Attachment E - VPC Action Summaries - Z-TA-8-23-Y.pdf

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting 
August 7, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for 
multifamily and affordable housing. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per staff recommendation, with modifications 
VPC Vote 
14-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Staff Presentation: 
Mr. Zambrano discussed the purpose of the parking reductions text amendment and 
potential benefits. Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and then 
shared the current and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-
wide, affordable multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill 
Development District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) 
Code, and affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano noted 
that the proposed parking ratio for multifamily development City-wide was based on an 
average of multifamily parking demand of 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban 
development and 1.2 spaces per unit for urban development, per the Institute of 
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, which has decades-worth of data based on 
studies done in cities throughout the nation where cars were counted and resulted in 
these parking ratios based on the actual parking demand. Mr. Zambrano then discussed 
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. 
Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for the text amendment, VPC results, 
Planning Commission results, and stated that staff recommends approval as listed in 
the staff report. 
Questions from the Committee: 
Ms. Sepic asked how the City defines affordable housing, noting that the term is often 
used politically. Mr. Zambrano responded that development would only qualify as 
affordable housing after being vetted through the various programs and meeting the 
criteria to be able to qualify as an affordable housing project. Mr. Zambrano added that 
the City would not accept a development as affordable housing just because the 
developer calls it affordable, and that it would need to go through the programs 
necessary to qualify it as an affordable housing project.  
ATTACHMENT E

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 2 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Chair Popovic stated that he works for the largest affordable housing developer in the 
country and the seventh largest market-rate housing developer in the country. Chair 
Popovic stated that parking is the most prohibitive, restrictive and costly element in 
housing development. Chair Popovic noted that the costs spent on building parking 
cannot be recuperated and it limits affordable housing developers on bringing their 
projects to fruition. Chair Popovic stated that his firm recently put in a bid for a Request 
for Proposals (RFP) in Tempe for affordable housing, which required over 435 parking 
spaces, costing over $15 million to build two parking structures, or $35,000 per parking 
stall, and the project died. Chair Popovic emphasized that parking increases costs for 
housing development and makes housing less affordable by requiring more parking.  
 
Mr. Goodhue asked where people would park their cars. Chair Popovic responded 
that not many people living in true affordable housing projects own cars and the current 
parking requirements do not meet the actual parking demand of affordable housing. 
 
Ms. Sepic stated that she is a multifamily operator and thinks it would be wrong to not 
reduce the parking requirements. Ms. Sepic stated that one of her clients that is building 
a high-rise building in Downtown Phoenix is still building in parking, despite having 
minimal parking requirements because it is located right along the light rail. Ms. Sepic 
added that based on her experience of operating Class C apartment buildings, most of 
the residents in the studio and one-bedroom units did not own vehicles. Ms. Sepic 
stated that most of the two-bedroom units had at least one vehicle and the three- and 
four-bedroom units that had anywhere from eight to 10 people living in it typically had 
two vehicles. Ms. Sepic noted that an average of about one-fourth of parking was 
unused for apartment complexes she operated. Ms. Sepic stated that she does believe 
there is room to adjust the parking ratios and that she does not believe they should be 
kept as high as they currently are. 
 
Mr. Goodhue stated that he moved in 1990 from Seattle into an apartment nearby his 
current home and stayed there for a few months, and there was no one parking on the 
street. Mr. Goodhue noted that these parking ratios were based on what was required 
back in the 1980s and now the streets are covered with cars and are coming into the 
adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Goodhue added that the City of Seattle requires no 
parking adjacent to their light rail and someone he knew opened up a business next to a 
brand-new apartment complex that had cars parked along the alley that were blocking 
the loading bay for the business. Mr. Goodhue agreed that parking ratios should be 
looked at to make sure they are realistic but disagreed with reducing the parking ratios 
to an extreme.  
 
Chair Popovic agreed that the parking ratios should not be reduced to an extreme, 
noting that the parking ratios still do need to be reduced. Chair Popovic reiterated that 
many of the parking spaces for his affordable housing developments are unused. Chair 
Popovic shared the criteria in order to get the credits for affordable housing.  
 
Mr. Goodhue agreed that parking for affordable housing should be reduced to meet 
their demand but expressed concerns with reducing parking for market-rate housing.

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 3 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Chair Popovic reiterated the cost of building parking structures. Vice Chair Anita 
Mortensen asked if the parking spaces are used once the building is built. Chair 
Popovic responded that it depends, but most residents in market-rate studio and one-
bedroom units do not use cars.  
 
Ms. Sepic added that she knows two people her age that do not have a driver’s license.  
 
Chair Popovic agreed, noting that this lowers the parking ratio. Chair Popovic stated 
that the younger generation does not want cars.  
 
Mr. Wise stated that he has lived in Arizona for a long time, and it is car-centric.  
 
Ms. Sepic stated that rideshare is another way to get around. 
 
Chair Popovic disagreed that Phoenix is car-centric, noting that it is changing.  
 
Ms. Sepic agreed. Ms. Sepic stated that she is okay with the passenger loading zone 
requirement as proposed. Ms. Sepic added that she believes there should be a 
reduction to the parking ratios, but not to the extent as proposed. Ms. Sepic 
recommended there be 0.5 parking spaces required for each studio unit or one-
bedroom unit, 1.25 parking spaces required for each two-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces 
required for each three- or more bedroom unit. Ms. Sepic recommended that the 
average parking ratio for market-rate housing be 1.75 spaces per unit.  
 
Mr. Soronson asked for clarification that Ms. Sepic recommends the proposed 1.25 
parking spaces per unit ratio is increased to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. Ms. Sepic 
responded affirmatively. Mr. Soronson asked why Ms. Sepic would recommend 
increasing the parking ratio to 1.75 when she just stated that she believes the parking 
ratios should be reduced.  
 
Chair Popovic agreed, noting that the current parking ratio is 1.5 parking spaces per 
unit for one- and two-bedroom units.  
 
Ms. Sepic stated that she believes the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces 
per unit for market-rate housing needs to be increased. Mr. Soronson asked again why 
Ms. Sepic believes it should be increased when she had just stated that she believes 
the parking ratios need to be decreased. Ms. Sepic responded that 1.25 parking spaces 
per unit is still too low for market-rate housing.  
 
Chair Popovic disagreed, noting that 1.75 parking spaces per unit is too high and is 
above the current requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per unit for one- and two-bedroom 
units.  
 
Mr. Soronson concurred. 
 
Ms. Sepic asked if the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit was the 
average of the current requirement. Mr. Zambrano responded that the parking ratio of

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 4 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
1.25 parking spaces per unit is the average of actual parking demands per the ITE 
Manual.  
 
Mr. Goodhue stated that there was a similar discussion of parking reductions for a 
project within the Kierland Commons area which proposed 1.45 parking spaces per unit, 
noting that the parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit is even lower than what was 
approved in Kierland Commons. Mr. Goodhue recommended the parking ratio match 
what was approved in Kierland Commons. 
 
Chair Popovic disagreed, noting that he believes the parking reduction for that project 
should have been more. Chair Popovic stated that from a developer’s perspective, 1.25 
parking spaces per unit is more than reasonable. 
 
Ms. Sepic noted that 1.45 parking spaces per unit is a higher ratio than 1.25 parking 
spaces per unit. 
 
Mr. Soronson agreed, noting that Ms. Sepic had previously stated that she 
recommended a parking ratio of 1.75 parking spaces per unit.  
 
Chair Popovic concurred, noting that it would result in even more parking. 
 
Ms. Sepic recommended that the parking ratios for affordable housing be lower than 
market-rate housing. Ms. Sepic noted that the current requirement for a studio unit is 
1.3 parking spaces per unit, and most people that live in studio units do not even have a 
car. 
 
Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if Ms. Sepic wanted to keep the parking ratios 
broken out based on the number of units. Ms. Sepic responded affirmatively. 
 
Mr. Goodhue asked if Ms. Sepic’s proposed parking ratios are based on traffic 
engineering studies. Ms. Sepic responded that it is based on her experience of 
operating multiple apartment complexes that had studio, one-, two, three-, and four-
bedroom units. Ms. Sepic reiterated that residents in studio and one-bedroom units did 
not have a car.  
 
Chair Popovic agreed, noting that it is a trend that is being seen more often. 
 
Ms. Hall asked if the proposed parking ratio was prepared by traffic engineers. Mr. 
Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it came from the ITE Manual. 
 
Chair Popovic stated that he agreed with the proposed parking ratios per staff 
recommendation.  
 
Ms. Hall stated that most multifamily projects in the Kierland Commons area opt for 
PUD zoning so they can reduce their parking requirements, noting that there is a way to 
get around it now rather than changing the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 5 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Abram Bowman asked if the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit 
would simplify the process for developers rather than having the parking ratios broken 
out by unit. Chair Popovic responded that some projects have more studios than one-
bedroom units and other projects do not have any studios and have all one- and two-
bedroom units. Chair Popovic stated that the parking ratios do need to be broken out by 
unit.  
 
Ms. Sepic concurred. Ms. Sepic added that more three- and four-bedroom units are 
needed for families, but they are more expensive to build. Ms. Sepic noted that Arizona 
is top five in refugee resettlement and most refugee families have a lot of children. Ms. 
Sepic reiterated that the type of housing product needed is three- and four-bedroom 
units. Ms. Sepic stated that the information of the parking ratios should have been put in 
a graph to better understand the proposal. 
 
Chair Popovic agreed, noting that there are some individuals that may not fully 
understand what the parking ratios translate to.  
 
Ms. Sepic concurred, noting that the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per 
unit for any type of unit and a 50% reduction of that for affordable housing was 
confusing.  
 
Mr. Wise asked if the Committee’s recommended modifications would get to the City 
Council if the Planning Commission has already recommended approval of this text 
amendment with their own modifications. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting 
that the City Council members and Mayor would review the results and meeting minutes 
of the VPCs and the Planning Commission and would make their own decision based 
on that information collectively.   
 
Ms. Sepic stated that if there was a generic parking ratio and an apartment complex 
was built with all three-bedroom units, 1.25 parking spaces per unit would not be 
enough parking. 
 
Daniel Mazza asked if the developer would just build more parking in that scenario. 
Chair Popovic responded that they would not build more than required because of the 
cost associated with it.  
 
Mr. Soronson asked if it costs $35,000 per parking stall for surface parking or 
structured parking. Chair Popovic responded that surface parking costs $30,000 per 
parking stall and $35,000 per parking stall for structured parking. Chair Popovic added 
that the cost could go up to $60,000 per parking stall for underground parking on the 
first level and goes up from there the further underground it goes. Chair Popovic stated 
that almost a third of real estate development costs are related to parking.  
 
Mr. Wise expressed concerns with there being no parking left after the parking 
reductions, assuming people will still drive as much as they are now. Chair Popovic 
stated that from the data his firm is getting, the trend is to not own a car. Mr. Wise 
asked if someone could rent an apartment unit without a parking space. Chair Popovic

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 6 of 6 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
responded affirmatively. Mr. Wise asked what someone would do if they owned a car, 
and the apartment complex did not have a dedicated parking space for them. Chair 
Popovic responded that they would go somewhere else that did have parking available 
for them.  
 
Mr. Soronson stated that there is a project being built with no parking in the City of 
Tempe along the light rail.  
 
Mr. Goodhue stated that the City Council would probably focus on the Planning 
Commission’s recommendation versus this Committee’s recommendation. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that this information may be helpful to the City Council, since the 
City Council did direct staff to initiate this text amendment through the Housing Phoenix 
Plan that was adopted.  
 
Public Comments: 
None. 
 
Staff Response: 
None. 
 
MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y: 
Ms. Sepic motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff 
recommendation, with modifications. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion. 
 
