View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-SM-1-
20-8 - Approximately 340 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of 40th Street and
Southern Avenue (Resolution 21920)

Request to hold a public hearing on the request for the following item to consider
adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related Resolution if
approved. The file is a companion case to Z-35-20-8 and should be heard first,
followed by Z-35-20-8.

Summary
Current Plan Designation: Mixed Use Agricultural
Proposed Plan Designation: Mixed Use Agricultural / Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre
Acreage: 17.27 acres
Proposed Use: A mix of Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units
per acre.

Owner: John C. Oertle, Jr., Lisa-Kay Oertle-Melancon, Kent C. Oertle, Beth Ann
Hintze, and Jerald A. Hintze
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb.
9, 2021 and continued the request to the March 9, 2021 meeting, by a vote of 17-0.
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard the case again on March 9,
2021 and recommended a denial, by a vote of 11-8.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 4, 2021 and continued
the request to the April 1, 2021 meeting, by a vote of 9-0. The Planning Commission
heard the case again on April 1, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff
recommendation, by a vote of 6-2.

Location
Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Southern
Avenue

Page 398

Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 6048 S. 40th St.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 399
Attachment A

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2015
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-SM-1-20-8,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.

____________

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by

Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-SM-1-20-8. The 17.27 acres

of property located approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street

and Southern Avenue is designated as Mixed Use Agricultural.

SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as

shown below:

Page 400
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of May 2021.

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

Page 401
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney

By:___________________________
___________________________

REVIEWED BY:

______________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager

PL:tml:LF20-3300:5-5-21:2231057v1

Page 402
Attachment B

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
February 3, 2021

Application: GPA-SM-1-20-8

Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris PLC

Owner: John C. Oertle, Jr., Lisa-Kay Oertle-Melancon, Kent
C. Oertle, Beth O. and Jerald A. Hintze

Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris PLC

Location: Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner
of 40th Street and Southern Avenue

Acreage: 17.27 acres

Current Plan Designation: Mixed Use Agricultural (17.27 acres)

Requested Plan Designation: Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre (17.27 acres)

Reason for Requested Change: Map Amendment to a mix of Mixed Use Agricultural
and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre

South Mountain Village Planning
Committee Date: February 9, 2021

Staff Recommendation: Approval

FINDINGS:

1) The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan
Amendment to the Land Use Map.

2) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use Agricultural is compatible with the
surrounding land use pattern and the proposed standards within the
Development Narrative of the companion PUD case, Z-35-20-8.

Page 403
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-1-20-8
Page 2

3) The subject site is immediately adjacent to two arterial streets, 40th Street and
Southern Avenue, that serve as major transportation corridors for this part of the
city.

4) The proposal will allow for additional housing choices at the intersection of two
arterial streets. The companion PUD includes standards that ensure consistency
in scale and character as well as appropriate transitions for adjacent single-family
zoned property.

BACKGROUND

The subject site is located approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th
Street and Southern Avenue and is presently vacant. The companion Rezoning Case
Z-35-20-8 is requesting to rezone the subject site from 10.02 acres of S-1 BAOD
(Ranch or Farm Residence, Baseline Area Overlay District) and 7.25 acres of C-2
BAOD (Intermediate Commercial, Baseline Area Overlay District) to 17.27 acres of PUD
BAOD (Planned Unit Development, Baseline Area Overlay District) to allow residential
(including multifamily) and other uses permitted in the MUA Zoning District. The
development, as proposed by the applicant, would allow a density up to 11.2 dwelling
units per gross acre. The site is located near the intersection of two arterial streets and
will provide additional housing choices along this transportation corridor that connects to
Interstate 10 to the east and the future light rail further to the west.

In 1997, the City of Phoenix adopted the Baseline Area Master Plan (BAMP), a non-
regulatory area plan, that addresses the existing conditions of the plan area, articulates
a vision for the future and offers a series of implementation strategies to achieve the
community’s vision for the area. One of the implementation strategies contained in the
plan was the creation of a mixed use agricultural district with development standards
that addressed agriculturally based land uses and deep setbacks. The PUD
development narrative, under case Z-35-20-8, integrates development standards and
design guidelines that embody the adopted MUA Zoning District within the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance, thereby providing consistency with portions of the BAMP. The PUD
development narrative primarily adheres to the MUA Zoning District building and
landscape standards along perimeter arterial streets where this development will be
most visible. Other design guidelines from the BAMP have been incorporated to
address perimeter parking standards. Furthermore, the standards in the Baseline Area
Overlay District (BAOD), a regulatory overlay district which also emerged from the
BAMP, are being met or exceeded in the Development Narrative.

In 1997, the City of Phoenix approved the Mixed Use Agricultural land use designation
under case GPA-SM-2-96-6-8, which designated the subject site as Mixed Use
Agricultural based on guidance from the Baseline Area Master Plan. The Mixed Use
Agricultural General Plan land use designation is intended to be coupled with the MUA
Zoning District per the Zoning Ordinance. Since the proposed density for the multifamily
use is not consistent with the existing Phoenix General Plan Land Use designation of

Page 404
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-1-20-8
Page 3

Mixed Use Agricultural as the MUA Zoning District permits a maximum density of two
dwelling units per acre, therefore a General Plan amendment to allow increased density
is needed. This proposed General Plan amendment case would change the land use
designation to a mix of Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use
Agricultural on the subject site, if approved.

This General Plan Amendment, along with the development standards prescribed in
PUD case Z-35-20-8, will allow for a land use map designation that is consistent with
the character of the area where agricultural and low-density land uses exist. This
general plan land use amendment will allow for an appropriate transition between the
existing land use designations in the area of 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre and
Commerce/Business Park land use designations north of Southern Avenue. The land
use map designation, as requested, would further diversify the land uses in this part of
the South Mountain Village in a manner consistent with development patterns based on
the existing zoning and general plan land use map designations in the general area.

SURROUNDING LAND USES

The proposed general plan land use amendment is located in the eastern portion of the
South Mountain Village generally bounded by Southern Avenue to the north, 40th Street
to the east, 39th Street to the west and Saint Catherine Avenue to the south. North of
the site, the General Plan Land Use Map designation is Mixed Use Agricultural (directly
abutting) and Commerce/Business Park across Southern Avenue with some vacant
land and commercial development zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District), R-3
SP (Miltifamily Residenc District with a Special Permit), C-1 SP (Neigbor Retail District
with a Special Permit), and C-1. The special permit is for a child care center.

Existing General Plan Land Use Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department

Page 405
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-1-20-8
Page 4

South of the subject site is the Heard Ranch community where properties are
designated as Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre. These properties are zoned
RE-43 (One-Family Residence District) and are developed with large lot single-family
homes.

West of the property are two large properties designated Mixed Use Agricultural.
Properties west of the site are zoned MUA and S-1 SP, and are used for a plant nursery
and mostly vacant land which has a special permit for a radio tower and transmitter
building.

East of the subject site, the General Plan Land Use Map has designated properties as
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and commercial. These properties are
developed with single-family homes and commerce park/office, zoned R1-6 (Single-
Family Residence District) and Industrial Park District.

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development
and redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.

The proposal would allow development of housing product that provides a
transition from a single-family residential subdivision to the south and commercial
uses to the north. The proposal will allow for additional residential development
that is appropriately located at the intersection of two arterial streets that offer
alternative transportation options connecting to the Interstate 10 freeway and
future light rail corridor further to the west.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Require
appropriate transitions/buffers between neighborhoods and adjacent uses.

Uses in the surrounding area consist of residential, commercial and agricultural
uses. The proposed development is consistent in scale and character with the
surrounding uses and will provide an appropriate transition between commercial
uses along Southern Avenue and single-family residential to the south of the
subject site. The proposed Development Narrative of concurrent case Z-35-20-8,
incorporates height restrictions, increased perimeter building and landscape
setbacks and design guidelines that promote an agricultural environment, which
will also help mitigate impacts on adjacent residential properties.

Page 406
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-1-20-8
Page 5

• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote the
growth of urban agriculture throughout Phoenix.

The proposed development will promote urban agriculture via a community
garden, tool library and pop-up produce stand amenities, shall the site develop
as multifamily, to improve food security and the health of residents. Plant species
found in the BAMP and MUA Zoning District plant lists which have edible
applications may be utilized in the required landscape areas per the
Development Narrative of Z-35-20-8 to further promote food security in the area.

• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a
mix of housing types and densities where appropriate within each village
that support a broad range of lifestyles.

Approval of the request will allow the introduction of diverse housing
opportunities compatible with the surrounding land use patterns. Furthermore,
the proposed development will help to provide housing for a broader range of
lifestyles in an area where the housing type is predominantly single-family.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The staff recommendation for GPA-SM-1-20-8 is to approve as filed, and approve as a
mix of Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use Agricultural. The
proposed land use map designation is consistent in scale and character with existing
land uses in the surrounding area. The subject site is located near the intersection of
two arterial streets that serve as a major transportation route, connecting residents in
the area to the Interstate 10 freeway and the future light rail corridor further to the west.
The Development Narrative included with the concurrent PUD case Z-35-20-8 will
provide compatibility and consistency with the land use pattern in the surrounding area
by incorporating development standards and guidelines that will preserve the agrarian
history of the area. Approval of the request, with concurrent PUD case Z-35-20-8, will
support the development of this vacant property with uses that are compatible with the
land use designations and zoning districts in the general area.

Writer
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
February 3, 2021

Team Leader
Samantha Keating

Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)

Page 407
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-1-20-8_BW ACRES: 17.27 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Withey Morris, PLC / Jason Morris
EXISTING:
Mixed Use Agricultural ( 17.27 +/- Acres)

SOUTHERN AVE
Proposed Change Area

40TH ST
Residential 0 to 1 du/acre
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
Commercial
Commerce / Business Park
Mixed Use Agricultural

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use Agricultural &/ Residential
10-15 du/ac ( 17.27 +/- Acres)

SOUTHERN AVE

Proposed Change Area 40TH ST
Mixed Use Agricultural &/ Residential 10-15 du/ac

Page 408
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-1-20-8 ACRES: 17.27 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Withey Morris, PLC / Jason Morris
EXISTING:
Mixed Use Agricultural ( 17.27 +/- Acres)

SOUTHERN AVE

40TH ST
Proposed Change Area
Residential 0 to 1 du/ac
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Commercial
Mixed Use Agricultural
Commerce / Business Park

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use Agricultural &/ Residential
10-15 du/ac ( 17.27 +/- Acres)

SOUTHERN AVE

Proposed Change Area 40TH ST
Mixed Use Agricultural /& Residential 10-15 du/ac

Page 409
Attachment C

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-SM-1-20-8

Date of VPC Meeting February 9, 2021

Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on
approximately 17.27 acres from Mixed Use Agricultural to
Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10-15 du/acre.

Proposed Use Residential (including multifamily) and other permitted
uses in the Mixed Use Agricultural District.

Location Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Southern Avenue
VPC Recommendation Continuance to March 9, 2021 meeting

VPC Vote 17-0; None in dissent.

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Agenda items 8 and 9 were heard together an moved up in the agenda to be
discussed out of order.

8) GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8): Presentation, discussion and
possible recommendation on a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
Designation on approximately 17.27 acres located approximately 340 feet west of
the southwest corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue from Mixed Use
Agricultural to Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per
acre to allow residential (including multifamily) and other permitted uses in the Mixed
Use Agricultural Zoning District.

9) Z-35-20-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-1-20-8): Presentation, discussion, and
possible recommendation regarding a request to rezone approximately 17.27 acres
located approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and
Southern Avenue from S-1 BAOD (Ranch or Farm Residence District, Baseline
Area Overlay District) and C-2 BAOD (Intermediate Commercial District, Baseline
Area Overlay District) to PUD BAOD (Planned Unit Development, Baseline Area
Overlay District) to allow residential (including multifamily) and other permitted uses
in the Mixed Use Agricultural Zoning District.

29 requests to speak from members of the public were received regarding these
two cases. 10 members in opposition and 19 members of the public in support.

Page 410
Mr. Jason Morris, applicant, introduced himself and requested a continuance to
the March 9, 2021 meeting date on agenda items 8 and 9 to allow for further
discussion with community members on the proposed project.

Marcia Busching stated that she drafted stipulations regarding the proposal in an
attempt to seek compromise and discussed the continuance on the two cases. She
would be happy to be involved in future meetings with the community.

Chairwoman Trites has just spoken with Councilman Garcia’s office and he will be
helping to coordinate a meeting. Anyone who is interested in participating in this
meeting, please contact the South Mountain Village Planner. She then asked for a
motion, to be followed by public comments.

MOTION – GPA-SM-1-20-8
Mr. Holmerud made a motion to continue case GPA-SM-1-20-8 to the March 9,
2021 meeting. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion.

VOTE:
17-0 Motion passes; None in dissent.

MOTION – Z-35-20-8
Ms. Shepard made a motion to continue case Z-35-20-8 to the March 9, 2021
meeting. Mr. Holmerud seconded the motion.

VOTE:
17-0 Motion passes; None in dissent.

Trent Marchuk, community member, introduced himself and discussed working
toward a shared vision for the future. The neighbors have a lot of energy and sees
a path forward, noting that the city has kept the neighborhood compliant with the
General Plan. Somos Build BAM is a pro-development resident collective that has
supported 4 cases in the recent past. The BAMP gives a guide and looks forward to
working with the applicant. The neighbors have worked with projects in the past and
he appreciates the opportunity.

Patty McKinstry, community member, discussed the neighborhood demographics
and appreciates the opportunity to work with the applicant.

Fabiola Marquez, community member, appreciates the continuance of these cases
by the applicant.

All other community members who registered to speak were not connected or
unavailable to speak on these two cases.

Page 411
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

None.

Page 412
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-SM-1-20-8

Date of VPC Meeting March 9, 2021
February 9, 2021(Continued to March 9, 2021)

Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on
approximately 17.27 acres from Mixed Use Agricultural to
Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10-15 du/acre.

Proposed Use Residential (including multifamily) and other permitted
uses in the Mixed Use Agricultural District.

Location Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Southern Avenue
VPC Recommendation Denial

VPC Vote 11-8; Matthew Aguilar, Kassandra Alvarez, George
Brooks, Lee Coleman, Joseph Larios, Fatima Said, Muriel
Smith and Jennifer Tunning in dissent.

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

56 requests to speak from members of the public were received regarding these
two cases. 25 members in opposition and 31 members of the public in support.

Mr. Enrique Bojorquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a joint presentation
on these two cases. He discussed the location plus context of the site, modern
history of the area, gave an overview of the Baseline Area Master Plan (BAMP),
Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) zoning district and Baseline Area Overlay District
(BAOD). He discussed the 2015 General Plan and other policy documents, followed
by describing transportation, shopping, educational and recreation opportunities in
the area. The existing and requested general plan land use designations under
case GPA-SM-1-20-8 were discussed, in addition to the proposed PUD BAOD
zoning requested. A summary of the Sanctuary at South Mountain PUD under case
Z-35-20-8 was provided, including permitted uses, site plan elements, access and
circulation, open space, and conceptual building elevations. He concluded the
presentation by providing a staff recommendation on both cases and describing the
proposed stipulations for case Z-35-20-8, as presented in the staff report.

Mr. Jason Morris, with Withey Morris, introduced himself as the applicant and
discussed the subject site, including the site selection. He discussed the existing

Page 413
uses and zoning along the intersection of 40th Street and Southern Avenue. An
overview of the zoning history of the property and MUA land use designation plus
context was provided. He discussed the proposed site plan, noting changes done
after the initial submittal of the PUD case. He discussed the general plan
amendment request and referenced the Phoenix General Plan. It was noted that 3
residential units would be provided as part of the project limited to 50 percent rent
for single-parents, medical workers, formerly incarcerated individuals and teachers
in the South Mountain area. The waiving of application fees for those that live and
work in the South Mountain Village, plus alternatives to traditional background
checks would be offered to potential renters. The Housing Phoenix Plan was
discussed, then noting support for these cases. He concluded by providing an
overview of community outreach efforts conducted and addressed some of the
concerns raised to the proposal.

Tamala Daniels loves the look and feel of the project but feels that this location is
not appropriate for the area.

Marcia Busching asked if the applicant was willing to stipulate or add to the PUD
the housing elements described in the presentation pertaining to rent caps, fee
waivers and alternative background checks.

Mr. Morris agreed with adding these as stipulations to the proposal.

Mr. Bojorquez, staff, noted that unfortunately these housing elements cannot be
enforced by the city of Phoenix as stipulations part of the PUD case.

Gene Holmerud asked why the land zoned S-1 to the southwest of the site is not
part of this development.

Mr. Morris responded that this land is not controlled by his client at the moment.

Greg Brownell asked the following questions:

• If this property was actually MUA, why would a general plan amendment be
needed?
• Why not develop the existing site under the existing zoning and why not work
with the community?
• Why not develop the existing land use envisioned by the general plan here?

Mr. Morris discussed the community outreach conducted and the meetings held
with Councilman Garcia and the community. He discussed the proposal by the
Bartlett Heard community shared with him.

Shelly Smith discussed the location of the site and asked why the site needs to be
buffered from adjacent uses and existing neighborhoods.

Page 414
Mr. Morris discussed an example of a similar community in the Tramonto PCD.

Twanna Ray asked for clarification on the number of units subject to the proposed
reduced rent.

Mr. Morris answered that 3 units would qualify for the reduced rent in all of the
development.

Trent Marchuk asked the following questions:

• What specific Phoenix Housing Policy Initiative(s) does this project advance?
• Can you confirm the 251 signatures submitted in support are legitimate?

Mr. Morris responded that the project brings housing that is affordable to the area
and confirmed the information submitted to the committee was accurate.

Trent Marchuk responded that the City of Phoenix represented to the residents
that no specific Phoenix Housing Policy Initiative is advanced through this project,
referencing an email dated Dec 17, 2020.

Matthew Aguilar asked for a clarification on the presentation provided.

Chairwoman Trites opened the public comment portion of the meeting.

22 members of the public in opposition to these cases donated time to Patty
McKinstry to speak on their behalf. One member of the public donated time to
Robert Underwood to speak in opposition to these cases on his behalf. One
member of the public, Bereket Gebre, did not register to speak in opposition ahead
of the meeting but provided comments during the meeting.

Patty McKinstry, property owner in the area, introduced herself and asked to
provide a presentation to the committee. She mentioned that Somos Build BAM is a
pro-development neighborhood collective, listing the number of projects supported
in the recent past. She discussed the number of signatures gather in opposition to
these two cases from both the South Mountain and Laveen Villages. Three main
unresolved concerns remain with the proposal pertaining to density, density
transition and precedent to the Baseline Area Master Plan. The Bartlett Heard
Ranch Estates neighborhood is racially diverse, representing in its households five
different races. She concluded by stating that the proposed general plan
amendment needs to stop.

Robert Underwood, property owner and business owner in the area, introduced
himself and discussed the statements made by Mr. Jason Morris, history of the site
and the existing zoning. He opposes an increase in density as proposed as he lives
and works in the area. This proposal would hurt the quality of life in the area and

Page 415
will affect his business. He is pro-development and discussed the proposal, asking
the committee to recommend a denial of the cases.

Clottee Hammons introduced herself and discussed the history of South Phoenix
and Arizona. She discussed solutions to end homelessness and the history of the
area.

Bereket Gebre, landowner in the area, is in opposition to the project and does not
see or perceive racism in the area. The landowner does not have the amount of
support claimed during their presentation.

31 members of the public requested to speak in support.

Shawnece Gains introduced herself, she lives in the area and likes that new
opportunities will be available for young adults thus she supports the project.

Joe Angel Solozario introduced himself and discussed the property along with
new housing plus business opportunities in the area.

Kelly Kwok supports this project due to equitable housing proposed.

April McCue supports project as it involved the community and engaged with
minority groups, waiving application fees and including some reduced rent for units.
She discussed the link between homeless and incarceration, asking for an approval
of the project.

Vanessa DiCarlo discussed criminalization, urban revitalization pricing people out
of areas and racial disparities in the population.

Jisso Kim supports the project due to affordability levels proposed. We should be
lucky to bring this proposal to life. Discussed issues faced by underserved
populations. Put people over property and approve this project.

Camille Johnson has family who lives in South Phoenix and discussed
gentrification history of the area including redlining and displacement of residents.
South Phoenix was created by “white people” who did not want the “wrong-kind of
people” in the neighborhoods much like the opposition. She supports this proposed
development.

Karen Olson supports the project and discussed the benefits of the proposal.

B Thoi discussed current social issues and the need for safe and stable housing to
help address homelessness. The issues raised by the opposition were addressed
and supports this proposal.

Page 416
Anesia Groves grew up in South Phoenix and discussed incarceration and housing
displacement issues. She was unable to move back into her neighborhood after
leaving years ago. She supports the proposed development due to the concessions
made by the applicant. South Phoenix is a point of pride, and she does not want to
hear white or black committee members tell her where she can live.

Chairwoman Trites asked Ms. Groves to keep her comments respectful.

Analise Ortiz supports the project and discussed formerly incarcerated plus
homeless-related issues. The community needs more similar projects.

Helen Mendizabal supports the project and discussed formerly incarcerated
issues.

Greg Linaman has a business in the area and 110 employees who live across the
valley and could benefit by relocating nearby. He discussed the history of land
development in the area, cost of land and concerns with the project. He mentioned
that there is a housing crisis and there is a need for more housing units, thus
supports the development.

Hana Heman discussed historical segregation patterns in Phoenix supported by
policies. This development will help break the violence of housing segregation. This
project should be a model for other developments. Supports the project due to
housing opportunities it provides and disagrees with the concerns from the
opposition. The committee Chair ran the meeting unfairly, bending the rules for
white supremacists. The supporters of this case were not given the same
opportunity to provide a presentation as those in opposition were.

Ryan Boyd, with Urban Phoenix Project, supports the project as it is appropriate
and significant for the area.

Ronnie Wollenzier supports the project as it promotes desegregation and
decriminalization. He discussed shelter needs and policies related to
homelessness.

Richard Crews, with the Human Services Campus, discussed the history of
segregation in the city and housing segregation of minority populations. If “white
people” were to be living in this project, there would be no issue. Racism is about
bias enacted through policy and hopes that committee members will not be agents
of white supremacy.

Tremikus Muhammad discussed housing segregation in place and the need for
housing units in Phoenix. There is a racist mindset against this project. He supports
this project and addressed the statements by the opposition.

Page 417
Beth Hintze is the owner of the land and stated that this project addresses housing
needs. She discussed the history of the site pertaining to citrus trees, previous PUD
proposals on this land that were subsequently withdrawn or did not move forward.

Rafael Delgado, Felicia Castro, Denstiny Gaines, Maya Dobbs, Ruth Pina, Leticia
Gonzales, Ariana Fernandez, Brandon Valentin, Paris Moore, Naqiy McMullen and
Grace Logan registered to speak in support of these two cases but were not
connected during the meeting or could not be identified by staff.

Committee member Martin Hayime Monge Kotake left the meeting at 9:30pm
bringing the quorum to 19 members.

Mr. Morris stated that the applicant has earned the support and the project can
make the South Mountain Village a little better. He referenced the staff
recommendation of approval and community support for this project.

Matthew Aguilar stated that there were some disrespectful behaviors or comments
during the meeting. He discussed the general plan elements of Health, Prosperity
and Environment, plus addressed housing and health needs.

Kassandra Alvarez stated that the developer tried to work with the opposition, and
he addressed everything that was asked for including working with the community.

Greg Brownell stated that the housing data provided by the city before the meeting
tonight shows a partial reality of the South Mountain Village. This project is not
affordable development and discussed the historical representation of the area and
broader village issues.

Marcia Busching stated that the location of the project is a big deal. She discussed
the appropriateness of the site and another site in the vicinity of similar
characteristics. The enforcement of voluntary fee waivers and rent caps is an issue
as well.

Lee Coleman agrees with Marcia’s comments and the applicant’s voluntary
commitments as part of the proposal.

Amelia Garcia thanked the developers and will support the project if it develops as
proposed.

Gene Holmerud agrees with Lee’s comments.

Joseph Larios addressed racial disparities and how every development addresses
these concerns on housing. He asked the applicant whether they would be willing to
stipulate these voluntary restrictions related to housing as part of the zoning case.

Page 418
Mr. Morris responded that they would be willing to stipulate these voluntary
stipulations and intends to have a private agreement to enforce these.

Trent Marchuk discussed the Ethics Handbook and he has no conflict of interest
voting on this project. He discussed the main concerns of the neighborhood to this
project as pertaining to the density, density transition, and the precedent to the
General Plan. The applicant has introduced an artificial polemic and
misrepresented the opposition to galvanize rather than work with the neighbors.
The adjacent neighborhood is pro-development and has made concessions in their
negotiation position willing to creatively density beyond the legal hard zoning, while
the applicant has remained intractable. An email dated February 4, 2021 provides
an analysis of the 251 support signatures submitted by the applicant which were
found to contain multiple discrepancies, including one purported forgery and other
documented misrepresentations. The existing stipulations on the C-2 zoned portion
of the site preclude residential development, while any change to those stipulations
must be discussed by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. This project
is not affordable housing and nearby comparable units go for a 20-percent premium
over average rent within a two mile radius. A broker who regularly lends to this
product type classified this specific proposal as “predatory development”.

Twanna Ray discussed her background and the 3 residential units proposed by the
applicant as few in comparison to the community needs. Other developments were
discussed.

Fatima Said discussed the general plan analysis and benefits of the project. She
disagrees with some of the comments shared by some committee members.

Kay Shepard asked that the site location be considered and whether the zoning is
also appropriate here. She does not support the project due to the location.

Muriel Smith will support the project but will keep an eye-out to ensure an
implementation of the voluntary housing elements proposed by the applicant.

Shelly Smith addressed diversity in South Phoenix and the potential for renters in
this community to be out-of-state.

Jennifer Tunning discussed other projects in the Village and the benefits of the
voluntary stipulations proposed by the applicant.

Emma Viera agrees with some of the comments made but would like to hear from
the most-affected residents and asked for the rental rates. She sees a lot of families
facing eviction in the community and is concerned about housing.

Hannah Bleam, with Withey Morris, responded that the development is not
affordable housing per HUD standards, but is market-rate for the area.

Page 419
Tamala Daniels lives in South Phoenix and her family has history there. She
supports a mix of housing types and discussed issues with the Federal Housing
Act. She does not support the project due to the location.

Patti Trites discussed her background and agrees with some of the comments
made by Marcia Busching and Tamala Daniels. She has talked with residents in the
area about these two cases.

Matthew Aguilar disagrees with some of the comments made by some committee
members and referenced comments made by Clottee Hammons. Discussed issues
with finding available affordable housing and believes that Greg Brownell should no
longer serve in the South Mountain VPC. Does not agree with the appointment of
Trent Marchuk made by Council District 6 to the South Mountain VPC.

Twanna Ray attended some of the meetings hosted by Council District 8 with the
applicant and the community. Does not feel that the applicant worked with the
community on this proposal.

Trent Marchuk discussed his involvement with the community and his appointment
by Council District 6 to the South Mountain VPC. He plans to participate in future
meeting as a community member not a member of the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee.

Chairwoman Trites asked for a motion and a second on both cases.

MOTION – GPA-SM-1-20-8
Ms. Busching made a motion to deny case GPA-SM-1-20-8. Lee Coleman
seconded the motion.

VOTE:
11-8 Motion passes; Matthew Aguilar, Kassandra Alvarez, George Brooks,
Amelia Garcia, Joseph Larios, Fatima Said, Muriel Smith, and Jennifer Tunning
in dissent.

MOTION – Z-35-20-8
Ms. Busching made a motion to deny case Z-35-20-8. Mr. Holmerud seconded
the motion.

VOTE:
12-7 Motion passes; Matthew Aguilar, Kassandra Alvarez, George Brooks,
Amelia Garcia, Joseph Larios, Fatima Said, and Jennifer Tunning in dissent.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

None.

Page 420
Attachment D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 4, 2021

ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8)
Location: Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street
and Southern Avenue
From: Mixed Use Agricultural
To: Mixed Use Agricultural / Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 17.27
Proposal: A mix of Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre.
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: John C. Oertle, Jr.; Lisa Kay Oertle-Mel, et al
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 2/9/2021 Continued. Vote: 17-0.
South Mountain 3/9/2021 Pending.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Continuance to the April 1, 2021 Planning
Commission Hearing, without fee.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Howard made MOTION to continue GPA-SM-1-20-8 to
the April 1, 2021 Planning Commission hearing, without fee.

Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote:9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No

Findings: Continuance granted to allow the Village Planning Committee to provide a
recommendation.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.

Page 421
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
April 1, 2021

ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8)
Location: Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street
and Southern Avenue
From: Mixed Use Agricultural
To: Mixed Use Agricultural/Residential 10-15 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 17.27
Proposal: A mix of Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre.
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: John C. Oertle, Jr.; Lisa Kay Oertle-Mel, et al.
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 2/9/2021 Continued. Vote: 17-0.
South Mountain 3/9/2021 Denial. Vote: 11-8.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the recommendation in the staff
report.

Motion Discussion: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to deny GPA-SM-1-20-8,
per the South Mountain Village Committee recommendation. Commissioner Gaynor
made a second to the MOTION. Chairperson Shank asked for a vote. The vote failed
with a 2 to 6 vote. Commissioner Howard then made a MOTION to approve GPA-SM-1-
20-8, per the recommendation in the staff report.

Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve GPA-SM-1-20-8, per
the recommendation in the staff report.

Maker: Howard
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 6-2
Absent: Johnson
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan
Amendment to the Land Use Map.

Page 422
2. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use Agricultural is compatible with the
surrounding land use pattern and the proposed standards within the
Development Narrative of the companion PUD case, Z-35-20-8.

3. The subject site is immediately adjacent to two aerial streets, 40th Street and
Southern Avenue, that serve as major transportation corridors for this part o the
city.

4. The proposal will allow for additional housing choices at the intersection of two
arterial streets. The companion PUD includes standards that ensure
consistency in scale and character as well as appropriate transitions for
adjacent single-family zoned property.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.

Page 423
Attachment E

CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: May 5, 2021

APPLICATION NO/ Z-35-20-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION: (Companion Case opposition x applicant
GPA-SM-1-20-8)
(Sanctuary at South
Mountain PUD)
Approximately 340
feet west of the
southwest corner of
40th Street and
Southern Avenue
APPEALED FROM: PC 4/1/2021 3731 East Saint Anne Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85042
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 5/6/2021 Trent C. Marchuk
HEARING: 602-499-9594
trentchristopher@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

Multiple unresolved concerns regarding the complexity of the location that have yet to be
addressed in the applicant’s narrative nor in the site plan, which the City Planning Department
has referred to multiple times as unreliable itself (site plan reference). Ninety-five percent (95%)
of neighbors, represents 135+ adjacent and contiguous acres do not agree with the proposed
land use as currently stated.

RECEIVED BY: Michael Pierce RECEIVED ON: 4/7/2021

Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Stephanie Vasquez
Leah Swanton
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Ra’Desha Williams
Village Planner
Samantha Keating
Paul M. Li
GIS
Applicant

Page 424
Page 425
Attachment F

Page 426
From: Corey Caulkins
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC Meeting - Agenda Item #9 Written Comment
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:52:03 PM

Hello,

I am unable to attend the planning meeting today to make a public comment, but I submit to you the below written comment.

I would like to advocate on behalf of Agenda Item #9 - 40th St. & Southern Ave Project (GPA-SM-1-20-8). Though Black
folks only constitute 5% of Arizona residents, they constitute 18% of people in jail and 14% of people of prison. This
disproportionate impact is a result of a legacy of racism and white supremacy, and it contributes to a cycle of housing violence
where formerly incarcerate Black community members are excluded from stable housing.

As both a resident of the City of Phoenix and member of Sunrise Movement Phoenix, I know that affordable, stable
housing is a basic human right and that until all of my neighbors in this city have access to it, we are failing as a
community.

The only way to break cycles of housing violence is for developers to follow the leadership of directly impacted people,
because those closest to the problem are closest to the solution. I support this project, and hope to see more examples of
developers listening to those most marginalized.

Thank you for your time,
Corey Caulkins
Phoenix, AZ 85015

Page 427
Attachment G

From: Trent Marchuk
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 1:27:33 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 428
From: alain brunet
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:35:08 AM

Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8).
Been resident of this "gem" for 33 years it will be damaging to change the rural character of South
Phoenix to a “city dortoir “
for the profit of fews that don’t even live here.
Thanks,
Alain Brunet

Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10

Page 429
From: FABIOLA MARQUEZ
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 3 PCC;
Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC;
PDD South Mountain VPC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2021 4:50:01 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned of a proposed development
project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this
proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent
land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our
historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made
through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Alonso and Fabiola Marquez
6409 S. 39th Pl.
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10

Page 430
From: Bernadette Miranda
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St& Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 3:58:09 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal. Thank you for your help.

Kind regards,

Sent from my mobile phone.

Angel and Bernadette Miranda
4536 E Saint Catherine Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602 721-0525

Page 431
From: Bernadette Miranda
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Project on 40th Street/Southern
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:30:33 AM

Good morning Enrique,

We would like to formally request that we please be registered as opposing to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8
(Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your help!

Sent from my mobile phone

Kind regards,

Angel and Bernadette Miranda
4536 E Saint Catherine Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602 721-0525

Page 432
From: April Hodges
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: April Hodges
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:45:23 AM

2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting

Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8). Thank you!

April Hodges
General Nursery Manager

3815 E. Southern Avenue Phoenix, AZ, 85040
P 602.437.5194 F 602.437.4719
Arid Solutions Nursery [aridsolutionsnursery.com]

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) addressed in the message. If you are not
the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, or copy this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that disclosing, distributing, or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Page 433
Page 434
From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Trent Marchuk
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD
Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:04:40 PM
Attachments: image001.png

Good evening Enrique:

I am glad to have heard the "Continuance"; however, I have to get ready for work and miss
this golden opportunity to speak - and please know that your accommodation meant a lot to
me and the community. Is it possible to share this with Madam chair and all respected
members:

1. "Inclusiveness, Engagement and Mutually Accepted Development Plan" as our concerns and
existence was salvaged until the 11th hour.

2.I will echo from my letter on May 2nd, 2019 - that we all deserve "accurate and verifiable
data" in addressing petition signature and percentage reported for or against for future plan -
if the landowner still request variance.

Again, I will echo from my letter on September 8th, 2020

"We have to be keen about our interest to have honest and transparent path from the
grassroots - which means the community at the Heard Ranch should be the focal and initial
point of this journey; it should be a joint venture to make South Phoenix a vibrant
community in an effort to bring about positive change that will benefit every stakeholder."

Again, I will recite my letter on February 8th, 2021

"I don't know anyone in this neighborhood who wants this land to be empty but it should
never be a one-way project by ignoring the existence of others. .......The pandemic should
NOT be used to expedite this tedious and cumbersome process by ignoring the core
principle - the incorporation of genuine engagement of all stakeholders."....Wd do matter.
"

Madam chair and members of this community, we appreciate your guidance and compassion
on it as we matter in the process and our existence in this matter.

Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

Page 435
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:16 PM
To: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Subject: RE: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good afternoon Bereket,

Thank you for your additional comments in regards to these two cases. I will add it to the case file
and will share it with the public bodies that will hear these cases over the next few months.

Thank you again,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
you.***

From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 1:01 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good afternoon Enrique:

It is very kind and I do appreciate your unwavering transparency in this process. Would you
register my opposition along with the attached letter?

Have a good day and be safe!

Page 436
Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:43 PM
To: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Subject: RE: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good afternoon Bereket,

How are you? All is well with me (thank you for asking ). Yes, I have now registered you to speak on
these two cases to be heard tomorrow, February 9th by the South Mountain VPC. The meeting starts
at 6pm, but since we have many agenda items before these two cases it is difficult to know the time
at which this case will be presented.
However, I am going to add your name towards the top of the speaker list due to your conflict with
work so that we can hopefully get to hear your comments before work.

Please let me know if questions arise.

Thank you,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
you.***

Page 437
From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 9:06 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Neighbor - Trent Marchuk
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good morning Enrique:

How have you been? May I ask to have time allocated to speak in the upcoming agenda item
regarding Z-35-20-8 Re-zoning?

I do hope that our agenda item will be early as I have to be at work at 9 pm.

Have a good day and be safe!

Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

On Nov 12, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola gaxiola@phoenix.gov> wrote:

Thank you Bereket! I appreciate the feedback on the process. We will continue with
our communication and making sure everyone who wants to comment gets to do so.

Let me know if questions arise.

Regards,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails
multiple times per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a
more timely response. Thank you.***

Page 438
From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:48 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good evening Enrique:

Thank you for the reply and I was able to attend the meeting. Please know that I -
along my family, appreciate your presence and transparent communication and
your hard work.

Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 5:30 PM
To: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Cc: Trent Marchuk
Subject: RE: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good morning Bereket,

How are you? All is well with me (enjoying the weather these past few days). I have
registered you as a speaker for tonight’s meeting, noting that you are donating your
time to Mr. Marchuk.

At the meeting, the VPC Chair will allocate a certain amount of time to Mr. Marchuk
given that we have multiple speakers (approx. 8) who donated time to him.

Let me know if questions arise!

Thank you,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

Page 439
***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails
multiple times per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a
more timely response. Thank you.***

From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:18 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Trent Marchuk
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Hello Enrique:

How have you been? I do oppose the project on 40th Street and Southern and
will attend the meeting. While I attend the meeting, I would like to provide my
time for Trent to speak on my behalf.

Thank you and be safe!

Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

Page 440
From: Beth
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: PDD South Mountain VPC
Subject: Z-35-29-8 & GPA-1-20-8
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:11:29 AM

We are opposed to the above project
We have lived in the Heard Ranch for 38 yrs
This part of South Mountain Village is so special
Tree lined streets, multi purpose trails
Wonderful history of flower gardens, nurseries
Family farms
Along with the South Mountain village planning committee we have been able to preserve the rural feel in this area
This project. “apartments” will have a density that
Is overwhelming!! This property was zoned for 1/2acre lots to complement the surrounding neighbors I feel this
would be the best use of the land
The intersection at 40th & Southern is already proven to be a deadly one adding apartments
Would increase the traffic and be very unsafe
Please consider our South Mountain Heritage
Thank you for your time
Beth Holmes & Bill Ramsey
Sent from my iPhone

Page 441
From: Beth
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th St & Southern Z-35-20-8 & GPA SM-1-20-8
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 5:05:04 PM

We are Very opposed to the development being proposed for the SW corner of 40th St & Southern
Beth Holmes
Bill Ramsey
6601 S 38th St
Phoenix, Az 85042

Sent from my iPhone

Page 442
From: Beth Postma
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:35:15 AM
Attachments: image001.png

Dear Enrique, I am a business owner in the neighborhood of this zoning case. I am a wholesale plant
nursery at 6623 S. 32nd Street. I signed the petition against this development and I wish to verify
this now in this email. Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8
(Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Thank you,

Beth Postma
(602) 509-7242
www.allseasongrowers.com [allseasongrowers.com]

Page 443
From: Beth
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2-35-20-8 & GPA -1-20-8
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:41:19 AM

I oppose this project located 40th St and Southern

Sent from my iPhone

Page 444
From: Bill Glover
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; Council District 1
PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6
PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola;
somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Cc: somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: "40th St. and Southern Ave. Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8"
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 2:10:13 PM

Hello,

My name is Bill Glover. My wife Mary and I are the founders of the Awakening Seed
School. I am writing to share my current opposition to the proposed development on the
Southwest corner of 40th St and Southern Ave. The Applicant has wholly ignored our voter
approved General Plan Land Use of maximum 2 homes per acre as well as the pleas to
respect it by the neighbors and citizens who voted for it in many years ago. However, I am
hopeful that the Applicant may change their approach and work with the neighbors to
resolve our unresolved concerns. Please add this to the official case file for Z-35-20-8 and
GPA-SM-1-20-8.

As shown through the below image, Awakening Seed is within 700 feet directly south of the
proposed development. Historically, the land west of 40th St and south of Southern Ave
has been the agricultural heart of South Phoenix. To the east of 40th St is where the
agricultural support buildings were built and so has a very different history and character
relative to the west side of 40th St. This can be observed even today through a quick
glance at the attached aerial image.

Awakening Seed is an innovative, compassionate learning community that inspires global
citizens by fostering curiosity, celebrating uniqueness, and promoting social justice. A
central tenet of Awakening Seed is for children to be stimulated academically while
simultaneously having daily opportunities to interact with the natural world through
imaginative play and gardening.

We searched long and hard for the perfect location to complement our philosophy. We
found this perfect location adjacent to what is known as the Mixed Use Agriculture (MUA)
District within the larger Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD) of South Phoenix. We
collaborated with the neighbors, we built, and now we successfully operate our school to fit
right in with the community ethos. We are a model example that collaboration with the
neighbors during planning and development can, in reality, foster long-term success.

Unfortunately, through this single General Plan Amendment and Zoning Application
covering roughly just 685,000 sq feet, the entire planning for our broader community across
16,000,000+ sq ft will be imperiled. (According to the county assessor's website.) With
The Arbors (already exceeding 50% of the density envisioned for the MUA District) to the
west and this project exceeding the envisioned density by 460% to the east, the remnant
farmland in between will have precedent to redevelop as high density housing with no
accompanying plan to address much needed infrastructure and services nor input from the
community. Where irrigation now flows across fertile soil, this project would yield a food
desert.

The current General Plan artfully balances the need for development growth with our
community's assets to foster the unique character unlike any neighborhood in Phoenix.

Page 445
And that is what is at stake here.

This is simply the wrong process for such a significant change to the General Plan,
especially the destroying of our neighborhood's character and heritage through the
precedent caused by rezoning roughly just seventeen gross acres through this proposal.

High density housing itself is not bad. But, what becomes of the Character of our District if
it is no longer paying homage to the agrarian heritage of South Phoenix? Our roads and
infrastructure in South Phoenix are already overburdened. If this is approved and built
without due consideration for the residents of South Phoenix, it is us same residents
(including many families of my students) who will be left paying to fix what should never
have been broken by this proposal.

Awakening Seed was built trusting in the longstanding planning documents that have
guided this community for decades. And we have been extremely successful in following
these documents; we have consistently had waiting lists for enrollment.

What this community needs is more schools. We also need more services, especially
healthy eating options and more medical providers. We recognize there is a need for
rooftops and are open to creative solutions. Unfortunately, the Applicant has repeatedly
spurned the neighbors and refuses to incorporate any of our meaningful feedback.

In the spirit of a constructive approach, I ask that the Applicant be given yet another chance
to work with the neighbors and incorporate their feedback in a meaningful way. There is a
precedent set by the City Planning Department with Gardener's Enclave, considered a
model residential PUD in the MUA.

Although I don't mind speaking for myself, I am pleased with the representation given by
my concerned neighbors at somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] and support
their approach.

Thank you,
Bill Glover
Awakening Seed School
6630 S. 40th St., Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 446
From: BILL GLOVER
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 3:50:09 PM

Total opposition to #8 GPA-SM-1-20-8

Sent from my iPhone
Bill Glover

Page 447
From: Bill Glover
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th & Southern
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 12:15:59 PM

This project belongs elsewhere. Please don’t wreck the last Phoenix neighborhood that is of a rural nature.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 448
From: Bill Randall
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Land use proposal at 40thSt. & Southern
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:33:29 AM

Please add me to your list of concerned for this proposal.

Bill Randall 3452 E. Vineyard Rd 602-350-2999

Page 449
From: Blake Peterson
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:47:51 PM

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Thanks, Blake

Blake Peterson, CPA
6197 South Rural Suite 102-14
Tempe, Arizona 85283
Phone: 480-829-0509
Fax: 480-829-0055
blakepeterson@cox.net
blakepetersoncpa.com

From: Trent Marchuk [mailto:trentchristopher@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 1:48 PM
To: Trent Marchuk
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and
GPA-1-20-8)

Hi Neighbors,

If you feel passionate about what you read below in the email below, please forward
this entire email string to the City officials listed below and add your own thoughts in
opposition to the project.

Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email,
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this project,
4. Sign with your name and mailing address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!
mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov,
council.district.2@phoenix.gov, council.district.3@phoenix.gov,

Page 450
council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov,
council.district.8@phoenix.gov, SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov, enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov, somosbuildbam@gmail.com

We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard. The Applicant
has used COVID-19 to silence the neighbors in an attempt to push through an
inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the attending consequences to the
residents of South Phoenix.

We challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South Mountain
Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and Salt River to South Mountain) to do the
same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.

Your sending an email to our elected representatives at this time is absolutely critical.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council District 6 PCC
, , Council District 8 PCC
, , Enrique Bojorquez

, Somos BuildBam

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be

Page 451
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 452
From: Catherine Pliess
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Register your opposition to the project at 40th & Southern (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 12:31:39 PM

Hi,

I would like to formally register my opposition to the project at 40th & Southern (Z-35-20-8
and GPA-SM-1-20-8. This project is NOT in keeping with the land use as outlined in the
Baseline MasterPlan. Personally, I bought in the South Mountain area for the rural and
relatively agricultural flavor of the area. For being such a short drive to the downtown, South
Mountain offers a connection to the past history of rural Phoenix. This proposed high density
rental project will not support this important attribute of Phoenix.

South Phoenix is in many ways a vulnerable area as it currently is made up of many rental and
high density areas. Those in rental developments are not property tax payers and often do not
have care or long term thoughts on the area and how projects like this negatively affect tax
paying homeowners. This project is also a detriment to the heavy traffic already a problem in
the area. Baseline Road on a weekday between 1pm and 7pm is often bumper to bumper even
in this lower traffic pandemic times, this proposed project that does not conform to the city
plan will only make this phenomenon worse. Please respect the Master plan and the property
taxpayers of this area. Do not support or approve this plan.
--
Cathie Pliess
480.824.8951

cpliess@gmail.com

Page 453
From: Curt Gentry
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:40:41 PM

Hi Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Thank you!

Curt Gentry
6415 S 37th St
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 454
From: Curt Gentry
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th & Southern Project Opposition
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:12:44 AM

Good morning Enrique,

Again, please register my opposition to the project at 40th & Southern. (GPA-SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8)

Thank you for your service to our community.

Blessings!
Curt Gentry
6415 S 37th St
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 455
From: D in AZ
To: DM
Subject: Oppose Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8!
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:04:11 PM

To those who really care about Laveen, I urge you to oppose this proposed development project at 40th
St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).

The community should have a say in what comes in around our homes. There is way too much high
density zoning going on and it needs to stop! Our leaders need to represent the people that live here and
not the bottom dollar. Laveen is no longer what it used to be and high density coming in everywhere we
turn is not what we want.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Darcy Meyer
3535 W Bohl St
Laveen, AZ 85339

Page 456
From: D in AZ
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 6:39:13 PM

Hello, I'd like to register my opposition for GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8 and would like to
yield my time to Patty McKinstry.

Darcy Meyer
3535 W Bohl St, Laveen Village, AZ 85339
480-332-4120

Page 457
From: David Grimmer
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Please Help: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:54:43 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
David Grimmer
2631 E Jones Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85040

Page 458
From: Ol" West
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 9:04:37 PM

Hi, I'd like to register my opposition for GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
and would like to yield my time to Patty McKinstry.

David Meyer
3535 W Bohl St, Laveen Village, AZ 85339
480-332-4120

Page 459
From: Deirdre Irvine
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th St & Southern property
Date: Friday, March 5, 2021 5:46:41 PM

RE:
GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8.
I would like to voice my opposition to this development. The density is too great. The concept does not fit with the
area. This will lead to more appeals to change the zoning down Southern leaving our area forever changed and
hemmed in.

We have lived here since 1976. We have lost many things that made it unique. Please let us keep our neighborhood
as it is now. This proposal will destroy any privacy. These neighbors will start complaining about the noise of our
animals, the smell & more. This project is NOT capable with the Heard Ranch that we have enjoyed for so many
years and hope to leave to our children & grandkids!

Please forward this to the Planning Committee. I would like to let Patty McKinstry for us at the March 9,2021 at the
SMVP meeting.

Deirdre & Randy Irvine
3802 East Saint Catherine
Phoenix AZ 85042
(602) 437-2688
Sent from my iPhone

Page 460
From: Evelio Ayala
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:28:05 AM

2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion
Case Z-35-20-8). Thank you!

Evelio

Page 461
From: george n bingham II
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: OPPOSITION TO 40TH ST & SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:42:07 AM

Hi Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Thank you!

George N. Bingham II

Page 462
From: Greg Brownell
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: 40th Street and Southern Avenue
Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 12:25:25 AM

To whom it may concerns in regard to he parcel under consideration at 40th Street and Southern
(GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8) by the South Mountain Planning Commission.
One of the first things you consider in planning (amateur or professional) is that place matters. Here
is a little perspective on what this means if you are a Realtor: from the National Association of
Realtors Preamble to their Code of Ethics:
“Under all is the land. Upon its wise utilization and widely allocated ownership depend the survival
and growth of free institutions and of our civilization. … the creation of adequate housing, the
building of functioning cities, the development of productive industries and farms, and the
preservation of a healthful environment.”
Also, from the current General Plan:
“How is this Plan Different? One of the goals from the very beginning of the PlanPHX Project was to
develop a General Plan that was much more user friendly.
A city’s natural and built environments are its primary building blocks.
This continued growth, in a still maturing urban landscape, provides Phoenix residents a tremendous
opportunity to shape the future of their city like no other place in the world. The General Plan
provides a powerful medium for residents to strategize on how the city will grow. Through this
General Plan, Phoenix can continue to shape How the natural and built environments take shape for
a city are of the utmost importance in determining a city’s quality of life.
Going beyond the need to create a document that residents and developers were more likely to use,
was the importance of telling the story of what Phoenix wants to be and outlining how it can get
there as a city. That’s why this updated General Plan is aimed at being a visionary, concise and
strategic document.
A city’s landscape has a tremendous impact on how it is defined and ultimately what makes it a place
people want to call home, visit or conduct business. How the natural and built environments take
shape for a city are of the utmost importance in determining a city’s quality of life.”
As anyone can see, place and history are very important to how we conduct ourselves and how we
grow our community. Our physical world, both natural and manmade are vital to the successful
growth and well being of our community.

The parcel under consideration at 40th Street and Southern (GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8) has a very long history. Of course, it has been agricultural for at least a few thousand years,
most likely it was originally farmed by the Hohokam. Their land was not threatened by sharp
attorney’s and greedy landowners. In fact, we don’t know what happened to them.
But, in the long chain of ownership from Mesquite Bosque, to native hand dug canals, to Hohokam
cultivation, to Michael Wormser’s land swindles and up to the moment the Bartlett-Heard Land and
Cattle Company decided they could exploit the ancient canals and modern irrigation to make more
money selling land than growing anything on it, it should be clear this parcel has history.
In recent times, this land was all citrus. It was owned and farmed by John Oertle, Sr. While he owned
it, many things were happening around his property. The Heard Ranch development of single family
ranchettes was built to the west. These were homes designed for horses, gardens and other
agricultural activities. Like Mr. Oertle’s property they were pleased with SRP flood irrigation. Mr.
Oertle and the Heard Ranch community were all part of a larger farm district which included, the
flower farms along Baseline road, cotton fields and tree nurseries.

At that time, new housing development was limited in that area. But, east of 40th Street was
th

Page 463
rezoned to take advantage of the Tempe School borders (40 Street on the west, Baseline Rd. on
the South and Broadway Rd. on the north.) Conveniently, this allowed developers who were
concerned by the Roosevelt School System and the kids that went, to put their collective minds and
prejudices to rest and start making money. The agriculture that existed at the time disappeared.
To the north of Mr. Oertle’s farm, Southern Avenue created another man-made barrier. Even though
this area was primarily agriculture for decades, planners had decided this area would be destined to
become commercial and higher density housing. And still Mr. Oertle’s orchard endured.
There were other stirrings coming from the planning and development community at that time. One
result of those “stirrings” was the Raven Golf Course. Another was the Baseline Corridor Mater Plan.
For the first time there was real development pressure being put on one of the most unique areas in
Metro Phoenix – South Phoenix’s unique Farm District. Fortunately, Mr Oertle would not see the
impending battles that would be fought to maintain his Farm District. He passed in the 1980’s
leaving his orchard to his children, John Jr., Kent, Lisa Kay and Beth.
One of the important parts of this story is to remember that the current owners did not purchase
this property: they inherited it. Obviously, the four of them couldn’t figure out a way to keep it as a
farm and they were asking too high a price for the land to make it viable for any farmer to purchase
it. Apparently, they were more interested in squeezing money out of the property rather than
orange juice. This is understandable; not everyone wants to be a farmer, but at this point they had
alternatives. Remember, they were given the land. They could have sold at the market rate for raw
land. They could have given it away. The point is they have been trying to add value to the land at
the expense of its agricultural history.
By the time the Oertle family presented their first plan to add value to their inheritance, the Base
Line Corridor Master Plan had been finished. It extended in its impact from the Mountain to
Southern Ave, the northern border of the Oertle property. They wanted to change the zoning on
part of the property to commercial from agricultural. Walgreens wanted to build a pharmacy there,
so they presented the SMVPC of that time with that proposal. At that time the committee was
working on a special zoning called MUA. But that work was not completed, but there was a strong
feeling on the committee that there should not be high density commercial at that site. A “Tuesday
Night” deal was struck: the Oertle’s would be given the commercial zoning on the north end of the
property (along Southern Avenue), if the south end of the property was left for low density housing.
Renderings of a wonderful commercial hub was presented to the committee. There would be shops
and retail all anchored by the Walgreens. It was to be built in two phases with the Walgreens
completed fist. They even agreed to maintain the citrus until Phase II was started.
The committee agreed and the Heard Neighborhood reluctantly accepted that compromise.
Just like in the days of Wormser many people feel this was just a sham to get the Walgreens built. No
commercial development ever appeared, and the citrus was not maintained. But the Oertles and
their attorneys got their money.
A few attempts were made to rent the property to urban farmers, but they all failed to meet the
economic needs of the Oertles to farm the property.
The Oertles were unable to exploit the zoning change given to them by the SMVPC. Without
discussing the difficulty of dealing with 4 property owners, let’s just say, they could not procure a
developer.
So, they have repeatedly come back to the Committee and the neighborhood with new plans and
ideas. One of the more recent was to develop the remaining property into a commercial park. The
neighborhood negotiated in good faith and the SMVPC showed support with some modifications.
Again, all that effort just evaporated. Again, it was hard for all the Oertles to agree on what was best
for them and this is without adding the burden of considering what would be best for the
neighborhood and the Village.
That brings us to now.
The neighborhood has opposed this property being single family rentals from the very first time it
was proposed and every time after that. The SMVPC has shown its opposition repeatedly. But here
we are again with another high-powered attorney and a complete disregard for this property’s
history, the traditions of the neighborhood and wishes of the Village. That alone should be enough

Page 464
to dismiss this project outright. The General Plan of Phoenix passed by more than 70% approval by
the City’s voters because the City promised that within its many pages existed protection for
traditional historic neighborhoods from greedy land owners, relentless developers and high-
powered attorneys that have complete access to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Let’s hope that our current General Plan is more than just fantasy and a way to get votes.
Also, this product they are proposing is at best experimental. We have approved a similar
community closer to Central that is in an area that already has existing multifamily homes and was
unopposed by the existing neighborhoods. This product might fill a needed housing niche but as
expressed in a recent Business Journal article South Phoenix seems to be a target for this kind of
development. The primary reason for this seems to be land that is still relatively cheep in this part of
town.
What is wrong with this product: it combines the lack of efficiency and sustainability of the single-
family home with the lack of equity creation by its occupant. In other words, the landlord gets the
increase in property value while the tenant gets all or most of inconveniences of homeownership
with none of the benefits. This is not a type of development that promotes racial and ethnic equity
and equality. If we are going to let developers exploit our lower land values let them build for
sustainability (apartments and high density construction) or let them build something market rate
but affordable so that our community members can share in the future increase in land values.
This land has already been rezoned. Let the landowners do what they can, with what they have,
where they are.
I am in opposition to any zoning change on this property.
Greg Brownell 602-290-3300

Page 465
From: JEAN HOGG
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Proposal for 40th St and Southern, vote 9 Mar.
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 2:37:46 PM

Sir:

Once again I would like to voice my opposition to this plan as it now
stands, and I yield my speaking time to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you for listening and I hope you will give the concerns of the
neighborhood full consideration.

Jean Hogg

6235 S 37 St, 85042

Page 466
From: Jennifer Kinerk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:49:14 AM

Hi Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8). Thank you!

KIndly,
Jennifer and Kevin Kinerk

Page 467
From: Jennyfer Stratman
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
somosbuildbam@gmail.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 11:13:35 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. I am very concerned by the proposed development
project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this
proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Jennyfer Stratman
3502 E. Vineyard Rd
Phoenix AZ 85042

Page 468
From: Jennyfer Stratman
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Sunday, February 7, 2021 11:08:28 PM

Hi Enrique,
Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Thank you,

Jennyfer Stratman

Page 469
From: Joel & Donna Young
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/2021 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:29:07 AM

We strongly oppose Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8 zoning cases for 40th and Southern Ave.

We have lived in the area over 30 years and I sat on the SMVPC in the early 90’s. The community has worked

hard to maintain The Baseline Area Master Plan and Mixed use Agriculture to keep undesirable development

( complying ) taking over with complete disregard of the neighborhoods.

Please deny

Joel and Donna Young

Page 470
From: Joel & Donna Young
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: GPA SM 1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:05:30 PM

Please be advised we are apposed to the above referenced zoning cases. This is in no way compatible with the
Baseline Master Plan. 40th Street
and Southern is already a very busy intersection and high accident rate. This development density is too high and
will increase these problems.

It is a shame the developers are not willing to work with the neighbors and coincide with the lifestyle of the area
and stay within the Baseline
Master plan.

We are unable to speak at the meeting and yield our time to Patty McKinstry.

Joel and Donna Young

Page 471
From: Jon Allen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8)
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2021 8:47:31 AM

As a resident of South Phoenix I strongly oppose the plans for this project as presented.

1. It does not meet the criteria of the master plan for the area.
2. Each "new" proposal from the developer does nothing to address any of the objections
raised by local residents.

Regards,

Jon Allen

Page 472
From: Challoner, John
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:24:14 AM

Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8). Thank you!

Thanks,
John Challoner
6201 South 37th Street.
Phoenix, AZ 85042.

Page 473
From: jolyn owen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th street and southern zoning change
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:39:07 AM

Please note that my husband and I are against this zoning change. We were promised a
different use when Walgreens went in. Time doesn’t change this. I would like to yield my
speaking time to patty Mckinstrey
Jolyn Owen
5624 s 27th place
Sent from the all new Aol app for iOS [apps.apple.com]

Page 474
From: Karen and Sue
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 10:25:14 AM

Good morning Enrique,
My name is Karen Mischlispy and I am opposition to the purposed project at 40th Street and Southern
Ave. I wish to pass my time to speak to Trent Marchuk my neighbor. Also please send the link for me to
attend the meeting.
Hope you and your family are doing well.
Thanks,
Karen Mischlispy

Page 475
From: Karen and Sue
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: cases GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 1:19:53 PM

Good afternoon Enrique hope you and your family are doing well.
I would like to attend the virtual meeting with the South Mountain Village Planning committee meeting on
Tuesday, March 9th. Also I want to speak but please pass my speaking time Patty McKinstry.

Please enter this response into the record.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee Case Number:
GPA-SM-1-20-8 & companion Case Z-35-20-8.
Re: The “Sanctuary At South Mountain” purposed development at the Southwest corner of Southern
Avenue and 40th Street.
Submitted by Karen Mischlispy Home Address: 3818 E. St. Catherine Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85042

I am opposed to the "Sanctuary At South Mountain" development because: a.) it does not meet the
Baseline Master Plan, b.) the density for this development is to high for this area, c.) impact to future
development along Southern Avenue from 40th Street to 24th Street, d.) high density development
creates issues with traffic, parking for staff, visitors, and guests, and e.) the continued pressure to change
and or modify the Zoning and General Plan Amendment is not appropriate for this area. This type of
development would be better located closer to Central Avenue to allow access to the light rail. I
am concerned with the developer's fast-tracking effort to send this negative development through the city
process during a pandemic. This is vital to my future neighborhood and community. The Baseline Master
Plan identified the need to retain the historical significance for future development.

I have lived and worked in the area most of my life. I have seen many changes some good and some not
so good. I want the corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue to be development appropriately to the
area.

Thank you,
Karen Mischlispy
home phone: 602 438-2928

Page 476
From: Kaylee Colter
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 12:08:40 PM

As a neighbor who will be impacted by the proposal for rezoning at 40th Street and Southern
Ave, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposal as it has been submitted. The owners
of this property are requesting a change in zoning and because they are asking to make a
change to our community I believe that they should make a good faith effort to maintain the
character intended by the zoning regulations. This proposal does not do this. Not only is the
density too high to be appropriate, they have made very little effort to mitigate the high
density by doing things such as providing more open space, increasing landscape buffers or
integrating the community wide bridle trail. We have spoken with the owners and intended
developers about these items and while they say they will make changes, those changes never
end up in the proposals. I therefore have difficulty trusting that they have a vested interest in
the community. I urge you to hold firm to the special requirements outlined by the
Agricultural overlay. Once the property is developed there is no going back. Thank you for
your time and effort.

Kaylee Colter
3939 E. Saint Catherine Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Begin forwarded message:

From: Trent Marchuk
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St &
Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: February 3, 2021 at 1:48:07 PM MST
To: Trent Marchuk

mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov, council.district.2@phoenix.gov,
council.district.3@phoenix.gov, council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov, council.district.8@phoenix.gov,
SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov, enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov,
somosbuildbam@gmail.com

Page 477
From: Keena Ortega
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SOMO BUILDINGBAM
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 3:45:05 PM

I, Keena Armijo, want it to be note and or stated that I am opposed to GPA SM-1-20-8 Z-35-
20-8 and yield my time to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you.

Page 478
From: Kent June
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:51:54 PM

Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion
Case Z-35-20-8).

The Planning Department and communities spend a lot of time and energy developing plans
that reflect what communities see their future neighbourhoods and living environments
providing for their families and support businesses. Granted, plans by nature are meant to be
an outline of these visions and will always be subject to change as the world changes around
us; however, this proposed development totally ignores the vision that was developed for this
unique area in South Mountain. The owners of this property from the beginning and
continuing with their different development iterations have ignored this plan and the folks
living in the immediate area while promoting plans that would maximize their ROI. The South
Mountain Village Planning Committee told this group numerous times that this plan is not
right for this parcel of land. This plan needs to be rejected to send a message to the owners to
come up with a plan that reflects the plan for the area while supporting the needs of the area.

Sincerely,

Kent June
3602 E Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 479
From: Lisa and Jeff Blankenship
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; council.district.3@phoenix.gon; Council District 4;
Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain
VPC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: *Needing your help opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 & GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Sunday, February 21, 2021 2:10:49 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. I am very concerned - even scared - because of a proposed development
project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open public discussion
about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre rezoning application set
a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in
active discussion? If it can happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to
happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am supportive of having
those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made through precedent created by a single 17
acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Lisa Blankenship
5628 W Euclid Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339

Page 480
From: Lori Gardner
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 2:30:17 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Lori Gardner
6445 S. 32nd St
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 481
To: Cynthia Gosa-Lazaro
Subject: Fwd: Needing your help opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tatiana Peña Marchuk
Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: Needing your help opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To:

Trent and I have been working on a rezoning issue in South Phoenix. We have been working to help Carlos and the rest
of City Council be more supportive to halt some high density housing pushes. Trent had started working more in this last
summer and has done a great amount to influence the rezoning. We also have enlisted our entire neighborhood.
Now we are asking for your help to support our efforts by emailing City Council officials.
We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard. The Applicant has used COVID-19 to silence the
neighbors in an attempt to push through an inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the attending consequences to the
residents of South Phoenix.

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because of a proposed development
project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades- old planning without open public discussion about the
unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering
precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If
it can happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am supportive of having those
conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made through precedent created by a single 17 acre
rezoning application.

