04.CPA2600002 BOS REPORT PART 3.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
237142 characters
A
Appendices
In These Appendices
Appendix I: Glossary of Defined Terms. . . . . . . . . . .232
Appendix II: Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
Appendix III: Public Participation Program. . . . . . . .244
Appendix I: Glossary of Defined
Terms
The following glossary of defined terms are intended to help readers and users of the Framework 2040 Comprehensive
Plan interpret and implement its content, policies, and recommendations. These definitions are considered applicable only
to this Comprehensive Plan and should not necessarily be used in any other capacity. Readers are encouraged to seek
additional information on any of these concepts and terms if needed.
100-year Floodplain: A high risk area that is susceptible to a one percent chance of experiencing a 100-year flood event
in any given year. The amount of water needed to create a 100-year flood event varies by location.
Acre-feet: A measure of volume equal to the amount of water that is needed to cover one acre of land to a depth of one
foot (one acre-foot = 325,851 gallons).
Active Management Area (AMA): Portions of the state identified in the Arizona Groundwater Code as being heavily reliant
on groundwater use. Groundwater in such areas is managed to achieve a safe yield, meaning no more groundwater is
withdrawn than is annually being replaced.
Aggregates (or Aggregate Resources): A category of raw material such as sand, gravel and stone that is used to make
concrete and asphalt.
Alternative Designation of Assured Water Supply (ADAWS): An ADWR rule implemented in 2024 that allows for a new
regulatory pathway for municipal water providers (both municipalities and utilities) to demonstrate a 100-year water
supply using more flexible criteria than the traditional DAWS process.
Alternative Transportation: Modes of travel other than private cars such as walking, bicycling, carpooling and mass
transit.
Ancillary Military Facilities: In Maricopa County this includes Auxiliary Airfield #1 located in the city of Surprise, and the
Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Airfield located south of the town of Gila Bend.
Aquifer: An underground geological formation containing saturated materials capable of storing water that can be
extracted via a well.
Area Drainage Master Studies and Plans: Prepared by the Maricopa County Flood Control District, these studies and
plans identify and recommend strategies to mitigate flood hazards in specific watersheds of Maricopa County.
Area of Jurisdiction: The portion of the County outside the corporate limits of any municipality.
Area of Municipal Influence: A categorization of land in Maricopa County that is comprised of all unincorporated land
that falls within the current limits of either a Municipal Planning Area, within a County Island, or within an Improvement
Association. Unincorporated land under this category can be determined to be in the Urban Growth Area or in the Rural
Service Area.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
232
Area of Rural Influence: A categorization of land in Maricopa County that is comprised of all unincorporated land not in
the Area of Municipal Influence.
Area Plan: A subcategory of Framework 2040, these are specific plans for particular areas or regions of Maricopa County..
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR): State agency responsible for helping protect and ensure long-term,
reliable water supplies.
Arizona Fire & Medical Authority (AFMA): A regional fire and emergency medical services organization that provides
shared fire protection, emergency medical response, and related public safety services across three fire districts in
unincorporated Maricopa County—North County Fire & Medical District, South County Fire & Medical District, and
Buckeye Valley Fire District.
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS): The state laws of Arizona.
Arizona State Land Department (ASLD): State agency responsible for managing State Trust lands within Arizona.
Arizona Water Banking Authority: A system where Colorado River water is stored primarily in underground aquifers for
use in times of shortage.
Arterial Road: A major route that carries moderate to high levels of traffic regionally. Arterial roads are normally located
at one-mile intervals.
Artificial Intelligence (AI): The capability of machines to mimic human cognitive functions enabling them to perform
tasks requiring humanlike intelligence, often by processing vast amounts of data to find patterns, generate insights, or
create new content.
Assured Water Supply (AWS): The program operating within Arizona’s seven Active Management Areas designed to
preserve groundwater resources and promote long-term water supply planning through requiring proof of a 100‑year
renewable water supply before residential subdivision approval.
Basic Sector: Businesses and industries that export most or all of their products or services, thus creating new incomes
and new spending power in the economy of their country or region of origin.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Part of the U.S. Department of Interior, this is the federal agency responsible for
sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s 245 million acres of public lands, and for managing public
lands and public land resources for a variety of uses.
Capital Improvement Program: A five-year plan that identifies funding priorities for infrastructure and services needed
to serve the public.
Appendix I: GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS
233
Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD): A division of the Central Arizona Project created to
help landowners and water providers within the Phoenix, Pinal, and Tucson AMAs comply with the state’s groundwater
laws, primarily through replenishing groundwater that has been pumped by its members for them to meet the AWS
requirements for development.
Central Arizona Project (CAP): Steward of central Arizona’s Colorado River water entitlement and delivery.
Certificate of Assured Water Supply (CAWS): Document issued by the Arizona Department of Water Resources which
confirms that a water supply will be physically, legally and continuously available for the next 100 years for individual
subdivisions or developments.
Clean Air Act: Federal law first enacted in 1970 that authorizes the establishment of regulations limiting stationary and
mobile sources of air pollution.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
which helps fund local community development activities.
Compliance Assurance (model): A system of methods used by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department to increase
air quality compliance rates and remove incentives for non-compliance.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Changes to Maricopa County’s Comprehensive Plan or Area Plans.
County Island: Unincorporated area completely surrounded by one or more incorporated municipalities or Native
American Community.
Data Center: A dedicated facility often necessitating robust electricity for power, cooling, and security infrastructure to
house computer systems, servers, and networking equipment for storing, processing, and distributing large amounts of
data for digital services like cloud computing, streaming, and artificial intelligence.
Density: A numerical average of the number of people or dwelling units per unit of land (e.g. a population density of 200
people per square mile; a residential density of 4 houses per acre).
Designation of Assured Water Supply (DAWS): Document issued by the Arizona Department of Water Resources which
confirms that a water supply will be physically, legally and continuously available for the next 100 years for municipal
water providers (both municipalities and utilities).
Development Agreement: A contract between Maricopa County and a property owner or developer which establishes
funding and operational responsibilities for infrastructure and services.
Development Master Plan: A long-range planning tool historically used to guide large-scale, master-planned communities
or developments in unincorporated areas that establishes land use, infrastructure, and phasing strategies to ensure
timed and orderly growth.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
234
Dust Abatement Program: A MCDOT-administered plan to reduce air pollution (from PM10) primarily by paving roads.
Emergency Response: Safety response from law enforcement, as well as fire and emergency medical services, to
appropriate incidents or calls.
Entitlement: The right to develop and use land based on the established zoning district and, as applicable, plan for
development.
Firebreak: An area of cleared or plowed land intended to stop the spread of a wildfire.
Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to
efficiently carry and discharge flood waters.
Framework (or Municipal-Rural Influence Framework): A planning model developed by Maricopa County that categorizes
unincorporated land into either the Area of Municipal Influence or the Area of Rural Influence in order to facilitate the
County’s processes for evaluating the feasibility of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Zoning District Change.
General Plan: A plan that is similar to a comprehensive plan, but is prepared by and for cities and towns.
Greater Maricopa Foreign Trade Zone: A federally designated trade zone serving Western Maricopa County that provides
businesses with customs and tax advantages to encourage international commerce.
Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC): A public-private partnership group that works to attract quality businesses
to the Greater Phoenix region from around the world, and that advocates for improving this region’s competitiveness.
Hazard Mitigation Plan: The plan that identifies natural hazards, assesses vulnerability and risks to people and structures,
and identifies and implements strategies for mitigating the identified natural hazards.
High Noise or Accident Potential Zone (HNAPZ): Defined by state law, in Maricopa County this includes all areas within
the noise contours and accident potential zones of Luke Air Force Base and the ancillary military facilities.
Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF): A fund consisting of fees and charges relating to the registration and operation
of motor vehicles on Arizona highways which are distributed to cities, towns, counties and the State Highway Fund for
highway construction, improvements and related expenses.
Hillside Development: Any development that occurs on land with a slope, or grade, of 15% or greater over a horizontal
distance of 100 feet.
HOME Investment Partnership Program: The largest federal block grant program in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to
creating affordable housing for low-income households. It is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and provides flexible funding to states and local governments.
Appendix I: GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS
235
Improvement Association: A non-profit homeowners’ association to represent residents of a particular community
within unincorporated Maricopa County in the management of common interests and coordination of infrastructure and
neighborhood improvements.
Industrial Development Authority of Maricopa County (IDAMC): A political subdivision of Arizona whose mission is to
create and maintain jobs within Maricopa County and to assist County residents through financing affordable single- and
multi-family housing.
Industry Cluster: A geographic concentration of competing, collaborating and interdependent businesses, suppliers and
associated institutions in a common industry sector that helps increase business productivity.
Land Subsidence: The gradual settling or sinking of the Earth’s surface due to natural processes or human activities,
most often caused by groundwater withdrawal, mining, or soil compaction.
Land Use Transition: A change in land use pattern to or from a more intense land use such as a commercial or industrial,
from or to a less intense land use like residential.
Leapfrog Development: Growth that occurs well beyond existing development and which is separated by a substantial
amount of vacant land.
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG): An organization consisting of local governments that serves as a regional
planning agency for the Phoenix metropolitan area, and that convenes to make policy decisions for transportation, air
quality, water quality, and human services.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT): Maricopa County agency responsible for planning, designing,
constructing, and maintaining roads in unincorporated areas.
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO): The primary set of land use regulations adopted by the Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors. It establishes zoning districts, development standards, and administrative procedures to guide
growth; protect public health, safety, and general welfare; and ensure orderly development across unincorporated areas
of the County.
Master-Planned Community: A wholly and deliberately planned, relatively autonomous community consisting of
residential, non-residential, recreational and public land uses.
Mixed-Use: A single building that contains more than one type of use, or a development that combines several different
but complementary types of residential, commercial, civic and business uses on a single parcel or area.
Mobile Home: A home placed on a permanent chassis that is capable of being moved to the site it is to be located.
Multi-Family Residential: Development that consists of multiple and separate residential units that are contained within
a single building or group of buildings on one lot or parcel. Such housing typically includes duplexes, condominiums,
townhouses and apartment buildings.
Multimodal (transportation): A combination of two or more methods of transporting people and goods.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
236
Municipal Planning Area: Unincorporated area that has been identified by a particular municipality for potential
annexation with the consent of a majority property owners.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): A requirement of the federal Clean Air Act, limits set by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency with respect to specific air pollutants.
Non-Basic Sector: Businesses and industries that sell their products or services within a community, and thus, are
dependent upon local economic conditions since existing money is recirculated locally.
Non-Potable (Water): Water that is not of drinking water quality but can be used for industrial production, irrigation,
cooling towers, and other applications not involving human consumption.
Ozone: A colorless, odorless gas formed by reactions with pollutants and found most often in hot, stagnant weather.
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station: Nuclear power plant in west-central Maricopa County that annually generates
approximately 29,000 gigawatt hours of power.
Parcel: A legally recognized, continuous plot of land usually resulting from the division of a larger land area.
Particulate Matter: Air pollutants that vary in size and composition (solid or liquid droplets) and which originate from
stationary sources like power plant and industrial processes, from mobile sources like diesel vehicles, and naturally from
dust and soil.
Personal Property: Privately owned items that are movable and not affixed to land such as vehicles, watercraft, furniture,
collectibles, etc.
Phasing Plan: A deliberate and incremental plan for development based on appropriate sequences and timeframes.
Public Improvement: Infrastructure or service financed by Maricopa County that is for the benefit or use by the general
public.
Public Water System: Any water system with at least fifteen service connections, or any system that regularly serves an
average of at least twenty-five people daily for at least sixty days a year.
Quality of Life: The social, economic, environmental and physical well-being that an area offers individuals.
Real Property: Buildings, structures, and anything else affixed to land that is not considered movable, including the land
itself.
Appendix I: GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS
237
Renewable Energy: An unlimited source of energy that is naturally regenerated over a short time period, including
sunlight, wind, rain, tides and waves and geothermal heat.
Renewable Water: Water from sources like rivers, streams and lakes that are continuously and frequently replenished.
Rural Development: Agriculture-related and residential land uses with a density of one dwelling unit or less per gross
acre.
Rural Development Area: Any unincorporated land designated for rural land use in the Comprehensive Plan or in the
respective County Area Plan.
Rural Industrial Land Uses: Activities and facilities that are appropriate for rural or sparsely developed contexts due
to their need for large land areas, operational characteristics, limited reliance on external urban services, or potential
incompatibility with urban and suburban settings. Developments of this manner typically generate minimal demand
for public infrastructure and are best situated where land availability and separation from residential or commercial
development can be maintained. These uses could include, but are not limited to, electric generating and distribution
facilities, proving grounds and test facilities, mining and extraction operations, and agriculturally-oriented businesses.
Rural Service Area: Any part of the unincorporated area that is both outside of an Area Plan and the Urban Growth
Area characterized by low-density land use, limited infrastructure, and a strong emphasis on preserving open space,
agricultural operations, and the rural lifestyle.
Scalloped Streets: Roads with uneven and irregular widths.
Scenic Corridor: A designated area along key highways or roadways meant to preserve natural views, desert landscapes,
and community character.
Single-family Residential: Development consisting of separate or free-standing residential dwellings individually
intended for occupancy by just one household or family.
Special District: Government unit that is separate and independent from a general purpose government, like a municipality
or county, that exists to provide a specific service not provided by a general purpose government.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO): A division of Arizona State Parks, it provides assistance in identifying,
evaluating, protecting, and enhancing historic and archaeological properties that have significance for local communities,
the State of Arizona, or the Nation.
State Implementation Plan (SIP): Cumulative record of all air pollution strategies, state statutes, state rules and local
ordinances implemented in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act by government agencies in Arizona.
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP): The five-year planned roadway systems improvements for Maricopa County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
238
Transportation System Plan (TSP): Maricopa County’s long-range plan for transportation.
Unincorporated: Areas not within a city or town.
Urban Development: Commercial and industrial land uses as well as residential land uses with a density greater than
one dwelling unit per gross acre.
Urban Growth Area: Any unincorporated land designated for urban land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the respective
County Area Plan, or an applicable municipal general plan if the requirements of the USUD strategy can be satisfied and
timely assurance of annexation can be obtained. Unincorporated land designated for rural land use in the Comprehensive
Plan or a County Area Plan could also be considered the Urban Growth Area if that land is designated for urban land use
in an applicable municipal general plan, provided that the requirements of the USUD umbrella policy can be satisfied and
an assurance of annexation can be obtained to avoid forming new County Islands.
Urban/Rural Interface Area: Areas where urban- and rural-type land uses are adjacent to or intermixed with one another
Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD): A Maricopa County planning strategy to evaluate new urban development
predicated on clearly demonstrating that urban services and infrastructure are available to serve new residents and
businesses. This evaluation is deemed vital in order to prevent the creation of new County Islands, create fiscally and
environmentally efficient development, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Vehicle License Tax (VLT): A state tax charged in lieu of a personal property tax on vehicles.
“Wildcat” Lot Split: The unregulated division of one land parcel into five or fewer separate parcels. Collections of these
“wildcat” lot splits, repeated in a large parcel or area, can lead to a de facto “wildcat” subdivision. “Wildcat” subdivisions
are not subject to local subdivision regulations or related health and safety requirements.
Wildlife Corridor: A known area that connects fragmented habitats, allowing animals to move safely between them for
feeding, breeding, and migration.
Workforce Development Division (WDD): A division of the Human Services Department providing comprehensive
employment and training services to adult and youth job seekers, as well as support for employers across the County.
Zoning District Boundary Change: A change to the boundary of a zoning district which results in property transferring
from one zoning district to another.
Appendix I: GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS
239
Appendix II: Acronyms
The following acronyms are intended to help readers and users of the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan interpret
and implement its content, policies, and recommendations. These definitions are considered applicable only to this
Comprehensive Plan and should not necessarily be used in any other capacity. Readers are encouraged to seek additional
information on any of these concepts and terms if needed.
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
ADAWS – Alternative Designation of Assured Water Supply
ADEQ – Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADOT – Arizona Department of Transportation
ADWR – Arizona Department of Water Resources
AF – Acre-Feet
AFB – Air Force Base
AFMA – Arizona Fire & Medical Authority
AI – Artificial Intelligence
ALCP – Arterial Lifecyle Program
AMA – Active Management Area
APZ – Accident Potential Zone
ARS – Arizona Revised Statutes
ASLD – Arizona State Land Department
ATP – Active Transportation Plan
AWS – Assured Water Supply
AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department
BESS – Battery Energy Storage System
BLM – Bureau of Land Management
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
240
Board – Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
BOR – Bureau of Reclamation
CAGRD – Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District
CAP – Central Arizona Project
CAWS – Certificate of Assured Water Supply
CDBG – Census Designated Block Grant
Commission – Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission
CPA – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CV – Connected Vehicles
CWPP – Community Wildlife Protection Plan
DAWS – Designation of Assured Water Supply
DMP – Development Master Plan
EOP – Emergency Operations Plan
FCD – Flood Control District
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA – Federal Highway Administration
Framework – Municipal-Rural Influence Framework
GMFTZ – Greater Maricopa Foreign Trade Zone
GPEC – Greater Phoenix Economic Council
HNAPZ – High Noise and Accident Potential Zone
HOME – HOME Investment Partnership Program
HUD – United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
HURF – Highway User Revenue Funding
Appendix II: ACRONYMS
241
I-11 – Interstate 11
ICS – Incident Command System
IGA – Intergovernmental Agreement
INA – Irrigation Non-Expansion Area
ITS – Intelligent Transportation Systems
JPA – Joint Powers Authority
LOS – Level of Service
Loop 303 – State Route Loop 303
MAG – Maricopa Association of Governments
MC 85 – Maricopa County Road 85
MCAQD – Maricopa County Air Quality Department
MCDOT – Maricopa County Department of Transportation
MCESD – Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
MCIDA – Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority
MCPRD – Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department
MCSO – Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
MCZO – Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance
MPA – Metropolitan Planning Area
NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NFA – Neighborhood Facilities Assessment
PM2.5 – Fine Particulate Matter
PM10 – Coarse Particulate Matter
PSA – Public Service Announcement
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
242
RAZ – Regional Analysis Zone
RDM – Roadway Design Manual
ROD – Record of Decision
SHPO – State Historical Preservation Office
SIP – State Implementation Program
SR 30 – State Route 30
TAC – Technical Advisory Committee
TIP – Transportation Improvement Plan
TSP – Transportation System Plan
US – United States
USFS – United States Forest Service
USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USUD – Urban Solutions for Urban Development
VLT – Vehicle Licensing Tax
WDD – Workforce Development Division
WIOA – Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
WUI – Wildland-Urban Interface
Appendix II: ACRONYMS
243
Appendix III: Public Participation
Program
County Initiated Planning
Purpose
Public participation is an important component of successful planning. Citizens need and deserve ongoing communication
regarding projects and issues that affect their communities. Through these public participation guidelines, Maricopa
County demonstrates its commitment to encouraging early and meaningful citizen input during creation and amendment
of the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan. Such participation will help Maricopa County resolve concerns early in the
planning process, and promote goodwill between county officials, citizens, property owners, and other stakeholders.
Guiding Principles
The public participation program follows several principles that help ensure planning efforts identify and respond to
public issues and concerns. These principles are:
A sound public involvement plan is critical to the success of any planning process. It must include techniques to share
information and create lines of communication among interested parties.
Citizen participation must be a genuine effort to encourage public involvement in the decision-making process by
providing public participation opportunities.
Information must be disseminated to a broad range of interested parties. This could be achieved through public notices,
newsletters, flyers, telephone hotline, newspaper articles, the Internet, and/or other events. Participation opportunities
should occur through public workshops, informational meetings, surveys, or other means.
An effective public involvement process must address issues that arise when planning recommendations do not
adequately consider the concerns of the residents affected.
By hearing what the public expects and responding in the most effective, efficient way possible, an agency will gain
respect and support for its decisions and their implementation.
Compliance with State Law
Arizona Revised Statutes §11-806D states that “The Board of Supervisors shall:
Adopt written procedures to provide effective, early, and continuous public participation in the development the
Comprehensive Plan and any Major Amendment from all geographic, ethnic and economic areas of the County. The
procedures shall provide for:
The broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives
The opportunity for written comments
Public hearings after effective notice
Open discussions, communication programs and information services
Consideration of public comments
Consult and advise with public officials and agencies, municipalities, school districts, associations of governments,
public land management agencies, other appropriate government jurisdictions, public utility companies, civic,
educational, professional and other organizations property owners and citizens generally to secure the maximum
coordination of plans and to indicate properly located sites for all public purposes on the plan.”
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
244
Roles and Responsibilities
Maricopa County officials and staff shall be responsible for administering the public participation program. Ongoing
duties will include, but not be limited to, the following:
Assist with preparation of public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Organize and oversee public meetings, focus groups, workshops, and other communication networks.
Organize and support planning advisory committees.
Develop and maintain a dedicated email address and website to disseminate information and receive public
comments.
Assist with preparation and dissemination of press releases, public service announcements,and advertisements.
Prepare and disseminate planning information articles for business, civic, homeowners’ association, and other
group newsletters and publications.
Process
The public participation process for county-initiated efforts to adopt, amend, or
otherwise revise the Comprehensive Plan shall consist of several stages.
Stage 1: Notification and Education
This stage will introduce comprehensive and area plan updates to the public and
explain what specific activities the County will undertake. Maricopa County will
also explain to citizens the planning process, as well as how they can participate.
Stage 2: Participation and Input
Stage 2 represents the period when significant citizen participation takes place.
Most of the techniques discussed in the Public Participation Methods section
will be used in Stage 2 to obtain meaningful and significant public input in a plan
update process. Although Stage 2 is designed to receive and assemble citizen
questions, comments, and suggestions, Maricopa County will continue with
Stage 1 efforts to notify citizens about opportunities for participation.
Stage 3: Public Hearing Notification
Notification of efforts to adopt, amend, or otherwise change land use plans will
be published at least 15 days prior to the scheduled public hearing. Requests will
be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with state law.
Stage 4: Public Hearing
Stage 4 represents the process when public hearings are held. Legally required
public hearings before the Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors are held on a routine basis. These public hearings
give residents an opportunity to publicly express opinions and ideas regarding
county-initiated plan updates. Formal notification of public hearings is provided
according to applicable state and County regulations.
