STRONG SENTIMENT THAT WE NEED TO TAKE THIS ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY SERIOUSLY AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT.
THERE'S SO MANY TIMES I'VE SAT ON THESE, LISTENED TO THESE CASES AND I HEAR THINGS COME BY AND IT'S ALWAYS A INCREMENTAL THING LIKE THIS IS GOING TO ADD TO THE WASTE STREAM, THIS IS GOING TO ADD TO THIS AND THAT BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, IT MEETS THE FINDINGS AND SO AND SO FORTH, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DECIDE.
IT'S JUST REALLY HARD TO FIGURE OUT WHERE DOES THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD WHEN IT COMES TO [LAUGHTER] CLIMATE CHANGE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS I ADMIRE ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE REALLY FANTASTIC.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY MORE LIKELY THAT IT WILL GROW THE NARCO, BUT I FEEL THIS IS JUST A WAY FOR ME TO REGISTER THAT SENTIMENT FROM MY FELLOW CITIZENS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FINDING WAYS TO REALLY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT CLIMATE CHANGE.
>> I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE OBJECTIONS THAT WE HAD WERE BASED ON CLIMATE CHANGE, I THINK WE COULD ALL AGREE TO THAT.
BUT AGAIN, THE CITY DOESN'T REQUIRE CARBON NEUTRALITY ON A SPECIFIC PROJECT, SO WHY WOULD WE REQUIRE THAT ON THIS ONE.
WHY WOULD WE DENY IT BASED UPON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY REQUIRED.
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT I AGREE THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED, I THINK THAT THIS GETS INTO A WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE REGIONAL PLAN AND HOW THE GOALS AND POLICIES ARE WRITTEN.
SARAH IS IN THE MIDDLE OF WORKING ON A NEW REGIONAL PLAN AND I'M VERY MUCH WHOLE, I MEAN SOMETIMES WHEN I LOOK THROUGH THESE GOALS AND POLICIES, I THINK THIS CAN BE ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE.
THESE GOALS AND POLICIES, THEY ARE REALLY GENERAL.
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SOMETIMES IT'S JUST SO GENERAL JUST LIKE IT'S WHY EVEN PUT IT DOWN [LAUGHTER] IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THAT MUCH MEANING.
I HOPEFULLY SARAH IS LOOKING AT THOSE THINGS AS WE DEVELOP A NEW REGIONAL PLAN, SOMETHING THAT REALLY HAS MEANING FOR PEOPLE OR HAS MORE SPECIFIC MEANING FOR PEOPLE.
BUT THERE ARE THINGS I THINK IT GOES AND POLICIES.
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS LIKE HAVING EFFICIENCIES, ENERGY EFFICIENCIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I THINK THAT THIS APPLICATION MEETS ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEED SOME OF OTHERS.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL THING HAVING TO DO WITH HOW THE CITY DEVELOPS.
THAT'S MORE PHILOSOPHICAL TO ME BUT THAT'S THE PART THAT I'M REFERRING TO.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT WITH PAST COMMISSIONERS ON PNZ
[01:35:04]
IN THE LAST THREE-AND-A-HALF YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL.I WON'T SAY IT'S COME UP AS CARBON NEUTRALITY BUT IT'S COME UP AS SUSTAINABILITY.
WE'VE ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS OF OTHER PROJECTS AS WELL.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS A ONE-TIME ASKED, I THINK WE'VE ASKED THOSE TWO OTHER PROJECTS, THIS IS A HUGE PROJECT.
I'M GOING TO POINT BOB BECAUSE OUR LAST THING THAT WE APPROVED WAS THE PARK.
I FORGET WHAT IT'S CALLED, PUTTECH.
WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THAT BUT THAT WAS LOOKING AT A SMALL USE, WE'RE LOOKING AT A HUGE FACILITY.
IT'S BIGGER THAN ANYTHING, THAT'S PROBABLY HAPPENED IN THE LAST, 10, 20 YEARS IN FLAGSTAFF.
PART OF MY ISSUE IS THAT WE DO HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS.
THIS IS NOT SMALL AND WHEN WE'VE LOOKED AT APARTMENT UNITS AND WE LOOKED AT HOUSING, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY IN THE PAST.