Lottie V. Lecian
1847 E. Atlanta Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85040

e challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South Mountain Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and
Salt River to South Mountain) to do the same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.
Below, we have provided the email to send and the directions. Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email, (The title is needed to help this email be more effective).
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this project,
4. Sign with your name and physical address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!

3731 E Saint Anne Ave [google.com]
Phoenix, AZ 85042 [google.com]

--
Thank you,

Page 482
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

From: llecian@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:15 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: My concern is that we don't need high density buildings in this neighborhood. It is like living in
housing projects of the past.

Yes I am concerned about the property on 40th Street in South Phoenix.
Lottie Lecian

-----Original Message-----
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
To: llecian@aol.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 16, 2021 9:06 am
Subject: RE: My concern is that we don't need high density buildings in this neighborhood. It is like living in housing
projects of the past.

Good morning,

How are you? Is your email below related to a zoning case in particular? (So that we can add it to the case file)

Thank you,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per
day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

From: llecian@aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 6:20 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: My concern is that we don't need high density buildings in this neighborhood. It is like living in housing projects
of the past.

Page 483
From: Lu Ann Winters
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Meeting regarding South Mountain Area
Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 11:33:04 PM

Enrique,

I will not be able to attend the following meeting on Tuesday, February 9th at 6 p.m.,
but would like to give my input as a resident in the South Mountain area of Phoenix.

The proposal at 40th St & Southern. Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-
35-20-8)"

I am very much concerned about this proposal as it would add more high-density
housing to an area that is already over populated. The traffic in this area just gets
busier and busier and with more housing it will only get worse. Our streets are not
built for this capacity of traffic.

The following are reasons this project would not be good for our community:

This proposal will destroy the official planning between 24th St and 40th St
between Southern Ave and Vineyard
This area is known as the Mixed Use Agriculture (MUA) District and is planned
for low density housing, among many other requirements.
The MUA contains 16+ million sq ft of remnant farmland bookended by this
project's site to the east and the Arbors to the west.
This proposal will destroy the MUA by setting a precedent of high density
residential at both ends of the MUA district (24th St and 40th St)..
The MUA is within the Baseline Area, which is boxed between Central and 40th
St and Southern and the Preserve
With the MUA destroyed, the Certainty and Character of the Baseline Area
(which is stated as an integral part of the General Plan) will be gutted
Being that the Baseline Area is the largest district in our Village, the South
Mountain Village will also be gutted.
This proposal has far reaching negative consequences to shaping the future of
South Phoenix.
High density housing is not itself bad. Developing high-density housing without
the attending infrastructure and services is short-sighted and bad for the
community.
South Phoenix already lacks the commensurate infrastructure and services to
support such extreme, one-off deviation from the General Plan.
Safety is inextricably linked to proper infrastructure development.
If the attending costs of these liabilities were actually included in the developer's
plan, the project would not be profitable.
The only way for this project to be profitable - and for people outside of South
Phoenix to make lots of money - is to shift those costs to the people of South
Phoenix.

Page 484
Thank you for taking into consideration these reasons against this project.

Sincerely,

Lu Ann Winters
3434 East Baseline Road, #323
Phoenix, AZ 85042
310-614-4606

Page 485
From: Lu Ann Winters
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC;
Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com; Mayor Gallego
Subject: Fw: Please Help: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:27:09 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because of a
proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to
oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open public
discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre
rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first
engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our historic community, where
else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am supportive of
having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made through precedent
created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

I am also very much concerned about this proposal due to our streets already being overly crowded with
all the recent developments being added.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Lu Ann Winters
3434 East Baseline Road, Unit #323
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 486
From: Lu Ann Winters
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Friday, March 5, 2021 5:23:27 PM

Enrique,

I am writing in opposition to the above proposal to the land on 40th and Southern in
Phoenix, Arizona. I am in opposition because it will create too much density of
population in the area and goes in direct opposition to the master plan for the area.
My greatest concern is how it will affect traffic in the area. We already have
congestion most of the time on Baseline and Southern and this project would only
add to the problem.

I won't be able to attend the meeting, but would like to give the time that would be
allotted to me to speak to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you,

Lu Ann Winters
3434 East Baseline Road, #323
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 487
From: When Jones
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to building plan at Southern and 40th St
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 5:42:07 PM

I am a property owner in Bartlett Heard Ranch. I am opposed to the building plan for the
corner of Southern and 40th St - particularly the current proposed density. I would like to
donate my speaking time at tomorrow’s meeting to Patty McKinstry.
Thank you for your efforts in this matter.
Marianne Walden
602-332-0115
3844 E Vineyard Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 488
From: Marianne Randall
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Oppose project
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 7:51:07 AM

I want to be noted as opposing cases GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8.

Thank you
Marianne Randall

Page 489
From: Mary Hagerty
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: #9 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8) and #10 Z-35-20-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 2:57:02 PM

My name is Mary Hagerty and I live in the South Mountain area. I am against both of these
cases that are on the agenda for the upcoming SMPVC meeting on March 9.

I yield my time to Patty McKinstry.

Mary Hagerty
3241 E Maldonado Dr.
Phoenix, 85042

Page 490
From: Mary Jene Flores
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Somos buildbam
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 3:39:25 PM

I mary jene Flores, Am stating that I am opposed to GPA Sm-1-20-8 & 2-35-20-8
I yield my time to Patty McKinstry
Thank you,Sincerely
Mary jene Flores

Page 491
From: Mary-Laura Brooks
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2021 4:07:10 PM

Dear City Council, Mayor, , Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I have lived in the South Phoenix area for 40 years. I have watched the growth and
development - most positive, but some, such as this plan, leans to the negative. I am familiar
with the South Mountain Village plans for development and question where this plan ( 40th St
& Southern ( Z-35-20-8 & GPA 1-20-8) fits in. We are living in a historically significant area
and that is a reason that most of us choose to continue to reside here. It's different then the
suburbs that surround the Valley of the Sun. Its uniqueness should and must be preserved by
thoughtful discussion based on South Mountain residents community minded input and
decisions. It is not the developers' or land owners or city council role to make absolute
choices about zoning and other developmental concerns . It is the right and role of the
community and tax paying residents to have the majority of say.

Another concerning fact is there has been minimal public communication about this rezoning.
As our community deals with the COVID crisis, it is even more essential that people are made
more aware of any proposed zoning changes. People are focused on their health and welfare so
it is imperative that a greater effort be made to communicate changes . If you say there are
signs posted with zoning info or meetings, please consider that even though people may live
in South Phoenix, they may not pass this particular part of the city on a regular basis. This
proposal is of significant concern to to all South Phoenix residents because it could set a
precedent for future development.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter

Mary-Laura Brooks

2127 E. Fawn Dr. Phoenix 85042

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-
35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date:Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:56:32 -0700
From:Kaylee Colter
To:Richard Brooks , Mary-Laura Brooks

Since you will soon be neighbors too, perhaps you might help us create some opposition if you
have some time?

Page 492
Begin forwarded message:

From: Trent Marchuk
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St &
Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: February 3, 2021 at 1:48:07 PM MST
To: Trent Marchuk

Hi Neighbors,

If you feel passionate about what you read below in the email below,
please forward this entire email string to the City officials listed below and
add your own thoughts in opposition to the project.

Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email,
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this
project,
4. Sign with your name and mailing address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!

mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov,
council.district.2@phoenix.gov, council.district.3@phoenix.gov,
council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov,
council.district.8@phoenix.gov, SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov,
enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov, somosbuildbam@gmail.com

We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard.
The Applicant has used COVID-19 to silence the neighbors in an attempt
to push through an inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the
attending consequences to the residents of South Phoenix.

We challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South
Mountain Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and Salt River to
South Mountain) to do the same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.

Your sending an email to our elected representatives at this time is
absolutely critical.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM

Page 493
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-
1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council
District 6 PCC ,
, Council District 8 PCC
, ,
Enrique Bojorquez , Somos BuildBam

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and
Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even
scared - because of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave
(Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning
without open public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure,
health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering
precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first engaging the
broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our historic
community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic
developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in
development, I am supportive of having those conversations as a community.
But, the changes should not be made through precedent created by a single 17
acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 494
From: Mary-Laura Brooks
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Cases GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8 RE: 40th St & Southern
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 5:46:44 PM

Dear Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola

Please add this email in the record as me opposing the the cases GPA
SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8.

My main concerns are density and related traffic issues that will result
from proposed density. I also hope those involved will respect the
uniqueness of South Phoenix and it's agricultural history. Why destroy
what has been so diligently maintained throughout the years. I'd like
future generations to have a glimpse of the past of this great
community rather than all the brick, mortar and pavement that is so
prevalent in today's growth.

Please yield my time to speak to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you

Mary-Laura Brooks

Page 495
From: When Jones
To: PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4;
Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Enrique A Bojorquez-
Gaxiola; Mayor Gallego; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:20:05 PM

Hello,
My name is Marianne Walden. I’m a homeowner in Bartlett-Heard Ranch. I’d like to state that
I am not in favor of allowing the proposed rental housing development at the corner of
Southern and 40th St. There is presently a lot of traffic congestion at that corner at rush hour
with traffic coming south on 40thSt and traffic trying to turn in and out of Walgreens and the
Shell station on the other corner. Adding the additional amount of vehicles that this
subdivision would bring to this area would create a lot of daily frustration and dangerous
situations for the residents.
I’m requesting that the city not approve this overcrowded development plan, and remain with
a plan that would have either one or two houses per acre.
Thank you for your consideration.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: When Jones
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:55 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-
35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: Zack lindsay

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-
8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: Trent Marchuk

Hi Neighbors,

If you feel passionate about what you read below in the email below, please forward
this entire email string to the City officials listed below and add your own thoughts in
opposition to the project.

Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email,
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this project,
4. Sign with your name and mailing address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!

mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov,

Page 496
council.district.2@phoenix.gov, council.district.3@phoenix.gov,
council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov,
council.district.8@phoenix.gov, SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov, enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov, somosbuildbam@gmail.com

We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard. The Applicant
has used COVID-19 to silence the neighbors in an attempt to push through an
inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the attending consequences to the
residents of South Phoenix.

We challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South Mountain
Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and Salt River to South Mountain) to do the
same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.

Your sending an email to our elected representatives at this time is absolutely critical.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council District 6 PCC
, , Council District 8 PCC
, , Enrique Bojorquez

, Somos BuildBam

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

Page 497
If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave [google.com]
Phoenix, AZ 85042 [google.com]

Page 498
From: M Bontrager
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:11:07 AM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned because of a proposed
development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to
oppose this proposal.
This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion?
If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Sincerely,

Monique Bontrager
6401 S 37th str PHX AZ 85042
602 770 4526

Page 499
From: M Bontrager
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to Agenda item #8 for tomorrows Village Planning MTG
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:44:21 AM

Good Morning Enrique,

I’d like to register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8). Happening
02/09/202. I do not need to speak.

Thank you and have a great day

Monique Bontrager

============

Page 500
From: noblemanor@cox.net
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Date: Friday, March 5, 2021 6:23:59 PM

We, the Noble family, owners of property at 3880 E Vineyard Rd don't wish to speak but
would like it known that we are opposed to the proposal for the land at 40th St and Southern.
We will let Patty speak for us. Thank you.

Page 501
From: Somos BuildBam
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 8 PCC; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Opposition Petitions (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 12:11:59 PM
Attachments: Opposition Petition to Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8.pdf

Hi Enrique,

Please find attached signatures in opposition to the planned development off of 40th St and
Southern.

Kindly request to add to the case file for Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8.

94.5% (52 of 55 ) residential parcels to the immediate south of this proposal are in
active opposition to this proposal.
This comprises 80+ acres of adjacent and contiguous land in active opposition
This is over six times (6x) the land area of the proposal, using county assessor
numbers, that is in active opposition.
Another nearby 12 property owners, comprising another ~20 acres, are also in active
opposition

We hope this dispels any prior unsubstantiated misrepresentation counter to the following
points:

1. The vast majority of neighbors are in active opposition to this proposal
2. This proposal will hurt the South Mountain Community
3. Somosbuildbam.org does not represent a "small handful", but have represented the
views of many residents in the presented opposition to-date;

Please note, the above does not include all of the active opposition to this project received to-
date, just a catalog of the immediate neighbors.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

Page 502
Page 503
Page 504
Page 505
Page 506
Page 507
Page 508
Page 509
Page 510
Page 511
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 19:11:53 -0700
Subject: 40th st and southern property virtual hearing next week Feb9
hi Enrique - I live in Heard ranch and recently remodeled my home with significant iinvestment. I would like to attend
this meeting as I am concerned about the high density neighborhood being planned even after initial inputs to the
developer on the intent of this neighborhood and better options for this parcel. We suggested win-win options to
current residents and developer and would like to hear what the development team has to say about the inputs.Can u
pls send me the invite to the virtual meeting.
rgds
Raj Chotalla
3840 E Vineyard
Phoenix 85042

Page 512
From: Regena Gustafson
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8 40th and Southern Project
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 4:19:13 PM

This is to register our opposition to the project Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8 40th and Southern
Project.

While I am unable to attend and speak to this matter directly, I would like to yield my time to Patty
McKinstry.

Thank you for your time. Jeremy and Regena Gustafson

WARNING! WIRE FRAUD ADVISORY
Wire fraud and email hacking/phishing attacks are on the rise! If
you receive an email containing Wire Transfer Instructions, DO NOT
RESPOND TO THE EMAIL! Instead, call your loan officer or closer
immediately, using previously known phone number and NOT any
information provided in the email, to voice verify the information
prior to sending any funds.

Page 513
Page 514
Page 515
From: Robert Underwood
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Trent Marchuk; Patty & Bruce McKinstry
Subject: South Mountain Village Commission meeting 3-9-21
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:02:07 PM

Good afternoon, Enrique I would like to request to speak tomorrow at the South Mountain Village
Planning Commission. I am a long time resident of the Bartlett Heard community and a business
owner that is adjacent to the proposed rezoning case. I am definitely opposed to the rezoning of
40th Street and Southern ( 2-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8) as proposed. I believe we can work with
the developer and owner to come up with an agreeable solution. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully Bob Underwood

robert l. underwood
chief executive officer

AAA LANDSCAPE
3747 E. Southern Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85040
P 602.437.2690 F 602.437.2970
www.aaalandscape.com [aaalandscape.com]

We Beautify the World

Page 516
From: LYNN NOBLE
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:10:46 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Ronald and Lynn Noble
3880 E Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 517
From: Sandy Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC Meeting February 9, 2021
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:37:40 AM

Good morning Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda item#8 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-
8).

I wiill also give my time to speak to Trent Marchuk.

Thank you,

Sandy Bawden

Page 518
From: Sandy Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC March 9 Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:14:55 AM

Good morning Enrique,

I hope you are doing well. Please register my opposition to Agenda item#9 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

I will also give my time to speak to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you,

Sandy Bawden

Page 519
From: Sara Dunsford
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Needing your help opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 5:17:19 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned because of a
proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-
20-8). I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning
without open public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure,
health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering
precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first engaging the
broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our historic
community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic
developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in
development, I am supportive of having those conversations as a community. But,
the changes should not be made through precedent created by a single 17 acre
rezoning application.

With concern,

Mrs. Sara T. Dunsford
914 East Beth Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85042

Page 520
From: Jeff Zink
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 & GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 12:54:22 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because of a
proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to
oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open public
discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre
rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first
engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our historic community, where
else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am supportive of
having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made through precedent
created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Jeff and Stephanie Zink
2115 W. Vineyard Road
Phoenix, AZ 85041

Page 521
From: Tanis June Earle
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Patty McKinstry
Subject: 3/9/21 SMVPC Meeting GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 9:37:46 AM

Good morning Enrique,

My husband and I would like for it to be noted at Tuesday's meeting that we are very much in
opposition to Agenda Item #9 and #10: GPA-SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8.
We yield our time to Patty McKinstry to speak in unified opposition.

We own and live at 3602 E Vineyard Rd Phoenix, AZ 85042
Bartlett Heard Ranch Neighborhood

Thank you,
Tanis and Ambrose Earle
602.469.0617

Page 522
From: Tanis June Earle
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting GPA-SM-1-20-8/Z-35-20-8
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:56:07 AM

Good morning Enrique,

My husband and I would like for it to be noted at tomorrow's meeting that we are very much
in opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

We own and live at 3602 E Vineyard Rd Phoenix, AZ 85042
Bartlett Herd Ranch Neighborhood

Thank you,
Tanis and Ambrose Earle
602.469.0617

Page 523
From: Tatiana Peña Marchuk
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:46:53 AM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Tatiana Peña
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 524
From: Ted Wall
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:28:05 AM

Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8). Thanks!!

Sincerely -

Theodore R Wall
INSIGHT VALUATION
3820 E Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

602.663.4131
Ted.wall@insight-valuation.com

Page 525
From: Thom Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC Meeting Tonight February 9, 2021
Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:20:19 AM

Hello Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda item#8 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case
Z-35-20-8). This development is not a good fit for this property.

Thank you,

Thom Bawden

Page 526
From: Thom Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC March 9 Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:21:59 AM

Hello,

Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #9 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion case Z-35-20-8). I will also give my time to speak to
Bob Underwood.

Thank you,

Thom Bawden

Page 527
From: Tina Behrens
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:57:24 AM
Importance: High

As an established resident of the Bartlett Heard Ranch, I urge you to oppose this proposal. Allowing
development that erodes the General Plan that was created and approved by this community is a
tremendous blow to those of us who work hard to care for and foster this unique neighborhood.

Please DO NOT allow any zoning changes to this property.

Sincerely,

Tina Leadbetter
3268 E. Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council District 6 PCC
, , Council District 8 PCC
, , Enrique Bojorquez

, Somos BuildBam

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because of a
proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you
to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent
land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our
historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

Page 528
If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made
through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 529
From: Tina Behrens
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:24:53 PM

I’d like to register my opposition to the proposed development at 40th Street & Southern Ave in
Phoenix (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8). I would like to yield my time to speak to Patty McKinstry.

Please let me know if you need additional information.

Tina Leadbetter
3268 E. Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 530
From: Tod Hegstrom
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: SE Corner 40th St & Southern - Zoning Change Request - Apposed
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 5:15:45 PM

To All -

Proposal: Zoning Change Request at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-
1-20-8)

My Position: Opposed to the above sited zoning changes.

Significant time and effort has been placed, by dozens of South Phoenix
residents, into constructing the plans for the South Mountain area. And
more specifically to the Baseline Corridor.

Obviously things change, the plans can change. However, the plan has
NOT changed.

The zoning request is not consistent with the plan and zoning request
significantly changes the use. High Density Residential.

We've lost the flower gardens, we've lost the citrus groves, we've lost
the cotton fields. We've been inundated with so many apartment
complexes and high density housing ... and it has to STOP.

Yes, I remember all of those beautiful attributes of South Phoenix. I've
lived in South Phoenix for over four decades. My spouse grew up in
South Phoenix. Our kids grew up in South Phoenix, and our kids did NOT
move away. Our grandkids are growing up in South Phoenix.

I know what we had, I know what we have. A lot has changed. This
zoning should not be changed.

Stop it here. Stop it now.

Respectfully Submitted,

- Tod

Tod Hegstrom
602.758.5855
16th St & Southern Area

Psalms 37:5 | Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him;
and he shall bring it to pass.

Page 531
"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."
St. Augustine/Augustine of Hippo

And, for the Geeky types:
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
returned 0 results
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand
binary, and those who don't.

Page 532
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Cc: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher; Bob Underwood; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; FABIOLA MARQUEZ; Greg Brownell;
Pattihoash@gmail.com; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Patty Mckinstry
Subject: Notes 3/4/21 - 40th St Follow Up - D8 Meeting
Date: Thursday, March 4, 2021 4:27:45 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image001.png
image002.png
40th&Southern_3.04.21.pdf

Hi Adriana and Councilmember Garcia,

Thank you for organizing today's meeting between the Councilmember, members of the
community, members of the SMVPC, and the Applicant. As mentioned during the call, I was
- and am in this email - playing the role of resident and constituent.

The neighbors are grateful that the Applicant recognized today that there has been a
misconception on the part of the Applicant for the last 8 months. The Applicant correctly
observed that the pro-development neighbors are, and have been, willing to work on a solution
and a compromise. We can't help but think of all the potential unnecessary churn (in both
time and money) that has resulted from the Applicant's unilateral propagation of this
misconception. For that recognition, we are grateful

Main Concerns

Please see attached the presentation the neighbors collectively put together to succinctly
capture our main concerns. These main concerns can be boiled down to:

1. Density,
2. Density Transition, and
3. Attending Legal Documents

Any other concerns brought up by the Applicant are representative of the Applicant's
concerns and not the neighbors' primary concerns.

Just as the Neighbors lack a decree to plan the land around them, it is hard to imagine a
Village Planning Committee, Planning Commission, or even a City Council willing to
substitute a myopic view on one proposal when such a devastating Precedent would negatively
reverberate throughout the legal and governing documents, including at least 400+ acres of
surrounding land.

Key Take-Aways

Due to the trend towards convoluted PUDs, the neighbors strongly prefer hard zoned
categories.
The South Parcel S-1 zoning needs to change, since S-1 is antiquated. We support
upgrading to RE-35, but concede up to R1-18.
The North Parcel's C-2 w/ stipulations is preferred not to change and to remain as-is.
These stipulations were negotiated in good faith and the neighbors, including the
business owner to the west, have tangibly performed their end of the agreement.
The property owner is not known to have yet tangibly performed any portion of
their agreement - including not even marketing the land properly for 15+ years.

Page 533
Any change to the existing C-2 stipulations will require a hearing with the
SMVPC
To demonstrate the pro-development nature of the neighbors, we proactively
concede further an openness to negotiating the existing stipulations to allow some
level of residential on the north 7 acres.
The Applicant is invited to work with the Neighbors to collectively determine
what trade-offs are acceptable.

In support of the above and the discussions today, there have been some minor
adjustments made to the deck. If you have any questions, please reach out and we will be
happy to explain each point of clarification.

The benefit of allowing the neighbors to share what they have collectively organized in
advance is a great efficiency that is invaluable to productive conversation. Your continuing to
allow the practice is of great value to the process and to transparency. We recognize that the
result of these neighbor slides is that the ensuing conversation is focused and we can
accomplish a lot in just one hour.

Optimism

The neighbors remain optimistic. We see a path forward to work with the Applicant, if they
so desire to work with us. If they do not, we recognize this market is sufficiently conducive to
another developer being willing to work with the community - especially if/when the land is
actually marketed properly.

We have recognized the current, legal hard zoning and shared the neighbors' preferred
outcome based upon decades old agreements that the neighbors have performed upon, but the
property owner has not.

Despite this situation, the pro-development neighbors have provided additional concessions
that should be sufficient for a respectful developer to act upon and realize their required rate of
return.

We remain willing to discuss further and find a mutually agreeable solution

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:41 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:
Hi Adriana,

We met as Neighbors tonight and will be able to accommodate the meeting tomorrow at
12n.

Depending how that conversation goes, we could use Monday 9a as a follow-up discussion.

Thank you,
Trent

Page 534
Page 535
Page 536
Page 537
Page 538
Page 539
Page 540
Page 541
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Support_Petition Signatures_01-26-21.pdf (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 12:24:10 PM

Hi Enrique,

Please add this email to the official case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8.

Somosbuildbam.org reviewed the Applicant's support petition submissions as found in the
Records Request file entitled, "Support_Petition Signatures_01-26-21.pdf". Our resident
collective counted 249 submissions in total.

With the below concerns, we strongly believe that the validity and integrity of the Applicant's
support petition should be carefully analyzed and request the City to perform additional due
diligence.

A general observation is that all 249 submissions lack a date. The neighbors believe that it
matters to know when these signatures were supposedly collected. Does the City share that
concern?

A second general observation is that the level of organization and effort that went into this
activity must have been well planned and taken significant time. When the Applicant's plan
was rejected in 2019, it was with a recommendation to start with the neighborhood
homeowners next time around. Why is there virtually no support for this proposal garnered
from the neighborhood homeowners and property owners within the Baseline Area Overlay
District (BAOD) nor in the Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District?

More specifically, our analysis indicates that over one in four of the Applicant's submissions
are open to challenge based upon a simple initial analysis:

46 submissions appear to lack actual signature,
13 addresses cannot be found,
5 submissions have addresses listed outside the Village or at a motel, and
1 was a duplicate.

However, we have particular concern about 3 households:

1. Ron Apodaca. Mr Apodaca claims he never signed the Applicant’s petition. He states
that she approached him at a gas station, asked him to sign, and he refused. He was
coming from work and wearing a name tag that identified him. Mr Apodaca is surprised
and concerned that his signature appears to be forged.
2. Phil Keyack. The address associated with this signature is listed as owned by Ronald
and Lynn Noble. Phil Keyack was staying as a guest temporarily at the Noble
residence. Phil Keyack did not have authorization from the Noble family to sign for
their property address. Mr Noble, the property owner, is opposed to this project and is
surprised and concerned their address appears to be misrepresented by the Applicant.
This opens a question for about 118 (or nearly half) of the submissions where the
signatory does not match the last name of a registered property owner.
3. William and Janet Sills. William and Janet were dear members of our community. We

Page 542
would like to know the dates of these signatures. William is now deceased, but he
battled with dementia for quite some time. Janet has had her own health issues for quite
some time and is no longer in the home. They both reportedly have actively fought for
the community against opportunistic developers in the past. Multiple neighbors have
cared for and watched over William "Stu" and Janet for years. There is strong suspicion
among some of those neighbors that someone may have taken advantage of William
"Stu" and Janet's declining and elderly state when securing their signatures. Would this
be of concern to the City?

We have found other anomalies with the submitted signatures, but the above are the most
straight-forward to explain and are deeply concerning.

One neighbor believes that there is a legal term when finding one forgery that calls all
accompanying submissions into question. They mentioned the phrase “Falsus en uno Falsus
en omnibus” which supposedly means "False in one false in all".

We are not lawyers, so could not definitively state that a forgery occurred nor what would be
the remedy if it did occur. Can you guide us in this matter? Do you need any further details
from the neighbors to support any of the above?

What does the City do with the signatures themselves when provided information about
misrepresented signatures that have been submitted?

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

Page 543
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:55 PM
To: Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Cc: BILL GLOVER; Bereket Gebre-Egziabher; Beth Postma; Bob Underwood; FABIOLA MARQUEZ; Greg
Brownell; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Patty Mckinstry; Ted Wall; Van Jackson; Pattihoash@gmail.com;
PDD South Mountain VPC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Marcia Busching
Subject: 40th & Southern 2-18-21 Meeting - Neighbor Presentation
Attachments: Councilmember Garcia 40th_Southern_02.18.21.pdf; 40th&Southern_CBRE_Flyer.pdf

Hi Adriana,

Please extend our gratitude to Councilmember Garcia for facilitating today's discussion. The neighbors are appreciative
and we indeed are interested in a follow‐up discussion.

Please find attached the neighbors' presentation from today as well as the flyer that has been used to market the land.

Also, please find comments below in reference to:

 Framing Density Increases
 Transitional Density Reference Points
 Neighbor Willingness to Negotiate

Framing of Density Increases

To Mr Morris' point, accurate framing of the density increase is important.

One way to consider the framing is the General Plan envisions 2 du/acre. This proposal asks for 11.2 du/acre. Hence,
we have simply represented a 460% increase relative to the General Plan ‐ which is a legal document.

A second way to see it is according to the hard zoning. Jason is right that normally C‐2 applied to the north parcel can
generally realize ~17 du/acre and the General Plan envisions 2 du/acre for the south parcel. However, creating the ~136
unit max for the 17 acres is at the heart a disingenuous calculation. It compares apples to oranges by using one generic
hard zoning number combined with a General Plan number. Basically, it uses mathematical gymnastics / smoke and
mirrors to inaccurately purport a 40% increase.

Since the General Plan was used in the first approach, the logically consistent way of showing this second perspective of
density increase is by using the existing hard zoning.

 Currently, the south 10 acre parcel is zoned S‐1 or 1 du/acre. That is ~10 units total for the south.
 The north parcel is currently zoned C‐2 w/ stipulations. These existing stipulations currently preclude any
residential use on those 7 acres. That is ~0 units total on the north.
 So, we have (10+0) 10 total dwelling units that can currently go on that combined land as it is currently zoned.
 That all equates to (193‐10)/10 or roughty an 1,800% increase, if we are to go with an apples to apples analysis.

So, is 460% increase or an 1,800% increase a better framing?

Transitional Density Reference Points

Page 544
That being said, the neighbors have not told the Applicant ‐ using his words ‐ to go away. We are optimistic a
compromise can be made. And Marcia Busching's compromise, as mentioned, the neighbors would be willing to explore
further.

The neighbors have consistently said Density is our main concern. The desire for "transitional density" is not in
reference to the one multi‐family complex kitty corner across the street (probably zoned before districting) nor the
vacant land to the north envisioned for eventual commercial park nor even the Industrial Park (which isn't that a form of
Commercial? please check bc the naming convention might otherwise throw a casual observer) to the east.

What's important to note is all of those references are outside of the Baseline Area Master Plan, the BAOD, and the
MUA. Historically, 40th St is a manmade barrier, because the past developers thought people would only buy homes in
the Tempe School District and wouldn't buy homes in the Roosevelt School District. (How fair is that?!) And Southern is
a manmade barrier between residential and the commerce park to the north that serves as a buffer to Industrial. So,
comparing this corner to the other three corners totally disregards context and real history.

Therefore, the reference point for proper density transition has always been from within the Baseline Area Master Plan
and from within the attending Overlay Districts to which this land is part. To frame it otherwise is misleading, at best.

Therefore, a jump from 0‐1 du/acre immediately to 10‐15 du/acre is simply not only incompatible to the General Plan,
but it is simply not appropriate Density Transition.

We do agree with, I believe Tamala?, that there is beauty in multiple types of housing options. And our area can be
inclusive of that vision, as the neighbors' willingness to negotiate demonstrates below.

Neighbor Willingness to Negotiate

Mr Morris represented early on that the only area he will not negotiate on is Density. Even before these negotiations,
Mr Morris dropped from 12 du/acre to just 11.2 du/acre months ago before even talking to the Neighbors. He stated
today that he refuses to budge on Density any further. Yet, that is ‐ and has been ‐ our primary concern.

The neighbors, on the other hand, have shown a willingness to come off the currently‐approved hard zone of 10 units
for the entire 17 acres to something along the lines of what Marcia has suggested ‐ which would be around 93 total
units. This would be a second HUGE gift to the property owners from the SMVPC.

 This is an 9x increase in total units relative to what is currently allowed. (~21 units on the south parcel and ~72
units on the north parcel).
 This equates to 5.38 du/acre total; already nearly double what any residential development has received in the
MUA so far!
 The neighbors haven't agreed to these specific numbers, btw, but they have agreed with the concept
 But, this proves we have at least shown a willingness to negotiate off of our stance of 2 du/acre by almost 3x!
 In return, the neighbors would prefer this not to be captured in a PUD, but prefer hard zoning to safeguard from
a negative Precedent to the rest of the Overlay Districts

So, we ask an objective assessment on who is being intractable in this situation?

Where is the reciprocated good faith from Mr Morris to actually work with the neighbors?

It could be that the above further exposes the fact that this is the wrong project for this location. Which we strongly
believe is the case. But, it is also within this Developer's rights and capacity to offer a different product type and
different proposal for this area. Single Family Rental is not their only competence; in fact, looking at Brown's website, it
isn't really even their primary competence. Doesn't South Mountain deserve the quality of a Developer's primary
competence anyhow?

Page 545
It is also within the landowner's rights and capacity to (finally!) market this land appropriately to attract the right type of
developer. In this market, we don't have to accept this proposal or nothing.

Please know that the above and attached represents a collective voice and not my own nor only a small handful of
voices.

We appreciate your voice so far and hope you will continue to use that powerful voice to represent the voices of your
constituents.

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:34 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:
Thank you Enrique. The time and energy you have put into the reply is appreciated.

Best,
Trent

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:20 PM Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:

Hello Trent,

Not sure if I’m understanding correctly, but my email yesterday was a follow‐up to a Friday email sent to the Council
District 8 office regarding your questions. Now, in regards to those questions, here is the Council District 8
response/information for tomorrow’s meeting:

 We will allow others to share their screens.

 Folks will not be on mute when they join and will have the ability to mute/unmute.

 Councilmember Garcia will facilitate the meeting.

 Organic conversation – folks will not be timed.

Once again, for anyone in the community who has not registered for tomorrow’s meeting, please register using this
link ahead of the virtual meeting which starts at 2:30pm tomorrow, 02/18:

Page 546
Page 547
Page 548
Page 549
Page 550
Page 551
Page 552
Page 553
Page 554
Page 555
Page 556
Page 557
Page 558
Page 559
Page 560
From: Van Jackson
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:04:04 AM

Enrique –

Please note that I am opposed to the above subject line and the other case related to it.

Thanks,

Van
Van Jackson
vanjacksonaz@gmail.com
602 438-7800

Page 561
From: Zack lindsay
To: PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4;
Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Enrique A Bojorquez-
Gaxiola; Mayor Gallego; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:33:36 PM

This is Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave is awe full. A single family rental community is
laughable and keeps people in poverty.
I’d rather have families achieve home ownership and build/invest in the future, than allow this
community to be build as a cash machine for a few.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: When Jones
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:55 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-
35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: Zack lindsay

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-
8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: Trent Marchuk

Hi Neighbors,

If you feel passionate about what you read below in the email below, please forward
this entire email string to the City officials listed below and add your own thoughts in
opposition to the project.

Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email,
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this project,
4. Sign with your name and mailing address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!

mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov,
council.district.2@phoenix.gov, council.district.3@phoenix.gov,
council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov,
council.district.8@phoenix.gov, SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov, enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov, somosbuildbam@gmail.com

Page 562
We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard. The Applicant
has used COVID-19 to silence the neighbors in an attempt to push through an
inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the attending consequences to the
residents of South Phoenix.

We challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South Mountain
Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and Salt River to South Mountain) to do the
same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.

Your sending an email to our elected representatives at this time is absolutely critical.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council District 6 PCC
, , Council District 8 PCC
, , Enrique Bojorquez

, Somos BuildBam

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Page 563
Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave [google.com]
Phoenix, AZ 85042 [google.com]
--
Zack Bruce Lindsay
Investment Properties & Dream Homes
HomeSmart Realty / 5225 N Central Ave, Suite 104 / Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: 602-653-8852

ZBLindsay@gmail.com

Page 564
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 7:25 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Somos BuildBam
Subject: Fwd: 40th & Southern 2-23-21 House of Helps Meeting w/ Councilmember Garcia

Hi Enrique,

Please add the below to the case files for Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPA‐SM‐1‐20‐8.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:39 PM
Subject: 40th & Southern 2‐23‐21 House of Helps Meeting w/ Councilmember Garcia
To: Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Cc: BILL GLOVER , Bereket Gebre‐Egziabher , Beth Postma
, Bob Underwood , FABIOLA MARQUEZ
, Greg Brownell , Patty & Bruce McKinstry ,
Patty Mckinstry , Ted Wall , Van Jackson
, Patti Trites, Southern Hills HOA ,
, Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola , M
Busching (Cartof) , Twanna Brunson

Too long; didn't read ‐ The below is long. It basically recounts the public discussion between Councilmember Garcia and
Trent Marchuk, acting as a concerned resident, during the House of Helps Meeting tonight. The main take‐away is laid
out early and we express gratitude to Councilmember Garcia. The full notes from the meeting follow, if further details
are of interest.

Good Evening Councilmember Garcia and Adriana,

Thank you both for joining the call tonight where the topic of the project at 40th St and Southern was raised as a
concern by Community Leaders in the South Mountain Village.

First and foremost, we thank Councilmember Garcia for his stated dedication to Process and for his stated Resolve to
listen to the voices of his Constituents. In particular, it was a great relief when we heard Councilmember Garcia
definitively state his position on what would happen if the Applicant attempts to bypass the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee (SMVPC) and go straight to the Planning Commission,

We were relieved to hear Councilmember Garcia say tonight, categorically and publicly, that such a project would not
receive his support. The Councilmember's respect for the SMVPC, including the Process involving his Constituents, is
appreciated.

For further context and notes on the meeting tonight, I have shared my notes below. It seemed relevant and significant
enough to update those on copy, but our key take‐away is summarized above.

Page 565
Prior to my appointment to the SMVPC, and as a concerned citizen, I was invited by Melissa Gallegos to speak to the
House of Helps/DGMF Block Watch Meeting tonight primarily on the topic of Speed Humps/Cushions. They had learned
about the successful collaboration effort between my prior community and the Phoenix Streets department and wanted
advice as the neighbors were stalled in their process. (Note: These good neighbors have gotten really far! They have
done the hard part of securing all the signatures required by the city. They need help getting the study done and the
funds raised and they should be good to go. If Councilmember Garcia can help them move this along, they would sure
appreciate his help.)

At the end of that topic, I was then asked to share information about the project at 40th St and Southern. To which I did
within the context of my accepting the opportunity to speak ‐ as a concerned citizen, resident, and neighbor.

The Community Leaders seemed to share the concerns that I expressed about overly densifying South Phoenix given the
lack of services (particularly medical) and retail. They expressed sympathy for the concern about the Precedent this
project would set for the relevant overlay district ‐ setting off a vicious domino effect down Southern from 40th St to
24th St.

The Community Leaders asked about the intended demographics of the proposal Since the neighbors have received
mixed messages on this point, (for example the Applicant has told the neighbors one thing but the Applicant's support
letters cite affordable housing options), I therefore touched on the potential for affordable housing. I also mentioned
the Applicant had told the neighbors that they worked with Mass Liberation Arizona and that the project indicated it
would not use traditional background checks. (See slide 15 of the Applicant's presentation from 2/9/21.)

When the Community Leaders expressed hesitation to this news, I quickly stated that as my being a local Bishop in South
Phoenix, I know that affordable housing is a recognized need for some members of my congregation. And, I stated that
members of my congregation have been parolees; I have personally helped more than one parolee get back on their feet
and everyone deserves a second chance.

Nonetheless, channeling Chairperson Trites, I stated that South Phoenix does not have to be the only part of Phoenix for
affordable housing and the only part of Phoenix for parolees to get back on their feet. These statements were met with
what seemed to be general agreement by the Community Leaders.

Given the intractable nature of the Applicant's position on Density (cited below), coupled with our learning today that
the Applicant is planning to present to the Planning Commission on Mar 4 prior to returning to the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee on Mar 9 ‐ thereby potentially negating the relevance of the SMVPC and calling into
question whether a SMVPC hearing will even be necessary ‐ I provided the following pointed response to a pointed
question posed by a Community Leader.

A Community Leader asked, "What can we do?"

To which I responded within the context that the Applicant appears to not care what the SMVPC thinks, nor may the
Applicant even care what the Planning Commission thinks, as the Applicant is signaling that they only care about
counting votes at City Council.

Therefore, I advised the Community Leaders that the only viable course of action that remains would seem to be to 1)
register their objection to the project with Councilmember Garcia and 2) register their objection with the other
Councilmembers throughout Phoenix.

At this point I believe Adriana was asked a question and Councilmember Garcia awas then given the opportunity to
speak.

Page 566
In Councilmember Garcia's opening words, disappointment was expressed in how the project had been framed by
myself to the Community Leaders. The Councilmember's summary innocently, yet incorrectly, framed my statements as
indicating the neighbors have a lack of hope for a compromise with the Applicant ‐ calling into question the productivity
of the Councilmember setting up a second meeting with the Applicant.

Councilmember Garcia brought the conversation to the macro level of his desire to develop Broadway and Southern as
his Legacy. There were a few follow‐up questions for the Councilmember before he segued into discussing the lack of
services in our community and mentioned the correlation between rooftops and getting those needed services.

At that juncture, I interjected and reinforced the Councilmember's position that the desired services do indeed require
rooftops. As a parenthetical, I observed that we need to be careful not to sacrifice the land set aside to be used by those
services in order to secure the rooftops those services require. Doing so would be circular and counter productive. This
is a concern we have yet to address about the project at 40th and Southern, fwiw.

But, the main point that I made was that the neighbors do indeed remain hopeful to reach a compromise with the
Applicant and look forward to continued talks ‐ despite the Applicant's demonstrably intractable stance refusing to
compromise on Density. Yet, thanks to Marcia Busching's artful initial attempt at compromise, the neighbors have
already come off from their original stance regarding Density. Yet, the Applicant has not even attempted to
reciprocate.

Therefore, if a compromise is not made, it will be due to the Applicant's obstinance ‐ and, though not explicitly stated
during tonight's meeting, cannot be laid at the feet of a willful misinterpretation of the neighbors' consistently pro‐
development stance.

Twanna chimed in next and reminded the Councilmember that no less than three times the Applicant stated on
Thursday that he simply would not negotiate on Density.

There was further discussion, mainly around questions about what it would take to attract medical services or even a
hospital to our district. It was enlightening to learn the Councilmember has had discussions with some of the big
operators of hospitals. The main concern he stated was that hospitals are going in close to freeways and that fact has
apparently posed a problem for placing a hospital in our district.

When that topic seemed to conclude, I asked the Councilmember a procedural question about the proposal at 40th and
Southern. The Applicant requested a 30 day continuance to return to the SMVPC on Mar 9, 2021. However, the
neighbors were informed today by the City Planner that the Applicant intends to present to the Planning Commission on
March 4, 2021. Depending on how that goes, it may or may not be necessary for the Applicant to even return to the
SMVPC. I then asked the Councilmember to help us better understand that process and the associated order of
operations.

To this question, Councilmember Garcia stated that some developers will attempt to go around their Village by going
straight to the Planning Commission. He confided that procedurally would be allowed ‐ and some Councilmembers
would sanction that approach.

We were very pleased to hear Councilmember Garcia's categorical denouncement of this tactic. Unequivocally, he
stated that if a Developer attempted to go around the SMVPC, that developer's project would not have the support of
Councilmember Garcia.

Thank you Councilmember Garcia for that clear and concise statement.

Thank you for coming to the meeting tonight and sharing updates on the project at 40th and Southern. The neighbors
are hopeful that a compromise can be reached.

Page 567
Thank you for affirming that Councilmember Garcia's office continues to strive to set up a second meeting between the
neighbors and the Applicant before the next SMVPC to see if any compromise can be attained. We trust expectations
for compromise, particularly around Density, will be bilateral and not just an unilateral expectation of capitulation by the
neighbors and the SMVPC.

Thank you Councilmember Garcia for helping us to spread the word about this project to our extended neighbors in the
Village. House of Helps are among those to whom we referenced on Thursday; the community concerned about this
project extends well beyond the immediate 135+ acres to the south, west, and southwest. The neighbors are sincere in
our representation that opposition to this project indeed extends throughout the South Mountain Village, into Laveen
and even into Council District 3.

In fact, prior to my appointment to the SMVPC and as a concerned resident, I have personally accepted the invitation to
make other presentations about this project at 40th and Southern to additional members of our community within the
next month..

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 4:54 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:
Hi Adriana,

Please extend our gratitude to Councilmember Garcia for facilitating today's discussion. The neighbors are appreciative
and we indeed are interested in a follow‐up discussion.

Please find attached the neighbors' presentation from today as well as the flyer that has been used to market the land.

Also, please find comments below in reference to:

 Framing Density Increases
 Transitional Density Reference Points
 Neighbor Willingness to Negotiate

Framing of Density Increases

To Mr Morris' point, accurate framing of the density increase is important.

One way to consider the framing is the General Plan envisions 2 du/acre. This proposal asks for 11.2 du/acre. Hence,
we have simply represented a 460% increase relative to the General Plan ‐ which is a legal document.

A second way to see it is according to the hard zoning. Jason is right that normally C‐2 applied to the north parcel can
generally realize ~17 du/acre and the General Plan envisions 2 du/acre for the south parcel. However, creating the
~136 unit max for the 17 acres is at the heart a disingenuous calculation. It compares apples to oranges by using one
generic hard zoning number combined with a General Plan number. Basically, it uses mathematical gymnastics / smoke
and mirrors to inaccurately purport a 40% increase.

Since the General Plan was used in the first approach, the logically consistent way of showing this second perspective
of density increase is by using the existing hard zoning.

 Currently, the south 10 acre parcel is zoned S‐1 or 1 du/acre. That is ~10 units total for the south.
 The north parcel is currently zoned C‐2 w/ stipulations. These existing stipulations currently preclude any
residential use on those 7 acres. That is ~0 units total on the north.
 So, we have (10+0) 10 total dwelling units that can currently go on that combined land as it is currently zoned.

Page 568
 That all equates to (193‐10)/10 or roughty an 1,800% increase, if we are to go with an apples to apples analysis.

So, is 460% increase or an 1,800% increase a better framing?

Transitional Density Reference Points
That being said, the neighbors have not told the Applicant ‐ using his words ‐ to go away. We are optimistic a
compromise can be made. And Marcia Busching's compromise, as mentioned, the neighbors would be willing to
explore further.

The neighbors have consistently said Density is our main concern. The desire for "transitional density" is not in
reference to the one multi‐family complex kitty corner across the street (probably zoned before districting) nor the
vacant land to the north envisioned for eventual commercial park nor even the Industrial Park (which isn't that a form
of Commercial? please check bc the naming convention might otherwise throw a casual observer) to the east.

What's important to note is all of those references are outside of the Baseline Area Master Plan, the BAOD, and the
MUA. Historically, 40th St is a manmade barrier, because the past developers thought people would only buy homes in
the Tempe School District and wouldn't buy homes in the Roosevelt School District. (How fair is that?!) And Southern
is a manmade barrier between residential and the commerce park to the north that serves as a buffer to Industrial. So,
comparing this corner to the other three corners totally disregards context and real history.

Therefore, the reference point for proper density transition has always been from within the Baseline Area Master Plan
and from within the attending Overlay Districts to which this land is part. To frame it otherwise is misleading, at best.

Therefore, a jump from 0‐1 du/acre immediately to 10‐15 du/acre is simply not only incompatible to the General Plan,
but it is simply not appropriate Density Transition.

We do agree with, I believe Tamala?, that there is beauty in multiple types of housing options. And our area can be
inclusive of that vision, as the neighbors' willingness to negotiate demonstrates below.

Neighbor Willingness to Negotiate

Mr Morris represented early on that the only area he will not negotiate on is Density. Even before these negotiations,
Mr Morris dropped from 12 du/acre to just 11.2 du/acre months ago before even talking to the Neighbors. He stated
today that he refuses to budge on Density any further. Yet, that is ‐ and has been ‐ our primary concern.

The neighbors, on the other hand, have shown a willingness to come off the currently‐approved hard zone of 10 units
for the entire 17 acres to something along the lines of what Marcia has suggested ‐ which would be around 93 total
units. This would be a second HUGE gift to the property owners from the SMVPC.

 This is an 9x increase in total units relative to what is currently allowed. (~21 units on the south parcel and ~72
units on the north parcel).
 This equates to 5.38 du/acre total; already nearly double what any residential development has received in the
MUA so far!
 The neighbors haven't agreed to these specific numbers, btw, but they have agreed with the concept
 But, this proves we have at least shown a willingness to negotiate off of our stance of 2 du/acre by almost 3x!
 In return, the neighbors would prefer this not to be captured in a PUD, but prefer hard zoning to safeguard from
a negative Precedent to the rest of the Overlay Districts

So, we ask an objective assessment on who is being intractable in this situation?

Where is the reciprocated good faith from Mr Morris to actually work with the neighbors?

Page 569
It could be that the above further exposes the fact that this is the wrong project for this location. Which we strongly
believe is the case. But, it is also within this Developer's rights and capacity to offer a different product type and
different proposal for this area. Single Family Rental is not their only competence; in fact, looking at Brown's website, it
isn't really even their primary competence. Doesn't South Mountain deserve the quality of a Developer's primary
competence anyhow?

It is also within the landowner's rights and capacity to (finally!) market this land appropriately to attract the right type
of developer. In this market, we don't have to accept this proposal or nothing.

Please know that the above and attached represents a collective voice and not my own nor only a small handful of
voices.

We appreciate your voice so far and hope you will continue to use that powerful voice to represent the voices of your
constituents.

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:34 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:
Thank you Enrique. The time and energy you have put into the reply is appreciated.

Best,
Trent

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:20 PM Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:

Hello Trent,

Not sure if I’m understanding correctly, but my email yesterday was a follow‐up to a Friday email sent to the Council
District 8 office regarding your questions. Now, in regards to those questions, here is the Council District 8
response/information for tomorrow’s meeting:

 We will allow others to share their screens.

 Folks will not be on mute when they join and will have the ability to mute/unmute.

 Councilmember Garcia will facilitate the meeting.

 Organic conversation – folks will not be timed.

Page 570
Once again, for anyone in the community who has not registered for tomorrow’s meeting, please register using this
link ahead of the virtual meeting which starts at 2:30pm tomorrow, 02/18:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMpd‐6spj8pGNxYxx7Avtfs9Q167yfptkCa
[us02web.zoom.us]

Thank you,

[google.com]

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola

[google.com]

Planner II – Village Planner

Planning & Development Department

Long Range Planning

200 W. Washington Street [google.com]

Phoenix, AZ 85003 [google.com]

Office: [google.com](602 [google.com]) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per
day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

Page 571
From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 5:58 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Cc: Bereket Gebre‐Egziabher ; Beth Postma ; Bob
Underwood ; FABIOLA MARQUEZ ; Greg Brownell
; Patty & Bruce McKinstry ; Patty Mckinstry ;
Ted Wall ; Van Jackson ; BILL GLOVER

Subject: Re: Sharing and Muting: Request to Participate in Subsequent Applicant/Neighbor Meetings ‐ Sanctuary at
South Mountain PUD ‐ February 18, 2021 meeting at 2:30pm

Thanks Enrique. We hope you are well, too!

My apologies for being a little slow or confused.

Were the questions originally forwarded on Friday, Feb 12 around 3p, per the original response below? And so today
you are requesting a follow‐up from the Council District 8 Office?

Or does your latest reply indicate that the questions have yet to be forwarded to request the needed guidance from
the Council District 8 office?

Thank you,

Trent

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 5:54 PM Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:

Hello Trent,

All is well! I hope you and everyone copied is doing great. I am going to forward your questions/requests regarding
the virtual meeting on 02/18 to the Council District 8 Office for further direction.

Thanks again for your patience.

Best,

Page 572
[google.com]

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola

[google.com]

Planner II – Village Planner

Planning & Development Department

Long Range Planning

200 W. Washington Street [google.com]

Phoenix, AZ 85003 [google.com]

Office: [google.com](602 [google.com]) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per
day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 5:27 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Cc: Bereket Gebre‐Egziabher ; Beth Postma ; Bob
Underwood ; FABIOLA MARQUEZ ; Greg Brownell
; Patty & Bruce McKinstry ; Patty Mckinstry ;
Ted Wall ; Van Jackson ; BILL GLOVER

Subject: Re: Sharing and Muting: Request to Participate in Subsequent Applicant/Neighbor Meetings ‐ Sanctuary at
South Mountain PUD ‐ February 18, 2021 meeting at 2:30pm

Page 573
HI Enrique,

Hope you are well!

We are anxious to use everyone's time efficiently on Thursday, especially given the COVID constraints.

We are looking forward to the responses to the below questions so we can prepare accordingly.

Thank you,

Trent

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 2:58 PM Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:

Good afternoon Trent,

Thank you for your email below regarding the meeting next week. I have forwarded your message to the Council
District 8 office for further direction regarding this. When I receive additional details, I can share this with you
ahead of the meeting.

Thanks again!

[google.com]

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola

[google.com]

Planner II – Village Planner

Planning & Development Department

Long Range Planning

Page 574
200 W. Washington Street [google.com]

Phoenix, AZ 85003 [google.com]

Office: [google.com](602 [google.com]) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per
day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 2:38 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Cc: Bereket Gebre‐Egziabher ; Beth Postma ; Bob
Underwood ; FABIOLA MARQUEZ ; Greg Brownell
; Patty & Bruce McKinstry ; Patty Mckinstry ;
Ted Wall ; Van Jackson
Subject: Sharing and Muting: Request to Participate in Subsequent Applicant/Neighbor Meetings ‐ Sanctuary at
South Mountain PUD ‐ February 18, 2021 meeting at 2:30pm

HI Enrique,

Yes, exhibits/pictures will indeed help; we will have presentation content to share during the meeting.

We assume that when the time comes during the meeting, our selected representative (or two, per the below) will
be given the opportunity to share content from their own screen..

Also, we request that all participants have the opportunity to control their own ability to mute and unmute their
microphones during this meeting. The first neighborhood meeting back in July 2020 muted all participants

Page 575
unilaterally and the neighbors were unable to come off of mute. It was, among other descriptors, stifling. A repeat
of that practice will perpetuate the perception of artificially restraining neighbor participation.

We assume an impartial moderator will help facilitate the discussion. If there is a lot of energy on a subject during
the open discussion portion, it is believed all participants will comport themselves in a respectful manner and the
facilitator will indeed facilitate.

For example, we could use the raise hand feature to ensure everyone has the opportunity to share
their perspective on a particular subject without having to feel the need to interrupt each other. The reason this is
brought up proactively is that I personally know some neighborhood participants are more shy than others, but all
neighborhood participants have value to add to this discussion.

Also, are we limited to a time allotment ‐ or will this meeting go as long as the conversation organically lasts? And
who will determine if there is a need for any follow‐up meeting?

Thank you,

Trent

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:11 PM Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:

Good afternoon All,

Happy Friday! I hope everyone is doing well. Below is the meeting invitation to the meeting organized by Council
District 8 between the applicant (GPA‐SM‐1‐20‐8 and Z‐35‐20‐8) and community members copied in this email:

You are invited to a Zoom meeting.

When: Feb 18, 2021 02:30 PM Arizona

Register in advance for this meeting:

https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMpd‐6spj8pGNxYxx7Avtfs9Q167yfptkCa
[us02web.zoom.us]

Page 576
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the
meeting.

Due to the number of participants and to have an efficient meeting, here are some recommendations ahead of
the meeting next week:

 Discuss the current proposal ahead of the meeting with community members and craft a shared vision for
what would you like to see at this site. (i.e. can the proposed uses be part of the shared vision?, etc.) ‐
Exhibits/pictures could help during the discussion.

 What are some things that you like vs. do not like of the proposal? What specific changes would you
recommend for this PUD? (i.e. setbacks, screening, landscaping, density, land use, design, other standards
etc.)

This same email will be shared with the applicant shortly (will be asking that they consider what changes they can
make to the PUD based on this discussion).

I don’t have details yet of how the meeting is going to be structured, but I imagine it could involve having
community members (perhaps 1 or 2 speakers on behalf community members?) provide their vision for this site
and recommend specific changes to the PUD. Then, the applicant will respond to the requested changes and a
discussion to unfold on the topics mentioned.

Please contact me with any questions!

Thank you very much,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola

[google.com]

Planner II – Village Planner

[google.com]

Planning & Development Department

Page 577
Long Range Planning

200 W. Washington Street [google.com]

Phoenix, AZ 85003 [google.com]

Office: [google.com](602 [google.com]) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per
day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 11:34 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Cc: Bereket Gebre‐Egziabher ; Beth Postma ; Bob
Underwood ; FABIOLA MARQUEZ ; Greg Brownell
; Patty & Bruce McKinstry ; Patty Mckinstry
; Ted Wall ; Van Jackson
Subject: Re: Request to Participate in Subsequent Applicant/Neighbor Meetings

Hi Enrique,

Please also add Ted Wall, on copy.

Thank you,

Trent

Page 578
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:46 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:

HI Enrique,

Please also add Van Jackson, on copy.

Thank you,

Trent

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 1:08 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:

Hi Enrique,

Please also add Beth Postma, on copy.

Thank you,

Trent

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:09 AM Trent Marchuk wrote:

Thanks Enrique.

Please also add Greg Brownell, on copy.

Would it be possible for you to share with us who has requested to join? We plan to prepare together and
don't want to leave any of our neighbors out.

Thank you,

Trent

Page 579
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:05 PM Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
wrote:

Thank you Trent! I have shared the names with the SMVPC Chair as well.

Have a great evening,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola

[google.com]

Planner II – Village Planner

[google.com]

Planning & Development Department

Long Range Planning

200 W. Washington Street [google.com]

Phoenix, AZ 85003 [google.com]

Office: [google.com](602 [google.com]) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per
day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

Page 580
From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:40 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Cc: Patty Mckinstry ; Patty & Bruce McKinstry ; Bereket
Gebre‐Egziabher ; FABIOLA MARQUEZ ; Bob
Underwood
Subject: Re: Request to Participate in Subsequent Applicant/Neighbor Meetings

Hi Enrique,

Please also include Patty, Bereket, Fabiola, and Bob, on copy.

Thank you,

Trent

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:28 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:

Hi Enrique,

As requested, I am submitting this ask to be part of the meeting Chair Patti Trites will setup between the
Applicant and Neighbors regarding the current proposal on the SWc of 40th St and Southern related to Z‐35‐
20‐8.

We are optimistic that this Continuance will yield productive results whereby common ground may be found
between the Applicant, Neighbors, and the City.

Thank you,

Trent Marchuk

Page 581
Racelle Escolar

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:40 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Fwd: 40th & Southern: A Call for Healing
Attachments: 40th&Southern_3.09.21.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Due By: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 4:00 PM
Flag Status: Flagged

Hi Racelle,

Pleasure talking with you today. Appreciate your guidance on the most productive way to proceed regarding discussing
the case at 40th St and Southern Ave with the members of the Planning Commission.

Kindly ask that you forward the below email string and attachment to the Planning Commission members.

Also, please provide them my contact information below and signal to each of them that I would welcome discussing the
merits of this case simply from a Planning perspective.

I have studied this proposal in great detail, talked with many neighbors, and have catalogued my learnings in an
evidence‐based manner. This may prove helpful as the Planning Commission strives to objectively understand elements
of this case from a resident’s perspective.

Any questions I cannot facilitate an answer in an objective manner, I would be happy to take an assignment and return
and report back to the Planning Commission.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
602.499.9594
trentchristopher@gmail.com

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: 40th & Southern: A Call for Healing
To: Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola

Thank you Enrique. Appreciate the below.

See the presentation that was attached and you may see how the neighbors position has softened over time and our
willingness to negotiate on density.

The existing C‐2 has stipulations that appear to preclude residential development for this particular parcel. Stipulation
#11 states any change to the stipulations for this parcel would need to come back through the SMVPC.

Page1 582
In the neighbors’ concessions, we have signaled a willingness to explore some level of residential on the C‐2 parcel. This
is a concession, because in the past the neighbors were not open to residential on the c‐2 at all.

We intentionally haven’t indicated a specific density number for the C‐2, bc we would like to understand the options and
trade offs. Marcia’s proposed stipulations from 2/9/21 may prove helpful, at least conceptually.

We figure a developer willing to collaborate in good faith would help us understand viable options on the C‐2. Maybe
straight retail, maybe straight multi family, maybe there is a mixed use retail/residential option. We may be open to
higher density on those 7 acres, if the BAMP / MUA design standards were employed and the appearance of density
were creatively ameliorated.

I *may* also be able to help the neighbors accept some creativity on the S‐1 parcel, but would need a density transition
from BHRE that is complementary from within the BAOD/MUA. The overall density for those 10 acres, tho would need
to be lower than what would be acceptable on the c‐2.

But, we are not developers and don’t want to play that role. So, we need a developer to actually be willing to hear us,
provide us options, and engage in some give and take.

The neighbors have stated (and reaffirm) a willingness to have these conversations with the applicant, but have been
told by the attorney that the applicant will not discuss density with the neighbors.

Nonetheless, we remain willing to get creative and collaborate to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Best,
Trent

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 11:50 AM Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:

Good morning Trent,

How are you? So far my week is going well. Thank you for the attachment in regards to these two cases (I will add it to
the case files).

I am not sure if this has been considered, but the general plan land use designation of “Commercial” allows for
multifamily uses (no specific cap on the density permitted). It looks like the attached presentation shows “Commercial”
as a land use designation that the community could support, but just wanted to mention this information just in case it
was not what the community vision is for the general plan land use map on this portion of the property.

Here is the summary of the “Commercial” land use designation per the General Plan:

To help protect y our priv acy ,
Micro so ft Office prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Page2 583
Here is the summary of the “Mixed Use Agricultural” land use designation per the General Plan (which allows for some
commercial uses):

To help protect y our priv acy ,
Micro so ft Office prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.

Thank you,

[google.com]

[google.com]

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola

Planner II – Village Planner

Planning & Development Department

Long Range Planning

200 W. Washington Street [google.com]

Phoenix, AZ 85003 [google.com]

Office: [google.com](602 [google.com]) 262-6949

To help protect y our priv acy ,
Micro so ft Office prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
Capture

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per
day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 10:18 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Subject: Fwd: 40th & Southern: A Call for Healing

Page3 584
Hi Enrique,

How are you? Hope all is well.

Please add the below and attached to the case files for 40th and Southern.

Thank you,

Trent

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Somos BuildBam
Date: Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:30 PM
Subject: 40th & Southern: A Call for Healing
To:

Hello Neighbors,

Last Tuesday, the SMVPC voted against the proposal at Southern and 40th St. The final vote was 11 to 8.

The next vote of consequence will be at the Planning Commission on April 1, 2021. Please mark your
calendars; more details to come. Your voices of compassion and reason will be needed more than ever.

In the meantime, we feel that a message calling for Healing and of Hope is needed. Therefore, we will lightly
touch on what happened Tuesday night, provide some updates, and humbly ask for your patience and
continued support.

The situation Tuesday night was unfortunate. Demonstrably false accusations were haphazardly thrown
around against the residents of South Phoenix. Threats were made to the physical well-being of village
committee members and residents. A police report has since been filed. Other formal complaints have been
lodged. The SMVPC Chairperson, a woman of unsullied integrity, resigned in protest.

By way of extending a figurative olive branch, it should be recognized that the Neighbors and the individuals
who were activated in Support of the proposal are actually not at odds one with another. Concerns of equity,
prosperity, and health are common denominators between both those who spoke in support and those who
spoke in opposition to this particular proposal on Tuesday night.

The Neighbors cannot be upset with most of the Supporters, despite the harsh rhetoric that may have been
employed, for they were unwittingly played to the advantage of the Applicant and to the detriment of South
Phoenix.

The main arguments against this proposed development remain unaddressed by the Applicant. We implore
the Neighbors not to get distracted by the unsubstantiated vitriol contrived by one or two bad actors.
Page4 585
Instead, Hope is found in maintaining the following items as our primary focus in united opposition to this
proposal:

 Density,
 Density Transition, and
 The Governing Legal Documents (Precedent)

So acutely poignant are these three arguments, they were the genesis for the Continuance granted by the
SMVPC on February 9, 2021.

Councilmember Garcia subsequently brokered two meetings to bring the Applicant and the Neighbors
together to discuss these concerns. We are grateful that Councilmember Garcia took real action to promote
the concept of a community united by bringing everyone together.

During those discussions, the pro-development Neighbors tangibly demonstrated a willingness to move on
their position and we remain willing to further negotiate on the actual merits of Land Use and Density.

However, the Applicant remains intractable on the Neighbors’ key concern of Density. The Applicant’s
attorney forcefully stated early in the meetings that he will not discuss Density with the Neighbors.

Instead of discussing the unresolved concerns of the Neighbors in a respectful manner, the Applicant’s
attorney has a documented track record of publicly (yet unsuccessfully) attempting to distract the neighbors
with controversial issues, blatant misrepresentations, fallacy, and unsubstantiated allegations.

Regardless, we Neighbors must not allow ourselves to be distracted by theatrics, including what transpired
Tuesday night.

We Neighbors must remain positive, logical, compassionate, and on point.

We Neighbors must choose Hope over hurt and Forgiveness over fear. Doing so extends beyond this
proposal and speaks to our character as a Community.

The main points against this proposal continue to simply be:

 Density,
 Density Transition, and
 The Governing Legal Documents (Precedent)

See attached for details on these three points

To view the recording from Tuesday night, click here [cityofphoenixpdd.webex.com]. Recording password:
mJ52JVJH. The conversation about the project begins at 1:30:18.

