Item 84 - Additional Information Memo.pdf

To:

From:

Subject:

e

City of Phoenix

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Alan Stephenson Date: December 5, 2022
Deputy City Manager

Joshua Bednare
Acting Planning artd Development Assistant Director, Planning Division

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ITEM 84 ON THE
DECEMBER 7, 2022 FORMAL AGENDA — PUBLIC HEARING AND
RESOLUTION ADOPTION — GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - GPA-DSTV-3-22-
2 - MAYO BOULEVARD BETWEEN 40TH STREET AND THE LOOP 101
FREEWAY, AND TATUM BOULEVARD BETWEEN DEER VALLEY DRIVE AND
MAYO BOULEVARD (RESOLUTION 22087)

This memo provides additional information for the Council to consider for Item 84, on the
December 7, 2022 formal agenda, General Plan Amendment - GPA-DSTV-3-22-2 - Mayo
Boulevard between 40th Street and the Loop 101 Freeway, and Tatum Boulevard
between Deer Valley Drive and Mayo Boulevard.

The additional information includes summaries of the Desert View Village Planning
Committee recommendation from the October 11, 2022 & November 29, 2022 meetings
along with the Planning Commission’s summary from the December 1, 2022 hearing and
additional community correspondence.

Approved:

Alan Stephens6én, Beputy City Manager

Enclosures:

Desert View VPC Info

Desert View VPC Recommendation
Planning Commission Summary
Community Correspondence

VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-22-2

INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting October 11, 2022
Location Mayo Boulevard between 40th Street and the Loop 101

Freeway; and Tatum Boulevard between Deer Valley
Drive and Mayo Boulevard

Request Minor General Plan Amendment to amend the Street
Classification Map by removing the Mayo Boulevard
alignment between 40th Street and the Loop 101
Freeway and changing the designation of Tatum
Boulevard between Deer Valley Drive and Mayo
Boulevard from Major Arterial Cross Section A to Major
Arterial Cross Section Z-A

VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Members Warren and Younger joined the meeting during this item, bringing
quorum to 14 members.

Anthony Grande, staff, provided a background summary and described the changes
proposed to the Street Classification Map.

Carolyn Oberholtzer, representing the Arizona State Land Department with Bergin,
Frakes, Smalley and Oberholtzer, PLLC, provided an introduction to the proposal,
noting that the Arizona State Land Department has been working with the City on
regional transportation planning efforts in this area and the item for discussion tonight is
related to an amendment to the Street Classification Map.

Mike James, representative with CivTech, stated that the section of Mayo Boulevard in
question is referencing a bridge that would pass over the freeway. Mr. James provided
background information, stating that the team had conducted traffic studies, reviewing
existing and proposed land uses, to determine traffic conditions in the future and is
looked at the most appropriate transportation improvements for the future conditions.
He provided an overview of the scenario with the Mayo flyover and the scenario without
the Mayo flyover, comparing the traffic issues with each. Finally, Mr. James

City of Phoenix + Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3° Floors Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

summarized the street improvements that would be done in the future without the Mayo
flyover, including the addition of a northbound lane on Tatum Boulevard, requiring the
cross section change.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Committee Member Dickson stated that the existing entitlements in the area would
allow significant new development and generate traffic and that with the existing traffic
issues, he has concerns about removing one of the outlets for the traffic flow. Mr.
James stated that traffic would use Black Mountain Boulevard and Tatum Boulevard
and that there are street improvements yet to be built in the area. Mr. Dickson stated
that he doesn’t think the traffic flow will work.

Vice Chair Lagrave suggested increasing traffic flow on 56th Street, rather than Tatum
Boulevard because there are issues with traffic at the intersection of Tatum Boulevard
and Deer Valley Drive.

Mr. Dickson reiterated concerns about removing the section of Mayo Boulevard in
question, noting that there are not enough streets today in Desert Ridge.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification about the Mayo flyover and the
proposed change. Mr. Dickson provided background and clarification. Mr. James
stated that there is significant infrastructure that is planned but not built yet today. Mr.
Dickson stated that the multifamily zoning in the area around the section of Mayo
Boulevard in question should be reduced in order to accommodate the removal of Mayo
Boulevard.

Committee Member Nowell asked about the portion of Tatum Boulevard north of
Dynamite Boulevard. Mr. James noted that it was beyond the study area for this study.
Mr. Nowell added that Tatum Boulevard north of Dynamite Boulevard was not
supposed to be six lanes, per a previous study. Vice Chair Lagrave agreed and added
additional background.

