Attachment D - VPC Summaries - GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8.pdf

ATTACHMENT D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting May 11, 2026
Request From Major General Plan Amendment to establish the Rio
Salado District Policy Plan (RIO PHX)
Location Area generally bounded by Interstate 17 on the north,
32nd Street on the east, Broadway Road on the south,
and 19th Avenue on the west
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item Nos. 6 (GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8) and 7 (GPA-CC-SM-2-26-7-8) are companion
cases and were heard concurrently.
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item and did not indicate
support or opposition.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Christian Monahan, staff, introduced himself, provided an overview of the plan,
described the community-outreach process, reviewed the purpose and structure of the
plan, and outlined the design guidelines. Mr. Monahan provided information about
online resources available to the public, described the associated General Plan
Amendment, and reviewed the proposed project schedule.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
None.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Victor Armendariz stated that he is a commercial property owner and discussed
planning in area over the past 20 years.
Barbara Marin asked about the boundaries of the plan area. Mr. Monahan described
the plan’s boundaries.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8 - Information Only
May 11, 2026
Page 2
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
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
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting May 12, 2026
Request From Major General Plan Amendment to establish the Rio
Salado District Policy Plan (RIO PHX)
Location Area generally bounded by Interstate 17 on the north,
32nd Street on the east, Broadway Road on the south,
and 19th Avenue on the west
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item Nos. 5 (GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8) and 6 (GPA-CC-SM-2-26-7-8) are companion
cases and were heard concurrently.
One member of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Enrique Bojorquez Gaxiola, staff, introduced himself, explained the purpose of the
presentation, described the planning area and the broader planning initiative, outlined
the existing policy plans covering the area, and summarized previous outreach
conducted with the Village Planning Committee (VPC). Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola reviewed
the major concepts of the policy plan, explained what the plan does and does not do,
described the plan components and their intended functions, discussed the proposed
design guidelines, and presented the proposed General Plan Land Use Map changes.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Mark Beehler asked about the proposed land use designation for
the mining operations. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola explained that the designation would be
Mixed Use / Commerce Park.
Committee Member Beehler asked about access issues. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola
described challenges associated with filling one of the mining pits.
Committee Member Beehler stated that during the community’s discussion of
development at Broadway Road and 24th Street, the City indicated that community
entertainment would be located near the river. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola explained that
the corner of 24th Street and Elwood Street is identified as a proposed catalyst site
intended to include community entertainment and described outreach with the property
owner.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8 - Information Only
May 12, 2026
Page 2 of 4
Committee Member Greg Brownell asked about the status of AZ Fresh. Mr.
Bojorquez Gaxiola stated that AZ Fresh is working on relocating an existing flare
station. Committee Member Brownell asked why the flare station is delaying
development. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola explained that the flare station must be removed
before land compaction can occur. Committee Member Brownell asked who would pay
for the land compaction. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola responded that he would look into the
matter. Committee Member Brownell described his experience with removing a landfill
and explained how long it has taken to prepare such land for reuse.
Committee Member George Brooks discussed dangerous materials in the Rio Salado
and asked about how the dangerous materials are being addressed. Mr. Bojorquez
Gaxiola explained that the Water Services Department is doing a study one stormwater
in the area.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Greg Monger asked Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola to display a rendering, asked what
materials would be needed to be manufactured to support the plan’s implementation,
and explained that concrete, benches, and lighting would be required. Mr. Monger
stated that Cemex provides these materials and expressed concern that the company
has had trouble obtaining permits in the area. Mr. Monger stated that it would make
sense to allow Cemex to continue producing needed materials over the next 25 years to
help achieve the plan’s vision. Mr. Monger described the company’s role in the
community and asked that local companies not be forgotten when approving the
General Plan Land Use Map.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.
Committee Member Marcia Busching asked how many properties would be down
zoned as part of the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola stated that the
plan does not change zoning and explained that most of the General Plan designations
north of the river remain the same, while the south side includes more changes. Mr.
Bojorquez Gaxiola stated that many high-density residential designations have been
updated to Mixed Use and that there are very few changes to existing residential areas.
