Meeting Time: October 18, 2023 at 10:00am MST
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

8 Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Parking Reductions for Multifamily Developments - Z-TA-8-23-Y (Ordinance G-7161)

  • Default_avatar
    Holly Brestel 4 months ago

    Please vote yes on item 8. Affordable housing is necessary to address the housing crisis in Arizona, and walkable cities make our communities more livable and sociable. Which is important for members of the community who don’t have access to a car or are disabled and can’t drive.

  • Default_avatar
    Alena Thomas 4 months ago

    Please support staff's original TA. Developers are currently wasting valuable space and money to comply with arbitrary parking minimums that aren't based on actual data. This drives up rent prices and contributes to the current housing and leasing crisis. Personally, I never see these lots more than a third full; most of the space actually does go to waste.

  • Default_avatar
    Lavender Walsh 4 months ago

    Please support staff's original TA. We have an enormous amount of taxpayer funded street parking that is underutilized in most of Phoenix. Stop requiring property owners to subsidize parking with these outdated parking requirements that do more harm than good. This parking reform TA is in alignment with Phoenix's climate action goals. We should encourage smart & sustainable growth which will benefit our communities economically and lead us to being less car dependent. Phoenix deserves better.

  • Default_avatar
    David Schafranka 4 months ago

    The majority of eligible village planning communities, 10 out of 14, oppose the advancement of this amendment. A "yes" vote would contradict the essence of good governance and disregard the informed will of those closely connected to the communities. Item 8 demonstrates inequity, especially for residents of multifamily and affordable housing, who often share accommodations and possess multiple cars to accommodate their lifestyle.

  • Default_avatar
    Wes Ballew 4 months ago

    Parking policy is climate policy and allowing flexibility in some areas of parking policy is a good first step toward a climate friendly city. Please pass the staff proposed language of this ordinance

  • Default_avatar
    Emerson Janss 4 months ago

    Please support staff's original TA. Developers are currently wasting valuable space and money to comply with arbitrary parking minimums that aren't based on actual data. This drives up rent prices and contributes to the current housing and leasing crisis. Personally, I never see these lots more than a third full; most of the space actually does go to waste.

  • Default_avatar
    Zariah Pittman 4 months ago

    Please support staff's original TA. We have an enormous amount of taxpayer funded street parking that is underutilized in most of Phoenix. Stop requiring property owners to subsidize parking with these outdated parking requirements that do more harm than good. This parking reform TA is in alignment with Phoenix's climate action goals. We should encourage smart & sustainable growth which will benefit our communities economically and lead us to being less car dependent. Phoenix deserves better.

  • Default_avatar
    Maria Lopez 4 months ago

    This agenda item should be NO vote. Ten out of the fourteen planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. Why is it being contemplated? Vote NO. No action should be taken on this agenda item.

  • Default_avatar
    Julie Young 4 months ago

    Do not take action or please vote NO. You have 10 of 14 of the village planning communities that do not want this ordinance. By voting for this you are telling the many volunteers who serve to review property owner plans that these committed volunteers who are also taxpayers have no voice and that the council will do what they want. Either take no action or vote NO in support of the people who volunteer to serve the village planning communities.

  • Default_avatar
    Forrest Woodwick 4 months ago

    Refrain from taking action; vote against if action is initiated. The majority of eligible village planning communities, 10 out of 14, oppose the advancement of this amendment. A "yes" vote would contradict the essence of good governance and disregard the informed will of those closely connected to the communities. Item 8 demonstrates inequity, especially for residents of multifamily and affordable housing, who often share accommodations and possess multiple cars to accommodate their lifestyle.

  • Default_avatar
    Christine DeVelis 4 months ago

    If you reduce parking in multifamily developments, you will push it into clogging neighborhood streets, diminishing the quality of life for surrounding tax-paying, voting residents. Support the current residents, not the developers. Those with disabilities who might live in such developments often need oversize vehicles ... the concept is upside down.

  • Default_avatar
    Merissa Hamilton 4 months ago

    10 of the eligible 14 Village Planning Committees voted to NOT recommend moving forward with this plan. If you move forward with this plan you are going against those who know their communities best. Lower-income families often need more parking spaces due to multiple people living together. Reducing parking spaces means people will have a larger hurdle to overcome poverty as cars are the most important tool to financial success.

  • Default_avatar
    Joseph Ward 4 months ago

    Refrain from taking action; vote against if action is initiated. The majority of eligible village planning communities, 10 out of 14, oppose the advancement of this amendment. A "yes" vote would contradict the essence of good governance and disregard the informed will of those closely connected to the communities. Item 8 demonstrates inequity, especially for residents of multifamily and affordable housing, who often share accommodations and possess multiple cars to accommodate their lifestyle.

  • Default_avatar
    James Brinkman 4 months ago

    Do not take action. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.

  • Img_0033_edit__3_
    Kirin Goff 4 months ago

    Please vote yes on parking reform! Developers and homeowners are better positioned than government to estimate demand. We have an oversupply of parking. It’s expensive and we pay for it indirectly. We also have an abundance of taxpayer-funded street parking that goes largely unused. Excess pavement creates a heat island and makes walking places harder. Unlike some cities, we will not have to sacrifice any convenience because we will still have plenty of parking even if minimums are reduced.

  • Default_avatar
    Darryl Moorman 4 months ago

    Phoenix can’t afford to waste our transit oriented spaces on regressive parking regulations. As a lifelong resident of Phoenix, I love the development that has happened along the light rail. Phoenix deserves a vibrant, walkable downtown. Developers will still have the freedom to build as much parking as they want, supplemented by the public parking provided by the city, as well as alternatives like park-and-rides and bike infrastructure. We need space for housing and businesses, not just cars.

  • Default_avatar
    Joe Vaillancourt 4 months ago

    Do not take action. If there is action, vote no. 10 out of the 14 eligible village planning communities voted against advancing this code amendment. If you vote yes on this item, you are going against how government is supposed to work and violating the will of those who know the communities best. Item 8 is also inequitable because most people living in multifamily and affordable housing live with multiple people, and the living quarters has multiple cars to accommodate the living style.

  • Default_avatar
    Anna Hernandez 4 months ago

    Please vote yes to all parking ordinances. We need every tool at our disposal to address the ongoing housing crisis. Arbitrary parking requirements contribute to the high cost of rents and reducing this minimums would create the path for affordable housing developers to add to the supply shortage we have.

  • Default_avatar
    Michael Schoenfelder 4 months ago

    Parking minimums effectively act as a tax on renters by driving up the cost of developing housing, and hurt our ability to navigate the city by means other than driving. Removing the minimum doesn’t force a reduction in parking, and instead gives developers the option to utilize land more efficiently.

  • Default_avatar
    Derek Tomich 4 months ago

    Parking is an expensive liability that adds to rent & tax for everyone, even people who never use parking because they cannot afford a vehicle. This TA should be approved to save space & reduce the heat island, and the original TA should be approved before PC changes. About 1/2 the population in PHX owns 1 car or less and does not benefit from over parking. Removing parking minimums does not remove parking, it gives the developers the choice not to excessively over park residential buildings.