05.CPA260002 PZ Staff Report

CPA2026002 
Page 1 of 9 
 
 
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
Case: 
CPA2026002 – Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
 
 
Hearing Date: 
April 23, 2026 
 
Supervisorial Districts: 
All 
 
 
 
  
 
Applicant: 
Staff-Initiated  
 
Request: 
Approval of the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan  
  
 
Site Size: 
Approx. 9,224 sq. mi. 
 
Recommendation: 
Approve

CPA2026002 
Page 2 of 9 
Overview: 
 
1. 
In 2016 the Board of Supervisors (Board) adopted the Maricopa County Vision 2030 
Comprehensive Plan that serves as the Comprehensive Plan for the entire unincorporated 
territories of the County.  The comprehensive plan addresses statute requirements and 
implements core principles and strategic priorities to guide decision-makers regarding land use 
and the overall long term development patterns in the county. Vision 2030 also contains various 
sub-area plans that address the unique needs of specific areas within unincorporated Maricopa 
County.   ARS 11-805 requires counties to adopt or readopt the Comprehensive Plan every ten 
years.  In addition to the requirements of state law, planning staff periodically analyzes the 
Comprehensive Plan to ensure it addresses the most recent available data and new growth 
patterns. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval of the adoption of the 
Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan based on the process and results 
outlined herein.   
 
2. 
Chair Kate Brophy McGee outlined the need to address rapid growth and infrastructure with 
impacts associated with the need to sustain development as a 2026 priority for Maricopa County. 
In conjunction with the priority, a development pipeline dashboard will display real-time 
development activity and associated infrastructure in unincorporated areas of the County. This 
dashboard is currently under development with various County Departments. Framework 2040 
assists with the Chair’s priority by creating the first foundational layer to analyze and determine 
if development is appropriate with analysis of land use, infrastructure, goals and policies for 
decision makers on infrastructure readiness. 
 
3. 
While the existing Comprehensive Plan is still relevant in many ways, many things have changed 
since its adoption in 2016 that necessitate an update.  First, vast portions of unincorporated 
county territory within the plan have since been annexed into municipalities.  Second, steady 
growth is expected to continue throughout the County. Lastly, an update to the Comprehensive 
Plan allows the County to assess existing goals and policies related to growth and development 
within the County. 
 
4. 
The Comprehensive Plan includes the following elements (i.e. planning-related topics): 
 
• 
Land Use – ARS requires a land use element that plans for a variety of land uses.  The land 
use plan is required to include a map and categories for land uses with defined densities and 
intensities.  In addition, the land use element is required to specify programs and policies for 
compact form development; to consider air quality and access to solar energy; and to 
establish policies to address a broad variety of land uses. Lastly, the element is required to 
identify aggregate sources and policies to preserve aggregates and policies; and to avoid 
incompatible land uses in proximity to aggregate sources. 
 
• 
Transportation – ARS requires a transportation element that plans for the general location 
and extent of freeways, streets and multimodal transportation. 
 
• 
Environment – ARS requires an environmental element that contains analysis, policies and 
strategies to address any effects of plan elements on air quality, water quality and natural 
resources. 
 
• 
Economic Growth – An economic growth element is not required by ARS but Maricopa County 
opted to include it as an element within the Comprehensive Plan and it is maintained in this 
decennial update.  Included in the element are economic analysis, projections, and goals and 
policies to promote economic growth.

CPA2026002 
Page 3 of 9 
• 
Growth Areas – ARS requires a growth areas element that specifically identifies growth areas 
and their suitability for transportation and infrastructure improvements designed to support 
a mix of uses. The growth areas element also must include policies and implementation 
strategies to make transportation more efficient, make infrastructure expansion more 
economical and to conserve natural resources.  The growth areas element coordinates 
infrastructure funding with development activity. 
 
• 
Open Space – ARS requires an open space element that plans for acquisition and preservation 
of open space including an inventory of areas, recreation resources and access points to said 
resources. The open space element also includes policies and implementation strategies to 
promote a regional system of integrated open spaces and recreation resources. 
 
• 
Water Resources – ARS requires a water resources element that inventories available surface 
water, groundwater and effluent supplies.  The element is also required to project and analyze 
the demand for water generated by future growth and how the water supplies will serve the 
future growth. 
 
• 
Energy – ARS requires an energy element that encourages and provides incentives for 
efficient use of energy.  The element also identifies policies and practices for greater use of 
renewable energy. 
 
• 
Cost of Development – ARS requires a cost of development element to identify policies and 
strategies the County will use to require private development to pay its fair share toward the 
cost of infrastructure and facility needs generated by new development.   
 
5. 
In addition to each element, the updated Comprehensive Plan includes an executive summary for 
quick reading, strategic priorities, an overview of existing conditions, goals and policies for each 
element, and a summary of the significant public outreach program that shaped this plan.  
 
6. 
Given length of time since the last update there are significant and meaningful changes from the 
previous plan. Some of the more notable changes include: 
 
• 
An 8.2% growth rate between 2010 and 2020 and an increasing population density; 
• 
Growth in the North and Northwest Valley necessitating updates to the Daisy Mountain-New 
River Area Plan in 2019 and the White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan in 2023;  
• 
Rapid transition towards industrial growth within both unincorporated Maricopa County (i.e. 
logistics, chip manufacturing, data centers, etc.); and, 
• 
Housing availability concerns creating pressure to increase density along the rural-urban 
fringes of the County.  
 
7. 
Through extensive public outreach, participants identified three significant themes that shape the 
goals and policies in this plan, and also guide decisions regarding future growth. These three 
themes include: 
 
• 
Opportunity – Residents and stakeholders cherish Maricopa County’s quality of life and the 
unique character of communities within the County.  With rapid growth, residents are 
concerned that opportunity is being negatively impacted for current and future residents. 
• 
Stewardship – Residents value Maricopa County’s natural resources, trails, agriculture, parks 
and open spaces. Residents desire to protect and preserve these assets and to sustain farms 
and promote local food production.

CPA2026002 
Page 4 of 9 
• 
Prosperity – Residents envision a Maricopa County that features a prosperous economy with 
significant job growth and prosperity. 
 
Public Participation 
 
8. 
To reach as many citizens, organizations, and other stakeholders as possible, staff and the 
project team created a citizen’s participation program. The following is a brief summary of the 
outreach efforts: 
 
• 
The project team conducted ten in-person (two per each supervisorial district) and three grand 
virtual community meetings to identify the issues and concerns of County residents and 
stakeholders. These community meetings were well attended with 488 attendees across 
meetings having an opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas.   
 
• 
During the first outreach surge, the project team 
introduced 
the 
Comprehensive 
Plan 
update 
to 
attendees and sought feedback to create a vision for the 
plan. To help ensure effective participation staff used 
various 
formats 
for 
the 
meetings, 
including 
presentations, open Q&A and live interactive “Menti” 
polls. The first surge occurred in November – December 
2024 and included the following in-person meetings: 
 
District 1 – Arizona College Preparatory High School 
District 2 – Fountain Hills High School 
District 3 – Anthem Community Council 
District 4 – Valley Vista High School 
District 5 – Betty H. Fairfax High School 
 
• 
Following the first surge, the project team developed 
goals and policies for each of the plan elements based upon the vision of County residents.  
The second outreach surge sought feedback on the goals and policies and included a 
prioritization bucket exercise.  The second surge occurred in April – May 2025 included 
following in-person meetings: 
 
District 1 – Arizona College Preparatory High School 
District 2 – Fremont Junior High School 
District 3 – Anthem Civic Center 
District 4 – Sundial Recreation Center 
District 5 – Betty H. Fairfax High School

CPA2026002 
Page 5 of 9 
 
 
 
• 
A third and final grand virtual meeting was held in January 2026 to unveil the draft plan and 
provide instructions on how to comment on the draft plan via Konveio, an online interactive 
commenting tool.  
 
• 
In addition to in-person outreach, the project team developed an easy to use website with a 
variety of interactive activities that received over 12,000 views.  This website was updated 
periodically as new information became available. Two interactive surveys including graphics 
and various question types were developed of which staff received 2,407 completed surveys. 
Additionally, there was an interactive map tool that allowed residents and stakeholders to 
select a location and label it as a favorite place, asset, opportunity or challenge.   Additionally, 
an Idea Wall allowed for participants to post what they envisioned for the direction of the 
County.  There were 577 idea wall posts and comments. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 
To notify citizens, staff created an email list of 472 individuals and organizations who were 
notified of the in-person and virtual meetings, and of ways to participate in the process.  
Additionally, staff received assistance from the Maricopa County Department of 
Communications in sending e-blasts out through County news distribution channels and by 
social media postings through X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, LinkedIn, Next Door and 
Facebook about the plan.  Those channels helped staff and the consultants conduct outreach 
to thousands of people. 
 
• 
The project team also convened a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the plan that 
consisted of stakeholder representatives including Commissioner Toma, Luke Air Force Base, 
State, Federal and County government agencies, APS, SRP, the Arizona Rock Products 
Association (ARPA) and the Homebuilders’ Association, among others. These meetings 
supported and informed the development of the plan, particularly in regard to the goals and 
policies of the plan.  
 
Issue Identification 
 
8. 
Significant public outreach efforts allowed stakeholders and staff to identify issues, and to help 
develop policies that address those issues. While not all-inclusive, the following is a brief overview 
of the most frequently identified issues, as well as strategies in the plan to help address them.

CPA2026002 
Page 6 of 9 
• 
Issue – Preservation of Rural and Natural Landscapes 
 
Stakeholders expressed a desire to maintain low-density, rural residential land use patterns while 
understanding that the area is anticipated to grow. Policies and strategies to address these 
concerns include maintaining land use transitions in urban/rural interface areas and open space 
land use buffers to more intense uses, and only supporting urban development when necessary 
services and infrastructure are readily available.  
 
• 
Issue – Regional Water Supply 
 
Water supply and availability continues to be a significant concern for County residents. In June 
2023, the State announced that the Arizona Department of Water Resources would no longer 
issue certificates of assured water supply within the Active Management Area (AMA) to new 
subdivisions and that those developments would need to seek out an existing designated 
provider of water (i.e. a city).  That announcement temporarily slowed new residential 
development.  Recently ADWR allowed for an alternative path to being a designated provider and 
EPCOR has since qualified for this designation thereby opening the door for new residential 
subdivisions served by EPCOR.  Maricopa County has limited authority or ability to assist in this 
issue, however the draft plan includes goals and policies supporting water conservation, drought-
tolerant landscaping, and protecting regional water quality.  
 
• 
Issue – High-Quality Development 
 
Stakeholders expressed their desire to see high-quality in residential, commercial and industrial 
developments.  High-quality development means aesthetic standards for development that 
promote safety and overall value.  This also includes nuisance and violation abatement and the 
prevention of “wildcat” or unregulated land divisions.  While the County has limited design 
guidelines, urban commercial and industrial developments will be encouraged when feasible to 
annex into a municipality where such design guidelines will improve the aesthetic quality of the 
development.   
 
• 
Issue – Economic Opportunity 
 
The project team received many survey responses and comments indicating that stakeholders 
would like to see Maricopa County remain a place where economic opportunity is abundant and 
available.  Residents conveyed that the technology and healthcare industries should be the focus 
as Maricopa County grows and expands.  Both industries are those that often require urban-level 
services that are found within municipalities.   
 
• 
Issue – Improvement of Safety Coverage and Responsiveness 
 
Residents and stakeholders reported the need to improve safety coverage and response times as 
it pertains to law enforcement.  Key in this is that emergency response capability is tied to and 
expands in keeping with growth.  The further growth occurs the more service needs are strained.  
Stakeholders recognize this and see opportunities outside of the Comprehensive Plan for the 
MCSO to evaluate staffing and service responsiveness. 
 
• 
Issue – Recreational Access and Opportunity 
 
Stakeholders agreed that open space should be enhanced and protected.  Maricopa County is 
home to ten regional parks and two conservation areas boasting over 121,185 acres of recreation

CPA2026002 
Page 7 of 9 
land. Additionally, Maricopa County is home to the Sun Circle Trail and Maricopa Trail System 
offering over 345 miles of maintained trails and over 651 miles of total trails.  Residents indicated 
that trail access and trail maintenance are important.  The project team included several goals 
and policies intended to support park master planning, access to and maintenance of trails, 
protection of scenic corridors and partnerships with federal and state agencies to expand 
recreation opportunities and protect and preserve existing open space. 
 
Key Strategies 
 
9. 
Throughout the planning process the project team identified key strategic areas to address during 
the development of the plan.  These key strategic areas represent the signature policies within 
the plan pertaining to growth and development within the County.   
 
• 
Strategy 1 – Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
 
As the plan was being developed, the project team assessed which policies were still relevant to 
today’s development landscape.  The previous Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2030, included the 
Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy.  At its core, the strategy simply requires urban 
level services/utilities and infrastructure in order for urban level development to occur.  This 
strategy helps decision makers consider infrastructure readiness when considering a 
comprehensive plan amendment or a rezoning application.  A chart is provided in the plan to 
describe priority services and whether urban developments are required to have such services to 
develop.  It’s important to note that this chart is not a hard checklist for development approval, 
but one of many policy tools within the plan to evaluate the appropriateness of a land use 
designation change or a rezoning. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 
Strategy 2 – Area Plan Program 
 
The project team identified an issue with the current Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan as it 
pertains to area plans.  In Vision 2030, there is a single reference to an area plan program.  This 
reference did not explain what the area plan program is nor did it identify the requirements of the

CPA2026002 
Page 8 of 9 
area plan program.  As such, the development of Framework 2040 allowed the project team to 
address this issue.  Framework 2040 now sets parameters for the creation, consolidation and 
decommissioning of area plans.  These parameters assist staff and decision makers in deciding 
when and whether area plans should be updated as well. 
 
• 
Strategy 3 – The Municipal-Rural Framework 
 
Prior to the development of the plan, staff had initially considered a county island study.  The 
development of the new plan allowed for the study to be conducted.  The study recognized that 
the vast majority of county islands are urban in nature, influenced by the municipalities 
surrounding those islands, and may be appropriate for urban land uses under certain 
circumstances.  This study led to the development of the namesake and signature land use 
strategy in the plan – The Municipal-Rural Framework.   
 
The Municipal-Rural Framework identifies municipal and rural areas of influence.  The Area of 
Municipal Influence encompasses all county islands, unincorporated County land within 
municipal planning areas and improvement association areas.  Land outside of the Area of 
Municipal Influence may be designated within an area plan or considered as an Area of Rural 
Influence.   
 
When there is an application for an urban land use designation or a rezoning, the Framework 
requires both applicants and staff to consider infrastructure readiness in conjunction with the 
current Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy.  Additionally, applicants and staff must 
also consider whether a site has an assurance of annexation.  Assurance of annexation means 
that an applicant is in active discussion with neighboring jurisdictions regarding the provision of 
municipal services as demonstrated through a municipal services agreement or pre-annexation 
services agreement.

CPA2026002 
Page 9 of 9 
Staff Changes 
 
10. 
Per state law, the Board cannot make changes to the plan unless the plan is re-referred back to 
the Planning and Zoning Commission.  Included in the report attachments is a list of changes to 
the plan that occurred following the production of the Planning and Zoning Commission draft. 
Staff asks for these changes to be included in the Commission’s recommendation to the Board. 
 
Staff Analysis 
 
11. 
The Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan is a window to the next ten to twenty 
years of growth and development in Maricopa County.  While not regulatory, the plan serves as 
the foundation for the decisions of policy makers and staff.  The strategies within the plan allow 
staff and decision-makers to make sound future land use decisions.  Such strategies also 
strengthen existing policies and provide staff with better tools to evaluate development 
proposals. 
 
12. 
This plan also represents nearly two years of feedback from Maricopa County residents and 
stakeholders.  The project team conducted a robust public outreach process that reached across 
all supervisorial districts to ensure that citizens were represented by the content of the plan.  
Using a variety of public outreach tools, the project team is confident that sufficient opportunities 
for input were available to ensure County residents and stakeholders were heard throughout the 
process. Lastly, the Comprehensive Plan supports Chair Brophy-McGee’s priority in connecting 
and considering infrastructure readiness and availability to projects in the development pipeline. 
 
Recommendation 
 
13. 
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion to recommend approval of case CPA260002 
with staff recommended changes for the reasons outlined in this report. 
 
Presented by:  
Adam Cannon, AICP, Senior Planner   
Reviewed by: 
Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor 
 
Enclosure: 
Final Draft, Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan (251 pages) 
 
Vision Report (52 pages) 
 
Arizona Game and Fish Department Comments (3 pages) 
 
Arizona State Land Department Comments (11 pages) 
 
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Olberholtzer Comments (3 pages) 
 
City of Scottsdale Comments (12 pages) 
 
Luke Air Force Base Comments (4 pages) 
 
Pima County Comments (3 pages) 
 
Maricopa Association of Governments Comments (2 pages) 
 
Snell & Wilmer Comments (7 pages) 
 
Sun City HOA Comments (6 pages) 
 
60-Day Review Draft Konveio Citizen Comments (21 pages) 
 
Additional Citizen Correspondence (212 pages) 
 
Memorandum on Plan Changes (9 pages)

Planning & Zoning 
Commission Draft
April 23, 2026

Acknowledgments
Board of Supervisors
Kate Brophy McGee – District 3 (Chair)
Debbie Lesko – District 4 (Vice Chair)
Mark Stewart – District 1
Thomas Galvin – District 2
Steve Gallardo – District 5
Planning and Zoning Commission
Spike Lawrence – District 1
Jimmy Lindblom – District 1
Alex Finter – District 2
Linda Milhaven – District 2 (Chair)
Derrik Rochwalik – District 3
Warren Whitney – District 3
Mihai Toma – District 4
Jan Leighton – District 4
Erik Hernandez – District 5 (Vice Chair)
Kevin Danzeisen – District 5
Framework 2040 Project Team
Jen Pokorski, AICP, County Manager 
Darcy Kober, Assistant County Manager
Tom Ellsworth, AICP, Director, Planning & Development Department
Darren Gérard, AICP, Deputy Director, Planning & Development Department
Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor
Adam Cannon, AICP, Senior Planner (Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Project Manager)
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
ii

For providing technical and professional review and expertise, special thank you to the following Maricopa County 
departments and external agencies and organizations:
Most importantly, Maricopa County thanks all the citizens; property owners; community and business organizations; 
federal, state and local agencies; and all other stakeholders that provided input on this plan. Thank you for your effort and 
commitment to helping make the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan an effective guide for making 
Maricopa County one of the best in the nation!
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management 
Maricopa County Department of Enterprise Technology & 
Innovation 
Maricopa County Department of Public Health
Maricopa County Department of Transportation
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
Maricopa County Flood Control District
Maricopa County Government Relations
Maricopa County Human Services Department
Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority
Maricopa County Library District
Maricopa County Office of Communications
Maricopa County Office of Management & Budget
Maricopa County Parks & Recreation Department
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Arizona Department of Transportation
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona Public Service 
Arizona Rock Products Association 
Arizona State Land Department
Bureau of Land Management
County Supervisors Association of Arizona
Greater Phoenix Economic Council
Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Luke Air Force Base 
Maricopa Association of Governments
Salt River Project
The Consultant Team for the Comprehensive Plan was led by
with assistance from
Small Giants Marketing Agency
The Barnhart Company
iii
Acknowledgments

2
3
4
1
5
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Public Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Plan Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Municipal-Rural Influence Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Plan Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
The Reason for Planning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
History of Planning in Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Statutory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Vision, Mission, and Strategic Priorities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Importance of the Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Comprehensive Plan Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Public Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Guiding Themes & Desired Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
The Comprehensive Plan in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
How Framework 2040 Relates to County Area Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
How Framework 2040 Relates to Other Plans, Ordinances, 
& Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Relating to Other Jurisdictions’ Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Maricopa County Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Maricopa County Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Maricopa County Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Maricopa County Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Table of Contents
iv
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan

6
7
8
9
10
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Planning Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Growth Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
v
Table of Contents

13
14
A
11
12
Table of Contents
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Cost of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Comprehensive Plan Adoption, Readoption, and 
Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
Comprehensive Plan Adoption & Amendment Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . 224
County Area Plan Adoption & Readoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Amendment Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Amendment Procedures (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230
Appendix I: Glossary of Defined Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Appendix II: Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Appendix III: Public Participation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Continued from previous page
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
vi

List of Maps
Map 1.  Regional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Map 2.  Maricopa County Area of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Map 3.  Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Map 4.  Growth Trends in Unincorporated Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Map 5.  Existing Land Utilization Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Map 6.  Maricopa County Area Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Map 7.  County Islands in Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Map 8.  Military Bases and Decibel Contour Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Map 9.  Military Installation, Range, or Arizona National Guard Site Influence Areas . . . . . . . . . 83
Map 10.  Aggregates in Maricopa County Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Map 11.  Fire Districts in Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Map 12.  Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Map 13.  Scenic Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Map 14.  The Areas of Municipal Influence and Rural Influence in Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . 95
Map 15.  Maricopa County Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Map 16.  MCDOT Functional Classification (Existing and Future) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
Map 17.  Future Planned Freeway Facility Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Map 18.  Floodplain Management in Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Map 19.  Wildlife Connectivity in Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Map 20.  Extent Land Subsidence Features in Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Map 21.  Future Growth Hot Spot Growth Projection in Unincorporated Maricopa County . . . 171
Map 22.  County Parks and Trails Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Map 23.  Energy Generation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
vii
Table of Contents

Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1.  Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 2.  Age Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 3.  Generational Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 4.  Race and Ethnicity in Unincorporated Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 5.  Unincorporated Maricopa County Population Projection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 6.  Population Projection Comparison  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 7.  Existing Land Utilization Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Figure 8.  Median Household Income and Home Value in Maricopa County  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 9.  Percentage of Maricopa County Cost-Burdened Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Figure 10.  Unincorporated Maricopa County Housing Units Construction by Decade . . . . . . . . 79
Figure 11.  Municipal-Rural Influence Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 12.  Summary of Sidewalk Facilities in Unincorporated Maricopa County . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Figure 13.  Ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 Exceedance Days in Maricopa County per Year . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 14.  Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Figure 15.  Employment Growth Rate per Decade, 2020 - 2060 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 16.  Workforce Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Figure 17.  Unemployment Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 18.  Worker Commute Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 19.  Source of Water in Phoenix AMA (in acre-feet), 2019 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Figure 20.  Water Demand in Phoenix AMA (in acre-feet), 2019 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Figure 21.  Public Participation Process: County Initiated-Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Figure 22.  Public Participation Process: Comprehensive Plan Amendments 
& Development Master Plan Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
Continued from previous page
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
viii

List of Tables
Table 1.  Plan Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 2.  Land Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Table 3.  Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 4.  Annexations of Unincorporated Maricopa County and Population Density . . . . . . . . . . 64
Table 5.  Existing Land Utilization in Unincorporated Maricopa County  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Table 6.  Urban Service and Infrastructure Requirements for Urban Land Use Types . . . . . . . . 101
Table 7.  Land Use Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Table 8.  MCDOT Roadway Functional Classifications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Table 9.       Maricopa County Bicycle Facility Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Table 10.  Employment Projections by RAZ by MPA, 2020-2060  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Table 11.  Maricopa County Employment by Industry Sector, 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Table 12.  Maricopa County Industry Employment Projections by Sector, 2022-2032 . . . . . . . 156
ix
Table of Contents

1
Executive 
Summary

In This Summary
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Public Engagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Plan Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The Municipal-Rural Influence Framework. . . . . . . . . 14
Plan Goals & Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

H1
The Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan is Maricopa 
County’s official guide for shaping growth and development 
in its unincorporated areas over the next 10-20 years. This 
plan provides a strategic foundation for evaluating past 
trends, understanding current conditions, and charting a 
clear, forward-looking path for the future.
Introduction
Developed in accordance with Arizona statutory requirements, the Comprehensive Plan 
establishes a cohesive policy structure that promotes responsible land use, safeguards 
public health and safety, and commits to meeting needs of the unincorporated areas 
while ensuring the prudent use of public resources. Through this plan, Maricopa County 
seeks to balance maintaining opportunity for future generations with stewardship of 
the County’s natural systems and open spaces, in a manner that supports long-term 
prosperity.
To help provide these outcomes with quality and consistency, Maricopa County uses 
unifying vision and mission statements along with several strategic priorities.
	
„ Vision: Citizens serving citizens collaboratively, efficiently, and effectively.
	
„ Mission: Provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible services for a healthy, 
safe community.
	
„ Strategic Priorities: Safe communities, best-in-class regional services, efficient 
infrastructure, economic vitality, and fiscal stability.
Public Engagement
Framework 2040 represents the culmination of a two-year planning effort launched 
in Spring 2024. Central to this planning process was an extensive and inclusive public 
engagement strategy designed to ensure community voices shaped long-term priorities 
and planning direction. Countywide outreach included:
	
„ 13 public meetings, 3 virtual events, 2,400+ surveys, and multiple interactive web-
based engagement tools. 
	
„ Top community priorities centered around: preserving open space, expanding 
recreation, ensuring water security, improving public safety, and supporting 
economic opportunities.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
12

Plan Elements
The Comprehensive Plan addresses nine critical overarching topics that influence future growth and development 
across unincorporated Maricopa County. These topics, referred to as “elements” in the Comprehensive Plan, explore 
key issues that guide the goals and policies shaping informed, effective decision-making. Below is a brief overview of 
each element.
Land Use: 
Promote coordinated, high-quality development; protect public health and safety; maintain 
fiscal responsibility.
Transportation: 
Expand and maintain a multimodal network; coordinate future regional vehicular safety 
and capacity needs.
Environment: 
Improve air and water quality; protect sensitive lands; mitigate hazards (i.e. wildfire, 
flooding); preserve biodiversity.
Economic  
Growth: 
Diversify economy; support workforce development; attract innovation-driven industries.
Growth  
Areas: 
Assess the physical and social constraints and pressures for growth in the unincorporated 
area.
Open  
Space: 
Expand regional parks and trails; protect scenic corridors; maintain connectivity.
Water  
Resources: 
Contribute to the long-term water supply through support of conservation, reuse, and 
compliance with Assured Water Supply programs.
Energy: 
Support a comprehensive energy source development strategy in the region; encourage 
renewable energy and efficiency; plan for rising energy demand from technological 
advancement.
Cost of 
Development: 
Require new growth to fund infrastructure and services; maintain transparency and fiscal 
health.
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
13

The Municipal-Rural Influence 
Framework
The Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan introduces 
a new strategic framework for managing both urban 
and rural development across the unincorporated 
County’s vast and varied landscape. It is titled the 
Municipal-Rural Influence Framework, and it will 
function as the signature guidestone for regarding 
development decisions. 
Municipal-Rural Influence 
Framework
Identifies two areas in unincorporated Maricopa County: 
	
„ Area 
of 
Municipal 
Influence: 
Areas 
capable 
of 
supporting urban or suburban context development 
provided necessary infrastructure and services are 
available. 
	
„ Area of Rural Influence: Areas more appropriate for rural 
land uses and character and preservation of natural 
landscape.
Urban Solutions for Urban 
Development (USUD) Strategy
The evaluative strategy that Maricopa County employs to: 
	
„ Determine the infrastructure readiness (water, sewer, 
roads, emergency services) prior to urban development 
in unincorporated Maricopa County.
	
„ Gauge the ultimate feasibility of a Comprehensive Plan 
Amendment or zoning district change in unincorporated 
Maricopa County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
14

Table 1.   Plan Goals and Policies
                 LAND USE
Land Use Goal #1: Achieve a coordinated pattern of development.
Goal Statement: Ensure that development across the County is well-planned and cohesive, promoting 
efficient land use and infrastructure, and leading to a more organized growth pattern. 
Land Use Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports phasing plans for new urban development to coordinate 
such development with new urban services and infrastructure.
Land Use Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports market feasibility studies, cost/benefit where warranted 
to help determine when new urban development in unincorporated areas is appropriate. 
Land Use Policy #1.3: Maricopa County supports considering the existence or readiness of urban 
services and infrastructure as a factor in the approval or denial of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a 
Zoneing District Change in accordance with the Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy.
Land Use Policy #1.4: Maricopa County supports limiting development in undeveloped areas where 
infrastructure and public services do not exist, or where no major infrastructure projects are planned, 
such as state and/or federal highways.
Land Use Policy #1.5: Maricopa County supports coordinating land use and infrastructure planning with 
state agencies, other counties, municipalities, relevant utilities, federal agencies, and other regulatory 
bodies. 
Land Use Policy #1.6: Maricopa County supports annexation of urban development in unincorporated 
Maricopa County by municipalities.
Land Use Policy #1.7: Maricopa County supports annexation of any unincorporated area of the County 
that is within a municipal planning area and completely surrounded by a municipality or municipalities.
Land Use Policy #1.8: Maricopa County supports the prevention of forming new County Islands.
Plan Goals & Policies
The following represents this plan’s important goals and policies, listed in Table 1, organized based on their Chapter and 
Element order:
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
15

Land Use Policy #1.9: Maricopa County supports planning coordination with adjacent municipalities, 
landowners, and neighboring public community members for proposed development within County 
Islands or municipal planning areas.
Land Use Policy #1.10: Maricopa County supports considering the plans and projects of overlapping or 
neighboring agencies in the planning of unincorporated lands and invite comments and coordination 
when appropriate.
Land Use Policy #1.11: Maricopa County supports flexible design and zoning techniques within county 
islands or municipal planning areas through pre-annexation agreements, as needed, to align future 
development with the standards and service expectations of the adjacent municipalities.
Land Use Policy #1.12: Maricopa County supports directing new urban development to the Urban Growth 
Area identified in this plan and complying with the Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy.
Land Use Policy #1.13: Maricopa County supports balanced land use patterns that include various 
residential, retail, non-retail employment, and public and civic land uses when appropriate urban services 
are available.
Land Use Policy #1.14: Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new urban development on 
existing rural land uses, including but not limited to, agriculture, mining, and forestry.
Land Use Policy #1.15: Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new rural development and 
new agriculture on existing urban land uses.
Land Use Policy #1.16: Maricopa County supports periodic reviews of the Area Plan Program and the 
individual Area Plans to assess relevance, implementation progress, and alignment with the Maricopa 
County Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Policy #1.17: Maricopa County supports decommissioning an individual Area Plan upon Board 
consideration and approval if the amount of unincorporated land within the area equals less than 50% of 
the original total Area Plan limits.
Land Use Policy #1.18: Maricopa County supports requiring any Area Plan Update or new Area Plan to 
use the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Goal #2: Protect public health, safety, and well-being within unincorporated Maricopa County.
Goal Statement: Implementing land use policies that prioritize the health, safety, and overall well-being of 
residents is essential for creating desirable developments and destinations and maintaining a high quality 
of life for existing residents. 
Land Use Policy #2.1: Maricopa County supports considering response times for public safety, fire, and 
other emergency responders in determining the feasibility of new development in unincorporated areas.
Land Use Policy #2.2: Maricopa County supports public safety and security features included in the 
design of new and existing development to promote safe and active communities. 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
16

Land Use Policy #2.3: Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new development on Maricopa 
County’s regional parks, the Maricopa Trail, and other public open spaces. 
Land Use Policy #2.4: Maricopa County supports interconnected trails, parks, preserves, open space, 
recreation centers, and similar features in new development areas where feasible. 
Land Use Policy #2.5: Maricopa County supports the preservation of known and potential sources of 
aggregates and related mining operations within its area of jurisdiction from sterilization by proximate 
incompatible land uses. 
Land Use Policy #2.6: Maricopa County supports land use buffers and land use transitions in urban/rural 
interface areas, including near aggregate mining operations, military installations, proving grounds, and 
the County’s regional parks.
Land Use Policy #2.7: Maricopa County supports the restoration of land to a beneficial condition on post-
aggregates mining reclamation sites, that may include future development if feasible considering site 
conditions and the compatibility of nearby land uses.
Land Use Policy #2.8: Maricopa County supports flexible design and zoning techniques when used to 
establish balanced and efficient land use patterns, and when used to protect important environmental 
and open space areas and the connections between these areas. 
Land Use Policy #2.9: Maricopa County supports the use of land use buffers and compatible land use 
strategies near existing and future high voltage electric utility line corridors in coordination with power 
utility companies. 
Land Use Policy #2.10: Maricopa County supports land use compatibility within the High Noise or 
Accident Potential Zone of Luke Air Force Base, Auxiliary Airfield #1, and the military auxiliary airfield near 
the town of Gila Bend. 
Land Use Policy #2.11: Maricopa County supports land use compatibility in the influence area of a 
military installation or range or Arizona national guard site.
Land Use Goal #3: Encourage high-quality development.
Goal Statement: Development projects that meet high standards of design and construction are key for 
enhancing the County’s aesthetic appeal and long-term viability.
Land Use Policy #3.1: Maricopa County supports mixed housing options. 
Land Use Policy #3.2: Maricopa County supports residential development that contributes to maintaining 
a long-term level of high quality of development.
Land Use Policy #3.3: Maricopa County supports steering housing in areas served by transportation 
networks, in close proximity to job centers, and where public services and infrastructure are available or 
readily available. 
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
17

Land Use Policy #3.4: Maricopa County supports rehabilitation and/or abatement by private parties of 
substandard, nuisance, vacant, and/or abandoned homes, buildings and land to protect neighborhoods 
and property values. 
Land Use Policy #3.5: Maricopa County supports subdivisions rather than unregulated land divisions 
otherwise known as “wildcat” lot splits.
Land Use Policy #3.6: Maricopa County supports high-quality commercial centers and well-designed 
offices, business, and industrial parks in the Urban Growth Area with a preference for these developments 
to annex into a municipality.
Land Use Goal #4: Exercise sound financial management in land use decisions.
Goal Statement: Land use decisions that strengthen the County’s fiscal health and ensure long-term 
financial stability are important and central to the financially responsible planning aims of the County.
Land Use Policy #4.1: Maricopa County supports compliance with its capital improvement and other 
funding programs, except when reimbursement is made to the County for unplanned costs or when 
private capital is used for the provision of services and infrastructure. 
Land Use Policy #4.2: Maricopa County supports using homeowners’ associations and related 
organizations and improvement districts to manage and maintain services, infrastructure, and amenities 
to help limit impacts to taxpayers where appropriate.
Land Use Policy #4.3: Maricopa County supports using development agreements for large-scale urban 
development to help limit financial impacts to the County.
Land Use Goal #5: Provide regional leadership on land use issues.
Goal Statement: The County seeks to take a proactive and leading role in addressing land use challenges 
and setting standards for development in the region among the various jurisdictions in order to promote 
best practices in land use planning.
Land Use Policy #5.1: Maricopa County supports promoting awareness about the unique aspects of living 
in unincorporated areas. 
Land Use Policy #5.2: Maricopa County supports periodic reviews of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance and the initiation of specific amendments on an as needed basis.
Land Use Policy #5.3: Maricopa County supports periodic comprehensive updates of the Maricopa 
County Zoning Ordinance on an as needed basis. 
Land Use Policy #5.4: Maricopa County supports coordinated planning efforts between local, state, and 
federal agencies.
Land Use Policy #5.5: Maricopa County supports coordinating with the Arizona State Land Department in 
the planning and design of large-scale urban development in or adjacent to State Trust Land.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
18

TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Goal #1: Provide a comprehensive transportation system.
Goal Statement: Developing an integrated transportation network that meets the needs of all users is vital 
to ensure that the system is accessible, efficient, and well-connected.
Transportation Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports compliance with the County Department of 
Transportation’s currently adopted Transportation System Plan and its successor plans. 
Transportation Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports adherence to its Transportation Improvement 
Program and its successor programs. 
Transportation Policy #1.3: Maricopa County supports using the preferred funding methods identified 
in the Cost of Development element to pay for transportation improvements necessary for new 
development. 
Transportation Policy #1.4: Maricopa County supports new development funding unanticipated, 
accelerated and nonprogrammed improvements where such development requires deviation from the 
Transportation Improvement Program.
Transportation Policy #1.5: Maricopa County supports the preservation of rights-of-way, as necessary, 
to maintain and extend the grid system, to support the state’s development of the highway-interchange 
network, and to preserve the scenic corridors.
Transportation Policy #1.6: Maricopa County supports roadway planning that promotes identified scenic 
corridors and wildlife habitat linkages and connectivity where necessary.
Transportation Policy #1.7: Maricopa County supports public education efforts that assist in reducing air 
pollution.
Land Use Policy #5.6: Maricopa County supports working with state and federal agencies and utility 
companies on any changes to their land ownership boundaries that could lead to acquiring land for local 
public use.
Land Use Policy #5.7: Maricopa County supports coordinating with state and federal agencies and utility 
companies to address safety and security issues associated with new development near the Palo Verde 
Nuclear Generating Station.
Land Use Policy #5.8: Maricopa County supports the on-site incorporation of utility infrastructure by 
developers and corridors in large-scale urban development that are necessary to provide essential utility 
services to that development.
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
19

Transportation Goal #3: Support regional and interagency collaboration.
Goal Statement: Fostering collaboration among the transportation agencies in the region is critical to 
create and maintain a more effective, integrated, and functionally competitive transportation system.
Transportation Policy #3.1: Maricopa County supports partnerships with municipalities in cost sharing 
and mutual financial support for road repairs and improvements. 
Transportation Policy #3.2: Maricopa County supports municipal annexation of roads that are adjacent to 
County Islands. 
Transportation Policy #3.3: Maricopa County supports intergovernmental agreements that allow for 
municipal or private construction of roads in and passing through county islands to the standards of the 
surrounding municipality where these roads are intended to be annexed by the municipality. 
Transportation Policy #3.4: Maricopa County supports partnerships with federal, state, and local 
governments and agencies for interjurisdictional traffic operations and management for the benefit of 
regional safety and mobility.
Transportation Policy #3.5: Maricopa County supports coordination between property owners to 
establish an agreement to maintain private ingress/egress.
Transportation Goal #2: Manage the transportation system to provide continual improvements in reliability, 
efficiency, and safety.
Goal Statement: Continuously improving the reliability, efficiency, and safety of the transportation system 
through active management is crucial to meet the community’s evolving needs.
Transportation Policy #2.1: Maricopa County supports coordinating decisions on land use patterns and 
transportation investments that aim for a safe, efficient, and fiscally solvent transportation network. 
Transportation Policy #2.2: Maricopa County supports designing new roadways to include pedestrian 
facilities separated from vehicular traffic with safe multimodal crossings on arterial roadways as 
necessary.
Transportation Policy #2.3: Maricopa County supports the inclusion or connection to alternative 
transportation in the design of existing and new urban development, as feasible and effective. Alternative 
transportation can include, but is not limited to, sidewalks, the Maricopa Trail and other trail connections, 
bicycle facility infrastructure, park-and-ride/public transit facilities, and other appropriate practices. 
Transportation Policy #2.4: Maricopa County supports using Intelligent Transportation Systems and 
Connected Vehicle technology for efficient and safe movement of people and goods.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
20

ENVIRONMENT
Environment Goal #1: Enhance the regional environmental quality for the overall well-being of the 
community.
Goal Statement: Improving the overall environmental quality through improvements in air quality and 
water quality and through the protection of natural resources is a benefit to the overall health of the 
region.
Environment Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports providing education, regulatory guidance, permitting, 
inspection, and enforcement services through the County Air Quality Department’s Strategic Plan and its 
Compliance Assurance model to assist in achieving compliance with federal air quality standards. 
Environment Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports the achievement and maintenance of federal air 
quality standards, including National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 
Environment Policy #1.3: Maricopa County supports incentive programs that promote implementing 
clean air technologies and addressing air quality issues throughout Maricopa County where feasible and 
effective. 
Environment Policy #1.4: Maricopa County supports compliance with its Drinking Water program and its 
Water and Wastewater Treatment program to protect water quality.
Environment Policy #1.5: Maricopa County supports a comprehensive program to control dust (PM10) 
particularly from unpaved roads, alleys, and parking lots.
Environment Policy #1.6: Maricopa County supports noise reductions in new development design and in 
the construction of new buildings where necessary or otherwise where feasible.
Environment Policy #1.7: Maricopa County supports enforcement of its Dark Sky Ordinance and supports 
regional efforts to limit excessive nighttime light.
Environment Goal #2: Support the protection of sensitive lands and environments. 
Goal Statement: The County aims to safeguard environmentally sensitive areas from the impacts of 
development in order to preserve natural habitats and rural landscapes while accommodating growth in 
the future.
Environment Policy #2.1: Maricopa County supports planning future development while considering the 
prohibition of development within floodways and, where necessary, 100-year floodplains as delineated by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 
Environment Policy #2.2: Maricopa County supports the Military Compatible land use designation for 
High Noise or Accident Potential Zones, and compliance with state laws relating to land use compatibility 
and consistency with the high noise or accident potential of Luke Air Force Base and the ancillary military 
facilities. 
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
21

Environment Goal #4: Strengthen the County’s preparedness for hazards.
Goal Statement: Strengthening the County’s ability to respond to hazards through effective planning 
and preparedness reduces regional risk and builds resilience to foreseen and unforeseen environmental 
threats.
Environment Policy #4.1: Maricopa County supports compliance with watercourse master studies and 
plans and area drainage master studies and plans.
Environment Policy #4.2: Maricopa County supports fire and wildfire prevention and mitigation measures 
in the design of development where necessary and appropriate.
Environment Policy #4.3: Maricopa County supports public education about the risks and limitations of 
developing in hazard-prone areas.
Environment Goal #5: Provide regional leadership to promote all aspects of regional environmental quality.
Goal Statement: Leading efforts to promote environmental quality across the region is a key objective to 
steering beneficial environmental stewardship.
Environment Policy #5.1: Maricopa County supports participating with local, state, and federal agencies 
on developing solutions for State Implementation Plans that have not been addressed. 
Environment Goal #3: Protect the natural biodiversity of the region.
Goal Statement: Protecting and promoting the region’s natural biodiversity is critical to conserving diverse 
species and habitats within the County to preserve an ecological balance.
Environment Policy #3.1: Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new development and 
urbanization on environmentally sensitive areas, including the habitats and migration corridors of native 
wildlife (both fauna and flora). 
Environment Policy #3.2: Maricopa County supports innovative project design and development 
techniques that protect important plant and animal habitats, desert washes, and migration corridors. 
Environment Policy #3.3: Maricopa County supports completing resource and biological surveys and 
establishing needed mitigation measures prior to new development as directed by the Arizona Game and 
Fish Department and the State Historic Preservation Office.
Environment Policy #2.3: Maricopa County supports the Military Compatible land use designations within 
the influence area of a military installation or range or Arizona national guard site, and compliance with 
state laws relating to land use compatibility and consistency with the operation of the installation, range, 
or site and its influence area. 
Environment Policy #2.4: Maricopa County supports flexible zoning techniques when used to keep new 
development below the 15% hillside slope and to protect riparian areas. 
Environment Policy #2.5: Maricopa County supports using the hillside general design characteristics 
identified in this element.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
22

ECONOMIC GROWTH
Economic Growth Goal #1: Foster a diverse and balanced economy to promote long-term economic 
stability and economic resiliency.
Goal Statement: Aiming for a diverse and resilient economy to ensure long-term stability and growth is 
integral to creating a balanced economic environment that can withstand various economic challenges 
locally and externally.
Economic Growth Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports coordinated and balanced land use patterns 
that allow for both Basic and Non-basic sector businesses.
Economic Growth Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports assessing its regulations and processes to 
enhance effectiveness, ensure quality service, increase efficiency, and establish a competitive advantage.
Environment Policy #5.2: Maricopa County supports continuing to build relationships and collaborations 
between the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and 
other partners in the effort to preserve ecosystems. 
Environment Policy #5.3: Maricopa County supports its Department of Emergency Management 
continuing to work closely with local, state, federal partners, and community organizations.
Environment Policy #5.4: Maricopa County supports implementing the Multi-jurisdictional Hazard 
Mitigation Plan to ensure a comprehensive and effective emergency management strategy for the region.
Economic Growth Goal #2: Support the growth of opportunity in the local and regional economies.
Goal Statement: Promoting initiatives that create economic opportunities for residents and businesses is 
crucial in elevating job creation, entrepreneurship, and economic mobility.
Economic Growth Policy #2.1: Maricopa County supports partnerships with a variety of entities and 
stakeholders to increase business success and address community needs. 
Economic Growth Policy #2.2: Maricopa County supports efforts to recruit prospective businesses and 
industries to the County and efforts to retain existing businesses and industries. 
Economic Growth Policy #2.3: Maricopa County supports the continuation and expansion of vocational, 
technical, and emerging career workforce training in the region.
Economic Growth Goal #3: Cultivate a thriving business environment that incubates and retains innovative 
companies.
Goal Statement: Attracting, retaining, and supporting innovative companies and a skilled workforce drives 
a dynamic and competitive business climate.
Economic Growth Policy #3.1: Maricopa County supports implementing the Comprehensive Plan in a 
clear and consistent way to help businesses make long-term investment decisions.  
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
23

GROWTH AREAS
Growth Areas Goal #1: Address growth strategically to ensure orderly, compatible land use and reasonable 
development.
Goal Statement: Ensuring orderly and reasonable growth through effective development planning 
practices is crucial for providing the appropriate infrastructure needed to maintain a high quality of life.
Growth Areas Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports assurance of annexation, where feasible, of new 
urban development and redevelopment sites within its Urban Growth Area.
Growth Areas Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports planning for urban/rural interface transition areas 
between its Urban Growth Area and Rural Service Area.
Growth Areas Goal #2: Have urban growth that is consistent with the County’s Urban Growth Area, meets 
statutory requirements, and implements the Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy.
Goal Statement: The County’s Urban Growth Area allows for the growth of infrastructure, services, and 
development according to the Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy in order to protect the 
public’s health, safety, and well-being.
Growth Areas Policy #2.1: Maricopa County supports consistent implementation of and compliance with 
its Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy in its Urban Growth Area.
Growth Areas Policy #2.2: Maricopa County supports periodically evaluating the development 
constraints and considerations identified in this element to determine how they impact the Urban Growth 
Area, and whether they require reconsideration or modification.
Economic Growth Goal #4: Contribute to partnerships that advance an effective and integrated regional 
economy.
Goal Statement: Strengthening the County’s role in the broader regional economy through effective 
collaboration and integration emphasizes the importance of partnerships for regional economic success.
Economic Growth Policy #4.1: Maricopa County supports programs that provide citizens with the 
education and training necessary to attain careers in emerging and high-demand fields.
Economic Growth Policy #4.2: Maricopa County supports organizations and programs that attract a 
variety of Basic Sector industry clusters that have long-term, stable growth prospects.
Economic Growth Policy #4.3: Maricopa County supports the Maricopa County Industrial Development 
Authority, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Community Development Block Grant program, and 
other economic opportunity incentive programs.
Economic Growth Policy #3.2: Maricopa County supports an economic environment that promotes 
entrepreneurial activities and business formation. 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
24

OPEN SPACE
Open Space Goal #1: Protect and expand the regional park system proportionately with population growth.
Goal Statement: Ensuring that the regional park system grows and integrates in proportion to meet the 
needs and demands for recreational opportunities in the natural landscapes and spaces of an increasing 
population in both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of Maricopa County.
Open Space Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports implementing the County Parks and Recreation 
Department’s currently adopted Parks, Open Space & Trail System Plan, and any successor plan.
Open Space Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports soft edge treatments along the perimeter of its 
regional parks, regional trail system, the El Rio corridor, and open space in unincorporated areas of the 
County.
Open Space Policy #1.3: Maricopa County will coordinate with the planning initiative that seeks to 
revitalize the Salt and Gila River corridors as vital ecological, cultural, and economic assets.
Open Space Policy #1.4: Maricopa County supports the mission and ongoing efforts of the Lower Gila 
River Collaborative, a voluntary partnership focused on restoring the Lower Gila River ecosystem while 
promoting stewardship, recreation, and compatible development.
Open Space Goal #2: Support access to both local and regional recreational opportunities and open space.
Goal Statement: Supporting appropriate public access to recreational lands and open spaces in 
the region outside of the County’s jurisdiction is important for providing opportunities for exercise, 
relaxation, enjoyment, and social interaction, while also supporting environmental conservation and local 
economies.
Open Space Policy #2.1: Maricopa County supports new residential developments using the local park 
ratios identified in this plan as a guide for the provision of local recreational amenities.
Open Space Policy #2.2: Maricopa County supports user-based funding options for its regional park 
system and regional trail system to help maintain high-quality amenities and access.
Open Space Goal #3: Maintain the Maricopa Trail and the Maricopa County Regional Trail System.
Goal Statement: Continue to protect and enhance the Maricopa County Trail System in addition to 
working with regional municipalities to connect the trail system to their parks, preserves, and open space 
systems.
Open Space Policy #3.1: Maricopa County supports dedication and improvement of trail right-of-way 
within new development, including the Maricopa Trail and Maricopa County Regional Trail System.
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
25

WATER RESOURCES
Water Resources Goal #1: Contribute to the endurance of the region’s water supply and its delivery.
Goal Statement: Supporting the local water providers’ efforts to secure the reliability and endurance of the 
region’s water supply ensures stability in water delivery necessary for planning future development and 
the needs of the community.
Water Resources Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports residential development that is subject to 
the requirements of the Arizona Department of Water Resources Assured and Adequate Water Supply 
programs.
Water Resources Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports water adequacy determinations for new 
subdivisions outside Active Management Areas.
Water Resources Policy #1.3: Maricopa County supports water conservation techniques in the planning 
and design of new development.
Water Resources Policy #1.4: Maricopa County supports low water use and drought-tolerant landscaping.
Open Space Goal #4: Provide regional leadership to promote the preservation of the desert landscape 
through protected recreational lands and open space.
Goal Statement: Leading efforts to preserve and conserve the natural landscape and wildlife habitats and 
corridors through protected recreational lands and open spaces is a primary objective for the flourishing 
of the unique environment of the Sonoran Desert for future generations. 
Open Space Policy #4.1: Maricopa County supports the protection of scenic corridors and views as 
outlined in adopted scenic corridor plans and in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
Open Space Policy #4.2: Maricopa County supports partnering with municipalities to address edge 
treatments along the perimeter of regional parks and the regional trail system.
Open Space Policy #4.3: Maricopa County supports partnering with adjacent federal and state agencies 
to expand recreation opportunities and protect and preserve existing open space from development 
pressures where feasible.
Open Space Policy #4.4: Maricopa County supports partnering with adjacent federal and state agencies 
to promote responsible recreational activities and opportunities that aim to protect and preserve existing 
parks, recreation areas, public lands, and open spaces.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
26

Water Resources Goal #3: Support and provide leadership for water conservation in the region.
Goal Statement: Leading initiatives to promote water conservation practices across the region is vital for 
supporting the efficient and prudent management of water resources in the desert Southwest.
Water Resources Policy #3.1: Maricopa County supports informing the public about the importance and 
benefits of water conservation.
Water Resources Policy #3.2: Maricopa County supports the collaboration of municipalities to implement 
best practices for water planning and conservation.
                ENERGY
Energy Goal #1: Support enhancing the stability and the development of the energy grid in the region.
Goal Statement: Improving the stability and reliability of the energy grid through resilient and dependable 
energy infrastructure to support current and future regional energy needs.
Energy Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy that incorporates both 
traditional and alternative sources of energy to ensure that the energy supply is abundant and meets 
demand. 
Energy Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports expanding the energy generation supply and capacity to 
meet the increased needs from future growth.
Water Resources Goal #2: Promote and protect regional water quality.
Goal Statement: Focusing on initiatives and best practices to maintain and improve water quality for all 
users.
Water Resources Policy #2.1: Maricopa County supports compliance with its Drinking Water Program and 
its Water and Wastewater Treatment Programs. 
Water Resources Policy #2.2: Maricopa County supports renewable water use for landscape, park and 
common area irrigation; artificial lakes; and decorative water features.
Energy Goal #2: Increase energy efficiency through development patterns.
Goal Statement: Promoting development patterns that enhance energy efficiency is essential to reducing 
the rate of demand for new energy generation sources.
Energy Policy #2.1: Maricopa County supports energy efficient design and construction of new 
development.
Energy Policy #2.2: Maricopa County supports energy conservation through balanced and efficient 
development patterns where residential, commercial and employment land uses with complementary 
compatibility are proximate.
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
27

Energy Goal #4: Coordinate energy initiatives/programs in the region.
Goal Statement: Aligning energy initiatives/programs with jurisdictions both within and outside of 
Maricopa County ensures coordinated planning partnerships and viable development in the long-term. 
Energy Policy #4.1: Maricopa County supports incentive programs that promote energy efficiency where 
feasible and effective.
Energy Policy #4.2: Maricopa County supports efforts to assist businesses and individuals with 
renewable energy options and energy conservation.
Energy Goal #3: Support energy development in the region.
Goal Statement: Encouraging the development of energy resources through investment in local energy 
projects is requisite to support growth, development, and innovation within the region.
Energy Policy #3.1: Maricopa County supports energy conservation and emissions reduction through 
allowing new development to provide alternative transportation options or connect to existing alternative 
transportation infrastructure.  
Energy Policy #3.2: Maricopa County supports the utilization of traditional, alternative, and clean 
emission energy research and development. 
Energy Policy #3.3: Maricopa County supports the use of appropriate setbacks and buffers to residential 
uses from energy generation and/or energy storage facilities to prevent or lessen the impact from 
potential fires and other potential hazards.
Energy Policy #3.4: Maricopa County supports developing energy infrastructure using low-impact 
construction techniques and, where feasible, siting such energy infrastructure on previously disturbed 
locations for the benefit of local wildlife (including flora and fauna).
Energy Policy #3.5: Maricopa County supports appropriate buffers and setbacks to ecological and 
riparian habitats found along borders of significant washes and riverbanks from energy generation and/or 
storage facilities.
Energy Policy #3.6: Maricopa County supports responsible and timely decommissioning of solar energy 
generation and battery energy storage system facilities to ensure public safety, environmental protection, 
and restoration of land to a beneficial condition.
Energy Policy #2.3: Maricopa County supports energy conservation through having new urban 
development locate in cities and towns, and in the Urban Growth Area of the County identified in this Plan.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
28

Cost of Development Goal #2: Ensure transparency in financial reporting
Goal Statement: Providing clear and accurate financial information about the County to residents 
and stakeholders is key to maintaining transparency in financial reporting that builds public trust and 
accountability.
Cost of Development Policy #2.1: Maricopa County supports the provision of clear, accurate, and 
accessible financial information related to the costs of development and to overall County operations.
                COST OF DEVELOPMENT
Cost of Development Goal #1: Exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal 
strength.
Goal Statement: Making fiscally responsible decisions that strengthen the County’s financial health is 
needed to ensure that development projects contribute positively to the County’s fiscal stability.
Cost of Development Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports continuously evaluating the preferred 
funding methods with respect to the legal, socioeconomic, land use and administrative considerations 
identified in this element, and making changes when deemed necessary.
Cost of Development Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports using the traditional and preferred funding 
methods identified in this plan to offset costs of new development.
Cost of Development Policy #1.3: Maricopa County supports recouping the costs of its products and 
services without unfairly burdening those most in need of its products and services.
Cost of Development Goal #3: Require that new development pays its proper and reasonable share of the 
costs of new infrastructure, services, and other public improvements.
Goal Statement: Ensuring that new developments contribute their proportionate share to the costs 
of infrastructure, services, and public improvements is important for reducing future liabilities and 
protecting the long-term fiscal solvency of Maricopa County.
Cost of Development Policy #3.1: Maricopa County supports new development contributing its 
proportionate share of the costs of infrastructure necessary to support the demand for electric, water, 
sewer, and other services generated and necessitated by the development.
Cost of Development Policy #3.2: Maricopa County supports requiring new development to contribute 
its proportionate share of long-term maintenance costs associated with the use of all new infrastructure 
to support the demand for electric, water, sewer, and other services generated and necessitated by the 
development.
Cost of Development Policy #3.3: Maricopa County supports requiring the provision of infrastructure, 
facilities, and services needed by new development prior to that development, either directly or through 
fees. Where appropriate, the construction of infrastructure and facilities may be phased to coincide with 
project timelines.
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
29

2
Introduction

In This Chapter
The Reason for Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
History of Planning in Maricopa County. . . . . . . . . . . 33
Statutory Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Vision, Mission, and Strategic Priorities . . . . . . . . . . 35
The Importance of the Comprehensive Plan. . . . . . . 36
Comprehensive Plan Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Public Engagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Guiding Themes & Desired Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . 42

The Reason for Planning 
Understanding the significance of the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 
(Comprehensive Plan) begins with recognizing the value of planning itself. It is 
often described as both an art and a science, reflecting its blend of technical 
analysis and creative problem-solving. The way these diverse issues are 
addressed directly influences public health and safety, economic stability, 
environmental quality, the fulfillment of community needs, and the responsible 
use of public funds.
A defining feature of planning is its foundation in public engagement. It is a 
collaborative process in which citizens, stakeholders, and community leaders 
work together to identify and respond to complex and evolving challenges. 
Through dialogue and consensus-building, planning helps communities 
anticipate future needs and develop practical, innovative solutions that reflect 
shared values and long-term goals.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
32

History of Planning in 
Maricopa County
Modern planning in the United States 
began in the early 1900s as cities 
faced growing social, environmental, 
and 
economic 
challenges. 
In 
response, states adopted long-term 
planning requirements to address 
public health, safety, and quality of life. 
The field was formalized with the 1926 
and 1928 publication of federal zoning 
and planning acts, which continue to 
influence state and local planning 
efforts, including those in Arizona.
Planning 
in 
Maricopa 
County 
began in the late 1950s with initial 
studies focused on land use and 
population growth at a regional 
scale. In the decades that followed, 
the County developed small-scale 
plans for specific unincorporated 
areas and assisted smaller growing 
municipalities in preparing general 
plans for their jurisdictions. Due to 
its large geographic size and rapid 
growth, Maricopa County introduced 
Area Plans to address localized 
planning needs. While Area Plans 
remained a key component of the 
County’s 
strategy, 
the 
increasing 
population and emerging Countywide 
challenges 
in 
the 
early 
1990s 
prompted the development of the first 
County Comprehensive Plan for the 
entire unincorporated area. Adopted 
as Maricopa County 2020 – Eye to the 
Future, this plan established policy 
direction for land use, transportation, 
economic development, growth areas, 
and environmental stewardship.
Following 
the 
adoption 
of 
that 
plan, Arizona enacted the Growing 
Smarter and Growing Smarter Plus 
legislation, 
which 
expanded 
the 
scope of comprehensive planning. 
These laws required counties to 
plan for areas of growth, open 
space, 
environmental 
impacts, 
water resources, and the financial 
implications of new development. 
They also introduced requirements 
for 
inclusive 
public 
participation, 
stronger 
coordination 
with 
the 
Arizona State Land Department, and 
consistency between zoning changes 
and 
comprehensive 
plans. 
In 
response, Maricopa County updated 
its Comprehensive Plan in 2002 to 
meet these standards and added a 
housing 
affordability 
component. 
Subsequent 
updates 
incorporated 
additional state mandates, including 
land use protections around military 
installations, safeguards for aggregate 
resources and mining operations, and 
policies promoting energy efficiency 
and renewable energy.
The 
Vision 
2030 
Comprehensive 
Plan for Maricopa County was the 
previous plan that the Board of 
Supervisors approved in 2016. It 
emphasized coordinated land use 
planning, infrastructure investment, 
stewardship 
of 
the 
environment, 
and economic development while 
continuing to reinforce the importance 
of preserving rural character where 
appropriate. What set Vision 2030 
apart was its introduction of the Urban 
Solutions for Urban Development 
(USUD) 
strategy, 
which 
provided 
clear, criteria-based guidance for 
determining 
where 
urban-context 
development 
should 
occur. 
This 
new strategy helped align land use 
decisions with infrastructure capacity, 
municipal planning efforts, and long-
term sustainability goals, ensuring 
that 
growth 
was 
both 
strategic 
and fiscally responsible. The USUD 
strategy served as a key foundational 
piece to the new planning framework 
introduced in the Framework 2040 
Comprehensive Plan.
 Chapter 2 •  INTRODUCTION
33

Statutory 
Requirements
	
„ ARS §11-802: Requires that Maricopa County plan and provide for future 
growth and improvement in its jurisdiction (i.e. unincorporated areas) to 
promote public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. This statute 
also requires that Maricopa County coordinate all public improvements and 
adopt and enforce rules, regulations, ordinances and plans regarding future 
development.
	
„ ARS §11-804: Requires that Maricopa County prepare and adopt a long-term 
Comprehensive Plan for unincorporated areas. Specifically, this plan must 
address the following topics:
Arizona has long recognized the 
need for careful and deliberate 
planning and has laws directing 
how Maricopa County must 
prepare, adopt, and amend 
this Comprehensive Plan. The 
following is a summary of 
how Arizona Revised Statutes 
(ARS) directs the County’s 
comprehensive 
planning 
responsibilities.
	
„ ARS §11-805: Requires Maricopa County to adopt and subsequently amend or 
extend the Comprehensive Plan to serve as the official guide for development 
of areas within its jurisdiction. This statute also outlines the procedures and 
requirements for adopting and amending the Comprehensive Plan.
	
„ ARS §11-811: Requires that Maricopa County’s Zoning Ordinance, and all 
rezoning and zoning amendments, be consistent with and conform to the 
County’s Comprehensive Plan.
	
„ ARS §11-814: Requires that all rezonings be consistent with and conform to 
the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
	
„ ARS §28-8481: Requires that Maricopa County adopt a Comprehensive 
Plan that ensures development is compatible with the high noise or accident 
potential generated by military airport and ancillary military facilities.
LAND USE
OPEN 
SPACE
TRANSPORTATION
WATER 
RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENT
ENERGY
GROWTH 
AREAS
COST OF 
DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
34

Maricopa County Vision
Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, innovatively, efficiently and 
effectively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent.
Maricopa County Mission
The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally 
responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a 
healthy and safe community.
Maricopa County Strategic 
Priorities
	
„ Maricopa County will support safe communities and neighborhoods by 
providing access to a timely, integrated, and cost-effective smart justice 
system.
	
„ Maricopa County will provide best-in-class regional services, both mandated 
and of concern to citizens, while coordinating with municipalities, other local 
jurisdictions, and community-based entities to consolidate services and 
avoid duplication, when applicable.
	
„ Maricopa County will deploy an effective and efficient infrastructure to 
implement streamlined policies and procedures improving delivery of 
services, and promoting a healthy workplace and a fully engaged workforce.
	
„ Maricopa County will innovatively leverage its resources, be adaptive in its 
regulatory policies and practices, and proactive in its public relations to 
attract, promote and support the growth of business enterprises in order to 
produce a vibrant and balanced regional economy.
	
„ Maricopa County will continue to efficiently manage County resources and 
engage in effective fiscal planning with integrity and transparency to promote 
financial stability and economic prosperity for Maricopa County residents.
Maricopa County’s authority is 
limited to only what is specifically 
required or allowed by state 
law. The County provides many 
services like public health and 
healthcare, roads and related 
infrastructure, flood control, law 
enforcement, criminal justice, 
education, parks and recreation, 
libraries, animal control, election 
oversight and community 
development. To help provide 
these services with quality and 
consistency, Maricopa County 
uses unifying mission and vision 
statements along with several 
strategic priorities. These 
statements and priorities are a 
commitment to achieving quality 
results for residents.
Vision, Mission, and 
Strategic Priorities 
 Chapter 2 •  INTRODUCTION
35

The Importance of the 
Comprehensive Plan
Fulfills Statutory Requirements 
State law requires Maricopa County to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan that includes specific 
mandated elements while allowing flexibility to address additional issues as needed. Because laws and 
societal conditions evolve, periodic amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be necessary to maintain 
compliance with state requirements and to ensure the plan remains responsive to public needs.
Protects Public Health
Protecting public health is a core responsibility of Maricopa County. The Comprehensive Plan supports this 
goal by promoting efficient land use patterns that reduce air pollution and other environmental impacts. It 
also encourages personal well-being through the development of interconnected open spaces that support 
physical activity and safe travel by foot, bicycle, and other non-motorized means.
Protects Public Safety 
The Comprehensive Plan enhances public safety by evaluating, coordinating, and approving new development 
in consideration with essential infrastructure and services, including roads, law enforcement, fire protection, 
and water and sewer systems. It also discourages development in hazardous areas where lives and property 
may be at risk.
Protects General Welfare 
The Comprehensive Plan protects the general welfare by evaluating land use, infrastructure, and public 
services in a coordinated manner that supports the overall well-being of unincorporated Maricopa County. 
Through this integrated approach, the Plan promotes orderly growth, efficient service delivery, and high-
levels of long-term community quality of life.
Prioritizes an Affordable Future 
Maricopa County is committed to keeping its communities affordable and livable for everyone. Consequently, 
the Comprehensive Plan actively promotes policies to maintain a low cost of living and expand access to 
affordable housing. By prioritizing affordability, Maricopa County ensures that essential workers, young 
professionals, and long-time residents can continue to call the County home. 
Supports Consensus Building 
Comprehensive planning is a collaborative process that considers the complex and interrelated nature of 
social, economic, and environmental issues. While complete agreement on every issue may not be possible, 
consensus is essential. The Comprehensive Plan reflects a continuous effort to build consensus and adjust 
priorities as conditions and community needs change.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
36

Establishes New Development Framework for 
Unincorporated Areas
The Comprehensive Plan proposes a new development framework, titled the Municipal-Rural Influence 
Framework. This is an organizational framework that allows for all unincorporated land to be evaluated 
under an established set of policies to determine where urban or rural development is most appropriate. 
This framework also allows for development in County Islands not covered by a County Area Plan to be 
more accountable to consider the surrounding context including, but not limited to, available infrastructure 
and services, and community needs.
Promotes Quality Communities 
The Comprehensive Plan supports the development of high-quality communities by encouraging the 
inclusion of parks, open spaces, schools, libraries, and community centers. These features enhance quality 
of life and foster a sense of connection among neighborhoods and residents.
Helps Allocate Limited Financial Resources 
While new development can bring economic benefits, it also creates demands for services and infrastructure. 
The Comprehensive Plan helps protect taxpayers by promoting balanced and efficient land use patterns that 
broaden the tax base, reduce financial burdens, and support stable, economically resilient communities. 
The plan’s Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy ensures that growth is aligned with available 
infrastructure and services, minimizing costly obligations. It also requires that new development contribute 
its fair share toward the cost of necessary improvements.
Establishes Public Policy 
The Comprehensive Plan sets forth policies that guide Maricopa County in addressing long-term social, 
economic, and environmental challenges. These policies provide a consistent foundation for decision-
making, and that any deviation justified by demonstrating a clear benefit to the County as a whole.
Serves as a Decision-Making Guide
The Comprehensive Plan assists the County, residents, and businesses in making informed decisions about 
development location, type, density, and infrastructure needs. It supports the creation of cost-effective 
capital improvement programs, helps prioritize competing demands, and enables individuals and investors 
to make choices based on the timely availability and quality of services in different areas.
Links Complex and Interrelated Issues 
Development decisions have far-reaching impacts. Choices about residential densities and location 
influence housing affordability, infrastructure needs, and service delivery. These, in turn, affect budgets, tax 
policies, and the provision of services such as education, transportation, law enforcement, and emergency 
services. Development patterns also shape employment opportunities, retail locations, traffic congestion, 
and environmental quality. The Comprehensive Plan plays a vital role in navigating these interconnected 
issues and guiding Maricopa County’s response to rapid growth and change.
 Chapter 2 •  INTRODUCTION
37

Comprehensive Plans and Zoning 
Ordinances 
Comprehensive plans are often mistaken for zoning ordinances, but they serve 
different purposes. Framework 2040 is a policy and decision-making guide 
that addresses community needs and sets long-range planning goals. It is not 
regulatory. In contrast, the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) regulates 
how land can be developed by controlling factors such as land use type, building 
height, lot size, and other parcel-specific standards. Although distinct, the zoning 
ordinance supports the Comprehensive Plan because Arizona law requires that 
any changes to zoning district boundaries be consistent with and conform to the 
adopted plan.
Flexibility and Certainty 
The Comprehensive Plan provides clear and consistent policies that help reduce 
uncertainty in land use decisions. However, to remain relevant, the plan must be 
adaptable to changes in state law, environmental conditions, economic trends, 
political leadership, and community priorities. Maricopa County will periodically 
review the plan and update the plan in accordance with ARS requirements, 
ensuring that any revisions enhance County conditions without compromising 
the Plan’s core principles.
Countywide Scope 
A common misconception is that the Comprehensive Plan applies to the entire 
county. In actuality, the Comprehensive Plan only governs unincorporated areas. 
Each municipality within Maricopa County has its own general plan that applies 
to its specific jurisdiction. While municipal plans may extend into unincorporated 
areas and include areas that could be annexed in the future, the Comprehensive 
Plan remains the guiding document for those areas until annexation occurs.
Planning Horizon 
Unlike many municipal general plans that envision a full build-out scenario, 
the Comprehensive Plan takes a more focused approach by planning for 
approximately the next 10-20 years. Given the County’s vast size and the many 
uncertainties it faces, projecting land use and development patterns beyond 
this timeframe is neither practical nor advisable. This shorter horizon allows 
Maricopa County to plan in a deliberate and flexible manner, responding to 
change while maintaining long-term vision.
Comprehensive Plan Scope
While the importance of 
long-term planning is well 
understood, comprehensive 
planning has limitations that 
must be acknowledged. 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
38

Public Engagement
Engagement Approach
Throughout the planning process, the Comprehensive Plan team worked to 
gather input from a broad range of voices to help shape the County’s future. To 
accomplish this, the team designed multiple engagement formats aimed at:
	
„ Collecting feedback from County residents
	
„ Exploring key topics in depth
	
„ Ensuring representation of varied experiences and perspectives
Outreach by the Numbers
13
Public Meetings 
held throughout
3
All-County Grand 
Virtual Meetings
5 Supervisor Districts
all
7
in
unique locations
154
responses in collaborative mapping 
activities (in-person and virtual)
577 idea wall posts and comments
2,407
completed surveys
9,325
visits to virtual outreach 
tools
6,505 unique visitors
3,138
participants in virtual 
engagement activities
12,000+
visits to the  
Comprehensive Plan website
25 participants
5
Technical Advisory 
Committee meetings 
with regional 
stakeholders
in
 Chapter 2 •  INTRODUCTION
39

Engagement Methods
Public participation opportunities included individual surveys, one-on-one 
conversations, stakeholder meetings, in-person Supervisor District workshops, 
and countywide Grand Virtual Events. 
To reach underrepresented communities, the team coordinated with non-profits, 
political action groups, and neighborhood/HOA organizations to organize small 
group meetings and tailor outreach efforts.
A list and description of each engagement tool is outlined below:
	
„ Digital Outreach: A dedicated website (Framework2040.com) was used to 
inform residents, announce upcoming events, share draft documents, and 
launch community involvement activities. During the planning process, social 
media and e-blasts also served as key communication tools to keep residents 
informed and engaged. The County used platforms such as Facebook, X, 
and Instagram to share updates about the project, provide links to available 
documents, and promote opportunities for public participation, including 
surveys, virtual meetings, and comment periods.
	
„ In-Person Workshops: The heart of public engagement activities was 
facilitated through a workshop series of ten in-person meetings hosted within 
each Supervisor District. These meetings were used to collaboratively review 
and discuss existing and future conditions with participants. To ensure all 
those who participated had an equal voice, different types of interactive 
exercises and real-time polling technology was used to record live audience 
opinions. The use of public outreach technology offered the team a chance 
to visualize public opinion and residents the ability to frame follow-up 
discussions around direct polling reactions.
	
„ Virtual Workshops: To account for residents busy lifestyles, participants 
were also able to engage at different points in the planning process by joining 
three countywide Grand Virtual Events that were hosted online. Identical to in-
person meetings, live interactive polling was used that allowed participants to 
give real-time feedback. Results were displayed instantly to make the virtual 
presentations more engaging.
	
„ Countywide Surveys: Multiple online surveys were used at various points in 
the process to evaluate resident satisfaction with existing county qualities 
and public preferences for prioritizing future efforts. 
	
„ Interactive Mapping: The County also engaged participants by initiating 
an interactive mapping application, via the project website, so that the 
geographical context of any particular challenge or opportunity could be 
captured for use in the development process of the Comprehensive Plan.
	
„ Idea Wall: Participants were able to take part in a broad, virtual “idea wall” 
conversation that explored the question “How can Maricopa County be 
improved in the decades ahead?” Respondents posted text, pictures, and/or 
videos that captured their ideas regarding the future of the county.
	
„ Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Composed of County officials, 
representatives from governmental agencies, professionals from housing 
and economic development associations, and regional service providers, 
the TAC met routinely throughout the plan development process to provide 
technical expertise and assist in shaping plan recommendations.
All meetings were facilitated by County staff or project consultants. They guided 
activities, engaged in personal conversations with participants, and answered 
questions about the planning process.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
40

What We Heard
The specific takeaways described in this section were summarized and tallied 
from multiple engagement events conducted as part of the Comprehensive Plan 
process. Public input includes comments and activity entries from the virtual 
and in-person workshops; the project website and resident surveys; as well as 
input from the online collaborative mapping.
Residents want to see the Comprehensive Plan focus on:
	
„ Preserve both natural and rural landscapes – Prioritize protecting open 
spaces, desert ecosystems, and maintaining scenic rural landscapes. 
	
„ Expand access to recreational lands and opportunities – Increase parks, 
trails, and outdoor spaces to promote health, wellness, and accessibility for 
all.
	
„ Encourage high-quality development – Promote development that is aligned 
with community values.
	
„ Protect the regional water supply – Foster water conservation, proactive 
management, and infrastructure for long-term supply security.
	
„ Support the improvement of safety coverage and response times – Enhancing 
emergency response times and coordination across urban and rural areas.
	
„ Continue business environment for economic opportunities – Support local 
businesses and attracting investments for industry and job growth.
 Chapter 2 •  INTRODUCTION
41

Guiding 
Themes 
& Desired 
Outcomes
Where are we going…
The Comprehensive Plan visualizes a County where the unique needs of the 
varying population groups in the County are strategically met by the ability to 
provide local, affordable options for housing, efficient transportation systems, 
and robust industry. Ultimately, aiming for initiatives that protect the County’s 
established prominence will also lead to the continued enjoyment of the varying 
lifestyles that exist across the County. In turn, future residents can then protect 
and contribute to the endurance of what the County has to offer.
Based on the results of engagement activities and conversations 
with the community, three guiding themes emerged as the top 
outcomes desired from the Comprehensive Plan.
These guiding themes and desired outcomes are integrated throughout the 
Comprehensive Plan and serve as the overlapping foundation for its collective 
goals and policies. Brief reminders are provided in each chapter to convey 
how these community-driven priorities were translated into interconnected 
strategies. As these themes are closely interrelated, it is important to recognize 
they are intended to be viewed as being equal in weight and are not listed in any 
particular order of importance. 
Where are we today…
Maricopa County is one of the fastest growing places in the nation. Quality of 
life investments, emerging industries, and comfortable weather patterns have 
resulted in many community benefits that have made the County quite attractive 
to residents and businesses seeking to settle and thrive here.
Residents recognize these significant assets create a unique character to the 
County and establish a cherished built and natural environment. However, 
residents are increasingly concerned that uncontrolled growth will not only 
negatively impact currently available opportunities but also hinder the ability to 
leave the County better for future residents who will make Maricopa County their 
home.
Opportunity
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
42

Where are we today…
Maricopa County uses the best available information to protect, enhance, and 
integrate new development to reduce environmental impacts and preserve 
the recognized special importance of the County’s natural systems and open 
spaces.
When thinking about the future and growth in general, the community consistently 
identified the protection of natural open spaces, farms, and parks as one of the 
most important opportunities and one of the most important challenges the 
County faces as it plans for the next decade and beyond. This prevalent focus 
is further supported as the community identified the limited availability of water 
and poor air quality as some of their biggest concerns related to growth and 
development in the County. 
Where are we going…
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes residents’ strong desire to protect natural 
open space, enhance recreation areas and activities, and promote local food 
production to support the livability and prosperity of the region. Within this 
context, anticipated population growth will also require the region to evaluate 
and identify long-term water management practices, alternative energy sources, 
and thoughtful land development policies and regulations. Furthermore, the 
region will need to sustain rural lands and their character by directing larger and 
higher concentrations of growth to municipalities.
Where are we today…
Maricopa County oversees a prosperous economy that features significant job 
growth and a multitude of industry sectors that offer a wide range of wages 
and career advancement. The County cultivates business development to 
purposefully enrich the community economically and socially so as to allow all 
residents better access to paths for economic growth.
Resident feedback expressed an appreciation for the unique experiences and 
employment options that draw people of all ages and interests to Maricopa 
County. However, the community desires to closely manage this prosperity 
to ensure the intensity and scale of non-residential development respects the 
surrounding character. There is greatest interest within the community to support 
the development of technology and healthcare-related industries. Furthermore, 
collected input showed strong support for ensuring growth pays for itself.
Where are we going…
The Comprehensive Plan assists in managing economic growth, particularly 
in municipal planning areas to ensure the infrastructure and utilities needed to 
support such growth are readily available.
Stewardship
Prosperity
 Chapter 2 •  INTRODUCTION
43

3
The 
Comprehensive 
Plan in Context

In This Chapter
How Framework 2040 Relates 
to County Area Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
How Framework 2040 Relates to Other Plans, 
Ordinances, & Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Relating to Other  
Jurisdictions’ Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

The Comprehensive Plan outlines the overarching policies and expectations for 
development in Maricopa County’s unincorporated areas. However, given the 
vast size and variety of these areas, the Comprehensive Plan cannot feasibly 
address every local or site-specific issue or interest. To account for this fact, 
the County relies on its Area Plan Program to address localized unincorporated 
needs, priorities, and unique conditions. 
Since 1997, Maricopa County has utilized Area Plans as more focused planning 
documents tailored to the distinct characteristics and issues of specific parts 
within the County that are expected to see increased growth. These could be 
related to community characteristics, topography, environmental context, 
special conditions, etc. Each Area Plan has been coordinated with the respective 
residents and stakeholders within the extent of the Area Plan to address local 
concerns. While able to be implemented individually, each Area Plan also 
supports and works in concert with the overarching vision of the Framework 
2040 Comprehensive Plan. Maricopa County has eight active Area Plans, which 
vary in size, scope, and location to reflect the distinctive communities they serve. 
These eight Area Plans are: 
	
„ Daisy Mountain/New River Area Plan
	
„ Goldfield Area Plan
	
„ Old U.S. Highway 80 Area Plan
	
„ Rainbow Valley Area Plan
	
„ Rio Verde Foothills Area Plan
	
„ State Route 85 Area Plan 
	
„ Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan 
	
„ White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan 
As Area Plans reflect the structure of the Comprehensive Plan, they each include 
goals and policies, strategies and a future land use map, tailored for the individual 
areas. 
How 
Framework 
2040 
Relates 
to County 
Area Plans
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
46

The Comprehensive Plan addresses future growth, but there are other County plans, ordinances, and regulations 
that influence development. Figure 1 shows how the plan fits with these and within overall county operations.
How Framework 2040 Relates 
to Other Plans, Ordinances, & 
Regulations
Mission, Vision, Strategic Priorities
County Area Plans
Scenic Corridor & Special 
Studies
Capital Improvement 
Program
Other Maricopa County Plans, 
Ordinances, Regulations
	
„ Dept. of 
Transportation
	
„ Flood Control 
District
	
„ Environmental 
Services
	
„ Air Quality
	
„ Community/
Economic 
Development
	
„ Emergency 
Management
	
„ Human Services
	
„ Library District
	
„ Parks & 
Recreation
	
„ Public Health
	
„ Sheriff’s Office
	
„ Solid Waste
BROAD 
POLICY
SPECIFIC 
IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES
	
„ Zoning Ordinance
	
„ Abatement 
Ordinance
	
„ Hours of 
Operation 
Ordinance
	
„ Subdivision 
Regulations
	
„ Addressing 
Regulations
	
„ Construction 
Codes
Ordinances, Regulations,  
& Guidelines
County Budget
Figure 1.   Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Hierarchy
	
„ Comprehensive 
Plan Amendment 
Guidelines 
	
„ Public 
Participation 
Guidelines
	
„ Licensing Time 
Frames Ordinance
	
„ Dark Sky 
Ordinance
	
„ Noise Ordinance
 Chapter 3 •  THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN CONTEXT
47

Relating to Other Jurisdictions’ Plans
An important feature of this Comprehensive Plan is how it considers other jurisdictions’ plans for future growth. This is 
challenging given that the federal and state government, as well as the many cities, towns and Native American communities 
all manage development in certain areas. Despite this challenge Maricopa County coordinates with these jurisdictions 
where practical to ensure consistent growth patterns. The following is how this coordination occurs.
Municipal General 
Plans
Arizona cities and towns have general plans for their 
respective jurisdictions, and it is common for these 
plans to extend into unincorporated areas that may 
someday be annexed. Maricopa County recognizes 
these plans and the need to coordinate planning 
with municipalities, in particular for County Islands 
to obtain assurance of annexation when necessary. 
Maricopa County will refer to municipal plans as 
guides when making decisions involving County 
Islands and will also consider them elsewhere when 
reasonable. However, until land is annexed Maricopa 
County retains planning authority.
Federal Government
Maricopa County includes a lot of federally managed 
land including the Tonto National Forest, Barry 
M. Goldwater Range, Sonoran Desert National 
Monument, and several wilderness and wildlife 
areas. The federal government prepares plans 
for these areas which are generally off-limits to 
development but instead are managed for a specific 
purpose such as scenic, cultural, and recreational 
benefits or national priority. Maricopa County 
reaffirms its commitment to coordinate with federal 
agencies, especially in areas adjacent to federal land, 
to help avoid potentially adverse impacts from new 
development.
Arizona State Land 
Department
State law requires the Arizona State Land Department 
(ASLD) to develop long-term plans for certain Trust 
lands under their management. Maricopa County 
has many parcels of Trust land within its jurisdiction, 
but not all of them have been included in an ASLD 
Conceptual Plan. Where they have been included 
in an ASLD Conceptual Plan, Maricopa County 
must cooperate with the ASLD to integrate planned 
lands into its own Comprehensive Plan or Area 
Plans where appropriate. Further, in accordance 
with ARS § 11-804.E, any Trust Land designated as 
open space, recreation, conservation, or agriculture 
within a County plan shall have a default minimum 
development density of one dwelling unit/acre, 
Maricopa County will continue coordinating with the 
ASLD on strategies that enhance value to the Trust 
and in alignment with the County Comprehensive 
Plan.
Native American 
Communities
Maricopa County also has several Native American 
Communities but given their sovereign nation status 
the Comprehensive Plan does not apply to such 
areas. Instead, each Community is responsible 
for preparing land management plans for the area 
within its jurisdictional limits. Maricopa County does 
engage in on-going coordination with the Native 
American Communities for projects that are in close 
proximity to their jurisdictional limits.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
48

Chapter 3 •  THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN CONTEXT
49

4
Maricopa County 
Overview

In This Chapter
History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Maricopa County Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Maricopa County Demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Maricopa County Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

History
Archaeological evidence indicates that Maricopa County 
was inhabited as far back as 9,000 B.C. by nomadic tribes 
that traveled and lived throughout the Americas. The 
first known permanent settlers were the Hohokam who 
occupied the area between approximately A.D. 500 and 
1450. It is believed the Hohokam lived in progressively 
larger villages and harnessed the waters of the Salt and 
Gila Rivers by constructing extensive canal systems to 
grow and sustain annual crops; however, around the 
year 1300 the Hohokam began abandoning the region 
surrounding the Salt and Gila River Valleys for reasons 
that currently remain unknown. Many of the canals left 
behind by the Hohokam were used by later European 
and American settlers. From 1540 until 1821, the area 
that would become Maricopa County was under Spanish 
rule. It then became part of the Republic of Mexico when 
independence was declared from Spain. 
The first permanent settlers of European 
descent arrived in the area in the early 
1800s. It was not until the California Gold 
Rush of the mid-1800s that the population 
of the Salt River Valley began to grow 
rapidly. The increasing presence of the U.S. 
Army also contributed to the area’s growth. 
Following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 
in 1848 ending the Mexican-American 
War and the Gadsen Purchase in 1853, 
the region that would eventually become 
Maricopa County came under the control 
of the United States of America.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
52

Maricopa County was officially formed in 1871. 
The Desert Land Act of 1877 and the expansion 
of agriculture production fueled further growth 
and additional settlement in the County. The 
Territorial Capital was moved in 1889 from 
Prescott to Maricopa County in Phoenix, which 
would continue as the state capital in 1912 when 
Arizona was admitted as the 48th state. Slow 
and steady growth characterized the County 
following statehood until World War II. 
After the War, growth in Maricopa County 
accelerated 
rapidly 
due 
to 
industrial 
development, widespread use of automobiles 
and air conditioning that made the extreme 
heat of the desert summer tolerable for its new 
residents. The steady influx of residents has 
spurred rapid development in the County as it 
transitioned from an agricultural economy to 
a more diversified one, with industries such as 
electronics and manufacturing taking root.
The municipalities of the County adopted annexation 
policies in this timeframe, reducing the total amount of 
Maricopa County’s unincorporated land. The construction 
of freeways and other infrastructure projects supported 
these growth patterns. During this time, the County faced 
challenges, such as the aftermath of the recession of 
2007 through 2009, which slowed growth temporarily. 
Following several years of slow economic recovery, 
Maricopa County has experienced increasing economic 
diversity and growth for most of the 2010s and the early 
2020s with a noticeable pause in this trend as a result of 
the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020-2021. Today, Maricopa 
County is emerging as a national and international hub for 
semiconductor manufacturing and large-scale technology 
investment. Through all the development and growth of 
the past 80 years, Maricopa County has solidified its place 
as an exceptional place to live and one of the fastest 
growing counties in the country.
 Chapter 4 •  MARICOPA COUNTY OVERVIEW
53

Maricopa County Profile
Regional Context
Located in the south-central part of 
Arizona as seen in Map 1, Maricopa 
County is neighbored by Yavapai 
County to the north, Gila County to the 
east, Pinal and Pima Counties to the 
south, and La Paz and Yuma Counties 
to the west. Maricopa County’s seat is 
the City of Phoenix, which also serves 
as the state capital of Arizona. It is the 
most populous city in the state and the 
fifth-most populous city in the United 
States (US). Maricopa County is 
notably the largest county in the nation 
in terms of area in which the capital 
city of the state sits. The County 
includes 23 other municipalities within 
its boundaries. There are several other 
communities that are unincorporated, 
comprising the spectrum of rural and 
urban development patterns. These 
unincorporated areas are under the 
direct jurisdiction of Maricopa County. 
There are also four Native American 
communities within the boundaries 
of the County, which are the Fort 
McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Gila 
River Indian Community, the Salt River 
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 
and the Tohono O’odham Nation. 
Maricopa County is Arizona’s most 
populous county. As of the 2022 
American Community Survey (ACS), 
the entire County had a population of 
4,430,871, accounting for about 62% of 
the State of Arizona’s total population. 
It has the fourth largest population 
residing 
within 
its 
boundaries 
compared to the other counties and 
county equivalents in the country. 
In terms of area, Maricopa County 
encompasses 9,224 square miles of 
land, making it the 15th largest county 
by area in the country and larger than 
eight individual states in total land 
area. The County stretches 132 miles 
from west to east and 103 miles from 
north to south with diverse geography 
including parts of the Sonoran Desert 
and the Tonto National Forest. Of the 
14 counties in the country with a larger 
area than Maricopa County, only one 
of those counties has a population 
over 
two 
million 
residing 
within 
its boundaries. Maricopa County, 
therefore, operates in a unique position 
as a large county by area combined 
with a large population within its area 
of jurisdiction. 
4th
MOST 
POPULOUS 
COUNTY IN 
THE COUNTRY
8
LAND 
AREA 
GREATER 
THAN
STATES
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2022 American 
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Michael 
Baker International Analysis, 2026
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
54

Map 1.   Regional Context
4,430,871
TOTAL POPULATION
62%
SHARE OF ARIZONA’S 
POPULATION
15th
LARGEST COUNTY BY AREA 
IN THE U.S.A.
9,224 
Square Miles
TOTAL LAND AREA
Maricopa County  
by the Numbers
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Michael Baker 
International Analysis, 2026
 Chapter 4 •  MARICOPA COUNTY OVERVIEW
55

Area of 
Jurisdiction
While the total area within the boundaries of Maricopa County is 9,224 square 
miles, the area of jurisdiction for the Comprehensive Plan is comprised of the 
6,596.53 square miles, or 4,221,777 acres, of unincorporated land in Maricopa 
County. This means that Maricopa County’s area of jurisdiction of unincorporated 
land is about 71.51% of the total land within the County’s boundaries. Conversely, 
23.90% of the total land within the limits of Maricopa County is under the 
jurisdiction of an incorporated municipality, and 4.59% of the total land is 
under the jurisdiction of one of the four Native American communities within 
the County’s limits, which are the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Gila River 
Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and the 
Tohono O’odham Nation. Map 2 shows the distinction between the incorporated 
and unincorporated areas of the County, as well as the location of the Native 
American communities. As of 2022, the total population estimated to live in 
Maricopa County’s area of jurisdiction is 308,633 (ACS 2022). 
Geography
The County’s many mountains contrast with its relatively low desert areas, 
evidenced by elevations that range from approximately 300 feet above sea level 
near Gila Bend to over 7,600 feet in the Four Peaks Wilderness Area. Higher 
elevations in northeast and some mountains of central, southern and western 
Maricopa County contain small woodlands and forests, while lower elevations 
include desert scrub, saguaro and other cactus species. However, the most 
diverse native and non-native plant and animal species are found along the 
county’s many rivers, streams and washes.
Climate
Located within the Sonoran Desert, Maricopa County experiences a subtropical 
desert climate. Temperatures in the County can vary significantly due to the 
contrasts in elevation. Summer temperatures in lower desert areas regularly 
exceed 110°F. However, winter temperatures in higher mountain elevations can 
fall well below freezing (32°F) and significant snowfall may occur.
Water
Due to its dry climate and desert environment, residents in municipalities and 
unincorporated Maricopa County cannot solely rely on surface water within 
the County limits to sustain the levels of growth and development that have 
persisted since the mid-20th century. Originating as runoff from snow melt in 
higher elevations to the north, the Salt and Verde Rivers were the initial sources 
of surface water in the County and continue to be important sources today. The 
second noteworthy source of surface water is the water that is supplied by the 
approximately 336-mile Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal, bringing about 1.5 
million acre-feet of water from the Colorado River to Pima, Pinal and Maricopa 
Counties. Yet even with multiple surface water sources, periodically persistent 
droughts in the Colorado River basin mixed together with population growth and 
high water-use industrial developments require strategies to ensure dependable, 
long-term supplies of groundwater. Most water conservation efforts are 
overseen by the Arizona Department of Water Resources including the Active 
Management Area (AMA) program and the Arizona Water Banking Authority that 
regulates groundwater pumping to control stress on aquifers. These and other 
state and local efforts work toward ensuring safe and reliable water supplies for 
future population growth and to provide for the needs of existing residents.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
56

Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development, 2026 
Map 2.   Maricopa County Area of Jurisdiction
71.51%  
This percentage represents the portion of total land within 
Maricopa County’s boundaries that constitutes the County’s 
area of jurisdiction of unincorporated land.
 Chapter 4 •  MARICOPA COUNTY OVERVIEW
57

Land Ownership
Data for land ownership is managed 
and presented by the Bureau of 
Land Management’s (BLM) surface 
land management program which 
administers federal, state, and private 
land ownership across the country. 
This data was augmented by recent 
updates to State Trust Land from 
the ASLD. Land ownership (Table 2) 
within the Maricopa County area of 
jurisdiction is predominantly held by 
five classifications of landowners. 
The top five classifications are BLM, 
Military, Private, US Forest Service, 
and State Trust land which together 
account for 98.4% of the ownership 
of the total unincorporated land in 
Maricopa County. BLM comprises 
over 37.5% of the County’s land, with 
the land concentrated in the County’s 
western and southern areas. Military 
installations are the second most 
prominent landowner with the Barry M. 
Goldwater Air Force Range, located in 
the southernmost extent of the County, 
accounting for 16.6% of the military 
land holdings in the County. Privately 
owned land accounts for 16.6% of 
unincorporated Maricopa County, at 
just under 1,100 square miles. The 
US Forest Service owns 15.5% of the 
land in the area of jurisdiction, which 
consists of the Tonto National Forest 
located in the entirety of northeastern 
Maricopa County. State Trust Land, 
managed by the ASLD, encompasses 
11.5% of the unincorporated area at 
758 square miles. Map 3 displays 
the locations of the land ownership 
categories in the area of jurisdiction 
of Maricopa County. While Native 
American Communities are not part 
of the County’s area of jurisdiction, it 
is noteworthy to mention that there 
are 423.88 square miles of tribal land 
within the boundaries of Maricopa 
County.
Table 2.   Land Ownership
Land Ownership
Percent of Total 
Land
Square Miles
Arizona Game & Fish Department (AZGFD) Wildlife Area
0.145%
9.56
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
37.530%
2,475.66
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
0.029%
1.91
County
0.004%
0.26
Military
17.192%
1,134.09
Private
16.624%
1,096.60
Regional/County Park
1.465%
96.63
State Trust Land
11.490%
757.95
US Forest Service (USFS)
15.521%
1,023.83
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
0.001%
0.04
TOTAL
100.000%
6,596.53
Native American Tribal Land
---
423.88
Source: Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Land Department
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
58

37.53%  
This percentage represents the portion of County land that 
is owned by the Bureau of Land Management
Source: Bureau of Land Management, 2025; Arizona State Land Department, 2025
Map 3.   Land Ownership
 Chapter 4 •  MARICOPA COUNTY OVERVIEW
59