Committee Member Younger stated that this proposal could be shortsighted because
there are still more developments coming to this area and traffic will get worse.

Chair Bowser noted that the flyover was discussed at the previous meeting in relation
to the proposed Desert Ridge Specific Plan amendment, but there was no discussion of
removing the Mayo flyover. Chair Bowser added that he recognizes the cost of
constructing the bridge would be very high.

Mr. Nowell asked about the additional lane proposed on Tatum Boulevard and whether
there was room for the expansion. Mr. James replied that the expansion would be to
the east.

Committee Member Powell stated that businesses would be impacted by an eastward
expansion of Tatum Boulevard for the portion north of the freeway. Mr. James replied
that the current plan is only to improve the portion south of the freeway.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that 56th street is the proper location to do the
improvement.

City of Phoenix + Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor* Phoenix, Arizona 85003-161 1+ (602) 262-6882

Committee Member Kollar asked about the origin and destination of the traffic that
would use the Mayo flyover if it were built. Mr. James stated that they have traffic
models and that regional traffic generally flows between Cave Creek Road and the Loop
101. He further noted that the study took into account all future development with
entitlements and that the network will be built out as development occurs. Mr. Kollar
stated that it would be helpful to see the study itself.

Mr. Powell asked about the cost of constructing the Mayo flyover. Mr. James replied
that it would be approximately 47 million dollars.

Mr. Kirkilas asked if the Mayo flyover was a promise made at a previous time. Chair
Bowser stated that the flyover is shown on the Street Classification Map, which
provides guidance for what needs to be developed in the future.

Mr. Dickson reviewed the number of units proposed at the southwest corner of Tatum

Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive and expressed concern about how the traffic flow will
work.

Mr. Nowell asked about the approximate cost of the three mitigation points identified in
the study.

Chair Bowser noted that there would be a different trip generation rate for multifamily
and single-family, which would affect the traffic at peak times. Mr. Dickson stated that
he still didn’t think the numbers would work with the removal of the Mayo flyover.

Mr. James noted that the approximate cost of the three mitigation points would be 3.03
million dollars.

Committee Member Santoro asked about the initial reason for looking at removing the
Mayo flyover. Mr. James stated that they have been looking at this since 2020 to see
what are the best and most efficient infrastructure investments that can be made. Ms.
Santoro stated that it doesn’t make sense to remove the flyover after approving new
development of a corporate campus last month.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

STAFF COMMENTS:

None.

City of Phoenix + Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor + Phoenix, Arizona 85003-161 1+ (602) 262-6882

VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-22-2

Date of VPC Meeting November 29, 2022

Location Mayo Boulevard between 40th Street and the Loop
101 Freeway; and Tatum Boulevard between Deer
Valley Drive and Mayo Boulevard

Request Minor General Plan Amendment to amend the Street
Classification Map by removing the Mayo Boulevard
alignment between 40th Street and the Loop 101
Freeway and changing the designation of Tatum
Boulevard between Deer Valley Drive and Mayo
Boulevard from Major Arterial Cross Section A to Major
Arterial Cross Section Z-A

VPC Recommendation Denial

VPC Vote 11-2

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Members Doug Dickson and Cynthia Dean joined the meeting during this
item, bringing quorum to 13 members.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Joshua Bednarek, Acting Assistant Director with the Planning and Development
Department provided a background summary and described the changes proposed to
the Street Classification Map. Mr. Bednarek shared that removal of the Mayo Flyover
will be mitigated through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that will be heard by
the City Council on December 7. Mr. Bednarek stated that the IGA mitigations are
targeted street improvements as well as dedication of funds for larger regional
improvements. Mr. Bednarek shared the Desert Ridge Specific Plan development
parcel map, highlighting improvements proposed for Superblock 12, Superblock 4L,
Superblock 9.CP.2, Superblock 6, and Paradise Ridge Parcel MF3. Mr. Bednarek
shared community input, staff findings, the staff recommendation of approval and next
steps for the case.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

City of Phoenix * Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3'¢ Floor + Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

Carolyn Oberholtzer, representing the Arizona State Land Department (ALSD) with
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley and Oberholtzer, PLLC, introduced herself, Mark Edelman with
the Arizona State Land Department, and Mike James with CivTech and then provided
an overview of the request. Ms. Oberholtzer shared that the IGA ensures an additional
$42 million of identified transportation investments from the ASLD and additional
specific improvements and responsibilities by the City of Phoenix.

