CPA2021009 BOS REPORT_PART1.PDF

December 8, 2021 
CPA2021009 
Page 1 of 3 
Report to the Board of Supervisors 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
 
Board Hearing Date: 
December 8, 2021 
 
Case #/Title:   
 
 
CPA2021009 – Santa Barbara Ranch 
 
Supervisor District: 
4 
 
Applicant:  
Tiffany & Bosco 
 
Owners: 
Sunrise Airpark LLC, Surprise Commercial Development LLC, 
Surprise Industrial Properties LLC, and Southwest Investment 
Funds of Arizona LLC. 
 
Request: 
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to change 
the land use designation in the White Tank/Grand Avenue 
Area Plan from Rural Residential (0 – 1 d.u./ac.) to Single-
Family Transitional Lot (3 – 5 d.u./ac.). CPA case approval is 
by Resolution, attached. 
 
Site Location: 
Generally located north of the U.S. 60, south of Hwy 74, west 
of the 239th Ave. road alignment, and east of the 251st Ave. 
road alignment in the Morristown area. 
 
Site Size: 
Approx. 1,003 acres 
 
County Island Status: 
No 
Additional 
Comments: 
The subject site is identified as having Rural Residential land 
use designation in the Area Plan. This designation encourages 
low-density rural residential and agricultural uses.  
 
Staff received support (3 documents) from the City of Surprise 
as well as 2 other individuals. There are also 54 received 
documents of opposition received as of writing of this staff 
report. The P&Z handout memo is attached which includes 
additional 
material 
received 
after 
publishing 
of 
the 
Commission staff report.

December 8, 2021 
CPA2021009 
Page 2 of 3 
Commission  
 
Recommendation: 
On 11/18/21, the Commission voted 5-1 to recommend denial 
of CPA2021009.  
 
In the event the Board motions for approval of CPA2021009, staff suggests conditions ‘a’ – ‘d’:   
  
a. 
Development and use of the site shall be in general conformance with the 
narrative report entitled “Santa Barbara Ranch” consisting of 24 pages, dated 
stamped received on October 15, 2021, except as modified by the following 
conditions.  
 
b. 
The land use designation of Single-Family Transitional Lot approved as part of case 
CPA2021009 shall be subject to any time limits set forth in the subsequent zone 
change. 
 
c. 
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the 
applicant, with the consent of the landowner.  The granting of this approval allows 
the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the uses existing on the 
date of application, subject to conditions.  In the event of the failure to comply 
with any condition, the property shall revert to the land use designation that 
existed on the date of application.  It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that 
either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not 
reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or 
possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the 
property from the value it held on the date of application due to such change of 
the land use.  The land use enhances the value of the property above its value as 
of the date the land use change is granted and reverting to the prior land use 
designation results in the same value of the property as if the land use change had 
never been granted. 
 
d. 
The following Luke Air Force Base condition shall apply: 
  
The owner or developer shall notify future occupants/tenants that they are 
located near a military airport with the following language: 
 
“You are locating in a residential dwelling inside the “territory in the vicinity of a 
military airport,” however aircraft flying in this area are authorized to fly as low as 
1,500 feet above the ground. You will be subject to direct overflights and noise by 
Luke Air Force Base jet aircraft in the vicinity. 
 
Luke Air Force Base executes an average of approximately 165 overflights per day. 
Although Luke’s primary flight paths are located within 20 miles from the base, jet 
noise will be apparent throughout the area as aircraft transient to and from the 
Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range and other flight areas. 
 
Luke Air Force Base may launch and recover aircraft in either direction off its 
runways oriented to the southwest and northeast. Noise will be more noticeable 
during overcast sky conditions due to noise reflections off the clouds.

December 8, 2021 
CPA2021009 
Page 3 of 3 
Luke Air Force Base’s normal flying hours extend from 7:00 a.m. until approximately 
midnight, Monday through Friday, but some limited flying will occur outside these 
hours and during most weekends. 
 
For further information, please check the Luke Air Force Base website at 
www.luke.af.mil/urbandevelopment or contact the Maricopa County Planning 
and Development Department.” 
 
Such notification shall be permanently posted on not less than a 3 foot by 5 foot 
sign in front of all leasing or home sales offices and be permanently posted on the 
front door of all leasing offices on not less than 8½ inch by 11 inch sign. 
 
 
 
 
Presented by: 
 
Ray Banker, Senior Planner 
Reviewed by: 
 
Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager   
 
Attachments: 
 
11/18/21 P&Z Packet (141 pages) 
 
 
11/18/21 P&Z Handout Memo (4 pages) 
 
 
11/18/21 P&Z Applicant PowerPoint Presentation (17 pages) 
 
 
CPA2021009 Resolution (2 pages) 
 
 
Note: 
11/18/21 Draft P&Z Minutes are not available as of the writing of this report, but can 
be provided upon request later when available.

CPA2021009 
Page 1 of 13 
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
 
Case: 
CPA2021009 – Santa Barbara Ranch 
 
Hearing Date: 
November 18, 2021 
 
Supervisor District: 
4 
 
  
 
Applicant: 
Tiffany & Bosco 
 
Owners: 
Sunrise Airpark LLC, Surprise Commercial Development LLC, Surprise 
Industrial Properties LLC, and Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona 
LLC 
   
Request: 
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to change the land 
use designation in the White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan from 
Rural Residential (0 – 1 d.u./ac.) to Single-Family Transitional Lot (3 – 
5 d.u./ac.) 
 
  
 
Site Location: 
Generally located north of the U.S. 60, south of Hwy 74, west of the 
243rd Ave. road alignment, and east of the 251st Ave. road 
alignment in the Morristown area 
 
  
Site Size: 
Approx. 1,003 acres 
 
Density: 
Approx. 5 d.u./ac. 
 
County Island:  
No 
 
 
County Plan: 
White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan – Rural Residential (0 -1 
d.u./ac.) 
 
Municipal Plan: 
City of Surprise – Neighborhood, Open Space, and Commerce & 
Office Character Areas 
 
Municipal Comments: 
Surprise – support; Apache Junction - no concerns 
 
Support/Opposition: 
1 document of support/53 documents of opposition 
 
Recommendation: 
Denial

CPA2021009 
Page 2 of 13 
Project Summary: 
 
1. 
Tiffany & Bosco is requesting a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to change 
the land use designation in the White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan from Rural 
Residential (0 – 1 d.u./ac.) to Single-Family Transitional Lot (3 – 5 d.u./ac.) for the subject 
site. The proposal is to allow for future development of a single-family residential 
subdivision. There is a related request for a Zone Change with Overlay (Z2021078) on the 
subject site from Rural-43 to R1-6 RUPD. This case was indefinitely continued at the request 
of the applicant at the November 4, 2021 P&Z hearing.  
 
2. 
The applicant’s narrative notes that this CPA would “enable the developer to master 
plan a future new residential community with ample open space offering varying 
residential lot sizes and product types complimentary to current and future market 
demand. The development would also include supporting land uses for the influx of 
residential units in the area.” Transportation-wise, preliminary location for direct access to 
the site is stated to be from SR 74 (north of the site) through ASLD land where 243rd Ave. 
alignment meets the eastern portion of the property. See attached “Land Use Exhibit 
Road Alignments” for more details.  
 
3. 
The site is comprised of fifteen (15) private contiguous parcels under four separate 
ownerships (see the “Parcel/Ownership Exhibit” within the attached narrative report). The 
subject site is generally located north of the U.S. 60, south of Hwy 74, west of the 243rd 
Ave. road alignment (southern portion is adjacent to 239th Ave.), and east of the 251st 
Ave. road alignment in the Morristown area. The site is approximately 3.8 miles from the 
City of Surprise jurisdiction to the east starting near 211th Ave. Surrounding properties are 
zoned Rural-43 and are mostly vacant with some existing single-family residential 
development contiguous to the west of the site where Morristown is located. To the south 
of the property across U.S. 60 is Circle City with some existing single-family residential 
development. Also, to the south of Circle City is a Development Master Plan (DMP) known 
as Broadstone Ranch. This DMP includes multiple land use designation and has since 
been rezoned to different rural, residential and commercial zoning districts. Broadstone 
Ranch has not developed and remains vacant despite obtaining original DMP and 
zoning approvals back in 2006. 
   
4. 
Although not discussed with the CPA request, the related Z2021078 case’s latest 
submitted narrative mentions that the site would develop with a maximum 5,000 single-
family residential units (approximately 5 d.u./ac.). The applicant would also be requesting 
a minimum lot area of 3,000 sq. ft. along with lot width and setback deviations from the 
base R1-6 zoning standards. They would be providing approximately 150 acres of open 
space, including much of the floodplain area that would most likely be undevelopable. 
The latest zoning exhibit also offered “buffer zones” to limit density in certain site 
boundaries adjacent to rural zoning.  
 
5. 
The narrative asserts that the proposed development meets the Comprehensive Plan 
Amendment criteria in the following manner (quoted responses from related narrative):  
 
Whether the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the Comprehensive Plan 
and is not solely for the good or benefit of a particular landowner or owners at a particular 
point in time.

CPA2021009 
Page 3 of 13 
“The WTGA Area Plan designates the area already for single family uses at a lesser density. 
The minor increase in density from maximum two (2) d.u./ac. to five (5) d.u./ac. will allow 
for appropriate planning of infrastructure (water, sewer, paved roads) as well as 
community amenities such as community and neighborhood parks, schools and worship 
uses. A coordinated and planned approach such as this proposal is an overall 
improvement to the Comprehensive Plan, the surrounding community and the County.  
 
Although Applicant requests amending the Comprehensive Plan of approximately 1,003 
acres for Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.), Applicant will consider stipulations in 
the companion rezone case (Z2021078) to guarantee a variety of residential sizes and 
product types. Furthermore, the companion rezone case (Z2021078) will consider 
stipulations for requiring supporting uses and construction of integrated roadways and 
utilities throughout the Property when development eventually occurs. The City of Surprise 
will ultimately oversee the development and infrastructure of the Property as a 
development agreement will be in executed prior to approval of the companion zoning 
case (Z2021078).” 
 
Whether the amendment will adversely impact all or a portion of the planning area.  
 
A. 
Altering acceptable land use patterns to the detriment of the plan  
 
“The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will not be to the detriment of 
the plan. The Amendment will be a net positive to the area. The existing land use 
designation is single family residential use and the proposed land use is single 
family residential use. The increase in density allows for a coordinated and 
planned residential development adjacent to primarily large undeveloped and 
unplanned ASLD parcels. The companion rezone case (Z2021078) is considering 
stipulations and additional amendments to the land plan to meet the expected 
future needs of the area, namely, providing a well-rounded community with 
sufficient residential, open space, commercial and school components. 
Approximately fifteen (15) privately owned parcels are adjacent to this 1,000+ 
acre proposal. Approximately half of those private parcels are developed within 
the County’s RU-43 zoning district.” 
 
B. 
Requiring public expenditures for larger or more expensive infrastructure 
 
“The cost of the infrastructure will be borne by the developers in the future. Certain 
necessities such as schools may certainly require public expenditure; however, this 
would not be for a number of years until growth in the area takes hold. Applicant 
does not foresee any necessary large public expenditures to infrastructure at the 
moment that fall within the scope of the plan.” 
 
C. 
Requiring public improvements to roads, sewer, or water systems that are needed 
to support the planned land uses 
 
“The increase in density will result in the preservation of wash corridors and require 
the developers or home builders to construct the public improvements including 
roads, sewer or water systems to support the increase in density. Single family 
residential was designated within the WTGA Area Plan and this proposal continues

CPA2021009 
Page 4 of 13 
that land use. At whatever point in time a residential development moves forward 
on any phase of the Property, all of the infrastructure will have to be planned and 
approved by either the County, or Surprise if annexed into the City. Moreover, the 
companion rezone case (Z2021078) will include supporting land uses to 
supplement the residential neighborhoods such as open space and schools. The 
Property will also contain areas capable of a retail and office component to 
bolster the area. 
 
The proposal will be able to complete major roads through the Property and 
connect to SR 74 and U.S. 60 for access. All of the construction and connection 
costs would be borne by the developer at the time of development. Additional 
roadway connections and accessibility to two (2) major valley transportation 
corridors is sound planning for the request increase in density. The increase in 
density allows for open space preservation, planning and community and 
neighborhood parks. Current development within the RU-43 zoning classification 
does not provide for any community amenities or open space preservation on 
private property. The provision of these types of amenities improves the livability of 
the area. With density, neighborhoods are created, social interaction is increased 
and livability improves the health and safety of the present and future residents.” 
 
D. 
Adversely impacting planned uses because of increased traffic  
 
“The area is currently designated for single family residential and will remain single 
family residential under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The projected 
density of the area will increase under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and 
the companion rezone case (Z2021078), but this is not to the detriment of the plan 
or to the area. The SR 74 and US 60 currently provide two (2) major points of access 
for the Property. When development of the Property does eventually occur, 
proper street infrastructure will be constructed by the developers to handle the 
projected traffic. The companion rezone case (Z2021078) will include stipulations 
to provides for integrated roadways throughout the neighborhoods that will 
eventually be developed on the Property.” 
 
