Attachment D - Opposition - Z-SP-2-19-7.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
25946 characters
From:
Greater Orangedale Neighborhood Association
To:
Sarah Stockham
Cc:
Madison Pioneers Coalition; Council District 6 PCC; Angieoproperties@gmail.com; bmorlan@electricsupply.com
Subject:
CCVPC 10/12 Meeting - Comment and request to speak Re: Agenda Item 7, Case Z-SP-2-19-7
Date:
Thursday, October 8, 2020 9:00:12 PM
Re: Agenda Item 7, Case Z-SP-2-19-7
Hi Sarah,
My name is Christina Eichelkraut and I am the president of the Greater Orangedale
Neighborhood Association.
Although my neighborhood is not in the Central City Village we share the concerns expressed
by the Madison Pioneer Coalition about the possible Human Services Campus expansion. Our
neighborhood serves as a travel corridor for people experiencing homelessness and our
residents are familiar with the direct impact this social issue has on residential areas.
Though this should not have to be stated, I want to make it clear to the committee members
that though I personally oppose the HSC expansion I am not deaf to the needs of its clients.
Nor am I attempting to criminalize the misfortune of a person with untreated mental illness,
addiction, or inability to overcome economic hardship or other lack of transitional social
support services.
In fact, it's because I understand this to be a complex social problem that I am unwilling to
settle for a proposed solution that ultimately will serve as nothing more than a political talking
point on a candidate's campaign flier. I want to help address homelessness in an effective
manner that benefits everyone; expanding HSC does not achieve this aim.
I understand that this can feel like an easy, altruistic vote to cast -- you helped address
homelessness! -- but unfortunately, that's not what approving this expansion actually means.
This is a complex problem and simply adding beds and a clean-up shift does virtually nothing
to actually address it. In fact, creating a super shelter will in all likelihood only make existing
issues for the neighborhood and HSC's clients worse.
The detrimental impact the HSC campus has unfortunately had on local businesses, residents
and even the infrastructure of the area is undeniable. At what point does the city's refusal to
address valid business and homeowner concerns in an effective, tangible manner become a
potential legal liability for the city? I'm not sure but I'm not interested in my taxes funding the
lawsuit or settlement that finds out.
Plenty of research amply illustrates that super shelters are ultimately ineffective ways to
address homelessness and may in fact exacerbate homelessness [faithandfreedom.com].
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, preventative
and supportive services are far more effective at addressing homelessness [samhsa.gov] than
super shelters.
It is also worth noting shelters often disenfranchise homeless people with mental health issues
because the person experiencing homelessness can't tolerate a shelter environment. This not
only fails to help the homeless person but also, inevitably, has a literal, immediate and
detrimental impact on the surrounding area. No one is better served in this scenario. Not the
Attachment D
homeless person sleeping in the doorway of a local small business and not the small business
owner forced to shoo them away or who loses patrons as a result.
Further, it seems highly unlikely expanding HSC into a super shelter will help restore the
economic development of this small business corridor, improve the safety of local residents or
better serve HSC's clients. And no, I am not saying I care more about profits than people,
because I don't. But I am saying an economically healthy city has more resources to help the
homeless population with supportive services than a city with failing businesses.
Fortunately, there are other options being discussed, including using St. Luke's Hospital as an
intake center or possibly expanding the number of low-barrier shelter beds, capped at 25 beds,
throughout the city.
Neighborhoods (justifiably frustrated) have banded together and are willing to work with the
city to address this issue -- but they need a permanent seat at the table to do so, in a form that
goes beyond simply submitting public comments. They have even offered the following
potential solutions:
1- Adopt the Mesa Model for addressing homelessness
2- Create an independent oversight organization with authority over
Service providers
3- Formally Involve neighborhoods in creating a plan
4- Prioritize smaller specialized facilities to serve people experiencing
homelessness
5- Create a low-barrier shelter that meets the requirements of the 9th
Circuit Court without hurting neighborhoods
I hope, at the very least, the committee members take the time to fully consider this issue and
all potential solutions.
That's why I respectfully ask that you deny HSC's expansion request and instead work with
them and neighborhood and business stakeholders to find better, long-term, comprehensive
solutions. There is a way to allow people to escape homelessness while also respecting the
area's residents' right to live, work and play safely. For too long, those providing services to
the homeless -- noble though their work is -- have dictated the terms of solutions. But they are
not the only stakeholders and it's high time the city listens to the concerns of everyone
involved.