Stage 5: Plan Implementation & Summary Report
Figure 21. Public
Participation Process:
County Initiated-Planning
Appendix III: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
245
Public Participation Methods
Maricopa County can use many techniques to ensure the broadest possible
citizen participation. However, the effectiveness of each of these techniques is
determined, in part, by the unique circumstances of specific planning efforts. While
not all methods may be practical or feasible for each project, Maricopa County will
use as many as possible to encourage significant participation and to ensure that
the guiding principles of this program are maintained.
Although this list identifies many of the options that Maricopa County can use
to ensure program success, there may be others that, when feasible, might be
appropriate.
Press Releases and Public Service Announcements (PSA):
Notifications regarding proposed projects will be sent to newspapers and other
media with general circulation in the subject areas. Press releases and PSAs
will describe proposed projects and how citizens can participate in the planning
process. Planning Department staff, with the assistance of Maricopa County
Communications Office, shall prepare and distribute press releases and PSAs
during each stage.
Maricopa County Webpage or Dedicated Plan Webpage:
Maricopa County currently has a web page that is frequently updated with
important information. The Planning and Development Department will publish
and update information regarding county-initiated planning efforts on its website
or a dedicated plan website. This information will describe proposed projects,
identify important dates in the process, and explain how citizens can participate
in the input process.
Email:
For those interested in receiving information via email, Maricopa County will develop
and maintain a database of email addresses to which planning information will
be distributed. However, only those individuals and groups specifically requesting
information by email will be added to the database. In addition, the Planning and
Development Department will establish and maintain a dedicated email address in
order to receive citizen comments and recommendations.
Public Meetings:
To provide opportunities for open dialogue, Maricopa County will organize
and participate in public meetings. Public meetings, which can occur as open
houses, workshops, and focus groups, are widely recognized as an important and
effective method of community outreach because they give citizens an informal
opportunity to ask questions of county staff, as well as provide recommendations
and suggestions regarding plan updates. Public meetings also promote goodwill
between citizens and Maricopa County.
All public meetings will be organized and managed by County staff. When feasible,
elected and appointed officials should attend and participate in a leadership
capacity. Also where feasible, a multimedia approach will be used to further clarify
information and promote greater participation. Depending on meeting format,
advanced notification can be provided through both print media and direct mailing
to potential stakeholders.
In keeping with historic County policy, alternative format materials, sign language
interpreter, and infrared listening devices can be provided with a minimum 72-hour
advance notice.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
246
Surveys:
Surveys can be very effective at gathering citizen comments and opinions regarding specific issues. When feasible,
County staff will produce and mail, email, or fax surveys to potentially affected stakeholders. County staff will also
distribute surveys at public meetings. On all surveys, Maricopa County will provide a return mailing address, email
address, web site address, and telephone and fax numbers.
Newsletters & EBlasts:
Newsletters will allow county staff to share progress on planning projects, as well as provide a forum for citizens to
express opinions. Articles regarding significant planning issues will also be submitted to community, business, and
trade organization newsletters as a way to increase information dissemination.
Advisory Committees:
For large-scale planning efforts, Maricopa County will use advisory committees. Committee participants become
directly involved in the planning process by agreeing to meet frequently to carefully review documents and provide
recommendations. Such committees will consist of potential stakeholders that have an interest in the affected areas.
Advisory committees will vary in size depending on the specific project, but will generally not exceed 15 members.
Maricopa County staff will provide administrative support to committees, and committee membership will be based
upon recommendations from the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors (or staff thereof).
Public Hearings (Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors):
As required by state law, the Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors periodically
hold public hearings regarding planning issues. Planning & Zoning Commission hearings are held in accordance with
a published schedule typically on the first and third Thursday of each month. Board of Supervisors hearings are held
in accordance with an adopted and published schedule typically on the first and third Wednesday of each month.
Citizens are encouraged to attend and express their opinions in a formal setting.
Applicant Initiated Comprehensive Plan
Amendments (including Development Master Plan
Amendments)
Purpose
Public participation is an important component of successful planning. Citizens need and deserve ongoing
communication regarding projects and issues that affect their communities. Through these adopted public
participation guidelines, Maricopa County demonstrates its commitment to ensuring that applicants pursue early and
meaningful citizen input in applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Development Master Plan. Such
participation will help an applicant resolve concerns early in the process, and promote goodwill between the applicant,
county officials, citizens, property owners, and other stakeholders. While these guidelines establish a formal process
for citizen participation, applicants are by no means precluded from incorporating additional elements into their public
participation program.
Public involvement might increase the time and cost of the planning process, but it can yield greater returns since the
outcome will be based on the expressed needs of the public it serves. While the citizen participation program may not
produce complete consensus regarding specific applications, it will encourage applicants to make sound investment
and planning decisions by listening to and, where feasible, addressing the concerns of their neighbors.
Appendix III: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
247
Guiding Principles
The public participation program follows several principles that help ensure
planning efforts obtain sufficient public input and support. These principles
are:
A sound public involvement plan is critical to the success of any planning
process. It must include techniques to share information and create lines
of communication between interested parties.
Citizen participation must be a genuine effort to encourage public
involvement in the decision-making process by providing public
participation opportunities.
Information must be disseminated to a broad range of stakeholders. This
could be achieved through public notices, newsletters, flyers, telephone
hotline, newspaper articles, the Internet, and/or other events. Participation
opportunities should occur through public workshops, informational
meetings, surveys, or other means.
An effective public involvement process must address issues that arise
when planning recommendations do not adequately consider the concerns
of the residents affected.
By hearing what the public expects and responding in the most effective,
efficient way possible, an applicant will be respected and supported for
their decisions.
Process
The public participation process for applicant-initiated Comprehensive Plan
Amendments shall consist of several stages. At a minimum, the citizen
participation program must provide the following information:
A description of the community involvement area.
A list of stakeholders that may be affected by the application. While
individual circumstances will vary, stakeholders include residents, property
owners, homeowners’ associations, and any others identified within an
area agreed upon by the applicant and the Planning and Development
Department. The applicant should also include a description of how
and when the identified stakeholders will be notified that an application
for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Development Master Plan
Amendment has been submitted (proof of notification must be included
with the formal application).
A description of how the applicant will make information available to
interested parties, prior to public hearings.
A description of how the applicant will identify stakeholder’s issues and
concerns.
A description of how the applicant will respond to stakeholder’s feedback
and recommendations.
A discussion of how the applicant will keep the Maricopa County Planning
and Development Department informed of public participation program
progress.
A timeline for the citizen participation program.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
248
Stage 1: Pre-Application Meeting
Prior to submitting a formal application, an applicant is required to participate in a pre-application meeting with
Planning and Development Department staff. Pre-application meetings allow applicants to become familiar with the
planning process, and also enable the applicant to obtain guidance with the requirements of the public participation
program.
Stage 2: Official Application
Along with the official application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the applicant must submit an official copy
of the citizen participation plan. Official copies must be submitted in an electronic format. In the citizen participation
plan, the applicant must present evidence that the identified stakeholders have been notified of the application. The
applicant will maintain a database of the stakeholders and a log of notifications to stakeholders.
Additionally, a notice of application shall be sent by the applicant to each real property owner as shown on the last
assessment of the property within 300’ of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Stage 3: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting
In accordance with an established timeline, staff will schedule the application for review by TAC and notify the applicant
of the actual date and time that the TAC meeting will take place. In addition to reviewing the application, the applicant
may also be asked to provide a verbal report concerning the progress of the public participation plan.
Stage 4: Submit Public Participation Program Results
Prior to Maricopa County providing official notice of public hearing, the applicant must submit a written report which
details the results of the public participation program. This report shall include at least the following information:
RECORD OF APPLICANT ACTIVITIES
The dates, times, and/or locations of:
All meetings the applicant initiated with stakeholders.
Other contacts with affected stakeholders.
Description of the approximate number of people that participated in the public participation process, and where
they are located in relation to the subject property.
Discussion of the results of the public participation process. This discussion should include information about the
major issues and concerns identified by stakeholders, how the applicant will address the concerns or issues raised
by affected stakeholders, and what concerns or issues the applicant cannot or will not address and why.
Appendix of information, including mailings, fliers, newsletters, handouts, and other pertinent materials that help
describe the public participation program.
Stage 5: Public Hearing Notification
For a major Comprehensive Plan Amendment application, the applicant will post notification of an application at the
subject property via signs within 30 days of application and post hearing dates on existing application notification
signs at the subject property in accordance with staff posting deadlines and at least 15 days prior to the scheduled
public hearing. A minimum of two posters is required on the subject property, with at least one notice for each quarter
mile of frontage along the perimeter public right-of-way. An assigned planner may alter the location of required sign
posting and/or reduce the number of required signs if the purpose is to ensure effective public participation and
awareness. The number of signs may be reduced, if, in the assigned planner’s opinion, such signs will have little to
no benefit to the outreach process. The property shall be posted with at least two signs, the size of which shall be
consistent with Staff’s current sign size requirements (at least 6 square feet in area) and included in the application
packet. The signs shall be designed to accommodate the posting for the required public hearings of both the Planning
& Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Appendix III: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
249
The applicant shall notify all of the stakeholders identified in the public participation program of the public hearings by
first-class mail. Additionally, a notice of hearing shall be sent by the applicant to each real property owner as shown on
the last assessment of the property within 300’ of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be published 15 days prior to the scheduled public hearing.
Requests will be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with state law. In addition, the Planning
and Development Department retains the right to use supplemental meetings, such as neighborhood meetings or
open houses, for projects as deemed necessary.
Stage 6: Public Hearing
Pursuant to state law, public hearings before the county Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors
are held on a routine basis. These public hearings give residents an opportunity to formally express opinions
regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment application or a Development Master Plan Amendment application.
Formal notification of these public hearings is provided according to the guidelines noted in Stage 5: Public Hearing
Notification.
Planning & Zoning Commission hearings are held in accordance with a published schedule typically on the first
and third Thursday of every month. The Board of Supervisors hearings are held in accordance with an adopted and
published schedule typically on the first and third Wednesday of every month. Public hearings before the Planning &
Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors are required for every Comprehensive Plan Amendment application.
Figure 22. Public Participation Process: Comprehensive Plan Amendments &
Development Master Plan Amendments
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
250
Contact Agency
If any applicant or resident has questions concerning this program, they are
requested to contact Maricopa County at the following address:
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 506-3301
Appendix III: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
251
MARCH 2025
VISION REPORT
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
2
VISION REPORT
Overview
Maricopa County is updating its Comprehensive Plan to develop a long-term strategy for the county that
will guide decision making on unincorporated lands over the next 20 years. This includes guidance on
where we locate housing and jobs, how we support our natural environment and systems, as well as
where we invest in transportation, parks, and other public assets. The Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) will serve as a visionary roadmap representing the goals and
policies the County will utilize to achieve desired outcomes that were identified and molded through the
facilitation of robust community dialog.
To organize the complex process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, the overall essential components
of the project have been divided into three phases (Project Initiation, Shape the Plan, and Plan Adoption).
Each phase has distinct “Surges” of outreach tasks and activities that are planned to engage community
members and key stakeholders in identifying issues, developing policy concepts, and shaping the final
recommended plan. The following is a summary of the findings from Surge 1 of the Comprehensive Plan
update process.
Surge 1 Engagement Snapshot
Maricopa County organized and facilitated a series of in-person and virtual events and activities to
introduce the comprehensive plan update process to the public. This included communicating baseline
information and gathering community feedback of the participating residents’ values, opportunities, and
issues that they want to address through this community driven effort.
Surge 1 Engagement Goals
1. Introduce community members to the Comprehensive Plan update effort
2. Engage a broad and diverse representation of Maricopa County
3. Identify shared values and concerns
4. Gather input to update and/or develop plan goals and policies
Introduction
This report illuminates the ideas and aspirations that Maricopa County residents shared over the last four
months. It reflects what you—our residents, business owners, and visitors—told us about the importance
of Maricopa County’s past, examines where the County is today, and assesses what the County should
strive to protect and enhance in the future.
Key Findings
Based on the results of initial engagement activities and conversations with the community, the following
themes emerged as top outcomes for the Comprehensive Plan. More detailed information relative to
each engagement activity is included in the following sections.
As these themes are closely interrelated, they are intended to be viewed as being equal in weight and
are not listed in any particular order of importance. This distinction encourages a more holistic “systems
thinking” approach to recognize and emphasize the interrelationships among all aspects of Maricopa
County’s long-term planning efforts. A systems thinking perspective balances the interdependent
environmental, social, and economic implications of policies, decisions, and outcomes expressed in the
plan, so as to identify benefits and trade-offs that exist within them.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
3
VISION REPORT
Opportunity Theme
Where are we today…
Maricopa County is one of the fastest growing places in the nation. Quality of life investments, emerging
industries, and comfortable weather patterns have resulted in many community benefits that have made
the County quite attractive to residents and businesses seeking to settle and thrive here.
Residents recognize these significant assets create a unique character to the County and establish a
cherished built and natural environment. However, residents are increasingly concerned that
uncontrolled growth will not only negatively impact currently available opportunities but also hinder the
ability to leave the County better for future residents who will make Maricopa County their home.
Where are we going…
The Comprehensive Plan visualizes a County where the unique needs of the varying population groups in
the County are strategically met by the ability to provide local, affordable options for housing, efficient
transportation systems, and robust industry. Ultimately, aiming for initiatives that protect the County’s
established prominence will also lead to the continued enjoyment of the varying lifestyles that exist
across the County. In turn, future residents can then protect and contribute to the endurance of what the
County has to offer.
Stewardship Theme
Where are we today…
Maricopa County uses the best available information to protect, enhance, and integrate new
development to reduce environmental impacts and preserve the recognized special importance of the
County’s natural systems and open spaces.
When thinking about the future and growth in general, survey respondents consistently identified the
protection of natural open spaces, farms, and parks as one of the most important opportunities and one
of the most important challenges the County faces as it plans for the next decade and beyond. This
prevalent focus is further supported as respondents identified the limited availability of water and poor
air quality as some of their biggest concerns related to growth and development in the County.
Where are we going…
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes residents’ strong desire to protect natural open space, enhance
recreation areas and activities, and promote local food production to support the livability and prosperity
of the region. Within this context, anticipated population growth will also require the region to evaluate
and identify long-term water management practices, alternative energy sources, and thoughtful land
development policies and regulations. Furthermore, the region will need to sustain rural lands and their
character by directing larger and higher concentrations of growth to municipalities.
“Maintain quality of life while managing growth”; “control the congestion of more people, i.e.
roads, open spaces, quiet neighborhoods”; “people want to come here” – Some of the
responses to Countywide Survey, Question 9: What are the biggest opportunities for Maricopa
County over the next 20 years?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
4
VISION REPORT
Prosperity Theme
Where are we today…
Maricopa County oversees a prosperous economy that features significant job growth and a multitude
of high-wage industries. The County cultivates business development to purposefully enrich the
community economically and socially so as to allow all residents better access to paths for economic
growth.
Resident feedback expressed an appreciation for the unique experiences and employment options that
draw people of all ages and interests to Maricopa County. However, survey respondents desire to closely
manage this prosperity to ensure the intensity and scale of non-residential development respects the
surrounding character. There is greatest interest within the community to support the development of
technology and healthcare-related industries. Furthermore, collected input also showed strong support
for ensuring growth pays for itself.
Where are we going…
An outcome of the Comprehensive Plan is to manage economic growth, particularly in municipal
planning areas to ensure the infrastructure and utilities needed to support such growth is readily
available.
“I would like to see natural spaces prioritized, considering wildlife crossings and access
across the desert, as well as giving us humans plenty of opportunities to hike and experience
beautiful untouched desert.” – Framework 2040 Idea Wall, January 2025
“Opportunities
for
employment,
education
and
outdoor
recreation”;
“Numerous
opportunities
in
business”;
“Business
variety.
Small
mom
and
pops
and
corporate/franchise.” – Some of the responses to Countywide Survey, Question 7: What do you
love and/or value most about living in, working in, doing business in, or visiting the County?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
5
VISION REPORT
Summary of Community Perspectives
Maricopa County Planning and Development deployed a wide range of tools to garner input from across
unincorporated areas of the county. The team promoted outreach tools through various marketing
materials including postings on County social media channels, press releases, and listserv e-blasts.
County Boards and Commissions promoted the Comprehensive Plan process during public meetings.
The team also notified County stakeholders and community organizations to capture and reach a
broader cross-section of participants. A list and description of each engagement tool is outlined below:
Virtual Outreach: We used the framework2040.com website to inform residents, announce upcoming
events, and launch community involvement activities. We engaged with stakeholders via Zoom as part
of a grand virtual countywide meeting.
In-Person Workshops: The heart of our engagement was our 5-workshop series which hosted meetings
within each Supervisor District, where we collaboratively reviewed and discussed existing and future
conditions with participants. To ensure all those who participated had an equal voice, real-time polling
technology recorded live audience opinions via smart phones in response to a series of structured
questions. The technology offered the team a chance to visualize public opinion and residents the ability
to frame follow-up discussions around direct polling reactions. The team held meetings at the following
venues:
District #1
Arizona College Prep High School (Chandler)
District #2
Fountain Hills High School (Fountain Hills)
District #3
Anthem Community Center (Anthem)
District #4
Valley Vista High School (Surprise)
District #5
Betty Fairfax High School (Laveen in Phoenix)
Countywide Survey: The team offered a countywide online survey. The survey evaluated resident
satisfaction with existing county qualities and offered a first glimpse into public preferences for prioritizing
future efforts. Some questions asked residents to think strategically about specific opportunities or
challenges, while others offered open-ended comment.
Interactive Mapping: The County engaged participants by initiating an interactive mapping application,
via the project website, that allowed residents to highlight favorite places, assets, opportunities, and
challenge so that the geographical context of the issues in the County could be captured for use in the
development process of the Comprehensive Plan.
Idea Wall: Participants were able to take part in a broad, virtual “idea wall” conversation that explored the
question “How can Maricopa County be improved in the decades ahead?” Respondents posted text,
pictures, and/or videos that captured their ideas regarding the future of the county.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
6
VISION REPORT
Countywide Survey Results
[Please note that the public feedback shown is in raw format to preserve the exact responses
that participants submitted, which means that grammatical, spelling, and other language
variations may be present.]
The collected input from all in-person and virtual engagement tools is summarized below:
1. What is your connection to unincorporated Maricopa County?
2. How long have you lived in unincorporated Maricopa County?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
7
VISION REPORT
3. What Maricopa County Supervisor District do you live in?
4. If you live in unincorporated Maricopa County, what community do you
consider to be a part of, if any?
Ahwatukee
Laveen
Mesa
Peoria
Phoenix
Red
Mountain
Reserve
at
Pinnacle
Peak
Citrus Park
Sun City
Festival
Anthem
Sun City
West
Morristown
Sonoran
Foothills
Sun
Lakes
Rio Verde
Foothills
New
River
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
8
VISION REPORT
5. What is your age?
6. What is one word
you would use to
describe
Maricopa
County in 20 years?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
9
VISION REPORT
7. What do you love and/or value most about living in, working in, doing
business in, or visiting the County?
Natural Environment/Recreation
•
The natural beauty: mountains, hiking trails, night skies.
•
Love the sense of community and the natural beauty
•
I love the natural environment and all the opportunities to recreate
•
The weather
•
Warm winter
•
Climate
•
Living in the Sonoran Desert and next to large parcel of state land (24th Street to Cave Creek)
and experiencing the wonders of the desert.
•
It’s access to beautiful weather and nature
•
Weather in cooler months
•
the open spaces hiking, kayaking exploring
•
Access to recreation
•
Quiet space
•
Open spaces
•
Golf
•
climate, outdoor access, people , everything I need is close by
•
space, open land
•
Close to lakes and mountains.
•
Climate and access to outdoor activities
•
Desert landscape
•
Weather & location
•
winter climate
•
Access to outdoors.
•
Open space
•
sun, weather, hiking, libraries
•
The scenic beauty, culture and history
•
Fall, Winter, Spring weather
•
Beauty of the Sonoran Desert
•
our open spaces
•
I value the accessibility to open space at all times of year.
•
Proximity to the remainder of wild Arizona
•
The open spaces, trails, preserves, beautiful views, rural lifestyle
•
I value nature but that is my main concern and comment
•
Comfortable temperature
•
The fantastic parks and nature areas
•
Winter weather
•
Preservation of the desert/western way of life.
•
Wildlife
•
Trails
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
10
VISION REPORT
•
Access to natural spaces
•
Access to trails parks
•
Mountain biking and hiking with friends and family
•
Living in the desert landscape and access to Mtn Bike trails and recreation.
•
Nature
•
Daisy Mountain
•
Mtn biking
•
Hiking access to variety of trail Systems
•
Availability of open space
•
Mountain View’s
•
The smell of the desert when it rains
•
Desert (birds, wildflowers), Effective transportation grid, Efficient government
•
Beautiful areas
•
Great trails
•
So many outdoor activities
•
Large urban parks
•
Active lifestyle opportunities. Lakes. Parks. Hiking biking.
•
Great opportunity for outdoor activity
•
Outdoor activities, multiple nature preserves and trails, natural beauty
Urban Form/Transportation
•
The peaceful environment in my neighborhood
•
Good balance of urban area, nature, infrastructure
•
Easy access to things that are important to me, hiking, stores
•
We have good freeway systems, a variety of different neighborhood cultures, and the
beautiful Sonoran Desert.
•
rapid bus
•
a good cross of suburban and urban areas so you have options for lifestyles
•
Resources are around the corner
•
Rural areas
•
I used to value a rural lifestyle, but now it is filled with noisy razors, motorcycles, and
individuals who do not care about the environment and wildlife.
•
I live in a rural area with beautiful mountain views thank goodness. Business is good for those
in construction.
•
The variety of land use types.
•
That despite its growth and population, it still maintains a "small town" feeling
•
I like the connection to each city via the freeway system
•
Ease of access to different areas via freeway system. Just pick a one to fix & don't close 3 more
at the same time!!!
•
Proximity of retail establishments
•
living in central phoenix, all other cities are about the same distance and allows me to explore all
these other areas equally.
•
Green spaces, local businesses, Farms, Artists, Museums, Parks
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
11
VISION REPORT
•
Amenities
•
Rural
•
Technology sector drives local economy, available amenities, and services
•
It is growing rapidly
•
diversity of resources and services i.e. medical, outdoor recreation opportunities, climate,
protected open space, employment opportunities, culture diversity.
•
Great medical services
•
Transportation ease
•
Having diversity between open spaces and urban luxuries.
