×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.
Home

December Draft - Sedona Community Plan

Commenting directly on the document is now closed, however you may still submit a comment form.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
Previous
Next
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 10:19PM on page 63

Safer, larger, more desirable pathways for biking from Uptown or 179 to W Sedona instead of the narrow sidewalks on both sides of Cooks Hill or bike lane (along the fastest road speed limit in Sedona at 40 mph), that exist now. This is a huge barrier to making the city really walkable or bike friendly. The inability to bike safely between the 3 different areas means the currently paths are only utilizable by the more local neighborhoods and not the broader community.
0 replies

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 10:15PM on page 58

Perhaps COS taking ownership of 89A would be a way to solve this - but the fact that there are only tiny sidewalks along both sides of Cooks Hill, and that it is the fastest speed limit in Sedona, at 40mph (and people speed up and down it all day long) discourage walking or biking between Uptown or Chapel Area and W Sedona. Living in the Chapel area, I would love to take a bike into W Sedona, however, find the safety issues of great concern.
0 replies

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 10:01PM on page 30

Year round
0 replies

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 9:59PM on page 31

The Sedona Dance Academy and Sedona Dance Project are growing exponentially and should be supported (both for the young and young at heart, and extremely talented dancers in our community). Currently having to preform at Posse Pavilion the The Hub (two spaces that really do not accommodate the audience sizes) instead of at the gorgeous Sedona Performing Arts Center, which sits vacant most of the time, seems crazy...and bringing its care and management up to par should be a priority for 2024!
0 replies

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 9:56PM on page 28

City management and support of local groups (dance, drama, etc.) utilizing SPAC is a MUST!
0 replies
in reply to Bob Haizmann's comment

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 9:52PM on page 64

The City has determined that parking lots outside of the city will be underutilized as visitors are not necessarily exiting the same way they came in to the area. The parking garage in uptown is meant to be *part* of the solution here, although its hard to see the full vision now as the cars will still have to go along the slow 179 route to get to the garage.
0 replies

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 9:12PM on page 72

This is very important to include and spread awareness of. Yes, as the other comment mentions we and the tourists drive and need parking, however this is because there are not great alternatives! There are quite a few families, and others in town who do and would love to do more biking vs. driving.
0 replies

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 8:54PM on page 93

Promotion should be diverse, to a diverse group of potential visitors. Not only higher income people are passionate about nature, and its care and protection. Additionally, many people stay in more budget friendly hotels, but spurge on other aspects of their trip. And, as we are trying to attract younger families to the area, promoting ourselves as family friendly (and really becoming/being/staying that way) will be beneficial to longer term growth.
0 replies

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 8:40PM on page 91

Local residents often mention feeling ignored, or alienated by local businesses/restaurants who cater to tourists and are not interested in building community with local discounts, or specials, or meaningful/valuable incentives.
0 replies

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 8:38PM on page 91

Youth services! Available child care options, continued quality education starting at the Pre-K level.
0 replies

Althea Johnson Jan 31 2024 at 8:35PM on page 91

Question
Reasonable according to what/who?
0 replies

Bryce B Jan 31 2024 at 9:48AM on page 75

Suggestion
Potential add: mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Is the goal of this paragraph to state who we are, or is it to state future goals/ambitions?
0 replies

Bryce B Jan 31 2024 at 9:45AM on page 75

Suggestion
Potential rewording: "strive to maintain a sustainable water supply."
0 replies

Bryce B Jan 31 2024 at 9:43AM on page 75

Suggestion
Might be good to add climate adaptation and mitigation to this bullet list. Some of the other bullet points have elements of these, but summing it up in a bullet point could be helpful and provide that link to the Climate Action Plan and recent urban heat island efforts.
0 replies

Bryce B Jan 31 2024 at 9:40AM on page 76

Suggestion
We also have the Verde Valley Climate Profile that was developed by CLIMAS that was developed the basis of environmental changes anticipated for the region and is component of the Climate Action Plan. link
0 replies