Modifications listed for clarity: 
• Market-Rate Housing City-wide 
o 1 parking space per studio unit 
o 1.5 parking spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit 
o 2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit 
• Affordable Housing City-wide 
o 0.5 parking spaces per studio unit 
o 1 parking space per 1- or 2-bedroom unit 
o 2 parking spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit 
 
VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y: 
14-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation with 
modifications passes with Committee members Bowman, Bustamante, DeMoss, 
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Petersen, Schmidt, Sepic, Soronson, Ward, Wise, Mortensen, 
and Popovic in favor. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 10, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation  
VPC Vote 
12-1 
 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
 
1 member of the public registered in support, wishing to speak.  
1 member of the public registered in opposition wishing to speak. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Mr. Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the proposed text amendment to 
reduce parking city wide for residential developments with inclusion of minimum 
requirements. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal 
and the comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development, 
Walkable Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the 
changes that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for 
streetscapes. Mr. Roanhorse discussed affordable housing at the applicability for 
parking and demand adjustments that will be made.  Mr. Roanhorse discussed the time 
frame for review for the at Villages, Planning Commission and City Council. 
 
Mr. DePerro stated that the development of the text amendment was based on many 
years of trying to address parking for multifamily development with a nominal city-wide 
reduction and reductions for affordable and infill housing and the biggest reduction for 
the Walkable Urban Code. Mr. DePerro noted that the staggered approach for parking 
was possible. Mr. DePerro explained parking information was obtained from the Institute 
of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual to determine parking demands and to make it 
meaningful and applicable to the city.   
 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Jewett asked if the parking demand we are seeing now is 
accurate or is there a margin for adjustment. Mr. DePerro responded that certain 
adjustments were made where the calculated demand was 1.23 spaces which was 
rounded up to 1.25 spaces to provide a measure of simplification.

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Vice Chair Rodriguez asked what is expected in the future for single family or 
commercial developments and will parking requirements decrease overall. Mr. DePerro 
responded that there has been a focus on multifamily development and this is unlikely 
to change but for now Council is looking to reduce parking requirements Citywide.  
 
Mr. Procaccini asked has there been any consideration for requiring parking 
maximums. Mr. DePerro responded that this exists in the Downtown Code but was not 
consider for this text amendment because there are different expectations downtown 
and there are no plans currently, but it may be applicable for the WU Code in the future. 
Mr. Proaccinni asked about the applicability for infill areas. Mr. DePerro responded it 
might be possible but it would depend if an infill area were rezoned to WU Code.  
 
Chair Wagner asked about the applicability of 0 parking within the WU Code. Mr. 
DePerro responded that the City has invested funds on light rail and other transit 
methods and these are encouraged with reducing parking. Mr. DePerro mentioned that 
there is a difference between caps and minimums and it is ideal to have some flexibility.       
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
 
Cory Kincaid introduced himself and mentioned his volunteer work with Perfect 
Phoenix and has been involved with parking issues. Mr. Kincaid expressed concern and 
has spoken with developers and understands the frustration with parking around the 
city. Mr. Kincaid noted the economics of parking and expressed support for the parking 
reduction text amendment.   
 
Neal Haddad with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix introduced himself 
and expressed concerns with the parking reduction. Mr. Haddad stated in some areas 
of the city you need access to an automobile and you cannot impose reductions for the 
entire city. Mr. Haddad noted that in some villages the distance to stores is far and an 
automobile is necessary. Mr. Haddad stated that reducing parking to 0 does not make 
sense. Mr. Haddad stated that there is also an issue with providing outreach and getting 
information to the public and that the Village Planning Committees was not the best 
method. Mr. Haddad expressed that the text amendment was not presented in some 
Villages because there was no quorum so the information did not reach the public. Mr. 
Haddad stated that the proposed parking reduction will create a big problem all over the 
city.  
 
Committee Member Kleinman commented that there are various meeting coordinated 
by the city and asked what type of outreach is expected to get more people involved. 
Mr. Haddad responded that the Planning and Development should include outreach to 
registered neighborhood groups through NSD to get information directly to the public. 
Mr. Haddad stated he works with a neighborhood group to disseminate information and 
noted that many meetings are not well attended and there has to be a way to get people 
involved.   
 
STAFF RESPONSE

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 3 of 4 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. Roanhorse responded that there are many issues that have been discussed and 
that the City has taken great steps to provide information and has received and 
extensive volume of comments and these will be reviewed and considered. 
 
Mr. DePerro noted there is an additional action regarding short term rentals that is not 
zoning related, the City Code is being amended to adopt the strictest regulations that 
the state will allow for licensing, and this may impact short term rentals and there is 
much more happening.  
 
Mr. Cardenas asked for clarification on state requirements and taxation for short term 
rentals. Mr. DePerro stated this text amendment is zoning entitlement to allow an ADU 
on your property and talks about accessory uses. Mr. Cardenas asked if there is only 
one chance for review and will there be an opportunity to make changes in the future if 
there are unintended consequences. Mr. DePerro responded from the meeting tonight 
the recommendations will be reviewed and the amendment will go to the Planning 
Commission for further review and discussion and finally to the City Council for action. 
 
MOTION:  
 
Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y 
per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Paul Benjamin seconded the 
motion. 
 
DISCUSSION: 
 
Committee Member George noted a situation in Encanto Palmcroft where a developer 
wanted to develop vacant lot with reduced parking. Ms. George stated if the 
development did occur it would have been detrimental to the surrounding 
neighborhoods and there was extensive opposition. Ms. George expressed her concern 
and stated her opposition for the proposed text amendment.   
 
Committee Member G. G. George made a substitute motion to deny Z-TA-8-23-Y. 
 
Chair Wagner asked for a second to the substitute motion and no second motion was 
received and Chair Wagner stated the substitute motion failed. Chair Wagner stated the 
original motion for approval would be considered and asked the Committee for 
discussion and no discussion was noted.  
 
VOTE: 
12-1; motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with 
Committee Members Benjamin, Cardenas, Doescher, Jewett, Kleinman, Mahrle, Picos, 
Procaccini, Searles, Tedhams, Vice Chair Rodriguez and Chair Wagner in support; with 
Committee Member George opposed. 
 
Chair Wagner stated that the text amendment does not work for all of Phoenix but does 
work for Encanto Village and supports the proposal.

Encanto Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 4 of 4 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3
rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 10, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
8-0 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Staff Presentation:  
 
Tricia Gomes, acting Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department, 
provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment to reduce parking 
requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms. Gomes described the 
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable 
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for 
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code. 
 
Questions from the Committee:  
 
Rebecca Perrera asked if any research was done to determine the proposed parking 
ratio. Ms. Gomes stated that staff utilized ITE data. Ms. Perrera asked if it was for the 
entire country or were there categories. Ms. Gomes noted that there are three 
subcategories to evaluate the data. Ms. Perrera stated that Laveen needed parking and 
that there is not enough infrastructure to support the reduction. Ms. Perrera stated that 
she would like to see a reduction in commercial uses rather than residential. Ms. 
Perrera added that the proposed text amendment seems to treat people in affordable 
housing differently from other individuals.  
 
Carlos Ortega asked how the parking reduction would benefit Laveen as it continues to 
grow. Ms. Gomes noted that the text amendment would apply city-wide and would 
make housing more affordable by reducing some requirements. Ms. Gomes added that 
the proposed changes are minimums and that some developments provide more than 
the required.  
 
JoAnne Jensen stated that the proposed text amendment would treat individuals in 
affordable housing differently from market rate housing. Ms. Gomes asked for 
clarification. Ms. Jensen noted that the parking rate should be the same for affordable 
housing and market rate housing. Ms. Jensen stated that she would not support the text

Laveen Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 10, 2023 
Page 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
amendment.  
 
Francisco Barraza stated that the city has a large footprint and instead of having 
sufficient public transit or density, it continues to grow outward. Mr. Barraza stated that 
Laveen doesn’t have enough public transit infrastructure to support the text amendment. 
Ms. Gomes added that affordable housing developments are typically located along 
transit options. Ms. Gomes noted that developers would look at the surrounding 
amenities. 
 
Public Comment: 
 
Dan Penton asked for clarification on-street parking and bike lanes. Phil Hertel agreed. 
Ms. Gomes stated that developers could utilize on-street parking as part of their 
required parking; however, current initiatives have promoted bicycle lanes. Ms. Gomes 
explained that the bicycle lanes replace on-street parking. Ms. Gomes added that the 
proposed reduction would remove the need for on-street parking by providing a 
reduction for on-site parking. Mr. Penton stated that there should be a reduction in 
vehicle lanes to provide bike lanes. Mr. Penton added that developers should provide 
additional bicycle parking since there is a reduction in auto parking. Mr. Penton added 
that the LCRD supports the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter and that 
the reductions should be a village-by-village basis. Mr. Penton stated that public transit 
needed to be provided before a reduction was approved.  
 
Phil Hertel asked if ADA parking spaces are considered reserved or unreserved. Ms. 
Gomes noted that ADA parking spaces are reserved. Mr. Hertel noted that 
enforcement would be an issue and Laveen doesn’t have the public transit infrastructure 
to support the reduction. Mr. Hertel noted a multifamily development on 35th Avenue 
and Southern Road and asked if individuals from the development parked in the 
commercial uses, who would enforce the parking situation. Ms. Gomes stated that the 
proposed development is probably not affordable and would be at the 1.25 parking 
requirement. Ms. Gomes noted that the commercial development can enforce who 
parks in their parking lot. 
 
Jack Purvis asked if the reduction would apply to existing or proposed developments. 
Ms. Gomes stated that it would be existing and new developments.  
 
Committee Discussion:  
 
Mr. Ortega asked the committee if they would support a standard parking reduction 
regardless of affordable or market rate. Patrick Nasser-Taylor stated that this would 
negatively impact individuals living in all multifamily developments.  
 
Mr. Penton stated that the LCRD supports the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater 
Phoenix letter regarding the parking reduction and that there is a need for pedestrian-
only zones.

Laveen Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 10, 2023 
Page 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. Hertel stated that the committee could vote to recommend denial.  
 
Motion:  
Carlos Ortega motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Jennifer Rouse 
seconded the motion.  
 
Ms. Perrera asked staff to provide their input on the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater 
Phoenix recommendation. Ms. Gomes stated the City’s recommendation would be 
approval, but the committee could still recommend a different parking ratio. Ms. Gomes 
noted that the passenger loading zones are meant for drop off services such as food or 
getting an Uber. Ms. Gomes noted that commercial loading areas are away from the 
street and that the passenger loading zones are not meant for commercial loading.  
 
Vote: 
8-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members 
Barraza, Chiarelli, Jensen, Nasser-Taylor, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, and Hurd in favor.  
 
Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:  
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 10, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval per the staff recommendation 
VPC Vote 
10-4 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
No members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He 
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and 
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking 
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
Committee Member Gaughan stated that this proposal could create more resistance 
to affordable housing from neighbors concerned about traffic. 
 
Committee Member Sherman stated that the streets belong to the public, anyone can 
park there, and streets can be safer with cars parked on the street.  
 
Committee Member Dana Johnson stated that he doesn’t support the reductions for 
affordable housing because he doesn’t want to assume residents of affordable housing 
don’t own cars, noting that vehicle ownership is still the way people are living in 
Phoenix. 
 
Committee Member Uss stated that there are statistics from different organizations 
that show lower vehicle ownership rates for low-income people, further noting that 
parking requirements historically have been racially discriminatory. 
 
Committee Member Olivas stated that parking is an issue in projects that have used 
reduced parking requirements, leading to people parking a long way from their units

Central City Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 10, 2023 
Page 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
and streets becoming parking lots. 
 