Committee Member Busching asked whether the Commerce Park designations include
industrial uses. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola responded that the AZ Fresh site is changing
from a park designation and that nothing more intense than Commerce Park is
proposed. Committee Member Busching stated that the community has had historical
issues with recycling sites. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola stated that the plan does not change
underlying zoning that currently allows those uses. Committee Member Busching asked
whether Mixed Use designations allow recycling facilities. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola
responded no.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8 - Information Only
May 12, 2026
Page 3 of 4
Committee Member George Brooks stated that the Rio Salado area has had
significant pollution issues and asked what benefits the plan provides to existing
residents. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola explained that the plan creates opportunities for
mixed uses, diverse housing types, and catalyst sites intended to connect and activate
the river corridor. Committee Member Brooks expressed concern that he is not hearing
enough benefit and stated that residents want decreases in pollution and heat. Mr.
Bojorquez Gaxiola described the existing-conditions report and stated that the plan
includes goals and actions intended to improve quality of life.
Committee Member Brownell stated that existing industrial uses will likely remain and
noted that commercial proposals may absorb residential demand. Committee Member
Brownell stated the policy will give the VPC more ability to push for mixed-use
development, expressed concern about existing open-storage uses, described the draw
of South Mountain, and asked whether there are plans to activate the river bottom to
attract people to the area. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola stated that one of the plan’s
concepts is an arts, culture, and nature district, noted that there are certain restrictions
on activities within the river channel, and explained that there are plans related to a
City-owned catalyst site. Committee Member Brownell stated that attracting people to
the river is important.
Committee Member Beehler asked whether any new residential designations are
being added through the General Plan update. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola stated that he
would need to confirm but noted that more Mixed Use designations are proposed and
explained that the plan preserves existing single-family areas. Committee Member
Beehler stated that residents had expressed interest in adding more residential and
park spaces. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola explained that the first goal of the plan is to
establish a vibrant mix of uses and described the locations where park designations are
proposed.
Committee Member Fatima Muhammad Roque asked whether any parts of the plan
focus on native plant species. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola stated that one of the action
items recommends developing a plant list. Committee Member Muhammad Roque
asked if there are any medicinal plant included in the plant list. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola
stated that staff can review the plant list for medicinal plants.
Committee Member Busching encouraged staff to evaluate areas currently
designated as Commerce Park and consider redesignating some of them to residential.
Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola stated that staff would welcome the opportunity to connect
individually to discuss specific locations.
Committee Member Trent Marchuk discussed residents’ reluctance to visit the Rio
Salado area and noted that some perceive it as unsafe. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola stated
that several facilities in the area host regular community events.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8 - Information Only
May 12, 2026
Page 4 of 4
Committee Member Brooks stated that the presentation was missing mention of AZ
Fresh. Mr. Bojorquez Gaxiola stated that AZ Fresh is part of future development.
Committee Member Brownell compared perceptions of safety between South
Mountain and the river corridor.
Committee Member Emma Viera encouraged committee members to walk the river.
Committee Member Kay Shepard stated that when the Rio Salado project was first
introduced, staff indicated that the contaminated aquifer would be rejuvenated. Mr.
Bojorquez Gaxiola explained that water is a significant challenge, stated that he is not
familiar with that specific concept, and explained that there are locations where the
Parks and Recreation Department pumps water into the river bottom.
Committee Member Brooks discussed ongoing perception issues affecting South
Phoenix.
Committee Member Darlene Jackson stated that the area at 24th Street and
Broadway must remain residential and cannot be mixed use, noting that new
development must connect with the existing community fabric.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2026
Request From General Plan Amendment to establish the Rio Salado
District Policy Plan
Location Area generally bounded by Interstate 17 on the north,
32nd Street on the east, Broadway Road on the south,
and 19th Avenue on the west
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item Nos. 5 (GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8) and 6 (GPA-CC-SM-2-26-7-8) are companion
cases and were heard concurrently.