E. 
Affecting the livability of the area or health or safety of present and future residents  
 
“While the livability of an area is a subjective standard, this Comprehensive Plan 
Amendment would ultimately set the tone for a harmonious development 
capable of supplying the residential needs of future residents. The health and 
safety of the area and surrounding area will remain unchanged at a minimum and 
will likely be improved. The addition of a higher density residential area will 
ultimately require fire and safety services be provided to the area. An agreement 
with the City of Surprise is currently in discussions and it is expected that the City 
will provide these services when development is undertaken.” 
 
F. 
Adversely impacting the natural environment or scenic quality of the area in 
contradiction to the plan  
 
“The concentration of density into smaller lots allows for the larger wash corridors 
to be preserved and even enhanced with some passive and active open space 
areas. This can be accomplished by creating tracts, separate from on lot

CPA2021009 
Page 5 of 13 
drainage, which is the current make-up of the wash corridors in this area, and 
provide for amenities for present and future residents. Planned residential 
neighborhoods, while preserving key open space and environmental features is 
not in contradiction to the Comprehensive Plan.” 
 
Whether the amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 
 
“As stated above, the current intent of the Comprehensive Plan is for this 1,003 acres to 
develop with single family uses. The proposed land use amendment is to develop the 
same single family uses albeit at a higher density. Single family to single family is consistent 
with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan. With the additional density comes a 
broader planning of the Property for coordinated access and roadway connections, 
infrastructure, open space and wash preservation, community amenities and the 
creation of neighborhoods. These factors ensures the amendment is consistent with the 
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.” 
 
The extent to which the amendment is consistent with the specific goals and policies 
contained within the plan. 
 
The applicant’s narrative contains a substantial list of Goals and Policies from the Vision 
2030 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan. This staff report identifies which Goals and 
Policies the applicant’s narrative addressed. Specific information from the applicant 
regarding these goals and policies is included in their narrative report.  
 
Vision 2030 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
 
Land Use Element – Goal 1, Policy 2, Policy 4, Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 26 
 
Transportation Element – Goal 3, Policy 4 
 
Environment Element – Goal 1 
 
Economic Growth Element – Goal 1, Policy 9 
 
Growth Area Element – Goal 1 
 
Open Space Element – Goal 4 
 
Water Resources Element – Goal 1 
 
Energy Element – Goal 3 
 
Cost of Development Element – Goal 2 
 
White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan 
 
Land Use Element – Goal L1, Objective L3.3 
Transportation Element – Goal T1 
Environment Element – Goal E1, Objective E1.1 
Economic Development – Goal ED1

CPA2021009 
Page 6 of 13 
 
 
2021 Aerial Map 
 
 
Zoning Map - Rural-43 & Surrounding Districts

CPA2021009 
Page 7 of 13 
 
 
Land Use Exhibit – Current Land Use (Rural Development Area)  
 
 
Land Use Exhibit – Proposed Land Use (Single Family Transitional Lot) 
 
 
 
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use: 
 
6. 
On-site: 
 
Rural-43 / Vacant 
North: 
Rural-43 (ASLD) then highway/ Vacant then Hwy 74 
South: 
Rural-43 then highway/ Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad then 
U.S. 60 
East: 
Rural-43 (partially ASLD) / Vacant 
West: 
Rural-43 / Vacant and single-family residential 
 
 
Utilities and Services: 
 
7. 
Water: 
TBD – EPCOR or City of Surprise 
Wastewater: 
TBD – EPCOR or City of Surprise 
Electric: 
APS 
School Districts: 
Morristown Elementary School District #75 
 
Nadaburg Unified School District #81 
Fire: 
TBD – Rural Metro or City of Surprise

CPA2021009 
Page 8 of 13 
Police:  
TBD – MCSO or City of Surprise 
 
Right-of-Way: 
 
8. 
The following table includes existing and future right-of-way and the future classification 
based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Major Streets 
and Routes Plan. 
 
Street Name 
Existing R/W 
Future R/W* 
Future 
Classification** 
243rd Ave. 
Varies 
100’ (half-width) 
Parkway 
Additional Section and 
Mid-Section Alignments 
 
Varies 
55’ and 40’ (half-
widths) 
Section and Mid-
Section 
Alignments 
 
** Required dedication/preservation and future classification of ROW is tentative and 
subject to change and will be established by MCDOT during a future Plan of 
Development review. 
 
Adopted Plan: 
 
9. 
Maricopa County White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan: The entire site (approx. 1,003 
acres) is designated as Rural Residential (0-1 d.u./ac.).  The Rural Residential (0 – 1 
d.u./ac.) land use designation encourages low-density rural residential and agricultural 
uses. 
 
10. 
City of Surprise General Plan 2035: Most of the site lies within the Neighborhood Character 
Area which supports a variety of residential densities. The northeastern corner of the site, 
as well as the southernmost portion of the site have portions within the Commerce and 
Office Character Area, which supports Residential / Commercial Mixed Use, Regional 
Commercial, and Commercial Office uses.  Lastly, a portion of the westernmost parcel 
crosses a portion of the Open Space Character Area. 
 
11. 
Scenic Corridors: The subject site is also located within two Scenic Corridors: Wickenburg 
Highway Scenic Corridor and Highway 74 Scenic Corridor. Both of these scenic corridors 
have regulations per the MCZO Chapter 10 Overlay Zoning Districts which would need to 
be discussed with the related Zone Change request.  
 
Public Participation Summary: 
 
12. 
The applicant posted the subject site and staff notified all property owners within 300’ of 
the site.  Pursuant to state law, staff issued enhanced notification letters to all adjacent 
and internal jurisdictions to Maricopa County, select state and regional agencies, and 
Luke Air Force Base (LAFB). LAFB stated that the site is within a territory in the vicinity of a 
military airport. Staff received documents from two jurisdictions (City of Surprise and City 
of Apache Junction) expressing no concerns. The City of Surprise provided three 
separate memos with two of these memos including support for the request from the 
Community Development Department and Water Resources Management Department. 
Moreover, state agencies such as ADOT, ASLD, and SHPO issued comments.  ADOT 
provided no objections, and ASLD issued an email with no objections but indicated the 
need for future coordination for access to Hwy 74. Staff also received an email from the

CPA2021009 
Page 9 of 13 
Superintendent for the Nadaburg Unified School District and Morristown Elementary 
District. The applicant has reached out and mentions that discussions are ongoing.  
 
13. 
County staff received 53 opposition documents as well as additional comments with 
provided concerns. There is also 1 received support document.  The applicant also 
provided staff with an updated Public Participation Report, where details were included 
regarding a neighborhood meeting held on September 30, 2021 at an on-site ranch 
house to discuss the subject request and the related zone change. Approximately 75 
individuals attended the meeting and the applicant listed the following community 
concerns based on each topic: 
 
• Water 
- General water availability 
- Shrinking water table for domestic water wells 
- Where does City of Surprise access water? 
- Access for wastewater 
 
• Traffic 
- Increased traffic along SR 74 and US 60 
- Increased traffic within Morristown 
- Traffic safety and an increase in usage of surrounding dirt roads 
- Access to the Property over the railroad parallel to US 60 
- Unwanted street lights 
 
• Housing 
- Proposed application has higher density than surrounding area 
- Will subdivision be age restricted? 
- Height of potential buildings 
 
• Services 
- Who will provide fire and police services? 
- Access to post office 
- Location and availability of schools for future residents / which 
school district? 
 
• General 
- Future annexation into City of Surprise 
- Will developments be an island or connect to City of Surprise 
- Destruction of natural vegetation, wildlife, trails 
- Tax increase 
- Crime 
- Homeowner’s insurance increase due to crime 
 
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies: 
 
14. 
N/A

CPA2021009 
Page 10 of 13 
Staff Analysis: 
 
15. 
Staff believes this comprehensive plan amendment does not meet the Maricopa County 
Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy that 
speaks to encouraging annexation where feasible as urban development requires urban 
services and infrastructure. This section of the Plan also describes specifics that should be 
identified and demonstrated before approving CPAs and zone changes for urban 
development as detailed below: 
 
 
Sufficient potable water service and sewer service. 
 
Dry utilities (electric, telephone, natural gas, etc.) are available to serve new 
residents and/or businesses. 
 
Sufficient road capacity to accommodate expected traffic increases from 
residents and/or businesses. 
 
Adequate school capacity to serve new residents, and that such schools are 
proximate to applicable neighborhoods. 
 
Adequate law enforcement and fire services are available to serve new residents 
and/ or businesses. 
 
Libraries are available and proximate to serve new residents. 
 
Adequate park, recreation and community facilities are available and proximate 
to serve new residents. 
 
Adequate hospital or emergency medical facilities are available and proximate 
to serve new residents. 
 
That there is regional flood control infrastructure to protect new residents and/or 
businesses as necessary. 
 
That alternative transportation facilities are available and proximate to serve new 
residents as necessary. 
 
 
At this time, the above items are deficient.  
 
16. 
One of the most important aspects of Vision 2030 is the ‘Growth Areas’ element because 
of its emphasis on ensuring cost-effective future growth patterns. Per Arizona law, this plan 
element must promote rational land development patterns, and timely and fiscally sound 
infrastructure expansion. Because Maricopa County is not a provider of most urban 
services and infrastructure, Vision 2030 emphasizes that urban development should occur 
within cities and towns where such services and infrastructure are available. In fact, the 
Growth Areas element specifically states that a fundamental principle of Vision 2030 
necessitates that the services and infrastructure necessary to support urban 
development not only be identified, but also confirmed before considering changes to 
this plan or zoning boundaries.  
 
17. 
Per State law, the Growth Areas element also requires Maricopa County identify the 
‘Urban Growth Area’, which are those areas appropriate for urban development. For 
unincorporated Maricopa County, Vision 2030 identifies the following as its growth area: 
 
“Places designated for urban land use in Vision 2030, the respective county area 
plan or an applicable municipal general plan if urban services and infrastructure 
are readily available and timely annexation can occur. Areas designated for rural 
land use in Vision 2030 and a county area plan could also be considered the 
urban growth area if those areas are designated for urban land use in an

CPA2021009 
Page 11 of 13 
applicable municipal general plan, provided that urban services and 
infrastructure are readily available and if timely annexation can occur to avoid 
new county islands. Areas that do not meet these criteria are most suitable for 
rural land uses.” 
 
This proposed comprehensive plan amendment does not conform with the growth area 
for unincorporated Maricopa County. Therefore, this proposal is better suited for 
annexation and development within the City of Surprise if or when feasible.  Urban 
services and infrastructure are not readily available, nor can timely annexation occur. 
Therefore, the subject site is most suitable for rural land uses until such time that urban 
service, infrastructure and annexation can occur.   
 
16. 
The Maricopa County Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan also details how balanced land 
use patterns are important for overall quality of life by contributing to public health 
through more recreational opportunities, shorter travel times, and increased personal 
time. There is no proposed balance of all types of land uses for a large community with 
the requested CPA. The approximate 1,000-acre site is the size of a master planned 
community where at least some commercial and other types of land uses should be 
proposed to provide opportunities for goods and services to support the many thousands 
of individuals that could reside on the property. The applicant mentions that different 
types of land uses/zoning could be included as stipulations/conditions with the related 
Zone Change request. However, this should have been incorporated into the CPA 
request, Morristown cannot support this many additional residents with the small amount 
of existing commercial development in the area. Otherwise, it’s a blanket request for 
single-family residential that is higher density than what is currently allowed at 1 dwelling 
unit per acre. Staff notes the previously mentioned nearby Broadstone Ranch DMP that 
has these balanced land use patterns and is even closer to the City of Surprise jurisdiction. 
However, the site is still vacant after nearly 15 years since approval.  
 
17. 
Furthermore, although ASLD has noted that they would coordinate access to Hwy 74 in 
the future, staff points out that this is just one access point. Much of the site is located 
adjacent to the U.S.60 where access would also be ideal. However, there are freight train 
rail lines that run parallel to the U.S.60 between the subject site where access would be 
limited or most likely restricted. Staff has major concerns that all traffic for a future 5,000 
residential unit development would only be allowed to access from 243rd Ave. and 
eventually to Hwy 74.   
 
18. 
Staff notes that although we are not in support of this CPA request at this time, the future 
density range of 2-5 d.u./ac. appears viable given what City of Surprise has commented 
with the subject site being “consistent and compatible” with the Neighborhood 
Character designation within their General Plan. After all, this site is within the City’s future 
annexable area and they recognize that the property is also within their future water and 
sewer service area. However, Surprise also details that there is currently no infrastructure 
nearby and staff has determined that there is approximately 3.8 miles of County 
jurisdiction (mostly ASLD) land between the eastern boundary of the site to the City of 
Surprise jurisdiction near 211th Ave. This would be considered a “leapfrog” approach 
(refer to the Land Use Exhibit, page 7 of this report, where the proposed moderate density 
residential land use is clearly surrounded by rural residential densities of less than 1 du/ac 
for several miles) where utilities and services would most likely not be available until the 
annexation of lands between the City and the subject site are completed. This would

CPA2021009 
Page 12 of 13 
indicate a lack of feasibility of the property developing according to the densities 
proposed. There has been no suggestion as to when Surprise would consider annexing 
the subject property or provide the mentioned services. This information further justifies 
staff’s analysis that this project is not consistent with Maricopa County planning principles 
and is neither feasible nor appropriate at this time. The applicant should seek this land 
use/density change when annexation is available through the City of Surprise.  
  