It is our sincere prayer that South Phoenix will seek - and find - Healing and Forgiveness following the
travesty that transpired Tuesday night.

United we stand,

Raj Chatolla
Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Trent Marchuk
Fabiola and Alonso Marquez
Patty McKinstry

somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

Page5 586
‐‐
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "somosbuildbam" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
somosbuildbam+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/somosbuildbam/CAMMm8biBqFnNXNSH%2BxeAkTC_JM58LqcBsf3M%3DnSt%3D
wjF09syjg%40mail.gmail.com [groups.google.com].

Page6 587
Page 588
Page 589
Page 590
Page 591
Page 592
Page 593
Page 594
Racelle Escolar

From: D in AZ
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:03 PM
To: DM
Subject: Opposition to Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8 (40th & Southern)

Dear Council Members,
As a resident in South Mountain, I oppose the high density that is proposed for 40th & Southern. Please support
the property owners that actually live in this area instead of outside interests who are just in it for the most money and
not the well being of the area. As someone who also drives past this intersection 2 ‐ 4 times a day, high density will also
bring more traffic on this already busy intersection. Your committee's decision not only impacts this corner but the
surrounding communities of South Mountain and Laveen.

Thank you for your time in reading this and your attention to the neighbor's concerns,

Darcy Meyer
3535 W Bohl St,
Laveen

Page1 595
Racelle Escolar

From: Blake Peterson
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 1:18 PM
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Case Nos. Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8

To Whom it May Concern:

I oppose Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8 for the following reasons:

The density is much too high for this area of the city

This project does not conform to the General Plan, setting a precedent that will negatively impact the South
Mountain Village well beyond these 17 acres.

The neighbors do not want this development…….Documented neighbor opposition to this project is vast.

There are more appropriate alternative options available for this land with a much lower density.

Thanks, Blake

Blake Peterson, CPA
6236 S 37th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85042
Phone: 480‐829‐0509
Fax: 480‐829‐0055
blakepeterson@cox.net
blakepetersoncpa.com

Page1 596
March 24, 2021
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
Zoning Section
200 West Washington, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Case Nos.Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8 40th Street & Southern

Greetings Zoning Committee Members:
Thank you for your service on this important committee. We appreciate your public service and
commitment to hearing from citizen stakeholders to ensure that communities in Arizona can
continue to thrive. We are writing to voice our opposition to the development of multi-family
rental housing proposed. The proposed plan is too dense and would have a negative impact on
our community and way of life.
We have lived in the Heard Ranch area since 1976. When we moved to his area from downtown
Phoenix, there were citrus orchards and cotton fields north of us. To the south, were the
Japanese American flower gardens. When you got off the Interstate 10 Freeway at 40th Street,
it was noticeably cooler given the fields of cotton, citrus, and flowers. Our neighborhood was,
and remains today, a popular destination given the open spaces and the ability to maintain
livestock and grow food. Our community includes riding trails and tree-lined streets that are
popular with visitors to the Legacy resort to our west. Many walkers remark on the friendly and
open nature of our neighborhood.
Over the past 45 years, much progress has evolved the landscape. We now have golf courses
and schools rather than cotton fields and flower gardens. Some of the unique features of our
area are now gone. But we believe that our open and friendly community is the last hope of
continuing the agricultural feel of the South Mountain area. We should be able to continue to
welcome families into our neighborhood who seek out that rural lifestyle. The environmental
and social-emotional benefits to families are great, and we welcome the opportunity to build
more homes like ours so that more can have the opportunity to experience this type of
community.
Residents of the current proposed planned dense community would have to negotiate the
challenges of living up again a more rural neighborhood. They would likely be very unhappy
with the noises, smells, flies, and mosquitos that having farm animals entails. We would
welcome a less dense proposal that would allow us to open our community to families that
choose this way of life. Further, we expect that this zoning change would start at the
intersection of the proposed site and continue down the southside of Southern Avenue
hemming in our area and eventually push us out. Rather, we propose that the site be used to
increase the opportunities for individuals that provides a unique way of life. We believe that

Page 597
maintaining the current zoning conditions would encourage developers to create more
opportunities for Arizona residents to have options for raising their families.
In the March 23, 2021 Arizona Republic mentioned another South Phoenix developer, Lee
Mashburn of Pivot Development saying, “If you do a project and ignore the neighborhood, it is
not going to be a success.” The South Mountain Village Planning Committee rejected this
proposal and we ask that the Planning Committee also reject this plan.
Thank you for your consideration of our appeal.

Deirdre & Randy Irvine
3802 East Saint Catherine
Phoenix, AZ 85042
(602) 437-2688

Page 598
From: Lu Ann Winters
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to 40th & Southern (Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 6:36:15 PM

To the Mayor and council members for districts in the South Mountain Area:

I am a concerned citizen in the South Mountain area. I am concerned about the
above project due to the high density it would create in our neighborhood that is
already too dense with all the apartments and condos in the area. The traffic is
already past capacity as it is right now let alone if we added more dense housing to
the area. This project does not conform to the General Plan for the area, setting a
precedent that will negatively impact the South Mountain Village well beyond these 17
acres.

Please do not let the beauty of our South Mountain area be destroyed with over
development.

Thank you,

Lu Ann Winters
3434 East Baseline Road, #323
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 599
Racelle Escolar

From: Catherine Pliess
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 1:21 PM
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Opposition to 40th & Southern (Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8)

Dear Community Leaders,

I write to you today in opposition of a planned rental housing development at 40th and Southern.

I would like to formally register my opposition to the project at 40th & Southern (Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPA‐SM‐1‐20‐8. This
project is NOT in keeping with the land use and zoning as outlined in the Baseline Master Plan and it will not be a
compliment to the area. As a homeowner in the area, I bought in the South Mountain area in 2018 for the rural and
relatively agricultural flavor of the area. For being such a short drive to downtown Phoenix, South Mountain offers a
connection to the past history of rural Phoenix. The South Mountain area has wonderful potential to be a successful
area with a focus on agriculture, a connection to our food sources, a connection to our past and an area that celebrates
our beautiful South Mountain Park.

We need projects that are approved not just for the sake of developing unused land, but for mindful, meaningful intent
that will assure the area growth in a way that preserves and protects our unique features. This proposed high density
rental project will not support these important attributes of Phoenix and is not in keeping with the master plan or
current zoning for this area. This project does not accomplish any of those items. For the developer this is nothing but a
cash cow.

During the meetings I attended, many neighbors opposed this project for the same reasons outlined above. At the last
meeting, the lawyer provided folks in favor of this project, but respectfully, I do not believe that they were actually
homeowners or stakeholders from the area or even people who live in this area. They sounded as if they were reading
from a script provided to them. When asked for their addresses they refused. Some of these folks tried to paint a picture
that opposition to this project was racially motivated. Not only was that insulting but it could not be further from the
truth. Everything is NOT about race. The South Mountain area is currently and historically culturally and racially diverse.
It is one of our points of pride and one of the reasons I chose to purchase a home here. Current area residents do
recognize that social equity is an integral part of sustainability and preserving the integrity of the South Mountain area
and its existing Master Plan.

I recognize that we are in a housing shortage and the need for affordable homes and rental homes is great. I attended
(virtually) both meetings where the lawyer for the project presented this proposal. The lawyer sure did try to ring all the
important bells by promising affordable homes for teachers, previously incarcerated people and other special need
populations (I still don't understand why he kept grouping teachers with ex‐convicts). He spent a lot of time talking
about these special units and yet at the end of the day it was only for 3 units. Talk about gaslighting. He also went on
about waived application fees and background checks. I have been a renter prior to buying my home in 2018 and I think
that application fees and background checks are needed and should not be waived. It was my understanding that this
was law anyway. The lawyer was adamant about calling this project to be affordable housing, yet the proposed rents are
not affordable. They are higher than my mortgage payment. The lawyer also went on about offering a community
garden and that they would teach the residents to grow their own food, this to me sounds like more smoke and mirrors.
How would this be enforced? What happens when no one wants to care for this garden? Gardening in Phoenix is not a
simple task. Are they going to pay someone to keep it? My view is that in less than 6 months this promise would be
broken and it would be a bunch of weeds. I think this entire project will be a bunch of broken and unenforceable
promises.

Page1 600
If the developer were really looking to provide affordable homes to benefit a low‐income population, they would create
a housing development with low‐cost homes for sale and offer special funding incentives partnered with city grants.
They could also provide single family homes on a decent sized lot that matched the rest of the existing community and
were in keeping with the current master plan. Have they explored a public‐private model that could be shared with
other planning agencies as it relates to the working relationship between stakeholders and the developer? When you
compare this to the award‐winning Cooper Leaf project it falls very short of the goals and strategy used for that
successful in‐fill project.

This proposal and its non‐conformance to the General Plan, sets a precedent that will negatively impact the South
Mountain Village well beyond these 17 acres and the future zoning. A project such as this would be much better served
to be closer to the new rail extension on Central, being close to the rail would make way more sense and would
encourage more riders, actually eliminating traffic concerns associated with this location. Has the developer considered
working with the anticipated future Transit Oriented Development (TOD) to provide housing possibilities to ensure
ridership?

South Phoenix is in many ways a vulnerable area as it currently is made up of too many rental and high‐density areas.
Those in rental developments are not property tax payers and often do not have care or long‐term thoughts on the area
and how projects like this negatively affect tax paying homeowners. This project is also a detriment to the heavy traffic
already a problem in the area. Baseline Road and Southern Avenue on a weekday between 1pm and 7pm is often
bumper to bumper even in this lower traffic pandemic times, this proposed project that does not conform to the city
plan will only make this phenomenon worse. I cannot help but wonder if this project, that is so different from the
current approved use would even be considered if was proposed in a different area? Please respect the Master plan and
the property taxpayers of this area. Do not support or approve this plan, please do not change the zoning for this parcel.
Please respect the South Mountain area.

Kind Regards,

Catherine Pliess
7839 S. 27th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85042
480.824.8951
cpliess@gmail.com

Page2 601
Racelle Escolar

From: Tod Hegstrom
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 1:37 PM
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: SE Corner 40th St & Southern - Zoning Change Request - OPPOSED

To All -

Proposal: Zoning Change Request at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)

My Position: OPPOSED to the above cited zoning changes.

Significant time and effort has been placed, by dozens of South Phoenix residents, into
constructing the plans for the South Phoenix area. And more specifically to the Baseline
Corridor.

Obviously things change and the plans can change. However, the plan has NOT
changed. And the citizens of South Phoenix are overwhelmingly opposed.

The zoning request is not consistent with the existing and approved plan and the zoning
change request significantly changes the use. High Density Residential. The
purpose for zoning is for those that are currently living in an area of Phoenix AND for
those wanting to move into an area of Phoenix. The zoning establishes what you can
expect to grow up around you over the coming decades. You make an investment in a
home and you depend on the zoning and the plans that have been developed to provide
the proper guidance. Not only the guidance to you when you are buying, but the
guidance to the city administrators moving forward.

We've lost the flower gardens, we've lost the citrus groves, we've lost the cotton
fields. We've been inundated with so many apartment complexes and high
density housing (especially in the Baseline Corridor) ... and it has to STOP. And this
location is certainly NOT the location for high density residential.

Yes, I remember all of those wonderful and beautiful attributes of South Phoenix. I've
lived in South Phoenix for over four decades. My spouse was born and raised in
South Phoenix. Our kids grew up in South Phoenix, and our kids did NOT move away ...
our grandkids are now growing up in South Phoenix.

I know what we had, I know what we have. A lot has changed. The current zoning for
this area should not be changed. Especially not while being opposed by the residents.

Stop it here. Stop it now.

Respectfully Submitted,

- Tod
Page1 602
Tod Hegstrom
602.758.5855
16th St & Southern Area

 Psalms 37:5 | Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to
pass.

 "Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."
o St. Augustine/Augustine of Hippo

 And, for the Geeky types:
o There's no place like 127.0.0.1
o There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those
who don't.

Page2 603
Racelle Escolar

From: Raj Chotalla
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 1:08 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Opposition to Southern and 40th St proposed development

Dear Planning Commission ‐ I am writing as a concerned resident of the Bartlett Heard ranch area and oppose the
proposed rezoning and development request per Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPS‐SM‐1‐20‐8.

I would like to share my story on deciding to live in the area. We were looking for a property for our multi‐generation
family to live in which would offer a big yard/big trees/flood irrigation to grow our own vegetables/fruits in a rural
setting. We looked for over a year and a half to find the right place. When we saw Bartlett Heard ranch and its S1 zoning
per city ordinances 9as shared by our realtor) we were drawn to it. We were sure to have found our dream
neighborhood with the information we had. We ended up bidding for a couple of houses in the area and finally bought
the current house about two years ago and invested our life's saving in this new home to remodel.

We are disturbed to find out that the zoning in our back yard is being changed and also the proposed residential
development being a very dense use (over 1800% denser usage than what is allowed with current zoning)

I and my wife have signed the formal opposition of this application from this neighborhood which included about 95% of
residents in the area who are of the same opinion. I would request the Planning Commission to reject this application. A
more reasonable density/density transition should to be adhered to for a new development on this 17‐acre property
and that would be in line with city general guidelines for this area.

Rgds

Raj Chotalla 480‐275‐1801
3840 E Vineyard Road
Phoenix AZ 85042

Page1 604
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Opposition to 40th St and Southern (Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8)

From: Sandy Bawden
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 8:55 PM
To: Mayor Gallego ; Council District 1 PCC ; Council
District 2 PCC ; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District
4 ; Council District 5 PCC ; Council District 6 PCC
; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Racelle Escolar ; Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Opposition to 40th St and Southern (Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPS‐SM‐1‐20‐8)

Phoenix Planning & Development Department
Zoning Section
200 West Washington, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Hello,

We are writing in opposition to the proposed development at 40th St and Southern (Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPS‐SM‐1‐20‐8). We
are native Phoenicians. Our extended family has lived in the South Mountain Village since 1973 and our immediate
family has lived in the Bartlett‐Heard neighborhood since 1988. We have seen many changes over the years; from
flower gardens and citrus groves to housing developments, retail and commercial properties, golf courses and resorts.

We are not opposed to change, but we are opposed to change that is not beneficial to the area and is in non‐
conformance to the General Plan that will set a precedent negatively impacting the South Mountain Village well beyond
these 17 acres. The density is too high and does not provide an appropriate density transition. The majority of the
neighboring property owners are against this proposal.

We respectfully ask that you vote NO on Items 5 & 6, Applications Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPS‐SM‐1‐20‐8.

Sincerely,

Thom and Sandy Bawden
3232 E Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page1 605
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Pattihoash@gmail.com; Patty Mckinstry
Subject: Re: Minutes from SMVPC March 9, 2021, GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-29-8
Date: Sunday, March 28, 2021 11:15:04 PM
Attachments: 12.17.20 - General Request_ Housing Phoenix Questions.pdf
02.04.21 - Support_Petition Signatures_01-26-21.pdf (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).pdf

Hi Racelle and Enrique,

Please make the following edits in the meeting minutes for the 3/9/21 SMVPC meeting
regarding Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8. Reference email reproduced below; I literally wrote the
content real-time and read it during my portion to speak and then emailed it to Enrique that
same night.

Of the requested edits / clarifications that will not be made, please advise justification.

Enrique - Please add this correspondence to the case file.

Racelle - kindly request that you forward this email to the Planning Commission members in
supplement to the meeting minutes.

Edit #1

Currently written:
Trent Marchuk asked the following questions:
How does this project meet the Housing Phoenix Plan?
Can you confirm the accuracy of the information provided?
Mr. Morris responded that the project brings housing that is affordable to the area
and confirmed the information submitted to the committee was accurate.
Requested clarification:
Trent Marchuk asked the following questions:
What specific Phoenix Housing Policy Initiative(s) does this project
advance? (See starting on p 14)
Can you confirm the 251 signatures submitted in support are legitimate?
Mr. Morris responded
that the project brings housing that is affordable to the area
confirmed the information submitted to the committee was accurate
Trent Marchuk stated:
The City of Phoenix represented to the residents that no specific Phoenix
Housing Policy Initiative is advanced through this project. (Reference
attached email dated Dec 17, 2020)

Edit #2

Currently Written
Trent Marchuk discussed his appointment, vote and the discussions with the
applicant. Land use and design are principles that need to be considered and
discussed the correspondence submitted by the applicant. He addressed the issues
with enforcing the voluntary stipulations proposed by the applicant.
Requested Clarification

Page 606
Trent Marchuk made the following statements
Section 2.D.4.g of the Ethics Handbook states he has no conflict of interest
voting on this project.
The main concerns of the neighbors are Density, Density Transition, and
the Precedent to the General Plan.
The Applicant has introduced an artificial polemic and misrepresented the
opposition to galvanize rather than work with the neighbors
The pro-development neighbors have made concessions in their negotiation
position willing to creatively densify beyond the legal hard zoning; yet the
applicant has remained intractable.
On Feb 4, 2021, multiple discrepancies with the support signatures
submitted by the applicant were provided to the city, including one
purported forgery and many other documented misrepresentations.
(reference attached email dated Feb 4, 2021)
Existing stipulations on the C-2 parcel preclude residential development;
any change to those stipulations must be brought to the SMVPC.
This project is not affordable housing; nearby comparables go for a 20%
premium over average rent within a two mile radius.
A broker who regularly lends to this product type, classified this specific
proposal as "predatory development.”

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 11:06 PM
Subject: Remarks 3/9/21 SMVPC
To: Enrique Bojorquez
Cc: Patti Trites, Southern Hills HOA

Hi Enrique,

For the meeting notes, below follows the remarks that I read tonight.

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. As many know, I have been involved in this proposal
since July 2020. I have studied this proposal and educated my fellow neighbors on what I
have learned. I have advocated against this matter before the board today and have publicly
stated that I would not support this matter.

I was appointed to the SMVPC by Sal DiCiccio because of my involvement in this proposal.
Section 2.D.4.g of the Ethics Handbook states I have no conflict of interest.

The main concerns of the neighbors are Density, Density Transition, and the Precedent to the
General Plan. That’s it. The disregard for and destruction of the General Plan was the only
thing compared to cancer. Land use and Design is what the Village is charged to protect.

Page 607
The Applicant has introduced an artificial polemic and misrepresented the opposition to
galvanize and distract rather than working with the neighbors that opposed the project. There
is a documented catalog of interactions between the neighbors and the Applicant.

The pro-development neighbors have shown a willingness to move on their density position to
creatively entertain further densification relative to how the land is legally hard zoned. The
applicant is asking for 1,830% increase relative to the current, legal hard zoning. Current
Hard Zone is 10 units for the entire 17 acres. The applicant asks for 193. That is 1830%
increase.

Stipulations on the C-2 north parcel precludes residential on those 7 acres. Per stipulation
#11, that cannot be changed unless brought before the SMVPC.

It’s important to note that the neighbors have offered to consider high density on the north
parcel and the south parcel would densify relative to hard zoning as well.

It’s also important to note that opposition is shared across racial and ethnic lines, as Bereket
mentioned. One or two people were asked to represent the diverse constituency in opposition.

However, the Applicant has been intractable on land use and design, specifically on Density.

On Feb 4, 2021, many discrepancies with the submitted signatures were provided to the city.
The details are in the case file, including one purported forgery and findings of
misrepresentations amongst other discrepancies. If they are willing to submit irregularities to
the city and the community regarding submitted signatures, they are willing to say anything to
get this project approved.

As a bishop with stewardship over a community of congregants between Central and 40th St
and the River and the Mountain, I have personally helped formerly incarcerated individuals
get back on their feet. I agree they deserve a second chance. This project does not guarantee
they will be helped, because the promised items are not enforceable. Many in opposition may
have very well been deceived by the very demographic they passionately, and in some cases
rightfully, resent.

What is known is that comparable single family rentals range from $1300 for 1 bedroom,
$1600 for 2 bedrooms, and $1900 for 3 bedrooms. These are at least 20% higher than the avg
rental rates within a 2 mile radius. Students and formerly incarcerated people cannot afford
this. This project will have a displacement effect.

The best description I’ve heard yet about this proposal is embodied by the phrase, used by a
broker who regularly lends to this product type, “This is predatory development.”

Therefore, I cannot support this proposal

Page 608
Racelle Escolar

From: Tina Behrens
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 2:30 PM
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to 40th & Southern (Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8)

I am writing to ask the Planning Commission to deny the proposal for The Sanctuary, Case Nos. Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPS‐SM‐1‐
20‐8. As a proximate neighbor, I believe this project is not right for this parcel. It is too high in density, doesn’t allow
for appropriate density transition, and most importantly, doesn’t conform to the General Plan. Approval of projects that
don’t meet this standard set a negative precedent for future projects and application. As an area resident that has spent
years trying to keep the South Mountain Village from falling prey to developments who chip away at the edges of this
critical, citizen‐driven Plan, this is very disheartening.

The owner of the parcel in question this time has promoted developments on this land for some time. They continue to
push projects to which the neighborhood has voiced their opposition. Interaction with the neighbors appears to have
become grudging – a step they’ve had to take to “satisfy” planning committee & neighbor requests to work something
out. Further, there has been questionable (and sometimes shocking) evidence produced of “neighborhood
support”. The South Mountain Village Planning Committee has supported the community by denying the request for
proposed development. If the owners are unwilling to work out good alternatives, I strongly suggest they market the
parcel to those who will. (The parcel was willed to the current owners many years ago, who have not focused on
marketing the land properly.)

I urge you to give the General Plan the credence it rightfully deserves as a taxpayer approved plan, and deny this project
which does not conform.

Sincerely,

Tina Leadbetter
3268 E. Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page1 609
Racelle Escolar

From: Karen and Sue
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 7:42 AM
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com

Please enter this response into the record.

Phoenix Planning Commission Case Number:
GPA-SM-1-20-8 & companion Case Z-35-20-8.
Re: The “Sanctuary At South Mountain” purposed development at the Southwest corner of Southern Avenue and
40th Street.

Submitted by Karen Mischlispy Home Address: 3818 E. St. Catherine Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85042

I am opposed to the "Sanctuary At South Mountain" development because: a.) it does not meet the Baseline Master Plan,
b.) the density for this development is too high for this area, c.) impact to future development along Southern Avenue from
40th Street to 24th Street, d.) high density development creates issues with traffic, parking for staff, visitors, and guests, and
e.) the continued pressure to change and or modify the Zoning and General Plan Amendment is not appropriate for this
area. This high-density development would be better located closer to Central Avenue to allow direct access to the light
rail. I am concerned with the developer's fast-tracking effort to send this negative development through the city process
during a pandemic. This is vital to my future neighborhood and community. The Baseline Master Plan identified the need to
retain the historical significance for future development.

I have lived and worked in the area most of my life. I have seen many changes some good and some not so good. I want
the corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue to be developed appropriately to the area. I am asking the Phoenix Planning
Commission to follow the recommendation of the South Mountain Village Planning Committee and denied the request for
proposed development of the 40th St & Southern Property.

Thank you,
Karen Mischlispy
home phone: 602 438-2928

Page1 610
Racelle Escolar

From: M Bontrager
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 8:41 AM
To: Monique Bontrager
Cc: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to 40th & Southern (Z-35-20-8 and GPS-SM-1-20-8)

To whom it may concern,

I urge you to deny this proposal, the main land use concerns continue to be high of density; inappropriate and
non-conformance to the general plan and setting a precedent that will negatively impact the South Mountain
Village well beyond these 17 acres. It will add further traffic to the area and there is not one grocery store or
restaurant within 2.0 miles of the proposed site.

The neighbors do not want this development.

Our family has lived in the Bartlett Heard neighborhood for more than 15 years, rebuilt our home with pride and
dedication to adding value to South Phoenix neighborhoods and do not think a development of that nature to
be built on that site.
Thank you,

Monique Bontrager
6401 S 37th str
Phoenix Az 85042
602 770 4526

Page1 611
Racelle Escolar

From: Patti Trites
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:34 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Joshua Bednarek
Subject: Planning Commission April1st - Comment
Attachments: PTrites PlanningCommission comments 040121.pdf; 030821 Mass Libaz posting.pdf; 030821 MassLbAZ
Instagram Post and links.pdf; MassLib AZ registered agent Joe Larios.png

Dear Josh and Racelle,

Hope you are well.

Please make sure that my comments for Item 5 GPA‐SM‐1‐20‐8 and Item 6 Z‐35‐20‐8 are sent to the Planning
Committee Members for the April 1st meeting.

I am also attaching supporting documentation. Please make sure it goes with my comments. My comments are on the
document 'PTrites PlanningCommission comments 040121'.

Agenda Item #5 GPA‐SM‐1‐20‐8 along with companion case
Agenda Item #6 Z‐35‐20‐8 Sanctuary at South Mountain PUD
Located at: SW corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue

Please take the time to review my attached comments and the other attachments.

I ask the Planning Committee to please oppose this development at this location. I remain available to answer any
questions you may have: 402.213.7126 or pattihoash@gmail.com

Thank you and please stay safe,
Patti Trites

Page1 612
Patti Trites cell 402.213.7126 email: pattihoash@gmail.com

March 30, 2021

Dear Planning Commission,

For the COP Planning Commission April 1, 2021
Agenda Item #5 GPA-SM-1-20-8 along with companion case
Agenda Item #6 Z-35-20-8 Sanctuary at South Mountain PUD
Located at: SW corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue

My name is Patti Trites. I reside at 2421 West Hayduk Road in South Mountain Village in Phoenix Arizona.
I am speaking as a resident of South Mountain. I am in Independent and have not taken 1 cent or any
promises for any votes, ever. I do not run or belong on any board of any non-for-profit organization.

I oppose this project at this location. It is the wrong location for this project. Please vote against these
cases.

My reasons for opposing are:
1) Proposed increase density not compatible to immediate neighbors and their investment;

2) Past promises made by the land owners when C-2 was granted have not been kept;

3) New promises made to the Mass Lib AZ group as posted on their Instagram Account by current
Developer’s Attorney are not enforceable. The COP Staff stated this during the March 2021
SMVPC meeting.

4) The SMVPC and Councilman Garcia repeated requested the Developer’s Attorney, Jason Morris,
to compromise/negotiate with the neighbors was never done.
a. The SMVPC asked Jason Morris several times during the presentations in 2020 to
negotiate with the neighbors.
b. A continuance was granted at the February 2021 SMVPC so that Jason Morris could
negotiate with the neighbors.
c. Prior to the March 2021 SMVPC meeting, I had spoken to both Jason Morris and the
neighbors. Both said they would compromise.
d. Councilman Garcia arranged a March 4th conference call with Jason Morris and the
neighbors to find a compromise.
e. Jason Morris and his client, the Developer, did not compromise or negotiate during this
meeting March 4th. They would not move on the density from their 11 du/acre and keep
them as rentals. The neighbors would have negotiated to 5 per acre of owned, not
rented, properties.

Page 613
Patti Trites cell 402.213.7126 email: pattihoash@gmail.com

5) After the March 9th, 2021 SMVPC Meeting, I discovered that developer and Jason Morris instead
met with two South Mountain Village Committee members, Joe Larios and Matt Aguilar, after the
meeting with Councilman Garcia. This meeting took place after the 4th but before the 8th of March.
a. This meeting was validated by Alan Stephenson to me, as he spoke to Jason Morris.
b. The messaging on the Mass Lib AZ Instagram Page/Facebook page changed. It
encouraged members to register to speak in support of this project due to the promises
made by the attorney for the developer, Jason Morris.
c. A snapshot from the Instagram Account of Mass Lib AZ:

d. It bears repeating, these ‘promises’ are not enforceable by the City. There is a false sense
of hope by the supporters. When they realize it will not happen, the developer and their
attorney will be gone.

6) IMPORTANT: Please be aware that these two members of the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee, Joe Larios and Matt Aguilar, are founders of non-for-profits. That is the source of
their income. One of those is the Mass Lib AZ Group, for former incarcerated people. Joe Larios
is listed as the registered agent for this group.
7) Exchanging Votes for FAVORS/PROMISES from any developer, or their representative, of your
non-for-profit group on any project – IS WRONG and UNETHICAL.

The March 2021 SMVPC Meeting was very emotional. Threats and intimidation are not the way to gather
votes for a project.

Freedom of speech is a great freedom. No resident of Phoenix, or South Mountain, has the right to
threaten or incite violence if their views are not agreed upon by any Village or Planning Commission.

Page 614
Patti Trites cell 402.213.7126 email: pattihoash@gmail.com

The Mass Lib AZ group was told, they posted it on the web, and Jason Morris ‘promised’ them
unenforceable stipulations to gather the vote of these SMVPC Members. This group spoke with great
passion believing that the SVMPC did not approve of them if we did not vote in favor of this project.
Nothing can be further from the truth. I, for one, have signed several of the Mass Lib AZ Petitions in the
past.

The developer never compromised or negotiated with the neighbors.
This project is not Affordable Housing.
This project has too much density for the area.
The commitment made by the landowner when the C-2 zoning change was made is not being kept.
This project must follow all the Federal Housing Laws. Period.

I felt threatened by the name calling and remarks made directly at me during the March 2021 SMVPC
meeting; that I filed a Police Report # 2021-396297 and resigned from the SMVPC. The meeting’s
recording is on file with the city. Please take the time to listen to it , if you need validation.

I ask the Planning Committee to please oppose this development at this location.

I remain available to answer any questions you may have: 402.213.7126 or pattihoash@gmail.com

Thank you and please stay safe,
Patti Trites

Page 615
Page 616
Page 617
For further context on what drove the proceedings last night, including the provided talking points, please see
below.

Instagram Post
https://www.instagram.com/p/CMGMFiZnuhj/?igshid=1li5a3bqu7nud

Text of the Instagram Post

CALL TO ACTION: Join the People Over Property Initiative this Tuesday, March 9th @ 6PM to disrupt
the racism and classism of the housing development process, in solidarity with formerly incarcerated
community members of South Phoenix.

We need you to register to speak by 5:00 pm on Monday 3/8 so you can help demand the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee (SMVPC) puts people over property and creates housing we need!

Find instructions and talking points: bit.ly/fairphx (LINK IN BIO)

We’ll also be breaking down the absurdities of planning and zoning in Phoenix as we livestream the
meeting as a community together. bit.ly/absurdphx

Screenshot of the Meeting Registration follows:

Page 618
Screenshots of the Call to Action follow:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSbsde48aNaxIl0BMdTaQ6Wn8GIw-
hrPgCzjyeUpQSFya20BxVUgzentSdHV8L0hCm0g-0sR5GtgSqw/pub

Page 619
Page 620
Page 621
Page 622
Copy of the page in text format
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSbsde48aNaxIl0BMdTaQ6Wn8GIw-
hrPgCzjyeUpQSFya20BxVUgzentSdHV8L0hCm0g-0sR5GtgSqw/pub
PEOPLE OVER PROPERTY INITIATIVE | MLAZ

Advocate for fair housing for formerly incarcerated folks at the
SMVPC!
TUESDAY, MARCH 9 @ 6:00 PM (AZ/MST)

BACKGROUND - Why?
This Tuesday, the South Mountain Village Planning Committee, a board made up of members appointed by the mayor and
city council to make decisions on land use in South Phoenix, will be voting on a housing project on 40th Street and Southern
Ave. The developers have agreed to mitigate harms of displacement and gentrification in South Phoenix, ensuring
accessibility to formerly incarcerated community members by:

Changing the screening process by ending automatic disqualification for a prior record
Refunding all application fees if someone with a record is disqualified
Prioritizing housing for South Phoenix residents by waiving application fees for local residents or returning
residents
Creating urban farming space in partnership with local food justice organizations
Providing 3 units total at 50% rent for a period of three years exclusively for frontline workers and formerly
incarcerated residents
Continuing to be in partnership with local orgs to create an inclusive community with inclusive design

Unfortunately, local homeowners associations, property interests, and NIMBYs are organizing to deny this project because
they believe these types of rental properties will bring the “wrong kind of people” to the neighborhood.

We need your support to disrupt the coded racism and classism that dominates the development process and causes
racialized displacement. Help us demand that the City of Phoenix and the SMVPC put people over property and
create the housing we need!

Page 623
REGISTER TO SPEAK AT THE SMVPC MEETING:
Deadline to sign up: Monday, March 8th by 5:00 pm (AZ/MST)

Email Enrique Bojorquez-Gaxiola at enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov and let them know you would like
to speak on:
Agenda Item #9 - 40th St. & Southern Ave Project (GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Find talking points for your comment at the bottom of this document! If you need additional help or advice on
speaking, email ruia@masslibaz.org or text (480) 234-5682.

WATCH THE MEETING WITH US!
We will be hosting a livestream & detox of the meeting at 6:00 PM. Whether you’re speaking at the meeting or
not, you can tune in with us in this safe community space as we break down the absurdities of planning and
zoning in Phoenix and how we can resist resegregation. Stay for a detox afterwards!

Register at http://bit.ly/absurdphx

TALKING POINTS ( Updating )
Here are some sample talking points you can use to craft your public comment.

The legacy of racism has resulted in state sanctioned early death of south Phoenix residents through food
apartheid, Mass Incarceration and Criminalization, and Environmental Racism. These outcomes of
segregation and racism shaped the built environment of south phoenix, and the health and bodies of Black
and brown residents of south phoenix continue to pay the price. Every development project should shape
their project in partnership with directly impacted local leadership to assure a contribution to undoing
harms of development past. This project proposal is a first step and should be an example of the type of
responsive development we need to see more of.

Do you know that In Arizona, Black people constitute 5% of state residents, but 18% of people in jail and
14% of people in prison? This disproportionate impact is a result of a legacy of racism and white
supremacy, which also creates a cycle of housing violence where formerly incarcerated Black community
members are excluded from stable housing. The only way to break this cycle is when development can
follow the leadership of directly impacted people, because those closest to the problem are closest to the
solution. I support this project and hope to see more examples of housing developers listening to those
most marginalized.

The work of Black liberation includes disrupting the way racism operates in the development process. In
solidarity, we hold a commitment to name anti-black violence and move towards dismantling the beliefs
behind it. When higher income, mostly white neighborhoods stigmatize affordable rentals or housing by
saying things like:
the project will bring the “Wrong kind of People '' or
There is an unfounded focus on crime without any consideration for how people of color, and
especially Black people are criminalized
We know that is coded racism and should hold no merit in the outcome of the project.

“Approximately 98% of the arable acreage (land needed to grow food) in this country is white-owned,
which follows the trend in Phoenix and Maricopa county. This racialised outcome of landownership is no
accident, and has created inequitable good conditions that directly impacted leadership across the country
have named as food apartheid. “Food apartheid looks at the whole food system and takes into account

Page 624
income, race, and geography. It encompasses the social and racial inequalities that are at play in our food
system. It recognizes that the systems in place are what make it difficult for people living in low-income
areas to access fresh, healthy food.” Investing in Local autonomous food sources should be a standard for
any development operating in an environment where the life expectancy is 14 years less than the food
abundant areas of the city like built more and Paradise Valley.

Arizona’s housing crisis is actually just a real estate game riddled with racist and classist qualifications to
secure housing. There are multiple ways that denial of shelter can take place, and they are applied liberally
in order to increase property values and rental income. Unemployment is at a generational low, all while
corporate profits surge, signs of growth from new construction and revitalization of urban spaces. Yet the
working class tenants who inhabit these spaces are getting priced out of them. For those cost-burdened,
there is an inverse relationship in tenants ability to remain housed and the availability of affordable
housing.

Housing is a human right, yet a criminal record often stands between a person being able to secure shelter.
Formerly incarcerated people are 10 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general
population. And unfortunately, being homeless makes formerly incarcerated people more likely to be
arrested and incarcerated again, thanks to classist policies that criminalize homelessness. The
criminalization of having “nowhere to go” is inhumane, counterproductive and only perpetuates the
revolving door between homelessness and incarceration.

Page 625
Page 627
Page 628
Page 629
Page 630
Page 631
From: FABIOLA MARQUEZ
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: RE: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:16:28 PM

Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10

From: FABIOLA MARQUEZ
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 4:49 PM
To: mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov; council.district.1@phoenix.gov; council.district.2@phoenix.gov;
council.district.3@phoenix.gov; council.district.3@phoenix.gov; council.district.4@phoenix.gov;
council.district.5@phoenix.gov; council.district.6@phoenix.gov; council.district.7@phoenix.gov;
council.district.8@phoenix.gov; SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov; Enrique Bojorquez
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned of a proposed development
project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this
proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent
land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our
historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made
through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Alonso and Fabiola Marquez
6409 S. 39th Pl.
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10

Page 632
From: Lisa Peterson
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-120-8
Date: Friday, April 2, 2021 8:16:57 AM

I am a resident of Heard Ranch. I am very concerned because of a proposed development
going in on 40th St and Southern. We have lived in Heard Ranch for 22 years and putting a
high density low cost rentals next to our beautiful neighborhood will lower our property
values.
This is going to be over 200 rentals crammed together on this small property and they will be
walking through our neighborhood. This development will bring more crime into the area. I
hope you have not already made of your mind. We do not want this development. We live
right next door to it. Please do not vote for this development to go through.

Thank you,

Lisa Peterson
lisapaz927@gmail.com

Page 633

Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.

View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text

Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-35-20-8 -
Approximately 340 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of 40th Street and
Southern Avenue (Ordinance G-6841)

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-35-20-
8 and rezone the site from S-1 BAOD (Ranch or Farm Residence, Baseline Area
Overlay District) and C-2 BAOD (Intermediate Commercial, Baseline Area Overlay
District) to PUD BAOD (Planned Unit Development, Baseline Area Overlay District) to
allow residential (including multifamily) and other permitted uses in the Mixed Use
Agricultural (MUA) Zoning District. This file is a companion case to GPA-SM-1-20-8
and should be heard immediately following.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1 BAOD and C-2 BAOD
Proposed Zoning: PUD BAOD
Acreage: 17.27 acres
Proposed Use: Planned Unit Development to allow residential (including multifamily)
and other permitted uses in the Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) Zoning District.

Owner: John C. Oertle, Jr., Lisa-Kay Oertle-Melancon, Kent C. Oertle, Beth O. Hintze,
and Jerald A. Hintze
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb.
9, 2021 and continued the request to the March 9, 2021 meeting, by a vote of 17-0.
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case again on March 9,
2021 and recommended denial, by a vote of 12-7.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 4, 2021 and continued
the request to the April 1, 2021 meeting, by a vote of 9-0. The Planning Commission
heard this case again on April 1, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 6-2.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed, and a three-quarter vote

Page 634

petition was submitted on April 8, 2021. A three-quarter vote is required.

Location
Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Southern
Avenue
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 6048 S. 40th St.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 635
ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE

ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-35-20-8) FROM S-1 BAOD (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE, BASELINE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT) AND C-2
BAOD (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, BASELINE AREA
OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO PUD BAOD (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, BASELINE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT).

____________

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 17.27-acre site located approximately 340

feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue in a portion of

Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

“A”, is hereby changed from 10.02 acres of “S-1 BAOD” (Ranch or Farm Residence,

Baseline Area Overlay District) and 7.25 acres of “C-2 BAOD” (Intermediate

Commercial, Baseline Area Overlay District) to 17.27 acres of “PUD BAOD” (Planned

Unit Development, Baseline Area Overlay District).

Page 636
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sanctuary at South Mountain PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval
of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped January 22, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front Cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the City
Council adoption date.

b. Page 9, 1. Development Standards Table, Minimum Building Setbacks,
add letter “s” at the end of “Interior Property Line…” in reference to
interior property lines adjacent to the existing Walgreens.

c. Page 10, under Open Space, add “…of gross site acreage.” at the end
of the first sentence.

d. Page 12, Plant Lists, change the bold subheading “Plant Lists” from the
right-hand side of the table to the center-top above the reference to plant
materials. Also add the word “Zoning” after “Mixed Use Agricultural…”.

e. Page 14, 5. Amenities, shift “b. Outdoor Amenities:” to the following
page.

f. Page 15, 6. Open Space, align the formatting of the text in the second
paragraph.

g. Page 16, 7. Shade, edit the last sentence to the following: “c. Shade
requirements shall be calculated on a Summer Solstice at 12:00 noon.”

Page 637
h. Page 17, second paragraph, revise the second sentence to state “c.
Connections shall be provided from and between the following elements
via the most direct route using pathways a minimum of 4 feet in width:”
and revise the alignment at the bottom of the page starting with “d. Traffic
calming…”.

i. Page 19, E. Design Guidelines, change subheading from “1. Multifamily
Residential” to “1. General Standards”.

j. Page 19, E. Design Guidelines, under 1. Multifamily Residential, change
to: “e. All of the residential units adjacent to 39th Street shall contain
covered back patios at a minimum of 200 square feet in area at a depth
of at least six feet, if the front of residential units is not oriented towards
39th Street.”

k. Page 19, E. Design Guidelines, under 1. Multifamily Residential, remove
sentence starting with “f. A minimum of two pedestrian gates…”

l. Page 21, 5. Building Orientation and Massing, revise the second
sentence to “b. Residential units adjacent to 39th Street which are not
fronting onto 39th Street, shall incorporate back patios oriented towards
39th Street to reinforce community orientation and place eyes on this
street.”

m. Page 22, 10. Other Design Elements, please align the subheading.

n. Page 25, H. Complete Streets, change the word “ROW” to “right-of-way”.

o. Page 26, I. Infrastructure, 1. Circulation, lower case the word
“Pedestrian”.

p. Page 27, J. Comparative Zoning Table, update the Proposed PUD
standards to match with the rest of the PUD document.

2. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
reviewed and approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation
Department, to set up a meeting to discuss the requirements of the
statement/study. Upon completion of the TIS the developer shall submit the
completed TIS to the Planning and Development Department counter with
instruction to forward the study to the Street Transportation Department, Design
Section.

3. The developer shall dedicate a one-foot Vehicular Non-Access Easement
(VNAE) along Southern Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

Page 638
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

5. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property and tenants within the development the
existence and operational characteristics of agricultural uses. The form and
content of such documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

6. The property owner shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of Proximity
to Airport in order to disclose the existence, and operational characteristics of
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.

7. The developer shall grant and record an aviation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.

8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

9. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the city to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of May, 2021.

________________________________
MAYOR

Page 639
ATTEST:

____________________________City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager

Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (3 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)

Page 640
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-35-20-8

PARCEL NO. 1:
LOT 56, BARLETT-HEARD LANDS, ACCORDING TO THE BOOK 13 OF MAPS,
PAGE 35, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF, IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3
EAST, GILA & SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA, COUNTY, ARIZONA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF, A DISTANCE OF 309.54 FEET
TO AN ORTHOGONAL LINE, HEREIN DESGINATED AS LINE “A”;
THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 390.26 FEET;
THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 40 FEET;
THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 290.26 FEET;
THENCE NORTHERLY TO THE INTERSECTION OF SAID LINE “A” WITH THE WEST
LINE OF THE EAST 42 FEET OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION;
THENCE EASTERLY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND
EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE PARCEL OF LAND
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 42 FEET OF SAID
SECTION;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 309.54 FEET
TO AN ORTHOGONAL LINE HEREIN DESIGNATED AS LINE “B”;
THENCE WEST TO A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET TO AN ORTHOGONAL LINE HEREIN
DESIGNATED AS LINE “C”;
THENCE WEST TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WEST LINE OF
SAID LOT 56;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID PROLONGATED LINE TO THE SOUL LINE OF
THE NORTH 40 FEET OF SAID SECTION 36;
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO SAID LINE “C”;
THENCE EASTERLY TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTH 42 FEET OF SAID SECTION WITH SAID LINE “B”;

Page 641
THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 62
FEET OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 42
FEET OF SAID SECTION WHICH IS 62 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AS SET FORTH IN WARRANTY DEED
RECORDED IN DOCKET 111243, PAGE 406, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, AND
EXCEPT THAT PART THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE PARCEL OF LAND
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36, FROM
WHICH THE EAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 36 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES
00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, 2650.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGRESS 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 36, A DISTANCE
OF 62.38 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
42.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 42.00 FEET WEST OF
THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 36, SAID
POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID
LINE, A DISTANCE OF 247.16 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREEES 08 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 71.22 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 76 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
55.30 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
280.06 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
225.82 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 08 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
56.14 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 56 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
26.37 FEET;

Page 642
THENCE NORTH 47 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 03 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
23.67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SOUTHERN
AVENUE;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID
LINE, A DISTANCE OF 50.26 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID
LINE, A DISTANCE OF 289.16 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 45 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 52 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
28.15 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL NO. 2:
A NON-EXCULSIVE AND PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR REASONABLE ACCESS,
INGRESS, AND EGRESS AS CREATED IN DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS,
CONVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS RECORDED IN RECORDING
NO. 98-0129739 AND RE-RECORDED IN RECORDING NO. 98-0372478, RECORDS
OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA

Page 643
Page 644
Attachment B

Staff Report Z-35-20-8
(Sanctuary at South Mountain PUD)
February 3, 2021

South Mountain Village Planning February 9, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date March 4, 2021

Request From: S-1 BAOD (10.02 acres) and C-2 BAOD (7.25
acres)
Request To: PUD BAOD (17.27 acres)
Proposed Use Planned Unit Development to allow residential
(including multifamily) and other permitted uses
in the Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) Zoning
District
Location Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest
corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue
Owner John C. Oertle, Jr., Lisa-Kay Oertle-Melancon,
Kent C. Oertle, Beth O. and Jerald A. Hintze
Applicant / Representative Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity

Current: Mixed Use Agricultural

General Plan Land Use Map Designation Pending (GPA-SM-1-20-8): Mixed Use
Agricultural and Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre
Varies, 33-foot
40th Street Arterial to 40-foot west
half street
Street Map Approximately
Classification 39th Street Local 32.5-foot east
half street
40-foot south
Southern Avenue Arterial
half street

Page 645
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and redevelopment
with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to employment centers,
commercial areas, and where transit or transportation alternatives exist.

The site is adjacent to commercial development and two arterial streets that provide
alternative transportation options. Uses in the surrounding area consist of residential,
commercial and agricultural uses. The proposed development is consistent in scale and
character with the surrounding uses by incorporating perimeter standards, landscape
buffers and design guidelines that promote an agricultural environment, which will also help
mitigate impacts on adjacent residential properties.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: In order to balance a more sustainable transportation system,
development should be designed to include increased amenities for transit,
pedestrian and bicyclists such as shade, water, seating, bus shelters, wider
sidewalks, bike racks, pedestrian scale lighting and way-finding.

The proposal incorporates several pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure features in order to
promote the use of alternative transportation systems. Pedestrian infrastructure includes a
system of lighted and shaded pedestrian pathways that connect to adjacent perimeter
sidewalks and commercial development at the southwest corner of 40th Street and
Southern Avenue. Bicycle infrastructure includes indoor/covered and outdoor/uncovered
bicycle parking, to increase bicycling as a viable means of transportation in the city of
Phoenix. There are two dedicated bicycle lanes presently along 40th Street and Southern
Avenue, immediately adjacent to this development that will help provide recreational
opportunities and connect residents to services in other parts of the South Mountain
Village.

The site is also located at the junction of two bus routes on 40th Street and Southern
Avenue, providing nearby transit opportunities for future residents. The enhanced bicycle
and pedestrian facilities integrated into the site plan and abundance of bus routes in the
area, will encourage a sustainable transportation system.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; HEALTHY FOOD SYSTEM;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Encourage neighborhood designs that incorporate community
gardens, urban farms and other urban agriculture elements.

The proposed development incorporates standards and elements consistent with the
agrarian character of the surrounding area which includes nurseries, farms, landscaping
companies, and residential uses. This development will promote urban agriculture via a
community garden, tool library and pop-up produce stand amenities, shall the site develop
as multifamily, to improve food security and the health of residents. Plant species found in

Page 646
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

the BAMP and MUA Zoning District plant lists which have edible applications may be
utilized in the required landscape areas to further promote food security in the area.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES & SHADE; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

The proposal includes landscaping standards that address the adjacent streetscape,
perimeter buffers and parking areas. The development will provide 75 percent shade
along adjacent sidewalks and internal pedestrian paths connecting the development to
adjacent streets. This will help to encourage walking and to mitigate the urban heat island
effect by covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the project vicinity.
Perimeter landscaping and other required landscaped areas will also adhere to the plant
lists referenced in the BAMP and MUA Zoning District to further the character of the area.

Area Plans, Overlay Districts and Initiatives
Baseline Area Master Plan – Adopted in 1997, the Baseline Area Master Plan evaluated
the southeast portion of the South Mountain Village with an aim to promote development
which respects and preserves the lifestyle in the area. See Background Item No 4.

Baseline Area Overlay District – The property is located within the boundaries of the
Baseline Area Overlay District, a regulatory Overlay District which is designed to
encourage and protect the rural, agricultural character of the area while allowing
development in accord with the Baseline Area Master Plan. See Background Item No 5.

Tree and Shade Master Plan – The Tree and Shade Master Plan is a roadmap for
creating a healthier, more livable and prosperous 21st Century desert city. The goal is to
treat the urban forest as infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s
planning and development process. See Background Item No. 8.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – The city’s bicycle master plan will set the course
for the next 20 years for development of bicycle facilities. The plan is intended to provide a
framework for decision making to expand and improve bicycle facilities throughout the city.
See Background Item No. 9.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles – The City’s complete streets policy further
advances its goal to create a more sustainable transportation system that is safe and
accessible for everyone. Complete streets provide infrastructure that encourages active
transportation such as walking, bicycling, transportation choices and increased
connectivity. Through this policy, the primary focus of street design will no longer be solely
on the speed and efficiency of automobile travel, but on the safety and comfort of all users.
See Background Item No. 9.

Page 647
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Zero Waste PHX – The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has
set a goal to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and expand
its recycling and other waste diversion programs. See Background Item No. 10.

Housing Phoenix – In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing
Phoenix Plan. This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased
housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. See Background Item
No. 11.

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant / Undeveloped S-1 BAOD and C-2 BAOD

Pharmacy C-2 BAOD
North
(including Child Care R-3 SP and C-1 SP
across
Southern Gas Station C-1 and C-1 SP
Avenue)
Vacant / Undeveloped S-1

Single Family Residential
South RE-43
(Heard Ranch community)
Various Commerce Park Industrial Park
East (across Uses
40th Street)
Single Family Residential R1-6
Plant Nursery MUA
West
Radio / Broadcast Building S-1 SP

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone an approximately 17.27-acre site located
approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and
Southern Avenue from 10.02 acres of S-1 BAOD (Ranch or Farm Residence,
Baseline Area Overlay District) and 7.25 acres of C-2 BAOD (Intermediate
Commercial, Baseline Area Overlay District) to 17.27 acres of PUD BAOD
(Planned Unit Development, Baseline Area Overlay District) to allow residential

Page 648
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

(including multifamily) and other permitted uses in the Mixed Use Agricultural
Zoning (MUA) District.

The northern portion of the site is presently zoned C-2 BAOD and would allow
for multifamily uses. The southern portion is zoned S-1 BAOD, which permits
low density residential and other rural uses. Additional information about the
existing zoning is provided Background Item No. 3.

Existing Zoning Aerial Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department

Page 649
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

2. The General Plan Land Use Map
designation for the property is
Mixed Use Agricultural. The
Mixed Use Agricultural land use
category helps to preserve the
character of agricultural areas
while allowing new development
which is consistent with the
traditional design and uses of a
rural and agricultural area. The
proposed PUD contains
permitted uses and development
standards that respect the
character of the area. The
permitted uses include all uses
from the MUA Zoning District, in
addition to multifamily with a
density up to 11.2 dwelling units
per gross acre.

Development standards and
design guidelines in the proposal
that apply to multifamily
development (density higher than Existing General Plan Land Use Map,
two dwelling units per acre), Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development
incorporate all BAOD and various Department
MUA Zoning District standards
such as height, building and
landscape setbacks; design
guidelines; and signage. If the
site develops with a permitted
use from the MUA Zoning
District, this use would follow the
Zoning Ordinance regulations
from the BAOD and MUA Zoning
Districts.

In order to permit the increased
density proposed, a companion
General Plan Land Use Map
amendment, GPA-SM-1-20-8,
has been filed concurrently with
this request.

Page 650
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

In addition, the Phoenix City Council has approved PUD zoning for residential
uses in areas designed Mixed Use Agricultural on the General Plan Land Use
Map. These PUD cases include: The Arbors (Z-81-15), Navarro Groves (Z-15-
16) and Gardener’s Enclave (Z-50-16). The PUD examples referenced above
limited their uses to single-family detached development, while this proposed
PUD will allow for single-family detached at a density of 2 dwelling units per
acre and multifamily at a density of up to 11.2 dwelling units per gross acre. The
MUA Zoning District allows for residential uses (no specific dwelling type) at a
density of up to two dwelling units per acre.

Because the proposal, through development standards, permitted uses and
design guidelines is reflective of the MUA character envisioned in the General
Plan, the proposal is consistent with the Mixed Use Agricultural land use
designation. Companion minor general plan amendment case GPA-SM-1-20-8
requests approval of a mix of Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre on the site in order to allow the proposed density of 11.2
dwelling units per acre with PUD case Z-35-20-8.

The site is located near the intersection of two arterial streets and will provide
additional housing choices along this transportation corridor that connects to
Interstate 10 to the east and the light rail further to the west, once this is
completed.

North of the site, the General Plan Land Use Map designation is Mixed Use
Agricultural (directly abutting) and Commerce/Business Park across Southern
Avenue. South of the subject site is the Heard Ranch community where
properties are designated as Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre. West of
the property are two large properties designated Mixed Use Agricultural. East of
the subject site, the General Plan Land Use Map has designated properties as
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and commercial.

HISTORY OF THE SITE
3. In 1924, the site was subdivided as part of the Bartlett Heard Lands subdivision
which created 77 tracts of land spread across several square miles as part of a
survey by Mr. Harry E. Jones. In 1960, the subject site was annexed into the
Ordinance No. G-449 in 1961. Historic aerial imagery dating to 1969 showed an
orchard located on the subject site, which remained partially on site until
approximately 2014.

In 1997, zoning case Z-30-97-3 approved the change of zoning along the
northern portion of the site from S-1 to C-2, subject to several stipulations
pertaining to: site plan conformance, maximum building height, pitched roof
requirements, cluster development, parking lot lighting, covered walkways,
maximum lot coverage, enhanced perimeter and parking landscaping, fencing
and design guidelines from the Baseline Area Master Plan. The General Plan

Page 651
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

land use map designation for this property in 1997 was Residential 0 to 2
dwelling units per acre, while the Baseline Area Master Plan changed the land
use map designation on the site to Mixed Use Agricultural.

In 2016, PUD case Z-51-6-8 was filed for the subject site with the intent of
developing commercial, office and retail uses on the site. There was a
concurrent minor General Plan Amendment case GPA-SM-2-17-8 seeking to
change the land use designation from Mixed Use Agricultural to Mixed Use
Agricultural and Commercial was also filed. However, these two cases were
withdrawn in mid-2020.

BASELINE AREA MASTER PLAN
4. The Baseline Area Master Plan (BAMP) addresses the existing conditions of the
plan area, articulates a vision for the future and offers a series of
implementation strategies to achieve the community’s vision for the area. One
of the implementation strategies contained in the plan was the creation of a
mixed use agricultural district with development standards that addressed
agriculturally based land uses and deep setbacks. The PUD development
narrative integrates development standards and design guidelines that embody
the adopted MUA Zoning District within the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, thereby
providing consistency with portions of the BAMP. The PUD development
narrative primarily adheres to the MUA Zoning District building and landscape
standards along perimeter arterial streets where this development will be most
visible. Other design guidelines from the BAMP have been incorporated to
address perimeter parking standards.

BASELINE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
5. The Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD) contains guidelines that address
building and site design in addition to signage standards applicable to the
subject site. The current rezoning request does not eliminate requirements for
conformance with this overlay district. The standards contained in the
Development Narrative meet or exceed all BAOD standards. For BAOD
standards not directly addressed in the Development Narrative, the BAOD
standard will apply.

PROPOSAL
6. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning designation, which allows
an applicant to propose uses, development standards, and design guidelines for
a site. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) is intended to create a built
environment that is superior to that produced by conventional zoning districts
and design guidelines. Using a collaborative and comprehensive approach, an
applicant authors and proposes standards and guidelines that are tailored to the
context of a site on a case by case basis. Where the PUD Development
Narrative is silent on a requirement, the applicable Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
provisions will be applied.

Page 652
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

7. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described
in the attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped January 22, 2021.
The proposed standards were designed to allow residential (including
multifamily) and all permitted uses from the MUA Zoning District. The proposal
reflects the agricultural character of the surrounding area which includes plant
nurseries, landscaping businesses and large lot residential development.

Development standards and design guidelines in the proposal were designed to
apply to multifamily development (higher than two dwelling units per acre),
incorporating various MUA Zoning District standards. If the site develops with a
permitted use from the MUA Zoning District, this use would follow the Zoning
Ordinance regulations from the BAOD and MUA Zoning Districts. The standards
outlined in the development narrative and applicable to multifamily were
designed to meet or exceed the standards in the Mixed Use Agricultural Zoning
District. Select standards that deviate from the MUA Zoning District are
identified subsequently in this report.

a. Land Use Plan and Permitted Uses
The Development Narrative allows both primary, accessory and temporary uses
on this site. Primary uses are limited to residential (including multifamily) and all
permitted uses from the Mixed Use Agricultural Zoning District, thus enabling
the property to be developed with a wide variety of uses consistent with the
requested Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per
acre minor general plan amendment under case GPA-SM-1-20-8.

The conceptual site plan provided by the applicant, depicts a multifamily
development that could be developed utilizing the standards within the
Development Narrative. Vehicular access to the subject site is proposed along
39th Street and 40th Street, while the Development Narrative requires
multifamily developments to provide a system of pedestrian pathways
connecting the site internally, to adjacent streets and the pharmacy at the
southwest corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue.

The Development Narrative requires multifamily developments with a density
higher than two dwelling units per acre to provide two open space areas of no
less than 15,000 square feet visible from the primary entrance along 39th Street
and along the south portion of the site. Perimeter enhancements include deep
building and landscape setbacks, enhanced planting standards and rural
fencing elements referenced in more details subsequently.

Page 653
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Synectic Design Inc.

b. Development Standards
The Development Narrative proposes development standards that incorporate
both BAOD and MUA standards. The table and sub-sections below provide a
summary of the development standards found within the PUD applicable to
multifamily development.

The MUA Zoning District allows residential uses with a maximum density of two
dwelling units per acre while the proposed Development Narrative allows
multifamily with a maximum density of 11.2 dwelling units per gross acre in
addition to requiring other standards described below.

Maximum Building Height 2 stories, not to exceed 30 feet

Buildings located within 60 feet from 40th
Street and Southern Avenue shall not
exceed 1 story and 20 feet. Buildings
located within 140 feet of the south
property line shall not exceed 1 story and
20 feet.

Maximum Lot Coverage 35%
Maximum Density 11.2 dwelling units per gross acre

Page 654
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Minimum Building Setbacks
40th Street, Southern Avenue 40 feet
and south property line
West perimeter property line 20 feet
(adjacent to 39th Street)
West perimeter property line 15 feet
(not adjacent to 39th Street) and
interior property lines (adjacent
to existing commercial)
Minimum Open Space 20%
Minimum Landscape
Setbacks
40th Street 35 feet average, minimum 30 feet
permitted for 50% of the frontage
Southern Avenue 35 feet
South perimeter property line 25 feet
West perimeter property line 20 feet
(adjacent to 39th Street)
West perimeter property line 10 feet
(not adjacent to 39th Street) and
interior property line (adjacent to
the existing commercial)
Minimum Parking Lot 10%
Landscaping
Required Parking
Multifamily 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5
spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom unit and 2
spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0
space per unit of less than 600 square feet
regardless of number of bedrooms.

(Subject to other applicable requirements
per Section 702 of the Zoning Ordinance)
Bicycle 0.25 parking spaces per unit up to 50
spaces maximum

Building Height:
The Development Narrative proposes a maximum height of two stories and 30
feet. This is consistent with residential standards in the MUA Zoning District and
the BAOD which permits a maximum height of two stories not to exceed 30 feet.
The Development Narrative does however exceed these standards by further
limiting building height to one story and 20 feet within 60 feet from 40th Street
and Southern Avenue, and within 140 feet from the south property line. The
proposed building height is consistent with existing zoning standards in the
surrounding area. The Development Narrative also requires that a minimum of
one-third of the dwelling unit buildings in a multiple-family development shall not

Page 655
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

exceed one story or 15 feet in height, consistent with a design presumption in
the BAOD.

Conceptual Front Building Elevations, Source: BSB Design

Building Setbacks:
Proposed setbacks include a 40-foot setback along 40th Street, Southern
Avenue and the south property line, which meet or exceed the MUA Zoning
District requirements for a front and rear yard. A 20-foot building setback is
provided along 39th Street, while the MUA Zoning District requires a 30-foot
front yard setback next to local streets. The building setbacks for interior
property lines not adjacent to a street are 15 feet minimum, while the MUA
Zoning District requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 15 feet and 20
feet for a rear yard.

While most building setback standards are consistent with the MUA Zoning
District, the setback along 39th Street and interior property line setbacks were
reduced. However, no residential developments would be impacted as these
property lines are located adjacent to an existing pharmacy and an active plant
nursery across 39th Street. The Baseline Area Overlay District contains no
relevant standards.

Landscaping Standards – Street Perimeter Property Lines:
The Development Narrative proposes landscaping standards for all street
perimeter property lines and parking areas. Proposed landscaping standards
meet or exceed the MUA Zoning District requirements along 40th Street and
Southern Avenue, both arterial streets. The landscape setback along 39th
Street is proposed at 20 feet in width, while the MUA Zoning District requires an
average 25-foot wide, 20-foot minimum for 50 percent of the frontage landscape

Page 656
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

setback. Development Narrative indicates that plant material in required
landscape areas shall be limited to the plant lists or equivalents per the MUA
Zoning District and BAMP, to enhance the rural and agricultural character of the
surrounding area.

The tree mix will include 25 percent two-inch, 50 percent three-inch and 25
percent four-inch caliper trees with a minimum five, five-gallon shrubs per tree
to provide a 75-percent live cover along 40th Street. The tree mix will change
along 39th Street and Southern Avenue to include 50 percent two-inch, 25
percent three-inch and 25 percent four-inch caliper trees. A minimum of five
percent of the landscape area will be planted in flowers, applying a design
presumption in the MUA Zoning District. Overall, these standards meet or
exceed the MUA Zoning District planting standards.

Landscape Standards – Interior (Not Adjacent to Street) Property Lines:
The proposal includes a minimum 10-foot landscape setback for perimeter
property lines along the western interior property line not adjacent to 39th Street
and adjacent to the existing Walgreens pharmacy. Along the interior south
property line, the Development Narrative requires a 25-foot wide landscape
setback, exceeding the minimum requirement for 10 feet in the MUA Zoning
District.

The tree mix will include 60 percent two-inch and 40 percent one-inch caliper
trees planted along the western interior property line not adjacent to 39th Street
and along the Walgreens pharmacy. Along the south property line, two rows of
trees at a minimum 50 percent two-inch caliper and 50 percent three-inch
caliper are to be planted, which exceeds the MUA Zoning District requirement
for a single-row of trees at 60 percent two-inch caliper and 40 percent one-inch
caliper in size.

A minimum of five, five-gallon shrubs per tree are to be provided along all
interior landscape setbacks to achieve a 50 percent live cover in addition to five
percent of the landscape area will be planted in flowers. These standards meet
or exceed the MUA Zoning District standards.

Landscape Standards – Parking Lot Areas:
The proposal includes a requirement for 10 percent of the interior surface area
of parking lots to be landscaped with a mix of 60 percent two-inch caliper and
40 percent one-inch caliper trees, plus five, five-gallon shrubs and flower
plantings. In addition, landscape planter standards were incorporated which
meet the MUA Zoning District requirements overall.

Landscape Standards – Adjacent to Building:
The Development Narrative incorporates planting standards for building facades
adjacent to public right-of-way or adjacent to public entries to buildings
(excluding alleys). These standards include exterior wall treatments and
landscaping are consistent with the MUA Zoning District requirements.