Two members of the public registered to speak in support on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Enrique Bojorquez-Gaxiola, staff, introduced himself and the project, displayed the
planning boundaries, provided an overview of the staff reports, described community
correspondence received, and displayed the proposed General Plan Land Use Map.
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola provided the staff recommendation of approval for both General
Plan Amendments and presented the staff findings.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Elaine Becherer asked whether any comments had been
received from the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola explained that staff met with two members of the South Mountain
VPC, and those members did not express concerns.
Committee Member Rachel Frazier Johnson stated that five letters were submitted
and asked which letter expressed concern. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola described the
opposition letter’s concerns regarding transitioning parts of the area away from
industrial uses and described another letter that included recommendations.
Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked whether a letter from community
supporters in South Phoenix had also been submitted. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola
explained that a letter from the Ruiz family identified four recommendations for the
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
July 13, 2026
Page 2
plan. Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked whether staff addresses the concerns
included in letters submitted by the public. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated yes, staff
responded to each letter and explained that through the public-hearing process,
revisions and direction from the community will be accepted.
Committee Member Frazier Johnson described concerns related to displacement
and actions to address homelessness mentioned in one of the letters and asked
whether those concerns had been addressed. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola described how
the plan addresses those concerns, including actions involving the Office of Homeless
Solutions, the Housing Department, and other departments.
Committee Member Frazier Johnson stated that one letter requested requiring
affordable housing and asked whether that concern was addressed. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that state law does not allow the City to require affordable
housing, but the City can incentivize it.
Committee Member Frazier Johnson described a letter submitted on behalf of five
homeowners requesting that the City notify them when changes are made. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that staff will provide contacts for any departments working
in the area and explained that zoning changes in proximity to the properties are legally
required to be noticed.
Committee Member Frazier Johnson described a letter requesting more emphasis
on local businesses, fewer apartments near the river, and more community-centered
development. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that several areas are designated as
potential public-space locations and described proposed parks on two properties.
Committee Member Frazier Johnson described a letter requesting more recreation,
improved accessibility standards, and stronger design guidance. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the letter discussed park requirements within the
riverbed and explained that Parks and Recreation—who has jurisdiction over the
riverbed—was provided the letter.
Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked for clarification on concerns raised in the
opposition letter. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the opposition letter expressed
concern that the plan would displace industrial uses and explained that underlying
zoning is not changed by the proposal. Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked
whether the City disagrees with the opposition letter that the plan could displace mining
operations. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola explained that existing industrial uses will not be
impacted and explained that the plan and design guidelines will only apply to new
development.
Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked about the public-outreach process. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola described the outreach efforts.
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
July 13, 2026
Page 3
Committee Member Ash Uss asked whether any body outside the VPC will monitor
development activity closely. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that staff will track
development and is considering developing an interactive tool for public access to
monitor progress on plan goals. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that community
members can sign up for the email list and that the team is willing to return to the VPC
to provide updates.
Vice Chair Zach Burns asked what the City is doing to encourage mixed-use and
multi-family development. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the plan provides
guidance for future development and noted that one action item is implementing the
Walkable Urban (WU) Code within the study area.
Committee Member Becherer stated that Rio Reimagined is a larger initiative
involving the City of Phoenix, MAG, and Greater Phoenix Leadership, and explained
that efforts are underway to establish a nonprofit to steward long-term progress.
Committee Member Uss stated the importance of ensuring community involvement.
Committee Member Ian O’Grady asked whether there are active mining operations
on the south bank. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that no mines are active but three
properties owned by mining companies are inactive.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Silverio Ontiveros described his history in the area and stated that the community
must continue looking forward. Mr. Ontiveros stated that he previously attempted to
organize a 10k run but could not due to restrictions on use of a PA system. Mr.
Ontiveros stated that many people live in the river bottom, and the community must be
supported. Mr. Ontiveros stated that improvements in the tax base and area
attractiveness are needed and stated that he attempted to organize a bike ride, but his
neighbors were afraid.