Mike James, representative with CivTech, introduced himself and provided background
on the request. Mr. James indicated that CivTech was hired to initiate traffic studies to
consider alternatives for the Mayo Flyover. Mr. James shared the strategy for
considering alternatives, including looking at future land uses for 2030 and 2040 and the
anticipated transportation network for those model years. Mr. James indicated that
CivTech looked at what was most cost-effective, improving travel times, economic
development opportunities, and minimizing impacts to sensitive land uses. Mr. James
shared that the updated Traffic Impact Study from 2022 focused on 2040 with the
anticipated new population and employment. Mr. James explained that the existing
network in Desert Ridge is not adequate for the growth and entitlements that are
coming. Mr. James then shared IGA funding improvements tied to specific parcel sales
and sales within Superblock 6 and the Paradise Ridge parcel, which are focused on
getting connections and capacity across the canal to mitigate bottlenecks at important
connections going north/south across the Loop 101 freeway. Mr. James shared they
found there was a lot of demand for north/south movement both to the freeway and
north/south trips. Mr. James then shared the evaluation and findings on the Mayo
Flyover scenario, which showed that similar traffic mitigation would be needed which
would be more costly. Mr. James shared comparisons of mitigation needed with the No
Flyover scenario versus the Flyover scenario. Mr. James then shared priority
improvements and regional improvements for the network. Mr. James shared specific
transportation improvements in the IGA, including half-street improvements, additional
lane improvements, intersection improvements, regional funding contributions, and
regionally funded buildouts. Mr. James added that the IGA also has responsibilities for
the City of Phoenix, including median improvements along Tatum Boulevard from
Pinnacle Peak Road to Deer Valley Drive. Mr. James shared the cross sections,
showing the additional 11 feet needed between Mayo Boulevard and the Loop 101, with
the designation on the map also going further north of the Loop 101. Mr. James
concluded that for mitigation purposes, a fourth lane is needed south of the freeway
down to Mayo Boulevard.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Chair Bowser stated that the bigger picture of regional funding paints a complete
picture and that it makes a lot more sense seeing the regional improvements rather than
just the elimination of the flyover.

Vice Chair Lagrave asked that since widening of Tatum Boulevard will be on hold until
a later date, if there was a way to tie in prioritization of improvements to 56th Street
north of the Loop 101, in conjunction with the improvements for 48th Street, so that it
can connect to Dynamite Boulevard in order to mitigate traffic along Tatum Boulevard
toward the Loop 101 freeway.

Ms. Oberholtzer deferred the question to staff.

City of Phoenix * Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor + Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

Mr. Bednarek responded that it would depend on auctions associated with land for
Azara and clarified that this would not be the last time that the City would be looking at
the street network in this area. Mr. Bednarek stated that the City will continue to partner
with ASLD and will be looking at subsequent studies and potentially subsequent
updates to the Street Classification Map. Mr. Bednarek stated that the request is to
focus on modification of the Mayo Boulevard alignment coupled with mitigation
measures in the immediate area, as well as some regional mitigation. Mr. Bednarek
clarified he is not in a position to say whether or not that could be done at some point,
but that they will be continued to be analyzed as the area develops. Mr. Bednarek
stated that he cannot think of a way to tie in anything related to 56th Street based on
how the request was advertised and the scope of the project.

Ms. Oberholtzer added that the amendment is necessary because they are adjusting
placement of lines on the map. Ms. Oberholtzer indicated that 56th Street exists on the
map and will be tied to the timing of the development on other potential agreements.

Mr. Bednarek concurred, reiterating that 56th Street will be built out when the
properties around it are developed.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that when they did the East Sonoran Parkway alignment, it
did not connect to the agreed upon streets and rather had a dead-end on Cave Creek
Road, which has created a mess with traffic. Vice Chair Lagrave expressed concerns
with the same issue occurring with this proposal. Vice Chair Lagrave asked if it could be
eliminated from the General Plan Amendment request.

Mr. Bednarek clarified that Vice Chair Lagrave would like to eliminate the widened
cross section on Tatum Boulevard.

Vice Chair Lagrave responded affirmatively, clarifying it would only be from Loop 101
to Deer Valley Road. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that vehicles would have to cut across
four lanes of traffic, rather than three lanes, to turn left onto Deer Valley Road.

Mr. Bednarek deferred the question to Chris Kowalsky, Deputy Director of the Street
Transportation Department.