Committee Member Starks asked for clarification on the amount of affordable housing 
that needs to be provided to use the lower rate. Mr. Grande replied that the reduced 
requirement would only apply to the affordable units. 
 
Chair Gonzales stated that it can be challenging to get funding for projects with 
parking requirements that are lower than what’s standard. Mr. Grande stated that he 
would discuss the issue with staff internally. 
 
Committee Member Greenman asked whether the city explored the idea of removing 
permit requirements for on-street parking for historic neighborhoods. Mr. Grande 
replied that he wasn’t aware of any conversations about that option. 
 
Committee Member Martinez stated that she doesn’t see a difference in vehicle 
ownership between affordable housing and market rate housing. 
 
Committee Member Greenman asked whether these new requirements would apply 
to existing apartments or only new developments. Mr. Grande replied that if a 
developer were to add new units to a site and go through a new site plan review 
process, the proposed requirements would apply to the whole site. 
 
Committee Member Sonoskey stated that developers should have more tools 
available to make this feasible and that more parking could be provided on-street if the 
city allowed head-in parking. 
 
Committee Member Sherman asked about the Downtown Code. Mr. Grande replied 
that this proposal would not affect Downtown Code and that there is already a bonus 
points system for reducing parking downtown. 
 
Committee Member Olivas expressed concern about the process used to approve the 
text amendment. 
 
Committee Member Uss asked if the city is planning any further transportation studies 
related to this proposal. Mr. Grande replied that individual projects typically do traffic 
analysis and provide necessary improvements. 
 
Committee Member Gaughan asked about whether parking is reviewed for individual 
development projects. Mr. Grande stated that the focus is on traffic generated for each 
use. 
 
Committee Member Panetta asked if there are many variances looking for parking 
reductions and if this is approved, will there be more units constructed. Mr. Grande 
discussed the requirements of variances and noted that there are projects that don’t 
reach their maximum potential due to an inability to provide enough parking.

Central City Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 10, 2023 
Page 3 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Committee Member Sonoskey stated that changing the size of required parking stalls 
would also allow more room for parking in garages, which would reduce the amount of 
garage space developers need to build. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
None. 
 
MOTION 
Eva Olivas made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. There was no 
second; therefore, the motion failed. 
 
MOTION 
Jeff Sherman made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff 
recommendation. Ash Uss seconded the motion for approval. 
 
VOTE 
10-4, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation 
passed, with Committee Members Burns, Burton, Gaughan, Greenman, Panetta, 
Sherman, Sonoskey, Starks, Uss, and Gonzales in favor; Committee Members 
Johnson, Lockhart, Martinez, and Olivas opposed. 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 11, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval per the staff recommendation  
VPC Vote 
14-1 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
1 member of the public registered to speak on this item in opposition. 
 
Chris DePerro, staff, provided a presentation on the proposed text amendment to 
reduce parking city wide for residential developments with inclusion of minimum 
requirements. Mr. DePerro discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal 
and the comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development, 
Walkable Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. DePerro displayed the 
changes that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for 
streetscapes. Mr. DePerro provided information on the Institute for Traffic Engineers 
(ITE) Parking Manual to determine suitable parking demands. Mr. DePerro discussed 
affordable housing at the applicability for parking and demand adjustments that will be 
made.  Mr. DePerro discussed the time frame for review for the at Villages, Planning 
Commission and City Council. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE: 
 
None.  
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS: 
 
Neal Haddad thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and stated he wanted 
to high light some of the points in the letter provided to the Committee. Mr. Haddad 
stated that some developers have had to deal with parking constraints, but the one size 
fits all is not an appropriate action for a City as large as Phoenix. Mr. Haddad stated that 
parking spaces calculations for multifamily development should only be based on 
proximity to public transportation options not on rental rates or affordable rates. Mr. 
Haddad noted the text amendment might be appropriate for the downtown area but is

Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-5-23-Y 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
not acceptable to areas outside the downtown areas and that visibility triangles should 
be maintained and part of the parking requirements. 
 
STAFF RESPONSE: 
 
Mr. DePerro responded that visibility triangles are required under City Code, and they 
are mentioned in the zoning ordinance when they are not covered by intersections. 
Nothing regarding visibility triangles has been changed.   
 
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: 
 
None.  
 
MOTION 
 
Committee member Dawn Augusta motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y 
per the staff recommendation. Committee member Kitty Langmade seconded the 
motion. 
 
VOTE:  
 
14-1; motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with 
Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg Thraen, Czerwinski, 
Eichelkraut, Grace, Langmade, Miller, O’Malley, Paceley, Wilenchik and Swart in favor 
and Committee member Schmieder in opposition.  
 
Mr. Paceley stated the corridor center, high density, light rail are areas where we focus, 
and this could be perceived as negative but does support this amendment and votes 
yes. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: 
 
Staff have no comments.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 11, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
9-0 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He 
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and 
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking 
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
Committee Member Nowell asked about the criteria for units to be considered 
affordable. Mr. Grande responded with the definition of affordable housing in the 
proposed text. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave expressed concern that funding for transit projects could run out at 
some point. Mr. Grande responded by highlighting the Transportation 2050 plan, which 
provides a funding source for transit projects for many years into the future. 
 
Committee Member Israel asked about the applicability to single-family attached 
housing. Mr. Grande replied that the changes would apply to single-family attached 
developments. 
 
Committee Member Kirkilas asked if ADA accessible parking spaces would be 
required for developments with no parking. Mr. Grande replied that it wouldn’t because 
it is based on the number of spaces provided. Chair Bowser noted that the 
requirement is one accessible space per 25 parking spaces.

Desert View Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 11, 2023 
Page 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
Larry Whitesell introduced himself and noted that the NCGP recommends denial of 
the text amendment, noting that parking studies are not relevant to Phoenix where 
transit is lacking. However, he reviewed several recommended modifications if the 
proposal is approved. 
 
Jackie Rich introduced herself and spoke about the lack of transit options in Phoenix, 
highlighting the amount of time it would take to travel to the VPC meeting by transit. 
 
STAFF RESPONSE 
Mr. Grande stated that residential developments require loading zones, separate from 
passenger drop off and pick up, further noting that the text amendment is targeting 
transit-rich sections of the city for the largest reductions, acknowledging that transit 
options are limited in many areas of the city. 
 
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 
 
MOTION 
Committee Member Rick Nowell made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-
Y. Committee Member Rick Powell seconded the motion for denial. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that Phoenix is not a walkable city, and he has concerns 
about where cars are going to park without enough off-street parking. 
 
Committee Member Powell stated that the text amendment was being rushed and 
that the city should focus on WU Code and TOD areas for parking reductions, adding 
that reductions for affordable housing don’t make sense. 
 
Committee Member Israel stated that affordable housing has financing issues and 
that he would be in favor of affordable housing parking reductions. 
 
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that there is no correlation between affordable housing and 
a reduced need for parking. 
 
VOTE 
9-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed; Committee Members Barto, 
Israel, Kirkilas, Nowell, Powell, Reynolds, Santoro, Lagrave, and Bowser in favor. 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 11, 2023 
Request  
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing. 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
3-2 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Staff Presentation: 
Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and then shared the current 
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable 
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development 
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and 
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano noted that the 
proposed parking ratio for multifamily development City-wide was based on an average 
of multifamily parking demand of 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban development and 
1.2 spaces per unit for urban development, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers 
(ITE) Manual, which has data based on studies done in cities throughout the nation 
where cars were counted and resulted in these parking ratios based on the actual 
parking demand. Mr. Zambrano displayed an example for each type of multifamily 
development of a 100-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units, and shared what 
the difference in the parking requirement would be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed 
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. 
Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for the text amendment and stated that staff 
recommends approval as listed in the staff report. 
 
 
Questions from the Committee: 
Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that the current requirement is a minimum of 1.5 
parking spaces per unit for 1- to 2-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces per unit for 3- or 
more bedroom units. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Lawrence asked if 
the proposed parking ratio is for any number of bedrooms. Mr. Zambrano responded 
affirmatively.  
 
Ms. Stockham added that the staff that wrote the proposed text amendment not only 
looked at the ITE Manual, which is a mega study of cities throughout the nation over 
several decades, but also conducted a study of City of Phoenix projects in terms of the 
actual amount of parking most projects provide, and parking variances requested.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 2 of 7 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Chair Lawrence stated that Phoenix is like no other city in the country. Chair Lawrence 
asked for clarification that the multifamily affordable housing example with the parking 
reduction would have 100 units with only 63 parking spaces and 19 unreserved spaces, 
noting that it is less than the number of units and that there would be no parking spaces 
for visitors if everyone in the apartment complex owned a vehicle. Mr. Zambrano 
responded that the parking ratio is a minimum standard, and that developers could still 
provide more parking than the minimum based on the demand of their clientele. Chair 
Lawrence responded that developers would not provide more than the minimum 
parking required because they would not have to provide it and they do not want to 
provide it. Mr. Zambrano responded that developers would know what their clientele 
parking demand is and will know what they will need to provide in order to have a 
successful project, which may be more than the minimum requirement.  
 
Ms. Stockham added that she looked at a recent project that the Rio Vista VPC 
approved near the I-17 freeway and Jenny Lin Road, which had provided 25 percent 
more parking spaces that the minimum required. 
 
Chair Lawrence agreed that people would not be inclined to rent at a certain apartment 
complex if they are not able to park their car there.  
 
Mr. Virgil stated that the parking reduction text amendment would negatively impact 
apartment rentals as a result. 
 
 
Mr. Holton asked what the typical dimensions are for a parking space. Mr. Zambrano 
responded that they are typically about eight feet wide and 19 feet long. 
 
Mr. Virgil asked if the text amendment would change the minimum parking dimensions. 
Mr. Zambrano responded that it would not change those requirements, noting that 
parking dimensions are existing requirements in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Mr. 
Zambrano added that the text amendment is only changing the minimum number of 
parking spaces required. Mr. Virgil stated that everyone that lives in the Rio Vista 
Village has a car, and that most households have two individuals that work in order to 
afford living there, so each household will typically have two cars. Mr. Virgil added that 
there is not any affordable housing in the Rio Vista Village. Mr. Zambrano responded 
that the idea of including affordable housing in the parking reduction text amendment 
was to encourage more affordable housing. Mr. Virgil responded that people would be 
overcrowded in an apartment complex with not enough parking. Mr. Zambrano 
responded that the idea behind the inclusion of affordable housing is that parking 
spaces take up a lot of land which makes projects more expensive because of all the 
land needing to be dedicated to parking. Mr. Virgil responded that it would make more 
sense in Downtown Phoenix since there is not a lot of room to build there, but it will not 
work in the Rio Vista Village. 
 
Chair Lawrence added that there are parking garages in Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Virgil 
agreed, adding that there is a lack of public transit in their area.  
Chair Lawrence added that people are not walking a few blocks in the extreme heat 
during Phoenix’s summer to go somewhere.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 3 of 7 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. Virgil stated that projects in Downtown Phoenix may need the extra space to build 
projects, but in the Rio Vista Village they do not, and people will need the extra parking 
in the Rio Vista Village. Mr. Virgil was unclear why the proposed parking reduction was 
City-wide.  
 
Chair Lawrence added that he does not know anyone that lives in Phoenix that does 
not own a vehicle since there are other regional and recreational destinations that 
require a car to travel to them. 
 
Ms. Stockham stated that she has two employees that do not have cars. Chair 
Lawrence asked if they lived in Downtown Phoenix. Ms. Stockham responded that one 
employee lives east of Downtown Phoenix and the other lives by Margaret T. Hance 
Park. Chair Lawrence asked if Ms. Stockham would agree that reduced parking is 
unusual for Arizona. Ms. Stockham responded that there are students that do not have 
cars and there is a trend of younger adults that do not want to own cars. Chair 
Lawrence stated that he would question the number of students without cars since 
Arizona State University (ASU) has a zoo of parking. Ms. Stockham responded that 
some students do not have cars because they live in Downtown Phoenix and that is 
where their classes are. Chair Lawrence disagreed with a 50 percent reduction for 
parking, noting that it would be less than one parking space per home. 
 