Aldo Gonzales described cleanup work he has conducted in the area and asked for
copies of letters submitted. Mr. Gonzales stated that many unsheltered individuals live
in the area and stated that more shade, water fountains, lighting, and emergency-call
stations are needed. Samuel Rogers, staff, stated that letters are attached to the staff
reports available online.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
Committee Member O’Grady stated that staff did a great job presenting.
MOTION
Committee Member Ash Uss made a motion to recommend approval of Z-CC-SM-1-
26-7-8, per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Jordan Greenman
seconded the motion.
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
July 13, 2026
Page 4
VOTE
9-0; Motion to recommend approval of Z-CC-SM-1-26-7-8, per the staff
recommendation, passed, with Committee Members Ban, Becherer, Greenman,
Frazier Johnson, Nervis, O’Grady, Uss, Burns, and Martinez 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
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
Date of VPC Meeting July 14, 2026
Request From General Plan Amendment to establish the Rio Salado
District Policy Plan
Location Area generally bounded by Interstate 17 on the north,
32nd Street on the east, Broadway Road on the south,
and 19th Avenue on the west
VPC Recommendation Approval, with direction
VPC Vote 10-4
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item Nos. 8 (GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8) and 9 (GPA-CC-SM-2-26-7-8) are companion
cases and were heard concurrently.
Committee Members Tamala Daniels, Greg Brownell, and Manish Gupta joined during
this item bringing quorum to 14 members present (10 needed for quorum).
19 members of the public registered to speak on this item but did not indicate support or
opposition and one member of the public registered to speak in opposition on this item.
Ten members of the public donated their time to Armando Ruiz and seven members of
the public donated their time to Ximena Armenta.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Enrique Bojorquez-Gaxiola, staff, introduced himself and the project, displayed the
planning boundaries, provided an overview of the staff reports, described community
correspondence received, and displayed the proposed General Plan Land Use Map. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola provided the staff recommendation of approval for both General Plan
Amendments and presented the staff findings. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the
presentation content was consistent with what was shared at the Central City Village
Planning Committee, where the recommendations were unanimously approved.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Darlene Jackson asked about a proposed revision. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola described the plan boundary. Committee Member Jackson stated
that she wants to ensure the plan is achievable and described the condition of the area,
stating that revitalization is needed, and asked how revitalization will occur. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola explained that actions within the plan continue existing City work and
include actions to add additional services.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
July 14, 2026
Page 2 of 7
Committee Member Jackson asked how owners of intense uses will be addressed.
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola explained that the document does not change zoning, that it
facilitates redevelopment, and that the plan does not take away any existing uses.
Committee Member Jackson asked whether the plan will help intense uses fit within the
area and asked whether property owners wanting to beautify their uses would receive
assistance. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that one action recommends that the City
create a program to help beautify existing businesses.
Committee Member Kassandra Alvarez asked whether trees, sidewalks, and other
infrastructure improvements were being considered. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that
one of the top actions is an infrastructure needs assessment to address community
infrastructure needs, stated that staff met with other departments, and discussed how
various programs could address community needs.
Committee Member Greg Brownell stated that the area should be more residential
than industrial, stated that it does not make sense to beautify industrial uses, and asked
whether there is a program to transition industrial uses out of the area. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the City has an adaptive-reuse program. Committee
Member Brownell clarified his question. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that functions
within the Community and Economic Development Department (CED) can assist
businesses in relocating but that relocation is at the discretion of the private property
owner. Committee Member Brownell asked whether the City would help owners who
want to move. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that CED could help retain the business
within the City and reiterated that the adaptive-reuse program exists.
Committee Member Mark Beehler asked how his letter was addressed. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola explained the existing zoning within the study area, described the
zoning and General Plan Land Use designations, explained the importance of
establishing land-use policy, and described how the three locations referenced in the
letter are being transitioned from current General Plan Land Use Map (GPLUM)
designations to proposed GPLUM designations. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola described the
current place type policy along Central Avenue, described challenges related to a
mining site the City cannot require to be backfilled, and described survey results
showing that mixed-use development is desired, based on 530 responses. Committee
Member Beehler stated that the challenge lies in the existing zoning, stated that he
views the plan as aspirational, stated that existing zoning reflects mistakes made by the
City, and stated that those mistakes should not be perpetuated.