Chris Kowalsky, Deputy Director of the Street Transportation Department, responded
that the analysis and findings only found a fourth lane was needed south of Loop 101 to
Mayo Boulevard, but not north of the Loop 101. Mr. Kowalsky clarified that Cross
Section Z-A is a special section which could have an additional right turn lane or right
turn pocket above the 140-foot cross section. Mr. Kowalsky stated that there is no
recommendation for a north fourth lane, but there is a possibility that in the future there
will be a southbound right turn lane. Mr. Kowalsky gave an example of Deer Valley
Drive to the Loop 101, stating that there may be an opportunity in the future to work with
ADOT on a dual right turn lane to turn onto the westbound Loop 101, which would be a
larger cross section than the typical six lane arterial cross section.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated he would be comfortable with that, but the General Plan
Amendment indicates to add a fourth northbound lane.

City of Phoenix * Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor * Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

Mr. Kowalsky clarified that the fourth northbound lane would be from Mayo Boulevard
up to the eastbound on-ramp to the Loop 101 and clarified that is the only fourth lane
segment being recommended.

Mr. Nowell agreed with Vice Chair Lagrave, stating that the request does not address
Tatum Boulevard north of the Loop 101 between Deer Valley Road. Mr. Nowell stated
that without the flyover as-is, he would only see more traffic coming southbound on
Tatum Boulevard from Deer Valley Road and northbound in the evening when traffic
congestion is already very bad.

Vice Chair Lagrave concurred, stating that is why he favors extending 56th Street.

Mr. Nowell concurred, stating that the only traffic control on 56th Street currently is a
stop sign, and that it takes a while to take a left turn onto Pinnacle Peak Road due to
the traffic. Mr. Nowell believed that extending 56th Street will help to alleviate some of
the traffic congestion.

Rick Powell agreed, stating he does not believe the Committee should approve a
General Plan Amendment that considers adding anything to Tatum Boulevard
northbound from the Loop 101 to Deer Valley Road. Mr. Powell indicated that the bigger
issue of the request is removing the Mayo Flyover. Mr. Powell believed that there would
never be another northbound connection at the Mayo Flyover or anywhere nearby if it is
removed. Mr. Powell did not like the idea of committing for all time in the future of not
having a bridge over the Loop 101 when there are so few other north/south
connections. Mr. Powell did not believe the Committee should approve the General Plan
Amendment until there is more knowledge on what will happen with 56th Street and
64th Street. Mr. Powell wondered who paid for the bridge on 64th Street and indicated
he would like to see concrete pouring on 64th Street before getting rid of the possible
future north/south connection.

Doug Dickson concurred, clarifying those that have spoken have been on the
Committee much longer than those that were not speaking. Mr. Dickson indicated that
they are very familiar with this area of Desert Ridge, and agreed that half of the
proposal is good, while the other half would cause even more traffic congestion. Mr.
Dickson believed that the request should be addressing expanding access through
Desert Ridge rather than eliminating the flyover. Mr. Dickson stated that the existing
infrastructure is not adequate for current growth let alone future growth. Mr. Dickson
echoed that removing the Mayo Flyover would mean that there is one less north/south
access that they do not have, and it will go away forever. Mr. Dickson noted that the
Village Planning Committees all got together and most of them voted that the number
one spot of future growth in Phoenix will be in Desert Ridge. Mr. Dickson believed that
they should find a way to fund the Mayo Flyover and make it work, like Black Mountain
Boulevard.

Reggie Younger Jr. agreed, stating that eliminating the flyover would be a mistake. Mr.
Younger reiterated that there will be a lot more traffic in Desert Ridge as a lot more
homes are built. Mr. Younger added that he had driven by 56th Street along Pinnacle
Peak Road and noticed a long line of vehicles trying to make both a left and right turn
onto Pinnacle Peak Road.

City of Phoenix » Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor * Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

Vice Chair Lagrave understood that the flyover was costly and stated that a viable
alternative could be supported. Vice Chair Lagrave appreciated the improvements being
made but indicated that extending 56th Street to Dynamite Boulevard would only be
three miles of road which would not cost much, especially compared to the cost of the
flyover. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that doing this would greatly reduce traffic on Tatum
Boulevard and will give another access point to nearby developments. Mr. Lagrave
reiterated that a viable alternative is needed if removing the flyover.