Mr. Zambrano stated that the 50 percent parking reduction would not really impact the 
Rio Vista Village, because it is specific for the Walkable Urban (WU) Code which is 
typically adjacent to the light rail. Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that the parking 
ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit would be the parking ratio that would apply to their 
village. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it would apply only for 
multifamily residential development, and not for single-family homes. Chair Lawrence 
asked for clarification that the difference for their village would be 1.5 parking spaces 
per unit for 1- and 2-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces per unit for 3- or more 
bedroom units versus 1.25 parking spaces per unit for any number of bedroom units. 
Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Lawrence stated that it would be 
challenging since their village has no other places to park, such as parking garages, 
and they do not have street parking. Chair Lawrence added that his HOA does not even 
allow street parking and if he has friends that come over, all the cars have to be jammed 
into his driveway, or parked on his RV side, which then results in a letter from the HOA 
for parking in a landscape area. Chair Lawrence added that his children used to live in 
an apartment complex and when visiting them, he could never find a parking space. 
Chair Lawrence stated that his son would have to park three blocks away because of 
the lack of parking spaces. 
 
Ms. Stockham reiterated that the proposed parking ratios are a minimum and that the 
developer that came to the Rio Vista VPC a few months ago knew the area they were 
building in and provided 100 more parking spaces than the minimum required. Ms. 
Stockham reiterated that more than the minimum number of parking spaces could be 
provided, based on the area and the type of people a developer is serving. Ms. 
Stockham stated that she had also looked at an affordable housing project and a project 
next to the light rail within the Central City Village, which still provided between eight

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 4 of 7 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
percent to 12 percent more parking than the minimum required. Chair Lawrence asked 
what the reason is for reducing the parking minimums so much. Ms. Stockham 
responded that this text amendment stems from the Housing Phoenix Plan, and that the 
City Council directed staff to look at cost-saving ways to incentivize more housing 
construction. Ms. Stockham reiterated that parking is extremely expensive and that 
most of the time, a developer is burdened by so much parking requirement, that the first 
part of the design in a project is for parking. Ms. Stockham added that parking really 
limits development based on how much parking needs to be provided. 
 
Mr. Virgil stated that the residential building would become larger in place of the 
removed parking spaces. 
 
Chair Lawrence stated that a developer could also buy a smaller lot, which would cost 
less money, and they would be able to get more units on smaller lots, and that it is 
being set up to appear as if it costs less. 
 
Mr. Scharboneau asked what the process would be if there is a developer that wants 
an exception to the minimum parking requirement. Ms. Stockham responded that one 
option would be a shared parking model, such as being located next to a parking 
garage, or one could apply for a variance to reduce the required parking and would 
have to prove that the lot has a hardship. 
 
Chair Lawrence stated that if a developer chooses to provide less parking, they will 
have a hard time selling or leasing units when people find out they would not have a 
parking space. Chair Lawrence stated that it would hinder developers on the 
performance of their projects if they do not make good decisions.  
 
Ms. Stockham added that most projects are funded with construction loans, and banks 
are usually conservative in the amount of money they will lend to developers and would 
likely not lend money to a developer that would want to build multifamily residential with 
less parking in an area that required more parking. 
 
Mr. Holton asked what had been said regarding projects in the Rio Vista Village. Ms. 
Stockham responded that she was providing an example of a developer that was 
building a project within their village. Mr. Holton stated that people are coming to 
Phoenix for the space because they are tired of being in small spaces.  
 
Chair Lawrence asked if the text amendment language was reviewed by the Law 
Department. Ms. Stockham responded affirmatively.  
 
Mr. Virgil recommended looking at the City of Las Vegas because they have a similar 
type of development as Phoenix. Mr. Virgil asked if the City looked at parking for the 
City of Las Vegas. Ms. Stockham was not sure if Las Vegas was looked at. 
 
Chair Lawrence stated that Phoenix’s environment is pretty brutal to walk in. Chair 
Lawrence added that he believes a majority of people in Arizona have a vehicle. Chair 
Lawrence stated that he is in the construction industry, and each one of their workers

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 5 of 7 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
living within an affordable housing project would need a vehicle to get to a job site 
where construction is happening, which is not within walking distance.  
 
Mr. Zambrano reiterated that the parking ratios came from the ITE Manual, which 
comes from professional traffic engineers that did a study of the actual parking demand. 
 
Mr. Holton asked if handicap parking is incorporated in the text amendment. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that handicap parking requirements are existing standards that 
would remain and are not being changed. Mr. Holton asked about the handicap parking 
ratios. Mr. Zambrano responded that he is unsure of the exact parking ratios, but he 
believes it is based on the number of dwelling units.  
 
Chair Lawrence stated that handicap parking would not be affected by this text 
amendment since it is federally regulated.  
 
Mr. Holton stated that the overall message is a parking reduction, so all parking would 
be reduced. 
 
Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that this text amendment is separate from 
handicap parking requirements. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.  
 
Mr. Scharboneau asked if it was ever considered to focus on specific areas, such as 
Downtown Phoenix, rather than City-wide. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are 
some existing parking reductions, such as allowing on-street parking to be counted 
towards the minimum required parking within the Infill Development District, and parking 
reductions within the WU Code, based on proximity to the light rail, or based on being 
located in Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano added that there are separate parts to the 
text amendment, including multifamily City-wide, affordable multifamily City-wide, the 
Infill Development District, and the Walkable Urban Code. 
 
Chair Lawrence stated that the part of the text amendment that would affect the Rio 
Vista Village would be the multifamily parking reduction City-wide. Chair Lawrence 
asked for clarification that the Infill Development District does not come up to the Rio 
Vista Village. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.  
 
Ms. Stockham added that the Committee could vote to approve parts of the text 
amendment, such as the Infill Development District and the Walkable Urban Code, if 
they are okay with those parts of the text amendment but not okay with the other City-
wide parts of the text amendment. 
 
Mr. Virgil asked what the other VPC recommendations were. Ms. Stockham 
responded that the Central City VPC and Encanto VPC recommended approval and the 
Laveen VPC recommended denial.  
 
Chair Lawrence stated that the City Council will look at the VPC recommendations and 
will make the ultimate decision.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 6 of 7 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. Holton stated that the VPC should let the City Council see what they are standing 
for. 
 
Mr. Sommacampagna asked about the boundary of the Infill Development District. Mr. 
Zambrano responded that anything within the boundary allows single-family attached 
(SFA) development by-right, whereas anything outside of the boundary within the grey 
area on the map allows single-family attached development subject to obtaining a use 
permit. Mr. Sommacampagna asked if a development is outside of the boundary within 
the grey area on the map, they would be able to obtain a use permit for SFA as well as 
have a 50 percent reduction in parking. Mr. Zambrano responded that they would not 
be able to get that parking reduction since that would be single-family development, and 
the proposed parking reductions are for multifamily development. Mr. 
Sommacampagna asked if townhomes such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, if 
condo platted, would not be allowed a parking reduction. Mr. Zambrano responded that 
a triplex and above would be considered multifamily. Mr. Sommacampagna asked for 
clarification that the proposed parking reductions do not affect SFA development. 
 
Ms. Stockham responded that as she understands it, the text amendment would only 
allow the 50 percent parking reduction for multifamily development within the Infill 
Development District. Ms. Stockham added that the main intent of the map is to indicate 
if SFA development is allowed by-right or subject to a use permit, in addition to some 
other items related to development. 
 
Mr. Holton asked what by-right meant. Mr. Zambrano responded that it means it is 
allowed without having to go through a special process to allow it. Mr. Holton stated 
that he wished to make a motion, noting that the parking reduction is not appropriate for 
the Rio Vista Village. 
 
Mr. Virgil stated that Mr. Holton could recommend stipulations with his motion. 
 
Mr. Zambrano stated that text amendments do not have stipulations, but they can be 
approved with direction, or that portions of the text amendment could be approved. 
 
Chair Lawrence added that Mr. Holton could also make a motion to deny the entire text 
amendment. 
 
 
Public Comments: 
None. 
 
Staff Response: 
None. 
 
 
MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y: 
Mr. Holton motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Mr. Virgil seconded the 
motion.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 7 of 7 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y: 
3-2; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee members 
Holton, Virgil, and Lawrence in favor and Committee members Scharboneau and 
Sommacampagna opposed. 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 11, 2023 
Location 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing. 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
11-0 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment 
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Mr. Rogers 
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and 
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking 
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Coleman asked how the new multifamily and affordable housing 
parking requirements are more simple than the previous requirements. Mr. Rogers 
stated that while the proposed parking requirements are more nuanced and 
individualized for different uses and locations throughout the City, the new language is a 
simple ratio rather than a formula with multiple variables. Committee Member Coleman 
asked if a five-bedroom unit would have the same parking requirement as a unit with 
less bedrooms. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the new parking calculation is based on the 
number of units not the number of bedrooms within units.  
 
Chair Daniels stated that a 300-unit multifamily example had been provided during the 
info only item during the June meeting and asked if that slide was in the presentation. 
Mr. Rogers stated that the slide deck had been updated to use 100-unit multifamily 
examples.  
 
Committee Member Viera stated that she is concerned about how the proposal will 
impact the underserved population, stated she would like to pause this discussion until 
a mobility plan is presented, and stated that the parking reductions assumes that public 
transportation is working for everyone.

Committee Member Shepard stated that people can’t live in Phoenix without a car, 
stated that the proposal will cause problems, and stated that the proposal will benefit 
developers not the general public.  
 
Chair Daniels stated that she had spoken to five developers who stated that they are 
not asking for a parking requirement reduction and that they provide more parking than 
required on multifamily developments because limited parking can cause safety and 
economic issues. Chair Daniels explained that she used to be a regional manager for 
apartment complexes and explained she had asked for the 300-unit multifamily example 
because apartments have 300-units on average. Chair Daniels stated that the federal 
standard occupancy is two people per bedroom and explained that a 300-unit apartment 
complex with a mix of studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units 
typically has 1,200 occupants. Chair Daniels explained that if half of the 1,200 
occupants drive the proposal would not provide one parking space for everyone that 
drives. Chair Daniels stated that if the 300-unit apartment complex located at 19th 
Avenue and Southern had been built under the proposed parking reduction, the 
residents of the adjacent subdivision that had opposed the development would now 
have residents of the multifamily development parking within their subdivision due to a 
lack of available parking in the multifamily development. Chair Daniels stated she 
charged $25 a month for covered parking when she managed apartments in 1998 and 
explained that with the decrease in required parking she expects parking to run $100-
$150 a month due to the small quantity of parking spaces. Chair Daniels explained that, 
per the Arizona Landlord Tenant Act, property management companies are required to 
provide safety for the residents and stated the parking reduction will cause dangerous 
situations for women who must park outside of their apartment community and walk 
from their cars to their apartments during the night. Chair Daniels stated that the 
proposal is social and economic racism because it affects the underserved and stated 
that the Arizona House bill that had included parking reductions for multifamily had 
failed. Chair Daniels stated that she supports parking reductions for commercial uses, 
but reducing multifamily parking requirements destroys people’s safety and forces 
people pay extra to park within their apartment communities.  
 
Committee Member Shepard asked where people with electric cars will park.  
 