•
Urban AND Rural destinations
•
Easy to navigate
•
Clean
•
Opportunities for employment, education and outdoor recreation
•
Numerous opportunities in business
•
Business variety. Small mom and pops and corporate/franchise
•
Great Restaurants. Mountains easily accessible. Freer marketplace than other big cities, but
we are losing that. Used to have less traffic. :(
•
Variety of events and entertainment
•
Sky Harbor Airport (except for the signage)
•
Good infrastructure
•
Not expensive to live here, great arts centers, sports and things to do
•
Developed but close to outdoor recreation
•
So many things to do
•
So many different things to do
•
Expanding,
•
Large, congested area
•
Boulevard driving
•
Diversity between natural spaces and urban luxuries
•
Accessibility to stores and not having to live in the congestion
•
Variety - from large urban environment to wide open spaces
•
Small business friendly
•
The ease of the commute
•
County has everything I need. Jobs, urban amenities and open spaces to explore and get
away.
•
The previous lack of traffic
•
Can work and play in the same area- arts culture outdoors
•
The water communities.
•
Living on northern perimeter
•
Living outside of the "glob" "grid"
•
Will have more questions after reviewing area plan.
•
Freedom in education and medical freedom
•
The fact that I bought my home over 20 years ago and it's now valued more than four times
what I paid for it.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
12
VISION REPORT
•
Cheaper than CA, but that won't last long.
•
Good economy, vibrant communities, easy to get around
•
Job and education opportunities.
•
Value the wide range of opportunities. Good healthcare services. Get out in nature quickly.
Culture/People
•
Diversity
•
It's almost impossible to have nothing to do. There's so much you can do and experience in
Maricopa County.
•
Diversity, connectivity, amazing sunsets.
•
People, PORA, safety
•
Nothing
•
It's my home and my family lives here. I like the plants and animals.
•
The people. The beauty. The accessibility of everything being in 1 hour's reach.
•
There is a growing culture that wants to lead and embrace resource management... I find that
to be encouraging for Maricopa County
•
Lifestyle
•
Maricopa County is land of extremes - population center, excellent education, job opportunities,
and incredible beauty. Then there is not.
•
I have a wonderful life built here
•
Opportunity - so many cultures, types of businesses and restaurants, art/music/sporting/cultural
events
•
In my part of the county I love the rural nature and quality of life in my town
•
People
•
Diverse
•
The people create a community for all
•
Eclectic lifestyles, homes, people. Non-homogenous harmony
•
Community
•
The People
•
Friendly people. Local government seems to work well
•
The people make the county
•
More HB1B to citizen mix
•
Friendships within communities
•
The open-minded atmosphere.
•
Every part of the county has different culture and traditions the people in Maricopa county
are wonderful
•
All the horse owners.
Governance
•
Overall, this is a pretty well ran county with beautiful parks and amenities. We need to start
to focus a lot more on open spaces and stopping urban sprawl. Where is the water going to
come from for more people? Do we trash the environment to build more homes.
•
I think the election system is to be admired.
•
County is not intrusive
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
13
VISION REPORT
•
I value the fiscal responsibility the BOS has adhered to. I love the open space and recreational
opportunities available.
•
Freedom from town or HOA restrictions, large open desert areas, recreation, low taxes.
•
The area I moved to was safe, clean, has great city council. I hope the county keeps it that
way.
•
Thinking the county respected the citizens
•
Resources managed well
•
Efficient elections, Street grid, Large
8. How would you rate the overall quality of life today in Maricopa County?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
14
VISION REPORT
9. What will be the biggest opportunities for Maricopa County over the next
20 years?
Growth
•
Controlled growth and housing
•
To look at growth with a discerning eye with the goal of instead of growth for growth's sake, a
sustainable future.
•
Thoughtful growth with lots of remaining open space
•
Address housing for low income families
•
Maintain quality of life while managing growth
•
Creating a great community with open spaces and many amenities
•
Overdevelopment
•
control the congestion of more people, i.e. roads, open spaces, quiet neighborhoods
•
Affordable housing
•
people want to come here,
•
Nothing
•
land and developer management - developers and builders may buy elections, but they don't
vote and they are not your constituents.
•
Growth
•
Safety
•
Maintaining the beauty and integrity of the county, not allowing overgrowth and over
population.
•
To preserve the state, its heritage and lifestyle
•
Manage growth.
•
Growth!
•
Growing
•
Controlled growth using innovation (whether new ideas or new technologies)
•
Growth
•
Denser communities where infrastructure exists
•
To ensure it doesn't become over crowded
•
The possibility of guiding growth in a manner that preserves the environment while extending
access to its resources.
•
Growth
•
Community
•
Managing growth and maintaining affordability for residents
•
Limit growth
•
Redevelopment
•
Reducing Valley Fever rates, increase affordable housing and public amenities like parks and
trails. Water conservation and extreme heat
•
Vertical expansion
•
With growth comes need for development of “outdoor space” availability
•
Eliminate food deserts
•
Expand adoption opportunities of animals
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
15
VISION REPORT
•
Plan for future infrastructure growth.
•
Technology, Parks, Public transported
•
Improving transportation and housing options
•
Capturing large national companies that grow the county. Building infrastructure and
roadways to support. Providing housing for those new businesses.
Natural Resources/Environment
•
Water conservation and slowing urban sprawl.
•
Protecting and preserving our natural surroundings while continuing necessary growth.
•
Clean air
•
Keep some green belts - it helps with keeping the heat island down
•
Securing water and limiting population
•
Improve air quality, access enough water, provide county wide public transportation
•
Improve air quality and traffic congestion
•
Protect its open spaces
•
Managing resources in a coordinated and thoughtful manner
•
to manage the water supply
•
Environmental Protection
•
The green industry. Figuring out how to continue to live here, such as solar power and water
harvesting.
•
reduce pollution _ dust, particles
•
Resource Management; water, efficient agriculture, native lands, wildlife protection.
•
managing open spaces and parks
•
manage land use to prioritize other things beside urban sprawl. Create an environment that
values open space, nature and natural habitat.
•
Sustainability - air quality and water conservation
•
Preservation and enhancement of natural and open space areas.
•
Conserve water
•
Save some of the land for parks and keep our farms.
•
District 5. Coming up with more progressive policies on land reclamation and mining
exemptions. The current strategy is not working and it is harmful to property values. I've been
told, almost bluntly, that these sites have carte blanche.
•
The opportunity to protect and preserve what makes Maricopa different, desirable, and
special; green space, trails, preserves, and rural lifestyle areas.
•
Clean up the horrible air caused by traffic. Follow the CARB example & set requirements for
more EV's.
•
Preserve the beautiful Rio Verde Foothills area.
•
Bring water into the County/AZ
•
More info on status of Vulture Mtn. Regional Park
•
Identify + protect points of access to open space
•
Increase assistance to mitigate summer heat
•
Be a national leader in water resource management, conservation and technology
development.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
16
VISION REPORT
•
Protect rural areas. Protect what makes the county special. Protect and preserve the natural
resources.
•
Fix loopholes in the 1980 GW Mgmt Act which allows SFR to be built as rentals without water.
Stop approving commercial like semiconductors that pollute groundwater (see recent EPA )
report.
Transportation
•
transportation circulation improvements, creating or igniting robust planning partnerships
with municipalities for population growth
•
Transit in the west valley
•
walkable cities and neighborhoods. neighborhoods should have their own vibe. residents
should be able to enjoy their neighborhoods without getting in a car.
•
reduce traffic congestion
•
develop trails for walking, biking, and outdoor recreation (I utilize Usery park but we need
trails near residential areas that are clean and safe), better small housing opportunities (to
buy not rent)
•
Public Transportation, Safer Streets & intersections, shading neighborhoods, and the growing
semiconductor industry.
•
Move bike lanes to parks + recreation areas instead of roads
•
Improved connectivity for people (active transportation) and wildlife
•
Building roads for new housing (i.e. 303 +117 already bad)
Economy
•
Growing tech reputation - TSMC, Intel, etc.
•
economy
•
Economic prosperity, with good paying jobs for residents, attainable housing in safe
neighborhoods. and open space.
•
Industry
•
Jobs
•
Thoughtful, planned development including living wage manufacturing jobs
•
Tech sector support, water usage/rights
•
High Tech manufacturing
•
Technology
•
Benefitting from “CHIPS” act + Infrastructure Act
•
New places to shop/new restaurants, public areas
Energy
•
Sustainability and opportunities to use green energy
•
Using more clean energy, reducing fossil fuel use
•
More renewable energy infrastructure, incentives for electric vehicles
•
Solar
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
17
VISION REPORT
10. What will be the biggest challenges facing Maricopa County over the next
20 years?
Growth
•
To look at growth with a discerning eye with the goal of instead of growth for growth's sake, a
sustainable future.
•
Balancing growth and open space
•
Managing growth
•
Managing growth and water
•
overcrowding
•
Same as above
•
Existing urban sprawl
•
Overdevelopment
•
Managing growth with Environmental and Quality of Life for all residents
•
controlled growth, water usage, funding schools
•
Too many people. Not enough water.
•
increased population
•
Urban sprawl and maintaining unique characteristic traits for each city....reduce the "chain"
restaurants and chain stores to keep the cities uniquely vibrant
•
Growth
•
Unmanaged growth
•
Overpopulation
•
Managing growth.
•
rapid growth and water management
•
Growth and resultant strain on infrastructure
•
Overcrowding, water, pollution
•
Growth
•
Growth and Congestion. Environmental impact.
•
Managing growth
•
Restricting urban growth... Water resource management will require changes... Why wait.
•
Uncontrolled growth not supported by an appropriate tax base (yes, please raise our taxes to
support the many wonderful services the county provides)
•
Protect the unincorporated areas from commercial development and crowding. Protect the
preserve and park areas across the county. Don't allow big city or California thinking
permeate our great state.
•
Manage the growth in a way that does not destroy the very things that drew people here to
begin with; Safeguard water supply for all
•
population growth, infrastructure, education
•
Life quality
•
Fighting over development in areas that cannot sustain it.
•
Accident increase due to overpopulation
•
Growing population and coordination of municipal growth strategies
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
18
VISION REPORT
Natural Resources (Water)/ Environment
•
Water conservation and slowing urban sprawl.
•
Protecting and preserving our natural surroundings, air quality, water supply while continuing
necessary growth.
•
Water use, maintaining good balance between urban and natural areas
•
Climate change
•
Deal with excessive heat due to global warming
•
Sustainability
•
Maintaining quality of life with climate change
•
Ridding ourselves of polluted air
•
Prioritizing keeping some natural spaces and our desert! Water, claiming the solar future we
should have.
•
Climate change (heat) and water management.
•
The heat island needs to be addressed. Air pollution is also insane in Maricopa County. We
live in the desert - we should adapt to it.
•
environmental - heat, lack of water, air quality
•
Improving air quality and traffic congestion and housing for young people
•
Air pollution, protecting the water
•
managing the water supply
•
The rising temperatures and unpredictable rainfall/water
•
Water
•
Congestion and the heat as more desert is taken away and asphalt and reflected heat
sources are being added.
•
Water and over population
•
Securing water and limiting population
•
Water and infrastructure planning, climate change
•
water and urban sprawl
•
Ensure water availability for existing residents
•
Water, development pressures, and transportation.
•
Water
•
Sustainability
•
Water, too many people, not enough public transportation, air quality, losing our farmland
and ranches
•
Air quality, water availability
•
horrible air quality, traffic & crazy drivers with no enforcement, overcrowding, rental
development but no new small housing options, water is obviously the biggest concern
•
Water usage/rights
•
air quality reform and improvement, slowing managing population growth
•
Water shortage caused by over development and depletion of aquifer.
•
Water
•
Climate change. Public health. Housing and reducing reliance on automobile
•
Power, Water, Traffic, & being Overbuilt
•
Enough water?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
19
VISION REPORT
•
Water availability & cost
•
Agree on protecting dark skies from signs
•
Preserving the natural beauty while taking advantage of growth
•
Money for parks, trails + open space
•
Water management and agriculture
•
Water
•
Maintaining desert & habitats
•
Water
•
Recreation areas
•
Protect preserves. Protect rural lifestyle.
•
Water & transportation
•
Protecting dark skies
Housing / Services
•
Decreasing homeless rate
•
Utility rates
•
Affordable workforce housing; roads
•
Housing, transportation, water
•
Housing
•
Affordable housing
•
More police & first responders to crime & incident reporting
•
Expand single family housing; reduce high density
•
Affordable housing
Transportation / Infrastructure
•
Traffic congestion
•
Transportation and electricity and water
•
Planning for transportation, water, education
•
transportation
•
Infrastructure
•
Keeping up with transportation needs and water requirements
•
Noise generation (i.e. airports)
•
Management of hazardous materials on freeways
•
Traffic congestion & spill over into residential areas
•
Resisting the outdoor ad industry’s push to install “Electronic Message Boards” (LED
billboards) everywhere
•
Controlling installation of outdoor lighting of > 3000k CCT, either by Phoenix + cities/towns or
by homeowners + developers
•
Coordination of facilities with cities
•
Horrid traffic funneling off 6-lane 202E/W
•
Dangerously increasing traffic
•
Noise from night racing – increase
•
Roads
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
20
VISION REPORT
Governance
•
Right wing extremism which doesn’t care about outcomes or progress, just “ winning.”
•
Having the courage to challenge the existing regulatory environment to benefit citizens and
residents, and not large, multimillion and multibillion dollar businesses, and wealthy
executives. There are some bad actors out there, and some of them are proud.
•
Emergency management
11. What specific concerns do you have related to future growth within the
County?
Water/ Natural Environment
•
The destruction of the serenity found in our desert and our quality of life which includes clean
air and water quality/quantity.
•
Uncontrolled growth and lack of water management
•
Water, water, water
•
Water, and destruction of the Sonoran Desert, which is what brings people here in the first
place.
•
Climate change will cause conditions that require mod water, and water will be rationed
•
Growing without massive development and increasing the environmental impact
•
Water supply
•
Water issues…quality and quantity, air quality
•
Water and traffic
•
Water, transit
•
Water availability
•
Air pollution, limited water
•
water, public transportation, education access and more global funding
•
Rising temperatures; not having enough water; urban heat island; and air pollution harming
health
•
Air quality
•
Too many people, too little water. Preserving the water supply for the future is paramount,
second is preserving the reason people moved here: the open desert.
•
Lack of water for the future. History has shown us that lack of water will force us to leave.
•
Water and transportation and electricity
•
Water
•
water, pollution, too much growth, homelessness, housing, crime
•
Not enough water; insufficient infrastructure; loss of open desert spaces
•
Water, pollution
•
Air quality, water availability
•
Water, air quality
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
21
VISION REPORT
•
Air quality and making sure the future has access to open spaces, and that they are safe to
be in their own backyards, without being covered in HAPs, VOCs, and all manner of pollutants
-- or drinking them.
•
Water and Air quality.
•
Water supply; Destruction of the Sonoran Desert; Enormous heat island effect; Sprawl that
never seems to end
•
water, infrastructure, education
•
Water
•
Water
•
Air Quality and Reducing GHG Emissions; Also need to post Health Warnings for Valley Fever
at construction sites like dust control does
•
Displacing wildlife and basically killing off the desert. More wild spaces & wildlife crossings
need to be prioritized!
•
Not enough green
Development/ Overdevelopment
•
We have to many people in this county.
•
Too many high rises
•
Sprawl
•
Overdevelopment
•
overcrowding, it turning into a throw away community with rental units not family and growth
orientated with home ownership
•
it has to be well planned so we can provide living conditions for everyone to enjoy
•
Planned areas to maintain space and trees and farms
•
Dense population with lack of infrastructure to properly provide equitable resources
•
over population
•
Congestion; too many people; not enough services; water
•
Stop the growth. Too many people are here already.
•
It's a free-for-all without and land planning.
•
Too many multi dwelling apartments,
•
The congestion, heat and all these apartment complexes going up that are over priced and
ugly. And the cost of a decent sized house.
•
Compared to the municipalities, Maricopa County is secondary to restricting urban growth.
State law needs to change to give the County more control.
•
Not enough infrastructure for the expanded population
•
Loss of open land and farming
•
Continued sprawl - growing opposition to economic growth and density
•
The right to build creates densities in areas that should remain rural. Intermixing the rural
and the higher densities causes unrest between neighborhoods.
•
public parks
•
How do we support all the people moving here with infrastructure? I used to love seeing the
native animals and plants. Now it is just home after home and you wonder where it will end.
•
Continued urban sprawl, water availability
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
22
VISION REPORT
•
Strain on infrastructure brough about by growth (transportation, utilities, water and
wastewater)
•
Continued sprawl.
•
balance of homes versus apartments and parking issues. homeless services should be
spread out across the county instead of downtown.
•
It won't feel special as it grows too big. Lots of traffic, pollution and our water source.
•
Over population
•
traffic, poor law enforcement, depleted water, very poor air quality, overcrowded with winter
visitors using services etc...no recreational options for adults
•
Sprawl
•
too much too fast without proper planning
•
losing our preserves or our rural lifestyle - the trails and rural lifestyle are why I live here
•
Re-zoning of rural areas to permit commercial development in areas more consistent with a
ranch lifestyle.
•
lack of affordable housing and infrastructure to maintain it
•
High density overbuilding.
Transportation
•
traffic issues
•
Lack of public transportation, education
•
Traffic and lack of water
•
There is absolutely zero consideration for building safer streets. Streets are extremely unsafe
in Maricopa County.
•
Housing and transportation; need alternative transportation.
•
MAG and ADOT need to start being wiser in road development. Why wasn't the 202 S.
Mountain made to accommodate the 30 interchange, Why is the 202 San Tan area that was
just finished designed to not tear it apart again. Why is the 24 202 Interchange bad?
Services/ Communication
•
Love to see bridges between all the older folks and younger people, a good quality of life
enjoyed by all generations.
•
Homeless and mental health support. Housing and employment without having to commute
long distances. No wind turbines over 100-ft height.
•
Lack of coordination with other municipalities
•
Lack of participation
•
Quality of Education
•
Lack of vision imparted by hierarchical governance of Towns/Cities over County.
•
With growth comes the regulatory burden. Increased regulations contribute to increased cost
of living.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
23
VISION REPORT
12. What do you think should be changed about Maricopa County?
Urban Planning/ Transportation
•
Sustainable growth instead of ignoring future problems.
•
Growth should be balanced against the need to protect and preserve our fragile natural
environment.
•
We need more focus on low income residents
•
Sun Valley Parkway needs a lot of attention. There are cows out there and it’s very dark.
•
Build up, not out.
•
Expand light rail; better encourage businesses to install solar covered parking & roofs - this
should be everywhere! And again - prioritize natural space & protection of wildlife and desert.
Get RID OF any agriculture that requires heavy water use!
•
Keep farms and green belts
•
Access to public transit
•
Better coordination with incorporated cities/towns when rezoning to industrial or renewable
energy developments.
•
Build smarter,
•
more attention to the environment and the congestion
•
more comprehensive planning on space usage that friendly to foot traffic
•
Start planning ahead and not for yesterday. The county is always way behind. Look Forward
and also start paying your employees equal to the Cities.
•
limit growth and protect the water
•
more roads
•
more public transportation
•
improve transportation
•
Thoughtful zoning practices.
•
As we build infrastructure, the buildings/warehouses are too close to the main roads that
feed into them. Add more greenery in front of each building and more shade structures where
there is concrete parking. Use reflective surfaces to reduce heat.
•
Stop the dense building and leave more open space and plant trees.
•
Light rail needs to be extended. It would help seniors gain access to more of the county.
•
We should stop building new homes, and embrace the wild.
•
obtaining and management of more and larger parks
•
improve existing neighborhoods instead of continuing to build outwardly; this creates urban
ghettos that are neglected
•
Stop the spread of new homes, commercial shopping spaces as it's spread all over so we will
lose our rural areas eventually.
•
Expand area somehow
•
Strategic density to minimize sprawl as much as possible and protect natural areas or farm
land
•
More public transportation especially in west valley
•
Concentration of new residences
•
Availability of infrastructure which enables access to the breath of county resources.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
24
VISION REPORT
•
Improve transportation in rural areas
•
No road diets
•
No 15-minute cities which mandate transportation reduction
•
Improved public transportation – network with park & rides
•
No reduction of travel by discouraging personal vehicle travel
•
The desert isn’t made for 15-minute cities
•
Remove the barb-wire fence separating Desert Hills & Anthem so we can be more like a whole
community (regardless of Knusae ‘promise’)
•
Stop installation of LED billboards
Management/ Laws/ Regulations
•
Zoning laws in unincorporated areas that allow developers to circumvent zoning laws and
AZDEQ water regulations to build mini-tract homes.
•
Strictly limiting political extremism, it’s killing our image and our progress. There is a strong
value to bipartisanship.
•
Using our tax money for something other than nonstop frivolous lawsuits. Address homeless
problems
•
New supervisor that are not greedy.
•
Offer grants to people moving out of Maricopa to a rural county to decrease population
•
Acting under a different set of rules from major cities who will eventually incorporate non-
incorporated areas. Creates long term development challenges.
•
Timely notification of meetings, proposals
•
Cut taxes.
•
Instead of reacting to the municipalities demands for expanding their corporate boundaries,
the County needs the ability to push back and establish growth limits, especially if the
municipalities are reluctant.
•
Should be split into 2 counties.
•
The Board of Supervisors worshipping growth and development. Preserve the area instead of
destroying it.
•
county islands should be incorporated into the nearest city or town to provide some basic
services.
•
Stricter regulations on leap frog development.
•
Not sure
•
With the expanding geography, the county should consider forming multiple counties within
this land area
•
At this point, nothing. Continue to work to address challenges as they present themselves
•
We should implement an urban growth boundary.
•
Slowed growth that is more carefully controlled; raise the taxing levy to appropriate levels to
support the ever-increasing population.
•
I think there are a lot of challenges with planning and development. I have talked to lots of
people and some of them seem afraid to bring up any progressive approach that is for the
people.
•
protect the way things are
•
Rent control so people don't lose their homes and become homeless.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
25
VISION REPORT
•
It’s too big. Can we break it up ?
•
More responsibility to enforce existing zoning, permits, assured water sources for private
homeowners.
•
Definitely more communication with municipalities in matters of planning and development
and all departments
•
Divide East side into another county, we have the population.
•
County is too large
•
School vouchers should be deleted.