Jill Hankins stated she is concerned with removing the flyover. Ms. Hankins believed
there was a missed opportunity with connecting Rose Garden Lane to Mayo Boulevard.
Ms. Hankins stated her primary objective for being on this Committee is to ensure the
walkability and bike-ability of Desert Ridge and Desert View Village. Ms. Hankins
indicated that the Loop 101, Pinnacle Peak Road, and Tatum Boulevard are barriers to
pedestrians and bikes. Ms. Hankins asked how the plan incorporates a walkable and
bikeable community. Ms. Hankins stated that Desert Ridge is now bisected by a six-lane
road and by Tatum Boulevard, which are dangerous for bicyclists.

Mr. Nowell added that while 56th Street should be improved, he believes Pinnacle
Peak Road will also need to be addressed since it is only one lane in each direction
near 56th Street. Mr. Nowell asked if there is a timeframe when the improvements in the
IGA will be made.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded that the improvements will be tied to auctions, which will tie
the bidders to timeframes for improvements to be completed.

Mr. Nowell thanked Ms. Oberholtzer and stated that the timeframe is unknown at this
point.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded that there are scheduled auctions and applicants for a
most of the area in the near term and not in the distant future.

Mr. Nowell asked how closely tied are the mitigation efforts timewise with removal of
the flyover.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded that the IGA implements an accelerated program. Ms.
Oberholtzer added that the focus is not on improvements that are already planned or
are already committed to by other projects, but rather on accelerating certain
improvements that are both triggered by the removal of the flyover and priority
improvements for the community, such as the half-street improvement of Deer Valley
Road between 40th Street and Tatum Boulevard. Ms. Oberholtzer clarified that the IGA
provides for a reallocation of costs that will bring equivalent traffic circulation as the
flyover. Ms. Oberholtzer added that Mayo Boulevard would connect to the Fireside
community, where there are two schools, and would trigger a massive reconstruction of
the intersection at Black Mountain Boulevard, in addition to other improvements. Ms.
Oberholtzer concluded that with the impacts of those connections, that is how they
arrived at the IGA list of improvements. Ms. Oberholtzer hoped the improvements would
be more impactful to the community on a faster path than with the flyover.

Mark Edelman, representative with the Arizona State Land Department, added that all
the proposed improvements are tied to parcels that currently have applications, except

City of Phoenix + Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor * Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

for Superblock 6. Mr. Edelman stated that the auctions will likely occur within a year and
then development would likely occur within another year to year and a half.

Gary Kirkilas asked if removal of the flyover is because of the cost or if there is
something else planned on the property where the flyover would be built.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded that the factors going into the removal of the flyover are
also considering the impacts to the adjacent parcels. Ms. Oberholtzer continued that the
properties that would be adjacent to the flyover would likely not benefit from it. Ms.
Oberholtzer reiterated that considering impact to the surrounding area, and not just cost
alone, was all part of the cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. Kirkilas reiterated that the flyover is both cost prohibitive and would negatively
impact potential buildable sites.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded affirmatively.

Mr. Kirkilas asked if the traffic studies are based off future projected zoning of land or
based on current zoning.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded that the ultimate zoning is a part of it and deferred to Mr.
James on the model.

Mr. James stated that the zoning along Mayo Boulevard was updated to the level of
development that was being seen over the last 10 years. Mr. James added that new
entitlements and development plans that were coming into the City of Phoenix around
the Mayo Hospital from this year were also factored in.

Ms. Oberholtzer stated that as the traffic study was developed, there was a lot of back
and forth with the City, and that the City wanted CivTech to make aggressive
assumptions about future development to be comfortable with recommending approval
on this request.

Mr. James concurred, adding that regional trips are trips that start and end outside of
the Desert Ridge area, including to the Loop 101, Desert Ridge Marketplace, the Desert
Ridge Corporate Center, and the employment centers. Mr. James stated that they will
be working with the City and ASLD on future studies to look at where the best
opportunity for those regional trips is.

Mr. Powell asked what the median modification consists of along Tatum Boulevard
between Deer Valley Road to Pinnacle Peak Road.

Mr. Kowalsky responded that Tatum Boulevard is not built to its ultimate cross section
yet, and that the median has always been designated to be narrow to add the additional
third lane on each direction. Mr. Kowalsky stated that the outside lanes were built first
and capacity was added as needed until the median is narrow enough to add additional
lanes.

Mr. Powell stated that concerned him and believed it was an invitation to more traffic
along Tatum Boulevard. Mr. Powell asked if there is an applicant that wants to buy
Superblock 9, which would have been eaten up by the flyover.

City of Phoenix * Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor + Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

Mr. Edelman responded that there is not an applicant for the entirety of Superblock 9,
but there is an applicant for a portion of Superblock 9.

Mr. Powell asked if that applicant wanted the land where the flyover would sit on.