Age Groups
The median age in Maricopa County 
is 37.1, which is lower than the median 
age for the State. Compared to both 
the incorporated area of the County 
and Arizona overall, unincorporated 
Maricopa County follows a similar trend 
for the distribution of the population by 
age groups until the 65 and older group. 
The three jurisdictions have smaller 
and relatively even distributions for the 
under 25 age groups and the 55-65 age 
groups. Slight increases in distribution 
are seen in the early adulthood and middle age range from 25-54. Like Arizona, 
unincorporated Maricopa County has a larger number of residents over the age 
of 65 than the other age groups as shown in Figure 2.
Maricopa County Demographics
As mentioned previously, the total population estimated to live in Maricopa 
County’s area of jurisdiction according to 2022 is 308,633. Further population 
data breakdowns follow below.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 
Figure 2.   Age Groups
Generational Change
The 
composition 
of 
growth 
in 
unincorporated 
Maricopa 
County 
shows 
the 
percentage 
of 
the 
population that is comprised of the 
Baby Boomer generation (born 1946 
to 1964) and Millennial generation 
(born 1980 to 1994) grew by 7% and 
4% respectively from 2010 to 2022. 
The Alpha generation (born 2010 to 
2024) also emerged over this period 
and consists of approximately 14% 
of the population in unincorporated 
Maricopa County. Figure 3 shows this 
shift over the twelve-year period from 
2010 to 2022 of generations living in 
unincorporated Maricopa County.
The reason for this generational shift 
is likely due to several factors. The 
Baby Boomer generation now has 
the highest number of residents in 
unincorporated areas, taking the place 
that the Greatest and Silent Generation 
cohorts held in 2010. This makes 
sense as the youngest members of 
the Baby Boomers are now older than 
the minimum 55-year age requirement 
for Sun City, Sun City West, and other 
large 
age-restricted 
communities 
located throughout unincorporated 
Maricopa 
County. 
Millennials 
surpassed the Gen X generation group 
in the 2022 data. Housing affordability, 
while significantly lessened since 
2020, plays a part of the Millennial 
generation increase as the median 
home value within unincorporated 
Maricopa County is lower when 
compared to equivalent housing types 
in municipalities located within the 
County.  
The 
generational 
composition 
of 
the 
County 
significantly 
impacts 
community habits and needs by driving 
demand for more focused services like 
healthcare, transportation, housing, 
social 
activities, 
and 
recreation 
choices, 
while 
also 
potentially 
changing 
the 
overall 
pace 
and 
character of an area due to a larger 
population of residents with different 
priorities and lifestyle choices.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
60

Race and Ethnicity
Race and ethnicity play a crucial role in developing this Comprehensive Plan for 
several reasons. Reviewing these factors is essential to ensure an accessible 
engagement and decision-making process. Additionally, cultural differences, 
often rooted in racial and ethnic backgrounds, impact how people use and view 
public infrastructure and services as well as the natural landscape. 
As seen in Figure 4, 72% of the unincorporated Maricopa County population 
identifies as white, which is higher than Maricopa County and the State. 
Additionally, 19% of the population identify as having Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, 
meaning they are of Spanish descent with roots in Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, 
South or Central American or other counties with Spanish cultural influences. 
This percentage is lower than Maricopa County as a whole and the State. By 
combining ethnicity and race in one figure rather than two, a more comprehensive 
overview of the demographic composition of a population is provided.
Figure 3.   Generational Change
Figure 4.   Race and Ethnicity 
in Unincorporated Maricopa 
County
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census, 2010 & 2022 American Community Survey  
5-Year Estimates
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census, 
2022 American Community Survey 5-Year 
Estimates
 Chapter 4 •  MARICOPA COUNTY OVERVIEW
61

Maricopa County Trends
Historic Population Growth
Maricopa 
County 
experienced 
significant population growth in recent 
decades, befitting its status as one 
of the fastest-growing regions in the 
nation. This growth has shaped the 
County’s development, with recent 
trends 
between 
1990 
and 
2022 
highlighting important shifts in both 
unincorporated 
and 
incorporated 
areas. In 1990, the unincorporated 
areas had 170,246 residents, while 
incorporated areas had nearly 1.95 
million. Over the following decades, 
unincorporated areas saw steady 
growth, most notably growing at 
a rate of 34.8% between 2000 and 
2010 as seen in Table 3. Growth 
slowed in recent years, with only a 
0.4% increase in the population of 
unincorporated areas from 2020 to 
2022. This deceleration can likely 
be attributed to a brief slowdown in 
growth in 2020 in the initial stages of 
the COVID-19 Pandemic. Since 2022, 
however, Maricopa County returned 
to a period of growth. However, recent 
rapid increases in the cost of land and 
housing have had a tempering effect 
on the County’s growth in the near-term 
compared to the growth rates seen 
in the 21st century. These changing 
population patterns emphasize the 
needs for strategic planning to meet 
the county’s future needs. 
Future Population Projections
As shown in Figure 5 the Maricopa 
Association 
of 
Governments 
(MAG) 
projects 
unincorporated 
Maricopa County to approach the 
400,000-resident threshold by 2030. 
MAG estimates that unincorporated 
Maricopa 
County 
will 
reach 
a 
population of 371,800 by 2030, and 
it will continue to grow to 478,500 in 
2040, 566,600 in 2050 and 645,800 in 
2060. This means that by 2040, MAG 
is projecting that the population for 
unincorporated Maricopa County will 
increase by 55%, while the County’s 
incorporated population growth rate 
is projected to increase by 29% at the 
same horizon year. 
Figure 
6 
shows 
the 
estimated 
population 
growth 
from 
MAG’s 
population 
projections 
for 
both 
unincorporated 
and 
incorporated 
Maricopa County through 2060 in ten-
year increments. The figure shows 
MAG does project that incorporated 
Maricopa County will have a higher 
growth rate over the coming decades 
than the unincorporated parts of the 
County. This difference in anticipated 
growth rates is reasonable given that 
rapid growth areas (especially on 
the urban fringe of the County) are 
often annexed into an incorporated 
municipality, often receiving municipal 
services. 
Thus, 
the 
associated 
population growth in these areas is 
counted as part of the incorporated 
population and not as part of the 
population of the unincorporated 
areas of Maricopa County.
Table 3.   Population Growth
Year
Incorporated Area
Incorporated Area 
Growth Rate
Unincorporated 
Area
Unincorporated 
Area Growth Rate
1990
1,951,675
-
170,426
-
2000
2,861,266
46.6%
210,883
23.7%
2010
3,532,875
23.5%
284,242
34.8%
2020
4,113,029
16.4%
307,539
8.2%
2022
4,122,238
0.2%
308,633
0.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000, 2010 & 2020 Decennial Census; 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
62

Recent Growth
As 
Maricopa 
County 
plans 
for 
a projected 55% increase in its 
unincorporated population through 
2040, it is anticipated that these 
current areas of growth as shown in 
Map 4 will continue to develop, while 
other growth areas will emerge as new 
development takes place in currently 
undeveloped areas. However, it is also 
recognized that while some areas of 
the county should be planned for this 
new development, other areas should 
be preserved or protected or see little 
new development.
Between 1990 and 2010, much of the 
growth that occurred in unincorporated 
Maricopa County was focused in the 
eastern and northern parts of the 
County. When comparing the change 
in 
population 
in 
unincorporated 
Maricopa County from 2010 to 2022, 
the areas that experienced the highest 
population growth have shifted and 
are now predominantly located in the 
west valley as exhibited in Map 4.
Figure 5.   Unincorporated Maricopa County Population 
Projection 
Figure 6.   Population Projection Comparison 
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2023 Socioeconomic Projections
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2023 Socioeconomic Projections
 Chapter 4 •  MARICOPA COUNTY OVERVIEW
63

Table 4 shows that since 2010, the 
county has lost over 65 square miles 
of unincorporated land to annexation 
into incorporated cities and towns 
across the valley. This reduction in 
land area, coupled with population 
growth, has caused the population 
density 
within 
unincorporated 
Maricopa County to increase from 
an average of 43 persons per square 
mile in 2010 to almost 47 persons per 
square mile in 2022.
Table 4.   Annexations of Unincorporated Maricopa County 
and Population Density
Year
Population
Unincorporated 
Area (sq. mi.)
Population 
Density       
(per/sq. mi.)
2010
284,242
6,662.16
43 people/ 
sq. mi.
(Municipal 
Annexations)
-
65.63
-
2022
308,633
6,596.53
47 people/ 
sq. mi.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census, 2010 & 2022 American Community Survey  
5-Year Estimates
Population Density and Annexation
Recent Unincorporated Development and Annexation
Although the total unincorporated 
land in Maricopa County that has 
been annexed since 2010 amounted 
to over 42,000 acres, interestingly, 
all the subdivisions that were platted 
within these annexation acres were 
subdivided after annexation (i.e. they 
were subdivided once incorporated). 
Relatedly, none of the subdivisions 
developed in the County over this 
same period were annexed.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census, 2010 & 2022 American Community Survey  
5-Year Estimates
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
64

55%  
The percentage increase of population in unincorporated 
Maricopa County by 2040 as projected by the Mariocpa 
Association of Governments.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; U.S. Census Bureau, 
2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Michael Baker International Analysis, 2026
Map 4.   Growth Trends in Unincorporated Maricopa County
 Chapter 4 •  MARICOPA COUNTY OVERVIEW
65

5
Land Use

In This Chapter
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

The Land Use element maintains that sensible, functional, 
balanced, fiscally efficient, and economically viable land use 
patterns are important priorities. This element also reinforces 
the County’s support for its area plan program and includes 
updated land use categories.
Introduction
Land use planning is a foundational 
component of the Comprehensive 
Plan, shaping the County’s vision for 
responsible growth and development. 
Through strategic goals and policies, 
the Land Use element promotes 
development 
that 
is 
both 
high-
quality and conscious of the desire to 
preserve the natural desert landscape, 
reflecting the values of unincorporated 
communities. The Land Use element 
also 
emphasizes 
the 
importance 
of aligning growth with available 
infrastructure and public services, 
ensuring 
that 
new 
development 
enhances 
connectivity, 
efficiency, 
and community vitality. By guiding 
orderly expansion and minimizing 
land use conflicts, the Comprehensive 
Plan reinforces a commitment to 
pursue prosperity, stewardship, and 
a prosperous future of opportunity 
for all residents in unincorporated 
Maricopa County.
The 
existing 
land 
utilization 
patterns within Maricopa County’s 
jurisdiction 
are 
the 
starting 
line 
for envisioning future growth and 
development. By analyzing current 
conditions, the County can better 
identify unincorporated areas with 
the greatest potential for expansion, 
redevelopment, or preservation. This 
understanding 
informs 
strategic 
planning efforts, ensuring that future 
land use decisions are both context-
sensitive and aligned with long-term 
community goals.
The 
Maricopa 
Association 
of 
Governments collects and manages 
existing land utilization data as part of 
its socioeconomic modeling efforts. 
This data captures how land within 
Maricopa County is currently being 
utilized. It is distinctly different from 
a zoning map which determines how 
a specific property can be developed 
today, or a future land use plan which 
identifies how land may be developed 
in the future. The Existing Land 
Utilization 
database 
was 
created 
by MAG based on an analysis of 
Maricopa County Assessor parcels, 
aerial photo interpretation, Arizona 
State Land data, MAG databases, and 
input from MAG member agencies. 
This data receives final approval by 
the Population Technical Advisory 
Committee and then is released for 
public use.
Figure 7 shows how existing land 
utilizations are distributed within the 
unincorporated area of Maricopa 
County, and Map 5 illustrates where 
these land utilizations are located. 
Table 5 provides a more detailed 
breakdown of the percentage share 
and the total square mileage of each 
existing land utilization category in the 
County’s area of jurisdiction.
The most prevalent existing land 
utilization 
within 
unincorporated 
Maricopa County is Open Space, 
which makes up 73.5% of the area, 
amounting to over 4,850 square miles. 
The significant amount of current 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
68

73.5% 
The most prevalent 
existing land utilization in 
unincorporated Maricopa 
County is Open Space, 
making up over 4,850 
square miles of the area.
Open Space is understandable given 
the overall size of the County and the 
fact that the Tonto National Forest, 
Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range, 
BLM land holdings, State Trust Land, 
and County regional parks are included 
in this total. While some of the Open 
Space areas are parks and recreation 
areas, it is important to point out that 
MAG’s classification of these noted 
areas as Open Space refers to their 
protected nature from development 
owing to their land ownership. MAG’s 
Open Space classification should not 
be implied to indicate any use of these 
noted areas for parkland or recreation 
or 
prohibiting 
landowners 
from 
exercising their property rights.
Vacant land (land that is undeveloped, 
but is not managed or preserved as 
open space) is the next most common 
land utilization in the County with about 
1,198 square miles making up 18.2% of 
the total. Both Open Space and Vacant 
land account for 91.7% of the existing 
land utilizations in unincorporated 
Maricopa County. The next three most 
prevalent land utilizations in terms 
of percentage share are Agriculture, 
Single-Family Residential, and Other/
Public Employment totaling together 
7.4% of the County’s area of jurisdiction. 
When analyzing the County as a 
whole, these five categories (open 
space, vacant land, agriculture, single-
family residential, and other/public 
employment) amount to 99.1% of the 
existing land utilizations in Maricopa 
County. Most of the Single-Family 
Residential land utilizations are located 
adjacent to or near incorporated 
municipalities or along prominent 
highways. Other/Public Employment 
land utilizations are often found in 
close 
proximity 
to 
Single-Family 
Residential utilizations. The Other/
Public Employment category includes, 
but is not limited to, large employers, 
government buildings, utilities, power 
plants, churches/places of worship, 
and aggregate land utilizations. Open 
Space, Vacant Land, and Agriculture 
land utilizations tend to be on the 
periphery of the County’s border and 
extend inward toward the populated 
areas.
Figure 7.   Existing Land Utilization Distribution
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2026
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
69

Table 5.   Existing Land Utilization in Unincorporated Maricopa County 
Existing Land Utilization
Percent of 
Total Land
Square Miles
Agriculture
4.17%
292.447
Industrial
0.05%
3.628
Multi-Family Residential
0.06%
4.421
Office
0.01%
0.607
Open Space
73.83%
5,182.142
Other/Public Employment
1.14%
80.29
Retail
0.11%
7.528
Single-Family Residential
2.48%
173.847
Transportation
0.68%
47.494
Vacant
17.47%
1,226.293
TOTAL
100.00%
6,596.527
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2026
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
70

Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2026
91.7% 
Open Space and Vacant land collectively account for 
91.7% of the existing land utilizations in unincorporated 
Maricopa County.
Map 5.   Existing Land Utilization Map
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
71

Planning Considerations
Area Plan Program
Maricopa County’s Area Plan Program 
has proved to be effective at addressing 
local concerns in the unincorporated 
area. Each Area Plan includes unique 
policies, a future land use map, and an 
implementation program. Although an 
Area Plan addresses local needs, they 
still support this Comprehensive Plan 
and will continue to be an important 
part of the County’s future strategy.
In the past ten years, Maricopa 
County updated the Daisy Mountain/
New River Area Plan in 2019 and 
the 
White 
Tank 
Grand 
Avenue 
Area Plan in 2023. These updates 
accounted for significant growth, 
changes in development patterns, 
and adjustments to their individual 
plan limits as urban development 
continues and adjacent municipalities 
continue to expand their jurisdictions. 
Map 6 shows the extents of the eight 
active Area Plans in Maricopa County 
and the following list orders by the 
year of their most recent update. 
	
„ White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan 
(2023)
	
„ Daisy Mountain/New River Area 
Plan (2019)
	
„ Goldfield Area Plan (2007)
	
„ Old U.S. Highway 80 Area Plan 
(2007)
	
„ Rio Verde Foothills Area Plan (2005)
	
„ Rainbow Valley Area Plan (2003)
	
„ State Route 85 Area Plan (2003)
	
„ Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan (2000)
Maricopa County supports updating 
the 
individual 
Area 
Plans 
when 
significant 
shifts 
are 
recognized 
including, but not limited to, rapid 
land use changes, rising development 
pressures, 
or 
projected 
surges 
in 
population 
and 
employment. 
Updates are also encouraged when 
the planning for major infrastructure 
projects, such as freeways, transit 
corridors, or energy facilities, is 
underway. 
An 
unincorporated 
community within the limits of an Area 
Plan limits or the Board of Supervisors 
may also submit a formal request to 
consider commencing an update of an 
established Area Plan.
Public participation is central to 
planning 
practiced 
at 
Maricopa 
County. An Area Plan is only beneficial 
and effective with public engagement 
and input. Any new or amended Area 
Plan(s) must undergo a robust public 
engagement process to ensure that the 
final plan reflects the value, priorities, 
and aspirations of the unincorporated 
community that it serves.
Division of Area Plans
The County can support dividing the 
established Area Plan into two or more 
separate plans if it is determined to be 
appropriate. To determine the need for 
dividing an Area Plan, the following 
conditions must be satisfied:
	
„ A 
single 
established 
Area 
Plan covers portions of the 
unincorporated area that has 
distinct sub-regions with differing 
land 
use 
patterns, 
growth 
trajectories, 
or 
community 
identities;
	
„ P u b lic 
e n g ag e m e n t 
o r 
implementation of the individual 
plan is challenging due to the size 
or complexity of the Area Plan; and, 
	
„ Stakeholders across the distinct 
sub-regions of an established Area 
Plan express strong support through 
a formal request to the County for 
more customized planning.
After satisfying all these conditions, 
the Board of Supervisors can give 
consideration and final approval with 
dividing an individual Area Plan into 
two or more separate Area Plans for 
future planning.
Consolidation of 
Area Plans
Maricopa County also has the ability to 
consolidate adjacent Area Plans when 
it is determined to be appropriate. 
Consolidation 
can 
be 
considered 
when the following conditions are met: 
	
„ Two or more adjacent Area 
Plans share similar land use 
characteristics, infrastructure 
needs, and community goals;
	
„ Administrative efficiency and/
or implementation of planning 
goals would be improved from 
consolidation of the adjacent Area 
Plans;
	
„ There is clear support through 
a formal request to the County 
from affected communities and 
stakeholders for the consolidation 
of the adjacent Area Plans. 
After satisfying all of these conditions, 
the Board of Supervisors can give 
consideration and final approval with 
consolidating separate Area Plans into 
a single Area Plan.
Decommissioning of 
Area Plans
Under the previous Maricopa County 
Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan, there 
were 13 Area Plans. In 2022, the Board 
of Supervisors, on recommendation 
from the Maricopa County Planning & 
Development Department staff, voted 
to decommission five of these Area 
Plans, resulting in the current eight 
Area Plans. The five decommissioned 
Area Plans included: East Mesa, 
Estrella, Laveen, Mobile, and Queen
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
72

Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development, 2026
8 
This number represents the number of active Area Plans in 
Maricopa County. 
Map 6.   Maricopa County Area Plans
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
73

As defined in ARS § 11-251.12, County Islands are unincorporated areas that 
are completely surrounded by one or more incorporated municipalities or Native 
American communities. These Islands often form when municipalities expand 
and annex surrounding land but leave out certain parcels, either due to property 
owner preference or due to a consideration that the parcels will not bring 
revenue or long-term value to the city or town. Most of these Islands in Maricopa 
County are neighborhood subdivisions, frequently characterized by a less 
densely populated, more rural development pattern than the urban or suburban 
context of the adjacent municipality. However, some well-known County Islands 
in Maricopa County have developed their own sense of community such as Sun 
City, Sun City West, Wadell, Laveen, and Sun Lakes among others. County Island 
land totals 488,643.32 acres within Maricopa County’s area of jurisdiction.
Living in a County Island comes with both benefits and challenges. Residents 
typically enjoy lower taxes as they are not paying for municipal services, and 
often face fewer regulations and ordinances. However, due to Maricopa County 
not providing municipal services, residents of County Islands must manage their 
own utilities and services, such as trash collection, water, wastewater, and fire 
protection, which can be more costly and time-consuming. Additionally, they 
must rely on the County Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement, and cannot vote in 
municipal elections. 
The existence of County Islands presents unique challenges for planning growth, 
development, and service provision. As cities and towns grow and develop in 
Maricopa County, integrating these unincorporated areas can be complex 
and contentious. Some County Islands may eventually be annexed into their 
adjacent surrounding municipalities, while others may remain independent due 
to the preferences of the residents or legal and logistical hurdles. This dynamic 
creates a patchwork of governance and service provision requiring careful 
collaboration between the County and the various municipal authorities to 
coordinate adequate services and support for residents when such services are 
provided by jurisdictions. The most evident example of the challenges with this 
patchwork governance is the provision of police services in the County Islands 
as confusion over jurisdictional responsibility can lead to slower response times 
and gaps in law enforcement. Curbing the growth and ultimately reducing this 
patchwork governance is the reason that state statute now regulates municipal 
annexations to prohibit the creation of new County Islands. Due to this statute and 
County policies associated with service provision, Maricopa County reaffirms its 
support for eliminating existing County Islands in its area of jurisdiction through 
municipal annexation wherever feasible. 
Map 7 identifies the County Islands in Maricopa County. While the larger County 
Islands are easier to spot in Map 7, smaller County Islands present the greater 
number of challenges to manage due to the above-mentioned dynamic of 
governance and service provision. Overall, there are 325 County Islands ranging 
between 1 – 160 acres in size. 
County Islands
Creek. Over 50% of the original acreage within these five Area Plans incorporated 
into adjacent municipalities thus falling outside of Maricopa County’s area of 
jurisdiction. 
The removal of these five Area Plans did result in pockets of unincorporated 
County Islands where little and/or infrequent development generally occurs 
without specific planning tools for handling development. Those County Islands 
now fall within the planning tools of the Comprehensive Plan. 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
74

Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development, 2026
There are 325 County Islands ranging between  
1 – 160 acres in size, making them candidates for 
annexation from the County’s viewpoint.
Map 7.   County Islands in Maricopa County
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
75

County Islands have the ability to incorporate or undergo municipal annexation 
if within a defined MPA and if the majority landowners within the Island desire 
to be a part of a municipality. Moreover, ARS § 11-269.07 gives the authority to 
the Maricopa County’s Board of Supervisors to vote to require a municipality to 
annex a County Island that is comprised of a single parcel up to ten acres in size 
if neither the property owner(s) or the municipality submits written objections 
within the 60 days from noticing of this proposed action. While this law exists 
in state statute, there is very limited evidence of it being actively used due to 
a variety of reasons, including political resistance, administrative hurdles, and 
general unfamiliarity with the procedure. As such, annexations in Maricopa 
County have proceeded under the general annexation statutes rather than this 
specific provision. The 276 County Islands ranging between 1 – 160 acres are 
candidates for annexation from the viewpoint of Maricopa County due to their 
size; however, the sheer volume of individual County Islands within this range of 
acreage will likely require considerable coordination with the potential annexing 
municipalities.
Urban 
Development in 
Unincorporated 
Areas
Urban development has expanded significantly in Maricopa County, driven 
in part by the growing number of master planned communities located in 
unincorporated areas. As these areas become more urban in character, the 
County opens itself to facing increased demand for infrastructure and public 
services. These services are partially subsidized by residents of incorporated 
cities and towns, making it essential to carefully evaluate the financial, social, 
and public health impacts of urban development in unincorporated areas. 
A key challenge that most residents and businesses in unincorporated areas 
experience is the lack of access to municipal services such as water and sewer 
systems, local police and fire departments, trash collection, and public parks, 
all of which are critical to maintaining public health and safety. Cities and towns 
generally do not provide these services outside their jurisdiction. Except for law 
enforcement provided by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, residents must 
rely on private companies or subscription services to meet these needs. In the 
absence of an elected municipal government, decisions about service provision 
are often made by homeowners’ associations, special districts (like designated 
districts for fire protection), or similar organizations.
While many residents in low-density rural areas value the independence and 
lifestyle associated with unincorporated living, those residing in more urbanized 
unincorporated communities should be fully informed about the limitations 
and responsibilities that come with this choice. Understanding the governance 
structure, service availability, and financial obligations is essential for making 
informed decisions about property investment and long-term residency. Clear 
communication and strategic planning will help ensure that urban growth 
in unincorporated Maricopa County is efficient, balanced, and aligned with 
community expectations.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
76

Affordable Housing
Like many other localities in the country, Maricopa County is grappling with a 
growing housing affordability crisis, driven by rising home prices, limited housing 
supply, and increasing mortgage rates. This is especially difficult to accept 
for long-time residents and first-time homebuyers due to Maricopa County’s 
historical reputation for an affordable cost of living. Despite a surge in demand, 
new construction has not kept pace, and rising land costs, labor shortages, 
supply chain disruptions, investor activity (i.e. institutional investors, corporate 
landlords, short-term rentals, etc.), and higher interest rates have further driven 
up home prices, leaving many individuals and families finding themselves priced 
out of the local market and increasingly skeptical of future homeownership 
attainability and housing affordability overall in Maricopa County.
Total Housing Units 
The housing stock across unincorporated Maricopa County is fairly homogenous. 
Single Family (single-unit) detached housing accounts for over 73% of the 
County’s housing portfolio and (single-unit) attached housing accounts for 
another 8%, resulting in single-family development comprising over 80% of the 
total number of housing units in unincorporated Maricopa County. The next 
greatest singular category of housing type is mobile homes accounting for nearly 
12%. Multi-family development only accounts for 7% collectively for housing 
with two or more units (source: U.S. Census Bureau 2022 American Community 
Survey 5-Year Estimates).
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
77

Housing Occupancy
Assessing the housing occupancy rate is one indicator of the health of 
unincorporated Maricopa County’s housing market. A low or high vacancy rate 
signals a housing shortage or surplus, indicating a possible imbalance between 
supply and demand. Currently, the national average for housing vacancy is 
slightly over 11%, meanwhile, vacant units accounted for 13% in unincorporated 
Maricopa County. The 13% vacancy rate is higher than the 7-8% vacancy rate 
that is commonly suggested as a long-term “natural” vacancy rate. However, this 
does not necessarily mean that there is a larger supply of available housing units 
since the occupancy rate does not account for vacancies due to renovation, 
unsold/unleased new construction, or the part-time use of the unit as a vacation 
rental, to name a few. Of the 87% of occupied housing units, just over 84% are 
owner occupied, while the last 16% of housing stock is renter occupied (source: 
U.S. Census Bureau 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates).
Median Household Income and Median 
Home Values
Contributing to the decrease in regional housing affordability is the fact that 
Household income has not kept pace with the cost of housing. Maricopa 
County’s median household income is $80,675, which is higher when compared 
to the State median income of $72,581. Meanwhile, the median home value 
in Maricopa County is $371,000, higher than the State median home value at 
$321,400. Both of these facts are shown in Figure 8. 
This condition establishes a price-to-income ratio of 4.6. Financial experts 
suggest buyers spend no more than 2.6 times their annual income on a 
home. However, the national house-price-to-income ratio has been higher 
than the recommended 2.6 every year since 1985. This reality suggests that 
first time homebuyers will need to overcome a much higher hurdle to achieve 
homeownership in the future.
Cost-Burdened Households
Cost-burdened households are those that are paying 30% or more of their income 
on housing costs. Severely cost-burden households are paying 50% or more 
of their household income on housing costs, whether mortgage or rent. When 
households (especially lower income households) spend more on housing costs 
this causes reduced financial flexibility on other essentials like food, healthcare, 
and transportation, which can lead to financial instability and reduced quality of 
life.  Figure 9 shows that across Maricopa County (including unincorporated and 
incorporated areas), it is reported that 499,668 households are cost-burdened, 
which reflects 30% of all households, while 14% of all households are spending 
half or more of their income on housing expenses.
Figure 8.   Median Household 
Income and Home Value in 
Maricopa County 
Median Household Income
MARICOPA COUNTY
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American 
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Median Home Value
MARICOPA COUNTY
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American 
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Figure 9.   Percentage of Maricopa 
County Cost-Burdened Households
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
78

Housing Age
Of the 148,782 total housing units 
within 
unincorporated 
Maricopa 
County, 44% were built between 1990-
2009, which encapsulates the housing 
boom and population growth that the 
Greater Phoenix Region experienced 
from the late 1990s to the 2007-2009 
Recession. This housing boom period 
notably saw the development of the 
Anthem community. Housing units 
built in the 1970s account for 23% of the 
housing stock within unincorporated 
Maricopa County, which aligns with 
the development of Sun City West. 
The total housing units constructed by 
decade in unincorporated Maricopa 
County are displayed in Figure 10. 
What is also evident from the data is 
the complete bottoming out of the 
rate of new housing construction in 
Maricopa County compared to the five 
decades prior to 2010. In fact, from 
2000 to 2010, there were 389,400 
units built in Maricopa County overall. 
In contrast, from 2011 to 2023, there 
were only 290,800 units built in 
Maricopa County, which reflects a 25% 
decrease in units built over the last 12 
years (source: Maricopa Association 
of Governments). 
While regional housing construction is 
showing signs of increasing in recent 
years, the lost decade of new housing 
stock of the 2010s may be one of the 
drivers of the County’s current housing 
affordability issue. However, although 
housing unit completions have steadily 
increased across Maricopa County 
over the last number of years, housing 
affordability 
and 
homeownership 
still remains unattainable for many in 
Maricopa County, which underscores 
the need to address the spectrum of 
housing cost factors such as inflated 
land values, increased investor activity, 
higher labor costs, and fluctuating 
interest rates.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 
Figure 10.   Unincorporated Maricopa County Housing Units 
Construction by Decade
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
79

Military Compatibility
While not in the unincorporated area of Maricopa County, Luke Air Force Base 
(AFB), its ancillary military facilities at Luke AFB Auxiliary Airfield 1, and Gila Bend 
Air Force Auxiliary Field play an important role in determining the suitability of 
land uses in the vicinities of its ancillary military facilities. While there is concern 
about noise and potential aircraft accidents near these installations, both the 
State of Arizona and Maricopa County recognize the important economic 
impacts of these bases and their need for protection of their operations. For 
areas located within the High Noise Contours, ranging from 65 to 85 decibels, 
or within the Accident Potential Zones (APZ) surrounding designated sites, ARS 
§ 28-8481 imposes specific planning requirements. Local governments must 
adopt land use plans and zoning ordinances that ensure future development is 
compatible and consistent with the noise levels or accident risks associated with 
military facility operations. Such risks may pose adverse effects on public health 
and safety. These state statutory requirements apply to Maricopa County’s land 
use planning since there are portions of the County’s area of jurisdiction that 
are within the High Noise Contours and the APZs of Luke Air Force Base and 
its ancillary military facilities. The High Noise and Accident Potential Zones 
(HNAPZ) of the three military facilities discussed here are shown in Map 8.
Furthermore, ARS § 28-8481 identifies specific uses that are and are not 
considered consistent and compatible with the high noise or accident potential 
zones, although other uses may be permitted upon mutual determination of 
consistency and compatibility by Luke Air Force Base and the local jurisdiction. 
The Comprehensive Plan designates areas within the High Noise or Accident 
Potential Zones as “Military Compatible,” and the compatible zoning requirements 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
80

High Noise Contours near Luke Air Force Base range from 
65-85  decibels.
Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development, 2026
Map 8.   Military Bases and Decibel Contour Lines
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
81

for these areas are identified in the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. 
State statute also identifies a larger 
risk area around Luke Air Force Base 
and Auxiliary Airfield #1 and defines 
this area as the Territory in the Vicinity 
of a Military Airport. This area extends 
ten miles to the north, south and west, 
and four miles to the east parallel from 
the center of the main runway at Luke 
Air Force Base and Auxiliary Airfield 
#1. While land use restrictions do 
not apply in this defined area, noise 
reduction techniques are required 
in the construction of new habitable 
buildings.
The Comprehensive Plan is also 
required to identify the influence 
area of a military installation or range 
or Arizona national guard site. ARS 
11-818.01 prescribes the meaning 
of “influence area” as a two-mile 
buffer and the meaning of “military 
installation 
or 
range 
or 
Arizona 
national guard site” as any site that 
is listed in ARS 11-818.01.(G)(2). In 
Maricopa County, there are three such 
sites that are listed in state statute 
as a military installation or range or 
Arizona national guard site. They are: 
	
„ Barry M. Goldwater Range
	
„ Buckeye Training Site
	
„ Papago Park Military Reservation
As shown in Map 9, these sites have 
two-mile influence areas that affect 
some portions of unincorporated 
Maricopa 
County. 
State 
statute 
requires that the County plan land 
uses that are compatible with the 
operations of the installation, range, or 
site of the unincorporated lands that 
are within these identified influence 
areas.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
82

2 miles 
 The required buffer defining a military installation’s 
“influence area” under ARS 11-818.01.
Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development, 2026
Map 9.   Military Installation, Range, or Arizona National Guard Site 
Influence Areas
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
83

Aggregate Resources
Aggregate resources in Maricopa County are vital for the region’s construction 
and infrastructure development. These resources, which include sand, gravel, and 
crushed stone, are primarily extracted from riverbeds and floodplains of major 
rivers of the County including the Salt, Gila, Verde, Agua Fria, and Hassayampa 
Rivers as shown in Map 10. The Arizona Geological Survey maintains data 
and maps of the currently known extraction and mining points for aggregate 
deposits to aid in local and County planning, ensuring that these essential 
materials are conserved and managed effectively. The proximity of aggregate 
resources to urban areas helps reduce transportation costs and environmental 
impacts, making local sourcing a viable choice. As growth and development 
continues in Maricopa County, the demand for these materials remains high, 
underscoring the importance of strategic resource management to support 
ongoing development while minimizing ecological disruption. While aggregate 
mining is an important and necessary part of the economy the noise, light, dust 
and traffic from aggregate mines can affect the quality of life of nearby residents. 
To protect aggregate mining and safeguard residents’ quality of life Maricopa 
County supports open space buffers, land use transitions, and other techniques 
that appropriately separate aggregate mining and residential land uses.
Maricopa County also views the importance of post-operation planning for 
aggregate mining site, which the County Flood Control District coordinates 
and assists in such planning. The County supports the restoration of land to a 
beneficial condition on post-aggregates mining reclamation sites. The extent 
of such restoration may include future development of either constructed uses 
or natural habitats and landscapes or an integration of both considering site 
conditions and the compatibility of nearby land uses.
In the Arizona Geological Survey, soil types that are conducive to being sources 
of aggregates as well as the presence of riverbeds and floodplains do exist 
within Maricopa County’s area of jurisdiction. Maricopa County will consider the 
importance of preserving these areas of potential sources aggregate materials 
as future development occurs.
The Maricopa County Aggregate Mining Operations Zoning District #1 (also 
shown in Map 10) is a designated area established to manage and regulate 
aggregate mining activities within a specific region. This district encompasses 
a three-mile radius around the main channel of the Agua Fria River, between 
the CAP Canal and Grand Avenue. The purpose of this district is to balance the 
needs of the mining industry with the concerns of local residents, ensuring that 
mining operations are conducted responsibly and with minimal impact on the 
surrounding community.
The district is overseen by the Aggregate Mining Operations Zoning District #1 
Recommendation Committee, which includes representatives from both the 
mining industry and local residents. This committee acts as a mediator to resolve 
conflicts, adopts administrative regulations, and provides recommendations to 
the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. By fostering collaboration between 
stakeholders, the committee aims to promote best mining practices while 
protecting the quality of life for residents in the area.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
84

The Maricopa County Aggregate Mining Operations Zoning 
District #1 is a designated area established to manage and 
regulate aggregate mining activities within a specific region.
Source: Arizona Geological Survey, 2024
Map 10.   Aggregates in Maricopa County Map
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
85

Fire Protection
Maricopa County is served by 22 fire districts that are displayed in Map 11. All 
of the fire districts in unincorporated Maricopa County are crucial in maintaining 
safety and responding to emergencies in areas not covered by municipal fire 
departments. Each fire district is independent, with its own administration, 
funding, and resources tailored to meet the specific needs of its community. 
They work closely with other emergency services and local governments to 
coordinate efforts during large-scale emergencies and disasters. They work 
closely with other local agencies to provide coordinated and efficient services. 
The presence of these fire districts helps maintain a high level of safety and 
preparedness across Maricopa County. Some of the fire districts with the highest 
number of residents within their borders include: 
	
„ Buckeye Valley Fire District: Covers the Buckeye Valley area and provides 
comprehensive fire and emergency medical services.
	
„ North County Fire & Medical District: Serves the northern parts of the County. 
This district focuses on both fire suppression and medical emergencies.
	
„ South County Fire & Medical District: Serves the southern regions of the 
County, ensuring residents receive timely fire and medical response.
Since 2023, these three fire districts have operated under the Arizona Fire & 
Medical Authority (AFMA). The AFMA is an intergovernmental agreement where 
the three districts retain local control over individual budgets and services along 
with separate tax rates, while the personnel, equipment, facilities, and daily 
operations of the combined districts are governed by a Joint Powers Authority 
(JPA) Governing Board. This operating model reduces overhead costs and 
improves service levels without dissolving the districts.
For unincorporated areas outside of the fire districts and select incorporated 
areas, Rural Metro Fire is a key provider of fire protection and emergency 
medical services. Operating under a subscription-based model, the company 
offer comprehensive services including fire prevention, fire suppression, and 
emergency medical response. Since its founding, Rural Metro Fire has a long-
standing presence in the County, tailoring their services to meet the unique needs 
of each area they serve. Their commitment to safety and readiness ensures 
that residents and businesses in unincorporated regions receive reliable and 
professional emergency services without relying on public funding. 
Additionally, the Maricopa County Emergency Management team coordinates 
efforts to prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural disasters and other 
emergencies. These services work together with the various fire districts to 
maintain safety and security for residents in unincorporated areas.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
86

Source: 
Source: Maricopa County Office of Enterprise Technology, 2024
22 districts
Maricopa County is served by 22 fire districts, each 
responsible for providing essential services such as 
fire suppression, emergency medical response, and fire 
prevention education to specific areas. 
Map 11.   Fire Districts in Maricopa County
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
87

Maricopa 
County Sheriff’s 
Office
Each district is managed by a District Commander and supported by a team 
of deputies, detectives, and administrative staff. This structure allows the 
MCSO to address the unique needs of each area, ensuring comprehensive 
law enforcement coverage throughout Maricopa County. 
The MCSO also offers the Volunteer Posse program. Posse volunteers 
work with deputies and civilian staff to help improve law enforcement and 
enhance public safety, providing an invaluable service to the community. 
Posse volunteer personnel are trained in a variety of essential support 
functions, such as Search and Rescue, Crime Scene, Patrol. Disaster Relief, 
and Emergency Response. 
The MCSO maintains a comprehensive response system across its 
jurisdictions. In data collected for 2022, the MCSO average response times 
reported by the different levels of priority are:
	
„ Priority 1 calls: Average 8.2 minutes
	
„ Priority 2 calls: Average 12.5 minutes
	
„ Priority 3 calls: Average 18.7 minutes
Priority 1 and 2 calls are both deemed emergency calls. Priority 1 is a crime 
involving an immediate threat to life, and Priority 2 is a crime involving an 
immediate and substantial risk of major property loss or damage.
Map 12 shows the locations of the Maricopa County Sheriff Office District 
Substations and the Lake Patrol and Anthem Substations.
In unincorporated Maricopa County, police services are primarily managed by 
the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). It is responsible in responding 
to emergencies, and ensuring public safety in the unincorporated areas of the 
County. To manage law enforcement services effectivel, the MCSO divides its 
jurisdiction into five districts plus a Lake Patrol district unit as summarized 
below:
1.	District 1 covers the eastern part of the 
County, including the County Islands 
in the east valley municipalities. It is 
known for its diverse population and 
urban environment.
2.	District 2 encompasses Luke Air Force 
Base, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 
Station, 
Phoenix 
International 
Raceway, the University of Phoenix 
Stadium, and a large portion of the 
Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range. 
This district covers downtown Phoenix, 
including the Superior Courts, Sheriff’s 
Headquarters, and Chase Field. County 
recreational parks in the district include 
White Tank Mountains Regional Park, 
Estrella Park, and Buckeye Hills.
3.	District 3 comprises both rural farms 
and urban communities, including two 
large senior retirement communities, 
Sun City and Sun City West, and is the 
district with the most calls for service. 
4.	District 4 includes the master-planned 
community of Anthem and services 
two contract municipalities: Carefree 
and Cave Creek. Services are also 
provided to Clearwater Hills.
5.	District 7 is responsible for law 
enforcement 
services 
to 
the 
unincorporated areas of Scottsdale, 
Rio Verde, Tonto Verde, Trilogy at 
Verde River and Goldfield Ranch and 
provides contractual law enforcement 
services to Fountain Hills.
6.	Lake Patrol (District 5) covers 
the 
wilderness 
area 
and 
waterways of the Tonto National 
Forest within Maricopa County 
as well as Lake Pleasant and 
Usery Mountain Regional Park. 
Additionally, 
the 
Lake 
Patrol 
is responsible for Search and 
Rescue Missions, Dive Recovery, 
Mounted Patrol, Concentrated 
Traffic 
Enforcement, 
Flood 
Control 
District 
Enforcement, 
Sheriff’s Medic Program, Mobile 
Field Force, and responding to 
any emergencies involving the 
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 
Station. Patrols use off-highway 
vehicles, watercraft, and horses 
in addition to traditional vehicle 
modes.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
88

Source: 
Map 12.   Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office District
Source: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 2024
Five Districts  
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office divides its jurisdiction 
into five districts plus a Lake Patrol unit to effectively 
manage law enforcement services. 
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
89

Agricultural and Rural Lands
The continued conversion of agricultural and rural lands in Maricopa County 
to urban and suburban development has significant implications for the local 
food system. As farmland is subdivided into housing, commercial centers, and 
other infrastructure, the acreage available for crop cultivation and livestock 
production steadily declines. This loss not only reduces the capacity for local 
food production but also disrupts long-standing agricultural operations that 
contribute to the County’s economy and agricultural heritage. The fragmentation 
of rural landscapes also make farming less viable due to increased land costs, 
reduced access/efficiency to water, and conflicts with non-agricultural land 
uses. Moreover, the loss of agricultural land may impact wildlife populations, 
specifically ungulates and migratory bird species which utilize agricultural fields 
for forage and cover.
The decline in local agricultural land affects food security by increasing 
dependence on imported food. Locally grown produce and livestock offer fresher 
options, lower transportation costs and emissions, and stronger connections 
between consumers and producers. As rural lands disappear, opportunities for 
community-supported agriculture, farmers markets, and farm-to-table initiatives 
also diminish. Preserving agricultural land and integrating food production into 
long-range land use planning can serve to maintain a regionally rooted food 
system in the face of rapid urbanization as well as seeking to retain historical 
farmland as rural.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
90

Scenic Corridors
By integrating land use planning with conservation goals, Maricopa County supports the desire 
of residents and visitors to enjoy unobstructed views of mountain ranges, saguaro-studded 
hillsides, and expansive desert vistas while traveling through the region. Scenic corridors in 
Maricopa County utilize development overlays or designations on specified routes that highlight 
the region’s natural beauty, cultural heritage, and unique desert landscapes. These corridors 
are part of the County’s long-range planning efforts, which aims to preserve and enhance the 
visual character of key travel routes. While scenic corridors are not a transportation planning 
tool, they are a long-range planning instrument of the Planning & Development Department. 
Scenic corridors often align with major roadways that traverse areas of significant topographic 
or environmental interest. These corridors are managed with specific design guidelines to 
protect viewsheds, limit intrusive development, and maintain the aesthetic integrity of the 
Sonoran Desert. The scenic corridors in Maricopa County include:
	
„ Carefree Highway Scenic Corridor 
	
„ Castle Hot Springs Scenic Corridor
	
„ El Rio Scenic Corridor (as represented by the El Rio Design Guidelines and Planning Standards)
	
„ I-17 Scenic Corridor
	
„ McMicken Scenic Corridor 
	
„ New River Road & 7th Street
	
„ Olive Avenue Scenic Corridor
	
„ State Route 74 Scenic Corridor (Highway 74 Scenic Corridor)
	
„ Wickenburg Scenic Highway Corridor
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
91

All nine of these designated scenic 
corridors in Maricopa County are 
shown in Map 13. The State Route 74 
Scenic Corridor and the Wickenburg 
Scenic Corridor are also regulatory 
corridors in that they are overlay zoning 
districts in the Maricopa County 
Zoning Ordinance. These two zoning 
overlays applied to their respective 
scenic corridors establish criteria 
that encourage orderly and minimal 
impacting development along these 
routes to preserve the surrounding 
natural 
and 
cultural 
landscapes 
and scenic qualities. The other four 
scenic corridors are non-regulatory, 
however, there are guidelines in place 
for them to manage and protect the 
scenic nature of the corridor from 
overdevelopment. Any new scenic 
corridors and associated guidelines 
that may be implemented in the future 
are limited from outright prohibiting 
certain land uses due to ARS §12-1131 
through §12-1138 and the intent to 
avoid any claims of diminution in value 
of property as a result of a new land 
use regulation.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
92

Map 13.   Scenic Corridors
Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development, 2026
9 Scenic Corridors
The number of designated scenic corridors in Maricopa 
County.
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
93

Inter-Jurisdiction Coordination
Maricopa County recognizes the importance of coordinating land use planning 
efforts across jurisdictions to promote consistency and long-term efficiency. 
The previous Comprehensive Plan emphasized the need to align land uses in 
unincorporated areas with those in adjacent municipalities, particularly within 
County Islands and municipal planning areas. This coordination has helped 
reduce land use conflicts, improve service delivery, and support cohesive 
community development.
Collaboration with federal and state agencies has also been a longstanding 
priority and has yielded positive outcomes. Maricopa County has actively 
engaged these agencies in its planning processes, and in turn, has been invited to 
participate in planning efforts for federally and state-managed lands. As growth 
pressures intensify and land use decisions become more complex, continued 
coordination among federal, state, and local entities is essential. Maricopa 
County remains committed to working collaboratively to ensure land use 
compatibility, protect shared resources, and advance regional planning goals. 
In addition, the County will continue to monitor and participate in discussions 
regarding the potential disposition or transfer of federal lands, as such actions 
can significantly influence future development patterns and land use priorities.
Strategies
Coordinated land 
use planning across 
jurisdictions reduces 
conflicts and supports 
cohesive community 
development.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
94

Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development, 2026
Map 14.   The Areas of Municipal Influence and Rural Influence in 
Maricopa County
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
95

Framework 2040 introduces a new 
strategic Framework for managing 
both urban and rural development 
across the County’s vast and varied 
landscape. It is titled the Municipal-
Rural Influence Framework, and will 
function as the starting reference 
regarding 
development 
decisions. 
At the core of this Framework is the 
identification of two distinct divisions 
of Maricopa County:
	
„ The Area of Municipal Influence
	
„ The Area of Rural Influence
The Area of Municipal Influence 
encompasses all of Maricopa County’s 
unincorporated land that falls within 
the current limits of a Municipal 
Planning Area, within a County Island, 
or within an Improvement Association. 
The Area of Rural Influence is 
comprised of Maricopa County’s 
unincorporated land that is not within 
the Area of Municipal Influence. Map 
14 shows the extents of the Area of 
Municipal Influence and the Area of 
Rural Influence in Maricopa County.
These two influence areas serve as 
organization tools for classifying 
land  and how it can  be developed 
and 
potentially 
annexed. 
These 
classifications are not administrative 
boundaries. 
Rather, 
they 
serve 
as guides in determining where 
urban or rural development is most 
appropriate in Maricopa County’s area 
of jurisdiction. Figure 11 on pages 98-
99 is a graphical representation of the 
Municipal-Rural Influence Framework. 
The Framework is described in full 
detail in the subsequent sections. 
Municipal-Rural Influence Framework
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
96

The Area of Municipal Influence
The Area of Municipal Influence is the initial point for determining where urban development is 
appropriate in unincorporated Maricopa County. Any unincorporated area within the Area of Municipal 
Influence that has an urban land use designation (see Municipal-Rural Influence Framework Step 2 
on page 98) from either the Comprehensive Plan or an Area Plan is part of the County’s Urban Growth 
Area. Relatedly, any unincorporated land within the Area of Municipal Influence that has a rural land 
use designation (which is only either the Single Family - Rural or Rural Retail land uses) from either 
the Comprehensive Plan or an Area Plan can be considered part of the County’s Urban Growth Area 
provided the unincorporated land satisfies all of the following criteria: 
	
„ The applicable municipal general plan has designated the parcel(s) for urban uses;
	
„ The parcel(s) meets the applicable Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy requirements; 
and
	
„ The parcel(s) have an assurance of annexation from the applicable municipality.
Any unincorporated area with a rural land use designation that can be categorized in the Urban Growth 
Area is eligible to explore a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to an urban land use designation. 
Unincorporated areas with a rural land use designation within the Area of Municipal Influence that 
cannot be categorized in the Urban Growth Area fall into the Rural Service Area. The Rural Service 
Area accommodates rural land uses and allows for rural industrial or certain commercial land uses 
that would both not be considered part of the County’s Urban Growth Area. 
Industrial activities permitted in the Rural Service Area are rural in nature and may include electric 
generating and distribution facilities, vehicle proving grounds and test facilities, mining and extraction 
operations, and agriculturally-oriented businesses. These uses are well suited to rural areas due to 
their need for large parcels of land and limited reliance on public infrastructure. Their inclusion in the 
Framework reflects a thoughtful approach to economic development that balances land capacity 
with the preservation of rural community values.
Commercial development in the Rural Service Area is subject to more stringent review but may be 
allowed without a formal amendment to the Comprehensive Plan if the site is under 40 acres and 
satisfies alternative criteria to the Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy. This flexibility 
allows small-scale commercial sites that steward the character of the rural landscape.
The Area of Rural Influence
The Area of Rural Influence contains all the unincorporated land that is outside of a Municipal Planning 
Area, a County Island, or an Improvement Association. All of this unincorporated land, if outside of 
an Area Plan, is designated for rural land uses (which are only the Single Family - Rural or Rural Retail 
land uses) in the Comprehensive Plan and is categorized into the Rural Service Area. Within an Area 
Plan, a parcel with an urban land use is categorized into the Urban Growth Area, and a parcel with a 
rural land use is categorized into the Rural Service Area. As discussed above, exceptions to allow for 
rural industrial or certain commercial land uses apply in the Rural Service Area.
Assurance of Annexation
Assurance of annexation is an essential step for guiding land use changes from rural to urban in 
Maricopa County. The Municipal-Rural Influence Framework necessitates obtaining an assurance 
of annexation from the appropriate municipality to determine the likelihood of municipal services 
before urban development occurs. This works to ensure that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 
aligns with municipal planning efforts and prevents the indefinite formation of unsupported County 
Islands and leapfrog development. An assurance of annexation is either an executed pre-annexation 
agreement or an executed municipal services agreement. Effective annexation assurance planning 
requires close coordination between the County and municipalities and depends on the availability 
of infrastructure and services needed to support urban development. For its part, development will 
need to coordinate with municipalities and seek support through an assurance of annexation.
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
97

Figure 11.   Municipal-Rural Influence Framework
Identify if subject 
parcel is located 
in the “Area of 
Municipal Influence” or the 
“Area of Rural Influence.”
STEP 1
Encompasses all of Maricopa County’s 
unincorporated areas that fall within the  current 
limits of a Municipal Planning Area, within 
a County Island, or within an Improvement 
Association.
Area of Municipal Influence
Encompasses all of Maricopa County’s 
unincorporated areas that are not a part of the 
“Area of Municipal Influence.”
Area of Rural Influence
Utilize the current 
Maricopa County 
Land Use Plan/
Area Plans to determine if the 
subject parcel has an “Urban 
Land Use” or “Rural Land Use” 
designation.
STEP 2
Refers to the designation of unincorporated 
land in Maricopa County that does not have 
a rural land use designation. All land use 
designations 
available 
in 
unincorporated 
Maricopa County besides Single Family - Rural 
and Rural Retail would be urban land uses. A 
previously approved Development Master Plan 
outside of an Area Plan may be determined 
to be an urban land use by the Planning & 
Development Department Director.
Urban Land Use
Refers to the designation of uninorporated 
land in Maricopa County that has a rural land 
use designation, which includes either Single 
Family - Rural or Rural Retail.
Rural Land Use
Determine if the 
subject parcel is in 
an “Urban Growth 
Area” or “Rural Service Area.”
STEP 3
Any unincorporated land falling into the Urban 
Growth Area has the ability to be re-designated 
through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 
process to an appropriate land use (urban 
or rural relative to surrounding context and 
infrastructure).
Within the “Area of Municipal Influence”, a 
subject parcel with a rural land use designation 
can be determined to be a part of the Urban 
Growth Area if it is designated as an urban 
land use in the Municipal Planning Area of the 
applicable municipal general plan, satisifies 
the Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
strategy requirements, and has an assurance 
of annexation.
Outside of the “Area of Municipal Influence,” 
a subject parcel with an urban land use 
designation in an Area Plan is determined to be 
a part of the Urban Growth Area.
Urban Growth Area
Any unincorporated land falling in the Rural 
Service Area accommodates rural land use 
designations. 
Rural industrial land uses that require large 
amounts of land, but not urban services and 
infrastructure, are acceptable in the Rural 
Service Area. These uses could include 
electric generating and distribution facilities, 
proving grounds and test facilities, mining and 
extraction operations, agriculturally-oriented 
businesses, and other rural-type industrial 
uses on a case-by-case basis.
Certain commercial land uses that do not 
require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 
and can prove alternative satisfactions to 
the Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
strategy requirements are acceptable in the 
Rural Service Area.
Rural Service Area
Ability 
to 
now 
evaluate 
if 
an 
urban land use or 
rural land use is appropriate 
for the subject parcel.
STEP 4
The evaluation process will consider consistency with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive 
Plan as well as meeting the applicable Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD) strategy 
requirements and whether the land in question has an assurance of annexation with the applicable 
municipality to prevent the formation of a new County Island.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
98

Area of 
Municipal 
Influence
Area of 
Rural 
Influence
	
„ Municipal Planning Area
	
„ County Island
	
„ Improvement Association
Urban 
LAND USE
Urban 
GROWTH 
AREA
Rural 
LAND USE
Rural 
LAND USE
Rural 
SERVICE 
 AREA
Rural 
SERVICE 
 AREA
MPA URBAN 
DESIGNATION
USUD | ANNEX
URBAN LAND USE 
IN AREA PLAN
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
99

As Maricopa County considers where urban development is appropriate in 
its area of jurisdiction, it will continue to use its Urban Solutions for Urban 
Development (USUD) strategy. This strategy requires that services and 
infrastructure be currently or readily available to meet the needs of residents and 
businesses, protect taxpayers, and protect public health and safety. This means 
that the following should be identified before approving a Comprehensive Plan 
Amendment or a Zoning District Change for urban development:
Urban Solutions 
for Urban 
Development 
Strategy
1 
That there is sufficient potable 
water 
service, 
including 
confirmation 
of 
infrastructure, 
a 
Certificate 
of 
Convenience 
and 
Necessity and verification by the 
service provider of the ability to 
adequately serve new residents and 
businesses
2 
That there is sufficient sewer 
service, including verification 
by the service provider of the ability 
and capacity to adequately serve new 
residents and/or businesses
3 
That there is sufficient road 
capacity 
to 
accommodate 
expected 
traffic 
increases 
from 
residents and/or businesses
4 
That there is regional flood 
control infrastructure to protect 
new residents and/or businesses as 
necessary
5 
That 
dry 
utilities 
(electric, 
telephone, 
natural 
gas), 
as 
applicable, are available to serve new 
residents and/or businesses
6 
That adequate law enforcement 
and fire service is available 
to serve new residents and/ or 
businesses
7 
That 
adequate 
hospital 
or 
emergency medical facilities are 
available and proximate to serve new 
residents
8 
That 
there 
is 
adequate 
elementary, middle and high 
school capacity, as applicable, to 
serve new residents, and that such 
schools are proximate to applicable 
neighborhoods
9 
That adequate park, recreation 
and community facilities are 
available and proximate to serve new 
residents
10 
That libraries are available 
and proximate to serve new 
residents as necessary
11 
That alternative transportation 
facilities are available and 
proximate to serve new residents as 
necessary
12 
That other urban services and 
infrastructure, as necessary 
and on a case-by-case basis, are 
available to serve new residents and/
or businesses
Not all urban development requires these services or infrastructure, so Table 6 
identifies which services and infrastructure should be confirmed to exist or be 
readily available prior to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Zoning District 
Change (note: the numbers in Table 6 correspond to the paragraph numbers 
listed above).
Confirming these urban services and infrastructure achieves several important 
objectives:
	
„ Protecting taxpayers as well as public health, safety, and general welfare;
	
„ Identifying which unincorporated areas are able to support urban development;
	
„ Implementing an important county policy: have orderly, timely and efficient 
urban development; and
	
„ Helping the county determine when and where urban development is 
appropriate.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
100

Coordinated Pattern of Development
Achieving 
a 
coordinated 
pattern 
of 
development 
is 
essential 
to 
supporting Maricopa County’s long-
term strategic goals. Coordinated 
development 
can 
help 
produce 
balanced and economically efficient 
land use patterns that include a 
well-integrated mix of residential, 
retail, office, industrial, employment 
centers, open space, and community 
amenities. This approach advances 
several 
key 
objectives, 
including 
the implementation of the County’s 
Strategic 
Priorities, 
enhancement 
of overall quality of life, expansion 
of the economic and tax base, 
maintenance of fiscal stability, and 
reduction of reliance on residential 
development as the primary source 
of growth. In addition, balanced land 
use contributes to public health by 
increasing access to recreational 
opportunities, shortening travel times, 
and allowing residents more personal 
time.
This planning approach is especially 
important in unincorporated areas, 
where 
long 
distances 
between 
homes, workplaces, services, and 
recreational spaces are common. 
Land 
use 
imbalances 
in 
these 
areas can result in increased traffic 
congestion, 
longer 
commutes, 
and limited access to essential 
services. Achieving balance in these 
settings is often challenging due to 
differing community expectations, 
infrastructure constraints, and the 
evolving nature of growth at the edge 
of urban development. As expansion 
continues, new challenges arise in 
areas where urban and rural lifestyles 
converge. These urban and rural 
interface zones require thoughtful 
planning and practical solutions to 
maintain compatibility and livability.
Service / Infrastructure
Urban 
Residential
Urban 
Commercial
Urban 
Industrial
1  Water
YES
YES
YES
2  Sewer
YES
YES
YES
3  Roads
YES
YES
YES
4  Flood Control
YES
YES
YES
5  Dry Utilities
As Applicable
As Applicable
As Applicable
6  Police & Fire
YES
YES
YES
7  Medical
YES
NO
NO
8  Schools
YES
NO
NO
9  Parks & Recreation
YES
NO
NO
10  Libraries
As Applicable
NO
NO
11  Alternative Transportation 
As Applicable
As Applicable
As Applicable
12  Other Services
As Applicable
As Applicable
As Applicable
Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
Table 6.   Urban Service and Infrastructure Requirements for Urban Land Use Types
Note: The numbers in Table 6 correspond to the paragraph numbers listed on page 100.
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
101

Key strategies for these transitional 
areas include consistent decisions 
about land use compatibility and 
addressing the diverse expectations 
of rural and urban residents. This 
involves managing the externalities 
of agricultural activities, including 
impacts from large animal livestock, 
on nearby suburban neighborhoods, 
while also preserving the ability of 
rural residents to continue traditional 
practices. It is important to determine 
appropriate land use densities and 
intensities and to recognize the 
range of lifestyle preferences among 
residents. Some individuals prefer 
a rural environment with large lots 
and minimal services, others seek 
a suburban setting with low-density 
development and access to amenities, 
and still others desire an urban 
lifestyle with higher density and full 
access to services and opportunities. 
Establishing realistic expectations for 
infrastructure and service delivery in 
remote areas is essential. The County 
must also consider whether and 
when it is appropriate for residents 
of cities and towns to contribute to 
the cost of enhanced services in 
unincorporated communities, such as 
law enforcement, animal control, and 
street maintenance. These decisions 
will play a critical role in shaping the 
future of growth and governance 
across Maricopa County.
Maricopa County Land Use Plan
In order to work toward accomplishing a coordinated pattern of development in the unincorporated 
area, Maricopa County uses a land use plan to guide how the coordinated pattern should develop based 
on the availability of current infrastructure, the suitability for future infrastructure, the potential for 
future annexation, feedback from the unincorporated residents in the Area Plans, and environmental 
considerations. Maricopa County recognizes 35 different land use designations as listed and described 
in Table 7. The designations can be grouped together under the following 7 broader categories:
	
„ Residential – Single Family
	
„ Residential - Multiple Family
	
„ Residential - Other
	
„ Retail Commercial
	
„ Employment
	
„ Recreation
	
„ Other
The 35 land use designations are primarily used in the individual land use plans of the 8 Area Plans. The 
White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan is the only one of the Area Plans that pulls its land uses solely from 
the Land Use Designations shown in Table 7. The other Area Plans utilize land uses that are similar to 
those found in the Land Use Designations Table in this Plan, but they do differ in name and description. 
In the effort of standardization across the County going forward, each Area Plan Update or new Area 
Plan must utilize the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan in their respective land use 
plans. The rest of the unincorporated County outside of the eight Area Plans is designated as Rural 
Development Area. Map 15 shows the the organization of Maricopa County’s land use plan by Area 
Plans as well as the Rural Development Area and Area of Municipal Influence.
Rural Development Area
The Rural Development Area is the portions of the unincorporated County outside of an Area Plan. 
This designation encompasses the two rural land uses: Single Family - Rural and Rural Retail. Single 
Family – Rural is a residential land use with a density of one dwelling unit per acre or less and Rural 
Retail is a commercial land use that has retail uses such as commercial plant nurseries, public riding/
boarding stables, feed stores, kennels, and large animal medical clinics. Open Space and Parks land 
use designations intended for public use or benefit are also accommodated with the Rural Developmenr 
Area where appropriate. There are unincorporated areas with the Rural Development Area designation 
that fall within the Area of Municipal Influence.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
102

Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development, 2026
Land Use Plan Map Notes 
1. Unincorporated areas outside of County Area Plans are designated Rural Development Area and accommodate rural land uses and rural zoning (with 
allowances for rural industrial land uses and certain commercial land uses) unless considered as part of the Urban Growth Area within the Municipal-Rural 
Influence Framework. 
2. Portions of an Area Plan that are outside of the Area of Municipal Influence function under their own unique and respective Area Plan. These portions can 
be considered for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment within the Municipal-Rural Influence Framework.
3. All land designated under a previously approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall remain designated in accordance with the amendment unless or 
until the amendment has been rescinded through an action by the Board of Supervisors.
4. In accordance with ARS § 11-804(E), any Arizona State Land Department Trust Land designated as open space, recreation, conservation, or agriculture 
shall have a default minimum development density of 1 dwelling unit/acre. Any higher density/intensity designation shall require a Comprehensive Plan 
Amendment.
Map 15.   Maricopa County Land Use Plan
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
103

Table 7.   Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation
Designation Description and Characteristics
Appropriate Zoning 
District***
RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY
Single Family - Rural*
Density of 1 primary dwelling unit or less per gross 
acre
Rural-190, Rural-70, Rural 43
Single Family - Large 
Lot
Density greater than 1 primary dwelling unit per 
gross acre, but not more than 2 primary dwelling 
units per gross acre
R1-35
Single Family - 
Suburban
Density greater than 2 primary dwelling units per 
gross acre, but not more than 3 primary dwelling 
units per gross acre
R1-18
Single Family - 
Transitional Lot
Density greater than 3 primary dwelling units per 
gross acre, but not more than 5 primary dwelling 
units per gross acre
R1-10
Single Family - Small 
Lot
Density greater than 5 primary dwelling units per 
gross acre, but not more than 8 primary dwelling 
units per gross acre
R1-8, R1-7, R1-6
RESIDENTIAL - MULTIPLE FAMILY
Multiple Family - Low
Density greater than 8 primary dwelling units per 
gross acre, but not more than 12 primary dwelling 
units per gross acre
R-2
Multiple Family - 
Intermediate
Density greater than 12 dwelling units per gross acre, 
but not more than 20 dwelling units per gross acre
R-3
Multiple Family - High
Density greater than 20 primary dwelling units per 
gross acre
R-4, R-5
Land Use 
Designation 
Table
Table 7 lists the designations recognized by Maricopa County for future planning 
purposes. In keeping with state law all changes in zoning district boundaries must 
be consistent with and conform to this Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, each 
designation includes an equivalent zoning district to help ensure consistency.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
104

Land Use Designation
Designation Description and Characteristics
Appropriate Zoning 
District***
RESIDENTIAL - OTHER
Mobile Home 
Community
One or more mobile homes on a parcel of land that 
typically comprises a mobile home park or mobile 
home subdivision
Special Use Permit, or R-5 (which 
is the least intensive zoning 
district to meet requirements)
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
Rural Retail*
Commercial plant nurseries, public riding & boarding 
stables, feed stores, kennels, and large animal 
medical clinics
Special Use Permit, or least 
intensive zoning district to meet 
requirements
Convenience Retail
Gas stations, convenience grocery/drug, and other 
small stand alone stores of similar character; total 
retail space: ≤ 30,000 sq. ft; typical site area: up to 
5 acres
C-1
Neighborhood Retail
Lead tenant single supermarket or specialty retail 
store along with small-scale secondary stores; total 
retail space: 30,000 - 150,000 sq. ft (anchor ratio: 
30% - 50%); typical site area: up to 15 acres
C-S or C-1 (least intensive zoning 
district to meet requirements)
Community Retail
Lead tenant of one or more department, warehouse, 
or specialty retail stores along with small-scale 
secondary stores typical of a Power Center; total 
retail space: 100,000 - 400,000 sq. ft (anchor ratio: 
40% - 60%); typical site area: up to 40 acres
C-S
Regional Retail
Lead tenant of more than one department store 
along with small-scale secondary stores typical of 
outlet or enclosed malls; total retail space: 400,000+ 
sq. ft (anchor ratio: 50% - 70%); typical site area: up 
to 100 acres
C-S
Miscellaneous Retail
Stand alone commercial uses that do not meet 
any other commercial land use category, and are 
intended to serve local or community needs
Least intensive zoning district to 
meet requirements
EMPLOYMENT
Office
Office space for administrative, professional, semi-
professional, and support activities where no retail 
trade is conducted
C-O
Light Industrial
Warehouse, distribution, and large-scale storage 
activities as well as manufacturing and assembly 
of small goods intended for end users. Noise, odor, 
dust, glare, and other side effects are completely 
confined within an enclosed building
IND 1
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
105

Land Use Designation
Designation Description and Characteristics
Appropriate Zoning 
District***
Heavy Industrial
Manufacturing, assembly, and fabrication of large 
goods requiring heavy raw materials; processing 
and refinement of natural resources; data centers
IND-2 or IND-3 based on uses 
(least intensive zoning district to 
meet requirements)
Business Park
Large area specifically designated for office, 
research, warehouse, and direct support employment 
uses of similar types that are grouped together 
and located in close proximity or on the same lot. 
Uses are developed under a coordinated plan with 
integrated infrastructure. Residential, general retail, 
and industrial uses involving assembly, fabrication, 
and processing are not allowed
C-O
Industrial Park
Large area specifically designated for either light 
industrial and support uses or heavy industrial and 
support uses of similar type, and developed under 
a coordinated plan with integrated infrastructure. 
Residential and general retail uses are not allowed
IND 1, IND 2, or IND 3 (least 
intensive zoning district to meet 
requirements)
Mixed Use 
Employment
Mix of office, research, warehouse, light industrial, 
and support employment uses on the same or 
adjacent parcels. Residential and general retail uses 
are not allowed
Least intensive zoning district to 
meet requirements
RECREATION
Golf
Golf courses and driving ranges
Any (golf course); Special Use 
Permit (driving range)
Parks
Active recreation areas improved with playfield, 
exercise, picnic, and general recreation facilities. 
Sub-categories include mini-parks (¼ mile service 
area, approximate size 1 acre); neighborhood parks 
(1 mile service area, approximate size 15 acres); 
community parks (1-2 mile service area; approximate 
size 25 acres)
ANY
Open Space
Unimproved areas specifically designated for 
preservation in an unaltered, natural state and which 
only offer passive recreation
ANY
Resort & Campground
Guest ranch, RV park, campground, resort
Special Use Permit as applicable, 
or least intensive zoning district 
to meet requirements
Zoo
Zoo, wildlife preserves, exotic animal farms
Special Use Permit as applicable, 
or least intensive zoning district 
to meet requirements
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
106

Land Use Designation
Designation Description and Characteristics
Appropriate Zoning 
District***
OTHER
Mixed Use
Mix of single and multiple family residential, office 
employment, parks and open space, appropriate 
community services, and retail commercial uses 
within the same building, same parcel, and/or same 
area under a single, integrated plan that emphasizes 
close proximity and pedestrian orientation
Least intensive zoning district to 
meet requirements
Public Assembly
Stadiums, arenas, amphitheaters, race tracks, rodeo 
facilities, auctions and swap meets, amusement 
parks, convention facilities, amusement parks, 
miniature golf course, commercial dormitories, and 
other uses involving large assemblage of people
Special Use Permit as applicable, 
or least intensive zoning district 
to meet requirements
Community Service
Facilities for government, education, religious 
worship, cemeteries, social gathering, public safety, 
residential care, and large-scale medical care which 
serves the general public
Special Use Permit as applicable 
or least intensive zoning district 
to meet requirements
Utilities
Electric generating plants, water and wastewater 
treatment facilities, and associated offices and 
accessory equipment
IND 2
Transportation
Airports, transit centers, rail yards
Special Use Permit as applicable; 
IND 2
Waste Disposal
Landfills, waste transfer and recycling facilities
Special Use Permit as applicable; 
IND 3
Storage
Mini-warehouse; storage & impoundment of vehicles, 
homes, aircraft, & boats; general outdoor storage
C-2 as applicable; special use 
permit as applicable; IND-3 as 
applicable based on use (least 
intensive zoning district to meet 
requirements)
Proving Grounds**
Facilities for testing equipment and products
IND-2 or SUP
Military Compatible
Applicable only within state statute-defined High 
Noise or Accident Potential Zones, it includes 
only those uses determined to be compatible and 
consistent with the high noise or accident potential 
of a military airport or ancillary military facility
Military Airport & Ancillary 
Military Facility Overlay Zoning 
District
* Unincorporated areas outside of County Area Plans are designated Rural Development Area and are only appropriate for rural land uses and rural zoning (with 
allowances for rural industrial land uses and certain commercial land uses) unless considered as part of the Urban Growth Area within the Municipal-Rural Influence 
Framework.
** This Comprehensive Plan recognizes permanently entitled Proving Grounds locations within the Area Plans. Although not shown on Maricopa County Land Use 
Map, the Proving Grounds designation is applicable for all proving grounds locations within this Plan or within the Area Plans, except for areas that fall within land 
designated as Military Compatible.
*** For guidance only based on gross project density and as applicable to current zoning districts. Other zoning districts may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis 
via the UPD process. This does not prevent the addition of new zoning districts to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
107

OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance 
Opportunity by ensuring growth 
is coordinated, high-quality, 
and inclusive.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals reinforce 
Stewardship by promoting 
responsible land use and 
environmental protection.
PROSPERITY
These goals collectively 
support Prosperity by fostering 
economic stability and growth 
with fiscal responsibility.
Goals & Policies
Land Use Goal 1: Achieve a coordinated pattern of development.
Goal Statement: Ensure that development across the County is well-planned and cohesive, 
promoting efficient land use and infrastructure, and leading to a more organized growth pattern.
Land Use Policies:
1.1
Maricopa County supports phasing plans for new urban development to coordinate such 
development with new urban services and infrastructure.
1.2
Maricopa County supports market feasibility studies, cost/benefit where warranted to help 
determine when new urban development in unincorporated areas is appropriate.
1.3
Maricopa County supports considering the existence or readiness of urban services and 
infrastructure as a factor in the approval or denial of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or 
a Zoning District Change in accordance with the Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
strategy.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
108

1.4
Maricopa County supports limiting development in undeveloped areas where infrastructure 
and public services do not exist, or where no major infrastructure projects are planned, such 
as state and/or federal highways.
1.5
Maricopa County supports coordinating land use and infrastructure planning with state 
agencies, other counties, municipalities, relevant utilities, federal agencies, and other 
regulatory bodies.
1.6
Maricopa County supports annexation of urban development in unincorporated Maricopa 
County by municipalities.
1.7
Maricopa County supports annexation of any unincorporated area of the County that is within 
a municipal planning area and completely surrounded by a municipality or municipalities.
1.8
Maricopa County supports the prevention of forming new County Islands.
1.9
Maricopa County supports planning coordination with adjacent municipalities, landowners, 
and neighboring public community members for proposed development within County 
Islands or municipal planning areas.
1.10
Maricopa County supports considering the plans and projects of overlapping or neighboring 
agencies in the planning of unincorporated lands and invite comments and coordination 
when appropriate.
1.11
Maricopa County supports flexible design and zoning techniques within County Islands or 
municipal planning areas through pre-annexation agreements, as needed, to align future 
development with the standards and service expectations of the adjacent municipalities.
1.12
Maricopa County supports directing new urban development to the Urban Growth Area 
identified in this plan and complying with the Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
strategy.
1.13
Maricopa County supports balanced land use patterns that include various residential, retail, 
non-retail employment, and public and civic land uses when appropriate urban services are 
available.
1.14
Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new urban development on existing 
rural land uses, including but not limited to, agriculture, mining, and forestry.
1.15
Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new rural development and new 
agriculture on existing urban land uses.
1.16
Maricopa County supports periodic reviews of the Area Plan Program and the individual 
Area Plans to assess relevance, implementation progress, and alignment with the Maricopa 
County Comprehensive Plan.
1.17
Maricopa County supports decommissioning an individual Area Plan upon Board 
consideration and approval if the amount of unincorporated land within the area equals less 
than 50% of the original total Area Plan limits.
1.18
Maricopa County supports requiring any Area Plan Update or new Area Plan to use the land 
use designations in the Comprehensive Plan.
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
109

Land Use Goal 2: Protect public health, safety, and well-being 
within unincorporated Maricopa County.
Goal Statement: Implementing land use policies that prioritize the health, safety, and overall 
well-being of residents is essential for creating desirable developments and destinations and 
maintaining a high quality of life for existing residents.
Land Use Policies:
2.1
Maricopa County supports considering response times for public safety, fire, and other 
emergency responders in determining the feasibility of new development in unincorporated 
areas.
2.2
Maricopa County supports public safety and security features included in the design of new 
and existing development to promote safe and active communities.
2.3
Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new development on Maricopa County’s 
regional parks, the Maricopa Trail, and other public open spaces.
2.4
Maricopa County supports interconnected trails, parks, preserves, open space, recreation 
centers, and similar features in new development areas where feasible.
2.5
Maricopa County supports the preservation of known and potential sources of aggregates 
and related mining operations within its area of jurisdiction from sterilization by proximate 
incompatible land uses.
2.6
Maricopa County supports land use buffers and land use transitions in urban/rural interface 
areas, including near aggregate mining operations, military installations, proving grounds, 
and the County’s regional parks.
2.7
Maricopa County supports the restoration of land to a beneficial condition on post-
aggregates mining reclamation sites, that may include future development if feasible 
considering site conditions and the compatibility of nearby land uses.
2.8
Maricopa County supports flexible design and zoning techniques when used to establish 
balanced and efficient land use patterns, and when used to protect important environmental 
and open space areas and the connections between these areas.
2.9
Maricopa County supports the use of land use buffers and compatible land use strategies 
near existing and future high voltage electric utility line corridors in coordination with power 
utility companies.
2.10
Maricopa County supports land use compatibility within the High Noise or Accident Potential 
Zone of Luke Air Force Base, Auxiliary Airfield #1, and the military auxiliary airfield near the 
town of Gila Bend.
2.11
Maricopa County supports land use compatibility in the influence area of a military 
installation or range or Arizona national guard site.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
110

Land Use Goal 3: Encourage high-quality development.
Goal Statement: Development projects that meet high standards of design and construction are 
key for enhancing the County’s aesthetic appeal and long-term viability.
Land Use Policies:
3.1
Maricopa County supports mixed housing options.
3.2
Maricopa County supports residential development that contributes to maintaining a long-
term level of high quality of development.
3.3
Maricopa County supports locating housing in areas served by transportation networks, in 
close proximity to job centers, and where public services and infrastructure are available or 
readily available.
3.4
Maricopa County supports rehabilitation and/or abatement by private parties of substandard, 
nuisance, vacant, and/or abandoned homes, buildings and land to protect neighborhoods 
and property values.
3.5
Maricopa County supports subdivisions rather than unregulated land divisions otherwise 
known as “wildcat” lot splits.
3.6
Maricopa County supports high-quality commercial centers and well-designed office, 
business, and industrial parks in the Urban Growth Area with a preference for these 
developments to annex into a municipality.
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
111

Land Use Goal 4: Exercise sound financial management in land 
use decisions.
Goal Statement: Land use decisions that strengthen the County’s fiscal health and ensure long-
term financial stability are important and central to the financially responsible planning aims of 
the County.
Land Use Policies:
4.1
Maricopa County supports compliance with its capital improvement and other funding 
programs, except when reimbursement is made to the County for unplanned costs or when 
private capital is used for the provision of services and infrastructure.
4.2
Maricopa County supports using homeowners’ associations and related organizations and 
improvement districts to manage and maintain services, infrastructure, and amenities to 
help limit impacts to taxpayers where appropriate.
4.3
Maricopa County supports using development agreements for large-scale urban 
development to help limit financial impacts to the County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
112

Land Use Goal 5: Provide regional leadership on land use issues.
Goal Statement: The County seeks to take a proactive and leading role in addressing land use 
challenges and setting standards for development in the region among the various jurisdictions 
in order to promote best practices in land use planning.
Land Use Policies:
5.1
Maricopa County supports promoting awareness about the unique aspects of living in 
unincorporated areas.
5.2
Maricopa County supports periodic reviews of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance and 
the initiation of specific amendments on an as needed basis.
5.3
Maricopa County supports periodic comprehensive updates of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance on an as needed basis.
5.4
Maricopa County supports coordinated planning efforts between local, state, and federal 
agencies.
5.5
Maricopa County supports coordinating with the Arizona State Land Department in the 
planning and design of large-scale urban development in or adjacent to State Trust Land.
5.6
Maricopa County supports working with state and federal agencies and utility companies 
on any changes to their land ownership boundaries that could lead to acquiring land for 
local public use.
5.7
Maricopa County supports coordinating with state and federal agencies and utility 
companies to address safety and security issues associated with new development near 
the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
5.8
Maricopa County supports the incorporation by developers of both on-site utility 
infrastructure for large-scale urban developments and the designated utility corridors 
necessary to provide essential utility services to those developments.
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
113

6
Transportation

In This Chapter
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

The Transportation element establishes Maricopa County’s 
support for coordinating future growth with a safe and 
comprehensive transportation system. The Transportation 
element also emphasizes the importance of an efficient 
transportation system to the region’s economy.
Introduction
A robust, efficient, and high-quality transportation system is vital to the movement 
of people and goods throughout Maricopa County. It serves as a cornerstone for 
economic competitiveness, regional connectivity, and quality of life. This element 
delineates the general location and extent of existing and proposed transportation 
infrastructure in unincorporated Maricopa County which includes:
	
„ Highways
	
„ Arterial and collector streets
	
„ Bicycle lanes and routes
	
„ Other multimodal transportation facilities or options
It is important to note this is a list of transportation infrastructure existing in 
unincorporated Maricopa County and not what the County’s transportation 
department is responsible for planning, prioritizing, and maintaining. 
This element also supports broader regional initiatives aimed at developing 
cohesive roadway transportation networks and supporting multimodal 
facilities where appropriate and feasible. It also identifies barriers to improving 
transportation infrastructure, that are especially relevant in the unincorporated 
areas of the County.
Maricopa County faces a dynamic set of transportation challenges, including rapid 
population growth and limited financial resources. These factors will continue to 
shape the County’s transportation landscape for years to come. However, they 
also present opportunities to implement innovative solutions that address the 
needs of residents and businesses.
While the Comprehensive Plan cannot resolve every transportation issue, it does 
promote a coordinated approach that aligns transportation planning with land use 
decisions. This integration is essential for enhancing mobility, fostering viable and 
balanced growth, and ensuring that transportation investments yield long-term 
benefits for the County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
116

Planning 
Considerations 
Existing Roadway Network
The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is responsible 
for maintaining roadway infrastructure within County-owned right-of-way. This 
typically falls within the unincorporated areas of the County that are outside 
the jurisdiction of municipal and state transportation networks. This system 
encompasses approximately 2,458 centerline miles of roadways, forming a critical 
component of the County’s overall transportation framework. Since 2010, there 
has been a total of 10 miles of new freeway frontage added to the state system 
in unincorporated Maricopa County.
MCDOT documents its long-range planning through its Transportation Systems 
Plan (TSP) . This plan outlines how limited financial and physical resources will be 
allocated to maintain and improve the existing roadway network while addressing 
the increasing demand for new infrastructure driven by population growth and 
economic development. The TSP encompasses a broad range of topics, including:
	
„ Engineering and roadway design standards
	
„ Infrastructure financing strategies
	
„ System performance and capacity planning
The TSP provides the analytical foundation for transportation decision-making and 
supports the County’s efforts to deliver a safe, reliable, and efficient transportation 
system.
MCDOT organizes its roadway network within the TSP through a hierarchical 
functional classification system. This system classifies roads based on several 
criteria, including:
	
„ Type of service provided
	
„ Desired Level of Service (LOS)
	
„ Target Maximum Operating Speed Limit
	
„ Roadway design features
2,458 Miles
Miles of roadway that form a critical component of 
Maricopa County’s overall transportation framework.
 Chapter 6 •  TRANSPORTATION
117

The functional classifications used by 
MCDOT are Parkway, Principal Arterial, 
Minor Arterial, Major Collector, Minor 
Collector, and Local. These functional 
classifications are described in Table 
8. The higher classifications, such as 
parkways and arterials, tend to support 
longer-distance travel and connect 
to regional traffic generators. Lower 
classifications, such as collectors 
and local roads, facilitate shorter and 
more localized trips. The MCDOT’s 
functional classifications of the County-
maintained roadway network, including 
both existing and future facilities, are 
displayed in Map 16. MCDOT’s functional 
classification system is separate 
from the functional classification that 
influences a roadway’s eligibility for 
federal and state funding. 
Roadways within Maricopa County 
Regional Parks are under the purview 
of the the Maricopa County Parks and 
Recreation Department (MCPRD). As 
part of the parks master plan update 
process, MCPRD is preparing circulation 
plans for each of the twelve Maricopa 
County Regional Parks Master Plans. 
These circulation plans guide roadway 
improvement strategies to provide 
optimal interconnectivity, accessibility, 
and a balanced park roadway system. 
While park roadways account for only 
a fraction of land within the parks and 
preserves, they serve an important role 
in connecting visitors to park facilities. 
County Regional Park roadways use 
separate functional classification 
criteria and are not included in this map.
Table 8.   MCDOT Roadway Functional Classifications  
Roadway Type
Context
Target of Maximum 
Operating Speed
Minimum 
Right-of-Way
Parkway
Urban
55 mph
200 feet
Rural
65 mph
200 feet
Principal Arterial
Urban
45 mph
130 feet
Rural
55 mph
150 feet
Minor Arterial
Urban
45 mph
110 feet
Rural
45 mph
130 feet
Major Collector
Urban
30 mph
80 feet
Rural
40 mph
80 feet
Minor Collector
Urban
30 mph
60 feet
Rural
55 mph
60 feet
Local Road
Urban
25 mph
50 feet
Rural
25 mph
50 feet
Source: Maricopa County Roadway Design Manual, 2025
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
118

The MCDOT network includes roadways classified from 
parkways and arterials to collectors and local roads, each 
serving distinct travel needs.
Source: Maricopa County Department of Transportation, 2025
Map 16.   MCDOT Functional Classification (Existing and Future)
 Chapter 6 •  TRANSPORTATION
119

Table 9.   Maricopa County Bicycle Facility Inventory
Facility Type
Centerline Miles
Bike Lane
160
Bike Route
30
Paved Shoulder
144
Unidentified
53
Total
387
Source: MCDOT Asset Management System, 2026
Active Transportation
The 
Maricopa 
County 
active 
transportation network includes 
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure 
in the unincorporated areas of the 
County. The MCDOT Roadway Design 
Manual (RDM) provides guidelines for 
the development standards for this 
network. 
Bicycle facilities include, but are not 
limited to, dedicated bicycle lanes, 
signed bicycle routes, and paved 
shoulders. These facilities are located 
in both rural and urban areas of 
unincorporated County. New bicycle 
facilities are routinely added to the 
County’s transportation system during 
roadway construction and maintenance 
projects. Table 9  lists the types of 
bicycle facilities in unincorporated 
Maricopa County as reported in the 
MCDOT Asset Management System. 
Bicycle lanes are located both in 
residential and commercial areas, 
as well as on rural roads which lead 
to parks and recreation areas. Paved 
shoulders are primarily found on 
regional corridors at the edge of the 
County’s more urbanized areas.
The pedestrian facilities in the 
Maricopa County transportation 
network include, but are not limited 
to, sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, 
median refuge islands, pedestrian 
under/overpasses, and signalized 
crossings. Traditionally, sidewalk width 
standards are a minimum of five feet. 
In 2021, MCDOT implemented a six-
foot or greater requirement for all new 
sidewalk projects. According to the 
MCDOT Asset Management System, 
unincorporated Maricopa County 
has 1,276 miles of sidewalks, located 
primarily in residential developments. 
Approximately 59% of all sidewalks that 
are located in unincorporated Maricopa 
County are in Sun City and Sun City 
West. Anthem has just about 10% of all 
sidewalks in unincorporated Maricopa 
County. Unincorporated communities 
near Waddell, Litchfield Park, East 
Mesa, and Laveen also have extensive 
sidewalk networks. Figure 12 shows 
the summary of sidewalk locations in 
Maricopa County as reported from the 
MCDOT Asset Management System.
Beyond providing a safe and designated 
space for walking, the County works to 
adhere to standards from the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (ADA) to build a 
network that emphasizes inclusive and 
independent mobility. To evaluate and 
prioritize ADA facilities, MCDOT created 
the Neighborhood Facilities Analysis 
(NFA) studies to analyze neighborhoods 
in unincorporated Maricopa County and 
provide recommendations to develop 
projects for future implementation.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
120

Source: MCDOT Asset Management System, 2026
Multimodal and Alternative 
Transportation
Maricopa County does not operate 
or provide regional transit services. 
However, MCDOT does provide 
accessible connections to the overall 
Valley Metro network that provides 
alternative transportation options for 
residents of Maricopa County to access 
nearby and regional destinations. There 
are a total of 17 different operating bus 
routes and 119 bus stops in the Valley 
Metro system located along roadways 
maintained by MCDOT.
The need to support multi-modal 
and alternative transportation is 
a reasonable strategy to address 
multiple challenges, including Maricopa 
County’s air quality concerns and the 
economic, social, and environmental 
impacts of traffic congestion. However, 
it is important to clarify that although 
Maricopa County contributes funding 
to public transit, it is not a direct 
provider or operator of such services 
nor does the County have the funding 
for substantial contributions to 
multimodal facilities. Accordingly, the 
Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the 
County’s role in advancing multimodal 
oprions where feasible such as bicycle, 
pedestrian, and other low-volume 
alternative transportation mode 
facilities. This regional role is where 
the County can exert direct influence 
and provide meaningful support.
Transportation Improvement Plan
Maricopa 
County 
updates 
its 
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) 
annually to outline and prepare for the 
next five years of enhancements to the 
MCDOT transportation system. The TIP 
prioritizes these improvements, with 
the highest-priority projects scheduled 
first. While the TIP covers a five-year 
span, only the projects listed for the 
first year receive immediate funding 
due to the county’s single-year budget 
approach. However, as projects rise in 
priority, they typically secure funding 
over time.
Since the TIP aligns available funding 
with the highest needs, deviations 
from it can be challenging. Therefore, 
when new development necessitates 
infrastructure improvements not 
included in the TIP, Maricopa County 
assesses the mechanisms for how 
the development should cover these 
costs. This scenario is common in 
unincorporated areas, particularly 
where large urban developments are 
situated within the County’s area of 
jurisdiction. Moreover, this scenario 
highlights the importance of ensuring 
that new growth does not strain the 
County’s financial resources and that 
future improvements are planned 
strategically and rationally.
Figure 12.   Summary of 
Sidewalk Facilities in 
Unincorporated Maricopa 
County
 Chapter 6 •  TRANSPORTATION
121

Strategies
Future Network Growth and 
Maintenance
MCDOT looks to meet future needs 
for its transportation network through 
implementing carefully planned 
solutions that maintain a safe and 
efficient transportation system. 
Following the predominant land use 
patterns, a majority of the future growth 
of new roadways under the County’s 
jurisdiction is planned in the western 
portion of the urban fringe with a 
noticeable concentration of planned 
future roadways north of Interstate 10 
near Tonopah. 
As growth continues throughout 
unincorporated Maricopa County, 
development of the transportation 
system should consider a level 
of sensitivity to the surrounding 
landscape, especially in the rural 
areas of the County. Scenic corridors 
are a helpful tool to contribute to 
community identity and tourism 
appeal by highlighting of the region’s 
natural beauty, cultural heritage, and 
unique desert landscapes. Relatedly, 
wildlife habitat linkages, identified with 
collaboration from state and federal 
agencies, are critical for maintaining 
biodiversity and safe animal movement 
across natural landscapes fragmented 
by development. The Comprehensive 
Plan supports transportation planning 
that considers the impact of the 
growth of the transportation system 
on scenic corridors and determined 
wildlife habitat linkages. The aim is to 
minimize habitat disruption, preserve 
viewsheds, and incorporate other 
potential mitigation measures to strike 
a balance between mobility growth and 
stewardship of the natural landscape.
Preserving Road Alignments
In order to accommodate increased 
traffic on its roadway network from 
growth and new development in an 
efficient and cost-effective manner, 
MCDOT relies on the identification and 
preservation of roadway alignments 
where new or expanded roads are 
anticipated. Identifying future road 
alignments can present challenges 
because of environmental, economic, 
legal, political and engineering 
considerations. However, the overall 
alignment preservation process 
results in long-term plans that provide 
guidance for the preferred locations for 
future roads, highways and bridges.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
122

Municipal Annexations of 
Roadways
Typically, roads operated by Maricopa 
County are in unincorporated areas and 
travel through rural and often remote 
locales. Compared to municipally 
operated roads, County roads are likely 
to be missing urban features such as 
streetlights, fully built-out roadway 
conditions, fully-controlled drainage, 
and pedestrian facilities.
As the incorporated municipalities 
in the County continue to grow and 
expand, Maricopa County places 
importance on its goal of having both 
land and the adjacent roadways be 
annexed. In the past, municipalities 
often annexed only the land and 
left the adjacent roads behind still 
under the County’s operation, which 
hindered these roads from being 
brought up to the standards of the 
annexing municipality. These County 
roadways were quickly surrounded by 
an increasingly developing urban area 
resulting in transportation needs that 
a municipality is more appropriate to 
address. This led to scalloped streets 
that are a hazardous condition in many 
County Islands where short roadway 
segments change their configurations 
as the pavement crosses between 
the boundaries of incorporated and 
unincorporated areas. Frequently, 
these scalloped street configurations 
do not meet the surrounding municipal 
standards so they are effectively rural 
roads within urban areas that are costly 
to maintain, may not have adequate 
street lighting, and are difficult to 
eliminate. Maricopa County highliy 
encourages municipalities to annex 
adjoining roads to reduce scalloped 
streets and help reduce financial 
burden on County taxpayers.
Intelligent Transportation Systems 
and Connected Vehicles
Maricopa 
County 
supports 
the 
deployment 
of 
Intelligent 
Transportation Systems (ITS) and 
Connected Vehicle (CV) technology as 
a means to support and enhance the 
safe and efficient movement of people 
and goods throughout the region 
in a manner that does not increase 
surveillance of drivers’ habits. Through 
its nationally recognized SMARTDrive 
Program, MCDOT has been a leader in 
advancing CV technology since 2008, 
collaborating with partners such as 
ADOT, the University of Arizona, and 
the Institute of Automated Mobility. 
These efforts include the development 
of a 5.3-mile test bed in Anthem, 
Arizona, featuring eleven signalized 
intersections equipped to exchange 
real-time data between vehicles and 
infrastructure, improving emergency 
response and reducing crash risks. 
MCDOT also plays a key role in the 
Arizona Connected Vehicle Program, 
which integrates ITS architecture 
across jurisdictions to support 
seamless communication and traffic 
and safety management. By investing 
in these technologies, Maricopa County 
is building a smarter transportation 
network that reduces congestion, 
enhances safety, and prepares the 
region for future mobility innovations.
 Chapter 6 •  TRANSPORTATION
123

Transportation Funding
MCDOT receives the majority of its revenue 
from funds delivered out of the Highway User 
Revenue Fund (HURF), which is made up of 
revenue collected from gasoline and use-fuel 
taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, motor-
carrier taxes, vehicle-license taxes, motor 
vehicle operators’ license fees, and other 
miscellaneous fees. The State of Arizona’s 
Vehicle License Tax (VLT) is a property tax 
based on vehicle assessments that also funds 
a portion of MCDOT transportation initiatives. 
The MAG Arterial Life Cycle Program (ALCP) 
provides over 12% of MCDOT’s annual 
revenue. These funds originate from the 
Proposition 479 half-cent sales tax passed 
by voters in 2024 and started in 2026 to fund 
transportation projects on the MCDOT system, 
as well as funding improvements for other 
jurisdictions in the region. Just under 20% of 
MCDOT’s remaining revenue sources come 
from a combination of intergovernmental 
charges, permit fees, interest earnings, asset 
sales, grants, partnership revenue, and other 
miscellaneous revenue.
It is important for MCDOT to understand the 
sources of its annual funds and analyze the 
projections of available funds into the future. 
This way MCDOT can put together its annual 
TIP using a data-based process to match 
funds to the needs of its entire transportation 
system.
Planned and Conceptual Future 
Highways in Maricopa County
Beyond Maricopa County’s transportation 
system, there are planned future freeway 
facilities (see Map 17) within the County’s 
limits that will travel through unincorporated 
areas and likely bring about transformative 
impacts to them. Interstate 11 (I-11) is a 
planned new freeway corridor that will 
ultimately run from the US-Mexican border 
in Douglas, AZ to Las Vegas, NV. In Maricopa 
County, I-11 will traverse between the City of 
Goodyear and the Sonoran Desert National 
Monument and head north toward Wickenburg 
west of the White Tank Mountains. At the time 
of adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, I-11 in 
Arizona has no secured funding nor has made 
a timeline of construction.
State Route 30 (SR 30) is another planned 
freeway in the Phoenix metropolitan area that 
will be a second east-west reliever, south of 
Interstate 10 starting at the Interstate 17 at the 
Durango Curve travelling through Laveen and 
ending at State Route 85 southwest of the City 
of Buckeye. The future construction of SR 30 
is slated for funding under Proposition 479. 
When completed SR 30 will most definitely 
have implications for the development of the 
unincorporated areas it travels through near 
Laveen, Avondale, Goodyear, and Buckeye.
Other planned freeway facility improvements 
that will have an effect on unincorporated 
Maricopa County are the furthering of State 
Route Loop 303 (Loop 303) to the planned 
SR 30  alignment and improvements to 
State Route 74 that include widening and 
intersection upgrades. These improvements 
to State Route 74 do have an additional 
consideration of balance due to the facility’s 
designation as a regulatory scenic corridor. 
Both of these improvements to Loop 303 
and State Route 74 would likely prompt and 
advance development in the unincorporated 
areas adjacent to these facilities. 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
124

Future highways shaping Maricopa County include State 
Route 30, an extension of Loop 303, improvements to State 
Route 74, and Interstate 11.
Source: ADOT 2021; FHWA 2021; MAG RTP MOMENTUM 2050 Update
Map 17.   Future Planned Freeway Facility Map
 Chapter 6 •  TRANSPORTATION
125

Partnering with Jurisdictions in the 
Region
Maricopa County plays a vital role 
as a collaborative partner in regional 
transportation planning, working closely 
with municipal governments, state agencies, 
and federal entities to ensure a cohesive 
and efficient transportation network. 
Through its active participation in regional 
planning organizations such as the Maricopa 
Association of Governments, the County helps 
shape long-range transportation strategies 
that align with local priorities and broader 
regional goals. This partnership enables 
coordinated investment in infrastructure, 
data sharing, and policy development that 
supports multimodal transportation, safety 
enhancements, and efficient growth across 
jurisdictional boundaries.
At the state and federal levels, Maricopa 
County maintains strong working relationships 
with the Arizona Department of Transportation 
(ADOT) 
and 
the 
Federal 
Highway 
Administration (FHWA), among others. These 
collaborations facilitate the integration of 
county transportation projects into statewide 
plans and ensure compliance with federal 
funding and regulatory requirements. By 
leveraging these partnerships, the County 
is able to secure resources for critical 
improvements, contribute to regional mobility 
initiatives, and advocate for policies that 
reflect the needs of its diverse communities. 
This cooperative approach strengthens the 
overall transportation system and reinforces 
Maricopa County’s role as a proactive and 
reliable partner in shaping Arizona’s overall 
mobility future.
Maricopa County does recognize the 
importance of strategic partnerships with 
municipalities to ensure the effective 
maintenance and improvement of the regional 
transportation network. Through cost-sharing 
arrangements and mutual financial support, 
the County has the ability to work with local 
jurisdictions to address roadway repairs 
and enhancements that benefit County 
residents and neighboring communities. 
These cooperative efforts maximize the 
impact of limited public resources, reduce 
duplication, and promote consistent service 
delivery across jurisdictional boundaries. 
By aligning funding priorities and leveraging 
shared investments, Maricopa County helps 
create a more resilient and interconnected 
transportation system.
Additionally, Maricopa County supports the 
use of intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) 
that facilitate the construction of roads within 
or through County Islands to the standards 
of the surrounding municipality. These 
agreements enable municipalities or private 
entities to build infrastructure that meets 
local design and operational expectations, 
particularly in areas slated for future 
annexation. This approach ensures continuity 
in roadway quality, safety, and aesthetics, while 
streamlining the transition of jurisdictional 
responsibility. By endorsing IGAs, the County 
promotes efficient development practices 
and reinforces its commitment to regional 
coordination and long-term planning.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
126

OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance 
Opportunity by ensuring 
accessibility and connectivity 
for all residents.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals promote Stewardship by 
encouraging efficient transportation 
systems that reduce congestion and 
environmental impacts.
PROSPERITY
These goals ensure Prosperity 
through infrastructure 
investments and strengthened 
economic competitiveness.
Transportation Policies:
1.1
Maricopa County supports compliance with the County Department of Transportation’s 
currently adopted Transportation System Plan and its successor plans.
1.2
Maricopa County supports adherence to its Transportation Improvement Program and its 
successor programs.
1.3
Maricopa County supports using the preferred funding methods identified in the Cost of 
Development element to pay for transportation improvements necessary for new development.
1.4
Maricopa County supports new development funding unanticipated, accelerated and 
nonprogrammed improvements where such development requires deviation from the 
Transportation Improvement Program. 
Transportation Goal 1: Provide a comprehensive transportation 
system.
Goal Statement: Developing an integrated transportation network that meets the needs of all 
users is vital to ensure that the system is accessible, efficient, and well-connected.
Goals & Policies
 Chapter 6 •  TRANSPORTATION
127

Transportation Policies:
2.1
Maricopa County supports coordinating decisions on land use patterns and transportation 
investments that aim for a safe, efficient, and fiscally solvent transportation network. 
2.2
Maricopa County supports designing new roadways to include pedestrian facilities separated 
from vehicular traffic with multimodal crossings on arterial roadways as necessary.
2.3
Maricopa County supports the inclusion or connection to alternative transportation in 
the design of existing and new urban development, as feasible and effective. Alternative 
transportation can include, but is not limited to, sidewalks, the Maricopa Trail and other trail 
connections, bicycle facility infrastructure, park-and-ride/public transit facilities, and other 
appropriate practices.
2.4
Maricopa County supports using Intelligent Transportation Systems and Connected Vehicle 
technology for efficient and safe movement of people and goods.
1.5
Maricopa County supports the preservation of rights-of-way, as necessary, to maintain and 
extend the grid system, to support the state’s development of the highway-interchange 
network, and to preserve the scenic corridors. 
1.6
Maricopa County supports roadway planning that promotes identified scenic corridors and 
wildlife habitat linkages and connectivity where necessary.
1.7
Maricopa County supports public education efforts that assist in reducing air pollution.
Transportation Goal 2: Manage the transportation system to provide 
continual improvements in reliability, efficiency, and safety.
Goal Statement: Continuously improving the reliability, efficiency, and safety of the transportation 
system through active management is crucial to meet the community’s evolving needs.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
128

Transportation Policies:
3.1
Maricopa County supports partnerships with municipalities in cost sharing and mutual 
financial support for road repairs and improvements. 
3.2
Maricopa County supports municipal annexation of roads that are adjacent to County Islands. 
3.3
Maricopa County supports intergovernmental agreements that allow for municipal or 
private construction of roads in and passing through County Islands to the standards of the 
surrounding municipality where these roads are intended to be annexed by the municipality.
3.4
Maricopa County supports partnerships with federal, state, and local governments and 
agencies for interjurisdictional traffic operations and management for the benefit of regional 
safety and mobility.
3.5
Maricopa County supports coordination between property owners to establish an agreement 
to maintain private ingress/egress.
Transportation Goal 3: Support regional and interagency 
collaboration.
Goal Statement: Fostering collaboration among the transportation agencies in the region is critical 
to create and maintain a more effective, integrated, and functionally competitive transportation 
system.
 Chapter 6 •  TRANSPORTATION
129

7
Environment

In This Chapter
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Protecting and managing critical resources like air, water, 
energy, and dark skies is essential for a healthy future.
Introduction
The Environmental Element identifies 
Maricopa County’s natural resources 
and highlights the importance of 
their retention, enhancement, and 
responsible development to improve 
quality of life and environmental health. 
Protecting and managing all of the 
critical resources and conditions that 
exist across the County such as our air, 
water, wildlife, and other aspects of the 
natural landscape are essential for a 
healthy future. Likewise, preserving 
remaining areas of undisturbed plant 
and wildlife habitats is critical. Without 
careful planning, new development 
can lead to depletion of limited water 
and energy supplies, increased air and 
water pollution, and harm to biological 
resources.
This 
chapter 
establishes 
a 
comprehensive 
framework 
for 
safeguarding the unique natural 
assets and ecological systems that 
define Maricopa County’s desert 
environment. Defined goals promote 
responsible growth, while addressing 
challenges such as heat exposure, 
wildfire risk, air and groundwater 
quality, and habitat fragmentation. 
Additional planning policies further help 
to prioritize conservation, efficiency, 
and environmental protection in order 
to mitigate these risks. The following 
sections summarize these key natural 
resources that must be considered 
as the county experiences continued 
growth and development.
The Environment element identifies Maricopa County’s 
foremost concerns with respect to environmental issues, and 
potential strategies for lessening the impact that development 
has on its environment. Particular attention focuses on air 
quality, water quality, wildlife protection, natural and cultural 
resources, and natural and environmental hazards.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
132

Maricopa County carries a critical obligation to safeguard its environmental and natural resources while ensuring their use 
and enjoyment remain viable for future generations. This balance supports economic vitality, public health, and quality of 
life across both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Shaped by the Sonoran Desert’s distinctive landscapes, rugged 
mountains, and riparian corridors, the County’s natural environment provides critical ecological functions, habitat for diverse 
species, and cultural and recreational value. Yet these resources face growing pressures from urbanization, weather-related 
phenomena, and invasive species, underscoring the need for proactive management and thoughtful planning.
Planning Considerations
Air Quality
Air quality in Maricopa County has 
improved significantly over the past 
two decades, largely due to the 
efforts of the Maricopa County Air 
Quality Department (MCAQD). The 
department monitors pollution levels 
and enforces regulations to reduce 
emissions from vehicles, industry, and 
construction dust. Despite progress, 
challenges remain with high ozone 
levels, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 
from smoke and exhaust, and coarse 
particulate matter (PM10) from dust and 
soot, pollutants that pose health risks 
to sensitive groups and the general 
population. Figure 13 illustrates the 
annual exceedance days for these 
pollutants as the County’s population 
has grown. MCAQD also promotes 
cleaner air through community 
education and outreach. Continued 
efforts are essential to maintain and 
further improve air quality in the region.
Noise Quality
Maintaining healthy noise levels contributes to the quality of life in Maricopa 
County. Noise pollution is a significant concern, particularly in urban areas and near 
major transportation facilities. The County implemented a comprehensive Noise 
Ordinance to address excessive, unnecessary, and disruptive noise, recognizing 
its detrimental effects on residents’ health and welfare. This ordinance aims to 
balance the needs of commerce and property enjoyment with environmental 
quality and public peace of mind. Enforcement is primarily handled by the Maricopa 
County Sheriff’s Office which intends to keep noise levels within acceptable limits 
to promote a high quality of life. Additionally, specific regulations are in place to 
control noise from construction activities and military airports, further mitigating 
the impact of noise pollution.
Water Quality
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) plays a key 
role in protecting water quality and safety in unincorporated areas. The department 
monitors water resources, enforces regulations, and promotes conservation 
through public education and community engagement. By integrating the 
management of surface water, groundwater, and reclaimed water, Maricopa 
County works in coordination with the State of Arizona to support the state 
government’s goal of creating a resilient water supply system capable of meeting 
the needs of a growing population and diverse economy.
Figure 13.   Ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 Exceedance Days in 
Maricopa County per Year
Source: Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 2024
 Chapter 7 •  ENVIRONMENT
133

The Maricopa County 
Flood Control District 
plays a crucial role in 
safeguarding residents 
from the dangers of 
flooding.
	