Recommendation: 
 
19. 
For the reasons outlined in this report, staff recommends the Commission motion for Denial  
of CPA2021009. 
 
20. 
However, if the Commission choses to recommend approval, staff offers the following 
conditions ‘a’ – ‘d’ for Commission consideration: 
 
a. 
Development and use of the site shall be in general conformance with the 
narrative report entitled “Santa Barbara Ranch” consisting of 24 pages, dated 
stamped received on October 15, 2021, except as modified by the following 
conditions.  
 
b. 
The land use designation of Single-Family Transitional Lot approved as part of case 
CPA2021009 shall be subject to any time limits set forth in the subsequent zone 
change. 
 
c. 
The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the 
applicant, with the consent of the landowner.  The granting of this approval allows 
the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the uses existing on the 
date of application, subject to conditions.  In the event of the failure to comply 
with any condition, the property shall revert to the land use designation that 
existed on the date of application.  It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that 
either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not 
reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or 
possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the 
property from the value it held on the date of application due to such change of 
the land use.  The land use enhances the value of the property above its value as 
of the date the land use change is granted and reverting to the prior land use 
designation results in the same value of the property as if the land use change had 
never been granted. 
 
 
d. 
The following Luke Air Force Base condition shall apply: 
  
The owner or developer shall notify future occupants/tenants that they are 
located near a military airport with the following language: 
 
“You are locating in a residential dwelling inside the “territory in the vicinity of a 
military airport,” however aircraft flying in this area are authorized to fly as low as 
1,500 feet above the ground. You will be subject to direct overflights and noise by 
Luke Air Force Base jet aircraft in the vicinity.

CPA2021009 
Page 13 of 13 
Luke Air Force Base executes an average of approximately 165 overflights per day. 
Although Luke’s primary flight paths are located within 20 miles from the base, jet 
noise will be apparent throughout the area as aircraft transient to and from the 
Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range and other flight areas. 
 
Luke Air Force Base may launch and recover aircraft in either direction off its 
runways oriented to the southwest and northeast. Noise will be more noticeable 
during overcast sky conditions due to noise reflections off the clouds. 
 
Luke Air Force Base’s normal flying hours extend from 7:00 a.m. until approximately 
midnight, Monday through Friday, but some limited flying will occur outside these 
hours and during most weekends. 
 
For further information, please check the Luke Air Force Base website at 
www.luke.af.mil/urbandevelopment or contact the Maricopa County Planning 
and Development Department.” 
 
Such notification shall be permanently posted on not less than a 3 foot by 5 foot 
sign in front of all leasing or home sales offices and be permanently posted on the 
front door of all leasing offices on not less than 8½ inch by 11 inch sign. 
 
 
 
 
Presented by: 
Ray Banker, Senior Planner 
Reviewed by: 
Matthew Holm, AICP, Planning Supervisor 
 
Attachments: 
Case Map (1 page) 
 
Narrative Report (24 pages) 
 
CPA2021009 Land Use/Road Alignments Exhibit (1 page) 
 
MCESD Comments (1 page) 
 
MC Parks Email (1 page) 
 
City of Surprise Comments (8 pages) 
 
City of Apache Junction Memo (1 page) 
 
ADOT Email (2 pages) 
 
ASLD Email (1 page) 
 
LAFB Email (2 pages) 
 
SHPO Email (1 page) 
 
School District Email (2 pages) 
 
Support document (2 pages) 
 
Opposition/Concerns documents (82 pages)

MARICOPA COUNTY 
 
Legal Description: 
T6N, R3W, Sections 20, 28, 29, 32, & 33 
Applicant:  Tiffany & Bosco  
P&Z Hearing Date: 
November 18, 2021 
MARICOPA COUNTY REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PHOENIX, ARIZONA 
 
CPA2021009 
Aerial Date: 2021 
Case Address: TBD 
Parcels: 503-13-003 + 
SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT NO 4 
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation in the White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan from 
Rural Development Area (0 – 1 d.u./ac.) to Single-Family Transitional Lot (3 – 5 d.u./ac.) 
Phone: 602-255-6000

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request  
from Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) to Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.) 
 
Narrative for 
Santa Barbara Ranch 
Approx. south and east of the southeast corner of US 60 (Grand Ave.) and State Route 74 
 Maricopa County, Arizona. 
 
Case # CPA2021009 
Related Rezone Case # Z2021078 
 
Submitted: May 28th, 2021 
Second Submittal: August 31st, 2021 
Third Submittal: October 15th, 2021 
 
DEVELOPER 
ATTORNEY 
CONSULTANT 
John Wittrock 
Tiffany & Bosco 
Walsh Design Group 
18835 N. Thompson Peak #215 
2525 E Camelback Rd. 
6106 E. Rose Drive 
Scottsdale, AZ 85255 
Phoenix, AZ 85016 
Phoenix, AZ 85018 
Tel: 602.570.3957 
Tel: 602.255.6000 
Tel: 602-619-7581 
Contact: John Wittrock 
Contact: William E. Lally 
Contact: Joe Walsh

2 
 
Table of Contents 
A. 
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 
1. 
On-Site and Regional Location ..................................................................................................... 4 
2. 
CPA size and description of land use types by acreages ........................................................... 6 
3. 
Roads/transportation systems serving the proposed project .................................................. 6 
4. 
Suitability with surrounding land uses ........................................................................................ 6 
 
Description of Proposal ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 
 
B. 
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) constitutes an overall improvement to the 
Comprehensive Plan and is not solely for the good or benefit of a particular landowner or owners at a 
particular point in time ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 
 
C. 
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) will adversely impact all or a portion of the 
planning area .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 
 
D. 
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) is consistent with the overall intent of the 
Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 
 
E. 
The extent to which the amendment (or condition modification) is consistent with the specific 
goals and policies contained within the plan................................................................................................................. 11 
 
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

3 
 
A. 
Executive Summary 
The developer, John Wittrock, desires to develop a single-family residential community on property currently 
located within unincorporated Maricopa County. The developer expects that construction of the community 
will ultimately take place with the limits of the City of Surprise.  The fifteen (15) properties are in the northwest 
valley south and east of the intersection of State Route 74 (“SR 74”) and US Highway 60 (“US 60”) that total 
approximately 1,003 acres (“Property”).  To facilitate the future development of the Property, this application 
seeks a major General Comprehensive Plan Amendment (“CPA”) to change the land use designation in the 
White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan from Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) to the Single Family Transitional Lot (3-
5 d.u./ac.) land use designation. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will enable the developer to 
master plan a future new residential community with ample open space offering varying residential lot sizes 
and product types complimentary to current and future market demand. The development will also include 
supporting land uses for the influx of residential units in the area.  The proposal has a companion zoning case 
(Z2021078) to rezone the Property to the R1-6 RUPD (Residential Unit Plan of Development) to facilitate the 
design and construction of the single family communities proposed. An area to accommodate support non-
residential uses will also be included in the companion rezone case (Z2021078). The design of the residential 
and supporting uses will evolve as growth continues towards the Property.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Vision 2030 Land Use Designation

4 
 
1. On-Site and Regional Location 
 
 
The site is identified as fifteen (15) Maricopa County Assessor Parcel Numbers, see Project Data below. (Refer to 
Appendix A: Parcel Map and Appendix B: Parcel/Ownership Exhibit). The site is approximately ±1,003 gross 
acres of undeveloped land and is currently zoned Rural-43 (RU-43).  The Property is also within the City of 
Surprise’s (“City”) Planning Area.  
The Property is located in the northwest valley near Morristown in unincorporated Maricopa County. 
Morristown is a census-designated place and is approximately 50 miles northwest of Phoenix, at the junction of 
SR 74 and US 60.  The Property is located east of the residential properties that make up Morristown.  The 
Property is comprised of fifteen (15) parcels running primarily in a north/south alignment of parcels from 
approximately 1,000 feet south of SR 74 to the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad (“A T & S F”) Railroad 
property along the north side of the US 60 alignment.  There is one (1) single family home on one of the parcels 
while the remainder of the parcels remain vacant, unimproved desert.   
 
The Property is bounded by property owned by the Arizona State Land Department (“ASLD”) to the north and 
mostly along the entire east side of the Property, except for a few developed and undeveloped private 
properties to the southeast boundary, zoned RU-43.  The west side of the Property is bordered by approximately 
half with vacant ASLD property and the other half with vacant and developed RU-43 zoned parcels.  The south 
sides of the Property are adjacent to the A T & S F railroad property, just north of US 60. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project Data 
A.P.N. 
503-13-003; 503-15-001; 503-15-002C; 503-15-002D; 503-15-002F; 503-15-002J; 
503-15-002M; 503-15-003A; 503-15-003B; 503-15-004; 503-16-001; 503-16-002; 
503-16-009; 503-86-004; 503-18-001c 
Current Land Use 
Vacant/Undeveloped/one single family home 
Existing Area Plan Land Use 
Designation 
 Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) 
Proposed Area Plan Land Use 
Designation 
Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.) 
Current Zoning District 
RU-43  
Proposed Zoning District 
R1-6 RUPD & potentially other supporting use zoning category 
Gross Site Area 
1,003+/- Acres 
Area Plan 
White Tank/Grand Ave 
Supervisorial District 
Supervisorial District 4 – Clint Hickman 
School District 
Morristown Elementary Unified School District

5 
 
White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan – Planning Area Map 
 
 
 
 
The Property is situated between the two (2) highways allowing for efficient vehicular travel to and from the 
north valley (Carefree Hwy) and northwest valley (US 60).  These two (2) major roadways provide for regional 
access back to the Phoenix metropolitan area and other highway corridors. The Property is mainly undeveloped 
with alluvial washes traversing in a north to south fashion with a small portion being encumbered by the larger 
floodplain of the Iona Wash. 
 
The SR 74 Scenic Corridor and Wickenburg Highway Scenic corridor along the US 60 intersect the Property on 
the northern and southern borders respectively. The SR 74 Scenic Corridor only briefly overlaps the Property as 
State Trust Land predominantly stretches a quarter mile from SR 74. However, the Wickenburg Highway Scenic 
Corridor overlaps the Property for approximately half of a mile along US 60. The Applicant will  comply with the 
all guidelines and regulations as they relate to the SR 74 Corridor and Wickenburg Scenic Corridor.  
 
State Trust Land borders a significant portion of the Property, particularly to the north and the east. Applicant 
communicated with the Arizona State Land Department (“ASLD”), and ASLD does not oppose the CPA 
application nor the companion rezone case (Z2021078).

6 
 
2. CPA size and description of land use types by acreages 
 
The request is to amend the County’s Comprehensive Plan from Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) to Single Family 
Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.).  The current land use designation allows for 0-1 dwelling units per acre (“d.u./ac.”) 
and the request would be to allow up to five (5) dwelling units per acre.    The proposal would allow for a planned 
residential community utilizing the County’s RUPD overlay to amend development standards and provide for a 
variety of single family lots sizes and open space amenities. Further, Applicant will include stipulations in the 
companion rezone case (Z2021078) which require areas of supporting uses to compliment the residential 
neighborhoods; including offices, commercial, schools, and parks.   
 
3. Roads/transportation systems serving the proposed project 
 
As described above, the Property is located just south of SR 74 and just north and east of US 60 in Maricopa 
County.  Tentative plans at this stage of the land use request would seek direct access to SR 74 along the N. 243rd 
Avenue alignment to allow future residents to access SR 74.  243rd Avenue appears to provide the most 
reasonable point of entry to the Property from SR 74; however, Applicant will work with ASLD and ADOT to 
determine the most feasible access. 
 
 
Landfill Road will provide the main entrance to the Property from US 60. (Refer to Appendix C: Zoning Exhibit). 
The railroad that runs parallel to the US 60 prevents other access points at this time. Depending on the 
requirements of crossing the railroad property, the plan would be to have 243rd Avenue connect to US 60 to the 
south for the proposed main connection to the south at some point in the future. Moreover, it is likely that 
future development will bring about more access points as demand increases. However, Rockaway Hills Drive 
will not provide an entrance to the Property from the west through Morristown.  Joy Ranch Road on the 
southeast portion of the property will allow for another main access point to the property. 
 
 
The proximity to both SR 74 and US 60 will allow for efficient and direct access to two (2) of the valley’s 
connections to the north and northwest portions of the valley.  SR 74 provides direct access to the I-17 corridor 
and the US 60.  The US 60 provides direct access to the City of Surprise, the Loop 303 and all points southeast 
into the City of Phoenix. 
 
The stipulations contained in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) will also require a master traffic plan to 
efficiently connect the entire Property utilizing arterial and distributor roads, and further, the stipulations will  
include requirements for a Traffic Impact Analysis prior for the Property. 
 
