Attachment F - Opposition - Z-17-22-4 - Redacted.pdf

ATTACHMENT F

Subject: Unacceptable lack of representation on EVPC
 
Vice Mayor Pastor, 
 
I just received the updated agenda for tomorrow's CC meeting and noticed that a new member was
being added to the Encanto Village Planning Committee. I was excited as I assumed a member of
Carnation was being added after bringing to your attention that the EVCP doesn't have a single
member from our neighborhood despite roughly 4000 units for 7000+ citizens in development. 
 
Imagine my surprise when I discover that another long-time political board member that lives in
Encanto is being added while the applications from Carnation residents remain in the drawer. 
 
As it stands, the EVPC has empty chairs that can be filled and you're still snubbing our neighborhood.
It's unacceptable and I'd like you to explain to the 150+ neighbors on this thread why we aren't

allowed a voice in what happens in our own damn neighborhood? 
 
Jeremy Thacker
480-410-1923
 
On Fri, May 20, 2022, 2:40 PM CarnationAssociationAZ <carnationassociationaz@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks to everyone who came to Monday’s Carnation Association of Neighbors meeting. Below
are the notes from the discussion about the development proposed for the former Agave Farms
land. Please attend the meeting with the developer that will take place on Tuesday, May 24th at
6:00 pm at Changing Hands (300 W Camelback Rd), so you can share your thoughts directly with
them. Here are the notes from our discussion:
 
Carnation Neighborhood Perspective on the Rezoning and Development of Former Agave
Farms Land:
1. Interior Streets and Parking – the number of vehicles the development proposes will
burden surrounding streets with an abundance of cars, and  have a negative impact on
existing businesses and households.
TOD zoning has reductions in parking requirements built in, adding another 25%
reduction would be excessive
The interior streets must contribute to the City of Phoenix public street parking and
abide by the same rules and regulations of the surrounding streets. Private roads
with separate rules are an unfair imposition on existing residents, businesses, and
visitors.
Each of the four parcels must have several publicly accessible bike racks. This is
additional to private bike parking available to the development’s residents.
Activations spaces, loading zones, pickup / drop off areas must be closer to the
interior of the development so the surrounding neighborhood is not burdened with
the noise of loading trucks and trash collection.
Employees of the development must be provided with free parking, and policies
enacted to prohibit them from parking on the street, interior to the development or
exterior.
The large block pattern of the street grid deviates from what is desired by the
Uptown TOD Policy Plan; however it is the lack of pedestrian and bicycle pathways
through the large buildings that will hinder local transportation the most.
Parameter parking must not be included in the formula for meeting minimum
parking requirements.
Support for permitted parking for the Carnation neighborhood.
The number of cars this large development will shift onto quiet neighborhood streets
will decrease the safety and quality of life in Carnation. To help alleviate these
concerns:
♦ New street running north must be configured for right turns only
on Turney, so traffic will be shifted onto Central Avenue.
♦ New street running east west to Montecito must be a cul-de-sac.
The lack of commercial zoning of this project means traffic and parking will only have
residential patterns; if there were a moderate commercial component it would allow
the opportunity to provide shared parking resources and smarter traffic patterns; i.e
while residents are at work during the day, commercial enterprise could use those
parking spots.
 
2. Massing and Scale -
Generally speaking, there are no objections to the height along Central Avenue on

parcel’s 2 & 4. However:
♦ The intent of T6:22 is clearly to provide a large mix of
commercial and residential near light rail, yet the plan contains only 1
commercial space on the ground floor. A larger commercial
component would enhance use of the light rail system, transporting
neighborhood residents to work while others come to the
neighborhood for commerce. 
♦ The long uninterrupted blocks do not conform to the Uptown
TOD Policy Plan’s (UTOD) vision for pedestrian walkways, shorter
block patterns, and overall fluidity of walking or biking the
neighborhood. Each parcel creates a “private neighborhood within a
neighborhood”.
Rezoning parcel 1 along Turney and Central to T5:5 is insensitive to the scale and
character of the single-story residences directly adjacent. To attempt sensitivity to
the edges of the existing neighborhood this zoning should remain R1:6 or at most, be
consistent with the T4:3 that is proposed along part of Glenrosa Avenue. However,
many in the neighborhood strongly believe this should remain R1-6.
Open spaces are needed to break up the massively along these streets. Incorporate
publicly accessible plazas, dog parks,  and pocket parks.
The site plan proposes 103 units per acre, making this project the most dense
development along this section of Central Avenue -  and grotesquely dense along
2nd Avenue. 
♦ To demonstrate the Carnations neighborhoods support for
UTOD’s High Intensity District along Central Avenue, we propose
parcel 2 and 4 not exceed 70 units per acre (UPA). Buildings
currently fronting this stretch of Central Avenue range from 40 UPA
to 80 UPA.
♦ Parcel 1 and 3 must drastically reduce the UPA. Even 40 UPA on
these tracts would be out of character for anything that does not front
Central Avenue. We would like to see Parcel 1 and 3 reduce the UPA
to under 40, preferably keep the R1-6 zoning for what directly fronts
single-story, single-family homes.
3. Social and Demographic Concerns
There is a housing shortage in Phoenix that is not driven by lack of available rental
property, but by lack of homes that can be purchased.  This lack of ownership
opportunity is what drives up rental prices.  At least 20% of this development should
include homes that will be sold so the development can contribute to solving the real
housing crisis.
There is also an affordable housing crisis in Phoenix that is not addressed by this
proposal. At least 4% of the units should be set aside for work-force housing. One of
the goals of the Uptown TOD is to encourage a diversity of housing types.
 