Instead of simply adding beds, let's look at this as an opportunity to find long-term,
effective solutions.
I would like to register to speak at the Oct. 12the meeting as well but would like to donate
my time to another speaker.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
--
Christina Eichelkraut
Lead, Greater Orangedale Neighborhood Association
(602) 321-1243
Greater Orangedale is located between Thomas and McDowell
roads and 48th and 56th streets.
From:
john saccoman
To:
Sarah Stockham
Subject:
Central City Village Planning Committee Meeting
Date:
Saturday, October 10, 2020 4:33:31 PM
Dear Ms. Stockham:
Please add me, John Saccoman, 602-686-2062, to the list of virtual
attendees for the Central City Village Planning Committee Meeting
scheduled for October 12, 2020 at 6 PM. Please send me the video link
to sign in to the meeting.
Please note that I would like to speak at the meeting.
I oppose the modification of the special use permit being applied for by
the Human Services Campus ("HSC"). I have been in the Woodland
Historic District for over 22 years. During those 22 years
this neighborhood has borne more than its fair share of the burden of
dealing with the issues of homelessness for the City of Phoenix and the
whole valley.
Our initial agreement to host the HSC was based on the agreement that
there would be no further additions to HSC, and no further additions to
the homeless population, in our neighborhood. Indeed, we were
promised that HSC would be only one of many such facilities spread
throughout the valley, and that the burden of the homeless population
would be shared throughout the valley and not borne exclusively by this
neighborhood.
The current proposal is a violation of that agreement and would pose a
threat to the viability of the Woodland Historic District as a functioning
neighborhood. I therefore oppose the proposed modification.
Thank you,
John Saccoman
602 686 2062
jsaccomani@hotmail.com
Christy Puetz
1341 W. Woodland Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Reference to Agenda Item 7, Case Z-SP-2-19-7 to modify the Special
Permit area of the Human Services Campus.
Dear Central City Village Planning Committee,
I strongly oppose the proposed expansion of the Human Service Campus
(HSC) in downtown Phoenix.
Any expansion of the existing campus is unacceptable and would lead to
the end of any progress and livability to existing and future downtown
neighborhood residents. Any expansion of the downtown campus is a di-
rect strike to the residents of downtown showing us that we are not im-
portant and that our quality of life is completely ignored by leadership.
I have been a home owner in the area of the Campus for over 12 years.
Since moving into downtown Phoenix I have worked alongside my commu-
nity to be supportive and compassionate toward people that are experienc-
ing homelessness in the area.
I understand that there are many reasons why people become homeless
and it is very unfortunate that there are limited resources for this
population.
Allowing the expansion of a campus that is already overwhelmed doesn’t
serve the needs of those experiencing homelessness or the neighborhood.
NOBODY benefits, it only causes an unfair burden on neighborhoods which
have to deal with the fall-out of hundreds of people living on the streets.
The existing concentration of people experiencing homelessness in the
area has caused a negative impact on already struggling neighborhoods.
A few issues of concern that I personally have experienced include: private
property trespassing, trash bins tipped over and trash thrown around
streets and alleyways daily, alleyways used as toilets, families afraid to use
the local park because of loitering and rude behavior, violence, makeshift
shanty towns being set up in vacant lots, property crime, vandalization of
Rcvd. 10/12/2020
public property, drug use, people having sex behind my home, individuals
following me while I walk my dogs, concentration of groups loitering and
sleeping in front of my home in a no trespassing park, public masturbation
multiple times in front of my home, individuals blocking traffic and or stand-
ing in middle of street, taunting of homeowner’s pets, and more. It already
is an exhausting experience on a daily basis.
All of these health and safety issues will only multiply if the City of Phoenix
continues to encourage the concentration area of people experiencing
homelessness. This is in contradiction to the Capitol Mall Overlay which
recommends DECREASING the concentration of homeless services in the
area. There is a perfectly good option of utilizing the St. Luke’s hospi-
tal campus instead of the proposed expansion area in downtown. Tak-
ing any other action is just another blow and lazy way to “help” solve the
homeless problem in Phoenix.