Mr. Edelman responded that they do not.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that it seems this request is being rushed and that it is more
important to do it right then do it fast. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the modifications
are good but are not enough and reiterated that an access point needs to be added to
remove traffic from Tatum Boulevard.

Jason Israel asked what the cost difference is between building the flyover and not
building it.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded that the cost of the flyover comes with the cost of the
flyover as well as the resulting mitigation, and the no flyover option is the sum of the
improvements related to that. Ms. Oberholtzer deferred the question to Mr. James.

Mr. James responded that if the flyover was built, it would cost approximately $7 million
for mitigation and $47 million for the actual flyover, with a total of $54 million. Mr. James
stated that the no flyover option would cost around $3 million for mitigation and $42
million for regional improvements.

Mr. Israel asked for clarification on if it would be $51 million more to do the flyover.
Mr. James responded affirmatively.

Mr. Nowell stated that these questions were asked at the last meeting and that he
remembers the numbers being $47 million for the flyover and at that meeting there were
only three mitigation points discussed with a total of $3.03 million. Mr. Nowell asked for
confirmation if the number now for regional improvements is $42 million.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded affirmatively, stating that the regionally funded buildout
improvements include the $6 million assigned to future superblocks and $36 million
associated with those options. Ms. Oberholtzer clarified that the only she recalls was
missing was the $7 million for additional mitigation items.

Mr. Nowell asked if the costs were pretty much the same.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded that the flyover would still result in more cost.

Mr. Israel asked by how much.

Ms. Oberholtzer responded that it would be about an $11 million difference. Ms.
Oberholtzer asked Mr. James if that was correct.

Mr. James responded affirmatively, adding that the question is where the right place for
putting a lot of those regional trips is.

City of Phoenix * Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor * Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

Mr. Israel stated that it is about an $8 million - $10 million difference.

Ms. Oberholtzer added that the challenge is how to fund the flyover since the parcels
that would benefit from it and contribute to it are limited.

Mr. Israel shared that his understanding is that the $ 45 million will be generated from
revenue collected from future land sales, which was then inputted into the model. Ms.
Oberholtzer replied that was correct.

Vice Chair Lagrave added that the Azara project (bordered by Pinnacle Peak Road,
Cave Creek Road, Scottsdale Road and Jomax Road) is to be built from the south, and
it will take a long time to reach its northern border so funding the north-south access
soon will not happen. Vice Chair Lagrave then asked for clarification on the lane width
for Tatum Boulevard, stating that the graph shows six lanes, however another graph
showed it as being four lanes, five at the intersection of Deer Valley.

Mr. James replied that the 2040 model showed six lanes, and asked staff to speak to
the proposed median modifications.

Mr. Kowalsky replied that Street Classification Map as adopted shows Tatum
Boulevard as a future six-lane section, and while it is not constructed to that at this time,
ultimately it is going to be six lanes. Mr. Kowalsky added that the timing of that will be
determined by the City and the Capital Improvement Program, and through the IGA the
City has accepted that modification as part of the mitigation efforts within the area.

Chair Bowser shared that a 56th Street connection to Dynamite Boulevard would be
outstanding, if it was developer-paid the cost to the City would be zero, and that while
the Mayo flyover would be nice, it connects an east-west street which dies out in front of
Pinnacle High School, which might help local traffic but might not impact regional traffic,
and that it is very costly. Chair Bowser added that more capacity north-south is critical
and suggested that the non-signalized median openings along Tatum Boulevard are
challenging, the eventual outer lanes at Cave Creek Road at the CAP bridge might be
challenging as well because it is a bottleneck location, and another opportunity is
connecting Black Mountain Boulevard to 40th Street, and then 40th Street to Jomax
Road, up to the Sonoran Parkway which might come about sooner than 56th Street as
development north of Pinnacle Peak begins, which will also be driven by water and
sewer infrastructure.

Mr. Kowalsky added that they are in active discussions with the developer to widen the
Cave Creek Road CAP canal bridge crossing, and they are close to finalizing an
agreement.

Mr. Bednarek concluded by thanking the committee for their discussion, sharing that a
lot of the street improvements are tied to development, and there is a level of certainty,
speed and commitment to funding in this IGA which they did not have before. Mr.
Bednarek added that one consideration could be to keep the conversation going and to
make sure the committee’s concerns are continued as a part of the conversation is to
recommend approval with direction/modification to the case, such as direction to staff to
investigate other ways to mitigate traffic in the area that are outside the scope of this
request.