Page 657
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Lot Coverage:
The maximum proposed lot coverage is 35 percent for all structures, while the
MUA Zoning District allows for 35 percent lot coverage exclusive of shade
structures accessory to accessory to a nursery with fabric or plastic film not to
exceed 12 feet in height. This development standard is more restrictive than
the MUA Zoning Standard which allows a lot coverage of 35 percent with
exemptions for shade structures.

Parking:
The Development Narrative proposes vehicular parking at a rate of 1.3 spaces
per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom unit, 2 spaces per 3 or
more bedroom unit, and 1.0 space per unit of less than 600 square feet
regardless of number of bedrooms. This parking standard is consistent with
standards in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

In addition to vehicular parking, the project includes a standard for bicycle
parking at a rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit up to 50 spaces maximum.
General parking standards, short-term bicycle parking and long-term bicycle
parking standards are outlined in the Development Narrative. Bicycle parking for
non-residential uses is also provided, shall the site develop as a commercial
use permitted in the MUA Zoning District.

Neither the MUA Zoning District nor BAOD currently contain a standard for
bicycle parking, thus these standards provided exceed current requirements.

Fence and Wall:
The Development Narrative will adhere to the fencing standards outlined in the
Zoning Ordinance, where not in conflict with the design guidelines proposed. In
addition, the development will provide ranch rail fencing within the landscape
areas along 40th Street and Southern Avenue to highlight the agrarian history of
the area.

Ranch/split rail fence example, Source: Withey Morris, PLC

Page 658
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Amenities:
Both indoor and outdoor amenities are proposed as part of the Development
Narrative for residents and visitors of the multifamily development to enjoy. The
list of amenities includes:

• Community clubhouse
• Dog park
• Barbeque grills (2 minimum)
• Shade ramadas (4 minimum)
• Benches (8 minimum)
• A bicycle repair station
• Community garden area (minimum of 1,500 square feet in size)
• Garden tool checkout
• Pop-up produce stand

These amenities will help to promote the use of outdoor spaces within the
development to help residents enjoy sunlight, improve their health by becoming
active and have a communal space to interact with one another. Additionally,
the community garden amenity will help to promote food production for healthy
diets.

Furthermore, voluntary restrictions on the location of game court amenities, if
these are provided, are also incorporated as part of the Development Narrative.
Both the BAOD and MUA zoning districts do not address residential amenities.
However, the proposed list of amenities exceeds the number which would be
required for an equivalent multifamily development per the Zoning Ordinance.

Open Space:
Both active and passive open space standards are proposed to be developed in
central locations of the multifamily development for a minimum of 20 percent of
the gross site area. These standards include an open space area of no less
than 15,000 square feet in size to be visible from the main entrance along 39th
Street and contain a pedestrian seating node, turf area of no less than 10,000
square feet in size and a garden amenity. A second open space area of no less
than 15,000 square feet in size is to be provided along the south property line
and contain benches and a garden amenity.

Page 659
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Conceptual Site Plan with Planning and Development annotations,
Source: Synectic Design

Furthermore, these open space areas are to be no less than 25 feet in width or
less than 300 square feet in area, and provide a 50 percent live vegetative
cover. Both the BAOD and MUA Zoning Districts do not address open space
standards for residential developments. However, the proposed standards
exeed applicable standards for an equivalent multifamily development per the
Zoning Ordinance.

Shade:
The Development Narrative outlines shade requirements which would require
parking areas, open space, amenity, seating, and other spaces available to
residents to contain a minimum of 50 percent shade. Internal pedestrian
thoroughfares and adjacent public sidewalks are required to provide a minimum
of 75 percent shade via trees, landscaping and/or architectural shade.

These elements will promote thermal comfort and encourage residents to utilize
alternative transportation options, in addition to cooling the micro-climate to help
mitigate the urban heat island effect. Both the BAOD and MUA zoning districts
do not address shade standards. However, the proposed standards exceed
applicable standards for an equivalent multifamily development per the Zoning
Ordinance.

Page 660
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Pedestrian Paths (Internal):
Internal pedestrian paths are required to be ADA compliant, illuminated via
pedestrian scale lighting, constructed of decorative pavement where vehicular
crossings exist and provide connections via the most direct route to and
between:

• All residential units
• Amenity buildings, active open space areas and parking
• Sidewalk along Southern Avenue (minimum of one connection)
• Sidewalk along 39th Street (minimum of one connection)
• Sidewalk along 40th Street (minimum of two connections)
• Walgreens pharmacy

Furthermore, a decorative pedestrian path shall be provided along the south
property line and decorative open view fencing shall be provided along
pedestrian entrances or exits adjacent to perimeter sidewalks and the adjacent
commercial development, if the development is gated. These elements will
encourage residents to walk by providing a safe, inviting and convenient system
of paths to encourage the utilization of alternative transportation modes.

The MUA zoning districts do not address pathway standards. However, the
proposed standards exceed applicable standards for an equivalent multifamily
development per the Zoning Ordinance.

Entry Features and Entryways:
The Development Narrative contains standards that require decorative view
fencing along pedestrian pathways if the development is fenced. Other
enhancements for entryways include detached pedestrian paths with
landscaping, decorative driveway surface material and traffic calming measures
along points of ingress and egress.

The MUA Zoning District does not address entryway standards. However, the
proposed standards exceed applicable standards for an equivalent multifamily
development per the Zoning Ordinance. Design guidelines for entry features
within the BAOD are reflected in the subsection below.

Detached Sidewalks:
Sidewalks along all public streets shall be a minimum of five feet wide, detached
and developed to the following standards:

• A continuous landscape strip of five feet shall be provided along 39th
Street
• A continuous landscape strip per the most recent Street Classification
Map shall be provided along 40th Street and Southern Avenue
• Three-inch caliper trees planted 25 feet on center or equivalent
groupings and limbed a minimum of 10 feet from finished grade

Page 661
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

• Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree with a maximum mature height of 24
inches providing 75 percent live cover

Furthermore, the plantings provided within right-of-way landscape areas shall
be per the MUA and BAMP list of approved plants or their equivalents. The
MUA Zoning District do not address detached sidewalk standards and the
BAOD only addresses detached sidewalks adjacent to Baseline Road and
internal to single-family residential subdivision. The proposed standards exceed
applicable standards for an equivalent multifamily development per the Zoning
Ordinance.

Lighting:
The Development Narrative also identifies lighting standards for multifamily
developments will conform to the lighting standards per the MUA Zoning District
and will follow other lighting standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and
City Code.

c. Design Guidelines
The design guidelines enumerated in the Development Narrative are applicable
to multifamily developments with a density greater than two dwelling units per
acre. These design guidelines conform to the BAOD and select design
guidelines per the MUA Zoning District within the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Other Zoning Ordinance design guidelines such as 507 Tab A. are also
applicable to this development, although not specifically enumerated.

Multifamily Residential (General):
The Development Narrative contains design guidelines applicable to multifamily
development which are outlined in the BAOD as design presumptions. These
include:

• Distribution of parking areas throughout the development;
• Clustering of multifamily buildings around common open space;
• A minimum of one-third of the dwelling units shall not exceed one story or
15 feet in height.

Other design guidelines include requiring 50 percent of residential units to
provide covered porches along the primary building entry. This design guideline
is found in the BAOD and applicable to single-family development to increase
the number of eyes focused on the street and improve safety. The same
concept is being adopted in this Development Narrative with the intent to
improve the safety of the multifamily community. Similarly, residential units
facing away from 39th Street shall provide covered back patios oriented towards
39th Street. Stipulation No. 1.j and 1.l clarifies the intent of this design guideline
and the design guideline referencing pedestrian gates.

Page 662
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Building Material:
A variety of building materials are required to be incorporated into residential
buildings, including:

• Stucco (not to exceed 70 percent of exterior walls)
• Stone and stone veneer
• Decorative wood braces, wood brackets and columns
• Wood siding
• Flat concrete tile roofing
• Board and batten

These materials are consistent with materials referenced in the MUA Zoning
District as applicable to commercial buildings. However, since these materials
are endemic of the rural and agrarian character of the area, these have been
incorporated into the design guidelines for multifamily development to support
this vision for the area.

Roofs:
The Development Narrative adopts the design guidelines referenced in the MUA
Zoning District, thus must adhere to these design elements. These roof design
elements include prohibition of barrel tile roofs, required pitched roof elements,
and overhanging wooden eaves, exposed rafters and shutters.

Fences and Walls:
The Design Guidelines contain fencing and wall standards consistent with the
BAOD, including:

• Open fencing (wrought iron, split rail or farm fencing) shall be used for
perimeter walls;
• Vines or shrubs shall be provided and maintained on the exterior of all
solid perimeter fencing.

Other fencing and wall standards consistent with the MUA Zoning District which
have been incorporated include:

• Solid fences and walls shall be prohibited on the perimeter of a lot or
development;
• Fence and wall material along the front yard shall be limited to wrought
iron, split rail, corral fencing, or a combination of three feet of solid
masonry topped by open fencing;

Page 663
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Other design guidelines voluntarily incorporated include:

• Rural style fencing and/or view fencing are to be encouraged internally
within the development.
• Decorative pedestrian gates along the back patios of units adjacent to
39th Street, allowing for a direct connection to the street.

The fencing and wall guidelines contained in the Development Narrative are
consistent with the design guidelines found in the BOAD and MUA zoning
districts.

Building Orientation and Massing:
The proposal includes a requirement for integration of the building orientation
and massing presumptions in the MUA Zoning District for new buildings. This
standard will ensure the incorporation of varied architectural treatments and
street-oriented design in new buildings to ensure consistency with the rural
character of the area. An additional design element requires that residential
units not directly facing 39th Street, shall contain a back patio that is oriented
towards 39th Street to reinforce community orientation along the main entrance
to the development. Stipulation No. 1.l seeks to clarify this design guideline
pertaining to the orientation of back patios along 39th Street.

Parking:
The Development Narrative states that parking guidelines for multifamily
development in BAOD will be adhered to. In terms of the MUA Zoning District,
the following guidelines are proposed to be followed:

• No parking or maneuvering areas shall be permitted in the perimeter
setbacks;
• No single surface parking area shall exceed 50 spaces unless divided
into two or more sub-areas;

The Development Narrative modified an MUA design guideline which requires
parking areas to be placed behind a building or along the non-street side of a
building, to apply only along 39th Street and Southern Avenue. In order to help
screen the parking area along the 40th Street perimeter, a design guideline
referenced in the BAMP, was incorporated to require a landscape berm a
minimum of 4 feet in height

Although agricultural developments have traditionally used a form of
decomposed granite rather than asphalt to dustproof parking areas, this type of
paving material is not proposed in the Development Narrative to apply to
multifamily developments. Alternative dust proofing is however an option,
subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.

Page 664
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Entry Features:
The proposal incorporates design elements applicable to residential
development entry features as part of the BAOD design guidelines. Both design
elements pertain to landscaping requirements within entryways.

Windows:
The Development Narrative incorporates design elements pertaining to windows
which are referenced in the MUA Zoning District. These design elements pertain
to ground floor elevations incorporating windows and doors where facing right-
of-way, window visible transmittance rating, and the use of decorative window
shutters on a minimum of 50 percent of building elevation facades.

Lighting:
The proposal adopts the lighting design presumption per the MUA Zoning
District which limits requires low level and uniform lighting dispersed through the
site with a lumen rating of 3,000 or less. A voluntary design guideline that was
adopted requires the use of decorative light fixtures along building facades and
where visible from common areas and the perimeter of the site.

Other Design Elements:
The Development Narrative incorporates a voluntary design element which
requires HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) units to be ground-
mounted. This is a design element that is not described in the BAOD or MUA
zoning districts.

d. Signage Standards
The Development Narrative proposes conformance with the sign standards in
Sections 649 (MUA), 651 (BAOD), and 705 (Signs) of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance for multifamily developments with a density greater than two dwelling
units per acre. Compliance with the MUA and BAOD signage standards will
support consistency with the unique rural and agrarian heritage of the
surrounding area.

e. Sustainability
The Development Narrative proposes several city-enforced sustainability
features. These include encouraging the use of drought-tolerant plant materials,
shading standards, drip irrigation systems to conserve water and recycling
collection.

Several developer/owner enforced standards were incorporated which include
encouraging the use of grey water systems to irrigate plants, use of solar
panels, alternative paving materials, utilize full-cut off light fixtures, promote the
harvesting of edible plants, provide a tool library checkout and maintain outdoor
furnishings.

Page 665
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

PLANS AND INITIATIVES
8. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. The proposal includes enhanced landscape areas along
40th Street and Southern Avenue, in addition to robust shading requirements for
internal paths and public sidewalks. Similarly, new landscape areas will be
provided in the parking area and perimeter property lines. Trees in these areas
will help to reduce the urban heat island effect and will provide thermal comfort
for residents and guests.

9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan and the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles
In 2014, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. Similarly, the Comprehensive
Bicycle Master Plan promotes bicycle infrastructure throughout the city.

The Development Narrative incorporates a system of pedestrian paths
throughout the development to encourage walking, while the inclusion of short-
term and long-term bicycle parking standards, in addition to a bike repair
station, will encourage bicycling for residents and guests helps to further both
these policies.

10. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a
goal to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and
mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The PUD encourages the use
of recycling collection, while the application materials identify the utilization of a
separate container for recycling.

11. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will

Page 666
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a
more sustainable fashion.

If the requested PUD BAOD zoning is approved for the subject site, it would
allow up to 193 multifamily dwelling units to be developed on this site.

STIPULATED REVISIONS FOR THE PUD HEARING DRAFT
12. Stipulations not otherwise addressed in the staff report were formulated to
address formatting and technical corrections to text within the Sanctuary at
South Mountain PUD hearing draft dated January 22, 2021. Changes to the text
include rewording to provide clarification regarding the development proposal.
Stipulation No. 1 must be completed within 30 days of City Council final
approval of the request.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. At the time this staff report was written, staff received 36 letters of opposition or
concern to the proposal, in addition to ten letters in support and petitions
containing signatures in support for case Z-35-20-8 and concurrent case
GPA-SM-1-20-8. The letters of concern referenced the proposed land uses,
residential density, increased traffic, proposed character, safety concerns for
bicyclists, among other elements as reasons for the opposition to the request.
Other letters from the community, applicant and property owner corresponding
to this case have been included for reference.

The proposed standards in the PUD will enhance perimeter screening, provide
deep setbacks along most street perimeters, limit the placement of two story
buildings towards the center of the site, and incorporate design guidelines to
promote the rural or agrarian character of the area to help address some of the
these concerns. In terms of land uses, a portion of the existing site has
commercial zoning which allows for multifamily development contingent on
undergoing a Planning Hearing Officer process to modify existing stipulations of
entitlement. Furthermore, multifamily development exists in the area northeast
of the site, and existing zoning is present in the area along Southern Avenue
which could allow for multifamily uses.

Phoenix Union High School District has indicated that the school district has
adequate school facilities to accommodate the projected number of additional
students generated by the proposed rezoning within the school district’s
attendance area.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Phoenix Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any
problems with this case and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the
Phoenix Fire Code. Additionally, the water supply for the referenced case is
unknown at the time but is required to meet the Phoenix Fire Code.

Page 667
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

15. The City of Phoenix Floodplain Management division of the Public Works
Department has determined that this parcel is not in a Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA), but is located in a Shaded Zone X, on panel 2240 M of the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated February 10, 2017.

16. The Water Services Department indicated that the subject site is surrounded
with existing water and sewer mains that can potentially serve the development.
Additionally, capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to a
variety of factors. It is the city’s intent to provide water and sewer service,
however the requirements and assurances for water and sewer service are
determined during the site plan application review.

17. The Street Transportation Department has requested a complete streets section
to be incorporated into the Development Narrative which explains how the PUD
standards improve convenience and comfort, connectivity, sustainability and
green infrastructure, among other elements. The current Development Narrative
has incorporated a Complete Street section addressing these comments.

Furthermore, the Street Transportation Department has requested that a traffic
impact study/statement be submitted for review prior to preliminary plan
approval. Additionally, that a 1-foot vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) be
dedicated along Southern Avenue in addition to constructing all adjacent street
improvements to meet ADA standards. These requests can be found in
Stipulation Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

18. The Public Transit Department requested that that developer provide clearly
defined, accessible pathways constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that visually contrast with the
adjacent parking and drive aisles surfaces. Also, that a connection between all
building entrances and exits, community amenities, and all public sidewalks
utilizing the minimum possible distance and providing the most direct route be
provided. Furthermore, that pedestrian access be provided at the southeast and
northwest corners of the site fronting 40th Street, and on the north portion of the
site to Southern Avenue. Lastly, trees shall be placed to provide 75 percent
shade coverage on all pedestrian paths and sidewalks at full maturity.
The Development Narrative contains standards that address pedestrian
connectivity and shade for multifamily developments.

19. The Pedestrian Safety Coordinator with the Street Transportation Department
requests the following:

• Site entrances be pedestrian scale,
• ADA compliant pedestrian access to and from the site,
• Attractive plus inviting pedestrian access to the site separated from
vehicular traffic,
• Maintaining pedestrian access to the existing Walgreens pharmacy,

Page 668
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

• Shaded detached sidewalks,
• Appropriate street lighting,
• Installing traffic calming devices along driveways,
• Providing outdoor furnishings in open space areas, and
• View fencing

The Development Narrative addresses site access, pedestrian connections,
entre features, shaded, detached sidewalks, traffic calming, outdoor furnishings
and view fencing standards.

OTHER
20. The subject site is within close proximity to land which is zoned MUA, which
allows for agricultural uses, thus potentially leading to dust, odors or other
impacts to future residential developments of the site. Stipulation No. 5 would
require the disclosure to purchasers of property and tenants within the
development, the existence and operational characteristics of agricultural uses
in the area.

21. The Aviation Department requires that the property owner record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the
existence, and operational characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property.
Furthermore, that an avigation easement is dedicated to the City of Phoenix as
this property is within the PHX International Airport traffic pattern airspace and
seeking noise sensitive land use. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 6 and
7.

22. The subject site is not located in an area identified as being archaeologically
sensitive. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during
construction, all ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius
of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified
immediately and allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 8.

23. The Office of Environmental Programs provided comments on concurrent
General Plan Amendment case, GPA-SM-1-20-8, with concern regarding the
reduction in Mixed Use Agricultural land use designations.

The Development Narrative addresses this by incorporating the inclusion of
Mixed Use Agricultural uses, a community garden amenity, pop-up produce
stand, and a tool library will be available for residents to promote urban
gardening and food production within the community. In addition, plant species
found in the BAMP and MUA Zoning District plant lists which have edible
applications may be utilized in the required landscape areas per the
Development Narrative to further promote food security in the area.

Page 669
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

24. The developer shall provide a hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of offsite storm
water flows, when present, at the time of preliminary site plan submittal for
verification of required infrastructure in regard to lot space and density.

25. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments
and abandonments, may be required.

Findings

1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation as well as the surrounding land uses and land use map
designations.

2. The proposal includes enhanced development standards and design guidelines
that often exceed MUA, BAOD and traditional residential standards that will
promote the rural and agricultural nature of the surrounding area.

3. The proposal will allow for additional residential development that is
appropriately located at the intersection of two arterial streets that offer
alternative transportation options connecting to the Interstate 10 freeway and
future light rail corridor further to the west. The proposal provides a transition
from existing commercial uses to single-family residential to the south.

Stipulations

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sanctuary at South Mountain PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval
of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped January 22, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front Cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the City Council
adoption date.

b. Page 9, 1. Development Standards Table, Minimum Building Setbacks,
add letter “s” at the end of “Interior Property Line…” in reference to interior
property lines adjacent to the existing Walgreens.

c. Page 10, under Open Space, add “…of gross site acreage.” at the end of
the first sentence.

Page 670
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

d. Page 12, Plant Lists, change the bold subheading “Plant Lists” from the
right-hand side of the table to the center-top above the reference to plant
materials. Also add the word “Zoning” after “Mixed Use Agricultural…”.

e. Page 14, 5. Amenities, shift “b. Outdoor Amenities:” to the following page.

f. Page 15, 6. Open Space, align the formatting of the text in the second
paragraph.

g. Page 16, 7. Shade, edit the last sentence to the following: “c. Shade
requirements shall be calculated on a Summer Solstice at 12:00 noon.”

h. Page 17, second paragraph, revise the second sentence to state “c.
Connections shall be provided from and between the following elements
via the most direct route using pathways a minimum of 4 feet in width:”
and revise the alignment at the bottom of the page starting with “d. Traffic
calming…”.
i. Page 19, E. Design Guidelines, change subheading from “1. Multifamily
Residential” to “1. General Standards”.

j. Page 19, E. Design Guidelines, under 1. Multifamily Residential, change
to: “e. All of the residential units adjacent to 39th Street shall contain
covered back patios at a minimum of 200 square feet in area at a depth of
at least six feet, if the front of residential units is not oriented towards 39th
Street.”

k. Page 19, E. Design Guidelines, under 1. Multifamily Residential, remove
sentence starting with “f. A minimum of two pedestrian gates…”

l. Page 21, 5. Building Orientation and Massing, revise the second sentence
to “b. Residential units adjacent to 39th Street which are not fronting onto
39th Street, shall incorporate back patios oriented towards 39th Street to
reinforce community orientation and place eyes on this street.”

m. Page 22, 10. Other Design Elements, please align the subheading.

n. Page 25, H. Complete Streets, change the word “ROW” to “right-of-way”.

o. Page 26, I. Infrastructure, 1. Circulation, lower case the word “Pedestrian”.

p. Page 27, J. Comparative Zoning Table, update the Proposed PUD
standards to match with the rest of the PUD document.

2. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is
reviewed and approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation

Page 671
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Department, to set up a meeting to discuss the requirements of the
statement/study. Upon completion of the TIS the developer shall submit the
completed TIS to the Planning and Development Department counter with
instruction to forward the study to the Street Transportation Department, Design
Section.

3. The developer shall dedicate a one-foot Vehicular Non-Access Easement
(VNAE) along Southern Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

5. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property and tenants within the development the
existence and operational characteristics of agricultural uses. The form and
content of such documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney.

6. The property owner shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of
Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) to
future owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such
documents shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which
have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

7. The developer shall grant and record an aviation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.

8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

Writer
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola

Team Leader
Samantha Keating

Page 672
Staff Report: Z-35-20-8
February 3, 2021

Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Community Correspondence (307 pages)
Sanctuary at South Mountain PUD Development Narrative date stamped January 22,

Page 673
R-3
R1-8
CP/GCP * R-3 * R1-8
Z-11-90 S-1 CP/BP *
Z-94-94 Z-SP-13-75 *
Z-21-18
C-1 *
R1-6
C-1 * Z-54-80
Z-SP-13-75
SOUTHERN AVE

41ST ST
SOUTHERN AVE FRN
C-1
38TH ST
C-1
S-1 C-2 40TH ST
Z-30-97
MUA* IND.PK. *
Z-14-01
C/Z-159-81 PLEASANT LN

NANCY LN
Baseline Area Plan
and Overlay District

S-1 * 40TH PL
BURGESS LN
Z-SP-1-64
R1-6
S-1 ALTA VISTA RD

RE-43 PL 41ST PL

39TH
S-1
ST CATHERINE AVE ST ANNE AVE

7TH AVE

I
Miles 27TH AVE 19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE 7TH ST 16TH ST 24TH ST
32ND ST
40TH ST
48TH ST

I-10
0.065 0.0325 0 0.065 BROADWAY RD

SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD

DOBBINS RD

Z-35-20

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris, PLC / Jason Morris
FROM:
C-2 BAOD ( 7.25 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. 7/14/2020
S-1 BAOD ( 10.02 a.c.)
DATE:

Z-35-20 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
17.27 Acres QS 2-36 D-10 TO: PUD BAOD ( 17.27 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 BAOD, S-1 BAOD 105, 10 126, N/A
PUD BAOD 193 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 674
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-35-20.mxd
R-3
R1-8
CP/GCP * R-3 * R1-8
Z-11-90 S-1 CP/BP *
Z-94-94 Z-SP-13-75 *
Z-21-18
C-1 *
R1-6
C-1 * Z-54-80
Z-SP-13-75
SOUTHERN AVE

41ST ST
SOUTHERN AVE FRN
C-1
38TH ST
C-1
S-1 C-2 40TH ST
Z-30-97
MUA* IND.PK. *
Z-14-01
C/Z-159-81 PLEASANT LN

NANCY LN
Baseline Area Plan
and Overlay District

S-1 * 40TH PL
BURGESS LN
Z-SP-1-64
R1-6
S-1 ALTA VISTA RD

RE-43 PL 41ST PL

39TH
S-1
ST CATHERINE AVE ST ANNE AVE

Maricopa County Assessor's Office

7TH AVE

I
Miles 27TH AVE 19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE 7TH ST 16TH ST 24TH ST
32ND ST
40TH ST
48TH ST

I-10
0.065 0.0325 0 0.065 BROADWAY RD

SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD

DOBBINS RD

Z-35-20

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris, PLC / Jason Morris
FROM:
C-2 BAOD ( 7.25 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. 7/14/2020
S-1 BAOD ( 10.02 a.c.)
DATE:

Z-35-20 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
17.27 Acres QS 2-36 D-10 TO: PUD BAOD ( 17.27 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 BAOD, S-1 BAOD 105, 10 126, N/A
PUD BAOD 193 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 675
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-35-20.mxd
From: Somos BuildBam
To: PDD South Mountain VPC
Cc: Somos BuildBam
Subject: Fwd: Community Response for South Mountain Village Planning (Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8.)
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 11:04:31 AM
Attachments: 40th St & Southern Ave_2021.01.18.pdf

Hi South Mountain Village Planning Committee,

Enrique asked that I share the attached with you directly.

It is a presentation on the proposal at 40th St and Southern Ave from the resident collective
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] that we shared with him on Jan 18, 2021 - in
anticipation of the the planning department providing feedback to the Applicant.

This presentation showcases the deficiencies of the proposal relative to the General Plan and
contends that the negative impact this precedent would set for the entire Baseline Area cannot
be mitigated without significantly onerous stipulations.

Therefore, we continue to ask that this proposal be rejected in its entirety.

Additionally, the Applicant continues to refuse to work with the neighbors.

Dec 4, 2020, Councilmember Garcia committed to set up a meeting between the
Neighbors, the Applicant, and the Councilmember
Jan 15, 2021, Councilmember Garcia's office scheduled said meeting for Jan 26, 2021.
All parties confirmed attendance.
Jan 19, 2021, the Applicant canceled their participation in the meeting.
Jan 22, 2021, the Applicant submitted their Hearing Draft
Jan 26, 2021, the Neighbors met with Councilmember Garcia despite the Applicant
being absent.

During the most recent meeting with the Councilmember, the following statement was met
with general consensus: "The Pandemic is being exploited by big money to develop
inappropriate projects in now faceless, bodiless, and voiceless neighborhoods."

We respectfully ask you to consider the above and attached as you review this proposal in
anticipation of the hearing on Feb 9, 2021.

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:30 PM
Subject: Community Response for South Mountain Village Planning (Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-
1-20-8.)
To: Enrique Bojorquez
Cc: Somos BuildBam

Page 676
January 18, 2021
RE: Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8

Hi Enrique,

Hope this note finds you well.

Please add the following to the case file to the above referenced.

Attached is a presentation on the proposal at 40th St and Southern Ave from the resident
collective somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org].

At your request, we are forwarding our response to the proposal. In the spirit of sound
planning, we hope you find it helpful.

If you have any questions, please call,
Trent Marchuk
602.499.9594
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

Page 677
Page 678
Page 679
Page 680
Page 681
Page 682
Page 683
Page 684
Page 685
Page 686
Page 687
Page 688
Hello, my name is Fabiola Marquez.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the proposed development at the southwest corner of
40th St and Southern Ave. My husband and I own a small business that is located just north of
the I-10 off of 40th St. We have owned the business for 20 years. On May of 2019 we bought a
home that had been sitting vacant for years on the corner of 40th St and St Catherine. Our
home sits just south of this proposed development - within 600 feet. We have six children and
two grandchildren. We are pro-development, as evidenced by all of the improvements we have
done to the house and the land in the time we have lived here.

My husband and I made significant, at least to us, investments in South Phoenix. We did so
trusting in the city’s stated vision within the Phoenix General Plan, the Baseline Area Master
Plan, the Baseline Area Overlay District, and the Mixed Use Agriculture District. We love South
Phoenix. We want to grow and prosper with this part of the city because of its unique heritage.

Our family and community have many concerns regarding the proposed development. The
intersection at 40th St and Southern is already very dangerous. We can recount many stories
of traffic accidents and crime. However, to really understand the dangers this project presents -
and the required proactive mitigations - we need time to understand exactly what adding 450
more people to just 15.74 acres will do to our community and its infrastructure.

In conclusion, we are pro-development. Let’s ensure we are doing so in a manner consistent
with the city’s wonderful vision. Our family and neighbors have many concerns regarding the
general safety and health of the neighborhood and the impact to our significant investments - at
least to our humble and hardworking family - in South Phoenix. We request more time to work
together on this proposal to resolve the unresolved neighborhood concerns. Therefore, I
strongly request a second meeting to address these concerns.

Page 689
From: Sandy Bawden
To: hannah@witheymorris.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Case Nos. Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8 40th St & Southern
Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 5:24:46 PM

Hello,

My name is Sandy Bawden. My husband and I and our children are all Phoenix
natives. We moved to the Bartlett-Heard Estates in 1987. Our sons were eight
and fourteen at the time.

We moved to the area specifically because we wanted open space where our
sons could safely play and explore. We also had other family in the area. We
knew it was changing and developing and we wanted to be a part of that.
When we moved here, there was a large cotton field across the street and to
the west with citrus groves and the beautiful Baseline Flower Gardens to the
south.

We wanted to be a part of the change and development and to that end we
have tried to stay involved with changes over the years. As a result of our
community working together with our City council representatives and the
developers we now have the Raven Golf Course.

The development that has been submitted to our neighborhood in this case is
not what we want to see. We do not want nor need more apartments in
this area. However, we know that working together we can have a positive
outcome that fits our community desires and the desires of the owners.

Respectfully

Sandy Bawden

Page 690
Page 691
Page 692
Page 693
From: Beth
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Development 40th st & Southern
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:54:32 PM

I am reaching out to you to express my concern
over the proposed multipurpose residential units
that are being considered for the SW corner of 40th St & Southern
We have lived in the Heard Barrlett neighborhood for 37 years and enjoy the rare rural lifestyle so many crave. We
need to hang in to this beautiful part of the South Mountain history.
Businesses such as The Farm are the ones we need to promote.
Our roads can not handle the traffic pouring out onto 40th & Southern. That intersection is already very unsafe and
has has multiple accidents This would add unwanted traffic to our neighborhood on the roads as well as private
bridle trails
Please help us keep the integrity and History of our Beautiful neighborhood once it’s gone we won’t be able to get it
back
In closing we are against this project

Beth Holmes & Bill Ramsey

Sent from my iPhone

Page 694
From: BILL GLOVER
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th & Southern
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:50:36 PM

This project is a killer for our quiet neighborhood. Maybe if it was ¼ the amount of homes it would work. Please do
not allow this awful design in our village. Thanks for listening.
Sent from my iPhone
Bill Glover

Page 695
From: Blake PETERSON
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th Street and Southern development
Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:57:02 AM

Hi Enrique, I wanted to comment on the proposed development at 40th street and southern. I
am opposed to this development because of the density of the project and it does not fit into
the multi use agriculture map overlay for the area. There was much time and resources
devoted to making the map overlay for the area......let's stick to the plan that was developed.
My neighborhood heard ranch is one acre or greater parcels and a development that will have
20 units per acre is not consistent or desirable for this area. Thank You, Blake Peterson

Page 696
From: carleyward@aol.com
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 10:16:29 AM

Regarding 40th and Southern application for change in zoning, John and my self are opposed. the
proposed housing because it is inconsistent with surrounding existing housing and would increase traffic
in the already busy streets. It appears that the proposed plan is for " Section 8 government housing".
This would increase crime in this area which is already plagued with crime problems. Also there are
inconsistencies in the Exhibits presented. Sincerely Carley and John Ward at 3535 E. Vineyard Rd.

Page 697
From: FABIOLA MARQUEZ
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th ST. and Southern Ave. Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 2:35:01 PM

Hello,

We, Alonso Marquez and Fabiola Marquez live on 6409 S. 39th Place, Phoenix,
Arizona 85042. We are writing to share with you our perspective on the proposed
development on the Southwest corner of 40th St and Southern Ave. Please add this
to the official case file for "40th ST. and Southern Ave. Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-
8".

Although we are pro-development, and want our community in South Phoenix to grow
and flourish, I , we can not and do not support this proposal for at least three reasons:

1) We are concerned with the safety issues that inevitably will come with densifying
this land. Bringing nearly 450 cars into just 15.7 acres will strain our already over-
burdened infrastructure and resources. Traffic is already horrible enough, our
schools are overcrowded, and we still lack adequate retail, office, and
parks/recreation options in our community.

2) This proposal does not align to the City's stated vision for the land since 1996,
which has been voted on twice with the last time receiving 76% approval and would
address the lacks stated above. We have made personal financial investments in
South Phoenix trusting in this stated plan.

3) How these two parcels develop will set precedent for the remaining developable
land south of Southern from 40th St down to 24th St. Further densification will
exacerbate our community resources and infrastructure, as well as gut our formally
recognized special heritage.

Therefore, we strongly request that this proposal be denied by the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee, City Council and the Mayor.

Thank you,
Fabiola and Alonso Marquez

Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10

Page 698
From: mjb@cartof.com
To: Pattihoash@gmail.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Cc: Samantha Keating; Alan Stephenson; Council District 8 PCC; steven@pacecpas.com;
regenagustafson@eaglehm.com; mjbarre@ix.netcom.com; skb5775@gmail.com
Subject: RE: New REZONING Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD (Approximately 340 feet west
of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue) - 2nd Submittal
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:56:20 AM
Attachments: image001.png

Enrique--
I attempted to submit the comments through the referenced url link, but couldn't make it
work. I, too, feel strongly that this project it inappropriate for the location. While it may
be a nice project in another location, this location is within the BAOD and is designated
MUA, both of which requirements should be honored. The density should be no more than 2
du/acre.
I am out of town with limited access to my materials, and so I am unable to go through
the detailed violations of both the BAOD and MUA proposed by this project.
On a more macro level, there are no two story buildings south of Southern in the area,
and this borders a residential project with large lot homes. To put 11 du/acre here does not
fit within the immediate area.
Further, I see very little attention to the agricultural ambiance that MUA is supposed to
respect. One small flower stand does not make an 17 acre agricultural in character.
While it references certain City code sections for fencing and walls, that does not give us
any indication of what is planned for the project. Historically we have talked about picket
type fences or similar for MUA areas, and not the high block walls that may be permitted in
other locations.

Marcia Busching

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: New REZONING Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH
MOUNTAIN PUD (Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Southern Avenue) - 2nd Submittal
From: Patti Trites
Date: Tue, October 20, 2020 1:49 pm
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola ,
"M Busching (Cartof)" , Adriana Garcia Maximiliano

Cc: Samantha Keating , Alan Stephenson
, Council District 8 PCC

Hi Enrique and Councilman Garcia,

I hope this finds you well.

For this case, as it is part of the Baseline Overlay District - I FEEL STRONGLY - that
any applicant and developer needs to meet the Baseline Overlay District
requirements. No exception....or else it will start eroding the detail planning in the
Overlay District.
They purchased the land knowing this upfront. Please help me in enforcing it.

Thank you.

Patti Trites

Page 699
From: Lisa Peterson
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:55:22 AM

Hi Enrique,

I am against the project proposed at 40th street and Southern behond Walgreens. The density
is too high and it does not fit into the multi use agriculture map over lay. My neighborhood
Heard Ranch is 1 acre or better parcels. The propoasal is 20 units per acre. This is the wrong
use for this property and it will lower our property values. We have lived in the neighborhood
for over 20 years. Respectfully we do not want this project.

Thank you,

Lisa Peterson

Page 700
From: Lu Ann Winters
To: hannah@witheymorris.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Samantha Keating; Pattihoash@gmail.com; Greg
Brownell; Gene Homerud; josephlarios@gmail.com; Muriel Smith; Shelly Smith; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor
Gallego
Subject: 40th St and Southern Ave Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 6:05:42 PM

Hello, My name is Lu Ann Winters and I live on Baseline and 34th. I am writing to
share with you my perspective on the proposed development on the southwest corner
of 40th Street and Southern Avenue. Please add this to the official case file for "40th
Street and Southern Avenue Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.

I am opposed to this proposed development because of the safety issues that
inevitably will come with densifying this land. Bringing nearly 450 cars into just 15.7
acres will strain our already overburdened infrastructure and resources. Traffic is
already horrific enough and we still lack adequate retail, office, and parks/recreation
options in our community.

This proposal does not align to the City's stated vision for the land since 1996, which
has been voted on twice with the last time receiving 76% approval and would address
the lacks stated above. I have made personal financial investments in South Phoenix
trusting in this stated plan.

I am also opposed because how these two parcels develop will set precedent for the
remaining developable land south of Southern from 40th Street down to 24th Street.
Further densification will exacerbate our community resources and infrastructure, as
well as gut our formally recognized special heritage.

Therefore, I strongly request that this proposal be denied by the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee, City Council and the Mayor.

Thank you,

Lu Ann Winters

Page 701
From: Mary Hagerty
To: hannah@witheymorris.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Samantha Keating; Pattihoash@gmail.com; Greg
Brownell; Gene Homerud; josephlarios@gmail.com; Muriel Smith; Shelly Smith; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor
Gallego
Subject: Subject: "40th ST. and Southern Ave. Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8"
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 3:22:15 PM

My name is Mary Hagerty and I live in Ravenswood on
32nd St.   I am writing to share with you my perspective on the proposed
development on the Southwest corner of 40th St and Southern Ave.
Please add this to the official case file for "40th ST. and Southern Ave. Z-35-20-
8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8".

Although I am pro-development, and want my community in South Phoenix to
grow and flourish, I can not and do not support this proposal for at least three
reasons:

1) I am concerned with the safety issues that inevitably will come with
densifying this land. Bringing nearly 450 cars into just 15.7 acres will strain our
already over-burdened infrastructure and resources. Traffic is already horrible
enough, our schools are overcrowded, and we still lack adequate retail, office,
and parks/recreation options in our community.

2) This proposal does not align to the City's stated vision for the land since
1996, which has been voted on twice with the last time receiving 76% approval
and would address the lacks stated above. I have made personal financial
investments in South Phoenix trusting in this stated plan.

3) How these two parcels develop will set precedent for the remaining
developable land south of Southern from 40th St down to 24th St. Further
densification will exacerbate our community resources and infrastructure, as
well as gut our formally recognized special heritage..

Therefore, I strongly request that this proposal be denied by the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee, City Council and the Mayor.

Thank you,
Mary A Hagerty

Page 702
From: Mary Hagerty
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: RESIDENT OPINION: SMVPC INFORMATIONAL MEETING FOR Z-35-20-8 AND GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2020 6:36:36 PM

Hello Enrique--

I am writing to share my opinion on the proposed zoning change to 40th and Southern Ave.
(Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8). As a permanent resident to this area, I often use Southern
Ave. when I need to head east. Baseline is so filled with heavy traffic and congestion,
Southern offers a quicker route. This is a quieter route, offers more desert views and allows
me to arrive at appointments and meetings unstressed and more relaxed.

Thank you,
Mary A Hagerty
3241 E Maldonado Dr
Phoenix, Az 85042
602-346-0336

Page 703
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Somos BuildBam
Subject: Response to Applicant Claims dated Aug 13, 2020 (Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Friday, January 29, 2021 1:19:55 PM
Attachments: Gmail - Mtg Notes Beth Hintze & Trent Marchuk_ 40th ST and Southern Ave. Z-25-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.pdf
RE Trying to contact Trent Marchuk and others.pdf
Aug_Hintze_Marchuk_Contact.pdf

Hi Enrique,

Please add the below and attached to the case file for Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8.

Per the 12-21-20 records request, we learned that the Applicant alleged to the CIty that our
resident collective was 1) making false statements back in August, 2) that the resident
collective was allegedly not available to the Applicant, and 3) that the resident collective is
representative of just a "small handful of people". We would like to offer an evidence-based
response that corrects these allegations as follows:

1. The Resident Collective has not misrepresented the Applicant
2. The Resident Collective has been incredibly responsive to meeting with the Applicant
3. The Resident Collective represents the interests of a sizable contingency

See below and attached for details.

The Resident Collective has not misrepresented the Applicant

Specifically, on the resident collective website it was stated that the Applicant could
alternatively build the charter school and retail. The Applicant's contention, and supposed
evidence of being misrepresented, is that she stated she could alternatively build the charter
school and apartments - not retail.

In response, it should be noted that:

The applicant has given presentations to the SMVPC where she has cited the possibility
of developing the land with what she considered to be "undesirable retail" uses.
The Applicant has also represented the same to the Neighbors.
Therefore, the representation of the Neighbors on the website was indeed inline with
how the Applicant has represented alternative development options for this land.
Nonetheless, upon learning of the Applicant's explicit desire for the alternative charter
and apartment use to be conveyed to the neighbors, the website was immediately
updated.

The Resident Collective has been incredibly responsive to meeting with the Applicant
Per the Applicant's statement of not being able to get a hold of the Neighbors, that is simply
not true.  The below contradicts the claims that the neighbors have not been anything but open
and eager to work with the Applicant.

Please consider the attached email exchange that shows an 8 hour response time to the
Applicant; we subsequently met within 24 hours
Also, it was noticed that the meeting notes covering the above referenced phone
conversation on Aug 14 and Aug 17, 2020 were omitted from the 12-21-20

Page 704
Records Request.
The notes are attached for completeness to ensure they are part of the case file.
See "Gmail - Mtg Notes Beth Hintze & Trent Marchuk_ 40th ST and Southern
Ave. Z-25-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.pdf"
Additionally, within 72 hours, the resident collective responded to the Applicant's
request to meet in November 2020.
The resident collective asked Councilmember Garcia to broker a meeting between the
Applicant, Neighbors, and the Councilmember on Dec 4, 2020.
The meeting was set by the Councilmember and confirmed by all parties on Jan
15 to meet on Jan 26, 2021.
On Jan 19, the Applicant canceled their participation.
On Jan 26, the Neighbors still met with the Councilmember.
The following statement was made to general consensus: "The Pandemic is
being exploited by land developers to develop inappropriate projects in
voiceless neighborhoods."

The Resident Collective represents the interests of a sizable contingency

Lastly, to the claim that the resident collective speaks for a "small group", that is incorrect.
Given the number of residents who have yielded their time to me as their spokesperson in both
SMVPC information sessions, and the number of residents with whom we have directly
spoken, we have full confidence that the perspectives represented by our resident collective
are indeed broad.

The applicant claims to have secured 85% support for this proposal before COVID - that
would be before March 2020. However, despite COVID, in Nov and Dec 2020, we
secured signatures (in a safe manner) from homeowners within 150 ft of the proposal -
residents in BHRE and the community on the other side of 40th St. Over half of the
residential home owners within 150 feet to the south and 150 feet to the east oppose this
project. This includes at least half of the homeowners who don't even live within BHRE.

Additionally, there are over 135 members of the somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]
group. Attached is an image of the verbatim quotes of responses received from these
individuals when they signed up to be part of the group. These quotes come from individuals
who not only live in BHRE, but also who live in the surrounding community.

As spokesperson of this collective, I do not speak for everyone.

I continue to speak for the above referenced neighbors and I speak for many others in the
community who share these sentiments.

We are not a small group.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

Page 705
Somos BuildBam

Please Call me
Somos BuildBam Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:12 AM
To: werfamily@cox.net

Sounds good; my number is 602.499.9594.

Talk soon

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 9:27 AM wrote:
Mr Marchuk,
I can do 11am today. Please give me your phone number so I can call you. Thank you.
Beth Hintze

On Aug 13, 2020 10:32 PM, Somos BuildBam wrote:
Hi Mrs Hintze,

Thank you for reaching out.

Will share a my availability Fri and Mon; please let me know which works best with your schedule:

Friday, Aug 14 @ 11a
Friday, Aug 14 @ 1p
Monday, Aug 17 @ 10a
Monday, Aug 17 @ 3p

I look forward to learning more about who you are and where you are coming from as a longstanding owner of the
property.

Best,
Trent

On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:28 PM Jerry & Beth Hintze wrote:

Hello Mr. Marchuk,

I am one of the property owners of the property located at 40th St and Southern. I welcome the opportunity to
speak to you personally to help you understand who I am and where I am coming from as an owner of this
property since 1995

Please call me when you have the opportunity.

Sincerely,

Beth Hintze

602-828-6295

Page 706
Please let me know if questions arise!

Thank you,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a
more timely response. Thank you.***

From: Jerry & Beth Hintze
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 9:11 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: RE: Trying to contact Trent Marchuk and others

Hello Enrique,

My name is Beth Hintze and I am one of the property owners of the 40th St And southern parcels. I have tried to contact Trent Marchuk through the Somos website. I gave him
my cell phone number and he has not returned a call to me. He has misrepresented what I stated at the last meeting and placed it online on the website. He has given false
statements and I would like him to remove them and place truthful statements from me. This has been a continuing problem with a small handful of people in the Bartlett
Heard neighborhood spreading misinformation about our past project and now this one. Do you have his phone number as I would rather not contact him at his work number,
but I will if necessary. If they truly want to be heard they should not be hiding behind a website with no person contact information. Please provide me with the phone
numbers of all those who have attached their names to this letter on the Somos website so I can speak the truth to each of them.

I would also like a list of phone numbers for each member of the South Mountain Committee. I would also like the list of people that the South Mountain Committee
recommended us to contact at the last meeting.

When I presented the last time my personal cell phone was on line and people were welcome to call me at that number. I spoke to every person on the South Mountain
Committee that had an available phone number, I met with countless neighbors before I personally presented the last zoning case. I presented was during pre Covid and I was
able to walk the neighborhood. I went to every home within 600 feet of our borders and I also additionally walked to every home in the Bartlett Heard Neighborhood. When I
did this I had signatures form 85% of the people that I contacted in favor of our project. Due to Covid I am unable to safely walk door to door again but I know from speaking
to the neighbors previously that the majority are tired of having dirt lots surrounding them. They are tired of being passed over again and again because developers are being
scared off by a couple people that think they speak for everyone. They don’t speak for everyone. I was told today by a person within 300 feet of our property in the Bartlett
Heard neighborhood that he supports our project and will be signing in favor, he said “Trent does not speak for him he has his own voice.” He is willing to stand up to the
bullying that has gone on for years in the Bartlett Heard Neighborhood. There is a small handful of people in the Bartlett Heard neighborhood that want nothing but dirt lots.
Tanis Earl said that to me the first time I met her, “We love dirt,” she laughed. This is a beautiful project that will help the South Mountain Community, not hurt it. The rural
country charm of these homes is exactly what I was told they wanted last time. Now that we have a first class developer that is ready and willing to invest their money in the
South Mountain Community, a handful are once again are against it/anything being built on our lots. Please call me when you receive this so we can discuss this. And Please
send me the phone numbers so that I can make sure that each one of the people has been told the truth.

Sincerely,

Beth Hintze

Page 707
Trent Marchuk

Mtg Notes Beth Hintze & Trent Marchuk: 40th ST and Southern Ave. Z-25-20-8 and
GPA-SM-1-20-8
Trent Marchuk Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 5:40 PM
To: Enrique Bojorquez
Cc: Patty Mckinstry , Patty & Bruce McKinstry , Sandy Bawden
, Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer , Van Jackson

Hi Enrique,

Please add this email to the case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8

In summary, I met with Beth Hintze directly on two occasions and we spoke about the PUD and GPA referenced above.
As the conversation was freeform, and it is customary for me to consult with the other leaders of the resident collective
prior to speaking for the collective, I did mention to Beth that I could only speak for myself during these conversations and
could not represent somosbuildbam.org during either conversation. Beth acknowledged that distinction.

For the single family rental proposal to have any chance of support from the neighbors, Beth was encouraged to
work with the Developers to bring the PUD in compliance with the vast majority of MUA.
Alternatively, Beth stated in terms of an ultimatum, that if the single family rental proposal were not to be approved
by the neighbors, she would pursue a charter school on the s-1 parcel and high-density apartments (119 units) on
the C-2 parcel
Trent encouraged Beth to review the reported stipulations on the C-2 parcel and the resident collective would do
the same
Trent emphasized that as long as Beth is operating within the rules that govern the land, she will more than likely
gain the collective's support - or at least likely not garner significant opposition from the collective.
Beth left the conversation with two actions: 1) work with the Developer to bring the single family rental proposal
into MUA compliance and 2) bring forward a back-up proposal to the single family rental option that is both in
compliance with the governing rules of the land and would not require neighborhood involvement
If Beth brings forward the above to Trent, Trent committed he would work with Beth to communicate to the
neighbors the two options of Beth's ultimatum.

Please note that, after consulting with the leaders of somosbuildbam.org and consistent with our mission, the resident
collective would rather see the owner build out the land to however she is able within the confines off the existing
governing documents than see the proposed single family rental community be built without complying to MUA. If Beth is
able to successfully bring the single family rental proposal into vast conformance to the MUA, our disposition may
change.

Below are the contemporaneous notes that I took relative to having spoken with Beth Hintze over cell phone.

Date: Friday, Aug 14, 2020
Start Time: 11:01a
End Time: 12:16p

Beth's father purchased the land
He battled cancer
He was a realtor who loved South Phoenix
Successfully developed a center in South Phoenix
He worked with neighbors, people got behind him, he fought and won
He desired similar for this property
Handed the keys to Jerry, Beth's husband
They have owned it for ~25 years
About Beth's family
11 children
the 8th child was born after her father passed away
Land had a home on it for awhile
Deal with Walgreens
Deal was handled by Beth's brothers
Walgreens had an option to buy the rest of the land
Page 708
Built the Walgreens and left the option on the table
Was a citrus grove, walgreens tore down the house
Farmers worked the property, made no money, sunk money
A company came in with a vision for an office centric plan
Beth went to every neighbor, left notes
A neighbor said they wanted the "cotton center"
Worked with everyone, but the attorney quit
Beth was an art major, thought about being an architect
Neighbors screamed they want homes
One neighbor reportedly said "nothing will be built there"
Neighbors agreed to sq feet, but neighbors complained and changed their position
School/Apartments
Trent misrepresented Beth online
Trent said Beth was going to build retail or "whatever can be built"
Beth said she was going to build apartments not retail
Trent apologized and immediately corrected the somosbuildbam.org website
Beth stated she was going to build a charter school on the S-1 Parcel
Beth stated she was planning to build apartments (119 units) on the C-2 Parcel
Beth felt she was abandoning the neighbors, but felt the the neighborhood had already abandoned her
Emphasized again she heard neighbors say the land should be homes
Single Family Rental
Brown Group came and offered the Single Family Rental proposal
She had them change the look (stucco and modern prior)
Believes neighbors want something built
It's frustrating to Beth that we aren't listening to those neighbors
Retail: not enough rooftops
If this doesn't' go through, Beth states she will have to sell to school and high density apartments
How has Beth marketed the land?
Mark has been her realtor for the last 15 years
well-spoke business man
reaches out to everyone
there are just a couple of people who suppress development
Beth stated having knowledge of personal information about Trent
Wife's career ambitions
Price paid for house
Note: this part of the conversation was perceived as awkward and potentially threatening to Trent
Note: Trent kept all comments to Beth to the land, unless supporting her sharing personal
information about herself (ie, that must be tough raising 11 kids! after she shared that information)
Beth stated her understanding of MUA was not the vision Kate Gallego was looking for
When pointed out MUA had been in existence for 20+ years, Beth wasn't able to articulate what she
intended, aside from mentioning something about Section 8 housing
Trent didn't have enough information to pursue the subject further, aside from Housing Phoenix -
which the city says the relation to these parcels had not yet been made public
We discussed the possibility of Beth speaking with other Land Advisors
Trent has connections to national players, but not one person in particular
Trent stated he has no financial interest in this development and his connections don't desire
financial interests as well
Trent stated his only interest is for the betterment of the community and to see that dirt transformed
as the owner, city, and neighbors would agree
Trent encouraged Beth to receive proposals from multiple land advisors, inclusive and exclusive to
Trent's contacts and make her own decision
Beth didn't want to throw her real estate agent under the bus
When mentioned he could remain involved, she stated she was under a contract where she couldn't
entertain other visions (non-solicit)
Trent agreed that her contract was to be respected and stated that if that contract ended, he would
encourage her to reach out to other land advisors who would potentially better maximize the value of
the land and meet the neighbors' requirements
Beth stated she had spent over $100k on the land and that the taxes were too much to carry.
Beth stated she would give away the land if she could, but the other owner's won't allow that to
happen
Beth's Ultimatum
Beth stated she would put forward an ultimatum to the neighbors: either the Single Family Rental
project would be approved or she would sell to the charter school and high density apartments
Beth stated she preferred the single family rental and believed the neighbors would as well
Conclusion
Page 709
Beth and Trent agreed to meet on Monday at 11a to discuss framing the ultimatum to the
neighborhood
Trent encouraged Beth to be open to changes to the single family rental proposal to bring it inline
with MUA as a possible avenue to get that option approved by the neighbors

Date: Monday , Aug 17, 2020
Start Time: 10:02a
End Time: 10:38a

Initial Pleasantries
Beth and Trent exchanged initial pleasantries about the prior weekend
The conversation maintained a cordial, professional tone (as did the prior conversation) throughout the
duration
Follow-up and Intent
Trent shared that he contacted Enrique following the conversation on Friday to follow-up on some of the
items
Trent stated that his intent and purpose is to understand the rules and ensure that he and the resident
collective play by the rules, and attempt to hold the city and the property owner to the same standard
Trent stated that he doesn't see the point in obfuscating information as all relevant information is objective
and we are seeking for an objective solution
General Learnings
Trent shared with Beth that she was right on Friday on the following accounts
She is free to develop the land as she sees fit within the existing Planning and Development
standards for the parcels
Both parcels were indeed also governed by the BAOD, but are not governed by the MUA
If there are any proposed changes to the land use, that is when the MUA can become applicable to
the land use
S-1 Property
Beth is right that she can likely develop a school on the S-1 parcel without much obstruction
Enrique was not 100% certain if it applied to charter schools, but was going to follow up
Note: Enrique has since confirmed Beth can build a charter school on S-1 without any zoning
changes
Beth was also right that schools have a lot of latitude and can receive a lot of variances to the zoning rules,
so may not be bound by S-1 or BAOD if a school is built
C-2 Property
Trent informed Beth that the property to the north, under normal conditions, could be zoned for R-3 and for
apartment land use
However, Trent informed Beth that the current C-2 parcel reportedly has stipulations upon it from the
Walgreens era that potentially preclude apartments
Trent informed Beth there is a process to remove the stipulations, but it would require neighborhood
involvement and new stipulations could be placed upon the land as a result, including MUA requirements
Beth said she did not believe that assessment.
She stated the city had told her that she could build apartments on the C-2.
She stated Enrique was inexperienced and she was going to call him.
Trent encouraged Beth to call Enrique
Trent also stated he had requested the stipulations so he could evaluate what they actually said, as
Trent does not know firsthand what the stipulations state
Note: Since the phone call, Trent has submitted a public records release for the stipulations
Single Family Rental Option
Trent encouraged Beth to re-visit the Single Family Rental option with the developers and modify it to
comply with MUA
Beth said she believed that option already paid sufficient homage to the MUA
Not only flower stand, but flowers would be planted around the property
The facades of the houses were "definitely MUA"
"Lots of" grass and open space
Trent encouraged Beth to focus on the design and development standards as the gauge as to whether the
proposal is MUA, highlighting multiple areas of failure of the PUD relative to the MUA from his opposition
statement on Aug 11
Trent mentioned that the design and development standards are what get built to and the facade and
proposed flowers aren't promised when shovels hit the ground
Beth said she would personally ensure the character of the homes would be MUA
Beth said she believed that the architectural elements would be part of the PUD and binding to the
developer
Page 710
Trent questioned her ability to enforce the above two points, but conceded they had ventured outside
of his knowledge area to state definitively one way or another
Beth reinforced that she was trying to give the neighbors something better than was already there
Trent agreed that the single family rental would be better looking than dirt, chain link fence, and
weeds - but reminded Beth that is not the bar
Trent reiterated that the bar is, at least for the proposed PUD, complying with the BAOD and MUA
district design and development standards
Trent signaled willingness to compromise on some elements of the MUA
However, Trent said the vast majority of the PUD should be in compliance with the MUA
Framing an Option to the Neighbors
Trent and Beth agreed that framing a choice to the neighbors would be a positive next step
Single Family Rental
For this to have any chance of support from the neighbors, Beth was encouraged to work with
the Developers and bring the PUD in compliance with the vast majority of MUA
School/Apartments
This is Beth's fallback option
She does not believe she will need neighbor support to build apartments
However, if the existing stipulations state otherwise, it is unknown how she would proceed
Trent signaled to Beth that if she attempts to remove the stipulations, the process would go
through a Zoning Officer and likely the Village.
In both cases the neighbors would have a say, and the neighbors would attempt to
introduce MUA stipulations
Trent reminded Beth that 5 village planning committee members, including the chair,
stated the Single Family Rental project was a good project in the wrong location and
one in particular stated a preference for 2.3 du/acre max
Trent stated that somosbuildbam.org has not coordinated with the village and does not
plan to do so, but noted that we are aligned philosophically with some of the committee
members and chair
Beth could still choose to develop the C-2 parcel within the confines of the stipualtions, C-2,
and the BAOD. If she went this route, Beth could indeed do so without neighbor
involvement.
Beth mentioned the possibility of gun stores, a large QT gas station, or other options
she considered to be undesirable to the neighbors
Undefined Option #3
If apartments are not able to go onto the C-2 parcel, and she desires to remove the
stipulations, it is yet to be seen what Beth's third option would be or if the school remains still
a viable stand-alone option
If the branches of the decision tree are pruned to this extent, Trent reiterated that Beth may
want to be open to speaking with other land advisors - assuming she would be out of her
existing contract at this stage
Beth reiterated that she was not supportive of any other option than the two above
Conclusion
Trent stated to Beth that the desire of the resident collective is for the land to be developed
Trent stated that development will be pursued under the existing governing rules and conditions
Trent reiterated his desire to help Beth navigate said rules
Trent stated that if Beth is able to develop the land however she deems fit using the rules, then she will very
likely garner Trent's support and the support of the collective
Trent emphasized that once he or the collective strays from the governing rules, he and the collective stand
to lose significant credibility and their position becomes significantly weakened in front of the City
Beth was encouraged by Trent to operate within the rules to find a workable solution

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

Page 711
Page 712
From: Sandy Bawden
To: hannah@witheymorris.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Case Nos. Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8 40th St & Southern
Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 5:24:46 PM

Hello,

My name is Sandy Bawden. My husband and I and our children are all Phoenix
natives. We moved to the Bartlett-Heard Estates in 1987. Our sons were eight
and fourteen at the time.

We moved to the area specifically because we wanted open space where our
sons could safely play and explore. We also had other family in the area. We
knew it was changing and developing and we wanted to be a part of that.
When we moved here, there was a large cotton field across the street and to
the west with citrus groves and the beautiful Baseline Flower Gardens to the
south.

We wanted to be a part of the change and development and to that end we
have tried to stay involved with changes over the years. As a result of our
community working together with our City council representatives and the
developers we now have the Raven Golf Course.

The development that has been submitted to our neighborhood in this case is
not what we want to see. We do not want nor need more apartments in
this area. However, we know that working together we can have a positive
outcome that fits our community desires and the desires of the owners.

Respectfully

Sandy Bawden

Page 713
From: Sandy Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Trent Marchuk; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer; Van Jackson
Subject: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD
Date: Sunday, November 8, 2020 7:20:11 PM

Hello Enrique,

I hope this email finds you well. I am contacting you regarding Rezoning Request
#Z-35-20-8, Item No. 8. I am registered to attend the virtual meeting on this request
Tuesday, November 10.

Please put me on record as being opposed to this request. This request does not
meet the criteria for meeting MUA standards. It is not a good fit for the area. It
would be better located near the Central Avenue corridor. The City of Phoenix is
advocating for increased development and ridership of the light rail and the light
rail will not be readily available for this development.

I give up my time to address the committee to Trent Marchuk.

Thank you, Enrique, for the assistance you provide to our community.

Best regards,

Sandy Bawden
Bartlett Heard Estates

Page 714
From: Sandy Bawden
To: Samantha Keating; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Trent Marchuk; Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Van Jackson
Subject: 40th ST. and Southern Ave. Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:53:34 PM

Hello Samantha and Enrique,

Hope this note finds you well! Please add this email to the case file for Z-35-20-8 and
GPA-SM-1-20-8

Wow, after starting the resident collective somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org], we
have seen membership requests flow in! Of course, as you could imagine, the residents of
Bartlett Heard Ranch Estates (BHRE) joined, but so have two nurseries close to the
proposal, a nursery near 24th St, Awakening Seed Elementary, and we are in process of
forming alliances with residents of the Legacy and Ravenswood. Additionally, we have
literally dozens of other neighbors from the community who have sought out and either
opined on or joined this collective.

In fact, of the 128 members of our group (and counting) we have received no, absolutely
zero, support for this development. The resounding common theme: Stop this horrible
proposal! Therefore, I hope you agree that the community is not in a place for this proposal
to be fast tracked and all neighborhood sentiment needs to be properly heard, understood,
and respected.

Those in the resident collective who joined the Neighborhood Meeting on July 16 have
submitted some questions about the process for receiving neighborhood input that we
would like to pass along to you, requesting the city’s response. Below our salutation, we
have listed the pointed questions and then follow-up with additional details. We look
forward to your responses and how we can help the city refine the virtual meeting process,
so it is not manipulated to the detriment of neighbors again in the future.

Although we are set against this proposal, we are pro-development. We like working with
Withey Morris and the Landowner. The fact the Brown group has an interest in developing
the parcels is a good thing, as is bringing in someone like the Snowdon Partners to advise.
This shows they are taking this land seriously by investing significant time and resources.
We also want the Landowner to maximize their returns on this land, all within the City’s
stated vision for the use of this land. We will help them, if they would like, get creative in
striking a balance. This proposal, however, continues to be a non-starter.

Thank you,

Sandy Bawden
Trent Marchuk
Karen Mischlispy
Patty McKinstry
Van Jackson

1) Will the Streets Department be requiring a Traffic Impact Study for this
proposal? (Reference our original Questions Packet for context.)