„ Buckeye
	
„ Carefree
	
„ Cave Creek
	
„ Chandler
	
„ El Mirage
	
„ Gila Bend
	
„ Guadalupe
	
„ Litchfield Park
	
„ Mesa
	
„ Queen Creek
	
„ Surprise
	
„ Tolleson
	
„ Wickenburg
	
„ Youngtown
Map 18 shows the areas of the County where the Maricopa County Flood Control 
District has the responsibility for floodplain management, along with regulatory 
floodways as well as the areas of a 1% annual chance of a flood hazard (or the 
100-year floodplain) within the County limits.
The District employs a team of engineers, hydrologists, and other professionals 
who design, construct, and maintain an extensive network of dams, basins, and 
channels. These structures are essential in controlling floodwaters and protecting 
both urban and rural areas from potential damage.
In addition to physical infrastructure, the FCD places a strong emphasis on 
community education and preparedness. They provide valuable resources such 
as floodplain maps, technical studies, and permitting information to help residents 
and businesses understand their flood risks and take appropriate measures. 
The district also engages in public outreach efforts, offering workshops and 
informational sessions to ensure that the community is well-informed about 
flood safety and prevention strategies. By fostering a culture of awareness and 
preparedness, the FCD aims to minimize the impact of flooding on people’s lives 
and properties.
Furthermore, the Maricopa County Flood Control District is committed to high-
caliber and innovative water management practices. Recognizing stormwater as 
a valuable resource, the District works on projects that not only mitigate flood 
risks but also enhance water conservation and environmental stewardship. These 
initiatives include the development of infrastructure, such as rain gardens and 
permeable pavements, which help to recharge groundwater and reduce runoff. 
With this approach to flood control, the FCD contributes to the long-term resilience 
and well-being of the Maricopa County community.
Flood Control
The Maricopa County Flood Control District (FCD) plays a crucial role in 
safeguarding the residents of Maricopa County from the dangers of flooding. 
Established to address the unique challenges posed by the region’s desert climate, 
the FCD is responsible for managing and mitigating flood risks that arise during 
the summer monsoon season and winter rainstorms. It is also responsible for 
floodplain management and regulation in unincorporated Maricopa County, as 
well as in the following incorporated communities:
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
134

The Maricopa County Flood Control District plays a crucial 
role in safeguarding residents from the dangers of flooding 
through floodplain management and regulation.
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2024
Map 18.   Floodplain Management in Maricopa County
 Chapter 7 •  ENVIRONMENT
135

H1
Wildlife Connectivity Corridors
The 2012 Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment, conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department 
(AZGFD), identified wildlife habitat blocks and movement areas and key missing linkage zones that could overcome 
barriers to wildlife movement. This assessment helps guide conservation efforts and land use planning to encourage 
that development projects give consideration to wildlife connectivity corridors where appropriate, thereby working to 
reduce habitat fragmentation and promoting ecological health. 
Wildlife connectivity corridors in Maricopa County are essential for maintaining the movement, population and genetic 
diversity of wildlife across the region. The corridors are categorized as either diffuse, landscape, or riparian movement 
areas. Diffuse movement areas generalize wildlife movements within habitats, landscape movement areas generalize 
wildlife movements between habitats, and riparian movement areas generalize wildlife movement through ecosystems 
associated with bodies of water or perennial or ephemeral surface or subsurface water. These corridors, shown in 
Map 19, link fragmented habitats, allowing animals to travel between different areas for food, water, and breeding. 
These corridors are crucial for species such as mule deer, mountain lions, and various smaller mammals and reptiles. 
By identifying these linkages, Maricopa County supports biodiversity and helps mitigate the impacts of urbanization 
on wildlife. Efforts to maintain and enhance these corridors to coexist with new development include constructing 
wildlife overpasses and underpasses, implementing wildlife-friendly fencing, and engaging in habitat restoration 
projects. These initiatives not only benefit wildlife, but they also enhance the quality of life for residents by preserving 
the natural heritage and beauty of the region.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
136

Wildlife connectivity corridors in Maricopa County are 
important for maintaining the movement, population, and 
genetic diversity of wildlife across the region.
Source: Arizona Game & Fish Department, 2026
Map 19.   Wildlife Connectivity in Maricopa County
 Chapter 7 •  ENVIRONMENT
137

H1
Hillside  Development
Maricopa County defines any development that occurs on land with a slope, or 
grade, of 15% or greater to be hillside development. The grade percentage is 
determined as the rise in height measured in feet over a horizontal distance of 100 
feet. So, a 15% slope would be land that rises 15 feet over a 100-foot horizontal 
distance. Rugged areas with such slopes do exist within the County’s jurisdiction, 
particularly in the northern unincorporated areas. These areas do attract certain 
types of development, mainly custom homes that offer low densities, rural 
character, unobstructed and expansive views and privacy.
However if not designed carefully, hillside development can damage and cause 
dangerous conditions to occur that affect the very features these individuals seek. 
Some of the potential problems and hazards can include:
	
„ Destruction of scenic quality;
	
„ Increased stormwater runoff and flooding;
	
„ Loss of plant and animal habitat;
	
„ Erosion;
	
„ Soil/slope failure;
	
„ Wildfire hazards;
	
„ Lack of safe access for people and emergency vehicles; and
	
„ High utility and infrastructure/maintenance costs
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
138

Hillside stability has increasingly 
likelihood of degrading as slope 
increases 
above 
15%, 
making 
development financially unfeasible 
due to difficult and costly engineering 
requirements. Maricopa County 
recognizes the right to develop 
private hillside property, but it also 
acknowledges its responsibility to 
protect the health and safety of other 
residents that may be affected by such 
development. To help minimize potential 
dangers Maricopa County discourages 
development on hillside grades above 
15% and favors the following general 
design characteristics:
	
„ Clustering development in areas 
below 15%;
	
„ Retaining trees and native vegetation 
for slope and soil stabilization;
	
„ Minimizing 
scarring 
from 
infrastructure cut and fills;
	
„ Minimizing building footprints;
	
„ Minimizing hillside disturbance and 
allow for appropriate landscaping 
and natural stormwater runoff; and
	
„ Using appropriate materials, shapes, 
and colors that allow buildings to 
blend into the environment.
 Chapter 7 •  ENVIRONMENT
139

H1
Urban Heat
Urban heat is a pressing issue throughout all of Maricopa County, particularly in 
developed urban areas, where the urban heat island effect exacerbates already 
high temperatures and persists through the night reducing the time for an effective 
cooling period. This phenomenon occurs because urban areas have more surfaces 
like roadway pavement, concrete, and buildings that absorb and retain heat, leading 
to higher temperatures compared to surrounding, less developed rural areas, which 
are more prevalent in the unincorporated areas. There has been a significant rise 
in heat-related medical concerns correlated with the growth of the areas of the 
County affected by urban heat. Efforts to mitigate urban heat include planting 
more trees for shade, testing reflective pavement coatings, and providing cooling 
centers and water distribution during extreme heat events. These measures aim 
to reduce the impact of heat on residents as part of the goal of high standards 
for public health and safety.
Dark Sky
More population and development often leads to increased nighttime lighting, 
which is a result of misdirecting, a lack of shielding, or excessive use. This light 
pollution in the aggregate across an urban area causes obstructing glares and 
glows that interfere with astronomical observations and stargazing. 
The County recognizes the importance of protecting the night sky and has 
incorporated a Dark Sky Ordinance in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. This 
ordinance includes provisions to control the use of outdoor, artificial illuminating 
light fixtures during the hours of the night. This ordinance encourages good 
light practices that conserve energy and money, while also increasing safety, 
security and productivity. While the ordinance is an important part of nighttime 
sky protection, mitigating light pollution is regional issue that requires working 
partnerships with the other jurisdictions in the County.
Cultural/Archaeological Sites
Maricopa County is home to numerous archaeological sites linked to the Hohokam 
and other early inhabitants. The Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and 
the Arizona State Museum maintain inventories of significant cultural resources 
across the state. Additionally, agencies such as the Arizona State Land Department, 
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Defense Department, Bureau of Land Management, and 
various Native American communities manage inventories for the areas they 
oversee. The presence and importance of these archaeological sites can influence 
the timing, location, and feasibility of development projects.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
140

Wildfires
Maricopa County faces increasing 
wildfire risks due to prolonged drought, 
invasive vegetation, and rapid urban 
expansion into wildland areas. The 
“wildland-urban interface” (WUI)—where 
homes meet desert landscapes—has 
grown by over 50% since 1990, creating 
more ignition points and complicating 
fire suppression efforts along these 
edge environments. Areas in northern 
Maricopa County such as the Tonto 
National Forest edge and areas with 
dense vegetation such as the Gila River 
corridor are particularly vulnerable. Red 
Flag warnings (which signal that critical 
fire weather conditions are occurring or 
expected soon) have become common. 
Maricopa County addresses wildfire 
risks through a comprehensive, multi-
layered strategy that emphasizes 
prevention, 
preparedness, 
and 
collaboration. The Community Wildfire 
Protection Plan (CWPP) serves as the 
cornerstone, focusing on fuel reduction, 
fire prevention, and community 
engagement, with progress reviewed 
regularly. The Emergency Operations 
Plan (EOP) provides a coordinated 
framework for wildfire response, 
utilizing the Incident Command System 
(ICS) to ensure efficient interagency 
operations. Complementing these 
efforts, the Hazard Mitigation Plan 
identifies high-risk areas and prioritizes 
projects that reduce wildfire impacts 
and recovery costs. Public education is 
central to the County’s approach, with 
the Ready, Set, Go! program guiding 
residents through preparedness and 
evacuation protocols, especially during 
Red Flag conditions. Additionally, 
Maricopa County collaborates with 
state and federal agencies to secure 
grants for fuel reduction, firebreak 
construction, and CWPP updates, 
reinforcing regional resilience against 
wildfire threats.
 Chapter 7 •  ENVIRONMENT
141

Air Quality & Public Health
Improving air quality is a central goal of the Environment Element in the 
Comprehensive Plan, especially as population growth and transportation 
emissions contribute to elevated ozone and particulate matter levels. Dust 
from construction and unpaved surfaces further exacerbate these conditions, 
making compliance with the County’s dust abatement programs and promotion 
of clean air technologies essential. Future planning should pair these efforts 
with balanced, efficient land use patterns and expanded opportunities for non-
motorized transportation to support regional air quality improvement. At the same 
time, strategies must address water quality, adaptation, and hazard preparedness.
Habitat Connectivity, Biodiversity 
& Invasive Species Management
Urban expansion fragments wildlife corridors, limiting species movement and 
reducing genetic diversity, while invasive plants such as stinknet, Sahara mustard, 
buffelgrass, and tamarisk further threaten ecological health by displacing native 
vegetation and increasing wildfire risk. Future development should prioritize 
habitat connectivity through green infrastructure, conservation easements, and 
strategic open space planning to maintain biodiversity and support pollinators, 
which are vital for ecosystem stability. At the same time, long-term invasive 
species management, including early detection, rapid response, and restoration 
with native plants, must be paired with public education and volunteer engagement 
to amplify these efforts and reduce reinfestation. 
Dust from construction and unpaved surfaces further 
exacerbates elevated ozone and particulate matter levels, 
making compliance with the County’s dust abatement 
program and promotion of clean air technologies essential.
Strategies
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
142

Building a culture of environmental 
stewardship 
requires 
active 
participation and strong partnerships. 
Public education programs should 
emphasize the importance of air and 
water quality, habitat protection, and 
adaptation, empowering residents to 
make informed choices that support 
regional goals. Volunteer initiatives, 
such as invasive species removal and 
habitat restoration projects, provide 
hands-on opportunities for community 
involvement and foster a sense of 
shared responsibility.
Collaboration among local, state, 
and federal agencies is essential for 
addressing complex environmental 
challenges that cross jurisdictional 
boundaries. Coordinated efforts 
can advance compliance with air 
quality standards, implement dark 
sky protections, and strengthen 
hazard mitigation planning. These 
partnerships also support integrated 
resource management, ensuring that 
strategies for water conservation, 
wildlife connectivity, and cultural 
resource preservation are aligned 
across the region.
Finally, recreation infrastructure and 
cultural resource stewardship must 
remain priorities to balance public 
access with environmental protection. 
Thoughtful design of trails, facilities, 
and interpretive programs can 
minimize ecological impacts while 
enhancing visitor experiences. By 
combining education, engagement, 
and collaboration, Maricopa County 
can lead a unified approach to 
environmental quality that benefits 
both people and nature.
Community Engagement & Regional Collaboration
 Chapter 7 •  ENVIRONMENT
143

OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance Opportunity 
by ensuring that growth occurs 
in a way that preserves natural 
assets and enhnaces livability.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals strongly embody 
Stewardship by focusing on 
responsible management and 
ecological protection.
PROSPERITY
These goals collectively 
support Prosperity and ensure 
a high quality of life, supporting 
economic growth while 
maintaining ecological balance.
Environment Policies:
1.1
Maricopa County supports providing education, regulatory guidance, permitting, inspection, 
and enforcement services through the County Air Quality Department’s Strategic Plan and 
its Compliance Assurance model to assist in achieving compliance with federal air quality 
standards. 
1.2
Maricopa County supports the achievement and maintenance of federal air quality standards, 
including National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Environment Goal 1: Enhance the regional environmental quality 
for the overall well-being of the community.
Goal Statement: Improving the overall environmental quality through improvements in air quality 
and water quality and through the protection of natural resources is a benefit to the overall health 
of the region.
Goals & Policies
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
144

Environment Policies:
2.1
Maricopa County supports planning future development while considering the prohibition 
of development within floodways and, where necessary, 100-year floodplains as delineated 
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 
2.2
Maricopa County supports the Military Compatible land use designation for High Noise or 
Accident Potential Zones, and compliance with state laws relating to land use compatibility 
and consistency with the high noise or accident potential of Luke Air Force Base and the 
ancillary military facilities.
2.3
Maricopa County supports the Military Compatible land use designations within the influence 
area of a military installation or range or Arizona national guard site, and compliance with state 
laws relating to land use compatibility and consistency with the operation of the installation, 
range, or site and its influence area.
2.4
Maricopa County supports flexible zoning techniques when used to keep new development 
below the 15% hillside slope and to protect riparian areas.
2.5
Maricopa County supports using the hillside general design characteristics identified in this 
element.
1.3
Maricopa County supports incentive programs that promote implementing clean air 
technologies and addressing air quality issues throughout Maricopa County where feasible 
and effective.
1.4
Maricopa County supports compliance with its Drinking Water program and its Water and 
Wastewater Treatment program to protect water quality. 
1.5
Maricopa County supports a comprehensive program to control dust (PM10) particularly from 
unpaved roads, alleys, and parking lots.
1.6
Maricopa County supports noise reductions in new development design and in the construction 
of new buildings where necessary or otherwise where feasible.
1.7
Maricopa County supports enforcement of its Dark Sky Ordinance and supports regional 
efforts to limit excessive nighttime light.
Environment Goal 2: Support the protection of sensitive lands and 
environments.
Goal Statement: The County aims to safeguard environmentally sensitive areas from the impacts 
of development in order to preserve natural habitats and rural landscapes while accommodating 
growth in the future.
 Chapter 7 •  ENVIRONMENT
145

Environment Policies:
3.1
Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new development and urbanization on 
environmentally sensitive areas, including the habitats and migration corridors of native 
wildlife (both flora and fauna).
3.2
Maricopa County supports innovative project design and development techniques that protect 
important plant and animal habitats, desert washes, and migration corridors.
3.3
Maricopa County supports completing resource and biological surveys and establishing 
needed mitigation measures prior to new development as directed by the Arizona Game and 
Fish Department and the State Historic Preservation Office.
Environment Policies:
4.1
Maricopa County supports compliance with watercourse master studies and plans and area 
drainage master studies and plans.
4.2
Maricopa County supports fire and wildfire prevention and mitigation measures in the design 
of development and in recreational lands and open space where necessary and appropriate.
4.3
Maricopa County supports public education about the risks and limitations of developing in 
hazard-prone areas.
Environment Goal 3: Protect the natural biodiversity of the region.
Goal Statement: Protecting and promoting the region’s natural biodiversity is critical to conserving 
diverse species and habitats within the County to preserve an ecological balance.
Environment Goal 4: Strengthen the County’s preparedness for 
hazards.
Goal Statement: Strengthening the County’s ability to respond to hazards through effective 
planning and preparedness reduces regional risk and builds resilience to foreseen and unforeseen 
environmental threats.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
146

Environment Policies:
5.1
Maricopa County supports participating with local, state, and federal agencies on developing 
solutions for State Implementation Plans that have not been addressed.
5.2
Maricopa County supports continuing to build relationships and collaborations between the 
Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and 
other partners in the effort to preserve ecosystems.
5.3
Maricopa County supports its Department of Emergency Management continuing to work 
closely with local, state, federal partners, and community organizations.
5.4
Maricopa County supports implementing the Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 
to ensure a comprehensive and effective emergency management strategy for the region.
Environment Goal 5: Provide regional leadership to promote all 
aspects of regional environmental quality.
Goal Statement: Leading efforts to promote environmental quality across the region is a key 
objective to steering beneficial environmental stewardship.
 Chapter 7 •  ENVIRONMENT
147

8
Economic 
Growth

In This Chapter
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Between 2010 and 2020, 
Maricopa County accounted 
for over half of Arizona’s 
total population growth
Introduction
Maricopa County stands as one 
of the most dynamic economic 
regions in the United States. With 
a population exceeding 4.5 million 
and growing rapidly, the County has 
become a magnet for both domestic 
migration and business investment. 
Between 2010 and 2020, Maricopa 
County accounted for over half of 
Arizona’s total population growth, and 
projections suggest it could reach 
6.5 million residents by 2060. This 
demographic expansion is reshaping 
the county’s labor market, housing 
demand, and infrastructure needs.
The County’s economic base is 
primarily service-oriented, yet it boasts 
robust goods-producing sectors that 
drive innovation and competitiveness. 
Key industries include healthcare and 
biosciences, finance and insurance, 
and 
advanced 
manufacturing, 
which 
encompasses 
aerospace, 
semiconductors, and electric vehicle 
components. Information technology 
is rapidly expanding, fueled by software 
development, cybersecurity, and data 
center growth, while transportation 
and logistics benefit from Maricopa’s 
extensive 
infrastructure 
and 
rail-
served industrial areas. Construction 
and real estate remain strong due 
to population growth and housing 
demand, and tourism continues to 
thrive with world-class resorts, sports 
venues, and cultural attractions. These 
sectors collectively position Maricopa 
County as a dynamic and resilient 
economy with competitive advantages 
in 
workforce 
talent, 
innovation 
ecosystems, and a favorable business 
climate.
Unincorporated 
Maricopa 
County 
presents unique opportunities and 
challenges. 
These 
areas 
of 
the 
County are experiencing increased 
development pressure as municipal; 
and urban centers expand outward. 
While unincorporated land typically 
offers flexible zoning and lower 
land costs, they often lack critical 
infrastructure such as sewer systems, 
improved roads, and comprehensive 
broadband 
connectivity. 
Strategic 
planning 
is 
essential 
to 
ensure 
that growth across unincorporated 
Maricopa County is balanced with 
infrastructure 
development 
and 
aligned with broader county goals.
The 
purpose 
of 
this 
Economic 
Development Element is to establish a 
comprehensive framework that guides 
policies and investments to sustain 
long-term prosperity.
The Economic Growth element includes strategies that 
Maricopa County can use to help create a diverse and resilient 
economy. Opportunities focus on locating employment 
proximate to where people live, supporting small and start-
up businesses, and supporting industries that require a lot of 
land but not urban services or infrastructure.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
150

Partnerships and Programs
The County supports economic development through its various departments 
and in conjunction with its community partners. In 2025, Maricopa County 
established the Office of Economic Development and a new Economic 
Development Coordinator role to develop partnerships with business; economic 
development, workforce development, community-based, industry trade, and 
labor organizations; boards and commissions; and other jurisdictions to support 
and grow the regional economy. A select review of some of these partnerships 
and programs include:
	
„ The Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority (MCIDA) is a 
nonprofit conduit issuer established under Arizona law to provide lower-cost 
financing for qualified projects through the issuance of revenue bonds. These 
bonds are exempt from Arizona income tax and, when compliant with the 
Internal Revenue Code, may also be exempt from federal income tax. 
Governed by a nine-member volunteer Board of Directors appointed by the 
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, IDAMC operates with oversight and 
final approval from the Board of Supervisors. The Board meets regularly to 
ensure responsible stewardship of resources and compliance with statutory 
requirements. For more than 45 years, IDAMC has played a vital role in promoting 
economic growth, increasing affordable housing, creating jobs, and enhancing 
the overall economic vitality of Maricopa County.
	
„ Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC) is a nonprofit partnership founded 
in 1989 to attract and grow quality businesses and enhance the region’s 
competitiveness. GPEC collaborates with 22 member communities, Maricopa 
County, and over 170 private investors to drive economic diversity and smart 
growth. Over its history, GPEC has helped more than 1,075 companies expand 
or relocate, creating nearly 195,000 jobs and generating over $76.5 billion in 
capital investment for the Greater Phoenix region.
Key Findings
	
„ Employment projections indicate 
a faster rate of employment 
growth within the unincorporated 
county at nearly 95 percent 
compared to Maricopa County at 
nearly 65 percent.
	
„ The largest employment gains 
through 2032 are anticipated 
to be in health care and social 
assistance, construction, arts, 
entertainment 
and 
recreation 
and professional, scientific and 
technical services. 
	
„ The top two industry sectors 
employing the most people within 
unincorporated Maricopa County 
and the County as a whole are 
retail trade and healthcare/ social 
assistance.
Planning Considerations
As the fourth most populous county in the United States, Maricopa County plays 
a critical role in shaping Arizona’s economic future. Its strategic location, robust 
transportation infrastructure, strong tourism, recreation, and sports options 
and proximity to other major markets position Maricopa County as a hub for 
commerce, technology, and global trade. The following analysis highlights 
specific considerations that inform the development of supporting economic 
strategies. 
 Chapter 8 •  ECONOMIC GROWTH
151

Maricopa County is a core member 
of 
GPEC’s 
regional 
partnership 
model. The County works with GPEC 
to coordinate business attraction 
and expansion efforts across the 
region; provide resources for projects 
requiring county-level support; and 
collaborate on strategic initiatives that 
strengthen competitiveness, such as 
workforce development, infrastructure 
planning, and industry cluster growth.
	
„ The Greater Maricopa Foreign 
Trade Zone (GMFTZ No. 277) 
was established in 2010 to serve 
Western Maricopa County and 
promote international trade and 
economic development. As part 
of the U.S. Foreign Trade Zone 
program, GMFTZ allows businesses 
to import goods duty-free, defer 
customs duties, and benefit from 
property tax reductions through 
reclassification to a Class 6 property 
instead of standard property tax 
assessments. 
These 
incentives 
help reduce operating costs and 
attract global manufacturers and 
distributors to the region.
Maricopa County plays a key role 
in supporting the Greater Maricopa 
Foreign Trade Zone by providing 
planning and zoning authority for 
unincorporated areas within the zone’s 
service area. The County collaborates 
with GMFTZ and local economic 
development offices to secure letters 
of concurrence from taxing entities and 
facilitate applications. Additionally, 
Maricopa 
County 
promotes 
FTZ 
designation as part of its broader 
economic development strategy to 
attract investment and create jobs in 
the West Valley.
	
„ The 
Workforce 
Development 
Division (WDD) is facilitated by the 
Maricopa County Human Services 
Department and is responsible for 
providing comprehensive workforce 
services for adult and youth job 
seekers and employers across 
the County. Services are available 
through two comprehensive career 
centers, partner sites in cities and 
towns across the Valley as well 
as all Maricopa County Library 
District locations. WDD helps the 
community by providing a wide 
range of activities designed to 
assist career seekers, many with 
significant barriers to employment, 
in obtaining the knowledge and 
skills necessary for self-supporting 
employment.
	
„ The 
Community 
Development 
Block 
Grant 
Program 
(CDBG) 
uses 
federal 
HUD 
funds 
to 
revitalize neighborhoods, expand 
affordable 
housing, 
improve 
community facilities, and create 
economic opportunities for low- 
and moderate-income residents. 
Funds are distributed annually 
through a competitive process 
to 
participating 
Urban 
County 
communities 
and 
nonprofit 
agencies. 
Projects 
include 
infrastructure 
improvements, 
public safety enhancements, and 
community services that directly 
benefit 
residents 
in 
smaller 
municipalities and unincorporated 
areas of the County.
	
„ The HOME Investment Partnership 
Program (HOME) provides HUD 
funding to increase the supply of 
safe, decent, and affordable housing 
for very low- and low-income 
families. 
Administered 
through 
the Maricopa HOME Consortium, 
funds support activities such as 
housing acquisition, construction, 
rehabilitation, and tenant-based 
rental assistance. The program 
strengthens 
public-private 
partnerships 
and 
leverages 
local and private resources to 
expand 
affordable 
rental 
and 
homeownership 
opportunities 
across the County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
152

Educational Attainment
Over 65% of the population has attended college, which is lower in comparison 
to incorporated Maricopa County. Nearly 29% completed a Bachelor’s or Post-
Graduate Degree Program which is higher in comparison to incorporated 
Maricopa County, shown in Figure 14. 
When comparing educational attainment levels for individuals aged 25 years 
and older between 2010 and 2022, there are notable increases in higher 
education levels as shown in Table 8. The proportion of high school graduates 
rose from 21% to 26%, while those with some college education, but no degree 
increased from 20% to 27%. Additionally, the percentage of individuals holding 
an associate’s degree grew from 6% to 10%, and those with a bachelor’s degree 
increased from 12% to 18%. The most significant growth occurred in the category 
of graduate or professional degrees, which rose from 6% to 11%. Overall, the 
data indicates a significant upward trend in educational attainment over the 
12-year period. This trend is encouraging given that higher overall educational 
attainment greatly contributes to fostering economic development through 
attracting leading industry, which supports the growth of more advanced and 
diverse employment opportunities. Economic development resulting from rising 
educational levels not only expands economic activity for both professional and 
working-class industries, but it also opens pathways for residents into skilled 
trades, technical certifications, and personal career advancement. As a result, 
this type of widespread economic development and expanded economic activity 
strengthens the local labor market, reduces economic vulnerability among 
households from external factors, and strives to ensure that prosperity is shared 
across the broad spectrum of career options in Maricopa County.
Table 10.   Employment Projections by RAZ by MPA, 2020-2060 
Change %
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2020-2060
Total Maricopa 
County
2,139,150
2,677,370
3,028,141
3,272,994
3,526,978
64.9%
Incorporated Cities
2,084,500
2,599,456
2,940,219
3,175,608
3,417,164
63.9%
Indian Reservation 
25,856
41,576
46,888
49,288
56,739
107.8%
Unincorporated 
County
28,794
36,338
41,034
48,098
56,075
94.7%
Unincorporated as 
% of Total
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.5%
1.6%
---
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments Socioeconomic Projections, 2023
Figure 14.   E d u c a t i o n a l 
Attainment
Employment Projections
Unlike population projections, MAG’s 
data for employment is based on 
Regional Analysis Zones (RAZ) across 
the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA). 
Table 10 shows that by 2030 Maricopa 
County is projected to have three million 
jobs, with 1.4 percent in unincorporated 
Maricopa County. By the year 2060 
forecasted employment reaches 3.5 
million jobs, of which 1.6 percent are 
within unincorporated Maricopa County. 
Employment growth for Maricopa County 
and unincorporated county by decade is 
presented in Figure 15. The rate of job 
growth within unincorporated Maricopa 
County in the years 2030 and 2040 nearly 
matches the county as a whole. By 2050 
and beyond the forecasted job growth 
for unincorporated Maricopa County 
more than doubles Maricopa County 
as a whole. This long-term projection 
of increased employment growth in 
unincorporated Maricopa County is 
largely based on limited availability of 
developable land within incorporated 
areas. As incorporated communities 
annex additional lands in the future, it 
is anticipated this stark imbalance will 
reach more equilibrium as near term 
growth projections indicate.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American 
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
 Chapter 8 •  ECONOMIC GROWTH
153

Workforce 
Distribution by 
Industries
Table 11 shows a workforce of 2.4 
million people in Maricopa County 
overall. The sectors employing the 
greatest percentage of people include 
health care and social assistance with 
13.5 percent followed by retail trade 
with 9.7 percent. Other top employing 
sectors 
include 
accommodation 
and food services (8.5%) and admin/
support/waste management (8.0%). 
There is also a large percentage of 
people within the County who are self-
employed at 7.1 percent.
When analyzing industry employment 
data specifically for unincorporated 
Maricopa 
County, 
nearly 
a 
fifth 
(19%) of unincorporated Maricopa 
County’s workforce is employed in 
the 
Educational 
Services, 
Health 
Care and Social Assistance industry. 
This is followed by Retail Trade 
(12%) and Professional, Scientific, 
Management, and Administrative and 
Waste Management Services (12%). 
Construction; Finance and Insurance, 
Real Estate, Rental and Leasing; and 
Arts, 
Entertainment, 
Recreation, 
Accommodation, and Food Services 
round off the next three largest 
industries accounting for another 27% 
collectively of workforce industries 
(Figure 16).
Unincorporated 
Maricopa 
County 
has a greater percentage of people 
employed in retail trade, construction, 
transportation/warehousing, 
public 
administration, wholesale trade, and 
utilities and equal or less people 
in 
health 
care/social 
assistance, 
professional and educational services, 
accommodation/food services than 
Maricopa County overall.
Figure 16.   Workforce Industries
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Figure 15.   Employment Growth Rate per Decade, 2020 - 
2060
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
154

Table 11.   Maricopa County Employment by Industry Sector, 2022
Total Employment
2,478,214
100.0%
Health Care and Social Assistance
332,999
13.4%
Retail Trade
239,326
9.7%
Accommodation and Food Services
209,524
8.5%
Admin/Support/Waste Management
199,424
8.0%
Self-Employed and Unpaid Family Workers, All 
Jobs
175,743
7.1%
Construction
166,491
6.7%
Educational Services
150,137
6.1%
Finance and Insurance
150,660
6.1%
Manufacturing
141,813
5.7%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
141,759
5.7%
Transportation and Warehousing
111,592
4.5%
Wholesale Trade
95,486
3.9%
Government
81,328
3.3%
Other Services (Except Government)
75,327
3.0%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
47,768
1.9%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
47,581
1.9%
Management of Companies and Enterprises
41,023
1.7%
Information
39,644
1.6%
Utilities
16,672
0.7%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
11,507
0.5%
Mining
2,410
0.1%
Source: Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity, 2022
 Chapter 8 •  ECONOMIC GROWTH
155

Table 12.   Maricopa County Industry Employment Projections by Sector, 2022-2032
2022
2032
% Change
Total Maricopa County 
Employment
2,478,214
2,880,320
16.2%
Accommodation and Food 
Services
209,524
241,271
15.2%
Admin/Support/Waste 
Management
199,424
214,194
7.4%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 
and Hunting
11,507
10,191
-11.4%
Arts, Entertainment, and 
Recreation
47,768
58,377
22.2%
Construction
166,491
210,252
26.3%
Educational Services
150,137
156,840
4.5%
Finance and Insurance
150,660
162,311
7.7%
Government
81,328
86,735
6.6%
Health Care and Social 
Assistance
332,999
443,894
33.3%
Information
39,644
42,880
8.2%
Management of Companies 
and Enterprises
41,023
49,315
20.2%
Manufacturing
141,813
166,777
17.6%
Mining
2,410
2,714
12.6%
Other Services (Except 
Government)
75,327
85,317
13.3%
Professional, Scientific, and 
Technical Services
141,759
172,663
21.8%
Real Estate and Rental and 
Leasing
47,581
50,820
6.8%
Retail Trade
239,326
269,695
12.7%
Self-Employed and Unpaid 
Family Workers, All Jobs
175,743
195,678
11.3%
Transportation and 
Warehousing
111,592
133,360
19.5%
Utilities
16,672
17,033
2.2%
Wholesale Trade
95,486
110,003
15.2%
Source: Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity, 2022
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
156

Industry Employment Projections
The Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity projects employment growth by 
the industry sector (Table 12). By the year 2032 Maricopa County is expected 
to see a 16.2% overall increase in employment. Strong employment growth is 
expected in health care and social services (33.3%), construction (26.3%), arts, 
entertainment and recreation (22.2%) and professional, scientific and technical 
services (21.8%) sectors.
Unemployment 
Rate
Unincorporated Maricopa County’s 
unemployment 
rate 
(4.9%) 
is 
comparable to incorporated Maricopa 
County (4.8%) and slightly higher than 
the State unemployment rate (4.3%) 
(Figure 17). 
Worker 
Commute Flows
Between 2010 and 2022, the number 
of people who live and work in 
Maricopa County grew by 467,142 
(36%), while those who work in 
Maricopa County but live elsewhere 
grew by 108,010 (55%) as exhibited 
in Figure 18. Conversely, the number 
of people living in Maricopa County 
and working elsewhere only increased 
by 24,371 (25%). Given that most 
workers across all income brackets 
work within the County, these factors 
support a strong local job market 
within Maricopa County. In addition, 
given workers are driving further 
distances to reach employment within 
Maricopa County, this demonstrates 
the County’s importance as a central 
economic driver, but also may be an 
indicator that workers are having to or 
are willing to drive further distances to 
access housing.
Figure 18.   Worker Commute Flow
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 
Figure 17.   Unemployment Rate
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Emplyment 
Statistics 2019, Inflow Outflow Analysis
 Chapter 8 •  ECONOMIC GROWTH
157

Strategies
Entering the 21st century, Maricopa County’s economy has been driven by rapid population 
growth, construction, and a diverse mix of industries including healthcare, finance, technology, 
and advanced manufacturing. For decades, Maricopa County has served as the economic hub of 
Arizona, accounting for the majority of the state’s GDP and employment. Despite this success, the 
County faces challenges such as workforce skill gaps and the need to ensure increased access 
to high-paying jobs. To address these issues, Maricopa County is taking a leadership role in 
promoting strategic economic development. The County’s long- and short-term objectives are to 
work collaboratively with cities, the private sector, and regional organizations to retain and expand 
existing businesses, encourage the growth of innovation-driven and value-added industries, 
attract new employers, improve workforce skills, and accelerate the creation of higher-paying jobs 
at a rate that outpaces population growth. These efforts aim to strengthen Maricopa County’s 
competitive position, elevate employment rates, and raise wage levels for residents across the 
region.
Population Growth Management: With Maricopa County accounting for the 
majority of Arizona’s population growth, managing this expansion is a top priority. 
Long-term planning efforts focus on ensuring adequate housing, healthcare, and 
educational infrastructure to meet the needs of a projected 6.5 million residents 
by 2060.
Industry Diversification: Maricopa County is actively working to broaden its 
economic base by fostering growth in sectors like leisure and hospitality, 
education and health services, and professional business services. By 
supporting small businesses and nonemployer enterprises (i.e. single employee 
businesses), the county aims to build a more resilient and inclusive economy 
that can adapt to changing market conditions.
Workforce Development & Training: Maricopa County has prioritized equipping 
its workforce with the skills needed for a rapidly evolving economy. Through 
programs like the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the 
county partners with local employers and educational institutions to provide 
training in high-demand fields such as healthcare, information technology, and 
construction. These efforts aim to create clear career pathways and ensure 
residents are prepared for future job opportunities.
Real Estate & Construction Support: To meet rising housing demand, the county 
is streamlining development processes and encouraging new home construction. 
By updating zoning regulations and simplifying permitting, Maricopa County is 
assisting in the development of residential and non-residential projects that 
align with community needs. 
Fiscal Responsibility & Innovation: Maintaining a strong financial foundation 
is central to the county’s strategy. Maricopa County has a low debt burden 
and employs performance-based budgeting to ensure efficient use of public 
funds. This data-driven approach allows the county to invest strategically while 
maintaining transparency and accountability.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
158

Goals & Policies
Economic Growth Policies:
1.1
Maricopa County supports coordinated and balanced land use patterns that allow for both 
Basic and Non-basic sector businesses.
1.2
Maricopa County supports assessing its regulations and processes to enhance effectiveness, 
ensure quality service, increase efficiency, and establish a competitive advantage.
Economic Growth Goal 1: Foster a diverse and balanced economy 
to promote long-term economic stability and economic resiliency.
Goal Statement: Aiming for a diverse and resilient economy to ensure long-term stability and 
growth is integral to creating a balanced economic environment that can withstand various 
economic challenges locally and externally.
OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance 
Opportunity by creating 
pathways for residents and 
businesses to thrive.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals support 
Stewardship by emphasizing 
responsible and balanced 
economic development.
PROSPERITY
These goals strongly embody 
Prosperity by driving economic 
competitiveness and fiscal 
health.
 Chapter 8 •  ECONOMIC GROWTH
159

Economic Growth Policies:
2.1
Maricopa County supports partnerships with a variety of entities and stakeholders to 
increase business success and address community needs.
2.2
Maricopa County supports efforts to recruit prospective businesses and industries to the 
County and efforts to retain existing businesses and industries. 
2.3
Maricopa County supports the continuation and expansion of vocational, technical, and 
emerging career workforce training in the region.
Economic Growth Policies:
3.1
Maricopa County supports implementing the Comprehensive Plan in a clear and consistent 
way to help businesses make long-term investment decisions. 
3.2
Maricopa County supports an economic environment that promotes entrepreneurial 
activities and business formation.
Economic Growth Goal 2: Support the growth of opportunity in the 
local and regional economies.
Goal Statement: Promoting initiatives that create economic opportunities for residents and 
businesses is crucial in elevating job creation, entrepreneurship, and economic mobility.
Economic Growth Goal 3: Cultivate a thriving business environment 
that incubates and retains innovative companies.
Goal Statement: Attracting, retaining, and supporting innovative companies and a skilled 
workforce drives a dynamic and competitive business climate.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
160

Economic Growth Policies:
4.1
Maricopa County supports programs that provide citizens with the education and training 
necessary to attain careers in emerging and high-demand fields. 
4.2
Maricopa County supports organizations and programs that attract a variety of Basic Sector 
industry clusters that have long-term, stable growth prospects.
4.3
Maricopa County supports the Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority, HOME 
Investment Partnerships Program, Community Development Block Grant program, and 
other economic opportunity incentive programs.
Economic Growth Goal 4: Contribute to partnerships that advance 
an effective and integrated regional economy.
Goal Statement: Strengthening the County’s role in the broader regional economy through 
effective collaboration and integration emphasizes the importance of partnerships for regional 
economic success.
 Chapter 8 •  ECONOMIC GROWTH
161

9
Growth Areas

In This Chapter
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Introduction
ARS 11-804.(C)(2) requires that the Comprehensive Plan identify growth areas 
in Maricopa County. These are areas that are suitable for planned multimodal 
transportation and infrastructure expansion to support concentrations of urban 
land uses. The law also requires this plan to include policies and strategies that: 
	
„ Make multimodal transportation more efficient;
	
„ Make infrastructure expansion more economical;
	
„ Provide for rational land development patterns;
	
„ Conserve significant natural resources and open spaces within identified 
growth areas, and coordinate and connect their locations to similar areas 
outside growth areas; and
	
„ Promote timely and financially sound infrastructure expansion 
Steady, well-managed growth is essential to the long-term prosperity and 
livability of Maricopa County. However, the pace, location, and form of that 
growth have far-reaching implications for the natural environment, transportation 
infrastructure, fiscal sustainability, and overall quality of life. This Growth Areas 
Element plays a critical role in guiding development to occur in a manner that is 
also efficient and orderly. 
By strategically identifying areas where growth is occurring or likely to occur, 
the County seeks to utilize its Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy 
to guide urban growth and development in these areas in the most suitable 
fashion. Other aims include reducing traffic congestion, mitigating air pollution, 
and ensuring that new growth aligns with infrastructure capacity and community 
needs. Planning for suitable growth and development in appropriate locations 
also helps preserve open space, protect natural resources, and enhance the 
effectiveness of public investments.
The Growth Areas element pinpoints areas suitable for 
urban growth in unincorporated Maricopa County because 
they have appropriate and efficient levels of urban services 
and infrastructure. The Growth Areas element also explains 
where and when urban growth should occur to help establish 
sensible and efficient land use patterns.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
164

Growth Constraints
Planning Considerations
Previous 
County 
Comprehensive 
Plans 
have 
identified 
several 
constraints that affect the location 
and extent of new urban growth in 
unincorporated areas of Maricopa 
County. The constraints fall into 
these categories:
	
„ Physical constraints: steep slopes, riparian areas, floodplains, land 
subsidence, Earth fissures, water availability and important plant and 
wildlife habitat.
	
„ Built constraints: the lack of infrastructure and services, and the location 
of noise sources like airports, automobile proving grounds, racetracks and 
highways.
	
„ Ownership considerations: public land managed by federal, state and local 
governments and land held in trust for Native American communities.
	
„ Attitudinal considerations: public sentiment leading the decision-making 
on development.
Soil
Although often overlooked, soil characteristics play 
a critical role in shaping land use and infrastructure 
development. Properties of soil such as permeability, 
compaction, shrink-swell potential, plasticity, salinity, 
erosion 
susceptibility, 
and 
corrosiveness 
can 
significantly influence the feasibility, cost, and long-term 
stability of construction projects. Understanding and 
mitigating these challenges are essential for feasible 
growth and development.
Topography
Maricopa County’s diverse terrain presents notable 
challenges to development. Elevation and slope 
variations range from less than 2% on the desert floor 
to over 20% in mountainous regions. Steep and rugged 
areas often require costly engineering solutions or 
are avoided altogether. This results in rugged and 
steep areas being either bypassed for less challenging 
locations or developed at very low densities and 
intensities. It should be noted that any development 
occurring on a natural slope of 15% or greater is subject 
to the Hillside Development Regulations found in the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance in addition to 
standards of the applicable zoning district. 
Floodplains
Floodplains, particularly those designated within the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 100-
year floodplain, pose significant risks to development. 
These areas have a 1% annual chance of experiencing 
certain flooding, though actual events may occur more 
frequently and with greater severity. Development within 
floodplains is often hindered by insurance requirements, 
engineering complexities, and regulatory constraints, 
making it both technically and financially challenging
Subsidence/Earth Fissures
Land subsidence in Maricopa County is a significant 
geological issue that is a side effect of extensive 
groundwater pumping withdrawal. An overly high amount 
of groundwater withdrawal can lead to the gradual 
sinking of the ground surface, known as subsidence, 
which has the potential to result in the formation of 
earth fissures. These fissures are pervasive cracks that 
can extend for miles and pose risks to infrastructure, 
property, and public safety. The Arizona Geological 
Survey has identified multiple areas in Maricopa County 
affected by subsidence, with some fissures reaching 
depths of up to 90 feet and hundreds of feet in length. 
The impacts of subsidence include damage to roads, 
canals, and buildings, as well as potentially reducing 
water quality through contamination of groundwater 
aquifers. Map 20 shows the extent of known land 
subsidence features in Maricopa County. Note that the 
existence of these features do not imply that fissures 
will happen in these areas but only indicate the gradual 
setting or sinking of the Earth’s surface.
Physical Constraints
 Chapter 9 •  GROWTH AREAS
165

Source: ADWR, 2026
Land subsidence in Maricopa County is a significant 
geological issue that is a side effect of extensive 
groundwater pumping withdrawl.
Map 20.   Extent Land Subsidence Features in Maricopa County
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
166

Water Quality/Availability
Water resources in Maricopa County 
are derived from both groundwater 
aquifers and surface water systems 
such as the CAP Canal and regional 
reservoirs. Availability is closely 
tied 
to 
precipitation 
patterns, 
particularly 
winter 
snowmelt 
in 
the higher elevations of Arizona, 
Utah, and Colorado. Variability in 
water quantity and quality across 
the County influences the scale, 
location, and viability of future 
development, necessitating careful 
resource management and planning.
Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat 
and Linkages
The Sonoran Desert ecosystem 
supports a rich diversity of plant 
and animal life, many of which are 
protected under federal and state 
legislation. These protections can 
limit 
or 
condition 
development 
activities, particularly in areas with 
sensitive habitats and key wildlife 
linkages. 
Preserving 
biodiversity 
and complying with environmental 
regulations are key considerations 
in the planning process.
Cultural/Archaeological 
Sites
Maricopa 
County 
is 
home 
to 
numerous 
archaeological 
sites 
linked to the Hohokam people and 
other early cultures. Inventories 
maintained by the Arizona State 
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), 
Arizona State Museum, and various 
federal, tribal, and state agencies 
help identify and protect these 
cultural assets. Depending on their 
significance, such sites may restrict 
or delay development, requiring 
coordination 
with 
preservation 
authorities and adherence to legal 
safeguards.
Built Constraints
Infrastructure and Services
The availability of infrastructure and public services is one 
of the most critical factors influencing urban development 
in Maricopa County. These foundational elements 
such as water, wastewater, transportation, energy, and 
emergency services directly shape the type, timing, 
and location of new growth. Unlike rural development, 
which may function with limited infrastructure, urban 
development requires comprehensive systems to 
safeguard public health, meet community needs, and 
promote orderly and fiscally responsible growth.
This principle is central to the County’s Urban Solutions 
for Urban Development strategy. As such, any proposed 
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or changes 
to zoning district boundaries must first confirm the 
presence and adequacy of the infrastructure and 
services outlined in the Land Use Element. Ensuring 
infrastructure readiness not only supports efficient 
development but also helps prioritize growth in areas 
where public investment can be maximized and long-
term community benefits achieved.
Noise-Generating Land Uses
Persistent, loud, or continuous noise can negatively 
affect public health, sleep quality, learning patterns, and 
property values. While noise can originate from many 
sources, several are particularly influential in shaping 
land use decisions and determining appropriate growth 
areas in Maricopa County.
	
„ Airports
Airports are significant sources of noise and potential 
safety hazards, making them key considerations in 
land use planning. Maricopa County is home to a 
variety of airport types, including major commercial 
hubs such as Sky Harbor International and Phoenix-
Mesa Gateway, general aviation airports serving 
private 
aircraft, 
and 
residential 
communities 
designed for light aircraft access. Although airports 
generate noise and safety concerns, they also 
provide substantial economic benefits. Therefore, 
ensuring compatible land use around airport facilities 
is essential when identifying suitable locations for 
future development.
	
„ Automobile Proving Grounds
Automobile proving grounds are specialized facilities 
where manufacturers test vehicles and components 
under controlled conditions. Several such facilities 
exist in Maricopa County, taking advantage of the 
region’s dry climate for performance testing. Noise 
generated by these operations, along with security 
 Chapter 9 •  GROWTH AREAS
167

concerns related to proprietary technologies, must be 
considered when evaluating the types and intensities 
of development appropriate for surrounding areas.
	
„ Major Roads and Highways
Roads and highways produce continuous noise but 
are indispensable to the region’s economic vitality 
and mobility. Their presence influences land use 
compatibility and plays a role in determining where 
growth can occur. Planning for development near 
major transportation corridors requires careful 
consideration of noise impacts and mitigation 
strategies to ensure livability and long-term efficiency.
	
„ Railroads
Railroads contribute to brief but intense noise events 
due to train speed, horn use, and track conditions. 
Despite these impacts, rail infrastructure is essential 
for the movement of goods and people. As with 
highways, land use compatibility near rail corridors is 
an important factor in identifying appropriate areas 
for growth and development.
Hazardous Areas
Hazardous conditions can also dictate the types 
and intensities of new development. Two of these 
hazards, floodplains and subsidence/Earth fissures, 
are discussed earlier in this chapter, but there are other 
potentially hazardous conditions that determine growth 
areas:
	
„ High Noise or Accident Potential Zones
State law identifies specific areas surrounding 
military installations as High Noise or Accident 
Potential Zones. These zones include land near 
Luke Air Force Base, Luke Auxiliary Airfield Number 
One in northwest Surprise, and the auxiliary airfield 
located south of Gila Bend. These designations 
includesboth the noise contours surrounding these 
facilities and the accident potential zones that extend 
from the ends of their runways. The purpose of these 
zones is to ensure that future development remains 
compatible with the operational impacts of military 
aircraft, which may pose risks to public health and 
safety.
Arizona has in place legislation to strengthen protections 
for Luke Air Force Base and its ancillary facilities. It 
requires local governments including Maricopa County, 
Surprise, Glendale, El Mirage, Goodyear, Youngtown, 
Buckeye, and Gila Bend to adopt land use plans and 
zoning regulations that address properties within 
these designated zones. These plans must ensure that 
development is compatible with the noise and accident 
potential associated with military operations. State law 
limits the types of land uses permitted in these areas to 
those deemed compatible by the state, although other 
uses may be allowed with mutual consent from Luke Air 
Force Base and Maricopa County.
In addition to these zones, state law also defines a 
broader area known as the Territory in the Vicinity of 
a Military Airport. This area extends outward from the 
center of the main runways at Luke Air Force Base and 
Luke Auxiliary Airfield Number One. Although land uses 
within this territory are not restricted, construction of 
occupied buildings must incorporate noise reduction 
measures. These requirements may influence the types 
and densities of future development.
	
„ Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near 
Tonopah is the largest power producer in the United 
States. When the facility was constructed several 
decades ago, the surrounding area was sparsely 
populated. 
Although 
population 
levels 
remain 
relatively low, several master-planned communities 
are proposed within the ten-mile Plume Exposure 
Pathway Emergency Planning Zone. This zone is 
established to facilitate protective actions in the event 
of an unintended release of radioactive material. 
A secondary safety zone, known as the Ingestion 
Exposure 
Pathway 
Emergency 
Planning 
Zone, 
extends an additional fifty miles from the facility.
It is uncertain whether significant residential growth will 
occur in the Pathway zone before the facility is eventually 
decommissioned. If such growth does take place, 
protecting public health and safety becomes a critical 
priority in the unlikely event of a radioactive incident. 
Although the probability of such an event is low, the 
consequences of delayed evacuation could be severe. 
Therefore, careful planning and a reliable transportation 
network are essential. Additionally, the need to secure 
high-profile facilities such as nuclear power plants 
remains a priority for federal, state, and local authorities. 
Future homeland security considerations may influence 
or restrict the type, intensity, or location of development 
in this part of Maricopa County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
168

Federal Land
The federal government is the largest land holder in 
Maricopa County, managing approximately 484,000 
acres of the Tonto National Forest, nearly 508,000 acres 
of Wilderness areas, and about 1.5 million acres of 
military and other miscellaneous property. Most federal 
land is not available for development although in certain 
instances land managed by the BLM can be acquired 
for development via land trades or outright sales. While 
some discussions on transferring federal land holding 
to private ownership have been prompted at the federal 
level for the purpose of alleviating housing shortages, 
opponents of such action warn that this would undermine 
conservation efforts and public access. Presently, since 
most federal land is not available for development it is 
not considered a growth area. 
The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest land 
holder primarily because of the Barry M. Goldwater 
Range located approximately 70 miles southwest of 
Phoenix. The Goldwater Range includes approximately 
2.7 million acres – approximately one-third of which is 
in Maricopa County – for air and ground training. Only a 
small portion of the Goldwater Range is actually used for 
training operations meaning the vast majority remains 
undisturbed desert. The entire range is off limits to 
private development, and therefore is not a growth area.
State Trust Land
The Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) oversees 
more than 600,000 acres of Trust land in Maricopa 
County on behalf of beneficiaries like public and 
specialized schools, colleges, hospitals and charitable 
institutions to ensure that when land is sold or leased it 
receives the highest value-added return possible. State 
law mandates that fair market value be obtained for all 
Trust land sales and commercial leases. All revenue 
derived from the sale of Trust lands are placed in a 
fund administered by the State Treasurer, and revenue 
derived from commercial leases are distributed directly 
to the beneficiareis. Whether Trust land is considered a 
growth area depends on several factors, including when 
such land is made available for auction or lease, the 
status of ASLD land management plans, and available 
infrastructure and services.
Native American Communities
There are approximately 200,000 acres of land controlled 
by various Native American communities within the 
boundary of Maricopa County. These include land 
held in trust for the Fort McDowell-Apache, Salt River 
Pima-Maricopa, Gila River and Tohono O’odham tribal 
communities. While development can occur in these 
areas each respective nation controls the location, type 
and intensity of growth within their borders. Therefore, 
for the purpose of this plan these communities are not 
considered growth areas.
Maricopa County Regional Parks
Covering 
approximately 
120,000 
acres 
Maricopa 
County’s twelve parks and conservation areas comprise 
one of the largest regional park systems in the nation. 
Each park offers various levels of recreation for the 
more than 1.2 million residents and guests that visit the 
system annually. Except for recreational enhancements, 
development in the parks is prohibited meaning these 
are not growth areas.
Ownership Constraints
Attitudinal Constraints
Public attitudes toward development play a pivotal role 
in shaping the type, scale, and location of future growth 
across unincorporated Maricopa County as discussed in 
the earlier Public Engagement section. Preferences vary 
widely, with some residents favoring newer urban-context 
environments while others advocate for preserving rural 
desert character and open desert landscape spaces. 
These divergent views are especially pronounced in 
unincorporated areas, where land use decisions often 
spark strong community sentiment.
Understanding and responding to these perspectives 
is essential for crafting workable growth strategies. 
Whether supporting higher-density development or 
maintaining low-intensity rural landscapes, public 
opinion continues to influence planning outcomes and 
remains a key factor in determining how and where 
growth occurs.
 Chapter 9 •  GROWTH AREAS
169

Growth Pressures
Due to the availability of lower-priced rural or undeveloped land at the fringe 
of urban development in the Phoenix Area, unincorporated Maricopa County 
experiences significant growth pressures. As the population increases and 
demand for housing rises in the region, developers are increasingly drawn to 
these exurb areas due to lower land costs and fewer regulatory constraints often 
found in municipalities. The outward expansion and rate of development can 
strain existing infrastructure and services, creating challenges for coordinated 
planning and efficient service delivery.
Growth in the unincorporated exurban fringe can also strain regional 
systems such as transportation, water supply, and emergency services. As 
development pushes outward, the cost of extending roads, utilities, and public 
safety infrastructure increases, often outpacing the revenues generated by 
new growth. This dynamic underscores the importance of aligning fringe 
development with long-range planning goals, including the designation of 
appropriate growth areas, the integration of multimodal transportation options 
as feasible, and the preservation of critical natural and/or cultural assets.
Finally, growth in unincorporated fringe affects the existing residents who have 
already built up their homes and livelihoods in these portions of the County. 
Agricultural operations, open space preservation, and rural lifestyles frequently 
come into conflict with suburban development proposals. Residents in these 
unincorporated areas often express concerns about traffic congestion, loss of 
natural landscapes, and changes to community character. At the same time, 
local governments face pressure to accommodate growth while maintaining 
fiscal responsibility and protecting environmental resources. Balancing these 
interests requires thoughtful land use strategies that prioritize infrastructure 
readiness, environmental stewardship, and community engagement.
Effects on Area Plans
This analysis indicates that growth pressures in unincorporated areas of 
Maricopa County are increasingly concentrated along the western urban fringe, 
particularly near the Interstate 10 Corridor toward Tonopah. This finding aligns 
with the fact that the four existing Area Plans in this part of the County have 
not been updated in nearly two decades. There is a high likelihood of a need for 
timely reassessment of these four Area Plans to reflect current development 
dynamics and community issues.
This growth pressure analysis provides a valuable basis for prioritizing the 
update sequence of existing Area Plans. By identifying areas experiencing 
heightened development interest, the County can ensure that planning efforts 
are responsive, proactive, and strategically targeted. Additionally, the analysis 
serves as a tool for identifying new regions with suitable conditions that may 
warrant consideration of the creation of new Area Plans.
Utilizing a similar approach for the Area Plan Program could enhance the 
County’s ability to manage growth effectively, support timely development, 
and maintain alignment with long-range planning objectives. This approach 
also reinforces the importance of regularly evaluating and updating planning 
documents to ensure they remain relevant and actionable in the face of evolving 
growth patterns.
The 
Comprehensive 
Plan 
analyzed several factors that 
are common drivers of growth 
pressure found in unincorporated 
Maricopa County, including:
	
„ Proximit y to existing 
development;
	
„ Proximity to planned future 
employment centers;
	
„ Proximity to approved master 
planned communities; and
	
„ Zoning and/or future land 
use that allows for new 
development
This growth pressure analysis 
resulted in these factors driving a 
greater potential of development 
growth 
in 
unincorporated 
Maricopa County, particularly on 
the western urban fringe of the 
Phoenix metro area. Through 
this analysis, two notable hot 
spots of projected future growth 
are evident. The first projected 
future growth hot spot is in the 
Tonopah area within the extent 
of the Tonopah/Arlington Area 
Plan, and the second hot spot 
is near Wittmann close to the 
US-60/SR 74 intersection. Map 
21 captures the results of the 
projected future growth analysis 
for 
unincorporated 
Maricopa 
County. 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
170

Source: Maricopa County Office of Enterprise Technology, 2025; Michael Baker International 
Analysis, 2026
Unincorporated Maricopa County experiences significant 
growth pressures as developers are drawn to lower-priced 
rural land at the fringe of urban development.
Map 21.   Future 
Growth 
Hot 
Spot 
Growth 
Projection 
in 
Unincorporated Maricopa County
 Chapter 9 •  GROWTH AREAS
171

Strategies
The previous Comprehensive Plan introduced the term Urban Growth Area, 
identifying where urban growth is most suitable to occur. This area encompasses 
unincorporated land in Maricopa County that is planned for urban development 
within either a County Area Plan, a Development Master Plan/Master Planned 
Community, or a Municipal Planning Area from a municipal general plan within 
the extent of Maricopa County. 
Under the new Municipal-Rural Influence Framework that this Comprehensive 
Plan puts forth, unincorporated land can be considered as part of the Urban 
Growth Area or the Rural Service Area. 
Urban Growth Area
When not hindered by the previously mentioned constraints, there are opportunities 
for growth in unincorporated Maricopa County. Any land determined to be in the 
County’s Urban Growth Area, as detailed in the Municipal-Rural Influence Framework, 
has the ability to propose a land use designation change or rezoning to an urban land 
use regardless of the land’s initial designation. However, being determined to be in 
the Urban Growth Area does not automatically allow for approval of any land use 
designation change or rezoning request. The formal definition of the Urban Growth 
Area in Maricopa County is as follows:
Any unincorporated land designated for an urban land use in the Comprehensive 
Plan, the respective County Area Plan, or an applicable municipal general plan if the 
requirements of the Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD) strategy can 
be satisfied and assurance of annexation can be obtained. Unincorporated land 
designated for rural land use in the Comprehensive Plan or a County Area Plan 
could also be considered the Urban Growth Area if that land is designated for urban 
land use in an applicable municipal general plan, provided that the requirements of 
the USUD umbrella policy can be satisfied and an assurance of annexation can be 
obtained to avoid forming new County Islands. Any area that does not meet these 
criteria is part of the Rural Service Area, which allows for rural land use. Moreover, 
urban growth is unsuitable anywhere that the constraints identified in this chapter, as 
applicable, cannot be properly addressed.
While the Urban Growth Area does allow for urban-context development in 
unincorporated areas assuming the USUD requirements are satisfied and the other 
conditions in the above definition are also met, Maricopa County does affirm that 
such urban development, especially urban residential development, should annex 
into the appropriate municipalities to avoid the endurance of County Islands or the 
creation of new ones and to ensure urban services, urban infrastructure, and a locally 
elected government are available. If, for whatever reason, annexation is not possible, 
then any proposed urban development in the County’s Urban Growth Area shall seek 
an assurance of annexation with the appropriate municipality.
Certain industrial land uses that require large amounts of land, but not urban services 
and infrastructure, are acceptable outside the Urban Growth Area in the Rural Service 
Area. These uses could include electric generating facilities, proving grounds and 
test facilities, extraction industries, agriculturally-oriented businesses and other 
rural-type industrial uses on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, certain commercial 
land uses that are under 40 acres do not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 
and can prove proportionally-scaled satisfactions to the USUD requirements are 
acceptable outside the Urban Growth Area in the Rural Service Area.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
172

Rural Service Area
The Rural Service Area in Maricopa County encompasses regions characterized 
by low-density land use, limited infrastructure, and a strong emphasis on 
preserving open space, agricultural operations, and the rural lifestyle. These 
areas are not in the Urban Growth Area and are not intended for intensive urban 
development. Development in the Rural Service Area is guided by policies that 
prioritize compatibility with the natural landscape, minimize infrastructure 
demands, conserve regional resources, and maintain the integrity of rural 
communities. As such only rural land use designations and their associated 
zoning districts are expected in the Rural Service Area with the exception for 
certain industrial and commercial land uses previously mentioned.
Urban/Rural Transitional Areas
Urban/rural interface transition areas in unincorporated Maricopa County 
represent dynamic zones where urban or suburban expansion meets 
traditionally rural landscapes. These areas are characterized by a mix of land 
uses, including low-density residential development, agricultural operations, 
and emerging infrastructure. These transition areas are often included within 
the limits of the current Area Plans. As growth continues to extend outward from 
incorporated municipalities, these transitional zones face increasing pressure to 
accommodate new housing, commercial activity, and public services. However, 
the lack of municipal governance and limited infrastructure in the County can 
complicate planning efforts. This is why Maricopa County supports planning for 
these areas between its Urban Growth Area and its Rural Service Area to ensure 
smooth and cohesive transitions.
 Chapter 9 •  GROWTH AREAS
173

OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance 
Opportunity by ensuring 
strategic and orderly 
development that supports 
livability and accessibility.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals strongly support 
Stewardship by directing 
growth to appropriate areas 
and reducing environmental 
impacts.
PROSPERITY
These goals reinforce Prosperity 
by creating a stable and efficient 
framework for economic growth.
Growth Area Policies:
1.1
Maricopa County supports assurance of annexation, where feasible, of new urban 
development and redevelopment sites within its Urban Growth Area. 
1.2
Maricopa County supports planning for urban/rural interface transition areas between its 
Urban Growth Area and Rural Service Area.
Growth Areas Goal 1: Address growth strategically to ensure orderly, 
compatible land use and reasonable development.
Goal Statement: Ensuring orderly and reasonable growth through effective development planning 
practices is crucial for providing the appropriate infrastructure needed to maintain a high quality 
of life.
Goals & Policies
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
174

Growth Area Policies:
2.1
Maricopa County supports consistent implementation of and compliance with its Urban 
Solutions for Urban Development strategy in its Urban Growth Area.
2.2
Maricopa County supports periodically evaluating the development constraints and 
considerations identified in this element to determine how they impact the Urban Growth 
Area, and whether they require reconsideration or modification.
Growth Areas Goal 2: Have urban growth that is consistent with the 
County’s Urban Growth Area, meets statutory requirements, and 
implements the Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy.
Goal Statement: The County’s Urban Growth Area allows for the growth of infrastructure, services, 
and development according to the Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy in order to 
protect the public’s health, safety, and well-being.
 Chapter 9 •  GROWTH AREAS
175

10
Open Space

In This Chapter
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Annual visitation to 
Maricopa County 
Parks is expected to 
rise from  
2.7 million  
in 2022 to  
3.7 million  
by 2032
Introduction
Open space and recreation are 
fundamental components of a healthy 
and livable community. Across the 
United States, research consistently 
demonstrates that parks, trails, 
and natural areas provide critical 
environmental, social, and economic 
benefits. They improve air and water 
quality, mitigate urban heat islands, 
and support biodiversity, while offering 
residents opportunities for physical 
activity, mental restoration, and social 
interaction. In urbanized regions, 
open spaces provide essential green 
infrastructure where people of all ages 
and backgrounds can gather. Open 
spaces also contribute to the aesthetic 
character of urban areas, offering 
visual relief from built environments 
and preserving distinctive landmarks 
that strengthen a region’s identity. 
However, as urbanization intensifies 
and development pressures grow, 
protecting and enhancing open space 
becomes a critical consideration to 
ensure future generations enjoy equal 
and widespread access to nature and 
recreation.
Maricopa County manages one of 
the largest regional park systems 
in the United States, covering more 
than 120,000 acres of Sonoran Desert 
landscapes. The system’s mission 
is to preserve open space, protect 
sensitive ecosystems, and provide 
diverse recreational opportunities for 
residents and visitors. It includes 12 
regional parks and conservation areas 
along with miles of multi-use trails all 
offering unique amenities.
This chapter establishes a vision for an 
interconnected system of parks, trails, 
and natural areas that reflects County 
priorities and responds to emerging 
challenges. It outlines goals and 
policies to conserve natural resources, 
expand recreational opportunities, and 
integrate open space planning with 
housing, transportation, and economic 
development strategies. In doing so, 
the Comprehensive Plan elevates 
open space and recreation as core 
components of a dynamic, healthy, and 
attractive Maricopa County.
The Open Space element recommends ways to increase the 
amount, quality, and variety of open space in unincorporated 
Maricopa County, and ways to link open space into 
interconnected systems.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
178

Planning 
Considerations
Maricopa County’s Parks Vision 2030 outlines a comprehensive approach to 
managing and expanding its regional park and open space system in response 
to rapid population growth and evolving community needs. The County, home 
to over 4.4 million residents in 2020, is projected to surpass five million by 2030 
and reach 6.4 million by 2055. This growth will significantly increase demand 
for parks, trails, and natural open spaces, with annual visitation expected to rise 
from 2.7 million in 2022 to 3.7 million by 2032. To maintain the current standard 
of 27 acres per 1,000 residents, the County must acquire approximately 15,000 
acres every decade. Public input strongly supports reinvesting in existing parks, 
protecting wildlife corridors, and acquiring new open spaces.
Open Space
Maricopa Count y deems the 
preservation and development of 
open spaces in general as essential 
for maintaining the quality of life for its 
residents, promoting physical activity, 
and fostering a sense of community. 
Overall, there are 4,850.3 square miles, 
or 3,104,190 acres, of open space land 
in unincorporated Maricopa County. 
This total includes the 120,000 acres 
in the 12 regional parks in the County 
system, the 684,000 acres of recreation 
land under BLM management, the 
655,000 acres of the Tonto National 
Forest, and the 97,350 acres of 
dedicated or proposed open space 
from the County’s area plans. The 
remaining acreage of open space in the 
unincorporated County are either not 
planned to remain open space or are 
under the operation of other agencies 
that do not permit recreational use. As 
the population continues to grow and 
development follows, the importance 
of balancing development with the 
conservation of open spaces remains 
a key priority for Maricopa County. The 
recreational opens space land in the 
County is shown on Map 22.
 Chapter 10 •  OPEN SPACE
179

Parks
Maricopa County manages one of the largest regional park systems in the United 
States, encompassing approximately 121,185 acres of protected land. All the 
regional parks the County manages are shown in Map 22. The park system is 
designed to balance recreation, conservation, and connectivity. It offers extensive 
open space areas, diverse recreational resources, and a well-planned network of 
access points. The system includes:
	
„ Regional Parks (12 total including Conservation Areas) 
	ƒ Adobe Dam Regional Park – 1,454 acres
	ƒ Buckeye Hills Regional Park – 4,453 acres
	ƒ Cave Creek Regional Park – 2,934 acres
	ƒ Estrella Mountain Regional Park – 19,837 acres
	ƒ Lake Pleasant Regional Park – 23,662 acres
	ƒ McDowell Mountain Regional Park – 20,472 acres
	ƒ San Tan Mountain Regional Park – 10,119 acres
	ƒ Usery Mountain Regional Park – 3,529 acres
	ƒ White Tank Mountain Regional Park – 29,557 acres
	ƒ Vulture Mountains Recreation Area – 1,046 acres (with 70,000+ acres under 
cooperative management with BLM)
	
„ Conservation Areas
	ƒ Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area – 2,174 acres
	ƒ Hassayampa River Preserve – 776 acres
	
„ Education Center
	ƒ Desert Outdoor Center at Lake Pleasant
	
„ Linear Parks & Greenways
	ƒ Maricopa Trail – 315+ miles (regional loop connecting parks)
	ƒ Sun Circle Trail – 35 miles (National Recreation Trail)
	
„ Future Expansion Targets
	ƒ Verde River, New River Mesa, Buckeye Hills East, Saddle Mountain, Big Horn 
Mountains, Harquahala, Eagletail, Hummingbird Springs, Painted Rocks, Lake 
Pleasant West, Seven Springs, Horseshoe Lake, Bartlett Lake, Table Mesa.
Local and neighborhood parks similarly play a crucial role in maintaining the 
stability of communities by offering spaces for recreation, social interaction, and 
promoting healthy lifestyles. Unlike cities and towns, Maricopa County does not 
manage local parks. Instead, parks in unincorporated areas are privately managed 
by homeowners’ associations or similar entities. Nevertheless, Maricopa County 
recognizes the importance of having local parks with adequate and appropriate 
amenities as a vital part of the community. 
Available 
Recreational 
Resources 
Trail System - Multi-use 
trails for hiking, biking, 
equestrian use, competitive 
tracks, ADA/barrier-free 
trails.
Camping Facilities - 
Developed RV and tent sites, 
primitive camping areas, 
group/youth campgrounds.
Water Recreation - Lake 
Pleasant: boating, fishing, 
kayaking, paddleboarding; 
boat ramps, marinas.
Amenities & Facilities - Nature 
centers, amphitheaters, 
p l a y g r o u n d s , p i c n i c 
ramadas, restrooms (flush/
vault), dump stations, 
equestrian staging areas, 
archery ranges, shooting 
ranges, observatories, event 
venues, interpretive signage, 
retail/gift shops.
Programs & Education - 
Interpretive education, guided 
hikes, bird walks, moonlight 
hikes, fitness events, 
volunteer programs, youth 
education at Desert Outdoor 
Center.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
180

121,185 acres
Protected land managed by Maricopa County, forming one 
of the largest regional park systems.
Map 22.   County Parks and Trails Map
Source: Maricopa County Parks & Recreation, 2025; Maricopa County Planning & Development, 2025; BLM, 2024
 Chapter 10 •  OPEN SPACE
181

Trails
Maricopa County manages an 
extensive trail network spanning more 
than 651 miles, with 290 miles located 
within its regional parks. These trails 
wind through diverse landscapes, 
including desert terrain, canal paths, 
and mountain foothills, offering a 
scenic and interconnected system 
for outdoor recreation. Designed for 
multiple uses, the trails accommodate 
hiking, mountain biking, and horseback 
riding, with select paved segments 
supporting wheeled sports.
Beyond the trail paths within the 12 
regional parks, the Maricopa Trail and 
the Sun Circle Trail are extensive trails 
that traverse the County connecting 
urban spaces to nature. Both of these 
trails are integral to Maricopa County’s 
efforts to enhance the recreational 
opportunities available to residents. 
The Maricopa Trail and the Sun Circle 
Trail are shown in Map 22.
The Maricopa Trail is a 315-mile loop 
that encircles the Phoenix metropolitan 
area, connecting ten of Maricopa 
County’s regional parks and various 
municipal parks. This extensive trail 
system offers a unique opportunity 
for outdoor enthusiasts to explore the 
diverse landscapes of the Sonoran 
Desert, from open desert expanses 
to urban centers. The trail is designed 
for multiple uses, including hiking, 
biking, and horseback riding, making 
it accessible to a wide range of 
users. With numerous trailheads and 
community access points, the Maricopa 
Trail provides a comprehensive tour 
of the County’s natural beauty and 
recreational opportunities. The trail 
also includes spurs that link to outlying 
mountain parks and other regional trails 
like the Arizona Trail.
The Sun Circle Trail is a scenic and 
versatile trail that spans approximately 
110 miles (35 miles maintained by 
Maricopa County), creating a similar 
loop that connects various parts of 
the Phoenix metropolitan area. Like 
the Maricopa Trail, the Sun Circle 
Trail is designed for multiple uses, 
including hiking, biking, and horseback 
riding. However, it often follows canal 
paths, providing a unique urban trail 
experience and additional recreation 
opportunities for wheeled sports. The 
Sun Circle Trail links several parks and 
natural areas, offering users a chance 
to explore diverse landscapes, from 
desert vistas to lush green spaces. It 
serves as an important recreational 
resource, promoting outdoor activities, 
and connecting communities in 
unincorporated Maricopa County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
182

Strategies
Overall, Maricopa County seeks to be a regional leader in recreation, conservation, and community engagement, ensuring 
access to natural spaces, promoting health and wellness, and preserving the Sonoran Desert’s natural and cultural heritage 
while adapting to future growth and environmental challenges. Maricopa County’s future strategy for managing open 
space and recreation centers on preserving and expanding a connected system of natural areas, parks, and trails while 
balancing rapid population growth with ecological protection. This is expected to be achieved through reinvesting in existing 
parks to maintain quality visitor experiences and protecting wildlife corridors and river greenways to ensure biodiversity 
and connectivity. Framing open space not only as a recreational amenity but as critical infrastructure for health, water 
conservation, and economic vitality, ensuring that future growth supports a high quality of life while protecting the County’s 
unique desert heritage.
Park Master  
Planning: 
Maricopa County anticipates updating all Park Master Plans within two to three years. These 
updates will address emerging recreation trends, visitor capacity challenges, and urban 
encroachment, ensuring parks remain relevant and resilient.
Development  
Guidelines: 
Future development will incorporate low-impact design and green infrastructure while 
maintaining buffer zones to protect sensitive landscapes. Continual review of zoning policies 
will help preserve riparian areas and hillside slopes.
Edge  
Treatments: 
The transition from urban development to open space along the edges of County’s regional 
parks is a critical issue for the park system. Effective edge treatment works to minimize 
the effects of this transition and shapes the parks’ quality, accessibility, security, and 
endurability. Hard edges, such as walls and fences, diminish scenic value and isolate parks 
from surrounding areas. In contrast, soft edges, like natural landscaping and larger building 
setbacks, protect scenery and integrate parks with nearby communities. Maricopa County 
supports working with municipalities to apply soft edge treatments on a case-by-case basis 
and endorses guidelines for unincorporated areas.
Hazards and 
Conservation: 
To reduce drought and wildfire risks, the County prioritizes habitat restoration, invasive species 
management, and adaptation measures. This conservation leadership will be strengthened 
through regional collaboration with federal, state, and municipal partners.
Land  
Acquisition: 
The County plans to acquire and manage new parklands and corridors ahead of growth. 
Priority areas include the Verde River and New River Mesa in the East Valley and Buckeye 
Hills and Saddle Mountain in the West Valley. Four new regional parks are planned by 2050, 
along with river corridor restoration for recreation and wildlife movement.
Strategic  
Partnerships: 
Collaboration with federal and state agencies, cities, and nonprofits will be essential for 
land acquisition, stewardship, and program development. These partnerships will help share 
resources and responsibilities.
Diversified  
Funding Portfolio: 
Funding will come from a mix of sources, including general obligation bonds, development 
impact fees, grants, dedicated taxes, concessionaire investments, and volunteer programs. 
This diversified approach ensures financial sustainability for operations and future growth.
Recreation and  
Visitor Experience: 
Access points will be managed through a variety of means including primary park entrances 
with controlled entry stations, regional trailheads, and secondary/remote trailheads. These 
measures will improve connectivity between parks, communities, and wildlife corridors. 
Visitor satisfaction will be monitored through surveys, economic impact studies, and capacity 
management strategies supported by technology.
 Chapter 10 •  OPEN SPACE
183

OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance 
Opportunity by providing 
residents with the ability for 
health, leisure, and social 
interactions.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals strongly reflect 
Stewardship by preserving and 
protecting the unique Sonoran 
Desert environment and its 
ecological integrity.
PROSPERITY
These goals contribute to 
Prosperity by supporting 
local economies and regional 
attractiveness.
Goals & Policies
Open Space Policies:
1.1
Maricopa County supports implementing the County Parks and Recreation Department’s 
currently adopted Parks, Open Space & Trail System Plan, and any successor plan.
1.2
Maricopa County supports soft edge treatments and buffers along the perimeter of its 
regional parks, regional trail system, the El Rio corridor, and open space in unincorporated 
areas of the County. 
Open Space Goal 1: Protect and expand the regional park system 
proportionately with population growth. 
Goal Statement: Ensuring that the regional park system grows and integrates in proportion to 
meet the needs and demands for recreational opportunities in the natural landscapes and spaces 
of an increasing population in both the incorporated and unincorporated portions of Maricopa 
County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
184

Open Space Goal 2: Support access to both local and regional 
recreational opportunities and open space. 
Goal Statement: Supporting appropriate public access to recreational lands and open spaces in 
the region outside of the County’s jurisdiction is important for providing opportunities for exercise, 
relaxation, enjoyment, and social interaction, while also supporting environmental conservation 
and local economies.
Open Space Policies:
2.1
Maricopa County supports supports new residential developments using the local park ratios 
identified in this plan as a guide for the provision of local recreational amenities.
2.2
Maricopa County supports user-based funding options for its regional park system and 
regional trail system to help maintain high-quality amenities and access. 
1.3
Maricopa County will coordinate with planning initiatives that seek to revitalize the Salt and 
Gila River corridors as vital ecological, cultural, and economic assets. 
1.4
Maricopa County supports the mission and ongoing efforts of the Lower Gila River 
Collaborative, a voluntary partnership focused on restoring the Lower Gila River ecosystem 
while promoting stewardship, recreation, and compatible development.
 Chapter 10 •  OPEN SPACE
185

Open Space Goal 3: Maintain the Maricopa Trail and the Maricopa 
County Regional Trail System. 
Goal Statement: Continue to protect and enhance the Maricopa County Trail System in addition 
to working with regional municipalities to connect the trail system to their parks, preserves, and 
open space systems..
Open Space Policies:
3.1
Maricopa County supports dedication and improvement of trail right-of-way within new 
development, including the Maricopa Trail and Maricopa County Regional Trail System.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
186

Open Space Goal 4: Provide regional leadership to promote the 
preservation of the desert landscape through protected recreational 
lands and open space. 
Goal Statement: Leading efforts to preserve and conserve the natural landscape and wildlife 
habitats and corridors through protected recreational lands and open spaces is a primary objective 
for the flourishing of the unique environment of the Sonoran Desert for future generations.
Open Space Policies:
4.1
Maricopa County supports the protection of scenic corridors and views as outlined in adopted 
scenic corridor plans and in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.
4.2
Maricopa County supports partnering with municipalities to address edge treatments along 
the perimeter of regional parks and the regional trail system.
4.3
Maricopa County supports partnering with adjacent federal and state agencies to expand 
recreation opportunities and protect and preserve existing open space from development 
pressures where feasible.
4.4
Maricopa County supports partnering with adjacent federal, state, and local agencies to 
promote responsible recreational activities and opportunities that aim to protect and preserve 
existing parks, recreation areas, public lands, and open spaces.
 Chapter 10 •  OPEN SPACE
187

11
Water Resources

In This Chapter
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Introduction
Managing water resources is one of Maricopa County’s most pressing 
challenges as growth continues and the unincorporated areas depend on a mix 
of surface, ground, and reclaimed water to fulfill demand. As long as people have 
lived in this region, there has been an understanding that with the dry climate, 
careful planning and responsible use of water are essential. That same mindset 
continues today in the County, allowing millions to call the desert home.
As Maricopa County grows, so does the challenge of providing enough water for 
everyone. Weather patterns can shift from year to year, making water supplies 
unpredictable. To keep up with demand and ensure long-term efficiency and 
supply, we need to find new ways to use water more efficiently and make the 
most of what we have.
Recognizing this, state law requires Maricopa County to include a Water 
Resources section in its Comprehensive Plan. This section looks at how 
much water is available, how much we’ll likely need as the population grows, 
and how we can meet that demand. The goal is to offer practical policies and 
recommendations that support smart, balanced water use for the future.
The water providers within Maricopa County rely on three main sources: 
	
„ Surface Water: Includes rivers, lakes, and water delivered through the Central 
Arizona Project (CAP) Canal.
	
„ Groundwater: Water stored underground in aquifers.
	