Chair Arthur Greathouse III asked how much land the City owns. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola displayed a map of City-owned properties and described plans for
a mixed-use development south of the Audubon facility.
Committee Member Brownell asked for confirmation that the mining site is not suitable
for residential due to backfilling requirements. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
July 14, 2026
Page 3 of 7
property at 16th Street faces challenges related to filling and compacting the pit to
residential standards. Committee Member Brownell stated that he agrees with
Committee Member Beehler that the land should retain its existing residential
designation, described his experience in homebuilding, stated that his former company
successfully filled mining pits, and stated that demand for residential properties was
strong.
Committee Member Alvarez asked how a mixed-use zoning change could guarantee
that development remains community-focused, noting prior discussions about needing
retail and entertainment uses. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the policy plan cannot
require specific businesses, stated that opportunities exist on City-owned sites, and
identified a 30-acre City-owned parcel.
Committee Member Brownell clarified that he was referring to a separate area rather
than the City parcel and stated that policy should require residential uses. Committee
Member Brownell stated that allowing mixed-use commercial would result in a
commercial business parks rather than residential uses and stated that the existing
land-use designation should be retained to avoid loss of residential.
Committee Member Lee Coleman stated that slab construction can be used to build
on former mining pits. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that he appreciates the comments
and will look into them.
Vice Chair Viera asked about the existing zoning of one of the parcels included in the
request. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola explained that the area in question is zoned industrial.
Vice Chair Viera asked about justification of transitioning the area from a residential
GPLUM designation to an industrial designation. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the
proposed land-use change is based on difficulty with backfilling the property. Vice Chair
Viera asked how the area became so industrial and how residential could be restored.
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that he was not sure how the area was rezoned to
industrial. Chair Greathouse stated that the applicant indicates it is not economically
feasible to develop the mining property as residential.
Committee Member Beehler asked how the mining pit could have been designated as
residential previously but now proposed for mixed-use/industrial. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the shift relates to existing conditions and stated that it
is within the VPC’s purview to keep the existing land-use designation.
Committee Member Brownell described the history of the riverbed and Rio
Reimagined, stated that the riverbed used to be used as a dump, which attracted
industrial uses, and that Rio Reimagined revitalized the river and made the area
desirable. Committee Member Brownell stated that this is why the area is designated
residential and stated that industrial uses are primarily open storage. Committee

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
July 14, 2026
Page 4 of 7
Member Brownell stated that each industrial approval makes further industrial uses
more likely.
Committee Member Kay Shepard asked how many outreach meetings were sit-down
meetings versus open-house formats. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola described the outreach
efforts, stated that one sit-down meeting was held, and stated that staff also engaged
with HOAs. Committee Member Shepard stated that very few sit-down meetings
occurred and asked for clarification on the Mixed-Use designation, asking whether
anything prevents it from becoming a business park. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that
no policy limits the allowed uses within the Mixed-Use GPLUM areas.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Armando Ruiz stated that he grew up in South Phoenix and introduced community
members in attendance. Mr. Ruiz described the history of the area, stated that the area
previously consisted of residential neighborhoods before changes related to the airport
expansion, racial redlining, freeway construction, City-permitted dumps, and industrial
encroachment. Mr. Ruiz stated that Tempe’s investment in Tempe Town Lake
demonstrated what the river could become and stated that Rio Reimagined changed the
area with support from Senator McCain. Mr. Ruiz stated that policy plans are lengthy
but small revisions matter and stated that the community seeks no gentrification or
displacement. Mr. Ruiz described the catalyst sites and stated that the first project will
set the tone for future development. Mr. Ruiz stated that the plan should include
affordable housing, not only apartments, and stated that homeownership creates stable
communities. Mr. Ruiz stated that investment must be local, stated that the policy
boundary stops at Broadway due to a tax-incentive district north of Broadway, and
stated that this creates an “invisible gated community” because residents south of
Broadway may not benefit. Mr. Ruiz urged the Committee to support the plan with
stipulations.