Linda Martinez Jan 30 2024 at 8:06PM on page 93

We should include the Chamber of Commerce on some of these.
0 replies

Linda Martinez Jan 30 2024 at 8:05PM on page 90

Nicely worded
0 replies

Linda Martinez Jan 30 2024 at 8:04PM on page 85

enlarge graphic
0 replies

Linda Martinez Jan 30 2024 at 8:02PM on page 76

In addition to the pandemic: social media, more free time, and mountain bike destination
0 replies

Linda Martinez Jan 30 2024 at 7:57PM on page 55

In addition, add language to the effect of (apologies if this is repeated): 1. Within the first year after the C. Plan update, set housing specific goals for the next 10 years with milestones and action. 2. Establish a website specifically for housing that is easy to read that will keep residents up to date on each project. 3. Support housing nonprofits on establishing a land trust. 4. Allocate a few (2 or 3) acres in the Cultural Park for the community to determine what public space they want: Rec/Community Center? Music Venue with parking at the high school?
0 replies
in reply to Mark TenBroek's comment

Linda Martinez Jan 30 2024 at 7:46PM on page 54

Mark, you touched on part of the solution. We know that Cottonwood, C. Verde and even Clarkdale are trying to find workforce housing, which is why we share the Housing Manager position with Cottonwood. The Verde Valley will need 4300 housing units in the next 10 years. Even with what we build, we’ll need to utilize public transportation from other cities.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 5:00PM on page 21

Suggestion
RE: "Support" Compare the word “support”, which begins this principle, with “honor” in the first guiding principle, and you’ll see why this one feels more like an action than a value. Moreover, everything under this heading could be covered adequately in other sections, so that the natural environment could stand alone as our North Star. As much as we care about economic diversity, local businesses, and responsible tourism and need to do the things listed here, we have to recognize that they are all highly temporal means to our current well-being, when compared with the permanent health of the planet on which the existence of our species depends. There simply is no comparison. I don’t expect everyone to agree with that, but at least it should be clear that there is prioritized hierarchy among these guiding principles and that honoring and respecting our natural environment is above all others, just as a doctor may have more than one guiding principle, but knows to “first, do no harm”.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:51PM on page 20

Suggestion
This fourth bullet can be moved up to the previous subsection, even if you disagree about deleting this subsection.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:49PM on page 20

Suggestion
This third bullet can be moved up to the previous subsection, even if you disagree about deleting this subsection.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:48PM on page 20

Suggestion
As mentioned earlier, resiliency does not belong here. It tends to be paired with sustainability in other contexts because the two are related tactically (what we fail to do sustainably we must deal with resiliently). But that does not make resiliency a value or vision. This subsection should be removed and the bullets relocated.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:46PM on page 20

Suggestion
RE: "environment" This is another place where “natural” should precede “environment”. I suggest a global search for “environment” and the addition of “natural” in each case where clearly not referring to or including human-made environments.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:44PM on page 20

Question
Suggest titling this “Natural Environment”. This section is much better than the higher level material above in the chapter. However, it’s still missing key Earth-wide environmental issues, some of which we are already working on (i.e., switching to electric vehicles and appliances and installing solar doesn’t do much for our local environment, but we are committed to doing so for global reasons). Also, where is the mention of the Climate Action Plan and the Municipal Sustainability Plan?
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:42PM on page 20

Suggestion
RE: "In 2033 ..." This lead-in phrase is limiting and should be deleted. The CP is not just a 10-year project plan for completion by 2033, and it certainly does not mean to suggest that we aren’t already doing some of the things in the Plan. Instead, it should be a description of an ideal Sedona we can work toward. The year 2033 is simply the date we’ve committed to revisit that vision, if necessary.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:40PM on page 20

Suggestion
RE: "resiliency" “Resiliency” should be covered in chapter seven, of course, but it does not rise to the level of a guiding principle. Principles are positive beliefs leading to positive actions. Resiliency is a valuable human characteristic, not an external goal to aspire to, and ironically it is often in conflict with sustainability. Metaphorically speaking, resiliency describes our ability to fight off ever more alligators, while sustainability is our ability to maintain the swamp to the same manageable population of alligators. I would suggest rewriting this bullet to something like, “We hold all our decisions to the standard of sustainability and incorporate sustainable practices into all our actions.”
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:36PM on page 20