No neighborhood cannot thrive when the city and state continue to limit our
ability live in a safe and clean environment, which is our right.
It is very unfortunate that the City, County, and State governments have
failed to address this problem, choosing to dump the problem on the down-
town residents instead of coming up with a serious, long-term solution.
People experiencing homelessness can be seniors, the mentally ill, crimi-
nals, families or just people having really bad luck. Putting all of these peo-
ple into one facility makes it impossible for them to get the specialized ser-
vices they need and deserve. St. Luke’s campus offers so much oppor-
tunity to do some REAL good.
Please choose to stop this expansion and give us a chance! Utilize the existing St.
Lukes campus. Stop dumping this problem on downtown residents, we
have already done enough to help, it is time to do the right thing.
If this expansion is approved, it will cause many of the home owners to
move. What a shame.
Sincerely,
Christy Puetz
From:
Dianne Langmade
To:
Sarah Stockham
Subject:
Central Village request to speak Item 7. Z-SP-2-19-7
Date:
Monday, October 12, 2020 9:12:03 AM
Attachments:
Stipulation response.pdf
Requesting to speak and submit comment at the Oct 12th at the Central Village meeting
regarding Item 7. Z-SP-2-19-7
Any votes on the expansion taken before the City Plan is completed would be premature and
potentially in conflict with the City's long-term strategies.
Reference the Draft Stipulation - Z-SP-2-19-7 dated July 31, 2020 by Paul Gilbert.
I am a property owner near the HSC and have not been pleased with the City Council's
response to the ramrod approach some members are taking to increase the bed count
expansion at the HSC. Back in July I provided several comments to the Draft Stipulations
presented by Paul Gilbert of Beus Gilbert McGroder law firm and received NO response (see
attached). Mr. Nowakoski, the offer given by Mr. Gilbert to discuss these Stipulations with
those whom received them must not be in either his law firm or your best interest. It only
discourages my participation in trying to make a better, safer Phoenix.
Again, please delay any votes on HSC expansion until after the City of Phoenix completes its
Plan to address homelessness. Then please take the best interest of the property, business, and
home owners who live and work in the area and vote to NOT approve Z-SP-2-19-7 to expand
the bed count at the HSC. Thanks
Laurel Dianne Langmade
Phoenix, AZ 85044
Laurel Langmade
eagleii@cox.net
Beus Gilbert McGroder, PLLC
4 Aug 2020
701 N 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008-6504
RE: Draft Stipulations – Z-SP-2-19-7, your letter dated July 31, 2020
Dear Mr. Paul Gilbert,
1. What follows are my comments and suggestions to the stipulation regarding the permit to
increase to 1,000 the number of beds at the Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) building? As
you recall at the Central City Village Planning Committee meeting on 13 July, 2020, numerous
home and business owners made statements regarding the problems created from having such
a high concentration of homeless people on the streets in the Central City neighborhoods.
Among the problems discussed from the high concentration of homeless in the Central City
neighborhoods were damage and crime to personal property, human waste and trash left on
both public streets and personal property, and unsafe conditions to the surrounding community.
2. PLEASE NOTE WITH AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF BEDS TO CASS, THIS WILL CAUSE AN
ECONOMIC HARDSHIP TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUSINESS OWNERS AND INDIVIDUALS
LIVING AND WORKING IN THE CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD. PLEASE DO NOT MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE SPECIAL PERMIT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BEDS.
3. Mr. Gilbert, you need to address how you, and the organizations you are representing, will
provide the individuals working and residing in the Central City neighborhood the health, safety,
security, and rights to personal property by allowing this permit to increase the number of beds
to proceed. Your stipulations provided fall way short of what is required to provide a safe area
around the Human Services Campus. Below are my comments and recommendations I hope I
can get a response.
4. Item #5. Please provide additional comments how only providing a minimum of two toilet
facilities between the hours of 7:00am to 5:00pm will decrease the amount of human waste the
proposed increase of individuals to the CASS are depositing on the streets and property will be
accommodated? It was noted in the 13 July meeting that the current facilities are inadequate to
contain the amount of human waste being deposited on the private property around the
campus. How are two more toilets open between 7am – 5pm going to help???
a. Please explain how having two extra toilets for an additional 1,000 people meets Phoenix
Building and Plumbing Code requirements? Will these toilets be ‘port-a-potties’ or flush
toilets? Will there be both women and men’s toilet?
b. Recommend that you have extra toilet facilities outside the Human Service Campus to
accommodate 1,000 individuals within a 1-2 mile radius of the CASS for these people to use
during all hours of the day and night. As you are aware, the homeless currently are
Laurel Langmade
eagleii@cox.net
defecating and urinating in the streets and private property. This is creating a health issue
for the neighborhood.
c. That the Human Services Campus shall pay and maintain from private funds, not public
funds, an adequate number of these toilet facilities.