Page 715
2) Will the Streets Department be conducting an analysis on this project’s impact to
the safety of the increased bicycle use on Southern and 40th St as the city strives to
become a world class city for bicyclists? (Reference our original Questions Packet
for context.)
3) We submitted questions on Friday, Jul 10 inquiring about when the application
was filed, a request to audit the notification process, and equity concerns with only
receiving the virtual meeting details day of and through special invitation. When
should we expect a response to those questions?
4) As stated in the meeting, can you provide us with the General Plan Amendment?
5) As stated in the meeting, can you provide us with a copy of the Planned Unit
Development?
6) How can we ensure that future virtual meetings will respectfully engage the
residents to learn of their concerns? At 11:06a on 7/16, Withey Morris stated: “We
will use the raise hand function on zoom when facilitating the question and answer
session to know who wishes to speak.” However, by 5:30p Withey Morris kept all
45 participants on mute and required us to type our questions in the chat feature.
7) When will the neighbors receive the promised notes, attendees, questions, and
answers from the meeting on July 16, 2020?
8) Why was Snowdon Partners not listed in the Planned Unit Development
Narrative as part of the Principals & Development Team? This omission, with lack
of amendment, further underscores this proposal is not being entirely forthcoming
with the neighbors.
9) When the original zoning case was presented for ~10 acres of commercial, the
owners agreed to leave the other ~10 acres (S-1) for single family residential. Is the
city concerned about this lack of continuity?
10) Is multi-family appropriate for the other ~10 acres (S-1), given there should be a
transition between high density residential and Bartlett Heard Ranch Estates?
11) Even though the north parcel is zoned C-2 and technically could be used for
multi-family residential, what is your guidance on whether that potential purpose
conforms to the City of Phoenix stated vision for the parcel’s land use?
12) How will the City help hold the Development Team accountable to their promise
to engage neighbors in small groups and in a subsequent follow-up neighborhood
meeting? We would like to share the process with the neighbors by which they can
request small group meetings with the Development Team, per their promise to hold
such meetings with the residents on July 16, 2020.
13) How will the City help ensure there is a fair iterative model between the
Development Team and the neighbors to not only hear our concerns, but
adequately respond to them? The dual statements made during the meeting by
Withey Morris that “we might not always agree” and “the City Council will make the
ultimate decision” implied to the neighbors that we would be placated until the clock
ran out and they planned for the Village to rubber stamp this proposal.
14) The Development Team promised the neighborhood a “2nd Virtual Meeting” at
the onset of the July 16 meeting in prepared slideware. By doing so, they
proactively admitted that the meeting on July 16, 2020 was incomplete. Therefore,
coupled with the concerns with the meeting format explained in the question above,
how can the meeting on July 16 satisfy the PDD local emergency guidelines for
fulfilling the neighborhood meeting requirement? We formally ask the city to disallow
this gross manipulation of the guidelines.
15) The PDD local emergency guidelines for neighborhood meetings states that
"notice for the virtual meeting, teleconference or alternative meeting format shall be

Page 716
sent a minimum of 30 days in advance of the first public presentation before a
committee or hearing officer."
a) Does the Development Team’s planned Information Presentation to the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee count as a public presentation
to a committee? We understand all meetings with our Village are considered
public.
b) How will the neighborhood learn about the date when the Information
Presentation will be given to the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee?
16) We request the city’s help in setting up a structured Architecture Review Board
with the Development Team. Will you help us put that into place?

Why was the meeting format perceived as inadequate by the neighbors?
At this point in time, many of us are familiar with virtual meetings. There are courtesies and
norms that have developed. According to Steve Hambrick on the City PPD website
regarding virtual meetings, participants may be recognized and called on to weigh in. The
meeting on July 16 disregarded those courtesies and norms.   At 11:06a on 7/16, Withey
Morris stated: “We will use the raise hand function on zoom when facilitating the question
and answer session to know who wishes to speak.” However, by 5:30p Withey Morris kept
all 45 participants on mute and required us to type our questions in the chat feature and
privately send them to Withey Morris. We had no idea who was actually asking questions.
We could not hear their tone. Withey Morris paraphrased the questions asked. We had to
listen to their replies and type questions simultaneously. About half the meeting was given
to presentation and half the meeting to Q&A while selectively focusing on questions that
were already answered in the presentation rather than the myriad of complicated questions
already submitted in advance, and they ended exactly on time.   Our resident collective
submitted many unresolved concerns on July 15, yet Withey Morris did not draw upon
those questions during the meeting. The City’s process for virtual meetings was blatantly
manipulated to the detriment of the neighbors and to the benefit of the merchant developer.

Why does Snowdon matter?
When the meeting began, Withey Morris introduced the Development Team. No one from
the city was present. They introduced Scott Curtis but did not say how he was connected
to the project. We found out later Mr. Curtis is with Snowdon Partners, which appears to be
a residential real estate advisory firm. Snowdon Partners is not listed in the Planned Unit
Development Narrative as part of the Principals & Development Team. This omission, with
lack of amendment, further underscores this proposal is not being entirely forthcoming with
the neighbors.

Architecture Review Board
Currently there are very few renderings, i.e. just a single detached duplex and a picture of a
mobile flower cart. To make informed decisions, we need to see how far spaced the units
would appear relative to each other and the surroundings, what the other buildings would
look like, how the fencing/landscaping/structures/etc would appear from the street, from the
backyards of our neighbors, etc. What are the other elevations of homes that fall in the
design pallet? We request significant time and effort be placed in this Architecture Review.
It could either affirm our belief this project is a horrible idea or potentially sway opinion.

Page 717
From: Sandy Bawden
To: hannah@witheymorris.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Van Jackson; Trent Marchuk; Alfonzo Marquez; Fabiola_nevarez@hotmail.com; Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer;
Patty & Bruce McKinstry
Subject: Sanctuary at South Mountain Z-35-20-8
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:42:30 PM
Attachments: somosbuildbam.org - Question Packet for Sanctuary at South Mountain.pdf

To: The City of Phoenix, The Principal and Development Team for Z-35-20-8
"Sanctuary at South Mountain"
From: SomosBuildBAM.org, a collective of concerned residents and neighbors
Date: July 15, 2020
Re: Unresolved Neighborhood Questions Respecting Z-35-20-8 "Sanctuary at
South Mountain"

Hello,

In the interest of time and to have a full understanding of the response, the
neighbors request a written reply to resolve the below unresolved neighborhood
questions from the appropriate representative of Z-35-20-8 "Sanctuary at South
Mountain". Additionally, we request that the City of Phoenix please add this list of
unresolved neighborhood concerns to the case file.

We have recently organized ourselves into a pro-development group
called SomosBuildBAM.org which basically signifies that from South Mountain to
Southern Ave. we support building out Phoenix to the city-led and voter-approved
Baseline Area Master Plan, which is part of the Phoenix General Plan.

Somosbuildbam.org is a grassroots collective of residents impacted by key
development decisions within the Baseline Area Master Plan, the Baseline Area
Overlay District, and the Mixed Use Agriculture Districts. The group originated in
Bartlett Heard Ranch Estates, adjacent to the parels in question, and is actively
receiving membership from all concerned residents within the South Mountain
Village of Phoenix, AZ.

Somosbuildbam.org is concerned with having adequate time to assess this project's
impact to the general health and safety of the neighborhood, the impact to our
personal financial investments in South Phoenix, adequate acknowledgement of the
area's formally recognized special heritage, and the consistency to which the City of
Phoenix executes to the own stated (and voter-approved) vision for land use for the
entire city and all her inhabitants.

We thank you for the opportunity to submit questions about this proposed project
and look forward to receiving your written response. Like you, we desire for the
vacant parcels on the southwest corner of 40th St. and Southern Ave. to be

Page 718
developed agreeable to the Landowner, the City, and the impacted neighbors. We
appreciate the good faith efforts of the City and the Landowners, with the
Representative, to develop these two parcels of land in our community. Our
questions are grouped and are attached below.

Thank you,
Sandy Bawden, BHRE
Van Jackson
Trent Marchuk
Alfonso and Fabiola Marquez
Patty McKinstry
Karen Mischlispy
Somosbuildbam.org

Page 719
Safety and Health Concerns: Traffic Flows and Street Dept Design and Build Calendar:

1. We learned on Jul 15, 2020 that a Traffic Statement had been requested by the Developer. We are
requesting the Statement from the City and also request time for the neighborhood to review it.
2. The City of Phoenix Street Planning and Design Guidelines may require a Traffic Impact Study for one
or more of three reasons, including “the sensitivity of adjacent neighborhoods or other areas where the
public may perceive an adverse impact.” Bartlett-Heard Ranch Estates, being within 600 feet of this
development, believes the proposal will create an adverse impact to local traffic, health, and safety.
Additionally, the proposal, from the neighborhood resident’s perspective, will have poor site access at
an area believed to have a high rate of accidents, satisfying a second reason the city may require a
Traffic Impact Study. Therefore, we formally request a Traffic Impact Study be conducted and reviewed
with the neighborhood prior to moving forward. We believe this should include, at minimum, the streets
fronting the proposed project on Southern, West Street adjacent to AAA Nursery, 40th Street, all egress
and ingress points, and any traffic control safety lights or berming. Will the developer commit to
working with the city and neighbors to resolve this unresolved concern?
a. Though the site reportedly has parking for 440 cars, 17 more than the 423 required (at the
sacrifice of ~3200 sq ft Open Space), we are concerned that another recent and substantially
similar project by this Developer called Elux at Tromonto demonstrably did not foresee
adequate parking, causing residents to park off property leading to safety issues that could also
plague this site. What has been done differently for this project that addresses the lack of
adequate parking in the Developer’s previous project? If off-site parking became an unfortunate
outcome of this project, where would the proposed future residents park their vehicles? How
would the safety of those individuals and the neighborhood be impacted in that case? The city
and the developer are requested to work with the residents and surrounding businesses to
address these questions.
b. If traffic mitigations are required, which year’s City budget provides for any required mitigation or
does the Developer pay for traffic modifications required to accommodate an additional 440 cars
in just 15.7 acres at the corner of an already busy, and potentially dangerous, intersection?
c. Please set up a meeting for the Streets Dept responsible party to review site and accident rates
at 40th St. and Southern Avenue with the neighbors and the Police Dept.
3. According to the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, Phoenix desires to be a world-class city for
bicycling. Though a bike lane already exists, 40th/Southern does not currently have a lot of bike traffic.
However, the city would like for that to change. A bike lane has recently been added down 32nd from
Broadway to Southern and the city is working on a bike lane to connect 32nd to 40th via Roeser. The
organic result is to encourage an increase in bike traffic down 40th St to give more residents of the
South Mountain Village access to the preserve. From 40th St, we understand that the city plans to
continue the canal trail on the south side of Baseline to connect with, among other things, the Beverly
Trailhead and the bike lanes down 48th St into Ahwatukee. This would all naturally cause more bicycle
traffic through the Southern and 40th St intersection. Has analysis been completed taking into account
the city’s desired increase in bicycle traffic relative to the safety of this proposal? What, if any, are the
recommended mitigation plans to ensure bicyclist safety? Who pays for these mitigations?

Ratio of Built Environment to Open Space, both Private and Common to All Residents

1. Amount of Private Open Space: (total project square feet of all dwelling unit private yards.)
2. Amount of Built Nonrecreational Space: (total project square feet of all dwelling, covered parking,
handicap parking, street parking, bike racks, refuse container areas, emergency vehicles/fire riser
access and street setbacks and sidewalks.)

Page 720
3. Amount of Common Area Open Space: (total project common area square feet designated pet friendly
and/or kid friendly as well as the 5 largest continuous swaths and whether they are centrally located)
4. How did the Developer arrive at a minimum 5% of gross area for Open Space, aside from baselining
the project to R-3? What factors determined R-3 would be an appropriate analogue?

Zoning Categories Included in the Planned Unit Development Rezoning Request from S-1 to PUD,

1. Equivalent Residential Zoning Categories: for example, acres of RE-6, RE-43, RE-2?
2. Equivalent Garden Office Zoning Categories
3. All presented zoning categories represented in the PUD with number of acres set aside for them.
4. Please demonstrate to the neighborhood, in lay terms, the reason(s) why the existing zoning
designations (S-1 and C-2) are inadequate and therefore, for the larger good, should even be changed
at all.
5. Would the Landowner and/or their Representative be willing to work with the neighbors and the city to
find a mutually acceptable strategy for re-entitlement and development of these parcels?

Parcel Size, Lot Size, Dwelling Unit Square Footage

1. In the Project Overview, the stated desire is to “rezone approximately 17 acres”. Maricopa County
Assessor lists 122-79-019B as 326,613 sq ft and 122-79-019C as 359,065 sq ft, for a total of 685,678
sq ft. This equates to 15.741 acres, not approximately 17 acres. At 12 units per acre, a claim of 17
acres would cause the lay person to believe the Developer could build up to 204 total units.
Reportedly, the proposal is for 198 units and 440 parking spaces. (423 are required, but 17 more are
added in place of ~3200 sq ft of landscaping.) At 12.58 du/acre, the requestor is actually planning to
exceed the requested maximum allowable units of 12 du/acre even by their own fantastically lenient
calculations and request! The point in this exercise is to show the appearance of deceitful tactics
employed by the Developer in submitting this plan for neighborhood consideration. Do we
misunderstand any of the above?
2. What are the proposed lot sizes in order to fit 198 units on 15.74 acres?
3. What are the proposed dwelling unit square footage in order to fit 198 units on 15.74 acres?
4. Is the Developer aware that all city leadership, including the Mayor and City Council, approved the land
use of these parcels as Mixed Use Agriculture (MUA)? It was approved in 1996, amended in 1997, and
then voted on by Phoenix constituents in 2005 and again in 2015, the latter with a 76% approval rate.
Many residents have invested in South Phoenix trusting in these plans. What is the exigency to the city
and the community that demands such radical significant deviation from the city’s own long-standing
vision?

Single-Family Unit Character & Developer’s Previous Projects

1. Following up to the Developer’s stated desire for the multi-family dwelling units to look like single-family
homes, will the Developer adhere to all design and development standards associated with single-
family homes as stated in the MUA, BAOD, and Baseline Area Master Plan? If not please list out all
proposed deviations such that we can determine how similar to single-family homes these units are
really proposed to be.
2. Our analysis indicates the Developer’s usage of Single Family Unit terminology appears to mislead the
neighbors from immediately recognizing this development as a multi-family rental development. Do we
misunderstand?
3. A member of our organization went north to check out a development by the Developer called Elux at
Tromonto. Very negative comments online from the residents. It appears this development has some

Page 721
problems that required trenching through the buildings. We took pictures and will submit them upon
request to substantiate the claims. As past performance is an indicator of future behavior, how are we
not to suppose this level of poor design and build quality will also plague this project? Why should the
neighbors not feel that embracing this project will compromise our health, safety, personal financial
investments in South Phoenix, and irreparably degrade our community’s heritage?
a. https://www.apartmentratings.com/az/phoenix/elux-at-tramonto_9199332346275182641/
i. Report Card Grade: D (on the traditional A thru F scale) for abysmally poor renter ratings
for noise quality, grounds, safety, office staff, and maintenance. The renters did rate the
surrounding neighborhood decently well.
ii. Specific reviews state that landscaping has been fully removed in parts of the
development and are not being watered in other parts, cite safety concerns, poor build
quality of materials and construction (units have cracks in ceiling and walls, poor quality
cabinetry, etc), habitual practices of overdrawing renter’s accounts on autopay, and
excessive landscaping maintenance due to poor pipes..
b. https://www.google.com/search?q=Elux+at+Tromonto&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS605US605&oq=Elu
x+at+Tromonto&aqs=chrome..69i57.334j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-
8#lrd=0x872b63c52acc2c7d:0x7c467d31d5fab240,1,,,
i. Multiple negative reviews focus on health concerns, poor build quality, poor grading w/
flooding issues, constant construction, deceitful business practices, poor parking, mold
concerns, egregious amounts of dust, lack of cabinet space, and many upset residents
in general.
c. https://www.yelp.com/biz/elux-phoenix
i. A summary of the negative reviews include: parking being a nightmare, significant
trenching and other construction issues caused by poor design, endless landscaping
repairs, poor build construction, non-responsive management, and deceitful business
practices.

Alignment to City Vision

1. Why is this project significantly deviating from the MUA District requirements, not only in max density,
but in the following additional key areas. This proposed project is wholly unrecognizable as compatible
with MUA.
a. density
b. development setbacks,
c. landscaping setbacks,
d. planting standards along the southern perimeter and west perimeter not adjacent to 39th St,
e. landscaping setbacks for perimeter property lines not adjacent to a street,
f. landscaping adjacent to a building,
g. lowering open space to a measly 5% of gross area,
h. the use of Section 702 for parking standards, omitting adoption of the MUA standards for
parking
i. the use of Section 705 for signs, omitting adoption of the MUA standards for signs
2. How does this project help the stated needs of the area as captured by all city leadership, including the
Mayor, and ratified by their constituents twice, the latest with 76% approval? Stated otherwise, how
does a highly dense residential rental development address the following officially stated concerns
about this area?
a. This area has a “housing supply that was similar in age to the city average, but with lower
values and overcrowding”.
b. “The fact leads to the conclusion that pride of ownership exists in the area.”

Page 722
c. “The Roosevelt School District has six schools in the study area… three of the schools are at
capacity; three are over capacity.” Overcrowding concerns were also formally mentioned in
connection with South Mountain High School.
d. This area is “underserved by retail development, based on a Valley-wide average. Little vacant
office space is available in the study area… interest in constructing single family developments
is increasing.”
e. “Most schools and commercial developments in the Baseline corridor are in the central and
western region. Historically, these were the population centers. As more people locate to the
east, schools and retail centers will be needed there. As noted earlier, the schools pose a major
challenge for the area.”
f. The “eastern third of the area (where these parcels are located) would contain a unique blend of
agricultural, commercial, and residential uses including a flower garden preserve.”
i. How will the Developer's use of exteriors and design elements with a nod to agricultural
heritage adequately fulfill the city’s vision for this part of Phoenix?
ii. How does the Developer adding a token florist and flower stand (shown as mobile in the
proposal picture) adequately contribute to the vision and spirit of the Baseline Area
Master Plan?
g. The Mixed-Use Agriculture “category is intended to help preserve the special character of the
Baseline corridor while allowing appropriate development… Baseline has historically been an
agriculture center with many acres in citrus, nurseries and flower gardens… The Mixed Use
Agriculture classification recognizes the need to build on the area’s assets rather than blading it
and replicating the standard subdivisions found throughout the valley.”
h. How do you reconcile this proposal against the Baseline Area Master Plan formally
recommending the developable land in this area be just 4% 10-15 dwelling units per acre while
recommending on the other hand that 40% of the developable land be 0-2 dwelling units per
acre?
i. The eastern and central portions of the Baseline Area will experience shortages of parks and
recreation facilities as the population grows
j. “The 0-2 classification (dwelling units per acre) is placed on developable properties… in areas
where low density is the established development pattern.”

Page 723
From: Sandy Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Trent Marchuk; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer; Van Jackson; Samantha Keating
Subject: SMVPC Meeting August 11, 2020
Date: Friday, August 7, 2020 9:47:36 AM

Good morning Enrique,

I hope you are doing well today.

I am writing in regards to the SMVPC meeting on next Tuesday, August11, 2020. I
am pro development and would like to see the property on the southwest corner of
40th Street and Southern to be developed, but I am opposed to the proposed multi
family rental development.

This proposal does not align to the City's stated vision for the land since 1996,
which has been voted on twice with the last time receiving 76% approval. The
development of these two parcels will set precedent for the remaining developable
land south of Southern from 40th St down to 24th St. The BAM and BOAD were
developed to formally recognize the special heritage to our area. This development
does not do that. Where are our new shopping and retail areas and nice sit down
restaurants that residents in this area are waiting for? Not to mention the horrible
traffic this proposal will bring.

I am concerned about the additional amount of traffic this will generate. An
estimated 450 additional cars will be added to our already overburdened traffic
infrastructure with an estimated additional 1,500+ trips a day.

I reiterate that I want to see this property developed, but not in this way. I would
like to waive my time to speak during the meeting and instead give my time to
Trent Marchuk.

Thank you for your assistance, Enrique.

Respectfully,

Sandy Bawden

Page 724
July 16, 2020
To all in attendance this evening,

Good evening, my name is Sean Kelly. I want to first say thank you to the Brown Group
for their interest in the development of the vacant property discussed here tonight. I also want
to thank Withey Morris, the South Mountain Community members and my fellow neighbors for
making time to virtually attend this meeting and giving me the opportunity to speak this
evening.
My wife and I were raised here, in the South Phoenix area. We were married just down
the street at The Secret Garden, a place that represents the unique and beautiful history of
South Phoenix. We’ve owned multiple homes in the area, but Heard Ranch is where we sought
to lay down our roots and begin a family. A simple drive through our neighborhood streets will
tell you why we, and our fellow neighbors, are passionate about what happens in our
community.
Our property sits within 600 feet of this proposed development. We’ve made significant
personal and financial investments in this neighborhood and community, with the vision that
this space remains a sanctuary in which our family can flourish. We are actively involved at
Awakening Seed School, which is located within 500 feet of the proposed development. My
wife is the President of the Awakening Seed Parents’ Association and I am an active member of
the Board of Directors. Our children are active in South Phoenix Sports Leagues, participants of
the community garden at The Farm on 32nd street, and avid participants of all available events
at the South Mountain Community Library. Our ties to South Phoenix are strong and our roots
in this neighborhood strengthen by the day. I hope by briefly describing my family’s history and
connection to this neighborhood, I shed light on how invested we are in the Baseline Area
Master Plan, the Baseline Area Overlay District, Mixed Used Agricultural Districts, and South
Phoenix in general. We are committed to this area, to Heard Ranch, and we need answers to
our unresolved concerns about how this development will impact our neighborhood.
My request here tonight is for time. Time for my family to do our due diligence to
confirm our local investments are not negatively impacted. Time for our neighborhood to
obtain answers from the developer to help us better understand how the development
improves our beautiful neighborhood. Time for the developer and the community to
collaborate on the final details of the development to ensure all personal concerns are
addressed. And finally, time for all parties to ensure this development positively impacts the
safety and health of the families that have already established this community as their home.

Sincerely,
Sean Kelly
602-361-2196

Page 725
From: Sue Bowman
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Subject: "Resident Opinion: SMVPC Informational Meeting for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8"
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 2:33:41 PM

Hi
Enrique

I
am
writing
to
share
my
opinion
about
the
proposal
at
40th
St
and
Southern
Ave
(Z-
35-
20-
and
GPA-
SM-
1-
20-
8).
I
do
not
support
this
proposal.
Thank
you
Freddie
Sue
Bowman

Page 726
From: Tanis June Earle
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Tanis Earle
Subject: Resident Opinion: SMVPC Informational Meeting for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2020 11:43:33 AM

To be read out loud as "my request to speak" for the 08/11/2020 SMVPC meeting.

Greetings SMVPC,

Re: Proposal at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8).

During the 07/16/2020 virtual neighborhood meeting with developers, I asked about allowed
occupancy standards for single family rental units. For example, what would be the limit of
how many people could live in a 1 bedroom? How many people would be the maximum
allowed to live in a 2 bedroom? What would be the maximum allowed occupancy of a three
bedroom? And how would this be enforced? The developer replied that he wasn't sure of the
numbers but that occupancy limits would be determined by using the City standard allowance.

When I looked up the City of Phoenix laws about this I found the following: 2 people per
bedroom plus 1 person. So a 1 bedroom can have 3 people, a 2 bedroom can have 5 people,
and a 3 bedroom can have 7 people. Then, there is mention of children under 13 not counted.

Developer is proposing 198 dwellings with 80% being one and two bedrooms and 20% being
three bedrooms - just do the math. The legal limit of occupancy for this development is 912
people and that does not count any children 13 or younger. Of course not every dwelling will
be maxed out but I would wager that a majority of them will. That's WAY TOO HIGH of a
potential population density on 17 acres for health and safety (traffic) and the preservation of
heritage and design of the surrounding Bartlet Heard Ranch neighborhood. In addition, where
are all those people to go for their outside exercise and enjoyment? Why, the equestrian trails
and quiet rural streets of the Bartlett Heard Ranch are perfect! So rather than stay in the
confines of their crowded, gated community - Bartlett Heard Ranch, being open and non-
gated, will become the perfect playground destination! I will stress that Bartlett Heard Ranch
is open and non-gated precisely because we do embody the spirit of a shared community and
we do welcome and encourage that others enjoy our neighborhood. However that much
tremendous increase in population, foot traffic and vehicular cut through traffic will ruin the
quiet rural environment of Bartlett Heard Ranch neighborhood. This population density is not
appropriate, nor in the interest of preservation of heritage or alignment with City vision.

198 homes
40% 1 bedroom (3 people) = 79
40% 2 bedroom (5 people) = 79
20% 3 bedroom (7 people) = 40
3x79=237
5x79=395
7x40=280
Grand Total (not counting 13/under) 237+395+280 = 912

As owners of property in Bartlett Heard Ranch, my husband and I DO NOT SUPPORT this
development.

Page 727
Thank you,

Tanis & Ambrose Earle
3602 E Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602.469.0617
tanis.earle@gmail.com

Page 728
From: Thom Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Case 35-20-8 40th St and Southern Ave.
Date: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:17:16 PM

Hello Enrique,

I am Thom Bawden. I live at 3232 E Vineyard Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85042. Please add
my name to the list of neighbors who are in opposition to the proposed development
at the property on the southwest corner of 40th St and Southern Ave. and make this
part of the official case file.

This proposal does not align to the City's stated vision for the land since 1996,
which has been voted on twice with the last time receiving 76% approval. The
development of these two parcels will set precedent for the remaining developable
land south of Southern from 40th St down to 24th St. The BAM and BOAD were
developed to formally recognize the special heritage to our area. This development
does not do that and should not be allowed.

I am concerned about the additional amount of traffic this will generate. An
estimated 450 additional cars will be added to our already overburdened traffic
infrastructure with an estimated additional 1,500+ trips a day along with
other negative impacts. .

I want to see this property developed, but not in this way, but in ways that improve
the South Phoenix area and complement and enhance South Mountain Park and
Preserve, one of the largest municipal parks in the nation.

I look forward to meeting you in the future.

Thank you,

Thom Bawden

Page 729
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 8/11/20 SMVPC Statement on Z-35-20-8 by somosbuildbam.org
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:41:15 AM

Hi Enrique,

Please enter the following statement into the case files for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-
20-8.

The following statement was read during the Information Only meeting of the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee on Aug 11, 2011 for agenda item #9 on Z-35-
20-8.

Subject: 8/11/20 SMVPC Statement on Z-35-20-8 by somosbuildbam.org
[somosbuildbam.org]
Date: Aug 11, 2020

Chairperson Patricia Trites and the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,

Thank you for volunteering your time and energy to listen to the neighborhood
questions and concerns about these projects. We really do appreciate your hearing
our perspectives and your dutiful representation.

We also express appreciation for Withey Morris for their attempts at bridging
the gaps between the Applicant’s contumacious position and the Neighbors’
unresolved concerns. My personal esteem for Mr Morris has increased through this
process.

Hello, my name is Trent Marchuk. I am the spokesperson for the 136 member
pro-development resident collective called somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]
covering the Baseline Area Overlay District. I recognize the neighbors who have
yielded their time to me: Sandy, Van, and Karen. Thank you.

The ask for the South Mountain Village Planning Committee tonight from our
collective is simple and clear: Reject this proposal in its entirety.

In the interest of time, I will speak to the most egregious failings of this
proposal relative to the long-standing vision for our community. Please add this
statement to the City’s case files for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.

I will preface my remarks this evening by reinforcing the novel nature of three
unique documents, including attending ordinances, that guide planning and
development for South Phoenix. Let’s pause for a moment. Our community leaders
achieved development guidelines and governance that is distinctly and positively

Page 730
unique to South Phoenix. We are obligated to maximize the potential of these assets,
because we can - and even have begun to - build a wonderful foundation upon it!

The Baseline Area Master Plan, the Baseline Area Overlay District (Section
651) and the Mixed Use Agriculture District (Section 649) are gifts, hard fought and
won, by the leaders who emerged from within our community. Calvin Good is
reported to have said that districting is the best way for the people to have a voice in
the city.

The Mixed Use Agriculture (MUA) District is among the least understood,
because it only comprises 773 acres of the ~25,600 acres of our district. That is only
three one hundredths of a percent of our district’s geography - and only less than
15% of the Baseline Area Overlay District. However, the MUA remains critical to
distinguishing South Phoenix in a positive way - especially as relates to the Del Rio
project approved by the SMVPC tonight. We cannot stress sufficiently how
complementary MUA is to Del Rio. Therefore, the token references to MUA in this
PUD is, in itself, disqualifying and frankly an offense to the legacy of our very own
South Phoenix community leaders.

The ask of the Village tonight is reiterated: Reject this proposal in its entirety.

In short, this proposal falls woefully short of the City’s stated vision and District
Overlay requirements that guide planning for our District and, specifically, these two
parcels: the Baseline Area Master Plan, the Baseline Area Overlay District and the
Mixed Use Agriculture District. We take issue with this PUD proposal failing these
three main documents that are integral to guiding the planning for our District. As
such, nearly a month ago we submitted a number of unresolved concerns to the
Applicant, included also in the case file, and have been promised a written reply to
each question. Unfortunately, today’s presentation is largely the same as July 16; the
neighbors have been ignored.

As it did on July 16, this proposal continues to not meet the standards
contained within the established documents that guide our District’s planning,
inclusive of these two specific parcels, cited above. These deficiencies are so
thorough and widespread that they are disqualifying.

Maximum Density - Fail

Lot Size - Fail

Page 731
Building Setbacks Fail

Maximum Lot Coverage - Fail

Minimum Landscaping Setbacks - Fail

Planting Standards - Fail

Parking Setbacks - Fail

Landscape Adjacent to a Building - Fail

Parking Lot Standards - Fail

Open Space - Fail

Building Design - Fail

Development Layout - Fail

Treatment Along Arterials - Fail

Streets Classifications of the intersection and adjacent midblocks - Fail

Due to the near ubiquitous failings of this proposed PUD relative to the three main
documents that guide and/or govern our District’s planning, and the Applicant’s
refusal to incorporate neighborhood feedback in any meaningful way, we collectively
and categorically beseech the South Mountain Village Planning Committee to Reject
this proposal in its entirety.

As many of the committee members and chairperson have already said tonight: this is
a good project, just in the wrong location.

Page 732
Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

Page 733
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Patty Mckinstry; Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer; Sandy Bawden; Van Jackson; Somos
BuildBam
Subject: Nieghborhood Request for Proposal Rejection (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 11:49:25 AM

Hi Enrique,

We hope this note finds you well. Please add the below to the case file for Z-35-20-8
and GPA-SM-1-20-8 and share with the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
(SMVPC) in advance of the SMVPC meeting on Nov 10.

Somosbuildbam.org has conducted analysis of the second submission for the development
proposed at the southwest corner of 40th St and Southern. Additionally, we have talked to a
number of neighbors on the revisions.

In short, the neighbors do not support this proposal; we request the City reject this
proposal in its entirety.

The adjustments made between the first proposal and the second proposal are largely
symbolic and the proposal remains substantially the same. The simplest way to see this is to
lay the site plans from both submissions side by side. They are nearly identical.

The proposal continues to make a mockery of the Mixed Use Agriculture (MUA) District
[phoenix.municipal.codes] and Baseline Area Master Plan, it is woefully overly dense at 460%
over the density allowance, and completely disregards the C-2 stipulations
[somosbuildbam.org] governing the north parcel since 1997. These C-2 stipulations were put
in place by the City in conformance with the MUA and Baseline Area Master Plan and the
neighbors strongly request they be honored..

Additionally, this second proposal does not reflect input from the neighbors, despite multiple
attempts to share our concerns and come to resolution. The Applicant was requested to re-
engage the neighbors when the Applicant had a proposal that reflected a sincere attempt at
reconciliation. Instead, the Applicant has elected not to engage in further discussion with the
neighbors, the Applicant has not kept their promise of a second neighborhood meeting as the
next step following the first information session, and instead the Applicant is attempting to
move forward to a second information session while actively disregarding the neighbors'
legitimate concerns founded in existing land use regulations on the two parcels.

As it did on July 16 and August 11, this proposal continues to not meet the standards
contained within the established documents that guide our District’s planning, inclusive of
these two specific parcels. These deficiencies are so thorough and widespread that they are
disqualifying:

Conformance to MUA:  Fail. Board and batten building materials and a flower stand w/
token open space tucked along the edges do not epitomize the intent of the MUA. (p 32 of
BAM: "(MUA is) intended to keep a very open, rural atmosphere even as uses in the area
expand beyond those found in most agricultural regions near Phoenix... (including) wide
setbacks from rights-of-way, avoidance of parking between the street and any structures,
clustering of buildings, and use of open fencings.") The proposal's setbacks are insufficient,

Page 734
does not avoid parking between the street and any structure, and does not cluster the buildings
per the BAM (ie avoid long blocks with the same setbacks and house designs. It creates a
monotonous feeling to the neighborhood.) The very open, rural atmosphere intended to be
preserved in the MUA is disregarded in this proposal.

Use.  Fail All existing regulations on these two parcels are explicitly intended for single
family residences if the land is to be used for residential purposes (see MUA, C-2 w/
stipulations, and S-1). None of the existing regulations envision Multi-family use for these
two parcels.

Building Height.  Fail. The C-2 with stipulations (governing the north parcel) sets max
building height at 26 feet. Proposal asks for 30 ft.

Density.  Fail Max density in MUA is 2 du/acre. Proposal is for 11.2 du/acre (460%
increase).

Maximum Lot Coverage.  Fail. The C-2 with stipulations (governing the north parcel) sets
max lot coverage at 20% for commercial use only. The stipulations defer to the BAM in areas
silent, which would be 10% lot coverage for residential - and a whole host of other
restrictions not adhered to in this proposal. See p 34 of the BAM. Proposal asks for 35%.

Open Space:  Fail.  No central common open space open to the public; central common open
space is not visible from the main entrance

Vehicle Parking. Fail. The C-2 with stipulations (governing the north parcel) states parking
shall be set back a minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from the public right away (per
stipulation the ROW extends 40 feet from west side of 40th St). Therefore, parking shall be
setback a minimum 115 feet from 40th St and 75 feet from the remaining perimeters of the
property. This is disregarded in the proposal.

Detached Sidewalks.  Fail. The C-2 with stipulations (governing the north parcel) states the
applicant shall dedicate 10-foot wide sidewalk easements for the south half of Southern
Avenue and west half of 40th St. That a 30 foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided along
all perimeters of the property.   This is disregarded in the proposal.

Building Setbacks.  Fail.   The C-2 with stipulations (governing the north parcel) states the
west perimeter property line and interior property line setbacks shall be 30 feet. The proposal
sets these setbacks at 20 ft and 15 ft.

Lighting. Fail. Although the MUA light requirements are met, the lighting requirements for
the C-2 w/ stipulations are not met, which states: "That the parking lot shall have low-level
shielded lights. That parking light poles shall be limited to 25 feet in height and the pales
within 150 feet of any residential zoning shall be no larger than 13 feet. That no more than
one foot candle of light be detectable at the property line. That poles along abutting
residential districts shall have house side shields."

Landscape Setbacks.  Fail.   The C-2 with stipulations (governing the north parcel) states
minimum landscape setbacks from 40th St shall be 30 ft and from the west perimeter and
interior perimeter shall be 30 ft. The proposal sets these setbacks at 20 feet and 10 feet.

Page 735
Required Landscape Strip.  Fail.   The C-2 with stipulations (governing the north parcel)
states there shall be a 30 foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided along all perimeters of
the property. This is disregarded in the proposal.

Treatment Along Arterials - Fail.   This is disregarded in the proposal.

Streets Classifications of the intersection and adjacent midblocks - Fail.  This is
disregarded in the proposal.

Due to the continuing failings of this proposed PUD relative to the main documents that guide
and/or govern our District’s planning, and the Applicant’s refusal to incorporate neighborhood
feedback in any meaningful way, we collectively and categorically beseech the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee to Reject this proposal in its entirety.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

Page 736
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 11/10/20 Prepared Statement for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:33:12 PM

Hi Enrique,

Please share the below with the SMVPC and add the below statement to the City’s case files
for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.

Thank you,
Trent

Nov 10, 2020

Chairperson Patricia Trites and the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,

Introduction

Hello, my name is Trent Marchuk. I am the spokesperson for the pro-
development resident collective called somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]
covering the Baseline Area Overlay District. I recognize the neighbors who have
yielded their time to me so that we may speak in an unified and efficient manner.
Thank you.

The ask for the South Mountain Village Planning Committee tonight from our
collective is simple and clear - and the same as it was on Aug 11, 2020: Reject this
proposal in its entirety.

This request is made for three reasons:

1.
The Applicant’s continued failure to meet the City’s stated vision and the
existing land use regulations,

2.
The Community needs to rely on and trust in documents provided by the
City to guide their major decisions,

3.
The Applicant's stated ability to develop these two parcels as-is.

1.
Continued failings relative to the City’s stated vision and existing land use
regulations

Page 737
In the interest of time, the Village and the neighbors have been provided, in
advance, an updated and extensive list of the continued failings of this proposal
relative to the documents governing the land. (See case file.)

In addition to reviewing that content in detail, we ask that the SMVPC simply
place the site plans of both proposals side by side. Visually, you will easily see that
they are substantially similar and remain unacceptable.

High-level, I will summarize that the complementary nature of the MUA and the
existing C-2 stipulations continue to be openly disregarded in this proposal. The
most egregious example is the Applicant’s request to increase density allowance by
460% (2 du/acre to 11.2 du/acre!). Additionally, the lot coverage is too high, setbacks
are too low, the proposal does not avoid parking between the street and any
structure, and does not cluster the buildings per the Baseline Area Master Plan (i.e.
avoid long blocks with the same setbacks.) This proposal creates a dense,
monotonous feeling to the neighborhood and the very open, rural atmosphere
intended to be preserved though the Baseline Area Master Plan is fundamentally
gutted.

If this proposal were to be approved, the north half of the MUA - along
Southern from 40th St to 24th St - would set a dangerous precedent for the
undeveloped land in the district. Preservation of the MUA is complementary to the AZ
Fresh Project currently underway in our Village. We look forward to the MUA district
continuing to be developed to the City’s 20+ year stated - and voter-approved - vision.

2.
The Community needs to rely on and trust in the documents provided by
the City to guide their major decisions.

Our governing land use documents have enabled South Phoenix to attract
diverse investors. This proposal would gut our governing documents and undermine
confidence in a reliable development plan.

This would be egregious to everyone, but put yourself in the shoes of Fabiola
and Alonso Marquez. They own a body shop in South Phoenix and invested in a
vacant, dilapidated structure off 40th St and St Catherine, and transformed it into a
beautiful home for their extensive family. We could also recount stories of
fundamental transformation within and commitment to the MUA by Raj Chotalla,
Bereket Gebre-Egziabher, Sean and Candace Kelly, Todd and Kelly Bowman, Pastor
Curt and his wife Jan Gentry, Roque and Maria Yanez, and others who have relied on
the governing documents to invest in South Phoenix. On their behalf, I simply ask:
Are these governing documents enforceable and reliable?

Page 738
The community this proposal negatively impacts is a diverse mix of Latino,
Middle Eastern, African, and European descent who are working class, military
veterans, religious leaders, and community activists. We are hard working individuals
who have committed to South Phoenix and we rely on the existing documents
governing land use to guide our decisions.

The SMVPC has done a great job in preserving the MUA and Baseline Area
Master Plan south of Baseline. We rely on your commitment to match our
commitment. Help us maintain the remainder of the MUA and faithfully execute the
fullness of the Baseline Area Master Plan.

3.
The Applicant's stated ability to develop these two parcels as-is.

In mid Aug, the Applicant and I spoke on two occasions: Friday, Aug 14 and
Monday, Aug 17, 2020.

The Applicant said either the neighbors allow this proposal to go through or
she would “bulldoze the neighbors” and develop a charter school on the south parcel
and put the worst possible development on the north parcel. (“[The Applicant]
mentioned the possibility of gun stores, a large QT gas station, or other options she
considered to be undesirable to the neighbors”)

After sharing the Applicant’s ultimatum with many neighbors, per the
Applicant’s request, the neighbors have provided the following response:

The proposed high-density residential, rental community is a non-starter. Due
to the ultimatum, signaling that the Applicant has viable alternatives to this proposal,
we are not impeding her ability to develop the property.

Conclusion

The ask of the Village tonight is reiterated: Please, Reject this proposal in its
entirety for the following reasons:

1.
The Applicant’s continued failure to meet the City’s stated vision and the
existing land use regulations,

2.
The Community needs to rely on and trust in documents provided by the City for
major decisions,

Page 739
3.
The Applicant's stated ability to develop these two parcels as-is.

As many of the committee members and chairperson have said since Aug 11,
2020: this is a cute project, just in the wrong location.

I would ask the committee and Mr Morris to consider the harm he is doing by
bringing the same failed proposal to the Village now twice. The harm he is inflicting
by facilitating the Applicant to “bulldoze”, to use the Applicant’s own semantics, both
the neighbors and the Village.

Mr Morris, we respect your ability to understand the zoning regulations and we
look forward to you bringing a proposal inline with the existing design and
development standards. This proposal has a density request 460% greater than what
MUA allows. It has been and continues to be a failed proposal for this location.

This is an “Information Only” session and the neighbors are trying to be
respectful of everyone’s time. That is why many formally asked for a single voice to
represent their interest. There are many more in the community who have expressed
their agreement with the position I have represented tonight. If this proposal
continues, we will organize further in opposition.

Let’s avoid further contention, be reasonable, and just play by the established
rules. The ask of the Village tonight is reiterated: Please, Reject this proposal in its
entirety

With the number of people who yielded their time, further bolstering the
neighbors’ desire to be respectful to the Village and Community, I may have actually
finished in half the allotted time!

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

Page 740
July 16, 2020
Dear Ms Bleam, et al,

Hello, my name is Trent Marchuk. Thank you for taking interest in developing the vacant lots at the
southwest corner of 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8, “Sanctuary at South Mountain”). I strongly echo the
neighbors’ requests for follow-up neighborhood meeting(s) to resolve the unresolved concerns prior to this
project moving forward. I am also requesting this statement be added to the City’s case file.
My family and I moved to Bartlett Heard Ranch Estates (BHRE) from Ahwatukee last summer. My wife
was born and raised in South Phoenix, first living off Central and Roeser and then 40th St and Baseline, where
her parents still reside. For many of the reasons I love my wife, I have also fallen in love with South Phoenix -
in particular the Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD) in the South Mountain Village. We have four daughters
under six, plan to raise them here and retire here - therefore we have made, what is to us, significant financial
investments in South Phoenix relying on the city’s stated land use plans. BHRE is evolving, now with at least a
half dozen families with young children (and counting!) laying roots here.
I am also the local Bishop of our church congregation with geographical boundaries covering Central
Ave to 40th St and South Mountain to the Salt River. The BAOD covers a significant portion of the 559
members of my congregation. I do not speak to you today in my official ecclesiastical capacity, however as a
citizen I remain actively concerned with how this area develops for their sake as well as my own. How these
two parcels develop will set a precedent for how the rest of the developable land south of Southern changes
from 40th St to 24th St, which will greatly impact those over whom I have stewardship to watch over both their
spiritual and temporal well-being. We cannot look at this proposal in isolation.
Jointly with my neighbors in BHRE, we have created a resident collective called somosbuildbam.org for
all our neighbors in the BAOD. This group has already grown beyond BHRE. Please go to our website to
learn more and to connect with us. We are a pro-development grassroots collective of residents impacted by
key development decisions within the Baseline Area Master Plan, the Baseline Area Overlay District, and the
Mixed Use Agriculture Districts.
As such, we have submitted a number of unresolved concerns to the requestor, included also in the
case file, and have formally asked for a written reply to each question. We are concerned with having
adequate time to assess this project's impact to the general health and safety of the neighborhood, the impact
to our personal financial investments in South Phoenix, adequate acknowledgement of the area's formally
recognized special heritage, and the consistency to which the city of Phoenix executes to its own stated (and
voter-approved) vision for land use for the entire city and all her inhabitants.
We look forward to working with the city and the development team to resolve these unresolved
concerns. Therefore, I echo my neighbors’ strong requests for follow-up meeting(s) whereby we can resolve
the unresolved neighbor concerns prior to this project moving forward.

Sincerely,
Trent Marchuk
602.499.9594

Page 741
From: Trent Marchuk
To: hannah@witheymorris.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Samantha Keating; Pattihoash@gmail.com; Greg
Brownell; Gene Homerud; josephlarios@gmail.com; Muriel Smith; Shelly Smith; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor
Gallego
Subject: 40th ST. and Southern Ave. Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 5:09:55 PM

Hello,

My name is Trent Marchuk and I am a homeowner who lives at 3731 E Saint Anne
Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85042. I am writing to share with you my perspective on the
proposed development on the Southwest corner of 40th St and Southern Ave.
Please add this to the official case file for "40th ST. and Southern Ave. Z-35-20-8 and
GPA-SM-1-20-8".

Although I am pro-development, and want my community in South Phoenix to grow
and flourish, I can not and do not support this proposal for at least three reasons:

1) I am concerned with the safety issues that inevitably will come with densifying this
land. Bringing nearly 450 cars into just 15.7 acres will strain our already over-
burdened infrastructure and resources. Traffic is already horrible enough, our
schools are overcrowded, and we still lack adequate retail, office, and
parks/recreation options in our community.

2) This proposal does not align to the City's stated vision for the land since 1996,
which has been voted on twice with the last time receiving 76% approval and would
address the lacks stated above. I have made personal financial investments in South
Phoenix trusting in this stated plan.

3) How these two parcels develop will set precedent for the remaining developable
land south of Southern from 40th St down to 24th St. Further densification will
exacerbate our community resources and infrastructure, as well as gut our formally
recognized special heritage..

Therefore, I strongly request that this proposal be denied by the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee, City Council and the Mayor.

Thank you,

Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602.499.9594

Page 742
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 1:51 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Somos BuildBam
Subject: Re: 11/19/20 - Phone Conversation Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.

Hi Enrique,

In follow‐up to the below allegation by Scott Curtis, I feel it is incumbent to demonstrate the pro‐development nature of
our collective somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] based on fact and action.

Please add the following also to the case file for Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPA‐SM‐1‐20‐8.

In summary, there are five instances outlined below where somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] has demonstrated
a pro‐development stance ‐ including one proposal that sought to densify a parcel not far from Bartlett Heard Ranch
Estates. There is only one development proposal for which somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] has been formally
against, and that is the failed proposal at 40th St and Southern Ave. Therefore, it can be consistently supported with
evidence that somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] is pro‐development. The overarching theme for if
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] supports a proposal has consistently been whether or not that proposal meets
the city's established vision and the existing land use regulations.

 Z‐8‐19‐8: 550' EAST OF SE CORNER OF SOUTHERN & 32ND ST
o Our resident collective offered formal support for this proposal
o We offered potential stipulations that could mitigate the conflict between the land owner and
neighbors, including use permits for the proposed green waste use.
o However, we ultimately support this rezoning application because it largely conforms with the Baseline
Area Master Plan
 3150 E Baseline Rd ‐ Zoning Adjustment [Approved w/ Stipulations]
o Our resident collective formally supported this proposal, which included significant densification,
because it largely conformed with the Baseline Area Master Plan
 Z‐23‐20: NW CORNER OF SOUTHERN & 38TH ST
o Our resident collective actually asked me to speak to the SMVPC on this proposal before it was
approved.
o We formally registered support for this development as it would retain a good employer in the area
o We asked for the city to consider the traffic impacts of this proposal in conjunction with proposal Z‐35‐
20‐8 prior to approving, since the two proposals are geographically proximate.
o However, we were understanding when that request was denied as the development was in
conformance to the General Plan and the city's stipulations were robust.
 Z‐46‐20‐8: Removing Historical Preservation designation off parcel NE corner 30th St and Southern
o Although we did not formally opine on this case, there were neighbors who asked our collective to fight
this proposal.
o We looked at the case and decided not to fight it as it seemed to be pretty clearly supported by the land
use regulations and vision of the city, plus it would open up a development opportunity.
o We look forward to understanding (and hopefully supporting) whatever will be developed there
 AZ Fresh Project
o Our collective has made now two formal positive references in our presentation to the Village in support
of the AZ Fresh project
o We also highlight the complementary nature of MUA to AZ Fresh.

Page 743
Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:11 AM Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:

Good morning Trent,

How are you? Thanks for this correspondence on case Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPA‐SM‐1‐20‐8. I will add it to the case files for
each of these!

Regards,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola

Planner II – Village Planner

Planning & Development Department

Long Range Planning

200 W. Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85003

Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per
day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

Page 744
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 10:49 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Somos BuildBam; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Patty Mckinstry; Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer; Sandy
Bawden; Van Jackson
Subject: Re: Alternative Locations: 7+ million sq ft within 4 Miles of 40th & Southern Ave - Z-35-20-8 and
GPA-SM-1-20-8

Hi Enrique,

I would like to correct a misstatement below.

Original: This email illustrates that there are multiple nearby alternative options of undeveloped land (within the South
Mountain Village and outside of the Village) where this project would actually fit within the established General Plan ‐
no amendment would even be needed in many cases

Corrected: This email illustrates that there are multiple nearby alternative options of undeveloped land (within the
Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD) and outside of the BAOD; all alternatives are within the South Mountain Village)
where this project would actually fit within the established General Plan ‐ no amendment would even be needed in
many cases

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 9:08 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:
Hi Enrique,

Hope your Christmas was full of cheer and you are gearing up for a Happy New Year!

As requested, please find attached the pdf version of the email, with graphics.

This email illustrates that there are multiple nearby alternative options of undeveloped land (within the South
Mountain Village and outside of the Village) where this project would actually fit within the established General Plan ‐
no amendment would even be needed in many cases. We have high confidence that additional alternatives could
better be found (perhaps closer to the TOD?) by a trained planner ‐ or by someone who is actually active in real estate
within our Village. As such, kindly share this email with the SMVPC, if you wouldn't mind.

The neighbors look forward to reviewing the third iteration of the narrative once it is presented to the city; the
Applicant continues to iterate unilaterally sans collaboration with the neighbors.

Per my conversation with Scott Brown on Nov 19, 2020, contemporaneous notes added to the case file, the neighbors
offered to collaborate with the Applicant when a novel site plan could be presented to the neighbors, as they
reasonably should not be expected to debate for a fourth time the same failed proposal. The offer still stands as the
neighbors are desirous for the land to be developed in a manner beneficial to the Village, to the City, to the Residents,
and to the Applicant.

Also, hopefully when this next iteration is submitted, the neighbors will (finally!) receive the responses to our many
questions posed back in July 2020, per the Applicant's last email on the subject dated Dec 3, 2020.

Page 745
Trent Marchuk

Alternative Locations: 7+ million sq ft within 4 Miles of 40th & Southern Ave - Z-35-
20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Trent Marchuk Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 3:33 PM
To: Enrique Bojorquez
Cc: Somos BuildBam , Patty & Bruce McKinstry , Patty Mckinstry
, Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer , Sandy Bawden ,
Van Jackson

Hello Enrique,

Please add this email to the case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8. Kindly also share this analysis with the SMVPC.

Somosbuildbam.org has cross-referenced alternative contiguous vacant parcels in the South Mountain Village with the
General Plan. Being pro-development, and desirous that this proposal be developed in an appropriate location, we looked
for 17+ contiguous gross acres zoned - or officially envisioned - for multifamily residential.

According to the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office, within 4 (four) miles, we found over 6 (six) million square feet of land
within the South Mountain Village that appears both undeveloped and that is suitable to the land uses of: “Commercial”
or “10-15 du/acre - Higher density attached townhouses, condos, or apartments”. Note that high density multi-family is
appropriate “Commercial” land use (see C-2).

This is nearly 10x (ten times) the area recorded by the County Assessor at the proposed site on the southwest corner of
40th St and Southern.

We have found over an additional 1 (one) million square feet within one mile of the proposal that could better absorb this
proposal. These additional closer parcels are not envisioned by the General Plan for “Commercial” or “10-15 du/acre -
Higher density attached townhouses, condos, or apartments”, however they are currently zoned S-1 or R1-6 and do not
have an overlay district applied.

Therefore, within 4 (four) miles of the proposed development, there are over 7 (seven) million square feet of vacant land
better suited to the proposed land use than the parcels at 40th St and Southern Ave. In fact, for much of the land
considered, this proposal would be ideally suited to the City’s stated General Plan in these alternative locations.

In short, the data supports that this proposal remains a good project in the wrong location. We wholeheartedly support its
development in the appropriate location.

Please see below analysis for supporting details.

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org

Proposed Area

According to Maricopa County Assessor:
North Parcel: 272,586 sq ft
South Parcel: 359,065 sq ft
Total: 631,642 sq ft

General Plan envisions this area as “MUA” which is 0-2 du/acre. Commercial purposes are permitted for up to ten acres
at the intersection of two arteria roads. So, the north parcel could be acceptable for high density apartments if it were not
for the stipulations that exist on that parcel as a concession to when the Walgreen’s was approved.

Page 746
Option 1

Nearly 3 million square feet of vacant land, currently zoned A-2 or R-3, envisioned by the General Plan for “Commercial”
or 10-15 du/acre - Higher density attached townhouses, condos, or apartments”.“ Note that high density multi-family is
appropriate “Commercial” land use.

Distance from target: 2.3 miles

Lot1: 1,947,631
Lot2: 188,615
Lot3: 465,656
Lot4: 47,964
Lot5: 303,579
Total: 2,953,445 sq ft (nearly 5x (five times) the needed land!

Option 2
983,149 sq feet already zoned R-4 (12 du/acre w/ bonus) in an area envisioned by the General Plan for “10-15 du/acre -
Higher density attached townhouses, condos, or apartments”.

Distance from target: 3.32 miles
Page 747
Lot1: 983,149 sq ft (About 1.5x (one and a half times) the area needed.

Option 3

Largely undeveloped land at SW corner of Elwood and 28th St. Already zoned R-3 (12 du w/ bonus). The General Plan
envisions this area as “Commercial” or “10-15 du/acre - Higher density attached townhouses, condos, or apartments”.
Note that high density multi-family is appropriate “Commercial” land use.

Distance from target: 1.94 miles

Lot1: 2,178,761 sq ft (over 3x (three times) the needed land area!)

Page 748
Option 4

Vacant land on the other side of Southern, directly north. All lots are currently S1. No overlay district to contend with.
The General Plan envisions these parcels as “Commerce/Business Park”.

Distance from target: 0.02 miles (across the street)

Lot1: 53,425
Lot2: 69,265
Lot3: 205,995
Lot4: 100,580
Lot5: 107,352
Lot6: 83,112
Lot7: 57,325
Lot8: 43,475
Total: 720,529 sq ft (Nearly 15% more land area!)

Page 749
Option 5
Vacant land, north of Southern and on the west side of 36th St. Already zoned R1-6 (6.5 du/acre w/ bonus). The General
Plan envisioned these parcels as Residential “3.5-5 du/acre - Traditional Lot”. Although about two-thirds smaller than the
proposed PUD, there are the two residential parcels to the south which could, if added, exceed the land required.

Distance from target: 0.45 miles

Lot1: 419,918 sq ft (about two-thirds of the land area needed)

Page 750
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Please Confirm: MUA District Violations of Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Monday, August 10, 2020 12:54:48 PM

Hi Enrique,

In preparing for tomorrow's information session with the SMVPC, I came across some
additional information that I would appreciate your perspective on. Please include
this email in the case file.

In short, based on reading the Baseline Area Master Plan, specifically page 34, the S-
1 parcel in the PUD simply cannot be developed with commercial uses.

The C-2 parcel in the PUD can be developed with commercial uses, including
multifamily use, but would be subject to additional standards that are not included in
the proposed PUD.

Therefore, absent other information, it logically follows that:

1. Zoning Request (Z-35-20-8) should not move forward without significant,
fundamental revisions.
2. The General Plan Amendment (CPA-SM-1-20-8) would be categorically
unnecessary, because commercial uses in the MUA district are restricted
to ten (10) acres or less.

Am I missing any key information?

Below follow supporting details...,

Per Section 649 [phoenix.municipal.codes], the Mixed Usa Agriculture District
purpose and intent is, in part, "to help preserve the character of agricultural areas of
Phoenix while allowing appropriate development, including compatible commercial
uses, which will reflect and enhance that character."

The Baseline Area Master Plan, indicates that just 773 of the 5768.2 acres in the
Baseline Area Overlay District (<15%) are envisioned by the City as covered by the
MUA District. (See Table 4 in the Baseline Area Master Plan). Over half (~400
acres?) of the MUA land is north of Baseline - between Southern and about Vineyard
and 24th St and 40th - is still largely developable. (See Figure E in the Baseline Area
Master Plan.)

This proposed PUD consists of a single S-1 parcel to the south and a single C-2
parcel to the north.

Per p 34 of the Baseline Area Master, the C-2 parcel can develop with commercial
uses, including R-3 uses, however it would be subject to additional standards. On the
other hand, the S-1 parcel explicitly cannot develop with commercial uses.

Page 751
And for even more support details, see below:

The Baseline Area Master Plan
(https://www.phoenix.gov/villagessite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00140.pdf), page 34,
states that several parts of the Plan resulted in revisions to the Zoning Ordinances for
realization. Additionally, according to Table 4 in the Plan, MUA was envisioned to be
just 773 acres of the 5768.2 total acres of the Baseline Area Overlay District - less
than 15% to preserve the area’s formally recognized special heritage. Those 773
acres were clustered in two main areas, per Figure E of the Plan.

The two MUA clusters in the Baseline Area Overlay District are:

1.
From Baseline to the Highline Canal and from about 28th St to about 36th St

2.
From Southern Ave to about Vineyard and 24th St to 40th St

The first cluster is pretty much developed out, fairly well faithful to the MUA vision.
The second cluster, where this proposal is located, is geographically larger than the
first and still contains a majority of Developable Land. Therefore, this PUD will set the
pace for the realization of the majority of the MUA vision. Although nearly all parcels
in the second cluster are currently zoned S-1 or MUA, there are three that are zoned
C-2: one is less than a quarter acre, the second is about an acre, and the third parcel
from this proposal is about 7.5 acres. The rest of the ~400 acres (?) in the
developable land in the second MUA cluster acres is currently zoned either S-1 or
MUA.

Foreseeing the possibility for commercial development within the MUA, which
includes the ability to rezone the C-2 parcel in this proposal as R-3, the Baseline Area
Master Plan put specific requirements on the MUA district.

“Mixed Use Agriculture properties at the intersection of two arterial streets, as defined
by the Streets Classification Map, which are not adjacent to existing single family
residential development may develop with commercial uses subject to the following
standards:”

Pausing for a brief moment, the neighborhood recognizes that just the ~7.5 acres C-2
parcel in the proposal meets the above definition to develop with commercial uses,
including R-3 zoning standards. The south parcel, zoned S-1 categorically does not
meet this definition: the S-1 parcel is not at the intersection of two arterial streets, is
adjacent to existing single family residences, and when combined with the C-2 would

Page 752
be 17+ gross acres. Therefore, we contend that the south S-1 parcel is subject to the
general MUA Land Use and Development Standards listed on page 34 and cannot be
developed with commercial uses.

If the north C-2 parcel desires to develop with commercial uses, including the
permissible rezoning to R-3, that parcel, according to the requirements of the
Baseline Area Master Plan, appears to be subject to the following standards:

Such properties shall not exceed ten (10) gross acres.

Comment: The S-q and C-2 parcels are a gross combined 17.21 acres.
Although, we do not know the gross acreage for the C-2 parcel, we
believe that it is likely less than 10 acres.

Lot coverage shall not exceed twenty (20) percent.

The current proposal suggests lot coverage of either 30% or 35%. The
PUD is unclear and contradictory. Regardless, both numbers exceed
20%.

A thirty (30) foot wide landscaping strip shall be provided along all perimeters of
the property.

The current proposal does not adhere to this standard.

At least ten (10) percent of the parking lot shall be landscaped

The current proposal does not adhere to this standard..

A ten (10) foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided adjacent to commercial
buildings which provide a blank wall facade or other design which does not

Page 753
reflect the character of the Baseline area.

Further discussion is required to understand whether the rental buildings
proposed to be built in the C-2 portion of the PUD would be considered
reflective of the character of the Baseline area.

All commercial development design guidelines for the Baseline are she be
satisfied to the extent they are not addressed above.

If the Development desires to move forward, the neighbors would like to
work with the city to ensure this point is satisfied.

Please advise,
Trent Marchuk

Page 754
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Somos BuildBam
Subject: 11/19/20 - Phone Conversation Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 4:31:33 PM

Hi Enrique,

Below follows contemporaneous notes between myself and Scott Curtis (of the Brown Group)
regarding the proposal at 40th St and Southern. The objective of the call was for Mr Curtis to
set up a meeting with the neighbors to understand their concerns about the PUD proposal.

Please add this email to the case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.

Thurs, November 19, 2020
Start 3:27p End 3:36p
Connection was lost
Start 3:37p End 3:41p

Summary
Trent returned a phone call from Scott Curtis (Scott left Trent a voicemail on Nov 17 @
3:11p).
Initial pleasantries.
Scott asked if he could meet with Trent to discuss the proposed PUD at 40th St and Southern
Trent inquired what the objective of the meeting would be.
Scott stated he would like to understand the neighbor's concerns as Trent is speaking for a lot
of people. Scott alleged that the neighbors claim to be pro-development, but he does not feel
that the neighbors are pro-development. Scott would also like to explain the developer's
objectives. Scott stated that we may or may not agree, but wanted to talk.
Trent informed Scott that although he was speaking on behalf of the resident collective, Trent
is not the resident collective.
If Scott wanted to talk to Trent as a representative of the resident collective, then Trent would
need to involve the other leaders. Otherwise, Trent could speak as a single resident.
Trent asked if Scott would like to speak with Trent as an individual or as a representative of
the resident collective - and for Trent to include the other leaders?
Scott asked how many leaders there were and said if there are about a half dozen, that would
be manageable.
Trent pointed out that the neighbors do not receive remuneration for their activities, unlike the
developers, lawyers and land owners. These activities actually cost the neighbors money and
time.Therefore, Trent asked what site plan we would be discussing if we met.
Scott emphasized that he doesn't know if he will make money on this project. He indicated
that he has spent a lot of money on the project already and is trying to salvage what he can.
Scott said that he would just like to understand the neighbors' perspectives and share his
objectives. Scott reiterated that we may or may not agree, but wanted to talk.
Trent responded that the same failed site plan has now been formally presented three times.
The neighbors have given a lot of feedback on that proposal. This feedback is in the case file
and well documented. Trent expressed he did not see the point in asking the neighbors' to
discuss the same proposal a fourth time.
Scott stated that he wanted to understand what the neighbors do want to see developed. He
reiterated the allegation that the neighbors say they are pro-development, but he does not
know what they want to have developed. Scott also said that MUA was impossible to be

Page 755
developed.
Trent asked Scott if he had read the notes in the case file that contain the neighbors' responses
to this development?
Scott replied that he was driving and not familiar with the documentation in the case file from
the neighbors.
Trent asked Scott to review the case file to answer many of his questions. In particular, the
contemporaneous notes of the discussion between Trent and Beth in mid Aug discuss
alternative development options. Trent also pointed out that additional notes in the case file
further answer Scott's question as to what the neighbors would support to be developed instead
of the high density rental community that has been formally proposed unsuccessfully three
times.
Trent also pointed out that MUA is not impossible to be developed and has actually been
developed successfully south of Baseline and one development north of Baseline. They were
not perfect MUA, but retained the spirit of the overlay district where this proposal does not.
Trent also pushed back on Mr Curtis questioning the neighbors' stance of genuinely being pro-
development. Recorded in the case file are instances of the developments the neighbors are
willing to accept and many reiterations of the pro-development stance. Casting the neighbors
as not pro-development because they do not support this particular development could be seen
as a very myopic and disingenuous definition of the term "pro-development". Trent also cited
the SMVPC statements of the acceptable density increase and the request for the land owner to
be consistent to their original agreement for development of the land when the Walgreen's
went in.
Scott mentioned that the land owner believes the land owner did not enter into an agreement
on how the land would be developed and lawyers would be involved to sort that out. Trent
and Scott amicably and mutually decided to let that sub-topic end as neither are lawyers nor
have sufficient knowledge on the subject.
Scott said he would review the case file notes and reach back out to Trent once he had done so
to discuss the prospect of meeting again.
Trent emphasized a willingness to meet with the caveat that the agenda be new and/or novel.
Trent cannot in good conscience bring the leaders of the collective together to review the same
failed proposal a fourth time; the feedback Scott is requesting on that proposal already
abundantly exists in the case file and meeting literally has a cost to the neighbors.
Trent requested for Scott to provide a revised site plan, even a back of the napkin sketch, as a
way to objectively determine if the subject of the next meeting would be sufficiently new or
novel to warrant a meeting.
Scott and Trent amicably said goodbye and ended the call

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

Page 756
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 2:19 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Patty Mckinstry; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Sandy Bawden; Van Jackson; Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer
Subject: Weekly One: Read the Stipulations for Land Use at 40th & Southern (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Attachments: Z-30-97_Nov_12_1997_Stipulations.pdf

Hi Enrique,

Please add the below to case file for Z‐35‐20‐8 and GPA‐SM‐1‐20‐8

Also, we have heard reports of a lady approaching people in the Walgreen's parking lot asking for their signature in
support of the Sanctuary proposal (Z‐35‐20‐8). One of the siblings of a member of somosbuildbam.org
[somosbuildbam.org] stated they were approached and were asked to sign a petition in support of the proposal.