„ Effluent/Reclaimed Water: Treated wastewater that can be reused for certain 
purposes.
The next section provides a closer look at each of these sources.
3
main sources water 
providers within Maricopa 
County rely on (Surface 
Water, Groundwater, 
and Effluent/Reclaimed 
Water)
The Water Resources element focuses on strategies to 
help ensure that an adequate water supply is available to 
meet future growth. Since water supply and allocation are 
regulated at the state level, strategies in this element target 
water conservation and water quality protection efforts that 
Maricopa County can implement at a local level.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
190

Planning Considerations
Surface Water and the CAP Canal
Surface water is from sources such 
as rivers, lakes, and streams. This 
is Arizona’s main renewable water 
source. However, as surface water 
replenishment depends on annual 
rainfall and snowmelt, its availability 
can vary widely from year to year. To 
help manage this variability, reservoirs 
and dams along the Salt, Verde, Gila, 
and Agua Fria Rivers collect runoff 
from northern and eastern Arizona. 
This stored water helps stabilize 
supplies during both wet and dry 
periods.
A major source of surface water for 
Maricopa County is the CAP Canal. 
Managed by the Central Arizona 
Water Conservation District, the CAP 
Canal stretches nearly 340 miles from 
Lake Havasu to the San Xavier Indian 
Reservation near Tucson. It delivers 
about 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado 
River water each year to Maricopa, 
Pinal, and Pima Counties, making it 
a critical lifeline for all who live in its 
service area. 
The Colorado River’s water is divided 
among seven western states under 
the 1922 Colorado River Compact. 
Arizona, California, and Nevada make 
up the Lower Basin, while Wyoming, 
Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico 
form the Upper Basin. Each division 
receives 7.5 million acre-feet annually, 
with Arizona allocated 2.8 million 
acre-feet. Some of this water is used 
directly, while the rest is stored in 
underground aquifers to help buffer 
against future shortages. The Arizona 
Water Banking Authority oversees this 
storage process.
As of 2025, Arizona is grappling with a 
Tier 1 shortage in the Colorado River 
Basin, resulting in a 512,000 acre-
foot reduction, impacting 30% of the 
Central Arizona Project’s supply and 
nearly 8% of the state’s total water 
use. With the threat of deeper Tier 
2 or 3 cuts looming, municipalities 
are looking to groundwater reserves, 
conservation efforts, and collaborative 
drought 
planning. 
Arizona 
has 
proposed a “supply-driven” model that 
ties water allocations to actual river 
flows, aiming for fairer distribution 
amid recent water level declines. 
However, negotiations among the 
seven basin states remain tense and 
unresolved, with Upper Basin states 
wary of shifting burdens. The cuts 
affect agriculture, tribal lands, and 
recreation, prompting environmental 
advocates to push for long-term water 
strategies. Meanwhile, the century-
old Colorado River Compact faces 
mounting pressure as 30 tribes assert 
their water rights, adding complexity 
to an already strained system.
 Chapter 11 •  WATER RESOURCES
191

Groundwater is water that has slowly seeped into underground aquifers over 
many years from rain and snowmelt. As it takes so long to naturally refill these 
aquifers, groundwater is considered a limited and mostly non-renewable resource. 
The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) oversees the regulation and 
management of groundwater sources to ensure short-term use and protect long-
term availability. In 2024, ADWR published an update of its Groundwater Model 
and 100-Year Assured Water Supply Projection that estimated the volume of 
groundwater in storage above 1,000 feet at the end of the historical simulation 
(simulated over 122 years, from 1900-2022) to be 126,750,000 AF. The cumulative 
storage change (decline) for this same 122-year historical period is 21,470,000 
AF. Also following the 2024 update to incorporate the latest data, the 100-year 
Assured Water Supply projection reported that the unmet demand at the end of the 
100-year projection period is estimated to be 3,604,500 AF, which is a reduction 
from the previous projection estimate of 4,862,000 AF. The majority of the unmet 
demand is within the so-called “unprotected” sectors, which include agriculture, 
industrial, and other uses. Since the supply of surface water sources are annually 
variable or restricted through the Colorado Compact, this projected unmet 100-
year demand will likely be served through a combination of converting land from 
high-consumption water uses to lower-demand water uses and increased water 
reuse to limit the rate of increase in pumping groundwater in the Phoenix AMA.
In unincorporated Maricopa County, water management faces unique challenges 
due to diverse land ownership and varying levels of infrastructure. Unincorporated 
areas often rely heavily on groundwater, which is regulated under the state’s Active 
Management Areas, which were established under the 1980 Arizona Groundwater 
Management Act to prevent over-extraction and ensure safe yield. Over-extraction, 
also referred to as overdraft, occurs when more water is pumped from the aquifer 
than is replenished, and can lead to land subsidence, causing the ground to sink 
and potentially damage infrastructure. Maricopa County has 48.8% of its land area 
in the Phoenix AMA, 4.1% in the Pinal AMA, 5.3% in the Harquahala Irrigation Non-
expansion Area (INA), and 41.9% outside of an AMA or INA. AMAs implement strict 
groundwater management plans, aiming to balance groundwater withdrawal with 
natural and artificial recharge. 
Groundwater 
Graywater is wastewater from everyday activities like showering, laundry, and 
handwashing. Once treated, it can be reused for things like supporting agricultural 
and landscaping irrigation, supporting industrial cooling and processes, and other 
non-drinking purposes.
The region has 92 wastewater treatment facilities producing around 324,000 
acre-feet of treated graywater annually. As Maricopa County continues to grow, 
graywater has and will continue to be a vital source of water for non-potable uses 
as a means to preserve the regional groundwater and surface water sources  for 
uses that require potable water.
Effluent / Graywater
The primary source of 
water in the Phoenix 
AMA portion of 
Maricopa County is 
groundwater at 748,000 
acre-feet annually
Agriculture remains Arizona’s largest water consumer, but reductions in CAP 
deliveries and new conservation mandates are accelerating changes in cropping 
patterns and irrigation practices. Farmers are adopting precision irrigation, soil 
moisture sensors, and crop switching to maintain productivity under constrained 
supplies. However, continued farmland conversion to urban development, 
especially in Maricopa County, raises concerns about regional and national food 
security, given Arizona’s role as a major winter vegetable producer. Balancing 
water conservation with the need to sustain agricultural output will remain a critical 
challenge moving forward.
Water Scarcity’s 
Effect on Agriculture 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
192

The primary source of water in the Phoenix AMA portion of Maricopa County 
is groundwater at 748,000 acre-feet (AF) annually. Surface water is the second 
largest source for water in the Phoenix AMA at 562,000 AF annually. The CAP Canal, 
which transports Colorado River water, is the third largest source in the County at 
419,000 AF annually. Effluent or reclaimed water is the smallest source of water in 
the Phoenix AMA at 274,000 AF annually. Figure 19 illustrates the sources of water 
in the Phoenix AMA. 
Supply of Water 
Sources
Figure 19.   Source of Water in Phoenix AMA (in acre-feet), 
2019 Data
Source: Phoenix Active Management Area – 5th Management Plan 2020-2025
Demand for Water 
Sources
As urban development expands into farmland, the demand for water is moving 
away from agriculture production towards residential and industrial uses. Until 
1999, more water was used in the Phoenix AMA for agriculture than for cities. 
Since that time, water demand has gradually shifted to where in 2019, agriculture 
accounted for only 29% of the Phoenix AMA overall water use, while municipal use 
accounted for 50% and industrial use accounted for an additional 10%. The Native 
American Tribal communities account for the remaining 21% of water demand in 
the Phoenix AMA. Figure 20 displays the percentage splits of how water is used in 
the Phoenix AMA.
Figure 20.   Water Demand in Phoenix AMA (in acre-feet), 
2019 Data
Source: Phoenix Active Management Area – 5th Management Plan 2020-2025
 Chapter 11 •  WATER RESOURCES
193

Strategies
Ensuring access to safe and clean water remains a foundational priority for 
Maricopa County. In alignment with state and County health regulations, 
the County plays a critical oversight role by reviewing infrastructure plans, 
conducting inspections, and issuing permits for water services.
Two key programs that manage oversight are the Drinking Water Program and 
the Water and Waste Water Treatment Program. The Drinking Water Program 
regulates public water systems to ensure compliance with federal drinking water 
standards. It also provides technical assistance, educational outreach, and 
regulatory guidance to system administrators, helping them maintain safe and 
reliable water delivery. The Water and Wastewater Treatment Program oversees 
the regulation of water and wastewater treatment facilities, reclaimed water 
operations, and reuse water systems. While Maricopa County does not own or 
operate these facilities, its regulatory role is essential in safeguarding public 
health and environmental quality. Together, these programs reflect Maricopa 
County’s proactive approach to water safety, emphasizing collaboration, 
compliance, and community well-being.
Water Quality
Adequate Water 
Supply
In areas designated as AMAs, Arizona law requires land developers to prove an 
Assured Water Supply (AWS) through securing a Certificate of Assured Water 
Supply (CAWS) before subdividing land. This certificate ensures that there is a 
long-term, reliable water source to support the proposed development. For water 
providers, a Designation of Assured Water Supply (DAWS) is issued to prove an 
AWS for all of a provider’s customers.
Outside of AMAs, water use was less regulated prior to 2007. At this time the 
State of Arizona gave municipalities and counties the authority to require a 
Water Adequacy Determination for new subdivisions. While this determination 
is not as stringent as the certificate required within AMAs, it still plays a critical 
role in responsible growth.
To receive a Water Adequacy Determination, developers must demonstrate:
	
„ That water is physically available, legally accessible, and consistently reliable.
	
„ That the subdivision has the financial capacity to deliver water to residents.
	
„ That the water quality meets all required health and safety standards.
Maricopa County views Water Adequacy Determinations as a practical and 
necessary tool for promoting sustainable development outside AMAs. They help 
ensure that new communities are built with a clear understanding of their water 
resources and responsibilities.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
194

Starting  in 2023, the state government issued a moratorium on issuing any 
new AWS, pausing the approval of new subdivision plats that solely relied on 
groundwater. This decision was made due to modeling showing future shortfalls 
for groundwater, forcing developers to use other water sources to proceed with 
development. With approvals for new groundwater supplies suspended and 
surface water sources like CAP already stretched, housing construction halted 
in areas of Maricopa County that had not already been issued an AWS. 
In October 2025, EPCOR was officially awarded the first Alternative Designation 
of Assured Water Supply (ADAWS) by ADWR. Following a new 2023 rule, the 
ADAWS offers flexibility by allowing water providers to secure an AWS through 
evaluating demand in its entire service area, which is now subject to AWS 
rules, and proving a 100-year water supply with a comingling of a provider’s 
water supplies. This means that all groundwater pumped and delivered within 
that service area must be made consistent with the management goal of that 
particular Active Management Area.  As part of the ADAWS, EPCOR has also 
become a member in the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District 
(CAGRD), which requires EPCOR to replenish all excess groundwater it delivers 
to customers within its CAGRD-enrolled service areas to ensure groundwater 
pumping is made consistent with AWS rules. EPCOR’s attainment of an ADAWS 
secures water reliability for more than 140,000 in its service area and unlocks 
the potential for 60,000 new homes.
 Chapter 11 •  WATER RESOURCES
195

Given that certain areas within the Phoenix AMA continue to experience water 
level declines from groundwater pumping, the state also initiated a moratorium 
on the issuance of permits for proposed subdivisions that are not served by a 
designated water provider and would rely on local groundwater as a primary water 
source. In response to these restrictions, transporting additional groundwater 
to the Phoenix AMA from the Harquahala INA Basin has become a realistic 
possibility over the near-term period if needed.
The Harquahala INA is one of the groundwater basins in rural Arizona set aside 
specifically to import water to the Phoenix AMA, and to other AMAs, once water 
gets scarce. It is approximately 766 square miles and located in the westernmost 
portions of Maricopa County and in La Paz County. Public and private entities 
from outside the Harquahala INA have purchased groundwater rights from 
landowners within the INA for at least a decade. It is now increasingly common 
that municipalities within Maricopa County are purchasing groundwater rights 
or even land for those same rights to support their own plans for growth and 
development. Challenges with this strategy include the cost or buying the land 
(and groundwater rights), the treatment of the groundwater, and the transport of 
the groundwater to the entities holding rights to it.
Harquahala INA
Water Conservation
Water conservation is fundamental to maintaining growth and quality of life in 
Maricopa County. As a desert region facing long-term water supply challenges, 
the County must lead efforts that promote efficient water use and resource 
stewardship. This includes fostering a culture of conservation through public 
education and outreach, ensuring residents and businesses understand the 
benefits and necessity of reducing water demand.
Collaboration among municipalities and regional partners is equally important. 
Coordinated planning and shared best practices can help implement strategies 
such as expanding reclaimed water use, encouraging low-water landscaping, 
and improving efficiency in both urban and agricultural settings. By integrating 
conservation principles into land use decisions and infrastructure planning, 
Maricopa County can support responsible growth while protecting its most 
limited resource for future generations.
Recently enacted state legislation has, perhaps, introduced a more efficient 
agricultural to urban land conversion program in the spirit of groundwater 
conservation while supporting increasing housing supply to address housing 
affordability. Senate Bill 1611, signed in 2025, created the “Ag-to-Urban” program, 
a voluntary pathway for farmers in Active Management Areas (AMAs) to retire 
irrigated farmland and transfer groundwater rights to urban developments. 
At the core of the law is a groundwater savings credit system, which allows 
agricultural landowners to permanently surrender their irrigation grandfathered 
rights and provide these rights to developers in the form of calculated credits. 
These credits can be applied, by a developer, toward the assured water supply 
requirements for new subdivisions. This legislation establishes a clear, regulated 
process for converting agricultural water rights to urban use while maintaining 
conservation standards and provides a framework to balance housing demand 
with groundwater protection, shaping growth in water-limited regions like 
Maricopa County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
196

Water conservation is a central focus of these efforts 
whether through promoting efficient water use in new 
developments, supporting public education campaigns, or 
investing in technologies that reduce water.
Maricopa County plays a leading role in tackling regional water challenges by 
working closely with cities, towns, tribal nations, and state agencies across 
Arizona. Recognizing that water is a shared and limited resource, the County 
actively collaborates on long-term planning, infrastructure development, and 
conservation strategies that benefit the entire region. Through partnerships 
with the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Central Arizona Project, 
and other regional stakeholders, Maricopa County helps coordinate efforts 
to protect groundwater, manage drought conditions, and expand the use of 
reclaimed water. Water conservation is a central focus of these efforts whether 
through promoting efficient water use in new developments, supporting public 
education campaigns, or investing in technologies that reduce waste.
Leadership on Water 
Resources
 Chapter 11 •  WATER RESOURCES
197

Water Resource Policies:
1.1
Maricopa County supports residential development that is subject to the requirements of 
the Arizona Department of Water Resources Assured and Adequate Water Supply programs.
1.2
Maricopa County supports water adequacy determinations for new subdivisions outside 
Active Management Areas. 
1.3
Maricopa County supports water conservation techniques in the planning and design of 
new development.
1.4
Maricopa County supports low water use and drought-tolerant landscaping.
Water Resources Goal 1: Contribute to the endurance of the region’s 
water supply and its delivery.
Goal Statement: Supporting the local water providers’ efforts to secure the reliability and 
endurance of the region’s water supply ensures stability in water delivery necessary for planning 
future development and the needs of the community.
OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance 
Opportunity by ensuring 
reliable and high-quality water 
access for residents and 
businesses.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals reinforce 
Stewardship by emphasizing 
responsible water management 
in a desert environment.
PROSPERITY
These goals ensure economic 
stability, as water security is 
foundational to Prosperity.
OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance 
Opportunity by ensuring 
reliable and high-quality water 
access for residents and 
businesses.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals strongly reflect 
Stewardship by emphasizing 
responsible water management 
in a desert environment.
PROSPERITY
Water security is foundational 
to Prosperity, and these goals 
ensure economic stability.
Goals & Policies
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
198

Water Resource Policies:
2.1
Maricopa County supports compliance with its Drinking Water Program and its Water and 
Wastewater Treatment Programs.
2.2
Maricopa County supports renewable water use for landscape, park and common area 
irrigation; artificial lakes; and decorative water features.
Water Resources Goal 2: Promote and protect regional water 
quality.
Goal Statement: Focusing on initiatives and best practices to maintain and improve water quality 
for all users.
Water Resource Policies:
3.1
Maricopa County supports informing the public about the importance and benefits of water 
conservation.
3.2
Maricopa County supports the collaboration of municipalities to implement best practices 
for water planning and conservation.
Water Resources Goal 3: Support and provide leadership for water 
conservation in the region.
Goal Statement: Leading initiatives to promote water conservation practices across the region 
is vital for supporting the efficient and prudent management of water resources in the desert 
Southwest.
 Chapter 11 •  WATER RESOURCES
199

12
Energy

In This Chapter
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203
Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .208

Introduction
Energy use is integral to nearly every 
aspect of society, powering homes, 
businesses, and critical infrastructure. 
As environmental concerns grow and 
the long-term costs and availability 
of 
natural 
resources 
become 
more 
pressing, 
energy 
efficiency 
has emerged as a critical priority. 
Promoting the use of efficient and 
renewable energy sources is not only 
sound environmental policy but also a 
wise economic strategy.
Maricopa 
County 
is 
committed 
to fostering energy practices that 
ensure a reliable energy future for 
the region to continue its growth 
and quality of life. The majority of 
the power generated in the County 
comes from natural gas and nuclear 
sources. The emphasis on advancing 
alternative energy technologies over 
the past 50 years (alongside continued 
traditional energy development) has 
led to the development of solar energy 
production plants and projects in 
Maricopa County that seek to harness 
the abundant solar resources. These 
solar power projects are concentrated 
in the western desert portions of the 
County that are flatter and have better 
transportation access. 
Under 
the 
previous 
County 
Comprehensive 
Plan, 
the 
energy 
element had a focus on alternative 
energy development (particularly solar 
power) for resource management 
purposes. 
However, 
the 
rapid 
expansion of artificial intelligence 
(AI) and data centers has triggered 
a significant surge in electricity 
demand across the United States. 
As AI technologies become more 
sophisticated and widely adopted, they 
require immense computational power, 
usually delivered through energy-
intensive data centers. According to 
the International Energy Agency, data 
centers already consume about 1.5% 
of global electricity, and this figure is 
expected to more than double by 2030, 
surpassing the current electricity 
use of entire nations like Japan. 
Domestically, the U.S. Department 
of Energy projects that electricity 
demand from data centers could 
double or triple by 2028. This growth 
is driven by the rise of generative 
AI, cloud computing, and machine 
learning applications, all of which rely 
on high-density server farms. Utilities 
in Arizona and across the western 
states are now grappling with how to 
meet this escalating demand while 
maintaining grid reliability and future 
capacity. As a result, energy planning 
and infrastructure investment are 
becoming increasingly urgent priorities 
for high-growth regions. The County 
sees energy development supported 
through 
technological 
innovation, 
as a way to grow energy capacity to 
meet demand without further strains 
on regional resources. These efforts 
position Maricopa County as a leader 
in cost-effective energy production, 
balancing 
economic 
opportunities 
and prosperity with environmental 
stewardship.
The Energy element includes policies to promote energy 
production to meet rising demand, renewable and clean 
emission energy, energy conservation and overall more 
efficient energy use.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
202

Planning Considerations
Energy Generation Profile in the County
Maricopa County’s energy system 
is supported by a diverse mix of 
generation facilities that power one 
of the fastest-growing regions in 
the 
nation. 
Unincorporated 
areas 
host major plants fueled by nuclear, 
natural gas, hydroelectric, and solar 
sources. The distribution of these 22 
energy generation facilities is shown 
in Map 23. At the center is the Palo 
Verde Nuclear Generating Station in 
Tonopah, the largest nuclear plant in 
the United States, producing about 
31,000 
gigawatt-hours 
annually 
and serving over one million homes 
across the Southwest. Its innovative 
use of treated wastewater for cooling 
helps conserve water in Arizona’s 
arid climate. Natural gas plants in the 
County provide essential baseload and 
peak capacity, while solar facilities 
continue to expand, reflecting the 
region’s commitment to renewable 
energy and diversification.
Maricopa 
County 
also 
actively 
continues to develop its renewable 
energy 
generation 
capabilities, 
particularly focusing on solar energy 
sources. In reviewing the County’s 
Comprehensive 
Plan 
Amendment 
data, 
the 
County 
approved 
69 
Comprehensive Plan Amendments 
(CPAs) that involved a solar energy 
project between 2008 and 2023. 
The total land area for all of these 
approved CPAs is 92 square miles, 
concentrated around both the Palo 
Verde Nuclear Generating Station and 
the Harquahala Generating Facility. 
While some of these approved CPAs 
are over a decade old, not all of the 
solar 
energy 
generating 
facilities 
have made it past the finish line to 
construction. These initiatives align 
with Maricopa County’s strategy to 
support the development of renewable 
energy as a means of growing the 
overall energy generation portfolio.
Energy Development on Federal Lands  
in the County
The Bureau of Land Management released the Record of Decision (ROD) for its 
updated Western Solar Plan in 2024. This plan update guides BLM’s management 
of solar energy proposals and projects on public lands. It makes over 31 million 
acres of public lands across 11 western states available for application for 
potential solar energy development, driving development closer to transmission 
lines/corridors or on to previously disturbed lands. This plan also excludes 
sensitive areas from solar development like specially protected lands, important 
cultural resources, and critical wildlife habitat. Siting projects away from areas 
where they may conflict with other resources and uses is expected to help 
ensure responsible development, speed the permitting process, and provide 
greater predictability to the solar energy industry on BLM land. This is important 
for Maricopa County to consider since over 35% of its total area is under BLM 
management.
Land Patterns Effect on Energy Consumption
While generation capacity remains strong, energy demand is growing rapidly as 
population and land use patterns evolve. Single-family homes in master-planned 
communities drive higher electricity use for cooling and electric vehicles, 
while multi-family housing near transit offers efficiency, but it also adds to 
overall consumption. Additionally, commercial and mixed-use developments 
increase peak daytime loads, and industrial corridors are emerging as the 
most significant growth area with data centers and advanced manufacturing 
facilities now representing the fastest-growing load segment, with some 
facilities consuming 50–100 megawatts each. All these factors have created 
unprecedented challenges for infrastructure planning and underscore the need 
for a coordinated approach that links land development with energy planning.
 Chapter 12 •  ENERGY
203

Strategies 
Broad-Based Energy Development Strategy
Maricopa County is facing a dramatic rise in electricity demand, driven by rapid 
population growth, regular heatwaves, and the proliferation of energy-intensive 
technologies such as data centers, artificial intelligence, and electric vehicles. 
Experts have recently underscored the urgency of a comprehensive strategy 
to ensure that grid reliability and long-term capacity increase do not hinder 
local and regional growth plans. Extended summer heat waves beyond typical 
durations have amplified the need for dependable cooling systems, placing 
additional strain on the power grid.
To meet these challenges, Maricopa County encourages the adoption of an 
all-of-the-above energy development approach that embraces a diverse mix of 
traditional fossil fuel sources and clean emission sources, including solar, wind, 
nuclear, natural gas, and battery storage. This strategy should be supported by 
investments in transmission infrastructure by developers responsible for such 
developments, distributed generation, and energy efficiency across all sectors—
residential, commercial, and industrial. Through supporting the expansion of 
the energy produced locally and diversifying the generation types, the County 
can allow for an energy future that has the ability to manage peak loads and 
leverage technological innovation for greater efficiency in service of building 
a strong energy future that aligns with both the demands of a rapidly evolving 
technological landscape.
Energy Efficient Development
The most cost-effective way to achieve energy efficiency is at the initial planning 
and building design stages which is why Maricopa County supports innovative 
techniques that help conserve energy. Although Maricopa County reviews 
plans to determine if energy conservation is included in project design, it also 
continuously assesses its design and construction requirements to ensure they 
do not impede energy conservation. Going forward, Maricopa County could also 
consider incentives to help increase energy efficient design and construction.
Energy efficiency is also a factor in general land use planning. As energy use in 
the region continues to increase with more urban development, the County looks 
to coordinate land use patterns within its jurisdiction that can conserve energy 
consumption through shortening travel distances. 
Energy Costs
Maricopa County has no control over future rises in energy prices, but it can 
control its own expenses by practicing energy conservation in all aspects of its 
operations. It can also help reduce residential and business energy costs by 
supporting energy efficient development techniques and technologies. Maricopa 
County can also require compensatory power generation for industrial uses 
that use large amounts of energy and that the construction of infrastructure, 
long-term maintenance of that infrastructure and long-term use and demand 
generated by a development is paid for by the development itself.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
204

Maricopa County encourages the adoption of an all-of-
the-above energy development approach that embraces 
a diverse mix of traditional fossil fuel sources and clean 
emission sources, including solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, 
and battery storage.
Source: Maricopa County Office of Enterprise Technology, 2024
Map 23.   Energy Generation Facilities
 Chapter 12 •  ENERGY
205

Solar Energy Generating Facilities
With abundant sunshine and vast open and flat land, Maricopa County is seen as a 
natural leader in solar energy development. Solar power offers Maricopa County 
a promising path toward increasing the amount clean emission energy produced 
locally, but it also presents challenges that require thoughtful planning. On the 
positive side, the region’s abundant sunshine makes solar energy highly efficient 
and cost-effective, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering long-term 
energy costs. Solar installations, at both the utility-scale and residential scales, 
can diversify the energy portfolio and improve grid resilience. However, solar 
power also has limitations. It is intermittent, producing energy only when the 
sun shines, which creates a need for storage solutions or backup systems. Large 
solar farms can require a significant land mass that potentially impacts wildlife 
habitats and the natural ecology or competes with other land needs. Additionally, 
the upfront costs of solar infrastructure and the need for grid upgrades can be 
barriers to widespread adoption. Balancing these benefits and drawbacks is 
essential as solar power projects continue to develop in Maricopa County.
Planning for the eventual decommissioning of solar facilities is also becoming 
increasingly important as installations age. Decommissioning involves 
dismantling panels, responsibly managing materials, and restoring land for 
future use. Without proper planning, retired solar sites could lead to waste 
management challenges and underutilized land.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
206

BESS
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are emerging as a critical component 
of Maricopa County’s evolving energy landscape. By storing excess energy 
during low-demand periods and discharging it during peak hours, BESS reduces 
strain on generation resources and improves grid reliability. In a region where 
summer peaks are intensified by cooling needs and data center operations, 
large-scale battery storage can help stabilize the grid and support renewable 
energy integration.
By shaping where and how these facilities are introduced and reused, the County 
can support economic growth, maintain reliable service, and ensure that energy 
infrastructure evolves in a way that strengthens long-term flexibility.
Artificial Intelligence
The rapid use of artificial intelligence is transforming energy demand across 
Maricopa County. AI systems, particularly large-scale machine learning and 
language models, require substantial computational resources, resulting in 
continuous, high-intensity electricity use. As these applications expand across 
multiple sectors, this plan provides an opportunity to guide development in ways 
that strengthen the County’s energy future. By anticipating challenges such as 
grid reliability and resource management, and by establishing land use policies 
that support necessary infrastructure, Maricopa County can manage AI-driven 
growth while minimizing environmental impacts and ensuring that progress 
enhances community well-being.
Data Centers
Data centers are important to the digital economy and a major driver of Maricopa 
County’s projected energy growth, often locating in areas with reliable electricity 
and cooling resources. These requirements, along with the County’s available 
land, and lower risk of natural hazards compared to other regions, make Maricopa 
County an attractive destination for data center development. However, because 
of their high energy consumption, heat output, and need to operate continuously, 
it is estimated that data centers consume up to 50 times more electricity per 
square foot than traditional office buildings. Due to that, Arizona Public Service 
projects that by 2031, data centers will account for 55% of its total power needs, 
while the Salt River Project anticipates roughly half of its demand through 2029 
will be tied to these facilities. 
The amount of energy requested in data center development combined with the 
forecasted energy demand estimates for these facilities also raises the issue of 
increased energy rates spread across the customers of a given utility’s service 
area. The massive power demand of data centers has often forced utilities to 
invest in the expansion of power infrastructure because of these developments. 
From a planning perspective, the development and proliferation of data centers 
raises critical considerations for land use, infrastructure capacity, water demand, 
and environmental impacts that should all be a part of the approval process 
for digital infrastructure sites. The goals and policies within this plan seek to 
balance the economic benefits of such high-energy use growth and expansion 
with the protection of utility customers by ensuring that the grid remains resilient 
and accessible to all residents of Maricopa County.
 Chapter 12 •  ENERGY
207

OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance Opportunity 
by ensuring reliable and efficient 
energy access for residents and 
businesses.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals strongly reflect 
Stewardship by aligning growth 
with ecological preservation 
and practices.
PROSPERITY
These goals promote Prosperity 
by positioning Maricopa County 
for future energy development.
Goals & Policies
Energy Policies:
1.1
Maricopa County supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy that incorporates both 
traditional and alternative sources of energy to ensure that the energy supply is abundant 
and meets demand.
1.2
Maricopa County supports expanding the energy generation supply and capacity to meet 
the increased needs from future growth.
Energy Goal 1: Support enhancing the stability and the development 
of the energy grid in the region.
Goal Statement: Improving the stability and reliability of the energy grid through resilient and 
dependable energy infrastructure to support current and future regional energy needs.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
208

Energy Policies:
2.1
Maricopa County supports energy efficient design and construction of new development.
2.2
Maricopa County supports energy conservation through balanced and efficient development 
patterns where residential, commercial and employment land uses with complementary 
compatibility are proximate.
2.3
Maricopa County supports energy conservation through having new urban development 
locate in cities and towns, and in the Urban Growth Area of the County identified in this Plan.
Energy Policies:
3.1
Maricopa County supports energy conservation and emissions reduction through allowing 
new development to provide alternative transportation options or connect to existing 
alternative transportation infrastructure.
3.2
Maricopa County supports the utilization of traditional, alternative, and clean emission 
energy research and development.
Energy Goal 2: Increase energy efficiency through development 
patterns.
Goal Statement: Promoting development patterns that enhance energy efficiency is essential to 
reducing the rate of demand for new energy generation sources.
Energy Goal 3: Support energy development in the region.
Goal Statement: Encouraging the development of energy resources through investment in local 
energy projects is requisite to support growth, development, and innovation within the region.
 Chapter 12 •  ENERGY
209

3.3
Maricopa County supports the use of appropriate setbacks and buffers to residential uses 
from energy generation and/or energy storage facilities to prevent or lessen the impact 
from potential fires and other potential hazards.
3.4
Maricopa County supports developing energy infrastructure using low-impact construction 
techniques and, where feasible, siting such energy infrastructure on previously disturbed 
locations for the benefit of local wildlife (including flora and fauna).
3.5
Maricopa County supports appropriate buffers and setbacks to ecological and riparian 
habitats found along borders of significant washes and riverbanks from energy generation 
and/or storage facilities.
3.6
Maricopa County supports responsible and timely decommissioning of solar energy 
generation and battery energy storage system facilities to ensure public safety, environmental 
protection, and restoration of land to a beneficial condition.
Energy Policies:
4.1
Maricopa County supports incentive programs that promote energy efficiency where 
feasible and effective.
4.2
Maricopa County supports efforts to assist businesses and individuals with renewable 
energy options and energy conservation.
Energy Goal 4: Coordinate energy initiatives/programs in the region.
Goal Statement: Aligning energy initiatives/programs with jurisdictions both within and outside 
of Maricopa County ensures coordinated planning partnerships and viable development in the 
long-term.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
210

Chapter 12 •  ENERGY
211

13
Cost of 
Development

In This Chapter
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Planning Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Goals & Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220

ROADS
PARKS
LAW ENFORCEMENT
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Introduction
Maricopa County continues to experience some of the fastest population growth 
in the nation, bringing both opportunities and challenges. While growth supports 
economic vitality and community development, it also creates significant 
demand for new infrastructure and public services—such as roads, parks, law 
enforcement, and emergency facilities. Meeting these needs requires careful 
planning and responsible fiscal management to ensure that growth pays its fair 
share without placing undue burdens on existing residents.
Arizona law mandates that the County includes a Cost of Development element 
in the Comprehensive Plan to identify strategies for funding infrastructure and 
services necessitated by new development. This chapter outlines Maricopa 
County’s approach to balancing growth with fiscal prudence, ensuring that 
development contributes proportionately to the costs it generates. It evaluates 
funding mechanisms and provides overarching goals and policies that promote 
efficient land use, mutual cost sharing, and long-term financial stability.
By framing cost of development as a critical component of growth management, 
Maricopa County seeks to maintain a high quality of life, protect taxpayers, and 
support a robust economy while adapting to future challenges.
The Cost of Development element specifies ways to help 
ensure that new development pays its fair share towards 
the cost of additional infrastructure and services needed to 
serve new development. The Cost of Development element 
also identifies current cost sharing methods, recommends 
future cost sharing strategies, and includes ways to ensure 
reasonable application of the recommended strategies.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
214

Planning Considerations
Legal Framework
Arizona law mandates that new development contribute its fair share toward 
infrastructure and public services. However, these contributions must satisfy 
constitutional and statutory standards, including:
Rational Nexus and Rough Proportionality: Under Arizona Revised Statutes and 
U.S. Supreme Court precedents (Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz), any exaction or 
impact fee must demonstrate an essential nexus between the development and 
the public purpose served, and be roughly proportional to the impact created 
by that development. This ensures fees are not arbitrary and remain legally 
defensible. 
Due Process Protections: The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, along with 
Article 2 of the Arizona Constitution, require both procedural and substantive 
due process. Procedural due process demands transparent, consistent adoption 
processes, while substantive due process requires that cost-sharing measures 
be reasonable and not unduly oppressive. 
Takings Clause Compliance: The U.S. Constitution prohibits government from 
taking private property without just compensation. In the context of cost-
sharing, takings claims typically arise when fees lack a rational nexus or fail 
proportionality tests. 
Equal Protection: Programs must apply uniformly and avoid unjustified 
distinctions between similar developments. While absolute uniformity is not 
required, any differentiation must be relevant and defensible. 
ARS §12-1131 through §12-1138 (Private Property Rights Protection Act):  ARS 
§12-1131 through §12-1138 requires compensation if land-use regulations reduce 
property value. Although cost-sharing is not a land-use restriction per se, overly 
burdensome requirements could trigger claims under this law, necessitating 
careful review of program impacts.
Designing and implementing 
a cost-sharing program for 
new development is inherently 
complex, requiring careful 
consideration of legal, economic, 
land use, and administrative 
factors. A well-structured 
program must balance the 
need for infrastructure funding 
with protections for property 
rights, economic vitality, and 
compliance with state and 
federal law. Poorly designed 
programs risk harming the local 
economy, exacerbating housing 
affordability challenges, or 
imposing unforeseen legal and 
administrative burdens on the 
county.
 Chapter 13 •  COST OF DEVELOPMENT
215

Land Use and Growth 
Management
Inconsistent cost-sharing requirements across jurisdictions can lead to 
“jurisdiction shopping,” where developers favor areas with lower fees, resulting 
in fragmented and inefficient land-use patterns. Maricopa County should align 
its program with regional planning goals to promote orderly growth
Economics
Cost-sharing programs must avoid discouraging growth or creating imbalances 
in the local economy:
Residential vs. Non-Residential Development: Residential projects often 
generate higher service costs than tax revenues, but construction activity remains 
vital to economic health. Conversely, non-residential development diversifies the 
tax base and reduces reliance on residential property taxes. Programs should 
encourage balanced growth without incentivizing inefficient patterns. 
Competitiveness and Affordability: Excessive fees can increase housing costs 
or deter business investment. Best practices recommend conducting economic 
impact analyses and periodically adjusting fees to reflect market conditions and 
infrastructure needs.
Administrative and Lifecycle Costs
Beyond legal, growth, and economic factors, the long-term success of a cost-
sharing program depends on its administrative feasibility and ability to account 
for ongoing infrastructure needs. Implementation is not a one-time exercise; 
it requires continuous oversight, transparent processes, and adaptability to 
changing conditions. Administrative complexity can lead to inefficiencies, 
increased compliance risks, and higher operational costs if not properly managed. 
Equally important is recognizing that infrastructure obligations extend beyond 
initial construction, because facilities and services incur recurring expenses for 
maintenance, upgrades, and eventual replacement. Incorporating lifecycle cost 
analysis into program design ensures that funding strategies remain efficient 
over time, reducing the likelihood of fiscal shortfalls and deferred maintenance 
that can burden taxpayers.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
216

Strategies
Designing and implementing a fair and effective cost-sharing program is a 
complex task that requires balancing multiple priorities. Such programs must 
ensure that new development contributes proportionately to the infrastructure 
and services it demands, while avoiding unintended consequences that could 
harm the local economy, reduce housing affordability, or impose excessive legal 
and administrative burdens on the County.
A successful cost-sharing framework must be transparent, legally defensible, 
and economically efficient. It should align with state requirements for a rational 
nexus between development impacts and associated costs, while maintaining 
flexibility to adapt to changing growth patterns and market conditions. 
Additionally, the program must consider long-term fiscal implications, including 
lifecycle costs for infrastructure maintenance, and integrate strategies that 
promote efficient land use and mutual distribution of costs.
This section presents a range of funding mechanisms that can help Maricopa 
County manage growth responsibly. It identifies preferred methods for cost 
recovery, highlights best practices from recent Arizona plans, and establishes 
guiding principles to ensure that growth pays its fair share without compromising 
community well-being or economic vitality.
Funding Methods
User Fees: Maricopa County charges fees to individuals, businesses, and other 
governments that directly benefit from County services. Examples include court 
filing fees, kennel fees, park entrance fees, vital records, and probation services. 
The County’s policy is to recover the actual cost of providing these services 
while ensuring fees do not unfairly burden those most in need. All user fees are 
set by the Board of Supervisors unless otherwise directed by state law.
Property Taxes: The County may levy taxes on real and personal property 
through:
	
„ Primary Property Tax: Used to fund general obligations and special overrides.
	
„ Secondary Property Tax: Used to fund voter-approved bonds and overrides.
While a uniform tax rate is established annually, actual tax obligations vary 
based on assessed property values. Currently, Maricopa County levies only a 
primary property tax.
Excise and Special Sales Taxes: Excise taxes are locally imposed and limited in 
scope. At present, Maricopa County administers a voter-approved, temporary 
jail excise tax of one-fifth of one cent to fund detention facility construction and 
operations.
 Chapter 13 •  COST OF DEVELOPMENT
217

Intergovernmental Revenues: Maricopa County receives significant revenue 
from state programs, including:
	
„ State-Shared Sales Tax: Distributed to counties and municipalities based on 
population and other factors.
	
„ Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF): Derived from motor fuel taxes and 
allocated for transportation infrastructure.
	
„ Vehicle License Tax (VLT): Assessed annually on vehicles based on 
depreciated value.
Additional revenues may come from federal grants and intergovernmental 
agreements, though these funds often carry restrictions.
Licenses and Permits: Fees for licenses and permits—such as building permits, 
environmental health permits, and marriage licenses—help offset administrative 
costs. Rates are set by the Board unless otherwise mandated by state law.
Bond Financing: State law authorizes Maricopa County to issue bonds for capital 
projects:
	
„ General Obligation Bonds: Backed by the County’s full faith and credit.
	
„ Revenue Bonds: Repaid through specific revenue streams, such as user fees.
	
„ Special Assessment Bonds: Issued for improvements benefiting specific 
properties, repaid by those property owners.
Conditions of Approval: Conditions attached to zoning changes that require 
property owners to finance infrastructure improvements or services necessary 
for their development. This ensures mutual cost sharing and protects taxpayers.
Development Agreements: These legally binding contracts outline terms, 
conditions, and financial obligations for large-scale or master-planned 
developments. They may address land dedications, infrastructure phasing, and 
financing arrangements.
Special Tax Districts: Special districts provide services that local governments 
cannot or choose not to provide. Examples include districts for parks, libraries, 
flood control, water, sewer, and fire protection. These districts allow those 
who benefit from a service to pay for it directly, offering local control and 
accountability.
Development Fees: Development fees, also known as impact fees, are special 
charges levied on new development to cover the capital costs of infrastructure 
such as roads, parks, and public safety facilities. Fees are calculated based on 
unit type or square footage. State law limits their use to capital costs and requires 
a supporting Capital Improvement Plan. They cannot fund ongoing operations or 
maintenance. The County does not charge impact fees currently.
Other Revenue Sources: Additional funds may come from fines, forfeitures, 
concessions, land sales, and interest earnings. While not major revenue streams, 
these sources help offset specific service costs.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
218

Preferred Funding Methods
To ensure fairness and compliance with state law, Maricopa County prioritizes 
a balanced approach to funding infrastructure and services required by new 
development. 
	
„ The County relies on development agreements for large-scale projects to 
clearly define responsibilities and financial obligations between developers 
and the County. 
	
„ For targeted infrastructure improvements, community improvement districts 
are used to provide localized funding solutions that directly benefit the areas 
served. 
	
„ Additionally, intergovernmental agreements play a critical role in sharing 
costs across jurisdictions, ensuring regional collaboration for projects that 
impact multiple communities. 
	
„ Finally, fee-for-service models are implemented to recover the costs of 
regulatory oversight and permitting, maintaining fiscal responsibility while 
safeguarding public health and safety.
 Chapter 13 •  COST OF DEVELOPMENT
219

OPPORTUNITY
These goals advance Opportunity 
by promoting growth occurs in a 
financially sensible and transparent 
manner.
STEWARDSHIP
These goals reflect  
Stewardship by promoting 
responsible resource allocation.
PROSPERITY
These goals strongly support 
Prosperity by protecting the 
County’s fiscal strength and 
economic stability.
Goals & Policies
Cost of Development Policies:
1.1
Maricopa County supports continuously evaluating the preferred funding methods with 
respect to the legal, socioeconomic, land use and administrative considerations identified 
in this element, and making changes when deemed necessary.
1.2
Maricopa County supports using the traditional and preferred funding methods identified in 
this plan to offset costs of new development.
Cost of Development Goal 1: Exercise sound financial management 
and build the County’s fiscal strength.
Goal Statement: Making fiscally responsible decisions that strengthen the County’s financial 
health is needed to ensure that development projects contribute positively to the County’s fiscal 
stability.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
220

Cost of Development Policies:
2.1
Maricopa County supports the provision of clear, accurate, and accessible financial 
information related to the costs of development and to overall County operations.
Cost of Development Policies:
3.1
Maricopa County supports new development contributing its proportionate share of the 
costs of infrastructure necessary to support the demand for electric, water, sewer, and other 
services generated and necessitated by the development. 
3.2
Maricopa County supports requiring new development to contribute its proportionate share 
of long-term maintenance costs associated with the use of all new infrastructure to support 
the demand for electric, water, sewer, and other services generated and necessitated by the 
development.
3.3
Maricopa County supports requiring the provision of infrastructure, facilities, and services 
needed by new development prior to that development, either directly or through fees. Where 
appropriate, the construction of infrastructure and facilities may be phased to coincide with 
project timelines.
Cost of Development Goal 2: Ensure transparency in financial 
reporting
Goal Statement: Providing clear and accurate financial information about the County to residents 
and stakeholders is key to maintaining transparency in financial reporting that builds public trust 
and accountability.
Cost of Development Goal 3: Require that new development pays 
its proper and reasonable share of the costs of new infrastructure, 
services, and other public improvements.
Goal Statement: Ensuring that new developments contribute their proportionate share to the 
costs of infrastructure, services, and public improvements is important for reducing future 
liabilities and protecting the long-term fiscal solvency of Maricopa County.
 Chapter 13 •  COST OF DEVELOPMENT
221

14
Comprehensive 
Plan Adoption, 
Readoption, and 
Amendments

In This Chapter
Comprehensive Plan  
Adoption & Amendment Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . .224
County Area Plan Adoption & Readoption. . . . . . . .225
Amendment Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
Amendment  
Procedures (continued). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228

Comprehensive Plan  
Adoption & Amendment 
Guidelines
Prior to adopting the Comprehensive Plan or a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the County is required to 
adopt a public participation program for Comprehensive Plan adoptions that outlines coordination strategies with 
County residents. The Board of Supervisors (Board) most recently adopted the Public Participation Program in 
2000, prior to adopting the Eye to the Future 2020 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan. The Board is amending 
the Public Participation Program (Appendix III) for this current Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan to reflect 
modern practices.
ARS 11-805 sets procedural requirements associated with the adoption and readoption of the Comprehensive 
Plan as well as amendments to the Plan. Every 10 years, the County is required to adopt a new Comprehensive Plan 
or readopt the existing Comprehensive Plan by resolution. The Plan represents the official guide for development 
within the County and may be amended in whole or in part through successive actions.  
At least sixty (60) days prior to noticing the Comprehensive Plan or an element or major amendment of the Plan, 
the Planning & Zoning Commission (Commission), or staff thereof, is required to transmit a draft of the Plan for 
review and comment to the Board; each municipality within the County; each contiguous county; and federal, 
state, regional, and local agencies. Additionally, any person or entity that requests in writing to receive a review 
copy of the proposal will be included in the transmittal of the draft Plan or amendment. Review copies are now 
provided digitally.
The Commission shall hold at least one hearing as the recommending body for the Plan. Legal notice of the time 
and place of the hearing is required to be published in the newspaper of general circulation in the County seat 
and in a newspaper of general circulation in the area to be affected, or adjacent to the area to be affected, if other 
than the County seat. The County considers the Arizona Business Gazette to be the newspaper of record within 
Maricopa County which is available countywide in any potential affected or adjacent areas other than the County 
seat. Publication of the legal notice must occur between fifteen (15) and thirty (30) calendar days prior to the 
hearing date.
Following the recommendation by the Commission, the Board must also hold one public hearing on the Plan or 
amendment. Legal notice must be given at least fifteen (15) days prior and published in a newspaper of general 
circulation in the County seat.  
The Board may alter the contents of the Plan or amendment at the public hearing. However, before any change is 
made, the Board shall re-refer the portion of the proposal to be changed back to the Planning & Zoning Commission 
for a reissue of its recommendation prior for that portion to be heard for determination again by the Board. The 
adoption or readoption of the Comprehensive Plan or amendment to the Plan must be approved by at least two-
thirds of the Board or four (4) out of five (5) members.  
The Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a consistent, predictable, and transparent guide for 
making land use decisions in unincorporated areas. The goals and policies in this Plan support 
consistent and predictable decisions, but to remain relevant the Plan must be periodically 
modified to adapt to changes in State law, the environment, the economy, elected leadership 
and community priorities. Although amendments are sometimes necessary, Maricopa County 
reaffirms that any change should improve the County’s overall condition and not undermine 
the Plan’s core principles.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
224

If there is any area within County jurisdiction that is within the High Noise or Accident Potential Zone of a Military 
Airport or Ancillary Military Facility, notice must be sent to the Attorney General by certified mail with a return 
receipt requested within three (3) business days of the approval of the Plan’s adoption, readoption, or amendment 
to the Plan. The Attorney General has twenty-five (25) calendar days following notice by certified mail to issue 
a determination of compliance or non-compliance with ARS 28-8481, subsection J. If the determination is not 
given, the Comprehensive Plan is deemed in compliance. If deemed in non-compliance, the effective day of 
approval is thirty (30) days following receipt of the non-compliance notice. During this period, the Board may take 
new action altering the plan to be compliant or reaffirm the non-compliant action with the potential for civil action 
by the Attorney General.
The adopted Plan is effective for up to ten (10) years following the date the Plan is adopted or readopted. 
Readoptions are permitted prior to the tenth anniversary of the Plan’s most recent adoption. Otherwise, a new 
Comprehensive Plan is required.
If a motion to adopt or readopt fails to pass, the motion may be reconsidered, and the motion to reconsider 
must also be approved by at least two-thirds of the Board.  If Plan passage fails, the prior Comprehensive Plan 
remains in effect until a new Plan is adopted. The Board must annually consider adoption of the proposed Plan 
or consider a revised Plan.
County Area Plan Adoption & 
Readoption
An Area Plan is a plan that accounts for the unique conditions and needs of specific parts of Maricopa County. 
Arizona Revised Statutes establishes the required contents of a Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive 
Plan establishes Countywide goals and policies. While Area Plans mimic the content of a Comprehensive Plan 
by including elements, goals, policies and land use designations within the plan extent, such plans are optional. 
Area Plans and Area Plan updates are only permitted to be adopted following adoption of the initial Comprehensive 
Plan or within the effective period of the current Comprehensive Plan. If the effective period of the Comprehensive 
Plan has lapsed, an Area Plan may not be updated until a new or revised Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Area 
Plans are neither Comprehensive Plans nor Major Amendments, and therefore do not require complete adherence 
to the ARS 11-805 procedural requirements summarized in the previous section.
Criteria associated with Area Plan adoption or readoption is established within the Area Plan Program in the Land 
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.  
The adoption or readoption of an Area Plan shall be flexible in notice and public participation techniques in order 
to provide innovative outreach. However, a public hearing for consideration of adoption or readoption shall be 
noticed at least fifteen (15) days prior in the newspaper of general circulation (Arizona Business Gazette).
 Chapter 14 •  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTION, READOPTION, AND AMENDMENTS
225

Amendment Procedures
Goal and Policy Amendments - Comprehensive Plan
An amendment to change the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan may only be initiated by the 
Planning & Zoning Commission, or staff thereof, and approved by resolution by the Board of Supervisors. Such 
an amendment shall be considered for adoption in accordance with the requirements of ARS 11-805.
Goal and Policy Amendments - Area Plan
Amendments to change the goals and policies of an Area Plan may only be initiated by the Planning & Zoning 
Commission, or staff thereof, and approved by resolution by the Board of Supervisors. As with the adoptions or 
readoption of an Area Plan, notice and public participation techniques will be flexible. However, hearings shall be 
noticed at least fifteen (15) days prior in the newspaper of general circulation (Arizona Business Gazette).
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendments (including Major 
Development Master Plan Amendments)
ARS 11-805 permits the County’s Comprehensive Plan to define the criteria which determines whether a proposed 
amendment effects a substantial alteration of the County’s land use mixture or balance as established within the 
land use element of the County’s existing Comprehensive Plan.
A Major Amendment applies to changes of more than 640 contiguous gross acres and should include various 
types, densities and intensities of residential, commercial retail, office/non-retail employment, open space, and 
community land uses in a master-planned community design. However, a Major Amendment comprised of a 
single- or limited-use industrial and other large-scale employment projects may be considered eligible for a 
Major Amendment on a case-by-case basis following a pre-application meeting and subject to the discretion 
of the Zoning Inspector. A Major Amendment may also be required for a group of non-contiguous properties 
that exceed 640 gross acres aggregate if part of the same overall development at the discretion of the Zoning 
Inspector.
A Major Amendment shall comply with the requirements of ARS 11-805 as with Comprehensive Plan adoption 
and readoption. Such amendments will be evaluated for adherence to the Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
strategy, and consistency with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable Area Plan, 
if any.
The Major Amendment criteria for a Development Master Plan (DMP) is found within the DMP Guidelines. While 
obsolete, the DMP application process remains open to amendments of an existing Development Master Plan 
and for a Modification of Conditions application. Development Master Plans are not zoning, yet are considered 
a categorical feature of the Comprehensive Plan. The original intent of the Development Master Plan was to 
provide flexibility in design techniques paired with commitments associated with providing adequate facilities, 
infrastructure and amenities, and as such associated conditions are valid, enforceable, and remain in effect. 
Either an Applicant or Staff may initiate a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Major DMP Amendment.
Amendments include changes to the goals, policies and/or land use designations 
in the Comprehensive Plan or County Area Plan, and changes to previously 
approved amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or a Development Master 
Plan. All amendments are processed according to state laws and require 
approval by the Board. An amendment to the Plan initiated by the applicant is 
classified as one of the following:
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
226

General Comprehensive Plan Amendments (including Minor 
Development Master Plan Amendments)
A General Comprehensive Plan Amendment applies to changes of 640 gross acres or less. Additionally, land 
uses over 640 acres determined to be rural industrial within Step 3 of the Municipal-Rural Framework may seek 
a General Comprehensive Plan Amendment. A General Amendment is a standard amendment that must comply 
with basic State notice requirements and County public participation requirements and must be approved by 
the Board. A General Amendment will be evaluated for adherence to the Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
strategy, and consistency with the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan and the applicable Area Plan, if 
any. An Applicant or County Staff may initiate a General Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Condition(s) of Approval Modification
The County Attorney’s Office has determined that Comprehensive Plan Amendment conditions of approval are 
no longer enforceable, and may not be established for a future Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Some legacy 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment conditions may have been previously implemented in a Plan of Development 
or Zoning District Change application when referenced therein, and modifications to those conditions will occur 
under those application processes specified within the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. 
An application may be filed to change the conditions of a previously approved Development Master Plan. Notice of 
application and notice of hearing shall occur in the same manner as a General Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 
and the application shall be approved by the Board. An application for modification of conditions may be initiated 
by an Applicant or County Staff.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Waived
The Comprehensive Plan’s future land use plan map shows general land uses over large areas and not smaller area 
land uses. As such, Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications shall not be required for zoning amendment 
requests of 40 acres or fewer in size if it can be demonstrated that a preponderance of the Plan’s goals and 
policies are advanced or implemented and/or the request conforms to the existing land use designation of the 
site. An applicant’s argument for the zoning request will be evaluated by Staff prior to a hearing by the Planning 
& Zoning Commission.  
Similarly, a new permanent or semi-permanent (Special Use Permit) zoning amendment request greater than 40 
acres in size and without an appropriate land use designation, shall be required to apply for a Comprehensive 
Plan Amendment. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall not be required prior to a Temporary Use Permit 
application or any other application that does not establish permanent or semi-permanent zoning.
Designations of Private or State Land as Open Space, 
Recreation, Conservation, or Agriculture
Per ARS 11-804(E), “In applying an open space element or a growth element of a comprehensive plan, a county 
shall not designate private or state land as open space, recreation, conservation or agriculture unless the county 
receives the written consent of the landowner or provides an alternative, economically viable designation in the 
comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance, allowing at least one residential dwelling per acre.  If the landowner is 
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce this subsection, a court shall award fees and other expenses 
to the landowner.  Each county shall incorporate this subsection into its comprehensive plan and provide a 
process for a landowner to resolve discrepancies relating to this subsection.”
In the County, no process is necessary for a landowner to resolve discrepancies related to this subsection as 
all land use designations, with the exception of the land use designation of “Military Compatible,” allow for a 
minimum of one residential dwelling unit per acre.  Should a landowner wish to seek an alternative land use 
designation, the Major or General Amendment procedures within this Comprehensive Plan shall apply.
 Chapter 14 •  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTION, READOPTION, AND AMENDMENTS
227

Amendment  
Procedures (continued)
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendments, General 
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Application Deadlines, and 
Hearings. 
In accordance with state law, all Major Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Major DMP Amendments will 
be considered at a single public hearing in the calendar year that the amendment is requested. Since the 
Board considers Major Amendments at a public hearing in December, the application filing deadline for a 
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment is the last business day of May of the calendar year in which the Major 
Amendment is requested. 
It is the position of the County that the filing deadline promotes notice and proper public participation in 
accordance with state law. The deadline also provides Staff and County Officials with sufficient time for review 
of impactful land use decisions and the long-term considerations regarding potential development projects. 
No filing deadline is necessary for General Comprehensive Plan Amendments since they are considered by the 
Board throughout the calendar year.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Rights and Privileges
Comprehensive Plan Amendments do not grant any entitlement or protected development right, do not vest any 
development right, and do not confer any other rights beyond those outlined in state law. When approved by the 
Board, Comprehensive Plan Amendments do allow requests for zoning district boundary changes consistent 
with the approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Arizona Revised Statutes. and other applicable County 
requirements. 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
228

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process
Preliminary Discussion (“pre-application” meeting)
Before an official Amendment application submittal, the applicant must participate in a pre-application meeting 
or discussion with Maricopa County. The pre-application meeting determines the extent of the changes needed, 
potential issues, considerations, the Amendment process necessary to meet County requirements, and the 
submittal requirements.
Application
Once the pre-application meeting is complete, an official Amendment application submittal can occur. Submittal 
and fee requirements are included in the application packet along with information about the required public 
participation process. Applicants should carefully review these requirements to help avoid potential delays in 
processing.
Official Review
Upon receipt of the official application and fees, the County Planning and Development Department will refer 
the application to the appropriate internal and external stakeholders for review. As necessary, official review 
will also include a technical advisory committee (TAC) meeting where stakeholders will provide comments and 
recommend changes needed to meet County requirements and/or stakeholder requests. Information and details 
about the TAC meeting are provided at the pre-application meeting.
Public Hearing – Planning & Zoning Commission
Once TAC requirements are met, the Amendment application will be scheduled for a public hearing by the 
Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission (Commission), or staff thereof. Adjacent landowners, other 
stakeholders, and affected parties will be notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing based on the 
applicant’s required site posting and notice in a newspaper of general circulation (Arizona Business Gazette). 
(Note: Additional information about site posting and other notification requirements is available in Maricopa 
County’s Public Participation Program in Appendix III). If the Commission makes a recommendation of approval 
or denial of the application, the Amendment application will be transmitted to the Board for final consideration 
and action.
Public Hearing – Board of Supervisors
As the governing body for land use decisions in unincorporated areas, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 
is responsible for making a final determination of approval or denial of the Amendment application. Notice of 
Board hearing is provided in the same manner as the Commission hearing. The Board may either accept or 
reject the Commission’s recommendation. If the Board approves the Amendment application, it is effective 
immediately. The applicant is thereafter responsible for meeting any required conditions of approval.
 Chapter 14 •  COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTION, READOPTION, AND AMENDMENTS
229

A
Appendices

In These Appendices
Appendix I: Glossary of Defined Terms. . . . . . . . . . .232
Appendix II: Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
Appendix III: Public Participation Program. . . . . . . .244

Appendix I: Glossary of Defined 
Terms
The following glossary of defined terms are intended to help readers and users of the Framework 2040 Comprehensive 
Plan interpret and implement its content, policies, and recommendations. These definitions are considered applicable only 
to this Comprehensive Plan and should not necessarily be used in any other capacity. Readers are encouraged to seek 
additional information on any of these concepts and terms if needed.
100-year Floodplain: A high risk area that is susceptible to a one percent chance of experiencing a 100-year flood event 
in any given year. The amount of water needed to create a 100-year flood event varies by location.
Acre-feet: A measure of volume equal to the amount of water that is needed to cover one acre of land to a depth of one 
foot (one acre-foot = 325,851 gallons).
Active Management Area (AMA): Portions of the state identified in the Arizona Groundwater Code as being heavily reliant 
on groundwater use. Groundwater in such areas is managed to achieve a safe yield, meaning no more groundwater is 
withdrawn than is annually being replaced.
Aggregates (or Aggregate Resources): A category of raw material such as sand, gravel and stone that is used to make 
concrete and asphalt.
Alternative Designation of Assured Water Supply (ADAWS): An ADWR rule implemented in 2024 that allows for a new 
regulatory pathway for municipal water providers (both municipalities and utilities) to demonstrate a 100-year water 
supply using more flexible criteria than the traditional DAWS process.
Alternative Transportation: Modes of travel other than private cars such as walking, bicycling, carpooling and mass 
transit.
Ancillary Military Facilities: In Maricopa County this includes Auxiliary Airfield #1 located in the city of Surprise, and the 
Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Airfield located south of the town of Gila Bend.
Aquifer: An underground geological formation containing saturated materials capable of storing water that can be 
extracted via a well.
Area Drainage Master Studies and Plans: Prepared by the Maricopa County Flood Control District, these studies and 
plans identify and recommend strategies to mitigate flood hazards in specific watersheds of Maricopa County.
Area of Jurisdiction: The portion of the County outside the corporate limits of any municipality.
Area of Municipal Influence: A categorization of land in Maricopa County that is comprised of all unincorporated land 
that falls within the current limits of either a Municipal Planning Area, within a County Island, or within an Improvement 
Association. Unincorporated land under this category can be determined to be in the Urban Growth Area or in the Rural 
Service Area.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
232

Area of Rural Influence: A categorization of land in Maricopa County that is comprised of all unincorporated land not in 
the Area of Municipal Influence.
Area Plan: A subcategory of Framework 2040, these are specific plans for particular areas or regions of Maricopa County..
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR): State agency responsible for helping protect and ensure long-term, 
reliable water supplies.
Arizona Fire & Medical Authority (AFMA): A regional fire and emergency medical services organization that provides 
shared fire protection, emergency medical response, and related public safety services across three fire districts in 
unincorporated Maricopa County—North County Fire & Medical District, South County Fire & Medical District, and 
Buckeye Valley Fire District.
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS): The state laws of Arizona.
Arizona State Land Department (ASLD): State agency responsible for managing State Trust lands within Arizona.
Arizona Water Banking Authority: A system where Colorado River water is stored primarily in underground aquifers for 
use in times of shortage.
Arterial Road: A major route that carries moderate to high levels of traffic regionally. Arterial roads are normally located 
at one-mile intervals.
Artificial Intelligence (AI): The capability of machines to mimic human cognitive functions enabling them to perform 
tasks requiring humanlike intelligence, often by processing vast amounts of data to find patterns, generate insights, or 
create new content.
Assured Water Supply (AWS): The program operating within Arizona’s seven Active Management Areas designed to 
preserve groundwater resources and promote long-term water supply planning through requiring proof of a 100‑year 
renewable water supply before residential subdivision approval.
Basic Sector: Businesses and industries that export most or all of their products or services, thus creating new incomes 
and new spending power in the economy of their country or region of origin.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Part of the U.S. Department of Interior, this is the federal agency responsible for 
sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s 245 million acres of public lands, and for managing public 
lands and public land resources for a variety of uses.
Capital Improvement Program: A five-year plan that identifies funding priorities for infrastructure and services needed 
to serve the public. 
 Appendix I: GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS 
233

Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD): A division of the Central Arizona Project created to 
help landowners and water providers within the Phoenix, Pinal, and Tucson AMAs comply with the state’s groundwater 
laws, primarily through replenishing groundwater that has been pumped by its members for them to meet the AWS 
requirements for development.
Central Arizona Project (CAP): Steward of central Arizona’s Colorado River water entitlement and delivery.
Certificate of Assured Water Supply (CAWS): Document issued by the Arizona Department of Water Resources which 
confirms that a water supply will be physically, legally and continuously available for the next 100 years for individual 
subdivisions or developments. 
Clean Air Act: Federal law first enacted in 1970 that authorizes the establishment of regulations limiting stationary and 
mobile sources of air pollution.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): A program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
which helps fund local community development activities.
Compliance Assurance (model): A system of methods used by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department to increase 
air quality compliance rates and remove incentives for non-compliance.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Changes to Maricopa County’s Comprehensive Plan or Area Plans.
County Island: Unincorporated area completely surrounded by one or more incorporated municipalities or Native 
American Community.
Data Center: A dedicated facility often necessitating robust electricity for power, cooling, and security infrastructure to 
house computer systems, servers, and networking equipment for storing, processing, and distributing large amounts of 
data for digital services like cloud computing, streaming, and artificial intelligence.
Density: A numerical average of the number of people or dwelling units per unit of land (e.g. a population density of 200 
people per square mile; a residential density of 4 houses per acre).
Designation of Assured Water Supply (DAWS): Document issued by the Arizona Department of Water Resources which 
confirms that a water supply will be physically, legally and continuously available for the next 100 years for municipal 
water providers (both municipalities and utilities).
Development Agreement: A contract between Maricopa County and a property owner or developer which establishes 
funding and operational responsibilities for infrastructure and services.
Development Master Plan: A long-range planning tool historically used to guide large-scale, master-planned communities 
or developments in unincorporated areas that establishes land use, infrastructure, and phasing strategies to ensure 
timed and orderly growth.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
234

Dust Abatement Program: A MCDOT-administered plan to reduce air pollution (from PM10) primarily by paving roads.
Emergency Response: Safety response from law enforcement, as well as fire and emergency medical services, to 
appropriate incidents or calls.
Entitlement: The right to develop and use land based on the established zoning district and, as applicable, plan for 
development.
Firebreak: An area of cleared or plowed land intended to stop the spread of a wildfire.
Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to 
efficiently carry and discharge flood waters.
Framework (or Municipal-Rural Influence Framework): A planning model developed by Maricopa County that categorizes 
unincorporated land into either the Area of Municipal Influence or the Area of Rural Influence in order to facilitate the 
County’s processes for evaluating the feasibility of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Zoning District Change.
General Plan: A plan that is similar to a comprehensive plan, but is prepared by and for cities and towns.
Greater Maricopa Foreign Trade Zone: A federally designated trade zone serving Western Maricopa County that provides 
businesses with customs and tax advantages to encourage international commerce.
Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC): A public-private partnership group that works to attract quality businesses 
to the Greater Phoenix region from around the world, and that advocates for improving this region’s competitiveness.
Hazard Mitigation Plan: The plan that identifies natural hazards, assesses vulnerability and risks to people and structures, 
and identifies and implements strategies for mitigating the identified natural hazards.
High Noise or Accident Potential Zone (HNAPZ): Defined by state law, in Maricopa County this includes all areas within 
the noise contours and accident potential zones of Luke Air Force Base and the ancillary military facilities.
Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF): A fund consisting of fees and charges relating to the registration and operation 
of motor vehicles on Arizona highways which are distributed to cities, towns, counties and the State Highway Fund for 
highway construction, improvements and related expenses.
Hillside Development: Any development that occurs on land with a slope, or grade, of 15% or greater over a horizontal 
distance of 100 feet.
HOME Investment Partnership Program: The largest federal block grant program in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to 
creating affordable housing for low-income households. It is administered by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) and provides flexible funding to states and local governments. 
 Appendix I: GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS 
235

Improvement Association: A non-profit homeowners’ association to represent residents of a particular community 
within unincorporated Maricopa County in the management of common interests and coordination of infrastructure and 
neighborhood improvements.
Industrial Development Authority of Maricopa County (IDAMC): A political subdivision of Arizona whose mission is to 
create and maintain jobs within Maricopa County and to assist County residents through financing affordable single- and 
multi-family housing.
Industry Cluster: A geographic concentration of competing, collaborating and interdependent businesses, suppliers and 
associated institutions in a common industry sector that helps increase business productivity.
Land Subsidence: The gradual settling or sinking of the Earth’s surface due to natural processes or human activities, 
most often caused by groundwater withdrawal, mining, or soil compaction. 
Land Use Transition: A change in land use pattern to or from a more intense land use such as a commercial or industrial, 
from or to a less intense land use like residential.
Leapfrog Development: Growth that occurs well beyond existing development and which is separated by a substantial 
amount of vacant land.
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG): An organization consisting of local governments that serves as a regional 
planning agency for the Phoenix metropolitan area, and that convenes to make policy decisions for transportation, air 
quality, water quality, and human services.
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT): Maricopa County agency responsible for planning, designing, 
constructing, and maintaining roads in unincorporated areas.
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO): The primary set of land use regulations adopted by the Maricopa County 
Board of Supervisors. It establishes zoning districts, development standards, and administrative procedures to guide 
growth; protect public health, safety, and general welfare; and ensure orderly development across unincorporated areas 
of the County.
Master-Planned Community: A wholly and deliberately planned, relatively autonomous community consisting of 
residential, non-residential, recreational and public land uses.
Mixed-Use: A single building that contains more than one type of use, or a development that combines several different 
but complementary types of residential, commercial, civic and business uses on a single parcel or area.
Mobile Home: A home placed on a permanent chassis that is capable of being moved to the site it is to be located.
Multi-Family Residential: Development that consists of multiple and separate residential units that are contained within 
a single building or group of buildings on one lot or parcel. Such housing typically includes duplexes, condominiums, 
townhouses and apartment buildings. 
Multimodal (transportation): A combination of two or more methods of transporting people and goods. 
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
236

Municipal Planning Area: Unincorporated area that has been identified by a particular municipality for potential 
annexation with the consent of a majority property owners.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): A requirement of the federal Clean Air Act, limits set by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency with respect to specific air pollutants.
Non-Basic Sector: Businesses and industries that sell their products or services within a community, and thus, are 
dependent upon local economic conditions since existing money is recirculated locally.
Non-Potable (Water): Water that is not of drinking water quality but can be used for industrial production, irrigation, 
cooling towers, and other applications not involving human consumption.
Ozone: A colorless, odorless gas formed by reactions with pollutants and found most often in hot, stagnant weather.
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station: Nuclear power plant in west-central Maricopa County that annually generates 
approximately 29,000 gigawatt hours of power.
Parcel: A legally recognized, continuous plot of land usually resulting from the division of a larger land area.
Particulate Matter: Air pollutants that vary in size and composition (solid or liquid droplets) and which originate from 
stationary sources like power plant and industrial processes, from mobile sources like diesel vehicles, and naturally from 
dust and soil.
Personal Property: Privately owned items that are movable and not affixed to land such as vehicles, watercraft, furniture, 
collectibles, etc.
Phasing Plan: A deliberate and incremental plan for development based on appropriate sequences and timeframes.
Public Improvement: Infrastructure or service financed by Maricopa County that is for the benefit or use by the general 
public.
Public Water System: Any water system with at least fifteen service connections, or any system that regularly serves an 
average of at least twenty-five people daily for at least sixty days a year.
Quality of Life: The social, economic, environmental and physical well-being that an area offers individuals.
Real Property: Buildings, structures, and anything else affixed to land that is not considered movable, including the land 
itself.
 Appendix I: GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS 
237

Renewable Energy: An unlimited source of energy that is naturally regenerated over a short time period, including 
sunlight, wind, rain, tides and waves and geothermal heat.
Renewable Water: Water from sources like rivers, streams and lakes that are continuously and frequently replenished.
Rural Development: Agriculture-related and residential land uses with a density of one dwelling unit or less per gross 
acre.
Rural Development Area: Any unincorporated land designated for rural land use in the Comprehensive Plan or in the 
respective County Area Plan. 
Rural Industrial Land Uses: Activities and facilities that are appropriate for rural or sparsely developed contexts due 
to their need for large land areas, operational characteristics, limited reliance on external urban services, or potential 
incompatibility with urban and suburban settings. Developments of this manner typically generate minimal demand 
for public infrastructure and are best situated where land availability and separation from residential or commercial 
development can be maintained. These uses could include, but are not limited to, electric generating and distribution 
facilities, proving grounds and test facilities, mining and extraction operations, and agriculturally-oriented businesses.
Rural Service Area: Any part of the unincorporated area that is both outside of an Area Plan and the Urban Growth 
Area characterized by low-density land use, limited infrastructure, and a strong emphasis on preserving open space, 
agricultural operations, and the rural lifestyle. 
Scalloped Streets: Roads with uneven and irregular widths.
Scenic Corridor: A designated area along key highways or roadways meant to preserve natural views, desert landscapes, 
and community character.
Single-family Residential: Development consisting of separate or free-standing residential dwellings individually 
intended for occupancy by just one household or family.
Special District: Government unit that is separate and independent from a general purpose government, like a municipality 
or county, that exists to provide a specific service not provided by a general purpose government. 
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO): A division of Arizona State Parks, it provides assistance in identifying, 
evaluating, protecting, and enhancing historic and archaeological properties that have significance for local communities, 
the State of Arizona, or the Nation. 
State Implementation Plan (SIP): Cumulative record of all air pollution strategies, state statutes, state rules and local 
ordinances implemented in accordance with the federal Clean Air Act by government agencies in Arizona.
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP): The five-year planned roadway systems improvements for Maricopa County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
238

Transportation System Plan (TSP): Maricopa County’s long-range plan for transportation.
Unincorporated: Areas not within a city or town.
Urban Development: Commercial and industrial land uses as well as residential land uses with a density greater than 
one dwelling unit per gross acre.
Urban Growth Area: Any unincorporated land designated for urban land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the respective 
County Area Plan, or an applicable municipal general plan if the requirements of the USUD strategy can be satisfied and 
timely assurance of annexation can be obtained. Unincorporated land designated for rural land use in the Comprehensive 
Plan or a County Area Plan could also be considered the Urban Growth Area if that land is designated for urban land use 
in an applicable municipal general plan, provided that the requirements of the USUD umbrella policy can be satisfied and 
an assurance of annexation can be obtained to avoid forming new County Islands.
Urban/Rural Interface Area: Areas where urban- and rural-type land uses are adjacent to or intermixed with one another
Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD): A Maricopa County planning strategy to evaluate new urban development 
predicated on clearly demonstrating that urban services and infrastructure are available to serve new residents and 
businesses. This evaluation is deemed vital in order to prevent the creation of new County Islands, create fiscally and 
environmentally efficient development, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Vehicle License Tax (VLT): A state tax charged in lieu of a personal property tax on vehicles.
“Wildcat” Lot Split: The unregulated division of one land parcel into five or fewer separate parcels. Collections of these 
“wildcat” lot splits, repeated in a large parcel or area, can lead to a de facto “wildcat” subdivision. “Wildcat” subdivisions 
are not subject to local subdivision regulations or related health and safety requirements.
Wildlife Corridor: A known area that connects fragmented habitats, allowing animals to move safely between them for 
feeding, breeding, and migration.
Workforce Development Division (WDD): A division of the Human Services Department providing comprehensive 
employment and training services to adult and youth job seekers, as well as support for employers across the County. 
Zoning District Boundary Change: A change to the boundary of a zoning district which results in property transferring 
from one zoning district to another.
 Appendix I: GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS 
239

Appendix II: Acronyms
The following acronyms are intended to help readers and users of the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan interpret 
and implement its content, policies, and recommendations. These definitions are considered applicable only to this 
Comprehensive Plan and should not necessarily be used in any other capacity. Readers are encouraged to seek additional 
information on any of these concepts and terms if needed.
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
ADAWS – Alternative Designation of Assured Water Supply
ADEQ – Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADOT – Arizona Department of Transportation
ADWR – Arizona Department of Water Resources
AF – Acre-Feet
AFB – Air Force Base
AFMA – Arizona Fire & Medical Authority
AI – Artificial Intelligence
ALCP – Arterial Lifecyle Program
AMA – Active Management Area
APZ – Accident Potential Zone
ARS – Arizona Revised Statutes
ASLD – Arizona State Land Department
ATP – Active Transportation Plan
AWS – Assured Water Supply
AZGFD – Arizona Game and Fish Department
BESS – Battery Energy Storage System
BLM – Bureau of Land Management
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
240

Board – Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
BOR – Bureau of Reclamation
CAGRD – Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District
CAP – Central Arizona Project
CAWS – Certificate of Assured Water Supply
CDBG – Census Designated Block Grant
Commission – Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission
CPA – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CV – Connected Vehicles
CWPP – Community Wildlife Protection Plan
DAWS – Designation of Assured Water Supply
DMP – Development Master Plan
EOP – Emergency Operations Plan
FCD – Flood Control District
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA – Federal Highway Administration
Framework – Municipal-Rural Influence Framework
GMFTZ – Greater Maricopa Foreign Trade Zone
GPEC – Greater Phoenix Economic Council
HNAPZ – High Noise and Accident Potential Zone
HOME – HOME Investment Partnership Program
HUD – United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
HURF – Highway User Revenue Funding
 Appendix II: ACRONYMS
241

I-11 – Interstate 11
ICS – Incident Command System
IGA – Intergovernmental Agreement
INA – Irrigation Non-Expansion Area
ITS – Intelligent Transportation Systems
JPA – Joint Powers Authority
LOS – Level of Service
Loop 303 – State Route Loop 303
MAG – Maricopa Association of Governments
MC 85 – Maricopa County Road 85
MCAQD – Maricopa County Air Quality Department
MCDOT – Maricopa County Department of Transportation
MCESD – Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
MCIDA – Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority
MCPRD – Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department
MCSO – Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
MCZO – Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance
MPA – Metropolitan Planning Area
NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NFA – Neighborhood Facilities Assessment
PM2.5 – Fine Particulate Matter
PM10 – Coarse Particulate Matter
PSA – Public Service Announcement
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
242

RAZ – Regional Analysis Zone
RDM – Roadway Design Manual
ROD – Record of Decision
SHPO – State Historical Preservation Office
SIP – State Implementation Program
SR 30 – State Route 30
TAC – Technical Advisory Committee
TIP – Transportation Improvement Plan
TSP – Transportation System Plan
US – United States
USFS – United States Forest Service
USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USUD – Urban Solutions for Urban Development
VLT – Vehicle Licensing Tax
WDD – Workforce Development Division
WIOA – Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
WUI – Wildland-Urban Interface
 Appendix II: ACRONYMS
243

Appendix III: Public Participation 
Program
County Initiated Planning
Purpose
Public participation is an important component of successful planning. Citizens need and deserve ongoing communication 
regarding projects and issues that affect their communities. Through these public participation guidelines, Maricopa 
County demonstrates its commitment to encouraging early and meaningful citizen input during creation and amendment 
of the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan. Such participation will help Maricopa County resolve concerns early in the 
planning process, and promote goodwill between county officials, citizens, property owners, and other stakeholders.
Guiding Principles
The public participation program follows several principles that help ensure planning efforts identify and respond to 
public issues and concerns. These principles are:
	
„ A sound public involvement plan is critical to the success of any planning process. It must include techniques to share 
information and create lines of communication among interested parties.
	
„ Citizen participation must be a genuine effort to encourage public involvement in the decision-making process by 
providing public participation opportunities.
	
„ Information must be disseminated to a broad range of interested parties. This could be achieved through public notices, 
newsletters, flyers, telephone hotline, newspaper articles, the Internet, and/or other events. Participation opportunities 
should occur through public workshops, informational meetings, surveys, or other means.
	
„ An effective public involvement process must address issues that arise when planning recommendations do not 
adequately consider the concerns of the residents affected.
	
„ By hearing what the public expects and responding in the most effective, efficient way possible, an agency will gain 
respect and support for its decisions and their implementation.
Compliance with State Law
Arizona Revised Statutes §11-806D states that “The Board of Supervisors shall:
	
„ Adopt written procedures to provide effective, early, and continuous public participation in the development the 
Comprehensive Plan and any Major Amendment from all geographic, ethnic and economic areas of the County. The 
procedures shall provide for:
	ƒ The broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives
	ƒ The opportunity for written comments
	ƒ Public hearings after effective notice
	ƒ Open discussions, communication programs and information services
	ƒ Consideration of public comments
	
„ Consult and advise with public officials and agencies, municipalities, school districts, associations of governments, 
public land management agencies, other appropriate government jurisdictions, public utility companies, civic, 
educational, professional and other organizations property owners and citizens generally to secure the maximum 
coordination of plans and to indicate properly located sites for all public purposes on the plan.”
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
244

Roles and Responsibilities
Maricopa County officials and staff shall be responsible for administering the public participation program. Ongoing 
duties will include, but not be limited to, the following:
	
„ Assist with preparation of public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
	
„ Organize and oversee public meetings, focus groups, workshops, and other communication networks.
	
„ Organize and support planning advisory committees.
	
„ Develop and maintain a dedicated email address and website to disseminate information and receive public 
comments.
	
„ Assist with preparation and dissemination of press releases, public service announcements,and advertisements.
	
„ Prepare and disseminate planning information articles for business, civic, homeowners’ association, and other 
group newsletters and publications.
Process
The public participation process for county-initiated efforts to adopt, amend, or 
otherwise revise the Comprehensive Plan shall consist of several stages.
Stage 1: Notification and Education
This stage will introduce comprehensive and area plan updates to the public and 
explain what specific activities the County will undertake. Maricopa County will 
also explain to citizens the planning process, as well as how they can participate.
Stage 2: Participation and Input
Stage 2 represents the period when significant citizen participation takes place. 
Most of the techniques discussed in the Public Participation Methods section 
will be used in Stage 2 to obtain meaningful and significant public input in a plan 
update process. Although Stage 2 is designed to receive and assemble citizen 
questions, comments, and suggestions, Maricopa County will continue with 
Stage 1 efforts to notify citizens about opportunities for participation.
Stage 3: Public Hearing Notification
Notification of efforts to adopt, amend, or otherwise change land use plans will 
be published at least 15 days prior to the scheduled public hearing. Requests will 
be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with state law.
Stage 4: Public Hearing
Stage 4 represents the process when public hearings are held. Legally required 
public hearings before the Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission 
and the Board of Supervisors are held on a routine basis. These public hearings 
give residents an opportunity to publicly express opinions and ideas regarding 
county-initiated plan updates. Formal notification of public hearings is provided 
according to applicable state and County regulations.
Stage 5: Plan Implementation & Summary Report
Figure 21.  Public 
Participation Process: 
County Initiated-Planning
 Appendix III: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
245

Public Participation Methods
Maricopa County can use many techniques to ensure the broadest possible 
citizen participation. However, the effectiveness of each of these techniques is 
determined, in part, by the unique circumstances of specific planning efforts. While 
not all methods may be practical or feasible for each project, Maricopa County will 
use as many as possible to encourage significant participation and to ensure that 
the guiding principles of this program are maintained.
Although this list identifies many of the options that Maricopa County can use 
to ensure program success, there may be others that, when feasible, might be 
appropriate.
Press Releases and Public Service Announcements (PSA):
Notifications regarding proposed projects will be sent to newspapers and other 
media with general circulation in the subject areas. Press releases and PSAs 
will describe proposed projects and how citizens can participate in the planning 
process. Planning Department staff, with the assistance of Maricopa County 
Communications Office, shall prepare and distribute press releases and PSAs 
during each stage.
Maricopa County Webpage or Dedicated Plan Webpage:
Maricopa County currently has a web page that is frequently updated with 
important information. The Planning and Development Department will publish 
and update information regarding county-initiated planning efforts on its website 
or a dedicated plan website. This information will describe proposed projects, 
identify important dates in the process, and explain how citizens can participate 
in the input process.
Email:
For those interested in receiving information via email, Maricopa County will develop 
and maintain a database of email addresses to which planning information will 
be distributed. However, only those individuals and groups specifically requesting 
information by email will be added to the database. In addition, the Planning and 
Development Department will establish and maintain a dedicated email address in 
order to receive citizen comments and recommendations.
Public Meetings:
To provide opportunities for open dialogue, Maricopa County will organize 
and participate in public meetings. Public meetings, which can occur as open 
houses, workshops, and focus groups, are widely recognized as an important and 
effective method of community outreach because they give citizens an informal 
opportunity to ask questions of county staff, as well as provide recommendations 
and suggestions regarding plan updates. Public meetings also promote goodwill 
between citizens and Maricopa County.
All public meetings will be organized and managed by County staff. When feasible, 
elected and appointed officials should attend and participate in a leadership 
capacity. Also where feasible, a multimedia approach will be used to further clarify 
information and promote greater participation. Depending on meeting format, 
advanced notification can be provided through both print media and direct mailing 
to potential stakeholders.
In keeping with historic County policy, alternative format materials, sign language 
interpreter, and infrared listening devices can be provided with a minimum 72-hour 
advance notice.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
246

Surveys:
Surveys can be very effective at gathering citizen comments and opinions regarding specific issues. When feasible, 
County staff will produce and mail, email, or fax surveys to potentially affected stakeholders. County staff will also 
distribute surveys at public meetings. On all surveys, Maricopa County will provide a return mailing address, email 
address, web site address, and telephone and fax numbers.
Newsletters & EBlasts:
Newsletters will allow county staff to share progress on planning projects, as well as provide a forum for citizens to 
express opinions. Articles regarding significant planning issues will also be submitted to community, business, and 
trade organization newsletters as a way to increase information dissemination.
Advisory Committees:
For large-scale planning efforts, Maricopa County will use advisory committees. Committee participants become 
directly involved in the planning process by agreeing to meet frequently to carefully review documents and provide 
recommendations. Such committees will consist of potential stakeholders that have an interest in the affected areas. 
Advisory committees will vary in size depending on the specific project, but will generally not exceed 15 members. 
Maricopa County staff will provide administrative support to committees, and committee membership will be based 
upon recommendations from the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors (or staff thereof).
Public Hearings (Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors):
As required by state law, the Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors periodically 
hold public hearings regarding planning issues. Planning & Zoning Commission hearings are held in accordance with 
a published schedule typically on the first and third Thursday of each month.  Board of Supervisors hearings are held 
in accordance with an adopted and published schedule typically on the first and third Wednesday of each month. 
Citizens are encouraged to attend and express their opinions in a formal setting.
Applicant Initiated Comprehensive Plan 
Amendments (including Development Master Plan 
Amendments)
Purpose
Public participation is an important component of successful planning. Citizens need and deserve ongoing 
communication regarding projects and issues that affect their communities. Through these adopted public 
participation guidelines, Maricopa County demonstrates its commitment to ensuring that applicants pursue early and 
meaningful citizen input in applications for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Development Master Plan. Such 
participation will help an applicant resolve concerns early in the process, and promote goodwill between the applicant, 
county officials, citizens, property owners, and other stakeholders. While these guidelines establish a formal process 
for citizen participation, applicants are by no means precluded from incorporating additional elements into their public 
participation program.
Public involvement might increase the time and cost of the planning process, but it can yield greater returns since the 
outcome will be based on the expressed needs of the public it serves. While the citizen participation program may not 
produce complete consensus regarding specific applications, it will encourage applicants to make sound investment 
and planning decisions by listening to and, where feasible, addressing the concerns of their neighbors.
 Appendix III: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
247

Guiding Principles
The public participation program follows several principles that help ensure 
planning efforts obtain sufficient public input and support. These principles 
are:
	
„ A sound public involvement plan is critical to the success of any planning 
process. It must include techniques to share information and create lines 
of communication between interested parties.
	
„ Citizen participation must be a genuine effort to encourage public 
involvement in the decision-making process by providing public 
participation opportunities.
	
„ Information must be disseminated to a broad range of stakeholders. This 
could be achieved through public notices, newsletters, flyers, telephone 
hotline, newspaper articles, the Internet, and/or other events. Participation 
opportunities should occur through public workshops, informational 
meetings, surveys, or other means.
	
„ An effective public involvement process must address issues that arise 
when planning recommendations do not adequately consider the concerns 
of the residents affected.
	
„ By hearing what the public expects and responding in the most effective, 
efficient way possible, an applicant will be respected and supported for 
their decisions.
Process
The public participation process for applicant-initiated Comprehensive Plan 
Amendments shall consist of several stages. At a minimum, the citizen 
participation program must provide the following information:
	
„ A description of the community involvement area.
	
„ A list of stakeholders that may be affected by the application. While 
individual circumstances will vary, stakeholders include residents, property 
owners, homeowners’ associations, and any others identified within an 
area agreed upon by the applicant and the Planning and Development 
Department. The applicant should also include a description of how 
and when the identified stakeholders will be notified that an application 
for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Development Master Plan 
Amendment has been submitted (proof of notification must be included 
with the formal application).
	
„ A description of how the applicant will make information available to 
interested parties, prior to public hearings.
	
„ A description of how the applicant will identify stakeholder’s issues and 
concerns.
	
„ A description of how the applicant will respond to stakeholder’s feedback 
and recommendations.
	
„ A discussion of how the applicant will keep the Maricopa County Planning 
and Development Department informed of public participation program 
progress.
	
„ A timeline for the citizen participation program.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
248

Stage 1: Pre-Application Meeting
Prior to submitting a formal application, an applicant is required to participate in a pre-application meeting with 
Planning and Development Department staff. Pre-application meetings allow applicants to become familiar with the 
planning process, and also enable the applicant to obtain guidance with the requirements of the public participation 
program.
Stage 2: Official Application
Along with the official application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the applicant must submit an official copy 
of the citizen participation plan. Official copies must be submitted in an electronic format. In the citizen participation 
plan, the applicant must present evidence that the identified stakeholders have been notified of the application. The 
applicant will maintain a database of the stakeholders and a log of notifications to stakeholders. 
Additionally, a notice of application shall be sent by the applicant to each real property owner as shown on the last 
assessment of the property within 300’ of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Stage 3: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting
In accordance with an established timeline, staff will schedule the application for review by TAC and notify the applicant 
of the actual date and time that the TAC meeting will take place. In addition to reviewing the application, the applicant 
may also be asked to provide a verbal report concerning the progress of the public participation plan.
Stage 4: Submit Public Participation Program Results
Prior to Maricopa County providing official notice of public hearing, the applicant must submit a written report which 
details the results of the public participation program. This report shall include at least the following information:
RECORD OF APPLICANT ACTIVITIES
	
„ The dates, times, and/or locations of:
	ƒ All meetings the applicant initiated with stakeholders.
	ƒ Other contacts with affected stakeholders.
	
„ Description of the approximate number of people that participated in the public participation process, and where 
they are located in relation to the subject property.
	
„ Discussion of the results of the public participation process. This discussion should include information about the 
major issues and concerns identified by stakeholders, how the applicant will address the concerns or issues raised 
by affected stakeholders, and what concerns or issues the applicant cannot or will not address and why.
	
„ Appendix of information, including mailings, fliers, newsletters, handouts, and other pertinent materials that help 
describe the public participation program.
Stage 5: Public Hearing Notification
For a major Comprehensive Plan Amendment application, the applicant will post notification of an application at the 
subject property via signs within 30 days of application and post hearing dates on existing application notification 
signs at the subject property in accordance with staff posting deadlines and at least 15 days prior to the scheduled 
public hearing. A minimum of two posters is required on the subject property, with at least one notice for each quarter 
mile of frontage along the perimeter public right-of-way. An assigned planner may alter the location of required sign 
posting and/or reduce the number of required signs if the purpose is to ensure effective public participation and 
awareness.  The number of signs may be reduced, if, in the assigned planner’s opinion, such signs will have little to 
no benefit to the outreach process. The property shall be posted with at least two signs, the size of which shall be 
consistent with Staff’s current sign size requirements (at least 6 square feet in area) and included in the application 
packet. The signs shall be designed to accommodate the posting for the required public hearings of both the Planning 
& Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 
 Appendix III: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
249

The applicant shall notify all of the stakeholders identified in the public participation program of the public hearings by 
first-class mail. Additionally, a notice of hearing shall be sent by the applicant to each real property owner as shown on 
the last assessment of the property within 300’ of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendments will be published 15 days prior to the scheduled public hearing. 
Requests will be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with state law. In addition, the Planning 
and Development Department retains the right to use supplemental meetings, such as neighborhood meetings or 
open houses, for projects as deemed necessary.
Stage 6: Public Hearing
Pursuant to state law, public hearings before the county Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors 
are held on a routine basis. These public hearings give residents an opportunity to formally express opinions 
regarding a Comprehensive Plan Amendment application or a Development Master Plan Amendment application. 
Formal notification of these public hearings is provided according to the guidelines noted in Stage 5: Public Hearing 
Notification.
Planning & Zoning Commission hearings are held in accordance with a published schedule typically on the first 
and third Thursday of every month. The Board of Supervisors hearings are held in accordance with an adopted and 
published schedule typically on the first and third Wednesday of every month. Public hearings before the Planning & 
Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors are required for every Comprehensive Plan Amendment application.
Figure 22.  Public Participation Process: Comprehensive Plan Amendments & 
Development Master Plan Amendments
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
250

Contact Agency
If any applicant or resident has questions concerning this program, they are 
requested to contact Maricopa County at the following address:
Maricopa County Planning and Development Department  
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
Telephone: (602) 506-3301
 Appendix III: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
251

MARCH 2025 
VISION REPORT

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
2  
 
VISION REPORT 
Overview  
Maricopa County is updating its Comprehensive Plan to develop a long-term strategy for the county that 
will guide decision making on unincorporated lands over the next 20 years. This includes guidance on 
where we locate housing and jobs, how we support our natural environment and systems, as well as 
where we invest in transportation, parks, and other public assets. The Framework 2040 Maricopa County 
Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) will serve as a visionary roadmap representing the goals and 
policies the County will utilize to achieve desired outcomes that were identified and molded through the 
facilitation of robust community dialog.  
 
To organize the complex process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, the overall essential components 
of the project have been divided into three phases (Project Initiation, Shape the Plan, and Plan Adoption). 
Each phase has distinct “Surges” of outreach tasks and activities that are planned to engage community 
members and key stakeholders in identifying issues, developing policy concepts, and shaping the final 
recommended plan. The following is a summary of the findings from Surge 1 of the Comprehensive Plan 
update process. 
 
Surge 1 Engagement Snapshot  
Maricopa County organized and facilitated a series of in-person and virtual events and activities to 
introduce the comprehensive plan update process to the public. This included communicating baseline 
information and gathering community feedback of the participating residents’ values, opportunities, and 
issues that they want to address through this community driven effort. 
 
Surge 1 Engagement Goals  
1. Introduce community members to the Comprehensive Plan update effort  
2. Engage a broad and diverse representation of Maricopa County  
3. Identify shared values and concerns   
4. Gather input to update and/or develop plan goals and policies  
 
Introduction 
This report illuminates the ideas and aspirations that Maricopa County residents shared over the last four 
months. It reflects what you—our residents, business owners, and visitors—told us about the importance 
of Maricopa County’s past, examines where the County is today, and assesses what the County should 
strive to protect and enhance in the future. 
 
Key Findings 
Based on the results of initial engagement activities and conversations with the community, the following 
themes emerged as top outcomes for the Comprehensive Plan. More detailed information relative to 
each engagement activity is included in the following sections.  
 
As these themes are closely interrelated, they are intended to be viewed as being equal in weight and 
are not listed in any particular order of importance. This distinction encourages a more holistic “systems 
thinking” approach to recognize and emphasize the interrelationships among all aspects of Maricopa 
County’s long-term planning efforts. A systems thinking perspective balances the interdependent 
environmental, social, and economic implications of policies, decisions, and outcomes expressed in the 
plan, so as to identify benefits and trade-offs that exist within them.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
3  
 
VISION REPORT 
Opportunity Theme  
Where are we today… 
Maricopa County is one of the fastest growing places in the nation. Quality of life investments, emerging 
industries, and comfortable weather patterns have resulted in many community benefits that have made 
the County quite attractive to residents and businesses seeking to settle and thrive here. 
 
Residents recognize these significant assets create a unique character to the County and establish a 
cherished built and natural environment. However, residents are increasingly concerned that 
uncontrolled growth will not only negatively impact currently available opportunities but also hinder the 
ability to leave the County better for future residents who will make Maricopa County their home. 
 
Where are we going… 
The Comprehensive Plan visualizes a County where the unique needs of the varying population groups in 
the County are strategically met by the ability to provide local, affordable options for housing, efficient 
transportation systems, and robust industry. Ultimately, aiming for initiatives that protect the County’s 
established prominence will also lead to the continued enjoyment of the varying lifestyles that exist 
across the County. In turn, future residents can then protect and contribute to the endurance of what the 
County has to offer. 
 
 
 
 
 
Stewardship Theme 
Where are we today… 
Maricopa County uses the best available information to protect, enhance, and integrate new 
development to reduce environmental impacts and preserve the recognized special importance of the 
County’s natural systems and open spaces. 
 
When thinking about the future and growth in general, survey respondents consistently identified the 
protection of natural open spaces, farms, and parks as one of the most important opportunities and one 
of the most important challenges the County faces as it plans for the next decade and beyond. This 
prevalent focus is further supported as respondents identified the limited availability of water and poor 
air quality as some of their biggest concerns related to growth and development in the County.  
 
Where are we going… 
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes residents’ strong desire to protect natural open space, enhance 
recreation areas and activities, and promote local food production to support the livability and prosperity 
of the region. Within this context, anticipated population growth will also require the region to evaluate 
and identify long-term water management practices, alternative energy sources, and thoughtful land  
development policies and regulations. Furthermore, the region will need to sustain rural lands and their 
character by directing larger and higher concentrations of growth to municipalities.  
 
