Attachment D - Opposition - Z-24-26-7.pdf

ATTACHMENT D
From: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Riverside Elementary School District No. 2 - Strong Opposition to GPA-EST-1-26-7 and
Z-24-26-7
From: Jaime Rivera <JRivera@riverside.k12.az.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2026 1:26 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission <pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov>
Cc: Joyce Luckie <jluckie@riverside.k12.az.us>
Subject: ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Riverside Elementary School District No. 2 - Strong Opposition to GPA-EST-1-26-7 and Z-24-26-7
Riverside Elementary School District No. 2
Office of the Superintendent
1414 S. 51st Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043
September 29, 2026
City of Phoenix Planning Commission
c/o Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Strong Opposition to GPA-EST-1-26-7 and Z-24-26-7
Southeast corner of 63rd Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of the Governing Board of the Riverside Elementary School District No. 2, I submit this letter to
formally express the District's strong opposition to General Plan Amendment GPA-EST-1-26-7 and its
companion Rezoning Case Z-24-26-7, scheduled for consideration by the Commission on Thursday, October 1,
2026. I further write to convey the District's profound disappointment that the information presented to our
community regarding this project was neither accurate nor complete.
Representations Made to the Community
When this project was introduced to the public in the spring of 2026, residents, families, and neighboring school
districts were informed that the site would be developed for housing. That representation informed the
community's understanding of, and response to, the proposal. Families anticipated new homes in the area, and
the District undertook its planning with the reasonable expectation of new students and residents.
That representation has not been honored. Following many months of review and four submittals by the
applicant, the request now before the Commission contains no residential component whatsoever. The
applications instead seek to:
1. Amend the General Plan land use designation on 77.49 acres from Industrial to Mixed Use /
Commercial and Mixed Use / Commerce/Business Park; and
2. Rezone 65.59 acres from C-2, CP/GCP, and A-1 to a Planned Unit Development permitting only
commercial and commerce park uses.
1

In effect, the proposal would establish retail development on one portion of the site and commerce park uses,
including heavy trucking operations, on the other. The "Mixed Use" designation implies a residential element
that is not included in the proposed Planned Unit Development.
Integrity of the Public Process
The District is deeply concerned by this outcome. Members of the community participated in good faith,
attended public meetings, and formed their positions based on the information provided to them. The proposal
presented to the public is materially different from the application submitted to the City. Families who were led
to expect residential development now face the prospect of heavy truck traffic adjacent to their neighborhoods.
This is not a minor modification. It is a substantively different project, and the community has not been afforded
a meaningful opportunity to review, question, or respond to it. When the proposal presented to the public differs
from the request submitted for approval, public confidence in the planning process is necessarily diminished.
Impact on Students and Families
The Riverside Elementary School District No. 2 serves the students and families who will bear the
consequences of this decision. Heavy truck traffic in the vicinity of 63rd Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
presents serious risks to student safety along bus routes and pedestrian walking paths. It will increase
congestion during school arrival and dismissal periods and will contribute to elevated noise levels and safety of
our children in the neighborhoods our students call home.
Our students should not bear the burden of a proposal that departs so substantially from what was presented to
their families.
Request of the Commission
On behalf of the Governing Board, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny GPA-EST-1-26-7 and
Z-24-26-7. Should the Commission not be prepared to deny these applications, the District requests, at a
minimum, that the cases be continued and that the applicant be required to present the current proposal to the
community and affected school districts through a new, accurate, and transparent public outreach process.
Our families are entitled to accurate information, and our students are entitled to safe communities. The District
respectfully asks the Commission to act in their interest.
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Jaime A. Rivera
Superintendent of Schools
Riverside Elementary School District No. 2
On behalf of the Governing Board
cc: Governing Board, Riverside Elementary School District No. 2
District 7 Council Office
Estrella Village Planning Committee
Dr. Jaime A. Rivera
Superintendent of Schools/CEO
Riverside Elementary School District No. 2
2

From: Neighborhood Coalition
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Nayeli Sanchez Luna; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 7 PCC
Subject: Re: Z-24-26-7 (SWC State Route 202 & Lower Buckeye Road PUD) and companion GPA-EST-1-26-7. Request for
Continuance and Referral to the Estrella Village Planning Committee
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 9:01:12 AM
Attachments: NCGP ltr re Z-24-26-7 (SWC State Route 202 & Lower Buckeye Road PUD).pdf
Please find attached letter from Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix to the
Planning Commission Chair and members regarding Z-24-26-7, to be heard on the 10.1.26
agenda.
We find this to be an urgent matter. Thank you for your consideration.