•
Fire MAG
•
You are leading us into the WEF Plan, fire Hackman, Gates and any others who collude with
the globalists
•
Need development impact fees for parks
Natural Resources/ Environment
•
More focus on pollution reduction and conservation
•
Oversight of ground water must be strong in all of AZ
•
Incentives for renewables and electric vehicles
•
We need to be aggressive about creating a green economy, protecting water and using water
wisely. Large corporations should not own more than a certain number of houses that they
rent at very high prices. Foreign countries should not take our water
•
Stop giving our water away to foreign countries. Protect our environments and our water
supply.
•
pollution, heat mitigation, water conservation, more solar
•
air quality is my priority
•
Clean up the horrible air caused by traffic. Follow the CARB example & set requirements for
more EV's.
•
Protect water supply; Protect the desert; Control Greedy Short-Sighted Developers; Plan
smart growth, not uncontrolled growth
•
funding for open space preservation
•
Education of water conservation
•
Keep desert beauty
•
Planning more open space/recreation areas before subdivisions are built
•
Increase tree planting
•
Protect Daisy Mountain for recreation
People
•
Closed minds
•
the focus should be on families and safety
•
educate people as well as hold them responsible for bad behaviors (crazy driving for
example)
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
26
VISION REPORT
13.-26. Ranking Topics - How important do you think the following topics will
be over the next 20 years?
Please indicate your opinion on each of the topics below based on the scale,
0 = not important, 1 = important, 2 = very important.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
27
VISION REPORT
27. Do you live in a county island?
28. What are some of the challenges that you experience living in or near a
county island?
•
Nothing I love it, don't pave every street, that sucks.
•
None
•
None at this time
•
Services
•
No Grocery stores
•
Wildfires; unpaved roads that are difficult to traverse; people dumping pets
•
No public transit
•
We "belong" to no entity
•
I-17 traffic
•
none
•
Lack of public transportation
•
Over development, keep our rural areas rural
•
Lack of coordination between county and city.
•
police presence.
•
Lack of involvement in community development, needs
•
Too long for first responders
•
We are paying too high taxes. Why should we pay for schools when we have no children
living in our area.
•
No recycling. Rural metro fire company.
•
No traffic lights, no proper management of infrastructures as other cities have
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
28
VISION REPORT
•
Access to emergency services
•
Good clean organic food/restaurants
•
nothing significant
•
Disparity in quality of development and the development/quality of infrastructure
•
Police
•
Lack of transportation
•
Poor regulatory policies, lack of oversight, low engagement. City of Phoenix and Maricopa
Co. toss things back and forth over the fence, putting the wellbeing and safety of our
residents at risk. It has been a bit embarrassing to see that taking place.
•
Zoning
•
Ownership or lack of it with respect to planning, governance and services as we're in an
area identified as within "Glendale's planning boundary" yet until we're annexed, they don't
recognize us. The county acts like Glendale and Glendale says county.
•
Lack of patrol from Law Enforcement and different regulations for County Island then Town
(dogs, animals, Maintenance of property)
•
Constant fear of development coming at us like a tsunami with no regard for rural living or
for existing small unincorporated towns
•
Annexation
•
Unwanted Development
•
illegal burning, noise and traffic due to large gatherings from event venues that should be
in an entertainment district.
•
Developers often choose to rezone or obtain entitlements in the county due to the ease of
obtaining approval & avoiding any potential opposition (or support)
29. What are some of the benefits that you experience living in or near a
county island?
•
Peace and quiet. Less rules and regulations.
•
I like the natural habitat
•
A feeling of community, no city council to do things citizens don’t want
•
Low traffic, low housing density, still close to stores
•
More access to Cave Creek
•
Beautiful and quiet.
•
Large lots; lots of natural desert
•
Lower taxes
•
We "belong" to no entity
•
Away from the city.
•
local decisions
•
Open space
•
freedom
•
Environment, association on top of our government whether local, state or federal
•
Less congestion
•
Less traffic and noise
•
less traffic
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
29
VISION REPORT
•
Rural "feel"
•
Lower taxes
•
I don't really experience any. We have a huge portion of street with sidewalks only on one
side, leaving residents riding bikes in the middle of the street to their job sites, early
morning. It is sad.
•
Direct understanding of services as we discretely pay for them.
•
Larger land plots
•
Quiet, rural living; lush desert environment; viewing of desert animals/birds; beautiful
views; cooler temps
•
Community
•
Open spaces
•
darker sky, rural-residential lifestyle with horses
•
Services
30. When deciding where development should occur in Maricopa County, it
is most important to consider…
5.48
4.80
4.66
4.50
4.48
4.41
3.30
2.73
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Environmental impacts
Park and open space availability
Police and fire availability/response times
General character of surrounding area
Roadway connections and conditions
Utility infrastructure
Adjacent development
Economic benefits/impacts
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
30
VISION REPORT
31. How does the County's housing stock meet the needs of home buyers?
32. What specific housing-related challenges do you feel are important
when considering the future of the County?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
31
VISION REPORT
33. When considering transportation in the County, what do you feel is the
most important priority or project?
34. What types of park, trail, or other open space amenity do you think
Maricopa County is most in need of?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
32
VISION REPORT
35. Depending on their size, subdivision developments within the County
should provide...
36. Which kinds of industry should Maricopa County prioritize when thinking
about future growth?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
33
VISION REPORT
37. Alternative energy production, such as solar, nuclear, hydrogen and
wind, is important to the future of Maricopa County.
38. A development should be responsible for the cost of developing new
power infrastructure associated with its development, cost of long-term
maintenance of that infrastructure and cost associated with the energy
demand generated by its development.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
34
VISION REPORT
39. Which of the following activities would you be most likely to participate
in?
40. What is the best way for Maricopa County to communicate with you?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
35
VISION REPORT
41. Additional comments
•
Sidewalks, sidewalks, sidewalks! North Scottsdale continues to grow but we do not have
continuous sidewalks like other parts of Maricopa County so we can walk to access
neighbors, parks, trails and amenities.
•
I didn’t find out about this survey until the last day, how was it promoted?
•
Sun valley parkway is dark and has many cows interfering with traffic. Someone needs
to be responsible for keeping the public safe from hitting a cow. It was OK when it was
a rural area, but it is now developing and cars are hitting cows. I hope no one
experiences a fatality by hitting a cow.
•
Two of the biggest challenges facing the county (and the state) are "cleaning up our
act" (viz. air) and putting quality PUBLIC education at the forefront.
•
"RE Question Depending on their size, subdivision developments within the County
should provide...It depends - there should be ""luxury"" developments with full amenities
as well as starter communities with NO HOA FEES! We need both.
•
RE Question: A development should be responsible for the cost of developing new power
infrastructure associated with its development, cost of long-term maintenance of that
infrastructure and cost associated with the energy demand generated by its
development. - It depends. Corporations with the resources should be self-sufficient,
but having programs to assist small & privately owned businesses is great, especially
when it comes to encouraging them to install solar that feeds the grid."
•
Keep more space with homes and in parks/agriculture areas.
•
Thanks for reaching out to residents of the County.
•
Ordered answers- # 1 being of highest priority . About me, I was born raised in Arizona.
I left for work and raising a family but have returned . I hate to see how the dessert is
replaced by grass soccer parks - ( senseless) especially when there is already one in
another 2 miles away. it’s always empty , and no path across busy streets . Enormous
parking lots and structures, sit empty. .. don’t let Arizona be paved over ,don’t let it lose
its beauty, build things to last and thrive in the desert - make Arizona the first to truly be
innovative, embrace the desert and its beauty. We need to find a way to balance its
growth in sustainability!
•
The TSMC plant is destroying the natural beauty of Arizona. The TSMC plant should have
been developed in New Mexico.
•
Thank you for asking for participation on the planning. It is nice to see collaboration on
such important issues.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
36
VISION REPORT
•
Stop or slow the growth and protect our Open Spaces, Water and Wild Life.
•
Thanks for all you do!
•
"I would also like to see ""one stop"" healthcare providers in the county like Kaiser. Less
driving to get to needed appointments, better comprehensive care, etc.
•
I would like to see more environmental studies for heat reduction rather than paving
roads black and using rock for landscaping. There are other natural ways to make
things look nice and reduce the heat load - this involves making communities
accountable for their own heat contributions.
•
With respect to agriculture, farmland, it is hard to drive by ""livestock"" anywhere
including 1 horse farms and see the animals without shade...I would like to see the
county be more proactive in regulations in treating these animals better. More drought
resistant trees for shade should be required along roads and in cities and
municipalities. Make space for more roundabouts rather than lights. They are more
efficient, saves energy so that cars are not sitting at lights and overall reduces
congestion. The roads (such as I10) are unsafe during afternoon light heading West
bound as the lane reflectors are not clearly seen and blend into the overall afternoon
light reflection off of the highway. Continue to educate people on water conservation.
This should be an ongoing process in our schools and social media, etc. ie- turning the
water off while brushing your teeth, turn the water off when soaping your hands....using
the dishwasher is better than hand washing dishes for water conservation, looking for
leaks, etc. What makes Maricopa county unique outside of its growth in business
building - what do we want to make Maricopa countrywide famous for? Healthy living
- we mark low scores on that due to pollution...how do we reduce dust polution and
industrial polution?"
•
We cannot continue destroying vegetation, building heat-producing structures, and
blaming climate change. The fact that temperatures have risen in tandem with our
growth is not a coincidence. This isn't rocket science. The valley went from having the
best weather 9 months out of the year to having ridiculous heat waves 6 months out of
the year. You cannot stop progress, but you can be smart about it. A solution that
solves one problem but causes ten more is not a solution.
•
"Maricopa County is in a precarious position. Water and Land Use Management is still
too reactionary. This could be the ""Achilles Heel"" that in 20 years will cause some
serious problems. No more data centers, they use too much water for so little
employment...
•
Thank you for preparing this survey."
•
No not at this time, thanks.
•
Transit resources are falling further and further behind. Air quality suffers.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
37
VISION REPORT
•
County Islands with industrial sites are an ecological and developmental problem in
the city, and many in positions of leadership seem to gloss over them, not
understanding the unique complexities of land reclamation, the longer these sites
operate with no consideration to their surrounding environments. To ensure sustainable
growth and harmonious coexistence between industrial operations and residential
neighborhoods, we urge county officials to collaborate closely with city leaders in
proactively shaping development plans for these sites. Establishing clearer, more
comprehensive standards—covering pile heights, berms, setbacks, screening, and
operating hours—will help balance the city’s growing need for natural resources with
the well-being of its communities. Such regulations will foster responsible operations
that respect residential areas, preventing the long-term challenges faced by cities like
Las Vegas in managing reclamation efforts. Clinging to a “we were here first” mentality
is unsustainable; forward-thinking policies that address both industrial and residential
interests will better serve our city’s future.
•
Please protect the open spaces and rural areas, thank you.
•
"There is no social issue which is more important than defending our air quality, climate,
environment, and natural spaces. That is because, without a home, nothing else
matters. (there is no planet B)"
•
In the section about transportation, there is an implied sense that transportation means
roads. The growing density of Phoenix as a metropolitan area will demand an
infrastructure with fluid ability to move people between areas of the city. A need which
can only effectively be served by mass transportation in the form of buses, local and
non-local rail. Continuing the love affair with cars without an aggressive plan for an
integrated county-wide mass transportation infrastructure will eventually result in the
same level of congestion experienced in other major metropolitian areas throughout
the world.
•
Maricopa County (MAG) needs to start coordinating road work with the Cities and
towns. Every road can not be under construction. Road work needs to be planed for
future upgrades, Bridges so they don't have to be torn apart, Road drainage set up so it
isn't torn up, wider around future interchanges (30). Dirt from the 202 should be dumped
for the 24 overpasses. Purchase land now and don't let development build in future road
areas (you can always sell it later if a plan is changed).
•
Thank you for asking for our opinions.
•
Please analyze California and do the opposite. Government intrusion/mandates affect
people’s lives negatively. CA has one of the Highest tax burdens, highest cost of power,
highest cost of housing, is very hard to do business, overly burdensome regulations, lack
of planning for growth and infrastructure, which has made the state impossible to live
in for anyone other than elites
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
38
VISION REPORT
•
Keep the Rio Verde Foothills rural. Do NOT allow further re-zoning that reduces lot sizes,
or adds any more large home or commercial developments. Do NOT permit special
taxing districts. Expand access to water for residential lot/home owners. Strictly enforce
zoning and building codes to prevent irresponsible wildcat building.
•
Progress is not always good or beneficial to an area. We need to maintain a reasonable
level of food production within the county just in case of future attacks by China or some
other adversary. This is a lesson we learned during the Communists China Virus attack!!
•
The county should work with the voters and any city before voting to change zoning
against the will of the voters and the city for any zoning change – especially one that
goes against the city’s published planning and when they city not only has a resolution
against it, but does not agree to provide water, sewer, police, or fire for it.
•
The city planning in Chandler is going the wrong direction. As a real estate broker and
owner of both property and a business I do not agree with forcing high density housing
in Chandler. This plan reeks of bad decision making and possible issues with our leaders
bending to developers instead of serving and listening to your community. What about
an increase in traffic, taxes, and can the area support this increase in density without
negative impacts to Chandler.
•
We are glad you advised against this high density project, but you have no ability to
abide by the will of the people. Instead out out state interests and lobbyists dictate our
city. The Dec. 11th meeting has already been decided by dishonest people that do not
care for the people they serve. I am sad to see the the future of Chandler looks bleak.
•
What are the circumstances which would lead Planning staff to circumvent the
Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Zoning Plans?
•
Many of the audience members expressed their desire to be heard & be involved. This
session may have benefitted by laying out the public participation opportunities
throughout the process of the comprehensive plan… example during 90-day review
period, informally at these sessions, at public hearings (@PnZ & BOS) and even the
ballot once BOS accepts a Draft for adoption. Laying out these engagement
opportunities chronologically throughout the CPU process can help constituents plan
to stay engaged, as well as build trust & transparency w/ MC staff and consultants.
o
Should Maricopa County align its land use policies with the Multijurisdictional
Hazard Mitigation Plan?
o
What are the performance metrics in place? Or, the explanation criteria in terms
of the effectiveness of the 10 year – comp. plan? Lessons learned from the last
10 year plan.
o
Should P&D make the public participation method/process a public document?
Methods of participation – online/offline?
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
39
VISION REPORT
•
Comment: Looks like there is a disconnect between the comprehensive planning and
implementation in reality. Question: Who is responsible to ensure that comprehensive
plan is implemented as planned.
•
1, Traffic on Gavilan Pk Pkway west of Navigation Way. 2, Also showing traffic down B
Street Bumpers. 3, More Police Dept issuing tickets on speeders.
•
Anthem is a largely “family” community and I find it suspect that an important meeting
such as this that potentially impacts the quality of life for so many residents is not held
after 6:30pm when working folks are home and can plan to attend. I wonder is the
meeting specifically designed to limit attendance? PS the majority of attendees clearly
fall in the potential age range of “retirement”
•
Need a study specific to access points to mountains and rivers. Proposition needed to
support expansion + improvement of parks, trails, + open space. Work with MAG to
update the 1995 Desert Spaces Plan. Protect and improve active transportation. We
need separated paths (they can also serve as firebreaks). Create policies or guidelines
to protect the scenic corridor along 17 in North Valley. Create Daisy Mountain Recreation
Area, protect the trails on the Mountain and provide trail connections to New River
community park + Tonto National Forest. Allow ADU’s. Protect Wildlife Corridor.
•
VERY Good informative presentation. Looking forward to the next phase of the Com Plan
review.
•
Great work. Looking forward to see the final plan.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
40
VISION REPORT
Interactive Mapping Results
FAVORITE PLACE
•
Being able to walk out one’s door and hike a mountain is a gift.
•
Please do not develop the entire Sonoran Desert Parkway - this natural desert needs to be
protected long-term.
•
Hi beautiful desert area with lots of cultural and geological interest
•
This State Trust land is accessible from most homes in the Anthem neighborhoods and is
used by a great many for outdoor recreation and should be preserved as open space. With
the valley continuing to expand conserving areas for outdoor recreation that reduce travel
and commuting for outdoor recreation should be paramount.
•
My shop and home
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
41
VISION REPORT
ASSET
•
The trails along or off Dynamite like Pima Dynamite, Browns, Fraesfield, and Granite
Trailhead are amazing.
•
The opening of the International Dark Sky Discovery Center at the end of 2025 will become
a wonderful attraction to the county and the state.
•
The Salt River is an asset that should be protected and enhanced.
•
Protect this beautiful area offering open space and trails for recreation.
•
Please protect the rural lifestyle offered in this area to by preventing or limiting planned
community residential development and commercial development. This area represents
a special alternative to those seeking a more rural lifestyle in Maricopa County.
•
Beautiful open spaces available for recreation; please protect.
•
Please protect and preserve this area with excellent trail network and beautiful open space.
This Asset makes Maricopa a great place to live, work and recreate.
•
Daisy Mtn trail and the connecting trails just north of Anthem need to be preserved for
recreation purposes just as the trails have at Apache Wash, Cave Creek Regional Park and
Brown’s Ranch.
•
"La Salvia Dairy
SIGNIFICANCE
A. HISTORIC EVENTS/TRENDS
Agriculture - Associated with the agricultural maturity of Laveen, 1913-1973.
After the Porters (refer to Inventory form #3) left the property, Tony and Angeline La Salvia
bought the land in the 1950s. The La Salvias continued to use the land much as the Porters
had, for ranching and dairy. The La Salvia family (including their son Jerome) continued to
prosper in the dairy business, becoming one of the most successful and last bastions of
Laveen’s dying farm and dairy industry.
C. ARCHITECTURE (parlor barn only)
Agriculture – Construction: unique type of design.
Farmers use any number of styles of milking parlors to milk dairy cattle. Many older farms
use flat-barn parlors like the La Salvia barn, where the milker and cow are at the same
level and the milker bends down to apply the milking machine to the cow - more modern
farms use recessed parlors, where the milker stands in a recess such that his arms are at
the level of the cow's udder. In Laveen, the dairy industry was once a prominent business,
similar to farming cotton. At one time, parlor barns were common structures. Today, only
two remain, including this good example.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
42
VISION REPORT
DESIGN
1) 2) 3) Parlor barn c. 1955: one story, rectangular shape, concrete slab foundation, brick
structure (except pediment, which is horizontal wood board cladding), normal-pitched
front-gabled roof of wide metal sheets, flat openings, wood framed windows. Built by Tony
and Jerome La Salvia. Old La Salvia residence c. 1955: one story vernacular, square-plan,
asymmetrical façade, wood frame with horizontal wood board siding, hipped roof with
wood shingles and overhanging eaves, flat openings, wood double-hung windows.
Front barn c. 1959: one story, rectangular shape (broadside facing street), concrete slab
foundation, brick structure (except pediment, which is vertical metal siding), normal-
pitched front-gabled roof of wide metal sheets (topped by smaller gable addition for
ventilation), flat openings, steel fixed windows, rear of structure open and is supported by
wood columns"
•
"9040 S 27th Avenue “Porter Ranch is eligible for Historic Designation under Criterion A and
C.
SIGNIFICANCE
A. HISTORIC EVENTS/TRENDS
Agriculture - Associated with the agricultural maturity of Laveen, 1913-1973.
According to land ownership maps, several Porters, E.H. and S.H. Porter, owned this
southeast quarter of Section two between 1919 and 1929. Renowned businessman, Fred S.
Porter owned portions of the northeast quarter of Section two. It remains unclear, however,
if the later Porter lived at this location because 1934 aerial photos only show farm or grazing
fields on this land. The Porters came to own the surveyed property by 1919 and built the
current house between 1914 and 1934, also likely ranching (hence the silo) and making
saddles on this and adjacent properties.
The Porter family moved to the Phoenix area in 1892, opening the N. Porter Saddle and
Harness Company of Phoenix, named after Newton Porter. After the elder Porter died in 1906,
his son, Fred became manager of the family business. As of 1930, the N. Porter Saddle Co.,
under Fred Porter's leadership, was ""one of Arizona's most distinctive business institutions""
and held the title of 3"" largest business of its kind in the world. Porter was globally renown
for their stock and quality of product. As Armon Cheatham remarked, a farmer or cowboy
didn't have a saddle unless it was a Porter.
Originally, the company occupied an office on S. Central Avenue, but relocated to the Craig
Building in downtown Phoenix in 1922. According to a newspaper article about the historic
Del Monte Market on the southeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Dobbins, the Market sold
Porter Saddles during the 1920s, which was purportedly located across the street at the
home site. Perhaps its offices or simply the home of the company's owners lived diagonally
across 43""* Avenue and Dobbins, but it is unlikely that saddles were made at the location.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
43
VISION REPORT
C. ARCHITECTURE (front house and silo)
Residential - Design: unique example of Cotswald Revival.
Agriculture - Construction: unique type of design (silo only).
The front Cotswald Revival house is a great example of this style, a rare example within the
Salt River Valley. The use of red brick to accentuate corners and windows is a unique style
of workmanship.
The silo is the most distinctive agricultural feature in Laveen. At one time, these structures
dotted the landscape. Today, however, they remain a unique and rare example of a dying
breed that supply a sense of Laveen's agricultural heritage.
Three silos survive and only one of this type of construction - solid concrete without
reinforced bars - remains. As opposed to the earlier, less sturdy examples of silo
construction evident at the Maben and Barney properties, the Porter silo is one piece of
concrete that will not fall, according to owner Jerome LaSalvia. LaSalvia believes that this
silo is only one of a few of its kind that still stands within the greater Salt River Valley"
OPPORTUNITY
•
Continuous sidewalks are needed up and down Jomax for residents safety and quality of
life.
•
Continuous sidewalks are needed for residents safety and quality of life.
•
The park should be expanded to provide more hiking and biking with access to the Tonto
forest and trail to the Maricopa trail system. It should be funded and managed by Parks
and Rec and the existing facilities updated and maintained.
•
Place amenity here to encourage people to use the river area.
•
"Given its proximity to the Rio Salado Oeste interest areas, this presents a significant
opportunity for the City of Phoenix to reclaim and restore nearly 1,500 acres of riparian and
floodplain habitat. Plans explored by the City and County include integrating recreational
features, such as trails and pedestrian connectivity—linking South 59th Avenue to Baseline
Road through streets and pedestrian bridges—while contributing to the restoration of the
Salt River and its surrounding ecosystems to a healthier, more sustainable state.