Committee Member Coleman stated that parking reductions within the downtown area 
already exist and stated he does not know how the parking reduction will work in places 
other than downtown. Chair Daniels stated that the South Central TOD Community 
Plan identifies areas where the Walkable Urban Code is supported in South Mountain. 
Committee Member Viera stated that a mobility plan is still needed.  
 
Chair Daniels stated that parking has already been lost due to the light rail and bike 
lanes and now the parking reduction will eliminate even more of the already limited 
parking. Chair Daniels refuted a letter that stated an uncovered parking space costs a 
developer $10,000 and a covered parking space $35,000 to $55,000 and explained the 
actual cost is $2,000 to $2,500 for an uncovered parking space and $10,000 for a

covered parking space. Chair Daniels explained that apartments will charge what they 
can, stated that rents do not go down, and explained apartment rates are based on 
rates in the surrounding area.  
 
Committee Member Alvarez stated that the parking reductions should not be citywide, 
but rather only areas near transit. Chair Daniels added she spent three hours a day on 
the bus and had to walk home in the dark when she took transit for three weeks due to 
issues with her vehicle. Committee Member Alvarez added that a 10 minute drive can 
be a 60 minute transit ride.  
 
Committee Member Viera stated that this proposal is creating more disparity and 
mentioned that she and Committee Member Hare needed to leave earlier but this issue 
is too important to leave without a vote. Chair Daniels reminded members of the 
committee that meetings are until nine o’clock. Committee Member Hare stated she 
cannot keep paying a babysitter so she can attend a volunteer job. Chair Daniels 
reiterated that if quorum is lost a vote cannot be taken.  
 
Committee Member Fatima Muhammad Roque stated that the parking reduction will 
increase danger for people who will have to walk, especially people of color.  
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
 
Cory Kincaid stated that one own experience should not be projected on others and 
explained that 40% of Maricopa County residents do not have a car. Mr. Kincaid stated 
that he had met with five builders over the last month and when the land cost is 
incorporated into the calculation, structured parking costs more than $50,000 per stall. 
Mr. Kincaid explained that one studio apartment is equivalent in cost to five structured 
parking spaces and stated that the question is not how much rents will go down, but 
rather how much will rents go up. Mr. Kincaid reiterated that the proposal is for parking 
minimums not maximum and stated that developers will build what they need as a 
development with no parking cannot get financed. Mr. Kincaid added that a lot of jobs 
allow individuals to work remotely.  
 
Committee Member Greathouse asked what the demographic are considered 
residents in regard to the 40% figure of those who do not own a car. Mr. Kincaid stated 
that the 40% was for the entirety of Maricopa County.   
 
Committee Member Shepard stated that everyone subsidizes the light rail and the bus 
system whether people use it or not.  
 
Chair Daniels stated that while some people are working remotely, not everyone has 
the luxury to work remotely, and the underserved population will be negatively impacted 
by the text amendment. Chair Daniels agreed that parking garage spaces are more 
expensive and stated that the committee has been pushing to get a text amendment to 
allow the Walkable Urban Code, which includes existing parking reductions, to be

utilized in the South Central TOD Community Plan area, so she is surprised the citywide 
parking reduction text amendment has been brought to the committee first.  
 
Mr. Valencia explained that the text amendment to the Baseline Area Overlay District to 
allow for the Walkable Urban Code to be utilized will be maximized by the parking 
reduction text amendment and stated it is unfortunate the parking reduction came first, 
but he believed the parking reduction text amendment was also initiated first.  
 
Chair Daniels stated she would like to have the Walkable Urban Code allowed in the 
South Central TOD area and in the meantime commercial parking should be reduced. 
Chair Daniels added that she thought this proposal would cause a fair housing 
discrimination lawsuit to be brought against the City.  
 
Committee Member Jackson asked if the purpose of the parking reduction was to 
allow more units to be built. Ms. Gomes summarized the proposal, stated that 
affordable developments will not be able to get funding unless the project is near transit 
and in close to employment, spoke about the Infill Development District’s transit 
availability, and spoke about the transit investment in locations where the Walkable 
Urban Code is allowed. Ms. Gomes reiterated that the proposal is for parking 
minimums, not maximum and explained that the organizations that provide funding will 
require different parking ratios depending on who is being served. Ms. Gomes explained 
that the parking reductions are based on ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) data, 
summarized how data is collected, and explained that the proposed citywide parking 
ratio requires more parking spaces than the ITE data would suggest Chair Daniels 
stated that in her time working with apartment complexes she has never seen a 
multifamily parking lot not full in the evening. Ms. Gomes reiterated that the ITE data are 
nighttime counts.  
 
Committee Member Coleman asked if many variances had been requested to reduce 
parking requirements. Ms. Gomes stated that variances can be pursued to reduce 
parking requirements, but that adds time and costs more money.  
 
Chair Daniels stated that a slum lord will build the minimum amount of parking to take 
advantage of the underserved communities and stated that people do not have the time 
use light rail as much as people expected.  
 
Committee Member Greathouse stated that Mr. Kincaid made a great point that the 
parking reduction is for the minimum number of required parking spaces, not the 
maximum and stated that providing less parking will save a lot of money. Chair Daniels 
stated that the money saved will not translate into greater affordability of units.  
 
Committee Member Viera stated that this is a food desert and walking a mile in 117-
degree weather to get groceries will not be sustainable.  
 
Chair Daniels reiterated that Arizona Senate Bill 1117, which included ADUs and a 
parking reduction, had failed.

Committee Member Jackson asked why the parking reduction is proposed. Ms. 
Gomes stated that the parking reduction drives down the cost to provide housing.  
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE 
 
MOTION 
Committee Member Shepard made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. 
Committee Member Viera seconded the motion.  
 
VOTE 
11-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members 
Alvarez, Coleman, F. Daniels, Hare, Jackson, Roque, Shepard, Smith, Viera, 
Greathouse, and T. Daniels in favor and Committee Members and opposed. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z- TA-8-23-Y  
 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 12, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for 
multifamily and affordable housing 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
7-2-1 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.  
 
Committee member Saundra Cole left the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to 
10 members. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
 
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric showed a 
comparison of current and proposed requirements as part of the text amendment for 
Citywide multifamily, affordable housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable 
Urban Code projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required 
passenger loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc. 
 
Questions from Committee: 
 
Sandra Oviedo asked about commercial parking. Sarah Stockham, staff, replied that 
the only proposed changes were for multifamily projects. 
 
Sandra Oviedo asked about the ADU’s. Ms. Stockham mentioned the parking 
requirement reductions only applied to multifamily residential. 
 
Melissa Acevedo asked why the text amendment was being proposed. Ms. Stockham 
said this was part of the City Council directive to find ways to address the housing 
shortages.

Maryvale Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Public Comments: 
 
Larry Whitesell with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix spoke on their 
position for the text amendment and identified items they found as problems with the 
amendment. Mr. Whitesell said Phoenix is unique and is very spread out and a plan to 
reduce parking for a city which does not have reliable public transportation will have 
problems. Mr. Whitesell had suggestions for improvements to the proposed text 
amendment. Mr. Whitesell expressed that it should not be based on the price of the 
units but only should be based on proximity to public transportation. Mr. Whitesell also 
believed the size of the unit should not be based on the parking calculations. Mr. 
Whitesell felt that 1.5 parking spaces is the standard calculation for a one or two 
bedroom and felt the infill development district should not be given a parking reduction 
but a density bonus. Mr. Whitesell stated the Walkable Urban Code parking requirement 
should never be zero and there always should be some parking. Mr. Whitesell said this 
does not accommodate ADA and people living in the Walkable Urban Code areas who 
have guests. Mr. Whitesell asked the committee to deny the text amendment entirely or 
amend per the recommendations he provided. 
 
Jackie Rich said she agreed with Mr. Whitesell and gave an example of how long it 
would take to get to the community center by bicycle or bus versus by car. 
 
Staff Response: 
 
Sarah Stockham, staff, stated this is a reduction in the minimum requirements but 
would not mean a developer cannot provide more parking. Ms. Stockham added that 
affordable housing is based on HUD and to qualify applicants would need to be verified 
by the Housing Department. 
 
Motion: 
 
Chris Demarest made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Ken Dubose 
seconded the motion. 
 
Vote: 
7-2-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed, with Committee Members 
Acevedo, Battle, Demarest, DuBose, Fostino, Valenzuela, Chair Derie in favor; 
Committee Members Barba and Norgaard opposed, and Committee Member Oviedo 
abstained. 
 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 13, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for 
multifamily and affordable housing 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
5-4 
 
One member of the public registered to speak on this item, and one member of the 
public registered to speak on this item, in opposition. 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric shared a 
comparison for current requirements and the proposed changes for citywide multifamily, 
affordable multifamily housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable Urban Code 
projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required passenger 
loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Trilese DiLeo asked what “affordable” units meant in the proposal. 
 
Matteo Moric said the Housing Department would verify if a project was providing 
affordable units.  
 
Al Field wanted to know if the information applied to only affordable housing units. 
 
Matteo Moric said it would be for multifamily housing citywide. 
 
Trilese DiLeo said there would be a reduction of parking in the affordable units. 
 
Matteo Moric said the WU code properties were mostly along light rail and transit 
corridors.

Deer Valley Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Ricardo Romero said always what comes up the zoning projects is traffic or parking 
concerns. Mr. Romero said it’s a changing world we live in. 
 
Matteo Moric said the City looked at the requirements per the Institute of Traffic 
Engineers (ITE) and the city would require more parking than what that prescribes. 
 
James Sutphen explained the City of Phoenix was over 500 square miles and 
wondered about areas like Metro Center and its impacts. 
 
Gregory Freeman provided clarification that the text amendment would not allow 
development to lower their parking below the minimum requirement and developers 
could provide more, as there would be no caps. 
 
Matteo Moric confirmed this was correct. 
 
Trilese DiLeo said the developer would not be providing less than their required 
parking but would still look at market conditions to potentially provide more than what is 
required.  
 
Al Field said this was another effort to create a 15 minute city. Mr. Field expressed that 
developers reduce the size of the parking and the number of parking spaces and felt 
this was an instance of the government’s desire to move you into public transit. 
 
Ozzie Virgil agreed with Al Field and was concerned the size of parking cannot even 
open the door of a vehicle. Mr. Virgil noted there was a parking problem at 35th Avenue 
and Union Hills where residents have a second vehicle and only one designated for it. 
Mr. Virgil indicated there were problems with on street parking. Mr. Virgil also expressed 
concerns that developers do what will make more money and would build more units 
with less parking. Mr. Virgil felt it was okay for downtown where there is more public 
transit. Mr. Virgil felt once you let this reduction happen you will not get it back. 
 
Trilese DiLeo said she used to be the President of the HOA for the complex Ozzie 
Virgil was speaking of. Ms. DiLeo said it has ample parking but did not have driveways 
on the houses that were built. Ms. DiLeo added one thing developers want is to put 
more units on the property and this would be a more creative method to cut cost. Ms. 
DiLeo added that when you create a supply and demand problem you would have 
communities like LA and New York. If not like those communities she felt we would 
need to do something different.  
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
Sandy Grunow said she was co-chair of a neighborhood association. Ms. Grunow 
referenced a 2nd part of concerns for this text amendment. Ms. Grunow mentioned one 
size fits all is not appropriate for a city of 517 square miles and felt it should not be 
based on rental rates. Ms. Grunow noted that it might be appropriate for Downtown 
Code, Walkable Urban Code or transit-oriented districts but not city wide. Ms. Grunow

Deer Valley Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 3 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
identified a concern with visibility triangles and expressed that base parking 
requirements should not be reduced lower than 1.5 spaces per unit. And Ms. Grunow 
stated she wanted infill development be given 10% density bonus vs. a parking 
reduction. 
 