The question we have is to what purpose could gathering signatures from random people at the Walgreen's do to
advance the cause for Z‐35‐20‐8?

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Somos BuildBam
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 4:40 PM
Subject: Weekly One: Read the Stipulations for Land Use at 40th & Southern
To:

Each week, we will post [somosbuildbam.org]the single most pressing action you can take. Last week we took
a break due to a conversation between one of the land owners and a member of this group as we strived to
make sense of an ultimatum being presented to the neighbors. The one thing you can do this week is
understand what can and cannot currently be done on this property given the existing stipulations on the north
parcel, which are attached. These stipulations are very important and will likely play a significant role moving
forward.

Hi Neighbors,

Hope all is well! The one thing you can do this week is review the attached stipulations for the north half of the single
family rental homes proposal at 40th and Southern. These stipulations have been in place since 1997 and are very
important.

On Friday, Aug 14 and Monday, Aug 17, one of the land owners spoke with a member of this group. The member of this
group spoke in the capacity of a concerned citizen and not as a representative of this collective. The leadership of this
collective then conferred and the below is summarized for your consideration.

The landowner requested an ultimatum be conveyed to the neighborhood: either approve the single family rental
homes or the landowner will "bulldoze the neighbors" and build a charter school on the south parcel and dense
apartments (119 units in ~8 acres) on the north parcel. This alternative, as was presented, the neighbors would
supposedly have no say in the matter due to existing land use ordinances.

Page 757
However, upon further investigation, this ultimatum was discovered to be a false choice.

The true part of the ultimatum is that a charter school can go on the south parcel without much, if any input, from the
neighbors. The landowner can build a charter school and the neighbors wouldn't have much, if any, say in the matter.

However, the north parcel is subject to the attached stipulations. These stipulations have been confirmed with the city
to be in effect since 1997. And they simply do not allow dense apartments without significant neighborhood, Village,
and even City Council participation in the process. To remove stipulations, assuming they get approval for removal, the
landowner will subject themselves to new stipulations being added beyond their control. And to build within the existing
stipulations on the northern parcel would be a welcomed addition to our neighborhood.

Therefore, it is the estimation of somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] that

1. The baseline for what is appropriate to develop on these parcels is not just the BAOD and the MUA, but the
attached stipulations which, among other things, embrace the full Baseline Area Master Plan
2. The single family rental proposal looks even worse now than it did during the Village Planning
Committee Informational Meeting on Aug 11, 2020.
3. Given the choice between the single family rental proposal on one hand and developing the parcels to current
land use restrictions on the other hand, somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] advocates for the latter;
building within the existing zoning ordinances and stipulations would be far better for our community.
4. Within the context of the landowner's ultimatum, we say give us the charter school and however the north
parcel can be developed.

The landowner, during the conversation on Aug 17, did agree to go back to the Developer and attempt to bring the
single family rental proposal into general conformance to the MUA. If/when the landowner and developer does so, our
recommendation could change.

The existing land use zoning and stipulations are far preferable to the current single family rental proposal.

You are encouraged to read the attached and judge for yourself.

Reach out with any questions,
Trent
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

‐‐
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "somosbuildbam" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
somosbuildbam+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/somosbuildbam/CAMMm8bgwov2j3p0sLAKOQiayDWJPERgtrF2f7arNnWMFjhRqDg
%40mail.gmail.com [groups.google.com].

Page 758
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Marcia Busching; Pattihoash@gmail.com; Sandy Bawden
Subject: Re: New REZONING Case File: Z-35-20-8 Sanctuary At South Mountain PUD - 3rd Submittal (Approximately 340
feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue)
Date: Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:43:56 PM
Attachments: image003.png

Hi Enrique,

For what it is worth, the resident collective somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] agrees
with Chair Trites and Member Busching's assessments.

Please note for the record that the Applicant reached out just once to meet with the
Collective after the last information session and has not followed up to "work with the
neighbors" as was counseled by the Village during the last Information Session. For more
details, contemporaneous notes of the dialogue between myself and Scott Brown can be found
in the case file.

Furthermore, on that note, Councilmember Carlos Garcis met with the representatives of our
collective on Dec 4, 2020. Councilmember Garcia offered to broker a meeting between the
Applicant and the Neighbors that has yet to occur.

In summary, this proposal remains substantially similar to the first two failed proposals and
therefore itself remains a good project in the wrong location. Our collective has found 6+
million sq feet within 4 miles of 40th and Southern that contain contiguous vacant land
envisioned by the General Plan to be suitable for high density, multi-family residential
development. The Applicant has options in our district to successfully develop this proposal
elsewhere. These details are also in the case file.

Our collective will be providing additional feedback over the next couple of weeks in support
of the above conclusion and to complement the two pieces of feedback provided below.

One question before concluding. It was interesting to find quite a bit of reference to the
Housing Phoenix Plan in this third submission. Has the city's objective place-based scoring
matrix for multifamily housing projects been developed (See p 14)? If so, what was
the criteria/algorithm used and the attending results - specifically for the land currently
classified as MUA within the Baseline Area Master Plan?

https://www.phoenix.gov/housingsite/Documents/Final_Housing_Phx_Plan.pdf

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 6:38 AM Patti Trites, Southern Hills HOA
wrote:
Enrique

Marsh has stated my views adequately.
Please pass on to the applicant.

Page 759
Thank you

Patti Trites is sending from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone. If you cant read please text or call
4022137126. Thank you.

-------- Original message --------
From: "M Busching (Cartof)"
Date: 1/6/21 10:18 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: 'Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola'
Cc: 'Patti Trites' , trentchristopher@gmail.com, 'Sandy Bawden'

Subject: RE: New REZONING Case File: Z-35-20-8 Sanctuary At South Mountain PUD -
3rd Submittal (Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and
Southern Avenue)

Enrique—

My comments include:

1. I agree with each of the staff comments on page 17 and 18 – particularly the need for
adherence to BAOD and MUA.

2. Page 21—fails to reflect existing MUA on property.

3. Page 32—references site perimeter fencing, but I don’t see it on the diagram. I am
opposed to site perimeter fencing in any event.

4. Page 33—far, far too dense. Shouldn’t be any denser than the last MUA residential
project—Gardner’s Enclave—which I believe was 2.01 dwelling units/acre. This is
proposing 12.22 du/ac. (up from 11.2 du/ac in the last proposal (page 22 of the 10/16/20
submittal!)

5. Page 34—42 Elevations do not reflect MUA building designs—rather they are as plain
and unattractive as they can be.

In summary, the applicant should work with community to either present an acceptable
project or should build under their current existing zoning…which I believe the SAME
applicant asked for and received.   Because of the limited time for review, I haven’t
distributed the information to the community at this point. Keep us informed, and I will put
the word out that this matter is coming for review again.

Below are my comments from merely two months ago. Nothing appears to have changed.
Why doesn’t the applicant “get it”?

Page 760
Enrique--

I attempted to submit the comments through the referenced url link, but couldn't make
it work. I, too, feel strongly that this project it inappropriate for the location. While it
may be a nice project in another location, this location is within the BAOD and is
designated MUA, both of which requirements should be honored. The density should be
no more than 2 du/acre.

I am out of town with limited access to my materials, and so I am unable to go through
the detailed violations of both the BAOD and MUA proposed by this project.

On a more macro level, there are no two story buildings south of Southern in the area,
and this borders a residential project with large lot homes. To put 11 du/acre here does
not fit within the immediate area.

Further, I see very little attention to the agricultural ambiance that MUA is supposed to
respect. One small flower stand does not make an 17 acre agricultural in character.

While it references certain City code sections for fencing and walls, that does not give
us any indication of what is planned for the project. Historically we have talked about
picket type fences or similar for MUA areas, and not the high block walls that may be
permitted in other locations.

Marcia Busching

From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola [mailto:enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 5:05 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: FW: New REZONING Case "https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/Z-
35-20n.pdf">https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/Z-35-20n.pdf

2. Once I review the 3rd PUD narrative (likely by early next week), I’ll be happy to share
what I found in terms of changes to the PUD narrative.

3. Depending on what we find in this 3rd PUD narrative and how the discussion goes
between staff & applicant during the Post-Application meeting, it could be scheduled
as early as February 9th to the South Mountain VPC for recommendation.

If you have any comments, please send these comments individually (if you have any) to
pass along to the applicant, or if you wish to await for further details like the staff report,
letters from the community, etc. as we approach the meeting.

Page 761
Let me know if questions arise!

Thank you very much,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola

Planner II – Village Planner

Planning & Development Department

Long Range Planning

200 W. Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85003

Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple
times per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response.
Thank you.***

From: Patti Trites
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 11:32 AM
To: Geno Koman ; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

Page 762

Cc: Marcia Busching ; kshepard2@cox.net; Greg Brownell

Subject: Re: New REZONING Case
"mailto:geno.koman@phoenix.gov">geno.koman@phoenix.gov> wrote:

Good morning,

The following rezoning case files are ready for review. Please submit your
comments to Enrique Bojorquez-Gaxiola at enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov.

CASE FILE:           Z-35-20-8 Sanctuary At South Mountain PUD - 3rd
Submittal

VILLAGE:               South Mountain

LOCATION:           Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Southern Avenue

COMMENTS DUE: January 7, 2021

Thank you,

Geno Koman,

Secretary II

Long Range Planning

Office: 602-495-2076

200 West Washington
Street

Phoenix, AZ 85003

Page 763
--

Hope you have a great day. Thank you.

Patti Trites

Southern Hills HOA

Cell: 402 213 7126

Email: pattihoash@gmail.com

Page 764
Page 765
Page 766
From: ELISA OLMEDO
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Project on Agenda Item 8
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 4:36:59 PM

Hi, I would like to support the project as I would be interested in living there.

Page 767
Page 768
Page 769
Stafford Crane Group ▪ 3620 South 40th Street ▪ Phoenix, Arizona 85040

August 20, 2020

South Mountain Village Planning Committee

Re: Proposed Sanctuary Development
SWC 40th Street & Southern
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Dear Members of the South Mountain Village Planning Committee:

I am writing to express support for the above-referenced proposed residential development in the South
Mountain Village.

Stafford Crane Group is headquartered just over one mile away from the proposed development.
Strafford has a vested interest in the economic growth of Phoenix, including in the South Mountain
Village which offers the nearest residential neighborhoods to the Sky Harbor industrial area which
includes many businesses like ours.

As the population of Phoenix continues to grow, creating new workforce housing becomes more and
more important to workers, and therefore to existing businesses in the area as well as to businesses
considering relocating to the area. It is my understanding that the proposed Sanctuary development will
bring 197 such needed units to the community.

Developing new housing generally is also critical to maintaining overall housing affordability in the
Valley, particularly in Phoenix. Overly restrictive zoning regulations impede the market’s effort to meet
demand. Homebuilders tell me they’re currently selling lower price point housing as fast as they can
build it – as far out as in Buckeye and Queen Creek – because the Valley’s current supply does not come
close to meeting the current demand. Allowing developers to develop infill units at projects like
Sanctuary alleviates this problem for renters and homeowners in Phoenix and helps maintain its cost-of-
living advantages.

For all these reasons, I support the pending rezoning case at 40 th Street and Southern Avenue.

Sincerely,

Greg Linaman
CEO
Stafford Crane Group

Page 770
Page 771
From: Jesus Llamas
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Support of agenda item 8
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 4:37:55 PM

This project would benefit the community. I hope that it can be taken into consideration to be built.

Page 772
Hannah Bleam

From: Andrew Curtis
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:12 PM
To: Hannah Bleam
Cc: Jason Morris; Tyson Remensnyder; Gary Brown; Todd Kjar; Scott Curtis
Subject: FW: Follow Up - SWC 40th & Southern

Importance: High

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Hannah,

Below is an email of support from the General Manager for Southpoint Apartments for our proposed development.

Please store it for record.

From: South Point
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 2:36 PM
To: Andrew Curtis
Subject: Re: Follow Up ‐ SWC 40th & Southern

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]

Hi Andrew,

I'm glad to see forward motion on what has been a dirt lot for far too long. I attended a meeting at The Farm a couple of
years ago related to a different plan for the same land. I honestly couldn't tell you who the people were who very vocally
objected at the meeting. I'm sure someone has that info. I didn't take it personally when they stated that any
commercial or multi‐family development should be kept to the south side of Southern "along with all the heavy goods
traffic and crime that comes with it". My feeling at the time was they would object to the sun shining if they could find
an angle.

We are proud of the work we have done in the past 14 years on our little corner and a quick check with the South
Mountain Police Precinct would confirm our significant reduction in crime and we have witnessed an improved overall
safety of the area, so any implication that multi‐family is bad for a neighborhood is ill‐informed and divisive.

We prefer to be welcoming and inclusive, so good luck with moving the project forward. Our occupancy rates and
applications strongly indicate a need for more housing for the working folks around here.

I have no objections to putting my point of view on the record.

Kindest regards,

John Taylor

Page 773
General Manager
Southpoint Apartments
4002 E. Southern Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042
(602)437‐0713 tel
(602)437‐8128 fax

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:32 AM Andrew Curtis wrote:

John,

It was a pleasure speaking with you earlier today, I really appreciate your insight & support for our proposed
development.

What you said over the phone is great insight and we would like to share whatever you are comfortable writing with
our district councilman.

I understand that the Baseline Committee previously dismissed your support and told you stay on the other side of the
street, but anything you can share for support will go a long way.

Attached is tonight’s meeting agenda, as well as our proposed site plan.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you,

Andrew Curtis
Director

2525 E Camelback Road Suite 1150 | Phoenix AZ 85016
T: +1 (602) 522‐1428 | M: +1 (602) 571‐4190
andrew.curtis@berkadia.com | www.berkadia.com
Berkadia Real Estate Advisors LLC

Page 774
Let us find your next investment! Visit our client portal and update your acquisition criteria today.

a Berkshire Hathaway and Jefferies Financial Group company

This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy,
use or disclose this communication to others. Please notify the sender by reply and delete this message from your system. Thank
you.

Page 775
Page 776
Page 777
Page 778
Page 779
Page 780
Page 781
Page 782
Page 783
Page 784
Page 785
Page 786
Page 787
Page 788
Page 789
Page 790
Page 791
Page 792
Page 793
Page 794
Page 795
Page 796
Page 797
Page 798
Page 799
Page 800
Page 801
Page 802
Page 803
Page 804
Page 805
Page 806
Page 807
Page 808
Page 809
Page 810
Page 811
Page 812
Page 813
Page 814
Page 815
Page 816
Page 817
Page 818
Page 819
Page 820
Page 821
Page 822
Page 823
Page 824
Page 825
Page 826
Page 827
Page 828
Page 829
Page 830
Page 831
Page 832
Page 833
Page 834
Page 835
Page 836
Page 837
Page 838
Page 839
Page 840
Page 841
Page 842
Page 843
Page 844
Page 845
Page 846
Page 847
Page 848
Page 849
Page 850
Page 851
Page 852
Page 853
Page 854
Page 855
Page 856
Page 857
Page 858
Page 859
Page 860
Page 861
Page 862
Page 863
Page 864
Page 865
Page 866
Page 867
Page 868
Page 869
Page 870
Page 871
Page 872
Page 873
Page 874
Page 875
Page 876
Page 877
Page 878
Page 879
Page 880
Page 881
Page 882
Page 883
Page 884
Page 885
Page 886
Page 887
Page 888
Page 889
Page 890
Page 891
Page 892
Page 893
Page 894
Page 895
Page 896
Page 897
Page 898
Page 899
Page 900
Page 901
Page 902
Page 903
Page 904
Page 905
Page 906
Page 907
Page 908
Page 909
Page 910
Page 911
Page 912
Page 913
Page 914
Page 915
Page 916
Page 917
Page 918
Page 919
Page 920
Page 921
Page 922
Page 923
Page 924
Page 925
Page 926
Page 927
Page 928
Page 929
Page 930
Page 931
Page 932
Page 933
From: Hannah Bleam
To: Trent Marchuk
Cc: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Sandy Bawden; Somos BuildBam; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com
Subject: RE: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm (r Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, December 3, 2020 3:04:15 PM

Good afternoon Trent,

I wanted to provide an update. We are taking a look at the site plan and will be making some
modifications based on feedback. We want to ensure that the responses to the questions are the
most current and therefore we will update and send you the most current version when the site plan
is complete.

Feel free to reach out if you would like to discuss.

Thank you,

Hannah Bleam, AICP
Land Use Planner
Withey Morris, PLC
2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-230-0600

[witheymorris.com]

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

From: Hannah Bleam
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 7:17 PM
To: Trent Marchuk
Cc: Enrique Bojorquez ; Sandy Bawden
; Somos BuildBam ; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com
Subject: RE: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm (r Z-35-20-8 and
GPA-SM-1-20-8)

Good evening,

Regarding the most recent neighborhood meeting, the affidavit of notification and details were

Page 934
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 12:43 PM
To: hannah@witheymorris.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Sandy Bawden; Somos BuildBam; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm (r Z-35-20-8 and GPA-
SM-1-20-8)
Attachments: Notification of 40th St & Southern SMVPC 10-30-20 (1).pdf

Enrique ‐ please continue to add this thread to the case file.

Hi Hannah,

Wonderful; that was the meeting to which we were made aware. See attached.

We are happy to report that the resident collective has made significant inroads with the residents on the east side of
40th St, as well as in BHRE, Ravenswood, and the residents and nurseries within the northern half of the MUA. We are
all deeply opposed to this proposed PUD.

It should be noted that the attahched notification stated, "the general plan amendment request adds 10‐15 du/acre
designations to the MUA general plan designation to this property."

The attached notice therefore indicated to the neighbors that we would be subject to reviewing the same failed
proposal for a fourth time. While the Applicant and her team may receive remuneration for engaging in this activity, the
neighbors simply do not. It is of little surprise the neighbors saw through this naked attempt at checking a box in the
process and did not countenance their participation on Nov 18. The neighbors continue to plead for a good faith effort
by the Applicant to actually resolve our unresolved concerns.

On Nov 11, during the second information Session, the SMVPC Chair asked the Applicant to work with the neighbors to
resolve the neighbors' unresolved concerns. As I have consistently been the spokesperson for the collective, I can state
that the Applicant has done no such thing ‐ as of today. The conversations I have had with the Applicant (or her
representatives) occurred on the following dates with the following individuals. Contemporaneous notes on these
conversations can be found in the case file.

 Aug 14, 2020 ‐ Beth Hintze and Trent Marchuk
o Beth stated she had alternative options for developing the land in conformance to the existing land use
regulations and city's vision
o Beth initiated an ultimatum to the neighbors and requested Trent represent it to the neighbors
 Aug 18, 2020 ‐ Beth Hintze and Trent Marchuk
o Beth reiterated her ultimatum to the neighbors
 Note: on Nov 10, the neighbors officially responded to the ultimatum via the SMVPC and asked
for Beth to pursue her alternative options rather than this failed proposal
o Trent stated that if Beth is able to develop the land however she deems fit within the existing rules, then
she will very likely garner the support of the neighbors.
 Nov 17, 2020 ‐ Scott Brown and Trent Marchuk
o Scott Brown left a voicemail requesting to meet with Trent Marchuk on Fri, Nov 20 or early the week of
Nov 23
 Nov 19, 2020 ‐ Scott Brown and Trent Marchuk

Page 935
o Scott Brown requested Trent to setup a meeting with Scott Brown and the leaders of the resident
collective for after Thanksgiving.
o Trent emphasized a willingness to meet with the caveat that the agenda be new and/or novel; the
neighbors cannot be expected to review the same failed proposal a fourth time when the case file has
ample documentation on the neighbors' objections and openness to alternative development
options. Trent requested a "back of the napkin" revised site plan to help gauge whether the neighbors'
feedback was actually being incorporated.
o As of Dec 3, the Applicant has not reached back out to meet with the neighbors ‐ at least with those of
this collective who have been the primary spokespeople for the neighbors since July.

In addition to the above limited conversations, the neighbors have registered their perspective on this failed proposal in
many instances. Details on the below, and more, are abundantly in the case file.

 Jul 15 ‐ Via email, the neighbors submitted a question packet to the Applicant.
o On Aug 4, the Applicant promised to respond to "all" questions. As of Dec 3, 2020, the neighbors have
yet to receive the promised reply.
 Jul 16 ‐ The first Neighborhood Meeting
o Note: the Applicant disallowed verbal engagement from the community and did not allow for the
neighbors to see each other's questions.
o The Applicant shared the responses to the neighbor's questions on Dec 2, though that was also
promised on Aug 4.
 Aug 11 ‐ First SMVPC Informational Meeting
o Multiple neighbors yielded their time to Trent Marchuk, representing somosbuildbam.org
[somosbuildbam.org]
o The near ubiquitous failings of the first proposal relative to the existing land use regulations and the
city's vision were enumerated in detail
 Nov 11 ‐ Second SMVPC Informational Meeting
o Multiple neighbors yielded their time to Trent Marchuk, representing somosbuildbam.org
[somosbuildbam.org]
o The continued near‐ubiquitous failings of the second proposal, newly considering the stipulations and
history of the northern C‐2 parcel, were detailed in a document provided the SMVPC in advance and
referenced in the neighborhood's statement
o The diverse collective of neighbors who have heavily invested in the MUA relying upon the city's
published documents were highlighted
o The Applicant's ultimatum and the ability for the Applicant to have viable alternative options for this
land, which are preferred by the neighbors, were formally recognized.

Therefore, given the above, it appears that the Applicant has not and continues to not work in good faith with the
neighbors to find an amicable solution.

The term "bulldoze the neighbors", as used by the Applicant herself, appears to summarize the approach the neighbors
have consistently experienced since July.

We hope that the Applicant will finally heed the neighbors' requests: review the abundant documentation in the case
file representing the neighbors' perspectives and suggest a meeting (including a novel and new agenda) with the
neighbors incorporating a good faith effort to actually resolve the neighbors unresolved concerns.

We look forward to reaching a mutually amicable solution,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:16 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:

Page 936
Page 937
Page 938
Page 939
Page 940
submitted to the city and are apart of the case file that Enrique can share with you. In addition, we
had one resident register for the meeting; however, no one ended up showing up (except the
development team).

The additional question/responses will be sent this week.

Thank you,

Hannah Bleam, AICP
Land Use Planner
Withey Morris, PLC
2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-230-0600

[witheymorris.com]

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 7:02 PM
To: Hannah Bleam
Cc: Enrique Bojorquez ; Sandy Bawden
; Somos BuildBam ; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm (r Z-35-20-8 and
GPA-SM-1-20-8)

Hi Hannah,

Thank you for providing the responses to the questions asked during the first neighborhood
meeting. It’s interesting to note that the responses appear to be written over four months after the
meeting.

When should we expect to receive the promised written responses to the questions submitted from
the neighbors on July 15, 2020?

Lastly, in the recent attachment is reference to a “neighborhood meeting” on Nov 18, 2020. Can you
provide details on that meeting, including the neighborhood notification process and participants?

Page 941
Regards,
Trent

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 6:53 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:
Good evening,

I apologize for the delay. Please find the attached questions and responses from the
neighborhood meeting.

We are happy to answer any questions you and the neighbors have. Feel free to give me a call or
send an email if others arise.

Thank you,

Hannah Bleam, AICP
Land Use Planner
Withey Morris, PLC
2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-230-0600

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or
an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 4:32 PM
To: Hannah Bleam ; Enrique Bojorquez gaxiola@phoenix.gov>
Cc: Sandy Bawden ; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com; Somos BuildBam

Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm (r Z-35-20-8
and GPA-SM-1-20-8)

@Enrique - Please add this email to the case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8

Hi Hannah,

Page 942
40th and Southern Rezoning
Virtual Neighborhood Meeting Chat
July 16, 2020
Questions and Responses

17:39:27 From Trent Marchuk to Withey Morris(Privately) : kindly request time to speak, when
appropriate

17:45:27 From Roque & Maria to Withey Morris(Privately) : What is a diff. Between rental and
apt?

• These residences are a hybrid between an apartment unit and a single-family
home. They typically are single-story & two-story, detached & attached, with a
small backyard patio and include amenities such as a community pool, fitness
center, dog park & dog washes.
• Unlike traditional two- or three-story apartment complexes which are vertical, all
of the homes are single story with a private backyard (with few 2-story homes).
Our single-family luxury rental homes allow our residents to enjoy a carefree
lifestyle as someone else tends to the home and yard maintenance. A socially
active lifestyle and beautiful amenities engage the residents, creating friendships
and a true sense of community. The gated, professionally managed communities
feature one-, two-, three bedroom technology-forward homes with 10’ ceilings,
large private backyards & community clubhouse (pool, fitness & resident lounge)
& dog parks. The homes range in size from 692 square feet to 1,391 square feet.
The smartest home technology package available includes keyless entry, doorbell
cameras, light controls, thermostat, motion detector and all security systems.
 Traditional Apartments:
• Typically, 30+ du/ac
• 2 – 6 stories
• Average unit size in AZ - 823 square feet

 Single Family for Rent community:
• Between 10 – 12 du/ac
• Majority single-story
• The average unit size – 1,000 square feet

17:46:41 From Roque & Maria to Withey Morris(Privately) : Why are you blocking group chat?!

• Due to the large number of participants at this meeting, we are using the chat
function to field questions regarding the project and request.

Page 943
17:47:27 From Zack Bruce Lindsay to Withey Morris(Privately) : How many parking spot?

• There are currently 443 parking spaces proposed for the project.

17:49:21 From LPeterson to Withey Morris(Privately) : Will they be section 8?

• This will not be Section 8 housing.

17:55:12 From Zack Bruce Lindsay to Withey Morris(Privately) : Are there more detailed
renderings .. "Two story"

• We do not have these renderings. But the two story renderings will have many of the
same design details that the one-story rendering included. (Please note renderings
are now available with the newest version of the PUD available online with more
design details)

17:55:33 From LPeterson to Withey Morris(Privately) : What is the set back between houses?

• Not determined at this point. But the setback will be consistent with the building
code requirements.

17:55:48 From Sean Kelly to Withey Morris(Privately) : Speak to the rezone process. If rezoned
to meet requirement, what stops the browns selling to another who is now cleared to build apartments

• The developer on the project will be the ones to develop and own the property.

17:55:51 From Tanis & Ambrose Earle to Withey Morris(Privately) : Rental rates for 1, 2 & 3
bedroom?

• These will be dictated by the market at the time they are developed.

17:56:05 From van jackson to Withey Morris(Privately) : You want to emphasize single family so
much, what is the number of single vs the duplex? Isnt it a vary small percent?

• The percentage of detached units is 25% and duplex (attached) units is 75%.

17:56:19 From LPeterson to Withey Morris(Privately) : How much will the rent be?

• These will be dictated by the market at the time they are developed.

17:56:32 From Roque & Maria to Withey Morris(Privately) : What is the difference between
rental versus apts when it comes to tenants, traffic, visitors.

• Generally traditional apartments have a higher density (or more people) on the
property. Traditional apartment could have about 30 dwelling units/acre, while this
product is approximately 11-12 dwelling units/acre. Therefore, there would be more
tenants, traffic, and visitors on a more traditional apartment complex.

17:56:43 From Zack Bruce Lindsay to Withey Morris(Privately) : Ratio of Two story Vs. Single
story?

Page 944
• The number of one story homes will be 76% and the number of two-story home will
be 24%. There will be no two story homes along the southern property line, they will
mostly be located toward Southern Avenue.

17:57:27 From Jolyn’s iPhone to Withey Morris(Privately) : how wide are streets. HOA? will
parking be allowed on street?

• The internal drive aisles will be a minimum of 24 feet wide, per City of Phoenix
requirements. The property will be managed by a property management company,
and it will not have an HOA. Parking requirements for this development will be met
on-site.

17:57:42 From Robert Underwood to Withey Morris(Privately) : I feel the density is to high,
would you be willing to lower the density?

• We are still evaluating the proposed density and will continue to have discussions
around density with the community and City staff. (Please note that units have been
reduced since the time these questions were asked).

17:57:51 From Tanis & Ambrose Earle to Withey Morris(Privately) : Size of back yard?

• The size of the private backyards will be between 192-276 square feet. There is also
shared common open space and amenities on the site.

17:58:21 From Roque & Maria to Withey Morris(Privately) : Why just not LARGE homes?

• The single-family rental product is something that has not been developed in this
area and there is a need for quality housing that is accessible to a number of people
at various income levels. Homeownership is not something that everyone can afford
or wishes to do, and this product provides housing for those individuals.

17:58:28 From Zack Bruce Lindsay to Withey Morris(Privately) : Why not Condos?

• The parcel is owned as one parcel with the single-family rental product. Condos
would be individually owned and platted.

17:58:39 From Roque & Maria to Withey Morris(Privately) : …privately owned?

• The single-family rental product is something that has not been developed in this
area and there is a need for quality housing that is accessible to a number of people
at various income levels. Homeownership is not something that everyone can afford
or wishes to do, and this product provides housing for those individuals.

17:58:56 From Trent Marchuk to Withey Morris(Privately) : If the neighbors cannot be allowed
to speak, I would ask that all neighbors who desired to speak to submit their statements via email to
both Hannah and Enrique (with the city)?

• We are always available to discuss this project with neighbors anytime. Feel free to
contact Hannah Bleam at Hannah@witheymorris.com or 602-230-0600.

17:59:04 From georgebinghamii to Withey Morris(Privately) : what is size of back yards?

Page 945
• The size of the private backyards are on average 192-276 square feet. There is also
shared common open space on the site.

18:00:35 From LPeterson to Withey Morris(Privately) : The homes in Heard Ranch are currently
selling for 600-700 thousand. What would be the benefit of being located next to low cost rentals? How
will it effect our values?

• This property is located adjacent to Bartlett Heard Ranch, but is also adjacent to a
commercial intersection. A use, such as single-family rentals, is an appropriate
transition from single-family residential to commercial uses.

18:01:55 From Kevin’s iPhone to Withey Morris(Privately) : It seems with making this a multi-
family property, we would be inviting a high density of people that bring an array potentially troubled
people. How do we insure this won’t negatively effect our neighborhood.

• The Property will be managed by a property management company to ensure that
maintenance is at the highest level. In addition, each resident goes through an
income qualification process and a background check.

18:02:05 From Bereket Gebre-Egziabher to Withey Morris(Privately) : how does this
development / and deviation change the dynamics of the historical perspective of this community? Is it
only two stories?

• The proposal is a mix of one-story and two-story homes. In addition, the Baseline
Area Overlay District provides design guidelines that have been included in the
proposed PUD to encourage appropriate design elements for the area.

18:03:25 From Trent Marchuk to Withey Morris(Privately) : The group has submitted detailed
questions yesterday. They are too detailed to go into at this time. When will we receive the response to
those questions>

• We are still working on obtaining the answers to those questions. We appreciate
your patience and thank you for your engagement on the project.

18:03:37 From Roque & Maria to Withey Morris(Privately) : There is no control of future
ownership, what are the covenants & restrictions for the life of the community?

• Ever resident goes through an income qualification process, as well as background
check. In addition, the Management company makes sure each resident is living up
their agreement, takes trash out & does not park on the street. The residents can be
fined and could eventually evicted if they do not comply.

18:06:45 From Roque & Maria to Withey Morris(Privately) : Management companies will
change, are there any guarantees?

• There will be agreements with the management company and residents about what
is appropriate.

18:06:46 From Velins phone to Withey Morris(Privately) : did you mentioned no two stories on
south side to heard ranch community?

Page 946
• That is correct, there will be no two-story homes on the south property line.

18:07:12 From Tanis & Ambrose Earle to Withey Morris(Privately) : Are there limits to how
many people can live in a dwelling and how is that enforced?

• It is enforced through management; they have a list of every resident by name who
lives in the units.

18:07:21 From Sean Kelly to Withey Morris(Privately) : ?

18:07:30 From georgebinghamii to Withey Morris(Privately) : are there assigned parking
spaces? covered or uncovered?

• There will not be assigned parking spaces and half of the parking spaces will be
covered.

18:07:32 From Bereket Gebre-Egziabher to Withey Morris(Privately) : I think you should allow
people to speak using their own voices as we do with yours - until we can meet as members of this
community.

• Due to the large number of participants at this meeting, we are using the chat
function to field questions regarding the project and request.

18:08:42 From Tanis & Ambrose Earle to Withey Morris(Privately) : Is this community gated?

• At this time there has not been a decision to gate or not-gate the community.

18:08:50 From Velins phone to Withey Morris(Privately) : are the back yards going to face
south to the community?

• There are the sides of backyards and one backyard facing the southern property line.
However, in between the yards is a common open space area and a landscape buffer
with ample trees and landscaping. In addition, there will be a wall/fence along the
southern edge of the property.

18:09:55 From Velins phone to Withey Morris(Privately) : concern for our privacy . will you put
up large trees for privacy ?

• There is landscaping, included trees, proposed along the southern property line
consistent with the requirements of the Baseline Area Overlay District and Mixed Use
Agriculture District.

18:10:04 From Trent Marchuk to Withey Morris(Privately) : what is the plan to iteratively work
with the neighbors and receive their active feedback?

• We will be hosting at least one more virtual neighborhood meeting in additional to
smaller group meetings as needed. Also, we are always willing and available to
discuss the project with anyone. (Please note that we hosted another neighborhood
meeting on 11/18/20, which was after this meeting).

Page 947
18:11:27 From georgebinghamii to Withey Morris(Privately) : Walgreen's landscaping is
despicable with a multibillion dollar company they can well afford to keep their properties pristine. How
do you propose in maintaining your property in an absolutely pristine condition from the Landscaping
standpoint. It always looks nice on day one but from that point on unless you have someone there or
someone contracting Landscaping rapidly descends into a state of disrepair. GNBII

• Thank you for the feedback regarding landscaping maintenance. We will ensure that
the property and landscaping are maintained and in pristine condition.

18:12:39 From Tanis & Ambrose Earle to Withey Morris(Privately) : You didn't answer how
many people can live in a dwelling... 1,2 & 3 bedroom limits please.

• It is enforced through management; they have a list of every resident by name who
lives in the units.

18:15:01 From georgebinghamii to Withey Morris(Privately) : In fact if you want to see what my
standard is PLEASE SEE my property in HEARD RANCH…GNBII

18:17:01 From Bereket Gebre-Egziabher to Withey Morris(Privately) : It is imperative that we
have a live meeting as we move along with the pandemic <>

• At this time, given the Covid-19 impacts and risks, neighborhood meetings as
recommended by the City of Phoenix will be conducted virtually.

18:17:30 From moniquebontrager to Withey Morris(Privately) : playground for residence kids?

• Thank you for the recommendation and feedback. We will consider this option as a
common space amenity.

18:20:05 From Bereket Gebre-Egziabher to Withey Morris(Privately) : To preserve our
community, the builder should be aware that our community should not be used for overnight parking
or daytime parking.

• The required parking for the development will be done on the property.

18:20:35 From Trent Marchuk to Withey Morris(Privately) : Would the Landowner and/or their
Representative be willing to work with the neighbors and the city to find a mutually acceptable
alternative strategy for re-entitlement and development of these parcels?

• We are always available to listen to the neighborhood’s feedback and discuss the
proposal.

18:21:01 From Kevin’s iPhone to Withey Morris(Privately) : didn’t hear my questioned asked
about problematic people in the hood. please respond.

18:21:38 From Roque & Maria to Withey Morris(Privately) : There is no control of future
ownership, what are the covenants & restrictions for the life of the community?

• Ever resident goes through an income qualification process, as well as background
check. In addition, the Management company makes sure each resident is living up

Page 948
their agreement, takes trash out & does not park on the street. Residents can be
fined & eventually evicted if they do not comply.

18:21:50 From Robert Underwood to Withey Morris(Privately) : 2nd time sending, I feel the
density is to high, would you be willing to lower the density?

• We are still evaluating the density and will continue to have discussions around
density with the community and City staff.

18:22:04 From Tanis & Ambrose Earle to Withey Morris(Privately) : IN CASE YOU MISSED IT -
You didn't answer how many people can live in a dwelling... 1,2 & 3 bedroom limits please. Thanks

• It is enforced through management; they have a list of every resident by name who
lives in the units.

18:22:56 From Kevin’s iPhone to Withey Morris(Privately) : so they will watch out for child
molesters, sounds great!! sounds like way too many people for a small patch of land!

18:23:31 From georgebinghamii to Withey Morris(Privately) : PARKING SPACES: WILL THE
PARKING SPACES BE ASSIGNED, HOW MANY TO EACH UNIT, ARE THE PARKING SPACES COVERED OR
UNCOVERED, if a tenant has multiple automobiles how is that handled? GNBII

• There are a few units that have direct garage access. About half of the parking will be
covered and will be assigned parking. The open spots are unassigned. In addition,
there are 50 detached garages that residents can rent. In total there are 434 parking
spaces, which is a ratio of 2.19 spaces per unit. Residents can have 2 spots or two
cars per unit.

18:24:18 From van jackson to Withey Morris(Privately) : and more single units instead of
duplexs.

• Thank you for the feedback on the ratio of detached units versus duplex unit.

18:24:31 From Kevin’s iPhone to Withey Morris(Privately) : thank you for toning that down!

18:25:38 From van jackson to Withey Morris(Privately) : Hannah you are a Rockstar! Good Job!

18:26:10 From Kent June to Withey Morris(Privately) : what has the feedback or reviews been
from tenants of your similar projects?

• There are no similar projects in this area.

18:26:26 From Trent Marchuk to Withey Morris(Privately) : who from the city is on this call?

• I don’t believe a City representative was on the call.

18:26:41 From Tanis & Ambrose Earle to Withey Morris(Privately) : Doing any solar?

• No plans for solar. However, each unit follows energy efficient standards per building
materials and appliances. Residents can control this through there Vivint Smart
Home Technology Package.

Page 949
18:27:11 From georgebinghamii to Withey Morris(Privately) : What's the square footage again
on the three-bedroom I forgot to write it down. GNBII

• The three bedroom units are about 1,391 square feet, which is much larger than a
traditional apartment.

18:27:38 From Blake Peterson to Withey Morris(Privately) : does the management company
live on the property 24/7.

• They typically do not live on site. However, we have explored the option of having
the maintenance person living on site. In addition, a security company, Signal 88,
does drive throughs within and around the surrounding community.

18:27:46 From Zack Bruce Lindsay to Withey Morris(Privately) : Thank you :)

18:28:09 From georgebinghamii to Withey Morris(Privately) : THANK YOU! GNBII

18:28:13 From Tanis & Ambrose Earle to Withey Morris(Privately) : In summary, Tanis &
Ambrose Earle @ 3602 E Vineyard Rd are not in support. Thanks and good night.

18:29:21 From Bereket Gebre-Egziabher to Withey Morris(Privately) : Thank you!

Page 950
It has been over four months now since the below promise was made to the neighbors whereby
the Applicant committed to respond to all neighborhood questions submitted to the Development
Team.  We appreciate that the Applicant committed to respond to the explicit questions asked
and not rephrase the questions as presented by the neighborhood.

By when should the neighbors expect to finally receive the Applicant's answers to the
neighborhood questions submitted on Jul 15, 2020?

Please note that we also continue to wait over four months for responses from the Applicant to
the additional questions outlined in the thread below.

Please advise,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 1:12 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:
Thank you Enrique for confirming this thread is now part of the case file.

Hi Hannah,

Thank you for your response. We do appreciate the clarification that the Applicant has changed
their position and has committed to respond to all neighborhood questions submitted to the
Development Team. We appreciate that the Applicant will respond to the explicit questions
asked and not rephrase the questions as presented by the neighborhood. We also appreciate
the Applicant has shared the participant list.

We request greater facilitation of community discussion by the Applicant to address community
concerns and questions.

Regarding the participant list, Scott Curtis was introduced as part of the Development Team on
Jul 16, 2020 and is listed in the participant list. Can you tell us who Scott Curtis is? What
company does he belong to, what is his position, and what is his role and interest in this
project?

It is disappointing that the neighbors had to wait over two and a half weeks (Jul 16 to Aug 4) to
learn of the revisions to the original promises made by the Applicant to the Neighbors on
7/16/20. The fact we had to learn about them through our own follow-up weeks later, instead
of proactive engagement by the Applicant, compounds the Neighbors' disappointment. By
when should we expect to receive the Applicant's answers to the neighborhood questions
submitted on Jul 15, 2020, now over three weeks ago?

As of today, 3 weeks after the July 16 meeting, the neighbors have not yet received answers to

Page 951
our questions during the meeting nor have the promised neighborhood small group meetings
yet been scheduled. An email was received today from the Applicant to begin scheduling small
group meetings with the neighborhood. However, that meeting will not occur prior to the
SMVPC Information Presentation Meeting scheduled for Aug 11, 2020.

Although we appreciate that the Applicant is now willing to provide the 7/16 notes earlier than
with the Citizen Participation Report, it is disappointing that the Applicant promised those notes
and responses during the meeting and did not proactively notify the neighbors of the change in
plan for the release of said notes and answers. Thank you for course correcting and being
willing to make the notes and answer available "early". By when should the neighbors expect to
receive those notes and answers?

In summary, this thread seems to indicate a pattern that is counterproductive to the promised
iterative model between Applicant and Neighbors that was promised by the Applicant to occur
on and after July 16, 2020. If we misunderstand, we would appreciate an alternate
interpretation of the aforementioned concerns.

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:41 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:
Trent,

I wanted to give an update on this project. We are currently working on the answers to all
questions submitted to the development team. I believe there was some misunderstanding
previously. We are happy to provide answers to all questions, but some were duplicates on
the chat during the neighborhood meeting. However, we will provide answers (duplicate or
otherwise) to make sure all questions will be answered. In addition, we can put these
answers on the forms that they were submitted, but we will also have a FAQ brochure on our
website.

Also, I apologize for my previous comment that I could not get the attendee list. I did not
know one could access Zoom participants from previous meetings. Like many, I am still
learning all the virtual meeting software! I have attached the participant log with the names
of those who attended.

In addition, I am working on the minutes for that meeting and generally we would include
them in the Citizen Participation Report, but we will get those to you sooner, per your
request. We are happy to provide this information early.

Keep an eye out for an email this week to schedule a small group meeting, which we are
hoping to schedule for after the VPC meeting next week.

If there is anything else, do not hesitate to give me a call or send an email.

Page 952
Thank you!

Hannah Bleam, AICP
Land Use Planner
Withey Morris, PLC
2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-230-0600

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.
Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all
copies.

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 2:04 PM
To: Hannah Bleam
Cc: Sandy Bawden ; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com; Enrique Bojorquez

Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm (r Z-35-20-
8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)

+ Enrique to add the below to the case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.

Hi Hannah,

Thank you for the reply and letting the neighborhood know, nearly two weeks after the July
16 meeting, that the approach promised by the Applicant's Representative during the
meeting has been significantly revised.

These two revisions are highly concerning, as outlined in the two items below, because they
give the appearance the Applicant is attempting to discourage public awareness and
discussion regarding this request.

Revision #1
Promise during the meeting: A written reply would be made by the Applicant's
Representative to the neighborhood's questions submitted on July 15, 2020. Subsequently,
it was acknowledged by the Applicant's representative during the 7/16 meeting, that the

Page 953
written responses would be then posted to the neighborhood website (somosbuildbam.org)

Revision to the promise: Per the below, the Applicant's Representative will post a FAQ
document on their website to provide answers to many of the questions received during the
neighborhood meeting and subsequently via email. (emphasis added)

Neighborhood Response: The Applicant's Representative's revised approach is appreciated
as a supplement to community outreach. However, it is an example of how the Applicant
appears to be insufficiently satisfying the Guidelines provided by the city in the memo
"REQUIRED NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: LOCAL EMERGENCY GUIDELINES". Addressing
"many" of the unresolved concerns is not the same as addressing "any community concerns
or questions". Absent answering the questions as originally posed in their entirety, as
promised to the neighborhood by the Applicant's Representative on 7/16, the Applicant will
be answering their own questions and will not have answered the unresolved concerns of
the neighborhood. The same principle would apply for any unresolved concern posed during
subsequent meetings or in any email regarding this project.

Revision #2
Promise during the meeting: The community would be given "ample opportunity to be
heard", as stated by the Applicant's Representative on 7/16. Additionally, the attendee list,
notes, questions, and answers from the July 16 meeting would be provided to the neighbors
for our review following the meeting.

Revision to the promise: All meeting notes are provided in the Citizen Participation Plan
that will be submitted to the City of Phoenix 15 days prior to the first VPC meeting (for
recommendation), which has not yet been scheduled.

Neighborhood Feedback: By withholding key meeting information until required, per the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures Outline, the Applicant is both going back on
their word to the neighborhood and the question is opened as to whether they are following
the guidance provided in the REQUIRED NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: LOCAL EMERGENCY
GUIDELINES since "Applicants are encouraged utilize as many resources and strategies as
possible to facilitate public awareness and discussion regarding the request." The revised
actions cited above accomplish the opposite. The neighborhood understands that the Local
Emergency Guidelines were put in place to accomplish the same goals of resolving
neighborhood unresolved concerns as allowed in following the normal PUD Procedure, not
as a way to bypass or delay resolving the neighborhood's unresolved concerns. Please advise
if the neighborhood misunderstands how the PUD Procedure has changed during COVID.

We hope Withey Morris will re-consider the above revisions and work with the neighborhood
in good faith.

Also, I do look forward to the small group meeting when it finally gets scheduled and
conducted.

Page 954
Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:30 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:
Good afternoon Trent,

To answer your first two questions, the FAQ’s will incorporate the responses to the
questions asked at the neighborhood meeting via chat and the 7/15 document. Attached
are the chat questions that we received during the neighborhood meeting for your
reference. It saves from zoom in a text file, but you can copy and paste into a word
document easily. As noted we will be providing answers to these questions and the others
on our website and will let you know when that is posted. Unfortunately the zoom calls do
not save the attendee lists, but there are names on the chat (attached), so it gives you a
good idea of the residents who attended. But, I saw that there were roughly 46 people
who were participating on the call. All meeting notes are provided in the Citizen
Participation Plan that will be submitted to the City of Phoenix 15 days prior to the first
VPC meeting (for recommendation), which has not yet been scheduled.

Per the last question, I have three folks so far who have requested a small group meeting,
including you. I am working on finding a date that works for everyone. I will let those who
asked for a meeting know once we have a couple of date options to choose from that work
for everyone’s schedules. Stay tuned!

Also, if additional questions come in after the FAQs are posted online, then we are always
add more questions and answers to that list. We just want to start with the questions that
we have already received. But know it is a working document and resource.

As always, please call or email if you have any additional questions.

Thank you!

Hannah Bleam, AICP
Land Use Planner
Withey Morris, PLC
2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-230-0600

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.
Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the

Page 955
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and
all copies.

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Hannah Bleam
Cc: Sandy Bawden ; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm

Thank you Hannah for letting us know about the informational presentation to SMVPC
currently scheduled for Aug 11.

We look forward to reviewing the FAQ document.

Please let us know when we should expect:

* the promised meeting notes, attendees, questions, and answers from the 7/16 meeting

* the promised written responses to the unresolved neighborhood concerns submitted
7/15

* any updates on the promised small group neighborhood meetings discussed on 7/16

Thank you,
Trent

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:08 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:
Good afternoon all,

I just selected a few of you that have been engaged on this project. You will be receiving
notification letters and have likely seen the sign posted on the property already, but the
South Mountain VPC meeting has been scheduled for the rezoning and GPA case at
40th/Southern. This is an informational presentation only, and no recommendation will
be made. Public hearing dates have not yet been scheduled since we are still early in the
process. Just wanted to keep you posted on the next steps.

In addition, we are working on a FAQ document that will be posted on our website to
provide answers to many of the questions we had during our neighborhood meeting
and subsequently via email. I will let you know when that is posted online.

Thank you,

Hannah Bleam, AICP

Page 956
Land Use Planner
Withey Morris, PLC
2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: 602-230-0600

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.
Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than
the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original
message and all copies.

Page 957
From: Trent Marchuk
To: hannah@witheymorris.com
Cc: Sandy Bawden; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm (r Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2020 2:04:48 PM

+ Enrique to add the below to the case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.

Hi Hannah,

Thank you for the reply and letting the neighborhood know, nearly two weeks after the July 16
meeting, that the approach promised by the Applicant's Representative during the meeting has
been significantly revised.

These two revisions are highly concerning, as outlined in the two items below, because they
give the appearance the Applicant is attempting to discourage public awareness and discussion
regarding this request.

Revision #1
Promise during the meeting: A written reply would be made by the Applicant's
Representative to the neighborhood's questions submitted on July 15, 2020
[docs.google.com]. Subsequently, it was acknowledged by the Applicant's representative
during the 7/16 meeting, that the written responses would be then posted to the neighborhood
website (somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org])

Revision to the promise: Per the below, the Applicant's Representative will post a FAQ
document on their website to provide answers to many of the questions received during the
neighborhood meeting and subsequently via email. (emphasis added)

Neighborhood Response: The Applicant's Representative's revised approach is appreciated
as a supplement to community outreach. However, it is an example of how the Applicant
appears to be insufficiently satisfying the Guidelines provided by the city in the memo
"REQUIRED NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: LOCAL EMERGENCY GUIDELINES".
Addressing "many" of the unresolved concerns is not the same as addressing "any community
concerns or questions". Absent answering the questions as originally posed in their entirety,
as promised to the neighborhood by the Applicant's Representative on 7/16, the Applicant will
be answering their own questions and will not have answered the unresolved concerns of the
neighborhood. The same principle would apply for any unresolved concern posed during
subsequent meetings or in any email regarding this project.

Revision #2
Promise during the meeting: The community would be given "ample opportunity to be
heard", as stated by the Applicant's Representative on 7/16. Additionally, the attendee list,
notes, questions, and answers from the July 16 meeting would be provided to the neighbors for
our review following the meeting.

Revision to the promise: All meeting notes are provided in the Citizen Participation Plan
that will be submitted to the City of Phoenix 15 days prior to the first VPC meeting (for
recommendation), which has not yet been scheduled.

Neighborhood Feedback: By withholding key meeting information until required, per the

Page 958
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures Outline, the Applicant is both going back on
their word to the neighborhood and the question is opened as to whether they are following the
guidance provided in the REQUIRED NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: LOCAL
EMERGENCY GUIDELINES since "Applicants are encouraged utilize as many resources
and strategies as possible to facilitate public awareness and discussion regarding the request."
The revised actions cited above accomplish the opposite. The neighborhood understands that
the Local Emergency Guidelines were put in place to accomplish the same goals of resolving
neighborhood unresolved concerns as allowed in following the normal PUD Procedure, not as
a way to bypass or delay resolving the neighborhood's unresolved concerns. Please advise if
the neighborhood misunderstands how the PUD Procedure has changed during COVID.

We hope Withey Morris will re-consider the above revisions and work with the neighborhood
in good faith.

Also, I do look forward to the small group meeting when it finally gets scheduled and
conducted.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:30 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:

Good afternoon Trent,

To answer your first two questions, the FAQ’s will incorporate the responses to the
questions asked at the neighborhood meeting via chat and the 7/15 document. Attached are
the chat questions that we received during the neighborhood meeting for your reference. It
saves from zoom in a text file, but you can copy and paste into a word document easily. As
noted we will be providing answers to these questions and the others on our website and will
let you know when that is posted. Unfortunately the zoom calls do not save the attendee
lists, but there are names on the chat (attached), so it gives you a good idea of the residents
who attended. But, I saw that there were roughly 46 people who were participating on the
call. All meeting notes are provided in the Citizen Participation Plan that will be submitted
to the City of Phoenix 15 days prior to the first VPC meeting (for recommendation), which
has not yet been scheduled.

Per the last question, I have three folks so far who have requested a small group meeting,
including you. I am working on finding a date that works for everyone. I will let those who
asked for a meeting know once we have a couple of date options to choose from that work
for everyone’s schedules. Stay tuned!

Also, if additional questions come in after the FAQs are posted online, then we are always
add more questions and answers to that list. We just want to start with the questions that we
have already received. But know it is a working document and resource.

Page 959
As always, please call or email if you have any additional questions.

Thank you!

Hannah Bleam, AICP

Land Use Planner

Withey Morris, PLC

2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Phone: 602-230-0600

[witheymorris.com]

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Hannah Bleam
Cc: Sandy Bawden ; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm

Thank you Hannah for letting us know about the informational presentation to SMVPC
currently scheduled for Aug 11.

Page 960
We look forward to reviewing the FAQ document.

Please let us know when we should expect:

* the promised meeting notes, attendees, questions, and answers from the 7/16 meeting

* the promised written responses to the unresolved neighborhood concerns submitted 7/15

* any updates on the promised small group neighborhood meetings discussed on 7/16

Thank you,

Trent

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:08 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:

Good afternoon all,

I just selected a few of you that have been engaged on this project. You will be receiving
notification letters and have likely seen the sign posted on the property already, but the
South Mountain VPC meeting has been scheduled for the rezoning and GPA case at
40th/Southern. This is an informational presentation only, and no recommendation will be
made. Public hearing dates have not yet been scheduled since we are still early in the
process. Just wanted to keep you posted on the next steps.

In addition, we are working on a FAQ document that will be posted on our website to
provide answers to many of the questions we had during our neighborhood meeting and
subsequently via email. I will let you know when that is posted online.

Thank you,

Page 961
Hannah Bleam, AICP

Land Use Planner

Withey Morris, PLC

2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Phone: 602-230-0600

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or
an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

Page 962
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Patty Mckinstry; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Sandy Bawden; Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer; Van Jackson
Subject: Mtg Notes Beth Hintze & Trent Marchuk: 40th ST and Southern Ave. Z-25-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:45:35 PM

Hi Enrique,

Please add this email to the case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8

In summary, I met with Beth Hintze directly on two occasions and we spoke about the PUD
and GPA referenced above. As the conversation was freeform, and it is customary for me to
consult with the other leaders of the resident collective prior to speaking for the collective, I
did mention to Beth that I could only speak for myself during these conversations and could
not represent somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] during either conversation. Beth
acknowledged that distinction.

For the single family rental proposal to have any chance of support from the neighbors,
Beth was encouraged to work with the Developers to bring the PUD in compliance with
the vast majority of MUA.
Alternatively, Beth stated in terms of an ultimatum, that if the single family rental
proposal were not to be approved by the neighbors, she would pursue a charter school
on the s-1 parcel and high-density apartments (119 units) on the C-2 parcel
Trent encouraged Beth to review the reported stipulations on the C-2 parcel and the
resident collective would do the same
Trent emphasized that as long as Beth is operating within the rules that govern the land,
she will more than likely gain the collective's support - or at least likely not garner
significant opposition from the collective.
Beth left the conversation with two actions: 1) work with the Developer to bring the
single family rental proposal into MUA compliance and 2) bring forward a back-up
proposal to the single family rental option that is both in compliance with the governing
rules of the land and would not require neighborhood involvement
If Beth brings forward the above to Trent, Trent committed he would work with Beth to
communicate to the neighbors the two options of Beth's ultimatum.

Please note that, after consulting with the leaders of somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]
and consistent with our mission, the resident collective would rather see the owner build out
the land to however she is able within the confines off the existing governing documents than
see the proposed single family rental community be built without complying to MUA. If Beth
is able to successfully bring the single family rental proposal into vast conformance to the
MUA, our disposition may change.

Below are the contemporaneous notes that I took relative to having spoken with Beth Hintze
over cell phone.

Date: Friday, Aug 14, 2020
Start Time: 11:01a
End Time: 12:16p

Beth's father purchased the land
He battled cancer

Page 963
He was a realtor who loved South Phoenix
Successfully developed a center in South Phoenix
He worked with neighbors, people got behind him, he fought and won
He desired similar for this property
Handed the keys to Jerry, Beth's husband
They have owned it for ~25 years
About Beth's family
11 children
the 8th child was born after her father passed away
Land had a home on it for awhile
Deal with Walgreens
Deal was handled by Beth's brothers
Walgreens had an option to buy the rest of the land
Built the Walgreens and left the option on the table
Was a citrus grove, walgreens tore down the house
Farmers worked the property, made no money, sunk money
A company came in with a vision for an office centric plan
Beth went to every neighbor, left notes
A neighbor said they wanted the "cotton center"
Worked with everyone, but the attorney quit
Beth was an art major, thought about being an architect
Neighbors screamed they want homes
One neighbor reportedly said "nothing will be built there"
Neighbors agreed to sq feet, but neighbors complained and changed their position
School/Apartments
Trent misrepresented Beth online
Trent said Beth was going to build retail or "whatever can be built"
Beth said she was going to build apartments not retail
Trent apologized and immediately corrected the somosbuildbam.org
[somosbuildbam.org] website
Beth stated she was going to build a charter school on the S-1 Parcel
Beth stated she was planning to build apartments (119 units) on the C-2 Parcel
Beth felt she was abandoning the neighbors, but felt the the neighborhood had
already abandoned her
Emphasized again she heard neighbors say the land should be homes
Single Family Rental
Brown Group came and offered the Single Family Rental proposal
She had them change the look (stucco and modern prior)
Believes neighbors want something built
It's frustrating to Beth that we aren't listening to those neighbors
Retail: not enough rooftops
If this doesn't' go through, Beth states she will have to sell to school and high
density apartments
How has Beth marketed the land?
Mark has been her realtor for the last 15 years
well-spoke business man
reaches out to everyone
there are just a couple of people who suppress development
Beth stated having knowledge of personal information about Trent
Wife's career ambitions

Page 964
Price paid for house
Note: this part of the conversation was perceived as awkward and
potentially threatening to Trent
Note: Trent kept all comments to Beth to the land, unless supporting her
sharing personal information about herself (ie, that must be tough raising 11
kids! after she shared that information)
Beth stated her understanding of MUA was not the vision Kate Gallego was
looking for
When pointed out MUA had been in existence for 20+ years, Beth wasn't
able to articulate what she intended, aside from mentioning something
about Section 8 housing
Trent didn't have enough information to pursue the subject further, aside
from Housing Phoenix - which the city says the relation to these parcels had
not yet been made public
We discussed the possibility of Beth speaking with other Land Advisors
Trent has connections to national players, but not one person in particular
Trent stated he has no financial interest in this development and his
connections don't desire financial interests as well
Trent stated his only interest is for the betterment of the community and to
see that dirt transformed as the owner, city, and neighbors would agree
Trent encouraged Beth to receive proposals from multiple land advisors,
inclusive and exclusive to Trent's contacts and make her own decision
Beth didn't want to throw her real estate agent under the bus
When mentioned he could remain involved, she stated she was under a
contract where she couldn't entertain other visions (non-solicit)
Trent agreed that her contract was to be respected and stated that if that
contract ended, he would encourage her to reach out to other land advisors
who would potentially better maximize the value of the land and meet the
neighbors' requirements
Beth stated she had spent over $100k on the land and that the taxes were
too much to carry.
Beth stated she would give away the land if she could, but the other owner's
won't allow that to happen
Beth's Ultimatum
Beth stated she would put forward an ultimatum to the neighbors: either the
Single Family Rental project would be approved or she would sell to the
charter school and high density apartments
Beth stated she preferred the single family rental and believed the neighbors
would as well
Conclusion
Beth and Trent agreed to meet on Monday at 11a to discuss framing the
ultimatum to the neighborhood
Trent encouraged Beth to be open to changes to the single family rental
proposal to bring it inline with MUA as a possible avenue to get that option
approved by the neighbors

Date: Monday , Aug 17, 2020
Start Time: 10:02a
End Time: 10:38a

Page 965
Initial Pleasantries
Beth and Trent exchanged initial pleasantries about the prior weekend
The conversation maintained a cordial, professional tone (as did the prior
conversation) throughout the duration
Follow-up and Intent
Trent shared that he contacted Enrique following the conversation on Friday to
follow-up on some of the items
Trent stated that his intent and purpose is to understand the rules and ensure that
he and the resident collective play by the rules, and attempt to hold the city and
the property owner to the same standard
Trent stated that he doesn't see the point in obfuscating information as all relevant
information is objective and we are seeking for an objective solution
General Learnings
Trent shared with Beth that she was right on Friday on the following accounts
She is free to develop the land as she sees fit within the existing Planning
and Development standards for the parcels
Both parcels were indeed also governed by the BAOD, but are not
governed by the MUA
If there are any proposed changes to the land use, that is when the MUA
can become applicable to the land use
S-1 Property
Beth is right that she can likely develop a school on the S-1 parcel without much
obstruction
Enrique was not 100% certain if it applied to charter schools, but was going to
follow up
Note: Enrique has since confirmed Beth can build a charter school on S-1
without any zoning changes
Beth was also right that schools have a lot of latitude and can receive a lot of
variances to the zoning rules, so may not be bound by S-1 or BAOD if a school is
built
C-2 Property
Trent informed Beth that the property to the north, under normal conditions, could
be zoned for R-3 and for apartment land use
However, Trent informed Beth that the current C-2 parcel reportedly has
stipulations upon it from the Walgreens era that potentially preclude apartments
Trent informed Beth there is a process to remove the stipulations, but it would
require neighborhood involvement and new stipulations could be placed upon the
land as a result, including MUA requirements
Beth said she did not believe that assessment.
She stated the city had told her that she could build apartments on the C-2.
She stated Enrique was inexperienced and she was going to call him.
Trent encouraged Beth to call Enrique
Trent also stated he had requested the stipulations so he could evaluate what
they actually said, as Trent does not know firsthand what the stipulations
state
Note: Since the phone call, Trent has submitted a public records
release for the stipulations
Single Family Rental Option
Trent encouraged Beth to re-visit the Single Family Rental option with the

Page 966
developers and modify it to comply with MUA
Beth said she believed that option already paid sufficient homage to the MUA
Not only flower stand, but flowers would be planted around the property
The facades of the houses were "definitely MUA"
"Lots of" grass and open space
Trent encouraged Beth to focus on the design and development standards as the
gauge as to whether the proposal is MUA, highlighting multiple areas of failure of
the PUD relative to the MUA from his opposition statement on Aug 11
Trent mentioned that the design and development standards are what get built to
and the facade and proposed flowers aren't promised when shovels hit the ground
Beth said she would personally ensure the character of the homes would be
MUA
Beth said she believed that the architectural elements would be part of the
PUD and binding to the developer
Trent questioned her ability to enforce the above two points, but conceded
they had ventured outside of his knowledge area to state definitively one
way or another
Beth reinforced that she was trying to give the neighbors something better
than was already there
Trent agreed that the single family rental would be better looking than dirt,
chain link fence, and weeds - but reminded Beth that is not the bar
Trent reiterated that the bar is, at least for the proposed PUD, complying
with the BAOD and MUA district design and development standards
Trent signaled willingness to compromise on some elements of the
MUA
However, Trent said the vast majority of the PUD should be in
compliance with the MUA
Framing an Option to the Neighbors
Trent and Beth agreed that framing a choice to the neighbors would be a positive
next step
Single Family Rental
For this to have any chance of support from the neighbors, Beth was
encouraged to work with the Developers and bring the PUD in
compliance with the vast majority of MUA
School/Apartments
This is Beth's fallback option
She does not believe she will need neighbor support to build
apartments
However, if the existing stipulations state otherwise, it is unknown
how she would proceed
Trent signaled to Beth that if she attempts to remove the stipulations,
the process would go through a Zoning Officer and likely the
Village.
In both cases the neighbors would have a say, and the
neighbors would attempt to introduce MUA stipulations
Trent reminded Beth that 5 village planning committee
members, including the chair, stated the Single Family Rental
project was a good project in the wrong location and one in
particular stated a preference for 2.3 du/acre max
Trent stated that somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] has

Page 967
not coordinated with the village and does not plan to do so, but
noted that we are aligned philosophically with some of the
committee members and chair
Beth could still choose to develop the C-2 parcel within the confines
of the stipualtions, C-2, and the BAOD. If she went this route, Beth
could indeed do so without neighbor involvement.
Beth mentioned the possibility of gun stores, a large QT gas
station, or other options she considered to be undesirable to the
neighbors
Undefined Option #3
If apartments are not able to go onto the C-2 parcel, and she desires
to remove the stipulations, it is yet to be seen what Beth's third option
would be or if the school remains still a viable stand-alone option
If the branches of the decision tree are pruned to this extent, Trent
reiterated that Beth may want to be open to speaking with other land
advisors - assuming she would be out of her existing contract at this
stage
Beth reiterated that she was not supportive of any other option than
the two above
Conclusion
Trent stated to Beth that the desire of the resident collective is for the land to be
developed
Trent stated that development will be pursued under the existing governing rules
and conditions
Trent reiterated his desire to help Beth navigate said rules
Trent stated that if Beth is able to develop the land however she deems fit using
the rules, then she will very likely garner Trent's support and the support of the
collective
Trent emphasized that once he or the collective strays from the governing rules,
he and the collective stand to lose significant credibility and their position
becomes significantly weakened in front of the City
Beth was encouraged by Trent to operate within the rules to find a workable
solution

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

Page 968
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Ellie McMillan
Cc: FABIOLA MARQUEZ; Sean Kelly; Van Jackson; chrisgolson1960@yahoo.com; fiveofnine@cox.net;
ivoryhoofranch@gmail.com; mahagerty14@gmail.com; suebowman45@yahoo.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-
Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Zoom meeting regarding project at 40th St & Southern Ave
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 11:35:15 PM

+Enrique - Please add the below to the case files for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8

Hi Ellie,

The SMVPC informational presentation meeting was this evening and we do appreciate
Withey Morris, especially Jason Morris, doing their best to bridge the gaps between the
Applicant and the Neighbors.