•
This opportunity would align with the City and County's long-term goals, for regional
features, and preservation. Perhaps equally as important, though, it addresses social and
environmental equity by providing Estrella Village and neighboring Laveen Village with
amenities similar to those enjoyed in higher socioeconomic areas in other parts of the
Greater Phoenix region. Important to note as well, much of this land, conveyed from federal
ownership between 1883 and 1928, now falls under local jurisdiction, making this an
opportunity to correct missed chances from the past. By prioritizing restoration and
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
44
VISION REPORT
recreational access, the project can enrich the community, improve connectivity, and
provide residents with greater access to the natural beauty of our city."
•
Development of additional multi-use trails and means of access to the park.
•
Development of additional multi-use trails and means of access to the park. Annex
adjacent State Trust lands through land swap to maximize open space.
•
New River Square is used everyday by the community for hiking, dog walking and horse
back riding.
•
Off road park, Shooting range
•
Add more Retail, Shops, Food, shopping, Restraints
•
Protect open space and wildlife
CHALLENGES
•
I strongly disagree with another comment. Anthem has little access to Daisy Mountain. Yes
the community backs up to Daisy. However fences & lack of access prohibits the
community's ability to take advantage of this asset. Also, being State Trust Land unless a
permit is purchased it is illegal to be on the mountain.
•
This used to be a peaceful area that people could go outside and enjoy their surroundings.
Because of the high speed limits on these residential streets, residents cannot enjoy the
outdoors. A 45 mile an hour speed limit is unsafe. Please lower.
•
The proposed freeway going through East/West between Patton Rd and Jomax Rd will
destroy peoples home values and result in the actual demolition of homes. I propose that
it would be better for residents and LESS COSTLY to the county to put this freeway through
further North between Wittman and Morristown where there is less existing development
and homes.
•
People in our residential neighborhood are selling their properties with an understanding
that our neighborhood will become commercial property. I want to know if that is the case
and I want to say that the vast majority of us are against it.
•
Without strategic planning and proactive solutions, ongoing industrial operations—
compounded by the complexities of county islands—will continue to strain Phoenix with air
quality concerns, public health risks, and obstacles to attracting diverse investors. Estrella
Village, in particular, faces the risk of falling further behind neighboring villages unless these
issues are addressed comprehensively and collaboratively, and unless we are intentional
about ideating solutions for these sites now. To address these challenges, the City and
County must collaborate on a deliberate, long-term strategy for these sites, and ideally,
clearly communicate the operating window of these sites, so community groups can
began exploring land reclamation projects in collaboration with our City and County
Officials. Such initiatives could help identify diversify business opportunities beyond heavy
or light industrial zoning and support green space restoration, creating recreational areas
that enhance community well-being. Engaging residents in this process is essential;
proactive outreach efforts must ensure their voices shape the future of their
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
45
VISION REPORT
neighborhoods. Throughout Estrella Village, the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County have
allowed rapid rezoning near various opportunity zones, yet many of the resulting
businesses fail to deliver meaningful job opportunities or essential services to local
neighborhoods. No to mention, there is little to no meaningful engagement with the
communities and neighborhoods surrounding them.
•
Without strategic planning and proactive solutions, ongoing industrial operations—
compounded by the complexities of county islands—will continue to strain Phoenix with air
quality concerns, public health risks, and obstacles to attracting diverse investors. Estrella
Village, in particular, faces the risk of falling further behind neighboring villages unless these
issues are addressed comprehensively and collaboratively, and unless we are intentional
about ideating solutions for these sites now. To address these challenges, the City and
County must collaborate on a deliberate, long-term strategy for these sites, and ideally,
clearly communicate the operating window of these sites, so community groups can
began exploring land reclamation projects in collaboration with our City and County
Officials. Such initiatives could help identify diversify business opportunities beyond heavy
or light industrial zoning and support green space restoration, creating recreational areas
that enhance community well-being. Engaging residents in this process is essential;
proactive outreach efforts must ensure their voices shape the future of their
neighborhoods. Throughout Estrella Village, the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County have
allowed rapid rezoning near various opportunity zones, yet many of the resulting
businesses fail to deliver meaningful job opportunities or essential services to local
neighborhoods. No to mention, there is little to no meaningful engagement with the
communities and neighborhoods surrounding them.
•
The proposed BNSF intermodal facility will have an impact on residents, traffic and the
surrounding desert environment. Consideration of locals' concerns must be included in
careful planning for this facility.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
46
VISION REPORT
Idea Wall Results
•
Allow farm land to be sold to home builders. We need more housing.
•
Keep planting more drought resistant trees
•
The Green New Deal does not benefit citizens
•
Provide more parks with some green grass for children & families to play. Some water
will be required but the quality of life will be greatly enhanced & grass makes an area
much cooler.
•
Quarterly hazardous waste pick-up would go a long way to eliminating the routine
disposal of such materials in regular trash. Residents in the far west valley, especially
senior communities, often don't have the means (or physical ability) to drive to distant
collection sites. Disposing of the materials used in arts and crafts, for example, often
wind up in trash that is picked up (paints, etc.), simply because no viable alternative
exists. Outdated phones, computers, memory sticks, and other electronics are other
examples. An alternative to pick-ups would be to have periodic drop-off locations,
within a mile or two of most housing, similar to the scheduled drop-off sites for Rx and
otc medications now offered by many communities.
•
Suggest that age of potential jurors for mandatory jury duty in Maricopa County be
lowered from 75 years to 70 years.
•
Strip malls all over the county rarely seem to be fully occupied and the ghost town look
is demoralizing and dangerous. Criminal activity often occurs in them especially after
hours. Why not make the zoning a combo with residential so each mall could have
some residents on site and a possible live-in manager and/or security person? Business
owners used to live above their businesses and it would be a nice possibility for a start
up to be able to do the same, esp. if it were a condo rent-to-own arrangement so equity
could be built.
•
Why can't our major universities like Grand Canyon and ASU provide some residential
life style housing for seniors? It would be great to have the generations learn and
interact with each other. Surely the county could offer some incentives, but as a public
service/duty, the universities should be doing this on their own and may just need some
brainstorming and encouragement from the county.
•
It doesn't matter how many times you widen the highways, traffic will continue to get
worse and worse as the area grows if the only way to get around is by car. We need a
commuter rail system.
•
There have been many road/traffic flow improvements in N. Scottsdale along Happy
Valley in particular. However, growth continues up and down Jomax, Alma School and
Happy Valley. Vehicle traffic is one thing but pedestrian traffic has been largely ignored.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
47
VISION REPORT
Residents need safe, continuous sidewalks along all of these roads to be able to walk to
parks, hiking trails and drug stores not to mention to build community with one’s
neighbors. Walking without continuous sidewalks puts adults, children and pets alike in
harm’s way.
•
The title says it. Improvements? Tweaks to build on a safe and successful system? Yes.
But wholesale suppression in the guise of "reform" is not beneficial and is a waste of
taxpayer $.
•
The Sonoran Desert is rapidly disappearing, and there is only one. I'd like to see the
County prioritize the use of native plants, protect saguaros, and desert restoration.
•
I understand that growth is necessary and good, but it makes me sad to see
developments packed on top of each other, displacing wildlife and desert plants. I
would like to see natural spaces prioritized, considering wildlife crossings and access
across the desert, as well as giving us humans plenty of opportunities to hike and
experience beautiful untouched desert.
•
Make the posted signs for a Rezoning of an area larger and distribute to the neighboring
area leaflets to notify the community that will be most directly impacted of the
possibility of a rezoning
•
Hi! My proposition is simple - safer streets! Why is Maricopa County, and the cities within,
purposefully building unsafe streets that account for hundreds of traffic deaths each
year? There are literally hundreds of streets that are way too wide, and have extremely
unsafe intersections, which prompt drivers to drive much faster than they need too even
if it doesn't get them there faster. Build streets like highways, drivers use them like
highways. Regarding
unsafe
intersections:
what
is
with
Maricopa County's
intersections? What is with the absolutely insane allergy to roundabout/circle
intersections? They have been proven to improve traffic flow and safety, yet zero
infrastructure improvement projects currently have these planned. In fact, street
widening and more unsafe intersections are planned. Intersections are way too wide
and have way too much conflict, especially in comparison to many other American
cities. In addition, the so-called "infrastructure improvement" includes bike lanes on
these extremely unsafe roads, which makes cyclists less visible to drivers, and puts
cyclists right next to high speed traffic. We need to start separating pedestrian and
cycling traffic from vehicle traffic.
•
"Our air quality is worsening. Implementing a fireworks ban, except for permitted
professional shows on July 4th and New Year’s Eve, and ban recreational burning. Most
importantly, enforcement of these laws must be acted upon and monetarily fines
issued for compliance."
•
How about we require these empty or half empty Strip Malls be fully utilized, before new
ones can be built? My God what a waste of land they are! Also, I thought I heard of a
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
48
VISION REPORT
policy awhile back "Up Not Out" or something thing like that? Making companies build
higher facilities, instead of acreage absorbing campuses! JMO.
•
"""...Seldin and his Kent Circle Partners/Seldin Real Estate Inc. group are the newest land
owners within a sprawling master-planned community called Sunhaven and parts of
the surrounding area that can now take initial steps toward development now that the
land was secured for the water treatment facility. Homebuilders won't touch land unless
they have access to water because they are required to prove they can offer
homebuyers 100 years of water supply. Spanning 2,200 acres, the Sunhaven master-
planned community currently is owned by three separate groups...."" Phoenix Business
Journal. 12/31/2024"
•
"Waymo service is not available to locations in Maricopa County. As a result many
elderly people who live in the County must drive, adding to traffic congestion and
accidents. We need to change and allow this service to function. Dave Anciaux, Robson
Reserve Sun Lakes"
•
The Valley Metro bus needs to be able to go to all high schools and trade schools that
high schools are partnered with to give students the freedom of choice when it comes
to education. Right now, the bus will not go to Deer Valley High School and the West Mec
north campus preventing students that cannot afford transportation to be able to
graduate from high school with different high value certifications for free. This is having
a negative financial effect on our economy because these students are stuck working
low value jobs and struggle getting out of a systematic pattern to create financial
growth. Please expand Valley Metro to give students a choice.
•
Happy Valley road west of 303 has not kept up with the population growth and new
housing developments . It’s dangerous to turn safely out of these communities onto
happy valley due to lack of traffic signals. Traffic signals are desperately needed at
each community including Cold water Ranch as well Rancho Cabrillo. Without traffic
signals or stop signs drivers are speeding well above the 45 mph zone. Many accidents
at these intersections due to inadequate and poorly planned infrastructure. More
homes going up and no thought given to traffic management.
•
Multifamily dwelling units should be built with the intent for home ownership, allowing
young families and first time buyers to purchase a 1/2/3 BR condo rather than forcing
them to rent. Too many rental only properties are being built without simply building
condos/apartments for individual ownership.
•
Trees and plant life reduce pollution. Add in more desert dwelling plants and parks with
trees to help reduce pollution. Also helps reduce heat. Open park space between
developments will go a long way to help reduce construction dust. Our Saguaro's are
slowly dying off, let's get them back to fruition to help contribute to air quality.
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
49
VISION REPORT
•
"Standardize building and infrustructure codes to reduce the heat that our roads and
concrete are adding. As we build new highways, utilize attractive manmade structures
that align with the environmental goals of reducing the ""heat sink"" effect that emits
heat
at
night.
Along
with
growing
new
infrustructure,
consider
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/08/230803112920.htm
or
https://phys.org/news/2023-03-world-energy-saving-paintinspired-butterflies.html"
•
Bad air impacts everyone! We must take steps now to protect and also improve
conditions. Banning fireworks (other than professional events on July 4th and New
Year’s Eve) is a great start. Banning recreational and unnecessary burning is also
another. More importantly, is the enforcement and penalties related to these actions.
•
"Vehicular circulation has a significant impact of the heat island effect. MCDOT and
municipalities all use some very typical cross-sections for their classification of streets.
The more traffic that is condensed justifies the number of lanes and turning
movements, and that is justified. However, it seems that the majority of these cross-
sections do not give enough attention to pedestrian separation, shade, and bicycle
traffic, and the landscape. Can the Comp Plan encourage the installation of more
center islands and chicanes to slow traffic in neighborhoods and promote more shade?
Tempe has been very successful in requiring this design. There are many mid-section
collector streets in neighborhoods that are 60' in width, (5 lanes), why? Wider ROW's
can provide more separation for pedestrians and allow the installation of shade trees
that have enough room to mature. Wider ROWs can collect the storm flow from these
streets and help with retention and water harvesting. This is proven, but not widely
used(?) Shaded neighborhood streets add to the marketability of the subdivision. It
seems that there is justification for modifying the design criteria for roadway design to
have a substantial impact on the ""heat island"" dilemma."
•
"The current area plan has been violated consistently. If a project isn't approved through
the permit process, the developer simply proceeds to the Board of Adjustment which
routinely approves requests. When this was brought before one of the County
Supervisors, this was the response: ""The county’s comprehensive plan and the various
county area plans are guidelines outlining planning goals, policies and strategies.
These are not regulatory documents and thus can’t be violated. The guidelines are
there for consideration by the P&Z Commission and BOS when they review proposals
for zone changes. In that consideration they ask themselves “does this proposal further
a preponderance of the plan’s goals?” However, the plans do not apply once zoning
entitlement is in place on a property. For construction/building permits where the
zoning entitlement is already in place there is no discretion but rather the process is one
of administrative approval if all technical requirements (i.e. construction safety or
building code) have been met."" Which infers that whatever plan is put in place is
worthless because it will be set aside at whim. The most obvious violation is visible for
miles around the area (photo included), and its permit has expired. There are many
other examples of this problem around the area to anyone that bothers to look."
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
50
VISION REPORT
•
We can't stop progress, but we can alter how it happens. What if for every mile of new
road constructed, 1/2 mile of commuter rail line/electric commuter bus is installed? Be
aspirational and have an additional 50 miles of commuter lines and electric buses by
2035.
•
Encourage developers and builders to follow best practices for ensuring wildlife
corridors are maintained and supported. More scrutiny should be given to
development of solar fields and the amount of land used for solar and how that impacts
animals.
•
Maricopa County has come a long way in terms of planning and actively developing
trail and other non-vehicular connectivity throughout the County and beyond, and has
done a great job in preserving open space. In fact, Maricopa County is a leader in these
efforts and it is appreciated. Would love to see this emphasis maintained and efforts be
made to enhance this.
•
The lure of semiconductor jobs has sucked in developers and politicians who do not
have longevity in the industry. When the chip industry hiccups, mass layoffs ensue and
AZ will be passing out unemployment checks. And remember the groundwater
contamination left by Motorola. How confident the new factories are clean and use less
water? Caveat emptor.
•
Why should build-to-rent single family homes be except from obtaining a water
certificate? This smacks of favoritism.
•
Rebuild and repair the Maricopa County floodplains. They were illegally sold by Surprise
City officials for personal profit. The ancient trees and saguaro should have been
moved. They were destroyed. Many protected bird species were destroyed as well. We
dont need more asphalt and stores. We need more desert.
•
Leverage technology to help move vehicles as efficiently as possible. Limit needless
stopping to save fuel and time as well as cut back on air pollution.
•
Align plan goals and vision to regional projects such as light rail, freeways, trails, and
Rio Reimagined. Governmental coordination is important to achieve these goals.
•
Explore ways to address the urban heat island. Things that come to mind are cool
pavement, rooftop gardens, additional tree cover, buildings and roof tops that are
lighter colors rather than brown.
•
There must be planning for MCACC to comply with its legal obligation to intake and
house stray dogs. The Plan and BOS must set funding for sheltering and shelter staffing
congruous with human population growth in the county which has lead to more
animals in the county. Given the county's geographical size, the county should consider
smaller satellite shelters which would help with staffing as well as the improve the
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
51
VISION REPORT
welfare of the housed animals. The Plan should also prioritize free spay and neuter for
low income animals guardians as part of MCACC's programs.
•
"Green Space and space for kids to safely be able to play outside must be at the
forefront of your decision making. Grandfathered homes and areas, respect the type of
property that already exists and DO NOT plan to encroach on people and their views.
Views of the city sky and the white tank mountains Must NOT BE OBSTRUCTED. Greed can
not be the goal, profit can not be the goal. We live here, we need a happy place to live.
And being packed in like sardines caused crime rates to go up and it is simply an eye
sore."
•
"Matt, I know that you consider the important city & county plan areas. I found that you
provide the Transportation corridors, Trail systems (human & animal), recreation areas,
natural points of interest such as rivers, mountains, lakes, and scenic corridors. These
provide points of interest for our residents. Mitch Rosenbaum"
•
To ensure sustainable growth and harmonious coexistence between industrial
operations and residential neighborhoods, we urge county officials to collaborate
closely with city leaders in proactively shaping development plans for these sites.
Establishing clearer, more comprehensive standards—covering pile heights, berms,
setbacks, screening, and operating hours—will help balance the city’s growing need for
natural resources with the well-being of its communities. Such regulations will foster
responsible operations that respect residential areas, preventing the long-term
challenges faced by cities like Las Vegas in managing reclamation efforts. Clinging to
a “we were here first” mentality is unsustainable; forward-thinking policies that address
both industrial and residential interests will better serve our city’s future.
•
We need to expand light rail to different cities and add the commuter rail system. Also,
we need to create a dedicated sales tax for public transportation.
•
Protect recreation areas and green space. This is one of the things that makes our area
so beautiful.
•
Protect the rural lifestyle by keeping development out of the rural areas
•
The area of the Carefree Hwy from 7th Street to around 36th Street is wide open on both
sides. I thought I had heard/seen that areas on both sides would become park areas.
This would be most attractive. I'd assume that retail and commercial will be showing
up. What are the actual plans and anticipated timing? This area, as it is very large,
would be one that the Public should have major involvement with.
•
In lieu of widening the I-10 freeway why not put a lite rail system down the middle of the
freeway with exits at the major corss streets. The cities with the exits could utilize a bus
service to transport commuters to their places of business or within walking distance.
For example, a bus service from Chandler Blvd. to Intel or from Queen Creek Road to
Framework 2040 Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan
52
VISION REPORT
Intel. Would save ware and tear on the highway and stop many cars from traveling
back and forth to work five days a week.
•
Considering the geographical size of the county having more regional smaller shelters
throughout the county.
•
Traffic on US 60 between Surprise and Wickenburg is quite heavy for a local road. The
intermodal facility being proposed by the BNSF will undoubtedly add to the congestion
and danger. Traffic circles or multiple traffic lights on this route might increase safety
for rural residents and local traffic.
•
Hello. There is an open area between 7th Ave , 7th Street, Joy Ranch Road and Cloud
Road. It is used by hikers, dog walkers, and horse back riders. It would be nice if is was
turned into a designated park.
•
Test
•
ADOT is considering putting in traffic circles. I come from NJ where they took out all the
traffic circles because they were so dangerous. Learn from another state's experience.
They are a very bad idea.
•
"Over the last decade there has been an explosion of e-scooters and bikes. The rules
for use on our roads and canals are not clearly defined, and they need to be. One of
the uses for these two wheelers is to commute to mass transit for traveling longer
distances. This would be good for removing some cars from the roads but there is a
bottle neck getting these two wheelers on busses and light rail. We need more space.
The e-bikes are too heavy to mount on the few racks currently provided. Light rail is too
slow, stopping every mile takes too much time. An express train is needed."
•
It would be nice to have an off road park and shooting range in the Buckeye area
March 31, 2026
Mr. Adam Cannon
Maricopa County Senior Planner
301 W Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Electronically submitted to: Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov
RE:
Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Dear Mr. Cannon:
The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) appreciates the opportunity to review the
Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The Department understands
that this Plan will help shape Maricopa County development through 2040 and will help educate
and steer future management decisions that better align with increasing population and urban
growth in the arid Phoenix metropolitan area.
Under Title 17 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the Department, by and through the Arizona
Game and Fish Commission, has jurisdictional authority and public trust responsibilities to
conserve and protect the state fish and wildlife resources. In addition, the Department manages
threatened and endangered species through authorities of Section 6 of the Endangered Species
Act and the Department’s Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. It is the mission of the Department to
conserve and protect Arizona's diverse fish and wildlife resources and manage for safe,
compatible outdoor recreation opportunities for current and future generations. For your
consideration, the Department provides the following comments based on the agency's statutory
authorities, public trust responsibilities, and special expertise related to wildlife resources and
recreation.
The Department has appreciated the early and often coordination during the construction of this
Plan as well as acknowledgement of Department supported initiatives that improve upon habitat
such as the Lower Gila River Collaborative and Open Space considerations. The Department has
prepared the attached comment matrix which includes the Department’s recommendations for
the Plan.
AZGFD Comments - Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan
March 31, 2026
Page 2
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Maricopa County Framework 2040
Comprehensive Plan. For further questions, please continue to contact Bobby Lamoureux at
rlamoureux@azgfd.gov or 480-262-9427.
Sincerely,
Kriselle Colvin
Regional Supervisor, Region VI
cc:
Callie Cavalcant - Habitat, Evaluation, and Lands Branch Chief
Attachment: AZGFD Comments - Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan
AZGFD #M26-01302707
M26-01302707 AZGFD Comment Matrix - Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan
1
AZGFD Comments - Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Section
Page
Recommendation/Comment
Commenter
Environmental Goal #3
22 & 146
The Department encourages primarily landscaping with native species to
help create more contiguous patches of native cover for wildlife.
AZGFD
Open Space Policy 4.3 & 4.4
26 & 187
The Department would like to further discuss such opportunities with
Maricopa County along the Department's managed wildlife areas.
AZGFD
Energy Goal #3
28 & 209
The Department encourages prioritizing construction of new energy
facilities on previously disturbed locations where feasible.
AZGFD
Aggregate Resources, paragraph 2
84
The Department recommends including leaving open pits as a post-
aggregate site restoration technique to help provide habitat for waterfowl
and marsh bird species.
AZGFD
Agricultural and Rural Lands
90
Although the Department encourages development of previously disturbed
lands, it is also acknowledged that in addition to impacts to the local food
system, the loss of agricultural lands may have impacts on wildlife
populations, specifically ungulates and migratory bird species which utilize
agricultural fields for forage and cover.
AZGFD
Wildlife Connectivity Corridors &
Map 19
136-137
The Department recommends including the landscape movement areas and
riparian movement areas that are referenced in the "The Maricopa County
Wildlife Connectivity Assessment" as part of the "Wildlife Connectivity
Corridors Section" and include them in Map 19. The corridors listed in the
current by themselves may not be sufficient in maintaining wildlife
diversity between the corridor blocks, and including spaces for movement
between blocks helps ensure wildlife connectivity is maintained.
AZGFD
Habitat Connectivity, Biodiversity &
Invasive Species Management
142
The Department recommends including tamarisk in the first statement that
lists invasive species which increase wildfire risk.