4. Suitability with surrounding land uses 
 
The proposed Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.) land use designation will allow for a master residential 
developer to create a land plan that provides for thoughtful and sustainable residential development in the 
northwest valley.  The goal would be to annex the property within the City of Surprise (“Surprise”) limits so as 
to provide this the essential services necessary for this type of residential density.  The large Iona Wash 
floodplain provides for a natural type buffer for the developed RU-43 lots to the west of the Property.  As more 
detailed planning of the Property occurs, transitional density to the larger lots can become a part of the design 
of the residential community.  The southwest corner of the Property is adjacent to a few developed RU-43 
properties.  As that phase is developed, transitional density may be appropriate to the existing developed 
properties.

7 
 
To ensure that development of the Property is consistent with the needs of future residents, Applicant included 
proposed stipulations in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) which designate certain areas of the Property 
to support residential, schools, commercial, or open space uses. Further, the Applicant also proposed 
stipulations which require the allocation of different residential sizes and development standards to ensure a 
diversity of products are offered throughout the Property.  
The placement of denser residential communities along major transportation corridors is sound land use 
planning.  Coordinated and planned use of large sections of land ensure that necessary services, access and 
community based amenities are carefully planned and developed.  As with some of the master planned 
communities further to the southeast off US 60 within Surprise, Santa Barbara Ranch will be able to learn from 
their development plans and the logistics of infrastructure and service planning to the Property.  With ASLD 
property along the majority of the Property’s boundary, the proposed land use will set forth an appropriate 
density to allow future planning of the state lands property.  With minimal frontage on either SR 74 or US 60, 
the state land parcels could be further planned to provide the commercial goods and service and employment 
land uses necessary to serve the future density of this proposal. 
 
 
. 
 
The Property falls within Surprise’s General Plan 2035 Land Use planning area.  See Surprise Land Use Map 
above.  The majority of the Property is designated with the ‘Neighborhoods’ land use designation with some 
‘Open Space’ areas along the major wash corridors.  The densities proposed are in line with Surprise’s ‘Suburban 
Neighborhoods’ density of 2-8 d.u./ac.  Densities around the five (5) d.u./ac. will be able to support the more 
Surprise Land Use Map

8 
 
intense future residential uses that typically are placed along major transportation corridors and nearer to the 
main roads with commercial and employment services for the surrounding residential population. 
The project lies within the City of Surprise’s future water and sewer service area, but a development agreement 
between the City and Owner(s) will be necessary. However, the City of Surprise provided a letter in support for 
this CPA application stating that, “[t]he solutions currently being proposed appear to provide a logical regional 
solution for water and sewer in this area. . . Based on the information provided by the developer to date, the 
Water Resource Management Department supports the proposed amendment.”  
Description of Proposal  
The proposal is a request to plan a larger portion of private lands mainly surrounded by ASLD property.  It is 
appropriate to plan the Property within one cohesive application for the County to consider versus several 
smaller unconnected applications.   
The proposal seeks to increase the density in an area of The White Tank/Grand Avenue Area Plan (“WTGA Area 
Plan”) designated for Rural Densities (0-1 d.u./ac.) residential development at a maximum of 1 d.u./ac.  The 
County’s Planned Land Use map below shows that just to the south are large areas of Medium Density 
Residential land use designations.  The proposal for Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.) land use near 
the intersection of two major transportation corridors and future planned commercial and employment centers 
is an improvement to the plan.  With future planning to be considered for the ASLD parcels, which are mostly 
designated with the Single Family Large Lot (1-2 d.u/ac.) land use designation, additional modifications to the 
Comprehensive Plan will be considered in order to handle growth towards this portion of the valley.  Finally, 
lands north and west of the SR 74 and US 60 should be considered for retaining large lot residential as they are 
not bounded by the major transportation corridors and would require additional roads and infrastructure to 
handle increases in density.   
 
 
B. 
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) constitutes an overall improvement 
to the Comprehensive Plan and is not solely for the good or benefit of a particular 
landowner or owners at a particular point in time. 
The WTGA Area Plan designates the area already for single family uses at a lesser density.  The minor increase in 
density from maximum two (2) d.u./ac. to five (5) d.u./ac. will allow for appropriate planning of infrastructure 
(water, sewer, paved roads) as well as community amenities such as community and neighborhood parks, 
schools and worship uses.  A coordinated and planned approach such as this proposal is an overall 
improvement to the Comprehensive Plan, the surrounding community and the County.   
 
Although Applicant requests amending the Comprehensive Plan of approximately 1,003 acres for Single Family 
Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.), Applicant will consider stipulations in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) to 
guarantee a variety of residential sizes and product types. Furthermore, the companion rezone case (Z2021078)

9 
 
will consider stipulations for requiring supporting uses and construction of integrated roadways and utilities 
throughout the Property when development eventually occurs. The City of Surprise will ultimately oversee the 
development and infrastructure of the Property as a development agreement will be in executed prior to 
approval of the companion zoning case (Z2021078). 
 
  
 
 
C. 
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) will adversely impact all or a portion 
of the planning area by: 
 
• 
Altering acceptable land use patterns to the detriment of the plan. 
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will not be to the detriment of the plan. The 
Amendment will be a net positive to the area. The existing land use designation is single family 
residential use and the proposed land use is single family residential use. The increase in density 
allows for a coordinated and planned residential development adjacent to primarily large 
undeveloped and unplanned ASLD parcels.  The companion rezone case (Z2021078) is considering 
stipulations and additional amendments to the land plan to meet the expected future needs of the 
area, namely, providing a well-rounded community with sufficient residential, open space, 
commercial and school components. Approximately fifteen (15) privately owned parcels are 
adjacent to this 1,000+ acre proposal. Approximately half of those private parcels are developed 
within the County’s RU-43 zoning district.   
 
• 
Requiring public expenditures for larger and more expensive infrastructure. 
The cost of the infrastructure will be borne by the developers in the future. Certain necessities such 
as schools  may certainly require public expenditure; however, this would not be for a number of 
years until growth in the area takes hold. Applicant does not foresee any necessary large public 
expenditures to infrastructure at the moment that fall within the scope of the plan.  
WTGA Area Plan – Planned Land Use Map

10 
 
• 
Requiring public improvements to roads, sewer, or water systems that are needed to 
support the planned land uses. 
The increase in density will result in the preservation of wash corridors and require the developers 
or home builders to construct the public improvements including roads, sewer or water systems to 
support the increase in density.  Single family residential was designated within the WTGA Area Plan 
and this proposal continues that land use.  At whatever point in time a residential development 
moves forward on any phase of the Property, all of the infrastructure will have to be planned and 
approved by either the County, or Surprise if annexed into the City.  Moreover, the companion 
rezone case (Z2021078) will include supporting land uses to supplement the residential 
neighborhoods such as open space and schools. The Property will also contain areas capable of a 
retail and office component to bolster the area. 
The proposal will be able to complete major roads through the Property and connect to SR 74 and 
U.S. 60 for access. All of the construction and connection costs would be borne by the developer at 
the time of development. Additional roadway connections and accessibility to two (2) major valley 
transportation corridors is sound planning for the request increase in density.  The increase in 
density allows for open space preservation, planning and community and neighborhood parks.  
Current development within the RU-43 zoning classification does not provide for any community 
amenities or open space preservation on private property. The provision of these types of amenities 
improves the livability of the area.  With density, neighborhoods are created, social interaction is 
increased and livability improves the health and safety of the present and future residents. 
  
• 
Adversely impacting planned uses because of increased traffic. 
The area is currently designated for single family residential and will remain single family residential 
under the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The projected density of the area will increase under 
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the companion rezone case (Z2021078), but this is not 
to the detriment of the plan or to the area. The SR 74 and US 60 currently provide two (2) major 
points of access for the Property. When development of the Property does eventually occur, proper 
street infrastructure will be constructed by the developers to handle the projected traffic. The 
companion rezone case (Z2021078) will include stipulations to provides for integrated roadways 
throughout the neighborhoods that will eventually be developed on the Property.  
 
• 
Affecting the livability of the area or health or safety of present and future residents. 
While the livability of an area is a subjective standard, this Comprehensive Plan Amendment would 
ultimately set the tone for a harmonious development capable of supplying the residential needs 
of future residents. The health and safety of the area and surrounding area will remain unchanged 
at a minimum and will likely be improved. The addition of a higher density residential area will 
ultimately require fire and safety services be provided to the area. An agreement with the City of 
Surprise is currently in discussions and it is expected that the City will provide these services when 
development is undertaken. 
• 
Adversely impacting the natural environment or scenic quality of the area in contradiction to the 
plan. 
The concentration of density into smaller lots allows for the larger wash corridors to be preserved 
and even enhanced with some passive and active open space areas.  This can be accomplished by 
creating tracts, separate from on lot drainage, which is the current make-up of the wash corridors 
in this area, and provide for amenities for present and future residents. Planned residential 
neighborhoods, while preserving key open space and environmental features is not in contradiction 
to the Comprehensive Plan.

11 
 
D. 
Whether the amendment (or condition modification) is consistent with the overall 
intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 
As stated above, the current intent of the Comprehensive Plan is for this 1,003 acres to develop with single 
family uses.  The proposed land use amendment is to develop the same single family uses albeit at a higher 
density.  Single family to single family is consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan.  With the 
additional density comes a broader planning of the Property for coordinated access and roadway connections, 
infrastructure, open space and wash preservation, community amenities and the creation of neighborhoods.  
These factors ensures the amendment is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.   
 
E. 
The extent to which the amendment (or condition modification) is consistent with the 
specific goals and policies contained within the plan. 
The following are several goals contained within the plan that are consistent with our proposal: 
• 
Land Use Goal #1: Achieve balanced and efficient development patterns. 
o The increase in permitted dwelling units per acre will allow for an improved balance of residential 
options for development. The increased dwelling units per acre will also entice a variety of 
development patterns throughout the Property. The current 0-1 du/acre would likely lead to an 
unbalanced uniform development throughout the Property. The Property will include a mix of 
residential housing products supported by other uses to support the emerging neighborhoods. 
 
• 
Land Use Policy #2: Maricopa County supports phasing plans for new urban development to 
coordinate such development with new urban services and infrastructure. 
o This Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the companion rezoning case establish the groundwork 
for phasing in services and infrastructure. The permitted increase in dwelling units allows for a 
multitude of options throughout the Property to be developed over time and in concert with the 
services and infrastructure required. The City of Surprise executed a letter in support of the CPA 
application and confirmed that water and wastewater infrastructure solutions will “provide a logical 
regional solution for water and sewer in this area.” The companion rezone case (Z2021078) will also 
include stipulations to guarantee the development of a harmonious transit system throughout the 
Property.  
 
• 
Land Use Policy #4: To help limit impacts to taxpayers Maricopa County supports using homeowner 
associations and related organizations and improvement districts to manage and maintain services, 
infrastructure and amenities. 
o Future residential developments on the Property will include improvement districts and 
homeowner associations to create and maintain the infrastructure.  
 
• 
Land Use Policy #7: Maricopa County supports coordinating land use and infrastructure planning with 
state agencies, counties, and municipalities. 
Applicant is obviously in communication with Maricopa County with respect to this Comprehensive Plan 
Amendment and companion rezone case (Z2021078). Additionally, Applicant contacted the ASLD with respect 
to the surrounding State Trust Land. ASLD does not oppose the CPA application and is willing to work with 
developers with respect to access over State Trust Land to the Property. A pplicant also contacted ADOT to 
discuss particular access points from SR74. Lastly, the City of Surprise is also making a coordinated effort with 
Applicant to devise a feasible plan of action to potentially annex the Property for future development. The City 
of Surprise also wrote a letter of support for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, specifically stating that the 
Water Resource Management Department supports the proposed amendment based upon the information 
provided to them by the developer.

12 
 
• 
Land Use Policy #8: As feasible Maricopa County supports annexation of urban development by 
municipalities. 
o Applicant and the City of Surprise are in discussions for future feasibility of annexation. It is 
Applicants goal to have a development agreement with the City of Surprise in the near future. The 
City of Surprise provided a list of comments to County staff in a letter dated August 18, 2021, and it 
is Applicant’s intent to work with the City of Surprise to come to an amicable solution for all parties 
involved.  The property falls within the City of Surprise planning area boundary. The City of Surprise 
Water Resource Management Director Lee Lambert wrote a letter on October 6th, 2021 which 
confirms their support for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.  
 
• 
Land Use Policy #26: Maricopa County supports subdivisions rather than “wildcat” lot splits. 
o Amending the Comprehensive Plan as proposed allows for properly planned development to take 
place. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the  companion rezone case (Z2021078) creates 
a Property constructed for potentially numerous subdivisions offering a multitude of options. The 
platting of the subdivisions will occur in phases and in unison with development of proper 
infrastructure. 
 
• 
Transportation Goal #3: Coordinate land use decisions with transportation investments to help the 
county exercise sound financial management and build the county’s fiscal strength. 
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment allows for coordinated development of the 
Property as needed including related transportation infrastructure. The transportation needs of the 
Property will take form over the coming years and development. The companion rezone case 
(Z2021078) will include stipulations including a traffic analysis and the development of a 
transportation system throughout the process which will be paid for by future developers as plans 
come to fruition in the future.  
 