Suggestion
(See comment on “our” in guiding principles statement above.) If we change “the” to “our” here, this bullet can speak to the special stewardship we accept for the natural environment within our immediate sight and control, as opposed to the commitment we acknowledge to support global goals. But this bullet would be enhanced by being a bit more specific than just the switch from “the” to “our”. For example, we could continue the sentence with “. . . by reversing, preventing, or limiting to the greatest extent possible any loss or damage to the natural systems we daily enjoy and rely on.” BTW, is there a reason for the change from “honor” in the statement above to “respect” here? If not, I suggest that we use the same term in both places, so the emphasis clearly points to the switch from “the” to “our” and the additional specificity.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:30PM on page 20

Suggestion
“Heritage” seems out of place here. The word has human cultural connotations that could be in concert with the natural environment or in conflict with it. “Heritage” can be removed from the title without affecting any of the following points, and removing it will avoid dilution of the natural environment focus of this guiding principle.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:29PM on page 20

Question
RE: "environment" Can we say “natural environment” here, like you mostly do throughout this section? It should be very clear that other environments, like the built environment for example, are not what this section is referring to, except for their potential impact on the natural environment we’re committing to honor.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:27PM on page 20

Suggestion
RE: "our" It seems backward that this guiding statement uses “our” to modify “environment”, while the first bullet under it uses “the”. The guiding statement should be our most expansive wording, which the bullets then provide examples of or break down into components. So if we change this statement to “Honor the natural environment”, it subtly but critically recognizes that we are a part of “the” one natural environment that covers the Earth. (See comment on first bullet.)
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:26PM on page 20

Question
Not sure why “Honor” is capitalized here.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:25PM on page 20

Suggestion
RE: "Protect and Honor" If a principle, let alone a guiding principle, derives from a value, then it shouldn’t be an action, right? The word “protect” is fine as an example of the principle in the first bullet, but we need something more value based—a “moral imperative”—in the statement of the principle itself. “Honor” is very good (I like that it connotes a superior position over ourselves, like honoring your parents), and maybe that just stands by itself here: “Honor the natural environment”. But “respect” (promote it from the first bullet) may be a better partner for “honor” if we feel we need one.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:23PM on page 20

Suggestion
I’m pleased to see that this is a guiding principle and appears to be an attempt to emphasize and expand on one of the 2013 CP’s six vision themes, while incorporating the “inclusive”, “fundamental” sustainability goal of that plan. It does seem wrong, though, to have more than one guiding principle or to leave the impression that all of them are equal. Maybe the #1, #2, and #3 are meant to imply hierarchy, which I guess is OK if we simply must have multiple guiding principles, but if so, I would urge that the priority be punched up a bit by changing the wording to “FIRST GUIDING PRINCIPLE”, “SECOND GUIDING PRINCIPLE”, and “THIRD GUIDING PRINCIPLE”. However, see my comment on Guiding Principle #2.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:22PM on page 19

Suggestion
Grammar nit: should be "is", not "are".
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:21PM on page 19

Suggestion
For reasons that will be explained in further comments below, I would strongly urge a redrawing of these guiding principles. The three are not equal. See the chart on p. 8 of the current CP. The size and relationship of those three circles was how the public viewed the three vision components, and this new graphic seems to imply a change in that vision, which is not justified by any new public input I know of. Please restore the primacy of the environment.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:19PM on page 18

Suggestion
Well, this fourth bullet sounds great, but we need to squeeze out at least this much emotion for our planetary responsibility and commitment as well.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:17PM on page 18

Suggestion
This is the best bullet of the five, but add to it. We can educate these tourists so completely and inspirationally that they return home and/or visit other places on Earth as passionate protectors themselves. That's what the 2013 Plan meant by the vision of being an "international model" for sustainability. As a prime natural destination for people all over the world, we have an immense opportunity to set the global standard for environmental protection. Do we really not aspire to multiplying our values exponentially?
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:09PM on page 18