City of Phoenix * Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor + Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

Chair Bowser recognized the commitment of the City, ASLD and their counsel on this
item. Chair Bowser asked staff to confirm no members of the public registered to speak,
and asked members of the public to indicate using the Raise Hand function if they want
to speak. Ms. Stockham, staff, confirmed no hands were raised.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

STAFF/REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSE
None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Lagrave asked what the cost is for the overpass over the canal on Tatum,

north of Union Hills, sharing that it was the least important improvement as it is not a
bottleneck location now.

Mr. James shared that the estimated cost for widening the bridge is approximately $
19.3 million, and to replace the bridge is $ 32 million.

MOTION:

Vice Chair Lagrave motioned to approve GPA-DSTV-3-22-2 per the staff
recommendation with direction that the money allocated for the Tatum canal bridge
crossing be diverted to extend 56th Street north to Dynamite Boulevard.

Rick Nowell asked if the condition that Vice Chair Lagrave made with his motion would
be a stipulation.

Chair Bowser asked staff if stipulations can be made in relation to a General Plan
Amendment. Ms. Stockham replied that they cannot, but the committee can provide
direction in a motion.

Rick Nowell asked what the cost would be to extend 56th Street to Dynamite
Boulevard.

Joshua Bednarek suggested that the direction could be modified to ask that the City
coordinate with ASLD to find additional funding through future agreements to fund the
construction of 56th Street, so it is not tied to a certain project, such as the Tatum canal
bridge.

Vice Chair Lagrave amended the motioned to approve GPA-DSTV-3-22-2 per the staff
recommendation with direction that the City coordinate with ASLD to find funding
opportunities for the construction of 56th Street to Dynamite Boulevard, and that it be a
priority before the canal bridge on Tatum.

Rick Nowell seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION:

Rick Nowell shared that widening the overpass over the canal is probably the last thing
that will happen, and that if we do away with the flyover, it could be years before the
extension of 56th Street was complete.

City of Phoenix * Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor + Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

Joshua Bednarek shared that he understood Mr. Nowell’s concerns, and that there is
also an unknown of if the flyover will ever get built due to the challenges to auction the
land associated with the flyover, and that given that uncertainty and the need to fund
some of these improvements, this proposal and the IGA provides that certainty for the
traffic mitigation improvements and will get them done faster.

Jason Israel shared that on the one hand there is the potential of the land sales
happening with ASLD and funding these improvements and plans, so you could save $
8 million dollars now with the land sales or the funds could be saved at a later date if
plans were to change with the auctions.

Mr. Bednarek asked Mr. Israel to clarify his statement.

Mr. Israel replied that there is potential interest in parcels to be auctioned now, which
can fund the street improvements now with a shorter time frame and certainty, versus a
longer time frame with a potential unknown regarding these improvements.

Ms. Oberholtzer shared that a real constraint with the flyover is the funding, because
the properties that are impacted by it would not necessarily be benefitting from it, and
this IGA apportions the improvements for auctions that are in the planning stages and
secures the path forward for when the properties are auctioned, and for the flyover,
there is no certainty that the flyover would ever happen.

Jason Israel asked if there is a real potential that funding may not be there.

Ms. Oberholtzer clarified that there is a real potential that the flyover will not be
constructed because people will not bid on an auction for that parcel with the obligation
to build the flyover because it does that benefit the surrounding parcels; the added cost
to those land sales is cost prohibitive.

Mr. Kirkilas asked how the Black Mountain connection was funded, and if that is
considered a flyover.

Mr. Dickson shared that funding came from state gas taxes and from grant money from
the federal government due to the proximity to the federal cemetery and was about $ 25
— 30 million dollars to construct. Mr. Dickson added that those conditions would not
apply in this location.

Rick Powell appreciated the motion made by Vice Chair Lagrave to give the City of
Phoenix guidance but shared concern that a recommendation of approval with minor
attached guidance will be easy to ignore, and if they want to give the City of Phoenix
guidance, the stronger message would be to recommend denial. Mr. Powell added
while it looks like the grand bargain is to get Mayo Boulevard widened east to west from
Tatum to 56th Street, it does not add to the north-south connectivity in the Village.

Vice Chair Lagrave replied that he made the motion to have this type of discussion,
and that he might not vote for it.