Ximmena Armenta, explained she 18 years old, stated that she lives in the area, and
supports the plan with specific requests. Ms. Armenta stated that affordable housing is
needed, stated that increased population creates a stronger community, stated that her
neighborhood is primarily Latino and Black, and explained the area has a tight
community. Ms. Armenta stated that recent residential construction created noise
pollution, infrastructure disruptions, and school-traffic issues, stated that construction
disrupted phone connections during a pet emergency, and explained that that light-rail
development along Central displaced local businesses. Ms. Armenta stated that
outreach was insufficient, noting that no one on her street attended the open house. Ms.
Armenta stated that residents are being displaced due to rising rents and noise pollution
and asked how many more people need to be displaced.
Joseph Bobacher stated that he is not for or against the plan and stated he represents
property owners. Mr. Bobacher stated that his grandfather intended to generate revenue
to support the community and stated that high-tech industries are moving into Phoenix.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
July 14, 2026
Page 5 of 7
Mr. Bobacher stated that 200 employees work in his area and generate $100 million.
Mr. Bobacher stated that if catalyst sites develop adjacent to his property, policy may
influence zoning changes. Mr. Bobacher stated that incentives are an effective tool to
encourage desired outcomes.
STAFF RESPONSE
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that he does not have a specific response to the public
comments and stated that the policy is intended to guide the area’s future. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that staff is open to revising the plan based on community
feedback and adding actions.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
Committee Member Jackson asked whether additional residential could be added to
the plan, stated that the area is experiencing “industrial gentrification,” and explained
that balance is needed. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that existing policies provide
opportunities, stated that the Walkable Urban (WU) Code includes incentives, and
stated that place types are included in the action items.
Committee Member Tamala Daniels asked how staff determined General Plan
consistency, stated that the City has pushed for affordable housing and preservation,
and asked how the City justifies changing GPLUM designations from residential to
industrial. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the proposed GPLUM designations
attempt to balance competing desires and noted that many areas are transitioning to
Mixed-Use. Committee Member T. Daniels stated that communities north of the river
benefit from housing and non-industrial uses, while South Phoenix has experienced
disproportionate environmental burdens. Committee Member T. Daniels stated that
ASU developed concepts for river revitalization that Tempe invested in but Phoenix did
not. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the proposed changes aim to move the area
toward the ASU vision.
Committee Member T. Daniels described her family’s history in the Okemia
community and stated that the City forced the community out due to industrial
encroachment. Committee Member T. Daniels stated that residential uses never return
once industrial is established and stated that build-to-rent businesses have reduced
single-family housing stock. Committee Member T. Daniels stated that South Phoenix is
disproportionately impacted by residential-to-industrial conversions and has fought for a
riverfront environment comparable to Tempe Town Lake. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola
stated that staff welcomes revisions to both the policy plan and proposed land-use map
and requested approval.
Committee Member Brownell asked whether industrial properties will be protected
from required improvements. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that no zoning changes
are proposed and stated that any changes would need to be voluntary. Committee
Member Brownell asked whether industrial properties would be required to make

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
July 14, 2026
Page 6 of 7
improvements if redeveloping or adding buildings. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that
requirements apply when properties rezone.
Committee Member Beehler stated that he has consistently provided feedback and
stated that nothing has changed. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola thanked Committee Member
Beehler for attending meetings, stated that many voices contributed through meetings
and surveys, stated that staff has their recommendation, and stated that any desired
changes could be included in a motion. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola explained that staff went
above and beyond required public outreach.
MOTION
Committee Member Mark Beehler made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-
CC-SM-1-26-7-8. Committee Member Lee Coleman seconded the motion.
Committee Member Kassandra Alvarez proposed a friendly amendment to provide
direction to add action items regarding the creation of an anti-gentrification task force,
the development of additional tax incentives, collaboration between the Planning and
Development Department and other City departments with the anti-gentrification task
force to further the goals of the plan, and coordination with business development
related departments within the City to enhance support for local businesses.