4. Setbacks –
  7’ wide  sidewalks on neighborhood street.
Developer must provide additional neighborhood sidewalks as part of a benefits
package.
5. Lighting – (still working)
6. Public Spaces – (still working)

1
John Roanhorse
From:
Kim Jennings <kimjennings45@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10:58 AM
To:
Mayor Gallego; Nick Klimek; Laura Pastor; Joshua Bednarek; CarnationAssociationAZ; 
PDD Encanto VPC; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject:
City Letdown 
I’m sad to say that the city that I call home has let down the carnation community.  While the cities mission is to improve 
the quality of life in Phoenix through efficient delivery of outstanding public services it has failed us deeply!  The city has 
been enamored with the housing shortage and just letting every contractor build these high cost apartments and drown 
all the local communities with more and more complexes. Then there are the communities that are by the light rail and 
we get hit with even more high cost apartments with zoning codes that don’t benefit the communities but the builders.  
The codes that were established for the builders along the light rail were good in concept but there should of been an 
overall group that manages it to make sure there that the overall landscape of the city still functions well!  This is the 
part that is failing us!  
 
All I hear from builders is that we live in the city and need to accept density, but we are past density and now in crisis. 
Our streets are already beyond capacity and unsafe!!  Now let’s add a complex that’s over 1500 units and an average of 
3000 more cars coming through our neighborhood, at a minimum.  It is unsafe and where is the city now??  They are 
signing off and not reviewing the zoning in relation to the community.  It feels like they don’t care about us current 
Phoenicians. The city is only looking at the future and not the current situation.  Have you taken a step back to see if 
what the land is zoned for is good for the communities and what is the current capacity?  Where is the oversight of what 
is best for Phoenix and its current residents??   
 
Besides these apartment complexes that surround us we also have three high schools that are in the area of central and 
Campbell.  There is an influx of traffic on Campbell due to the schools too. It is an unsafe environment for all these kids 
that get dropped off, take the light rail or walk to school.  I hope the city is aware of this safety concern and now with a 
minimum of 3000 more cars added to the mix it’s going to be even more chaotic and more unsafe.  I worry about my 
kids that walk to school and play in our neighborhood.  People drive too fast down our street and run the stop sign 
multiple times daily.  This goes back to the current capacity already being over run.   
 
Are there any city workers that truly value our current quality of life?  Right now I would say no! 
 
Some one please take this into consideration for the future of Phoenix!! 
 
Thank you! 
Kim Jennings 
215 W Campbell Ave

●
3,000 vehicles per day are going to take arterial streets over local streets despite
arterials requiring more distance and more time than local streets.
Reality:
●
The majority will be traveling through our local neighborhood streets to reach 7th Ave.
●
2,000 VPD on Turney (Capacity 1,000) & 1,600 VPD on Glenrosa (Capacity 1,000)
o
*Before consideration of the additional traffic being generated by The Central
Park, Cresleigh Homes, and Forty600.
Lack of Accountability
When asked about the traffic issues at EVPC in June, Jamie Blakeman from Lokahi said that she
“hoped” traffic would flow to arterial streets. “Hope” is not a strategy nor does it provide
accountability. What happens if Petree and Lokahi are incorrect like they were about “minor
collectors”? What happens if the projection of 86 VPDs is actually 1086 VPD on local streets
already over capacity? Who suffers the consequences of these gross miscalculations? It
certainly isn’t Petree or Lokahi. Once the project is completed, only the Carnation residents,
pedestrians, cyclists, and students will pay the price in diminished safety, walkability, and
livability.
Solution
The problem with the current proposal is that four
large parcels offer no option to restrict traffic onto
local neighborhood streets. The solution is simple and
is actually included in ReinventPHX and Uptown TOD
Policy Plan…multiple smaller parcels. By restoring the
original street network as proposed in the Policy Plan,
traffic can be restricted and forced onto the arterial
streets with no option of entering or exiting onto local
streets as seen in a mock site plan below. These are
not “NIMBY” changes as they do not restrict the # of
units or density. In fact, smaller parcels make the
development more walkable and more aligned with
the principles of Reinvent PHX and TOD principles.
Making this one simple modification, multiple smaller parcels, changes this development
from a non-walkable, vehicle-centric, safety hazard of a development to an acceptable and
needed TOD project.

Alternative Solution
If, for some reason, the Planning Commission does not recommend the solution of multiple
smaller parcels, the Commission should hold Petree and Lokahi financially responsible if their
traffic projections are incorrect. If 172 VPD turns into 2,172 VPD on local streets, the developer
should be subject to substantial penalties. For every vehicle over the current traffic counts plus
250 VPD (Petree projects only 172) on Turney and Glenrosa, a $20,000 per vehicle seems
reasonable. The funds should be evenly divided between the City and CAN to compensate for
the loss of safety and livability and the increase in maintenance. If Petree and Lokahi are so
certain in their projections and committed to the safety and walkability of Carnation, they
should have no problem being held accountable for the repercussions of their actions.
Conclusion
Should we trust a developer and traffic engineer who mistake “local” streets for “minor
collectors”, a basic principle of transportation? Additionally, you don’t need to be a traffic
engineer to understand that the developers' projections are bogus. You only need to
understand human nature to know that people are going to take the fastest, shortest path of
least resistance. Knowing that fundamental fact about people means that thousands of vehicles
per day are going to flood the over-capacity, local streets of Carnation if this development
proceeds on four huge lots.
Lokahi STIA
Lokahi Trip Generation Report