| F3 has paid close attention to the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2045 because it will greatly impact the way Flagstaff will develop in the next twenty years. The plan is a policy guide for land use and development decisions and should be the vision for the shape and character of the community.
This newsletter summarizes our concerns. Here is a quick overview:
- We are concerned that the plan is almost singularly focused on an increase in housing density. While we see the need to address the housing crisis, density alone is not enough. It must be paired with the values that make a community a community such as open space, public space, and community character.
- We also believe that new developments should be dense enough to support neighborhood commercial uses nearby so that residents do not have to primarily be car dependent.
- And we strongly believe that the City of Flagstaff should maintain its current Urban Growth Boundary to avoid sprawl and not allow, as proposed in the draft, the city council to make exceptions for individual property owners on a case by case basis.
Stay tuned as F3 will be holding one or more public meetings to explain in more detail the draft plan and to answer your questions and encourage you to weigh in on the next version of the plan.
F3’s Comments on the Draft Plan
Both F3’s President and Executive Director served on the Regional Plan Committee which met for nine months in 2024 and we have been studying the draft Plan closely. Below is F3’s summary of our comments to the City.
- Include an Explanation of The Future Growth Illustration Map: We recognize the critical importance of the proposed Future Growth Illustration Map, but we are unclear about its intention. If the plan’s intent is to accommodate the estimated 50% increase in population by 2045 (from the current 76,500 to more than 116,000), then it would be very helpful to make clear which areas are currently entitled for medium and high density housing and those where the map is proposing density increases. Additionally, an explanation of how the region will change as a result of the increased density is fundamental to the community’s understanding of how the proposed goals and policies will change the experience of living in Flagstaff.
- Please explain why there are certain areas targeted for densification, while others are not, and the reasons why the levels of densification were selected.
- Since the Milton corridor near NAU sits adjacent to the largest employer in the city, consider changing it to Urban Neighborhood/Urban Center to allow increased densification.
- Please explain how the new density parameters will impact existing neighborhoods. It would be very helpful to include examples and photos of existing developments that have the densities being proposed so the public can better understand how their neighborhoods will change.
For additional recommendations, see F3’s submitted comments.
- Reduce Car Dependency by Creating Dense and Self-reliant Neighborhoods: If we’re going to experience the 50% increase in population assumed by this plan, why isn’t the goal to develop and re-develop neighborhoods that are dense enough to be self-reliant and include commercial and social amenities? Increased density should go hand-in-hand with accessible community amenities, commercial businesses and employment. Otherwise, we will have two extremes: densification in limited areas of town and a heavily car-reliant population in less dense areas. We will be furthering the problems associated with sprawl, including a likely increase in traffic congestion as people seek to meet their daily needs by driving into the urban centers of town. And we will not have significantly addressed our carbon footprint since large portions of the population will live in car-dependent neighborhoods.
Our recommendations include:
- Where appropriate, designate existing shopping centers with large parking as Urban Centers.
- Develop the greenfields in the JW Powell area as Suburban Neighborhood High Density in order to allow denser development with commercial.
For additional recommendations, see F3’s submitted comments.
- Explain How the Costs of Increased Density Will Be Paid For:
It would be helpful to understand how the plan envisions that the increased financial burdens associated with densification will be paid for. Increased density requires increased infrastructure and Flagstaff only has impact fees for police and fire protection. It seems inevitable that the increased costs will be shouldered by the current residents and businesses even though there is little to no certainty that it will ensure that their children and grandchildren will be able to afford to rent or buy a home here.
- Make the City Acquisition of Property for Development a Priority: Because our ability to control private development is limited, it’s unlikely that increasing the quantity of housing in and of itself will increase housing availability or affordability. Moreover, there is little in this plan to prevent much of the new development from being investor owned, second homes, and vacation rental properties. The most important complementary strategy available is the City’s acquisition of property for municipal housing and open space. We urge you to make this a priority in the plan.
Our recommendations:
- Purchase state land Section 20 at the end of Butler Ave. so that the city can create a mix of affordable and attainable housing along with commercial, employment and open space uses.
- Make the securing of funding for property acquisition (of state lands and other appropriate properties on the market) a priority action item.