On July 15, 2020, the neighbors provided pointed questions and feedback on the proposed
PUD.

On July 16, additional feedback was given by at least 40 neighborhood residents who joined
the Applicant's presentation.

The case file shows additional questions and follow-ups remained largely unresolved.

Unfortunately, on Aug 11, none of the neighborhood feedback was incorporated into the
presentation to the SMVPC.

Additionally, it was shown that the proposed PUD fails - nearly ubiquitously - the three
documents that guide planning and development for these two parcels.

Therefore, it is the recommendation of the resident collective somosbuildbam.org
[somosbuildbam.org] that the neighbors no longer attend any small group neighborhood
meetings meant to address the "single family rental community at 40th & Southern" until or
unless significant revisions are made to align to the three primary documents that guide
planning and development in our community.

Please accept this email as my personal withdrawal from further discussions under said
conditions.

If the proposal fundamentally changes, or the Applicant would like to discuss viable
alternatives, the proverbial door remains open.

Respectfully,,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 8:52 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:
+Fabiola

Fabiola says either the 17th or the 20th works for her and her husband Alonso.

Page 969
-Trent

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:09 AM Trent Marchuk wrote:
+Sean

Van says any day works

Sean and I both prefer Aug 20.

-Trent

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 8:57 AM Ellie McMillan wrote:

Good morning,

I’m circling back regarding my email from yesterday. I have been asked to remove
August 10th as an option, so please take a look at the remaining dates/start times and let
me know all options that work with your availability:

Mon. August 17th – 6:00pm, 6:30pm, 7:00pm

Tues. August 18th – 6:00pm, 6:30pm, 7:00pm

Thurs. August 20th – 6:00pm, 6:30pm, 7:00pm

Thank you,

Ellie McMillan

Withey Morris, PLC

2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Circle, Ste A-212

Phoenix, AZ 85016

602-230-0600 Main

602-346-4617 Direct

Page 970
[witheymorris.com]

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information
herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

From: Ellie McMillan
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 10:34 AM
To: trentchristopher@gmail.com; fiveofnine@cox.net; mahagerty14@gmail.com;
chrisgolson1960@yahoo.com; suebowman45@yahoo.com; ivoryhoofranch@gmail.com
Subject: Zoom meeting regarding project at 40th St & Southern Ave

Good morning,

I have been asked to coordinate an evening Zoom meeting with you in regards to our
project at 40th Street and Southern Avenue. Please let me know which date and start
time works best with your availability:

Mon. August 10th – 6:00pm, 6:30pm, 7:00pm

Mon. August 17th – 6:00pm, 6:30pm, 7:00pm

Tues. August 18th – 6:00pm, 6:30pm, 7:00pm

Thurs. August 20th – 6:00pm, 6:30pm, 7:00pm

Thank you,

Ellie McMillan

Withey Morris, PLC

2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Circle, Ste A-212

Page 971
Phoenix, AZ 85016

602-230-0600 Main

602-346-4617 Direct

[witheymorris.com]

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information
herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

Page 972
From: Trent Marchuk
To: hannah@witheymorris.com
Cc: Sandy Bawden; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm (r Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, August 6, 2020 1:13:08 PM

Thank you Enrique for confirming this thread is now part of the case file.

Hi Hannah,

Thank you for your response. We do appreciate the clarification that the Applicant has
changed their position and has committed to respond to all neighborhood questions submitted
to the Development Team. We appreciate that the Applicant will respond to the explicit
questions asked and not rephrase the questions as presented by the neighborhood. We also
appreciate the Applicant has shared the participant list.

We request greater facilitation of community discussion by the Applicant to address
community concerns and questions.

Regarding the participant list, Scott Curtis was introduced as part of the Development Team
on Jul 16, 2020 and is listed in the participant list. Can you tell us who Scott Curtis is? What
company does he belong to, what is his position, and what is his role and interest in this
project?

It is disappointing that the neighbors had to wait over two and a half weeks (Jul 16 to Aug 4)
to learn of the revisions to the original promises made by the Applicant to the Neighbors on
7/16/20. The fact we had to learn about them through our own follow-up weeks later, instead
of proactive engagement by the Applicant, compounds the Neighbors' disappointment. By
when should we expect to receive the Applicant's answers to the neighborhood questions
submitted on Jul 15, 2020, now over three weeks ago?

As of today, 3 weeks after the July 16 meeting, the neighbors have not yet received answers to
our questions during the meeting nor have the promised neighborhood small group meetings
yet been scheduled. An email was received today from the Applicant to begin scheduling
small group meetings with the neighborhood. However, that meeting will not occur prior to
the SMVPC Information Presentation Meeting scheduled for Aug 11, 2020.

Although we appreciate that the Applicant is now willing to provide the 7/16 notes earlier than
with the Citizen Participation Report, it is disappointing that the Applicant promised those
notes and responses during the meeting and did not proactively notify the neighbors of the
change in plan for the release of said notes and answers. Thank you for course correcting
and being willing to make the notes and answer available "early". By when should the
neighbors expect to receive those notes and answers?

In summary, this thread seems to indicate a pattern that is counterproductive to the promised
iterative model between Applicant and Neighbors that was promised by the Applicant to occur
on and after July 16, 2020. If we misunderstand, we would appreciate an alternate
interpretation of the aforementioned concerns.

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

Page 973
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:41 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:

Trent,

I wanted to give an update on this project. We are currently working on the answers to all
questions submitted to the development team. I believe there was some misunderstanding
previously. We are happy to provide answers to all questions, but some were duplicates on
the chat during the neighborhood meeting. However, we will provide answers (duplicate or
otherwise) to make sure all questions will be answered. In addition, we can put these
answers on the forms that they were submitted, but we will also have a FAQ brochure on
our website.

Also, I apologize for my previous comment that I could not get the attendee list. I did not
know one could access Zoom participants from previous meetings. Like many, I am still
learning all the virtual meeting software! I have attached the participant log with the names
of those who attended.

In addition, I am working on the minutes for that meeting and generally we would include
them in the Citizen Participation Report, but we will get those to you sooner, per your
request. We are happy to provide this information early.

Keep an eye out for an email this week to schedule a small group meeting, which we are
hoping to schedule for after the VPC meeting next week.

If there is anything else, do not hesitate to give me a call or send an email.

Thank you!

Hannah Bleam, AICP

Land Use Planner

Withey Morris, PLC

2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Page 974
Phone: 602-230-0600

[witheymorris.com]

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 2:04 PM
To: Hannah Bleam
Cc: Sandy Bawden ; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com; Enrique Bojorquez

Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm (r Z-
35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)

+ Enrique to add the below to the case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8.

Hi Hannah,

Thank you for the reply and letting the neighborhood know, nearly two weeks after the July
16 meeting, that the approach promised by the Applicant's Representative during the
meeting has been significantly revised.

These two revisions are highly concerning, as outlined in the two items below, because they
give the appearance the Applicant is attempting to discourage public awareness and
discussion regarding this request.

Page 975
Revision #1

Promise during the meeting: A written reply would be made by the Applicant's
Representative to the neighborhood's questions submitted on July 15, 2020. Subsequently, it
was acknowledged by the Applicant's representative during the 7/16 meeting, that the
written responses would be then posted to the neighborhood website (somosbuildbam.org)

Revision to the promise: Per the below, the Applicant's Representative will post a FAQ
document on their website to provide answers to many of the questions received during the
neighborhood meeting and subsequently via email. (emphasis added)

Neighborhood Response: The Applicant's Representative's revised approach is appreciated
as a supplement to community outreach. However, it is an example of how the Applicant
appears to be insufficiently satisfying the Guidelines provided by the city in the memo
"REQUIRED NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: LOCAL EMERGENCY GUIDELINES".
Addressing "many" of the unresolved concerns is not the same as addressing "any
community concerns or questions". Absent answering the questions as originally posed in
their entirety, as promised to the neighborhood by the Applicant's Representative on 7/16,
the Applicant will be answering their own questions and will not have answered the
unresolved concerns of the neighborhood. The same principle would apply for any
unresolved concern posed during subsequent meetings or in any email regarding this
project.

Revision #2

Promise during the meeting: The community would be given "ample opportunity to be
heard", as stated by the Applicant's Representative on 7/16. Additionally, the attendee list,
notes, questions, and answers from the July 16 meeting would be provided to the neighbors
for our review following the meeting.

Revision to the promise: All meeting notes are provided in the Citizen Participation Plan
that will be submitted to the City of Phoenix 15 days prior to the first VPC meeting (for
recommendation), which has not yet been scheduled.

Neighborhood Feedback: By withholding key meeting information until required, per the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures Outline, the Applicant is both going back on
their word to the neighborhood and the question is opened as to whether they are following
the guidance provided in the REQUIRED NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: LOCAL
EMERGENCY GUIDELINES since "Applicants are encouraged utilize as many resources
and strategies as possible to facilitate public awareness and discussion regarding the
request." The revised actions cited above accomplish the opposite. The
neighborhood understands that the Local Emergency Guidelines were put in place to

Page 976
accomplish the same goals of resolving neighborhood unresolved concerns as allowed in
following the normal PUD Procedure, not as a way to bypass or delay resolving the
neighborhood's unresolved concerns. Please advise if the neighborhood misunderstands
how the PUD Procedure has changed during COVID.

We hope Withey Morris will re-consider the above revisions and work with the
neighborhood in good faith.

Also, I do look forward to the small group meeting when it finally gets scheduled and
conducted.

Thank you,

Trent Marchuk

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:30 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:

Good afternoon Trent,

To answer your first two questions, the FAQ’s will incorporate the responses to the
questions asked at the neighborhood meeting via chat and the 7/15 document. Attached
are the chat questions that we received during the neighborhood meeting for your
reference. It saves from zoom in a text file, but you can copy and paste into a word
document easily. As noted we will be providing answers to these questions and the others
on our website and will let you know when that is posted. Unfortunately the zoom calls do
not save the attendee lists, but there are names on the chat (attached), so it gives you a
good idea of the residents who attended. But, I saw that there were roughly 46 people who
were participating on the call. All meeting notes are provided in the Citizen Participation
Plan that will be submitted to the City of Phoenix 15 days prior to the first VPC meeting
(for recommendation), which has not yet been scheduled.

Per the last question, I have three folks so far who have requested a small group meeting,
including you. I am working on finding a date that works for everyone. I will let those
who asked for a meeting know once we have a couple of date options to choose from that
work for everyone’s schedules. Stay tuned!

Also, if additional questions come in after the FAQs are posted online, then we are always
add more questions and answers to that list. We just want to start with the questions that

Page 977
we have already received. But know it is a working document and resource.

As always, please call or email if you have any additional questions.

Thank you!

Hannah Bleam, AICP

Land Use Planner

Withey Morris, PLC

2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Phone: 602-230-0600

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or
an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Hannah Bleam
Cc: Sandy Bawden ; vanjacksonaz@gmail.com
Subject: Re: South Mountain VPC informational meeting - August 11, 2020 at 6pm

Thank you Hannah for letting us know about the informational presentation to SMVPC

Page 978
currently scheduled for Aug 11.

We look forward to reviewing the FAQ document.

Please let us know when we should expect:

* the promised meeting notes, attendees, questions, and answers from the 7/16 meeting

* the promised written responses to the unresolved neighborhood concerns submitted 7/15

* any updates on the promised small group neighborhood meetings discussed on 7/16

Thank you,

Trent

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:08 PM Hannah Bleam wrote:

Good afternoon all,

I just selected a few of you that have been engaged on this project. You will be
receiving notification letters and have likely seen the sign posted on the property
already, but the South Mountain VPC meeting has been scheduled for the rezoning and
GPA case at 40th/Southern. This is an informational presentation only, and no
recommendation will be made. Public hearing dates have not yet been scheduled since
we are still early in the process. Just wanted to keep you posted on the next steps.

In addition, we are working on a FAQ document that will be posted on our website to
provide answers to many of the questions we had during our neighborhood meeting and
subsequently via email. I will let you know when that is posted online.

Thank you,

Page 979
Hannah Bleam, AICP

Land Use Planner

Withey Morris, PLC

2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Cir, Ste A-212

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Phone: 602-230-0600

This e-mail, and any attachment(s), is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.
Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,
is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy the original message and all copies.

Page 980
Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8

From: Sandy Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Samantha Keating; Trent Marchuk; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Karen Mischlispy & Sue Beyer; Van Jackson
Subject: Long Range Planning Meeting with BHRE (Z-25-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:51:39 PM

Hi Enrique,

Thank you for your response yesterday, August 5. We kindly request this thread be added to the case file.

Given your response, we have the following additional questions and requests:

We kindly request the records notifying the residents of the Neighborhood Meeting on 7/16 for both Z-25-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-
8.
Given the neighbor's prior submitted concerns, we request the City to conduct an investigation into the notification process while
the neighbors also review the documentation.
If the Applicant is found to have not properly complied to the PDD Required Neighborhood Meeting Local Emergency Guidelines,
will the outcome be substantially similar too if they did not comply with the notification requirements?
We request the city to review our concerns below as to whether both the Letter and the Spirit of the Emergency Guidelines have been
fulfilled. Our lay disposition is that the Guidelines were not followed.
Please investigate, factoring in our observations below, whether the Applicant has acted in good faith and fair dealings with the City
and the residents relative to the PDD Required Neighborhood Meeting Local Emergency Guidelines
Given the next public meeting is in less than 14 days away, how would the outcome of any potential procedural deficiencies be
handled?

The below observations are couched within the PDD Required Neighborhood Meetings: Local Emergency Guidelines.
(https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PDD_Required%20Neighbohrood%20Meeting_Local%20Emergency%20Guidelines_4.17.20.pdf)

The neighborhood believes these guidelines have not been adhered to by the applicant - during the July 16, 2020 virtual meeting and
leading up to the first public meeting currently scheduled for Aug 11, 2020. We believe that there is a strong possibility that the
Applicant is exploiting the COVID situation to the detriment of the residents and neighbors and request the City to investigate.

If the Local Emergency Guidelines have not been followed, we question whether the July 16, 2020 meeting formally counts as the
official Neighborhood meeting and whether the Aug 11 informational presentation meeting to the SMVPC is timed appropriately.

Issue#1:
PDD Guideline states: "ADA Compliance... The applicant must make appropriate accommodations to individuals with
disabilities."
Response#1
At 11:06a on 7/16, Withey Morris stated: “We will use the raise hand function on Zoom when facilitating the question and
answer session to know who wishes to speak.”
At 5:30p oin 7/16 , during the virtual meeting, Withey Morris arbitrarily changed the rules; they kept all 45 participants on
mute and required us to type our questions in the chat feature and privately send them to Withey Morris.
This abrupt change did not allow sufficient time for neighbors to seek accommodations for their disabilities.
Neighbors stated that
they could not type and listen simultaneously due to varying physical and cognitive limitations
they could not submit their questions in the timeframe allowed due to varying physical and cognitive limitations
they were not able to move to devices that would allow for them to type their questions to the Applicant
context behind the questions was severely curtailed, which impeded neighbors' comprehension due to, among
other things, cognitive limitations (tone, who was asking, and whether the question was the actual question
asked or a paraphrased version, etc)
they have not been able to, as an accommodation to those with physical or cognitive limitations, review notes or
responses to the questions during the meeting, as of Aug 5, 2020
they were not able to share their concerns through presentation, exhibits, or other audio-visual means to
supplement their physical or cognitive limitations
Issue #2
PDD Guidelines state "The Citizen Participation Report shall be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to the first public
meeting or hearing and will be included in the information provided to the committee or hearing officer.
Response #2
The scheduled activity before the SMVPC on Aug 11, 2020 has been referred to as " South Mountain VPC informational
meeting" by the Applicant.
All SMVPC meetings are considered public.
Therefore, per the Guidelines cited above, should the Citizens Participation Report be submitted to the committee 14 days
prior to this first public meeting?
Issue #3
The PDD Guidelines state that "all copies of any comments received by the applicant on their website and at the meeting,
or through any other means of communication with the public, shall be included in a Citizen Participation Report."
Response #3
In an email received from the Applicant on Aug 4, 2020 (included in the case file), it states that the Citizen Participation
Report is a future activity.and has not yet been completed.

Page 981
Therefore, as of Aug 4, the Citizen Participation report has not been completed nor submitted
Issue #4
The PDD Guidelines state that "While these guidelines offer an alternative approach during the Local Emergency
declaration, all applicants should at a minimum be following established standards in an attempt to address any community
concerns or questions."
Response #4
Would Steve Hambrick's directions regarding virtual meetings posted via video on the City PPD website count as
"established standards"? If so, he advocated that participants may be recognized and called on to weigh in during the
virtual meetings. He also advocated for participants to be able to share their video and screens to facilitate dialogue.
During the meeting on July 16, 2020, the Applicant did not follow these established standards.
On July 15, 2020, the neighbors submitted questions to the Applicant. As of Aug 5, 2020, the Applicant has not provided a
response, despite promising the neighbors a response on July 16, 2020. This would seem to indicate that the Applicant is
not "attempting to address any community concerns or questions."
During the July 16 meeting, the Applicant promised to respond to all questions posed during the meeting. As of Aug 5,
2020, the Applicant has not responded to those questions. This would seem to indicate that the Applicant is not
"attempting to address any community concerns or questions."

Therefore, we request the City to investigate whether the Applicant is adhering to the PDD Required Neighborhood Meeting Local Emergency
Guidelines - in good faith and in fair dealings, especially as relates to our stated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerns. The
neighbors are concerned with any semblance of perception that the Guidelines have been manipulated by the Applicant to the detriment of the
neighbors.

Thank you,

Sandy Bawden
Trent Marchuk
Patty McKinstry
Karen Mischlispy
Van Jackson

Page 982
Attachment C

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-35-20-8

Date of VPC Meeting March 9, 2021
February 9, 2021(Continued to March 9, 2021)
November 10, 2020 (Information Only)
August 11, 2020 (Information Only)

Request From S-1 BAOD, C-2 BAOD
Request To PUD BAOD
Proposed Use Residential (including multifamily) and other permitted
uses in the Mixed Use Agricultural District.

Location Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Southern Avenue
VPC Recommendation Denial

VPC Vote 12-7; Matthew Aguilar, Kassandra Alvarez, George
Brooks, Lee Coleman, Joseph Larios, Fatima Said and
Jennifer Tunning in dissent.

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

56 requests to speak from members of the public were received regarding these
two cases. 25 members in opposition and 31 members of the public in support.

Mr. Enrique Bojorquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a joint presentation
on these two cases. He discussed the location plus context of the site, modern
history of the area, gave an overview of the Baseline Area Master Plan (BAMP),
Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) zoning district and Baseline Area Overlay District
(BAOD). He discussed the 2015 General Plan and other policy documents, followed
by describing transportation, shopping, educational and recreation opportunities in
the area. The existing and requested general plan land use designations under
case GPA-SM-1-20-8 were discussed, in addition to the proposed PUD BAOD
zoning requested. A summary of the Sanctuary at South Mountain PUD under case
Z-35-20-8 was provided, including permitted uses, site plan elements, access and
circulation, open space, and conceptual building elevations. He concluded the
presentation by providing a staff recommendation on both cases and describing the
proposed stipulations for case Z-35-20-8, as presented in the staff report.

Page 983
Mr. Jason Morris, with Withey Morris, introduced himself as the applicant and
discussed the subject site, including the site selection. He discussed the existing
uses and zoning along the intersection of 40th Street and Southern Avenue. An
overview of the zoning history of the property and MUA land use designation plus
context was provided. He discussed the proposed site plan, noting changes done
after the initial submittal of the PUD case. He discussed the general plan
amendment request and referenced the Phoenix General Plan. It was noted that 3
residential units would be provided as part of the project limited to 50 percent rent
for single-parents, medical workers, formerly incarcerated individuals and teachers
in the South Mountain area. The waiving of application fees for those that live and
work in the South Mountain Village, plus alternatives to traditional background
checks would be offered to potential renters. The Housing Phoenix Plan was
discussed, then noting support for these cases. He concluded by providing an
overview of community outreach efforts conducted and addressed some of the
concerns raised to the proposal.

Tamala Daniels loves the look and feel of the project but feels that this location is
not appropriate for the area.

Marcia Busching asked if the applicant was willing to stipulate or add to the PUD
the housing elements described in the presentation pertaining to rent caps, fee
waivers and alternative background checks.

Mr. Morris agreed with adding these as stipulations to the proposal.

Mr. Bojorquez, staff, noted that unfortunately these housing elements cannot be
enforced by the city of Phoenix as stipulations part of the PUD case.

Gene Holmerud asked why the land zoned S-1 to the southwest of the site is not
part of this development.

Mr. Morris responded that this land is not controlled by his client at the moment.

Greg Brownell asked the following questions:

• If this property was actually MUA, why would a general plan amendment be
needed?
• Why not develop the existing site under the existing zoning and why not work
with the community?
• Why not develop the existing land use envisioned by the general plan here?

Mr. Morris discussed the community outreach conducted and the meetings held
with Councilman Garcia and the community. He discussed the proposal by the
Bartlett Heard community shared with him.

Page 984
Shelly Smith discussed the location of the site and asked why the site needs to be
buffered from adjacent uses and existing neighborhoods.

Mr. Morris discussed an example of a similar community in the Tramonto PCD.

Twanna Ray asked for clarification on the number of units subject to the proposed
reduced rent.

Mr. Morris answered that 3 units would qualify for the reduced rent in all of the
development.

Trent Marchuk asked the following questions:

• What specific Phoenix Housing Policy Initiative(s) does this project advance?
• Can you confirm the 251 signatures submitted in support are legitimate?

Mr. Morris responded that the project brings housing that is affordable to the area
and confirmed the information submitted to the committee was accurate.

Trent Marchuk responded that the City of Phoenix represented to the residents
that no specific Phoenix Housing Policy Initiative is advanced through this project,
referencing an email dated Dec 17, 2020.

Matthew Aguilar asked for a clarification on the presentation provided.

Chairwoman Trites opened the public comment portion of the meeting.

22 members of the public in opposition to these cases donated time to Patty
McKinstry to speak on their behalf. One member of the public donated time to
Robert Underwood to speak in opposition to these cases on his behalf. One
member of the public, Bereket Gebre, did not register to speak in opposition ahead
of the meeting but provided comments during the meeting.

Patty McKinstry, property owner in the area, introduced herself and asked to
provide a presentation to the committee. She mentioned that Somos Build BAM is a
pro-development neighborhood collective, listing the number of projects supported
in the recent past. She discussed the number of signatures gather in opposition to
these two cases from both the South Mountain and Laveen Villages. Three main
unresolved concerns remain with the proposal pertaining to density, density
transition and precedent to the Baseline Area Master Plan. The Bartlett Heard
Ranch Estates neighborhood is racially diverse, representing in its households five
different races. She concluded by stating that the proposed general plan
amendment needs to stop.

Robert Underwood, property owner and business owner in the area, introduced
himself and discussed the statements made by Mr. Jason Morris, history of the site

Page 985
and the existing zoning. He opposes an increase in density as proposed as he lives
and works in the area. This proposal would hurt the quality of life in the area and
will affect his business. He is pro-development and discussed the proposal, asking
the committee to recommend a denial of the cases.

Clottee Hammons introduced herself and discussed the history of South Phoenix
and Arizona. She discussed solutions to end homelessness and the history of the
area.

Bereket Gebre, landowner in the area, is in opposition to the project and does not
see or perceive racism in the area. The landowner does not have the amount of
support claimed during their presentation.

31 members of the public requested to speak in support.

Shawnece Gains introduced herself, she lives in the area and likes that new
opportunities will be available for young adults thus she supports the project.

Joe Angel Solozario introduced himself and discussed the property along with
new housing plus business opportunities in the area.

Kelly Kwok supports this project due to equitable housing proposed.

April McCue supports project as it involved the community and engaged with
minority groups, waiving application fees and including some reduced rent for units.
She discussed the link between homeless and incarceration, asking for an approval
of the project.

Vanessa DiCarlo discussed criminalization, urban revitalization pricing people out
of areas and racial disparities in the population.

Jisso Kim supports the project due to affordability levels proposed. We should be
lucky to bring this proposal to life. Discussed issues faced by underserved
populations. Put people over property and approve this project.

Camille Johnson has family who lives in South Phoenix and discussed
gentrification history of the area including redlining and displacement of residents.
South Phoenix was created by “white people” who did not want the “wrong-kind of
people” in the neighborhoods much like the opposition. She supports this proposed
development.

Karen Olson supports the project and discussed the benefits of the proposal.

B Thoi discussed current social issues and the need for safe and stable housing to
help address homelessness. The issues raised by the opposition were addressed
and supports this proposal.

Page 986
Anesia Groves grew up in South Phoenix and discussed incarceration and housing
displacement issues. She was unable to move back into her neighborhood after
leaving years ago. She supports the proposed development due to the concessions
made by the applicant. South Phoenix is a point of pride, and she does not want to
hear white or black committee members tell her where she can live.

Chairwoman Trites asked Ms. Groves to keep her comments respectful.

Analise Ortiz supports the project and discussed formerly incarcerated plus
homeless-related issues. The community needs more similar projects.

Helen Mendizabal supports the project and discussed formerly incarcerated
issues.

Greg Linaman has a business in the area and 110 employees who live across the
valley and could benefit by relocating nearby. He discussed the history of land
development in the area, cost of land and concerns with the project. He mentioned
that there is a housing crisis and there is a need for more housing units, thus
supports the development.

Hana Heman discussed historical segregation patterns in Phoenix supported by
policies. This development will help break the violence of housing segregation. This
project should be a model for other developments. Supports the project due to
housing opportunities it provides and disagrees with the concerns from the
opposition. The committee Chair ran the meeting unfairly, bending the rules for
white supremacists. The supporters of this case were not given the same
opportunity to provide a presentation as those in opposition were.

Ryan Boyd, with Urban Phoenix Project, supports the project as it is appropriate
and significant for the area.

Ronnie Wollenzier supports the project as it promotes desegregation and
decriminalization. He discussed shelter needs and policies related to
homelessness.

Richard Crews, with the Human Services Campus, discussed the history of
segregation in the city and housing segregation of minority populations. If “white
people” were to be living in this project, there would be no issue. Racism is about
bias enacted through policy and hopes that committee members will not be agents
of white supremacy.

Tremikus Muhammad discussed housing segregation in place and the need for
housing units in Phoenix. There is a racist mindset against this project. He supports
this project and addressed the statements by the opposition.

Page 987
Beth Hintze is the owner of the land and stated that this project addresses housing
needs. She discussed the history of the site pertaining to citrus trees, previous PUD
proposals on this land that were subsequently withdrawn or did not move forward.

Rafael Delgado, Felicia Castro, Denstiny Gaines, Maya Dobbs, Ruth Pina, Leticia
Gonzales, Ariana Fernandez, Brandon Valentin, Paris Moore, Naqiy McMullen and
Grace Logan registered to speak in support of these two cases but were not
connected during the meeting or could not be identified by staff.

Committee member Martin Hayime Monge Kotake left the meeting at 9:30pm
bringing the quorum to 19 members.

Mr. Morris stated that the applicant has earned the support and the project can
make the South Mountain Village a little better. He referenced the staff
recommendation of approval and community support for this project.

Matthew Aguilar stated that there were some disrespectful behaviors or comments
during the meeting. He discussed the general plan elements of Health, Prosperity
and Environment, plus addressed housing and health needs.

Kassandra Alvarez stated that the developer tried to work with the opposition, and
he addressed everything that was asked for including working with the community.

Greg Brownell stated that the housing data provided by the city before the meeting
tonight shows a partial reality of the South Mountain Village. This project is not
affordable development and discussed the historical representation of the area and
broader village issues.

Marcia Busching stated that the location of the project is a big deal. She discussed
the appropriateness of the site and another site in the vicinity of similar
characteristics. The enforcement of voluntary fee waivers and rent caps is an issue
as well.

Lee Coleman agrees with Marcia’s comments and the applicant’s voluntary
commitments as part of the proposal.

Amelia Garcia thanked the developers and will support the project if it develops as
proposed.

Gene Holmerud agrees with Lee’s comments.

Joseph Larios addressed racial disparities and how every development addresses
these concerns on housing. He asked the applicant whether they would be willing to
stipulate these voluntary restrictions related to housing as part of the zoning case.

Page 988
Mr. Morris responded that they would be willing to stipulate these voluntary
stipulations and intends to have a private agreement to enforce these.

Trent Marchuk discussed the Ethics Handbook and he has no conflict of interest
voting on this project. He discussed the main concerns of the neighborhood to this
project as pertaining to the density, density transition, and the precedent to the
General Plan. The applicant has introduced an artificial polemic and
misrepresented the opposition to galvanize rather than work with the neighbors.
The adjacent neighborhood is pro-development and has made concessions in their
negotiation position willing to creatively density beyond the legal hard zoning, while
the applicant has remained intractable. An email dated February 4, 2021 provides
an analysis of the 251 support signatures submitted by the applicant which were
found to contain multiple discrepancies, including one purported forgery and other
documented misrepresentations. The existing stipulations on the C-2 zoned portion
of the site preclude residential development, while any change to those stipulations
must be discussed by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. This project
is not affordable housing and nearby comparable units go for a 20-percent premium
over average rent within a two mile radius. A broker who regularly lends to this
product type classified this specific proposal as “predatory development”.

Twanna Ray discussed her background and the 3 residential units proposed by the
applicant as few in comparison to the community needs. Other developments were
discussed.

Fatima Said discussed the general plan analysis and benefits of the project. She
disagrees with some of the comments shared by some committee members.

Kay Shepard asked that the site location be considered and whether the zoning is
also appropriate here. She does not support the project due to the location.

Muriel Smith will support the project but will keep an eye-out to ensure an
implementation of the voluntary housing elements proposed by the applicant.

Shelly Smith addressed diversity in South Phoenix and the potential for renters in
this community to be out-of-state.

Jennifer Tunning discussed other projects in the Village and the benefits of the
voluntary stipulations proposed by the applicant.

Emma Viera agrees with some of the comments made but would like to hear from
the most-affected residents and asked for the rental rates. She sees a lot of families
facing eviction in the community and is concerned about housing.

Hannah Bleam, with Withey Morris, responded that the development is not
affordable housing per HUD standards, but is market-rate for the area.

Page 989
Tamala Daniels lives in South Phoenix and her family has history there. She
supports a mix of housing types and discussed issues with the Federal Housing
Act. She does not support the project due to the location.

Patti Trites discussed her background and agrees with some of the comments
made by Marcia Busching and Tamala Daniels. She has talked with residents in the
area about these two cases.

Matthew Aguilar disagrees with some of the comments made by some committee
members and referenced comments made by Clottee Hammons. Discussed issues
with finding available affordable housing and believes that Greg Brownell should no
longer serve in the South Mountain VPC. Does not agree with the appointment of
Trent Marchuk made by Council District 6 to the South Mountain VPC.

Twanna Ray attended some of the meetings hosted by Council District 8 with the
applicant and the community. Does not feel that the applicant worked with the
community on this proposal.

Trent Marchuk discussed his involvement with the community and his appointment
by Council District 6 to the South Mountain VPC. He plans to participate in future
meeting as a community member not a member of the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee.

Chairwoman Trites asked for a motion and a second on both cases.

MOTION – GPA-SM-1-20-8
Ms. Busching made a motion to deny case GPA-SM-1-20-8. Lee Coleman
seconded the motion.

VOTE:
11-8 Motion passes; Matthew Aguilar, Kassandra Alvarez, George Brooks,
Amelia Garcia, Joseph Larios, Fatima Said, Muriel Smith, and Jennifer Tunning
in dissent.

MOTION – Z-35-20-8
Ms. Busching made a motion to deny case Z-35-20-8. Mr. Holmerud seconded
the motion.

VOTE:
12-7 Motion passes; Matthew Aguilar, Kassandra Alvarez, George Brooks,
Amelia Garcia, Joseph Larios, Fatima Said, and Jennifer Tunning in dissent.

Page 990
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

The applicant on case Z-35-20-8 indicated during the March 9, 2021 meeting that they
intend to voluntarily incorporate the following housing practices as part of their project:

• 3 residential units will be allocated for and be capped at 50-percent the normal
rental rate for single-parents, medical frontline workers, formerly incarcerated,
and South Mountain area teachers.

• Waiving application fees for those that live/work in the South Mountain Village;

• The ownership or management company will offer alternatives to traditional
background checks for potential renters.

During the March 9, 2021 meeting staff stated that these housing practices cannot be
enforced by the city of Phoenix as rezoning stipulations.

The South Mountain Village Planning Committee voted 12-7 in favor of recommending
denial of case Z-35-20-8 during the March 9, 2021 meeting, thus no rezoning
stipulations were modified or added as part of this recommendation.

Page 991
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-35-20-8

Date of VPC Meeting February 9, 2021

Request From S-1 BAOD, C-2 BAOD
Request To PUD BAOD
Proposed Use Residential (including multifamily) and other permitted
uses in the Mixed Use Agricultural District.

Location Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Southern Avenue
VPC Recommendation Continuance to March 9, 2021 meeting

VPC Vote 17-0; None in dissent.

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Agenda items 8 and 9 were heard together an moved up in the agenda to be
discussed out of order.

8) GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8): Presentation, discussion and
possible recommendation on a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
Designation on approximately 17.27 acres located approximately 340 feet west of
the southwest corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue from Mixed Use
Agricultural to Mixed Use Agricultural and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per
acre to allow residential (including multifamily) and other permitted uses in the Mixed
Use Agricultural Zoning District.

9) Z-35-20-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-1-20-8): Presentation, discussion, and
possible recommendation regarding a request to rezone approximately 17.27 acres
located approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and
Southern Avenue from S-1 BAOD (Ranch or Farm Residence District, Baseline
Area Overlay District) and C-2 BAOD (Intermediate Commercial District, Baseline
Area Overlay District) to PUD BAOD (Planned Unit Development, Baseline Area
Overlay District) to allow residential (including multifamily) and other permitted uses
in the Mixed Use Agricultural Zoning District.

29 requests to speak from members of the public were received regarding these
two cases. 10 members in opposition and 19 members of the public in support.

Page 992
Mr. Jason Morris, applicant, introduced himself and requested a continuance to
the March 9, 2021 meeting date on agenda items 8 and 9 to allow for further
discussion with community members on the proposed project.

Marcia Busching stated that she drafted stipulations regarding the proposal in an
attempt to seek compromise and discussed the continuance on the two cases. She
would be happy to be involved in future meetings with the community.

Chairwoman Trites has just spoken with Councilman Garcia’s office and he will be
helping to coordinate a meeting. Anyone who is interested in participating in this
meeting, please contact the South Mountain Village Planner. She then asked for a
motion, to be followed by public comments.

MOTION – GPA-SM-1-20-8
Mr. Holmerud made a motion to continue case GPA-SM-1-20-8 to the March 9,
2021 meeting. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion.

VOTE:
17-0 Motion passes; None in dissent.

MOTION – Z-35-20-8
Ms. Shepard made a motion to continue case Z-35-20-8 to the March 9, 2021
meeting. Mr. Holmerud seconded the motion.

VOTE:
17-0 Motion passes; None in dissent.

Trent Marchuk, community member, introduced himself and discussed working
toward a shared vision for the future. The neighbors have a lot of energy and sees
a path forward, noting that the city has kept the neighborhood compliant with the
General Plan. Somos Build BAM is a pro-development resident collective that has
supported 4 cases in the recent past. The BAMP gives a guide and looks forward to
working with the applicant. The neighbors have worked with projects in the past and
he appreciates the opportunity.

Patty McKinstry, community member, discussed the neighborhood demographics
and appreciates the opportunity to work with the applicant.

Fabiola Marquez, community member, appreciates the continuance of these cases
by the applicant.

All other community members who registered to speak were not connected or
unavailable to speak on these two cases.

Page 993
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

None.

Page 994
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-35-20-8

Date of VPC Meeting November 10, 2020 (Information Only)

Request From S-1 BAOD, C-2 BAOD
Request To PUD BAOD
Proposed Use Multifamily development, a florist/flower stand and other
permitted uses in the Mixed Use Agricultural District.

Location Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Southern Avenue
VPC Recommendation No recommendation (Information Only)

VPC Vote No recommendation (Information Only)

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Two requests to speak in support and nine requests to speak in opposition from
members of the public were received before the meeting.

Mr. Jason Morris, with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself and the proposed
development under case Z-35-20-8. He discussed the location of the site, use and
existing zoning in the general area. An overview on the history of the Mixed-Use
Agricultural (MUA) District was provided, noting that no true MUA project has been
developed since the district was adopted. He discussed the current and proposed
General Plan Land Use designations under concurrent case GPA-SM-1-20-7. An
overview on the site selection process was provided, including existing site
conditions. He discussed the Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal for
attached and detached multifamily rental units, then showed the current site plan for
this development. He went over updates to the project since the initial submittal and
provided a list of amenities proposed. He ended the presentation by discussing the
flower/florist stand use proposed on the site and went over project benefits.

Chairwoman Trites opened the public portion of the meeting.

Mr. Trent Marchuk, with Somos Build BAM, was donated time to speak by eight
members of the public. He introduced himself and explained his opposition to the
case due to 3 main reasons. The first reason is that the case fails to further the
vision from the city. He compared the two versions of the PUD site plan and
discussed the MUA comparison to this development. He added that this
development could set a dangerous precedent to the MUA Zoning District.

Page 995
The second reason is that the community follows governing documents approved for
the area and share the names of individuals who live or contribute to the group. He
asked the committee to follow the MUA District regulations. The third reason for the
opposition is the property owner’s stated ability to develop the site as a gun store,
gas station, or charter school as possible uses in this property.

Ms. Beth Hintze, property owner, introduced herself and provided a presentation to
the committee. She provided brief history of the site and stated that the subject
property is too large to maintain and too small to farm viably. She discussed the
current C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) and S-1 (Farm or Ranch Residence) Zoning
District on the site and permitted uses within each district. She provided pictures of
uses, including a school site in a residential neighborhood. She discussed the
proposed multifamily development and how this meets the intent of the MUA Zoning
District.

Mr. Jubran Jubran, resident in the area, introduced himself and stated that he is
tired of seeing this property vacant. He would like to see housing, job opportunities
and more infrastructure in the area.

Chairwoman Trites closed the public portion of the meeting as no other requests to
speak were received on this item.

Mr. Holmerud discussed the name of the development “Sanctuary at South
Mountain”.

Mr. Brownell stated that Jason Morris and Withey Morris PLC are reliable and
upfront about their developments, but he completely opposes this development.

Ms. Shepard discussed the history of the site and stated that the C-2 Zoning District
along the north of the site was to allow retail uses.

Ms. Busching stated that this is a good project but in the wrong location.

Ms. Daniels agrees with Ms. Busching and asked Mr. Marchuk what elements the
community would support at this location.

Mr. Marchuk stated that he does not prescribe what to develop but supports uses
consistent with the MUA Zoning District.

Ms. Brunson asked the applicant to describe what would be the affordability or price
point for the rental units and to describe what were the unit reductions following the
first version of the PUD submittal.

Mr. Morris responded that the project is meant to be a move up community from a
traditional apartment complex and is affordable when looking at the median income.
He stated that the site plan was modified and removed six dwelling units.

Page 996
Ms. Brunson stated that she does not support the project due to existing
neighborhood opposition.

Chairwoman Trites stated that the Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD) and MUA
Districts must be adhered to by this development. She also asked the applicant to
find a compromise with the neighbors.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

None.

Page 997
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-35-20-8

Date of VPC Meeting August 11, 2020 (Information Only)

Request From S-1 BAOD, C-2 BAOD
Request To PUD BAOD
Proposed Use Multifamily development and a florist/flower stand
Location Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Southern Avenue
VPC Recommendation No recommendation (Information Only)

VPC Vote No recommendation (Information Only)

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Seven email messages were received, one from an individual supportive of the
case and six from individuals in opposition. Three members of the public wishing
to speak yielded their time to Mr. Trent Marchuk.

Mr. Jason Morris, with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself, the project and the
concurrent general plan amendment application under case GPA-SM-1-20-8. He
showed an aerial and zoning map to discuss the current land uses in the area. He
discussed the site selection process, existing site conditions and further discussed
the proposal for the PUD case which is to allow a single-family rental community
with a florist/flower stand. An definition of what a single-family rental community is
was provided, followed by conceptual elevations of a rental unit and a flower stand.
He discussed the concurrent general plan amendment application which requests
to amend the land use map from Mixed Use Agricultural to a combination of Mixed
Use Agricultural and Higher Density Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre. A
discussion of the three community benefits from the General Plan was provided and
concluded by highlighting the project benefits.

Mr. Aguilar referenced the previous outreach efforts conducted on a prior
multifamily rezoning case, Z-67-19-8, and added that the committee would be
expecting a similar level of outreach. He added that a race analysis should be
conducted and discussions with community groups held to address the historical
issues of segregation in the community.

Mr. Morris responded that he welcomes conducting a similar level of outreach.

Page 998
Mr. Brownell stated that he is not familiar with the housing segregation mentioned
previously. He added that outreach is recommended to the organizations listed in
the recommended outreach list created by the South Mountain VPC and
discourages giving money or gifts to these organizations. He feels that the
proposed project is not appropriate for this location.

Mr. Coleman left the meeting at 9:01pm bringing the quorum to 11 members.

Ms. Busching stated that the location selected was not an appropriate location.
She stated that when the project returns for a recommendation, it should consider a
maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre and that the committee would be
reviewing this project for adherence with the Baseline Area Overlay District, Mixed
Use Agricultural District and Baseline Area Master Plan.

Ms. Daniels stated that she likes the use and aesthetics of the project, but feels
that the proposal is in the wrong location. She added that this proposal could be
more appropriate if located within proximity to the future light rail corridor.

Ms. Said stated that she looks forward to the enhanced outreach from the applicant
and the affordability of the project.

Ms. Shepard stated that she echoes the same comments as Ms. Busching and Mr.
Brownell.

Vice Chair Tunning stated that she echoes the comments from Mr. Aguilar and will
be expecting enhanced outreach in the future when this project returns to the
Village.

Chairwoman Trites stated that she echoes Mr. Aguilar and Ms. Busching’ s
comments. She feels that the project should match the Baseline Area Overlay
District and Baseline Area Master Plan.

Chairwoman Trites opened the public portion of the meeting.

Mr. Trent Marchuk, resident of the area, introduced himself and shared that he is
part of a resident collective Somos Build BAM. He asked the committee to reject the
proposed cases Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8 as these did not further the vision
of the community and city leaders. He compared the proposed PUD to the
standards in the Zoning Ordinance, referencing that these standards were not met
by this proposal. He shared that there were a number of concerns shared with the
applicant on the case on behalf of the community, but these concerns have not yet
been addressed. He concluded by stating that this is a good project but at the
wrong location.

Page 999
Ms. Patti McKinstry, resident of the area, introduced herself and made a
comparison between the subject site and the Del Rio project. She stated that this
development is not compatible as it had not incorporated the Mixed Use Agricultural
standards. She ended her remarks by referencing the Phoenix General Plan Land
Use Map of the South Mountain Village, referencing the Mixed Use Agricultural
Land Use designation.

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher, member of the public, registered to speak but was not
connected to the virtual meeting during the public portion of the meeting for this
agenda item.

Ms. Beth Hintze, part owner of the property, introduced herself and stated that she
has owned the land for many years. She discussed a previous rezoning proposal to
allow a commercial project on the site, but community members opposed this
project and requested for homes to be constructed instead. She added that this is a
multifamily project appropriate for this location due to the use, aesthetics and
consistency with the character of the area.

Chairwoman Trites closed the public portion of the meeting, applicant response
and discussion.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

None.

Page 1000
Attachment D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 4, 2021

ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-35-20-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-1-20-8) (Sanctuary at South
Mountain PUD)
Location: Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street
and Southern Avenue
From: C-2 BAOD and S-1 BAOD
To: PUD BAOD
Acreage: 17.27
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow residential (including
multifamily) and other permitted uses from the Mixed Use
Agricultural Zoning District
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: John C. Oertle, Jr., Lisa Kay Oertle-Mel, et al
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 2/9/2021 Continued. Vote: 17-0.
South Mountain 3/9/2021 Pending.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Continuance to the April 1, 2021 Planning
Commission Hearing, without fee.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to continue Z-35-20-8 to the
April 1, 2021 Planning Commission hearing, without fee.

Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No

Findings: Continuance granted to allow the Village Planning Committee to provide a
recommendation.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.

Page 1001
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
April 1, 2021

ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-35-20-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Location: Approximately 340 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street
and Southern Avenue
From: C-2 BAOD and S-1 BAOD
To: PUD BAOD
Acreage: 17.27
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow residential (including
multifamily) and other permitted uses from the Mixed Use
Agricultural Zoning District
Applicant: Withey Morris, PLC, Jason Morris
Owner: John C. Oertle, Jr., Lisa Kay Oertle-Mel
Representative: Withey Morris, PLC, Jason Morris

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 8/11/2020 Informational Only.
South Mountain 11/10/2020 Informational Only.
South Mountain 2/9/2021 Continued. Vote: 17-0.
South Mountain 3/9/2021 Denial. Vote: 12-7.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation in the
staff report, with an additional stipulation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a motion to approve Z-35-20-8, per the
recommendation in the staff report, with the additional stipulation as read into the record.

Maker: Howard
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 6-2
Absent: Johnson
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation as well as the surrounding land uses and land use map
designations.

Page 1002
2. The proposal includes enhanced development standards and design guidelines
that often exceed MUA, BAOD and traditional residential standards that will
promote the rural and agricultural nature of the surrounding area.

3. The proposal will allow for additional residential development that is
appropriately located at the intersection of two arterial streets that offer
alternative transportation options connecting to the Interstate 10 freeway and
future light rail corridor further to the west. The proposal provides a transition
from existing commercial uses to single-family residential to the south.

Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sanctuary at South Mountain PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval
of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped January 22, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front Cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the City
Council adoption date.

b. Page 9, 1. Development Standards Table, Minimum Building Setbacks,
add letter “s” at the end of “Interior Property Line…” in reference to
interior property lines adjacent to the existing Walgreens.

c. Page 10, under Open Space, add “…of gross site acreage.” at the end
of the first sentence.

d. Page 12, Plant Lists, change the bold subheading “Plant Lists” from the
right-hand side of the table to the center-top above the reference to
plant materials. Also add the word “Zoning” after “Mixed Use
Agricultural…”.

e. Page 14, 5. Amenities, shift “b. Outdoor Amenities:” to the following
page.

f. Page 15, 6. Open Space, align the formatting of the text in the second
paragraph.

g. Page 16, 7. Shade, edit the last sentence to the following: “c. Shade
requirements shall be calculated on a Summer Solstice at 12:00 noon.”

h. Page 17, second paragraph, revise the second sentence to state “c.
Connections shall be provided from and between the following elements
via the most direct route using pathways a minimum of 4 feet in width:”
and revise the alignment at the bottom of the page starting with “d.
Traffic calming…”.

Page 1003
i. Page 19, E. Design Guidelines, change subheading from “1. Multifamily
Residential” to “1. General Standards”.

j. Page 19, E. Design Guidelines, under 1. Multifamily Residential, change
to: “e. All of the residential units adjacent to 39th Street shall contain
covered back patios at a minimum of 200 square feet in area at a depth
of at least six feet, if the front of residential units is not oriented towards
39th Street.”

k. Page 19, E. Design Guidelines, under 1. Multifamily Residential, remove
sentence starting with “f. A minimum of two pedestrian gates…”

l. Page 21, 5. Building Orientation and Massing, revise the second
sentence to “b. Residential units adjacent to 39th Street which are not
fronting onto 39th Street, shall incorporate back patios oriented towards
39th Street to reinforce community orientation and place eyes on this
street.”

m. Page 22, 10. Other Design Elements, please align the subheading.

n. Page 25, H. Complete Streets, change the word “ROW” to “right-of-
way”.

o. Page 26, I. Infrastructure, 1. Circulation, lower case the word
“Pedestrian”.

p. Page 27, J. Comparative Zoning Table, update the Proposed PUD
standards to match with the rest of the PUD document.

2. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation
Department, to set up a meeting to discuss the requirements of the
statement/study. Upon completion of the TIS the developer shall submit the
completed TIS to the Planning and Development Department counter with
instruction to forward the study to the Street Transportation Department,
Design Section.

3. The developer shall dedicate a one-foot Vehicular Non-Access Easement
(VNAE) along Southern Avenue, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

5. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property and tenants within the development the
existence and operational characteristics of agricultural uses. The form and

Page 1004
content of such documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney.

6. The property owner shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of
Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) to
future owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such
documents shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which
have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

7. The developer shall grant and record an aviation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.

8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

9. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.

Page 1005
Attachment E
122-76-001B 123-16-079
123-16-082

123-16-095 123-16-092 123-16-091
123-16-084
122-76-013K 123-16-081

122-76-011C
123-16-080

123-16-083

122-76-008A
122-76-113 122-76-012C 122-76-015
122-76-013L
123-16-002D

122-76-009
122-76-007
122-76-013M
122-76-013E 122-76-013J

122-76-008B 122-76-013H
123-16-002E

122-76-013C

SOUTHERN AVE

38TH ST
122-79-010A
123-17-568B

122-79-019A

39TH ST
122-79-104
122-79-019B 123-17-568A

40TH PL 123-17-518 123-17-530123-17-520
123-17-517 123-17-519

40TH ST
123-17-523
NANCY LN

123-17-522 123-17-521
123-17-567 123-17-527

123-17-531
123-17-524
123-17-526
123-17-566 123-17-525
123-17-528 123-17-529
123-17-565

123-17-564 BURGESS LN
122-79-018C
123-58-002
122-79-019C 123-17-540
123-17-563123-17-542
123-58-003
123-58-044
123-17-562
123-17-544 123-17-543
123-17-561 123-17-558

123-58-043
123-17-560 123-17-559
123-58-046 123-58-004
123-17-557

123-58-047 123-17-541
123-58-001 123-58-005
122-79-072 123-58-042

122-79-080 122-79-079 122-79-078 122-79-077 122-79-076
123-58-048 123-17-545

122-79-075
123-17-556

122-79-074
123-58-041123-58-006 123-17-546
122-79-073
123-58-059

PL 123-58-060 123-58-040 123-17-539
122-79-071 123-58-045 123-58-049123-58-007
123-17-555 123-17-547
123-17-538
Legend
39TH 123-58-061
ST CATHERINE AVE ST ANNE AVE
Zoning Petition Area

123-58-074
123-58-062 123-58-076

123-58-067
123-58-066

122-79-063 122-79-067 122-79-068 122-79-069
Proposed Amendment Area

122-79-064 122-79-065 122-79-066
123-58-064

122-79-070
123-58-063

122-79-017C
123-58-077
# of Lots/Tracts/Condos:13/24 =123-58-068
54%
Lots/Tracts/Condos 123-58-075
123-58-069 123-58-065
% Area = 6.89ac./30.27ac. = 23%123-58-078
Signed Petition APOLLO RD
3/4 VOTE REQUIRED 123-58-070
123-58-081A
123-58-082B
122-79-062 122-79-015S 122-79-015T 122-79-015F 122-79-016B 123-58-083A 123-58-080B123-58-079A
123-58-071

I
Petition Verification Map
0 95 190 Feet for Z-35-20-8
MapPage 1006by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 4/9/2021
prepared
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: May 5, 2021

APPLICATION NO/ Z-35-20-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION: (Companion Case opposition x applicant
GPA-SM-1-20-8)
(Sanctuary at South
Mountain PUD)
Approximately 340
feet west of the
southwest corner of
40th Street and
Southern Avenue
APPEALED FROM: PC 4/1/2021 3731 East Saint Anne Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85042
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 5/5/2021 Trent C. Marchuk
HEARING: 602-499-9594
trentchristopher@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Same as yesterday. Adding the ¾ vote petition for City Council.

Multiple unresolved concerns regarding the complexity of the location that have yet to be
addressed in the applicant’s narrative nor in the site plan, which the City Planning Department
has referred to multiple times as unreliable itself (site plan reference). Ninety-five percent (95%)
of neighbors, represents 135+ adjacent and contiguous acres do not agree with the proposed
land use as currently stated.

RECEIVED BY: Michael Pierce RECEIVED ON: 4/8/2021

Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Stephanie Vasquez
Leah Swanton
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Ra’Desha Williams
Village Planner
Samantha Keating
Paul M. Li
GIS
Applicant

Page 1007
Page 1008
Page 1009
Page 1010
Page 1011
Page 1012
Page 1013
Page 1014
Page 1015
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: May 5, 2021

APPLICATION NO/ Z-35-20-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION: (Companion Case opposition x applicant
GPA-SM-1-20-8)
(Sanctuary at South
Mountain PUD)
Approximately 340
feet west of the
southwest corner of
40th Street and
Southern Avenue
APPEALED FROM: PC 4/1/2021 3731 East Saint Anne Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85042
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 5/6/2021 Trent C. Marchuk
HEARING: 602-499-9594
trentchristopher@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

Multiple unresolved concerns regarding the complexity of the location that have yet to be
addressed in the applicant’s narrative nor in the site plan, which the City Planning Department
has referred to multiple times as unreliable itself (site plan reference). Ninety-five percent (95%)
of neighbors, represents 135+ adjacent and contiguous acres do not agree with the proposed
land use as currently stated.

RECEIVED BY: Michael Pierce RECEIVED ON: 4/7/2021

Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Stephanie Vasquez
Leah Swanton
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Ra’Desha Williams
Village Planner
Samantha Keating
Paul M. Li
GIS
Applicant

Page 1016
Page 1017
Attachment F

Page 1018
From: Corey Caulkins
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC Meeting - Agenda Item #9 Written Comment
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:52:03 PM

Hello,

I am unable to attend the planning meeting today to make a public comment, but I submit to you the below written comment.

I would like to advocate on behalf of Agenda Item #9 - 40th St. & Southern Ave Project (GPA-SM-1-20-8). Though Black
folks only constitute 5% of Arizona residents, they constitute 18% of people in jail and 14% of people of prison. This
disproportionate impact is a result of a legacy of racism and white supremacy, and it contributes to a cycle of housing violence
where formerly incarcerate Black community members are excluded from stable housing.

As both a resident of the City of Phoenix and member of Sunrise Movement Phoenix, I know that affordable, stable
housing is a basic human right and that until all of my neighbors in this city have access to it, we are failing as a
community.

The only way to break cycles of housing violence is for developers to follow the leadership of directly impacted people,
because those closest to the problem are closest to the solution. I support this project, and hope to see more examples of
developers listening to those most marginalized.

Thank you for your time,
Corey Caulkins
Phoenix, AZ 85015

Page 1019
Attachment G

From: Trent Marchuk
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 1:27:33 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1020
From: alain brunet
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:35:08 AM

Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8).
Been resident of this "gem" for 33 years it will be damaging to change the rural character of South
Phoenix to a “city dortoir “
for the profit of fews that don’t even live here.
Thanks,
Alain Brunet

Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10

Page 1021
From: FABIOLA MARQUEZ
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 3 PCC;
Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC;
PDD South Mountain VPC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2021 4:50:01 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned of a proposed development
project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this
proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent
land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our
historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made
through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Alonso and Fabiola Marquez
6409 S. 39th Pl.
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10

Page 1022
From: Bernadette Miranda
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St& Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 3:58:09 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal. Thank you for your help.

Kind regards,

Sent from my mobile phone.

Angel and Bernadette Miranda
4536 E Saint Catherine Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602 721-0525

Page 1023
From: Bernadette Miranda
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Project on 40th Street/Southern
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:30:33 AM

Good morning Enrique,

We would like to formally request that we please be registered as opposing to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8
(Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your help!

Sent from my mobile phone

Kind regards,

Angel and Bernadette Miranda
4536 E Saint Catherine Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042
602 721-0525

Page 1024
From: April Hodges
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: April Hodges
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:45:23 AM

2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting

Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8). Thank you!

April Hodges
General Nursery Manager

3815 E. Southern Avenue Phoenix, AZ, 85040
P 602.437.5194 F 602.437.4719
Arid Solutions Nursery [aridsolutionsnursery.com]

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) addressed in the message. If you are not
the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, or copy this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that disclosing, distributing, or copying this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

Page 1025
Page 1026
From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Trent Marchuk
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD
Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:04:40 PM
Attachments: image001.png

Good evening Enrique:

I am glad to have heard the "Continuance"; however, I have to get ready for work and miss
this golden opportunity to speak - and please know that your accommodation meant a lot to
me and the community. Is it possible to share this with Madam chair and all respected
members:

1. "Inclusiveness, Engagement and Mutually Accepted Development Plan" as our concerns and
existence was salvaged until the 11th hour.

2.I will echo from my letter on May 2nd, 2019 - that we all deserve "accurate and verifiable
data" in addressing petition signature and percentage reported for or against for future plan -
if the landowner still request variance.

Again, I will echo from my letter on September 8th, 2020

"We have to be keen about our interest to have honest and transparent path from the
grassroots - which means the community at the Heard Ranch should be the focal and initial
point of this journey; it should be a joint venture to make South Phoenix a vibrant
community in an effort to bring about positive change that will benefit every stakeholder."

Again, I will recite my letter on February 8th, 2021

"I don't know anyone in this neighborhood who wants this land to be empty but it should
never be a one-way project by ignoring the existence of others. .......The pandemic should
NOT be used to expedite this tedious and cumbersome process by ignoring the core
principle - the incorporation of genuine engagement of all stakeholders."....Wd do matter.
"

Madam chair and members of this community, we appreciate your guidance and compassion
on it as we matter in the process and our existence in this matter.

Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

Page 1027
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:16 PM
To: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Subject: RE: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good afternoon Bereket,

Thank you for your additional comments in regards to these two cases. I will add it to the case file
and will share it with the public bodies that will hear these cases over the next few months.

Thank you again,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
you.***

From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 1:01 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good afternoon Enrique:

It is very kind and I do appreciate your unwavering transparency in this process. Would you
register my opposition along with the attached letter?

Have a good day and be safe!

Page 1028
Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:43 PM
To: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Subject: RE: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good afternoon Bereket,

How are you? All is well with me (thank you for asking ). Yes, I have now registered you to speak on
these two cases to be heard tomorrow, February 9th by the South Mountain VPC. The meeting starts
at 6pm, but since we have many agenda items before these two cases it is difficult to know the time
at which this case will be presented.
However, I am going to add your name towards the top of the speaker list due to your conflict with
work so that we can hopefully get to hear your comments before work.

Please let me know if questions arise.

Thank you,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
you.***

Page 1029
From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 9:06 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Neighbor - Trent Marchuk
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good morning Enrique:

How have you been? May I ask to have time allocated to speak in the upcoming agenda item
regarding Z-35-20-8 Re-zoning?

I do hope that our agenda item will be early as I have to be at work at 9 pm.

Have a good day and be safe!

Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

On Nov 12, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola gaxiola@phoenix.gov> wrote:

Thank you Bereket! I appreciate the feedback on the process. We will continue with
our communication and making sure everyone who wants to comment gets to do so.

Let me know if questions arise.

Regards,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails
multiple times per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a
more timely response. Thank you.***

Page 1030
From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:48 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good evening Enrique:

Thank you for the reply and I was able to attend the meeting. Please know that I -
along my family, appreciate your presence and transparent communication and
your hard work.

Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 5:30 PM
To: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Cc: Trent Marchuk
Subject: RE: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Good morning Bereket,

How are you? All is well with me (enjoying the weather these past few days). I have
registered you as a speaker for tonight’s meeting, noting that you are donating your
time to Mr. Marchuk.

At the meeting, the VPC Chair will allocate a certain amount of time to Mr. Marchuk
given that we have multiple speakers (approx. 8) who donated time to him.

Let me know if questions arise!

Thank you,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

Page 1031
***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails
multiple times per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a
more timely response. Thank you.***

From: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher
Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 5:18 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Trent Marchuk
Subject: Re: Case File: Z-35-20-8 SANCTUARY AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN PUD

Hello Enrique:

How have you been? I do oppose the project on 40th Street and Southern and
will attend the meeting. While I attend the meeting, I would like to provide my
time for Trent to speak on my behalf.

Thank you and be safe!

Sincerely,

Bereket Gebre-Egziabher

Page 1032
From: Beth
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: PDD South Mountain VPC
Subject: Z-35-29-8 & GPA-1-20-8
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:11:29 AM

We are opposed to the above project
We have lived in the Heard Ranch for 38 yrs
This part of South Mountain Village is so special
Tree lined streets, multi purpose trails
Wonderful history of flower gardens, nurseries
Family farms
Along with the South Mountain village planning committee we have been able to preserve the rural feel in this area
This project. “apartments” will have a density that
Is overwhelming!! This property was zoned for 1/2acre lots to complement the surrounding neighbors I feel this
would be the best use of the land
The intersection at 40th & Southern is already proven to be a deadly one adding apartments
Would increase the traffic and be very unsafe
Please consider our South Mountain Heritage
Thank you for your time
Beth Holmes & Bill Ramsey
Sent from my iPhone

Page 1033
From: Beth
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th St & Southern Z-35-20-8 & GPA SM-1-20-8
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 5:05:04 PM

We are Very opposed to the development being proposed for the SW corner of 40th St & Southern
Beth Holmes
Bill Ramsey
6601 S 38th St
Phoenix, Az 85042

Sent from my iPhone

Page 1034
From: Beth Postma
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:35:15 AM
Attachments: image001.png

Dear Enrique, I am a business owner in the neighborhood of this zoning case. I am a wholesale plant
nursery at 6623 S. 32nd Street. I signed the petition against this development and I wish to verify
this now in this email. Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8
(Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Thank you,

Beth Postma
(602) 509-7242
www.allseasongrowers.com [allseasongrowers.com]

Page 1035
From: Beth
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2-35-20-8 & GPA -1-20-8
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:41:19 AM

I oppose this project located 40th St and Southern

Sent from my iPhone

Page 1036
From: Bill Glover
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; Council District 1
PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6
PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola;
somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Cc: somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: "40th St. and Southern Ave. Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8"
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 2:10:13 PM

Hello,

My name is Bill Glover. My wife Mary and I are the founders of the Awakening Seed
School. I am writing to share my current opposition to the proposed development on the
Southwest corner of 40th St and Southern Ave. The Applicant has wholly ignored our voter
approved General Plan Land Use of maximum 2 homes per acre as well as the pleas to
respect it by the neighbors and citizens who voted for it in many years ago. However, I am
hopeful that the Applicant may change their approach and work with the neighbors to
resolve our unresolved concerns. Please add this to the official case file for Z-35-20-8 and
GPA-SM-1-20-8.

