WHAT: Please attend a public meeting to make comments in support of the City’s goal of Net Zero by 2030, and email supportive comments.

WHEN: June 13th 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.

WHERE: Lowell Observatory

In 2018 the City of Flagstaff adopted a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. However, progress has been slow and the City has achieved less than 10% of that goal. Part of the difficulty is outdated building and land use codes that work against climate action.

The upcoming June 13th meeting is a chance to change that. The City is soliciting feedback from the public on how to reform these codes, so it’s critical that community members submit oral and written comments in favor of carbon neutrality. You can read the entire Flagstaff City Code here: https://www.codepublishing.com/AZ/Flagstaff/mobile/. City codes are complex so  NAZCCA has provided talking points below to help you weigh in on the seven decisions the event will focus on. Please plan to attend the June 13^th meeting and email your comments to Tiffany Antol at TAntol@flagstaffaz.gov with the subject line “LASS CAP Comments”.

Decision 1: Which outcomes are preferred to address housing and climate outcomes together? Are there any zoning districts that should be excluded or treated differently? ● Scenario 2 is preferred because it aligns best with Flagstaff’s goal of carbon neutrality.

Decision 2: Where and how should we increase density? Should by-right density increases be limited to areas where people tend to drive less? Do we want to increase density allowances for affordable housing projects (those that serve a certain Area Median Income—AMI) or all Market Rate Housing?

● Density increases should be limited to areas where people drive less (lower vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT)). That includes areas along public transit routes, centrally located areas, and commercially-zoned areas.

● All new developments should have a minimum density supportive of public transit, be built along a grid to maximize street connectivity, and include safe pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure like bike paths at the elevation of sidewalks and crosswalk signaling that includes lead pedestrian interval and walk by default settings. These features all minimize VMT.

● Areas that benefit from public infrastructure investments should be rezoned to minimize the carbon emissions of future developments. (For example: ER and RR areas should be rezoned to R1, R1N, MR, or HR.)

Decision 3: Do you support managing the intensity of residential land uses with floor area ratio (FAR) caps?

● Smaller housing units are more energy-efficient and thus create less carbon emissions. FAR caps that encourage smaller housing units should be implemented.

Decision 4: Do you support creating a menu of sustainable design standards for developers to choose from? Should a wider menu of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (such as carpooling, transit-oriented design, bicycle facilities, transit passes, site design, etc.) be included in this menu?

● The City should develop a checklist of green measures modeled on LEED Zero Carbon or other climate-friendly standards. Points can be assigned to each measure and all development proposals should be required to surpass a minimum number to qualify for incentives. Examples include:

○ All-electric and Zero Energy buildings

○ Use of carbon-absorbing cement substitutes

○ Inclusion of 50% EV charging in parking lots

○ Unbundling of parking from rent

○ Rooftop solar and on-site solar to cover parking lots

○ Use of semi-permeable materials for large, paved surfaces

○ etc…

Decision 5: Do you support moving forward with parking reductions? Should parking be left to the market to decide (no minimum standards)? Should on-street parking be addressed in conjunction with reducing parking standards?

● Reducing or eliminating parking minimums is not enough. Oversized parking lots increase VMT-related carbon emissions and worsen urban flooding and urban heat. Market forces are unlikely to price in these negative externalities, so parking minimums should instead be replaced by parking maximums. New developments should have a maximum on-site parking for only 10% of occupants.

● On-street parking should also be reduced. Example reforms include: ○ Creation and expansion of parking benefit districts

○ Resident permit parking programs

○ Metered and dynamically-priced parking in high-demand areas

● The City should pursue other policies that also reduce the need for parking of combustion vehicles:

○ Increase the frequency of public transit

○ Require a minimum of 50% of parking spots be EV charging stations where combustion vehicles are towed and given heavy fines.

○ Expand the network of safe pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure to all areas of the city

Decision 6: Do you support developing a strategy and outlining a process for creating a narrower local street design option?

● Narrow local streets make it safer and more attractive to walk and bike by slowing down vehicle traffic. This also reduces VMT-related carbon emissions. Excessively wide streets also worsen urban flooding and urban heat. For these reasons a narrower local street option should be implemented.

● Priority should be given to low-carbon modes of travel like walking, biking, and public transit when allocating valuable space in the public right-of-way.

● The City should retrofit existing neighborhoods with alleys, pathways, pedestrian mews, and bike lanes to support low-carbon modes of travel like walking and biking.

Decision 7: Do you support developing a strategy and outlining a process for replacing the current Winter Parking Ordinance?

● The Winter Parking Ordinance should be more strongly enforced in order to facilitate snow plowing schedules and bike path accessibility.