“Maintain quality of life while managing growth”; “control the congestion of more people, i.e. 
roads, open spaces, quiet neighborhoods”; “people want to come here” – Some of the 
responses to Countywide Survey, Question 9: What are the biggest opportunities for Maricopa 
County over the next 20 years?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
4  
 
VISION REPORT 
 
 
 
Prosperity Theme 
Where are we today… 
Maricopa County oversees a prosperous economy that features significant job growth and a multitude 
of high-wage industries. The County cultivates business development to purposefully enrich the 
community economically and socially so as to allow all residents better access to paths for economic 
growth. 
 
Resident feedback expressed an appreciation for the unique experiences and employment options that 
draw people of all ages and interests to Maricopa County. However, survey respondents desire to closely 
manage this prosperity to ensure the intensity and scale of non-residential development respects the 
surrounding character. There is greatest interest within the community to support the development of 
technology and healthcare-related industries. Furthermore, collected input also showed strong support 
for ensuring growth pays for itself. 
 
Where are we going… 
An outcome of the Comprehensive Plan is to manage economic growth, particularly in municipal 
planning areas to ensure the infrastructure and utilities needed to support such growth is readily 
available. 
 
 
 
“I would like to see natural spaces prioritized, considering wildlife crossings and access 
across the desert, as well as giving us humans plenty of opportunities to hike and experience 
beautiful untouched desert.” – Framework 2040 Idea Wall, January 2025 
“Opportunities 
for 
employment, 
education 
and 
outdoor 
recreation”; 
“Numerous 
opportunities 
in 
business”; 
“Business 
variety. 
Small 
mom 
and 
pops 
and 
corporate/franchise.” – Some of the responses to Countywide Survey, Question 7: What do you 
love and/or value most about living in, working in, doing business in, or visiting the County?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
5  
 
VISION REPORT 
Summary of Community Perspectives 
Maricopa County Planning and Development deployed a wide range of tools to garner input from across 
unincorporated areas of the county. The team promoted outreach tools through various marketing 
materials including postings on County social media channels, press releases, and listserv e-blasts. 
County Boards and Commissions promoted the Comprehensive Plan process during public meetings. 
The team also notified County stakeholders and community organizations to capture and reach a 
broader cross-section of participants. A list and description of each engagement tool is outlined below: 
 
Virtual Outreach: We used the framework2040.com website to inform residents, announce upcoming 
events, and launch community involvement activities. We engaged with stakeholders via Zoom as part 
of a grand virtual countywide meeting.  
 
In-Person Workshops: The heart of our engagement was our 5-workshop series which hosted meetings 
within each Supervisor District, where we collaboratively reviewed and discussed existing and future 
conditions with participants. To ensure all those who participated had an equal voice, real-time polling 
technology recorded live audience opinions via smart phones in response to a series of structured 
questions. The technology offered the team a chance to visualize public opinion and residents the ability 
to frame follow-up discussions around direct polling reactions. The team held meetings at the following 
venues: 
 
District #1 
Arizona College Prep High School (Chandler) 
District #2 
Fountain Hills High School (Fountain Hills) 
District #3 
Anthem Community Center (Anthem) 
District #4 
Valley Vista High School (Surprise) 
District #5 
Betty Fairfax High School (Laveen in Phoenix) 
 
 
Countywide Survey: The team offered a countywide online survey. The survey evaluated resident 
satisfaction with existing county qualities and offered a first glimpse into public preferences for prioritizing 
future efforts. Some questions asked residents to think strategically about specific opportunities or 
challenges, while others offered open-ended comment. 
 
Interactive Mapping: The County engaged participants by initiating an interactive mapping application, 
via the project website, that allowed residents to highlight favorite places, assets, opportunities, and 
challenge so that the geographical context of the issues in the County could be captured for use in the 
development process of the Comprehensive Plan.  
 
Idea Wall: Participants were able to take part in a broad, virtual “idea wall” conversation that explored the 
question “How can Maricopa County be improved in the decades ahead?” Respondents posted text, 
pictures, and/or videos that captured their ideas regarding the future of the county.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
6  
 
VISION REPORT 
Countywide Survey Results 
[Please note that the public feedback shown is in raw format to preserve the exact responses 
that participants submitted, which means that grammatical, spelling, and other language 
variations may be present.]  
The collected input from all in-person and virtual engagement tools is summarized below: 
1. What is your connection to unincorporated Maricopa County? 
 
2. How long have you lived in unincorporated Maricopa County?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
7  
 
VISION REPORT 
3. What Maricopa County Supervisor District do you live in? 
 
4. If you live in unincorporated Maricopa County, what community do you 
consider to be a part of, if any? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ahwatukee 
Laveen 
Mesa 
Peoria 
Phoenix 
Red 
Mountain 
Reserve  
at  
Pinnacle 
Peak 
Citrus Park 
Sun City 
Festival 
Anthem 
Sun City  
West 
Morristown 
Sonoran 
Foothills 
Sun 
Lakes 
Rio Verde 
Foothills 
New  
River

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
8  
 
VISION REPORT 
5. What is your age? 
 
 
6. What is one word 
you would use to 
describe 
Maricopa 
County in 20 years?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
9  
 
VISION REPORT 
7. What do you love and/or value most about living in, working in, doing 
business in, or visiting the County?  
Natural Environment/Recreation 
• 
The natural beauty: mountains, hiking trails, night skies. 
• 
Love the sense of community and the natural beauty 
• 
I love the natural environment and all the opportunities to recreate 
• 
The weather 
• 
Warm winter 
• 
Climate 
• 
Living in the Sonoran Desert and next to large parcel of state land (24th Street to Cave Creek) 
and experiencing the wonders of the desert. 
• 
It’s access to beautiful weather and nature 
• 
Weather in cooler months 
• 
the open spaces hiking, kayaking exploring 
• 
Access to recreation 
• 
Quiet space 
• 
Open spaces 
• 
Golf 
• 
climate, outdoor access, people , everything I need is close by 
• 
space, open land 
• 
Close to lakes and mountains. 
• 
Climate and access to outdoor activities 
• 
Desert landscape 
• 
Weather & location 
• 
winter climate 
• 
Access to outdoors. 
• 
Open space 
• 
sun, weather, hiking, libraries 
• 
The scenic beauty, culture and history 
• 
Fall, Winter, Spring weather 
• 
Beauty of the Sonoran Desert 
• 
our open spaces 
• 
I value the accessibility to open space at all times of year. 
• 
Proximity to the remainder of wild Arizona 
• 
The open spaces, trails, preserves, beautiful views, rural lifestyle 
• 
I value nature but that is my main concern and comment 
• 
Comfortable temperature 
• 
The fantastic parks and nature areas 
• 
Winter weather 
• 
Preservation of the desert/western way of life. 
• 
Wildlife 
• 
Trails

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
10  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Access to natural spaces 
• 
Access to trails parks 
• 
Mountain biking and hiking with friends and family 
• 
Living in the desert landscape and access to Mtn Bike trails and recreation. 
• 
Nature 
• 
Daisy Mountain 
• 
Mtn biking 
• 
Hiking access to variety of trail Systems 
• 
Availability of open space 
• 
Mountain View’s 
• 
The smell of the desert when it rains 
• 
Desert (birds, wildflowers), Effective transportation grid, Efficient government 
• 
Beautiful areas 
• 
Great trails 
• 
So many outdoor activities 
• 
Large urban parks 
• 
Active lifestyle opportunities. Lakes. Parks. Hiking biking. 
• 
Great opportunity for outdoor activity 
• 
Outdoor activities, multiple nature preserves and trails, natural beauty 
Urban Form/Transportation 
• 
The peaceful environment in my neighborhood 
• 
Good balance of urban area, nature, infrastructure 
• 
Easy access to things that are important to me, hiking, stores 
• 
We have good freeway systems, a variety of different neighborhood cultures, and the 
beautiful Sonoran Desert. 
• 
rapid bus 
• 
a good cross of suburban and urban areas so you have options for lifestyles 
• 
Resources are around the corner 
• 
Rural areas 
• 
I used to value a rural lifestyle, but now it is filled with noisy razors, motorcycles, and 
individuals who do not care about the environment and wildlife. 
• 
I live in a rural area with beautiful mountain views thank goodness. Business is good for those 
in construction. 
• 
The variety of land use types. 
• 
That despite its growth and population, it still maintains a "small town" feeling 
• 
I like the connection to each city via the freeway system 
• 
Ease of access to different areas via freeway system.  Just pick a one to fix & don't close 3 more 
at the same time!!! 
• 
Proximity of retail establishments 
• 
living in central phoenix, all other cities are about the same distance and allows me to explore all 
these other areas equally. 
• 
Green spaces, local businesses, Farms, Artists, Museums, Parks

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
11  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Amenities 
• 
Rural 
• 
Technology sector drives local economy, available amenities, and services 
• 
It is growing rapidly 
• 
diversity of resources and services i.e. medical, outdoor recreation opportunities, climate, 
protected open space, employment opportunities, culture diversity. 
• 
Great medical services 
• 
Transportation ease 
• 
Having diversity between open spaces and urban luxuries. 
• 
Urban AND Rural destinations 
• 
Easy to navigate 
• 
Clean 
• 
Opportunities for employment, education and outdoor recreation 
• 
Numerous opportunities in business 
• 
Business variety. Small mom and pops and corporate/franchise 
• 
Great Restaurants. Mountains easily accessible. Freer marketplace than other big cities, but 
we are losing that. Used to have less traffic. :( 
• 
Variety of events and entertainment 
• 
Sky Harbor Airport (except for the signage) 
• 
Good infrastructure 
• 
Not expensive to live here,  great arts centers, sports and things to do 
• 
Developed but close to outdoor recreation 
• 
So many things to do 
• 
So many different things to do 
• 
Expanding, 
• 
Large, congested area 
• 
Boulevard driving 
• 
Diversity between natural spaces and urban luxuries 
• 
Accessibility to stores and not having to live in the congestion 
• 
Variety - from large urban environment to wide open spaces 
• 
Small business friendly 
• 
The ease of the commute 
• 
County has everything I need. Jobs, urban amenities and open spaces to explore and get 
away. 
• 
The previous lack of traffic 
• 
Can work and play in the same area- arts culture outdoors 
• 
The water communities. 
• 
Living on northern perimeter 
• 
Living outside of the "glob" "grid" 
• 
Will have more questions after reviewing area plan. 
• 
Freedom in education and medical freedom 
• 
The fact that I bought my home over 20 years ago and it's now valued more than four times 
what I paid for it.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
12  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Cheaper than CA, but that won't last long. 
• 
Good economy, vibrant communities, easy to get around 
• 
Job and education opportunities. 
• 
Value the wide range of opportunities.  Good healthcare services. Get out in nature quickly. 
Culture/People 
• 
Diversity 
• 
It's almost impossible to have nothing to do. There's so much you can do and experience in 
Maricopa County. 
• 
Diversity, connectivity, amazing sunsets. 
• 
People, PORA, safety 
• 
Nothing 
• 
It's my home and my family lives here.  I like the plants and animals. 
• 
The people.  The beauty.  The accessibility of everything being in 1 hour's reach. 
• 
There is a growing culture that wants to lead and embrace resource management...  I find that 
to be encouraging for Maricopa County 
• 
Lifestyle 
• 
Maricopa County is land of extremes - population center, excellent education, job opportunities, 
and incredible beauty. Then there is not. 
• 
I have a wonderful life built here 
• 
Opportunity - so many cultures, types of businesses and restaurants, art/music/sporting/cultural 
events 
• 
In my part of the county I love the rural nature and quality of life in my town 
• 
People 
• 
Diverse 
• 
The people create a community for all 
• 
Eclectic lifestyles, homes, people. Non-homogenous harmony 
• 
Community 
• 
The People 
• 
Friendly people. Local government seems to work well 
• 
The people make the county 
• 
More HB1B to citizen mix 
• 
Friendships within communities 
• 
The open-minded atmosphere. 
• 
Every part of the county has different culture and traditions the people in Maricopa county 
are wonderful 
• 
All the horse owners. 
Governance 
• 
Overall, this is a pretty well ran county with beautiful parks and amenities. We need to start 
to focus a lot more on open spaces and stopping urban sprawl. Where is the water going to 
come from for more people? Do we trash the environment to build more homes. 
• 
I think the election system is to be admired. 
• 
County is not intrusive

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
13  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
I value the fiscal responsibility the BOS has adhered to. I love the open space and recreational 
opportunities available. 
• 
Freedom from town or HOA restrictions, large open desert areas, recreation, low taxes. 
• 
The area I moved to was safe, clean, has great city council. I hope the county keeps it that 
way. 
• 
Thinking the county respected the citizens 
• 
Resources managed well 
• 
Efficient elections, Street grid, Large 
 
8. How would you rate the overall quality of life today in Maricopa County?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
14  
 
VISION REPORT 
9. What will be the biggest opportunities for Maricopa County over the next 
20 years? 
Growth 
• 
Controlled growth and housing 
• 
To look at growth with a discerning eye with the goal of instead of growth for growth's sake, a 
sustainable future. 
• 
Thoughtful growth with lots of remaining open space 
• 
Address housing for low income families 
• 
Maintain quality of life while managing growth 
• 
Creating a great community with open spaces and many amenities 
• 
Overdevelopment 
• 
control the congestion of more people, i.e. roads, open spaces, quiet neighborhoods 
• 
Affordable housing 
• 
people want to come here, 
• 
Nothing 
• 
land and developer management - developers and builders may buy elections, but they don't 
vote and they are not your constituents. 
• 
Growth 
• 
Safety 
• 
Maintaining the beauty and integrity of the county, not allowing overgrowth and over 
population. 
• 
To preserve the state, its heritage and lifestyle 
• 
Manage growth. 
• 
Growth! 
• 
Growing 
• 
Controlled growth using innovation (whether new ideas or new technologies) 
• 
Growth 
• 
Denser communities where infrastructure exists 
• 
To ensure it doesn't become over crowded 
• 
The possibility of guiding growth in a manner that preserves the environment while extending 
access to its resources. 
• 
Growth 
• 
Community 
• 
Managing growth and maintaining affordability for residents 
• 
Limit growth 
• 
Redevelopment 
• 
Reducing Valley Fever rates, increase affordable housing and public amenities like parks and 
trails. Water conservation and extreme heat 
• 
Vertical expansion 
• 
With growth comes need for development of “outdoor space” availability   
• 
Eliminate food deserts 
• 
Expand adoption opportunities of animals

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
15  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Plan for future infrastructure growth. 
• 
Technology, Parks, Public transported 
• 
Improving transportation and housing options 
• 
Capturing large national companies that grow the county. Building infrastructure and 
roadways to support. Providing housing for those new businesses. 
Natural Resources/Environment 
• 
Water conservation and slowing urban sprawl. 
• 
Protecting and preserving our natural surroundings while continuing necessary growth. 
• 
Clean air 
• 
Keep some green belts - it helps with keeping the heat island down 
• 
Securing water and limiting population 
• 
Improve air quality, access enough water, provide county wide public transportation 
• 
Improve air quality and traffic congestion 
• 
Protect its open spaces 
• 
Managing resources in a coordinated and thoughtful manner 
• 
to manage the water supply 
• 
Environmental Protection 
• 
The green industry.  Figuring out how to continue to live here, such as solar power and water 
harvesting. 
• 
reduce pollution _ dust, particles 
• 
Resource Management; water, efficient agriculture, native lands, wildlife protection. 
• 
managing open spaces and parks 
• 
manage land use to prioritize other things beside urban sprawl.  Create an environment that 
values open space, nature and natural habitat. 
• 
Sustainability - air quality and water conservation 
• 
Preservation and enhancement of natural and open space areas. 
• 
Conserve water 
• 
Save some of the land for parks and keep our farms. 
• 
District 5. Coming up with more progressive policies on land reclamation and mining 
exemptions. The current strategy is not working and it is harmful to property values. I've been 
told, almost bluntly, that these sites have carte blanche. 
• 
The opportunity to protect and preserve what makes Maricopa different, desirable, and 
special; green space, trails, preserves, and rural lifestyle areas. 
• 
Clean up the horrible air caused by traffic. Follow the CARB example & set requirements for 
more EV's. 
• 
Preserve the beautiful Rio Verde Foothills area. 
• 
Bring water into the County/AZ 
• 
More info on status of Vulture Mtn. Regional Park  
• 
Identify + protect points of access to open space  
• 
Increase assistance to mitigate summer heat 
• 
Be a national leader in water resource management, conservation and technology 
development.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
16  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Protect rural areas. Protect what makes the county special. Protect and preserve the natural 
resources. 
• 
Fix loopholes in the 1980 GW Mgmt Act which allows SFR to be built as rentals without water. 
Stop approving commercial like semiconductors that pollute groundwater (see recent EPA )  
report. 
Transportation 
• 
transportation circulation improvements, creating or igniting robust planning partnerships 
with municipalities for population growth 
• 
Transit in the west valley 
• 
walkable cities and neighborhoods. neighborhoods should have their own vibe. residents 
should be able to enjoy their neighborhoods without getting in a car. 
• 
reduce traffic congestion 
• 
develop trails for walking, biking, and outdoor recreation (I utilize Usery park but we need 
trails near residential areas that are clean and safe), better small housing opportunities (to 
buy not rent) 
• 
Public Transportation, Safer Streets & intersections, shading neighborhoods, and the growing 
semiconductor industry. 
• 
Move bike lanes to parks + recreation areas instead of roads 
• 
Improved connectivity for people (active transportation) and wildlife 
• 
Building roads for new housing (i.e. 303 +117 already bad) 
Economy 
• 
Growing tech reputation - TSMC, Intel, etc. 
• 
economy 
• 
Economic prosperity, with good paying jobs for residents, attainable housing in safe 
neighborhoods. and open space. 
• 
Industry 
• 
Jobs 
• 
Thoughtful, planned development including living wage manufacturing jobs 
• 
Tech sector support, water usage/rights 
• 
High Tech manufacturing 
• 
Technology 
• 
Benefitting from “CHIPS” act + Infrastructure Act 
• 
New places to shop/new restaurants, public areas  
Energy 
• 
Sustainability and opportunities to use green energy 
• 
Using more clean energy, reducing fossil fuel use 
• 
More renewable energy infrastructure, incentives for electric vehicles 
• 
Solar

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
17  
 
VISION REPORT 
10. What will be the biggest challenges facing Maricopa County over the next 
20 years? 
Growth  
• 
To look at growth with a discerning eye with the goal of instead of growth for growth's sake, a 
sustainable future. 
• 
Balancing growth and open space 
• 
Managing growth 
• 
Managing growth and water 
• 
overcrowding 
• 
Same as above 
• 
Existing urban sprawl 
• 
Overdevelopment 
• 
Managing growth with Environmental and Quality of Life for all residents 
• 
controlled growth, water usage, funding schools 
• 
Too many people.  Not enough water. 
• 
increased population 
• 
Urban sprawl and maintaining unique characteristic traits for each city....reduce the "chain" 
restaurants and chain stores to keep the cities uniquely vibrant 
• 
Growth 
• 
Unmanaged growth 
• 
Overpopulation 
• 
Managing growth. 
• 
rapid growth and water management 
• 
Growth and resultant strain on infrastructure 
• 
Overcrowding, water, pollution 
• 
Growth 
• 
Growth and Congestion.  Environmental impact. 
• 
Managing growth 
• 
Restricting urban growth...  Water resource management will require changes...  Why wait. 
• 
Uncontrolled growth not supported by an appropriate tax base (yes, please raise our taxes to 
support the many wonderful services the county provides) 
• 
Protect the unincorporated areas from commercial development and crowding. Protect the 
preserve and park areas across the county. Don't allow big city or California thinking 
permeate our great state. 
• 
Manage the growth in a way that does not destroy the very things that drew people here to 
begin with; Safeguard water supply for all 
• 
population growth, infrastructure, education 
• 
Life quality 
• 
Fighting over development in areas that cannot sustain it. 
• 
Accident increase due to overpopulation 
• 
Growing population and coordination of municipal growth strategies

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
18  
 
VISION REPORT 
Natural Resources (Water)/ Environment 
• 
Water conservation and slowing urban sprawl. 
• 
Protecting and preserving our natural surroundings, air quality, water supply while continuing 
necessary growth. 
• 
Water use, maintaining good balance between urban and natural areas 
• 
Climate change 
• 
Deal with excessive heat due to global warming 
• 
Sustainability 
• 
Maintaining quality of life with climate change 
• 
Ridding ourselves of polluted air 
• 
Prioritizing keeping some natural spaces and our desert! Water, claiming the solar future we 
should have. 
• 
Climate change (heat) and water management. 
• 
The heat island needs to be addressed. Air pollution is also insane in Maricopa County. We 
live in the desert - we should adapt to it. 
• 
environmental - heat, lack of water, air quality 
• 
Improving air quality and traffic congestion and housing for young people 
• 
Air pollution, protecting the water 
• 
managing the water supply 
• 
The rising temperatures and unpredictable rainfall/water 
• 
Water 
• 
Congestion and the heat as more desert is taken away and asphalt and reflected heat 
sources are being added. 
• 
Water and over population 
• 
Securing water and limiting population 
• 
Water and infrastructure planning, climate change 
• 
water and urban sprawl 
• 
Ensure water availability for existing residents 
• 
Water, development pressures, and transportation. 
• 
Water 
• 
Sustainability 
• 
Water, too many people, not enough public transportation, air quality, losing our farmland 
and ranches 
• 
Air quality, water availability 
• 
horrible air quality, traffic & crazy drivers with no enforcement, overcrowding, rental 
development but no new small housing options, water is obviously the biggest concern 
• 
Water usage/rights 
• 
air quality reform and improvement, slowing managing population growth 
• 
Water shortage caused by over development and  depletion of aquifer. 
• 
Water 
• 
Climate change. Public health. Housing and reducing reliance on automobile 
• 
Power, Water, Traffic, & being Overbuilt 
• 
Enough water?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
19  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Water availability & cost  
• 
Agree on protecting dark skies from signs  
• 
Preserving the natural beauty while taking advantage of growth  
• 
Money for parks, trails + open space 
• 
Water management and agriculture 
• 
Water 
• 
Maintaining desert & habitats 
• 
Water 
• 
Recreation areas 
• 
Protect preserves. Protect rural lifestyle. 
• 
Water & transportation  
• 
Protecting dark skies  
Housing / Services 
• 
Decreasing homeless rate 
• 
Utility rates 
• 
Affordable workforce housing; roads 
• 
Housing, transportation, water 
• 
Housing 
• 
Affordable housing 
• 
More police & first responders to crime & incident reporting  
• 
Expand single family housing; reduce high density  
• 
Affordable housing  
Transportation / Infrastructure 
• 
Traffic congestion 
• 
Transportation and electricity and water 
• 
Planning for transportation, water, education 
• 
transportation 
• 
Infrastructure 
• 
Keeping up with transportation needs and water requirements 
• 
Noise generation (i.e. airports)  
• 
Management of hazardous materials on freeways  
• 
Traffic congestion & spill over into residential areas  
• 
Resisting the outdoor ad industry’s push to install “Electronic Message Boards” (LED 
billboards) everywhere 
• 
Controlling installation of outdoor lighting of > 3000k CCT, either by Phoenix + cities/towns or 
by homeowners + developers  
• 
Coordination of facilities with cities 
• 
Horrid traffic funneling off 6-lane 202E/W 
• 
Dangerously increasing traffic  
• 
Noise from night racing – increase 
• 
Roads

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
20  
 
VISION REPORT 
Governance 
• 
Right wing extremism which doesn’t care about outcomes or progress, just “ winning.” 
• 
Having the courage to challenge the existing regulatory environment to benefit citizens and 
residents, and not large, multimillion and multibillion dollar businesses, and wealthy 
executives. There are some bad actors out there, and some of them are proud. 
• 
Emergency management 
 
11. What specific concerns do you have related to future growth within the 
County? 
Water/ Natural Environment 
• 
The destruction of the serenity found in our desert and our quality of life which includes clean 
air and water quality/quantity. 
• 
Uncontrolled growth and lack of water management 
• 
Water, water, water 
• 
Water, and destruction of the Sonoran Desert, which is what brings people here in the first 
place. 
• 
Climate change will cause conditions that require mod water, and water will be rationed 
• 
Growing without massive development and increasing the environmental impact 
• 
Water supply 
• 
Water issues…quality and quantity, air quality 
• 
Water and traffic 
• 
Water, transit 
• 
Water availability 
• 
Air pollution, limited water 
• 
water, public transportation, education access and more global funding 
• 
Rising temperatures; not having enough water; urban heat island; and air pollution harming 
health 
• 
Air quality 
• 
Too many people, too little water. Preserving the water supply for the future is paramount, 
second is preserving the reason people moved here: the open desert. 
• 
Lack of water for the future. History has shown us that lack of water will force us to leave. 
• 
Water and transportation and electricity 
• 
Water 
• 
water, pollution, too much growth, homelessness, housing, crime 
• 
Not enough water; insufficient infrastructure; loss of open desert spaces 
• 
Water, pollution 
• 
Air quality, water availability 
• 
Water, air quality

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
21  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Air quality and making sure the future has access to open spaces, and that they are safe to 
be in their own backyards, without being covered in HAPs, VOCs, and all manner of pollutants 
-- or drinking them. 
• 
Water and Air quality. 
• 
Water supply; Destruction of the Sonoran Desert; Enormous heat island effect; Sprawl that 
never seems to end 
• 
water, infrastructure, education 
• 
Water 
• 
Water 
• 
Air Quality and Reducing GHG Emissions; Also need to post Health Warnings for Valley Fever 
at construction sites like dust control does 
• 
Displacing wildlife and basically killing off the desert. More wild spaces & wildlife crossings 
need to be prioritized! 
• 
Not enough green 
Development/ Overdevelopment 
• 
We have to many people in this county. 
• 
Too many high rises 
• 
Sprawl 
• 
Overdevelopment 
• 
overcrowding, it turning into a throw away community with rental units not family and growth 
orientated with home ownership 
• 
it has to be well planned so we can provide living conditions for everyone to enjoy 
• 
Planned areas to maintain space and trees and farms 
• 
Dense population with lack of infrastructure to properly provide equitable resources 
• 
over population 
• 
Congestion; too many people; not enough services; water 
• 
Stop the growth.  Too many people are here already. 
• 
It's a free-for-all without and land planning. 
• 
Too many multi dwelling apartments, 
• 
The congestion, heat and all these apartment complexes going up that are over priced and 
ugly.  And the cost of a decent sized house. 
• 
Compared to the municipalities, Maricopa County is secondary to restricting urban growth.  
State law needs to change to give the County more control. 
• 
Not enough infrastructure for the expanded population 
• 
Loss of open land and farming 
• 
Continued sprawl - growing opposition to economic growth and density 
• 
The right to build creates densities in areas that should remain rural.  Intermixing the rural 
and the higher densities causes unrest between neighborhoods. 
• 
public parks 
• 
How do we support all the people moving here with infrastructure?  I used to love seeing the 
native animals and plants.  Now it is just home after home and you wonder where it will end. 
• 
Continued urban sprawl, water availability

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
22  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Strain on infrastructure brough about by growth (transportation, utilities, water and 
wastewater) 
• 
Continued sprawl. 
• 
balance of homes versus apartments and parking issues. homeless services should be 
spread out across the county instead of downtown. 
• 
It won't feel special as it grows too big.  Lots of traffic, pollution and our water source. 
• 
Over population 
• 
traffic, poor law enforcement, depleted water, very poor air quality, overcrowded with winter 
visitors using services etc...no recreational options for adults 
• 
Sprawl 
• 
too much too fast without proper planning 
• 
losing our preserves or our rural lifestyle - the trails and rural lifestyle are why I live here 
• 
Re-zoning of rural areas to permit commercial development in areas more consistent with a 
ranch lifestyle. 
• 
lack of affordable housing and infrastructure to maintain it 
• 
High density overbuilding. 
Transportation 
• 
traffic issues 
• 
Lack of public transportation, education 
• 
Traffic and lack of water 
• 
There is absolutely zero consideration for building safer streets. Streets are extremely unsafe 
in Maricopa County. 
• 
Housing and transportation; need alternative transportation. 
• 
MAG and ADOT need to start being wiser in road development. Why wasn't the 202 S. 
Mountain made to accommodate the 30 interchange, Why is the 202 San Tan area that was 
just finished designed to not tear it apart again. Why is the 24 202 Interchange bad? 
Services/ Communication 
• 
Love to see bridges between all the older folks and younger people, a good quality of life 
enjoyed by all generations. 
• 
Homeless and mental health support. Housing and employment without having to commute 
long distances. No wind turbines over 100-ft height. 
• 
Lack of coordination with other municipalities 
• 
Lack of participation 
• 
Quality of Education 
• 
Lack of vision imparted by hierarchical governance of Towns/Cities over County. 
• 
With growth comes the regulatory burden. Increased regulations contribute to increased cost 
of living.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
23  
 
VISION REPORT 
12. What do you think should be changed about Maricopa County? 
Urban Planning/ Transportation 
• 
Sustainable growth instead of ignoring future problems. 
• 
Growth should be balanced against the need to protect and preserve our fragile natural 
environment. 
• 
We need more focus on low income residents 
• 
Sun Valley Parkway needs a lot of attention. There are cows out there and it’s very dark. 
• 
Build up, not out. 
• 
Expand light rail; better encourage businesses to install solar covered parking & roofs - this 
should be everywhere! And again - prioritize natural space & protection of wildlife and desert. 
Get RID OF any agriculture that requires heavy water use! 
• 
Keep farms and green belts 
• 
Access to public transit 
• 
Better coordination with incorporated cities/towns when rezoning to industrial or renewable 
energy developments. 
• 
Build smarter, 
• 
more attention to the environment and the congestion 
• 
more comprehensive planning on space usage that friendly to foot traffic 
• 
Start planning ahead and not for yesterday. The county is always way behind. Look Forward 
and also start paying your employees equal to the Cities. 
• 
limit growth and protect the water 
• 
more roads 
• 
more public transportation 
• 
improve transportation 
• 
Thoughtful zoning practices. 
• 
As we build infrastructure, the buildings/warehouses are too close to the main roads that 
feed into them.  Add more greenery in front of each building and more shade structures where 
there is concrete parking.  Use reflective surfaces to reduce heat. 
• 
Stop the dense building and leave more open space and plant trees. 
• 
Light rail needs to be extended. It would help seniors gain access to more of the county. 
• 
We should stop building new homes, and embrace the wild. 
• 
obtaining and management of more and larger parks 
• 
improve existing neighborhoods instead of continuing to build outwardly; this creates urban 
ghettos that are neglected 
• 
Stop the spread of new homes, commercial shopping spaces as it's spread all over so we will 
lose our rural areas eventually. 
• 
Expand area somehow 
• 
Strategic density to minimize sprawl as much as possible and protect natural areas or farm 
land 
• 
More public transportation especially in west valley 
• 
Concentration of new residences 
• 
Availability of infrastructure which enables access to the breath of county resources.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
24  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Improve transportation in rural areas  
• 
No road diets 
• 
No 15-minute cities which mandate transportation reduction  
• 
Improved public transportation – network with park & rides 
• 
No reduction of travel by discouraging personal vehicle travel  
• 
The desert isn’t made for 15-minute cities  
• 
Remove the barb-wire fence separating Desert Hills & Anthem so we can be more like a whole 
community (regardless of Knusae ‘promise’) 
• 
Stop installation of LED billboards 
Management/ Laws/ Regulations 
• 
Zoning laws in unincorporated areas that allow developers to circumvent zoning laws and 
AZDEQ water regulations to build mini-tract homes. 
• 
Strictly limiting political extremism, it’s killing our image and our progress. There is a strong 
value to bipartisanship. 
• 
Using our tax money for something other than nonstop frivolous lawsuits. Address homeless 
problems 
• 
New supervisor that are not greedy. 
• 
Offer grants to people moving out of Maricopa to a rural county to decrease population 
• 
Acting under a different set of rules from major cities who will eventually incorporate non-
incorporated areas. Creates long term development challenges. 
• 
Timely notification of meetings, proposals 
• 
Cut taxes. 
• 
Instead of reacting to the municipalities demands for expanding their corporate boundaries, 
the County needs the ability to push back and establish growth limits, especially if the 
municipalities are reluctant. 
• 
Should be split into 2 counties. 
• 
The Board of Supervisors worshipping growth and development. Preserve the area instead of 
destroying it. 
• 
county islands should be incorporated into the nearest city or town to provide some basic 
services. 
• 
Stricter regulations on leap frog development. 
• 
Not sure 
• 
With the expanding geography, the county should consider forming multiple counties within 
this land area 
• 
At this point, nothing. Continue to work to address challenges as they present themselves 
• 
We should implement an urban growth boundary. 
• 
Slowed growth that is more carefully controlled; raise the taxing levy to appropriate levels to 
support the ever-increasing population. 
• 
I think there are a lot of challenges with planning and development. I have talked to lots of 
people and some of them seem afraid to bring up any progressive approach that is for the 
people. 
• 
protect the way things are 
• 
Rent control so people don't lose their homes and become homeless.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
25  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
It’s too big.  Can we break it up ? 
• 
More responsibility to enforce existing zoning, permits, assured water sources for private 
homeowners. 
• 
Definitely more communication with municipalities in matters of planning and development 
and all departments 
• 
Divide East side into another county, we have the population. 
• 
County is too large 
• 
School vouchers should be deleted. 
• 
Fire MAG 
• 
You are leading us into the WEF Plan, fire Hackman, Gates and any others who collude with 
the globalists   
• 
Need development impact fees for parks  
Natural Resources/ Environment 
• 
More focus on pollution reduction and conservation 
• 
Oversight of ground water must be strong in all of AZ 
• 
Incentives for renewables and electric vehicles 
• 
We need to be aggressive about creating a green economy, protecting water and using water 
wisely.  Large corporations should not own more than a certain number of houses that they 
rent at very high prices.  Foreign countries should not take our water 
• 
Stop giving our water away to foreign countries.  Protect our environments and our water 
supply. 
• 
pollution, heat mitigation, water conservation, more solar 
• 
air quality is my priority 
• 
Clean up the horrible air caused by traffic. Follow the CARB example & set requirements for 
more EV's. 
• 
Protect water supply; Protect the desert; Control Greedy Short-Sighted Developers; Plan 
smart growth, not uncontrolled growth 
• 
funding for open space preservation 
• 
Education of water conservation 
• 
Keep desert beauty 
• 
Planning more open space/recreation areas before subdivisions are built  
• 
Increase tree planting  
• 
Protect Daisy Mountain for recreation  
People 
• 
Closed minds 
• 
the focus should be on families and safety 
• 
educate people as well as hold them responsible for bad behaviors (crazy driving for 
example)

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
26  
 
VISION REPORT 
13.-26. Ranking Topics - How important do you think the following topics will 
be over the next 20 years? 
Please indicate your opinion on each of the topics below based on the scale,  
0 = not important, 1 = important, 2 = very important.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
27  
 
VISION REPORT 
27. Do you live in a county island? 
 
 
28. What are some of the challenges that you experience living in or near a 
county island? 
 
• 
Nothing I love it, don't pave every street, that sucks. 
• 
None 
• 
None at this time 
• 
Services 
• 
No Grocery stores 
• 
Wildfires; unpaved roads that are difficult to traverse; people dumping pets 
• 
No public transit 
• 
We "belong" to no entity 
• 
I-17 traffic 
• 
none 
• 
Lack of public transportation 
• 
Over development, keep our rural areas rural 
• 
Lack of coordination between county and city. 
• 
police presence. 
• 
Lack of involvement in community development, needs 
• 
Too long for first responders 
• 
We are paying too high taxes.  Why should we pay for schools when we have no children 
living in our area. 
• 
No recycling. Rural metro fire company. 
• 
No traffic lights, no proper management of infrastructures as other cities have

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
28  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Access to emergency services 
• 
Good clean organic food/restaurants 
• 
nothing significant 
• 
Disparity in quality of development and the development/quality of infrastructure 
• 
Police 
• 
Lack of transportation 
• 
Poor regulatory policies, lack of oversight, low engagement. City of Phoenix and Maricopa 
Co. toss things back and forth over the fence, putting the wellbeing and safety of our 
residents at risk. It has been a bit embarrassing to see that taking place. 
• 
Zoning 
• 
Ownership or lack of it with respect to planning, governance and services as we're in an 
area identified as within "Glendale's planning boundary" yet until we're annexed, they don't 
recognize us.  The county acts like Glendale and Glendale says county. 
• 
Lack of patrol from Law Enforcement and different regulations for County Island then Town 
(dogs, animals, Maintenance of property) 
• 
Constant fear of development coming at us like a tsunami with no regard for rural living or 
for existing small unincorporated towns 
• 
Annexation 
• 
Unwanted Development 
• 
illegal burning, noise and traffic due to large gatherings from event venues that should be 
in an entertainment district. 
• 
Developers often choose to rezone or obtain entitlements in the county due to the ease of 
obtaining approval & avoiding any potential opposition (or support) 
 
29. What are some of the benefits that you experience living in or near a 
county island? 
 
• 
Peace and quiet. Less rules and regulations. 
• 
I like the natural habitat 
• 
A feeling of community, no city council to do things citizens don’t want 
• 
Low traffic, low housing density, still close to stores 
• 
More access to Cave Creek 
• 
Beautiful and quiet. 
• 
Large lots; lots of natural desert 
• 
Lower taxes 
• 
We "belong" to no entity 
• 
Away from the city. 
• 
local decisions 
• 
Open space 
• 
freedom 
• 
Environment, association on top of our government whether local, state or federal 
• 
Less congestion 
• 
Less traffic and noise 
• 
less traffic

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
29  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Rural "feel" 
• 
Lower taxes 
• 
I don't really experience any. We have a huge portion of street with sidewalks only on one 
side, leaving residents riding bikes in the middle of the street to their job sites, early 
morning. It is sad. 
• 
Direct understanding of services as we discretely pay for them. 
• 
Larger land plots 
• 
Quiet, rural living; lush desert environment; viewing of desert animals/birds; beautiful 
views; cooler temps 
• 
Community 
• 
Open spaces 
• 
darker sky, rural-residential lifestyle with horses 
• 
Services 
 
30. When deciding where development should occur in Maricopa County, it 
is most important to consider… 
 
 
 
5.48
4.80
4.66
4.50
4.48
4.41
3.30
2.73
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Environmental impacts
Park and open space availability
Police and fire availability/response times
General character of surrounding area
Roadway connections and conditions
Utility infrastructure
Adjacent development
Economic benefits/impacts

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
30  
 
VISION REPORT 
31. How does the County's housing stock meet the needs of home buyers? 
 
 
32. What specific housing-related challenges do you feel are important 
when considering the future of the County?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
31  
 
VISION REPORT 
33. When considering transportation in the County, what do you feel is the 
most important priority or project? 
 
34. What types of park, trail, or other open space amenity do you think 
Maricopa County is most in need of?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
32  
 
VISION REPORT 
35. Depending on their size, subdivision developments within the County 
should provide... 
 
 
36. Which kinds of industry should Maricopa County prioritize when thinking 
about future growth?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
33  
 
VISION REPORT 
37. Alternative energy production, such as solar, nuclear, hydrogen and 
wind, is important to the future of Maricopa County. 
 
 
38. A development should be responsible for the cost of developing new 
power infrastructure associated with its development, cost of long-term 
maintenance of that infrastructure and cost associated with the energy 
demand generated by its development.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
34  
 
VISION REPORT 
39. Which of the following activities would you be most likely to participate 
in? 
 
 
40. What is the best way for Maricopa County to communicate with you?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
35  
 
VISION REPORT 
41. Additional comments 
• 
Sidewalks, sidewalks, sidewalks! North Scottsdale continues to grow but we do not have 
continuous sidewalks like other parts of Maricopa County so we can walk to access 
neighbors, parks, trails and amenities. 
• 
I didn’t find out about this survey until the last day, how was it promoted? 
• 
Sun valley parkway is dark and has many cows interfering with traffic.  Someone needs 
to be responsible for keeping the public safe from hitting a cow. It was OK when it was 
a rural area, but it is now developing and cars are hitting cows. I hope no one 
experiences a fatality by hitting a cow. 
• 
Two of the biggest challenges facing the county (and the state) are "cleaning up our 
act" (viz. air) and putting quality PUBLIC education at the forefront. 
• 
"RE Question Depending on their size, subdivision developments within the County 
should provide...It depends - there should be ""luxury"" developments with full amenities 
as well as starter communities with NO HOA FEES! We need both. 
• 
RE Question: A development should be responsible for the cost of developing new power 
infrastructure associated with its development, cost of long-term maintenance of that 
infrastructure and cost associated with the energy demand generated by its 
development. - It depends. Corporations with the resources should be self-sufficient, 
but having programs to assist small & privately owned businesses is great, especially 
when it comes to encouraging them to install solar that feeds the grid." 
• 
Keep more space with homes and in parks/agriculture areas. 
• 
Thanks for reaching out to residents of the County. 
• 
Ordered answers- # 1 being of highest priority . About me,  I was born raised in Arizona. 
I left for work and raising a family but have returned . I hate to see how the dessert is 
replaced by grass soccer parks - ( senseless) especially when there is already one  in 
another 2 miles away. it’s always empty , and no path across busy streets . Enormous 
parking lots and structures, sit empty. .. don’t let Arizona be paved over ,don’t  let it lose 
its beauty, build things to last and thrive in the desert - make Arizona the first to truly be 
innovative, embrace the desert and its beauty. We need to find a way to balance its 
growth in sustainability! 
• 
The TSMC plant is destroying the natural beauty of Arizona. The TSMC plant should have 
been developed in New Mexico. 
• 
Thank you for asking for participation on the planning. It is nice to see collaboration on 
such important issues.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
36  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Stop or slow the growth and protect our Open Spaces, Water and Wild Life. 
• 
Thanks for all you do! 
• 
"I would also like to see ""one stop"" healthcare providers in the county like Kaiser. Less 
driving to get to needed appointments, better comprehensive care, etc.   
• 
I would like to see more environmental studies for heat reduction rather than paving 
roads black and using rock for landscaping. There are other natural ways to make 
things look nice and reduce the heat load - this involves making communities 
accountable for their own heat contributions.  
• 
With respect to agriculture, farmland, it is hard to drive by ""livestock"" anywhere 
including 1 horse farms and see the animals without shade...I would like to see the 
county be more proactive in regulations in treating these animals better.  More drought 
resistant trees for shade should be required along roads and in cities and 
municipalities.   Make space for more roundabouts rather than lights.  They are more 
efficient, saves energy so that cars are not sitting at lights and overall reduces 
congestion.   The roads (such as I10) are unsafe during afternoon light heading West 
bound as the lane reflectors are not clearly seen and blend into the overall afternoon 
light reflection off of the highway.   Continue to educate people on water conservation.  
This should be an ongoing process in our schools and social media, etc.  ie- turning the 
water off while brushing your teeth, turn the water off when soaping your hands....using 
the dishwasher is better than hand washing dishes for water conservation, looking for 
leaks, etc.  What makes Maricopa county unique outside of its growth in business 
building - what do we want to make Maricopa countrywide famous for?  Healthy living 
- we mark low scores on that due to pollution...how do we reduce dust polution and 
industrial polution?" 
• 
We cannot continue destroying vegetation, building heat-producing structures, and 
blaming climate change. The fact that temperatures have risen in tandem with our 
growth is not a coincidence.  This isn't rocket science. The valley went from having the 
best weather 9 months out of the year to having ridiculous heat waves 6 months out of 
the year.  You cannot stop progress, but you can be smart about it.  A solution that 
solves one problem but causes ten more is not a solution. 
• 
"Maricopa County is in a precarious position.  Water and Land Use Management is still 
too reactionary.  This could be the ""Achilles Heel"" that in 20 years will cause some 
serious problems.  No more data centers, they use too much water for so little 
employment... 
• 
Thank you for preparing this survey." 
• 
No not at this time, thanks. 
• 
Transit resources are falling further and further behind. Air quality suffers.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
37  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
County Islands with industrial sites are an ecological and developmental problem in 
the city, and many in positions of leadership seem to gloss over them, not 
understanding the unique complexities of land reclamation, the longer these sites 
operate with no consideration to their surrounding environments. To ensure sustainable 
growth and harmonious coexistence between industrial operations and residential 
neighborhoods, we urge county officials to collaborate closely with city leaders in 
proactively shaping development plans for these sites. Establishing clearer, more 
comprehensive standards—covering pile heights, berms, setbacks, screening, and 
operating hours—will help balance the city’s growing need for natural resources with 
the well-being of its communities. Such regulations will foster responsible operations 
that respect residential areas, preventing the long-term challenges faced by cities like 
Las Vegas in managing reclamation efforts. Clinging to a “we were here first” mentality 
is unsustainable; forward-thinking policies that address both industrial and residential 
interests will better serve our city’s future. 
• 
Please protect the open spaces and rural areas, thank you. 
• 
"There is no social issue which is more important than defending our air quality, climate, 
environment, and natural spaces. That is because, without a home, nothing else 
matters. (there is no planet B)" 
• 
In the section about transportation, there is an implied sense that transportation means 
roads.  The growing density of Phoenix as a metropolitan area will demand an 
infrastructure with fluid ability to move people between areas of the city.  A need which 
can only effectively be served by mass transportation in the form of buses, local and 
non-local rail.  Continuing the love affair with cars without an aggressive plan for an 
integrated county-wide mass transportation infrastructure will eventually result in the 
same level of congestion experienced in other major metropolitian areas throughout 
the world. 
• 
Maricopa County (MAG) needs to start coordinating road work with the Cities and 
towns. Every road can not be under construction.  Road work needs to be planed for 
future upgrades, Bridges so they don't have to be torn apart, Road drainage set up so it 
isn't torn up, wider around future interchanges (30). Dirt from the 202 should be dumped 
for the 24 overpasses. Purchase land now and don't let development build in future road 
areas (you can always sell it later if a plan is changed). 
• 
Thank you for asking for our opinions. 
• 
Please analyze California and do the opposite. Government intrusion/mandates affect  
people’s lives negatively. CA has one of the  Highest tax burdens, highest cost of power, 
highest cost of housing, is very hard to do business, overly burdensome regulations, lack 
of planning for growth and infrastructure, which  has made the state impossible to live 
in for anyone other than elites

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
38  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Keep the Rio Verde Foothills rural. Do NOT allow further re-zoning that reduces lot sizes, 
or adds any more large home or commercial developments. Do NOT permit special 
taxing districts. Expand access to water for residential lot/home owners. Strictly enforce 
zoning and building codes to prevent irresponsible wildcat building. 
• 
Progress is not always good or beneficial to an area. We need to maintain a reasonable 
level of food production within the county just in case of future attacks by China or some 
other adversary. This is a lesson we learned during the Communists China Virus attack!! 
• 
The county should work with the voters and any city before voting to change zoning 
against the will of the voters and the city for any zoning change – especially one that 
goes against the city’s published planning and when they city not only has a resolution 
against it, but does not agree to provide water, sewer, police, or fire for it.  
• 
The city planning in Chandler is going the wrong direction. As a real estate broker and 
owner of both property and a business I do not agree with forcing high density housing 
in Chandler. This plan reeks of bad decision making and possible issues with our leaders 
bending to developers instead of serving and listening to your community. What about 
an increase in traffic, taxes, and can the area support this increase in density without 
negative impacts to Chandler. 
• 
We are glad you advised against this high density project, but you have no ability to 
abide by the will of the people. Instead out out state interests and lobbyists dictate our 
city. The Dec. 11th meeting has already been decided by dishonest people that do not 
care for the people they serve. I am sad to see the the future of Chandler looks bleak.  
• 
What are the circumstances which would lead Planning staff to circumvent the 
Comprehensive Plan and specifically the Zoning Plans? 
• 
Many of the audience members expressed their desire to be heard & be involved. This 
session may have benefitted by laying out the public participation opportunities 
throughout the process of the comprehensive plan… example during 90-day review 
period, informally at these sessions, at public hearings (@PnZ & BOS) and even the 
ballot once BOS accepts a Draft for adoption. Laying out these engagement 
opportunities chronologically throughout the CPU process can help constituents plan 
to stay engaged, as well as build trust & transparency w/ MC staff and consultants.  
o 
Should Maricopa County align its land use policies with the Multijurisdictional 
Hazard Mitigation Plan? 
o 
What are the performance metrics in place? Or, the explanation criteria in terms 
of the effectiveness of the 10 year – comp. plan? Lessons learned from the last 
10 year plan.  
o 
Should P&D make the public participation method/process a public document? 
Methods of participation – online/offline?

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
39  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
Comment: Looks like there is a disconnect between the comprehensive planning and 
implementation in reality. Question: Who is responsible to ensure that comprehensive 
plan is implemented as planned. 
• 
1, Traffic on Gavilan Pk Pkway west of Navigation Way. 2, Also showing traffic down B 
Street Bumpers. 3, More Police Dept issuing tickets on speeders.  
• 
Anthem is a largely “family” community and I find it suspect that an important meeting 
such as this that potentially impacts the quality of life for so many residents is not held 
after 6:30pm when working folks are home and can plan to attend. I wonder is the 
meeting specifically designed to limit attendance? PS the majority of attendees clearly 
fall in the potential age range of “retirement” 
• 
Need a study specific to access points to mountains and rivers. Proposition needed to 
support expansion + improvement of parks, trails, + open space. Work with MAG to 
update the 1995 Desert Spaces Plan. Protect and improve active transportation. We 
need separated paths (they can also serve as firebreaks). Create policies or guidelines 
to protect the scenic corridor along 17 in North Valley. Create Daisy Mountain Recreation 
Area, protect the trails on the Mountain and provide trail connections to New River 
community park + Tonto National Forest. Allow ADU’s. Protect Wildlife Corridor. 
• 
VERY Good informative presentation. Looking forward to the next phase of the Com Plan 
review.  
• 
Great work. Looking forward to see the final plan.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
40  
 
VISION REPORT 
Interactive Mapping Results 
 
 
 
FAVORITE PLACE 
• 
Being able to walk out one’s door and hike a mountain is a gift. 
• 
Please do not develop the entire Sonoran Desert Parkway - this natural desert needs to be 
protected long-term. 
• 
Hi beautiful desert area with lots of cultural and geological interest 
• 
This State Trust land is accessible from most homes in the Anthem neighborhoods and is 
used by a great many for outdoor recreation and should be preserved as open space. With 
the valley continuing to expand conserving areas for outdoor recreation that reduce travel 
and commuting for outdoor recreation should be paramount. 
• 
My shop and home

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
41  
 
VISION REPORT 
ASSET 
• 
The trails along or off Dynamite like Pima Dynamite, Browns, Fraesfield, and Granite 
Trailhead are amazing. 
• 
The opening of the International Dark Sky Discovery Center at the end of 2025 will become 
a wonderful attraction to the county and the state. 
• 
The Salt River is an asset that should be protected and enhanced. 
• 
Protect this beautiful area offering open space and trails for recreation. 
• 
Please protect the rural lifestyle offered in this area to by preventing or limiting planned 
community residential development and commercial development. This area represents 
a special alternative to those seeking a more rural lifestyle in Maricopa County. 
• 
Beautiful open spaces available for recreation; please protect. 
• 
Please protect and preserve this area with excellent trail network and beautiful open space. 
This Asset makes Maricopa a great place to live, work and recreate. 
• 
Daisy Mtn trail and the connecting trails just north of Anthem need to be preserved for 
recreation purposes just as the trails have at Apache Wash, Cave Creek Regional Park and 
Brown’s Ranch. 
• 
"La Salvia Dairy 
SIGNIFICANCE 
A. HISTORIC EVENTS/TRENDS 
Agriculture - Associated with the agricultural maturity of Laveen, 1913-1973. 
After the Porters (refer to Inventory form #3) left the property, Tony and Angeline La Salvia 
bought the land in the 1950s. The La Salvias continued to use the land much as the Porters 
had, for ranching and dairy. The La Salvia family (including their son Jerome) continued to 
prosper in the dairy business, becoming one of the most successful and last bastions of 
Laveen’s dying farm and dairy industry. 
C. ARCHITECTURE (parlor barn only) 
Agriculture – Construction: unique type of design. 
Farmers use any number of styles of milking parlors to milk dairy cattle. Many older farms 
use flat-barn parlors like the La Salvia barn, where the milker and cow are at the same 
level and the milker bends down to apply the milking machine to the cow - more modern 
farms use recessed parlors, where the milker stands in a recess such that his arms are at 
the level of the cow's udder. In Laveen, the dairy industry was once a prominent business, 
similar to farming cotton. At one time, parlor barns were common structures. Today, only 
two remain, including this good example.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
42  
 
VISION REPORT 
DESIGN 
1) 2) 3) Parlor barn c. 1955: one story, rectangular shape, concrete slab foundation, brick 
structure (except pediment, which is horizontal wood board cladding), normal-pitched 
front-gabled roof of wide metal sheets, flat openings, wood framed windows. Built by Tony 
and Jerome La Salvia. Old La Salvia residence c. 1955: one story vernacular, square-plan, 
asymmetrical façade, wood frame with horizontal wood board siding, hipped roof with 
wood shingles and overhanging eaves, flat openings, wood double-hung windows. 
Front barn c. 1959: one story, rectangular shape (broadside facing street), concrete slab 
foundation, brick structure (except pediment, which is vertical metal siding), normal-
pitched front-gabled roof of wide metal sheets (topped by smaller gable addition for 
ventilation), flat openings, steel fixed windows, rear of structure open and is supported by 
wood columns" 
• 
"9040 S 27th Avenue “Porter Ranch is eligible for Historic Designation under Criterion A and 
C. 
SIGNIFICANCE 
A. HISTORIC EVENTS/TRENDS 
Agriculture - Associated with the agricultural maturity of Laveen, 1913-1973. 
According to land ownership maps, several Porters, E.H. and S.H. Porter, owned this 
southeast quarter of Section two between 1919 and 1929. Renowned businessman, Fred S. 
Porter owned portions of the northeast quarter of Section two. It remains unclear, however, 
if the later Porter lived at this location because 1934 aerial photos only show farm or grazing 
fields on this land. The Porters came to own the surveyed property by 1919 and built the 
current house between 1914 and 1934, also likely ranching (hence the silo) and making 
saddles on this and adjacent properties.  
The Porter family moved to the Phoenix area in 1892, opening the N. Porter Saddle and 
Harness Company of Phoenix, named after Newton Porter. After the elder Porter died in 1906, 
his son, Fred became manager of the family business. As of 1930, the N. Porter Saddle Co., 
under Fred Porter's leadership, was ""one of Arizona's most distinctive business institutions"" 
and held the title of 3"" largest business of its kind in the world. Porter was globally renown 
for their stock and quality of product. As Armon Cheatham remarked, a farmer or cowboy 
didn't have a saddle unless it was a Porter. 
Originally, the company occupied an office on S. Central Avenue, but relocated to the Craig 
Building in downtown Phoenix in 1922. According to a newspaper article about the historic 
Del Monte Market on the southeast corner of 43rd Avenue and Dobbins, the Market sold 
Porter Saddles during the 1920s, which was purportedly located across the street at the 
home site. Perhaps its offices or simply the home of the company's owners lived diagonally 
across 43""* Avenue and Dobbins, but it is unlikely that saddles were made at the location.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
43  
 
VISION REPORT 
C. ARCHITECTURE (front house and silo) 
Residential - Design: unique example of Cotswald Revival. 
Agriculture - Construction: unique type of design (silo only). 
The front Cotswald Revival house is a great example of this style, a rare example within the 
Salt River Valley. The use of red brick to accentuate corners and windows is a unique style 
of workmanship. 
The silo is the most distinctive agricultural feature in Laveen. At one time, these structures 
dotted the landscape. Today, however, they remain a unique and rare example of a dying 
breed that supply a sense of Laveen's agricultural heritage. 
Three silos survive and only one of this type of construction - solid concrete without 
reinforced bars - remains. As opposed to the earlier, less sturdy examples of silo 
construction evident at the Maben and Barney properties, the Porter silo is one piece of 
concrete that will not fall, according to owner Jerome LaSalvia. LaSalvia believes that this 
silo is only one of a few of its kind that still stands within the greater Salt River Valley" 
OPPORTUNITY 
• 
Continuous sidewalks are needed up and down Jomax for residents safety and quality of 
life. 
• 
Continuous sidewalks are needed for residents safety and quality of life. 
• 
The park should be expanded to provide more hiking and biking with access to the Tonto 
forest and trail to the Maricopa trail system.  It should be funded and managed by Parks 
and Rec and the existing facilities updated and maintained. 
• 
Place amenity here to encourage people to use the river area. 
• 
"Given its proximity to the Rio Salado Oeste interest areas, this presents a significant 
opportunity for the City of Phoenix to reclaim and restore nearly 1,500 acres of riparian and 
floodplain habitat. Plans explored by the City and County include integrating recreational 
features, such as trails and pedestrian connectivity—linking South 59th Avenue to Baseline 
Road through streets and pedestrian bridges—while contributing to the restoration of the 
Salt River and its surrounding ecosystems to a healthier, more sustainable state. 
• 
This opportunity would align with the City and County's long-term goals, for regional 
features, and preservation. Perhaps equally as important, though, it addresses social and 
environmental equity by providing Estrella Village and neighboring Laveen Village with 
amenities similar to those enjoyed in higher socioeconomic areas in other parts of the 
Greater Phoenix region. Important to note as well, much of this land, conveyed from federal 
ownership between 1883 and 1928, now falls under local jurisdiction, making this an 
opportunity to correct missed chances from the past. By prioritizing restoration and

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
44  
 
VISION REPORT 
recreational access, the project can enrich the community, improve connectivity, and 
provide residents with greater access to the natural beauty of our city." 
• 
Development of additional multi-use trails and means of access to the park. 
• 
Development of additional multi-use trails and means of access to the park.  Annex 
adjacent State Trust lands through land swap to maximize open space. 
• 
New River Square is used everyday by the community for hiking, dog walking and horse 
back riding. 
• 
Off road park, Shooting range 
• 
Add more Retail, Shops, Food, shopping, Restraints 
• 
Protect open space and wildlife 
CHALLENGES 
• 
I strongly disagree with another comment.  Anthem has little access to Daisy Mountain. Yes 
the community backs up to Daisy. However fences & lack of access prohibits the 
community's ability to take advantage of this asset. Also, being State Trust Land unless a 
permit is purchased it is illegal to be on the mountain. 
• 
This used to be a peaceful area that people could go outside and enjoy their surroundings. 
Because of the high speed limits on these residential streets, residents cannot enjoy the 
outdoors. A 45 mile an hour speed limit is unsafe. Please lower. 
• 
The proposed freeway going through East/West between Patton Rd and Jomax Rd will 
destroy peoples home values and result in the actual demolition of homes.  I propose that 
it would be better for residents and LESS COSTLY to the county to put this freeway through 
further North between Wittman and Morristown where there is less existing development 
and homes. 
• 
People in our residential neighborhood are selling their properties with an understanding 
that our neighborhood will become commercial property. I want to know if that is the case 
and I want to say that the vast majority of us are against it. 
• 
Without strategic planning and proactive solutions, ongoing industrial operations—
compounded by the complexities of county islands—will continue to strain Phoenix with air 
quality concerns, public health risks, and obstacles to attracting diverse investors. Estrella 
Village, in particular, faces the risk of falling further behind neighboring villages unless these 
issues are addressed comprehensively and collaboratively, and unless we are intentional 
about ideating solutions for these sites now. To address these challenges, the City and 
County must collaborate on a deliberate, long-term strategy for these sites, and ideally, 
clearly communicate the operating window of these sites, so community groups can 
began exploring land reclamation projects in collaboration with our City and County 
Officials. Such initiatives could help identify diversify business opportunities beyond heavy 
or light industrial zoning and support green space restoration, creating recreational areas 
that enhance community well-being. Engaging residents in this process is essential; 
proactive outreach efforts must ensure their voices shape the future of their

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
45  
 
VISION REPORT 
neighborhoods. Throughout Estrella Village, the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County have 
allowed rapid rezoning near various opportunity zones, yet many of the resulting 
businesses fail to deliver meaningful job opportunities or essential services to local 
neighborhoods. No to mention, there is little to no meaningful engagement with the 
communities and neighborhoods surrounding them. 
• 
Without strategic planning and proactive solutions, ongoing industrial operations—
compounded by the complexities of county islands—will continue to strain Phoenix with air 
quality concerns, public health risks, and obstacles to attracting diverse investors. Estrella 
Village, in particular, faces the risk of falling further behind neighboring villages unless these 
issues are addressed comprehensively and collaboratively, and unless we are intentional 
about ideating solutions for these sites now. To address these challenges, the City and 
County must collaborate on a deliberate, long-term strategy for these sites, and ideally, 
clearly communicate the operating window of these sites, so community groups can 
began exploring land reclamation projects in collaboration with our City and County 
Officials. Such initiatives could help identify diversify business opportunities beyond heavy 
or light industrial zoning and support green space restoration, creating recreational areas 
that enhance community well-being. Engaging residents in this process is essential; 
proactive outreach efforts must ensure their voices shape the future of their 
neighborhoods. Throughout Estrella Village, the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County have 
allowed rapid rezoning near various opportunity zones, yet many of the resulting 
businesses fail to deliver meaningful job opportunities or essential services to local 
neighborhoods. No to mention, there is little to no meaningful engagement with the 
communities and neighborhoods surrounding them. 
• 
The proposed BNSF intermodal facility will have an impact on residents, traffic and the 
surrounding desert environment. Consideration of locals' concerns must be included in 
careful planning for this facility.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
46  
 
VISION REPORT 
Idea Wall Results 
• 
Allow farm land to be sold to home builders. We need more housing. 
• 
Keep planting more drought resistant trees 
• 
The Green New Deal does not benefit citizens 
• 
Provide more parks with some green grass for children & families to play.  Some water 
will be required but the quality of life will be greatly enhanced & grass makes an area 
much cooler. 
• 
Quarterly hazardous waste pick-up would go a long way to eliminating the routine 
disposal of such materials in regular trash.  Residents in the far west valley, especially 
senior communities, often don't have the means (or physical ability) to drive to distant 
collection sites.  Disposing of the materials used in arts and crafts, for example, often 
wind up in trash that is picked up (paints, etc.), simply because no viable alternative 
exists.  Outdated phones, computers, memory sticks,  and other electronics are other 
examples.  An alternative to pick-ups would be to have periodic drop-off locations, 
within a mile or two of most housing, similar to the scheduled drop-off sites for Rx and 
otc medications now offered by many communities. 
• 
Suggest that age of potential jurors for mandatory jury duty in Maricopa County be 
lowered from 75 years to 70 years. 
• 
Strip malls all over the county rarely seem to be fully occupied and the ghost town look 
is demoralizing and dangerous. Criminal activity often occurs in them especially after 
hours. Why not make the zoning a combo with residential so each mall could have 
some residents on site and a possible live-in manager and/or security person? Business 
owners used to live above their businesses and it would be a nice possibility for a start 
up to be able to do the same, esp. if it were a condo rent-to-own arrangement so equity 
could be built. 
• 
Why can't our major universities like Grand Canyon and ASU provide some residential 
life style housing for seniors? It would be great to have the generations learn and 
interact with each other. Surely the county could offer some incentives, but as a public 
service/duty, the universities should be doing this on their own and may just need some 
brainstorming and encouragement from the county. 
• 
It doesn't matter how many times you widen the highways, traffic will continue to get 
worse and worse as the area grows if the only way to get around is by car. We need a 
commuter rail system. 
• 
There have been many road/traffic flow improvements in N. Scottsdale along Happy 
Valley in particular. However, growth continues up and down Jomax, Alma School and 
Happy Valley. Vehicle traffic is one thing but pedestrian traffic has been largely ignored.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
47  
 
VISION REPORT 
Residents need safe, continuous sidewalks along all of these roads to be able to walk to 
parks, hiking trails and drug stores not to mention to build community with one’s 
neighbors. Walking without continuous sidewalks puts adults, children and pets alike in 
harm’s way. 
• 
The title says it.  Improvements?  Tweaks to build on a safe and successful system?  Yes.  
But wholesale suppression in the guise of "reform" is not beneficial and is a waste of 
taxpayer $. 
• 
The Sonoran Desert is rapidly disappearing, and there is only one.  I'd like to see the 
County prioritize the use of native plants,  protect saguaros, and desert restoration. 
• 
I understand that growth is necessary and good, but it makes me sad to see 
developments packed on top of each other, displacing wildlife and desert plants. I 
would like to see natural spaces prioritized, considering wildlife crossings and access 
across the desert, as well as giving us humans plenty of opportunities to hike and 
experience beautiful untouched desert. 
• 
Make the posted signs for a Rezoning of an area larger and distribute to the neighboring 
area leaflets to notify the community that will be most directly impacted of the 
possibility of a rezoning 
• 
Hi! My proposition is simple - safer streets! Why is Maricopa County, and the cities within, 
purposefully building unsafe streets that account for hundreds of traffic deaths each 
year? There are literally hundreds of streets that are way too wide, and have extremely 
unsafe intersections, which prompt drivers to drive much faster than they need too even 
if it doesn't get them there faster. Build streets like highways, drivers use them like 
highways. Regarding 
unsafe 
intersections: 
what 
is 
with 
Maricopa County's 
intersections? What is with the absolutely insane allergy to roundabout/circle 
intersections? They have been proven to improve traffic flow and safety, yet zero 
infrastructure improvement projects currently have these planned. In fact, street 
widening and more unsafe intersections are planned. Intersections are way too wide 
and have way too much conflict, especially in comparison to many other American 
cities. In addition, the so-called "infrastructure improvement" includes bike lanes on 
these extremely unsafe roads, which makes cyclists less visible to drivers, and puts 
cyclists right next to high speed traffic. We need to start separating pedestrian and 
cycling traffic from vehicle traffic. 
• 
"Our air quality is worsening. Implementing a fireworks ban, except for permitted 
professional shows on July 4th and New Year’s Eve, and ban recreational burning. Most 
importantly, enforcement of these laws must be acted upon and monetarily fines 
issued for compliance." 
• 
How about we require these empty or half empty Strip Malls be fully utilized, before new 
ones can be built? My God what a waste of land they are! Also, I thought I heard of a

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
48  
 
VISION REPORT 
policy awhile back "Up Not Out" or something thing like that? Making companies build 
higher facilities, instead of acreage absorbing campuses! JMO. 
• 
"""...Seldin and his Kent Circle Partners/Seldin Real Estate Inc. group are the newest land 
owners within a sprawling master-planned community called Sunhaven and parts of 
the surrounding area that can now take initial steps toward development now that the 
land was secured for the water treatment facility. Homebuilders won't touch land unless 
they have access to water because they are required to prove they can offer 
homebuyers 100 years of water supply. Spanning 2,200 acres, the Sunhaven master-
planned community currently is owned by three separate groups...."" Phoenix Business 
Journal. 12/31/2024" 
• 
"Waymo service is not available to locations in Maricopa County. As a result many 
elderly people who live in the County must drive, adding to traffic congestion and 
accidents. We need  to change and allow this service to function. Dave Anciaux, Robson 
Reserve Sun Lakes" 
• 
The Valley Metro bus needs to be able to go to all high schools and trade schools that 
high schools are partnered with to give students the freedom of choice when it comes 
to education. Right now, the bus will not go to Deer Valley High School and the West Mec 
north campus preventing students that cannot afford transportation to be able to 
graduate from high school with different high value certifications for free. This is having 
a negative financial effect on our economy because these students are stuck working 
low value jobs and struggle getting out of a systematic pattern to create financial 
growth. Please expand Valley Metro to give students a choice. 
• 
Happy Valley road west of 303 has not kept up with the population growth and new 
housing developments . It’s dangerous to turn safely out of these communities onto 
happy valley due to lack of traffic signals. Traffic signals are desperately needed at 
each community including Cold water Ranch as well Rancho Cabrillo. Without traffic 
signals or stop signs drivers are speeding well above the 45 mph zone. Many accidents 
at these intersections due to inadequate and poorly planned infrastructure. More 
homes going up and no thought given to traffic management. 
• 
Multifamily dwelling units should be built with the intent for home ownership, allowing 
young families and first time buyers to purchase a 1/2/3 BR condo rather than forcing 
them to rent.  Too many rental only properties are being built without simply building 
condos/apartments for individual ownership. 
• 
Trees and plant life reduce pollution.  Add in more desert dwelling plants and parks with 
trees to help reduce pollution.  Also helps reduce heat.  Open park space between 
developments will go a long way to help reduce construction dust.  Our Saguaro's are 
slowly dying off, let's get them back to fruition to help contribute to air quality.

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
49  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
"Standardize building and infrustructure codes to reduce the heat that our roads and 
concrete are adding.  As we build new highways, utilize attractive manmade structures 
that align with the environmental goals of reducing the ""heat sink"" effect that emits 
heat 
at 
night. 
Along 
with 
growing 
new 
infrustructure, 
consider 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/08/230803112920.htm 
or 
https://phys.org/news/2023-03-world-energy-saving-paintinspired-butterflies.html" 
• 
Bad air impacts everyone! We must take steps now to protect and also improve 
conditions. Banning fireworks (other than professional events on July 4th and New 
Year’s Eve) is a great start. Banning recreational and unnecessary burning is also 
another. More importantly, is the enforcement and penalties related to these actions. 
• 
"Vehicular circulation has a significant impact of the heat island effect.  MCDOT and 
municipalities all use some very typical cross-sections for their classification of streets.  
The more traffic that is condensed justifies the number of lanes and turning 
movements, and that is justified.  However, it seems that the majority of these cross-
sections do not give enough attention to pedestrian separation, shade, and bicycle 
traffic, and the landscape.   Can the Comp Plan encourage the installation of more 
center islands and chicanes to slow traffic in neighborhoods and promote more shade?  
Tempe has been very successful in requiring this design.  There are many mid-section 
collector streets in neighborhoods that are 60' in width, (5 lanes), why?  Wider ROW's 
can provide more separation for pedestrians and allow the installation of shade trees 
that have enough room to mature.  Wider ROWs can collect the storm flow from these 
streets and help with retention and water harvesting.  This is proven, but not widely 
used(?) Shaded neighborhood streets add to the marketability of the subdivision.  It 
seems that there is justification for modifying the design criteria for roadway design to 
have a substantial impact on the ""heat island"" dilemma." 
• 
"The current area plan has been violated consistently. If a project isn't approved through 
the permit process, the developer simply proceeds to the Board of Adjustment which 
routinely approves requests. When this was brought before one of the County 
Supervisors, this was the response: ""The county’s comprehensive plan and the various 
county area plans are guidelines outlining planning goals, policies and strategies. 
These are not regulatory documents and thus can’t be violated.  The guidelines are 
there for consideration by the P&Z Commission and BOS when they review proposals 
for zone changes. In that consideration they ask themselves “does this proposal further 
a preponderance of the plan’s goals?”  However, the plans do not apply once zoning 
entitlement is in place on a property.  For construction/building permits where the 
zoning entitlement is already in place there is no discretion but rather the process is one 
of administrative approval if all technical requirements (i.e. construction safety or 
building code) have been met."" Which infers that whatever plan is put in place is 
worthless because it will be set aside at whim. The most obvious violation is visible for 
miles around the area (photo included), and its permit has expired. There are many 
other examples of this problem around the area to anyone that bothers to look."

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
50  
 
VISION REPORT 
• 
We can't stop progress, but we can alter how it happens. What if for every mile of new 
road constructed, 1/2 mile of commuter rail line/electric commuter bus is installed? Be 
aspirational and have an additional 50 miles of commuter lines and electric buses by 
2035. 
• 
Encourage developers and builders to follow best practices for ensuring wildlife 
corridors are maintained and supported.  More scrutiny should be given to 
development of solar fields and the amount of land used for solar and how that impacts 
animals. 
• 
Maricopa County has come a long way in terms of planning and actively developing 
trail and other non-vehicular connectivity throughout the County and beyond, and has 
done a great job in preserving open space. In fact, Maricopa County is a leader in these 
efforts and it is appreciated. Would love to see this emphasis maintained and efforts be 
made to enhance this. 
• 
The lure of semiconductor jobs has sucked in developers and politicians who do not 
have longevity in the industry. When the chip industry hiccups, mass layoffs ensue and 
AZ will be passing out unemployment checks. And remember the groundwater 
contamination left by Motorola. How confident the new factories are clean and use less 
water? Caveat emptor. 
• 
Why should build-to-rent single family homes be except from obtaining a water 
certificate?  This smacks of favoritism. 
• 
Rebuild and repair the Maricopa County floodplains. They were illegally sold by Surprise 
City officials for personal profit. The ancient trees and saguaro should have been 
moved. They were destroyed. Many protected bird species were destroyed as well. We 
dont need more asphalt and stores. We need more desert. 
• 
Leverage technology to help move vehicles as efficiently as possible.  Limit needless 
stopping to save fuel and time as well as cut back on air pollution. 
• 
Align plan goals and vision to regional projects such as light rail, freeways, trails, and 
Rio Reimagined. Governmental coordination is important to achieve these goals. 
• 
Explore ways to address the urban heat island.  Things that come to mind are cool 
pavement, rooftop gardens, additional tree cover, buildings and roof tops that are 
lighter colors rather than brown. 
• 
There must be planning for MCACC to comply with its legal obligation to intake and 
house stray dogs. The Plan and BOS must set funding for sheltering and shelter staffing 
congruous with human population growth in the county which has lead to more 
animals in the county. Given the county's geographical size, the county should consider 
smaller satellite shelters which would help with staffing as well as the improve the

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
51  
 
VISION REPORT 
welfare of the housed animals. The Plan should also prioritize free spay and neuter for 
low income animals guardians as part of MCACC's programs. 
• 
"Green Space and space for kids to safely be able to play outside must be at the 
forefront of your decision making. Grandfathered homes and areas, respect the type of 
property that already exists and DO NOT plan to encroach on people and their views. 
Views of the city sky and the white tank mountains Must NOT BE OBSTRUCTED. Greed can 
not be the goal, profit can not be the goal. We live here, we need a happy place to live. 
And being packed in like sardines caused crime rates to go up and it is simply an eye 
sore." 
• 
"Matt, I know that you consider the important city & county plan areas. I found that you 
provide the Transportation corridors, Trail systems (human & animal), recreation areas, 
natural points of interest such as rivers, mountains, lakes, and scenic corridors. These 
provide points of interest for our residents. Mitch Rosenbaum" 
• 
To ensure sustainable growth and harmonious coexistence between industrial 
operations and residential neighborhoods, we urge county officials to collaborate 
closely with city leaders in proactively shaping development plans for these sites. 
Establishing clearer, more comprehensive standards—covering pile heights, berms, 
setbacks, screening, and operating hours—will help balance the city’s growing need for 
natural resources with the well-being of its communities. Such regulations will foster 
responsible operations that respect residential areas, preventing the long-term 
challenges faced by cities like Las Vegas in managing reclamation efforts. Clinging to 
a “we were here first” mentality is unsustainable; forward-thinking policies that address 
both industrial and residential interests will better serve our city’s future. 
• 
We need to expand light rail to different  cities and add the commuter rail system. Also, 
we need to create a dedicated sales tax for public transportation. 
• 
Protect recreation areas and green space. This is one of the things that makes our area 
so beautiful. 
• 
Protect the rural lifestyle by keeping development out of the rural areas 
• 
The area of the Carefree Hwy from 7th Street to around 36th Street is wide open on both 
sides.  I thought I had heard/seen that areas on both sides would become park areas.  
This would be most attractive.  I'd assume that retail and commercial will be showing 
up.  What are the actual plans and anticipated timing?  This area, as it is very large, 
would be one that the Public should have major involvement with. 
• 
In lieu of widening the I-10 freeway why not put a lite rail system down the middle of the 
freeway with exits at the major corss streets.  The cities with the exits could utilize a bus 
service to transport commuters to their places of business or within walking distance.  
For example, a bus service from Chandler Blvd. to Intel or from Queen Creek Road to

Framework 2040 Maricopa County  
Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 
52  
 
VISION REPORT 
Intel.  Would save ware and tear on the highway and stop many cars from traveling 
back and forth to work five days a week. 
• 
Considering the geographical size of the county having more regional smaller shelters 
throughout the county. 
• 
Traffic on US 60 between Surprise and Wickenburg is quite heavy for a local road. The 
intermodal facility being proposed by the BNSF will undoubtedly add to the congestion 
and danger. Traffic circles or multiple traffic lights on this route might increase safety 
for rural residents and local traffic. 
• 
Hello.  There is an open area between 7th Ave , 7th Street, Joy Ranch Road and Cloud 
Road.  It is used by hikers, dog walkers, and horse back riders.  It would be nice if is was 
turned into a designated park. 
• 
Test 
• 
ADOT is considering putting in traffic circles.  I come from NJ where they took out all the 
traffic circles because they were so dangerous.  Learn from another state's experience.  
They are a very bad idea. 
• 
"Over the last decade there has been an explosion of e-scooters and bikes.  The rules 
for use on our roads and canals are not clearly defined, and they need to be.  One of 
the uses for these two wheelers is to commute to mass transit for traveling longer 
distances.  This would be good for removing some cars from the roads but there is a 
bottle neck getting these two wheelers on busses and light rail.  We need more space.  
The e-bikes are too heavy to mount on the few racks currently provided.  Light rail is too 
slow, stopping every mile takes too much time.  An express train is needed." 
• 
It would be nice to have an off road park and shooting range in the Buckeye area

March 31, 2026 
 
Mr. Adam Cannon 
Maricopa County Senior Planner 
301 W Jefferson St. 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
​
 
Electronically submitted to: Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov 
  
 
RE:​
Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
Dear Mr. Cannon: 
  
The Arizona Game and Fish Department (Department) appreciates the opportunity to review the  
Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The Department understands 
that this Plan will help shape Maricopa County development through 2040 and will help educate 
and steer future management decisions that better align with increasing population and urban 
growth in the arid Phoenix metropolitan area.  
 
Under Title 17 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the Department, by and through the Arizona 
Game and Fish Commission, has jurisdictional authority and public trust responsibilities to 
conserve and protect the state fish and wildlife resources. In addition, the Department manages 
threatened and endangered species through authorities of Section 6 of the Endangered Species 
Act and the Department’s Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. It is the mission of the Department to 
conserve and protect Arizona's diverse fish and wildlife resources and manage for safe, 
compatible outdoor recreation opportunities for current and future generations. For your 
consideration, the Department provides the following comments based on the agency's statutory 
authorities, public trust responsibilities, and special expertise related to wildlife resources and 
recreation.  
 
The Department has appreciated the early and often coordination during the construction of this 
Plan as well as acknowledgement of Department supported initiatives that improve upon habitat 
such as the Lower Gila River Collaborative and Open Space considerations. The Department has 
prepared the attached comment matrix which includes the Department’s recommendations for 
the Plan.

AZGFD Comments - Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 
March 31, 2026 
Page 2 
 
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Maricopa County Framework 2040 
Comprehensive Plan. For further questions, please continue to contact Bobby Lamoureux at 
rlamoureux@azgfd.gov or 480-262-9427. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
 
 
Kriselle Colvin 
Regional Supervisor, Region VI 
 
cc:​
Callie Cavalcant - Habitat, Evaluation, and Lands Branch Chief 
 
Attachment: AZGFD Comments - Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 
 
AZGFD #M26-01302707

M26-01302707 AZGFD Comment Matrix - Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan
1
AZGFD Comments -  Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 
Section
Page
Recommendation/Comment
Commenter
Environmental Goal #3
22 & 146
The Department encourages primarily landscaping with native species to 
help create more contiguous patches of native cover for wildlife.
AZGFD
Open Space Policy 4.3 & 4.4
26 & 187
The Department would like to further discuss such opportunities with 
Maricopa County along the Department's managed wildlife areas.
AZGFD
Energy Goal #3
28 & 209
The Department encourages prioritizing construction of new energy 
facilities on previously disturbed locations where feasible.
AZGFD
Aggregate Resources, paragraph 2
84
The Department recommends including leaving open pits as a post-
aggregate site restoration technique to help provide habitat for waterfowl 
and marsh bird species.
AZGFD
Agricultural and Rural Lands
90
Although the Department encourages development of previously disturbed 
lands, it is also acknowledged that in addition to impacts to the local food 
system, the loss of agricultural lands may have impacts on wildlife 
populations, specifically ungulates and migratory bird species which utilize 
agricultural fields for forage and cover.
AZGFD
Wildlife Connectivity Corridors & 
Map 19
136-137
The Department recommends including the landscape movement areas and 
riparian movement areas that are referenced in the "The Maricopa County 
Wildlife Connectivity Assessment" as part of the "Wildlife Connectivity 
Corridors Section" and include them in Map 19. The corridors listed in the 
current by themselves may not be sufficient in maintaining wildlife 
diversity between the corridor blocks, and including spaces for movement 
between blocks helps ensure wildlife connectivity is maintained.
AZGFD
Habitat Connectivity, Biodiversity & 
Invasive Species Management
142
The Department recommends including tamarisk in the first statement that 
lists invasive species which increase wildfire risk.
AZGFD
Map 22
181
The Department manages PLO-1015 lands and commission owned lands 
along the Gila River up to 91st avenue. If this is within the scope of this 
figure, the Department is available to collaborate on updating the figure to 
include these areas in the open space land uses, as they are managed to 
provide maximum wildlife value and development is not an allowed use for 
these locations.
AZGFD
Strategies - Broad-Based Energy 
Development Strategy
204
The Department encourages prioritizing construction of new energy 
facilities on previously disturbed locations where feasible.
AZGFD

1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Rhonda Buss <rbuss@azland.gov>
Sent:
Monday, March 30, 2026 2:59 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Karen Dada
Subject:
Draft Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan - ASLD Comments
Attachments:
26-0330 ASLD Comment - Maricopa County Comp. Plan.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Dear Adam, 
 
Thank you for the early coordination and opportunity to comment on the draft Maricopa County 
Comprehensive Plan. State Trust Land comprises approximately 11.5% of the land within the County as 
specified in the draft. As a major stakeholder, ASLD offers the attached comments. 
Please feel free to contact me if there are any items the County would like to discuss or has questions 
on. 
We look forward to the continued coordination as State Trust Land is planned. 
Thank you,  
To help 
protect y
privacy, 
Micro so f
Office 
prevente
auto mati
downloa
this pictu
from the 
Internet.
Rhonda Buss, AICP
  Planner III 
  1110 W. Washington St 
  Phoenix, AZ 85007 
  602-542-3126 
  land.az.gov | Facebook | Twitter/X

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 1 of 10 
Name: Rhonda Buss 
Email: rbuss@azland.gov 
Title: Planner III 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
Comment 
Number 
PDF Page No.   
ASLD comment. 
1 
All page numbers referenced 
on the comment form are from 
the PDF of the document. 
ASLD appreciates the ongoing coordination with the County on STL. Please contact us if 
there are any questions or comments the County would like to discuss. 
 
Thank you for incorporating hyperlinks. It makes the document more user-friendly. 
2 
Overall comment 
Specify whether the land use designations of State Trust Land (STL) within are changed from 
the previous General Plan. If so, please provide ASLD with a detailed summary of what 
changes are proposed for which parcels.  
3 
Overall comment 
If not already completed, please use this update to address the land use designations on 
STL described by Maricopa County staff as inadvertent map errors  on the 2023 update of 
the Land Use Plan for the White Tanks/Grand Avenue Area Plan, which changed the long-
standing industrial/employment land use designations to Single-Family Rural residential on 
approximately 2,780 acres of State Trust Land. This was acknowledged by Maricopa County 
Staff in public hearings and staff reports for Case Number CPA2024006 as “inadvertent 
mapping errors,” that occurred without specific reclassification discussions with 
landowners.  This CP Update process is an opportunity for the County to fix a known error 
caused by a prior County action. Correction of this error should not be the landowner’s 
obligation.

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 2 of 10 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
4 
Overall comment 
 
Does the document change/transportation element affect land that is adjacent to STL 
regarding road alignment, classification, funding, and/or ROWs? 
5 
Overall comment 
Is there any down planning (e.g., land use designation, density) that may affect STL. If so, 
please identify the applicable pages and sections in the proposed draft. 
6 
Overall comment 
As a minimum, pursuant to ARS 11-804.E please update land use designation to Single 
Family - Large Lot or other designation that allows for 1 DU/acre or greater (vs. equal to or 
less than) on STL with a lower designation. 
7 
Overall comment 
Please provide the associated shapefiles so we can overlay them in our database. 
8 
Overall comment 
Per ARS 11-804(E), public facilities and/or open space designation is not appropriate for 
STL. 
9 
Overall comment 
Consider policies that require equitable contributions to regional facilities including 
circulation, recreation, and wildlife corridors. 
 
Consider including wildlife corridor considerations to coincide with stormwater 
management guidelines. 
10 
Overall comment 
Provide a red-lined version of the final draft prior to hearing once available please. Keep 
ASLD apprised of hearing dates and the results of legislative actions taken at the hearing 
please. 
 
We would also appreciate the approved associated shapefiles once available.

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 3 of 10 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
11 
Page 14 
Does it make sense to broadly define “urban development” for this section?  
12 
Page 15, Land Use Policy 1.3 
“Existence” of infrastructure as the basis of CPA approval is a very stringent threshold, vs. 
“infrastructure readiness” as described in the USUD strategy.  Please change this policy to 
reflect infrastructure readiness, especially in areas where infrastructure is planned through 
the TIP or other regional planning efforts.  
13 
Page 15, Land Use Policy 1.4 
See comments for Policy 1.3. This is a strong statement that could create confusion 
because it implies that any/all development should be prevented, whether or not the 
development intensity warrants the need for proximity to an existing or planned state or 
federal highway. Perhaps consider using language similar to that in Policy 3.3, substituting 
“housing” for “development.” 
14 
Page 16, Land Use Policy #1.9: 
…municipalities, landowners, and .... 
15 
Page 16, Land Use Policy 1.16 
See ASLD comment #3. 
16 
Page 17, Land Use Policy #2.3 
Please define “public open spaces” and how they are different from regional parks.  What 
does “reduce the impacts” mean if the regional parks are within the Urban Influence? Any 
buffering required for open spaces should be encompassed within the preservation area to 
retain development rights.  
17 
Page 17, Land Use Policy 2.6 
and 2.9 
In most cases, such buffers should be incorporated within the facilities/land uses to be 
protected in order to preserve development rights of adjacent landowners.  
18 
Page 17, Land Use Policy #2.8 
Maricopa County supports flexible design and zoning techniques when used to

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 4 of 10 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
establish balanced and efficient land use patterns, and when used to protect important 
environmental, and open space areas and connections. 
19 
Page 17, Land Use Policy 3.3 
Suggest “…where public services and infrastructure are available or proximate.” 
20 
Page 18, Land Use Policy 4.2 
and 4.3 
This policy should not apply to regional infrastructure and amenities such as trails, which 
require consistency of maintenance, management, and could become an untenable 
financial and liability burden to HOAs. 
21 
Page 19, Policy 1.6 
Incorporation of scenic corridors within roadway planning should anticipate acquisition of 
wider easements to accommodate the scenic corridor standards.  
22 
Page 21, Policy 2.1 
Missing “of” in the first sentence: “…prohibition of development…” 
23 
Page 25, Policy 1.2 & Page 26, 
policy 4.2 
See ASLD comment #23.  
24 
Page 26, Open Space Policy 
#4.3: 
development pressures where feasible. 
 
25 
Page 26, Policy 4.4 
See ASLD comment #22. What is “open space” in this context? Please change to “public 
lands” to clarify that preservation of what currently exists as open space does not 
necessarily apply to STL.  
26 
Page 28, Policy 3.3 
See ASLD comment #23.

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 5 of 10 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
27 
Page 29, Policy 3.1 
…unless otherwise included in the County’s TIP… 
28 
Page 29, Policy 3.2 
How would this be calculated and assessed, outside of taxes? How would this be 
implemented when new development came in and took advantage of infrastructure where 
its maintenance is funded by the prior development?  
29 
Page 48, Relating to Other 
Jurisdictions’ Plans, Arizona 
State Land Department 
In areas where ASLD has not developed a Conceptual Plan, we defer to local jurisdictions’ 
comprehensive or general plans.  
 
Contextually "…yet protect the County and taxpayers from incompatible or premature 
development and unexpected costs" Sounds as though ASLD is not operating in alignment 
with our mission "To responsibly manage the assets of a perpetual trust in alignment with 
the interests of the Trust and the State." Suggest rewording to: “...value to the Trust and in 
alignment with the County Comprehensive plan.” 
 
Development on STL must adhere to local policies and regulations in the same manner as 
would development on private land.  
30 
Page 58, Table 2 
Within Maricopa County, only the 16.6% private and 11.5% STL are available to support the 
County’s housing and economic development goals.  
31 
Page 71, Legend 
Please change color legend to read “Existing Land Use.” 
32 
Page 72, 1st column, last 
paragraph 
Please coordinate with ASLD on Area Plans if STL is to be impacted.

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 6 of 10 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
Please see ASLD comment #3.  Will Maricopa County proactively amend area plans, such 
as the White Tank Grand Avenue Area Plan, that are known to have inaccurate land use 
designations?  
33 
Page 76, County Islands 
Check formatting of “annexing municipalities.” in the last sentence of the paragraph.  
 
“Unincorporated Areas” 3rd paragraph, first sentence: this should apply to all county 
residents, not just those in “more urbanized unincorporated communities.”  
34 
Page 90, Agricultural and 
Rural Lands 
There seems to be room for discussion about the water use impacts of ag relative to 
housing, especially given the new Ag to Urban policies. This could be in the context of Urban 
vs. Rural to balance the value of preserving ag land against the need for affordable housing 
and economic development.  
35 
Page 96 
Are County Islands considered to be Urban Influence areas, even if they are not in an MPA?   
36 
Page 97, Area of Municipal 
Influence, 4th paragraph 
Are the “more stringent criteria” to review commercial development in the Rural Service 
Area defined in the CP?  
 
 
37 
Page 97, Assurance of 
Annexation 
First sentence on this page, missing “an” or maybe “the.” 
 
How does this relate to annexation of STL, which requires approval of the State Selection 
Board. ASLD cannot predetermine Board approval, so would not enter into a PADA without

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 7 of 10 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
that approval. The Selection Board is the governor, AG and Treasurer and does not meet on 
a regular basis, meaning this policy could negatively impact development on STL.  
38 
Page 100 
If infrastructure doesn’t exist, but the developer has the capacity to expand/extend, or if 
part of the County’s TIP, would the redesignation be considered?  
39 
Page 102, Rural Development 
Area 
Per statue STL should be at least one dwelling unit per acre vs. equal to one acre or less. 
Please apply an appropriate designation such as Single Family - Large Lot or other 
designation that allows for 1 DU/acre or greater as noted above.  
40 
Page 103, Footnote 4 
Perhaps clarify if the Rural Development Area in the Land Use Plan Legend should be 
identified as Area of Rural Influence as identified in footnote 2 for consistency.  
 
To meet the intent of this section of Statute, ASLD’s strong preference is that STL not be 
designated as open space, recreation or conservation, but with a minimal rural residential 
designation. Please see comment 28.   
41 
Page 106, Appropriate  
Zoning District Column 
Perhaps add PAD as a conforming zoning district to designations. 
42 
Page 107, ** 
Please update the map to reflect the existing entitlement for not only the proving grounds 
but the adjacent STL. Please see ASLD Comment 3. Without correction, the inaccurate 
designation could create confusion for prospective applicants of STL, current users, the 
public, and the governing bodies of surrounding communities.   
43 
Page 108, Land Use Policies, 
Please see ASLD’s previous comments on Land Use Policies.

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 8 of 10 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
  44 
Page 110, Land Use Policies 
2.5, 2.6, & 2.7 
There is active aggregate mining as well as exploration for aggregate sources on STL in 
Maricopa County. ASLD would like to be involved in reviewing aggregate policies as they are 
developed. 
44 
Page 113, Land Use Policies, 
5.7 
Confirm whether this includes BESS sites, please. 
45 
Page 116, Existing Roadway 
Network 
Second sentence: “….the County that are outside…” 
46 
Page 121, Transportation 
Improvement Plan 
Include ASLD on TIP updates that may affect STL, please. 
47 
Page 124, Planned and 
Conceptual Future 
Highways in Maricopa County 
City of Buckeye. 
48 
Page 124, Planned and 
Conceptual Future 
Highways in Maricopa County 
...Avondale, Goodyear, and Buckeye. 
49 
Page 124, Text Box 
Typo: Maricopa 
50 
Page 147, Environment 
Policies 
What specific State Implementation Plans are supported?

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 9 of 10 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
51 
Page 151, Key Findings, 
column 1 
Typo: County 
52 
Page 153, Employment 
Projections, column 2 
Check formatting - growth in. 
53 
Page 169, State Trust Land 
State law mandates that fair market value be obtained for all Trust land sales 
and commercial leases, and all revenue derived from the sale and lease of Trust lands are 
placed in a fund administered by the State Treasurer.  (Note that only revenues from sales 
are placed into the Permanent Fund. Lease revenues are distributed directly to the 
associated beneficiary).  
54 
Page 169, Maricopa County 
Regional Parks 
…120,000 acreiis… - typo? 
 
55 
Page 181, Map 22 
Please distinguish segments of existing vs. planned trails.  
 
Consider including a note that indicates a permit may be applied for at 
https://land.az.gov/applications-permits for recreationists who seek to use STL. 
56 
Page 183, Strategies, Park 
Master Planning 
Coordinate with ASLD on Parks Master Plans if it is to impact STL please. 
57 
Page 183, Strategies, 
Development Guidelines: 
Since the County went through a major update on the zoning code, are there more changes 
on the horizon or is this a general statement?

Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Review 
Comment Form 
March 30, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPage 10 of 10 
# 
Document Location 
Comments 
Please coordinate with ASLD on proposed zoning policy changes if STL is to be impacted. 
58 
Page 184, Open Space 
Policies 1.1 
Maricopa County supports supports implementing the County Parks and Recreation 
Department’s currently adopted Parks, Open Space & Trail System Plan, and any successor 
plan. 
59 
Page 187, Open Space 
Policies 
Consider including goals/policies that specify planning tools which support balancing 
development and preservation goals. 
60 
Page 225, last paragraph 
Please coordinate with ASLD on the adoption/readoption of an area plan where STL could 
be affected.