Committee Member Beehler stated that he accepts the friendly amendment.
Committee Member Lee Colmen stated that he does not accept the friendly
amendment.
Mr. Rogers stated that because the friendly amendment was not accepted by the
second the motion dies.
MOTION
Committee Member Mark Beehler made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-
CC-SM-1-26-7-8 with a direction to add action items regarding the creation of an anti-
gentrification task force, the development of additional tax incentives, collaboration
between the Planning and Development Department and other City departments with
the anti-gentrification task force to further the goals of the plan, and coordination with
business development related departments within the City to enhance support for local
businesses. Committee Member Greg Brownell seconded the motion.
VOTE
10-4, motion to recommend approval of motion to recommend approval of GPA-CC-SM-
1-26-7-8 with direction passes with Committee Members Alvarez, Beehler, Brooks,
Brownell, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, Gupta, Jackson, Viera, and Greathouse in favor and
Committee Members Coleman, Falcon, Thompson, and Shepard opposed.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
July 14, 2026
Page 7 of 7
Committee Member Kay Shepard explained that she voted to deny the motion
because she is not supportive of the direction added.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
Date of VPC Meeting September 8, 2026
Request From General Plan Amendment to establish the Rio Salado
District Policy Plan
Location Area generally bounded by Interstate 17 on the north,
32nd Street on the east, Broadway Road on the south,
and 19th Avenue on the west
VPC Recommendation Approval per Addendum A staff report, and an
additional modification
VPC Vote 11-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item Nos. 5 (GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8) and 6 (GPA-CC-SM-2-26-7-8) are companion
cases and were heard concurrently.
Committee Member Trent Marchuk joined during this item bringing quorum to 11
members present (Nine needed for quorum).
One member of the public registered to speak in support on this item and 13 members of
the public registered in support on this item but did not wish to speak. 12 members of the
public donated their time to Fernando Ruiz.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Enrique Bojorquez-Gaxiola, staff, summarized the process to date, presented
additional correspondence received from the community regarding the proposal,
described changes to the plan based on comments from the community and the Village
Planning Committee (VPC), and described ongoing conversations regarding a mining
site. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola presented two land use map alternatives for the mining site,
explained that the developer intends to develop the site under the current industrial
zoning, stated that the developer indicated that it would take approximately 60 years to
backfill the mining pit, and described limitations on developing the site as residential due
to floodplain considerations and aviation-related noise impacts.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Greg Brownell clarified that the staff statement indicating it would
take 60 years to backfill the pit was an opinion, noting that the City of Sacramento
completed a similar backfill project within a few years and stated that 60 years was an

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
September 8, 2026
Page 2 of 4
outrageous timeframe. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola thanked Committee Member Brownell
for his comments.
Chair Arthur Greathouse III asked staff to display the General Plan Land Use Maps.
Committee Member Darlene Jackson stated that at the previous meeting the
Committee wanted to see more residential development and asked how the proposal
would guarantee additional residential uses. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that
changing the General Plan Land Use Map does not guarantee residential development,
noting that state law greatly limits the ability of the City from changing existing zoning on
private property, and stated that the policy plan is intended to guide potential future
rezonings.
Committee Member Jackson stated that it appears the VPC is in the same place as
the previous meeting and asked staff to help the Committee understand how the policy
would guide development. Committee Member Jackson stated that industrial and
commercial development was focused on areas near airports and asked whether staff
could help the Committee understand why residential would not make sense. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that a barrier to residential development include existing
industrial zoning and explained that the General Plan Land Use Map does not change
the established zoning designations. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the City
Engineer identified floodplain and insurance concerns for residential development on
the mining site and stated that the Aviation Department identified noise-impact
concerns. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that staff provided land use map alternatives
(Option B) which would remove the Commerce Park designation in response to
community desire for residential.
Chair Greathouse stated that the concern is that Commerce Park allows a mix of uses
and asked whether there is a way to guide some areas to develop solely as residential.
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that staff cannot change existing zoning on private
property and stated that the policy plan and land use map amendment will guide future
rezoning requests.