- Acknowledge the City’s Commitment to Social & Environmental Well-being, Community Character, and Equity:We support increasing density but not as the singular aim of development. Density has the capacity to increase the vibrancy of neighborhoods but only if it goes hand-in-hand with other equally important values such as open-space, social space, quality of the built environment, equity, and neighborhood character. The document’s emphasis on increasing density as the solution to our housing emergency should not overshadow the City’s commitment to these values.
Our recommendations include:
- Provide safeguards to prevent gentrification, displacement, and the loss of community character.
- Provide redevelopment guidelines that prevent tear down development and the loss of historic character.
- Provide strategies for addressing the impact of gentrification on equity. (Redevelopment in our most affordable neighborhoods such as Sunnyside will likely increase rents and displace residents who are the most economically vulnerable.)
For additional recommendations, see F3’s submitted comments.
6. Increase Density Incrementally: We recommend that the city take an incremental approach to increasing density since densification can have unintended consequences such as gentrification and cause an increase in the need for new infrastructure and city services. One strategy is to incrementally allow for increased building heights with a regulation that says that the maximum building height can only be two stories or one and a half times the height of the directly adjacent buildings, whichever is greater.
There are many articles about incremental density. Here are two that provide some background:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/10/19/this-south-american-city-illustrates-how-incremental-development-works
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/8/21/new-zealands-legalization-of-incremental-housing-is-bearing-fruit
7. Ensure the Integrity of the Urban Growth Boundary: It is our understanding that the RP 2045 Committee gave direction to staff to include a change in policy in the draft that would allow the Flagstaff City Council to provide water and sewer service outside the urban growth boundary. However, in the draft plan WR.4 maintains the policy that is currently in place: “Provide sustainable and reliable water and sewer services within the urban growth boundary.” We did not see any new policy language in the proposed goals and policies chapter although the Implementation Guidelines (page 9-12) contain policies related to providing water service outside the urban growth boundary. Such a major shift in policy belongs in the goals and policies chapter.
We are opposed to providing water outside of the UGB, if that is the intention of this plan. Such a policy conflicts with the major policy of preventing sprawl and increasing density throughout the city.
For specific recommendations, see F3’s submitted comments.
8. Acknowledge the Trade-offs of Densification and Identify Safeguards: The draft plan implies a number of trade-offs that will ensue from densification. We think it’s important that the public understand the trade-offs that will result as the plan is implemented. For example, while densification may slow the rate of increases in housing and rental prices (though we don’t know this for sure), there are costs associated with it. Right now, the proposed plan will result in reduced parking requirements, loss of native pines, costs for infrastructure expansion, displacement and gentrification, loosened building standards, etc. It also includes such gains as increased walkability, transit access, and possible reduction of our carbon footprint (but see our concerns above regarding sprawl). It is important that these trade-offs be spelled out in the document so that the public can make an informed decision about the plan. It’s equally important that the plan include safeguards to mitigate the costs as well as protect against unintended consequences such as an increase in second homes, demographic inequities, gentrification, etc.
Some background about gentrification/displacement:https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/what-does-gentrification-really-mean
9. Ensure the Integrity of the Urban Growth Boundary: It is our understanding that the RP 2045 Committee gave direction to staff to include a change in policy in the draft that would allow the Flagstaff City Council to provide water and sewer service outside the urban growth boundary. However, in the draft plan WR.4 maintains the policy that is currently in place: “Provide sustainable and reliable water and sewer services within the urban growth boundary.” We did not see any new policy language in the proposed goals and policies chapter although the Implementation Guidelines (page 9-12) contain policies related to providing water service outside the urban growth boundary. Such a major shift in policy belongs in the goals and policies chapter.
We are opposed to providing water outside of the UGB, if that is the intention of this plan. Such a policy conflicts with the major policy of preventing sprawl and increasing density throughout the city.
For specific recommendations, see F3’s submitted comments.
Read the entirety of F3’s comments here (PDF).
If you’d like to know more about any of the work F3 is doing, or if you have questions, please feel free to reach out to me at the email below.
Sincerely,
Michele James
Executive Director
MJames@FriendsofFlagstaff.org |