>> BUT WHERE DOES SIZE GET MENTIONED IN OUR REQUIREMENTS, WHERE DO WE SAY IF YOU'RE ABOVE A CERTAIN SIZE YOU MUST BE CARBON-NEUTRAL BUT IF YOU'RE BELOW A CERTAIN SIZE, WHAT'S THE MATTER?
>> I DON'T THINK WE'VE DONE THAT AND I THINK THIS IS BRAND NEW, AS I SAID WE HAVE QUESTION PEOPLE OVER SUSTAINABILITY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE EVER SENT WELL, I COULD SAY SOME COMMISSIONERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT CARBON NEUTRALITY TO THOSE BUILDERS SO I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST ABOUT SIZE, I THINK WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST WITH PAST COMMISSIONERS.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT THE FINDING I'M REFERRING TO IS ABOUT CARBON NEUTRALITY BECAUSE LIKE I WAS SAYING IN MY COMMENTS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT AM I ASKING FOR? TELLING ME WHAT YOUR SUPPLY CHAIN IS GOING TO BE, I CAN'T EVALUATE THOSE THINGS.
THAT'S WHY I GUESS IT'S NOT SO MUCH A CARBON NEUTRALITY GOAL OR THAT I'M REFERRING TO OBJECTIVE, THAT I'M REFERRING TO.
IT'S MORE THAN NOTION OF HOW DOES THE CITY DEVELOP? HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? HOW DO WE DEVELOP THINGS? THE SIZE MATTERS BECAUSE WE ALREADY VOTED TO MAKE IT A REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTERS SO THAT'S DONE.
BUT IT'S CREATING A LARGE DEVELOPMENT AREA THAT'S GOING TO BE REACHING OUT TO THE VERY EDGE OF OUR BOUNDARIES SO THAT'S WHERE THE SIZE BECOMES SIGNIFICANT, AND A LOT OF THINGS ARE GETTING DEVELOPED AROUND THIS.
IT WAS DESIGNATED IN THE REGIONAL PLAN AS AN ACTIVITY CENTER BUT AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY CENTER BEFORE WE ALL CHANGED THAT AND BEFORE CITY COUNCIL CHANGE THAT.
BUT IT WAS GOING TO DEVELOP PEOPLE ON THAT LAND AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CUT DOWN TREES AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN PROBABLY.
BUT THIS IS A PRETTY HIGH IMPACT, I THINK I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE SIZE IS A FACTOR.
>> CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS THE SPECIFIC PLAN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE BUILDINGS, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S GUIDELINES FOR THE BUILDINGS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLANT.
I'M JUST SUMMARIZING YOUR THOUGHTS, IT'S MORE OF THE LOCATION AND THE SIZE AND THE EDGE OF TOWN.
THAT'S THE URBAN SPRAWL THAT'S AFFECTING YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE SUSTAINABILITY BECAUSE OF THOSE REASONS.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE ON THAT? PLEASE.
>> LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE A NEW HOSPITAL I THINK.
THAT THAT IS NOT WE'RE NOT SAYING WE DON'T WANT GOOD HEALTHCARE IN FLAGSTAFF.
I THINK THAT WHAT I WOULD REALLY IN MY MIND, THIS IS GOING TO GO TO COUNCIL REGARDLESS.
[01:40:01]
IT'S EITHER GOING TO BE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE OR DENY.WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE RECORD FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IS THAT A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, I ASKED FOR BASICALLY A RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS ON.
PART OF THIS, HAVING HOTELS, HAVING RETAIL SHOPS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS ARE GOING TO BRING FLAGSTAFF MORE SALES TAX REVENUE.
WILL THAT OFFSET THE INVESTMENT THAT WE NEED TO MAKE AS CITIZENS TO BUILD HALF THE FIRE STATION.
THAT ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS JUST JUST A SIMPLE, I THINK IT'S SIMPLE, BECAUSE I'M AN ACCOUNTANT AND ANALYSIS [LAUGHTER] ON THAT.
THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD LIKE COUNCIL TO ADDRESS IS THE THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO THE HOSPITAL.
I DO THINK THAT THAT IS IMPORTANT.