Suggestion
[continued from previous comment] And because that first bullet begins with a reference to our local “place of outstanding and unique beauty”, it seems to be talking about only our provincial interests. And the other four bullets all follow suit. Nowhere is there any mention of climate warming, fossil fuels, or other global environmental issues. On the other hand, some form of the word “beauty”, which has a much more tenuous connection with environmental protection, appears in four of the five bullets. In short, this section is badly out of balance and in need of extensive revision.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:07PM on page 18

Suggestion
This entire section is focused on protecting our local environment. If that’s really all the environment that this city cares about, then why not retitle this “Local Environment Protection”? We won’t do that, of course, because we care about “the” environment, not just “our” environment. So why are we shy about having bullets that speak to our concern for “the” environment? Yes, we are stewards of this small portion of Earth we inhabit, and it’s right to say that. But we need to acknowledge the responsibility we share with the rest of humanity to halt and reverse the damage to all the Earth’s land, resources, wildlife, oceans, and atmosphere. There is some wording in the first bullet that might be attempting that, but “constantly vigilant” is woefully inadequate to describe the responsibility we have and the commitment we must make. . . . [continued on next comment]
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:04PM on page 18

Question
RE: "a thriving economy" Yes, I agree. So why was this taken out of the vision statement?
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:01PM on page 17

Suggestion
RE: "uniquely beautiful" The addition of “uniquely beautiful” here not only perpetuates the error that the previous “our” introduces, it implies that it is primarily—or only—the beauty we are focused on protecting. I certainly hope this implication was not intentional, but I see this theme repeated elsewhere in this chapter. Given all we have learned between 2013 and now, if there is any change in our vision when it comes to the environment, it should be to broaden the scope of our responsibility and to heighten the sense or urgency, not to focus it on ourselves and gloss it over with superficialities. Please delete “uniquely beautiful”.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 4:00PM on page 17

Suggestion
RE: "our" The word “our” has been substituted for “the” in the 2013 Plan, with terribly negative effect. “The environment” is inclusive of lands and resources outside our borders; that phrase positions us as citizens of planet Earth as well as Sedona, and that is critical to our vision. By changing “the” to “our”, this draft narrows our concern (I hope unintentionally) to just the part of the Earth that we can see, touch, breathe, or drink, and it even implies ownership. It makes us provincial, even selfish. Please restore “the”.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 3:58PM on page 17

Suggestion
RE: "and place" This seems like an OK addition at first, but only if it’s read as “connections between people and between people and place”. As it stands, this simple addition grammatically removes the implied connections between people. If it seems too cumbersome to add the extra words that would clarify this, please remove “and place”, which is mostly covered by the final phrase in the vision statement anyway. In any case, please do not let the wording stand as is.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 3:57PM on page 17

Question
Why was “diverse and prosperous economy” deleted from the 2013 Plan’s vision statement? Was this intentional or just an oversight? I don’t think that wording is essential to retain, but others might think it’s odd for a significant factor in our city’s identity to be unrepresented in the vision statement.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 3:56PM on page 17

RE: "diverse, livable, and vibrant" I like this addition.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 3:54PM on page 17

Suggestion
RE: "In 2023 Sedona will be" There is a difference between a 10-year plan and a long-term vision of our ideal that we revisit and may adjust every 10 years. Apparently, this draft claims to be the former, which is a shame. The “will be” verb further implies that we are not now, which is arguably untrue. Please don’t turn our current vision statement into a project plan; restore the current Plan’s opening, “Sedona is”.
0 replies

Jon Thompson Jan 30 2024 at 3:52PM on page 17

Suggestion
There wasn’t supposed to be any change to the 2013 Plan’s vision in this update. But although this wording borrows from the previous Plan, the changes are very significant, and often not in a good way, I’m afraid. For comparison, here’s the vision statement from the 2013 Plan: “Sedona is a community that nurtures connections between people, encourages healthy and active lifestyles, and supports a diverse and prosperous economy, with priority given to the protection of the environment.” See additional in-line comments.
0 replies
View all