• 
Transportation Policy #4: Maricopa County supports using the preferred funding methods identified 
in the Cost of Development element to pay for transportation improvements necessary for new 
development. 
o Future developers of the Property will pay for the improvements to the roads and transportation 
infrastructure within the Property that are necessary to support the future residents. Applicant is in 
contact with the City of Surprise regarding the necessary elements for a development agreement. 
The intention is to annex the Property into the City of Surprise, as such, construction of the roads 
will necessarily be to the standards set by the City of Surprise.  
 
• 
Growth Areas Goal #1: Achieve orderly urban growth that is fiscally and environmentally responsible, 
protects public health and safety and promotes sensible annexation patterns. 
o The goal of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to provide for necessary growth in the area over 
the next 15-20 years without impacting the environment more than necessary to meet the needs 
for growth.  
 
• 
Open Space Goal #4: Have quality neighborhood parks and open space with adequate and 
appropriate recreation amenities in urban residential development. 
o The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the companion rezone case (Z2021078) provide for 150 
acres of open space on the Property with the intention of providing recreational amenities 
throughout the Property. Proposed stipulations are included with the companion rezone case 
(Z2021078) which contemplate a requirement for open space and amenities. The increased density 
will allow for a variety of urban and suburban enclaves to properly provide for the varied needs of 
the community.

13 
 
• 
Energy Goal #3: Have balanced and efficient development patterns. 
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is to ensure balanced and efficient development 
patterns for the northwest County.  Residential development is designated for the Property and our 
proposal seeks to provide the adequate infrastructure and services to an underserved area. In 
addition to the residential uses which are the primary focus of Santa Barbara Ranch, areas capable 
of supporting uses such as retail, office, open space, and schools will be integrated throughout the 
Property to provide a balance.  
 
• 
Cost of Development Goal #2: New development pays its proper and reasonable share of the costs of 
new infrastructure, services, and other public improvements. 
o Infrastructure and other improvements will be determined and paid for in a reasonable share by 
future developers. This will take shape over time as regions of the Property are developed in the 
future.  
 
• 
Environment Goal #1: Provide regional leadership to promote all aspects of regional environmental 
quality. 
o The proposed plan is to preserve a minimum of fifteen percent of 1,000+ acres.  This goal and the 
preservation of the Iona Wash area are the first steps promoting regional environmental quality 
wash and wildlife corridors through this area. 
 
• 
Economic Growth Goal #1 Contribute to an effective regional economy. 
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will certainly contribute to a more effective 
regional economy. The increased density and ability to effectively create a variety of residential 
options in the area buttressed by a robust transportation system and supporting open space and 
amenities is guaranteed to increase the effectiveness of the regional economy. The area will also 
provide a mix of uses for the future residents through the companion zoning case (Z2021078). 
Specifically, the Property will be capable of furnishing a mixture of uses to support its resident. This 
in turn will yield more value for the regional economy.  
 
• 
Economic Growth Policy #9: Maricopa County supports implementing Vision 2030 in a clear and 
consistent way to help businesses make long term investment decisions. 
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment provides for 1,000 acres of land to be developed 
for necessary residential growth in the future. The area will certainly require an array of 
development products, and the increase from 0-1 dwelling units per acre to  3-5 dwelling units per 
acre provides a fundamentally better platform for the consistency required for long term 
investment decisions. The CPA and the companion rezone case (Z2021078) also provide avenues 
for flexibility to ensure that development of the Property is ultimately meeting the needs of long 
term investors in the area.  
 
• 
Water Resources Goal #1 Promote and protect health with a clean water supply.  
o Applicant is working with the City of Surprise to ensure that city water services will service the future 
residential communities planned for the Property.  This coordinated effort and master planning in 
concert with the County’s review process promotes and protects health with clean water solutions. 
The City of Surprise Water Resource Management Department provided a letter of support for the 
CPA which confirms their belief that the City will ultimately be capable of supplying water to the 
Property.

14 
 
• 
Energy Goal #3: Have balanced and efficient development patterns. 
o The Applicant has developed many properties within the County and City of Surprise.  Each of these 
communities provide for balance of residential density and preservation of environmental features.   
The proposal for Single Family Transitional Lot (3-5 d.u./ac.) land use is an appropriate density for a 
balanced and efficient development pattern for this area.  
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment addresses the above goals and policies of the plan as well as 
other portions of the plan not mentioned above.  The major amendment is required because of its size (greater 
than 640 acres), not because of the change in rural density.  The overall goals of the Comprehensive Plan are 
mostly met because the area will continue develop out as residential uses.  If developed at the new density, the 
developer will seek an annexation strategy with Surprise. 
The WTGA Area Plan has similar goals and policies as it relates to development proposals.  The request for the 
amendment to the plan meet the following goals and policies: 
• 
Goal L 1: Promote efficient land development that is compatible with adjacent land uses, is well 
integrated with the transportation system, and is sensitive to the natural environment. 
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the  companion rezone case (Z2021078) are 
compatible with the adjacent land users. Although the proposed density of 3-5 dwelling units per 
acre is higher than the RU-43 primarily adjacent to the Property, a Buffer Zone will be included to 
provide an area of transition. Additionally, growth in the area will cause the residential landscape of 
the area to require more density. The transportation infrastructure will be improved as needed to 
accommodate the growth in the future.  
 
• 
Objective L3.3: Promote orderly growth within the Grand Avenue Corridor Subarea that maintains 
scenic viewsheds, promotes community identity in Wittmann, Circle City, and Morristown, and is 
compatible with automotive proving grounds. 
o The benefit of this Property is that it falls just outside the scenic corridors for SR 74 and U.S. 60.  Any 
of the Property within these designated corridors will respect the County’s regulations. 
 
• 
Goal T1: Improve the roadway network to meet future transportation needs, promote safety, and 
mitigate congestion. 
o The roadway network will be developed and planned as the growth in the area continues. Proposed 
stipulations are proposed in the companion rezone case (Z2021078) to ensure compatibility with 
the transportation system and to properly develop a cohesive transportation system throughout 
the Property in lieu of a patchwork of inconsistent systems. 
 
• 
Goal E1: Promote development that considers adverse environmental impacts on the natural and 
cultural environment, preserves highly valued open space, and remediates areas contaminated with 
hazardous materials. 
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and companion rezone case (Z2021078) provide 
for 150 acres of open space throughout the 1,000 acres. The future developments will likely be 
located with the City of Surprise and therefore within the environmental impact requirements set 
forth in their Zoning Ordinance.   
 
• 
Objective E1.1: Encourage developments that successfully coexist and are compatible with significant 
natural features. 
o Development will be fluid with the washes that permeate the Property. The future developments 
will likely be located with the City of Surprise and therefore within the environmental impact 
requirements set forth in their Zoning Ordinance.

15 
 
• 
Goal ED1: Promote a growing, balanced, efficient, and diversified economy, consistent with available 
resources, that enhances quality employment opportunities, improves quality of life, and is sensitive 
to the natural and cultural environment. 
o The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment creates the framework for a growing and balanced 
economy. It allows for growth in the area and will provide an assortment of options for future 
residents. The companion rezone case (Z2021078) will propose stipulations for a mix of uses 
throughout the Property including the potential for office, retail, residential and schools. However, 
150 acres of open space is also guaranteed which is approximately 15% of the Property. 
The above goals and objectives are integral to the proposed increase in density to the Property.  The proposal 
is a logical residential growth pattern within the confines of two major transportation corridors. As the valley 
grows and the ASLD parcels are planned, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will provide sufficient 
residential density to support future commercial and employment nodes along both the SR 74 and US 60.  The 
Property is not near any of the noise contours of Luke Air Force Base (Luke AFB. The density is appropriate for 
the area and follows the GDC policies to protect the mission of Luke AFB and the auxiliary field. 
The Property resides within Morristown Elementary Unified School District.  Morristown Elementary School is 
located approximately 1-2 miles away from the Property to the northwest. 
Conclusion 
The proposed major amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is required based on the size of the proposal.  The 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment request from Rural Densities (0-1 du/ac) to Single Family Transitional Lot (3-
5 d.u./ac.) will allow for the potential density of five (5) dwelling units per acre maximum. The companion zoning 
case proposes amended development standards within the R1-6 zoning district and supporting zoning districts 
to implement the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The increase in number of residential units across 
the 1,000+ acres will allow for a coordinated and planned residential community that allows homebuilders to 
thoughtfully plan the area for future single family residential neighborhoods.  The increase in density is 
appropriate as there are two major transportation corridors that will be able to serve the future residents and 
their access to goods and services and the north and northwest valley destinations.  There are minimal impacts 
to adjacent developed properties and creates appropriate residential densities for future planning of the 
adjacent ASLD properties.  The proposal will seek to develop in nearby Surprise and therefore require future 
annexation and agreements on services and infrastructure.  We look forward to working with Surprise on those 
matters and appreciate the County’s consideration of this proposal.

Appendix A 
Parcel Map

Parcel Map
CPA2021009

Parcel #
Owner
Acreage
1 503-15-002C
Surprise Airpark LLC
80.00
2 503-15-001
Surprise Industrial Properties LLC
40.00
3 503-15-002D
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
80.00
4 503-15-002F
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
10.00
5 503-15-002J
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
30.00
6 503-15-002M
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
40.00
7 503-15-003A
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
80.00
8 503-15-003B
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
80.00
9 503-15-004
Surprise Commercial Development LLC
80.00
400.00
10 503-16-001
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
103.17
11 503-16-002
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
16.67
12 503-16-009
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
160.00
13 503-86-004
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
35.13
14 503-18-001C
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
8.46
15 503-13-003
Southwest Investment Funds of Arizona / 4th & Roosevelt LLC
160.00
483.43
1003.43

Appendix B 
Parcel/Ownership Exhibit

CPA2021009

Appendix C 
Land Use Exhibit

Current Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Designation

Proposed Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan – Land Use Designation

BUILT PAVED ROAD
BUILT DIRT ROAD
 FUTURE ALIGNMENT
FUTURE

Subdivision Infrastructure & 
Planning Program 
1001 N. Central Avenue #150 
Phoenix, Arizona 85004 
Phone: (602) 506-1058 
Fax: (602) 506-5813  
TDD 602 506 6704 
 
 
Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department  
Water and Waste Management Division 
DATE: 
July 20, 2021  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TO : 
Ray Banker, Planning & Development Dept. 
 
 
Planner 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FROM: 
Souren Naradikian, P.E. 
 
 
Senior Civil Engineer 
 
SUBJECT:  
Santa Barbara Ranch. CPA2021009 
 
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has reviewed 
revised documents received from the Maricopa County Planning and Development 
Department for the above referenced project. This project is a CPA for Santa Barbara 
Ranch at APN# 503-13-003; 503-15-001; 503-15-002C; 503-15-002D; 503-15-002F; 
503-15-002J; 503-15-002M; 503-15-003A; 503-15-003B; 503-15-004; 503-16-001; 
503-16-002; 503-16- 009; 503-86-004; 503-18-001c. Water and Sewer information is 
not provided. MCESD has concerns, ATC must be obtained prior to final plat approval. 
 
Based on the above, MCESD raised no objections to the Planning & Development 
Department in Accela on July 20, 2021 and will allow the project to proceed at this 
time subject to the following stipulations 
 
Stipulations:  
None. 
 
It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project.  
Comments are provided only as advisory to Maricopa County Planning and 
Development Department to assist staff to prepare a staff report.  Other Maricopa 
County agencies may have additional requirements. Final review and approval will be 
made through Planning and Development Department procedures. Applicant may 
need to submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental Services 
Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the Department.  Review 
of any such application will be based on regulations in force at the time of application.

From:
Ken Vonderscher (PRK)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
RE: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Saturday, July 10, 2021 9:18:19 AM
Attachments:
image003.png
image004.png
Thanks Ray
 
No comments or concerns from MCPRD.
 
Ken
 
Ken Vonderscher
Park Planning and Development Manager
Maricopa County Parks and Recreation
41835 N Castle Hot Springs Rd
Morristown AZ 85342
Email: ken.vonderscher@maricopa.gov
602 506-9503
 
From: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 5:04 PM
Subject: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
 
Good afternoon,
 
You are receiving this email as the above mentioned case is in an area which you are considered an
“Area of Interest”. Attached are documents relating to the subject case and upcoming TAC Meeting.
Please let me know if you if have any questions.
 