EVEN AS WE ALL AGE, MAYBE WE WON'T HAVE SOMEONE WHO CAN DRIVE US AND WE DO NEED TO TAKE THE BUS TO THE HOSPITAL OR, SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS AROUND THE TRANSIT THAT I WOULD LIKE ADDRESSED AS WELL.
>> ANY MORE COMMENTS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE?
>> I'LL JUST ADD IN JUST TO TAG ONTO YOUR COMMENTS.
WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS SPECIFIC PLAN, THERE WAS MENTIONED THAT THE HEALTH VILLAGE COULD GENERATE AN ESTIMATED 39.1 MILLION IN SALES TAX, BOARD AND BEVERAGE TAX, PROPERTY TAXES, STATE SHARED REVENUES TO THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF OVER THE NEXT 23 YEARS.
BUT IF YOU TAKE THAT 39.1 MILLION AND DIVIDE IT BY 23 YEARS, IT COMES OUT TO AN AVERAGE OF 1.7 MILLION.
BUT THE FIRE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE ALONE.
NOW THEY COME UP WITH SOME OF THE FUNDING, BUT STILL A 1.4 MILLION IS UNDETERMINED ON HOW THEY WOULD PAY FOR THAT.
IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF SQUEAKING BY.
>> THIS IS GREAT TO HEAR HIS OPINION.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HELPING ME MUCH.
[LAUGHTER] AS MUCH AS I DON'T WORRY ABOUT.
ANYTHING ELSE HERE WE SHOULD PROBABLY VOTE ON THIS MOTION IF WE'RE DONE TALKING ABOUT IT? WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY THIS FIRST CASE FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN OR DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL TO COUNCIL.
SORRY. I'M JUST GETTING ABOVE OURSELVES HERE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
>> CHAIR, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE? I'M NOT SURE THAT I GOT THE SAME NUMBERS.
>> YEAH, I WASN'T SURE I HEARD TOO.
WELL, I THINK SHE'S GOING TO CALL.
>> THANKS. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT? AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE TO REZONE THOSE PARTICULAR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE IN PHASE 1.
>> THE ONLY DIFFERENCE ON THIS ONE IS JUST THAT WE'RE CHANGING THE ZONING.
>> RIGHT. I GET THIS IS CONFUSING BECAUSE COULD WE HAVE APPROVED THE SPECIFIC PLAN BUT NOT APPROVE THE ZONING? COULD WE APPROVE THE ZONING BUT NOT APPROVED A SPECIFIC PLAN?
>> YES. BUT THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND PROPOSAL DOESN'T WORK WITHOUT THE TWO OF THEM, SO THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR EXAMPLE, PROVES THE BUILDING HEIGHT.
THE REAN SETS SPECIFIC STANDARDS,
[01:45:03]
IT HAS ALL OF THE CONDITIONS FOR THAT PARTICULAR ZONE.THERE ARE LIMITATIONS PUT ON THAT ZONE THAT ARE FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIC YOU FOUND THEM EACH INDEPENDENT.
IT DOESN'T SUPPORT ANY HICHES' REQUESTS THOUGH.
>> I GUESS WHERE I'M STRUGGLING IS THAT I DIDN'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH THE ZONING.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND THE TRANSIT.
IF I'M TAKING THIS JUST ON ITS OWN, IT'S JUST ABOUT THE ZONING.
>> BUT I THINK THEY ARE SO INTERRELATED THAT WE REALLY SHOULD TREAT THEM THE SAME BECAUSE WE REALLY CAN'T CHANGE THE ZONING ON A PARCEL THAT DOESN'T HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND A SPECIFIC PLAN.
AS MUCH AS I HATE TO SEE ANOTHER DENYING MOTION COME FORWARD, IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE HAVE TWO IN MY EYES.
I THINK YOU COULD HAVE AN INDEPENDENT OPINION ABOUT IT AND ALSO, REMEMBER, WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AND SO THAT'S SOMEPLACE WHERE THE SUBTLETY COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
THE SPECIFIC PLAN IS WHAT REQUIRED IMPACT ANALYSES ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
IT'S WHAT REQUIRED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS.