AZGFD
Map 22
181
The Department manages PLO-1015 lands and commission owned lands
along the Gila River up to 91st avenue. If this is within the scope of this
figure, the Department is available to collaborate on updating the figure to
include these areas in the open space land uses, as they are managed to
provide maximum wildlife value and development is not an allowed use for
these locations.
AZGFD
Strategies - Broad-Based Energy
Development Strategy
204
The Department encourages prioritizing construction of new energy
facilities on previously disturbed locations where feasible.
AZGFD
1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Rhonda Buss <rbuss@azland.gov>
Sent:
Monday, March 30, 2026 2:59 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Karen Dada
Subject:
Draft Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan - ASLD Comments
Attachments:
26-0330 ASLD Comment - Maricopa County Comp. Plan.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Dear Adam,
Thank you for the early coordination and opportunity to comment on the draft Maricopa County
Comprehensive Plan. State Trust Land comprises approximately 11.5% of the land within the County as
specified in the draft. As a major stakeholder, ASLD offers the attached comments.
Please feel free to contact me if there are any items the County would like to discuss or has questions
on.
We look forward to the continued coordination as State Trust Land is planned.
Thank you,
To help
protect y
privacy,
Micro so f
Office
prevente
auto mati
downloa
this pictu
from the
Internet.
Rhonda Buss, AICP
Planner III
1110 W. Washington St
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-542-3126
land.az.gov | Facebook | Twitter/X
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 1 of 10
Name: Rhonda Buss
Email: rbuss@azland.gov
Title: Planner III
#
Document Location
Comments
Comment
Number
PDF Page No.
ASLD comment.
1
All page numbers referenced
on the comment form are from
the PDF of the document.
ASLD appreciates the ongoing coordination with the County on STL. Please contact us if
there are any questions or comments the County would like to discuss.
Thank you for incorporating hyperlinks. It makes the document more user-friendly.
2
Overall comment
Specify whether the land use designations of State Trust Land (STL) within are changed from
the previous General Plan. If so, please provide ASLD with a detailed summary of what
changes are proposed for which parcels.
3
Overall comment
If not already completed, please use this update to address the land use designations on
STL described by Maricopa County staff as inadvertent map errors on the 2023 update of
the Land Use Plan for the White Tanks/Grand Avenue Area Plan, which changed the long-
standing industrial/employment land use designations to Single-Family Rural residential on
approximately 2,780 acres of State Trust Land. This was acknowledged by Maricopa County
Staff in public hearings and staff reports for Case Number CPA2024006 as “inadvertent
mapping errors,” that occurred without specific reclassification discussions with
landowners. This CP Update process is an opportunity for the County to fix a known error
caused by a prior County action. Correction of this error should not be the landowner’s
obligation.
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 2 of 10
#
Document Location
Comments
4
Overall comment
Does the document change/transportation element affect land that is adjacent to STL
regarding road alignment, classification, funding, and/or ROWs?
5
Overall comment
Is there any down planning (e.g., land use designation, density) that may affect STL. If so,
please identify the applicable pages and sections in the proposed draft.
6
Overall comment
As a minimum, pursuant to ARS 11-804.E please update land use designation to Single
Family - Large Lot or other designation that allows for 1 DU/acre or greater (vs. equal to or
less than) on STL with a lower designation.
7
Overall comment
Please provide the associated shapefiles so we can overlay them in our database.
8
Overall comment
Per ARS 11-804(E), public facilities and/or open space designation is not appropriate for
STL.
9
Overall comment
Consider policies that require equitable contributions to regional facilities including
circulation, recreation, and wildlife corridors.
Consider including wildlife corridor considerations to coincide with stormwater
management guidelines.
10
Overall comment
Provide a red-lined version of the final draft prior to hearing once available please. Keep
ASLD apprised of hearing dates and the results of legislative actions taken at the hearing
please.
We would also appreciate the approved associated shapefiles once available.
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 3 of 10
#
Document Location
Comments
11
Page 14
Does it make sense to broadly define “urban development” for this section?
12
Page 15, Land Use Policy 1.3
“Existence” of infrastructure as the basis of CPA approval is a very stringent threshold, vs.
“infrastructure readiness” as described in the USUD strategy. Please change this policy to
reflect infrastructure readiness, especially in areas where infrastructure is planned through
the TIP or other regional planning efforts.
13
Page 15, Land Use Policy 1.4
See comments for Policy 1.3. This is a strong statement that could create confusion
because it implies that any/all development should be prevented, whether or not the
development intensity warrants the need for proximity to an existing or planned state or
federal highway. Perhaps consider using language similar to that in Policy 3.3, substituting
“housing” for “development.”
14
Page 16, Land Use Policy #1.9:
…municipalities, landowners, and ....
15
Page 16, Land Use Policy 1.16
See ASLD comment #3.
16
Page 17, Land Use Policy #2.3
Please define “public open spaces” and how they are different from regional parks. What
does “reduce the impacts” mean if the regional parks are within the Urban Influence? Any
buffering required for open spaces should be encompassed within the preservation area to
retain development rights.
17
Page 17, Land Use Policy 2.6
and 2.9
In most cases, such buffers should be incorporated within the facilities/land uses to be
protected in order to preserve development rights of adjacent landowners.
18
Page 17, Land Use Policy #2.8
Maricopa County supports flexible design and zoning techniques when used to
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 4 of 10
#
Document Location
Comments
establish balanced and efficient land use patterns, and when used to protect important
environmental, and open space areas and connections.
19
Page 17, Land Use Policy 3.3
Suggest “…where public services and infrastructure are available or proximate.”
20
Page 18, Land Use Policy 4.2
and 4.3
This policy should not apply to regional infrastructure and amenities such as trails, which
require consistency of maintenance, management, and could become an untenable
financial and liability burden to HOAs.
21
Page 19, Policy 1.6
Incorporation of scenic corridors within roadway planning should anticipate acquisition of
wider easements to accommodate the scenic corridor standards.
22
Page 21, Policy 2.1
Missing “of” in the first sentence: “…prohibition of development…”
23
Page 25, Policy 1.2 & Page 26,
policy 4.2
See ASLD comment #23.
24
Page 26, Open Space Policy
#4.3:
development pressures where feasible.
25
Page 26, Policy 4.4
See ASLD comment #22. What is “open space” in this context? Please change to “public
lands” to clarify that preservation of what currently exists as open space does not
necessarily apply to STL.
26
Page 28, Policy 3.3
See ASLD comment #23.
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 5 of 10
#
Document Location
Comments
27
Page 29, Policy 3.1
…unless otherwise included in the County’s TIP…
28
Page 29, Policy 3.2
How would this be calculated and assessed, outside of taxes? How would this be
implemented when new development came in and took advantage of infrastructure where
its maintenance is funded by the prior development?
29
Page 48, Relating to Other
Jurisdictions’ Plans, Arizona
State Land Department
In areas where ASLD has not developed a Conceptual Plan, we defer to local jurisdictions’
comprehensive or general plans.
Contextually "…yet protect the County and taxpayers from incompatible or premature
development and unexpected costs" Sounds as though ASLD is not operating in alignment
with our mission "To responsibly manage the assets of a perpetual trust in alignment with
the interests of the Trust and the State." Suggest rewording to: “...value to the Trust and in
alignment with the County Comprehensive plan.”
Development on STL must adhere to local policies and regulations in the same manner as
would development on private land.
30
Page 58, Table 2
Within Maricopa County, only the 16.6% private and 11.5% STL are available to support the
County’s housing and economic development goals.
31
Page 71, Legend
Please change color legend to read “Existing Land Use.”
32
Page 72, 1st column, last
paragraph
Please coordinate with ASLD on Area Plans if STL is to be impacted.
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 6 of 10
#
Document Location
Comments
Please see ASLD comment #3. Will Maricopa County proactively amend area plans, such
as the White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan, that are known to have inaccurate land use
designations?
33
Page 76, County Islands
Check formatting of “annexing municipalities.” in the last sentence of the paragraph.
“Unincorporated Areas” 3rd paragraph, first sentence: this should apply to all county
residents, not just those in “more urbanized unincorporated communities.”
34
Page 90, Agricultural and
Rural Lands
There seems to be room for discussion about the water use impacts of ag relative to
housing, especially given the new Ag to Urban policies. This could be in the context of Urban
vs. Rural to balance the value of preserving ag land against the need for affordable housing
and economic development.
35
Page 96
Are County Islands considered to be Urban Influence areas, even if they are not in an MPA?
36
Page 97, Area of Municipal
Influence, 4th paragraph
Are the “more stringent criteria” to review commercial development in the Rural Service
Area defined in the CP?
37
Page 97, Assurance of
Annexation
First sentence on this page, missing “an” or maybe “the.”
How does this relate to annexation of STL, which requires approval of the State Selection
Board. ASLD cannot predetermine Board approval, so would not enter into a PADA without
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 7 of 10
#
Document Location
Comments
that approval. The Selection Board is the governor, AG and Treasurer and does not meet on
a regular basis, meaning this policy could negatively impact development on STL.
38
Page 100
If infrastructure doesn’t exist, but the developer has the capacity to expand/extend, or if
part of the County’s TIP, would the redesignation be considered?
39
Page 102, Rural Development
Area
Per statue STL should be at least one dwelling unit per acre vs. equal to one acre or less.
Please apply an appropriate designation such as Single Family - Large Lot or other
designation that allows for 1 DU/acre or greater as noted above.
40
Page 103, Footnote 4
Perhaps clarify if the Rural Development Area in the Land Use Plan Legend should be
identified as Area of Rural Influence as identified in footnote 2 for consistency.
To meet the intent of this section of Statute, ASLD’s strong preference is that STL not be
designated as open space, recreation or conservation, but with a minimal rural residential
designation. Please see comment 28.
41
Page 106, Appropriate
Zoning District Column
Perhaps add PAD as a conforming zoning district to designations.
42
Page 107, **
Please update the map to reflect the existing entitlement for not only the proving grounds
but the adjacent STL. Please see ASLD Comment 3. Without correction, the inaccurate
designation could create confusion for prospective applicants of STL, current users, the
public, and the governing bodies of surrounding communities.
43
Page 108, Land Use Policies,
Please see ASLD’s previous comments on Land Use Policies.
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 8 of 10
#
Document Location
Comments
44
Page 110, Land Use Policies
2.5, 2.6, & 2.7
There is active aggregate mining as well as exploration for aggregate sources on STL in
Maricopa County. ASLD would like to be involved in reviewing aggregate policies as they are
developed.
44
Page 113, Land Use Policies,
5.7
Confirm whether this includes BESS sites, please.
45
Page 116, Existing Roadway
Network
Second sentence: “….the County that are outside…”
46
Page 121, Transportation
Improvement Plan
Include ASLD on TIP updates that may affect STL, please.
47
Page 124, Planned and
Conceptual Future
Highways in Maricopa County
City of Buckeye.
48
Page 124, Planned and
Conceptual Future
Highways in Maricopa County
...Avondale, Goodyear, and Buckeye.
49
Page 124, Text Box
Typo: Maricopa
50
Page 147, Environment
Policies
What specific State Implementation Plans are supported?
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 9 of 10
#
Document Location
Comments
51
Page 151, Key Findings,
column 1
Typo: County
52
Page 153, Employment
Projections, column 2
Check formatting - growth in.
53
Page 169, State Trust Land
State law mandates that fair market value be obtained for all Trust land sales
and commercial leases, and all revenue derived from the sale and lease of Trust lands are
placed in a fund administered by the State Treasurer. (Note that only revenues from sales
are placed into the Permanent Fund. Lease revenues are distributed directly to the
associated beneficiary).
54
Page 169, Maricopa County
Regional Parks
…120,000 acreiis… - typo?
55
Page 181, Map 22
Please distinguish segments of existing vs. planned trails.
Consider including a note that indicates a permit may be applied for at
https://land.az.gov/applications-permits for recreationists who seek to use STL.
56
Page 183, Strategies, Park
Master Planning
Coordinate with ASLD on Parks Master Plans if it is to impact STL please.
57
Page 183, Strategies,
Development Guidelines:
Since the County went through a major update on the zoning code, are there more changes
on the horizon or is this a general statement?
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review
Comment Form
March 30, 2026
PPage 10 of 10
#
Document Location
Comments
Please coordinate with ASLD on proposed zoning policy changes if STL is to be impacted.
58
Page 184, Open Space
Policies 1.1
Maricopa County supports supports implementing the County Parks and Recreation
Department’s currently adopted Parks, Open Space & Trail System Plan, and any successor
plan.
59
Page 187, Open Space
Policies
Consider including goals/policies that specify planning tools which support balancing
development and preservation goals.
60
Page 225, last paragraph
Please coordinate with ASLD on the adoption/readoption of an area plan where STL could
be affected.
1
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
FW: Comprehensive Plan Update Comments
From: Fae Sowders <fsowders@bfsolaw.com>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 12:04 PM
To: Tom Ellsworth (PND) <Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov>; Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>;
Andrew Yancey <ayancey@bfsolaw.com>
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Comments
Tom and Darren We have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan update and have provided suggested revisions and comments in the shared draft. For ease of reference, w e have also summarized our key points below . As I mentioned when we last spoke in person,
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanner End
Tom and Darren
We have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan update and have provided suggested revisions and
comments in the shared draft. For ease of reference, we have also summarized our key points below.
As I mentioned when we last spoke in person, we represent several utility-scale solar energy project
developers and wanted to ensure their perspectives were included in the feedback. Overall, there are
instances in the draft where newly introduced language is broad and, in some cases, unclear, which
could create challenges for future applications, and where a higher-level, policy-oriented approach may
be more appropriate, as certain concepts should be addressed during implementation stages. Our
comments are intended to help add clarity and help avoid any unintended regulatory implications.
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
ENERGY POLICIES.
The following policies should be revised to be more general and creating specific standards at the
Comprehensive Plan level that are more appropriately addressed in the zoning ordinance or specific
project approvals. See below:
1. Energy Policy #3.3: (Pages 28, 209)
1. "Maricopa County supports substantial the use of APPROPRIATE setbacks and buffers to
residential uses from energy generation and/or energy storage facilities to prevent or
lessen the impact from potential fires and other potential hazards."
1. Energy Policy #3.5: (Pages 28, 209)
1. "Maricopa County supports APPROPRIATE buffers and setbacks to ecological and riparian
habitats found along borders of significant washes and riverbanks from energy generation
and/or storage facilities."
MUNICIPAL-RURAL INFLUENCE FRAMEWORK.
The current draft of the Municipal-Rural Influence Framework is confusing as applied to energy
generation and storage projects and risks excluding appropriately sited projects. The current framework
generally identifies rural areas as suitable for electric generation facilities; however, it does not address
municipal influence areas, which often include large, undeveloped parcels that may also be appropriate
2
for such uses – especially as interim uses lasting approximately 30 years. Clarifying that these utility
scale facilities may be considered within both rural and municipal influence areas, where compatible
with surrounding uses, would ensure flexibility and better reflect existing development patterns within
the County. Additionally, providing this clarity will also help avoid restrictive readings of this language
that could trigger unnecessary plan amendments.
Below are proposed revisions to address these concern:
1. Areas of Municipal Influence, Page 97: … "Any unincorporated area with a rural land use
designation that can be categorized in the Urban Growth Area is eligible for a comprehensive plan
amendment to an urban land use designation. Unincorporated areas with a rural land use
designation within the Area of Municipal Influence that cannot be categorized in the Urban Growth
Area fall into the Rural Service Area. The Rural Service Area only allows
for ACCOMMODATES rural land uses, with exceptions for AND ALLOWS FOR rural industrial or
certain commercial land uses that would both not be considered part of the County’s Urban
Growth Area.
Add the following language: CERTAIN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, INCLUDING THE UTILITIES
DESIGNATION, CAN OCCUR IN EITHER THE RURAL SERVICE AREA OR URBAN GROWTH AREA
OF THE AREA OF MUNICIPAL INFLUENCE.
1. Page 98- Step 3:
Rural Service Area
Any unincorporated land falling in the Rural Service Area is only appropriate
for ACCOMMODATES rural land use designations.
COST OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY COST.
Further clarification is needed to ensure cost-sharing requirements are proportionate to actual service
demands and impacts. This is of particular importance to renewable energy generation and energy
storage facilities that do not strain public services due to lack of water, sewer, and transportation needs.
(Pages 29, 206-207, 217-221)
The following proposed revisions help clarify that cost of development requirements should be
proportionate:
Cost of Development Policy #3.1: (Pages 29, 221)
"Maricopa County supports requirement that new development TO CONTRIBUTE ITS
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE COSTS OF fully fund construction of all new infrastructure
NECESSARY to support the demand for electric, water, sewer, and other services generated and
necessitated by the development."
Cost of Development Policy #3.2: (Pages 29, 221)
"Maricopa County supports REQUIRING the requirement that new development TO CONTRIBUTE
ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF long-term maintenance costs associated with the use of all
new infrastructure to support the demand for electric, water, sewer, and other services generated
and necessitated by the development."
3
Fae Sowders
Attorney
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Cell: 602.697.3538
Fax: 602.888.7856
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew
To:
Yaron, Adam
Cc:
Caton, Greg; Perreault, Erin; Domme, Nathan; McKee, Kevin; Cassens, Bryan; Tom Ellsworth (PND); Rachel
Applegate (PND); Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: EXTERNAL: City of Scottsdale Comments – 60-Day Review of the Draft Maricopa County Framework 2040
Comprehensive Plan, Submitted pursuant to A.R.S. §11-805(F)
Date:
Thursday, March 19, 2026 12:55:13 PM
Hello Adam,
Please accept this response as confirmation that we have received your formal comments.
Thank you for taking the time to provide detailed feedback.
We will review the provided information carefully and follow up as needed.
Best regards,
Matt
Matthew Klyszeiko | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-
798-7513 | [M] (480) 250-6829 | [F] 602-467-2201
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com
From: Yaron, Adam <AYaron@Scottsdaleaz.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 12:09 PM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <matthewk@mbakerintl.com>
Cc: Caton, Greg <GCaton@Scottsdaleaz.gov>; Perreault, Erin <EPERREAULT@scottsdaleaz.gov>;
Domme, Nathan <NDomme@Scottsdaleaz.gov>; McKee, Kevin <KeMckee@scottsdaleaz.gov>;
Cassens, Bryan <BCassens@Scottsdaleaz.gov>; Tom Ellsworth <tom.ellsworth@maricopa.gov>;
'Rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov' <Rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov>; Adam Cannon (PND)
<adam.cannon@maricopa.gov>; Yaron, Adam <AYaron@Scottsdaleaz.gov>
Subject: EXTERNAL: City of Scottsdale Comments – 60-Day Review of the Draft Maricopa County
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Submitted pursuant to A.R.S. §11-805(F)
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Hi Matt,
Please find attached the City of Scottsdale’s comments on the Draft Maricopa County
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan, submitted as part of the 60-day review process.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft and provide input. Please confirm receipt of
this email and the attached comments at your convenience.
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the
comments in further detail.
Adam Yaron
Planning & Development Area Manager | City of Scottsdale
o 480-312-2761
Planning & Development Services
7447 East Indian School Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
www.scottsdaleaz.gov/planning-development
Resources and information provided by Planning & Development Services staff are provided as a courtesy. Staff members
cannot provide legal advice regarding any property or project. Additionally, staff members cannot provide any guarantees that
the resources and information provided are definitive, accurate, or comprehensive. Customers are responsible for conducting
their own due diligence and are encouraged to consult with legal counsel if they need assistance or advice concerning their
property or project.
Page 1 of 10
Planning & Development Services Department
Long Range Planning
7447 East Indian School Road, Suite 105
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
March 19, 2026
Michael Baker International
Attn: Matt Klyszeiko
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Via Email to: matthewk@mbakerintl.com
RE: City of Scottsdale Comments – 60-Day Review of the Draft Maricopa County
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Submitted pursuant to A.R.S. §11-805(F)
Mr. Klyszeiko,
The City of Scottsdale appreciates the extensive work undertaken by Maricopa County and
its consultant team in preparing the Draft Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City
also appreciates the opportunity to review the draft plan during the 60-day review period
provided pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §11-805(F) and welcomes your careful
consideration of the comments provided below.
The City’s comments are intended to support coordinated regional planning while
recognizing that land use authority, annexation decisions, and municipal service provision
remain the responsibility of individual municipalities pursuant to Arizona law and locally
adopted planning policies.
The City’s comments focus on several implementation and coordination considerations
related to the draft Plan’s proposed Municipal–Rural Influence Framework and how it will
be utilized in guiding associated development review processes described in Framework
2040. Key areas of interest include:
1. Application of the Municipal–Rural Influence Framework, including how Areas of
Municipal Influence will be mapped, updated, and applied during development
review.
2. Annexation assumptions and the concept of “assurance of annexation,” including
how this concept will be interpreted in municipalities where annexation decisions
remain legislative and discretionary.
City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments
Page 2 of 10
3. Infrastructure readiness and municipal coordination, including how service
availability and infrastructure capacity will be evaluated for development proposals
located near municipal boundaries.
4. County Islands and municipal edge conditions, including how development
compatibility, environmental considerations, and infrastructure coordination will be
addressed in unincorporated areas adjacent to municipalities.
In addition to these implementation topics, the City has included several policy comments
and technical corrections intended to improve the clarity, accuracy, and readability of the
document.
The comments below have been prepared with input from the following City of Scottsdale
departments and staff:
• Scottsdale Long Range Planning (LRP) – Adam Yaron, Planning & Development Area
Manager – ayaron@scottsdaleaz.gov
• Scottsdale Transportation (TR) – Nathan Domme, Transportation Planning Senior
Manager – ndomme@scottsdaleaz.gov
• Scottsdale Parks & Recreation (P&R) – Kevin McKee, Deputy Parks & Recreation
Director – kemckee@scottsdaleaz.gov
• Scottsdale Water (W) – Bryan Cassens, Water Resources Assistant Executive
Director – bcassens@scottsdaleaz.gov
1. Municipal–Rural Influence Framework – Implementation Considerations (LRP)
Framework 2040 introduces the Municipal–Rural Influence Framework as a key organizing
structure guiding development decisions in unincorporated Maricopa County, including the
identification of Areas of Municipal Influence and Areas of Rural Influence (Framework
2040, pp. 14, 95). The Plan also emphasizes the Urban Solutions for Urban Development
(USUD) strategy as a tool for evaluating infrastructure readiness and development
feasibility (Framework 2040, pp. 14, 33, 100).