5. Item #6. Please provide additional information how the Human Services Center will keep the
neighborhood streets clean of garbage, debris … or blight? Having rubbish clean-up within 25
feet of the Campus DOES NOT keep the neighborhood streets clean from the debris deposited
on the neighborhood’s property from the individuals seeking shelter at the CASS.
a. In Item #4 you mention providing trash/recycling receptacles within the boundaries of the
Campus during business hours. This is not enough to handle the trash in the neighborhood.
b. Recommend the CASS provide, and shall pay and maintain from private funds, not public
funds, and weekly street trash clean-ups within a 1-2 mile radius of the Human Service
Campus.
6. Item #10. Providing security cameras at the Human Services Campus does not provide the
needed security for the surrounding neighborhood. Having a “City’s Virtual Block Watch
Program” does not prevent crime and destruction of property the neighborhood is currently
experiencing.
a. The Central city neighborhood, around the Human Services Center, has the highest total and
property crime in the City. Total crime is 287% above the national average, property crime
is 249% above the national average and the area has received an “F” rating from the
‘areavibes’ website. Please advise how providing security cameras will reduce the crime in
our neighborhood caused by the increased concentration of homeless in our neighborhood?
b. Recommend that CASS provide, and shall pay and maintain from private funds, not public
funds, round the clock private security for the Central City neighborhood.
7. Item #12. You outline how the Human Service Campus shall work collaboratively with the City
Of Phoenix as well as adjacent property owners on reducing negative impacts in the area
surrounding the CASS.
a. Mr. Gilbert, in your lengthy description at the CCVPC meeting on 13th July, 2020, you
outlined in detail how you had met with individuals and organizations within the
community. I recall a number of those who later were given 2 minutes to speak
contradicted your statements about your meetings and claimed you had never met with
them. If you did meet, you did not listen to their concerns, plus these individuals form the
neighborhood were not part of your initial discussions on the listed stipulations. If you and
your clients could not do an adequate community outreach prior to this date, how can you
and the CASS be trusted to do an adequate outreach program now to reduce negative
impacts by increasing the number of homeless beds in the area?
b. You mention only a ½ mile radius for this Central City neighborhood collaboration. This is
not enough of a radius. The collaboration should cover the complete Central City
neighborhood.
Laurel Langmade
eagleii@cox.net
c. At these Community Outreach meetings, what resources will be provided to the
neighborhood to fix any problems? The Central City neighborhood needs action, not just
talk.
d. Furthermore, in item 12.e. topics of discussion are to include working together to encourage
street maintenance and organize rubbish clean-ups. I recall one participant at the CCVPC
meeting on 13th July, 2020 mentioning they did organize a neighborhood rubbish clean-up
and invited the organizations at the HSC to participate. No one from the HSC showed up.
To date the organizations associated with the Human Services Campus appear to have a
poor track record of collaboration with neighborhood clean-ups.
e. In item 12.f. outlines how community meetings are to be documented. There is no mention
for community members to provide comments or approval for the minutes to the
community meetings. There should be a means to provide feedback by the community to
what is documented. There also ought to be a web portal to provide access to past meeting
minutes, and the action plans that result from these meetings for review and reference.
8. Item #13. Regarding the annual report you make reference to, “Number of people served.”
Who are the “people” you are referencing? Is it the homeless or the people who live and work
in the Central City neighborhood? You should document in the report how the actions by the
HSC will lessen the impact of the homeless in and on the Central City neighborhood.