As shown through the below image, Awakening Seed is within 700 feet directly south of the
proposed development. Historically, the land west of 40th St and south of Southern Ave
has been the agricultural heart of South Phoenix. To the east of 40th St is where the
agricultural support buildings were built and so has a very different history and character
relative to the west side of 40th St. This can be observed even today through a quick
glance at the attached aerial image.

Awakening Seed is an innovative, compassionate learning community that inspires global
citizens by fostering curiosity, celebrating uniqueness, and promoting social justice. A
central tenet of Awakening Seed is for children to be stimulated academically while
simultaneously having daily opportunities to interact with the natural world through
imaginative play and gardening.

We searched long and hard for the perfect location to complement our philosophy. We
found this perfect location adjacent to what is known as the Mixed Use Agriculture (MUA)
District within the larger Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD) of South Phoenix. We
collaborated with the neighbors, we built, and now we successfully operate our school to fit
right in with the community ethos. We are a model example that collaboration with the
neighbors during planning and development can, in reality, foster long-term success.

Unfortunately, through this single General Plan Amendment and Zoning Application
covering roughly just 685,000 sq feet, the entire planning for our broader community across
16,000,000+ sq ft will be imperiled. (According to the county assessor's website.) With
The Arbors (already exceeding 50% of the density envisioned for the MUA District) to the
west and this project exceeding the envisioned density by 460% to the east, the remnant
farmland in between will have precedent to redevelop as high density housing with no
accompanying plan to address much needed infrastructure and services nor input from the
community. Where irrigation now flows across fertile soil, this project would yield a food
desert.

The current General Plan artfully balances the need for development growth with our
community's assets to foster the unique character unlike any neighborhood in Phoenix.

Page 1037
And that is what is at stake here.

This is simply the wrong process for such a significant change to the General Plan,
especially the destroying of our neighborhood's character and heritage through the
precedent caused by rezoning roughly just seventeen gross acres through this proposal.

High density housing itself is not bad. But, what becomes of the Character of our District if
it is no longer paying homage to the agrarian heritage of South Phoenix? Our roads and
infrastructure in South Phoenix are already overburdened. If this is approved and built
without due consideration for the residents of South Phoenix, it is us same residents
(including many families of my students) who will be left paying to fix what should never
have been broken by this proposal.

Awakening Seed was built trusting in the longstanding planning documents that have
guided this community for decades. And we have been extremely successful in following
these documents; we have consistently had waiting lists for enrollment.

What this community needs is more schools. We also need more services, especially
healthy eating options and more medical providers. We recognize there is a need for
rooftops and are open to creative solutions. Unfortunately, the Applicant has repeatedly
spurned the neighbors and refuses to incorporate any of our meaningful feedback.

In the spirit of a constructive approach, I ask that the Applicant be given yet another chance
to work with the neighbors and incorporate their feedback in a meaningful way. There is a
precedent set by the City Planning Department with Gardener's Enclave, considered a
model residential PUD in the MUA.

Although I don't mind speaking for myself, I am pleased with the representation given by
my concerned neighbors at somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org] and support
their approach.

Thank you,
Bill Glover
Awakening Seed School
6630 S. 40th St., Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1038
From: BILL GLOVER
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 3:50:09 PM

Total opposition to #8 GPA-SM-1-20-8

Sent from my iPhone
Bill Glover

Page 1039
From: Bill Glover
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th & Southern
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 12:15:59 PM

This project belongs elsewhere. Please don’t wreck the last Phoenix neighborhood that is of a rural nature.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 1040
From: Bill Randall
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Land use proposal at 40thSt. & Southern
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:33:29 AM

Please add me to your list of concerned for this proposal.

Bill Randall 3452 E. Vineyard Rd 602-350-2999

Page 1041
From: Blake Peterson
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:47:51 PM

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Thanks, Blake

Blake Peterson, CPA
6197 South Rural Suite 102-14
Tempe, Arizona 85283
Phone: 480-829-0509
Fax: 480-829-0055
blakepeterson@cox.net
blakepetersoncpa.com

From: Trent Marchuk [mailto:trentchristopher@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 1:48 PM
To: Trent Marchuk
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and
GPA-1-20-8)

Hi Neighbors,

If you feel passionate about what you read below in the email below, please forward
this entire email string to the City officials listed below and add your own thoughts in
opposition to the project.

Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email,
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this project,
4. Sign with your name and mailing address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!
mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov,
council.district.2@phoenix.gov, council.district.3@phoenix.gov,

Page 1042
council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov,
council.district.8@phoenix.gov, SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov, enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov, somosbuildbam@gmail.com

We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard. The Applicant
has used COVID-19 to silence the neighbors in an attempt to push through an
inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the attending consequences to the
residents of South Phoenix.

We challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South Mountain
Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and Salt River to South Mountain) to do the
same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.

Your sending an email to our elected representatives at this time is absolutely critical.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council District 6 PCC
, , Council District 8 PCC
, , Enrique Bojorquez

, Somos BuildBam

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be

Page 1043
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1044
From: Catherine Pliess
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Register your opposition to the project at 40th & Southern (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 12:31:39 PM

Hi,

I would like to formally register my opposition to the project at 40th & Southern (Z-35-20-8
and GPA-SM-1-20-8. This project is NOT in keeping with the land use as outlined in the
Baseline MasterPlan. Personally, I bought in the South Mountain area for the rural and
relatively agricultural flavor of the area. For being such a short drive to the downtown, South
Mountain offers a connection to the past history of rural Phoenix. This proposed high density
rental project will not support this important attribute of Phoenix.

South Phoenix is in many ways a vulnerable area as it currently is made up of many rental and
high density areas. Those in rental developments are not property tax payers and often do not
have care or long term thoughts on the area and how projects like this negatively affect tax
paying homeowners. This project is also a detriment to the heavy traffic already a problem in
the area. Baseline Road on a weekday between 1pm and 7pm is often bumper to bumper even
in this lower traffic pandemic times, this proposed project that does not conform to the city
plan will only make this phenomenon worse. Please respect the Master plan and the property
taxpayers of this area. Do not support or approve this plan.
--
Cathie Pliess
480.824.8951

cpliess@gmail.com

Page 1045
From: Curt Gentry
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:40:41 PM

Hi Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Thank you!

Curt Gentry
6415 S 37th St
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1046
From: Curt Gentry
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th & Southern Project Opposition
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:12:44 AM

Good morning Enrique,

Again, please register my opposition to the project at 40th & Southern. (GPA-SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8)

Thank you for your service to our community.

Blessings!
Curt Gentry
6415 S 37th St
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1047
From: D in AZ
To: DM
Subject: Oppose Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8!
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:04:11 PM

To those who really care about Laveen, I urge you to oppose this proposed development project at 40th
St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).

The community should have a say in what comes in around our homes. There is way too much high
density zoning going on and it needs to stop! Our leaders need to represent the people that live here and
not the bottom dollar. Laveen is no longer what it used to be and high density coming in everywhere we
turn is not what we want.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Darcy Meyer
3535 W Bohl St
Laveen, AZ 85339

Page 1048
From: D in AZ
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 6:39:13 PM

Hello, I'd like to register my opposition for GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8 and would like to
yield my time to Patty McKinstry.

Darcy Meyer
3535 W Bohl St, Laveen Village, AZ 85339
480-332-4120

Page 1049
From: David Grimmer
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Please Help: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:54:43 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
David Grimmer
2631 E Jones Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85040

Page 1050
From: Ol" West
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 9:04:37 PM

Hi, I'd like to register my opposition for GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
and would like to yield my time to Patty McKinstry.

David Meyer
3535 W Bohl St, Laveen Village, AZ 85339
480-332-4120

Page 1051
From: Deirdre Irvine
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th St & Southern property
Date: Friday, March 5, 2021 5:46:41 PM

RE:
GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8.
I would like to voice my opposition to this development. The density is too great. The concept does not fit with the
area. This will lead to more appeals to change the zoning down Southern leaving our area forever changed and
hemmed in.

We have lived here since 1976. We have lost many things that made it unique. Please let us keep our neighborhood
as it is now. This proposal will destroy any privacy. These neighbors will start complaining about the noise of our
animals, the smell & more. This project is NOT capable with the Heard Ranch that we have enjoyed for so many
years and hope to leave to our children & grandkids!

Please forward this to the Planning Committee. I would like to let Patty McKinstry for us at the March 9,2021 at the
SMVP meeting.

Deirdre & Randy Irvine
3802 East Saint Catherine
Phoenix AZ 85042
(602) 437-2688
Sent from my iPhone

Page 1052
From: Evelio Ayala
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:28:05 AM

2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion
Case Z-35-20-8). Thank you!

Evelio

Page 1053
From: george n bingham II
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: OPPOSITION TO 40TH ST & SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:42:07 AM

Hi Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Thank you!

George N. Bingham II

Page 1054
From: Greg Brownell
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: 40th Street and Southern Avenue
Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 12:25:25 AM

To whom it may concerns in regard to he parcel under consideration at 40th Street and Southern
(GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8) by the South Mountain Planning Commission.
One of the first things you consider in planning (amateur or professional) is that place matters. Here
is a little perspective on what this means if you are a Realtor: from the National Association of
Realtors Preamble to their Code of Ethics:
“Under all is the land. Upon its wise utilization and widely allocated ownership depend the survival
and growth of free institutions and of our civilization. … the creation of adequate housing, the
building of functioning cities, the development of productive industries and farms, and the
preservation of a healthful environment.”
Also, from the current General Plan:
“How is this Plan Different? One of the goals from the very beginning of the PlanPHX Project was to
develop a General Plan that was much more user friendly.
A city’s natural and built environments are its primary building blocks.
This continued growth, in a still maturing urban landscape, provides Phoenix residents a tremendous
opportunity to shape the future of their city like no other place in the world. The General Plan
provides a powerful medium for residents to strategize on how the city will grow. Through this
General Plan, Phoenix can continue to shape How the natural and built environments take shape for
a city are of the utmost importance in determining a city’s quality of life.
Going beyond the need to create a document that residents and developers were more likely to use,
was the importance of telling the story of what Phoenix wants to be and outlining how it can get
there as a city. That’s why this updated General Plan is aimed at being a visionary, concise and
strategic document.
A city’s landscape has a tremendous impact on how it is defined and ultimately what makes it a place
people want to call home, visit or conduct business. How the natural and built environments take
shape for a city are of the utmost importance in determining a city’s quality of life.”
As anyone can see, place and history are very important to how we conduct ourselves and how we
grow our community. Our physical world, both natural and manmade are vital to the successful
growth and well being of our community.

The parcel under consideration at 40th Street and Southern (GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8) has a very long history. Of course, it has been agricultural for at least a few thousand years,
most likely it was originally farmed by the Hohokam. Their land was not threatened by sharp
attorney’s and greedy landowners. In fact, we don’t know what happened to them.
But, in the long chain of ownership from Mesquite Bosque, to native hand dug canals, to Hohokam
cultivation, to Michael Wormser’s land swindles and up to the moment the Bartlett-Heard Land and
Cattle Company decided they could exploit the ancient canals and modern irrigation to make more
money selling land than growing anything on it, it should be clear this parcel has history.
In recent times, this land was all citrus. It was owned and farmed by John Oertle, Sr. While he owned
it, many things were happening around his property. The Heard Ranch development of single family
ranchettes was built to the west. These were homes designed for horses, gardens and other
agricultural activities. Like Mr. Oertle’s property they were pleased with SRP flood irrigation. Mr.
Oertle and the Heard Ranch community were all part of a larger farm district which included, the
flower farms along Baseline road, cotton fields and tree nurseries.

At that time, new housing development was limited in that area. But, east of 40th Street was
th

Page 1055
rezoned to take advantage of the Tempe School borders (40 Street on the west, Baseline Rd. on
the South and Broadway Rd. on the north.) Conveniently, this allowed developers who were
concerned by the Roosevelt School System and the kids that went, to put their collective minds and
prejudices to rest and start making money. The agriculture that existed at the time disappeared.
To the north of Mr. Oertle’s farm, Southern Avenue created another man-made barrier. Even though
this area was primarily agriculture for decades, planners had decided this area would be destined to
become commercial and higher density housing. And still Mr. Oertle’s orchard endured.
There were other stirrings coming from the planning and development community at that time. One
result of those “stirrings” was the Raven Golf Course. Another was the Baseline Corridor Mater Plan.
For the first time there was real development pressure being put on one of the most unique areas in
Metro Phoenix – South Phoenix’s unique Farm District. Fortunately, Mr Oertle would not see the
impending battles that would be fought to maintain his Farm District. He passed in the 1980’s
leaving his orchard to his children, John Jr., Kent, Lisa Kay and Beth.
One of the important parts of this story is to remember that the current owners did not purchase
this property: they inherited it. Obviously, the four of them couldn’t figure out a way to keep it as a
farm and they were asking too high a price for the land to make it viable for any farmer to purchase
it. Apparently, they were more interested in squeezing money out of the property rather than
orange juice. This is understandable; not everyone wants to be a farmer, but at this point they had
alternatives. Remember, they were given the land. They could have sold at the market rate for raw
land. They could have given it away. The point is they have been trying to add value to the land at
the expense of its agricultural history.
By the time the Oertle family presented their first plan to add value to their inheritance, the Base
Line Corridor Master Plan had been finished. It extended in its impact from the Mountain to
Southern Ave, the northern border of the Oertle property. They wanted to change the zoning on
part of the property to commercial from agricultural. Walgreens wanted to build a pharmacy there,
so they presented the SMVPC of that time with that proposal. At that time the committee was
working on a special zoning called MUA. But that work was not completed, but there was a strong
feeling on the committee that there should not be high density commercial at that site. A “Tuesday
Night” deal was struck: the Oertle’s would be given the commercial zoning on the north end of the
property (along Southern Avenue), if the south end of the property was left for low density housing.
Renderings of a wonderful commercial hub was presented to the committee. There would be shops
and retail all anchored by the Walgreens. It was to be built in two phases with the Walgreens
completed fist. They even agreed to maintain the citrus until Phase II was started.
The committee agreed and the Heard Neighborhood reluctantly accepted that compromise.
Just like in the days of Wormser many people feel this was just a sham to get the Walgreens built. No
commercial development ever appeared, and the citrus was not maintained. But the Oertles and
their attorneys got their money.
A few attempts were made to rent the property to urban farmers, but they all failed to meet the
economic needs of the Oertles to farm the property.
The Oertles were unable to exploit the zoning change given to them by the SMVPC. Without
discussing the difficulty of dealing with 4 property owners, let’s just say, they could not procure a
developer.
So, they have repeatedly come back to the Committee and the neighborhood with new plans and
ideas. One of the more recent was to develop the remaining property into a commercial park. The
neighborhood negotiated in good faith and the SMVPC showed support with some modifications.
Again, all that effort just evaporated. Again, it was hard for all the Oertles to agree on what was best
for them and this is without adding the burden of considering what would be best for the
neighborhood and the Village.
That brings us to now.
The neighborhood has opposed this property being single family rentals from the very first time it
was proposed and every time after that. The SMVPC has shown its opposition repeatedly. But here
we are again with another high-powered attorney and a complete disregard for this property’s
history, the traditions of the neighborhood and wishes of the Village. That alone should be enough

Page 1056
to dismiss this project outright. The General Plan of Phoenix passed by more than 70% approval by
the City’s voters because the City promised that within its many pages existed protection for
traditional historic neighborhoods from greedy land owners, relentless developers and high-
powered attorneys that have complete access to the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Let’s hope that our current General Plan is more than just fantasy and a way to get votes.
Also, this product they are proposing is at best experimental. We have approved a similar
community closer to Central that is in an area that already has existing multifamily homes and was
unopposed by the existing neighborhoods. This product might fill a needed housing niche but as
expressed in a recent Business Journal article South Phoenix seems to be a target for this kind of
development. The primary reason for this seems to be land that is still relatively cheep in this part of
town.
What is wrong with this product: it combines the lack of efficiency and sustainability of the single-
family home with the lack of equity creation by its occupant. In other words, the landlord gets the
increase in property value while the tenant gets all or most of inconveniences of homeownership
with none of the benefits. This is not a type of development that promotes racial and ethnic equity
and equality. If we are going to let developers exploit our lower land values let them build for
sustainability (apartments and high density construction) or let them build something market rate
but affordable so that our community members can share in the future increase in land values.
This land has already been rezoned. Let the landowners do what they can, with what they have,
where they are.
I am in opposition to any zoning change on this property.
Greg Brownell 602-290-3300

Page 1057
From: JEAN HOGG
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Proposal for 40th St and Southern, vote 9 Mar.
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 2:37:46 PM

Sir:

Once again I would like to voice my opposition to this plan as it now
stands, and I yield my speaking time to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you for listening and I hope you will give the concerns of the
neighborhood full consideration.

Jean Hogg

6235 S 37 St, 85042

Page 1058
From: Jennifer Kinerk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:49:14 AM

Hi Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8). Thank you!

KIndly,
Jennifer and Kevin Kinerk

Page 1059
From: Jennyfer Stratman
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
somosbuildbam@gmail.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 11:13:35 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. I am very concerned by the proposed development
project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this
proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Jennyfer Stratman
3502 E. Vineyard Rd
Phoenix AZ 85042

Page 1060
From: Jennyfer Stratman
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Sunday, February 7, 2021 11:08:28 PM

Hi Enrique,
Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

Thank you,

Jennyfer Stratman

Page 1061
From: Joel & Donna Young
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/2021 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:29:07 AM

We strongly oppose Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8 zoning cases for 40th and Southern Ave.

We have lived in the area over 30 years and I sat on the SMVPC in the early 90’s. The community has worked

hard to maintain The Baseline Area Master Plan and Mixed use Agriculture to keep undesirable development

( complying ) taking over with complete disregard of the neighborhoods.

Please deny

Joel and Donna Young

Page 1062
From: Joel & Donna Young
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: GPA SM 1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:05:30 PM

Please be advised we are apposed to the above referenced zoning cases. This is in no way compatible with the
Baseline Master Plan. 40th Street
and Southern is already a very busy intersection and high accident rate. This development density is too high and
will increase these problems.

It is a shame the developers are not willing to work with the neighbors and coincide with the lifestyle of the area
and stay within the Baseline
Master plan.

We are unable to speak at the meeting and yield our time to Patty McKinstry.

Joel and Donna Young

Page 1063
From: Jon Allen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8)
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2021 8:47:31 AM

As a resident of South Phoenix I strongly oppose the plans for this project as presented.

1. It does not meet the criteria of the master plan for the area.
2. Each "new" proposal from the developer does nothing to address any of the objections
raised by local residents.

Regards,

Jon Allen

Page 1064
From: Challoner, John
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:24:14 AM

Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8). Thank you!

Thanks,
John Challoner
6201 South 37th Street.
Phoenix, AZ 85042.

Page 1065
From: jolyn owen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 40th street and southern zoning change
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:39:07 AM

Please note that my husband and I are against this zoning change. We were promised a
different use when Walgreens went in. Time doesn’t change this. I would like to yield my
speaking time to patty Mckinstrey
Jolyn Owen
5624 s 27th place
Sent from the all new Aol app for iOS [apps.apple.com]

Page 1066
From: Karen and Sue
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 10:25:14 AM

Good morning Enrique,
My name is Karen Mischlispy and I am opposition to the purposed project at 40th Street and Southern
Ave. I wish to pass my time to speak to Trent Marchuk my neighbor. Also please send the link for me to
attend the meeting.
Hope you and your family are doing well.
Thanks,
Karen Mischlispy

Page 1067
From: Karen and Sue
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: cases GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 1:19:53 PM

Good afternoon Enrique hope you and your family are doing well.
I would like to attend the virtual meeting with the South Mountain Village Planning committee meeting on
Tuesday, March 9th. Also I want to speak but please pass my speaking time Patty McKinstry.

Please enter this response into the record.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee Case Number:
GPA-SM-1-20-8 & companion Case Z-35-20-8.
Re: The “Sanctuary At South Mountain” purposed development at the Southwest corner of Southern
Avenue and 40th Street.
Submitted by Karen Mischlispy Home Address: 3818 E. St. Catherine Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85042

I am opposed to the "Sanctuary At South Mountain" development because: a.) it does not meet the
Baseline Master Plan, b.) the density for this development is to high for this area, c.) impact to future
development along Southern Avenue from 40th Street to 24th Street, d.) high density development
creates issues with traffic, parking for staff, visitors, and guests, and e.) the continued pressure to change
and or modify the Zoning and General Plan Amendment is not appropriate for this area. This type of
development would be better located closer to Central Avenue to allow access to the light rail. I
am concerned with the developer's fast-tracking effort to send this negative development through the city
process during a pandemic. This is vital to my future neighborhood and community. The Baseline Master
Plan identified the need to retain the historical significance for future development.

I have lived and worked in the area most of my life. I have seen many changes some good and some not
so good. I want the corner of 40th Street and Southern Avenue to be development appropriately to the
area.

Thank you,
Karen Mischlispy
home phone: 602 438-2928

Page 1068
From: Kaylee Colter
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 12:08:40 PM

As a neighbor who will be impacted by the proposal for rezoning at 40th Street and Southern
Ave, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposal as it has been submitted. The owners
of this property are requesting a change in zoning and because they are asking to make a
change to our community I believe that they should make a good faith effort to maintain the
character intended by the zoning regulations. This proposal does not do this. Not only is the
density too high to be appropriate, they have made very little effort to mitigate the high
density by doing things such as providing more open space, increasing landscape buffers or
integrating the community wide bridle trail. We have spoken with the owners and intended
developers about these items and while they say they will make changes, those changes never
end up in the proposals. I therefore have difficulty trusting that they have a vested interest in
the community. I urge you to hold firm to the special requirements outlined by the
Agricultural overlay. Once the property is developed there is no going back. Thank you for
your time and effort.

Kaylee Colter
3939 E. Saint Catherine Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Begin forwarded message:

From: Trent Marchuk
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St &
Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: February 3, 2021 at 1:48:07 PM MST
To: Trent Marchuk

mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov, council.district.2@phoenix.gov,
council.district.3@phoenix.gov, council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov, council.district.8@phoenix.gov,
SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov, enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov,
somosbuildbam@gmail.com

Page 1069
From: Keena Ortega
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SOMO BUILDINGBAM
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 3:45:05 PM

I, Keena Armijo, want it to be note and or stated that I am opposed to GPA SM-1-20-8 Z-35-
20-8 and yield my time to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you.

Page 1070
From: Kent June
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 7:51:54 PM

Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion
Case Z-35-20-8).

The Planning Department and communities spend a lot of time and energy developing plans
that reflect what communities see their future neighbourhoods and living environments
providing for their families and support businesses. Granted, plans by nature are meant to be
an outline of these visions and will always be subject to change as the world changes around
us; however, this proposed development totally ignores the vision that was developed for this
unique area in South Mountain. The owners of this property from the beginning and
continuing with their different development iterations have ignored this plan and the folks
living in the immediate area while promoting plans that would maximize their ROI. The South
Mountain Village Planning Committee told this group numerous times that this plan is not
right for this parcel of land. This plan needs to be rejected to send a message to the owners to
come up with a plan that reflects the plan for the area while supporting the needs of the area.

Sincerely,

Kent June
3602 E Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1071
From: Lisa and Jeff Blankenship
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; council.district.3@phoenix.gon; Council District 4;
Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain
VPC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: *Needing your help opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 & GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Sunday, February 21, 2021 2:10:49 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. I am very concerned - even scared - because of a proposed development
project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open public discussion
about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre rezoning application set
a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in
active discussion? If it can happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to
happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am supportive of having
those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made through precedent created by a single 17
acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Lisa Blankenship
5628 W Euclid Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339

Page 1072
From: Lori Gardner
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 2:30:17 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Lori Gardner
6445 S. 32nd St
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1073
To: Cynthia Gosa-Lazaro
Subject: Fwd: Needing your help opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tatiana Peña Marchuk
Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:00 PM
Subject: Fwd: Needing your help opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To:

Trent and I have been working on a rezoning issue in South Phoenix. We have been working to help Carlos and the rest
of City Council be more supportive to halt some high density housing pushes. Trent had started working more in this last
summer and has done a great amount to influence the rezoning. We also have enlisted our entire neighborhood.
Now we are asking for your help to support our efforts by emailing City Council officials.
We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard. The Applicant has used COVID-19 to silence the
neighbors in an attempt to push through an inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the attending consequences to the
residents of South Phoenix.

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because of a proposed development
project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades- old planning without open public discussion about the
unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering
precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If
it can happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am supportive of having those
conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made through precedent created by a single 17 acre
rezoning application.

Lottie V. Lecian
1847 E. Atlanta Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85040

e challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South Mountain Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and
Salt River to South Mountain) to do the same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.
Below, we have provided the email to send and the directions. Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email, (The title is needed to help this email be more effective).
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this project,
4. Sign with your name and physical address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!

3731 E Saint Anne Ave [google.com]
Phoenix, AZ 85042 [google.com]

--
Thank you,

Page 1074
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

From: llecian@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:15 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: My concern is that we don't need high density buildings in this neighborhood. It is like living in
housing projects of the past.

Yes I am concerned about the property on 40th Street in South Phoenix.
Lottie Lecian

-----Original Message-----
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
To: llecian@aol.com
Sent: Tue, Feb 16, 2021 9:06 am
Subject: RE: My concern is that we don't need high density buildings in this neighborhood. It is like living in housing
projects of the past.

Good morning,

How are you? Is your email below related to a zoning case in particular? (So that we can add it to the case file)

Thank you,

Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times per
day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***

From: llecian@aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 6:20 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: My concern is that we don't need high density buildings in this neighborhood. It is like living in housing projects
of the past.

Page 1075
From: Lu Ann Winters
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Meeting regarding South Mountain Area
Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 11:33:04 PM

Enrique,

I will not be able to attend the following meeting on Tuesday, February 9th at 6 p.m.,
but would like to give my input as a resident in the South Mountain area of Phoenix.

The proposal at 40th St & Southern. Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-
35-20-8)"

I am very much concerned about this proposal as it would add more high-density
housing to an area that is already over populated. The traffic in this area just gets
busier and busier and with more housing it will only get worse. Our streets are not
built for this capacity of traffic.

The following are reasons this project would not be good for our community:

This proposal will destroy the official planning between 24th St and 40th St
between Southern Ave and Vineyard
This area is known as the Mixed Use Agriculture (MUA) District and is planned
for low density housing, among many other requirements.
The MUA contains 16+ million sq ft of remnant farmland bookended by this
project's site to the east and the Arbors to the west.
This proposal will destroy the MUA by setting a precedent of high density
residential at both ends of the MUA district (24th St and 40th St)..
The MUA is within the Baseline Area, which is boxed between Central and 40th
St and Southern and the Preserve
With the MUA destroyed, the Certainty and Character of the Baseline Area
(which is stated as an integral part of the General Plan) will be gutted
Being that the Baseline Area is the largest district in our Village, the South
Mountain Village will also be gutted.
This proposal has far reaching negative consequences to shaping the future of
South Phoenix.
High density housing is not itself bad. Developing high-density housing without
the attending infrastructure and services is short-sighted and bad for the
community.
South Phoenix already lacks the commensurate infrastructure and services to
support such extreme, one-off deviation from the General Plan.
Safety is inextricably linked to proper infrastructure development.
If the attending costs of these liabilities were actually included in the developer's
plan, the project would not be profitable.
The only way for this project to be profitable - and for people outside of South
Phoenix to make lots of money - is to shift those costs to the people of South
Phoenix.

Page 1076
Thank you for taking into consideration these reasons against this project.

Sincerely,

Lu Ann Winters
3434 East Baseline Road, #323
Phoenix, AZ 85042
310-614-4606

Page 1077
From: Lu Ann Winters
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC;
Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com; Mayor Gallego
Subject: Fw: Please Help: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:27:09 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because of a
proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to
oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open public
discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre
rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first
engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our historic community, where
else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am supportive of
having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made through precedent
created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

I am also very much concerned about this proposal due to our streets already being overly crowded with
all the recent developments being added.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Lu Ann Winters
3434 East Baseline Road, Unit #323
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1078
From: Lu Ann Winters
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Friday, March 5, 2021 5:23:27 PM

Enrique,

I am writing in opposition to the above proposal to the land on 40th and Southern in
Phoenix, Arizona. I am in opposition because it will create too much density of
population in the area and goes in direct opposition to the master plan for the area.
My greatest concern is how it will affect traffic in the area. We already have
congestion most of the time on Baseline and Southern and this project would only
add to the problem.

I won't be able to attend the meeting, but would like to give the time that would be
allotted to me to speak to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you,

Lu Ann Winters
3434 East Baseline Road, #323
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1079
From: When Jones
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to building plan at Southern and 40th St
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 5:42:07 PM

I am a property owner in Bartlett Heard Ranch. I am opposed to the building plan for the
corner of Southern and 40th St - particularly the current proposed density. I would like to
donate my speaking time at tomorrow’s meeting to Patty McKinstry.
Thank you for your efforts in this matter.
Marianne Walden
602-332-0115
3844 E Vineyard Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1080
From: Marianne Randall
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Oppose project
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 7:51:07 AM

I want to be noted as opposing cases GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8.

Thank you
Marianne Randall

Page 1081
From: Mary Hagerty
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: #9 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8) and #10 Z-35-20-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-1-20-8)
Date: Sunday, March 7, 2021 2:57:02 PM

My name is Mary Hagerty and I live in the South Mountain area. I am against both of these
cases that are on the agenda for the upcoming SMPVC meeting on March 9.

I yield my time to Patty McKinstry.

Mary Hagerty
3241 E Maldonado Dr.
Phoenix, 85042

Page 1082
From: Mary Jene Flores
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Somos buildbam
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 3:39:25 PM

I mary jene Flores, Am stating that I am opposed to GPA Sm-1-20-8 & 2-35-20-8
I yield my time to Patty McKinstry
Thank you,Sincerely
Mary jene Flores

Page 1083
From: Mary-Laura Brooks
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Saturday, February 6, 2021 4:07:10 PM

Dear City Council, Mayor, , Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I have lived in the South Phoenix area for 40 years. I have watched the growth and
development - most positive, but some, such as this plan, leans to the negative. I am familiar
with the South Mountain Village plans for development and question where this plan ( 40th St
& Southern ( Z-35-20-8 & GPA 1-20-8) fits in. We are living in a historically significant area
and that is a reason that most of us choose to continue to reside here. It's different then the
suburbs that surround the Valley of the Sun. Its uniqueness should and must be preserved by
thoughtful discussion based on South Mountain residents community minded input and
decisions. It is not the developers' or land owners or city council role to make absolute
choices about zoning and other developmental concerns . It is the right and role of the
community and tax paying residents to have the majority of say.

Another concerning fact is there has been minimal public communication about this rezoning.
As our community deals with the COVID crisis, it is even more essential that people are made
more aware of any proposed zoning changes. People are focused on their health and welfare so
it is imperative that a greater effort be made to communicate changes . If you say there are
signs posted with zoning info or meetings, please consider that even though people may live
in South Phoenix, they may not pass this particular part of the city on a regular basis. This
proposal is of significant concern to to all South Phoenix residents because it could set a
precedent for future development.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter

Mary-Laura Brooks

2127 E. Fawn Dr. Phoenix 85042

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-
35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date:Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:56:32 -0700
From:Kaylee Colter
To:Richard Brooks , Mary-Laura Brooks

Since you will soon be neighbors too, perhaps you might help us create some opposition if you
have some time?

Page 1084
Begin forwarded message:

From: Trent Marchuk
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St &
Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: February 3, 2021 at 1:48:07 PM MST
To: Trent Marchuk

Hi Neighbors,

If you feel passionate about what you read below in the email below,
please forward this entire email string to the City officials listed below and
add your own thoughts in opposition to the project.

Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email,
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this
project,
4. Sign with your name and mailing address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!

mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov,
council.district.2@phoenix.gov, council.district.3@phoenix.gov,
council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov,
council.district.8@phoenix.gov, SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov,
enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov, somosbuildbam@gmail.com

We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard.
The Applicant has used COVID-19 to silence the neighbors in an attempt
to push through an inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the
attending consequences to the residents of South Phoenix.

We challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South
Mountain Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and Salt River to
South Mountain) to do the same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.

Your sending an email to our elected representatives at this time is
absolutely critical.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM

Page 1085
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-
1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council
District 6 PCC ,
, Council District 8 PCC
, ,
Enrique Bojorquez , Somos BuildBam

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and
Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even
scared - because of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave
(Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning
without open public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure,
health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering
precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first engaging the
broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our historic
community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic
developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in
development, I am supportive of having those conversations as a community.
But, the changes should not be made through precedent created by a single 17
acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1086
From: Mary-Laura Brooks
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Cases GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8 RE: 40th St & Southern
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 5:46:44 PM

Dear Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola

Please add this email in the record as me opposing the the cases GPA
SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8.

My main concerns are density and related traffic issues that will result
from proposed density. I also hope those involved will respect the
uniqueness of South Phoenix and it's agricultural history. Why destroy
what has been so diligently maintained throughout the years. I'd like
future generations to have a glimpse of the past of this great
community rather than all the brick, mortar and pavement that is so
prevalent in today's growth.

Please yield my time to speak to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you

Mary-Laura Brooks

Page 1087
From: When Jones
To: PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4;
Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Enrique A Bojorquez-
Gaxiola; Mayor Gallego; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:20:05 PM

Hello,
My name is Marianne Walden. I’m a homeowner in Bartlett-Heard Ranch. I’d like to state that
I am not in favor of allowing the proposed rental housing development at the corner of
Southern and 40th St. There is presently a lot of traffic congestion at that corner at rush hour
with traffic coming south on 40thSt and traffic trying to turn in and out of Walgreens and the
Shell station on the other corner. Adding the additional amount of vehicles that this
subdivision would bring to this area would create a lot of daily frustration and dangerous
situations for the residents.
I’m requesting that the city not approve this overcrowded development plan, and remain with
a plan that would have either one or two houses per acre.
Thank you for your consideration.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: When Jones
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:55 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-
35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: Zack lindsay

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-
8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: Trent Marchuk

Hi Neighbors,

If you feel passionate about what you read below in the email below, please forward
this entire email string to the City officials listed below and add your own thoughts in
opposition to the project.

Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email,
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this project,
4. Sign with your name and mailing address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!

mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov,

Page 1088
council.district.2@phoenix.gov, council.district.3@phoenix.gov,
council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov,
council.district.8@phoenix.gov, SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov, enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov, somosbuildbam@gmail.com

We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard. The Applicant
has used COVID-19 to silence the neighbors in an attempt to push through an
inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the attending consequences to the
residents of South Phoenix.

We challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South Mountain
Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and Salt River to South Mountain) to do the
same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.

Your sending an email to our elected representatives at this time is absolutely critical.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council District 6 PCC
, , Council District 8 PCC
, , Enrique Bojorquez

, Somos BuildBam

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

Page 1089
If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave [google.com]
Phoenix, AZ 85042 [google.com]

Page 1090
From: M Bontrager
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:11:07 AM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned because of a proposed
development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to
oppose this proposal.
This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion?
If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Sincerely,

Monique Bontrager
6401 S 37th str PHX AZ 85042
602 770 4526

Page 1091
From: M Bontrager
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Opposition to Agenda item #8 for tomorrows Village Planning MTG
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:44:21 AM

Good Morning Enrique,

I’d like to register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8). Happening
02/09/202. I do not need to speak.

Thank you and have a great day

Monique Bontrager

============

Page 1092
From: noblemanor@cox.net
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Date: Friday, March 5, 2021 6:23:59 PM

We, the Noble family, owners of property at 3880 E Vineyard Rd don't wish to speak but
would like it known that we are opposed to the proposal for the land at 40th St and Southern.
We will let Patty speak for us. Thank you.

Page 1093
From: Somos BuildBam
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 8 PCC; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Opposition Petitions (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 12:11:59 PM
Attachments: Opposition Petition to Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8.pdf

Hi Enrique,

Please find attached signatures in opposition to the planned development off of 40th St and
Southern.

Kindly request to add to the case file for Z-35-20-8 & GPA-SM-1-20-8.

94.5% (52 of 55 ) residential parcels to the immediate south of this proposal are in
active opposition to this proposal.
This comprises 80+ acres of adjacent and contiguous land in active opposition
This is over six times (6x) the land area of the proposal, using county assessor
numbers, that is in active opposition.
Another nearby 12 property owners, comprising another ~20 acres, are also in active
opposition

We hope this dispels any prior unsubstantiated misrepresentation counter to the following
points:

1. The vast majority of neighbors are in active opposition to this proposal
2. This proposal will hurt the South Mountain Community
3. Somosbuildbam.org does not represent a "small handful", but have represented the
views of many residents in the presented opposition to-date;

Please note, the above does not include all of the active opposition to this project received to-
date, just a catalog of the immediate neighbors.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk

Page 1094
Page 1095
Page 1096
Page 1097
Page 1098
Page 1099
Page 1100
Page 1101
Page 1102
Page 1103
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 19:11:53 -0700
Subject: 40th st and southern property virtual hearing next week Feb9
hi Enrique - I live in Heard ranch and recently remodeled my home with significant iinvestment. I would like to attend
this meeting as I am concerned about the high density neighborhood being planned even after initial inputs to the
developer on the intent of this neighborhood and better options for this parcel. We suggested win-win options to
current residents and developer and would like to hear what the development team has to say about the inputs.Can u
pls send me the invite to the virtual meeting.
rgds
Raj Chotalla
3840 E Vineyard
Phoenix 85042

Page 1104
From: Regena Gustafson
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8 40th and Southern Project
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 4:19:13 PM

This is to register our opposition to the project Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8 40th and Southern
Project.

While I am unable to attend and speak to this matter directly, I would like to yield my time to Patty
McKinstry.

Thank you for your time. Jeremy and Regena Gustafson

WARNING! WIRE FRAUD ADVISORY
Wire fraud and email hacking/phishing attacks are on the rise! If
you receive an email containing Wire Transfer Instructions, DO NOT
RESPOND TO THE EMAIL! Instead, call your loan officer or closer
immediately, using previously known phone number and NOT any
information provided in the email, to voice verify the information
prior to sending any funds.

Page 1105
Page 1106
Page 1107
From: Robert Underwood
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Trent Marchuk; Patty & Bruce McKinstry
Subject: South Mountain Village Commission meeting 3-9-21
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:02:07 PM

Good afternoon, Enrique I would like to request to speak tomorrow at the South Mountain Village
Planning Commission. I am a long time resident of the Bartlett Heard community and a business
owner that is adjacent to the proposed rezoning case. I am definitely opposed to the rezoning of
40th Street and Southern ( 2-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8) as proposed. I believe we can work with
the developer and owner to come up with an agreeable solution. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully Bob Underwood

robert l. underwood
chief executive officer

AAA LANDSCAPE
3747 E. Southern Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85040
P 602.437.2690 F 602.437.2970
www.aaalandscape.com [aaalandscape.com]

We Beautify the World

Page 1108
From: LYNN NOBLE
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:10:46 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Ronald and Lynn Noble
3880 E Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1109
From: Sandy Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC Meeting February 9, 2021
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 10:37:40 AM

Good morning Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda item#8 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-
8).

I wiill also give my time to speak to Trent Marchuk.

Thank you,

Sandy Bawden

Page 1110
From: Sandy Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC March 9 Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:14:55 AM

Good morning Enrique,

I hope you are doing well. Please register my opposition to Agenda item#9 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

I will also give my time to speak to Patty McKinstry.

Thank you,

Sandy Bawden

Page 1111
From: Sara Dunsford
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Needing your help opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 5:17:19 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned because of a
proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-
20-8). I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning
without open public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure,
health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering
precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first engaging the
broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our historic
community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic
developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in
development, I am supportive of having those conversations as a community. But,
the changes should not be made through precedent created by a single 17 acre
rezoning application.

With concern,

Mrs. Sara T. Dunsford
914 East Beth Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85042

Page 1112
From: Jeff Zink
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposing a project (Z-35-20-8 & GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 12:54:22 PM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because of a
proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you to
oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open public
discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a single 17 acre
rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent land without first
engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our historic community, where
else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am supportive of
having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made through precedent
created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,

Jeff and Stephanie Zink
2115 W. Vineyard Road
Phoenix, AZ 85041

Page 1113
From: Tanis June Earle
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Patty McKinstry
Subject: 3/9/21 SMVPC Meeting GPA SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8
Date: Saturday, March 6, 2021 9:37:46 AM

Good morning Enrique,

My husband and I would like for it to be noted at Tuesday's meeting that we are very much in
opposition to Agenda Item #9 and #10: GPA-SM-1-20-8 and Z-35-20-8.
We yield our time to Patty McKinstry to speak in unified opposition.

We own and live at 3602 E Vineyard Rd Phoenix, AZ 85042
Bartlett Heard Ranch Neighborhood

Thank you,
Tanis and Ambrose Earle
602.469.0617

Page 1114
From: Tanis June Earle
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting GPA-SM-1-20-8/Z-35-20-8
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:56:07 AM

Good morning Enrique,

My husband and I would like for it to be noted at tomorrow's meeting that we are very much
in opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-20-8).

We own and live at 3602 E Vineyard Rd Phoenix, AZ 85042
Bartlett Herd Ranch Neighborhood

Thank you,
Tanis and Ambrose Earle
602.469.0617

Page 1115
From: Tatiana Peña Marchuk
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:46:53 AM

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned
Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because
of a proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8).
I urge you to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of
adjacent land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can
happen in our historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be
made through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Tatiana Peña
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1116
From: Ted Wall
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Meeting
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:28:05 AM

Hi Enrique, Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case Z-35-
20-8). Thanks!!

Sincerely -

Theodore R Wall
INSIGHT VALUATION
3820 E Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

602.663.4131
Ted.wall@insight-valuation.com

Page 1117
From: Thom Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC Meeting Tonight February 9, 2021
Date: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:20:19 AM

Hello Enrique,

Please register my opposition to Agenda item#8 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion Case
Z-35-20-8). This development is not a good fit for this property.

Thank you,

Thom Bawden

Page 1118
From: Thom Bawden
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: SMVPC March 9 Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:21:59 AM

Hello,

Please register my opposition to Agenda Item #9 GPA-SM-1-20-8 (Companion case Z-35-20-8). I will also give my time to speak to
Bob Underwood.

Thank you,

Thom Bawden

Page 1119
From: Tina Behrens
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:57:24 AM
Importance: High

As an established resident of the Bartlett Heard Ranch, I urge you to oppose this proposal. Allowing
development that erodes the General Plan that was created and approved by this community is a
tremendous blow to those of us who work hard to care for and foster this unique neighborhood.

Please DO NOT allow any zoning changes to this property.

Sincerely,

Tina Leadbetter
3268 E. Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council District 6 PCC
, , Council District 8 PCC
, , Enrique Bojorquez

, Somos BuildBam

Hello Mayor, City Council Members, Village Planning, City Planners, and Concerned Residents,

I am a resident of South Mountain Village. And I am very concerned - even scared - because of a
proposed development project at 40th St and Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8). I urge you
to oppose this proposal.

This rezoning application will set a precedent to eviscerate decades-old planning without open
public discussion about the unintended impacts to infrastructure, health, and safety. How can a
single 17 acre rezoning application set a staggering precedent for 16 million square feet of adjacent
land without first engaging the broader community in active discussion? If it can happen in our
historic community, where else in the City will this be permitted to happen?

Covid is being used to silence us residents to the benefit of opportunistic developers.

Page 1120
If a District Overlay needs to be re-written to allow for more flexibility in development, I am
supportive of having those conversations as a community. But, the changes should not be made
through precedent created by a single 17 acre rezoning application.

Please support us in opposing this proposal,
Trent Marchuk
3731 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1121
From: Tina Behrens
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:24:53 PM

I’d like to register my opposition to the proposed development at 40th Street & Southern Ave in
Phoenix (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-SM-1-20-8). I would like to yield my time to speak to Patty McKinstry.

Please let me know if you need additional information.

Tina Leadbetter
3268 E. Vineyard Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85042

Page 1122
From: Tod Hegstrom
To: Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD South Mountain VPC;
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: SE Corner 40th St & Southern - Zoning Change Request - Apposed
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 5:15:45 PM

To All -

Proposal: Zoning Change Request at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-
1-20-8)

My Position: Opposed to the above sited zoning changes.

Significant time and effort has been placed, by dozens of South Phoenix
residents, into constructing the plans for the South Mountain area. And
more specifically to the Baseline Corridor.

Obviously things change, the plans can change. However, the plan has
NOT changed.

The zoning request is not consistent with the plan and zoning request
significantly changes the use. High Density Residential.

We've lost the flower gardens, we've lost the citrus groves, we've lost
the cotton fields. We've been inundated with so many apartment
complexes and high density housing ... and it has to STOP.

Yes, I remember all of those beautiful attributes of South Phoenix. I've
lived in South Phoenix for over four decades. My spouse grew up in
South Phoenix. Our kids grew up in South Phoenix, and our kids did NOT
move away. Our grandkids are growing up in South Phoenix.

I know what we had, I know what we have. A lot has changed. This
zoning should not be changed.

Stop it here. Stop it now.

Respectfully Submitted,

- Tod

Tod Hegstrom
602.758.5855
16th St & Southern Area

Psalms 37:5 | Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him;
and he shall bring it to pass.

Page 1123
"Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it."
St. Augustine/Augustine of Hippo

And, for the Geeky types:
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
returned 0 results
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand
binary, and those who don't.

Page 1124
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Cc: Bereket Gebre-Egziabher; Bob Underwood; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; FABIOLA MARQUEZ; Greg Brownell;
Pattihoash@gmail.com; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Patty Mckinstry
Subject: Notes 3/4/21 - 40th St Follow Up - D8 Meeting
Date: Thursday, March 4, 2021 4:27:45 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image001.png
image002.png
40th&Southern_3.04.21.pdf

Hi Adriana and Councilmember Garcia,

Thank you for organizing today's meeting between the Councilmember, members of the
community, members of the SMVPC, and the Applicant. As mentioned during the call, I was
- and am in this email - playing the role of resident and constituent.

The neighbors are grateful that the Applicant recognized today that there has been a
misconception on the part of the Applicant for the last 8 months. The Applicant correctly
observed that the pro-development neighbors are, and have been, willing to work on a solution
and a compromise. We can't help but think of all the potential unnecessary churn (in both
time and money) that has resulted from the Applicant's unilateral propagation of this
misconception. For that recognition, we are grateful

Main Concerns

Please see attached the presentation the neighbors collectively put together to succinctly
capture our main concerns. These main concerns can be boiled down to:

1. Density,
2. Density Transition, and
3. Attending Legal Documents

Any other concerns brought up by the Applicant are representative of the Applicant's
concerns and not the neighbors' primary concerns.

Just as the Neighbors lack a decree to plan the land around them, it is hard to imagine a
Village Planning Committee, Planning Commission, or even a City Council willing to
substitute a myopic view on one proposal when such a devastating Precedent would negatively
reverberate throughout the legal and governing documents, including at least 400+ acres of
surrounding land.

Key Take-Aways

Due to the trend towards convoluted PUDs, the neighbors strongly prefer hard zoned
categories.
The South Parcel S-1 zoning needs to change, since S-1 is antiquated. We support
upgrading to RE-35, but concede up to R1-18.
The North Parcel's C-2 w/ stipulations is preferred not to change and to remain as-is.
These stipulations were negotiated in good faith and the neighbors, including the
business owner to the west, have tangibly performed their end of the agreement.
The property owner is not known to have yet tangibly performed any portion of
their agreement - including not even marketing the land properly for 15+ years.

Page 1125
Any change to the existing C-2 stipulations will require a hearing with the
SMVPC
To demonstrate the pro-development nature of the neighbors, we proactively
concede further an openness to negotiating the existing stipulations to allow some
level of residential on the north 7 acres.
The Applicant is invited to work with the Neighbors to collectively determine
what trade-offs are acceptable.

In support of the above and the discussions today, there have been some minor
adjustments made to the deck. If you have any questions, please reach out and we will be
happy to explain each point of clarification.

The benefit of allowing the neighbors to share what they have collectively organized in
advance is a great efficiency that is invaluable to productive conversation. Your continuing to
allow the practice is of great value to the process and to transparency. We recognize that the
result of these neighbor slides is that the ensuing conversation is focused and we can
accomplish a lot in just one hour.

Optimism

The neighbors remain optimistic. We see a path forward to work with the Applicant, if they
so desire to work with us. If they do not, we recognize this market is sufficiently conducive to
another developer being willing to work with the community - especially if/when the land is
actually marketed properly.

We have recognized the current, legal hard zoning and shared the neighbors' preferred
outcome based upon decades old agreements that the neighbors have performed upon, but the
property owner has not.

Despite this situation, the pro-development neighbors have provided additional concessions
that should be sufficient for a respectful developer to act upon and realize their required rate of
return.

We remain willing to discuss further and find a mutually agreeable solution

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:41 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:
Hi Adriana,

We met as Neighbors tonight and will be able to accommodate the meeting tomorrow at
12n.

Depending how that conversation goes, we could use Monday 9a as a follow-up discussion.

Thank you,
Trent

Page 1126
Page 1127
Page 1128
Page 1129
Page 1130
Page 1131
Page 1132
Page 1133
From: Trent Marchuk
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano; Somos BuildBam
Subject: Support_Petition Signatures_01-26-21.pdf (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 12:24:10 PM

Hi Enrique,

Please add this email to the official case file for Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8.

Somosbuildbam.org reviewed the Applicant's support petition submissions as found in the
Records Request file entitled, "Support_Petition Signatures_01-26-21.pdf". Our resident
collective counted 249 submissions in total.

With the below concerns, we strongly believe that the validity and integrity of the Applicant's
support petition should be carefully analyzed and request the City to perform additional due
diligence.

A general observation is that all 249 submissions lack a date. The neighbors believe that it
matters to know when these signatures were supposedly collected. Does the City share that
concern?

A second general observation is that the level of organization and effort that went into this
activity must have been well planned and taken significant time. When the Applicant's plan
was rejected in 2019, it was with a recommendation to start with the neighborhood
homeowners next time around. Why is there virtually no support for this proposal garnered
from the neighborhood homeowners and property owners within the Baseline Area Overlay
District (BAOD) nor in the Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District?

More specifically, our analysis indicates that over one in four of the Applicant's submissions
are open to challenge based upon a simple initial analysis:

46 submissions appear to lack actual signature,
13 addresses cannot be found,
5 submissions have addresses listed outside the Village or at a motel, and
1 was a duplicate.

However, we have particular concern about 3 households:

1. Ron Apodaca. Mr Apodaca claims he never signed the Applicant’s petition. He states
that she approached him at a gas station, asked him to sign, and he refused. He was
coming from work and wearing a name tag that identified him. Mr Apodaca is surprised
and concerned that his signature appears to be forged.
2. Phil Keyack. The address associated with this signature is listed as owned by Ronald
and Lynn Noble. Phil Keyack was staying as a guest temporarily at the Noble
residence. Phil Keyack did not have authorization from the Noble family to sign for
their property address. Mr Noble, the property owner, is opposed to this project and is
surprised and concerned their address appears to be misrepresented by the Applicant.
This opens a question for about 118 (or nearly half) of the submissions where the
signatory does not match the last name of a registered property owner.
3. William and Janet Sills. William and Janet were dear members of our community. We

Page 1134
would like to know the dates of these signatures. William is now deceased, but he
battled with dementia for quite some time. Janet has had her own health issues for quite
some time and is no longer in the home. They both reportedly have actively fought for
the community against opportunistic developers in the past. Multiple neighbors have
cared for and watched over William "Stu" and Janet for years. There is strong suspicion
among some of those neighbors that someone may have taken advantage of William
"Stu" and Janet's declining and elderly state when securing their signatures. Would this
be of concern to the City?

We have found other anomalies with the submitted signatures, but the above are the most
straight-forward to explain and are deeply concerning.

One neighbor believes that there is a legal term when finding one forgery that calls all
accompanying submissions into question. They mentioned the phrase “Falsus en uno Falsus
en omnibus” which supposedly means "False in one false in all".

We are not lawyers, so could not definitively state that a forgery occurred nor what would be
the remedy if it did occur. Can you guide us in this matter? Do you need any further details
from the neighbors to support any of the above?

What does the City do with the signatures themselves when provided information about
misrepresented signatures that have been submitted?

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

Page 1135
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola

From: Trent Marchuk
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:55 PM
To: Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Cc: BILL GLOVER; Bereket Gebre-Egziabher; Beth Postma; Bob Underwood; FABIOLA MARQUEZ; Greg
Brownell; Patty & Bruce McKinstry; Patty Mckinstry; Ted Wall; Van Jackson; Pattihoash@gmail.com;
PDD South Mountain VPC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Marcia Busching
Subject: 40th & Southern 2-18-21 Meeting - Neighbor Presentation
Attachments: Councilmember Garcia 40th_Southern_02.18.21.pdf; 40th&Southern_CBRE_Flyer.pdf

Hi Adriana,

Please extend our gratitude to Councilmember Garcia for facilitating today's discussion. The neighbors are appreciative
and we indeed are interested in a follow‐up discussion.

Please find attached the neighbors' presentation from today as well as the flyer that has been used to market the land.

Also, please find comments below in reference to:

 Framing Density Increases
 Transitional Density Reference Points
 Neighbor Willingness to Negotiate

Framing of Density Increases

To Mr Morris' point, accurate framing of the density increase is important.

One way to consider the framing is the General Plan envisions 2 du/acre. This proposal asks for 11.2 du/acre. Hence,
we have simply represented a 460% increase relative to the General Plan ‐ which is a legal document.

A second way to see it is according to the hard zoning. Jason is right that normally C‐2 applied to the north parcel can
generally realize ~17 du/acre and the General Plan envisions 2 du/acre for the south parcel. However, creating the ~136
unit max for the 17 acres is at the heart a disingenuous calculation. It compares apples to oranges by using one generic
hard zoning number combined with a General Plan number. Basically, it uses mathematical gymnastics / smoke and
mirrors to inaccurately purport a 40% increase.

Since the General Plan was used in the first approach, the logically consistent way of showing this second perspective of
density increase is by using the existing hard zoning.

 Currently, the south 10 acre parcel is zoned S‐1 or 1 du/acre. That is ~10 units total for the south.
 The north parcel is currently zoned C‐2 w/ stipulations. These existing stipulations currently preclude any
residential use on those 7 acres. That is ~0 units total on the north.
 So, we have (10+0) 10 total dwelling units that can currently go on that combined land as it is currently zoned.
 That all equates to (193‐10)/10 or roughty an 1,800% increase, if we are to go with an apples to apples analysis.

So, is 460% increase or an 1,800% increase a better framing?

Transitional Density Reference Points

Page 1136
That being said, the neighbors have not told the Applicant ‐ using his words ‐ to go away. We are optimistic a
compromise can be made. And Marcia Busching's compromise, as mentioned, the neighbors would be willing to explore
further.

The neighbors have consistently said Density is our main concern. The desire for "transitional density" is not in
reference to the one multi‐family complex kitty corner across the street (probably zoned before districting) nor the
vacant land to the north envisioned for eventual commercial park nor even the Industrial Park (which isn't that a form of
Commercial? please check bc the naming convention might otherwise throw a casual observer) to the east.

What's important to note is all of those references are outside of the Baseline Area Master Plan, the BAOD, and the
MUA. Historically, 40th St is a manmade barrier, because the past developers thought people would only buy homes in
the Tempe School District and wouldn't buy homes in the Roosevelt School District. (How fair is that?!) And Southern is
a manmade barrier between residential and the commerce park to the north that serves as a buffer to Industrial. So,
comparing this corner to the other three corners totally disregards context and real history.

Therefore, the reference point for proper density transition has always been from within the Baseline Area Master Plan
and from within the attending Overlay Districts to which this land is part. To frame it otherwise is misleading, at best.

Therefore, a jump from 0‐1 du/acre immediately to 10‐15 du/acre is simply not only incompatible to the General Plan,
but it is simply not appropriate Density Transition.

We do agree with, I believe Tamala?, that there is beauty in multiple types of housing options. And our area can be
inclusive of that vision, as the neighbors' willingness to negotiate demonstrates below.

Neighbor Willingness to Negotiate

Mr Morris represented early on that the only area he will not negotiate on is Density. Even before these negotiations,
Mr Morris dropped from 12 du/acre to just 11.2 du/acre months ago before even talking to the Neighbors. He stated
today that he refuses to budge on Density any further. Yet, that is ‐ and has been ‐ our primary concern.

The neighbors, on the other hand, have shown a willingness to come off the currently‐approved hard zone of 10 units
for the entire 17 acres to something along the lines of what Marcia has suggested ‐ which would be around 93 total
units. This would be a second HUGE gift to the property owners from the SMVPC.

 This is an 9x increase in total units relative to what is currently allowed. (~21 units on the south parcel and ~72
units on the north parcel).
 This equates to 5.38 du/acre total; already nearly double what any residential development has received in the
MUA so far!
 The neighbors haven't agreed to these specific numbers, btw, but they have agreed with the concept
 But, this proves we have at least shown a willingness to negotiate off of our stance of 2 du/acre by almost 3x!
 In return, the neighbors would prefer this not to be captured in a PUD, but prefer hard zoning to safeguard from
a negative Precedent to the rest of the Overlay Districts

So, we ask an objective assessment on who is being intractable in this situation?

Where is the reciprocated good faith from Mr Morris to actually work with the neighbors?

It could be that the above further exposes the fact that this is the wrong project for this location. Which we strongly
believe is the case. But, it is also within this Developer's rights and capacity to offer a different product type and
different proposal for this area. Single Family Rental is not their only competence; in fact, looking at Brown's website, it
isn't really even their primary competence. Doesn't South Mountain deserve the quality of a Developer's primary
competence anyhow?

Page 1137
It is also within the landowner's rights and capacity to (finally!) market this land appropriately to attract the right type of
developer. In this market, we don't have to accept this proposal or nothing.

Please know that the above and attached represents a collective voice and not my own nor only a small handful of
voices.

We appreciate your voice so far and hope you will continue to use that powerful voice to represent the voices of your
constituents.

Respectfully submitted,
Trent Marchuk

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:34 PM Trent Marchuk wrote:
Thank you Enrique. The time and energy you have put into the reply is appreciated.

Best,
Trent

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:20 PM Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:

Hello Trent,

Not sure if I’m understanding correctly, but my email yesterday was a follow‐up to a Friday email sent to the Council
District 8 office regarding your questions. Now, in regards to those questions, here is the Council District 8
response/information for tomorrow’s meeting:

 We will allow others to share their screens.

 Folks will not be on mute when they join and will have the ability to mute/unmute.

 Councilmember Garcia will facilitate the meeting.

 Organic conversation – folks will not be timed.

Once again, for anyone in the community who has not registered for tomorrow’s meeting, please register using this
link ahead of the virtual meeting which starts at 2:30pm tomorrow, 02/18:

Page 1138
Page 1139
Page 1140
Page 1141
Page 1142
Page 1143
Page 1144
Page 1145
Page 1146
Page 1147
Page 1148
Page 1149
Page 1150
Page 1151
Page 1152
From: Van Jackson
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 2/9/21 SMVPC Item #8: GPA-SM-1-20-8
Date: Monday, February 8, 2021 11:04:04 AM

Enrique –

Please note that I am opposed to the above subject line and the other case related to it.

Thanks,

Van
Van Jackson
vanjacksonaz@gmail.com
602 438-7800

Page 1153
From: Zack lindsay
To: PDD South Mountain VPC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4;
Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Enrique A Bojorquez-
Gaxiola; Mayor Gallego; somosbuildbam@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:33:36 PM

This is Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave is awe full. A single family rental community is
laughable and keeps people in poverty.
I’d rather have families achieve home ownership and build/invest in the future, than allow this
community to be build as a cash machine for a few.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: When Jones
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:55 PM
Subject: Fwd: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-
35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: Zack lindsay

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Your Action is Needed: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-
8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: Trent Marchuk

Hi Neighbors,

If you feel passionate about what you read below in the email below, please forward
this entire email string to the City officials listed below and add your own thoughts in
opposition to the project.

Literally, five easy steps will take less than five minutes:

1. Click "Forward" on this email,
2. Copy and Paste the below email addresses into the "To:" field,
3. Add a few words of your own expressing your own opinion about this project,
4. Sign with your name and mailing address,
5. Hit send and you've done your part!

mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov, council.district.1@phoenix.gov,
council.district.2@phoenix.gov, council.district.3@phoenix.gov,
council.district.4@phoenix.gov, council.district.5@phoenix.gov,
council.district.6@phoenix.gov, council.district.7@phoenix.gov,
council.district.8@phoenix.gov, SouthMountainVPC@phoenix.gov, enrique.bojorquez-
gaxiola@phoenix.gov, somosbuildbam@gmail.com

Page 1154
We need 100+ emails to be organically sent for our voices to be heard. The Applicant
has used COVID-19 to silence the neighbors in an attempt to push through an
inappropriate project that shifts the costs of the attending consequences to the
residents of South Phoenix.

We challenge you to ask at least 3 others who live in the South Mountain
Village (between 27th Ave to 48th St and Salt River to South Mountain) to do the
same by Sunday, February 7, 2021.

Your sending an email to our elected representatives at this time is absolutely critical.

Thank you,
Trent Marchuk
somosbuildbam.org [somosbuildbam.org]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Trent Marchuk
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:27 PM
Subject: Opposition to Proposal at 40th St & Southern Ave (Z-35-20-8 and GPA-1-20-8)
To: , ,
, ,
, , Council District 6 PCC
, , Council District 8 PCC
, , Enrique Bojorquez

Meeting phoenix-pdf-2021-05-05 complete

1. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on Jan. 29, 2020

Item text

Supporting documents

2. ¶ For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on Feb. 5, 2020

Item text

Supporting documents

3. ¶ Summary

Item text

Supporting documents

4. ¶ Liquor License - Sprouts Farmers Market #9

Item text

Supporting documents

5. ¶ Liquor License - Chino Bandido

Item text

Supporting documents

6. ¶ Liquor License - Tacos Chiwas

Item text

Supporting documents

7. ¶ Liquor License - Cobblestone Auto Spa & Market #19

Item text

Supporting documents

8. ¶ ***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Liquor License - The

Item text

Supporting documents

9. ¶ Liquor License - Quality Distributor

Item text

Supporting documents

10. ¶ Liquor License - Hyatt Place Phoenix Downtown

Item text

Supporting documents

11. ¶ Liquor License - Del Monte Market

Item text

Supporting documents

21. ¶ Reopening City Services in the Parks and Recreation and Human Services

Item text

Supporting documents

22. ¶ ***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing to

Item text

Supporting documents

23. ¶ ***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing to

Item text

Supporting documents

24. ¶ Call for a Special Meeting and Notice of Legally Required Public Hearings on

Item text

Supporting documents

25. ¶ Authorization to Accept Real Property for the Durango Regional Conveyance

Item text

Supporting documents

26. ¶ Authorization to Enter into a Revocable License with TB North, LLC on City-

Item text

Supporting documents

27. ¶ Acceptance of Easements for Drainage and Water Purposes (Ordinance S-47518)

Item text

Supporting documents

28. ¶ Acceptance and Dedication of a Deed and Easements for Sidewalk, Public Utility

Item text

Supporting documents

29. ¶ Oracle Software, Hardware, Support and Maintenance Contract (Ordinance S-

Item text

Supporting documents

30. ¶ Intergovernmental Agreement between Maricopa County and City Prosecutor's

Item text

Supporting documents

31. ¶ Intergovernmental Agreement between Maricopa County and City Public

Item text

Supporting documents

32. ¶ Intergovernmental Agreement between Maricopa County and Phoenix Municipal

Item text

Supporting documents

33. ¶ Amend Contract with Community Legal Services for COVID-19 Tenant Eviction

Item text

Supporting documents

34. ¶ Request Phoenix Become Signatory City of C40 Clean Air Cities Declaration

Item text

Supporting documents

35. ¶ 2021-22 CDBG Public Service and Public Facility Request for Proposals

Item text

Supporting documents

36. ¶ 2021-2022 CDBG Reprogramming Request (Ordinance S-47540)