Committee Member Greg Brownell asked whether the VPC would vote on Option A or
Option B. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the VPC may choose either Option A or
Option B when making a motion.
Committee Member Kay Shepard asked whether the site is zoned A-1 and A-2. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola confirmed the zoning. Committee Member Shepard asked whether
residential is allowed. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the zoning of the property
prohibits residential development and explained that a Use Permit would be required to
allow residential.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
September 8, 2026
Page 3 of 4
Committee Member Fatima Muhammad Roque asked about toxicology and soil
analysis needed for residential development. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that an
environmental assessment was not conducted as part of this policy work as it only
pertained to land use recommendations. However, an environmental analysis would be
conducted on a site-by-site basis in the future when properties are redeveloped.
Committee Member Trent Marchuk asked whether the existing zoning is industrial
and whether the VPC is voting on desired land uses. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola confirmed
Committee Member Marchuk’s inquiry.
Committee Member Marcia Busching asked why the site of rezoning case
Z-152-26-8, recently heard by the VPC, was designated residential. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation
predates the approval of Z-152-26-8.
Chair Greathouse asked why the mining site is the only area being discussed. Mr.
Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that the mining site was a major focus of the previous VPC
hearing and explained that staff had met with Committee Member Mark Beehler a few
weeks back to discuss two other areas of focus identified in a letter submitted prior to
the July meeting identifying concerns. Committee Member Beehler appeared
comfortable with the explanations to the land use map designations provided by staff
during this meeting.
Samuel Rogers, staff, explained that mixed-use corresponds to the Walkable Urban
(WU) Code and stated that one action in the policy plan is to implement the WU Code in
areas designated Mixed Use. Mr. Rogers stated that WU Code transects include
single-family residential. Committee Member Jackson asked whether the Mixed Use
(pink) designation supports residential. Mr. Rogers stated that mixed-use areas support
walkable communities, including residential and commercial uses.
Committee Member Shepard asked for an update on prior special taxing district
discussions. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that staff discussed the matter with City
departments and special taxing district boundaries are not proposed to change.
Committee Member Shepard stated that she does not like changes to taxing districts.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Fernando Ruiz, representing community members, thanked the City for listening,
described experiences following the Rio Salado bridge collapse, stated that the
community has made progress, and thanked staff for incorporating requested language.
Mr. Ruiz stated that policy development is critical and stated that design would be the
next step. Mr. Ruiz expressed concern that residential development along the river may
result in roads near new homes and that this may negatively impact existing homes. Mr.
Ruiz thanked staff for listening to the community.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8
September 8, 2026
Page 4 of 4
STAFF RESPONSE
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola thanked Mr. Ruiz and the Ruiz family for their comments.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
Chair Greathouse asked for clarification on the two General Plan Amendments
(GPAs). Mr. Rogers described both GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8 (policy plan) and
GPA-CC-SM-2-26-7-8 (land use map).
Committee Member Shepard stated that she did not know the policy plan was being
considered. Committee Member Tamala Daniels asked for more information on the
two GPAs and stated that the Committee should discuss the policy plan.
Mr. Rogers stated that the Chair may determine the order of discussion.
Chair Greathouse asked staff to discuss the policy plan. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola
summarized the policy plan.
Committee Member Busching stated that the addendum included a link to the
150-page policy plan and stated that the Committee is being asked to approve the plan
with proposed changes outlined in the addendum. Committee Member Busching stated
that she believed GPAs cannot have amendments. Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola stated that
amendments can occur, but stipulations cannot.
MOTION
Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to recommend approval of
GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8 per the staff Addendum A dated September 3, 2026 with an
additional action for the plan. Committee Member Manish Gupta seconded the
motion.
VOTE
11-1, motion to recommend approval of GPA-CC-SM-1-26-7-8 per the staff Addendum
A dated September 3, 2026 with an additional action for the plan passes with
Committee Members Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Daniels, Falcon, Gupta, Jackson,
Marchuk, Muhammad Roque, Shepard, and Greathouse in favor and Committee
Member Thompson opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.