While Scottsdale supports infrastructure-based growth management, these frameworks
may have implications for unincorporated areas located within or adjacent to Scottsdale’s
municipal planning boundary where annexation decisions remain discretionary under the
City’s adopted Annexation Policy and Criteria.
Consequently, to support consistent regional planning and avoid unintended conflicts
between County and municipal planning frameworks, the City respectfully requests
clarification on the following implementation-related items:
City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments
Page 3 of 10
Areas of Municipal Influence and Land Use Coordination
1.1. How will Areas of Municipal Influence be mapped, updated, and applied in
entitlement and policy decisions over time (Framework 2040, p. 14, 95)?
1.2. Will municipalities be provided formal consultation or referral opportunities prior to
reliance on these designations in development cases?
1.3. How will adopted municipal General Plan land use designations be considered
when evaluating development proposals in adjacent unincorporated areas located
within Areas of Municipal Influence?
Providing additional clarification within the draft Plan regarding the above provisions would
improve transparency and support consistent coordination between County development
review processes and municipal planning frameworks.
2. Annexation Assumptions and “Assurance of Annexation” – Implementation
Clarification (LRP)
Framework 2040 introduces the Municipal–Rural Influence Framework and identifies Areas
of Municipal Influence as locations where infrastructure and services may support urban
development patterns (Framework 2040, p. 14). The Plan also references the concept of
“assurance of annexation” within the Growth Areas policy framework (Framework 2040, p.
97).
In Scottsdale, annexation decisions are legislative and discretionary actions of the City
Council and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis pursuant to the City’s adopted
Annexation Policy and Criteria. As a result, development feasibility in unincorporated areas
located near municipal boundaries may not always correspond with municipal annexation
timing or intent.
To support consistent regional implementation, the City requests clarification regarding the
following:
2.1. What constitutes acceptable “assurance of annexation” (e.g., municipal
agreement, pre-annexation agreement, service letter, or developer representation)?
The City recommends that the Plan explicitly define “assurance of annexation” so
that expectations for applicants and municipalities are clear. At a minimum,
assurance of annexation should include documentation demonstrating
coordination with and acknowledgement from the applicable municipality, and
should not rely solely on applicant-provided representations.
City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments
Page 4 of 10
2.2. Will municipal concurrence be required before annexation assumptions may be
relied upon during USUD evaluation or entitlement review?
The City recommends that the Plan clarify that reliance on annexation assumptions
during development review should be contingent upon documented coordination
with the applicable municipality, consistent with the municipality’s adopted
annexation policies and procedures.
2.3. How will development proposals be evaluated in situations where a municipality
does not issue assurances of annexation or where annexation has not yet been
considered?
The City recommends that the Plan clarify that, in the absence of municipal
acknowledgment or coordination, development proposals should not rely on
assumed future annexation or municipal service provision as a basis for
demonstrating development feasibility.
Providing additional clarification within the draft Plan regarding the above provisions would
improve transparency and support consistent coordination between County development
review processes and municipal planning frameworks.
3. Infrastructure Readiness and Municipal Coordination (LRP & W)
Framework 2040 emphasizes infrastructure readiness as a key factor in evaluating
development feasibility under the Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD)
framework (Framework 2040, pp. 14, 100, 101).
Because development in unincorporated areas located near municipal boundaries may
affect infrastructure systems, emergency response, and long-term service planning, the
City requests clarification regarding how infrastructure readiness will be evaluated for
projects located near municipal boundaries or within Areas of Municipal Influence,
including how coordination with the applicable utility and service providers will occur
during development review.
Specifically, clarification would be helpful regarding:
3.1. Who will be responsible for verifying infrastructure and service readiness—
including water, wastewater, transportation, fire, and emergency services—for
development proposals located adjacent to municipal boundaries?
3.2. Will municipalities be asked to confirm infrastructure capacity or service
availability for projects located within municipal planning areas but outside
incorporated city limits?
City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments
Page 5 of 10
3.3. How will long-term infrastructure responsibility and service provision be addressed
if development is approved under County jurisdiction in areas where municipal
annexation has not been initiated or may not occur?
The City recommends that the Plan clarify how long-term infrastructure
responsibility and service provision will be assigned in situations where
development is approved under County jurisdiction and annexation does not occur,
including how such development will be supported without reliance on future
municipal service assumptions.
3.4. The Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD) strategy calls for confirmation
that potable water and sewer service can be provided prior to development
approvals (Framework 2040, p. 100).
The City recommends clarifying that confirmation from the applicable utility
provider indicates that service may be available, subject to detailed engineering
review during the development planning process.
This clarification would help ensure that infrastructure planning occurs in
coordination with the responsible service providers. Confirmation should not be
interpreted as a commitment to provide service, but rather an acknowledgement
that service may be available subject to future engineering review, capacity
evaluation, and applicable development approvals.
Providing greater specificity within the draft Plan regarding coordination triggers and
infrastructure verification responsibilities would strengthen implementation of the
Municipal–Rural Influence Framework and improve intergovernmental planning
coordination at jurisdictional boundaries.
4. County Islands, Edge Conditions, and Character Compatibility (LRP)
Framework 2040 identifies Areas of Municipal Influence as locations where coordinated
planning between the County and municipalities may be particularly important (Framework
2040, pp. 14, 95).
The City requests clarification regarding how the Plan will be implemented in County
Islands and other unincorporated areas located along municipal boundaries, where
development decisions may impact adjacent municipal land use patterns, infrastructure
systems, and environmental planning. In particular, clarification would be helpful
regarding:
4.1. Will Framework 2040 introduce any procedural changes or review expectations for
development within County Islands?
City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments
Page 6 of 10
4.2. How will rural-to-urban transition areas adjacent to municipalities be managed to
ensure compatibility with adopted municipal land use, open space, and
environmental planning policies?
4.3. What coordination mechanisms are proposed to address environmental
constraints, water resource considerations, and hazard-related planning factors in
areas located near municipal planning boundaries or within Areas of Municipal
Influence?
Additional guidance regarding coordination procedures for County Islands and municipal
interface areas within the draft Plan would strengthen regional planning alignment and
improve implementation clarity.
Policy Clarification Comments And Technical Corrections
5. Environment Policy #4.2 – Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation (P&R)
The City recommends expanding the scope of Environment Policy 4.2 (Framework 2040, p.
22 and 146) within the Environment Element to more fully address wildfire prevention and
mitigation across both new development and existing open space systems.
As currently written, the policy focuses primarily on incorporating fire and wildfire
mitigation measures within the design of new development. While this is an important
planning consideration, the City believes the policy could be strengthened by also
recognizing the importance of wildfire prevention and mitigation within existing open space
and recreational lands, including County-managed regional parks and preserves.
Many of these open space areas serve as significant natural resource and recreation assets
for Maricopa County residents and visitors. However, they may also present wildfire risk
due to vegetation conditions, recreational use patterns, and regional climate conditions.
County-managed facilities such as McDowell Mountain Regional Park and Cave Creek
Regional Park are examples of large regional open space areas where wildfire prevention
and mitigation strategies may be particularly relevant.
Recognizing wildfire mitigation within both development planning and open space land
management would better align the policy with regional wildfire preparedness and
landscape stewardship practices. Accordingly, the City suggests that Environment Policy
4.2 be expanded to acknowledge the importance of wildfire prevention and mitigation not
only in the design of new development, but also in the ongoing management of open
space, park, and recreation lands.
City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments
Page 7 of 10
This clarification would strengthen the Environment Element and more accurately reflect
the role of land management practices in supporting long-term wildfire resilience within
unincorporated Maricopa County.
6. Water Resources Element – Water Reuse and Advanced Treatment (W)
The Water Resources Element supports renewable water use primarily for irrigation and
amenity purposes and emphasizes conservation and municipal coordination (Framework
2040, p. 199).
Given the forward-looking nature of the draft Plan, the City recommends that the document
more fully recognize reclaimed water systems and broader water reuse initiatives,
including advanced water treatment and advanced water purification processes that
increase the beneficial reuse of treated effluent.
Recognizing these evolving water management strategies would better reflect current
regional water planning efforts and the expanding role of water reuse technologies in
supporting long-term water supply sustainability.
7. Land Use Policy #3.3 – Terminology Clarification (LRP)
The City recommends reconsidering the use of the term “steering” in Land Use Policy #3.3
(Framework 2040, p. 17 and 111), which states that Maricopa County supports steering
housing in areas served by transportation networks, in close proximity to job centers, and
where public services and infrastructure are available.
While the policy objective of locating housing near transportation networks, employment
centers, and available infrastructure is supported, the term “steering” may be interpreted
as implying direction or influence over housing location decisions. In planning and housing
policy contexts, this term may also carry regulatory or legal connotations related to
housing choice or fair housing practices, which could create ambiguity regarding the
policy’s intent.
The City suggests considering alternative language that more clearly reflects the County’s
role in guiding development patterns through planning policy rather than directing housing
location decisions.
Suggested revision to Land Use Policy #3.3:
Maricopa County supports locating housing development in areas served by transportation
networks, in close proximity to job centers, and where public services and infrastructure
are available.
City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments
Page 8 of 10
This terminology would also align with the Plan’s broader emphasis on infrastructure
readiness and development feasibility, including the Urban Solutions for Urban
Development (USUD) framework described in Framework 2040 (p. 14) and related policies
that evaluate development proposals based on the availability of urban services and
infrastructure (Land Use Policy #1.3, p. 15 and 108).
8. Land Use Designation Table Clarification (LRP)
The City notes that Table 7: Land Use Designations (pp. 104–107) identifies the future land
use categories and associated zoning districts used by Maricopa County. It is unclear from
this section whether a corresponding land use designation map or mapping reference
accompanies these classifications within the Comprehensive Plan.
The City understands that land use designations may be implemented through the
individual Area Plans. If so, the City recommends clarifying this relationship within the text
and including a reference to the applicable mapping resources (such as the County’s Area
Plans or online mapping tools) associated with these designations. Providing a clear
reference to the applicable mapping resources would help readers better understand how
the listed designations are applied geographically within unincorporated Maricopa County.
9. Transportation Policy Terminology Clarification (TR)
Transportation Policy #2.2 (Framework 2040, pp. 20 and 128) references “multimodal
crossings” in describing pedestrian facilities separated from vehicular traffic along arterial
roadways. The City notes that the term “multimodal crossings” may be overly broad or
ambiguous in this context.
The City recommends considering more precise terminology such as “protected
crossings,” “separated crossings,” or similar design language that more clearly conveys the
intent of physically separated pedestrian infrastructure.
10. Legal Reference Clarification (LRP)
The City recommends considering removal of the references to Proposition 207 on page 92
and 215 or revising the citation to reference the applicable Arizona Revised Statutes
(A.R.S.) provisions directly (A.R.S. § 12-1131 through § 12-1138). Referencing the statutory
provisions would improve clarity and consistency and avoid potential confusion should a
future ballot proposition use a similar numbering reference.
11. Non-Substantive Comments and Technical Corrections
In addition to the policy and implementation comments outlined above, the City offers the
following non-substantive comments intended to improve the accuracy and clarity of the
document.
City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments
Page 9 of 10
11.1.
Formatting. The City notes spacing inconsistencies with the text on page 33.
Consider left justification to correct alignment and spacing.
11.2.
Formatting. The City notes a formatting issue on page 76 where the phrase
“Urban Development in” appears misaligned and wraps improperly next to
the “Unincorporated Areas” heading. Review of text box alignment and text
wrapping settings may correct the issue.
11.3.
Formatting. The City recommends considering reformatting the Urban
Solutions for Urban Development criteria on page 100 so the numbering
sequence reads left to right first and then top to bottom, as the current
divider lines may make the order difficult to follow.
11.4.
Typographical Correction. The City notes a minor typographical error within
the bicycle facilities discussion. On page 120, the phrase “Pawved
shoulders” appears in the text and should read “Paved shoulders.”
11.5.
Table Clarification. The City notes that Table 9: Maricopa County Bicycle
Facility Inventory on page 120 includes a category labeled “Unidentified”
totaling 53 centerline miles. The City recommends clarifying the facility type
or providing a map reference identifying where these miles occur within the
County bicycle network.
11.6.
Editorial Clarification. In the Active Transportation section (Framework
2040, p.120), the text states that sidewalk standards are “a minimum of five
feet or greater.” The City notes that the phrase “or greater” may be
unnecessary when paired with the word “minimum,” as the minimum
dimension already implies that wider facilities may be constructed.
11.7.
Terminology Clarification. In the Active Transportation section (Framework
2040, p.123), the phrase “more lanes for higher traffic volumes” may not
clearly describe the intended roadway condition. The City recommends
considering terminology such as “fully built-out roadway infrastructure” to
more accurately reflect municipal street standards.
11.8.
Language Clarification. In the Active Transportation section (Framework
2040, p.123), the statement that Maricopa County “places importance on its
goal of having both land and the adjacent roadways be annexed” may read as
implying that roadway responsibility would be transferred to municipalities.
The City recommends clarifying the language to reflect coordination when
land annexation occurs, rather than a presumption that roadways should
also be annexed.
City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments
Page 10 of 10
11.9.
Typographical Correction. The City notes a minor typographical error within
the Environment Element. On page 135, the word “Maricopa” appears to be
misspelled.
11.10.
Figure Clarification. The City notes a potential labeling inconsistency in
Figure 19 (page 193) between the water source categories described in the
text and the labels shown in the chart (see category noted as 28%). The City
recommends reviewing the figure to ensure the water source categories are
accurately labeled.
11.11.
Data Clarification. Figures 19 and 20 (page 193) present water supply and
demand data for the Phoenix Active Management Area based on 2019
information. The City recommends clarifying whether more recent data is
available and, if so, updating the figures accordingly, or noting that the
figures are intended to provide general background context.
Support for Continued Intergovernmental Coordination
Given that annexation decisions are legislative and discretionary actions under
Scottsdale’s adopted Annexation Policy and Criteria, and are not predetermined by
planning boundary designations, the City encourages Framework 2040 implementation to
emphasize early intergovernmental coordination for development proposals located within
municipal planning areas or Areas of Municipal Influence.
An approach centered on early coordination would promote consistency with adopted
General Plans, improve alignment of infrastructure and service planning, and support
cohesive regional development while continuing to respect jurisdictional authority in
unincorporated areas.
Scottsdale appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and looks forward to
continued collaboration with Maricopa County as Framework 2040 advances toward
adoption. The City would welcome further discussion regarding a formal coordination
protocol for development review in unincorporated areas located adjacent to municipal
boundaries.
Cc:
Greg Caton, Scottsdale City Manager
Erin Perreault, AICP, Planning & Development Senior Director
Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov
Rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov
Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Adam Cannon (PND); Tom Ellsworth (PND); Darren Gerard (PND)
Cc:
Sifferman, Steven
Subject:
FW: EXTERNAL: RE: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: ARS-Required Review
Notice
Date:
Friday, March 27, 2026 12:04:52 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
All,
Please see below for the Luke AFB response. Very positive and supportive!
Matt
Matthew Klyszeiko, AICP | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 7th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-798-7513|
[M] 480-250-6829
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com
From: GERARDI, CHRISTINE L CIV USAF AETC 56 FW/CVE <christine.gerardi@us.af.mil>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 11:56 AM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Cc: 56 FW/CIT Community Initiative <56FW.CIT.CommunityInitiative@us.af.mil>
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: ARS-
Required Review Notice
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Dear Mr. Klyszeiko,
Thank you for allowing Luke AFB an opportunity to comment on the Framework 2040
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan draft. As our long-time mission advocate, we very
much value our relationship with Maricopa County. The incorporation of military
compatible land use around Luke AFB, Aux-1 and Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field is a
Some people who received this message don't often get email from matthewk@mbakerintl.com. Learn why this is
important
representation of that support. The future plans presented in this document show
continued growth of a thriving County and a wonderful community in which to both work
and reside.
We are appreciative of the emphasis on infrastructure provided in Land Use Goal 1 and
Chapter 12 on Energy planning considerations. Luke AFB recognizes there are capacity
concerns for energy intensive developments in the state. Through strategic grid
resilience and reliability planning on the part of municipalities and utility providers, this
ensures future development will not have negative impacts on existing land uses.
Additionally, the language regarding High Noise or Accident Potential Zones on page 168
encourages long-term support for the mission of Luke AFB. The overall Framework 2040
Comprehensive Plan incorporates long-term planning strategies to ensure responsible
growth throughout Maricopa County.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate in the process.
Respectfully,
Christy Gerardi
Encroachment Specialist
Community Initiatives Team
Luke AFB, Arizona
Office: (623) 856-7811
Cell: (801) 529-5254
From: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 7:49 AM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update:
ARS-Required Review Notice
Good morning,
This is a friendly reminder to share any comments or suggestions you may have on the Maricopa
County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 60‑Day Review Draft before March 30, 2026. Your
input is important, and getting your feedback in early will help ensure we have enough time to
follow up on questions and thoughtfully address anything you raise. If you’ve already submitted
comments, thank you. If not, please send them over at your earliest convenience. Thanks again for
your time and collaboration.
You may use the following link to download the Draft Plan:
To retrieve your attachment(s), click on the secure link below.
https://eFTP.mbakerintl.com/message/RaeNKboamy0guslVQZpMRK
Access to this information will expire on 2026-03-31
Please provide all formal comments directly to my attention:
Matt Klyszeiko, AICP
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update – Consultant Project Manager
matthewk@mbakerintl.com
For additional project information and resources, please reference the original email notification
below.
Best regards,
Matt Klyszeiko
Matthew Klyszeiko | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-
798-7513 | [M] (480) 250-6829 | [F] 602-467-2201
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com
From: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:26 AM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Cc: Rachel Applegate (PND) <rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov>; Adam Cannon (PND)
<adam.cannon@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: ARS-Required Review
Notice
Good Morning,
On behalf of Maricopa County, Michael Baker International is providing this notice as an invitation to
review and comment on the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 60‑Day
Review Draft. In accordance with Arizona Revised Statues 11-805(F), each municipality in the
county, each other county that is contiguous to the county, the regional planning agency in the
county, and other affected agencies listed in the statute are entitled to a transmitted copy of the
Draft Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update and an opportunity to provide comment on the
Draft Plan during a mandatory 60-day review period.
During this review window, you are encouraged to examine the Draft Plan and submit any
comments or questions you may have. At the conclusion of the 60‑day period, all feedback will be
compiled and considered for incorporation into the final document, which will then be evaluated by
the County’s Planning & Zoning Commission and considered for adoption by the Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors.
The 60-day Review Period for the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan will be:
Thursday, January 29, 2026 to Monday, March 30, 2026
Please review the attached Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 60-Day Review
Draft, and provide all formal comments directly to my attention:
Matt Klyszeiko, AICP
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update – Consultant Project Manager
matthewk@mbakerintl.com
(Note: if you desire a higher resolution copy of the Public Review Draft, please make a request to my
attention)
Thank you in advance for your participation and valued feedback. For more information about the
Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan please visit www.Framework2040.com. For
any other inquires, please contact Rachel Applegate, Maricopa County - Planning Supervisor,
rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov, or Adam Cannon, Maricopa County - Senior Planner,
adam.cannon@maricopa.gov.
Sincerely,
Matt Klyszeiko
Matthew Klyszeiko | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-
798-7513 | [M] (480) 250-6829 | [F] 602-467-2201
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Adam Cannon (PND); Darren Gerard (PND)
Cc:
Sifferman, Steven; Tom Ellsworth (PND)
Subject:
FW: EXTERNAL: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - 60-Day Review
Date:
Friday, March 27, 2026 3:04:01 PM
Attachments:
Maricopa Co Framework 2040 CompPlanUpdate CoDSD response 2026.pdf
FYI
From: Anita McNamara <Anita.McNamara@pima.gov>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 2:56 PM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <matthewk@mbakerintl.com>; Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov
Cc: Mark Holden <Mark.Holden@pima.gov>; Rob Donaldson <Robert.Donaldson@pima.gov>;
Thomas Drzazgowski <Thomas.Drzazgowski@pima.gov>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - 60-Day Review
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Thank you for the opportunity to review Maricopa County’s comp plan update. Attached
is Pima County’s response for the 60-day review.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions.
Sincerely,
Anita McNamara, AICP
Planner II
Pima County Development Services
Planning Division
March 27, 2026
SENT VIA EMAIL
Matt Klyszeiko, AICP
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update – Consultant Project Manager
matthewk@mbakerintl.com
Tom Ellsworth, AICP
Planning & Development Department Director
Maricopa County
301 W. Jefferson
Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
tom.ellsworth@maricopa.gov
Subject: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – 60-Day Review
Dear Messrs. Klyszeiko and Ellsworth:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Maricopa County’s Framework 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update – 60-Day Review. Pima County Development Services (DSD) and
other Public Works offices have reviewed the draft Comprehensive Plan update. The following
comments are included for your consideration:
The draft plan itself is well-organized, uses clear graphics and is written in a straight-forward
manner that is easy to read. The plan’s webpage is also user-friendly.
Executive Summary and Introduction:
No comments
Goals and Policies:
Land Use
Table 5: Annexations of Unincorporated Maricopa County and Population Density (page 70)
•
Contents of table includes breakdown of land uses in Maricopa County. Does not include
annexation data.
Page 76: Formatting issues with an orphaned line from the first paragraph and with the heading
“Urban Development in Unincorporated Areas Urban development”
The description of the Municipal – Rural Influence Framework is well-distilled and easy for citizens
to understand the importance of land use planning in both settings.
Transportation
No comments
Environment
No comments
Economic Growth
Consider adding a discussion of major employers and Luke Air Force Base’s impact on the
county’s economy.
Growth Areas
No comments
Open Space
Under Trails heading (page 182)
The last sentence of the second paragraph references Figure 36. This figure is not found in the
document.
Water Resources
Figure 19: Source of Water in Phoenix AMA (in acre-feet) (page 193)
The pie chart shows two pie sections with two separate percentages and acre-feet of reclaimed
water.
Energy
No comments
Cost of Development
No comments
Sincerely,
Anita McNamara, AICP
Senior Planner
Pima County Development Services Department, Planning Division
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Sifferman, Steven; Darren Gerard (PND); Tom Ellsworth (PND)
Subject:
FW: EXTERNAL: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: Review
Date:
Monday, March 23, 2026 2:00:22 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
FYI, MAG just shared their formal response below. This is only the second set of agency
comments (along with Scottsdale) received to date.