THE REZONING IS WHAT REQUIRES THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS IS WHAT REQUIRES THE WATER SEWER IMPACT ANALYSIS, IS WHAT REQUIRED THE DRAINAGE IMPACT ANALYSIS.
SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS IS REALLY TIED TO THE REZONING AND THOSE OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICE ANALYSIS ARE TIED TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN.
JUST FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
>> DOES THAT MEAN ALL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE ROADS AND THE EXPANSION OF BEULAH, THAT IS THAT IS TIED MOST SPECIFICALLY TO THE REZONING?
>> I GUESS WHERE I'M CONFUSED IS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHAT IS THE RESULTING GAIN?
>> NOTHING. TERRY, IF I MAY, I WOULD TREAT THE APPLICATIONS INDEPENDENTLY, AND SO I WOULD MAKE YOUR MOTIONS SEPARATELY BASED ON THE SEPARATE APPLICATION, AND WHEN WE GET TO COUNCIL, WE'LL HAVE TIME TO TALK TO THE APPLICANT, WE'LL TALK TO CITY COUNCIL.
COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN, AND WE CAN MAKE SENSE OF IT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL TO PROVIDE YOUR INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE TWO APPLICATIONS AND WE'LL SORT IT OUT AT COUNCIL.
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO TRY TO MAKE A MOTION? I WILL TAKE A STAB AT IT.
>> IF YOU DON'T, THEN IT'D BE WILLING TO.
>> I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVAL, BUT WITH SOME CONSIDERATIONS TO COUNSEL PZ-21-001-21-00126-02.
THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE COUNCIL TO WEIGH IS THE TABLING OF A REZONING APPROVAL UNTIL THE FUNDING FOR THE RAYS GRANT HAS BEEN GRANTED AND THE FUNDING HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY'S SITES.
SORRY TO MAKE A MESS OF THAT, BUT I THINK YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING.
IS THAT I WISHED WHEN IT GOT TO THEM THAT THEY WILL EVALUATE THE FUNDING SOURCES AND WAIT UNTIL THE RAYS GRANT HAS BEEN AWARDED.
>> SO MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT MOTION WOULD BE TO ASK COUNCIL TO CONSIDER SOMETHING, IT'S A REQUEST.
IS IT REALLY PART OF THE MOTION? CAN IT BE PART OF THE MOTION, OR IS THAT A REQUEST?
>> IT'S NOT FORMERLY PART OF THE MOTION.
THE MOTION IS A RECOMMENDATION TO FORWARD THE REQUEST FOR THE REZONING TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
BUT WE, WHEN WE GO TO COUNCIL, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE LET COUNCIL KNOW WHAT THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSION
[01:50:05]
ARE AND WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEEK COUNCIL ADDRESS.I TOOK THAT AS DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE REQUESTS WERE CONVEYED TO COUNCIL.
>> I'M FINE WITH IT READING THAT WAY.
>> BUT BASICALLY ANYTHING THAT WE'RE SAYING TONIGHT INDIVIDUALLY, THESE ARE REQUESTS OF COUNCIL.
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOME COUNCIL FORMERLY CONSIDER SOMETHING VERSUS EVERYTHING THEY'VE HEARD TONIGHT?
>> I THINK IF IT WAS MORE FORMAL, IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE REQUEST FOR THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED BY STAFF, AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
I WILL TELL YOU COUNCIL IS GOING TO CONSIDER THE FUNDING FOR FIRE.
I THINK IF THE REQUEST TO TABLE UNTIL THE RAYS GRANT DECISION IS MADE, WE CAN DEFINITELY CONVEY THAT TO COUNCIL.
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, I DO NOT KNOW THAT IT MAKES A HUGE IMPACT, BUT HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED, IT CAN.
I WILL JUST NOTE THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE, SO WE WILL NEED A SECOND BEFORE DISCUSSION.
>> TIFFANY WOULD LIKE ME TO CLARIFY THAT THE MOTION IS TO FORWARD THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED BY STAFF IN THE MARCH 22ND REPORT WHICH HAS THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M SORRY. CAN YOU TELL ME WHO SECONDED THAT? I WAS [OVERLAPPING].