Jackie Rich stated some parts of the city are harder to get to than others and by driving 
it took 30 minutes to get to the meeting and that included a coffee stop. Ms. Rich added 
it would take two hours and it would have required being outside for at least one hour. 
Ms. Rich said the proposed text amendment assumes people can park on the street 
and that will not cause any problems. Ms. Rich added that the text amendment 
assumes fewer people need handicap parking and it would similarly reduce the number 
of handicap spaces, and it assumes lower income people need fewer cars than medium 
or higher end.  
 
Sarah Stockham said the visibility triangles were regulated by the City Code and that 
would not be changed. 
 
 
MOTION: 
Trilese DiLeo motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per staff 
recommendation. Gregory Freeman seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE: 
4 – 5, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y failed with Committee Members 
DiLeo, Freeman, Hoffman, and Kenney in favor. Field, Herber, Romero, Sutphen and 
Virgil opposed. 
 
Al Field tagged onto what Jackie Rich said about waiting out in the heat. Mr. Field 
added the police department is overwhelmed by policing the bus stops. Mr. Field felt 
with the text amendment the city was trying to force people to eliminate cars and force 
public transportation on them was not a good idea. 
 
Ricardo Romero believed the city is not prepared for this change in the transportation 
system. 
 
Trilese DiLeo said there are people who do not have vehicles, and have an option to 
buy a vehicle and this option will provide greater flexibility to a developer. Ms. DiLeo 
said its more needed in an affordable housing unit versus a luxury apartment. Ms. DiLeo 
felt this would take people off the streets and have a snow ball effect and this is a small 
piece of it. Ms. DiLeo added that most zoning cases come with concerns of traffic and 
she said she did not understand why people were concerned with less cars. 
  
Susan Herber spoke against the motion. Ms. Herber felt this was idealistic and not 
practical except for the affordable housing aspect.

Deer Valley Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 4 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Ozzie Virgil felt the reduction in parking would work in some areas and not others, 
there’s no real fix-all and believed will realistically people would have to drive out here. 
Mr. Virgil could not believe it took like three hours to get to the airport on public transit 
from his area. 
 
Gregory Freeman noted the parking reduction would not work for all. Mr. Freeman said 
there is a development in Tempe called the Cul-de-Sac which does not have parking 
and includes not only younger but older residents without cars. Mr. Freeman said he 
wanted the city to have the option. 
 
Trilese DiLeo said it would be important to vote on a denial in order to get a 
recommendation. 
 
 
MOTION 
Ozzie Virgil motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. James Sutphen seconded 
the motion. 
 
VOTE 
5-4, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee Members 
Field, Herber, Romero, Sutphen, and Virgil in favor. Committee Members DiLeo, 
Freeman, Hoffman, and Kenney opposed. 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 13, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing. 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
6-0 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.  
 
Staff Presentation: 
Christopher DePerro, staff, shared the parking reductions proposed, noting that the 
parking ratios were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, 
which contains about three decades worth of actual parking counts for multifamily 
across North America. Mr. DePerro displayed an example of market-rate and affordable 
multifamily development City-wide of a 100-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom 
units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would be, noting that 
the requirement is a minimum and not a maximum. Mr. DePerro mentioned that many 
multifamily projects find out they are a few parking spaces short after going through Site 
Planning and accounting for open space, retention, and other required items that take 
up space on a site, and it would have been easier to get through the process if the 
parking requirement was a little bit less. Mr. DePerro added that affordable housing has 
either State or federal money and must qualify through all sorts of programs, 
commitments, covenants and other items. Mr. DePerro stated that there is a lot of 
vetting that goes on for affordable housing developments in order for them to qualify as 
an affordable housing development, such as proximity to light rail, and the parking 
reduction would be handled as the affordable housing program prescribes. Mr. DePerro 
then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites 
zoned WU Code. Mr. DePerro concluded with the timeline for the text amendment.  
 
Questions from Committee: 
None. 
 
Public Comments:  
Jack Leonard, member with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP), 
architect, and former member of the Camelback East Village Planning Committee 
(VPC) and Encanto VPC, stated that he does not think this text amendment was

North Gateway Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 2 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
thought out well enough. Mr. Leonard stated that he believes the existing parking 
requirements are realistic. Mr. Leonard stated that the proposed parking reductions are 
a drastic change. Mr. Leonard noted that there is about a half a mile between his home 
and the nearest bus stop near 16th Street and Northern Avenue, and his office is at 
16th Street and Thomas Road, but it is too hot during the summer to make that half mile 
trip to the bus stop. Mr. Leonard stated that Phoenix is car-dependent and that there are 
certain areas in the City where parking can be reduced, but not the majority of the City. 
Mr. Leonard added that there are too many holes in the text amendment and would 
leave neighbors of multifamily developments suffering because of all the vehicles that 
will be parked in their neighborhood. Mr. Leonard stated that this text amendment 
should not be getting rushed through and it should be looked at more thoroughly. 
 
Neal Haddad, member with NCGP, concurred that this text amendment is a drastic 
change. Mr. Haddad stated that six VPCs that have met so far have all denied this text 
amendment and they would ask the North Gateway VPC to do the same. Mr. Haddad 
concurred that this text amendment has not been thought out, and that parking 
reductions would be appropriate in the downtown area and urban core and corridor 
areas, but not City-wide. Mr. Haddad added that he does not believe it would be unfair 
for the City to reach out to certain neighborhood organizations, noting that people likely 
do not believe it is unfair that the members of the North Gateway VPC were appointed 
to the Committee. Mr. Haddad stated that people are appointed to many committees 
throughout the City, and that they are appointed because of their knowledge and 
because the elected officials know the committee members and know their community. 
Mr. Haddad added that citizens could have been appointed to a stakeholder group for 
this text amendment, noting that it was mentioned before that the City Council did reach 
out to certain stakeholders for their opinions and input. Mr. Haddad asked that the 
Committee deny this text amendment. 
 
Staff Response to Public Comment: 
None. 
 
Discussion: 
Chair Julie Read stated that the North Gateway VPC primarily deals with multifamily 
development, and that she is not supportive of this text amendment. Chair Read stated 
that if minimum parking spaces are reduced for multifamily, it would be detrimental to 
their area, because they do not have any mass transit and are not getting any mass 
transit anytime soon. Chair Read recommended that this text amendment be denied.  
 
Jeff Johnson stated that he looked at the top zip codes for Phoenix that have the most 
cars and found that they are in the North Gateway Village. Mr. Johnson stated that 
Phoenix is tied for fourth for the top cities with the most cars. Mr. Johnson mentioned 
that a possible solution would be for developers to construct parking garages so there is 
less parking spread out over an area. Mr. Johnson stated that he is against this 
proposal. 
 
Shannon Simon stated that she was curious why the text amendment was not written 
more like the WU Code to reflect the areas where it would be more appropriate to have

North Gateway Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 3 of 3 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
parking reductions. Ms. Simon stated that people need to have a car in the North 
Gateway Village and that she cannot support this text amendment.  
 
Mr. DePerro stated that the direction came from the City Council to look at a nominal 
reduction City-wide and to tier the rest down based on areas they are located in. 
 
MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y: 
Vice Chair Michelle Ricart motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Mr. 
Johnson seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y: 
6-0; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee members 
French, Johnson, Krieger, Simon, Ricart and Read in favor. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
REVISED 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
 
July 18, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing.  
VPC Recommendation  
Denial  
VPC Vote  
8-1  
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Four members of the public registered to speak on this item.  
 
Staff Presentation:  
 
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text 
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms. 
Gomes described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily 
development and affordable multifamily development and further described the 
proposed parking requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable 
Urban Code. 
 
Questions from the Committee: 
 
None.  
 
Public Comment:  
 
Dan Kcocke stated that Arizona State University had conducted a study that concluded 
that 10 percent of the entire city is utilized by parking. Mr. Kcocke noted that asphalt has 
contributed to the urban heat island effect within the city. Mr. Kcocke noted that the 
excessive parking requirements lead to higher construction costs for all development. Mr. 
Kcocke added that the current parking requirements impact the developer, renters, and 
the city. Mr. Kcocke stated that the hundred of miles of road construction led to higher 
costs to individuals and parking does not contribute to property taxes. Mr. Kcocke noted 
that renters are not represented in the committee and the parking reduction would be one 
piece of the large issue regarding infrastructure and housing affordability. Mr. Kcocke

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
stated that parking minimums were introduced in the development 70 years ago and 
added that the city has drastically changed since then. Mr. Kcocke concluded his comment 
by supporting the text amendment.  
 
Jack Leonard stated that Phoenix is a vehicle driven society. Mr. Leonard noted that bus 
ridership has declined and that the hot weather does not help promote public 
transportation. Mr. Leonard added that flip developers do not care about affordability and 
will reduce their parking. Mr. Leonard noted that the current parking requirements are not 
complicated, and the different categories allow for reasonable parking. Mr. Leonard stated 
that the reduction in parking and an increase in density would not help alleviate sprawling. 
Mr. Leonard added that people renting in affordable housing developments still need 
parking. Mr. Leonard voiced his disagreement for the text amendment.  
 
Neal Haddad voiced his agreement with Jack Leonard. Mr. Haddad added that Phoenix 
does not have the public transit capacity to support the reduction. Mr. Haddad noted that 
public transportation times are not efficient. Mr. Haddad stated that the reduction of 
parking would help increase housing affordability.  
 
Leezah Sun noted that there have been some city and state initiatives to increase public 
infrastructure. Ms. Sun noted that in a high-density area, a reduction of parking could be 
beneficial. Mr. Kcocke noted that affordable housing needs to have high tax credits and 
that is achieved by being adjacent to public transit. Mr. Kcocke noted that car maintenance 
can negatively affect renters. Mr. Kcocke added that the reduction of parking can lead to 
more amenities being accessible.  
 
Committee Discussion:  
 
Chair Lisa Perez noted that there is only one affordable housing project in the Estrella 
Village. Chair Perez noted that there are no restaurants, amenities, bus shelters, or other 
forms of public transit in Estrella. Chair Perez stated that the blanket text amendment does 
not apply to all villages. Chair Perez added that a lot of items have not been considered to 
support the text amendment.  
 
Parris Wallace stated that affordable housing developments should not be treated 
differently when compared to market rate developments. Ms. Wallace voiced her support 
for the text amendment. Ms. Wallace noted that a reduction in parking could lead to more 
open space and amenities. Ms. Wallace added that she supports more amenities and 
affordable rental rates in exchange for less parking.  
 
Renee Dominguez stated that multiple children require more vehicles. Ms. Dominguez 
noted that some families do not let children walk in Estrella. Ms. Wallace added that her 
children walk in the neighborhood and if a family has one vehicle, then everyone would 
walk. Ms. Dominguez noted that the village doesn’t have the amenities.  
 
Dan Rush voiced his opposition to the text amendment. Mr. Rush stated that it was 
counterintuitive to suggest more housing in exchange for parking when most 
developments do not have enough parking.  
 
Jennifer Ayala noted that she has lived in an affordable housing development and 
employment opportunities were not in close proximity to the development. Ms. Ayala

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
added that limiting parking would not help neighborhoods. Ms. Ayala stated that affordable 
housing developments did not have enough parking.  
 
Ms. Wallace stated that the text amendment would not eliminate parking. Ms. Wallace 
added that the text amendment would make a difference for the future.  
 
Kristine Morris stated that she was opposed to the text amendment. Ms. Morris added 
that it places environmental and social issues on the less fortunate.  
 
Motion:  
Dan Rush made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Bill Barquin seconded 
the motion.  
 
Vote: 
8-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members Ayala, 
Barquin, Dominguez, Morris, Rush, Sanou, Serrette, and Perez in favor and Committee 
Members Wallace in opposition.  
 
Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:  
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 19, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily 
and affordable housing 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval per the staff recommendation with direction 
VPC Vote 
12-1-1 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
 
Four members of the public submitted speaker cards with all wishing to speak. Two 
indicated they are in favor, one opposed, and one in favor and opposition. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Mr. Klimek, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment to 
reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the 
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable 
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for 
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code. He presented the staff 
recommendation to approve the proposed text amendment. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Larson asked for clarification regarding the guest and resident 
parking calculation. Mr. Klimek tried to clarify. 
 
Committee Member Veidmark expressed concern over the prospect of an apartment 
complex with no parking.  
 
Committee Member Matthews asked staff to confirm that a housing development 
without parking would be permitted today if an applicant sought a planned unit 
development. Mr. Klimek confirmed. 
 
Committee Member O’Connor asked how the mixed-use reduction in the WU Code 
would be applied if this text amendment were approved. Mr. Klimek responded that 
the text amendment applies only to multifamily uses and that, in a mixed-use

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 19, 2023 
Page 2 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
development with commercial and multifamily, a blend of commercial and multifamily 
parking standards would be used to calculate the requirement. He added that he is not 
certain how the by-right reduction in WU Code mixed-use projects would interplay with 
this proposed amendment.  
 
Committee Member Gore asked how parking deters investment in affordable housing 
and how the change would support housing construction. Mr. Klimek responded that 
parking is expensive to construct and occupies much of the total site area which 
thereby reduces the number of units that can be constructed on the site. By reducing 
costs and increasing available land area, more units may become viable.  
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
Ms. Sandy Grunow expressed concern that this reduction is inappropriate city-wide 
because there is limited public transit, that the proposed text amendment may impact 
visibility triangles at intersections which is a safety issue, and that it is unfair to base 
parking requirements on resident incomes. She added that developers will not provide 
more parking than required by code.  
 
Ms. Jackie Rich expressed that parking reductions happen all the time and this text 
amendment is therefore not necessary, that there is not adequate transit, and that 
many individuals who reside in apartments will not give up their cars. She added that 
on street parking therefore infringes upon a pedestrian’s ability to safely walk in an area 
without sidewalks and the proposed reduction for affordable housing feel punitive. She 
acknowledged that some reduction may be appropriate but stated that the requirement 
should never be allowed to “go to zero.” She added that she would like more 
neighborhood engagement for text amendments and that the proposed text 
amendment would allow for developments to provide no ADA parking. 
 
Ms. Nicole Rodriguez expressed support for the amendment, noted that it doesn’t go 
far enough, and explained that both parking requirements and auto-oriented 
development patterns are costly to renters and builders. The parking requirements 
make housing less affordable and the also contribute to the urban heat island effect. 
She concluded by stating that the requirements were arbitrary when originally 
developed.  
 
Mr. Dan Klocke introduced himself as an affordable housing developer and expressed 
his support for the amendment. He cited an ASU study which found that approximately 
50 square miles of the city is paved which contributes to the urban heat island effect. 
Regarding the impact on affordability, he shared a hypothetical example to 
demonstrate how requiring additional parking beyond that which will be used adds cost 
to the developer and consumes land area which, together, can make an affordable 
housing project infeasible. He explained that many affordable housing projects are 
operating on negative profit margins and therefore require multiple financial sources to 
make the project work financially. He added that the additional land area required to

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 19, 2023 
Page 3 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
provide parking adds to the overall infrastructure cost and long-term maintenance 
burden which is the responsibility of the City of Phoenix. He concluded by stating that 
the VPC just voted 14-0 to allow Accessory Dwelling Units without any additional 
parking. 
 
STAFF RESPONSE 
 
Mr. Klimek thanked the audience for their comments. The proposed amendment 
includes minimums, rather than maximum, parking requirements which allows a 
developer to provide more parking than required if they desire; he added that he has 
seen developers provide more parking than the minimum for projects where they 
believe it will improve the marketability of their products. The proposed amendment is 
based on empirical data that is used broadly throughout the field of land use and 
transportation planning.  
 
There is no way for staff to significantly reduce parking requirements administratively. 
Only two procedural pathways exist to reduce parking: 1) to propose a planned unit 
development with custom development standards and commit to the full 6 – 9 month 
rezoning process; and 2) to request a variance from the zoning ordinance through a 
public hearing process but he cautioned that this process requires that a Zoning 
Adjustment Hearing Officer determines there is a hardship related to the physical 
characteristics of the lot, and he noted this is uncommon for parking requests. 
 
Regarding ADA parking requirements, he added that this proposed text amendment 
does not override ADA which is a federal law and that ADA compliant parking spaces 
will continue to be required.  
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE. 
 
Committee Member Matthews clarified that ADA requires a portion of all facilities 
provided to be accessible so a development that provides no parking would not be 
required to provide accessible spaces; however, if some parking is provided then a 
share of that would need to comply with ADA. Mr. Klimek agreed and apologized for 
the mistake. 
 
Committee Member Matthews stated that he is in support of the request and that 
these are parking minimums, not maximums, so developers are free to provide more 
parking than required. He stated that most developers will not build projects with zero 
parking and that the possibility is being overblown. This will allow a greater variety of 
housing options such as more affordable units or car-free options that are currently 
restricted by existing parking requirements.  
 
Committee Member Gore stated that 9 percent of the population being car-free is 
insignificant and should not drive the proposed text amendment which allows 
developments without any parking. He added that it would be helpful if the city could

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 19, 2023 
Page 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
forecast the impact of this amendment. 
 
 
Committee Member O’Connor stated that he is not supportive of the request because 
Phoenix is not a walkable city and there are other programs, such as GPLETS, to 
support affordable housing construction. 
 
Committee Member Perez stated that she is torn but expressed concern that reducing 
parking requirements would only have a limited impact on the housing crisis. She 
added that a different housing requirement for low-income populations feels punitive. 
 
Committee Member Krentz stated that this text amendment would provide the 
opportunity to develop housing with fewer costs and design constraints mandated by 
the city. He added that the development community will respond to actual forecasted 
parking demands because it only makes business sense to develop something that will 
be marketable. At present, staff does not have flexibility to allow for innovation by the 
free market. 
 
Committee Member O’Hara stated that he left the Information Only presentation in 
June as a “no” but reconsidered the proposal through the lens of Member Krentz and 
he indicated that he is now closer to a “yes.” He stated that the market will respond to 
demand based on the context of a site. 
 
Committee Member Matthews stated that 10 percent of households not having 
access to a car is not insignificant and that providing 10 percent of all developments as 
an affordable would far exceed the present construction pattern. The margins for 
affordable development are slim and often negative so any reduced cost or increased 
yield will have a direct and positive impact on affordable housing production. He stated 
that he lives in Moon Valley and frequently uses transit to get downtown and back; he 
cautioned his colleagues from assuming everyone is the same as them in their 
transportation preferences and socioeconomic needs. Committee Member Gore 
agreed that 9% is not trivial but stated that the city should also be building 
transportation infrastructure such as transit and bike lanes.   
 
Committee Member Veidmark asked why staff is proposing that no parking be 
provided for affordable housing. Mr. Klimek responded that it is in response to many 
conversations with affordable housing developers regarding the narrow margins and 
empirical data showing that affordable housing generates a lower demand for parking 
than other types of housing. He added that the proposed amendment is intended to 
provide flexibility by removing a mandate but noted that these are minimum 
requirements rather than maximums.  
 
Committee Member Sommacampagna stated that the presentation did not touch on 
rideshare which is increasingly augmenting public transportation and reducing the need 
for private automobiles. As an infill developer focused on missing middle housing, he

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 19, 2023 
Page 5 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
noted that parking is a costly burden and that GPLETs are not viable due to their 
complexity and cost. He expressed support for the proposal to promote more small-
scale housing production which benefits most from parking reductions. 
 
Committee Member Alauria noted the amendment makes sense but expressed 
concern that the proposal is not based on Phoenix data. 
 
Committee Member Gore stated that just because there are not many pedestrian / 
transit commuters in Moon Valley it does not mean that they have the right amount of 
surface parking. He asked Member Krentz if there is a significant likelihood of 300-unit 
complexes providing zero parking and, conversely if it is more likely that small project 
would provide no parking if allowed.  Committee Member Krentz agreed. 
 
Chair Jaramillo shared that zero parking is being treated like the gold standard of 
what developers will ultimately provide but noted that this will be a minority of total 
projects. Affordable housing requires subsidies, and most will still provide some parking 
in response to the forecasted needs of the tenants. In 2022, only 16 LIHTC were 
issued in Arizona which is too little to meet demand; by reducing cost and space 
burdens, more affordable housing projects will become viable. He concluded by stating 
that this is not the solution to the housing crisis but is a part of a solution. 
 
MOTION: 
 
Committee Member O’Hara moved to approve the request per the staff 
recommendation. Committee Member Matthews seconded the motion.  
 
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: 
 
Committee Member Perez proposed a friendly amendment to “direct staff and the city 
council to explore additional methods to help with the production of affordable housing.  
 
Committee Member O’Hara and Committee Member Matthews both agreed to the 
friendly amendment. The motion was revised to include the friendly amendment. 
 
DISCUSSION: 
 
Committee Member Alauria stated that people will continue to use cars but that she 
wants to remove excessive parking. 
 
Committee Member Matthews stated that this is a simple risk versus reward scenario 
and that the risk that both overblown and acceptable. The risk is that the city will see a 
problematic number of zero parking affordable housing complexes is unlikely but would 
mean that an abundance of much needed affordable housing projects are being 
constructed.

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
July 19, 2023 
Page 6 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member O’Hara and Committee Member Perez thanked Member Krentz 
for the developer’s perspective. 
 
VOTE: 12-1-1, motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation with the 
direction provided by Committee Member O’Hara, passes with Committee Members, 
Gore, Krentz, Larson, Matthews, McBride, Molfetta, O’Hara, Perez, Sommacampagna, 
Veidmark, Whitney, and Chair Jaramillo in favor; O’Connor in opposition; and Alauria in 
abstention.  
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 24, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix 
Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for 
multifamily and affordable housing 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
6-2 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
5 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in support. 
2 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition. 
 
Staff Presentation: 
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric shared a 
comparison for current requirements and the proposed changes for citywide 
multifamily, affordable multifamily housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable 
Urban Code projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required 
passenger loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc. 
 
Questions from Committee: 
Vice Chair Fisher asked what data were being used to determine that people living in 
low income housing do not have cars. Mr. Moric said that there was no cap on 
parking but there was a minimum requirement, and developers could provide at least 
the minimum but more if they felt the market demand required it. 
 
Toni Broberg asked why the city was doing this by reducing the number of parking 
spaces.  
 
Vice Chair Fisher felt this text amendment was more about density than cost 
savings, and that we’d be building more rooftops. Mr. Fisher felt we are not building 
enough than is necessary. Mr. Moric said the Zoning Ordinance would still require 
development standards for items such as density, lot coverage, setbacks, etc. 
 
Mr. Clifford Mager shared he had no confidence that developers would exceed 
minimum requirements if they could monetize more units. 
 
Chair Gasparro said there is a desire to have sufficient parking as a developer. 
 
ATTACHMENT E

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mike Maloney noted there were rules in place which were developed over time. Mr. 
Maloney asked where these new numbers are coming from. Mr. Moric said it was 
determined from the ITE manual and developments in Phoenix. 
 
Ms. Broberg asked if staff researched other cities that have implemented parking 
reductions. 
 
Elena Pritchette shared her experience that more and more cities in her travels are 
using alternative parking solutions such as automated garages. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher referenced Proposition 400, stating he did not believe legislature 
would increase public transit to compensate for the reduction in the parking 
requirement. 
 
