We, the undersigned affix our signatures in support of the petition objecting to the zoning change at 3410 and 3420 East Shea from Commercial Office (C-1) and Commercial Residential (C-0) to Multifamily Residential (R-5) and to the plan to construct a four-story multifamily structure on this site (Rezoning Application #Z-134-25-3 NEC Shea Boulevard and Highway 51)

Grounds for Opposition of Rezoning Application #Z-134-25-3 NEC Shea Boulevard and Highway 51 in Phoenix, AZ

1. Exacerbation of Preexisting Traffic Safety Issues

This area of the Shea Boulevard corridor already experiences complex and significant traffic safety concerns, which will be exponentially compounded by any increase in density. This segment qualifies as a yet-unidentified High Injury Network (HIN) location under the criteria established by the City of Phoenix Vision Zero initiative. We therefore request that a comprehensive Traffic Impact Study (TIS) be conducted by the City of Phoenix Streets and Transportation Department before any proposal that would increase traffic density is considered.

2. Inconsistency with the City of Phoenix General Plan 2025

The proposed rezoning violates multiple key provisions of the City of Phoenix General Plan 2025. This plan—approved by 79.53% of voters in the Fall 2024 General Election—establishes a clear framework for responsible, sustainable growth that harmonizes with existing neighborhoods and the ecological realities of the Sonoran Desert, including long-term drought conditions. The proposed development does not align with these principles and undermines the voter-approved vision for the city’s future.

3. Site-Specific Safety Concerns

The property in question is located along a high-speed, high-volume traffic corridor that functions as part of a highway on-ramp system. This makes it inherently unsafe for residential use. Introducing high-density housing would severely aggravate ingress and egress safety issues, significantly increasing the risk of traffic collisions. Notably, the barrier wall separating the property from the northbound highway on-ramp has been demolished by out-of-control vehicles on at least two occasions in recent years—underscoring the danger of this location for residential purposes.

4. Safety Risks to Desert Voices School

Desert Voices—a school serving deaf children ages 2–3—operates immediately adjacent to the proposed rezoning property. Parents and staff already face dangerous conditions entering and exiting the campus due to heavy, high-speed traffic on Shea Boulevard. At peak times, vehicles queue several cars deep in the center (suicide) lane to access the school, exposing families to fast-moving oncoming traffic. Increased congestion and turning movements from a high-density development next door would create unacceptable safety risks for these young children and their caregivers.

5. Inadequate Parking and Overflow Impacts

The proposed rezoning fails to provide adequate parking for the density being requested. Based on the developer’s own figures, the 169–200 planned apartments—two-thirds of which are multi-bedroom units—will add more than 300 residents, plus vehicles for staff, service providers, and visitors. Combined with the eight proposed business suites, there will be a significant parking shortfall even if the project meets the minimum City code. Overflow parking will inevitably spill into Desert Voices school grounds and surrounding neighborhood and commercial areas, creating safety hazards and operational conflicts.

6. Negative Impact on 33rd Place and Surrounding Neighborhood Streets

33rd Place, a cul-de-sac adjacent to the current office complex, was designed as a low-traffic residential street but has long been used by motorists as an informal shortcut to and from Shea Boulevard and Highway 51. The curbing at the cul-de-sac’s edge is already damaged from frequent unauthorized vehicle use. Despite assurances that this street will not be used as a project access point, the unavoidable consequence of limited Shea Boulevard access is that 33rd Place will become a de facto through street, undermining neighborhood safety and quality of life. These streets were not engineered to support additional traffic volumes.

7. Displacement of Existing Small Businesses

The office complex currently has a 97% occupancy rate, housing 43 established professional small businesses. Redevelopment would forcibly displace these enterprises, many of which have long served the local community. This displacement would impose significant financial burdens on business owners, employees, and their clientele—particularly those who rely on the property’s convenient proximity to Highway 51. Small businesses are the backbone of our local economy and deserve support, not displacement.⸻

In conclusion, the concerns outlined above represent only a portion of the significant issues raised by this rezoning proposal. Collectively, they demonstrate that the project is inconsistent with the City’s adopted policies, presents serious safety risks, and would cause substantial harm to both existing residents and businesses.