>> AGAIN, I GUESS I'M INCLINED TO VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR ME ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE CONCERNS I HAVE, THE FINDINGS THAT I HAVE DIFFICULTY MAKING PROBABLY FALL EVEN MORE WITHIN THE CONCEPT MAP AMENDMENT MOTION, AND THEN SPECIFIC PLAN THING.
BUT THE SAME THOUGHTS I HAVE REGARDING WHY I'M DOING IT APPLY IN THIS CASE.
BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT LOGICALLY MAKES SENSE TO ME. ANY THOUGHTS?
>> I CAN AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT AS WELL.
WITH WHAT YOU'VE SAID, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON MOTION? [BACKGROUND]
>> NOW, ADMITTEDLY, IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON.
>> BUT, DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT'S GOOD.
THESE SUBTLETIES MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO COUNCIL, I THINK.
THE MOTION IS TO FORWARD THE CONCEPT MAP AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.
>> ALL THOSE AGAINST, PLEASE SAY NAY.
>> YOU PROBABLY WANT TO DO ANOTHER ROLL CALL, RIGHT?
>> NOW YOU NEED TO MAKE THE OPPOSITE MOTION.
>> A TIE IS AN AUTOMATIC DENIAL.
>> YES. I KNOW THAT MUCH IS TRUE, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT A TIE WAS A DENIAL.
I THOUGHT MAYBE THERE WAS SOME KIND OF SNEAKY THING WE COULD GET OUT OF THERE NOW.
>> BUT AS WE'VE LEARNED IN THE PAST, WE STILL NEED TO MAKE THE OPPOSITE MOTION.
>> WELL, I'LL JUMP INTO THE BREACH THEN AND MAKE A MOTION TO FORWARD THE CONCEPT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CASE, WHATEVER IT IS.
[01:55:01]
I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.IT WOULD BE PZ-21-001-260-2424 TO FORWARD THIS TO CITY COUNCIL FOR DENIAL, WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.
>> NO, WE DID IT FOR APPROVAL.
>> QUESTIONS. IF WE ENDED UP IN ANOTHER TIE, ARE WE IN THE SAME SITUATION OR DO WE NEED TO BREAK THIS TIE.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? [BACKGROUND] THIS IS ABOUT DENIAL.
[INAUDIBLE] ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE?
>> ALL THOSE AGAINST THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY NAY.
>> TIFFANY, CAN WE GO HOME? [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS, BOTH FROM THE APPLICANT AND FROM STAFF.
THIS IS A HUGE PROJECT AND JUST A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK.
I THINK THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE AND THAT IT COULD MOVE FORWARD IN THE FUTURE, BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN.
>> THERE WAS A LITTLE PIECE OF HOUSEKEEPING THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE MINUTES FROM, NOT THE LAST MEETING, BUT THE MEETING BEFORE, IS THAT IT? NO, IT'S OKAY. THAT'S THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU GUYS NEED TO TALK TO US ABOUT OR VICE VERSA?
>> I THINK IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS DOING THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS IN PERSON WITH THIS HYBRID SO MAYBE WE COULD GET A NOD FROM THE COMMISSION THAT YOU'D BE INTERESTED IN DOING MORE IN-PERSON/HYBRID MEETINGS, THEN WE CAN PLAN EVEN NEXT WEEK.
I CAN LOOK INTO THE CALENDAR, MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE ROOM, AND MAYBE WE CAN DO THIS AGAIN NEXT WEDNESDAY.
>> I MUCH PREFER IN-PERSON. IT'S A LOT EASIER.
>> I AGREE. WE'RE MEETING AGAIN NEXT THURSDAY.
>> WE ARE MEETING FOR SURE WE HAVE AN AGENDA?
>> WE DO. BUT REMOTE WOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE FOR NEXT WEDNESDAY?
>> I WOULD HATE TO HAVE STAFF HERE PRESENTING TO AN EMPTY ROOM.
KNOWING THAT YOU GUYS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BEING PRESENT IS WHY I ASK.
>> I WOULDN'T BE IN PERSON, SO I WOULD BE REMOTE, SO I JUST WANT MAKE SURE THAT WAS STILL AVAILABLE.
>> AGREED. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> YES. WE'RE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.