Mr. Mager asked about if the new rules would apply to the development that was 
already permitted. 
 
Mr. Fisher asked on clarity if the reduction would be citywide. Mr. Moric said the 1.25 
spaces per unit would apply to citywide. Mr. Fisher said many places in the city were 
not designed for street overflow in parking. 
 
Public Comments: 
Mr. Dan Klocke said he had been working in affordable housing for many years, and 
45% of Phoenicians are renters. Mr. Klocke noted that 8.4% or 47,000 households of 
Phoenix do not have cars, about 35% own one car, and almost half have one car or 
less. Mr. Klocke shared that the average one bedroom rental in Phoenix is $1300, 
and this would chip away at some of the issues we face with affordability. Mr. Klocke 
shared that 10% of the city is paved, and shared an example of an affordable housing 
project, and with this proposal, would save almost $500,000 in costs, which would 
also help develop smaller pieces of land for affordable housing. 
 
Mr. Larry Whitesell stated he would like the committee to reject the proposal, but if 
they felt inclined to recommend approval the parking rate should be increased to 1.5 
spaces and should be based on affordability. 
 
Mr. Neal Haddad said he was with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix 
and stated there are two types of developers: those who buy, build and hold and 
those who flip properties. Mr. Haddad added that Phoenix is 517 square miles and is 
unique, so parking standards for other cities should not apply to Phoenix. 
 
Mr. Ryan Boyd from the Urban Phoenix Project shared that this text amendment 
comes down to cost, there are those who do not have a choice on using a car or not, 
and that this would provide flexibility for new housing developments.

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 3 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Ms. Nicole Rodriguez said she was in support of the text amendment, she came to 
Phoenix 20 years ago without a car and shared her experience with having limited 
vehicles for her family and using public transportation. 
 
Ms. Abbey Tomich said she is unable to afford a vehicle and rides her bike instead 
during which time she sees all the extra parking spaces in apartments. 
 
Mr. Derek Tomich said he rides his bike everywhere and he sees parking lots that 
are always empty which he felt was a waste of space and the parking surface 
increases the urban heating effect, and there is no thing such as free parking. Mr. 
Tomich added this would not add to cars on the street or increase street parking and 
there would almost never be zero parking even if the requirement was zero parking. 
 
Mr. Mager requested for clarification if the excess parking he observed was for 
commercial or residential development. Mr. Tomich stated his observations were 
regarding residential. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher asked Mr. Tomich if he could, would he buy a car. Mr. Tomich 
stated ideally he would not buy a car and felt if more people used public transit, the 
public transit system would get improved. 
 
Staff Response: 
None. 
 
Discussion: 
Vice Chair Fisher asked Dan Klocke if we have an affordable housing problem in 
Phoenix because we have too many cars or because affordable housing does not 
stay affordable. Mr. Klocke said we have massive affordable housing problem and 
we make decisions based on our smaller communities, and said this would chip away 
at the problem. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher said he was having a hard time accepting that the affordable 
housing issue is a parking problem. 
 
Ms. Broberg stated her concern the reduction of parking would add to the congestion 
on the streets which she further clarified as parking on the streets. 
 
Ms. Broberg asked Chair Gasparro if the developer would reinvest any cost savings 
from not providing additional parking spaces. Chair Gasparro replied that with a 
reduction in parking requirements a smaller site could be developed, and this not only 
benefits the developer but also the City. 
 
Mr. Mager asked if $5000 in cost savings from a parking reduction moved the needle. 
Chair Gasparro replied yes, those saving impact a project.

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y 
Page 4 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Suzanne Sharer said there already is a shortage on parking and developers would 
be the only ones benefiting and it is a backhanded way to force people to give up their 
cars. Ms. Sharer said to pay for extra parking in their complexes would be a burden 
on families. 
 
Vice Chair Fisher felt it was a coupon for the developer, it is an incentive for more 
developer profit, and he could be supportive of this for affordable housing projects. 
 
Ms. Broberg said it is going to incentivize people to live in different places based on 
what they value if they want additional parking and asked if this was part of the grand 
scheme of Housing Phoenix Plan. 
 
Chair Gasparro mentioned this is just part of the solution for a bigger plan. 
 
Mr. Mager felt there was a lack of empirical data. 
 
Motion: 
Vice Chair Darin Fisher motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Suzanne 
Sharer seconded the motion. 
 
Vote: 
6-2, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed, with Committee Members 
Mager, Maloney, Meier, Pritchette, Sharer, Fisher in favor; and Broberg and Gasparro 
in opposition. 
 
Motion No. 2 (Advisory) 
Vice Chair Fisher made a second motion to provide direction to the Planning 
Commission and City Council that while he rejects the proposal as a whole, there are 
elements of the proposal he supports. 
  
Vice Chair Fisher motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y with 
modifications to remove the parking reduction for market-rate multifamily residential 
citywide, and approve the reduction for affordable housing projects, and sites within 
the Infill Development District and the Walkable Urban Code. Toni Broberg 
seconded the motion. 
 
Vote No. 2 (Advisory) 
6-2, advisory motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-y with modifications 
passes with committee members Broberg, Maloney, Meier, Sharer, Fisher and 
Gasparro in support; and Mager and Pritchette opposed. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:  
 
Staff has no comments.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-TA-8-23-Y   
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 25, 2023 
Request 
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning 
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for 
multifamily and affordable housing. 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval, per the staff recommendation 
VPC Vote 
9-6 
 
 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
 
Eight members of the public register to speak on this item. 
 
STAFF PRESENTATION 
 
Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment 
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the 
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable 
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for 
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE 
 
Committee Member Shultz discussed the urbanization of Phoenix and stated that the 
text amendment makes sense in areas that have urbanized.  
 
Committee Member Williams clarified that the reduction is for parking minimums not 
maximums and provides more flexibility. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the proposal is to 
reduce parking minimums not maximums and discussed how lenders require a 
minimum number of parking spaces for different types of developments.  
 
Committee Member Harris asked how the required number of ADA parking spaces is 
affected by the parking reduction. Mr. Rogers stated that the number of required ADA 
parking spaces is based on the number of regular spaces provided.  
 
Committee Camp stated that the reduction will help with the urban heat island effect, 
help promote walkability, and help with transit-oriented development.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-91-22-5 
Page 2 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Malkoon asked if a minimum number of ADA parking spaces will 
be provided if there is no regular parking provided. Ms. Stockham stated that if no 
parking is provided ADA spaces will not be required, but most projects will not provide 
no parking.  
 
Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated concerns about the low-income parking 
reduction being discriminatory. 
 
Committee Member Smith stated that a car is needed for low-income individuals’ 
economic mobility, stated it is unlikely that low-income people will use food delivery 
services, and stated that the proposal does not consider the people. 
 
Committee Member Solorio explained that the text amendment allows flexibility to 
projects that serve specialty populations, discussed how lower parking minimums had 
enabled developments to be built in other jurisdictions, and explained the text 
amendment would eliminate the need for low-income developments to pursue parking 
variances.  
 
Committee Member Adams stated that City is removing a restrictive number, spoke 
about dealing with ratios on her own professional projects, and stated that the parking 
reduction would allow the number of parking spaces to be determined on a case-by-
case basis.  
 
Committee Member Mulgado stated multifamily parking lots are full and most 
households living in multifamily developments have multiple cars.  
 
Committee Member Fitzgerald discussed walking in extreme heat, discussed a low-
income development that got variances for reduced parking and now rents parking at a 
nearby church, and stated that developers wont pay for parking if they do not have too.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon stated that the proposal will be good for developer 
profits, spoke about his son who does not drive, spoke about his experience riding the 
light rail where he spoke to woman who had a 2.5 hour commute to and from work, and 
asked where visitors will park.  
 
Committee Member Solorio stated that banks will not loan money to projects that do 
not provide any parking.  
 
Committee Member Harris asked for clarification about where parking requirements 
are proposed to be reduced to 0 parking spaces per unit. Committee Member Solorio 
stated that parking requirements are proposed to be 0 parking spaces per unit in the 
WU Code and for affordable housing. Mr. Rogers clarified that affordable unit parking 
requirements are proposed to be reduced 50% citywide.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-91-22-5 
Page 3 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Committee Member Malkoon stated concerns about those struggling being taken 
advantage of. Committee Member Solorio that 25% of parking spaces are always 
open on projects he has worked on. 
 
Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated that there are likely too many parking 
spaces, but the minimum should not be zero. Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated 
that he does not trust banks and builders to build parking, stated that cars can be 
necessary to commute to well-paying jobs, and stated it is not that hard for 
developments that serve special communities to get a variance.   
 
Committee Member Keyser discussed other cities that have been successful with 
parking reductions, spoke about rising rents, spoke about the need for personal vehicles 
for those that are disabled, and spoke about the need for a parking study.  
 
Committee Member Malkoon asked why luxury developments are not built for 
affordable units, stated more money for affordable units is needed, and stated there 
needs to be more public-government partnerships.  
 
Committee Member Solorio stated that low-income developments have a fixed budget 
and revenue, explained that less parking means more amenities, and spoke about a 
failed variance.  
 
PUBLIC COMMENTS 
 
Sterling Sourk stated that potential residents will not move into a complex if there is no 
parking and clarified the difference between parking minimums and maximums.  
 
Abby Tomich explained that she rides her bike everyday because she cannot afford a 
vehicle, explained that her mother rides the light rail to work everyday, stated that 
excess parking is being valued over more affordable housing, and stated the text 
amendment does not go far enough.  
 
Derek Tomich explained that he rides his bike everywhere, explained that everywhere 
he goes he see empty parking lots that contribute to the urban heat island effect, stated 
10% of Phoenix is parking lots, explained that parking is subsidized by the prices of 
goods and services, and reiterated that zero spaces required wont equate to zero 
spaces provided.  
 
Nicole Rodriguez stated she is in support of the text amendment, discussed parking 
and heat, stated that the text amendment is the first step towards parking requirements 
that will match demand, stated the text amendment will facilitate infill developments, 
explained that parking can cost between $35,000 to $80,000 per stall, and explained the 
origins of parking requirements. Ms. Rodriguez explained that she came to Phoenix 
without a vehicle and her family now has one vehicle due to the medical costs from 
taking care of others.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
Z-91-22-5 
Page 4 of 4 
 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Wes Ballu stated that there is too much parking in Phoenix, stated that the proposal will 
allow for flexibility, and stated this is the first step to making the City more walkable.  
  
Dan Clocky stated that affordable housing is tax credit housing, stated that 87 parking 
spaces costs well over half a million, and stated that budgets are capped so more 
parking means less units. 
  
Jackie Rich recounted a story told at the Estrella VPC were an individual who was 
utilizing affordable housing was grateful parking was provided at her apartment 
complex, explained reducing parking will not reduce the number of cars people own, 
and added that the future of light rail depends on state legislature.  
 
Neil Haddad stated that questionable people that buy, build, and flip developments are 
why parking minimums are a thing, stated that Phoenix does not compare to other 
cities, discussed the urban heat island effect and buildings, stated Phoenix is a car city, 
explained that the state will not allow sales tax to be used for transit, and stated he 
would like to see the studies the parking reductions are based on.  
 
Chair Bryck confirmed that he had received the NCGP letter on July 14. 
 
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DUSCUSSION, AND VOTE 
 
MOTION 
Committee Member Camp motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per staff 
recommendation. Committee Member Shultz seconded the motion.  
 
VOTE 
9-6, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per staff recommendation passes 
with Committee Members Adams, Camp, Ender, Harris, Sanchez, Shultz, Solorio, 
Williams, and Bryck in favor and Committee Members DeGraffenreid, Fitzgerald, 
Keyser, Malkoon, Mulgado, and Smith opposed. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION 
 
None.