1
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
FW: Comprehensive Plan Update Comments
From: Fae Sowders <fsowders@bfsolaw.com>  
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 12:04 PM 
To: Tom Ellsworth (PND) <Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov>; Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>; 
Andrew Yancey <ayancey@bfsolaw.com> 
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Comments 
 
Tom and Darren We have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan update and have provided suggested revisions and comments in the shared draft. For ease of reference, w e have also summarized our key points below . As I mentioned when we last spoke in person, 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanner End 
Tom and Darren 
 
We have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan update and have provided suggested revisions and 
comments in the shared draft. For ease of reference, we have also summarized our key points below.  
 
As I mentioned when we last spoke in person, we represent several utility-scale solar energy project 
developers and wanted to ensure their perspectives were included in the feedback. Overall, there are 
instances in the draft where newly introduced language is broad and, in some cases, unclear, which 
could create challenges for future applications, and where a higher-level, policy-oriented approach may 
be more appropriate, as certain concepts should be addressed during implementation stages.  Our 
comments are intended to help add clarity and help avoid any unintended regulatory implications.  
 
Please let us know if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. 
  
ENERGY POLICIES.  
The following policies should be revised to be more general and creating specific standards at the 
Comprehensive Plan level that are more appropriately addressed in the zoning ordinance or specific 
project approvals. See below:               
1. Energy Policy #3.3: (Pages 28, 209) 
1. "Maricopa County supports substantial the use of APPROPRIATE setbacks and buffers to 
residential uses from energy generation and/or energy storage facilities to prevent or 
lessen the impact from potential fires and other potential hazards." 
1. Energy Policy #3.5: (Pages 28, 209) 
1. "Maricopa County supports APPROPRIATE buffers and setbacks to ecological and riparian 
habitats found along borders of significant washes and riverbanks from energy generation 
and/or storage facilities." 
  
  
MUNICIPAL-RURAL INFLUENCE FRAMEWORK.  
The current draft of the Municipal-Rural Influence Framework is confusing as applied to energy 
generation and storage projects and risks excluding appropriately sited projects.  The current framework 
generally identifies rural areas as suitable for electric generation facilities; however, it does not address 
municipal influence areas, which often include large, undeveloped parcels that may also be appropriate

2
for such uses – especially as interim uses lasting approximately 30 years.  Clarifying that these utility 
scale facilities may be considered within both rural and municipal influence areas, where compatible 
with surrounding uses, would ensure flexibility and better reflect existing development patterns within 
the County.  Additionally, providing this clarity will also help avoid restrictive readings of this language 
that could trigger unnecessary plan amendments. 
  
Below are proposed revisions to address these concern:  
1.                  Areas of Municipal Influence, Page 97: … "Any unincorporated area with a rural land use 
designation that can be categorized in the Urban Growth Area is eligible for a comprehensive plan 
amendment to an urban land use designation. Unincorporated areas with a rural land use 
designation within the Area of Municipal Influence that cannot be categorized in the Urban Growth 
Area fall into the Rural Service Area. The Rural Service Area only allows 
for ACCOMMODATES rural land uses, with exceptions for AND ALLOWS FOR rural industrial or 
certain commercial land uses that would both not be considered part of the County’s Urban 
Growth Area. 
Add the following language:  CERTAIN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, INCLUDING THE UTILITIES 
DESIGNATION, CAN OCCUR IN EITHER THE RURAL SERVICE AREA OR URBAN GROWTH AREA 
OF THE AREA OF MUNICIPAL INFLUENCE. 
1.                  Page 98- Step 3:  
Rural Service Area 
Any unincorporated land falling in the Rural Service Area is only appropriate 
for ACCOMMODATES rural land use designations. 
COST OF DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY COST.  
Further clarification is needed to ensure cost-sharing requirements are proportionate to actual service 
demands and impacts.  This is of particular importance to renewable energy generation and energy 
storage facilities that do not strain public services due to lack of water, sewer, and transportation needs. 
(Pages 29, 206-207, 217-221) 
The following proposed revisions help clarify that cost of development requirements should be 
proportionate:  
Cost of Development Policy #3.1: (Pages 29, 221) 
"Maricopa County supports requirement that new development TO CONTRIBUTE ITS 
PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE COSTS OF fully fund construction of all new infrastructure 
NECESSARY to support the demand for electric, water, sewer, and other services generated and 
necessitated by the development." 
Cost of Development Policy #3.2: (Pages 29, 221)  
"Maricopa County supports REQUIRING the requirement that  new development TO CONTRIBUTE 
ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF long-term maintenance costs associated with the use of all 
new infrastructure to support the demand for electric, water, sewer, and other services generated 
and necessitated by the development."

3
Fae Sowders 
Attorney 
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 
Phoenix, Arizona 85018 
Cell: 602.697.3538 
Fax: 602.888.7856

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew
To:
Yaron, Adam
Cc:
Caton, Greg; Perreault, Erin; Domme, Nathan; McKee, Kevin; Cassens, Bryan; Tom Ellsworth (PND); Rachel
Applegate (PND); Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: EXTERNAL: City of Scottsdale Comments – 60-Day Review of the Draft Maricopa County Framework 2040
Comprehensive Plan, Submitted pursuant to A.R.S. §11-805(F)
Date:
Thursday, March 19, 2026 12:55:13 PM
Hello Adam,
 
Please accept this response as confirmation that we have received your formal comments.
Thank you for taking the time to provide detailed feedback.
 
We will review the provided information carefully and follow up as needed.
 
Best regards,
Matt
 
 
Matthew Klyszeiko | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-
798-7513 | [M] (480) 250-6829 | [F] 602-467-2201
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com   
 
 
 
From: Yaron, Adam <AYaron@Scottsdaleaz.gov> 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 12:09 PM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <matthewk@mbakerintl.com>
Cc: Caton, Greg <GCaton@Scottsdaleaz.gov>; Perreault, Erin <EPERREAULT@scottsdaleaz.gov>;
Domme, Nathan <NDomme@Scottsdaleaz.gov>; McKee, Kevin <KeMckee@scottsdaleaz.gov>;
Cassens, Bryan <BCassens@Scottsdaleaz.gov>; Tom Ellsworth <tom.ellsworth@maricopa.gov>;
'Rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov' <Rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov>; Adam Cannon (PND)
<adam.cannon@maricopa.gov>; Yaron, Adam <AYaron@Scottsdaleaz.gov>
Subject: EXTERNAL: City of Scottsdale Comments – 60-Day Review of the Draft Maricopa County
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Submitted pursuant to A.R.S. §11-805(F)
 
EXTERNAL EMAIL

Hi Matt,
 
Please find attached the City of Scottsdale’s comments on the Draft Maricopa County
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan, submitted as part of the 60-day review process.
 
We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft and provide input. Please confirm receipt of
this email and the attached comments at your convenience.
 
Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the
comments in further detail.
 
Adam Yaron
Planning & Development Area Manager | City of Scottsdale
o 480-312-2761
 
Planning & Development Services
7447 East Indian School Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
www.scottsdaleaz.gov/planning-development
 
Resources and information provided by Planning & Development Services staff are provided as a courtesy. Staff members
cannot provide legal advice regarding any property or project. Additionally, staff members cannot provide any guarantees that
the resources and information provided are definitive, accurate, or comprehensive. Customers are responsible for conducting
their own due diligence and are encouraged to consult with legal counsel if they need assistance or advice concerning their
property or project.

Page 1 of 10 
 
Planning & Development Services Department 
Long Range Planning 
7447 East Indian School Road, Suite 105        
 
 
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251 
       
 
 
March 19, 2026 
Michael Baker International 
Attn: Matt Klyszeiko 
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor 
Phoenix, AZ 85012 
Via Email to:  matthewk@mbakerintl.com 
RE: City of Scottsdale Comments – 60-Day Review of the Draft Maricopa County 
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Submitted pursuant to A.R.S. §11-805(F) 
Mr. Klyszeiko,  
The City of Scottsdale appreciates the extensive work undertaken by Maricopa County and 
its consultant team in preparing the Draft Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City 
also appreciates the opportunity to review the draft plan during the 60-day review period 
provided pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes §11-805(F) and welcomes your careful 
consideration of the comments provided below. 
The City’s comments are intended to support coordinated regional planning while 
recognizing that land use authority, annexation decisions, and municipal service provision 
remain the responsibility of individual municipalities pursuant to Arizona law and locally 
adopted planning policies. 
The City’s comments focus on several implementation and coordination considerations 
related to the draft Plan’s proposed Municipal–Rural Influence Framework and how it will 
be utilized in guiding associated development review processes described in Framework 
2040. Key areas of interest include: 
1. Application of the Municipal–Rural Influence Framework, including how Areas of 
Municipal Influence will be mapped, updated, and applied during development 
review. 
2. Annexation assumptions and the concept of “assurance of annexation,” including 
how this concept will be interpreted in municipalities where annexation decisions 
remain legislative and discretionary.

City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments  
Page 2 of 10 
 
3. Infrastructure readiness and municipal coordination, including how service 
availability and infrastructure capacity will be evaluated for development proposals 
located near municipal boundaries. 
4. County Islands and municipal edge conditions, including how development 
compatibility, environmental considerations, and infrastructure coordination will be 
addressed in unincorporated areas adjacent to municipalities. 
In addition to these implementation topics, the City has included several policy comments 
and technical corrections intended to improve the clarity, accuracy, and readability of the 
document. 
The comments below have been prepared with input from the following City of Scottsdale 
departments and staff: 
• Scottsdale Long Range Planning (LRP) – Adam Yaron, Planning & Development Area 
Manager – ayaron@scottsdaleaz.gov 
• Scottsdale Transportation (TR) – Nathan Domme, Transportation Planning Senior 
Manager – ndomme@scottsdaleaz.gov 
• Scottsdale Parks & Recreation (P&R) – Kevin McKee, Deputy Parks & Recreation 
Director – kemckee@scottsdaleaz.gov 
• Scottsdale Water (W) – Bryan Cassens, Water Resources Assistant Executive 
Director – bcassens@scottsdaleaz.gov 
 
1. Municipal–Rural Influence Framework – Implementation Considerations (LRP) 
Framework 2040 introduces the Municipal–Rural Influence Framework as a key organizing 
structure guiding development decisions in unincorporated Maricopa County, including the 
identification of Areas of Municipal Influence and Areas of Rural Influence (Framework 
2040, pp. 14, 95). The Plan also emphasizes the Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
(USUD) strategy as a tool for evaluating infrastructure readiness and development 
feasibility (Framework 2040, pp. 14, 33, 100). 
While Scottsdale supports infrastructure-based growth management, these frameworks 
may have implications for unincorporated areas located within or adjacent to Scottsdale’s 
municipal planning boundary where annexation decisions remain discretionary under the 
City’s adopted Annexation Policy and Criteria. 
Consequently, to support consistent regional planning and avoid unintended conflicts 
between County and municipal planning frameworks, the City respectfully requests 
clarification on the following implementation-related items:

City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments  
Page 3 of 10 
 
Areas of Municipal Influence and Land Use Coordination 
1.1. How will Areas of Municipal Influence be mapped, updated, and applied in 
entitlement and policy decisions over time (Framework 2040, p. 14, 95)? 
1.2. Will municipalities be provided formal consultation or referral opportunities prior to 
reliance on these designations in development cases? 
1.3. How will adopted municipal General Plan land use designations be considered 
when evaluating development proposals in adjacent unincorporated areas located 
within Areas of Municipal Influence? 
 
Providing additional clarification within the draft Plan regarding the above provisions would 
improve transparency and support consistent coordination between County development 
review processes and municipal planning frameworks. 
 
2. Annexation Assumptions and “Assurance of Annexation” – Implementation 
Clarification (LRP) 
Framework 2040 introduces the Municipal–Rural Influence Framework and identifies Areas 
of Municipal Influence as locations where infrastructure and services may support urban 
development patterns (Framework 2040, p. 14). The Plan also references the concept of 
“assurance of annexation” within the Growth Areas policy framework (Framework 2040, p. 
97). 
In Scottsdale, annexation decisions are legislative and discretionary actions of the City 
Council and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis pursuant to the City’s adopted 
Annexation Policy and Criteria. As a result, development feasibility in unincorporated areas 
located near municipal boundaries may not always correspond with municipal annexation 
timing or intent. 
To support consistent regional implementation, the City requests clarification regarding the 
following: 
2.1. What constitutes acceptable “assurance of annexation” (e.g., municipal 
agreement, pre-annexation agreement, service letter, or developer representation)?  
The City recommends that the Plan explicitly define “assurance of annexation” so 
that expectations for applicants and municipalities are clear. At a minimum, 
assurance of annexation should include documentation demonstrating 
coordination with and acknowledgement from the applicable municipality, and 
should not rely solely on applicant-provided representations.

City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments  
Page 4 of 10 
 
2.2. Will municipal concurrence be required before annexation assumptions may be 
relied upon during USUD evaluation or entitlement review? 
The City recommends that the Plan clarify that reliance on annexation assumptions 
during development review should be contingent upon documented coordination 
with the applicable municipality, consistent with the municipality’s adopted 
annexation policies and procedures. 
2.3. How will development proposals be evaluated in situations where a municipality 
does not issue assurances of annexation or where annexation has not yet been 
considered?  
The City recommends that the Plan clarify that, in the absence of municipal 
acknowledgment or coordination, development proposals should not rely on 
assumed future annexation or municipal service provision as a basis for 
demonstrating development feasibility. 
Providing additional clarification within the draft Plan regarding the above provisions would 
improve transparency and support consistent coordination between County development 
review processes and municipal planning frameworks. 
3. Infrastructure Readiness and Municipal Coordination (LRP & W) 
Framework 2040 emphasizes infrastructure readiness as a key factor in evaluating 
development feasibility under the Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD) 
framework (Framework 2040, pp. 14, 100, 101). 
Because development in unincorporated areas located near municipal boundaries may 
affect infrastructure systems, emergency response, and long-term service planning, the 
City requests clarification regarding how infrastructure readiness will be evaluated for 
projects located near municipal boundaries or within Areas of Municipal Influence, 
including how coordination with the applicable utility and service providers will occur 
during development review.  
Specifically, clarification would be helpful regarding: 
3.1. Who will be responsible for verifying infrastructure and service readiness—
including water, wastewater, transportation, fire, and emergency services—for 
development proposals located adjacent to municipal boundaries? 
3.2. Will municipalities be asked to confirm infrastructure capacity or service 
availability for projects located within municipal planning areas but outside 
incorporated city limits?

City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments  
Page 5 of 10 
 
3.3. How will long-term infrastructure responsibility and service provision be addressed 
if development is approved under County jurisdiction in areas where municipal 
annexation has not been initiated or may not occur?  
The City recommends that the Plan clarify how long-term infrastructure 
responsibility and service provision will be assigned in situations where 
development is approved under County jurisdiction and annexation does not occur, 
including how such development will be supported without reliance on future 
municipal service assumptions. 
3.4. The Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD) strategy calls for confirmation 
that potable water and sewer service can be provided prior to development 
approvals (Framework 2040, p. 100). 
The City recommends clarifying that confirmation from the applicable utility 
provider indicates that service may be available, subject to detailed engineering 
review during the development planning process. 
This clarification would help ensure that infrastructure planning occurs in 
coordination with the responsible service providers. Confirmation should not be 
interpreted as a commitment to provide service, but rather an acknowledgement 
that service may be available subject to future engineering review, capacity 
evaluation, and applicable development approvals. 
Providing greater specificity within the draft Plan regarding coordination triggers and 
infrastructure verification responsibilities would strengthen implementation of the 
Municipal–Rural Influence Framework and improve intergovernmental planning 
coordination at jurisdictional boundaries. 
4. County Islands, Edge Conditions, and Character Compatibility (LRP) 
Framework 2040 identifies Areas of Municipal Influence as locations where coordinated 
planning between the County and municipalities may be particularly important (Framework 
2040, pp. 14, 95). 
The City requests clarification regarding how the Plan will be implemented in County 
Islands and other unincorporated areas located along municipal boundaries, where 
development decisions may impact adjacent municipal land use patterns, infrastructure 
systems, and environmental planning. In particular, clarification would be helpful 
regarding: 
4.1. Will Framework 2040 introduce any procedural changes or review expectations for 
development within County Islands?

City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments  
Page 6 of 10 
 
4.2. How will rural-to-urban transition areas adjacent to municipalities be managed to 
ensure compatibility with adopted municipal land use, open space, and 
environmental planning policies? 
4.3. What coordination mechanisms are proposed to address environmental 
constraints, water resource considerations, and hazard-related planning factors in 
areas located near municipal planning boundaries or within Areas of Municipal 
Influence? 
Additional guidance regarding coordination procedures for County Islands and municipal 
interface areas within the draft Plan would strengthen regional planning alignment and 
improve implementation clarity. 
Policy Clarification Comments And Technical Corrections 
5. Environment Policy #4.2 – Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation (P&R) 
The City recommends expanding the scope of Environment Policy 4.2 (Framework 2040, p. 
22 and 146) within the Environment Element to more fully address wildfire prevention and 
mitigation across both new development and existing open space systems. 
As currently written, the policy focuses primarily on incorporating fire and wildfire 
mitigation measures within the design of new development. While this is an important 
planning consideration, the City believes the policy could be strengthened by also 
recognizing the importance of wildfire prevention and mitigation within existing open space 
and recreational lands, including County-managed regional parks and preserves. 
Many of these open space areas serve as significant natural resource and recreation assets 
for Maricopa County residents and visitors. However, they may also present wildfire risk 
due to vegetation conditions, recreational use patterns, and regional climate conditions. 
County-managed facilities such as McDowell Mountain Regional Park and Cave Creek 
Regional Park are examples of large regional open space areas where wildfire prevention 
and mitigation strategies may be particularly relevant. 
Recognizing wildfire mitigation within both development planning and open space land 
management would better align the policy with regional wildfire preparedness and 
landscape stewardship practices. Accordingly, the City suggests that Environment Policy 
4.2 be expanded to acknowledge the importance of wildfire prevention and mitigation not 
only in the design of new development, but also in the ongoing management of open 
space, park, and recreation lands.

City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments  
Page 7 of 10 
 
This clarification would strengthen the Environment Element and more accurately reflect 
the role of land management practices in supporting long-term wildfire resilience within 
unincorporated Maricopa County. 
6. Water Resources Element – Water Reuse and Advanced Treatment (W) 
The Water Resources Element supports renewable water use primarily for irrigation and 
amenity purposes and emphasizes conservation and municipal coordination (Framework 
2040, p. 199). 
Given the forward-looking nature of the draft Plan, the City recommends that the document 
more fully recognize reclaimed water systems and broader water reuse initiatives, 
including advanced water treatment and advanced water purification processes that 
increase the beneficial reuse of treated effluent. 
Recognizing these evolving water management strategies would better reflect current 
regional water planning efforts and the expanding role of water reuse technologies in 
supporting long-term water supply sustainability. 
7. Land Use Policy #3.3 – Terminology Clarification (LRP) 
The City recommends reconsidering the use of the term “steering” in Land Use Policy #3.3 
(Framework 2040, p. 17 and 111), which states that Maricopa County supports steering 
housing in areas served by transportation networks, in close proximity to job centers, and 
where public services and infrastructure are available. 
While the policy objective of locating housing near transportation networks, employment 
centers, and available infrastructure is supported, the term “steering” may be interpreted 
as implying direction or influence over housing location decisions. In planning and housing 
policy contexts, this term may also carry regulatory or legal connotations related to 
housing choice or fair housing practices, which could create ambiguity regarding the 
policy’s intent.  
The City suggests considering alternative language that more clearly reflects the County’s 
role in guiding development patterns through planning policy rather than directing housing 
location decisions. 
Suggested revision to Land Use Policy #3.3: 
Maricopa County supports locating housing development in areas served by transportation 
networks, in close proximity to job centers, and where public services and infrastructure 
are available.

City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments  
Page 8 of 10 
 
This terminology would also align with the Plan’s broader emphasis on infrastructure 
readiness and development feasibility, including the Urban Solutions for Urban 
Development (USUD) framework described in Framework 2040 (p. 14) and related policies 
that evaluate development proposals based on the availability of urban services and 
infrastructure (Land Use Policy #1.3, p. 15 and 108).  
8. Land Use Designation Table Clarification (LRP) 
The City notes that Table 7: Land Use Designations (pp. 104–107) identifies the future land 
use categories and associated zoning districts used by Maricopa County. It is unclear from 
this section whether a corresponding land use designation map or mapping reference 
accompanies these classifications within the Comprehensive Plan. 
The City understands that land use designations may be implemented through the 
individual Area Plans. If so, the City recommends clarifying this relationship within the text 
and including a reference to the applicable mapping resources (such as the County’s Area 
Plans or online mapping tools) associated with these designations. Providing a clear 
reference to the applicable mapping resources would help readers better understand how 
the listed designations are applied geographically within unincorporated Maricopa County. 
9. Transportation Policy Terminology Clarification (TR) 
Transportation Policy #2.2 (Framework 2040, pp. 20 and 128) references “multimodal 
crossings” in describing pedestrian facilities separated from vehicular traffic along arterial 
roadways. The City notes that the term “multimodal crossings” may be overly broad or 
ambiguous in this context. 
The City recommends considering more precise terminology such as “protected 
crossings,” “separated crossings,” or similar design language that more clearly conveys the 
intent of physically separated pedestrian infrastructure. 
10. Legal Reference Clarification (LRP) 
The City recommends considering removal of the references to Proposition 207 on page 92 
and 215 or revising the citation to reference the applicable Arizona Revised Statutes 
(A.R.S.) provisions directly (A.R.S. § 12-1131 through § 12-1138). Referencing the statutory 
provisions would improve clarity and consistency and avoid potential confusion should a 
future ballot proposition use a similar numbering reference. 
11. Non-Substantive Comments and Technical Corrections  
In addition to the policy and implementation comments outlined above, the City offers the 
following non-substantive comments intended to improve the accuracy and clarity of the 
document.

City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments  
Page 9 of 10 
 
11.1. 
Formatting. The City notes spacing inconsistencies with the text on page 33. 
Consider left justification to correct alignment and spacing. 
11.2. 
Formatting. The City notes a formatting issue on page 76 where the phrase 
“Urban Development in” appears misaligned and wraps improperly next to 
the “Unincorporated Areas” heading. Review of text box alignment and text 
wrapping settings may correct the issue. 
11.3. 
Formatting. The City recommends considering reformatting the Urban 
Solutions for Urban Development criteria on page 100 so the numbering 
sequence reads left to right first and then top to bottom, as the current 
divider lines may make the order difficult to follow. 
11.4. 
Typographical Correction. The City notes a minor typographical error within 
the bicycle facilities discussion. On page 120, the phrase “Pawved 
shoulders” appears in the text and should read “Paved shoulders.” 
11.5. 
Table Clarification. The City notes that Table 9: Maricopa County Bicycle 
Facility Inventory on page 120 includes a category labeled “Unidentified” 
totaling 53 centerline miles. The City recommends clarifying the facility type 
or providing a map reference identifying where these miles occur within the 
County bicycle network.  
11.6. 
Editorial Clarification. In the Active Transportation section (Framework 
2040, p.120), the text states that sidewalk standards are “a minimum of five 
feet or greater.” The City notes that the phrase “or greater” may be 
unnecessary when paired with the word “minimum,” as the minimum 
dimension already implies that wider facilities may be constructed. 
11.7. 
Terminology Clarification. In the Active Transportation section (Framework 
2040, p.123), the phrase “more lanes for higher traffic volumes” may not 
clearly describe the intended roadway condition. The City recommends 
considering terminology such as “fully built-out roadway infrastructure” to 
more accurately reflect municipal street standards. 
11.8. 
Language Clarification. In the Active Transportation section (Framework 
2040, p.123), the statement that Maricopa County “places importance on its 
goal of having both land and the adjacent roadways be annexed” may read as 
implying that roadway responsibility would be transferred to municipalities. 
The City recommends clarifying the language to reflect coordination when 
land annexation occurs, rather than a presumption that roadways should 
also be annexed.

City of Scottsdale 60-Day Review Comments  
Page 10 of 10 
 
11.9. 
Typographical Correction. The City notes a minor typographical error within 
the Environment Element. On page 135, the word “Maricopa” appears to be 
misspelled.  
11.10. 
Figure Clarification. The City notes a potential labeling inconsistency in 
Figure 19 (page 193) between the water source categories described in the 
text and the labels shown in the chart (see category noted as 28%). The City 
recommends reviewing the figure to ensure the water source categories are 
accurately labeled.  
11.11. 
Data Clarification. Figures 19 and 20 (page 193) present water supply and 
demand data for the Phoenix Active Management Area based on 2019 
information. The City recommends clarifying whether more recent data is 
available and, if so, updating the figures accordingly, or noting that the 
figures are intended to provide general background context. 
Support for Continued Intergovernmental Coordination  
Given that annexation decisions are legislative and discretionary actions under 
Scottsdale’s adopted Annexation Policy and Criteria, and are not predetermined by 
planning boundary designations, the City encourages Framework 2040 implementation to 
emphasize early intergovernmental coordination for development proposals located within 
municipal planning areas or Areas of Municipal Influence. 
An approach centered on early coordination would promote consistency with adopted 
General Plans, improve alignment of infrastructure and service planning, and support 
cohesive regional development while continuing to respect jurisdictional authority in 
unincorporated areas. 
Scottsdale appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and looks forward to 
continued collaboration with Maricopa County as Framework 2040 advances toward 
adoption. The City would welcome further discussion regarding a formal coordination 
protocol for development review in unincorporated areas located adjacent to municipal 
boundaries. 
Cc:  
 
 
Greg Caton, Scottsdale City Manager 
Erin Perreault, AICP, Planning & Development Senior Director 
Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov  
Rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov  
Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Adam Cannon (PND); Tom Ellsworth (PND); Darren Gerard (PND)
Cc:
Sifferman, Steven
Subject:
FW: EXTERNAL: RE: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: ARS-Required Review
Notice
Date:
Friday, March 27, 2026 12:04:52 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
All,
 
Please see below for the Luke AFB response. Very positive and supportive!
 
Matt
 
 
Matthew Klyszeiko, AICP | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 7th Floor  | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-798-7513|
[M] 480-250-6829
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com
 
 
 
 
From: GERARDI, CHRISTINE L CIV USAF AETC 56 FW/CVE <christine.gerardi@us.af.mil> 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 11:56 AM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Cc: 56 FW/CIT Community Initiative <56FW.CIT.CommunityInitiative@us.af.mil>
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: ARS-
Required Review Notice
 
EXTERNAL EMAIL
 
Dear Mr. Klyszeiko,
 
Thank you for allowing Luke AFB an opportunity to comment on the Framework 2040
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan draft. As our long-time mission advocate, we very
much value our relationship with Maricopa County. The incorporation of military
compatible land use around Luke AFB, Aux-1 and Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary Field is a

Some people who received this message don't often get email from matthewk@mbakerintl.com. Learn why this is
important
representation of that support. The future plans presented in this document show
continued growth of a thriving County and a wonderful community in which to both work
and reside.
 
We are appreciative of the emphasis on infrastructure provided in Land Use Goal 1 and
Chapter 12 on Energy planning considerations.  Luke AFB recognizes there are capacity
concerns for energy intensive developments in the state. Through strategic grid
resilience and reliability planning on the part of municipalities and utility providers, this
ensures future development will not have negative impacts on existing land uses.
 
Additionally, the language regarding High Noise or Accident Potential Zones on page 168
encourages long-term support for the mission of Luke AFB.  The overall Framework 2040
Comprehensive Plan incorporates long-term planning strategies to ensure responsible
growth throughout Maricopa County.
 
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and participate in the process.
 
Respectfully,
 
Christy Gerardi
Encroachment Specialist
Community Initiatives Team
Luke AFB, Arizona
Office: (623) 856-7811
Cell: (801) 529-5254
 
From: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com> 
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 7:49 AM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update:
ARS-Required Review Notice
 
Good morning,
 
This is a friendly reminder to share any comments or suggestions you may have on the Maricopa
County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 60‑Day Review Draft before March 30, 2026. Your
input is important, and getting your feedback in early will help ensure we have enough time to
follow up on questions and thoughtfully address anything you raise. If you’ve already submitted
comments, thank you. If not, please send them over at your earliest convenience. Thanks again for

your time and collaboration.
 
You may use the following link to download the Draft Plan:
To retrieve your attachment(s), click on the secure link below.
https://eFTP.mbakerintl.com/message/RaeNKboamy0guslVQZpMRK
Access to this information will expire on 2026-03-31
 
Please provide all formal comments directly to my attention:
Matt Klyszeiko, AICP
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update – Consultant Project Manager
matthewk@mbakerintl.com  
 
For additional project information and resources, please reference the original email notification
below.
 
Best regards,
Matt Klyszeiko
 
 
Matthew Klyszeiko | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-
798-7513 | [M] (480) 250-6829 | [F] 602-467-2201
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com   
 
 
 
From: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:26 AM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Cc: Rachel Applegate (PND) <rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov>; Adam Cannon (PND)
<adam.cannon@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: ARS-Required Review
Notice
 
Good Morning,
 
On behalf of Maricopa County, Michael Baker International is providing this notice as an invitation to
review and comment on the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 60‑Day
Review Draft.  In accordance with Arizona Revised Statues 11-805(F), each municipality in the
county, each other county that is contiguous to the county, the regional planning agency in the
county, and other affected agencies listed in the statute are entitled to a transmitted copy of the

Draft Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update and an opportunity to provide comment on the
Draft Plan during a mandatory 60-day review period.
 
During this review window, you are encouraged to examine the Draft Plan and submit any
comments or questions you may have. At the conclusion of the 60‑day period, all feedback will be
compiled and considered for incorporation into the final document, which will then be evaluated by
the County’s Planning & Zoning Commission and considered for adoption by the Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors.
 
The 60-day Review Period for the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan will be:
Thursday, January 29, 2026 to Monday, March 30, 2026
 
Please review the attached Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 60-Day Review
Draft, and provide all formal comments directly to my attention:
Matt Klyszeiko, AICP
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update – Consultant Project Manager
matthewk@mbakerintl.com  
(Note: if you desire a higher resolution copy of the Public Review Draft, please make a request to my
attention)
 
Thank you in advance for your participation and valued feedback. For more information about the
Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan please visit www.Framework2040.com. For
any other inquires, please contact Rachel Applegate, Maricopa County - Planning Supervisor,
rachel.applegate@maricopa.gov, or Adam Cannon, Maricopa County - Senior Planner,
adam.cannon@maricopa.gov. 
 
Sincerely,
Matt Klyszeiko
 
Matthew Klyszeiko | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-
798-7513 | [M] (480) 250-6829 | [F] 602-467-2201
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Adam Cannon (PND); Darren Gerard (PND)
Cc:
Sifferman, Steven; Tom Ellsworth (PND)
Subject:
FW: EXTERNAL: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - 60-Day Review
Date:
Friday, March 27, 2026 3:04:01 PM
Attachments:
Maricopa Co Framework 2040 CompPlanUpdate CoDSD response 2026.pdf
FYI
 
From: Anita McNamara <Anita.McNamara@pima.gov> 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 2:56 PM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <matthewk@mbakerintl.com>; Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov
Cc: Mark Holden <Mark.Holden@pima.gov>; Rob Donaldson <Robert.Donaldson@pima.gov>;
Thomas Drzazgowski <Thomas.Drzazgowski@pima.gov>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update - 60-Day Review
 
EXTERNAL EMAIL
 
Thank you for the opportunity to review Maricopa County’s comp plan update.  Attached
is Pima County’s response for the 60-day review.
 
Please feel free to reach out with any questions.
 
Sincerely,
 
Anita McNamara, AICP
Planner II
Pima County Development Services
Planning Division

March 27, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SENT VIA EMAIL 
 
 
Matt Klyszeiko, AICP 
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update – Consultant Project Manager 
matthewk@mbakerintl.com 
 
Tom Ellsworth, AICP  
Planning & Development Department Director 
Maricopa County 
301 W. Jefferson 
Suite 170 
Phoenix, AZ  85003 
tom.ellsworth@maricopa.gov 
 
 
Subject: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – 60-Day Review 
 
 
Dear Messrs. Klyszeiko and Ellsworth: 
 
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Maricopa County’s Framework 2040 
Comprehensive Plan Update – 60-Day Review.  Pima County Development Services (DSD) and 
other Public Works offices have reviewed the draft Comprehensive Plan update.  The following 
comments are included for your consideration: 
 
The draft plan itself is well-organized, uses clear graphics and is written in a straight-forward 
manner that is easy to read.  The plan’s webpage is also user-friendly.  
 
Executive Summary and Introduction: 
No comments 
 
Goals and Policies: 
 
Land Use 
Table 5: Annexations of Unincorporated Maricopa County and Population Density (page 70) 
• 
Contents of table includes breakdown of land uses in Maricopa County.  Does not include 
annexation data. 
Page 76: Formatting issues with an orphaned line from the first paragraph and with the heading 
“Urban Development in Unincorporated Areas Urban development” 
 
The description of the Municipal – Rural Influence Framework is well-distilled and easy for citizens 
to understand the importance of  land use planning in both settings.

Transportation 
No comments 
 
Environment 
No comments 
 
Economic Growth 
Consider adding a discussion of major employers and Luke Air Force Base’s impact on the 
county’s economy. 
 
Growth Areas 
No comments 
 
Open Space 
Under Trails heading (page 182) 
The last sentence of the second paragraph references Figure 36.  This figure is not found in the 
document. 
 
Water Resources 
Figure 19: Source of Water in Phoenix AMA (in acre-feet) (page 193) 
The pie chart shows two pie sections with two separate percentages and acre-feet of reclaimed 
water. 
 
Energy 
No comments 
 
Cost of Development 
No comments 
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Anita McNamara, AICP 
Senior Planner 
Pima County Development Services Department, Planning Division

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew
To:
Rachel Applegate (PND); Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Sifferman, Steven; Darren Gerard (PND); Tom Ellsworth (PND)
Subject:
FW: EXTERNAL: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: Review
Date:
Monday, March 23, 2026 2:00:22 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
FYI, MAG just shared their formal response below. This is only the second set of agency
comments (along with Scottsdale) received to date.
 
 
Matthew Klyszeiko, AICP | Department Manager - Planning
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 7th Floor  | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-798-7513|
[M] 480-250-6829
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com
 
 
 
 
From: Denise Lacey <DLacey@azmag.gov> 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:52 PM
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <matthewk@mbakerintl.com>
Cc: John Bullen <JBullen@azmag.gov>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: Review
 
EXTERNAL EMAIL
 
Matt:
 
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) appreciates the opportunity to review and
provide comments on the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Update. MAG has reviewed the document and has no major comments.  Please be
aware there were multiple spelling/grammar issues throughout the document.
 
I appreciate the transition the County is taking to recognize the regions expanding

population and increase densities in areas previously focused on Rural development. 
The inclusion of the Municipal Rural Influence is a step in the right direction to ensure
our region continues to plan for expansion.
 
Again, thank you for the opportunity.
 
 
Denise Lacey
Transportation Deputy Director - Planning
O: 602-452-5037
302 N. First Ave., Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85003
 
 
azmag.gov

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
McCann, Ryan
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Darren Gerard (PND); Griemsmann, Noel; Williams, Jeanette; Wood, Nick
Subject:
RE: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Date:
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 9:28:57 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
SW Comments - 2040 Comp Plan Goals and Policies_12.9.25.pdf
Good morning Adam,
 
Hope you are doing well. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “Goals and
Policies” portion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan updates. On behalf of our client, Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., we would like to offer the following
comments on the draft “Goals and Policies” section for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
updates. Upon review, please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or need
any clarification.
 
We look forward to reviewing the full draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in the beginning
of 2026.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ryan McCann, AICP
​
Urban Planner
O: 602.382.6825
rmccann@swlaw.com
SNELL
​& WILMER
swlaw.com | LinkedIn
 
 
 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 11:06 AM
To: McCann, Ryan <rmccann@swlaw.com>
Subject: RE: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update

[EXTERNAL] adam.cannon@maricopa.gov
 
Hi Ryan,
 
I’m thinking sometime between August and September we will have a draft for review.  We are not
sure yet if we are going to try and get it adopted by the end of the year or if we are thinking the first
couple of months of 2026.  We will let you know.  Also, you and Noel are welcome to provide
feedback on the draft goals and policies.  I know he wanted to provide some stronger language
related to the proving grounds.
 
Best regards,
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning & Development
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003
O: 602-372-0292
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov
[ Maricopa.Gov ]
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and
development for the next decade and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be
heard!
 
Additionally, the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance is being updated. Visit MCZO Update to learn more and comment on
changes to the ordinance.
 
 
 
From: McCann, Ryan <rmccann@swlaw.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:22 AM
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>
Subject: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
 
Good morning Adam, Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to check in with you regarding timing for the public review of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Figure it is a little way out but when do you anticipate the consultant completing the
 
Good morning Adam,
 
Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to check in with you regarding timing for the public
review of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Figure it is a little way out but when do you
anticipate the consultant completing the draft for public review?
 
Sincerely,
 
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner

O: 602.382.6825
rmccann@swlaw.com
SNELL
​& WILMER
swlaw.com | LinkedIn

Snell & Wilmer | One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004 
SWLAW.COM 
 
Noel Griemsmann 
 
Senior Urban Planner 
 
O 602.382.6824 | F 602.382.6070 
 
ngriemsmann@swlaw.com 
 
 
 
December 9, 2025 
Adam Cannon, AICP 
Senior Planner 
Maricopa County 
301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 170 
Phoenix, AZ 85003 
Re: Property Owner Comments on the Draft Maricopa County 2040 Comprehensive Plan  
Dear Adam, 
On behalf of Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (“Toyota”), owner and 
operator of the approximately 12,000 acre automotive testing and research facility (the “Proving 
Grounds”) located at 30700 W. Patton Road (the “Site”), I am pleased to provide the following comments 
and suggestions on the proposed Maricopa County 2040 Comprehensive Plan (the “2040 Plan”) related 
to those elements of the 2040 Plan that may impact the Proving Grounds as to future land use decisions. 
For background, the Site has been in existence since the 1990’s when Toyota originally developed the 
Proving Grounds to be its primary desert/high heat environment testing facility for its worldwide 
operations. The general area is very rural, with a few homes located in the immediate area, which is known 
as Whispering Ranch, located immediately east and north of the Site. Further east is the Hassayampa 
River, with more developed rural areas beyond out to Highway 60. To the west is Bureau of Land 
Management (“BLM”) property that is undeveloped and appears to be utilized for livestock grazing 
activities. Directly south is the northern edge of the yet to be developed Teravalis (formerly Douglas 
Ranch) master planned community of over 33,000 acres, which, at Toyota’s request during that project’s 
rezoning, features a low-density buffer along its northern boundary to protect the Proving Grounds from 
more dense residential encroachment (which, due to higher density, can lead to incompatibly concerns). 
Because the Proving Grounds tests advanced technologies and new models of vehicles (many of which 
are years out until actual production), secrecy and security is very important to the successful operation 
of the facility. To ensure the privacy required for Site operations, the entire facility has within its 
boundaries a 300-foot buffer zone. This area is utilized only for security fencing and associated patrol 
roadways (neither testing facilities nor structures are located in these buffer areas). The buffer area also 
acts to minimize potential impacts on adjacent properties from Site operations, which can involve noise 
and other impacts from time to time and the facility operates 24/7, making buffering important to both 
Toyota as well as to any current or future neighbors. Note that Toyota purposefully selected this location 
due to its extremely rural context and that context is important to long-term viability of the Site to meet 
Toyota’s testing needs into the future. Further, Toyota continues to invest in the Proving Grounds, 
recently investing over $50 million dollars to advance the Proving Grounds.  
Careful site planning works to mitigate impacts on surrounding properties. However, some vehicle testing 
(such as very high-speed use of the main track) can sometimes be audible from off-site locations, 
depending on the local weather, wind conditions and other environmental factors outside of Toyota’s

December 9, 2025 
 
Page 2 
 
control. Hence why a low density, rural context is important to maintain around the Site both today and 
into the future.  
While it is understood that the 2040 Plan is a policy tool and non-regulatory, it is best for the community 
at large, as well as for the Proving Grounds, to ensure that the 2040 Plan reflects the buffering needed 
that would support future growth of the Proving Grounds as well as the surrounding communities, 
without the need to seek future amendments to the Plan and ensures County growth policies are 
consistent with maintaining a rural context in this area of the County.   
These comments are provided in the spirit of cooperation and the goal of establishing planning framework 
that will support the Proving Grounds’ current and future operations.  
We would like to offer the following comments on the proposed “Maricopa County Framework 2040 
Comprehensive Plan – Proposed Goals and Policies” document, dated June 12, 2025. We greatly 
appreciate the opportunity to review and to provide comment on the “Goals and Policies” section of the 
2040 Plan before the formal draft is released.  
Comments/Suggestions 
The following is discussion of existing language within the Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2030 (the “2030 
Plan”) that is generally supportive of the Site and the maintenance of compatible rural scale in the 
surrounding area.  
 Comment #1: Growth Areas – Build Constraints, 2030 Plan Page 84 
The following sections are taken directly from the 2030 Plan. Toyota respectfully requests that the 
language (or something similar) be retained into the 2040 Plan for reasons discussed below.  
“Noise-generating Land Uses Persistent, loud, and/or continuous noise can affect health, sleep, 
learning patterns, and even property values. While there are many sources of noise some of the 
most recognizable include:” 
“Automobile Proving Grounds: Automobile proving grounds are facilities where manufacturers 
test vehicle and related component capabilities in a controlled environment. Several 
manufacturers have such facilities in Maricopa County that allow them to test equipment in hot 
climate conditions. Noise from automobile testing, along with security concerns about product 
design and performance, are considerations in determining the types and intensities of new 
growth in surrounding areas.” 
 
To address those concerns, proposed 2040 Goals and Policies, Land Use Policy #2.6 states, “Maricopa 
County supports land use buffers and land use transitions in urban/rural interface areas, including near 
aggregate mining operations, proving grounds, and the County’s regional parks.” 
The inclusion of proving grounds in this policy regarding land use buffers and transitions is extremely 
important to the existing and future operation of Toyota at the existing proving ground. While the Site 
includes a 300’ internal buffer, additional buffers from future growth are essential to preserve the secrecy

December 9, 2025 
 
Page 3 
 
and security of the operations, in addition to noise and other impacts from time to time and the facility 
operates 24/7, making buffering important to both Toyota as well as to any current/future neighbors. 
While the direct reference and language regarding the Proving Grounds is minimal in the 2030 Plan (as 
reviewed above), we believe this language helps protect the Proving Grounds and ensures responsible 
growth in the vicinity. The 2030 Plan acknowledges that there are noise generating land uses within the 
County. Understanding that the 2040 Plan is an overview of the entire County and additional 
details/planning efforts are further discussed within the County specific “Area Plans”, the 2030 Plan sets 
the framework for the Area Plans.  
For reference, below is language included in the White Tanks Grand Avenue Area Plan (which was recently 
amended in 2023) that we believe supports the existing and future efforts of the Proving Grounds. Similar 
goals and policies in the larger 2040 Plan would also be encouraged by Toyota.  
Within the White Tanks Grand Avenue Area Plan, Land Use Goal #2, Land Use Policy #9 states, “Maricopa 
County supports existing automobile proving grounds and aggregate resource extraction that is well 
buffered and encourages new proximate development that is compatible with the continuing operation of 
automotive proving grounds and aggregate resource extraction.” 
Furthermore, under the Environment Element - Potentially Hazardous Areas and Noise Generating Uses 
– Proving Grounds, the plan states, “Automobile manufacturer Toyota operates a 12,000-acre proving 
grounds located west of Wittman and 60 miles northwest of Phoenix. The proving grounds allow Toyota 
to test on and off-road vehicles year-round on 25 miles of paved roads and 52 miles of dirt tracks. Toyota 
opened the proving grounds to the broader automotive industry with the creation of the Arizona Mobility 
Test Center (AMTC). AMTC will allow other automobile manufacturers access to engineering support 
services as well as access to a full range of vehicle evaluation validation processes.” 
Environment Goal #2, Policy #11 states, “Maricopa County supports continued coordination with proving 
ground facilities to ensure that they are aware of any new development within proximity of their facilities.” 
Environmental Analysis- Environmental Strategies #3 states, “Protect and buffer existing noise generating 
and potentially hazardous uses.  As discussed, there are a number of uses in the region that are important 
to the economy of the region, but also produce adverse impacts such as noise or other hazards.  It is 
important to continue support of public notification of these uses as well as protection of the uses from 
encroachment and the public from harm. Policies are aimed at notification, buffering, and coordination to 
ensure that proximate land uses are compatible around or in areas potentially affected by PVNGS, the 
proving grounds, and military facilities.” 
Finally, we would like to note that it is our understanding that the Maricopa County Transportation 
Department will be updating the Transportation Plan this fall/winter. We look forward to participating in 
the process and working with the Transportation Department with those efforts. 
On behalf of Toyota, we respectfully request the above noted section of the 2030 Plan (or similar 
compatible language) be included in the 2040 Plan to ensure future growth around the Site does not limit 
future expansion or testing capabilities for the Proving Grounds and ensures long-term investment in the 
Maricopa County community. I am happy to set up a meeting to discuss the above further.

December 9, 2025 
 
Page 4 
 
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.  
Respectfully submitted, 
Snell & Wilmer 
 
Noel J. Griemsmann AICP 
Sr Urban Planner 
 
 
CC: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager

SUBJECT
SCHOA OR 
COMMUNITY 
POST?
# COMMENTS # LIKES
COMMENTS POSTED BY SCHOA FROM 
FEEDBACK FROM OUR COMMUNITY
Bike Lanes
SCHOA Sun City
2
17
Bike paths and lanes are and have been on the ‘want’ list of many residents. These paths 
could be multiuse lanes, not only for bikes but also for running and walking as well.  As an 
active adult community, Sun City residents enjoy riding bikes, running and walking, and it is 
important to make these activities as safe as possible.
Bulk Trash Pick Up
SCHOA Sun City
7
35
It would be helpful if the county would establish a bulk trash pickup program for county 
residents, to help maintain a clean, safe and beautiful community. Sun City residents have 
very limited options for bulk trash, which can often cause illegal dumping or a build up of 
unsafe clutter. 
CC&Rs v Ordinances
SCHOA Sun City
3
29
There can be differences between CC&R/deed restrictions and Maricopa County permitting 
regulations; however, CC&Rs/deed restriction agreements legally take precedence over 
county permitting regulations. This has led to confusion for property owners who apply for a 
county permit without checking with the HOA/CC&Rs. SCHOA has asked for years to include 
some type of document in the permitting process that the property owner would need to 
complete, that is essentially a ‘sign off’ from their HOA that their plans are in line with their 
CC&Rs prior to county permits being issued.  This would help greatly in protecting and 
educating property owners wanting to make improvements to their property by clearing up 
confusion with the difference between their CC&Rs and county permits. Plus, in some cases, 
this would also save the property owner time and protect them financially, when situations 
occur where the county has approved a permit, but it isn’t in line with the deed restrictions.
Coyotes
SCHOA Sun City
11
29
Wild coyotes are common in Sun City and are a safety concern for residents and their pets. 
Pets, often considered family members and companions, have been taken from backyards by 
coyotes, which are becoming increasingly bold. Also at times, coyotes can run in packs and 
some need help as they appear to have a very painful case of mange. There seem to be no 
agencies that will help residents, or the coyotes themselves. This is a community issue that 
appears to be getting worse and this is a community safety concern.
Door to Door Solicitors
SCHOA Sun City
3
25
Unfortunately, Senior citizens are targets of scams and fraud and often become victims. This 
happens in many ways and door-to-door soliciting is one trend that is unfortunately growing. 
This can be prevented by not allowing random unknown people to approach homes 
uninvited. Please consider an ordinance that prohibits door-to-door solicitation in Senior 
communities.  There are multiple Senior communities in Unincorporated areas of Maricopa 
County and our Seniors need to be protected from this type of abuse.
TALLY ON SCHOA POSTS, COMMENTS AND RELATED POSTS ON FRAMEWORK 2040 WALL

Economic Dev/Retail
SCHOA Sun City
2
15
Maricopa County needs to take the lead on Economic Development in county areas like Sun 
City, where retail shopping centers and other businesses have gone dormant, and there is no 
active plan to revitalize. These abandoned or empty centers can impact the local economy 
and also cause community health and safety concerns if left uncared for; not to mention the 
quality of life impact and threats to limit the community’s access to important retail options 
such as grocery stores. Maintaining a strong and healthy county includes a strong economic 
corridor, just as in a municipality.
Emergency Services
SCHOA Sun City
2
19
In Maricopa County, communities outside of municipalities seem to have far fewer resources 
to support vital emergency services, such as the Sun City Fire & Medical Department. 
Ironically, the SCFMD is one of the busiest fire agencies in the state, given the wide range of 
medical needs and assistance they respond to on a daily basis amid a Senior community. 
However, the limited access to resources has impacted the department financially, and it is a 
concern that the costs could continue to be passed down to county residents, who often live 
with limited resources. There needs to be a solution to make sure the Fire Department has 
the resources it requires to respond to the needs of the community.
Hazardous Waste Disposal
SCHOA Sun City
4
22
It would be helpful if the county would establish a hazardous waste disposal program. 
Unfortunately, there is no option for county residents to dispose of this type of waste. For the 
benefit of the community, perhaps Maricopa County could partner with a local community 
program, company or nearby municipality to offer some option to dispose of hazardous 
waste. 
Homelessness
SCHOA Sun City
4
36
Homelessness is a huge and growing issue in Sun City, one that has no clear direction or plan 
in the community’s eyes. Questions often arise about how to handle this population and 
related safety concerns. We need the county’s leadership, direction and education concerning 
what is being done, and how this issue can be solved. This is not only a safety issue for the 
homeless but also for community members. 
Increase in Police
SCHOA Sun City
2
33
As a community, Sun City needs additional public safety representation.  A recent Maricopa 
County Sheriff’s Office survey of Sun City residents showcased the need to prioritize where 
residents would like to see the Sheriff’s Department protect and serve, given their resources.  
County areas like Sun City should receive the same level of public safety as those in 
municipalities. The limited resources in Sun City have led to very limited abilities to protect 
the public and maintain safe streets. In addition, this has led to a constant rehiring and 
retraining of Sheriff deputies, as cities with additional revenue sources can offer significantly 
more income and benefits.

No Golf Cart Signs
SCHOA Sun City
0
7
Sun City and other Senior communities in Maricopa County are unique in that the use of golf 
carts is common, not just on the golf course – but for day-to-day activities.  The installation of 
“No Golf Carts Allowed” signs on main thoroughfares with unsafe speed limits for these 
smaller vehicles would help maintain the safety of residents utilizing the roadways.
Parking/No Parking Signs
SCHOA Sun City
5
13
It would be beneficial for the safety of all county residents to allow the installation of No 
Parking signs in major community thoroughfares, where parking can be a hazard among the 
traffic. As an example in Sun City, roads such as Del Webb Blvd., 103rd Ave., 107th Ave., 
Alabama Ave., Sun City Blvd., Peoria Ave., etc., are highly traveled – often with several 
destinations that attract a high level of vehicles and pedestrians that must maneuver around 
the parked vehicles.  This would also make it safer and easier for emergency vehicles to travel 
throughout the communities.
Rental Properties
SCHOA Sun City
5
36
Residents have expressed a desire to control the number of rental properties that may be 
allowed in Sun City.  They cite that these properties often are not maintained, have under-
aged occupants, create parking, and traffic issues in our community.
Speeding
SCHOA Sun City
6
20
Maricopa County should review its budget to ensure public safety is a top priority. In Sun City, 
speeding has been an issue reported every month at the Sun City Home Owner’s Association 
(SCHOA)’s Roads and Safety Committee, but a lack of resources has hampered the ability to 
respond fully to this safety concern.  The primary concern in any community should be the 
safety of its citizens, and the Sun City area should be studied, a plan implemented with the 
appropriate resources to achieve an increased level of safety. 
Transportation
SCHOA Sun City
1
19
Public transportation should be a priority in the West Valley, especially in Senior 
communities. A lack of transportation causes health and safety concerns. It is not uncommon 
for Senior residents to struggle to get to the doctor, the grocery store and to other important 
locations and needed appointments on a limited income, and with possible health issues that 
prevent them from driving. This has been a need for some time. 
SCHOA POSTS ENGAGEMENT TOTALS
57
355
Community Posts
Homelessness/Vagrancy
Safety and security/homelessness in Sun City
COMMUNITY
3
10
Use abandoned buildings for homesless
COMMUNITY
2
9
Safety/panhandling
COMMUNITY
1
21
Vagrancy at Grand and 107th
COMMUNITY
3
18
Camping/Homelessness
COMMUNITY
0
13
Vagrants and urban camping
COMMUNITY
2
18
We believe that many of the below Community Posts were spurred by the SCHOA posts and many 
mentioned Sun City. Again, direct feedback from the community.

Homelessness
COMMUNITY
3
21
Addiction and retail theft
COMMUNITY
0
10
Stop begging at busy intersections
COMMUNITY
2
18
TOTALS
16
138
CC&Rs v Ordinances
Better enforcement of CCRs and avoid MC variances
COMMUNITY
2
22
County Permits v CCRs
COMMUNITY
2
15
TOTALS
4
37
More Police/Speed Enforcement
Speeding on Del Webb Blvd
COMMUNITY
8
8
Law Enforcement plan for bigger presence
COMMUNITY
1
21
Equal law enforcement to county islands
COMMUNITY
1
2
More speed prevention
COMMUNITY
2
6
Speeders in Sun City
COMMUNITY
6
12
Speed cameras in Sun City
COMMUNITY
4
10
Need a Sun City police department
COMMUNITY
1
4
Speeding and Reckless Drivers
COMMUNITY
1
7
Use Photo Enforcement
COMMUNITY
2
8
Speeding/traffic in sun city
COMMUNITY
0
0
Enforce speed limiits (Bell Road)
COMMUNITY
3
8
Photo safety radars Sun City
COMMUNITY
3
8
TOTALS
32
94
Parking on the Street
Street Parking (not enforced)
COMMUNITY
2
8
Pro street parking restrictions in Sun City
COMMUNITY
1
17
Supports enforcement of no street parking
COMMUNITY
0
1
TOTALS
3
26
Fire Department Support/Financing
Fire department charging in Sun City
COMMUNITY
1
3
Take care of first responders/funding in Sun City
COMMUNITY
2
8
Remove mandated cap on fire revenue generation at the 
legislature
COMMUNITY
2
4
TOTALS
5
16
Transportation Must Be Addressed
Public transportation/buses
COMMUNITY
2
5
Improve Public Transit
COMMUNITY
1
10
"Repaying Senior Contributions"/Transportation in Sun City
COMMUNITY
6
11

Improve public transportation
COMMUNITY
1
1
Commuter rail West Valley to East Valley
COMMUNITY
0
5
Continue light rail expansion
COMMUNITY
0
3
TOTALS
10
35
Other Sun City Transport/Street Issues
Sidewalks on 99th in Sun City
COMMUNITY
2
5
"Do not stop for Golf Carts" signs at crossings
COMMUNITY
1
5
Right turn lane at Bell and Boswell
COMMUNITY
0
3
Sidewalk needed on 99th Ave.
COMMUNITY
1
3
Left turn on Boswell and Bell
COMMUNITY
0
1
Air and noise pollution 99th ave/beardsley
COMMUNITY
2
1
More Sun City crosswalks
COMMUNITY
0
0
Covering up "see-through" walls along 99th to Beadsley
COMMUNITY
0
0
TOTALS
6
18
Bikes and Bike Paths
Bike/golf cart lanes in Sun City
COMMUNITY
0
1
Bikes and motorbikes on sidewalks
COMMUNITY
0
10
Bikes lanes needed in Sun City
COMMUNITY
3
2
Bike lanes
COMMUNITY
1
8
Bike lanes
COMMUNITY
4
9
TOTALS
3
10
Door to Door Solicitors
ID Vendors vehicles to report easily
COMMUNITY
0
4
TOTALS
0
4
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Hazardous Waste Disposal
COMMUNITY
2
6
TOTALS
2
6
Economic Development/Growth
Increase mixed use/high density
COMMUNITY
0
3
Keep rural areas rural
COMMUNITY
0
2
Less home building
COMMUNITY
0
3
Economic Growth/tech jobs
COMMUNITY
0
1
Balance preservation of open land with development
COMMUNITY
0
1
Heat island
COMMUNITY
0
1
TOTALS
0
11
Rentals
Short term rentals min. stay
COMMUNITY
2
11
Better planning, fewer rentals west valley
COMMUNITY
0
5

Rentals and Empty homes in Phase 1 
COMMUNITY
2
11
TOTALS
4
27
Other Community Issues
Master HOA Insurance Policies
COMMUNITY
0
3
Elimination of Rats
COMMUNITY
2
2
Help with cost of xeroscaping for COAs etc
COMMUNITY
3
6
Loud noise from mufflers in Sun City
COMMUNITY
1
0
Green energy - solar and water
COMMUNITY
3
7
Sidewalk sweepers for gravel landscaping?
COMMUNITY
1
0
BNSF - impact on rural areas/Wittman
COMMUNITY
0
0
Fines for loud vehicles
COMMUNITY
0
1
Affordable utilities
COMMUNITY
0
3
SCHOA could impose fines
COMMUNITY
0
2
Group homes in Sun City
COMMUNITY
3
28
TOTALS
13
52

MBI Address
Staff Question/Address
N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Acknowledgement
Comment ID
Date posted
User name
Type
Comment
Page
Agree
Disagree
Response
Explanation
174 01/29/2026 - 5:20pm
Kathryn Chandler
Question
Why is Transit not included in the Urban Solutions for Urban Development Stragegy?  Lack of public transit 
or transit options always comes to the top of needs in resident surveys in county unincorporated areas. Not 
contentious, just a need that there needs to be a strategy for.  
100
3
0 MBI Address
The USUD does include public transit. 
Category 11 in the USUD was labeled as 
Transportation was intended to mean 
Alternative Transportation. The title for 
Category 11 in the USUD has been 
updated to Alternative Transportation.
175 01/29/2026 - 5:25pm
David L
Comment
In our unincorporated community, golf course water is regulated by the management plans of ADWR. Water 
conservation for residences and commercial entities is not regulated except by water bills. Unincorporated 
communities need ways to enforce conservation like most cities are now doing. We have commercial 
businesses that blatantly flood our streets time after time without any apparent concern. Our only defense 
is to try shaming them via news articles. How about a county wide regulation to mandate water 
conservation?
56
3
0 Acknowledgement
176 01/29/2026 - 5:31pm
Kathryn Chandler
Question
Why does Maricopa County provide regional transit services?  The residents of these unicorporated areas 
still pay into the Prop 479- Prop 400 before that and Prop 300 before that.  No city is going to annes in Sun 
City West so we still need a solution and look to the county as our municipality. 
121
0
0 Acknowledgement
Maricopa County is not a public transit 
provider. There are policies in the 
Comprehensive Plan that speak to the 
County's support of public transit from 
other providers in the County as is 
feasible.
177 01/29/2026 - 5:33pm
David L
Comment
There is a high population growth area shown on your map that is located just east of the intersection of SR 
303 and US 60. This is the location of Sun City West which has been built out for decades and therefore 
cannot continue to grow. Suggest thathis shaded area be moved north of the 303, a high growth area for the 
city of Surprise.
65
0
0 Acknowledgement
This is a map of past growth in 
unincorporated Maricopa County (2010-
2022). This map shows where 
population growth has occurred in the 
past decade. There is a map in the 
Growth Areas element that shows 
projected future growth. In this map, 
there is a high growth area north of 
Surprise and the 303 that yielded from 
the analysis as the commenter has 
observed. 
178 01/29/2026 - 5:33pm
Kathryn Chandler
Question
There are a number of new data centers going in throughout the county.  What are you doing to manage or 
regulate these centers so they do not negitively impact our air quality?
133
2
0 Acknowledgement
The Comprehensive Plan speaks to data 
centers and the planning issues that 
come with their development.
179 01/29/2026 - 5:35pm
Catherine
Comment
I urge the County to strengthen Framework 2040 by clearly tying growth approval to demonstrated, long-
term water availability, consistent with A.R.S. Title 45 and the intent of Arizona's Assured and Adequate 
Water Supply laws, and by adopting stronger conservation, reuse, and groundwater protection policies in 
unincorporated areas.  
1
4
0 Acknowledgement
Maricopa County is not a water 
provider. However, there are policies in 
the Water Resources element that 
voice the County's support for water 
conservation initiatives for the region 
and state. 
180 01/29/2026 - 5:37pm
Kathryn Chandler
Question
How will you midigate the impact of the Data Centers going in (one in Waddell an unicorporated area) on 
water usage and energy usage? 
196
2
0 Acknowledgement
The Comprehensive Plan speaks to data 
centers and the planning issues that 
come with their development.
181 01/29/2026 - 5:40pm
Catherine
Comment
The comprehensive Plan should further integrate extreme heat mitigation into water planning and land use 
decisions, recognizing the direct relationship between rising temperatures, increased water demand, and 
public health impacts.  Pursuant to the County's authority to protect public health, safety, and welfare 
under A.R.S. Title 11, the Plan should prioritize development standards that reduce heat-related water 
demand, including: Low-water, heat-adaptive landscaping, and urban canopy using drought-tolerant 
species. Site design standards that reduce heat absorptiona dn excessive outdoor water use. 
1
1
0 Acknowledgement
The Comprehensive Plan discusses 
Urban Heat and its need for 
consideration in the planning process in 
the Environment element.
182 01/29/2026 - 5:43pm
Catherine
Comment
I respectfully recommend that the Comprehensive Plan strengthen its technology policies to ensure that 
infrastructure planning, service delivery, and emergency response capabilities keep pace with growth in 
unincorporated areas, consistent with the County's authority and obligations under A.R.S. Title 11. 
1
0
0 Acknowledgement
The Comprehensive Plan retains the 
Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
stragey from the current Plan. This 
strategy evaluates the appropriateness 
of development among many factors 
including infrastructure and emergency 
services nearby for the new 
development.

173 01/29/2026 - 8:52am
S. Myers
Comment
Any phasing needs to take the end project into consideration plus potential expansion.  Roads, sidewalks, 
lights, sewers are too often torn up a year after they are put in due to the next phase starting.   
15
4
0 Acknowledgement
Maricopa County supports phasing 
plans for new development as noted in 
Policy 1.1 of the Draft Framework 2040 
Comprehensive Plan.
183 01/30/2026 - 7:34am
Elizabeth Fulghum
Comment
#3.5 unregulated parcel splits are a huge problem in the Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation District county 
island. As long as property owners can split parcels without oversight, this will be hard to enforce.
18
0
0 Acknowledgement
Maricopa County supports subdivisions 
and does not support "wildcat" lot 
splits.
184 01/30/2026 - 7:37am
Elizabeth Fulghum
Question
#1.5 - How exactly? 
21
1
0 Acknowledgement
Environment Policy #1.5 supports the 
development of a dust control program 
that can be developed by the 
appropriate County department.
185 01/30/2026 - 7:46am
Elizabeth Fulghum
Comment
#1.1: Well this is clearly not happening. a) There are no Assured Water Supply certifications being issued 
and have not for some time. b) We are in a severe overdraft position already. How to enable growth when we 
are already unable to guarantee water for the future?  c) the process for county islands to even apply for 
Assured Water supply is lengthy, costly and most are denied. What's the point?
26
2
0 Acknowledgement
Water Resources Policy #1.1 speaks to 
the County's support of development 
that is subject to the ADWR Assured 
and Adequate Water Supply programs 
as opposed to developments that can 
occur outside of such water 
requirements, like "wildcat" 
subdivisions.
186 01/30/2026 - 7:48am
Elizabeth Fulghum
Comment
#2.2 In county island areas, where there is no sewer, where is "renewable" water use coming from? This 
policy clearly doesn't understand where water comes from. 
27
0
0 Acknowledgement
Water Resources Policy #2.2 is for all of 
unincorporated Maricopa County and 
not just County Islands. In 
developments with common area 
landscaping, water features, and other 
non-potable water uses, the County 
supports using renewable water 
resources.
187 01/30/2026 - 7:51am
Elizabeth Fulghum
Comment
#3.1 AGREE. New development coming in funds any and all infrastructure required to provide them 
services. Period. 
29
1
0 Acknowledgement
188 01/30/2026 - 9:26am
Elizabeth Fulghum
Comment
Agree! 
29
1
0 Acknowledgement
189 02/01/2026 - 8:09am
James
Question
What?  No plan for public safety.  MCSO has the lowest crime to arrest rate in Arizona, abysmal.  While drug 
poisoning deaths have declined overall in the US, Arizona's are skyrocketing, and Maricopa County and 
Phoenix are ground zero.  What's the plan for addressing the catastrophe?
5
0
0 Acknowledgement
There are discussions of the County 
Sheriff's Office and options for Fire 
Protection in the Land Use element of 
the Draft Comprehensive Plan. 
190 02/02/2026 - 1:45pm
Pat Sperry 
Question
Where is the section about Falcon Field, Mesa AZ. The noise and pollution from 15+ airline pilot schools is 
excessive. The nonstop touch and go activity over neighborhoods has become unbearable. Some pilots 
circle 12+ times over my neighborhood and then do 12 touch and go landings. That’s 24 noisy planes over 
my house. Multiply that by all the planes and you will see that this is a terrible situation. Is this being 
addressed?
80
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Not in unincorporated Maricopa 
County.
191 02/02/2026 - 2:41pm
Elizabeth Fulghum
Comment
3.5 This is just not happening in unincorporated Maricopa County. Wildcat lot splits are constantly 
happening here in Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation District.  New lot splits every single month to evade 
subdivision requirements. 
111
1
0 Acknowledgement
Maricopa County does not support such 
development as stated in Land Use 
Policy #3.5.
192 02/18/2026 - 1:26pm
Jane Peiffer
Comment
No, they don't believe in reducing impacts.  Please do not add "policies" that will only be ignored in the 
future.
16
0
0 Acknowledgement
193 02/18/2026 - 1:29pm
Jane Peiffer
Comment
No, they don't.  They support cramming solar fields, battery storage fields, and large scale massive rezoning 
and developments in the middle of the desert where there is little infrastructure available or planned. 
15
0
0 Acknowledgement
194 02/18/2026 - 1:34pm
Jane Peiffer
Comment
No, they don't.  Maricopa County only supports build it, build it, build it.  Especially the solar and battery 
fields.  They ignore the "unique aspects" of unincorporated living.  They think everyone should be squished 
shoulder to shoulder with neighbors or solar fields. 
18
0
1 Acknowledgement
195 02/18/2026 - 1:42pm
Jane Peiffer
Comment
No they don't.  Solar fields and large commercial, industrial, and large scale housing developments get to 
move and rearrange floodplains, water channels, and disrupt natural flows all the time.  They encourage 
pavement which disrupts natural water absorption and flows. 
21
1
0 Acknowledgement
196 02/18/2026 - 1:44pm
Jane Peiffer
Comment
No they don't.  Build it regardless of what any environmental impacts are.  Build it regardless of what 
animals are in the area naturally.  Pave it, build it, tear it up...that is the County's belief.  Those who try to 
preserve the natural area are denied permits or the burdens placed on the permits only serve to destroy the 
area; such as pavement.
22
1
0 Acknowledgement
197 02/18/2026 - 1:49pm
Jane Peiffer
Comment
Planning and Development waive setbacks, buffers, screening, and height limits all the time for these huge 
solar fields, battery energy storage facilities, and wireless communication towers.  
28
0
0 Acknowledgement

205 02/19/2026 - 10:33pm
Henery Smith
Question
There's 867 miles of alleyways in Phoenix, most of which is in the process of installing gates, ~1,200 
currently installed, min price $5,500 - total costs $6.6 million. If theres ~14 alleyways entrances per 7 
streets per 1 mile of arterial, that means theres estimated 12,138 alleyway entrances. It will cost the city 
$66,769,000 total to install gates on all the alleyways. The gates are to prevent the homeless from trashing 
it and criminals accessing peoples property from the rear. Is this really the most valuable use of public 
funds? Will you ever consider instead to repurpose some of these into pedestrian/bike paths? Is there a way 
to implement better ground collection for rainwater in the alleyways? If we turned all 867 miles of alleyway 
into green groundwater-collecting plants/architecture bicycle/pedestrian path, how many degrees would 
that cool the city down and how many gallons of water will be prevented from sudden surface evaporation? 
How can the police enforce policy against the homeless who would obviously take advantage of it? The only 
other option is to give the alleyways to the homeowners and allow them to extend their property line behind 
their house. This would make homewowners very happy but I think all options should be explored before 
giving homeowners their half of the alleyway. Does an alleyway have enough width for the lightrail? 
120
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
206 02/19/2026 - 10:36pm
Henery Smith
Comment
All sidewalks on arterials should be upgraded to 6 foot width. I often see handicapped people use the bike 
lane because theres a utility pole blocking the 5 foot width sidewalk and they physically cannot move 
around it in their wheelchair. 
120
2
0 Acknowledgement
199 02/19/2026 - 5:18pm
Chris Peterman
Comment
I wonder where we are suddenly going to come up with all this water we are going to need to accommodate 
all this growth? I didn't hear one thing  said about one of the most important issues. We are on a cliff that no 
one seems to give much thought about. Just the ou t that could be daved by people bei g mote mindful of 
their wayer usage would help. Other places I have live have had substantial savings doing that. But this state 
hasn't  put any resources into programs/PSA's, etc urging people to conserve and ways of doing that  I've 
noticed the same with recycling. Not a whole lot of effort into expanding  programs and urging of the  public 
to do their part. 
1
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
The County is not a water provider but 
does consider the water supply when 
evaluating new development.
200 02/19/2026 - 7:21pm
Kathy O’Donnell 
Question
There is never any forethought to traffic before construction. It doesn’t matter if it is commercial or 
residential the roadways are an afterthought. Why is this? 
1
2
0 Acknowledgement
201 02/19/2026 - 8:34pm
Henery Smith
Comment
Young people do not want to live anywhere near an HOA subdivision. They are forced to due to lack of other 
options. A local HOA last year tried to stop a man from giving people free water on his property during the 
summer heat.
18
5
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
202 02/19/2026 - 8:52pm
Henery Smith
Comment
You can help promote responsibility by paving a bike trail next to the parks and informing the public to ride 
on the trail. Many will choose the paved path vs gravel path
26
1
0 Acknowledgement
Bicycle paths for transportation and 
recreation are discussed in the Plan 
and supported by the County when 
feasible.
198 02/19/2026 - 8:56am
Staci 
Comment
South Mountain 202 north bound will back up 2-3 miles to transition to the westbound I-10. With only two 
lanes transitioning westbound why in the world does East bound have 3 lanes? No Carpool lane to go 
Westbound but one for Eastbound that no one uses 
1
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
203 02/19/2026 - 9:22pm
Henery Smith
Comment
The water is going to deplete and there wont be a consistent supply for anyone. If any state should build a 
desalination plant, it should be Arizona. Make new housing developments pay for the install
194
0
0 Acknowledgement
204 02/19/2026 - 9:51pm
Henery Smith
Comment
You misspelled paved* here. Ebicycles are now a very viable means for transport since you allow them 
inside the light rail. You need to improve the bike lane infrastructure to relieve traffic congestion. Adding 
more car lanes increases congestion - this is physics! Its called the Braess's Paradox. I think the best 
strategy is to add a bike grid with 1 mile spacing (like the arterials) but instead of placing it on top of the 
arterial roads, stick the bike grid halfway between it so it lines up in the center of the arterial grid. Roser runs 
east to west through the entire city (except Leisure World) and would be an optimal bike route to connect to 
light rail and Tempe downtown. Vineyard and Euclid should also get bike lanes. Perpendicular roads: 20th 
St, Montezuma/3rd St, 17th Ave, 39th Ave, etc. Unbuffered bike lanes on 45mph arterial 5-lane roads will 
never be inviting to 70-80% of all bicycle users but these users would use these lanes for the last 1/4 mile of 
their trip. If you setup a reliable biking grid on 25-35mph roads, Im sure ridership will visibly increase. 
Unbuffered bike lanes will result in fatal injuries for bikers, so many opt out.
120
1
0 MBI Address
Typo corrected
207 02/21/2026 - 10:25pm
Wayne Thompson
Comment
Arizona needs to solve the water crisis that is unfolding and could utilize the existing rivers, canals, and use 
pipes to create a circulation system by partnering with surrounding states and Mexico via deep desalination 
plants that pump water into the southwest from the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of California, and Gulf of 
America/Mexico into north flowing Rivers such as Santa Cruz and San Pedro plus the other creeks, washes, 
and canals tying into existing SRP/CAP. You can even bring pipes up into Arizona like we do oil pipelines that 
put water into the Salt River, Verde Rive, Little Colorado, and Lake Pleasant. Based on rain and snow melt 
you could control the water flow and adjust as needed creating a circulation system of the water like a heart 
with a brain. You can add all sorts of parks and recreational uses to the system and the wildlife would 
flourish as water flows though and allows the delta of the Colorado to flow again. It would be a win on all 
fronts and historic achievement of human engineering.
20
2
0 Acknowledgement
This is a suggestion for the State of 
Arizona to act. The County is willing to 
partner in support of regional, state, 
and federal water decisions.

208 02/21/2026 - 10:46pm
Wayne Thompson
Comment
If the water crisis is solved via my previous comment using deep sea desalination plants tied into the state 
it would help solve multiple problems. We could use the newly installed water supply infrastructure to 
prevent and put out desert and forest fires. We could establish riparian habitat and improve wildlife 
populations, it would help us cool the urban heat island effect and maybe restore historical monsoon 
patterns. We could create a trail system for recreational use that incorporates nature based on our rivers, 
lakes, and canals in a way similar to Indian Bend Wash in Scottsdale.  
 
 
In terms of transportation the light rail line should be extended from Gilbert and Main to travel to 
Polytechnic Campus ASU via Main Street to Sossamon going south until it reaches the Mesa Airport. The 
west end connection should end at the Cardinals stadium in Glendale. 
 
Trains should connect Tucson to Phoenix to Flagstaff and include further lines that make trips to San Diego, 
L.A. , Las Vegas, and Rocky Point. If you made it so they could transport cars in the trains like they do in the 
east coast you would ease congestion and create a tourism boom. 
 
All major roads in Phoenix Metro and Tucson metro should be two lanes each direction, bury the power 
lines, have a median filled with trees and shrubs acclimated to the desert, bike paths, and wide sidewalks 
with more trees/shrubs. If we did what I suggested paired with continued freeway improvements and 
extensions we would be a true paradise and envy of the world.
251
0
0 Acknowledgement
Many of these suggestions are outside 
of the purview of this Comprehensive 
Plan for Maricopa County, which is 
focused on unincorporated areas. 
209 02/22/2026 - 8:39am
Zach Gray
Comment
Jane, would you like to provide any constructive criticism in your comments? Shouting at the county 
government does not equate to policy change.
16
1
0 Acknowledgement
210 02/22/2026 - 8:50am
Zach Gray
Comment
I believe it is essential to our city's aesthetic, cultural identity, and ever-increasing dependence on tourism 
in winter months that we focus more on scenic corridors and do what we can to support and grow them. 
Our city is instantly recognizable in any photo lineup without even needing to see downtown's buildings. It 
should feel that way to anyone living or visiting here the second they walk outside or hop on a freeway.
91
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
211 02/22/2026 - 8:56am
Zach Gray
Comment
New developments almost always feel isolated and walled off from the surrounding, preexisting 
infrastructure  they're constructed near. The county should do more to improve walkability and 
connectedness not only to create more walkable, traversable areas to cut down on 
traffic/emissions/asphalt square footage, but to improve quality of life and health of residents in these new 
areas. Too often do new developments (here and otherwise) dump millions into the land without so much 
as extending a sidewalk a final 50 yards to the next street over.
110
1
0 Acknowledgement
212 02/22/2026 - 8:58am
Zach Gray
Comment
This should include mixed-use development, e.g. office space with restaurants and small/micro green 
spaces to keep people in the areas after traditional work hours and bring new worth, value, and intrigue to 
otherwise "dead" areas on weekends.
111
1
0 Acknowledgement
There is a Mixed Use zoning category 
avaialble for such development in 
unincorporated Maricopa County. 
213 02/23/2026 - 8:56am
Christopher
Question
What actions is Maricopa County taking to eliminate existing county islands? Also, why is Maricopa County 
allowing building subdivisions on unincorpored land when it doesnt offer the same type of resources that 
cities do. Why are we allowing homebuilders to build master planned communities in unincorporated 
areas? If a developer wants to build a subdivision, Maricopa county should require they annex into a city 
first.
74
3
0 Acknowledgement
Land Use Policy #1.8 states that 
Maricopa County supports the 
prevention of forming new County 
Islands. State statute also forbids the 
creation of new County Islands. 
214 02/23/2026 - 9:02am
Christopher
Comment
Again, why is Maricopa County allowing urban development in unincorporated areas. Homebuilders of 
subdivisions should be required to annex into a city in order to build their planned subdivisions.  
Unincorporated areas should be rural only.
76
6
0 Acknowledgement
215 02/23/2026 - 9:08am
Christopher
Comment
I would add in here that Rural Metro is a "FOR PROFIT" company, and as such its subscripition fees are two 
and even three times the cost of what fire protection in one of the fire districts would cost a homeowner. 
Maricopa County should attempt to get all incorporated areas in a fire district eventually.
86
0
0 Acknowledgement
216 02/23/2026 - 9:13am
Christopher
Typo
District 5 should say District 7 which covers the area of Fountain Hills and Rio Verde.  The Sheriffs Office 
considers Lake Patrol as District 5 , and District 6 use to be Queen Creek, but it no longer exists since they 
incorporated.
88
0
0 MBI Address
This has been corrected.
217 02/23/2026 - 9:14am
Christopher
Typo
This district cover downtown Phoenix, should say . This district coverS downtown Phoenix.
88
0
0 MBI Address
This has been corrected.
218 02/23/2026 - 9:16am
Christopher
Typo
District 7
89
0
0 MBI Address
This has been corrected.
219 02/23/2026 - 9:19am
Christopher
Comment
I recommend a staffing study be done to find out if Maricopa County has enough Deputies. The Sheriffs 
Office has even less Deputy positions now then it did in 2008 despite the drastic population growth and 
increased demand for services. These average call times seem very long, 8 minutes is a long time to wait 
when there is an immediate threat to life.
88
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
This is an analysis that would have to be 
conducted by the Maricopa County 
Sheriff's Office.
220 02/23/2026 - 9:43am
Christopher
Comment
Correction, this is District 4 (Cave Creek/Anthem) , but the District 5 label should say District 7 which is 
fountain hills.
89
0
0 MBI Address
This has been corrected.
221 02/23/2026 - 9:49am
Christopher
Comment
Maricopa County should not allow Urban Developments since it does not support the infractrure/services 
that cities and towns do. Maricopa County should only allow rural development, and if a builder wants a 
build a subdivision, they should be required to annex into the city.
100
2
0 Acknowledgement

222 02/23/2026 - 9:58am
Christopher
Question
Is there a way to require municipalities to annex roadways that are already within their city borders and are 
being used by their city residents? Lower Buckeye road for instance between Cotton Lane and Sarival 
Avenue is maininted by the county but currently is completely surrounded by the city of Goodyear. The 
roadway is in bad shape, one lane in each direction with potholes everywhere and will get even worse when 
the Loop 303 expansion is done and Cotton Lane and Lower Buckeye road becomes an exit on that freeway.
123
1
0 Acknowledgement
Municipal annexation of County 
roadways between municipalities is 
encouraged and supported by the 
County.
223 02/26/2026 - 4:19pm
Kerry Laughlin
Question
When is Infrastructure, Electric & Sewer being planned for area near Rainbow Valley? SPECIFICALLY Pecos 
& Tuthill Road??  Land IS zoned R43 (1 acre) being sold .15acre right now. 
73
0
0 Acknowledgement
224 03/02/2026 - 4:50pm
Barry Glickman
Comment
The story "1,000 protest ICE center in Surprise" on page 3A in the Valley and State section of the Arizona 
Republic of Thursday February 5, 2026 reported that a vacant 418,400 square foot warehouse at 
Sweetwater Avenue and Dysart Road in Surprise was purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to be used as a detention center for 
undocumented immigrants. 
 
Zoning laws should not allow a building of this size to be built without specific tenant(s) or buyer(s).  Zoning 
laws at the local and state level should not allow a building of "about more than seven footballs fields" to be 
built speculatively at one location. This would prevent the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency 
from purchasing another building of this size in the future to house 1,500 or more detainees.  
 
113
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
225 03/03/2026 - 10:45am
David Yohn
Comment
I used the search function and see nothing concerning support for residential solar energy production nor 
for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.  I think the county should support both things.  I would also 
support regulations requiring new commercial or industrial construction to include solar or wind energy 
production systems as part of any new construction or major remodeling..
207
1
0 Acknowledgement
226 03/03/2026 - 10:46am
Susan Saunders 
Comment
It's time to start building vertically for expansion, not horizontal. Responsibility in land use.
15
1
0 Acknowledgement
227 03/03/2026 - 10:50am
Susan Saunders 
Comment
If you want better transportation you need to implement more light rail coverage. Incentivize ride sharing. 
Regulate cab pricing. Build a toll-road
19
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
228 03/03/2026 - 10:53am
Maria
Question
Are we going to look at creating more affordable housing options? All I see are luxury complexes going up 
and homeless encampments not 50 ft away. You can't get people off the streets if they can't afford the 
housing that's going in. 
17
2
0 Acknowledgement
Land Use Policy #3.1 states that 
Maricopa County supports mixed 
housing options.
229 03/03/2026 - 10:55am
Kristi Chua
Question
Is Maricopa County looking into recycling sewage water for use as drinking water? This has been done in 
many water-scarce locations.
27
0
0 Acknowledgement
Development of such a kind is 
supported in the Water Reosurces goal 
and policies, however, the County is not 
a water or sewer provider.
230 03/03/2026 - 11:03am
Maria
Comment
Honestly, I do not see a wide variety of affordable housing in Phoenix. Every open land space gets gobbled 
up by someone building luxury apartments or condos. Please put your money where your mouth is. 
36
0
0 Acknowledgement
Land Use Policy #3.1 states that 
Maricopa County supports mixed 
housing options.
231 03/03/2026 - 11:06am
Margaret Wilson
Comment
Water is highest priority.
13
2
0 Acknowledgement
232 03/03/2026 - 11:26am
Maria
Comment
With water issues in Arizona being what they are, we do not need data centers in the desert sucking up 
valuable water and energy resources. 
150
1
0 Acknowledgement
233 03/03/2026 - 11:34am
Maria
Comment
That's unsupportable. Do not turn Arizona into Texas with high energy costs and an unstable grid. 
207
1
0 Acknowledgement
234 03/03/2026 - 11:43am
Kevin Chaffee
Comment
Water sustainability and affordability should direct all other county decisions. 
1
4
0 Acknowledgement
235 03/03/2026 - 12:51pm
Chuck Van Hyning
Comment
The document won’t open. all I get is the ability to comment. 
1
0
0 Acknowledgement
236 03/03/2026 - 2:14pm
Ken McAlister
Comment
there are many county island roads that are dirt and when people that do not live in the community drive 
fast on the roads they g=create excessive dust.  More dust in just the evening time than a whole 
construction site during the entire day.  Why not do some kind of dust abatement or control on these roads 
by laying crushed asphalt down and then oiling the millings to get a tough surface.  or something similar in 
these areas.  It would drastically bring down your ppm of dust particles.
142
1
0 Acknowledgement
The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the 
need for controlling dust pollution as 
important for the County's air quality.
237 03/03/2026 - 3:38pm
Nancy
Question
Hi, It’s quite stunning all the new buildings going up in the county, commercial and residential…..how can 
we possibly have enough water for all this new development…..very concerning…..please advise how we 
can sustain this please and thank you….NK 
6
1
0 Acknowledgement
241 03/04/2026 - 1:36pm
R Johnson Jones
Question
Does this include unincorporated areas such as Wittmann?
17
0
0 Acknowledgement
Yes
242 03/04/2026 - 1:41pm
R Johnson Jones
If BNSF is allowed to start building on the 300 and so acres in Wittmann, does this set them up to build on 
the land that was denied zoning without approval?
18
0
0 Acknowledgement
The Board of Supervisors voted not to 
approve a BNSF development in 2025. 
This Plan does not change that 
decision.
238 03/04/2026 - 12:39pm
Enrique
Comment
Consider revising language for Land Use Policy 5.4 to: Maricopa County supports coordinated planning 
efforts between local, state, and federal agencies, including but not limited to the Rio Reimagined regional 
initiative.
113
0
0 Acknowledgement
Change not incorporated.
239 03/04/2026 - 12:43pm
Enrique
Comment
Consider revising part of sentence to: 
 
...coordinate with the regional Rio Reimagined project that seeks...
185
0
0 Acknowledgement
Change not incorporated.

240 03/04/2026 - 12:47pm
Enrique
Comment
General comment: Consider "spotlighting" the Rio Reimagined regional project somewhere in the 
document to celebrate this long-standing regional project that involves 6 cities, 2 tribal communities, SRP, 
ASU, and Maricopa County.
5
1
0 Acknowledgement
Change not incorporated.
243 03/04/2026 - 2:23pm
R Johnson Jones
Environment #3.1 thru 3.3 
The rural land between 60/74 & 211 needs Maricopa County Support.   
It is  not responsible planning by BNSF to build in this area because of the growth and traffic in Wittmann.  
We appreciate your allowing us to respond and help for the future wellbeing of Maricopa.
22
0
0 Acknowledgement
246 03/05/2026 - 1:05pm
Nancy 1
Comment
Funds need to be set aside for an additional dog shelter to open ASAP. The pound is full of pets that were 
adoptable when they arrived. The overcrowding, constant noise, in a cage on a concrete floor, not being 
walked leads to anxiety which leads them to be euthanized for a condition the County actually caused! The 
County has a responsibility to improve the conditions. The County must act immediately. Last week 10 
dogs were killed in two days. The County’s reputation is at stake. Please, please open another shelter. The 
overcrowding just keep getting worse. Thank you.
29
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
247 03/05/2026 - 1:27pm
Nancy 1
Question
An additional animal shelter is desperately needed to ease the overcrowding at the current locations. Too 
many pets are being euthanized. They are healthy when they get there, but with the constant noise, barking, 
cages clanging, they become afraid and anxious and withdrawn. Because of the behavior caused by the  
stress, they are euthanized due to the shelter conditions. So very sad. Last week 10 dogs were killed in just 
two days. This makes room for the next bunch to be traumatized. County has a responsibility to provide 
humane(sic) conditions for the dogs. Please add another shelter facility. 
There must be money somewhere available to accomplish this. Please see it in your heart to help a large 
part of our community.
29
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
248 03/05/2026 - 1:39pm
Nancy 1
Comment
Need funds for an additional animal shelter location. The Pound is seriously overcrowded and dogs are 
being euthanized just to make room for incoming. This is a desperate situation and the. County is looking 
very bad across the country for their inadequate handling of the problem. Just suck it up and allow the funds 
for additional animal shelter facilities. At least talk about it. Thank you.
29
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
245 03/05/2026 - 12:02pm
Susan 1
Question
I am concerned that the county will adopt a plan where the county can override or allow developers to 
override city zoning change decisions thus facilitating developers wishing to go against the zoning/ building 
desires of the local residents.
34
0
0 Acknowledgement
This Plan seeks to enact a level playing 
field for all actors in the development 
process through a logical and 
consistent implementation of the 
Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
strategy.
244 03/05/2026 - 7:37am
Donald Karner
Comment
With Data Centers now allowed to bring their own generating facilities, Maricopa County should develop 
plans to shape these facilities. For example Terra Power development of small modular nuclear reactors to 
support data centers should be addressed to include issues for nuclear power such as emergency planning 
and water use. Fossil fueled generation should also be addressed to include air emissions and water use. 
These data centers and their generation facilities will be great resources for Maricopa County. Plans should 
facilitate adoption while assuring harmony with other County objectives and plans.
207
1
0 Acknowledgement
256 03/06/2026 - 1:39pm
Jose
Does the county have a hillside ordinance regarding height restrictions and architectural aesthetics to 
prevent eyesores? 
138
0
0 Acknowledgement
There is a Hillside Ordinance in the 
recently updated Maricopa County 
Zoning Ordinance.
249 03/06/2026 - 11:22am
Jose
Comment
MC should create energy standards that other agencies can follow or adopt. 
13
0
0 Acknowledgement
The Comprehensive Plan's energy 
policies speak more to energy needs 
related to development. This Plan does 
not have a mechanism for regulating 
utility companies.
250 03/06/2026 - 11:23am
Jose
This may increase the cost of housing prices, and we need to find a balance to keep housing prices low. 
13
1
0 Acknowledgement
251 03/06/2026 - 11:32am
Jose
High standards may increase the cost of building the dwellings. I would like to see a solution to have a high 
standard and keep costs down. 
17
0
0 Acknowledgement
252 03/06/2026 - 11:34am
Jose
The Assessor's Office and Recorder's Office need a policy to prohibit wildcat lot splits. 
18
1
0 Acknowledgement
Land Use Policy #3.5 speaks to 
Maricopa County not supporting 
"wildcat" subdivisions.
253 03/06/2026 - 11:39am
Jose
Bus stop facilities in the unincorporated areas of the county need to include full infrastructure, such as 
shade structures, lighting, and seating for pedestrians.  
19
1
0 Acknowledgement
254 03/06/2026 - 11:46am
Jose
I agree with this goal; we need to protect our open space and trails. 
25
1
0 Acknowledgement
255 03/06/2026 - 12:16pm
Jose
We need to protect our scenic corridors to preserve our identity. These corridors should be observed by the 
instructions that annex them. 
91
0
0 Acknowledgement
The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the 
importance of the County's scenic 
corridors.
257 03/07/2026 - 12:12pm
marc cameron
Comment
Considering the recent efforts by Homeland Securty to purchase a building in Surprise I would propose that 
you include language that either prohibits using commercial buildings for human detention facilities and 
that such types of acquisition go through rigorous publice scrutiny for approval.  At the least make them 
disclose the purpose and make them go through all regulatory and enviornmental steps.
3
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan

271 03/09/2026 - 1:14pm
Samantha
Question
Is there a way to cap SRP and APS prices?
29
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
272 03/09/2026 - 1:20pm
Samantha
Comment
i like this section. i do think you've done decent work and am happy to be living here.
43
0
0 Acknowledgement
273 03/09/2026 - 1:22pm
Samantha
Comment
for both climate and water, i would like to see more R&D on real experiments to make arizona livable and 
water efficient.
56
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
274 03/09/2026 - 1:27pm
Samantha
Typo
typo
69
0
0 MBI Address
This has been corrected.
275 03/09/2026 - 1:37pm
Samantha
Comment
im glad this is on the strategy!
100
0
0 Acknowledgement
276 03/09/2026 - 1:40pm
Samantha
Question
corner stores and bodegas would fit here? it'd be nice to have a place for a quick item rather than a full 
grocery store with a massive parking lot. 
105
1
0 Acknowledgement
277 03/09/2026 - 1:44pm
Samantha
Comment
Let's not spend time, money, and effort on renaming highways to unimportant and divisive people.
117
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
266 03/09/2026 - 10:03am
Samantha
Comment
Still waiting on the commuter train connecting Tucson / Phoenix / Flagstaff! 
20
0
0 Acknowledgement
267 03/09/2026 - 10:05am
Samantha
Comment
I'm a fan of this. studies have shown that constant traffic noise can increase memory deficincies like 
dementia. 
21
0
0 Acknowledgement
268 03/09/2026 - 10:24am
Samantha
Comment
I would support adding bike/scooter racks at metro hiking trails, like camelback. that would relieve a lot of 
the parking pressures. Unsure if this exists already. 
26
0
0 Acknowledgement
269 03/09/2026 - 10:26am
Samantha
Comment
this section doesn't seem to be thought out well enough. not enough guidelines or restrictions. 
26
0
0 Acknowledgement
Maricopa County is not a water 
provider. However, there are policies in 
the Water Resources element that 
voice the County's support for water 
conservation initiatives for the region 
and state. Additionally, water supply is 
one part of many factors evaluated for 
develoment in unincorporated areas. 
270 03/09/2026 - 10:28am
Samantha
Comment
I would like to see animal bridges/crossings over the highways. This has proven to reduce accidents, lower 
insurance costs, and save lives (humans and animals).
21
0
0 Acknowledgement
278 03/09/2026 - 5:42pm
Jan Hancock
Question
Which portion or chapter of the Plan includes or provides the details of the equesrian-use areas and trails in 
the Plan?
181
0
0 Acknowledgement
258 03/09/2026 - 9:05am
Samantha
Comment
It's important that "multimodal" is emphasized. Phoenix should be more than cars. The bike infrastructure 
should be expanded with proper, separated lanes. Also, the train and bus schedule should run much more 
often, especially the connection between lines. 
13
0
0 Acknowledgement
259 03/09/2026 - 9:09am
Samantha
Comment
Rent prices shouldn't be able to increase beyond a few percent lease over lease. Rent prices should be 
lowered as opposed to "5 weeks free" deals. A wide range of houses for ownership should be built with 
density. Limit the amount of single-family homes owned by corporations. 
13
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
260 03/09/2026 - 9:16am
Samantha
Comment
This land use policy should be moved up in priority. More effort should be put into protecting animals and 
ecosystems. It's sad to see the number of dead animals (like coyotes) on the side of the road after being hit 
by vehicular traffic. Just because this email seems scary, doesn't mean we should take away their habitat. 
16
0
0 Acknowledgement
261 03/09/2026 - 9:21am
Samantha
Comment
I like that this land use policy exists and it should apply to all residential developments like master-planned 
communities. They have the opportunity to build resources within walkable or transit distance, but choose 
not to. This is especially noticeable in gated communities, where there isn't an ability to put a bus or train 
stop nearby. 
16
0
0 Acknowledgement
262 03/09/2026 - 9:34am
Samantha
Comment
HOAs should not exist outside of townhomes, condos, or similar. Single-family homes within subdivisions 
do not need an HOA. 
18
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
263 03/09/2026 - 9:40am
Samantha
Comment
I would support announcements on the streetcar to be helpful and brief. For example, an announcement on 
when the next train is would be amazing, not just when it's 2 minutes away. This should also be shown on 
the scroll screen at each stop. 
19
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
264 03/09/2026 - 9:40am
Samantha
Typo
Link this TIP here.
19
0
0 Acknowledgement
265 03/09/2026 - 9:46am
Samantha
Comment
Right of way needs to be enforced for the safety of walkers and bikers. 1. walkers, 2. bikers, 3. vehicular 
traffic
19
0
0 Acknowledgement
279 03/12/2026 - 11:15am
Deina
Comment
This should be labeled Surface Water, not reclaimed water.
193
0
0 MBI Address
This has been corrected.
280 03/12/2026 - 11:39am
Deina
This should include stronger language requiring that new development HOA open space and Commercial 
landscapes align with the Chapter 6 requirements of ADWR's 5th Management Plan for the Phoenix AMA.
198
1
0 Acknowledgement
Maricopa County is not a water 
provider. However, there are policies in 
the Water Resources element that 
voice the County's support for water 
conservation initiatives for the region 
and state. Additionally, water supply is 
one part of many factors evaluated for 
develoment in unincorporated areas. 
281 03/15/2026 - 8:24pm
Richard J Clout
Comment
In the foreseeable future  - 8 -12 years forget what most people consider renewable energy -- solar & wind 
and focus on natural gas and nuclear energy.These are proven, sustainable and relatively low cosrt when 
compared to alternatives
13
0
0 Acknowledgement
283 03/16/2026 - 1:48pm
Amanda Monize
Comment
A major consideration to zoning should be available water resources, especially as it pertains to 
unincorporated and rural areas reliant on groundwater and/or hauled water. If water supply is insufficient or 
scarce then flexible zoning or rezoning should be restricted. 
Please add "water resources" as an element to the challenges already listed here. 
150
3
0 Acknowledgement
Water Resources is an element of the 
Comprehensive Plan.