9. Item #15. Who is the “developer” you are referring to?
10. Items #17, 18, and 19. Regarding needing a minimum of a Phase I for an archaeological survey
my understanding is, “All development projects on City property which involve construction
activities that will disturb the ground surface more than 2 inches in depth and more than 2
square feet in area should have their project reviewed for the presence of archaeological
resources.” That also, “Projects which are reviewed by the City Archaeologist’s Office are
documented on an Archaeology Assessment Result form. That form will state the result of the
assessment and what recommendations the City Archaeologist’s Office has made concerning
the need for additional archaeological investigations.” Please make this documentation
available for the neighbors in the Central City.
11. Item #20 regarding Proposition 207. Please advise why your clients are going to execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form?
a. My understanding of Arizona Proposition 207, a 2006 ballot initiative officially titled the
"Private Property Rights Protection Act", requires the government to reimburse land owners
when regulations result in a decrease in the property's value, and also prevents government
from exercising eminent domain on behalf of a private party. Proposition 207, which was
officially titled the “Private Property Rights Protection Act,” has been codified at Ariz. Rev.
Stat. section 12-1134. The Act provides that “If the existing rights to use, divide, sell or
possess private real property are reduced by...any land use law enacted after the date the
property is transferred to the owner and such action reduces the fair market value of the
property the owner is entitled to just compensation.” Landowners are entitled to
Laurel Langmade
eagleii@cox.net
compensation only if the challenged regulation continues to apply to their property 90 days
after filing a claim, allowing the government to grant waivers in lieu of compensation.
b. Mr. Gilbert, are you trying to avoid any claims from Central City property and business
owners against your client due to a reduction of property values resulting from an increase
to 1,000 beds in the CASS?
12. Please address what action you are taking to address the requirements of The Legislative
Government Mall Commission? This commission was made to develop and maintain a
comprehensive long-range plan for the development of the Government Mall area. The
commission also has an Urban Design Plan containing guidelines for development and includes
the boundaries for the area between 7th and 19th Avenues, from Harrison Street on the south
to Van Buren Street on the north. Under the Commission’s Planning and Development
Concepts, please address item 7. "The concentration of homeless services within the area
should be reduced."
a. Mr. Gilbert can you enlighten me how and when you are going in front of The Legislative
Government Mall Commission to review the development proposed before the issuance
of permit to increase the number of beds to 1,000?
b. This is state law.
13. As you requested, you were looking forward to receiving any input or suggestions in connection
with the draft Stipulations dated July 31, 2020. Now I am looking forward to your response to
the items listed above to the address below.
cc:
Sarah Stockham
Village Planner
City of Phoenix Planning & Development Dept
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
Sincerely,
Laurel Langmade
Laurel Langmade, neighborhood land owner
eagleii@cox.net
From:
Nadine Alauria
To:
PDD Central City VPC
Cc:
Sarah Stockham
Subject:
Please vote NO on Agenda Item 7, Case Z-SP-2-19-7 -- Do Not approve zoning which will increase shelter beds
to 1000
Date:
Monday, October 12, 2020 5:03:57 PM
Dear Central City VPC,
I'm writing regarding the Zoning request downtown, which will increase shelter beds to
1000.
My husband and I are Phoenix natives, and our families have had businesses in the City of Phx
for 100 years combined. We are very active in the revitalization of our Sunnyslope
community and working on solutions for homeless housing and services. We have our issues
and challenges that we face in Sunnyslope with a soup kitchen a few streets down from our
business.
We are asking to not approve the zoning change for several reasons. Being that we don't live
or work downtown, it would be easy for us to be in favor of increasing beds downtown. It will
not effect us at all. We are looking for solutions that help ALL of Phoenix and also help the
homeless LONG TERM. We don't feel that more beds downtown accomplish that.
Please vote NO on the zoning request that will allow 1000 downtown.
If you cannot vote NO, please table the vote until AFTER the City completes their long-
range plan to address homelessness.
Smaller shelters around town are a better solution for ALL of Phoenix and have worked
well this year.
We don't see how more beds downtown help all of the homeless all around Phoenix.
These shelters need to be spread out and NOT just downtown.
Increasing beds goes against the Capitol Mall Overlay and increases the concentration in
this area.
Thank you for your time and reading our letter.
Sincerely,
Nadine & Jimmy Alauria
--
Nadine & Jimmy Alauria
3A Automotive & Diesel
1539 W. Hatcher Road
Phoenix, AZ 85021
602-997-7978 Office
602-315-3388 Cell
www.3aautorepair.com [3aautorepair.com]