Your Thoughts On Flagstaff Regional Plan Changes


What are your thoughts on the revised draft of the Flagstaff Regional Plan?

Council has made nearly 200 changes to the draft plan after 3 months of review and hundreds of comments from the public. Here are some of the major changes.

• The preference towards compact development has been replaced with a more holistic approach offering varied, market driven housing options.

• The original drafts lack of adequate focus and planning for automobile capacity has been addressed by an all of the above solution that includes addressing traffic concerns and auto capacity while also expanding alternate modes of transportation.

• Definitive language such as “require” and “shall” has been removed in favor of suggestive and encouraging language.

• A statement will be added to the beginning of the plan that this plan is a “vision” and that “the goals, policies, maps and illustrations in this plan do not preclude any property owner from exercising their development rights”.

Council will review these final changes Tuesday, December 17th, 7:00PM at City Hall. Public comment can also be made at this meeting.


13 thoughts on “Your Thoughts On Flagstaff Regional Plan Changes

  1. Jeff We wish to thank you and the City Council for listening to the citizens and your constituents. Thank you for reaching some compromises and allowing for some of our suggestions to be incorporated into the plan. Sue and Rick Mihalik

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  2. Your messages says that “nearly 200 changes” were made – are they available to the public anywhere? I would like to look them over before preparing comments for the Tuesday hearing. Carol

  3. There were public comments and input for 4 years before the council hearings began. The council has a statutory role, but the kind of word-smithing and major re-visioning that has gone on corrupts the efforts of the last 4 years. Who will bother to swerve on the next regional plan committees? Why bother since the council is going to redo it all at the end?

    1. Thanks for your comments Ann.

      The reality is that the vast majority of the CAC draft plan remains, as was pointed out in yesterday’s AZ Daily Sun editorial.

      Should we disenfranchise Flagstaff residents and not include the hundreds of comments and concerns they have made to Council after the DRAFT was released simply because they didn’t make those comments previously to the advisory committee?

      1. Those very small number of community members who speak last prevail?

        I’m proud to say that the 4.5 year process included hundreds and hundreds of community members and a very committed group of CAC volunteers who worked extremely hard to address every single issue raised by the citizens. Thousands of hours were spent working to balance these inputs, including many discussions about what exact word to use. Watching the City Council run thorough the same conversations in a few short hours, without benefit of those thousands of hours of discussion, and hundreds of comments, then make what appears to be uninformed changes, is, well, disheartening to say the least. During the past 12 weeks Council has seen the same half dozen faces offering concerns and suggested edits; few posts on your blog; and surely, other points of contact as well. However, this cadre, all of whom were invited to participate in 4.5 year process (and of course are invited to offer comments at this time), are a fraction of those who did. I have not studied all of the 200 proposed changes, but from here, it does seem a show of disrespect for the process.

        I agree with Ann, that the way a majority of the City Council has handled this risks driving away not only volunteers to serve on future advisory committees, but stiffeling community involvement in general. I personally, believe this would be a real travesty for our fine community.

  4. State law requires that Council take public input and consider changes and adjustments before sending it to the voters. Are you guys suggesting that the Council break state law?

    At least one of the CAC members has publicly thanked Jeff Oravits and other council members for bringing balance to the plan. Even as a CAC member she felt the plan was not balanced.

    You should be thanking the Council for making slight changes to the plan that make it more realistic and balanced. I don’t believe the original draft would have been approved by the voters. I think voters will approve the amended version.

    I am proud of the hard work that the council did. I am proud of the community for showing up and giving input. A plan that represents diverse viewpoints is a plan worth supporting.

    1. I’m not sure how you read my comments, certainly I am speaking for myself, not “you guys”. I am also very clear on the process, and would never suggest cutting off community involvement nor suggest tampering with the system. I was pointing out that the comments offered at the end of the process, while important, should be balanced with a mountains of community input throughout the ENTIRE process. Many of the small edits are of no consequence or in fact help to make the document more clear. I have spoken publicly to the council that I agreed, the document needed further technical edits before it was released, but the timeline prevailed. Certainly, Council members are to be applauded for all of the time and care they have put into the review. I have also publicly thanked them on several occasions.

      I thank you too, for your involvement and contributions over time to this conversation.

  5. Anne & Carol, While clearly there were many opportunities for inputs to the draft plan, I suspect that many, like myself, with limited time resources choose to wait and review the draft produced by our fellow citizens before commenting. Since the plan took 4-5 years to craft, it would have been difficult to attend that many meetings. Even more difficult to keep track of what was changing and why. I agree with the majority of what the CAC produced but do believe that some fine tuning was appropriate. The CAC was tasked with producing a DRAFT and then provide it for public comment to ensure that it accurately reflected the needs of the majority of the folks it will effect. I’d like to thank the CAC for the hard work and patience they displayed and hope they understand that any changes are NOT a reflection on them personally.

  6. I am happy that some of the same concerns I had were raised by other citizens during public comment at the council meetings because I don’t believe any of the comments I made at the charrettes I attended were given any consideration. Not allowing for continued vetting of the draft would have been much more detrimental to the democratic process since it was well known the CAC was not ideologically balanced. And if there is a potential that those who did, or will, give their time voluntarily might not participate in the future, then why would one of those who seems most scorned run for city council? I think the exclusion (and attempted exclusion of three recent committee applicants) of those who don’t share a particular ideology is what has the most potential to keep people for participating in the future. Thank you for being principled enough to consider that many in Flagstaff deserve, despite their lack of participation, to have their interests considered and represented in the regional plan as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s