284 03/16/2026 - 1:51pm
Amanda Monize
Comment
Please add water source/availability to planning considerations/constraints for growth.
165
1
0 Acknowledgement
Water Resources is an element of the 
Comprehensive Plan.
285 03/16/2026 - 1:56pm
Amanda Monize
Comment
This Water Quality/Availability statement is very important and I hope the county makes this more 
prominent considering the current state of negotiations on the Colorado River and pending cuts coming to 
the state. 
167
0
0 Acknowledgement
282 03/16/2026 - 7:02am
Kristen Stevens
Comment
My understanding is that this is the guiding document for MCDOT roadway classifications. It would be 
helpful this this was legible and included roadway names. Its challenging to reference for traffic studies for 
example.
119
0
0 MBI Address
Roadway names added to functional 
classification map.
287 03/17/2026 - 11:25am
Leslie Beauchamp
Comment
I read 3.1 as an education campaign and 3.2 as local control collaboration.  How are you measuring the 
impact of these policies in terms of water conservation vs. processes?   Water Resources goals and policies 
would benefit from greater specificity, accountability, and actual investment rather than just support. 
 
-Include measurable goals and transparent reporting of water use reduction, water loss, increased 
reclaimed water use, and conservation efforts 
-Expand incentives for conservation, including gray water systems, low-water landscaping, and business 
efficiency upgrades 
-Address high-water-use land use, such as encouraging golf courses to transition to lower-water or 
reclaimed water models 
- More clearly prioritize investment in reclaimed water and conservation-based incentives 
If you are expecting increased growth, these investments could be built into the growth models.  
199
0
0 Acknowledgement
288 03/17/2026 - 11:45am
Leslie Beauchamp
Comment
Consider how growth and development impacts all of Maricopa County services.  This section focuses on 
physical infrastructure but does not consider services required to support growing communities. 
 
Include essential public services that support our well-being and ensure economic stability, such as 
education support (via the County School Superintendent’s Office under A.R.S. §15-302), public health, 
human services, and libraries.  
-Ensure these agencies are included in growth planning and coordination 
-Clarify how growth-related funding will support them 
-Additionally, County leadership is well positioned to convene partners even now and help steward cost-
sharing strategies, particularly for education, where increased development directly impacts student 
populations and service needs.  Schools could use your leadership in using cost-sharing Educational 
Service Agency models that other counties use to share professional support costs across the county.   You 
are not going to get the growth you want if the public school system doesn't get the support it needs to 
thrive and support further development.  
214
1
0 Acknowledgement
The Comprehensive Plan does not 
enact policies that govern the school 
districts.
289 03/17/2026 - 11:58am
Leslie Beauchamp
Comment
I appreciate this section and its focus on long-term cost considerations. MC service agencies would benefit 
from stronger County leadership in advancing intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) and fee-for-service 
models that create efficiencies across agencies. This may require initial investment to launch and 
coordinate these efforts, but it can lead to more sustainable, cost-effective services over time. 
For example, the County could help establish shared service models where education and public health 
supports are provided to schools or municipalities through fee-for-service agreements, reducing 
duplication and strengthening outcomes. 
By convening partners and supporting these models early, the County can help build scalable approaches 
that lower long-term costs while improving service delivery.  
219
1
0 Acknowledgement
290 03/17/2026 - 2:46pm
Laurel Arndt
Comment
This is section should include more discussion, identification and goals in support of the conservation of  
NATURAL open space corridors (washes, Floodplains, rivers). Cities in the west valley are working to 
preserve wildlife corridors and linkages as part of open space plans (City of Buckeye, Surprise and Peoria). 
The County needs to look at these plans and see how the same areas connect and can be 
preserved/protected to allow conservation AND development to coexist. Open Space is NOT just about 
programmed County parks and County open space.
184
1
0 Acknowledgement
This discussion occurs more in the 
Environment element.
291 03/17/2026 - 2:52pm
Laurel Arndt
Comment
Soft edges is too subjective and lends itself to too much interpretation by a land owner and developer. The 
correct language is simply "edge" treatment or better yet "buffers" between natural open space and 
development. Design guidelines should be developed for what the buffer treatments should be 
(width/vegetation/landscaping) based on adjacent types of development they will buffer 
(washes/trails/parks/ natural landscapes/sensitive resources/wildlife corridors.
184
0
0 Acknowledgement
292 03/17/2026 - 2:57pm
Laurel Arndt
Comment
I applaud this strong directive and to be fair a same statement needs to be included which states the the 
County will coordinate with the planning of Cities and agencies to preserve wildlife corridors and linkages. 
Please look to City of Buckeye and Surprise and the BOR/CAWCD along the CAP. Future County 
transportation proposed/planned corridors need to accommodate and not negatively impact infrastructure 
already in place to facilitate wildlife movement (culverts/roads, and overchutes. 
)
185
0
0 MBI Address
Coordination with municipalities added 
to Open Space Policy #1.3.

293 03/17/2026 - 3:02pm
Laurel Arndt
Comment
Existing residents and new  and future residents value natural open space and preserves. The metric of 
number of parks to residents is out of date and does not reflect what our residents expect on the edges of 
the county where growth is occurring. Residents move there for the open space, trails and access to nature 
not pocket parks or remnant parks in a HOA's or even Count Parks. They want to know they do not have to 
always drive to get to a nearby County park- trails and pathways are more favored as a recreational amenity 
rather than empty retention field operating as a soccer field/park.
185
0
0 Acknowledgement
294 03/17/2026 - 3:05pm
Laurel Arndt
Comment
This is narrowly focused, please include partnering on non programmed parks and natural municipal 
trails/major washes/rivers/ and water ways i.e. (Hassayampa, Jackrabbit Wash- 
187
0
0 Acknowledgement
Non programmed park nature and 
environment are covered more in the 
Environment element.
295 03/17/2026 - 3:09pm
Laurel Arndt
Comment
All of these policies are weighted to park lands. The Goal states preservation of Open Space..this includes 
non programmed natural space. It is important to preserve the natural landscapes with in County parks and 
non developed areas which have low development potential due to slope/floodways etc etc. and can be  
designated as open space. Again refer to cities towns (Cave Creek/Buckeye/Peoria/Surprise) , 
187
0
0 Acknowledgement
Non programmed park nature and 
environment are covered more in the 
Environment element.
286 03/17/2026 - 8:10am
Caryl
Comment
Either you are using outdated information or have ignored the merger of North & South County to ARIZONA 
FIRE & MEDICAL AUTHORITY that serves Tonopah, and parts of Buckeye in addition to several other 
communities - Sun City West, Sun Lakes, Guadalupe, and Wittmann.
86
1
0 MBI Address
The language for the Fire Protection 
section in the Land Use element was 
rewritten for accuracy.
296 03/18/2026 - 2:55pm
Laurel Arndt
Comment
This should include other municipalities to ensure connections and collaboration for future growth and 
needs of communities. It is important to make these physical connections and not miss out on them by not 
knowing what other municipalities are planning and creating
187
0
0 MBI Address
Coordination with municipalities added 
to Open Space Policy #1.3.
297 03/19/2026 - 1:19pm
John Thompson
Comment
You should not be re-zoning Rio Verde Valley (388 acres) from Rural-43 into R-2, R1-6, R1-7, R1-8, R1-10, 
R1-18, R1-35, R-70 and R-190 to take on a massive housing development.  We purchased based on current 
zoning as this will have a negative impact on current homeowners that moved here for a rural lifestyle not to 
mention the strain on water resources, traffic and lower property values.
4
5
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
298 03/21/2026 - 1:48pm
Amanda Monize
Comment
Any applications to increase density or rezone from Rural-43 in areas that border or include National/State 
Forests, preserves, or other conservation lands should be subject to heightened scrutiny, including 
demonstrated long-term water availability, adequate road, and mitigation of environmental and wildlife 
impacts to preserve natural habitats, rural landscapes, and existing low-density communities.
21
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
299 03/21/2026 - 5:17pm
Amanda Monize
Comment
Zoning in areas where there is established access to federal and state recreation should be protected and 
preserved to minimize impact. This should include restricting high density zoning in such areas. 
26
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
300 03/21/2026 - 8:19pm
Pamela Jean Miller
Comment
The plans of rezoning rural areas does nothing to help conserve water in a place where water shortages are 
already a huge concern. Unless infrastructure is going to be brought in to ensure no water issues no rural 
areas should be considered for rezoning.
13
8
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
301 03/21/2026 - 8:21pm
Pamela Jean Miller 1
Question
We moved here because of the current zoning, 1 residential home per acre. To get away from homes right 
next to each other.  
What about water? How will you justify more water from the river or i imagine they will just tap into the 
ground water and lower our water table so more wells are inoperable.  
What about traffic? Like it isn't already horrible on the 2 lane RVD....   
Impact on the environment and Wildlife...  
There isn't anyplace left to escape to.. this was one of the last areas with 1 acre restrictions.
14
4
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
302 03/21/2026 - 8:47pm
Kim Waldum
Comment
my concern: The Rio Verde Foothills is often threatened by fire. There is only one main road out of Rio Verde 
Foothills which cannot possibly be allowed to get even more congested with so many more people. Moving 
people and animals out quickly will be impossible and extremely unsafe. Imagine feeling desperate, driving 
out in smoke hardly able to see, trailers with animals fail and now you are unable to get out. People will die 
and that did not have to happen.
1
5
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

311 03/22/2026 - 1:05pm
Caylee Jensen
Comment
Rio Verde Foothills should remain an unincorporated community because its lifestyle and land-use 
character are rooted in rural independence and open space. My family and I chose this area specifically to 
live outside city limits, with fewer urban restrictions, lower density, and a closer connection to Arizona’s 
desert landscape and animals. We respect, appreciate and admire our area being a part of the dark sky 
ordinance, rezoning any bit of our foothills and surrounding area would alter life out here as know it.  
 
For decades, Rio Verde Foothills has functioned as a county-governed rural community, not an extension of 
nearby cities. Incorporating or forcing annexation would fundamentally change the area—bringing 
increased zoning restrictions, higher taxes, and urban development patterns that conflict with the very 
reasons people moved there in the first place. 
 
Our community has already faced challenges, including the water crisis that arose when outside municipal 
supply was cut off, highlighting the risks of depending on city infrastructure while not being part of that city.  
 
However, the long-term solution—developing independent water access and infrastructure—shows that 
unincorporated communities can adapt and create sustainable systems without losing their autonomy.  
 
Arizona is growing quickly, and not every area needs to become another suburb or city neighborhood. 
Preserving unincorporated areas like Rio Verde Foothills helps maintain balance—protecting open land, 
wildlife corridors, and the diverse ways Arizonans choose to live. 
 
I respectfully urge state and county leaders to protect the unincorporated status of Rio Verde Foothills and 
allow our community to continue shaping its future on its own terms.
46
6
1 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
312 03/22/2026 - 1:16pm
Pigysue
Comment
Concerning the proposed zoning changes recently submitted to Maricopa County for Rio Verde Foothills, I 
strongly oppose the rezoning of our rural communities for multi-family development due to serious 
concerns about safety, infrastructure, and sustainability. Our area is already impacted by a well-
documented water crisis. Increasing housing density will place additional strain on an already limited 
resource, with no clear, sustainable plan to meet that demand. 
 
Equally concerning is our limited access. With essentially one-way ingress and egress along Dynamite 
Road/Rio Verde Drive between Fountain Hills and Pima Road, evacuation during an emergency—such as a 
wildfire—would be dangerously constrained, as has already been demonstrated. Adding more traffic will 
only increase congestion and risk. 
 
Emergency response is another critical issue. Restricted access raises serious concerns about whether 
fire, police, and medical personnel can reach residents quickly when every second matters. 
 
These are fundamental public safety concerns affecting all rural areas under consideration. Until they are 
fully addressed, this type of development is not appropriate for our rural communities. We chose to live 
here for the open space, dark skies, and rural lifestyle that supports horses, livestock, and a lower-density 
way of life—not high-density housing. 
 
Thank you.  Susan Marriott 
1
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
313 03/22/2026 - 2:04pm
Caylee Jensen
Question
How can Rio Verde Foothills have a lack of water and resources when MorDo Ranch is proposing 700 units? 
How is that going to help our community and its limited resources? 
240
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
314 03/22/2026 - 3:30pm
Victoria
Comment
I oppose reasoning to accommodate additional homes.
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
315 03/22/2026 - 3:48pm
Victoria
Comment
Comment on lack of water resolution and future distribution based on unresolved Colorado River allocation-
it seems prudent to not allow 700 homes to be built without a resolution. Our animals and wildlife depend 
on water to survive. 
87
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
316 03/22/2026 - 4:15pm
Michael
Comment
Rio Verde road and the roundabouts adequality cannot accommodate added traffic from the dense 
community proposed. 
13
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
317 03/22/2026 - 4:18pm
Michael
Comment
Water is scarce & procuring it complex. Water may not be adequate for the dense community proposed 
over the long term. 
13
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
318 03/22/2026 - 4:20pm
Laura Ellis
Comment
Not enought road!!
13
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
319 03/22/2026 - 4:20pm
Laura Ellis
Comment
Not enough water!!
13
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
303 03/22/2026 - 6:24am
Ann Bergren 
Comment
Current available water sources and resources will not support development practices for building sites of 
less than 1 acre, and likely needs 5-10 acres for sustainable water availability going forward. 
1
4
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

304 03/22/2026 - 6:34am
Ann Bergren 
Comment
Current road infrastructure cannot safely accommodate additional building, especially to the proposed 
magnitude; there is a two lane road in and out which for us, when we chose to live out here was appealing, 
typically, a non rural type person does not choose to live in places like we have here with the minimal 
infrastructure. The quiet beauty of the desert will be lost to the constant roar and light of the traffic which 
would accompany a build of this proportion. 
1
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
305 03/22/2026 - 6:41am
Ann Bergren 
Comment
This is a rurally zoned community where people walk with friends and family, pets, ride bicycles, and 
horses.  It’s time to preserve and celebrate these few special areas that still exist. Denser populations will 
bring the rapid demise of this grand Arizona tradition.  Let us continue to preserve this special place in a 
time when few communities like ours continue to exist. 
1
4
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
306 03/22/2026 - 6:46am
Ann Bergren 
Comment
Our area cannot tolerate the pollution associated with increased vehicle traffic, it is ringed in by mountains 
trapping and blocking air movement which can result in micro climates and pockets with poor air quality. 
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
307 03/22/2026 - 6:55am
Ann Bergren 
Comment
Arizona promotes dark sky, we need to support this and our surrounding communities, like the Fountain 
Hills Dark Sky Discovery Center. Let’s be a great neighbor and reduce any increase in light pollution and 
support this Arizona mission to preserve and promote dark sky, not just for its citizens but for our amazing 
wildlife! 
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
308 03/22/2026 - 7:02am
Ann Bergren 
Comment
A build of this density and magnitude will decimate our local habitats and biology affecting critical local 
flora and fauna all the way down to our river.  The flora and fauna of our deserts needs to be preserved. 
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
309 03/22/2026 - 7:40am
Ashley Quick
Comment
Preserving rural neighborhoods in Maricopa County is essential. These unincorporated areas are already 
facing strain on water resources and increased traffic, and further rezoning will only worsen those 
challenges. Residents choose to live here specifically to escape city density and maintain a rural way of life. 
These communities should be protected, not reshaped into something they were never intended to be.
13
6
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
310 03/22/2026 - 9:38am
Cindy Trollope
Comment
People who choose to live in unincorporated areas such as the Rio Verde Foothills do so because they seek 
a rural lifestyle, not urban development. Our homes near the Tonto National Forest provide dark skies at 
night, important wildlife habitats, and a rural way of life that is not available in many other places near to a 
major city such as Scottsdale/Phoenix. The Foothills include a significant ranching population of horses 
and cattle, animals that do not coexist well with urban communities. Additionally, our water in the Foothills 
is already limited. Urban development would put a serious strain on an already challenged supply of water 
to the area. Finally, we frequently face evacuation of humans and livestock due to wildfires. We have only 
one major point of ingress/egress and already face challenges with density during evacuation. Urban 
development would significantly worsen this issue and create a serious threat to life in emergencies. 
76
6
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
320 03/23/2026 - 10:57am
Justin
Comment
I live right in the area of the potential land sale and housing development. I’m very concerned about this. 
The major issue is water. As you know, this area water situation is very delicate. Those of us that are on 
Wells rely on this dramatically. The number of houses proposed would directly impact the people currently 
living there and caused potential for water to dry up. This is a very delicate situation in the Rio Verde 
Foothills and potentially for us individually. My other concern is infrastructure. This many people would 
cause significant increase in traffic, noise, pollution, etc. Rio Verde Road is already very dangerous the way 
it is and increasing the amount of traffic would increase the chances of accident. There would also be more 
paved roads likely, and who would pay the bill for this? All of this undeveloped land is beautiful desert even 
it being private. The smaller lots would decrease the ruralness of our area. Please consider not allowing this 
area to be rezoned. Thank you .
24
6
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
321 03/23/2026 - 12:07pm
Melissa
Comment
Please understand that unincorporated areas such as Rio Verde Foothills do not have the water to support 
zoning beyond 1 dwelling/acre. We also have beautiful preserve and national forest limiting safe exit routes 
in case of emergency. This area should remain rural and any and all zoning decisions should reflect that. 
3
6
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
322 03/23/2026 - 2:36pm
Ryan Pinick
Comment
I strongly support a Comprehensive Plan that prioritizes long‑term protection of native wildlife habitat and 
sustainable water use in this planning area. Maricopa County’s desert ecosystems are already under 
pressure from fragmented habitat, drought, and climate‑driven extremes, and additional up‑zoning here 
would further stress wildlife corridors, riparian washes, and the limited vegetation that supports local 
species. 
​Given the region’s finite groundwater and surface‑water supplies, any increase in residential density 
beyond 1 dwelling unit per acre risks outpacing available water, increasing reliance on groundwater 
pumping, and undermining the County’s own goals for responsible growth and resource conservation. I 
therefore urge the County to: 
Maintain a maximum density of no more than 1 residence per acre in this area; 
Explicitly recognize and protect existing wildlife corridors, washes, and critical habitat through low‑density 
zoning, conservation easements, and open‑space requirements; and 
Require that any future development demonstrate a sustainable, verifiable water supply that does not 
degrade regional aquifers or harm surface‑water‑dependent habitats. 
These steps would align the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan with its stated purpose to guide growth 
while preserving natural resources, public safety, and quality of life for current and future residents of 
unincorporated Maricopa County.
21
4
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

323 03/23/2026 - 2:49pm
Dan
Comment
The thought of adding more housing to Rio Verde Foothills is absolutely astonishing. How can you even 
think of adding potentially 700 homes into the Mordo Ranch proposed development.  Where is the water 
coming from? New homes built after Dec 2024 are not even eligible to buy into Epcor if there well runs dry.  
The current area has no utility water company so how are these new homes going to get water, where is it 
going to come from?  No more wells can be drilled out here, we are going to drain the aquifer in less than 10 
years at this rate.  What about road infrastructure.   Currently, Rio Verde Dr/Dynamite Rd can't even support 
the amount of homes this county has allowed to be built.  We have to stop the development until real 
infrastructure is built out here, that includes a real sustainable water source, roads, etc.  
194
6
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
324 03/23/2026 - 3:45pm
Grant
Question
Where are you going to get the water required for the Rio Verde Foothills County Island. Drilling new wells for 
a 700 dweling master plan will SEVERELY harm the already dwindling flows for existing wells Rio Verde. Who 
will pay for me to drill a deeper well if this new Master Plan goes through?
74
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
325 03/23/2026 - 3:47pm
Grant
Comment
Why would the Rio Verde foothills help affordable housing? Existing residents in the area chose to live away 
from town with the increased commute. Housing more than 20 minutes from any grocery store is hardly 
'affordable'. Sounds like you are stretching to make this connection in the Rio Verde foothills.
77
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
326 03/23/2026 - 3:50pm
Grant
Comment
Adding 700 units to the Rio Verde foothills would be DISASTEROUS to the existing 2 lane roadway and its 
functionality. In the event of a disaster, the County will be on the hook for overcrowding the area and not 
planning the infrastructure accordingly. 
77
4
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
327 03/23/2026 - 3:52pm
Grant
Comment
Adding 700 homes to the Rio Verde foothills area, with only 2 2-lane roadways used to exit the area in the 
event of a disaster, would hard emergency procedures and hinder the communities ability to exist quickly.
86
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
328 03/23/2026 - 5:09pm
Jan Elder
Comment
We currently live in a rural zoned community which is why the majority of the people purchases in the area. 
Lots are one acre for farming, ranches, etc. We do not want more houses on smaller lots 
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
329 03/23/2026 - 5:11pm
Jan Elder
Comment
We do not have water available for these smaller lots. We are currently paying premium rates for hauled 
water and do not want additional lots needing more water causing the current residents to deal with water 
issues again. 
1
6
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
330 03/23/2026 - 5:12pm
Jan Elder
Comment
We are a dark sky community and we don’t need additional lighting for even more housing. 
1
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
331 03/24/2026 - 10:29am
eugene kutz
Comment
I am commenting as a Rio Verde Foothills resident who lives off 136th. I am formally opposing the rezoning 
request associated with the Mordo Ranch development proposal — approximately 700 residential units 
located between 156th and 160th Street. My opposition is grounded in two critical concerns: 
 
1. WATER AVAILABILITY Rio Verde's water infrastructure is not equipped to support a development of this 
scale. This community has already experienced firsthand the consequences of water insecurity with wells 
drying up and leaving residents without water service when Scottsdale terminated its water hauling 
agreement in 2023. While steps have been taken since, the underlying supply constraints have not been 
resolved. Approving 700 additional units before the community has achieved long-term, sustainable water 
security is premature and irresponsible. Density approvals must follow infrastructure capacity — not 
precede it. 
 
2. COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND INCOMPATIBLE DENSITY Rio Verde is a low-density, rural-character 
community. Residents chose this area specifically because of its open space, limited traffic, and quiet 
neighborhoods. A 700-unit development fundamentally changes that character. The cumulative impact on 
roads, public services, school capacity, and quality of life for existing residents has not been adequately 
addressed. 
 
I urge the Commission to deny this rezoning request and require any future proposal to demonstrate: - 
Verified, long-term water supply commitments from a legally designated provider - Infrastructure studies 
showing roads and services can absorb the density - Community engagement that reflects the preferences 
of existing Rio Verde residents This community deserves growth that is responsible, measured, and 
sustainable — not density driven by developer timelines. 
1
6
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
332 03/24/2026 - 12:17pm
Stephen Allen
Comment
Our Parks Department NEEDS FUNDING. Please consider not forcing Parks & Rec to keep expanding while 
refusing to fund them with taxpayer support. You cannot keep reasonably expecting one of the largest 
regional park systems in the US to rely more than 50% on volunteer labor just to (barely) function. 
13
0
0 Acknowledgement
333 03/24/2026 - 12:19pm
Stephen Allen
Comment
Better hurry! All the parks are being encroached upon by development, especially concerning at Lake 
Pleasant given the City of Peoria's sudden, aggressive expansion. 
17
0
0 Acknowledgement
There are policies in the 
Comprehensive Plan that speak to 
protecting the Regional Parks.

334 03/24/2026 - 4:13pm
Amy
Comment
The Rio Verde Foothills MUST maintain its current zoning and NOT permit lots smaller than 1 acre. 
Absolutely NO special re-zoning permits should be considered or approved. Health, (fire, emergency, 
traffic) safety, quality of life, and most importantly, water availability is critical to maintain. Higher density 
zoning does NOT support these Land Use Goals & Policies.
16
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
335 03/24/2026 - 4:35pm
Tracy Hanks
Comment
I am writing as a Rio Verde Foothills resident to formally oppose the rezoning request associated with the 
Mordo Ranch development proposal — approximately 700 residential units located between 156th and 
160th Street. My opposition is grounded in two critical concerns:  
1. WATER AVAILABILITY Rio Verde's water infrastructure is not equipped to support a development of this 
scale. This community has already experienced development issues firsthand and the consequences of 
water insecurity — residents were left without service when Scottsdale terminated its water hauling 
agreement in 2023. While steps have been taken since, the underlying supply constraints have not been 
resolved. Approving 700 additional units before the community has achieved long-term, sustainable water 
security is premature and irresponsible. Density approvals must follow infrastructure capacity — not 
precede it.  
2. COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND INCOMPATIBLE DENSITY Rio Verde is a low-density, rural-character 
community. Residents chose this area specifically because of its open space, limited traffic, and quiet 
neighborhoods. A 700-unit development fundamentally changes that character. The cumulative impact on 
roads, public services, school capacity, and quality of life for existing residents has not been adequately 
addressed. I urge the Commission to deny this rezoning request and require any future proposal to 
demonstrate: - Verified, long-term water supply commitments from a legally designated provider - 
Infrastructure studies showing roads and services can absorb the density - Community engagement that 
reflects the preferences of existing Rio Verde residents This community deserves growth that is 
responsible, measured, and sustainable — not density driven by developer timelines.  
Respectfully, 
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
336 03/24/2026 - 4:36pm
Terry Hanks
Comment
I am writing as a Rio Verde Foothills resident to formally oppose the rezoning request associated with the 
Mordo Ranch development proposal — approximately 700 residential units located between 156th and 
160th Street. My opposition is grounded in two critical concerns:  
1. WATER AVAILABILITY Rio Verde's water infrastructure is not equipped to support a development of this 
scale. This community has already experienced development issues firsthand and the consequences of 
water insecurity — residents were left without service when Scottsdale terminated its water hauling 
agreement in 2023. While steps have been taken since, the underlying supply constraints have not been 
resolved. Approving 700 additional units before the community has achieved long-term, sustainable water 
security is premature and irresponsible. Density approvals must follow infrastructure capacity — not 
precede it.  
2. COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND INCOMPATIBLE DENSITY Rio Verde is a low-density, rural-character 
community. Residents chose this area specifically because of its open space, limited traffic, and quiet 
neighborhoods. A 700-unit development fundamentally changes that character. The cumulative impact on 
roads, public services, school capacity, and quality of life for existing residents has not been adequately 
addressed. I urge the Commission to deny this rezoning request and require any future proposal to 
demonstrate: - Verified, long-term water supply commitments from a legally designated provider - 
Infrastructure studies showing roads and services can absorb the density - Community engagement that 
reflects the preferences of existing Rio Verde residents This community deserves growth that is 
responsible, measured, and sustainable — not density driven by developer timelines.  
Respectfully, 
1
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
337 03/24/2026 - 4:48pm
Amy
Comment
The Rio Verde Foothills MUST maintain its current zoning. NO exceptions! The reasons have been listed by 
many in the comments of this document - WATER, fire safety, emergency services access, ranch lifestyle, 
preservation, traffic congestion, etc. KEEP the Rio Verde Foothills RURAL! 
46
4
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
338 03/24/2026 - 5:47pm
Debra DeVrou
Comment
I oppose 700 home Development 150th st area in RVF which has a water crisis still! Our roads are not 
equipped, we are a dark sky community and do not want our zoning changed to accommodate this 
expansion. It is a bad idea 
172
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
339 03/24/2026 - 5:50pm
Debra DeVrou
Comment
Do not build up our rural areas RVF is the area I want to see unchanged. We already lack water in our area 
and unimproved roads  cannot handle 700 home sub division on 150th we are a dark sky community 
174
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
347 03/25/2026 - 10:02am
Stephanie
Comment
At a minimum, we ask that a thorough impact study be conducted and that the voices of current residents 
be meaningfully considered before any decisions are made. Just because there is one very wealthy person 
out in the Rio Verde Foothills, looking to maximize their profits of their land does not make it right for the 
entire community! The voices of many should out way the voice of one.
1
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

348 03/25/2026 - 10:03am
Stephanie
Comment
The collective voice of an established community should carry greater weight than the interests of a single 
landowner seeking to alter its character.
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
349 03/25/2026 - 10:06am
Stephanie
Comment
Introducing a higher concentration of homes into an area with no guaranteed, sustainable water supply is 
not only irresponsible but risks repeating and amplifying these same hardships. Increased density would 
place additional strain on an already fragile and finite resource, threatening both current and future 
residents’ ability to secure reliable water for basic living needs. Who would be responsible if that were to 
happen? No one would care - they just look at profit. Council needs to think of the people who make up this 
community. Keep it to One Acre lots - that is plenty of homes to build. More would RUIN this community.
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
350 03/25/2026 - 10:13am
Julie
Comment
Why urban development in an unincorporated area even a thing? 
 
And, unless a city annexes an unincorporated area, the issues raised here are moot. Statements such as 
"lack of access to municipal services" don't reflect the fact that people who purchase property in 
unincorporated areas do so precisely because they ARE unincorporated. Residents understand the risks 
and undertake the responsibility for their needs. 
 
Problems arise when the zoning changes from R-43, increasing the density, and that's on the county not the 
residents.  
 
Please don't write this plan from the perspective of a city dweller, using phrasing such as "a key challenge 
that most....experience". That's subjective and misleading, even somewhat insulting. It even is contrary to 
the Terms & Conditions: "consider others values, experience and views". 
76
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
351 03/25/2026 - 10:27am
Julie
Comment
The Rio Verde Foothills is a relatively small unincorporated area that's essentially "landlocked" by national 
forest, mountains, and cities, with one small east-west corridor for ingress-egress.  
 
This area should never change from the current R-43 zoning. It cannot accommodate a population density 
increase.  
 
In case of wildfire, evacuation of humans and horses and animal rescue organizations is already a major 
concern. The area mustn't be allowed to have subdivisions with hundreds of additional people and vehicles 
to be accommodated. Keep it rural. 
 
Private wells have been going dry, and EPCOR supplies only a relative few properties. Any zoning change 
that allows a subdivision would require that development to tap into the aquifer, putting private wells at 
further risk. 
 
RVFH remains a wildlife habitat and corridor between the national forest and the McDowell Mountains, the 
Preserve and McDowell Mountain Regional Park. Overdevelopement would compromise this.
46
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
352 03/25/2026 - 10:38am
Lisa Treat
Comment
Water, road access to/from our area, loss of our rural lifestyle - just a few of the reasons I am opposed.  NO. 
PLEASE.  Do not change the zoning to our area.   
 
Build a city in the city area, not here.  
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
340 03/25/2026 - 7:49am
Ann Shriver
Comment
I have serious concerns about all the building going on here in the Rio Verde Foothills. Water and traffic are 
the big ones.  
 
Water- there has been no study about the aquifer that all our wells draw on, could it just dry up from all the 
new construction tapping in? Then there would be a real water problem. 
 
Traffic- there is only one way in and out. If there is a fire we are pretty well stuck. As is, is is not unusual to 
have to wait 5-10 minutes to get out on Rio Verde Drive. If there was a disaster it would be near impossible 
to get out. When there is an accident on Rio Verde it takes hours before you can get out. A real concern for 
any medical emergency. We need to stop the multiple houses on small lots until these items are addressed 
and fixed.
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

341 03/25/2026 - 9:51am
Chris Shriver
Comment
My wife and I moved to this area over 8 years ago from the NW.  I understand the need for more housing in 
the greater area.  The feeling of the neighborhood, Rio Verde Foothills, is very country, equine, and the most 
unique area left in the greater Phoenix area.  Development has destroyed so many neighborhoods in 
Phoenix we don’t need to loose any more. 
  Now real reasons to keep out big development is the lack of infrastructure.  Our water issues has been big 
news over the past few years.  The aquifer is very limited and most likely over used now.  The lack of a resent 
study doesn’t help us understand the issue.  Trucked water isn’t going to help either, it’s already over 
reached.  Will Scottsdale let the County install a water line to support big development, because there is no 
where else it can come.  Next is sewage, how to deal with that, septic is a non-stater for big development.  
Now for run off, who gets hit with the water a mud produced by lots of new homes.  The final huge issue is 
traffic.  We have one road that is our major access.  We had a Concrete Truck tip over a month ago.  This 
created miles of stand still traffic.  Going way out of the way to Fountain Hill or a dusty dirt trail served as the 
only access.  The road is busy and dangerous to access now, add 1000’s and we are in big trouble. 
Infrastructure or the lack of it should be the main reason to limit development in our neighborhood.  We 
can’t expect the county to keep up with it.  Adding more roads isn’t really an option.  Regulating 
development is the best choice.
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
342 03/25/2026 - 9:53am
Stephanie
Comment
In the Rio Verde Foothills many households in our area rely on hauled water or private wells, some of which 
have already experienced depletion. Introducing a higher concentration of homes would place additional 
strain on an already fragile and limited water supply. This raises serious questions about long-term 
sustainability, water access, and the potential impact on existing residents’ ability to maintain reliable 
water sources.
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
343 03/25/2026 - 9:54am
Stephanie
Comment
There are many thing to say about the proposed changes, beyond infrastructure and water concerns, this 
proposed change would fundamentally alter the rural character of our community. Many of us chose to live 
here based on the current zoning and density expectations. A shift toward higher-density development 
would not only impact quality of life but could also affect property values and the overall integrity of the 
area.
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
344 03/25/2026 - 9:56am
Stephanie
Comment
We do not have county-maintained roads; instead, residents are solely responsible for the maintenance 
and repair of our roadways. Increased density would inevitably lead to greater traffic, accelerated road 
degradation, and higher costs for existing residents who are already managing these responsibilities 
without public support. We do not want to change this. We moved out here because of this. 
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
345 03/25/2026 - 9:57am
Stephanie
Comment
Our community highly values its rural character, including the preservation of dark skies. With minimal 
development, we currently experience low light pollution, which supports local wildlife, maintains the 
natural desert environment, and is an important quality-of-life factor for residents. Increased density would 
inevitably bring additional artificial lighting, contributing to light pollution and permanently diminishing the 
dark sky conditions that make this area unique. It would tear apart what this community continually tried to 
save!
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
346 03/25/2026 - 9:59am
Stephanie
Comment
It is also important to recognize the unique nature of one-acre minimum lot zoning in areas such as ours, 
located just outside city limits. This type of zoning creates a critical buffer between urban development and 
rural living, allowing residents to maintain space, privacy, and a lower-impact lifestyle while still being 
within reach of nearby cities. The preservation of one-acre lots supports responsible land use, reduces 
strain on limited infrastructure and water resources, and helps maintain the transitional character that 
prevents unchecked urban sprawl from encroaching into rural communities.
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
353 03/26/2026 - 5:40pm
Sandra Lappano
Comment
NO to MorDo Development.  
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
354 03/26/2026 - 5:56pm
Sandra Lappano
Comment
Should an emergency or evacuation arise with the existing infrastructure, the likelihood of a FATAL situation 
is increasingly likely.  The LIABILITY would be with the County, and possibly Scottsdale, for allowing the 
rapid growth without providing enough exits for residents in the Rio Verde Foothills.  Please do not approve 
the MorDo Development project.  Make wise choices for preserving the rural feel by keeping the original 1 
acre or more parcels.
47
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

362 03/27/2026 - 11:00am
Julie
Comment
When considering housing, you must also consider lifestyle; they cannot be separated. You must recognize 
the necessity of multiple lifestyle options and understand that some lifestyles do not mesh.  
 
In an urban setting, traditional single-family home neighborhoods work well with newer subdivisions, and 
those neighborhoods blur with the varieties of higher density apartment-style residences.  
 
As cities built out to meet their boundaries, these urban dwelling styles pushed out larger properties of 
acreages with horses and other lifestock. Those displaced rural-flavored moved to the unincorporated 
county lands, and they did so fully understanding the trade-offs. They valued the rural-flavored lifestyle 
enough to forfeit municipal infrastructure and conveniences.  
 
*Do not allow zoning changes that would expand the urban lifestyles into the unincorporated county.* Just 
as there is need for urban residences, so too is there need for rural properties.  
 
Rural and urban do not mix. If zoning changes were allowed for any development, any subdivision, in an 
unincorporated county, massive changes would ensue---and it would be at tremendous cost to rural 
property owners and to the county.  
 
When assessing housing occupancy in unincorporated Maricopa County, do so with specific areas in mind 
and with their unique qualities and conditions in mind. *Keep the rural zoning intact, and keep the higher-
density zoning to the municipalities.* 
77
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
363 03/27/2026 - 11:14am
Julie
Comment
Re "need to address the spectrum of housing factors"... 
 
Include in those factors the very real need for lifestyle differences, i.e., urban vs. rural---and that they do not 
mix.  
 
Include the fact that all costs for everything in life have increased. 
 
Include the fact that rezoning a rural unincorporated area to meet housing needs does NOT mean new 
housing will be any more affordable than elsewhere. 
 
And include the fact that it's less expensive (in every way) to continue building up, within the urban areas, 
than it is to build new in unincorporated areas that haven't the infrastructure to accommodate the 
population increase. 
 
79
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
364 03/27/2026 - 2:46pm
Eileen Parisi
Comment
I strongly oppose Case CPA260001 & Z260002 and urge you to vote NO. Reduce the effectiveness of 
emergency response and public safety services
11
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
365 03/27/2026 - 2:48pm
Eileen Parisi
Comment
I strongly oppose Case CPA260001 & Z260002 and urge you to vote NO. 
  Overburden rural infrastructure and roadways
10
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
366 03/27/2026 - 3:33pm
Michele Craig
Question
What will it take to stop the building out here.  We have no water for this new development- where will the 
water come from?  The roads can’t handle another development- the traffic is challenging enough.  
2
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
367 03/27/2026 - 5:32pm
Kristin Bonfiglio
Comment
No to MorDo!!! Further development in the Rio Verde area, will greatly impact this long standing rural area 
for not only the horse community, but also the residents that have purposely moved away from the urban 
areas to enjoy the peace and tranquility that this desert possesses.  Residents with the current population 
already feel our delicate water, and roads strains. another large housing development is not necessary nor 
wanted.We residents enjoy our larger 1 acre + zoning and this should absolutely not change. Another 
concern should be on our already fragile eco system, from the desert fauna, wildlife to their natural 
environment.  Please do not change our beloved home. 
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
368 03/27/2026 - 7:20pm
Henk Esmeijer
No to MorDo Development
60
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
355 03/27/2026 - 8:57am
Maryl
Comment
I am a Rio Verde Foothills resident. Built home in 2023 with hauled water setup (as 50+% of our community 
have, others have wells that also have hauled water as backup due to low performing wellls). Where are you 
planning to get water for this Mordo Ranch (700 homes/rezoned)???  Please say no to this new subdivision 
between 156th St and 160th St. We just went through 5 years of a fight to retain our long time water source 
from Scottsdale. They cut us off. (National News). Then we wound up with a poor and expensive solution, 
using Epcor water. The prices are rediculous and were poorly developed. We are in talks with ACC now to re-
evaluate the water pricing and delivery at this time. The Epcor just stated Jan 2026. We cannot share our 
water with a new 700 home community. There is already a Toll Bros community going in with 1200 homes 
and Trilogy is supposed to be expanding plus a shopping mall is going in at 176th St. Let me add that we 
don't have the road structure to support the increased in traffic that will result. Also everyone out here has 
septic systems. How will sewer service work for 700 new homes out here? 
100
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

356 03/27/2026 - 8:59am
Maryl
Comment
There is not sufficient road capacity to support: 700 new homes at Mordo Ranch. We have 3 other new 
items going in: Toll Bros 1200 homes, Trilogy expansion, Shopping Mall at 176th St. There is one accident 
per day on Rio Verde Dr as it is. When an accident occurs, things backup for miles. It happens often out 
here. 
100
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
357 03/27/2026 - 9:00am
Maryl
I am very concerned about this for same growth reasons. stated in point 3.
100
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
358 03/27/2026 - 9:00am
Maryl
Comment
I am very concerned about this for same reasons point 3. 
100
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
359 03/27/2026 - 9:05am
Maryl
Comment
Do not approve the re-zoning for Mordo Ranch at 156th St in Rio Verde Foothills please. It needs to stay 
rural zoning only.  Much of the land in is floodplain. New homeowners will need flood insurance. Massive 
washs flood often every year out here (they travel to the Rio Verde River 3 miles away). Dixieleta Road IS A 
WASH. They are talking about paving it????? 
100
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
369 03/27/2026 - 9:08pm
Tara Hutchinson 
Comment
I strongly oppose rezoning and development in the Rio Verde Foothills. There is limited water resources, 
reliance on septic systems, and inadequate road capacity for increased traffic. The area includes a natural 
watershed and designated floodplain, where development could disrupt drainage and increase flood risk to 
existing homes. This project would negatively impact wildlife habitat and introduce significant light and 
noise pollution. Most importantly, it would fundamentally change the rural, quiet character of the 
community that residents intentionally chose to make their home. 
100
4
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
360 03/27/2026 - 9:15am
Maryl
Comment
I / WE (RESIDENTS OF RIO VERDE FOOTHILLS) DO NOT WANT MORE DENSE ZOING IN RIO VERDE 
FOOTHILLS. KEEP IT RURAL ZONING PLEASE. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH ENOUGHT OVER THE YEAR. WE 
INVESTED IN THIS AREA DUE TO THE RURAL ZONING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (FOR SO MANY REASONS)
100
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
361 03/27/2026 - 9:26am
Keith Kronback
Question
So does this go for areas that are trying to Incorporate into there own  Municipalities. As Tonopah has been 
trying for the last 25yrs. I per there maps they have not done any legal survey just a meta & Bonds done by a 
lawyer that is not surveyor.   Here is a link to there Meta & Bonds https://incorporatetonopahaz.com in 
which they do not have permission any more from buck with in the 6 miles and still have not pulled there 
web site
123
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
375 03/28/2026 - 1:01pm
Deborah MacFarlane
Comment
Please keep our rural areas intact.   Prevent rezoning into lots under an acre and main rural-43 zoning!    
1
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
376 03/28/2026 - 2:24pm
Shaunda
Comment
Please do not change the zoning in the Rio Verde Foothills area. We already have water issues, traffic issues 
and not enough emergency services. We do not need high density subdivisions going in out here.  Please 
keep the R-43 zoning to maintain our 1 house per acre.  
100
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
377 03/28/2026 - 4:39pm
Lisa Kelley
Comment
Rural communities across Arizona are diminishing. At a minimum, the zoning for the unincorporated 
Maricopa County should be R-43--At a minimum!! The paving over the desert has increased temperatures 
and reduced significantly the natural habitat for native flora and fauna. Even more important-RAIN! Native 
trees help lower the temperature and create favorable conditions for cloud formation and precipitation. 
(see phys.org) Rural communities are essential to keeping a balanced environment. Any attempt to merge 
rural and urban would negatively impact the unincorporated area resulting in an urban only environment. 
14
4
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
378 03/28/2026 - 5:39pm
Jon King
Comment
NO to MorDo Development.
1
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
370 03/28/2026 - 6:33am
Carol
Comment
My husband Thomas & I reside on N 159th. We love our rural environment. Have horses & we oppose the the 
zoning for this Ranch. All homes approved for this area should keep the rural way of life & consider zoning 
that is compatible with current zoning statues. Water would be a huge concern affecting everyone
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
371 03/28/2026 - 8:59am
Michael Rotondo
Comment
The pressure on the water supply will decrease if growth is cut in the Rio Verde Foothills earlier. The area is 
already to densely populated and further growth will damage the area. 
192
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
372 03/28/2026 - 9:00am
Michael Rotondo
Comment
I have a well for a reason, I don't want to drink reclaimed water and the impurities that are not filtered out 
like prescription meds. 
192
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
373 03/28/2026 - 9:04am
Michael Rotondo
Comment
I moved out to this area for Scottsdale and Shea area to enjoy the quiet and the views not to have neighbors 
living on top of me. Let Scottsdale overbuild and litter the city with apartment complexes, leave us alone out 
here to enjoy AZ. 
46
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
374 03/28/2026 - 9:17am
Terra Wales
Comment
Pursuant to 1.4 - please do not approve the MorDo development. There is no infrastructure to 
accommodate the change of zoning that the developer is requesting. We are on wells, we have one way in 
and one way out, and we have already had many wildfire scares. This development would add to liability and 
possible fatalities because of the lack of existing infrastructure. The impact to wildlife, residents, horse 
properties, and public safety makes this an easy NO TO MORDO DEVELOPMENT.
109
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
384 03/29/2026 - 1:06pm
Linda Schlenker
Continuing to develop homes in Rio Verde Foothills when we are dry as a bone at here and don't have 
enough water for current residents, in addition wanting to rezone and cram hundreds of more houses on 
tiny lots is the worst sort of Fire and Emergency Management I have heard of.
86
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

385 03/29/2026 - 1:16pm
Linda Schlenker
Comment
Do not approve the continued development and rezoning in Rio Verde Foothills.  We do not have the water 
resources to accommodate 700 new homes, do not have the road capacity, it will fundamentally change 
the character of our community, and it will disrupt and change the drainage and flood risk in our area.  We 
are built around washes and flood zones.  The continued development puts our homes and community at 
risk.
100
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
386 03/29/2026 - 1:19pm
Linda Schlenker
Rezoning and allowing hundreds of small lots is in complete contradiction to 1.4.  We do not have the water, 
sewage, or roads to accommodate the rezoning or development of Mordo Ranch, especially if there was a 
need for a mass evacuation in case of wild fires which we are at great risk of.
109
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
387 03/29/2026 - 1:22pm
Linda Schlenker
WATER WATER WATER
150
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
379 03/29/2026 - 12:19pm
Linda Schlenker
Comment
Rezoning in Rio Verde Foothills to cram hundreds of small lots in a completely rural area that already does 
not have the water and roads to support it's current residents completely contradicts Land Use Policy #1.4
15
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
380 03/29/2026 - 12:24pm
Linda Schlenker
Comment
Rezoning Rio Verde Foothills to allow hundreds of small lots crammed into a rural area designed for 1+ acre 
lots puts the entire area in danger.  We have already had numerous wild fires in recent years.  We have one 
main road in and out - Dynamite. It would be catastrophic to add to the traffic needing to evacuate this area 
in case of an emergency.
16
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
381 03/29/2026 - 12:31pm
Linda Schlenker
Comment
Why is a rezoning in Rio Verde Foothills to allow hundreds of small lots being crammed in a rural area even 
being considered when this area has a known water shortage issue and there already isn't enough water for 
current residents?
26
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
382 03/29/2026 - 12:54pm
Linda Schlenker
Rio Verde Foothills must maintain its current zoning. The new proposed project to cram hundreds of small 
lots in this area is absolutely insane.  It does not fit with the character of the community at all and will 
permanently alter it.  We are a rural community of large, ranch lots filled with livestock and need to remain 
that way. It is why we all moved here and remain here and have a right to maintain our community. 
 
In addition, we have all experienced wildfires here over the last few years.  It is already too much to 
evacuate all of the homes and livestock out of the area with one main road in and out of the community. It 
would be extremely unsafe to add hundreds of new homes and potentially thousands of additional cars to 
the area that would need to evacuate. We do not have the roads to accommodate more cars for day to day 
traffic, never mind a mass evacuation. 
 
Most importantly, WATER.  The water crisis in our area is well known and well documented.  It is crazy that 
adding this many new homes and people to the area is even being considered when we do not have enough 
water for the current residents. 
 
Do not destroy our our rural community, one of the last of it's kind.  Do not further strain our water crisis.  Do 
not create a evacuation catastrophe when the wild fires hit again.
46
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
383 03/29/2026 - 12:59pm
Linda Schlenker
How are we in Rio Verde Foothills supposed to do that when the county is considering allowing rezoning to 
cram hundreds of small lots adding potentially thousands more people who will need water when we are 
struggling to have water for the people who already live here? Why would the county make our water, traffic, 
and emergency evacuation challenges near impossible to deal with?
74
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
388 03/29/2026 - 4:34pm
Amanda Monize 1
Comment
Maricopa county is very diverse considering its expansive square mile coverage. The county should 
consider the geographical, economic, environmental, and societal make up of each unincorporated area 
before changing zoning. There are areas, such as the Rio Verde Foothills, that are land locked with the Tonto 
Nation Forest to north and to the east. Increased populations due to high density zoning can place 
exponential burdens onto existing residents especially regarding safety. Please ensure that unincorporated 
areas continue to have plans unique that suit their areas. 
16
2
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
389 03/29/2026 - 4:38pm
Amanda Monize 1
Comment
There should also be support for existing wells. For example, if a subdivision is planned in an area with 
adjacent homes dependent on an the same aquifer as the subdivision, there must be plans to protect the 
existing wells before the subdivision is approved. 
18
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
390 03/29/2026 - 4:48pm
Amanda Monize 1
Comment
Consideration must be made to how a subdivision using groundwater will impact existing wells. Modeling 
should be provided to show impact of wells that are within 1 square mile of a subdivision planning to use 
the same aquifer. 
194
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
391 03/29/2026 - 4:53pm
Amanda Monize 1
Comment
Maricopa County should also support documented proof of limited impact of existing wells that are within 1 
square mile of a new development or subdivision.
198
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
392 03/29/2026 - 5:45pm
Jared Reisinger
Question
Given that 2010 to 2020 unincorporated growth had slowed to 8%, why are you projecting 20% growth going 
forward?
63
1
0 Acknowledgement
The reduced growth from 2010-2020 is 
a result of reductions in increasing 
population due to the Great Recession 
of 2008 and its lingering effects. Recent 
data and recent projections look to 
Maricopa County to continue its 
traditional high population growth as 
people move to the County.

394 03/30/2026 - 1:45pm
Andrew Yancey
Comment
Setbacks should be appropriate to the context and should be assumed to be substantial in all cases. 
 
Suggested revisions for Energy Policies 3.3 and below: 
 
Energy Policy #3.3: 
"Maricopa County supports the use of APPROPRIATE setbacks and buffers to residential uses from energy 
generation and/or energy storage facilities to prevent or lessen the impact from potential fires and other 
potential hazards." 
Energy Policy #3.5:  
"Maricopa County supports APPROPRIATE buffers and setbacks to ecological and riparian habitats found 
along borders of significant washes and riverbanks from energy generation and/or storage facilities." 
210
0
0 MBI Address
I believe the County would want to 
retain the current language for these 
Energy policies.
395 03/30/2026 - 1:53pm
Andrew Yancey
Comment
The current draft of the Municipal-Rural Influence Framework is confusing as applied to energy generation 
and storage projects and risks excluding appropriately sited projects.  The current framework generally 
identifies rural areas as suitable for electric generation facilities; however, it does not address municipal 
influence areas, which often include large, undeveloped parcels that may also be appropriate for such uses 
– especially as interim uses lasting approximately 30 years.  Clarifying that these utility scale facilities may 
be considered within both rural and municipal influence areas, where compatible with surrounding uses, 
would ensure flexibility and better reflect existing development patterns within the County.  Additionally, 
providing this clarity will also help avoid restrictive readings of this language that could trigger unnecessary 
plan amendments.  Some specific language revisions are proposed below: 
 
Last sentence of 2nd paragraph:  The Rural Service Area ACCOMMODATES rural land uses, AND ALLOWS 
FOR rural industrial or certain commercial land uses that would both not be considered part of the County’s 
Urban Growth Area. 
 
Add the following language:  CERTAIN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, INCLUDING THE UTILITIES DESIGNATION, 
CAN OCCUR IN EITHER THE RURAL SERVICE AREA OR URBAN GROWTH AREA OF THE AREA OF MUNICIPAL 
INFLUENCE.
97
0
0 MBI Address
I believe the County would want to 
retain the current language detailing the 
allowed land uses in the Rural Service 
Area.
396 03/30/2026 - 1:54pm
Andrew Yancey
Comment
Similar to comment above, suggest the following language revision in Step 3:  Any unincorporated land 
falling in the Rural Service Area ACCOMMODATES rural land use designations.
98
0
0 MBI Address
I believe the County would want to 
retain the current language detailing the 
allowed land uses in the Rural Service 
Area.
397 03/30/2026 - 1:58pm
Andrew Yancey
Comment
Further clarification is needed to ensure cost-sharing requirements are proportionate to actual service 
demands and impacts.  This is of particular importance to renewable energy generation and energy storage 
facilities that do not strain public services due to lack of water, sewer, and transportation needs. 
The following proposed revisions help clarify that cost of development requirements should be 
proportionate:  
 
Cost of Development Policy #3.1: 
"Maricopa County supports new development CONTRIBUTING ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE COSTS 
OF infrastructure NECESSARY to support the demand for electric, water, sewer, and other services 
generated and necessitated by the development." 
 
Cost of Development Policy #3.2: 
"Maricopa County supports REQUIRING new development TO CONTRIBUTE ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE 
OF long-term maintenance costs associated with the infrastructure to support the demand for electric, 
water, sewer, and other services generated and necessitated by the development."  
221
0
0 MBI Address
I believe the County would want to 
retain the current language for these 
Cost of Development policies.

393 03/30/2026 - 10:24am
Valerie
Comment
To the Maricopa County Planning Commission,  
I am writing as a Rio Verde Foothills resident to formally oppose the rezoning request associated with the 
Mordo Ranch development proposal — approximately 700 residential units located between 156th and 
160th Street. My opposition is grounded in two critical concerns:  
 
1. WATER AVAILABILITY Rio Verde's water infrastructure is not equipped to support a development of this 
scale. This community has already experienced firsthand the consequences of water insecurity — residents 
were left without service when Scottsdale terminated its water hauling agreement in 2023. While steps 
have been taken since, the underlying supply constraints have not been resolved. Approving 700 additional 
units before the community has achieved long-term, sustainable water security is premature and 
irresponsible. Density approvals must follow infrastructure capacity — not precede it.  
 
2. COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND INCOMPATIBLE DENSITY Rio Verde is a low-density, rural-character 
community. Residents chose this area specifically because of its open space, limited traffic, and quiet 
neighborhoods. A 700-unit development fundamentally changes that character. The cumulative impact on 
roads, public services, school capacity, and quality of life for existing residents has not been adequately 
addressed. 
 
I urge the Commission to deny this rezoning request and require any future proposal to demonstrate: - 
Verified, long-term water supply commitments from a legally designated provider - Infrastructure studies 
showing roads and services can absorb the density - Community engagement that reflects the preferences 
of existing Rio Verde residents This community deserves growth that is responsible, measured, and 
sustainable — not density driven by developer timelines. 
73
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
402 03/30/2026 - 10:46pm
McCall Concannon
Comment
I strongly oppose the proposed development in Rio Verde. Our local neighborhood values peace and quiet, 
consistent water access, and a sustainable environment for our domesticated animals and wildlife. Please 
do not add any more homes to an already fragile ecosystem, nonetheless ones that will require rezoning of 
the serene and sacred desert! Our lots are one acre or more for a reason which preserves the desirability 
and sustainability of the entire area. Please do not approve this project which such devastating 
consequences, especially in an area already limited by singular road access. Further congestion is not 
prudent or safe given the wildfire risk and prevalent accidents. I urge the council to reject this proposal!
1
1
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
398 03/30/2026 - 2:29pm
Brian Smith
Comment
j
 
To the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department: 
 
As a resident of the Rio Verde Foothills (RVF), I am submitting this formal public comment on the 
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Public Review Draft. I urge the County to ensure that the final 
adopted plan strictly maintains the rural, low-density designation of the RVF area, capping density at a 
maximum of one home per acre (Rural-43). 
 
Under Arizona law (A.R.S. § 11-814), all future rezonings must be consistent with and conform to the 
adopted comprehensive plan. It is imperative that Framework 2040's land use maps and policies explicitly 
prohibit high-density master-planned communities in this area, such as the active MorDo Ranch proposal 
(Cases CPA260001 & Z260002) which seeks to force up to 15 homes per acre into the middle of our 
community. 
 
Framework 2040 must recognize that high-density development does not fit our rural community due to 
several insurmountable constraints: 
 
No Proven Water Supply: The RVF community has a well-documented history of water scarcity, relying 
heavily on hauled water and domestic wells suffering from diminished yields. The area lacks the renewable 
water infrastructure required to support thousands of clustered homes. 
 
Infrastructure Deficits: Our rural perimeter roads are simply not built to handle the massive increase in daily 
traffic that urban-density development would generate. 
 
Septic Risk to Groundwater: Concentrating thousands of homes in an area without municipal sewer 
connections requires high-density septic usage, which poses a severe contamination risk to the underlying 
aquifer that existing residents rely upon. 
13
3
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

399 03/30/2026 - 4:17pm
Michael Scott Dosch
Comment
Required elements: 
1) Protection of current rural and semi rural parcels by retaining current zoning in particular R43 rules. 
Examples include the Rio Verde Foothills and North Scottsdale south of Cave Creek. 
2) Five year moratorium on new developments in the Rio Verde Foothills. Freeze the planned development 
west of Tonto Verde. 
3) Strict enforcement of night skies light pollution rules. 
4) No high density housing or reduced lot sizes in rural and semi rural areas 
5) Encourage high density housing in areas in proximity to major employers and existing or planned public 
transportation.
1
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
400 03/30/2026 - 4:21pm
Michael Scott Dosch
I strongly support Mr. Smith's recommendations and further recommend a five year moratorium on all new 
developments in the Rio Verde Foothills. 
Complete and existing approved plans then evaluate their impacts on water supply, public safety, night sky 
pollution, environmental harm and more.
13
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment
401 03/30/2026 - 4:23pm
Michael Scott Dosch
Comment
"Complete any existing approved plans.."
13
0
0 N/A to Comprehensive Plan
Rio Verde Foothills Rezoning Comment

1
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
cindy e <cindysellsrbon@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 3, 2026 2:09 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Less than a Month Left! Review and Comment on the Comprehensive Plan!
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
only comments come up. 
 
 No one asked us about chinese chip plants, data collection centers and neighborhoods in rural 
residential areas demonstrates arrogance and inability of people facing up tothe inability of these areas 
to provide additional water... 
 
the roads are 5-10 years behind the activities on land..so tired of this. 
 
On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 13:27 Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
View as a webpage 
  
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Marico pa County Logo

2
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan - Take Action Review the Plan. 
  
Maricopa County is undergoing an update to the County's Comprehensive Plan 
looking 10-20 years into the future. 
Comment on the Public Review Draft before  
March 30, 2026! 
View the Draft Plan & Provide Your Comments 
This is your chance to influence the future of Maricopa County. 
  
To learn more, visit 
www.Framework2040.com

3
x
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.

4
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Jamie and John Martin <johmie429@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:49 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Less than a Month Left! Review and Comment on the Comprehensive Plan!
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam 
 
I have I think that this plan looks really good. I just wanted to add a little bit about some quality 
management oversight.  Thank you for developing a long-range framework that 
addresses growth, infrastructure, and environmental stewardship. As Maricopa County 
continues to expand, air quality protection becomes increasingly important. Could you 
clarify what measurable air quality benchmarks (PM2.5, ozone, dust mitigation) are 
incorporated into the plan? Additionally, are there monitoring and mitigation triggers 
tied to transportation expansion and industrial zoning to ensure growth does not 
degrade public health outcomes 
 
 
View as a webpage 
  
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Marico pa County Logo

5
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan - Take Action Review the Plan. 
  
Maricopa County is undergoing an update to the County's Comprehensive Plan 
looking 10-20 years into the future. 
Comment on the Public Review Draft before  
March 30, 2026! 
View the Draft Plan & Provide Your Comments 
This is your chance to influence the future of Maricopa County. 
  
To learn more, visit 
www.Framework2040.com

6
x
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.

7
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Susan Bjork <bjorksvb@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:57 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Today: Release of Maricopa County’s Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan and 
Grand Virtual Meeting
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Thanks, Adam for sending.  I did rsvp earlier.   
 
Will this give me an update on the zoning? 
 
Thanks, 
Susan Bjork 
612-804-2860 
 
 
 
On Jan 29, 2026, at 9:19 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
wrote: 
  
  
<image003.png> 
  
Maricopa County is pleased to announce the release of the Framework 2040 
Comprehensive Plan Public Review Draft and Grand Virtual Event  
  
  
  
Take Action, Review the Plan! 
  
We invite all residents, landowners, business owners, and other stakeholders within 
unincorporated Maricopa County to attend the upcoming Grand Virtual Event tonight 
Thursday, January 29th from 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM to learn about the key updates included in 
the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Information will be provided during the Virtual 
Event on how to comment and submit feedback on the Draft Plan. 
  
Grand Virtual Meeting – Thursday, January 29, 2026 
  
The draft will be shared and discussed at a public meeting today Thursday, January 29th, 
2026. This marks the beginning of the 60-day review period when the Framework 2040

8
Comprehensive Plan Draft will be available for residents, stakeholders, agencies, and other 
members of the community to comment on and submit feedback. The update of the 
county’s Comprehensive Plan is vital as the document will serve as a roadmap for county-
level decision-making on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 
2040. 
  
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 
Time: 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM 
Location: Online (Webinar Link) 
  
RSVP for the virtual event 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes)  
  
The feedback gathered during this Grand Virtual Event and throughout the 60-day period 
will be carefully reviewed and used to inform and revise the final draft of the Comprehensive 
Plan as it heads towards consideration from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The 
Grand Virtual Event will also inform attendees of the anticipated dates for the public 
hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as part of 
the adoption process for the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 
 
For more information about the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan and 
to stay informed about upcoming related events and sign up for email notifications, please 
visit www.Framework2040.com.

9
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
cindy e <cindysellsrbon@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 26, 2026 4:02 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: REMINDER: Maricopa County’s Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft Set for 
Release for Comment and Feedback at 1/29/26 Grand Virtual Event
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
ok thats 180 degrees on how local city  council meetings or BNSF sales meetings held..excuse my 
weariness.   
Thank you. 
 
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 15:58 Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Hi Cindy, 
  
You will absolutely have an opportunity to comment at the event.   There is no voting taking place at the event, 
and nothing has been predecided.  We are holding the meeting to show the public where the draft of the plan is 
and show how people can comment directly on the draft. 
  
Thanks, 
Adam 
  
From: cindy e <cindysellsrbon@gmail.com>  
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 3:53 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: REMINDER: Maricopa County’s Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft Set for Release for Comment and 
Feedback at 1/29/26 Grand Virtual Event 
  
Adam why do you hold these ? Its all been predecided?? no way to comment at event ( not going to tell what i will say in advance??) .. Its like BNSF .. . going do as you please. On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11: 53 Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam. Cannon@ maricopa. gov > 
Adam why do you hold these ? Its all been predecided?? no way to comment at event ( not going to tell 
what i will say in advance??) .. 
Its like BNSF ... going do as you please.

10
  
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:53 Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
  
Maricopa County’s Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – 
 
Public Review Draft Set for Release for Comment and Feedback 
  
  
  
Maricopa County, AZ – Maricopa County is pleased to announce the upcoming release of the 
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Public Review Draft. The draft will be shared and discussed at a 
public meeting on Thursday, January 29th, 2026. This marks the beginning of the 60-day review period 
when the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft will be available for residents, stakeholders, 
agencies, and other members of the community to comment on and submit feedback. The update of 
the county’s Comprehensive Plan is vital as the document will serve as a roadmap for county-level 
decision-making on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 2040. 
  
The County adopted its current Comprehensive Plan back in 2016. In the ten years since then, new 
growth patterns and evolving industries, along with Arizona legal requirements, necessitate a broad 
and full update to ensure Maricopa County's continued development aligns with long-term community 
values. 
  
The Draft Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan looks to act as a guide for promoting the health, 
safety, and general welfare of Maricopa County, providing a basis to guide the development of both the 
natural and built environment while working to sustain and improve quality of life for residents of 
unincorporated Maricopa County. Most notably, the Plan implements a new approach that unifies the 
existing growth strategies of the unincorporated areas under a cohesive framework that allows for 
context-appropriate development while balancing the preservation of natural and rural landscapes. 
The Draft Plan does this through addressing various county-wide topics such as land use, 
transportation systems, parks and open spaces, water resources, energy, economic growth, 
environmental planning, and cost of development in a manner that reflects the values and priorities of 
residents within unincorporated Maricopa County.

11
We invite all residents, landowners, business owners, and other stakeholders within unincorporated 
Maricopa County to attend the upcoming Grand Virtual Event on Thursday, January 29th from 5:00 PM – 
6:00 PM to learn about the key updates included in the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 
Information will be provided during the Virtual Event on how to comment and submit feedback on the 
Draft Plan. 
  
GRAND VIRTUAL EVENT 
  
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026
Time: 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM 
Location: Online (Webinar Link) 
  
RSVP for the virtual event 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes)  
  
The feedback gathered during this Grand Virtual Event and throughout the 60-day period will be 
carefully reviewed and used to inform and revise the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan as it heads 
towards consideration from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The Grand Virtual Event will 
also inform attendees of the anticipated dates for the public hearings before the Planning & Zoning 
Commission and the Board of Supervisors as part of the adoption process for the Framework 2040 
Comprehensive Plan. 
 
For more information about the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan and to stay 
informed about upcoming related events and sign up for email notifications, please 
visit www.Framework2040.com.

12
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
cindy e <cindysellsrbon@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 26, 2026 3:53 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: REMINDER: Maricopa County’s Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft Set for 
Release for Comment and Feedback at 1/29/26 Grand Virtual Event
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Adam why do you hold these ? Its all been predecided?? no way to comment at event ( not going to tell 
what i will say in advance??) .. 
Its like BNSF ... going do as you please.  
 
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:53 Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
  
Maricopa County’s Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – 
 
Public Review Draft Set for Release for Comment and Feedback 
  
  
  
Maricopa County, AZ – Maricopa County is pleased to announce the upcoming release of the 
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Public Review Draft. The draft will be shared and discussed at a 
public meeting on Thursday, January 29th, 2026. This marks the beginning of the 60-day review period 
when the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft will be available for residents, stakeholders, 
agencies, and other members of the community to comment on and submit feedback. The update of 
the county’s Comprehensive Plan is vital as the document will serve as a roadmap for county-level 
decision-making on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 2040. 
  
The County adopted its current Comprehensive Plan back in 2016. In the ten years since then, new 
growth patterns and evolving industries, along with Arizona legal requirements, necessitate a broad and 
full update to ensure Maricopa County's continued development aligns with long-term community 
values.

13
  
The Draft Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan looks to act as a guide for promoting the health, safety, 
and general welfare of Maricopa County, providing a basis to guide the development of both the natural 
and built environment while working to sustain and improve quality of life for residents of 
unincorporated Maricopa County. Most notably, the Plan implements a new approach that unifies the 
existing growth strategies of the unincorporated areas under a cohesive framework that allows for 
context-appropriate development while balancing the preservation of natural and rural landscapes. The 
Draft Plan does this through addressing various county-wide topics such as land use, transportation 
systems, parks and open spaces, water resources, energy, economic growth, environmental planning, 
and cost of development in a manner that reflects the values and priorities of residents within 
unincorporated Maricopa County.   
  
We invite all residents, landowners, business owners, and other stakeholders within unincorporated 
Maricopa County to attend the upcoming Grand Virtual Event on Thursday, January 29th from 5:00 PM – 
6:00 PM to learn about the key updates included in the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 
Information will be provided during the Virtual Event on how to comment and submit feedback on the 
Draft Plan. 
  
GRAND VIRTUAL EVENT 
  
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026
Time: 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM 
Location: Online (Webinar Link) 
  
RSVP for the virtual event 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes)  
  
The feedback gathered during this Grand Virtual Event and throughout the 60-day period will be carefully 
reviewed and used to inform and revise the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan as it heads towards 
consideration from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The Grand Virtual Event will also inform 
attendees of the anticipated dates for the public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission 
and the Board of Supervisors as part of the adoption process for the Framework 2040 Comprehensive 
Plan.

14
For more information about the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan and to stay 
informed about upcoming related events and sign up for email notifications, please 
visit www.Framework2040.com.

15
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Jamie and John Martin <johmie429@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 26, 2026 1:36 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
Re: REMINDER: Maricopa County’s Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft Set for 
Release for Comment and Feedback at 1/29/26 Grand Virtual Event
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam, 
 
Thank you again for taking the time to explain how the Comprehensive Plan functions 
and where enforcement and accountability currently occur. Your explanation was clear 
and helpful. 
 
I wanted to share why I keep coming back to these questions, not just in planning but 
across multiple County and State contexts. What I consistently see is that we tend to fix 
things reactively—after approvals are granted, after violations occur, and after issues 
have already become visible or systemic. 
 
Corrective action plans, measurement, quality assurance, and qualification or licensing 
controls are not extraordinary tools; in many modern public and regulated systems they 
are considered normal governance tools. When they are missing upstream, the same 
frameworks and decisions get reused repeatedly without a structured way to evaluate 
outcomes, identify root causes, or prevent the same problems from recurring. 
 
Your response confirms that, at the Comprehensive Plan level, those tools are 
intentionally deferred to downstream processes. That distinction is important, because it 
helps explain why issues are often addressed only after the fact rather than prevented 
through proactive feedback and correction. 
 
My interest—both here and more broadly—is in encouraging a shift toward making 
corrective action a standard, proactive approach, rather than something triggered only 
once something goes wrong. That kind of structure is what stops systemic issues from 
repeating across cycles and departments.

16
 
I appreciate your engagement and look forward to reviewing the draft when it is released 
and participating through the formal public review process. 
 
Best regards, 
Jamie Weinhauer 
602-403-4535 
 
 
 
On Jan 26, 2026, at 1:09 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Hi Jamie, 
  
Thank you for your interest in the plan.  We have not released the draft of the plan yet, but it will be 
available on Friday at www.framework2040.com. 
  
Please see answers to questions below: 
  
1. How will the County measure the effectiveness of the plan’s stated goals relative to 
identified risks? – Although it is called a plan, it is more a policy document to address 
growth and development reflecting the needs of various stakeholders. What you are 
thinking of is more akin to a a strategic plan.  The Comprehensive Plan is a tool that 
decision makers use when considering Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zone 
Changes.   
2. What specific performance metrics will be used to determine whether those goals are 
being met? - Performance of the goals will not be measured numerically.  The goals are 
intentionally broad.  We have a strategy associated with growth called Urban Solutions 
(or services) for Urban Development.  An applicant for a rezoning will have to 
demonstrate that they have appropriate urban services and the ability to annex into a 
municipality if their development requires urban services in order to receive a 
recommendation of approval from planning staff, pending public comment. 
3. How will those metrics be collected, validated, and reported over time? – Please see the 
answer to question 2 above. 
4. When deviations or failures occur, what formal mechanism exists to document the issue, 
identify root cause, and ensure corrective action before problems become systemic? – As 
noted above, you are thinking of a plan that is more technical in nature than this 
document.  The Comprehensive Plan represents a vision for future growth that is 
purposefully broad and intended as a policy document.  Policy documents are not 
regulatory, and are therefore discretionary. 
5. If a complaint is raised regarding noncompliance with the plan, what is the enforcement or 
corrective process to ensure adherence, quality assurance, and accountability where 
applicable? – Maricopa County has a Code Compliance division that enforces the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.  The Comprehensive Plan is not zoning and a 
Comprehensive Plan Amendment confers no entitlement to develop land.  The only

17
thing that an amendment allows is for a property developer to seek a rezoning in 
accordance with the land use designation given by the amendment.  State law requires 
zone changes to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.   
  
With that said, if a zone change is approved, and the property is not developed in 
accordance with the zoning ordinance or the conditions of approval associated with 
the zone change, then Code Compliance will investigate the property for a violation.  If 
it is discovered there is a violation, the property owner will be sent a notice and order 
to comply.  If compliance is not achieved or completed, then there will be a hearing 
summons where a hearing officer will adjudicate the matter.  Further action includes 
liens on the property. 
  
Best regards, 
  
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for 
the next decade and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!  
  
   
  
From: Jamie and John Martin <johmie429@gmail.com>  
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 12:16 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: REMINDER: Maricopa County’s Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft Set for Release 
for Comment and Feedback at 1/29/26 Grand Virtual Event 
  
Hi Adam, Thank you for sharing the Fr amew ork 2040 update. I have a few clarification questions as part of the public review process. • How will the County measure the effectiveness of the plan’s stated goals relative to identified risks? • What 
Hi Adam, 
  
Thank you for sharing the Framework 2040 update. I have 
a few clarification questions as part of the public review 
process. 
  
• How will the County measure the effectiveness of the 
plan’s stated goals relative to identified risks? 
• What specific performance metrics will be used to 
determine whether those goals are being met?

18
• How will those metrics be collected, validated, and 
reported over time? 
• When deviations or failures occur, what formal 
mechanism exists to document the issue, identify root 
cause, and ensure corrective action before problems 
become systemic? 
• If a complaint is raised regarding noncompliance with the 
plan, what is the enforcement or corrective process to 
ensure adherence, quality assurance, and accountability 
where applicable? 
  
Understanding how the plan moves from vision to 
measurable, enforceable outcomes would be helpful. 
  
Thank you, 
Jamie Weinhauer 
602-403-4535 
  
  
  
  
On Jan 26, 2026, at 11:53 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) 
<Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
<image003.png> 
  
  
Maricopa County’s Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – 
 
Public Review Draft Set for Release for Comment and Feedback 
  
  
  
Maricopa County, AZ – Maricopa County is pleased to announce the 
upcoming release of the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Public 
Review Draft. The draft will be shared and discussed at a public meeting on 
Thursday, January 29th, 2026. This marks the beginning of the 60-day review 
period when the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft will be available 
for residents, stakeholders, agencies, and other members of the community

19
to comment on and submit feedback. The update of the county’s 
Comprehensive Plan is vital as the document will serve as a roadmap for 
county-level decision-making on future growth, development, and 
preservation through the year 2040. 
  
The County adopted its current Comprehensive Plan back in 2016. In the ten 
years since then, new growth patterns and evolving industries, along with 
Arizona legal requirements, necessitate a broad and full update to ensure 
Maricopa County's continued development aligns with long-term community 
values. 
  
The Draft Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan looks to act as a guide for 
promoting the health, safety, and general welfare of Maricopa County, 
providing a basis to guide the development of both the natural and built 
environment while working to sustain and improve quality of life for residents 
of unincorporated Maricopa County. Most notably, the Plan implements a 
new approach that unifies the existing growth strategies of the 
unincorporated areas under a cohesive framework that allows for context-
appropriate development while balancing the preservation of natural and 
rural landscapes. The Draft Plan does this through addressing various 
county-wide topics such as land use, transportation systems, parks and 
open spaces, water resources, energy, economic growth, environmental 
planning, and cost of development in a manner that reflects the values and 
priorities of residents within unincorporated Maricopa County.   
  
We invite all residents, landowners, business owners, and other 
stakeholders within unincorporated Maricopa County to attend the 
upcoming Grand Virtual Event on Thursday, January 29th from 5:00 PM – 6:00 
PM to learn about the key updates included in the Framework 2040 
Comprehensive Plan. Information will be provided during the Virtual Event on 
how to comment and submit feedback on the Draft Plan. 
  
GRAND VIRTUAL EVENT 
  
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026
Time: 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM 
Location: Online (Webinar Link) 
  
RSVP for the virtual event 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes)  
  
The feedback gathered during this Grand Virtual Event and throughout the 
60-day period will be carefully reviewed and used to inform and revise the 
final draft of the Comprehensive Plan as it heads towards consideration from 
the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The Grand Virtual Event will also

20
inform attendees of the anticipated dates for the public hearings before the 
Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors as part of the 
adoption process for the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 
 
For more information about the Maricopa County Framework 2040 
Comprehensive Plan and to stay informed about upcoming related events 
and sign up for email notifications, please visit www.Framework2040.com.

21
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Jamie and John Martin <johmie429@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 26, 2026 12:16 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: REMINDER: Maricopa County’s Comprehensive Plan - Public Review Draft Set for 
Release for Comment and Feedback at 1/29/26 Grand Virtual Event
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam, 
 
Thank you for sharing the Framework 2040 update. I have a few 
clarification questions as part of the public review process. 
 
• How will the County measure the effectiveness of the plan’s stated 
goals relative to identified risks? 
• What specific performance metrics will be used to determine 
whether those goals are being met? 
• How will those metrics be collected, validated, and reported over 
time? 
• When deviations or failures occur, what formal mechanism exists 
to document the issue, identify root cause, and ensure corrective 
action before problems become systemic? 
• If a complaint is raised regarding noncompliance with the plan, 
what is the enforcement or corrective process to ensure adherence, 
quality assurance, and accountability where applicable? 
 
Understanding how the plan moves from vision to measurable, 
enforceable outcomes would be helpful. 
 
Thank you, 
Jamie Weinhauer 
602-403-4535

22
 
 
 
On Jan 26, 2026, at 11:53 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
wrote: 
  
<image003.png> 
  
  
Maricopa County’s Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – 
 
Public Review Draft Set for Release for Comment and Feedback 
  
  
  
Maricopa County, AZ – Maricopa County is pleased to announce the upcoming release of 
the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Public Review Draft. The draft will be shared and 
discussed at a public meeting on Thursday, January 29th, 2026. This marks the beginning of 
the 60-day review period when the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan Draft will be 
available for residents, stakeholders, agencies, and other members of the community to 
comment on and submit feedback. The update of the county’s Comprehensive Plan is vital 
as the document will serve as a roadmap for county-level decision-making on future 
growth, development, and preservation through the year 2040. 
  
The County adopted its current Comprehensive Plan back in 2016. In the ten years since 
then, new growth patterns and evolving industries, along with Arizona legal requirements, 
necessitate a broad and full update to ensure Maricopa County's continued development 
aligns with long-term community values. 
  
The Draft Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan looks to act as a guide for promoting the 
health, safety, and general welfare of Maricopa County, providing a basis to guide the 
development of both the natural and built environment while working to sustain and 
improve quality of life for residents of unincorporated Maricopa County. Most notably, the 
Plan implements a new approach that unifies the existing growth strategies of the 
unincorporated areas under a cohesive framework that allows for context-appropriate 
development while balancing the preservation of natural and rural landscapes. The Draft 
Plan does this through addressing various county-wide topics such as land use, 
transportation systems, parks and open spaces, water resources, energy, economic 
growth, environmental planning, and cost of development in a manner that reflects the 
values and priorities of residents within unincorporated Maricopa County.   
  
We invite all residents, landowners, business owners, and other stakeholders within 
unincorporated Maricopa County to attend the upcoming Grand Virtual Event on Thursday, 
January 29th from 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM to learn about the key updates included in the 
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Information will be provided during the Virtual 
Event on how to comment and submit feedback on the Draft Plan.

23
GRAND VIRTUAL EVENT 
  
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026
Time: 5:00 PM – 6:00 PM 
Location: Online (Webinar Link) 
  
RSVP for the virtual event 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes)  
  
The feedback gathered during this Grand Virtual Event and throughout the 60-day period 
will be carefully reviewed and used to inform and revise the final draft of the 
Comprehensive Plan as it heads towards consideration from the Maricopa County Board of 
Supervisors. The Grand Virtual Event will also inform attendees of the anticipated dates for 
the public hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of 
Supervisors as part of the adoption process for the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 
 
For more information about the Maricopa County Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan 
and to stay informed about upcoming related events and sign up for email notifications, 
please visit www.Framework2040.com.

24
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
DONNIE SKINNER <pkmeadows@aol.com>
Sent:
Friday, January 23, 2026 10:44 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Mr Cannon 
 
Thanks for the information,looking forward to reading the plan. 
 
 
Sent from my iPhone 
 
 
On Jan 23, 2026, at 9:16 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Good morning Mr. Skinner, 
  
It is still in draft form and that draft will be placed on the website for 60-days (calendar) for public 
review this Thursday. 
  
Thanks, 
Adam 
  
From: DONNIE SKINNER <pkmeadows@aol.com>  
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 9:14 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
  
Good mor ning Mr Cannon Is the Framework still in draft or completed? Sent fr om my iPhone On Jan 23, 2026, at 9: 03 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam. Cannon@ maricopa. gov > wrote:  Good morning Donnie, The Fr amew ork 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive 
Good morning Mr Cannon  
  
Is the Framework still in draft or completed? 
Sent from my iPhone 
 
 
 
On Jan 23, 2026, at 9:03 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) 
<Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Good morning Donnie,

25
  
The Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan will be available for 
review at www.framework2040.com on Thursday, January 29, 2026.  We will also 
hold a Grand Virtual Event that evening from 5pm to 6pm introducing the plan.  If 
you are interested in attending that meeting, please RSVP and register for the Zoom 
meeting at: https://framework2040.com/participate/. 
  
  
<image001.png> 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth 
and development for the next decade and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend 
meetings and be heard!  
  
From: Donnie Skinner <mail@framework2040.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 10:53 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
  
Wher e can we REVIEW the frame Work of the plan?                                                                                                                                                                                                
Where can we REVIEW the frame Work of the plan?

26
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Sent:
Friday, January 23, 2026 9:16 AM
To:
DONNIE SKINNER
Subject:
RE: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
Good morning Mr. Skinner, 
 
It is still in draft form and that draft will be placed on the website for 60-days (calendar) for public review this 
Thursday. 
 
Thanks, 
Adam 
 
From: DONNIE SKINNER <pkmeadows@aol.com>  
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 9:14 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
 
Good mor ning Mr Cannon Is the Framework still in draft or completed? Sent fr om my iPhone On Jan 23, 2026, at 9: 03 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam. Cannon@ maricopa. gov > wrote:  Good morning Donnie, The Fr amew ork 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanner End 
Good morning Mr Cannon  
 
Is the Framework still in draft or completed? 
Sent from my iPhone 
 
On Jan 23, 2026, at 9:03 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Good morning Donnie, 
  
The Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan will be available for review at 
www.framework2040.com on Thursday, January 29, 2026.  We will also hold a Grand Virtual Event 
that evening from 5pm to 6pm introducing the plan.  If you are interested in attending that meeting, 
please RSVP and register for the Zoom meeting at: https://framework2040.com/participate/. 
  
  
<image001.png> 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn

27
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for 
the next decade and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!  
  
From: Donnie Skinner <mail@framework2040.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 10:53 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
  
Wher e can we REVIEW the frame Work of the plan?                                                                                                                                                                                                
Where can we REVIEW the frame Work of the plan?

28
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
DONNIE SKINNER <pkmeadows@aol.com>
Sent:
Friday, January 23, 2026 9:14 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Good morning Mr Cannon  
 
Is the Framework still in draft or completed? 
Sent from my iPhone 
 
 
On Jan 23, 2026, at 9:03 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Good morning Donnie, 
  
The Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan will be available for review at 
www.framework2040.com on Thursday, January 29, 2026.  We will also hold a Grand Virtual Event 
that evening from 5pm to 6pm introducing the plan.  If you are interested in attending that meeting, 
please RSVP and register for the Zoom meeting at: https://framework2040.com/participate/. 
  
  
<image001.png> 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for 
the next decade and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!  
  
From: Donnie Skinner <mail@framework2040.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 10:53 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
  
Wher e can we REVIEW the frame Work of the plan?                                                                                                                                                                                                
Where can we REVIEW the frame Work of the plan?

29
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Donnie Skinner <mail@framework2040.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 21, 2026 10:53 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Where can we REVIEW the frame Work of the plan?

30
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
McCann, Ryan <rmccann@swlaw.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 9, 2025 9:26 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Darren Gerard (PND); Griemsmann, Noel; Williams, Jeanette; Wood, Nick
Subject:
RE: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
Attachments:
SW Comments - 2040 Comp Plan Goals and Policies_12.9.25.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Good morning Adam, 
 
Hope you are doing well. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the “Goals and Policies” portion of the 
2040 Comprehensive Plan updates. On behalf of our client, Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North 
America, Inc., we would like to offer the following comments on the draft “Goals and Policies” section for the 
2040 Comprehensive Plan updates. Upon review, please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions 
or need any clarification. 
 
We look forward to reviewing the full draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in the beginning of 2026. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner 
O: 602.382.6825
rmccann@swlaw.com
SNELL
& WILMER
swlaw.com | LinkedIn
 
 
 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 11:06 AM 
To: McCann, Ryan <rmccann@swlaw.com> 
Subject: RE: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update 
 
[EXTERNAL] adam.cannon@maricopa.gov

31
Hi Ryan, 
 
I’m thinking sometime between August and September we will have a draft for review.  We are not sure yet if we are 
going to try and get it adopted by the end of the year or if we are thinking the first couple of months of 2026.  We will 
let you know.  Also, you and Noel are welcome to provide feedback on the draft goals and policies.  I know he 
wanted to provide some stronger language related to the proving grounds. 
 
Best regards, 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!  
 
Additionally, the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance is being updated. Visit MCZO Update to learn more and comment on changes to the ordinance. 
 
 
 
From: McCann, Ryan <rmccann@swlaw.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:22 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update 
 
Good mor ning Adam, Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to check in with you regarding timing for the public review of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Pla n. Figure it is a little way out but when do you antici pate the consultant completing the 
 
Good morning Adam, 
 
Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to check in with you regarding Ɵming for the public review of the draŌ 
2040 Comprehensive Plan. Figure it is a liƩle way out but when do you anƟcipate the consultant compleƟng 
the draŌ for public review? 
 
Sincerely,  
 
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner 
O: 602.382.6825
rmccann@swlaw.com
SNELL
& WILMER 
swlaw.com | LinkedIn

32
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Debbie THOMPSON <mail@framework2040.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:06 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
We are wanting to watch a pnz meeting dec 4 and the post card said to go to this web site. But there 
is nothing here to connect to to watch on thurs. can u please help me figure out where to go to watch 
it virtually.  
Thank you

33
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Jennifer Waller (PRK)
Sent:
Monday, September 29, 2025 4:30 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
Adam, 
Thank you very much.  
 
This very topic has arisen in our internal discussions as we have been noticing an increase in the 
unauthorized use of motorized elements on the Maricopa Trail.  
 
I will forward this to our Trails Supervisor for review and have his team investigate the signage.  
 
Respectfully,  
 
 
 
Jennifer "Jenn" Waller
Director 
Parks & Recreation 
O: 602-506-9506 
C:  480-710-3965 
 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2025 9:32 AM 
To: Jennifer Waller (PRK) <Jennifer.WALLER@Maricopa.Gov> 
Subject: FW: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
 
Good morning Jenn, 
 
This is just an fyi. 
 
Adam 
 
From: Sean Gates <gseangates@gmail.com>  
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 4:59 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
 
Thank you for the quick response and contact info, sorry for the random lowercase and capitalization of words on my initial outreach - I promise I wasn’t yelling. :) I have reached out to ASLD online and haven’t heard anything but I will call 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanner End 
Thank you for the quick response and contact info, sorry for the random lowercase and capitalization of 
words on my initial outreach - I promise I wasn’t yelling. :)

34
I have reached out to ASLD online and haven’t heard anything but I will call them tomorrow. 
I have attended recent Maricopa county planning meetings here in Anthem and there has been good 
discussion about retaining open space and trails for the residents in the north valley as so many building 
projects are under way.  
 
Sincerely, 
Sean Gates 
602-763-9662 
 
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 4:37 PM Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Hi Sean, 
  
Thank you for sending this.  Motorized vehicles, including ATVs in flood control property and other property, is an 
issue the County is aware of and works to address on a regular basis.  However, as this land is controlled and 
owned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Maricopa County does not manage the trails unless there 
was a prior agreement to do so.   
  
I will forward your concern over to the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department to inform them of the 
matter.  You will likely need to contact the ASLD directly to address the issues occurring on their property.  Their 
number is 602-542-4631.  
  
AZ State Parks and AZ Game and Fish handle the Off Highway Vehicles program.   
AZ State Parks: https://azstateparks.com/contact-us  
AZ Game and Fish: 602-942-3000 / Their main office is 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086 
  
Best regards, 
  
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301

35
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov 
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade 
and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!  
  
Additionally, the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance is being updated. Visit MCZO Update to learn more and comment on changes to the ordinance. 
  
From: Sean gates <mail@framework2040.com>  
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 10:16 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
  
Hi, im a state trust land recreation permit holder , frequent hiker and mou ntain biker on daisy mountain trails and see many ot her hikers and mountain bikers using the trails. Recently, gas power ed dirt bikes have been riding on these trails 
Hi, im a state trust land recreation permit holder, frequent hiker and mountain biker on daisy 
mountain trails and see many other hikers and mountain bikers using the trails. Recently, gas 
powered dirt bikes have been riding on these trails (“No motorized use” signage has been 
vandalized and removed from trailheads in Anthem & New River) and have done considerable 
damage. These dirt bikes are entering trails through walking trails that are connected to 
neighborhoods surrounding this state trust land. I would like to see maricopa county make these 
trails a priority AND KEEP THEM SAFE FOR residents in the anthem & new river area. I would be 
happy to help in any way possible.  
Thanks,  
Sean Gates 602-763-9662

36
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Sean Gates <gseangates@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 25, 2025 4:59 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Thank you for the quick response and contact info, sorry for the random lowercase and capitalization of 
words on my initial outreach - I promise I wasn’t yelling. :) 
I have reached out to ASLD online and haven’t heard anything but I will call them tomorrow. 
I have attended recent Maricopa county planning meetings here in Anthem and there has been good 
discussion about retaining open space and trails for the residents in the north valley as so many building 
projects are under way.  
 
Sincerely, 
Sean Gates 
602-763-9662 
 
On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 4:37 PM Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Hi Sean, 
  
Thank you for sending this.  Motorized vehicles, including ATVs in flood control property and other property, is an 
issue the County is aware of and works to address on a regular basis.  However, as this land is controlled and 
owned by the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Maricopa County does not manage the trails unless there 
was a prior agreement to do so.   
  
I will forward your concern over to the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department to inform them of the 
matter.  You will likely need to contact the ASLD directly to address the issues occurring on their property.  Their 
number is 602-542-4631.  
  
AZ State Parks and AZ Game and Fish handle the Off Highway Vehicles program.   
AZ State Parks: https://azstateparks.com/contact-us  
AZ Game and Fish: 602-942-3000 / Their main office is 5000 W. Carefree Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85086

37
Best regards, 
  
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade 
and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!  
  
Additionally, the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance is being updated. Visit MCZO Update to learn more and comment on changes to the ordinance. 
  
From: Sean gates <mail@framework2040.com>  
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2025 10:16 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
  
Hi, im a state trust land recreation permit holder , frequent hiker and mou ntain biker on daisy mountain trails and see many ot her hikers and mountain bikers using the trails. Recently, gas power ed dirt bikes have been riding on these trails 
Hi, im a state trust land recreation permit holder, frequent hiker and mountain biker on daisy 
mountain trails and see many other hikers and mountain bikers using the trails. Recently, gas 
powered dirt bikes have been riding on these trails (“No motorized use” signage has been 
vandalized and removed from trailheads in Anthem & New River) and have done considerable 
damage. These dirt bikes are entering trails through walking trails that are connected to 
neighborhoods surrounding this state trust land. I would like to see maricopa county make these 
trails a priority AND KEEP THEM SAFE FOR residents in the anthem & new river area. I would be 
happy to help in any way possible.  
Thanks,  
Sean Gates 602-763-9662

38
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Sean gates <mail@framework2040.com>
Sent:
Thursday, September 25, 2025 10:16 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Hi, im a state trust land recreation permit holder, frequent hiker and mountain biker on daisy mountain 
trails and see many other hikers and mountain bikers using the trails. Recently, gas powered dirt 
bikes have been riding on these trails (“No motorized use” signage has been vandalized and removed 
from trailheads in Anthem & New River) and have done considerable damage. These dirt bikes are 
entering trails through walking trails that are connected to neighborhoods surrounding this state trust 
land. I would like to see maricopa county make these trails a priority AND KEEP THEM SAFE FOR 
residents in the anthem & new river area. I would be happy to help in any way possible.  
Thanks,  
Sean Gates 602-763-9662

39
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Tom Ellsworth (PND)
Sent:
Monday, September 8, 2025 5:23 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Darren Gerard (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
RE: SCHOA Framework 2024 Feedback Tracker
No need to into great detail. I just wanted to ensure what they were relaying to the supervisor were the same things 
we were hearing from them. So in the future we will be able to show how we utilized the information to inform the 
plan. 
 