Thank you,
 
  
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov

PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA 
1st Review Comments 
Page 1 of 6 
 
 
Community Development Department 
16000 N Civic Center Plaza 
Surprise, AZ 85374 
Ph 623-222-3000 
Fax 623-222-3002 
TTY 623-222-1002 
 
August 18, 2021 
 
Ray Banker, Senior Planner 
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
301 West Jefferson Street, Suite 170 
Phoenix, AZ  85003 
 
Re:   
Santa Barbara Ranch CPA, Maricopa County Case # CPA2021009 
(Surprise Case # PS21-527) 
 
 
Dear Mr. Banker: 
 
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Santa Barbara Ranch CPA.  The City of 
Surprise offers the following comments regarding this case: 
 
Planning: 
 
1. The subject request is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment such to change the land use 
designation of the County’s White Tank / Grand Avenue Area Plan from Single-Family Large Lot 
0-2 DU/Ac. to Single-Family Small Lot up to 5 DU/Ac.   Staff does not object to the proposed 
changes provided the applicant understands and abides by the following: 
 
2. The subject property lies within the City of Surprise Planning Area as generally depicted below.

PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA 
1st Review Comments 
Page 2 of 6 
 
3. The majority of the site lies within the Neighborhood Character Area, which will support a 
variety of residential densities provided appropriate Compatibility and Transition Measures are 
implemented.  These include but are not limited to the following: 
   
“Compatibility and Transition Measures  
  
To help limit the impact on adjacent existing or potential uses and promote overall land use 
compatibility, new development should utilize the following transition measures at the 
neighborhood edge:    
  
 
Respect the context of adjacent building form and architectural style;   
 
Adjust densities to provide a gradual transition to surrounding uses;  
 
Step buildings (via building massing, footprint size, and height) to reduce the visual 
impact to surrounding uses;   
 
Provide similar streetscape and landscape design to surrounding uses;   
 
Utilize appropriate setbacks to blend and transition between surrounding uses; and/or   
 
Place enhanced landscape/open space buffers between uses; additional measures 
should be taken to emphasize transition through integration and encourage connectivity 
between new development and surrounding uses.” 
 
4. The northeastern corner of the site, as well as the southernmost portion of the site, also lie 
within the Commerce and Office Character Area, which supports Residential / Commercial 
Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and Commercial Office, provided certain Compatibility and 
Transitions measures are implemented.  These include but are not limited to the following: 
 
“Compatibility and Transition Measures  
  
To help limit the impact on adjacent existing or potential uses and promote overall land use  
compatibility, new development should utilize the following transition measures at the  
character area edge: 
  
 
Respect the context of adjacent building form and architectural style;   
 
Adjust densities to provide a gradual transition to surrounding uses;  
 
Step buildings (via building massing, footprint size, and height) to reduce the visual 
impact to surrounding uses;   
 
Provide similar streetscape and landscape design to surrounding uses;   
 
Utilize similar setbacks to surrounding uses;   
 
Place enhanced landscape/open space buffers between uses; additional measures 
should be taken to emphasize transition through integration and encourage connectivity 
between new development and surrounding uses.” 
 
5. A portion of the westernmost parcel crosses a portion of the Open Space Character Area as 
depicted by the green ribbon.  The Surprise General Plan offers the following guidance.  We 
would ask that the developer respect the integrity of this Character Area.

PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA 
1st Review Comments 
Page 3 of 6 
 
“Open Space  
  
The Open Space designation includes public and privately held lands that are intended to be 
preserved for natural areas, conservation areas and/or trail and other regional recreational 
facilities. Open space designations in Surprise are primarily designated in mountainous areas, 
along designated floodways, riverine areas, and along significant desert wash and other 
drainage corridors. Open space areas should be maintained in their natural state due to 
topographic, drainage, vegetative and landform constraints.” 
 
6. The northeastern corner of the site lies within a hatched area, which denotes the Scenic Lands 
Development Sub Area Overlay.  The Scenic Lands Development Overlay seeks in part “…to 
recognize the visual beauty and other natural area open space qualities and how the design, 
intensity and orientation of incoming development and public realm areas can strengthen and 
enhance the natural environment found in the underlying character areas.” We would ask that 
the developer respect the intent of this Overlay. 
 
7. The land adjacent to U.S. 60 is designated as having a Transit Oriented Development District 
Overlay, which in part “…denotes roadways and adjacent development areas where existing or 
planned high capacity vehicular multi-modal, and transit corridors provide regionally significant 
connections to and from Surprise…The intent of the TOD is to recognize the unique connection 
between the character of the adjoining land uses together with the motorized, non-motorized 
and potential transit operations of each corridor by developing individual corridor plans. 
Developments proposed within these corridors will have expanded design and policy guidance on 
incorporating safe and convenient walking and biking connections to current and future planned 
transit operations. Transit operations could be commuter rail planned along Grand Avenue or 
perhaps expanded bus route opportunities on all corridors. In either case, the Transit Oriented 
Development areas promote a higher intensification of residential and non-residential uses near 
existing and planned transit stops to ensure that motorized and non-motorized mobility in 
proximity to transit stops is efficient and effective in design.”  We would ask that the developer 
respect the intent of this overlay. 
 
Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering 
 
1. Santa Barbara Ranch traffic impacts. 
a. An initial high-level planning traffic impact analysis is required for the entire Santa Barbara 
Ranch development and is to be submitted with the Rezone case. This TIA will ensure there 
will be adequate roadway capacity on the adjacent state facilities, arterials and collector 
roads.   
i. 
Summarize any existing traffic analyses that will impact the perimeter arterial roadway 
network of Santa Barbara Ranch, plus SR74 and US60.   
ii. 
Develop an appropriate trip generation model for the entire site. The model should 
include rough estimates on land use acreage and dwelling units.  
iii. 
Estimate traffic volumes and perform a preliminary roadway segment level of service 
analyses for all perimeter roadways, plus SR74, US60, Desert Hills Drive, 251st Ave, 
Rockaway Hills Road.

PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA 
1st Review Comments 
Page 4 of 6 
 
iv. 
Analyze traffic impacts on US 60 and contact ADOT Regional Traffic for any additional 
requirements.   
b. A more detailed TIA will be required before or at the preliminary plat stage. Guidelines to 
produce this TIA can be found in Chapter 4 of the Surprise Engineering Development 
Standards.  
i. 
Include a summary of any existing traffic analysis that will impact the arterial and 
collector network of Santa Barbara Ranch. 
ii. 
Develop an appropriate trip generation model for the entire site. Be specific about land 
uses, acreages, and the number of dwelling units.   
iii. 
Determine traffic volumes and perform roadway level of service analyses for all arterial 
and collector roadway segments.   
iv. 
Determine traffic volumes and perform intersection level of service analyses for all 
perimeter and off-site intersections. Include all the connections to and from US60 into 
the analysis. 
v. 
Include deceleration lane, stop and/or signal warrant analyses for  
1. All site internal intersections created by collector roads 
2. Intersection of Desert Hills and 243rd Avenue 
3. Intersection of Rockaway Hills Road and 243rd Ave 
4. Intersection of Rockaway Hills Road and 251st Ave  
5. Intersection of SR74 and US60 
6. Intersection of SR74 and 243rd  
7. Intersection of 243rd and US60 
8. Intersections of any other collector roads tying into proposed 243rd Avenue 
9. All other site specific intersections that are not mentioned above  
vi. 
Analyze traffic impacts on US60 and in coordination with ADOT Regional Traffic. 
vii. 
Discuss queuing and turning lane storages on all intersections (site external and 
internal). 
viii. 
Calculate Santa Barbara Ranch’s proportionate share of the cost of future traffic signals 
at the intersections on arterial roads: 243rd, SR74 and US60.   
c. Roadway network must conform to ADOT access control found in US60/Grand Avenue, SR303 
to SR74 study, the Surprise Long Range Major Street Plan and the transportation section of 
the Surprise General Plan 2035. 
 
2. The developer shall submit a master street plan for the Santa Barbara Ranch development 
showing turn lanes, medians, and street widths.  All roadway cross sections shall conform to 
Details 3-01 - 3-07 in the Surprise Engineering Development Standards.   
a. Roadway classification should conform to the Surprise Long Range Major Street Plan. This 
development will be responsible for half street development of external roadways. 100’ for 
parkways, 68’ improvements for major arterials, 55’ for minor arterials and 40’ for collectors 
including signing and striping, pavement, curb and gutter, and a proportional share to install 
a landscaped median.

PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA 
1st Review Comments 
Page 5 of 6 
 
3. Adhere to the City of Surprise Minimum Intersection & Driveway Spacing requirements: 
a. Major and Minor Arterial Streets: 
i. 
Full movements with traffic signal at ½ or 1 mile spacing. 
ii. 
Full movements without traffic signal at ¼ mile spacing. 
iii. 
¾ movements, no left out, at 1/8 mile spacing. 
iv. 
Right-in, right-out at 300 ft spacing. 
b. Residential and Commercial Collector Streets: 
i. 
Full movements, no traffic signal at 1/8 mile spacing. 
ii. 
T-intersections, no traffic signal at 250 ft spacing. 
iii. 
Right-in, right-out at 200 ft spacing. 
4. Refer to Surprise Detail 4-02 for local street sight visibility triangles on local roads.  
5. Refer to Surprise Detail 4-01 for sight distance requirements for arterial and internal collector 
roads. 
6. The developer shall submit a full master site plan showing the onsite traffic and pedestrian 
circulation, and emergency vehicle access. 
7. The TIA will need to be reviewed and approved by ADOT and the City of Surprise. 
8. BNSF will need to review and approve any future crossing of their facilities. No at grade facilities 
will be approved by BNSF; therefore the construction of a grade separated interchange will be 
required at the 243rd and US60 intersection to go over the railroad tracks.     
Water Resource Management 
 
1. The project parcels lie within the City of Surprise’s future water and sewer service area, however 
the City currently has no infrastructure nearby. If the applicant proposes being served by the City 
of Surprise for water and wastewater service, then the water and wastewater infrastructure 
solutions to serve the development will need to be formally documented in the form of a 
development agreement between the City and the Owner(s).  
 
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.  We would appreciate being included in the routing of 
any further submittals regarding this project as well as the date and time of any public outreach or 
hearings on the matter.  Please do not hesitate to contact me at 623-222-3137 or via email at 
robert.kuhfuss@surpriseaz.gov with any questions. 
 
 
Respectfully, 
 
 
 
Robert H. Kuhfuss, AICP, MPA 
City of Surprise 
Community Development Department 
 
 
SIGN

PS21-527 Santa Barbara Ranch CPA 
1st Review Comments 
Page 6 of 6 
 
cc:  
Lloyd Abrams, City of Surprise 
Dana Owsiany, City of Surprise 
Martin Lucero, City of Surprise 
Amy Peterson, City of Surprise

From:
Peggy Fehlman
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Re: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Tuesday, July 13, 2021 1:21:43 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
CPA2021009 APPL-FORM-1.pdf
CPA2021009 NARR-RPTS-1.pdf
CPA2019009 TAC Routing Document.pdf
Thank you for the notification of the Santa Barbara Ranch proposed development.  
ADOT is neutral on zoning matters. As such, ADOT has no comment. Please notify ADOT once the project is through zoning and moving 
forward.
ADOT traffic engineering may offer additional comments, it is recommended that the developer ascertain if a traffic study or permit will be 
necessary. 
Traffic Engineer -  Jerome Choy  jchoy@azdot.gov - (602) 712-6627
Permit Encroachment Process Link - https://azdot.gov/business/permits/encroachment-permits
Permit Sign Process Link - https://azdot.gov/business/permits/outdoor-advertising-sign-permits
 
We appreciate receiving the notice, and the opportunity to review and comment.  I am happy to assist with any other questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
Peggy Fehlman
Right of Way Coordinator
ADOT Central District
2140 W. Hilton Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85009
(602)712-6622 Office
www.azdot.gov
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
Date: Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 5:13 PM
Subject: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
To: 
Good afternoon,
 
You are receiving this email as the above mentioned case is in an area which you are considered an “Area of Interest”. Attached are documents
relating to the subject case and upcoming TAC Meeting. Please let me know if you if have any questions.
 
Thank you,
 
  
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov

From:
Sean J. Doyle
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Kurt A. Jones; William E. Lally
Subject:
FW: Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:20:15 AM
Good morning Ray,
 
I hope you had a nice few days off last week. Please see below from Karen Dada at the Arizona State
Land Department.
 
Also, I will follow up in a separate email with an updated land use plan with road alignments to
supplement the current exhibit.
 
Thanks,
Sean
 
TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
Sean J. Doyle | Associate
Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II | 2525 E Camelback Road | Phoenix, AZ 85016
D 602.452.2742 | P 602.255.6000 | F 602.255.0103
sjd@tblaw.com | Website | Practice Areas
 
Offices:  Alabama | Arizona | California | Florida | Michigan | Nevada | New Mexico
 
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  The information contained in this message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege.
If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it.  Please immediately reply to the sender that you have
received the message in error, then delete it.  Thank you
 
 
From: Karen Dada <kdada@azland.gov> 
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 8:59 AM
To: Sean J. Doyle <sjd@tblaw.com>
Cc: Kurt A. Jones <kajones@tblaw.com>; William E. Lally <wel@tblaw.com>
Subject: Re: Santa Barbara Ranch
 
Good morning Sean,
 
ASLD has no objection to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezoning of the subject property. Should the development require connection to the
SR 74, our response is conditioned upon acceptable alignment, based on
coordination with both ASLD and ADOT. 
 