Matthew Klyszeiko, AICP | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 7th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-798-7513|
[M] 480-250-6829
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com
From: Denise Lacey <DLacey@azmag.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:52 PM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <matthewk@mbakerintl.com>
Cc: John Bullen <JBullen@azmag.gov>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: Review
EXTERNAL EMAIL
Matt:
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) appreciates the opportunity to review and
provide comments on the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Update. MAG has reviewed the document and has no major comments. Please be
aware there were multiple spelling/grammar issues throughout the document.
I appreciate the transition the County is taking to recognize the regions expanding
population and increase densities in areas previously focused on Rural development.
The inclusion of the Municipal Rural Influence is a step in the right direction to ensure
our region continues to plan for expansion.
Again, thank you for the opportunity.
Denise Lacey
Transportation Deputy Director - Planning
O: 602-452-5037
302 N. First Ave., Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85003
azmag.gov
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
McCann, Ryan
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Darren Gerard (PND); Griemsmann, Noel; Williams, Jeanette; Wood, Nick
Subject:
RE: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Date:
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 9:28:57 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
SW Comments - 2040 Comp Plan Goals and Policies_12.9.25.pdf
Good morning Adam,
Hope you are doing well. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “Goals and
Policies” portion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan updates. On behalf of our client, Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., we would like to offer the following
comments on the draft “Goals and Policies” section for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
updates. Upon review, please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or need
any clarification.
We look forward to reviewing the full draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in the beginning
of 2026.
Sincerely,
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner
O: 602.382.6825
rmccann@swlaw.com
SNELL
& WILMER
swlaw.com | LinkedIn
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 11:06 AM
To: McCann, Ryan <rmccann@swlaw.com>
Subject: RE: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
[EXTERNAL] adam.cannon@maricopa.gov
Hi Ryan,
I’m thinking sometime between August and September we will have a draft for review. We are not
sure yet if we are going to try and get it adopted by the end of the year or if we are thinking the first
couple of months of 2026. We will let you know. Also, you and Noel are welcome to provide
feedback on the draft goals and policies. I know he wanted to provide some stronger language
related to the proving grounds.
Best regards,
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning & Development
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003
O: 602-372-0292
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov
[ Maricopa.Gov ]
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and
development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be
heard!
Additionally, the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance is being updated. Visit MCZO Update to learn more and comment on
changes to the ordinance.
From: McCann, Ryan <rmccann@swlaw.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:22 AM
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>
Subject: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Good morning Adam, Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to check in with you regarding timing for the public review of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Figure it is a little way out but when do you anticipate the consultant completing the
Good morning Adam,
Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to check in with you regarding timing for the public
review of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Figure it is a little way out but when do you
anticipate the consultant completing the draft for public review?
Sincerely,
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner
O: 602.382.6825
rmccann@swlaw.com
SNELL
& WILMER
swlaw.com | LinkedIn
Snell & Wilmer | One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004
SWLAW.COM
Noel Griemsmann
Senior Urban Planner
O 602.382.6824 | F 602.382.6070
ngriemsmann@swlaw.com
December 9, 2025
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner
Maricopa County
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Property Owner Comments on the Draft Maricopa County 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Dear Adam,
On behalf of Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (“Toyota”), owner and
operator of the approximately 12,000 acre automotive testing and research facility (the “Proving
Grounds”) located at 30700 W. Patton Road (the “Site”), I am pleased to provide the following comments
and suggestions on the proposed Maricopa County 2040 Comprehensive Plan (the “2040 Plan”) related
to those elements of the 2040 Plan that may impact the Proving Grounds as to future land use decisions.
For background, the Site has been in existence since the 1990’s when Toyota originally developed the
Proving Grounds to be its primary desert/high heat environment testing facility for its worldwide
operations. The general area is very rural, with a few homes located in the immediate area, which is known
as Whispering Ranch, located immediately east and north of the Site. Further east is the Hassayampa
River, with more developed rural areas beyond out to Highway 60. To the west is Bureau of Land
Management (“BLM”) property that is undeveloped and appears to be utilized for livestock grazing
activities. Directly south is the northern edge of the yet to be developed Teravalis (formerly Douglas
Ranch) master planned community of over 33,000 acres, which, at Toyota’s request during that project’s
rezoning, features a low-density buffer along its northern boundary to protect the Proving Grounds from
more dense residential encroachment (which, due to higher density, can lead to incompatibly concerns).
Because the Proving Grounds tests advanced technologies and new models of vehicles (many of which
are years out until actual production), secrecy and security is very important to the successful operation
of the facility. To ensure the privacy required for Site operations, the entire facility has within its
boundaries a 300-foot buffer zone. This area is utilized only for security fencing and associated patrol
roadways (neither testing facilities nor structures are located in these buffer areas). The buffer area also
acts to minimize potential impacts on adjacent properties from Site operations, which can involve noise
and other impacts from time to time and the facility operates 24/7, making buffering important to both
Toyota as well as to any current or future neighbors. Note that Toyota purposefully selected this location
due to its extremely rural context and that context is important to long-term viability of the Site to meet
Toyota’s testing needs into the future. Further, Toyota continues to invest in the Proving Grounds,
recently investing over $50 million dollars to advance the Proving Grounds.
Careful site planning works to mitigate impacts on surrounding properties. However, some vehicle testing
(such as very high-speed use of the main track) can sometimes be audible from off-site locations,
depending on the local weather, wind conditions and other environmental factors outside of Toyota’s
December 9, 2025
Page 2
control. Hence why a low density, rural context is important to maintain around the Site both today and
into the future.
While it is understood that the 2040 Plan is a policy tool and non-regulatory, it is best for the community
at large, as well as for the Proving Grounds, to ensure that the 2040 Plan reflects the buffering needed
that would support future growth of the Proving Grounds as well as the surrounding communities,
without the need to seek future amendments to the Plan and ensures County growth policies are
consistent with maintaining a rural context in this area of the County.
These comments are provided in the spirit of cooperation and the goal of establishing planning framework
that will support the Proving Grounds’ current and future operations.
We would like to offer the following comments on the proposed “Maricopa County Framework 2040
Comprehensive Plan – Proposed Goals and Policies” document, dated June 12, 2025. We greatly
appreciate the opportunity to review and to provide comment on the “Goals and Policies” section of the
2040 Plan before the formal draft is released.
Comments/Suggestions
The following is discussion of existing language within the Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2030 (the “2030
Plan”) that is generally supportive of the Site and the maintenance of compatible rural scale in the
surrounding area.
Comment #1: Growth Areas – Build Constraints, 2030 Plan Page 84
The following sections are taken directly from the 2030 Plan. Toyota respectfully requests that the
language (or something similar) be retained into the 2040 Plan for reasons discussed below.
“Noise-generating Land Uses Persistent, loud, and/or continuous noise can affect health, sleep,
learning patterns, and even property values. While there are many sources of noise some of the
most recognizable include:”
“Automobile Proving Grounds: Automobile proving grounds are facilities where manufacturers
test vehicle and related component capabilities in a controlled environment. Several
manufacturers have such facilities in Maricopa County that allow them to test equipment in hot
climate conditions. Noise from automobile testing, along with security concerns about product
design and performance, are considerations in determining the types and intensities of new
growth in surrounding areas.”
To address those concerns, proposed 2040 Goals and Policies, Land Use Policy #2.6 states, “Maricopa
County supports land use buffers and land use transitions in urban/rural interface areas, including near
aggregate mining operations, proving grounds, and the County’s regional parks.”
The inclusion of proving grounds in this policy regarding land use buffers and transitions is extremely
important to the existing and future operation of Toyota at the existing proving ground. While the Site
includes a 300’ internal buffer, additional buffers from future growth are essential to preserve the secrecy
December 9, 2025
Page 3
and security of the operations, in addition to noise and other impacts from time to time and the facility
operates 24/7, making buffering important to both Toyota as well as to any current/future neighbors.
While the direct reference and language regarding the Proving Grounds is minimal in the 2030 Plan (as
reviewed above), we believe this language helps protect the Proving Grounds and ensures responsible
growth in the vicinity. The 2030 Plan acknowledges that there are noise generating land uses within the
County. Understanding that the 2040 Plan is an overview of the entire County and additional
details/planning efforts are further discussed within the County specific “Area Plans”, the 2030 Plan sets
the framework for the Area Plans.
For reference, below is language included in the White Tanks Grand Avenue Area Plan (which was recently
amended in 2023) that we believe supports the existing and future efforts of the Proving Grounds. Similar
goals and policies in the larger 2040 Plan would also be encouraged by Toyota.
Within the White Tanks Grand Avenue Area Plan, Land Use Goal #2, Land Use Policy #9 states, “Maricopa
County supports existing automobile proving grounds and aggregate resource extraction that is well
buffered and encourages new proximate development that is compatible with the continuing operation of
automotive proving grounds and aggregate resource extraction.”
Furthermore, under the Environment Element - Potentially Hazardous Areas and Noise Generating Uses
– Proving Grounds, the plan states, “Automobile manufacturer Toyota operates a 12,000-acre proving
grounds located west of Wittman and 60 miles northwest of Phoenix. The proving grounds allow Toyota
to test on and off-road vehicles year-round on 25 miles of paved roads and 52 miles of dirt tracks. Toyota
opened the proving grounds to the broader automotive industry with the creation of the Arizona Mobility
Test Center (AMTC). AMTC will allow other automobile manufacturers access to engineering support
services as well as access to a full range of vehicle evaluation validation processes.”
Environment Goal #2, Policy #11 states, “Maricopa County supports continued coordination with proving
ground facilities to ensure that they are aware of any new development within proximity of their facilities.”
Environmental Analysis- Environmental Strategies #3 states, “Protect and buffer existing noise generating
and potentially hazardous uses. As discussed, there are a number of uses in the region that are important
to the economy of the region, but also produce adverse impacts such as noise or other hazards. It is
important to continue support of public notification of these uses as well as protection of the uses from
encroachment and the public from harm. Policies are aimed at notification, buffering, and coordination to
ensure that proximate land uses are compatible around or in areas potentially affected by PVNGS, the
proving grounds, and military facilities.”
Finally, we would like to note that it is our understanding that the Maricopa County Transportation
Department will be updating the Transportation Plan this fall/winter. We look forward to participating in
the process and working with the Transportation Department with those efforts.
On behalf of Toyota, we respectfully request the above noted section of the 2030 Plan (or similar
compatible language) be included in the 2040 Plan to ensure future growth around the Site does not limit
future expansion or testing capabilities for the Proving Grounds and ensures long-term investment in the
Maricopa County community. I am happy to set up a meeting to discuss the above further.
December 9, 2025
Page 4
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Snell & Wilmer
Noel J. Griemsmann AICP
Sr Urban Planner
CC: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager
SUBJECT
SCHOA OR
COMMUNITY
POST?
# COMMENTS # LIKES
COMMENTS POSTED BY SCHOA FROM
FEEDBACK FROM OUR COMMUNITY
Bike Lanes
SCHOA Sun City
2
17
Bike paths and lanes are and have been on the ‘want’ list of many residents. These paths
could be multiuse lanes, not only for bikes but also for running and walking as well. As an
active adult community, Sun City residents enjoy riding bikes, running and walking, and it is
important to make these activities as safe as possible.
Bulk Trash Pick Up
SCHOA Sun City
7
35
It would be helpful if the county would establish a bulk trash pickup program for county
residents, to help maintain a clean, safe and beautiful community. Sun City residents have
very limited options for bulk trash, which can often cause illegal dumping or a build up of
unsafe clutter.
CC&Rs v Ordinances
SCHOA Sun City
3
29
There can be differences between CC&R/deed restrictions and Maricopa County permitting
regulations; however, CC&Rs/deed restriction agreements legally take precedence over
county permitting regulations. This has led to confusion for property owners who apply for a
county permit without checking with the HOA/CC&Rs. SCHOA has asked for years to include
some type of document in the permitting process that the property owner would need to
complete, that is essentially a ‘sign off’ from their HOA that their plans are in line with their
CC&Rs prior to county permits being issued. This would help greatly in protecting and
educating property owners wanting to make improvements to their property by clearing up
confusion with the difference between their CC&Rs and county permits. Plus, in some cases,
this would also save the property owner time and protect them financially, when situations
occur where the county has approved a permit, but it isn’t in line with the deed restrictions.
Coyotes
SCHOA Sun City
11
29
Wild coyotes are common in Sun City and are a safety concern for residents and their pets.
Pets, often considered family members and companions, have been taken from backyards by
coyotes, which are becoming increasingly bold. Also at times, coyotes can run in packs and
some need help as they appear to have a very painful case of mange. There seem to be no
agencies that will help residents, or the coyotes themselves. This is a community issue that
appears to be getting worse and this is a community safety concern.
Door to Door Solicitors
SCHOA Sun City
3
25
Unfortunately, Senior citizens are targets of scams and fraud and often become victims. This
happens in many ways and door-to-door soliciting is one trend that is unfortunately growing.
This can be prevented by not allowing random unknown people to approach homes
uninvited. Please consider an ordinance that prohibits door-to-door solicitation in Senior
communities. There are multiple Senior communities in Unincorporated areas of Maricopa
County and our Seniors need to be protected from this type of abuse.
TALLY ON SCHOA POSTS, COMMENTS AND RELATED POSTS ON FRAMEWORK 2040 WALL
Economic Dev/Retail
SCHOA Sun City
2
15
Maricopa County needs to take the lead on Economic Development in county areas like Sun
City, where retail shopping centers and other businesses have gone dormant, and there is no
active plan to revitalize. These abandoned or empty centers can impact the local economy
and also cause community health and safety concerns if left uncared for; not to mention the
quality of life impact and threats to limit the community’s access to important retail options
such as grocery stores. Maintaining a strong and healthy county includes a strong economic
corridor, just as in a municipality.
Emergency Services
SCHOA Sun City
2
19
In Maricopa County, communities outside of municipalities seem to have far fewer resources
to support vital emergency services, such as the Sun City Fire & Medical Department.
Ironically, the SCFMD is one of the busiest fire agencies in the state, given the wide range of
medical needs and assistance they respond to on a daily basis amid a Senior community.
However, the limited access to resources has impacted the department financially, and it is a
concern that the costs could continue to be passed down to county residents, who often live
with limited resources. There needs to be a solution to make sure the Fire Department has
the resources it requires to respond to the needs of the community.
Hazardous Waste Disposal
SCHOA Sun City
4
22
It would be helpful if the county would establish a hazardous waste disposal program.
Unfortunately, there is no option for county residents to dispose of this type of waste. For the
benefit of the community, perhaps Maricopa County could partner with a local community
program, company or nearby municipality to offer some option to dispose of hazardous
waste.
Homelessness
SCHOA Sun City
4
36
Homelessness is a huge and growing issue in Sun City, one that has no clear direction or plan
in the community’s eyes. Questions often arise about how to handle this population and
related safety concerns. We need the county’s leadership, direction and education concerning
what is being done, and how this issue can be solved. This is not only a safety issue for the
homeless but also for community members.
Increase in Police
SCHOA Sun City
2
33
As a community, Sun City needs additional public safety representation. A recent Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office survey of Sun City residents showcased the need to prioritize where
residents would like to see the Sheriff’s Department protect and serve, given their resources.
County areas like Sun City should receive the same level of public safety as those in
municipalities. The limited resources in Sun City have led to very limited abilities to protect
the public and maintain safe streets. In addition, this has led to a constant rehiring and
retraining of Sheriff deputies, as cities with additional revenue sources can offer significantly
more income and benefits.
No Golf Cart Signs
SCHOA Sun City
0
7
Sun City and other Senior communities in Maricopa County are unique in that the use of golf
carts is common, not just on the golf course – but for day-to-day activities. The installation of
“No Golf Carts Allowed” signs on main thoroughfares with unsafe speed limits for these
smaller vehicles would help maintain the safety of residents utilizing the roadways.
Parking/No Parking Signs
SCHOA Sun City
5
13
It would be beneficial for the safety of all county residents to allow the installation of No
Parking signs in major community thoroughfares, where parking can be a hazard among the
traffic. As an example in Sun City, roads such as Del Webb Blvd., 103rd Ave., 107th Ave.,
Alabama Ave., Sun City Blvd., Peoria Ave., etc., are highly traveled – often with several
destinations that attract a high level of vehicles and pedestrians that must maneuver around
the parked vehicles. This would also make it safer and easier for emergency vehicles to travel
throughout the communities.
Rental Properties
SCHOA Sun City
5
36
Residents have expressed a desire to control the number of rental properties that may be
allowed in Sun City. They cite that these properties often are not maintained, have under-
aged occupants, create parking, and traffic issues in our community.
Speeding
SCHOA Sun City
6
20
Maricopa County should review its budget to ensure public safety is a top priority. In Sun City,
speeding has been an issue reported every month at the Sun City Home Owner’s Association
(SCHOA)’s Roads and Safety Committee, but a lack of resources has hampered the ability to
respond fully to this safety concern. The primary concern in any community should be the
safety of its citizens, and the Sun City area should be studied, a plan implemented with the
appropriate resources to achieve an increased level of safety.
Transportation
SCHOA Sun City
1
19
Public transportation should be a priority in the West Valley, especially in Senior
communities. A lack of transportation causes health and safety concerns. It is not uncommon
for Senior residents to struggle to get to the doctor, the grocery store and to other important
locations and needed appointments on a limited income, and with possible health issues that
prevent them from driving. This has been a need for some time.
SCHOA POSTS ENGAGEMENT TOTALS
57
355
Community Posts
Homelessness/Vagrancy
Safety and security/homelessness in Sun City
COMMUNITY
3
10
Use abandoned buildings for homesless
COMMUNITY
2
9
Safety/panhandling
COMMUNITY
1
21
Vagrancy at Grand and 107th
COMMUNITY
3
18
Camping/Homelessness
COMMUNITY
0
13
Vagrants and urban camping
COMMUNITY
2
18
We believe that many of the below Community Posts were spurred by the SCHOA posts and many
mentioned Sun City. Again, direct feedback from the community.
Homelessness
COMMUNITY
3
21
Addiction and retail theft
COMMUNITY
0
10
Stop begging at busy intersections
COMMUNITY
2
18
TOTALS
16
138
CC&Rs v Ordinances
Better enforcement of CCRs and avoid MC variances
COMMUNITY
2
22
County Permits v CCRs
COMMUNITY
2
15
TOTALS
4
37
More Police/Speed Enforcement
Speeding on Del Webb Blvd
COMMUNITY
8
8
Law Enforcement plan for bigger presence
COMMUNITY
1
21
Equal law enforcement to county islands
COMMUNITY
1
2
More speed prevention
COMMUNITY
2
6
Speeders in Sun City
COMMUNITY
6
12
Speed cameras in Sun City
COMMUNITY
4
10
Need a Sun City police department
COMMUNITY
1
4
Speeding and Reckless Drivers
COMMUNITY
1
7
Use Photo Enforcement
COMMUNITY
2
8
Speeding/traffic in sun city
COMMUNITY
0
0
Enforce speed limiits (Bell Road)
COMMUNITY
3
8
Photo safety radars Sun City
COMMUNITY
3
8
TOTALS
32
94
Parking on the Street
Street Parking (not enforced)
COMMUNITY
2
8
Pro street parking restrictions in Sun City
COMMUNITY
1
17
Supports enforcement of no street parking
COMMUNITY
0
1
TOTALS
3
26
Fire Department Support/Financing
Fire department charging in Sun City
COMMUNITY
1
3
Take care of first responders/funding in Sun City
COMMUNITY
2
8
Remove mandated cap on fire revenue generation at the
legislature
COMMUNITY
2
4
TOTALS
5
16
Transportation Must Be Addressed
Public transportation/buses
COMMUNITY
2
5
Improve Public Transit
COMMUNITY
1
10
"Repaying Senior Contributions"/Transportation in Sun City
COMMUNITY
6
11
Improve public transportation
COMMUNITY
1
1
Commuter rail West Valley to East Valley
COMMUNITY
0
5
Continue light rail expansion
COMMUNITY
0
3
TOTALS
10
35
Other Sun City Transport/Street Issues
Sidewalks on 99th in Sun City
COMMUNITY
2
5
"Do not stop for Golf Carts" signs at crossings
COMMUNITY
1
5
Right turn lane at Bell and Boswell
COMMUNITY
0
3
Sidewalk needed on 99th Ave.
COMMUNITY
1
3
Left turn on Boswell and Bell
COMMUNITY
0
1
Air and noise pollution 99th ave/beardsley
COMMUNITY
2
1
More Sun City crosswalks
COMMUNITY
0
0
Covering up "see-through" walls along 99th to Beadsley
COMMUNITY
0
0
TOTALS
6
18
Bikes and Bike Paths
Bike/golf cart lanes in Sun City
COMMUNITY
0
1
Bikes and motorbikes on sidewalks
COMMUNITY
0
10
Bikes lanes needed in Sun City
COMMUNITY
3
2
Bike lanes
COMMUNITY
1
8
Bike lanes
COMMUNITY
4
9
TOTALS
3
10
Door to Door Solicitors
ID Vendors vehicles to report easily
COMMUNITY
0
4
TOTALS
0
4
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Hazardous Waste Disposal
COMMUNITY
2
6
TOTALS
2
6
Economic Development/Growth
Increase mixed use/high density
COMMUNITY
0
3
Keep rural areas rural
COMMUNITY
0
2
Less home building
COMMUNITY
0
3
Economic Growth/tech jobs
COMMUNITY
0
1
Balance preservation of open land with development
COMMUNITY
0
1
Heat island
COMMUNITY
0
1
TOTALS
0
11
Rentals
Short term rentals min. stay
COMMUNITY
2
11
Better planning, fewer rentals west valley
COMMUNITY
0
5
Rentals and Empty homes in Phase 1
COMMUNITY
2
11
TOTALS
4
27
Other Community Issues
Master HOA Insurance Policies
COMMUNITY
0
3
Elimination of Rats
COMMUNITY
2
2
Help with cost of xeroscaping for COAs etc
COMMUNITY
3
6
Loud noise from mufflers in Sun City
COMMUNITY
1
0
Green energy - solar and water
COMMUNITY
3
7
Sidewalk sweepers for gravel landscaping?
COMMUNITY
1
0
BNSF - impact on rural areas/Wittman
COMMUNITY
0
0
Fines for loud vehicles
COMMUNITY
0
1
Affordable utilities
COMMUNITY
0
3
SCHOA could impose fines
COMMUNITY
0
2
Group homes in Sun City
COMMUNITY
3
28
TOTALS
13
52