VOTE:

City of Phoenix * Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor * Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 +» (602) 262-6882

1-12; motion to recommend approval of GPA-DSTV-3-22-2 per the staff
recommendation with direction that the City coordinate with ASLD to find funding
opportunities for the construction of 56th Street to Dynamite Boulevard, and that it be a
priority before the canal bridge on Tatum does not pass with Committee Member
Bowser in favor and Committee Members Barto, Dean, Dickson, Hankins, Israel,
Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Powell, Santoro, Younger and Lagrave opposed.

MOTION:

Rick Powell motioned to recommend denial of GPA-DSTV-3-22. Rick Nowell
seconded the motion.

VOTE:
11-2; motion to recommend denial of GPA-DSTV-3-22-2 passes with Committee

Members Barto, Dean, Dickson, Hankins, Israel, Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Powell,
Younger and Lagrave in favor with Committee Members Santoro and Bowser opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.

City of Phoenix + Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor + Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 + (602) 262-6882

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 1, 2022

ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO.: 2

SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-DSTV-3-22-2 (Continued from November 3, 2022)

Location: Mayo Boulevard between 40th Street and the Loop 101 Freeway; and
Tatum Boulevard between Deer Valley Drive and Mayo Boulevard

Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to amend the Street Classification Map
by removing the Mayo Boulevard alignment between 40th Street and the
Loop 101 Freeway and changing the designation of Tatum Boulevard
between Deer Valley Drive and Mayo Boulevard from Major Arterial Cross
Section A to Major Arterial Cross Section Z-A.

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission

Representative: | Arizona State Land Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:

Desert View 10/11/2022 Information only.
Desert View 11/29/2022 Denial. Vote: 11-2.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation with

conditions.

Motion Discussion:

Commissioner Gaynor made a MOTION to approve GPA-DSTV-3-22-2, per the staff
recommendation with a condition that the approval be coupled with the
intergovernmental agreement and that staff meet with the Village Planning Committee
members to follow-up on their concerns and further explain why the item should be

approved.

Commissioner Gorraiz offered a friendly amendment to have the Arizona State Land
Department, the City, and all those involved with the intergovernmental agreement (IGA)
to work together to accomplish the goals of the City and the State Land Department,
specifically with regard to the transportation needs of this area going forward.

Commissioner Gaynor agreed with the friendly amendment.

Commissioner Gorraiz SECONDED the motion.

Commissioner Boyd asked Commissioners Gaynor and Gorraiz what they expect out of
staff's meeting between staff and the Village Planning Committee members.

Commissioner Gorraiz stated that his amendment was for the ongoing meeting and
coordination of the IGA and the City. His understanding is that there will be a follow-up
with the Village Planning Committee members by Mr. Bednarek, explaining to them what
is going on and keeping them informed. He would like them to be brought up to speed
regarding what is happening, as things change, and that they are made aware that their
concerns are being addressed in the IGA.

Commissioner Gaynor agreed with Commissioner Gorraiz.

Commissioner Busching stated that she truly wants to be supportive of staff and what
they want to accomplish, particularly because she knows that staff is working with the
State Land Department, however, she is still very concerned about not having the
minutes from the Village, and not having the IGA draft agreement. She feels like she is
being asked to vote on this semi-blind and go completely on good faith. The fact that the
Village voted overwhelmingly against it, and the Planning Commission has no
documentation of why, except from the informational meeting, where they also
expressed concerns back in October. We do not have any real documentation of what
the concerns were, or how they are being addressed, so she is torn.

A roll call vote was held and the motion failed with a tie vote of 4-4. Commission
members Howard, Mangum, Gaynor, and Gorraiz in favor; Boyd, Jaramillo, Perez, and
Simon opposed; and Busching abstained.

There was additional discussion about making another motion and additional conditions
to be added.

Deputy Director, Joshua Bednarek, further explained the proposal, the IGA and
additional outreach to be completed.

Mr. Eric Froberg, the City Engineer, also provided some explanation on the IGA and
explained that the Village Planning Committee member concerns will be addressed
through the IGA.

Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to reconsider the first motion.

Commissioner Simon SECONDED the motion.

The motion passed with a 7-2 vote with commission members Boyd and Perez opposed.

Commissioner Gaynor made a MOTION to approve GPA-DSTV-3-22-2, as previously
motioned.

Commissioner Jaramillo SECONDED the motion.

The motion passed with a 7-2 vote with commission members Boyd and Perez opposed.
Motion details: Commissioner Gaynor made a MOTION to approve GPA-DSTV-3-22-2,
per the staff recommendation with conditions that the approval be coupled with the

intergovernmental agreement; that staff meet with the Village Planning Committee
members to follow-up on their concerns and further explain why the item should be