Karen Dada, AICP | Manager, Planning and Engineering Section 
Arizona State Land Department
1616 W. Adams Street | Phoenix, AZ 85007
O: 602-542-3118 | kdada@azland.gov
Funding Arizona Public Schools and Institutions since 1915

From:
JAMES, MARK C GS-12 USAF AETC 56 FW/CVE
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
56 FW/CIT Community Initiative
Subject:
RE: New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Thursday, July 8, 2021 2:49:53 PM
Attachments:
image003.png
image004.png
Ray,
 
Thank you for allowing Luke AFB to make comments on the Santa Barbara Ranch Application.  This
application proposes to develop a single family residential community on 1,003 acres.  The site is
located south and east of the intersection of State Route 74 (“SR 74”) and U.S. Highway 60 (“US 60”),
in Unincorporated Maricopa County, AZ.  It is approximately 5.4 miles outside the Aux-1 2004 JLUS
65 Ldn, “high noise or accident potential zone” as defined by A.R.S. § 28-8461 and is inside the
“territory in the vicinity of a military airport” also defined by A.R.S. § 28-8461. 
 
As described in the application, this request will not have a negative impact on Luke AFB Flight
Operations.  Since the site will be located inside the “territory in the vicinity of a military airport,” it
will be subjected to approximately 165 over flights per day, as low as 1,500 feet above the ground. 
We recommend you review the sound attenuation requirements found in A.R.S. § 28-8482.  In
addition, a strong notification program on the part of the applicant is essential to inform the tenant
about Luke AFB operations. 
 
Respectfully,
 
Mark James
Planning Manager, Community Initiatives Team
Luke AFB AZ 85309
Office:  623-856-9981
DSN:  896-9981
 
From: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 5:04 PM
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
 
Good afternoon,
 
You are receiving this email as the above mentioned case is in an area which you are considered an
“Area of Interest”. Attached are documents relating to the subject case and upcoming TAC Meeting.
Please let me know if you if have any questions.
 
Thank you,
 
Ray Banker
Senior Planner

Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov

From:
David Jacobs
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
CPA2021009 Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Monday, July 12, 2021 5:40:54 PM
Ray-
Our office recently received notification of an application for the Santa Barbara Ranch
consisting of 1003 acres located between US 74 and US 60 [Grand Avenue] in Maricopa
County, Arizona.  Our records indicate the area has not been inventoried for cultural
resources, and we recommend a qualified cultural resources specialist systematically survey
the acreage in order to locate and evaluate any cultural resources that may be present.  The
applicant should be reminded of the Arizona State Law A.R.S. § 41-865 that requires if human
remains or burial goods are encountered during any ground-disturbing activities on private
lands, work in the immediate vicinity must cease and the Director of the Arizona State
Museum promptly notified.
Our office looks forward to receiving a survey report for review, and appreciate your
cooperation with this office in considering impacts to cultural resources located in Arizona.  If
you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at djacobs@azstateparks.gov or 602-
542-7140.
David Jacobs, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office

From:
Aspasia Angelou
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Cc:
Tricia Farrington; Kerre Laabs; Nellie Odogui; Michele Pino
Subject:
Proposal for land development near Morristown
Date:
Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:47:23 AM
Attachments:
CPA2019009 TAC Routing Document.pdf
Mr. Banker,
Good morning! I received the information below and attached from Morristown Principal, Dr.
Jennifer  Petty. I would like to introduce myself: I am the dual superintendent for Morristown
ELD 75 and Nadaburg USD 81 (8 miles south of Morristown). The MELD Governing Board
has several questions about the impact of this project and would like to invite you or your
representative to present this application and possible impacts on the district’s enrollment at
the August board meeting.
I have included my administrative assistant, Tricia Farrington, on this email to coordinate.
Also included are the Director of Maintenance and Operations, Nellie Odogui; and Director of
Business Services, Kerre Laabs. 
Thank you,
Dr. Aspasia Angelou
Superintendent
Nadaburg Unified School District No. 81 & Morristown Elementary District No. 75
aangelou@nadaburgsd.org
aangelou@morristowneld75.org
office 623.388.2129
cell 469.688.9638
Quality education: Every student! Every day!
From: Aspasia Angelou <aangelou@nadaburgsd.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 6:44:00 AM
To: Aspasia Angelou <aangelou@nadaburgsd.org>
Subject:
 
Thank you,
Dr. Aspasia Angelou
Superintendent
Nadaburg Unified School District No. 81 & Morristown Elementary District No. 75
aangelou@nadaburgsd.org
aangelou@morristowneld75.org
office 623.388.2129
cell 469.688.9638

Quality education: Every student! Every day!

From:
Kurt A. Jones
To:
Jessica J. Zangara
Cc:
Sean J. Doyle
Subject:
FW: Amendment application cpa2021009
Date:
Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:27:31 PM
file
 
Kurt Jones, Senior Planner
D: 602.452.2729 | M: 480.225.8937
TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
 
 
From: Fred Scott <fred@kevenslandscape.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 3:13 PM
To: Kurt A. Jones <kajones@tblaw.com>
Cc: Sean J. Doyle <sjd@tblaw.com>
Subject: RE: Amendment application cpa2021009
 
Hi Kurt, There was another developer that was going to buy the 175 acre ranch just east of your
projected property. They were bringing water and power from Morristown. I gave them an
easement to cross my corner to get to their project. They canceled when we had the stock market-
mortgage fall out. There’s a-lot of chatter to develop this area, don’t wait to long!!
 
Thanks,
 
Fred Scott
Lead Designer
10341 N El Mirage
Mirage, AZ 85335
(Office) 623-535-7654                                                                                                    
(Cell) 602-418-9874
Fred@kevenslandscape.com                                                                          
Kevens Landscape Website                                                                                                    
 
From: Kurt A. Jones [mailto:kajones@tblaw.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 2:30 PM
To: Fred Scott
Cc: Sean J. Doyle
Subject: RE: Amendment application cpa2021009
 
Fred, thanks for reaching out.  To answer your specific questions, the main access will be from 74. 
Access from the US 60 is tricky because of the railroad tracks and getting permits from the railroad is

a long and arduous process. Development of this property is probably many years away.  We will be
working with the City of Surprise concurrently with the County on planning this property.  We will
most likely need City of Surprise services (water, sewer, public safety, etc.) to develop the residential
community. 
 
As we move through the land use entitlement process, we will keep you on our notice list on any
open houses we hold and other key points in the process.  Feel free to reach out any time if any
other questions come to mind.  Thanks, Kurt
 
Kurt Jones, Senior Planner
D: 602.452.2729 | M: 480.225.8937
TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
 
From: Fred Scott <fred@kevenslandscape.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 2:05 PM
To: Kurt A. Jones <kajones@tblaw.com>
Subject: Re: Amendment application cpa2021009
 
Hi Kurt, Excited to see this area being developed. It’s a great location, the cross roads of 74 and 60 .
It was just a matter of time for this to happen. I own land on the south-east corner of the proposed
subdivision. Will your subdivision have access to 60 or will you access from 74. When do you guys
plan on starting the subdivision
 
Thanks,
 
Fred Scott
Lead Designer
10341 N El Mirage
Mirage, AZ 85335
(Office) 623-535-7654                                                                                                    
(Cell) 602-418-9874
Fred@kevenslandscape.com                                                                          
Kevens Landscape Website

From:
Linda de Berge
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Re: Thanks for the notification
Date:
Sunday, July 18, 2021 2:50:24 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
I am forwarding many of the concerns that have been expressed to me regarding the planned rezoning
and development
CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch. I am copying everyone on my local list.
1- First and foremost - where is the water coming from?  It's ALL about the water.  This area is in some
sort of vortex, seriously, there can be 360 degree storms of rain all around us, but we are getting none of
the rain that is hitting Phoenix, Surprise, Wickenburg, and Whispering Ranch.   As the heat dome
changes, so changes the weather.  The storms just can't get through to our area.  They used to get in after
they bounced around Phoenix, they'd met up over Morristown.
2 - Rumors have it that Surprise is annexing everything in sight.  Will they supply the water?  Where
will they get the water?  We hear that they bought water company from Circle City.  These are very very
deep wells.  People are concerned about cones of depression and their own wells getting depleted.  This
is not like taking over agricultural land which actually saves water.  This would use so much more water
than the land currently supplies.
3 - Currently the land is R-43 (one unit per acre).  Is this proposal for 2 dwellings per acre?  Reading it
implies that it is for higher density, i.e. 4-5 units per acre.  Which is it?
4 - Will this development be in Morristown or Wittman?
5 - If Surprise annexes the communities of Wittman and/or Circle City and/or Morristown, will folks
here have a say in this?
6 - How will the Morristown School District be funded to handle what could be hundreds of more
students. Or will everything be consumed by the Nadaburg School District?
7 - Will this be one of those Golf Course, and water course developments?  People feel this would be
totally NOT in keeping with existing land uses in the area here.  
8 - It seems the tendency is to build units very close together and with little variation in architecture. 
Many people here feel that would be ruthless and degrading.  
Thanks for your time and consideration Ray.  I do hope these developers are prepared.  There will be
many strong opinions and questions that need to be answered.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 5:26 PM Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Hi Linda,
 
I appreciate you reaching out, if you would like to further detail your questions and concerns to me, I can share
them with the applicant. We are still in the process of review, and staff will present our comments and questions to
the applicant soon. There is another related zoning case for this property that was recently submitted, I will be
sending notices soon.
 
Thank you,
 
Ray Banker
Senior Planner

Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov                                                                                   
 
From: Linda de Berge <ldeberge@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2021 1:37 PM
To: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Thanks for the notification
 
Well, there is plenty of interest in this project out here.  How does the water issue differ from the one
for the last proposed development?  We are all concerned about water!  4-5 houses per acre times a
thousand acres?  Wow.  It seems worse than the last proposal.
Has the Morristown Water Company been notified of this?  
Please let us know of any meetings coming up regarding this rezoning.  Thanks so much!

From:
Linda de Berge
To:
sjd@tblaw.com; Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
One more concern of the community:
Date:
Tuesday, July 20, 2021 10:19:57 AM
New Case: CPA2021009 - Santa Barbara Ranch
One person on my local area list (there are 26 persons on this list) had an additional
question, and I quote:
"Appreciate compilation. These echoed our concerns. Additionally, as there would
be a huge increase in traffic on 74 would their proposal include widening 74 or
would the afterthought fall to all in the area to increase taxes to accommodate the
road work. Not just talking a turning lane. A two-lane road would need more
passing lane areas to accommodate the added volume."
         In addition to this, as expressed in the plan, I don't know how the developer
can consider Grand (Hwy 60) as an access to this development at all, since they are
blocked by the railroad (many have tried to gain access over the tracks, but the
railroad, as a National Security issue, denies them.)
Question:  Would you prefer that I keep sending you these public concerns or
should each person contact you individually.  I am perfectly willing to communicate
for the group, but one person has asked if she should contact you individually.

From:
Tina Graham
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
CPA2021009 Santa Barbara Ranch
Date:
Monday, July 19, 2021 9:59:46 AM
Mr. Banker,
Please see the below comments about the above referenced filing:
I am a resident of Morristown and live at Thunder Ridge Airpark.
I do not agree to the zoning change requested. This is a small rural community. The large development proposed
would overwhelm the area as there is no infrastructure to support so many homes and people. Residents live here
with the desire to be in a rural community. The 1 home per acre limitation is necessary to maintain the rural nature
of the area. The area south of 60 is not currently congested or crowded with multiple homes per acre as is currently
proposed. If the area is not annexed by Surprise there is no water availability for such a large development.
Please consider my comments.
Thank you.
Tina Graham, Esq.

From:
Tina Graham
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Fwd: CPA2021009
Date:
Friday, October 1, 2021 7:32:03 AM
Good morning Ray,
I attended the community meeting last night. I am not sure if there are any standards. However, the
location was a large home that has been abandoned for some time. There was no lighting, no air
conditioning and no seating. The room was not large enough for the crowd- which extended outside. This
resulted in part of the crowd not hearing the presentation.  I would say at least half of  the attendees were
elderly. No air conditioning or seating made for a very difficult time for them.  I had to move outdoors to
get out of the hot and stuffy room. I didn’t get a chance to sign in.
The attorney advised us that he does not anticipate any development for at least 10 years and the developer
will not incur expenses for seeking any infrastructure from Surprise until they receive approval from the
county. He indicated that they did not want to provide any more specifics as to the property development
as they are uncertain what they may be building in 10 years.  
Concerns expressed included:
Interference with the current and expanding equine/roping activities in the surrounding properties 
Changing the established rural nature of the community 
No reliable and enforceable plan for the development or its infrastructure 
No plan for water and sewer
No plan for traffic 
Uncertainty as to the impact on the rest of the community because the attorney indicated the developers
will only seek annexation with Surprise for their particular property ( the property is in the middle of
Morristown)
Uncertainty of what will happen with the property if Surprise does not annex
At least 10 years of uncertainty for other property owners 
These are my notes from the meeting as a local resident and property owner. 
Thank you.
Tina Graham, Esq.
Morristown resident 
37415 N 237th Ave
Morristown, AZ 85342
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tina Graham <TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>
Date: September 29, 2021 at 2:34:00 PM MST
To: "Ray Banker (PND)" <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Re: CPA2021009
Thank you. I will let my neighbors know.
On Sep 29, 2021, at 2:26 PM, Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
wrote:

Good Afternoon Tina, 
Thank you for reaching out and letting me know about the confusion with the
meeting location. I spoke to the applicant and they confirmed that the meeting
would be at the ranch house, please follow the directions within their notice
(attached).
Apparently there might be issues with the provided address (24415 W Rockaway
Hills Road, Morristown, AZ 85342) and certain mapping programs giving an
incorrect location. However, I checked with the Assessor (official address) and
Google maps and the address is correct for the ranch house location on parcel -
APN # 503-15-002C. 
Lastly, the applicant mentioned that they will have a representative at the school
location should community members show up there. 
Please let me know if there are any additional questions. 
Thank you, 
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov                                                                                     
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Graham <tinagraham@cox.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 7:21 PM
To: Tina Graham <TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>
Cc: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re: CPA2021009

Hello Ray,
I received the notice from my fellow neighbors. There is a lot of confusion about
the location of the meeting. The address seems to look like the local school but
the directions are to a ranch in the middle of the desert.
Thanks.
Tina
On Sep 13, 2021, at 7:27 PM, Tina Graham
<TINAGRAHAM@cox.net> wrote:
Thank you Mr. Banker. That would be great. 
On Sep 13, 2021, at 4:26 PM, Ray Banker
(PND) <Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Ms. Graham,
I reached out to the applicant and they have scheduled
the community meeting for Thursday, September 30th
from 6:00-7:00 p.m. at 24415 W Rockaway Hills Road,
Morristown, AZ 85342.
Did you want the applicant to send you an official
notification via email when they send these out?
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364

Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Graham <tinagraham@cox.net>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 7:56 PM
To: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re: CPA2021009
Thank you for the response. It looks like the applicant is
supposed to schedule a meeting with the locals in late
September. Do we know when and where that is?
On Sep 10, 2021, at 4:29 PM,
Ray Banker (PND)
<Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
wrote:
Ms. Graham,
This hearing would be virtual and online
only due to COVID restrictions, the link to
attend to listen and/or register to speak will
be provided on the hearing agenda and
access per the website link in my last email.
Please let me know if there are any other
further questions. 
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
Department
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003

602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
                                                                                    
-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Graham <tinagraham@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 3:21 PM
To: Tina Graham
<TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>; Ray Banker
(PND) 
<Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Cc: Ray Banker (PND)
<Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re: CPA2021009
Hello Mr. Banker,
Could you please advise when and where
the community meeting is?
Thank you.
Tina Graham
On Aug 23, 2021,
at 2:33 PM, Tina
Graham
<TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>
wrote:
Great! Thank so much for your
help.
On
Aug
23,
2021,
at 1:34
PM,
Ray

Banker
(PND)
<Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
wrote:
Good afternoon
Ms. Graham,
You can look up
info for each case
through our online
citizen access
portal:
https://accela.maricopa.gov/CitizenAccessMCOSS/Default.aspx.
However, it's
probably easier to
just check back
with me since I am
the planner
assigned to these
cases and I update
the portal when
changes/updates
have happened. 
Hearing
information for the
Planning and
Zoning
Commission can be
found on the Friday
prior to hearing
through the
following link:  
https://www.maricopa.gov/AgendaCenter/Planning-
Zoning-
Commission-9
Thank you,
Ray Banker
Senior Planner
Maricopa County
Planning &

Development
Department
301 W. Jefferson
Street, Suite 170
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-506-2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tina Graham
<tinagraham@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday,
August 19, 2021
7:56 PM
To: Ray Banker
(PND)
<Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re:
CPA2021009
Thank you for your
response. Is there
somewhere online I
can look up
updates/activity?
Thanks again.
Tina
On
Aug
19,
2021,
at
4:46
PM,
Ray
Banker
(PND)
<Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov>
wrote:

Good
afternoon
Ms.
Graham,
I've
attached
the
first
submittal
documents
(Application
forms,
narrative
reports,
and
zoning
exhibit/site
plan)
for
CPA2021009
and
related
zone
change
(Z2021078)
request
for
Santa
Barbara
Ranch.
Staff
has
provided
1st
review
comments
and are
awaiting
resubmittal
by the
applicant.
The
CPA2021009
case,
since
this is
a
Major
CPA is

scheduled
for the
following
public
hearing
dates:
11/4/21
for
Planning
and
Zoning
Commission
and
12/8/21
for
Board
of
Supervisors.
You
can
provide
comments
(you
can
also
indicate
if
opposing
or
supporting)
directly
to me.
These
comments
would
be
forwarded
to the
applicant
and
included
as
public
record
with
any
future
staff
reports.
Thank
you,

Ray
Banker
Senior
Planner
Maricopa
County
Planning
&
Development
Department
301 W.
Jefferson
Street,
Suite
170
Phoenix,
AZ
85003 
602-
506-
2364
Ray.Banker@maricopa.gov
-----
Original
Message-
----
From:
Tina
Graham
<TINAGRAHAM@cox.net>
Sent:
Thursday,
August
19,
2021
9:25
AM
To:
Ray
Banker
(PND)
<Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>

Subject:
CPA2021009
Good
morning
Mr.
Banker,
I live
less
than a
quarter
mile
from
the
property
involved.
Could
you
please
provide
a
status?
How
may I
provide
input?
Thank
you.
Tina
Graham
<CPA2021009
APPL-
FORM-
1.pdf>
<CPA2021009
NARR-
RPTS-
1.pdf>
<Z2021078
APPL-
FORM-
1.pdf>
<Z2021078
NARR-
RPTS-
1.pdf>
<Z2021078

SITE-
PLAN-
1.pdf>
<CPA2021009_Z2021078 Neighborhood Mtg Notification Letter.pdf>

From:
Ray Banker (PND)
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
CPA2021009
Date:
Monday, October 18, 2021 10:49:41 AM
From: Tina Graham <tinagraham@cox.net> 
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 7:32 AM
To: Ray Banker (PND) <Ray.Banker@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Fwd: CPA2021009
 
Good morning Ray,
I attended the community meeting last night. I am not sure if there are any standards. However, the
location was a large home that has been abandoned for some time. There was no lighting, no air
conditioning and no seating. The room was not large enough for the crowd- which extended outside.
This resulted in part of the crowd not hearing the presentation.  I would say at least half of  the
attendees were elderly. No air conditioning or seating made for a very difficult time for them.  I had
to move outdoors to get out of the hot and stuffy room. I didn’t get a chance to sign in.
 
The attorney advised us that he does not anticipate any development for at least 10 years and the
developer will not incur expenses for seeking any infrastructure from Surprise until they receive
approval from the county. He indicated that they did not want to provide any more specifics as to
the property development as they are uncertain what they may be building in 10 years.  
 
Concerns expressed included:
Interference with the current and expanding equine/roping activities in the surrounding properties 
Changing the established rural nature of the community 
No reliable and enforceable plan for the development or its infrastructure 
No plan for water and sewer
No plan for traffic 
Uncertainty as to the impact on the rest of the community because the attorney indicated the
developers will only seek annexation with Surprise for their particular property ( the property is in
the middle of Morristown)
Uncertainty of what will happen with the property if Surprise does not annex
At least 10 years of uncertainty for other property owners 
 
These are my notes from the meeting as a local resident and property owner. 
 
Thank you.
 
Tina Graham, Esq.
Morristown resident 
37415 N 237th Ave
Morristown, AZ 85342

From:
Julie Wear
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Morristown development/annexation
Date:
Saturday, October 2, 2021 7:52:16 PM
No. No. No. No annexation of Morristown to Surprise. No proposed single family homes crammed 5/acre. No
natural resources for this type of growth in this area. WE DON’T WANT A CITY HERE. That’s why we moved
here in the first place! TO GET AWAY FROM THE CITY.
This is a horrible idea, one, I pray, will Never come to fruition.
Concerned Morristown resident,
Julie A. Wear
Sent from my iPhone

From:
sbchum8070@gmail.com
To:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
FW: Scanned document from HP ePrint user
Date:
Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:01:10 PM
Attachments:
HPSCAN_202110141846447_2021-10-14_184840249.pdf
Mr. Banker,
Attached is our opposition petition for the Santa Barbara Ranch zoning change case # CPA2021009 &
Z2021078 located in Morristown Arizona. We strongly oppose the proposed changes in this area.
 
Thank you,
Don & Sharon Beauchamp
 
Sent from Mail for Windows
 
From: eprintcenter@hp8.us
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 11:49 AM
To: sbchum8070@gmail.com
Subject: Scanned document from HP ePrint user
 
This email and attachment are sent on behalf of sbchum8070@gmail.com.
If you do not want to receive this email in future, you may contact sbchum8070@gmail.com directly
or you may consult your email application for spam or junk email filtering options.
Regards, 
HP Team

From:
Sheryl Sambrookes
To:
Clint Hickman (BOS)
Cc:
Ray Banker (PND)
Subject:
Santa Barbara Ranch Z2021078_CPA2021009
Date:
Friday, October 15, 2021 10:01:04 AM
Dear Supervisor Hickman:
On September 27th, the Wickenburg Sun published a news article regarding a zoning
change application and major comprehensive plan amendment that was filed with
Maricopa County for the Morristown area.  It notified the public of a neighborhood
meeting being conducted on September 30th. Even with such little notice, the
meeting was well attended by very concerned citizens of Morristown. It was held at
the “big, white mansion” as it is locally known south of Hwy 74 and just west of 235th
Ave.  It was a poorly planned meeting as the meeting room was packed and
inadequately ventilated, there was only enough electricity for a small lamp or two and
a string of decorative lights, there was no seating, it was difficult to hear, and most of
us could not see or follow the poster boards that the representatives were referring to.
With the future prospect of up to approximately 5,000 dwellings on 1,003 acres,
zoning of R1-6 and another 20,000+ area residents, the immediate concerns raised
by Morristown residents were water, sewer, roads, traffic, public safety, schools,
environmental problems, etc. and those concerns were voiced. The representative’s
response was that all concerns would be handled by the city of Surprise, as the only
way this development will be possible is if Surprise annexes it and provides all of the
necessary utilities, infrastructure, services and amenities.  He estimated that it would
take at least 10 years or more for Surprise’s annexation process to get to this
property.  He apparently thought that his answer would eliminate any and all concerns
by local residents. However, he offered no facts, figures or guarantees to support his
assertions.
In all actuality, the thought of the city of Surprise gobbling up land for annexation up
to Wittmann and beyond is extremely disturbing and troubling for the vast majority of
Morristown area residents. None of us choose to live in Surprise otherwise we would. 
We personally lived in Surprise several years ago and moved.  Those of us who live
in the Morristown area came here to enjoy a rural way of life and a connection to the
desert and open land that cannot be found within a city with walled-off subdivisions
and the standard list of corporate owned stores and restaurants on every major
corner. It is unacceptable that Maricopa County and the cities within continue to head
towards becoming one giant homogeneous blur of similar looking developments.
Rural residents have lifestyle choices that are completely different from urban
residents who expect certain “amenities” that only cities can provide. The county’s
own Vision 2030 plan recognizes that urban development in rural areas creates
substantial challenges that need to be carefully addressed in any urban/rural interface
area as they majorly affect an area’s quality and livability.  The impact of a
development like this would have a tremendous negative impact on the current
residents of Morristown.  Proposed changes are much too drastic for the area.

Density is too high and many conflicts will result between differing lifestyle priorities.
Neither the high density of homes/people nor the Santa Barbara look of the
development/landscape is a good fit for Morristown.  
Many Arizona residents are concerned that potentially serious water issues loom in
the future of this state as evidenced by the declining levels of Lake Mead and Lake
Powell.  Morristown residents who have a well are worried about any increased
pumping of groundwater and drilling of new wells.  Many of us have been concerned
about the unbridled growth in this state in the past and whether it will continue into the
future. Even with all of the publicity regarding the alarming decline of Colorado River
water and future water problems, it seems as though few of the state’s leaders have
noticed.  Everything appears to be “business as usual.”  Subdivisions and apartment
buildings continue to be built. Currently there is no public encouragement of water
conservation. The warnings are being ignored and it is very frustrating for those of us
who are concerned about the future ramifications.  The state, counties and cities all
need to take proactive measures regarding water management and protection instead
of being reactive years down the road.
The out-of-state property owners who purchased this acreage, some in 2007 / 2008
and some in 2015, were well aware of its current rural zoning. As speculative
investors, they have two main objectives – protect their investment and maximize
their profits. Any developer’s goal is to insure that their property has some kind of
high density or preferred zoning grandfathered in. The current land owners have little
firsthand knowledge of our local issues and share few of our concerns.  
If any possibility of development is at least 10 years away and is dependent on
annexation by the city of Surprise, it makes no sense for the county to spend time and
resources to perform technical reviews and impact studies based on current
conditions. There could be any number of unforeseen circumstances in the next 10
years, the most important of which is the precarious status of water. Development
should not be allowed to continue as usual. If and when Surprise annexes this
property, that will be the time to request a plan amendment and a zoning change with
the city of Surprise.
As we recently drove over the Morristown Overpass, the future possibility of looking
out over a sea of rooftops in just one more housing development eating up the
beautiful desert, is very disturbing and sad.  We strongly oppose the Santa Barbara
Ranch Zone Change Application Z2021078 and CPA 2021009 and ask the county to
deny both requests. 
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sheryl & Samuel Sambrookes
PO Box 363
27324 W Gates Rd
Morristown, AZ  85342

602-432-0077