30 September 2026
Chair and Members, Phoenix Planning Commission
c/o Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z-24-26-7 (SWC State Route 202 & Lower Buckeye Road PUD) and companion GPA-EST-1-26-
7. Request for Continuance and Referral to the Estrella Village Planning Committee
Dear Chair and Commissioners:
The Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP) respectfully asks the Commission to
continue Items 4 and 5 and to direct that both be heard by the Estrella Village Planning
Committee before the Commission acts. Our objection is that the case has been scheduled without
the review the City requires for every Planned Unit Development.
1. The City's PUD procedures require two Village Planning Committee meetings.
The City's published PUD Procedures (revised July 6, 2026) state that PUD applicants appear before
the Village Planning Committee on two separate occasions. Those meetings are an informational
presentation and a recommendation. The Planning Commission hearing is set to follow the
committee's recommendation. The City tells the public the same thing about all rezonings: the VPC
hears the case and sends a recommendation to the Commission. This case is on the Commission's
agenda without either meeting having occurred.
2. A PUD is the one classification where the village process matters most.
Section 671 describes the PUD as a district meant to produce a built environment "superior to that
produced by conventional zoning districts." A PUD writes its own use list, setbacks, height limits and
standards, and it replaces the Zoning Ordinance where the two conflict. Neighbors and the
appointed VPC are how the City tests whether a custom set of rules is superior for the community it
affects. This PUD's Parcel B alone would allow 56-foot warehouse and distribution buildings, outdoor
storage, and commercial-vehicle fueling next to single-family neighborhoods. It is not a minor
request.
3. The Estrella Village Planning Committee is the body that knows this area.
The applicant's narrative relies repeatedly on the Estrella Village Character Plan, its land use and
design principles, and the Estrella Core Plan. Those are the committee's own policies. The applicant
is asking the Commission to find the PUD consistent with them, yet the committee has not been
asked whether it agrees. Residents south of Lower Buckeye have long understood that warehouse
and heavy-trucking uses do not belong south of that road. 63rd Avenue has carried a large-

RE: Z-24-26-7 (SWC State Route 202 & Lower Buckeye Road PUD) P. 2 of 3
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix September 30, 2026
commercial-vehicle restriction since before 2014. The committee should be allowed to say whether
this PUD respects that history. The PUD's answer to truck impacts is, among other things, signage for
southbound truck turns. That is a local traffic question that village members are best placed to
evaluate.
4. The ordinance anticipates village review.
Section 506 provides that prior to any required hearing before the Planning Commission or City
Council, members of the public may raise their concerns at meetings of the village planning
committee governing the area. The Commission's hearing is not a substitute for the village process.
Unlike village committee meetings held in or near the affected community, the Planning Commission
hearing is held downtown, away from the neighborhood where the application is filed, making it more
difficult for nearby residents to attend and weigh in. It is also a one-time, time-limited hearing at
which the public typically cannot ask questions, work with the applicant over two meetings, or hear
the committee deliberate.
5. Expedience does not justify bypassing the process.
We understand the City may see limited flexibility because of the history of this property, including
the owner's earlier data-center plans and any related claims under state law. We know of no
provision of state law that requires a Phoenix VPC to be skipped. If the City relies on one, we ask that
it be identified on the record. Even where timing is a concern, the appropriate remedy is a special or
expedited VPC meeting, or a short continuance. Removing the community's advisory review
altogether is not. If the City can accelerate a case for one owner, it must be prepared to explain why
every future applicant should not expect the same.
The applicant's own materials say the project is "responsive to stakeholder input" and reflects a
practice of working with "surrounding neighborhoods." We agree that this is how the process should
work. Two Village Planning Committee meetings are how it works for every other PUD.
Our request
1. Continue Z-24-26-7 and GPA-EST-1-26-7 and refer both to the Estrella Village Planning
Committee for the two meetings required for PUDs.
2. Direct staff to place the record of the applicant's neighborhood meeting(s), and a written
explanation of why VPC review was omitted, in the public file before any rehearing.
3. If the Commission nonetheless proceeds, state on the record that the Estrella VPC's review
was not obtained, and give appropriate weight to that gap. Recommend that no action be
taken on the PUD without stipulations addressing truck access on 63rd Avenue, outdoor
storage, loading orientation and off-premise signage.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
Board of directors listed on following page
cc: Estrella Village Planner; Planning & Development Director; Council Office, District 7

RE: Z-24-26-7 (SWC State Route 202 & Lower Buckeye Road PUD) P. 3 of 3
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix September 30, 2026
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix Directors
B. Paul Barnes, Chairman of the Board of Directors
Neal Haddad, President
Marvin Borsand, Arcadia Camelback Neighborhood Association
Mary Crozier, North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association
Paul Davenport, former Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association
Peter Flynn, Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association
Sandy Grunow, Phoenix Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association
Cindy Haddad, Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association
Jack Leonard, AIA, Citizens’ Transportation Board, 2015 General Plan committee
Lisa Perez, Estrella VPC chair, Sienna Vista Block Watch, past Planning Commissioner
Jackie Rich, Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association
Tristahn Schaub, Arcadia Camelback Neighborhood Association
Opal Wagner, former Encanto VPC chair, former Willo Neighborhood Association
Larry Whitesell, Camelback East VPC member, The Peak Neighborhood Association

From: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: FW: GPA EST -1-26-7, G-24-26-7
From: Renee Dominguez <reneedominguez23@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2026 10:30 AM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna <nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov>
Subject: GPA EST -1-26-7, G-24-26-7
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I am a member of the Estrella Village Planning Committee. I would like to request that this case be
remanded back to the Planning Committee and more Community engagement due to the current plan
being different from the original.
Sincerely,
Renee Dominguez
1

From: Gary Flunoy <zonaoh2017@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2026 5:32 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna <nayeli.sanchez.luna@phoenix.gov>; Rescolar@phoenix.gov
Subject: 63rd & Lower Buckeye Rd development
To Whom It May Concern,
As president of The Meadows Homeowners Association, representing the community closest to the
proposed development, I am writing on behalf of our 323 homeowners. We strongly oppose the
development as it is currently proposed.
Thank you,
G. Grayson Flunoy
The Meadows Homeowners Association
1