 
 
Tom Ellsworth 
Director 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-8557 
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 5:13 PM 
To: Tom Ellsworth (PND) <Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>; Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: RE: SCHOA Framework 2024 Feedback Tracker 
 
Tom, 
 
This is generally consistent with what we have.  The SCHOA specific posts are certainly accurate with the 
exception that the number of likes have increased.  It’s harder to tell with the community posts as many were 
posted anonymously, but I generally believe she’s correct and probably left some off.  I also believe she asked the 
residents if they posted or not.  She’s undershooting the number of likes and comments some of the community 
posts have.  I’m working on getting the correct numbers. 
 
I will have MBI pull the text of the community posts for D4. 
 
Adam 
 
From: Tom Ellsworth (PND) <Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 4:40 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>; Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: FW: SCHOA Framework 2024 Feedback Tracker 
 
Adam, 
 
I received the following FYI from Scott.  Please review to see if this is consistent with what we have.

40
 
 
Tom Ellsworth 
Director 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-8557 
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
 
From: Scott Isham <Scott.Isham@Maricopa.Gov>  
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 4:26 PM 
To: Tom Ellsworth (PND) <Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: FW: SCHOA Framework 2024 Feedback Tracker 
 
FYI 
 
From: Lisa Gray <SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org>  
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 3:50 PM 
To: Debbie Lesko <debbie@debbielesko.com> 
Cc: Scott Isham <Scott.Isham@Maricopa.Gov>; Debra Lesko <Debbie.Lesko@maricopa.gov>; Bill Leal (DOT) 
<Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov> 
Subject: SCHOA Framework 2024 Feedback Tracker 
 
Hi Debbie, Following up from our phone conversation last week, attached is a SCHOA comment tracker based on input from Sun City residents concerning issues during the Framew ork 2040 outreach. SCHOA used issues that are brought up often to start 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanner End 
Hi Debbie, 
 
Following up from our phone conversation last week, attached is a SCHOA comment tracker based on input 
from Sun City residents concerning issues during the Framework 2040 outreach. SCHOA used issues that are 
brought up often to start the discussion with Sun City residents. We posted these and then encouraged 
residents to add their own issues and comments to the Maricopa County Framework 2040 comment wall.   
 
The first portion of the tracker shows the issue, the text of what we posted and then how many comments 
and likes we got for it. 
 
The second portion of the tracker are those issues that were posted by individuals, and again how many 
comments and likes were contributed to each post. I don’t have the comments included in this but I’m sure 
Maricopa County has this information. We believe that the majority of these comments were made by Sun 
City residents. 
 
Also attached is the stakeholder questionnaire that SCHOA completed for the Zoning Ordinance review. 
 
I’m sending both to you so you can see the issues that are important to Sun City. These are issues that SCHOA 
hears about consistently.  
 
Let me know if you have any questions.

41
 
 
Lisa Gray 
General Manager 
Sun City Home Owners AssociaƟon (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General Office 
623-242-7992 - Direct Line 
Email: SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org 
 
Office Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa

42
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Tom Ellsworth (PND)
Sent:
Monday, September 8, 2025 4:40 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Darren Gerard (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
FW: SCHOA Framework 2024 Feedback Tracker
Attachments:
SCHOA Framework 2040 Wall Comment Tracker.xlsx; Online Form Submittal: Maricopa 
County Zoning Ordinance Update – Stakeholder Questionnaire
Adam, 
 
I received the following FYI from Scott.  Please review to see if this is consistent with what we have. 
 
 
 
Tom Ellsworth 
Director 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-8557 
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
 
From: Scott Isham <Scott.Isham@Maricopa.Gov>  
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 4:26 PM 
To: Tom Ellsworth (PND) <Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: FW: SCHOA Framework 2024 Feedback Tracker 
 
FYI 
 
From: Lisa Gray <SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org>  
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 3:50 PM 
To: Debbie Lesko <debbie@debbielesko.com> 
Cc: Scott Isham <Scott.Isham@Maricopa.Gov>; Debra Lesko <Debbie.Lesko@maricopa.gov>; Bill Leal (DOT) 
<Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov> 
Subject: SCHOA Framework 2024 Feedback Tracker 
 
Hi Debbie, Following up from our phone conversation last week, attached is a SCHOA comment tracker based on input from Sun City residents concerning issues during the Framew ork 2040 outreach. SCHOA used issues that are brought up often to start 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanner End 
Hi Debbie, 
 
Following up from our phone conversation last week, attached is a SCHOA comment tracker based on input 
from Sun City residents concerning issues during the Framework 2040 outreach. SCHOA used issues that are 
brought up often to start the discussion with Sun City residents. We posted these and then encouraged 
residents to add their own issues and comments to the Maricopa County Framework 2040 comment wall.

43
The first portion of the tracker shows the issue, the text of what we posted and then how many comments 
and likes we got for it. 
 
The second portion of the tracker are those issues that were posted by individuals, and again how many 
comments and likes were contributed to each post. I don’t have the comments included in this but I’m sure 
Maricopa County has this information. We believe that the majority of these comments were made by Sun 
City residents. 
 
Also attached is the stakeholder questionnaire that SCHOA completed for the Zoning Ordinance review. 
 
I’m sending both to you so you can see the issues that are important to Sun City. These are issues that SCHOA 
hears about consistently.  
 
Let me know if you have any questions.  
 
 
 
Lisa Gray 
General Manager 
Sun City Home Owners AssociaƟon (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General Office 
623-242-7992 - Direct Line 
Email: SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org 
 
Office Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa

44
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
McCann, Ryan <rmccann@swlaw.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:22 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Good morning Adam, 
 
Hope you are doing well. Just wanted to check in with you regarding Ɵming for the public review of the draŌ 
2040 Comprehensive Plan. Figure it is a liƩle way out but when do you anƟcipate the consultant compleƟng 
the draŌ for public review? 
 
Sincerely,  
 
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner 
O: 602.382.6825
rmccann@swlaw.com
SNELL
& WILMER
swlaw.com | LinkedIn

45
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 28, 2025 12:46 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
We truly appreciate that!  Ok, we can use this and still link people to the activities. 
 
Thank you so very much. 
 
Best, 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 12:45 PM 
To: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Subject: RE: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity 
 
It is not posted to our website as we made that just for you.  We can post it though once we begin our marketing 
activities for the Round 2 activity.  That will occur in the next couple of weeks or so. 
 
Thanks, 
Adam

46
From: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>  
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 12:42 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: RE: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity 
 
Adam, thank you again for sending this! We want to be sure we are highlighting the county so I also wanted to see if this is posted on your Website, or if I use this content, wher e you would prefer I send our readers? Thank you so much! Best, 
 
Adam, thank you again for sending this!  We want to be sure we are highlighting the county so I also wanted to see 
if this is posted on your Website, or if I use this content, where you would prefer I send our readers? 
 
Thank you so much! 
 
Best, 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 2:56 PM 
To: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Cc: Lisa Gray <SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org>; bill.leal@maricopa.gov 
Subject: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity 
 
Good afternoon Beth, 
 
Please see attached guide for instructions on how to complete the Round 2 survey activity on the website.  Let us 
know if you need anything else. 
 
Thanks! 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292

47
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!

48
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 28, 2025 12:42 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Adam, thank you again for sending this!  We want to be sure we are highlighting the county so I also wanted to see 
if this is posted on your Website, or if I use this content, where you would prefer I send our readers? 
 
Thank you so much! 
 
Best, 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 2:56 PM 
To: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Cc: Lisa Gray <SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org>; bill.leal@maricopa.gov 
Subject: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity 
 
Good afternoon Beth, 
 
Please see attached guide for instructions on how to complete the Round 2 survey activity on the website.  Let us 
know if you need anything else.

49
 
Thanks! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!

50
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 28, 2025 9:55 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Lisa Gray; Bill Leal (DOT)
Subject:
RE: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thank you so much! 
 
Warm Regards, 
 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 2:56 PM 
To: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Cc: Lisa Gray <SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org>; bill.leal@maricopa.gov 
Subject: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity 
 
Good afternoon Beth, 
 
Please see attached guide for instructions on how to complete the Round 2 survey activity on the website.  Let us 
know if you need anything else.

51
Thanks! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!

52
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Lisa Gray <SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 27, 2025 2:12 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Beth Lucas
Cc:
Bill Leal (DOT)
Subject:
RE: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thanks, Adam.  
 
 
 
 
Lisa Gray 
General Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General Office 
623-242-7992 - Direct Line 
Email: SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org 
 
Office Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2025 2:56 PM 
To: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Cc: Lisa Gray <SchoaGM@suncityhoa.org>; bill.leal@maricopa.gov 
Subject: Instruction Guide for Round 2 Virtual Activity 
 
Good afternoon Beth, 
 
Please see attached guide for instructions on how to complete the Round 2 survey activity on the website.  Let us 
know if you need anything else.

53
Thanks! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!

54
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>
Sent:
Thursday, May 22, 2025 11:48 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Framework 2040
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thank you! 
 
 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 11:46 AM 
To: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Subject: RE: Framework 2040 
 
We can do it and its already been sent to the consultant.  They will let me know if it’s a problem. 
 
We’ll send it both to you and Lisa. 
 
Thanks, 
Adam

55
From: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 11:14 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: RE: Framework 2040 
 
Hi Adam! I don’t want to give you extra work or costs – I just wanted to check in to see if there was anything in particular that would be good to promote. Would it be better if I worked with Lisa for an update and checked to make 
 
Hi Adam! 
 
I don’t want to give you extra work or costs – I just wanted to check in to see if there was anything in particular that 
would be good to promote. 
Would it be better if I worked with Lisa for an update and checked to make sure it is accurate? 
 
 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 10:46 AM 
To: bill.leal@maricopa.gov 
Cc: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Subject: RE: Framework 2040 
 
Will do Bill.   
 
Beth - I’ll have our consultant whip something up in terms of an instruction guide and get that over to you.  All of 
the round 1 activities (survey, idea wall and interactive map) will be available until the draft plan is released which 
would be in late summer/early fall.  Thank you for your support on this project. 
 
Best regards,

56
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
 
 
From: Bill Leal (DOT) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 9:04 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Subject: FW: Framework 2040 
 
Hi Adam, 
 
Can you answer Beth’s question below please. 
 
Thank you, 
Bill 
 
From: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 8:58 AM 
To: Bill Leal (DOT) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov> 
Subject: Framework 2040 
 
Good mor ning Bill! The article you sent fits fine, and I can use it. I did have a question as I work on an update for Lisa to review , on Framework 2040. From the Website, it looks like stage two breaks out the four categories covered by the 
 
Good morning Bill! 
 
The article you sent fits fine, and I can use it.  I did have a question as I work on an update for Lisa to review, on 
Framework 2040.  From the Website, it looks like stage two breaks out the four categories covered by the 
Comprehensive Plan.  Do you have any pdfs on this second step to be sure I guide people through how to set their 
ratings and respond?  And I assume they can still take the survey, comment on the wall, etc? 
 
Thank you again for your help!  I hope you have a lovely holiday weekend planned! 
 
Best, 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org

57
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa

58
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>
Sent:
Thursday, May 22, 2025 11:14 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Framework 2040
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam! 
 
I don’t want to give you extra work or costs – I just wanted to check in to see if there was anything in particular that 
would be good to promote. 
Would it be better if I worked with Lisa for an update and checked to make sure it is accurate? 
 
 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 10:46 AM 
To: bill.leal@maricopa.gov 
Cc: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Subject: RE: Framework 2040 
 
Will do Bill.

59
Beth - I’ll have our consultant whip something up in terms of an instruction guide and get that over to you.  All of 
the round 1 activities (survey, idea wall and interactive map) will be available until the draft plan is released which 
would be in late summer/early fall.  Thank you for your support on this project. 
 
Best regards, 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
 
 
From: Bill Leal (DOT) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 9:04 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Subject: FW: Framework 2040 
 
Hi Adam, 
 
Can you answer Beth’s question below please. 
 
Thank you, 
Bill 
 
From: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 8:58 AM 
To: Bill Leal (DOT) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov> 
Subject: Framework 2040 
 
Good mor ning Bill! The article you sent fits fine, and I can use it. I did have a question as I work on an update for Lisa to review , on Framework 2040. From the Website, it looks like stage two breaks out the four categories covered by the 
 
Good morning Bill! 
 
The article you sent fits fine, and I can use it.  I did have a question as I work on an update for Lisa to review, on 
Framework 2040.  From the Website, it looks like stage two breaks out the four categories covered by the 
Comprehensive Plan.  Do you have any pdfs on this second step to be sure I guide people through how to set their 
ratings and respond?  And I assume they can still take the survey, comment on the wall, etc? 
 
Thank you again for your help!  I hope you have a lovely holiday weekend planned! 
 
Best, 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager

60
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa

61
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>
Sent:
Thursday, May 22, 2025 11:06 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Bill Leal (DOT)
Subject:
RE: Framework 2040
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thank you so very much! 
 
Best, 
 
 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 10:46 AM 
To: bill.leal@maricopa.gov 
Cc: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Subject: RE: Framework 2040 
 
Will do Bill.   
 
Beth - I’ll have our consultant whip something up in terms of an instruction guide and get that over to you.  All of 
the round 1 activities (survey, idea wall and interactive map) will be available until the draft plan is released which 
would be in late summer/early fall.  Thank you for your support on this project.

62
 
Best regards, 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
 
 
From: Bill Leal (DOT) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 9:04 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org> 
Subject: FW: Framework 2040 
 
Hi Adam, 
 
Can you answer Beth’s question below please. 
 
Thank you, 
Bill 
 
From: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 8:58 AM 
To: Bill Leal (DOT) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov> 
Subject: Framework 2040 
 
Good mor ning Bill! The article you sent fits fine, and I can use it. I did have a question as I work on an update for Lisa to review , on Framework 2040. From the Website, it looks like stage two breaks out the four categories covered by the 
 
Good morning Bill! 
 
The article you sent fits fine, and I can use it.  I did have a question as I work on an update for Lisa to review, on 
Framework 2040.  From the Website, it looks like stage two breaks out the four categories covered by the 
Comprehensive Plan.  Do you have any pdfs on this second step to be sure I guide people through how to set their 
ratings and respond?  And I assume they can still take the survey, comment on the wall, etc? 
 
Thank you again for your help!  I hope you have a lovely holiday weekend planned! 
 
Best, 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351

63
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa

64
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Bill Leal (DOT)
Sent:
Thursday, May 22, 2025 9:04 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Beth Lucas
Subject:
FW: Framework 2040
Hi Adam, 
 
Can you answer Beth’s question below please. 
 
Thank you, 
Bill 
 
From: Beth Lucas <marketingmanager@suncityhoa.org>  
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2025 8:58 AM 
To: Bill Leal (DOT) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov> 
Subject: Framework 2040 
 
Good mor ning Bill! The article you sent fits fine, and I can use it. I did have a question as I work on an update for Lisa to review , on Framework 2040. From the Website, it looks like stage two breaks out the four categories covered by the 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanner End 
Good morning Bill! 
 
The article you sent fits fine, and I can use it.  I did have a question as I work on an update for Lisa to review, on 
Framework 2040.  From the Website, it looks like stage two breaks out the four categories covered by the 
Comprehensive Plan.  Do you have any pdfs on this second step to be sure I guide people through how to set their 
ratings and respond?  And I assume they can still take the survey, comment on the wall, etc? 
 
Thank you again for your help!  I hope you have a lovely holiday weekend planned! 
 
Best, 
 
Beth Lucas 
Marketing Manager 
Sun City Home Owners Association (SCHOA) 
10401 West Coggins Dr. 
Sun City, AZ  85351 
623-974-4718 - General OƯice 
623-242-8535 - Direct Line 
Email: MarketingManager@suncityhoa.org 
 
OƯice Hours: 
Monday - Thursday, 9:00am - 3:00pm 
Friday, 9:00am - Noon 
Social Media: @suncityhoa

65

66
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Dave Haddox <dhaddox@hiringsolutions.net>
Sent:
Saturday, May 10, 2025 6:30 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - 
TOMORROW
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Thank you Adam. 
Have a great weekend! 
Dave 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 1:23 PM 
To: Dave Haddox <dhaddox@hiringsolutions.net> 
Subject: RE: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - TOMORROW 
 
Good afternoon Dave, 
 
Thank you.  We appreciate you and materials from the meeting will be available soon at 
www.framework2040.com. 
 
Best regards, 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
 
 
From: Dave Haddox <dhaddox@hiringsolutions.net>  
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 7:49 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: RE: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - TOMORROW 
 
A meeting with a customer came up, I will not be able to attend. My apologies. Dave Haddox From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam. Cannon@ maricopa. gov> Sent: T hursday, May 8, 2025 5:  13 PM To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam. Cannon@ maricopa. gov> Cc:  
 
A meeting with a customer came up, I will not be able to attend. 
My apologies.

67
Dave Haddox 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 5:13 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - TOMORROW 
 
 
View as a webpage 
 
 
 
 
REMINDER:

68
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
In-person Event Tomorrow! 
 
Framework 2040 Maricopa County 
Comprehensive Plan Takes Shape. 
As part of ongoing efforts to ensure community voices shape this planning 
process, Maricopa County residents are invited to participate in the second 
round of outreach meetings for the development of the Framework 2040 - 
Comprehensive Plan. Review the meeting option below and join the 
conversation! 
Each scheduled meeting will offer an overview of the community feedback that 
has been collected to date and provide interactive activities to explore how 
collected input should be incorporated into the draft plan. 
  
In-person event 
District 4 
Date: Friday, May 9, 2025 
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM 
Location: Sundial Recreation Center (Auditorium) 
14801 N. 103rd Ave, Sun City, AZ 85351

69
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
 
 
Maricopa County  |  602-506-7642  |  District4@maricopa.gov 
301 W Jefferson St  |  Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
x 
 
 
   
. 
 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
White Seal

70
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Barbara Elmgren <belmgren94301@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Friday, May 9, 2025 1:23 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - 
TOMORROW
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Thank you for letting me know that.  
 
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 
 
On Friday, May 9, 2025, 1:21 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Good afternoon Barbara, 
  
That’s ok.  If you would like to watch the meeting, Sun City recorded the meeting and it will be 
available on YouTube soon.  We appreciate you. 
  
Best regards, 
  
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn

71
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for 
the next decade and beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
  
  
  
From: Barbara Elmgren <belmgren94301@yahoo.com>  
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 8:06 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - 
TOMORROW 
  
I am so sorry but my plans have changed and I have to attend to another issue so I will not be able to attend this meeting this mor ning. You guys are doing a great job! Barbara Elmgren Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Thursday, May 8, 2025, 
I am so sorry but my plans have changed and I  have to attend  to another issue so I will 
not be able to attend this meeting this morning.  You guys are doing a great job! 
  
Barbara Elmgren  
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 
  
On Thursday, May 8, 2025, 5:13 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
wrote: 
  
View as a webpage 
  
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Marico pa County Logo

72
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County District 4 Supervisor Debbie Lesko
  
REMINDER:
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
In-person Event Tomorrow! 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Framework 2040 - Comprehensive Plan Rnd 2 Banner
 
Framework 2040 Maricopa County 
Comprehensive Plan Takes Shape.

73
As part of ongoing efforts to ensure community voices shape this planning 
process, Maricopa County residents are invited to participate in the second 
round of outreach meetings for the development of the Framework 2040 - 
Comprehensive Plan. Review the meeting option below and join the 
conversation! 
Each scheduled meeting will offer an overview of the community feedback that 
has been collected to date and provide interactive activities to explore how 
collected input should be incorporated into the draft plan. 
  
In-person event 
District 4 
Date: Friday, May 9, 2025 
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM 
Location: Sundial Recreation Center (Auditorium) 
14801 N. 103rd Ave, Sun City, AZ 85351 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
  
 
Maricopa County  |  602-506-7642  |  District4@maricopa.gov 
301 W Jefferson St  |  Phoenix, AZ 85003 
  
x
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Micro so ft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
   
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
White Seal

74
.

75
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Kathleen O’Mara <komara@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:
Friday, May 9, 2025 12:30 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - 
TOMORROW
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Thank you for the Sun City presentation today - really enjoyed getting educated as to how this 
Comprehensive Plan works. 
Kathy O’Mara 
Sun City resident for 8 years 
 
 
On May 8, 2025, at 5:13 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
  
View as a webpage 
  
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Marico pa County Logo

76
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County District 4 Supervisor Debbie Lesko
  
REMINDER:
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
In-person Event Tomorrow! 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Framework 2040 - Comprehensive Plan Rnd 2 Banner
 
Framework 2040 Maricopa County 
Comprehensive Plan Takes Shape. 
As part of ongoing efforts to ensure community voices shape this planning 
process, Maricopa County residents are invited to participate in the second

77
round of outreach meetings for the development of the Framework 2040 - 
Comprehensive Plan. Review the meeting option below and join the 
conversation! 
Each scheduled meeting will offer an overview of the community feedback that 
has been collected to date and provide interactive activities to explore how 
collected input should be incorporated into the draft plan. 
  
In-person event 
District 4 
Date: Friday, May 9, 2025 
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM 
Location: Sundial Recreation Center (Auditorium) 
14801 N. 103rd Ave, Sun City, AZ 85351 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
  
 
Maricopa County  |  602-506-7642  |  District4@maricopa.gov 
301 W Jefferson St  |  Phoenix, AZ 85003 
  
x
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Micro so ft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
   
 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
White Seal

78
.

79
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Barbara Elmgren <belmgren94301@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Friday, May 9, 2025 8:06 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - 
TOMORROW
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
I am so sorry but my plans have changed and I  have to attend  to another issue so I will not be able to 
attend this meeting this morning.  You guys are doing a great job! 
 
Barbara Elmgren  
 
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 
 
On Thursday, May 8, 2025, 5:13 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
View as a webpage 
  
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Marico pa County Logo

80
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County District 4 Supervisor Debbie Lesko
  
REMINDER:
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
In-person Event Tomorrow! 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Framework 2040 - Comprehensive Plan Rnd 2 Banner
 
Framework 2040 Maricopa County 
Comprehensive Plan Takes Shape.

81
As part of ongoing efforts to ensure community voices shape this planning 
process, Maricopa County residents are invited to participate in the second 
round of outreach meetings for the development of the Framework 2040 - 
Comprehensive Plan. Review the meeting option below and join the 
conversation! 
Each scheduled meeting will offer an overview of the community feedback that 
has been collected to date and provide interactive activities to explore how 
collected input should be incorporated into the draft plan. 
  
In-person event 
District 4 
Date: Friday, May 9, 2025 
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM 
Location: Sundial Recreation Center (Auditorium) 
14801 N. 103rd Ave, Sun City, AZ 85351 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
  
 
Maricopa County  |  602-506-7642  |  District4@maricopa.gov 
301 W Jefferson St  |  Phoenix, AZ 85003 
  
x
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
White Seal

82
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Micro so ft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
   
 
.

83
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Dave Haddox <dhaddox@hiringsolutions.net>
Sent:
Thursday, May 8, 2025 7:49 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - 
TOMORROW
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
A meeting with a customer came up, I will not be able to attend. 
My apologies. 
Dave Haddox 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 5:13 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - TOMORROW 
 
 
View as a webpage

84
 
REMINDER: 
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
In-person Event Tomorrow! 
 
Framework 2040 Maricopa County 
Comprehensive Plan Takes Shape. 
As part of ongoing efforts to ensure community voices shape this planning 
process, Maricopa County residents are invited to participate in the second

85
round of outreach meetings for the development of the Framework 2040 - 
Comprehensive Plan. Review the meeting option below and join the 
conversation! 
Each scheduled meeting will offer an overview of the community feedback that 
has been collected to date and provide interactive activities to explore how 
collected input should be incorporated into the draft plan. 
  
In-person event 
District 4 
Date: Friday, May 9, 2025 
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM 
Location: Sundial Recreation Center (Auditorium) 
14801 N. 103rd Ave, Sun City, AZ 85351 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
 
 
Maricopa County  |  602-506-7642  |  District4@maricopa.gov 
301 W Jefferson St  |  Phoenix, AZ 85003 
 
x 
 
 
   
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
White Seal

86
.

87
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Bud Meador <budmeador@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 8, 2025 6:24 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: REMINDER: District 4 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Workshop - 
TOMORROW
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Will attend, Adam.  Looking forward to seeing you, Matey. 
Bud 
Sent from my iPhone 
 
 
On May 8, 2025, at 5:13 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
  
View as a webpage 
  
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Marico pa County Logo

88
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County District 4 Supervisor Debbie Lesko
  
REMINDER:
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
In-person Event Tomorrow! 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Framework 2040 - Comprehensive Plan Rnd 2 Banner
 
Framework 2040 Maricopa County 
Comprehensive Plan Takes Shape. 
As part of ongoing efforts to ensure community voices shape this planning 
process, Maricopa County residents are invited to participate in the second

89
round of outreach meetings for the development of the Framework 2040 - 
Comprehensive Plan. Review the meeting option below and join the 
conversation! 
Each scheduled meeting will offer an overview of the community feedback that 
has been collected to date and provide interactive activities to explore how 
collected input should be incorporated into the draft plan. 
  
In-person event 
District 4 
Date: Friday, May 9, 2025 
Time: 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM 
Location: Sundial Recreation Center (Auditorium) 
14801 N. 103rd Ave, Sun City, AZ 85351 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
  
 
Maricopa County  |  602-506-7642  |  District4@maricopa.gov 
301 W Jefferson St  |  Phoenix, AZ 85003 
  
x
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Micro so ft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
   
 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
White Seal

90
.

91
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Ksenia Kerentseva <kkerentseva@gatewayairport.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 7, 2025 11:35 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam, 
 
I hope you are doing well! 
 
My name is Ksenia Kerentseva, I am the Airport Planner at Mesa Gateway Airport.  
 
I had a couple questions regarding the ongoing Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan. While I understand that this plan 
will primarily focus on the unincorporated areas, are there any plans to update the land use around Mesa Gateway 
Airport within the incorporated areas? Additionally, it was mentioned that the county islands are considered 
unincorporated but have different considerations; could you please elaborate on that?  
 
Thank you! 
 
Ksenia Kerentseva 
Airport Planner 
Engineering & Facilities 
Mesa Gateway Airport Authority 
5835 S Sossaman Rd 
Mesa, AZ 85212-6014 
Office: (480) 988-7649 
kkerentseva@gatewayairport.com 
www.gatewayairport.com  
  
  
  
  
 
  
Please be advised that our office hours are Monday - Thursday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. We are closed Fridays.

92
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
kelley dwyer <kelley403@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 24, 2025 6:33 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Reminder: Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan - Grand Virtual 
Meeting - Tonight
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
HI Adam:  
 
This is Mr. Kelley Dwyer coming to you from Chandler.  
 
Thanks for hosting the program tonight.  
 
Keep me on the mailing list for any news about Maricopa County.   
 
Postal mailing address is:  P.O. Box 220 Chandler 85244 
 
Kelley Dwyer  
Chandler 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2025 11:21 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Reminder: Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan - Grand Virtual Meeting - Tonight 
 
Good morning: 
 
Thank you for RSVPing to attend the Grand Virtual Meeting for the Framework 2040 Maricopa County 
Comprehensive Plan.  The meeting starts tonight at 5:00 p.m.  Please use the zoom link below to access the 
meeting once it starts. 
 
Grand Virtual Meeting 
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2025 
Zoom Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84632894194 
Time: 5:00pm – 6:30pm 
 
Thank you for attending! 
 
Maricopa County Planning and Development

93
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
HARVEY KUNTZ <harv.claudette@cox.net>
Sent:
Thursday, April 24, 2025 4:42 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Reminder: Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan - Grand Virtual 
Meeting - Tonight
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Ahh Jeez, Adam just had a grand kid situation just now & have to pass.   
Harv K 
Sent from my iPhone 
 
 
On Apr 24, 2025, at 11:21 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
wrote: 
  
Good morning: 
  
Thank you for RSVPing to attend the Grand Virtual Meeting for the Framework 2040 Maricopa 
County Comprehensive Plan.  The meeting starts tonight at 5:00 p.m.  Please use the zoom link 
below to access the meeting once it starts. 
  
Grand Virtual Meeting 
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2025 
Zoom Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84632894194 
Time: 5:00pm – 6:30pm 
  
Thank you for attending! 
  
Maricopa County Planning and Development

94
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Mary Thompson Ebel <rainydays47@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 24, 2025 10:57 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Mary Ebel
Subject:
Re: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Good morning.   I take it that the zoom meeting for today is cancelled?  I never got an email on this. 
 
Thank. you  
 
 
On Apr 10, 2025, at 1:36 PM, Mary Thompson Ebel <rainydays47@gmail.com> wrote: 
 
Thanks 
 
 
On Apr 10, 2025, at 12:42 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) 
<Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
 
Good afternoon Mary, 
  
I apologize that you are getting that issue.  We are working on it and will correct it, 
but you are confirmed for the Grand Virtual Meeting on April 24th.  I will send an e-
mail reminder to all the registrants prior to the meeting. 
  
Best regards, 
  
<image001.png> 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov 
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth 
and development for the next decade and beyond.  
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!

95
From: Mary Ebel <mail@framework2040.com> 
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 12:01 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
  
Hello. I submitted the form to join the april 24 grand virtual meeting but the confirmation I receive after submitting is for a meeting in Novemb er 2025. I tried 3 times and got the sam e November 2025 confirmation date. I only see meetings in 
Hello.  I submitted the form to join the april 24 grand virtual meeting but 
the confirmation I receive after submitting is for a meeting in November 
2025.   I tried 3 times and got the same November 2025 confirmation 
date.   I only see meetings in april and may 2025.  Nothing for november.

96
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Joe Wittman <mail@framework2040.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 24, 2025 10:23 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Resident of Sun City here.  Is the May 9 District4 meeting an appropriate venue  to  discuss the 
homeless and or Drug Addicts who are a daily staple  in Sun City?  I would like to see a change in 
laws so that they can not spend all day hanging around.  Its not good for us or for them.  Thank you.

97
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Mary Ebel <mail@framework2040.com>
Sent:
Thursday, April 10, 2025 12:01 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Hello.  I submitted the form to join the april 24 grand virtual meeting but the confirmation I receive 
after submitting is for a meeting in November 2025.   I tried 3 times and got the same November 2025 
confirmation date.   I only see meetings in april and may 2025.  Nothing for november.

98
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Quinne Daoust <qdaoust@bfsolaw.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:36 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Framework 2040 Updates
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thanks for this information, Adam. We'll continue to keep an eye out for those meeting dates this spring, 
and look forward to engaging with the County as the Comp Plan framework continues to take shape.  
 
Best, 
Quinne 
 
Quinne Daoust, Esq.  
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC  
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210  
Phoenix, Arizona 85018  
Office: 602.888.7864  
Cell: 480.510.8682 
  
   
 
   
Visit us at www.bfsolaw.com  
   
The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential.  It is intended only to be read by 
the individual or entity named above or their designee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited.  If you 
have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at 602.888.7860 or 
by fax at 602.888.7856 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.  Thank you. 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:20 AM 
To: Quinne Daoust <qdaoust@bfsolaw.com> 
Subject: RE: Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Framework 2040 Updates  
  
Good morning Quinne, 
  
We will be announcing another round of meetings very soon.  Meetings will take place from mid-to-late April 
through early May; however, I cannot announce the dates at this moment.   
At this time, we’re looking at having a public review draft in autumn September - November though it may be 
earlier than that depending upon the direction of the plan.   
  
Thanks,

99
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
  
  
  
From: Quinne Daoust <qdaoust@bfsolaw.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:53 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Framework 2040 Updates 
  
Mr. Cannon, I hope this email finds you well. Just wanted to check in on thest atus of the 2040 Comp Plan update outreach. Will there be any m ore public scoping meetings this spring? Do you hav e a rough timeline of when a comp plan draft will 
Mr. Cannon,  
  
I hope this email finds you well. Just wanted to check in on thestatus of the 2040 Comp Plan update 
outreach. Will there be any more public scoping meetings this spring? Do you have a rough timeline of 
when a comp plan draft will be available for review? Thanks in advance for your help! 
  
Best, 
Quinne Daoust 
  
  
Quinne Daoust, Esq.  
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC  
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210  
Phoenix, Arizona 85018  
Office: 602.888.7864  
Cell: 480.510.8682 
  
   
 
   
Visit us at www.bfsolaw.com  
   
The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential.  It is intended only to be read by 
the individual or entity named above or their designee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited.  If you 
have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at 602.888.7860 or 
by fax at 602.888.7856 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.  Thank you.

100
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Quinne Daoust <qdaoust@bfsolaw.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:53 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Framework 2040 Updates
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Mr. Cannon,  
 
I hope this email finds you well. Just wanted to check in on thestatus of the 2040 Comp Plan update 
outreach. Will there be any more public scoping meetings this spring? Do you have a rough timeline of 
when a comp plan draft will be available for review? Thanks in advance for your help! 
 
Best, 
Quinne Daoust 
 
 
Quinne Daoust, Esq.  
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC  
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210  
Phoenix, Arizona 85018  
Office: 602.888.7864  
Cell: 480.510.8682 
  
   
 
   
Visit us at www.bfsolaw.com  
   
The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential.  It is intended only to be read by 
the individual or entity named above or their designee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, you are on notice that any distribution of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited.  If you 
have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at 602.888.7860 or 
by fax at 602.888.7856 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.  Thank you.

101
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Richard Peel (EMG)
Sent:
Friday, March 14, 2025 11:26 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Frank McWilliams (EMG)
Cc:
Joseph Cruz (EMG); Donovan Bowling (EMG)
Subject:
RE: Email 1 of 3: Wildfire Planning, Emergency Response Discussions in the North 
Phoenix/New River area
Adam, 
 
Sorry for the late response. It’s been hectic.  
 
I’ll have our all hazards section reach out and see when this meeting will occur with Daisy Mountain.  
 
Rich  
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 2:32 PM 
To: Frank Mcwilliams (EMG) <frank.mcwilliams@maricopa.gov>; Richard Peel (EMG) <Richard.Peel@Maricopa.Gov> 
Subject: FW: Email 1 of 3: Wildfire Planning, Emergency Response Discussions in the North Phoenix/New River area 
 
Good afternoon Frank and Richard, 
 
I hope you are well.  One of our former employees who is now a community advocate in New River/Desert Hills 
sent me a series of e-mails on emergency management comments.  I’m sure you may be aware of some of what I 
am sending, but she is a friend and so I am passing it along.  One of the e-mails is trying to coordinate a meeting 
with the North Valley Outdoor Network and other agencies about a pathway.   
 
Let me know if you have any questions. 
 
Thanks! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
 
   
 
From: Eileen Baden <Ebaden@badeneco.com>  
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 12:40 PM

102
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Email 1 of 3: Wildfire Planning, Emergency Response Discussions in the North Phoenix/New River area 
 
Hi Adam, Recently, Phoenix Council members Stark & Robinson and Maricopa County Supervisor Br ophy McGee had a public meeting on emergency response. Bel ow are some thoughts I wanted to share with you, but please also a dd these to the Framew ork 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd 
Hi Adam, 
 
Recently, Phoenix Councilmembers Stark & Robinson and Maricopa County Supervisor Brophy McGee had a public 
meeƟng on emergency response. Below are some thoughts I wanted to share with you, but please also add these to the 
Framework 2040 comments, if possible.  
 
1. American Planning AssociaƟon Wildfire Planning Documents: I met Phoenix Fire ExecuƟve Assistant Chief Tim 
Kreis at the meeƟng. I shared two American Planning AssociaƟon (APA) wildland fire planning documents with 
Phoenix fire and planning departments. I will send them in separate emails. Could you share them with your 
department and the Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management? 
 
2. “Pigtail” extensions, building codes & fire improvements: At the community meeƟng, a MCDEM representaƟve 
menƟoned a “pigtail” extension that goes on to exterior buildings, to make it easy for a generator to hook up. 
One bill discussed at the Planners’ Day was one that would restrict ciƟes/towns/counƟes from adding any 
addiƟonal requirements beyond the InternaƟonal Building Code (it sounds like it’s dead, but I think sƟll 
important to watch out for). These types of “pigtail” extensions might be good to require on community 
buildings or senior housing, for example, or other places where large numbers of vulnerable populaƟons may 
live.  
 
3. New River Pathway West of I-17: David Hondula, Chief Heat Officer for Phoenix, menƟoned he is most 
concerned about the stability of our power grid. If we lost power, there could be mass evacuaƟons. That’s why 
we’re talking a pathway offset from the north side of New River Road (from I-17 to Carefree Hwy) to serve as a 
firebreak and improve access for emergency responders. Peoria is developing that area, so an even larger 
populaƟon is coming. I saw TSMC is a $65 billion investment. A mulƟ-use path to serve as a firebreak may be a 
valuable, cost-efficient investment. It could be a 10-mile scenic mulƟ-use path that provides connecƟons to the 
BLM Black Canyon NaƟonal Scenic Trail and the Emery Henderson Trailhead, and possibly to Lake Pleasant 
Regional Park in the future. New River Road was closed in this area just a few years ago due a 844 acre+ wildland 
fire. hƩps://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-wildfires/2019/08/22/new-river-fire-north-phoenix-
40-contained-aŌer-scorching-844-acres/2087486001/ Daisy Mountain Fire Department said they use New River 
Road all the Ɵme, and they would respond first as they are closer, but technically this area is within the Phoenix 
Fire District. Daisy Mountain Fire menƟoned they have large vehicles and do not want to hit anyone on a bicycle. 
Phoenix Fire Chief Tim Kreis also shared that Frank Bayless is the North District Commander for Phoenix Fire 
Department, who oversees North Phoenix and WUI areas.   
 
4. New River Pathway East of I-17: A pathway east of the I-17 on the north side of New River Road could also 
provide a safe place for kids to wait for the bus. There was a child in criƟcal condiƟon aŌer being struck on New 
River Road waiƟng for the bus just the other week: hƩps://www.abc15.com/traffic/child-hit-by-vehicle-near-
35th-avenue-and-new-river-road. Here is an arƟcle from a youth bicyclist fatality aŌer being struck by a vehicle 
in PrescoƩ Valley in November. hƩps://www.12news.com/video/news/local/arizona/prescoƩ-valley-teens-
death-renews-calls-for-safer-pathways-for-pedestrians-bicyclists/75-c9dee85f-9730-4fa7-a5c5-34e8c7103f9d 
 
5. Daisy Mountain and Fire Access: I recently met with the Daisy Mountain Fire & Medical Department and 
received their full support on the pathway and trail improvements in the New River/Anthem/Desert 
Hills/Phoenix area. I was told they respond to 4x the amount of wildland fires compared to structure fires. Also, 
aŌer the Bela Flor development is built, there will be only about a ¼ mile opening remaining on the west side of

103
Daisy Mountain. That access point will be criƟcal not only for public trail access, but for firefighters as well. 
Otherwise, it can take 30+ minutes to get around the mountain.  
 
6. Improved Access Anthem/Desert Hills/New River: There was an I-17 South closure from Carefree Hwy to Happy 
Valley this weekend. Coming from New River, Google Maps didn’t pick up on the closure unƟl I was in Anthem, 
and then I had to turn around and drive around Daisy Mountain. What would have taken me 5 minutes from 
Anthem to get to Desert Hills Drive/New River Road took almost 40 minutes – this is not good if there was a 
wildfire or another emergency. I heard the delay was hours long and residents felt trapped in their homes. We 
need access from Anthem to Desert Hills/New River Road, this is very important for public safety. 
 
7. Backup Water Source Near New River: We also may want to consider a backup water source near the I-17 and 
New River. Currently, Daisy Mountain Fire fills up their water trucks preƩy far south! (I completed a Community 
Emergency Response Team 20-hr FEMA training with the department last year and learned this).  
 
8. Table Mesa Road as a Firebreak: I also heard MCDOT was planning to improve Table Mesa Road as a firebreak 
30 years ago. This might be something to consider due to the increased wildfire concerns.  
 
9. Support from AZ Public and mulƟple benefits of pathways as improved access and firebreaks: I highly 
recommend watching “Fire in Paradise” on Neƞlix. AƩached is a image of the pathways they are building that 
can withhold the weight of emergency vehicles to improve access and serve as firebreaks. I spoke with someone 
from the Alta trail design firm and they are doing these types of projects in Oregon because of bad wildfires. 
Also aƩached are results showing public support for pathway and trails from the AZ State Parks – Statewide 
Outdoor Comprehensive Outdoor RecreaƟon Plan.  
 
Please reach out with any quesƟons. 
 
Thank you for your Ɵme,  
 
Eileen Baden, AICP 
President, Friends of Daisy Mountain Trails  
Bureau of Land Management, AZ Resource Advisory Council Member  
 
All views expressed are my own  
 
(FYI - I’m using my work email due to file size.)

104
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 3, 2025 5:30 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: EXTERNAL: FW: Email 2 of 3: 2005 American Planning Association Report on 
Planning for Wildfires
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thanks for sharing. Probably getting a little too specific for a Comp Plan with some of these recommendations, but 
the broader context is noted and we will look closer at her specific trail notes. 
 
MK  
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 2:08 PM 
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com> 
Subject: EXTERNAL: FW: Email 2 of 3: 2005 American Planning Association Report on Planning for Wildfires 
 
EXTERNAL EMAIL 
 
fyi 
 
From: Eileen Baden <eileenbaden@gmail.com>  
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 1:28 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Email 2 of 3: 2005 American Planning Association Report on Planning for Wildfires 
 
Hi Adam, I tried to send from my Outlook email but it didn't go through, hopefully this one does. Frank Bayless with Phoenix Fire just called me. He is going to review the documents I’m sending and speak with Daisy Mountain Fire. We’re hoping 
 
Hi Adam, 
 
I tried to send from my Outlook email but it didn't go through, hopefully this one does. 
  
Frank Bayless with Phoenix Fire just called me. He is going to review the documents I’m sending and speak with Daisy 
Mountain Fire. We’re hoping to get a field visit set up with the North Valley Outdoor Network (NVON) to review the 
pathway idea west of I-17 along New River Road to Carefree Hwy. Jonathan McKelvey, who works on trails for Maricopa 
County Parks, is involved in our NVON trail connectivity group and will be invited. Let me know if anyone else from the 
County in Planning, Transportation, or Emergency Management might be interested.  
  
Attached is the 2005 American Planning Association Report on Planning for Wildfires.  
  
Below are some examples from this document (PDF page 11). The valve in swimming pools to allow use by firefighters 
seems like a good idea.

105
 
  
Thank you, 
Eileen Baden, AICP 
 
908-797-9727 
eileenbaden@gmail.com

106
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 3, 2025 5:24 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: EXTERNAL: FW: Email 3 of 3: 2019 American Planning Association Report on 
Planning the Wildland-Urban Interface
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thanks for passing along. Michael Baker actually assisted Cal Fire with a lot of their post fire responses, so I think 
we are well positioned to evaluate this topic in alignment with the County’s role and responsibilities.  
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 2:09 PM 
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com> 
Subject: EXTERNAL: FW: Email 3 of 3: 2019 American Planning Association Report on Planning the Wildland-Urban 
Interface 
 
EXTERNAL EMAIL 
 
fyi 
 
From: Eileen Baden <Ebaden@badeneco.com>  
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 1:26 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Email 3 of 3: 2019 American Planning Association Report on Planning the Wildland-Urban Interface 
 
Hi Adam, Attached is the 2019 Ameri can Planning Association Report on Pla nning the Wildland-Ur ban Interface. This document was prepar ed after the bad wildfire season in 2018, including the Ca mp Fire, which was the subject of the documentary 
 
Hi Adam, 
 
AƩached is the 2019 American Planning AssociaƟon Report on Planning the Wildland-Urban Interface.  
 
This document was prepared aŌer the bad wildfire season in 2018, including the Camp Fire, which was the subject of the 
documentary “Fire in Paradise”.  
 
Please share these two resources with MCDEM and reach out with any quesƟons.  
 
Thank you,  
 
Eileen Baden, AICP 
Principal Planner 
Baden Eco, LLC 
 
ebaden@badeneco.com 
480-712-1910

107

108
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Sent:
Monday, March 3, 2025 5:17 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: EXTERNAL: FW: Comprehensive Plan Update - Phase 2 Community Outreach 
Meetings – Scheduling & Venue Considerations
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Adam, 
 
Thanks for all the Surge 2 scheduling information. Steven is already working through some logistical issues with 
date, time, and space availability across the various venues. Appears to all be manageable at the moment, but we 
will share more as we confirm more hard dates. 
 
Best, 
Matt 
 
 
Matthew Klyszeiko | Department Manager - Planning 
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-798-7513 | [M] 
(480) 250-6829 | [F] 602-467-2201 
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com   
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
 
   
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 4:46 PM 
To: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com> 
Subject: EXTERNAL: FW: Comprehensive Plan Update - Phase 2 Community Outreach Meetings – Scheduling & Venue 
Considerations 
 
EXTERNAL EMAIL 
 
April 16th or May 1st for D3 
 
From: Page Patterson Gonzales (BOS) <Page.Gonzales@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 4:45 PM 
To: Tom Ellsworth (PND) <Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Carissa Cortez (BOS) <carissa.cortez@maricopa.gov>; Darcy Kober (OOC) <Darcy.Kober@Maricopa.Gov>; Darren 
Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>; Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: RE: Comprehensive Plan Update - Phase 2 Community Outreach Meetings – Scheduling & Venue Considerations

109
Hi Tom, 
Sorry for the delay. Kate would like to be at an outreach meeting for D3. The Anthem Civic Building is a good 
location. Thanks! She said she can do April 16th or 30th. Or May 1st. Have a look and let us know which one of those 
work so we can block it off.  
Thanks!  
 
 
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Marico pa County Logo
 
Page Patterson Gonzales 
Chief of Staff 
Board of Supervisors 
District 3 
301 West Jefferson Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-7074  
E: page.gonzales@maricopa.gov 
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn 
 
 
 
From: Tom Ellsworth (PND) <Tom.Ellsworth@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 2:29 PM 
To: Scott Isham <Scott.Isham@Maricopa.Gov>; Page Patterson Gonzales (BOS) <Page.Gonzales@maricopa.gov>; Pete 
Mains (BOS) <peter.mains@maricopa.gov>; John Gomez (BOS) <john.gomez@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Darcy Kober (OOC) <Darcy.Kober@Maricopa.Gov>; Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>; Adam 
Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: RE: Comprehensive Plan Update - Phase 2 Community Outreach Meetings – Scheduling & Venue Considerations
 
Chiefs, 
I wanted to follow up on my previous email regarding the scheduling of our Phase 2 community outreach 
meetings for the County’s Comprehensive Plan update. As we move forward with finalizing details, we 
will begin scheduling the meetings based on the proposed dates and locations. 
If your office has any preferred dates or venue preferences, please let us know as soon as possible so we 
can incorporate your input before confirming logistics. We want to ensure the selected date, time, and 
location best serve your district’s needs. 
Once the meetings are scheduled, we will follow up to inform you of the final date, time, and location for 
your district. Please feel free to reply with any thoughts or let me know if a brief discussion would be 
helpful. We appreciate your guidance and look forward to your feedback. 
Thank you, 
 
 
Tom Ellsworth 
Director 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-8557 
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn

110
 
 
From: Tom Ellsworth (PND)  
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 11:25 AM 
To: Scott Isham <SCOTT.ISHAM@Maricopa.Gov>; Page Patterson Gonzales (BOS) <Page.Gonzales@maricopa.gov>; Pete 
Mains (BOS) <peter.mains@maricopa.gov>; John Gomez (BOS) <john.gomez@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Darcy Kober (OOC) <Darcy.Kober@Maricopa.Gov>; Darren Gerard (PND) <DARREN.GERARD@Maricopa.Gov>; Adam 
Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update - Phase 2 Community Outreach Meetings – Scheduling & Venue Considerations 
 
Chiefs: 
I wanted to make you aware that we are beginning to schedule our Phase 2 community outreach 
meetings as part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan update. As we did for Phase 1 in November and 
December, we will be hosting one countywide virtual meeting and one in-person community meeting in 
each of the five districts to ensure broad community engagement. 
The purpose of these meetings is to review findings from the first round of community workshops and 
gather input on land use and growth area alternatives through scenario planning and other activities. The 
feedback received will help inform the plan’s goals and policies and shape the final stage of plan 
development. 
For potential meeting dates, we are targeting the last two weeks of April and the first full week of May, 
with meetings scheduled on a weekday evening (Monday through Thursday). The potential dates are 
within these weekly ranges: 
 
April 14 – 18 
 
April 28 – May 2 
 
May 5 – 9 
For venues, we are considering the following locations: 
 
D1 – AZ College Prep High School or Castille High School (Chandler) 
 
D2 – Skyline High School, Smith Junior High School, or Red Mountain High School (Mesa) 
 
D3 – Anthem Civic Building (Anthem) 
 
D4 – Palm Ridge Recreation Center (Sun City West) 
 
D5 – Betty Fairfax High School (Laveen) 
We would appreciate any input from your office on a specific preferred date or location for the meeting in 
your District. We want to ensure the selected date, time, and venue best serve the community and align 
with any district priorities. 
Please let me know if you have any thoughts or if a brief discussion would be helpful to go over any 
considerations. Your input will help guide our outreach efforts as we finalize these details. 
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your feedback.

111
 
 
 
Tom Ellsworth 
Director 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-8557 
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn

112
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Bud Meador <budmeador@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 26, 2025 11:55 PM
To:
Dr. Sally PRICKETT; Kathryn King; David Hunter; Ralph Johnson; Rosemary Dougherty; 
Darwin Nelson; Gary Cohen; Dennis Horvath; dennis hanzel; Lou Mancuso; Jolene 
Piaskowski; Rodney Bertram; Michael LUKACHIE; d runner; Allan Lenefsky; Lisa Gray; 
Dean Folk; Sharon Martin; Rudy Grom; Jane Meador; Sharon HETTICK; Aletha Delamo; 
Peggy Sue Kruger; Roxy Hurd McGough; Dawn Exarhopoulis; Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
EL MIRAGE ROAD EXTENSION/PEORIA AIR  PORT/DEER VALLEY ROAD CONNECTION 
WITH LOOP 303
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Ladies and Gentlemen:  I attended a presentation this evening presented by Maricopa County, 
ADOT, and the City of Peoria.  I spoke with several engineers, county and state representatives, and 
one of Peoria’s City Councilmen re the subjects & their potential impact on SCW.  All good news, as 
follows: 
A.  The Peoria air port is now a dead issue.  Not going to happen for a myriad of reasons, not the 
least of which is Luke AFB was not in favor of it for air space reasons.  This may be old news to 
some.   
B.  The El Mirage Rd expansion takes place north of the 303, and connects the 303 to Jomax Road to 
the north.  Initial construction will have two lanes in either direction, a bike lane on both sides, and a 
separated side walk on both sides.  It will eventually be  expanded to three lanes in both directions 
with a 40 mph speed limit.  Final design approval is roughly one year out, with ground breaking 
planned for late ‘26/early ‘27.  Flood control conduits under the road will be 10 in number measuring 
12’x 12’, each.  Impact on SCW is envisioned to be a slight increase in traffic on El Mirage Road 
between Bell Road and the 303. 
C.  The rumor of Maricopa County connecting Deer Valley Road to the 303 remains a rumor.  Every 
planner and engineer with whom I spoke this evening - and, I asked them all about this matter - 
replied in the negative.   
 
The event was nicely presented in the Lake Pleasant Elementary School, and all participants were 
friendly, outgoing, energetic, and helpful.  So, again, good news for us re this project. 
 
More to follow as info becomes available.  Semper Fidelis! 
 
Bud Meador 
 
 
 
Sent from my iPhone

113
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Catherine Lorbeer <clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 5, 2025 1:42 PM
To:
Klyszeiko, Matthew; Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Sifferman, Steven
Subject:
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: Map of County Islands
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thank you.  This is very helpful. 
 
Hope all is good with you too! 
 
 
 
 
Catherine Lorbeer AICP
Deputy Director Planning Division 
Development Services 
11465 W Civic Center Dr., Avondale, AZ 85323
Office: (623) 333-4018 
clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov
www.AvondaleAZ.gov 
 
 
From: Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 1:32 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>; Catherine Lorbeer <clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov> 
Cc: Sifferman, Steven <Steven.Sifferman@mbakerintl.com> 
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: Map of County Islands 
 
Hello Catherine, Please find attached a copy of the Maricopa Cou nty, county island map we displayed during the November 12 virtual meeting. Please note, that while this m ap does show county islands (i. e. unincorporated county land that is surrounded 
 
Hello Catherine, 
 
Please find attached a copy of the Maricopa County, county island map we displayed during the November 12 
virtual meeting. Please note, that while this map does show county islands (i.e. unincorporated county land that is 
surrounded on all sides by a municipality and/or tribal lands), the area in dark blue also includes all 
unincorporated land that exists within defined municipal planning areas and thus may be annexed in the future. 
 
In addition to Adams helpful response to your question regarding…does the county place comp plan land use 
designations on these county islands…thought I would add if you are inquiring about the county’s current policy, it 
specifies “Unincorporated areas outside of county area plans are designated Rural Development Area and are 
only appropriate for rural land uses and rural zoning.” 
 
Nice to hear from you, hope you are well. 
 
Matt

114
 
 
Matthew Klyszeiko | Department Manager - Planning 
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-798-7513 | [M] 
(480) 250-6829 | [F] 602-467-2201 
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com   
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 8:38 AM 
To: Catherine Lorbeer <clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov>; Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com> 
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: Map of County Islands 
 
EXTERNAL EMAIL 
 
Hi Catherine, 
 
I’ll have Matt forward you the map.  At this time, we do not plan on setting a variety of land use designations on the 
county islands; however, we do plan on setting policies related to urban county islands vs. rural ones as we do not 
currently have those.   
 
Thanks! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
From: Catherine Lorbeer <clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov>  
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 7:53 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>; Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com> 
Subject: Map of County Islands 
 
Hi Adam and Matt, At the November 12 virtual meeting, I recall seeing a map of county islands. Can you share a copy with me? Also, does the county place comp plan land use designations on these areas? Thanks, Catherine Catherine Lorbeer AICP 
 
Hi Adam and Matt, 
 
At the November 12 virtual meeting, I recall seeing a map of county islands. Can you share a copy with me?  Also, 
does the county place comp plan land use designations on these areas? 
 
Thanks, 
Catherine

115
 
 
 
Catherine Lorbeer AICP
Deputy Director Planning Division 
Development Services 
11465 W Civic Center Dr., Avondale, AZ 85323
Office: (623) 333-4018 
clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov
www.AvondaleAZ.gov

116
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 5, 2025 1:32 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Catherine Lorbeer
Cc:
Sifferman, Steven
Subject:
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: Map of County Islands
Attachments:
29b_County_Islands_Org.png
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hello Catherine, 
 
Please find attached a copy of the Maricopa County, county island map we displayed during the November 12 
virtual meeting. Please note, that while this map does show county islands (i.e. unincorporated county land that is 
surrounded on all sides by a municipality and/or tribal lands), the area in dark blue also includes all 
unincorporated land that exists within defined municipal planning areas and thus may be annexed in the future. 
 
In addition to Adams helpful response to your question regarding…does the county place comp plan land use 
designations on these county islands…thought I would add if you are inquiring about the county’s current policy, it 
specifies “Unincorporated areas outside of county area plans are designated Rural Development Area and are 
only appropriate for rural land uses and rural zoning.” 
 
Nice to hear from you, hope you are well. 
 
Matt 
 
 
Matthew Klyszeiko | Department Manager - Planning 
Phoenix Plaza Tower II, 2929 N. Central Avenue, 8th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85012 | [O] 602-798-7513 | [M] 
(480) 250-6829 | [F] 602-467-2201 
matthewk@mbakerintl.com | www.mbakerintl.com   
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 8:38 AM 
To: Catherine Lorbeer <clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov>; Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com> 
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: Map of County Islands 
 
EXTERNAL EMAIL 
 
Hi Catherine,

117
I’ll have Matt forward you the map.  At this time, we do not plan on setting a variety of land use designations on the 
county islands; however, we do plan on setting policies related to urban county islands vs. rural ones as we do not 
currently have those.   
 
Thanks! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
From: Catherine Lorbeer <clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov>  
Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 7:53 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>; Klyszeiko, Matthew <MATTHEWK@mbakerintl.com> 
Subject: Map of County Islands 
 
Hi Adam and Matt, At the November 12 virtual meeting, I recall seeing a map of county islands. Can you share a copy with me? Also, does the county place comp plan land use designations on these areas? Thanks, Catherine Catherine Lorbeer AICP 
 
Hi Adam and Matt, 
 
At the November 12 virtual meeting, I recall seeing a map of county islands. Can you share a copy with me?  Also, 
does the county place comp plan land use designations on these areas? 
 
Thanks, 
Catherine
 
 
 
Catherine Lorbeer AICP 
Deputy Director Planning Division 
Development Services 
11465 W Civic Center Dr., Avondale, AZ 85323
Office: (623) 333-4018 
clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov
www.AvondaleAZ.gov

118
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Catherine Lorbeer <clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 5, 2025 7:53 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND); Klyszeiko, Matthew
Subject:
Map of County Islands
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam and Matt, 
 
At the November 12 virtual meeting, I recall seeing a map of county islands. Can you share a copy with me?  Also, 
does the county place comp plan land use designations on these areas? 
 
Thanks, 
Catherine
 
 
 
Catherine Lorbeer AICP
Deputy Director Planning Division 
Development Services 
11465 W Civic Center Dr., Avondale, AZ 85323
Office: (623) 333-4018 
clorbeer@avondaleaz.gov
www.AvondaleAZ.gov

119
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Michael Rabstoff <mail@framework2040.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, January 28, 2025 2:16 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message May Be Unsafe 
Please verify with the sender offline, for example using a previously known phone number. Avoid replying with sensitive 
information, clicking links, or downloading attachments.  
What is the latest plan and timeline for development within the Bill Gates site near Tonopah? Thank 
you.

120
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Linda de Berge <ldeberge@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, January 23, 2025 12:44 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Thanks Adam, I will look at it when there is actually a plan.  Last meeting Jeff and I drove over 80 miles 
round trip after dark to attend a meeting of Maricopa County Planning in Surprise.  So it was all about the 
planning process, nothing about the plan itself.  We will wait until we have a preliminary plan that we can 
look at and react to.  I know you have to offer these meetings, but when there's more meat, I'lm with you 
and would like to know when that happens!  I think the phase that reads "Preparation of the Draft Plan 
would be good, when there is actually a draft to look at. Please keep sending me notices. Let us know 
when there's a draft plan made, and I'll notify everyone on my list, plus send them a copy!. 
 
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 2:17 PM Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
Do you have ideas on how Maricopa County can 
be improved in the decades ahead? Maricopa 
County is creating plans for decisions about land 
use, transportation, open space, jobs, housing, 
services, and more through the year 2040. 
 
Provide your thoughts and see what others have 
shared at framework2040.mysocialpinpoint.com 
  
Take the Survey

121
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Connor Murphy <connormurphyplanning@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, January 15, 2025 2:09 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Comprehensive plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
January 15, 2025 
  
Dear Planner Cannon: 
  
Not long ago, I received an email from Maricopa County inviting me to participate in updating the Comprehensive 
Plan: 
  
“We invite all residents, landowners, business owners, and other stakeholders within unincorporated Maricopa County 
to participate in upcoming public input sessions designed to gather feedback, ideas, and concerns that will shape the 
content and direction of the Comprehensive Plan.” 
  
Unfortunately, the “Public Input Session” was scheduled to take place at a high school in Surprise, after dark. I can’t 
drive in the dark. 
  
I have a few questions: 
 
  Why wasn’t the public input session held in Sun City a community of 
nearly 40 thousand people covering close to 15 square miles? 
 Why wasn’t the meeting held during the day, in a community with an 
average age of 72? 
I’ve been unable to make contact with the Sun City Homeowners 
Association and Livable Arizona. They don’t seem to be interested in 
participating in citizen participation. 
 
My question is: Where is citizen participation heading, and how can I participate as a single individual who is not 
part of a citizen action group? 
I am a severely disabled veteran, so I try to do as much as I can without leaving home. 
Sincerely, Connor Murphy

122
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Kelly Harris <kelly@myhomegroup.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, January 14, 2025 11:12 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Inquiry #: 93549
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Adam thank you so much for the message!  Do you think this would be valuable information to a room full 
of real estate agents?  Our goal is to not only educate them, but to help empower them with 
information that will help them rise above their competition.  We try to attract top producing agents from 
all brokerages to our classes/events.  This is why I am always on the hunt for new, engaging content.  
 
Let me know your thoughts! 
 
Thank you! 
 
 
 
Kelly Harris
VP of Corporate Culture
 
 
O: 480.685.2760
C: 602.330.3627
 
8360 E Raintree Dr #120, Scottsdale AZ 
85260 
 
  
 
 
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:06 AM Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Good morning Kelly, 
  
My name is Adam Cannon and I am a Senior Planner with Maricopa County.  I am reaching out to you 
about your request to speak with your group about our Comprehensive Plan update and our update of 
the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.  We would be happy to meet with your group.  Please let us 
know of dates and times that you will be holding your meetings over the next couple of months so that 
we can arrange this for you.

123
  
To give you a quick peek - our website for the Comprehensive Plan update is 
www.framework2040.com.  We would generally present some background information about the plan, 
and talk to your group about how they can participate.  Details will be forthcoming about the zoning 
ordinance update, but we will highlight how your members can participate with that as well.   
  
Thank you.  Please let me know if you have any questions. 
  
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade 
and beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!

124
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Darren Gerard (PND)
Sent:
Tuesday, January 14, 2025 10:54 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Kathryn Garcia (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
FW: Planning Inquiry Communications Log Escalation  --  Attention Required
Adam: would you please contact this customer and coordinate a time in the next couple months for you (and the new 
senior planner) to head out to their association and give presentation on the comp plan update and zoning ordinance 
overhaul? DG 
 
From: PwsqlMail@mail.maricopa.gov <PwsqlMail@mail.maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2025 6:00 AM 
To: Kathryn Garcia (PND) <Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Darren Gerard (PND) <Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>; 
Kevin Myers (PND) <kevin.myers@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Planning Inquiry Communications Log Escalation -- Attention Required 
 
Inquiry Request Number 93549 was received on 01/08/2025 and has not yet been assigned 
or completed. If the inquiry has been assigned or completed, please be sure to update this 
in the Planning Inquiry Communications Log. 
 
Customer Name: Kelly Harris  
Inquiry Request Number: 93549 To review this request, click here  
Date Received: 01/08/2025  
Request Description: I would like to schedule someone from Maricopa County to present to 
our realtors. I am not sure which department to contact? We have a series of classes called 
"Know Your Valley" where we invite all of the different Maricopa County cities to come speak 
to agents from all brokerages about plans, growth, etc. in their prospective cities. It has been 
very well received in the last couple of years! I was thinking that in addition to having 
Scottsdale, Mesa, Tempe, Phoenix, etc. come to speak, maybe someone from the entire 
county would be a great presentation! Thank you in advance for any information you can 
provide me.

125
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
r c <rd_cam@cox.net>
Sent:
Friday, January 10, 2025 7:07 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Reminder: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
 
Adam,  
 
Wondering if you can help.  In Q4'24 the county solicited input on Parks development plans for parks 
in the NE valley.  It was advertised that West valley parks would be addressed in Q1'25.  Well, we're 
here now and I can no longer find the page. 
 
Any help you can provide is appreciated. 
 
Robert 
On Tuesday, December 31, 2024 at 02:53:28 PM MST, Adam Cannon (PND) 
<adam.cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote:  
 
 
Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
Do you have ideas on how Maricopa County can 
be improved in the decades ahead? Maricopa 
County is creating plans for decisions about land 
use, transportation, open space, jobs, housing, 
services, and more through the year 2040. 
 
Provide your thoughts and see what others have 
shared at framework2040.mysocialpinpoint.com

126
Take the Survey

127
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Karen Helle <mail@framework2040.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, January 7, 2025 4:41 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Hello, 
I am writing regards the proposed freeway going through between Patton rd and jomax rd (wittman).  
I'm wondering what year this is supposed to happen?After saving for most of my adult life, I 
purchased my dream property on the corner of 243rd and jomax.  I'm now wondering if it's even worth 
developing it.  I was planningtobuild a home.  Will it be condemed/taken by the county when the 
freeway goes through? 
Thank you in advance for your response, 
Karen Helle

128
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Rachel Walker <mail@framework2040.com>
Sent:
Monday, January 6, 2025 5:28 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Hello, can you let me know if comp plan amend applicatios are processed at one time during the 
year?

129
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
dawn Grover <mail@framework2040.com>
Sent:
Friday, January 3, 2025 11:11 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
New Message From Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
I would like to learn more about development plans for Maricopa County - including incorporated land 
and unicorporated land.  Specifically, is there a map or department i can speak with regarding the 
current and future plans for the county such as zoning, development, and status of business growth 
(have there been new companies approved to set up in the county etc...)

130
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Fran Noe <noeshomes@earthlink.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 17, 2024 4:58 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Thank you for the explanation. 
Have a Merry Christmas and a great 2025. 
 
 
 
On Dec 17, 2024, at 9:53 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Good morning Fran, 
  
This statute primarily refers to the allowance an HOA has to regulate public roads.  Right now, HOAs 
formed prior to 1/1/15 have the ability to do things such as restrict overnight on street parking, require 
certain types of landscaping, only allow certain types of vehicles, etc.  HOAs formed after 12/31/14 do 
not have any authority to regulate public roads in their CC&Rs. 
  
However, HOAs formed prior to 1/1/15 may still continue to regulate the roads if they proactively take a 
vote in favor of doing so by June 30, 2025. If they do not do so or the vote does not pass in accordance 
with ARS requirements, those HOAs will no longer have the ability to regulate public roads in the 
CC&Rs.   
  
MCDOT will enforce its regulations associated with the roads, while Planning will enforce zoning 
ordinance regulations.  We have adequate staff for zoning ordinance matters.  If there is a complaint 
associated with the zoning ordinance, our team will investigate it, verify it and carry out enforcement 
procedures as we currently do. However, the rules in expiring CC&Rs that are not found in our zoning 
ordinance, such as bans on overnight on-street parking, will not be enforced by Code Enforcement.   
  
Best regards, 
  
<image001.png> 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn

131
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for 
the next decade and beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
  
  
  
From: Fran Noe <noeshomes@earthlink.net>  
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 5:30 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
  
Mr. Cannon, If jurisdi ction changes to Maricopa County regarding HOA street parking (county island HOA properties), will the County have the staffing to enfor ce county compliance? ARS 33-1818 Thanks for your time, Fran Noe On Dec 16, 2024, at 
Mr. Cannon, 
If jurisdiction changes to Maricopa County  
regarding HOA street parking (county island HOA properties), will the County have the staffing to 
enforce county compliance? 
ARS 33-1818 
Thanks for your time, 
Fran Noe 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
On Dec 16, 2024, at 2:16 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
wrote: 
  
Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
<image001.png>
Do you have ideas on how Maricopa County can 
be improved in the decades ahead? Maricopa 
County is creating plans for decisions about land 
use, transportation, open space, jobs, housing, 
services, and more through the year 2040. 
 
Provide your thoughts and see what others have 
shared at framework2040.mysocialpinpoint.com

132
Take the Survey 
  
<Framework 2040 - About the Comprehensive Plan.pdf>

133
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Sent:
Tuesday, December 17, 2024 10:09 AM
To:
Merissa Hamilton
Subject:
RE: Framework 2040
Hi Merissa, 
 
No problem.  That date and time will work for us.  What will be the location of the meeting? 
 
Thank you! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
 
 
From: Merissa Hamilton <merissa@merissahamilton.com>  
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 6:37 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: Framework 2040 
 
Hi Adam, Sorry for the delay in replying. We had to get our end of the year activities out of the way. We were thinking of having our next Pie Club meeting on Thursday, Jan. 30th at 6: 30 pm. Would that work for you to come speak to our group? 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd 
Hi Adam, 
 
Sorry for the delay in replying. We had to get our end of the year activities out of the way.  
 
We were thinking of having our next Pie Club meeting on Thursday, Jan. 30th at 6:30 pm.  
 
Would that work for you to come speak to our group? 
 
We'll also send your survey out to our members and subscribers. 
 
Thanks so much! 
 
Merissa Hamilton 
(480) 374-0102

134
 
 
 
 
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 9:30 AM Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Hi Merissa, 
  
Thank you for attending last night and thank you for your group’s interest in the plan.  We’d be happy to schedule a 
stakeholder meeting with your group and share the plan.  Could you let me know what your Pie Club schedule is over 
the next few months and location where the meetings will be held?   
  
Best regards, 
  
The linked image cannot be displayed.  The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
From: Merissa Hamilton <merissa@merissahamilton.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 6:44 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Framework 2040 
  
Hi Adam, Tha nk you so much for your community engagement on the Framew ork 2040 plan. I am the Chairwoman of the grassroots organization EZAZ. org. Many of our members have been very engaged with Maricopa County, and it would be very benefi cial 
Hi Adam, 
  
Thank you so much for your community engagement on the Framework 2040 plan.

135
  
I am the Chairwoman of the grassroots organization EZAZ.org. Many of our members have been very engaged with 
Maricopa County, and it would be very beneficial if the County could do a presentation for our group.  
  
We have a friendly environment with very passionate citizens. We have a monthly Pie Club meeting where we serve pie 
and ice cream and learn about our government. We'd love to have a representative share the plan with our group and 
get feedback from our membership. 
  
Please let me know if this is possible. 
  
Thank you so much for prioritizing outreach. This is great! 
  
  
Merissa Hamilton 
(480) 374-0102

136
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Sent:
Tuesday, December 17, 2024 9:53 AM
To:
Fran Noe
Cc:
Charles Hart (PND); Darren Gerard (PND)
Subject:
RE: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County
Good morning Fran, 
 
This statute primarily refers to the allowance an HOA has to regulate public roads.  Right now, HOAs formed prior to 
1/1/15 have the ability to do things such as restrict overnight on street parking, require certain types of landscaping, 
only allow certain types of vehicles, etc.  HOAs formed after 12/31/14 do not have any authority to regulate public roads 
in their CC&Rs. 
 
However, HOAs formed prior to 1/1/15 may still continue to regulate the roads if they proactively take a vote in favor of 
doing so by June 30, 2025. If they do not do so or the vote does not pass in accordance with ARS requirements, those 
HOAs will no longer have the ability to regulate public roads in the CC&Rs.   
 
MCDOT will enforce its regulations associated with the roads, while Planning will enforce zoning ordinance 
regulations.  We have adequate staff for zoning ordinance matters.  If there is a complaint associated with the zoning 
ordinance, our team will investigate it, verify it and carry out enforcement procedures as we currently do. However, the 
rules in expiring CC&Rs that are not found in our zoning ordinance, such as bans on overnight on-street parking, will not 
be enforced by Code Enforcement.   
 
Best regards, 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
 
 
From: Fran Noe <noeshomes@earthlink.net>  
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 5:30 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
 
Mr. Cannon, If jurisdi ction changes to Maricopa County regarding HOA street parking (county island HOA properties), will the County have the staffing to enfor ce county compliance? ARS 33-1818 Thanks for your time, Fran Noe On Dec 16, 2024, at 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

137
Mr. Cannon, 
If jurisdiction changes to Maricopa County  
regarding HOA street parking (county island HOA properties), will the County have the staffing to enforce county 
compliance? 
ARS 33-1818 
Thanks for your time, 
Fran Noe 
 
 
 
 
On Dec 16, 2024, at 2:16 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
<image001.png>
Do you have ideas on how Maricopa County can 
be improved in the decades ahead? Maricopa 
County is creating plans for decisions about land 
use, transportation, open space, jobs, housing, 
services, and more through the year 2040. 
 
Provide your thoughts and see what others have 
shared at framework2040.mysocialpinpoint.com 
  
Take the Survey 
  
<Framework 2040 - About the Comprehensive Plan.pdf>

138
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Merissa Hamilton <merissa@merissahamilton.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 16, 2024 6:37 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Framework 2040
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam, 
 
Sorry for the delay in replying. We had to get our end of the year activities out of the way.  
 
We were thinking of having our next Pie Club meeting on Thursday, Jan. 30th at 6:30 pm.  
 
Would that work for you to come speak to our group? 
 
We'll also send your survey out to our members and subscribers. 
 
Thanks so much! 
 
Merissa Hamilton 
(480) 374-0102 
 
 
 
 
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 9:30 AM Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Hi Merissa, 
  
Thank you for attending last night and thank you for your group’s interest in the plan.  We’d be happy to 
schedule a stakeholder meeting with your group and share the plan.  Could you let me know what your 
Pie Club schedule is over the next few months and location where the meetings will be held?   
  
Best regards,

139
The linked image cannot be displayed.  The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
From: Merissa Hamilton <merissa@merissahamilton.com>  
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 6:44 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Framework 2040 
  
Hi Adam, Thank you so much for your community engagement on the Framew ork 2040 plan. I am the Chairwoman of the grassroots organization EZAZ. org. Many of our members have been very engaged with Maricopa County, and it would be very beneficial 
Hi Adam, 
  
Thank you so much for your community engagement on the Framework 2040 plan. 
  
I am the Chairwoman of the grassroots organization EZAZ.org. Many of our members have been very 
engaged with Maricopa County, and it would be very beneficial if the County could do a presentation for 
our group.  
  
We have a friendly environment with very passionate citizens. We have a monthly Pie Club meeting 
where we serve pie and ice cream and learn about our government. We'd love to have a representative 
share the plan with our group and get feedback from our membership. 
  
Please let me know if this is possible.

140
Thank you so much for prioritizing outreach. This is great! 
  
  
Merissa Hamilton 
(480) 374-0102

141
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Fran Noe <noeshomes@earthlink.net>
Sent:
Monday, December 16, 2024 5:30 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Mr. Cannon, 
If jurisdiction changes to Maricopa County  
regarding HOA street parking (county island HOA properties), will the County have the staffing to enforce 
county compliance? 
ARS 33-1818 
Thanks for your time, 
Fran Noe 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Dec 16, 2024, at 2:16 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
<image001.png>
Do you have ideas on how Maricopa County can 
be improved in the decades ahead? Maricopa 
County is creating plans for decisions about land 
use, transportation, open space, jobs, housing, 
services, and more through the year 2040. 
 
Provide your thoughts and see what others have 
shared at framework2040.mysocialpinpoint.com

142
Take the Survey 
  
<Framework 2040 - About the Comprehensive Plan.pdf>

143
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Jamie and John Martin <johmie429@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 16, 2024 4:56 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Thanks Adam. My background is compliance specifically around vendor contract oversight.  I reached out to 
Zachary on X.   
 
Enjoy your holidays! 
Jamie Weinhauer Martin  
602 403 4535 
 
 
On Dec 16, 2024, at 4:10 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Hi Jamie, 
  
I hope you are well!  Please direct your concerns about elections to officials dealing with elections.  If 
you have a comment about planning and development related matters, I will be happy to discuss that 
with you; however, neither this department nor I have anything to do with the election process or third-
party contracts. 
  
When we attended the meeting, I forwarded your comments the next day onto the division dealing with 
elections.  
  
See below: 
  
<image004.jpg> 
  
Thanks! 
  
<image005.png> 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for 
the next decade and beyond.

144
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
  
From: Jamie and John Martin <johmie429@gmail.com>  
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 3:32 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
  
Hi Adam, Can you discuss the third party contract vendor oversig ht failures in the past three elections? @cla baugh_mark @EverythingHomeT @realDonaldTr ump Me too. @DOGE @MarkStewart_AZ @azjustinheap @GinaSwoboda @abc15 @KTAR923 The unrealistic 
Hi Adam, 
  
Can you discuss the third party contract vendor oversight failures in the past three elections? 
  
@clabaugh_mark @EverythingHomeT 
@realDonaldTrump Me too. @DOGE 
@MarkStewart_AZ @azjustinheap 
@GinaSwoboda @abc15 @KTAR923 The 
unrealistic results of the past three elections 
stem from a critical failure by the state 
elections department and its third-party 
vendors to uphold their contractual terms 
and conditions. To address 
 
<image003.jpg>
 
Jamie Weinhauer Martin 
(@jamiemerc7) 
x.com
Thanks, 
Jamie Weinhauer Martin  
602 403 4535 
 
 
 
On Dec 16, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
wrote: 
  
Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
<image001.png>
Do you have ideas on how Maricopa County can 
be improved in the decades ahead? Maricopa 
County is creating plans for decisions about land 
use, transportation, open space, jobs, housing, 
services, and more through the year 2040. 
 
Provide your thoughts and see what others have 
shared at framework2040.mysocialpinpoint.com

145
Take the Survey 
  
<Framework 2040 - About the Comprehensive Plan.pdf>

146
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Jamie and John Martin <johmie429@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, December 16, 2024 3:32 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Hi Adam, 
 
Can you discuss the third party contract vendor oversight failures in the past three elections? 
 
@clabaugh_mark @EverythingHomeT 
@realDonaldTrump Me too. @DOGE 
@MarkStewart_AZ @azjustinheap 
@GinaSwoboda @abc15 @KTAR923 The 
unrealistic results of the past three elections 
stem from a critical failure by the state 
elections department and its third-party 
vendors to uphold their contractual terms 
and conditions. To address 
Jamie Weinhauer Martin (@jamiemerc7) 
x.com 
Thanks, 
Jamie Weinhauer Martin  
602 403 4535 
 
 
On Dec 16, 2024, at 2:15 PM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Weigh in on the Future of Maricopa County 
<image001.png>
Do you have ideas on how Maricopa County can 
be improved in the decades ahead? Maricopa 
County is creating plans for decisions about land 
use, transportation, open space, jobs, housing,

147
services, and more through the year 2040. 
 
Provide your thoughts and see what others have 
shared at framework2040.mysocialpinpoint.com 
  
Take the Survey 
  
<Framework 2040 - About the Comprehensive Plan.pdf>

148
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
l garcia <lg_garcia81@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, December 3, 2024 7:01 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: District 1 - Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Meeting - Monday, December 2, 
2024
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thank you very much for the detailed response, Adam! I’m glad there are additional dates in the Spring and 
did not realize how broad the window is for input and additional education.  
 
We’ll watch the video, share info with our groups, and wait for the next round of dates to come around.  
 
Hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving as well, and these last few weeks of 2024. Happy holidays! 
 
 
On Dec 2, 2024, at 8:37 AM, Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
  
Hi Lina, 
  
I hope you had a great Thanksgiving!  Thank you for participating and for your interest.  We are targeting 
April 2025 for the next round of meetings (one virtual & five in-person per district) for the 
Comprehensive Plan.  We have not scheduled a date, time or venue at this point, but will likely have an 
announcement on that front between mid-February and early March.   
  
The virtual meeting, which has the same content as the in-person meetings, is posted online at 
www.framework2040.com. 
  
In the meantime, we have some interactive online activities available that both you and your husband 
can participate in: https://framework2040.mysocialpinpoint.com/.  There is an idea wall, survey and 
interactive map.  The idea wall allows people to post what their ideas are for Maricopa County over the 
next decade.  People can like others posts and comment on others posts.  They can also include picture 
or video if they desire.  Additionally, the interactive map where people can place a marker on their 
favorite spot or identify assets or challenge areas (areas that may need investment or change) of the 
County.   
  
In terms of volunteering, the thing that is most helpful to us is spreading the word.  The biggest difficulty 
for long-range plans is being able to get quality input from a broad variety of individuals with different 
perspectives, particularly when the focus is specifically on unincorporated County land.  We will 
continue to share updates outside of the meeting period to engage people.  If you are willing, you could 
help us by forwarding those on to individuals in your network and any community groups or churches 
you are involved in.    
  
Thank you again.  Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

149
  
Best regards, 
  
<image001.png> 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
  
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for 
the next decade and beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
  
  
From: Lina Garcia <lgarciapd@gmail.com>  
Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2024 8:34 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Re: District 1 - Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Meeting - Monday, December 2, 2024 
  
Hi Adam, Is there a ny cha nce ther e will be a few other dates available for each district? My husband a nd I are both very interested in the opportunity to attend a meeting and hear more about efforts to pla n for the fut ure in our community. We 
Hi Adam, 
Is there any chance there will be a few other dates available for each district? My husband and I are 
both very interested in the opportunity to attend a meeting and hear more about efforts to plan for the 
future in our community. We both work in public service and are also interested in volunteering to the 
extent we can assist in some way.  
  
Thank you for sharing this information.  
  
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:15 AM Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Join us to shar e your thoughts, idea s, and feedback! View as a webpage Guiding Mari copa County’s Future Gr owth and Development Maricopa County is pleased to a nnounce the kickoff of the process to update the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital 
View as a webpage

150
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County Logo
  
Guiding Maricopa County’s Future Growth 
and Development 
Maricopa County is pleased to announce the kickoff of the process to update 
the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital document that guides county 
decisions on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 
2040.  
Join us to share your thoughts, ideas, and feedback! 
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Be Part of Our Future Framework 2040 - Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan

151
Maricopa County is updating its Comprehensive Plan looking 10-20 years in 
the future. 
This is your chance to influence the future of Maricopa County. 
We'll be holding our first public meeting soon to explain the process and get 
your thoughts about the state of Maricopa County today. 
For specific meeting information, see below. 
To learn more and how to get involved, visit: www.Framework2040.com 
  
In-person events 
District 1 
Date: Monday, December 2, 2024  
Time: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM  
Location: Arizona College Prep High School - Cafeteria, 4477 S Gilbert Rd, 
Chandler, AZ 85249 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
Tell me more about the plan & process... 
Arizona state law (ARS 11-804) requires all counties to adopt and regularly 
update Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with state laws, and other 
requirements and guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan addresses topics such 
as land use, circulation, water resources, energy, open space, growth, 
environment, and cost of development.

152
The update process will be guided by input from community members of 
unincorporated Maricopa County. Public input from engagement opportunities 
will be recorded and catalogued to ensure that decision-makers have a full 
understanding of public sentiment when considering the final plan. 
To learn more, visit www.Framework2040.com 
  
  
Guiando el Crecimiento y Futuro Desarrollo 
del Condado de Maricopa 
El Condado de Maricopa se complace en anunciar el inicio del proceso para 
actualizar el Plan Integral del Condado, un documento vital que guía las 
decisiones del Condado sobre el futuro crecimiento, el desarrollo y la 
preservación hasta el ano 2040. ¡Únete a nosotros para compartir tus 
pensamientos, ideas y comentarios!

153
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SÉ PARTE DEL FUTURO
  
El Condado de Maricopa está actualizando el Plan Integral del Condado, 
mirando de 10 a 20 años hacia el futuro. 
Esta es su oportunidad de influir en el futuro del Condado de Maricopa. 
Únete a nosotros en nuestra primera reunión para informarte sobre el proceso 
y escuchar tus opiniones sobre el estado del Condado de Maricopa hoy. Para 
información específica sobre la reunión, consulta a continuación. 
Para aprender más y cómo involucrarte: www.Framework2040.com 
  
Eventos en persona 
Distrito #1 
Fecha: Lunes, 2 de Diciembre de 2024 
Hora: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM 
Ubicación: Arizona College Prep High School - Cafetería, 4477 S Gilbert Rd, 
Chandler, AZ 85249

154
Confirme su Asistencia:  
HAZ CLIC AQUÍ 
(Se agradecen las confirmaciones de asistencia para fines de 
planificación)    
Dime más sobre el plan y el proceso… 
La ley estatal de Arizona (ARS 11-804) requiere que todos los condados 
adopten y actualicen regularmente Planes Integrales que sean consistentes 
con las leyes estatales y otros requisitos y directrices. El Plan Integral aborda 
temas como el uso de terreno, la circulación, los recursos de agua, la energía, 
los espacios abiertos, el crecimiento, el medio ambiente y el costo del 
desarrollo. 
El proceso de actualización será guiado por la opinión de los miembros de la 
comunidad del Condado de Maricopa. La opinión pública durante el proceso de 
participación será registrada y catalogada para asegurar que los tomadores de 
decisiones tengan un entendimiento completo sobre el sentimiento del público 
al considerar el plan final. 
Para obtener más información, visite www.Framework2040.com 
  
  
  
x

155
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
  
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 
Manage Subscriptions  |  Unsubscribe All  |  Help
.

156
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Lina Garcia <lgarciapd@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, December 1, 2024 8:34 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: District 1 - Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Meeting - Monday, December 2, 
2024
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam, 
Is there any chance there will be a few other dates available for each district? My husband and I are both 
very interested in the opportunity to attend a meeting and hear more about efforts to plan for the future in 
our community. We both work in public service and are also interested in volunteering to the extent we 
can assist in some way.  
 
Thank you for sharing this information.  
 
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:15 AM Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Join us to share your thoughts, ideas, and feedback! View as a webpage Guiding Maricopa County’s Future Growth and Development Maricopa County is pleased to announce the kickoff of the process to update the county’s Comprehensiv e Plan, a vital 
View as a webpage 
  
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County Logo

157
Guiding Maricopa County’s Future Growth 
and Development 
Maricopa County is pleased to announce the kickoff of the process to update 
the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital document that guides county 
decisions on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 
2040.  
Join us to share your thoughts, ideas, and feedback! 
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Be Part of Our Future Framework 2040 - Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
  
Maricopa County is updating its Comprehensive Plan looking 10-20 years in 
the future. 
This is your chance to influence the future of Maricopa County. 
We'll be holding our first public meeting soon to explain the process and get 
your thoughts about the state of Maricopa County today. 
For specific meeting information, see below.

158
To learn more and how to get involved, visit: www.Framework2040.com 
  
In-person events
District 1 
Date: Monday, December 2, 2024  
Time: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM  
Location: Arizona College Prep High School - Cafeteria, 4477 S Gilbert Rd, 
Chandler, AZ 85249 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
Tell me more about the plan & process... 
Arizona state law (ARS 11-804) requires all counties to adopt and regularly 
update Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with state laws, and other 
requirements and guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan addresses topics such 
as land use, circulation, water resources, energy, open space, growth, 
environment, and cost of development. 
The update process will be guided by input from community members of 
unincorporated Maricopa County. Public input from engagement opportunities 
will be recorded and catalogued to ensure that decision-makers have a full 
understanding of public sentiment when considering the final plan. 
To learn more, visit www.Framework2040.com

159
  
Guiando el Crecimiento y Futuro Desarrollo 
del Condado de Maricopa 
El Condado de Maricopa se complace en anunciar el inicio del proceso para 
actualizar el Plan Integral del Condado, un documento vital que guía las 
decisiones del Condado sobre el futuro crecimiento, el desarrollo y la 
preservación hasta el ano 2040. ¡Únete a nosotros para compartir tus 
pensamientos, ideas y comentarios! 
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SÉ PARTE DEL FUTURO
  
El Condado de Maricopa está actualizando el Plan Integral del Condado, 
mirando de 10 a 20 años hacia el futuro. 
Esta es su oportunidad de influir en el futuro del Condado de Maricopa.

160
Únete a nosotros en nuestra primera reunión para informarte sobre el proceso 
y escuchar tus opiniones sobre el estado del Condado de Maricopa hoy. Para 
información específica sobre la reunión, consulta a continuación. 
Para aprender más y cómo involucrarte: www.Framework2040.com 
  
Eventos en persona
Distrito #1 
Fecha: Lunes, 2 de Diciembre de 2024 
Hora: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM 
Ubicación: Arizona College Prep High School - Cafetería, 4477 S Gilbert Rd, 
Chandler, AZ 85249 
Confirme su Asistencia:  
HAZ CLIC AQUÍ 
(Se agradecen las confirmaciones de asistencia para fines de 
planificación)    
Dime más sobre el plan y el proceso… 
La ley estatal de Arizona (ARS 11-804) requiere que todos los condados 
adopten y actualicen regularmente Planes Integrales que sean consistentes 
con las leyes estatales y otros requisitos y directrices. El Plan Integral aborda 
temas como el uso de terreno, la circulación, los recursos de agua, la energía, 
los espacios abiertos, el crecimiento, el medio ambiente y el costo del 
desarrollo. 
El proceso de actualización será guiado por la opinión de los miembros de la 
comunidad del Condado de Maricopa. La opinión pública durante el proceso de

161
participación será registrada y catalogada para asegurar que los tomadores de 
decisiones tengan un entendimiento completo sobre el sentimiento del público 
al considerar el plan final. 
Para obtener más información, visite www.Framework2040.com 
  
  
  
x
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
 
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 
Manage Subscriptions  |  Unsubscribe All  |  Help
.

162
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Greg Loper <greg.loper@peoriaaz.gov>
Sent:
Thursday, November 21, 2024 8:48 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Reminder: Upcoming Meeting for Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Thanks Adam – please let me know if any of the meetings are also virtual. 
 
Have a great Thanksgiving holiday! 
 
Greg Loper, AICP 
Parks, Open Space & Natural/Cultural Resources Senior Planner 
Strategic Planning 
O: 623-773-4613 
M: 602-550-7004 
Greg.Loper@PeoriaAZ.gov 
 
City of Peoria | Planning Department 
9875 N. 85th Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85345  
Monday through Thursday, 7am to 6pm | Closed Friday 
PeoriaAZ.gov/planning 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 8:31 AM 
To: Greg Loper <greg.loper@peoriaaz.gov> 
Subject: RE: Reminder: Upcoming Meeting for Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 



This email arrived from an external source. Please exercise caution when opening 
attachments or clicking on links.



  
 
Hi Greg, 
 
Will definitely keep you in the loop and send you draft updates.  We’re not expecting the drafts until later next 
year, but we will have the existing conditions document out to people over the next month or so.  We have two 
more meetings as part of this cycle (visioning).  Tonight there’s one in Anthem and Dec. 2nd one in Chandler – 
see below.  We will hold a second round of meetings on goals and policies in late spring (targeting April, after 
spring breaks). 
 
Location: Anthem Civic Building 
3701 W Anthem Way, Anthem, AZ 85086 
Room: Community Room 
Time: 5:00pm – 6:30pm

163
Date: Monday, December 2nd 
Location: Arizona College Prep High School 
4477 S. Gilbert Rd., Chandler, AZ 85249 
Room: Cafeteria 
Time: 5:30pm – 7:00pm 
 
Thanks! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next 
decade and beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
 
 
From: Greg Loper <greg.loper@peoriaaz.gov>  
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 5:40 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: RE: Reminder: Upcoming Meeting for Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
 
Hey Adam – I won’t be able to attend/participate in your meeting in Surprise, but hope to at a future date/location. Please keep me i n the loop as the update goes through the process, and please send me draft updates for review and for mal comments 
 
Hey Adam – I won’t be able to attend/participate in your meeting in Surprise, but hope to at a future 
date/location. 
 
Please keep me in the loop as the update goes through the process, and please send me draft updates 
for review and formal comments – thanks! 
 
Greg Loper, AICP 
Parks, Open Space & Natural/Cultural Resources Senior Planner 
Strategic Planning 
O: 623-773-4613 
M: 602-550-7004 
Greg.Loper@PeoriaAZ.gov 
 
City of Peoria | Planning Department 
9875 N. 85th Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85345  
Monday through Thursday, 7am to 6pm | Closed Friday 
PeoriaAZ.gov/planning 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 4:54 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Reminder: Upcoming Meeting for Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan

164
 
 



This email arrived from an external source. Please exercise caution when 
opening attachments or clicking on links.



  
Join us to shar e your thoughts, idea s, and feedback! View as a webpage Guiding Mari copa County’s Future Gr owth and Development Maricopa County is pleased to a nnounce the kickoff of the process to update the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital 
 
Join us to shar e your thoughts, i deas, and feedback!
 
View as a webpage 
 
 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County Logo
 
Guiding Maricopa County’s Future Growth 
and Development 
Maricopa County is pleased to announce the kickoff of the process to update 
the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital document that guides county 
decisions on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 
2040.  
Join us to share your thoughts, ideas, and feedback!

165
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Be Part of Our Future Framework 2040 - Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
 
Maricopa County is updating its Comprehensive Plan looking 10-20 years in 
the future. 
This is your chance to influence the future of Maricopa County. 
We'll be holding our first public meeting soon to explain the process and get 
your thoughts about the state of Maricopa County today. 
For specific meeting information, see below. 
To learn more and how to get involved, visit: www.Framework2040.com 
 
In-person events 
District 4 
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2024  
Time: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM  
Location: Valley Vista High School - Library, 15550 N Parkview Pl, Surprise, AZ 
85374 
RSVP HERE

166
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
Tell me more about the plan & process... 
Arizona state law (ARS 11-804) requires all counties to adopt and regularly 
update Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with state laws, and other 
requirements and guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan addresses topics such 
as land use, circulation, water resources, energy, open space, growth, 
environment, and cost of development. 
The update process will be guided by input from community members of 
unincorporated Maricopa County. Public input from engagement opportunities 
will be recorded and catalogued to ensure that decision-makers have a full 
understanding of public sentiment when considering the final plan. 
To learn more, visit www.Framework2040.com 
 
 
Guiando el Crecimiento y Futuro Desarrollo 
del Condado de Maricopa 
El Condado de Maricopa se complace en anunciar el inicio del proceso para 
actualizar el Plan Integral del Condado, un documento vital que guía las 
decisiones del Condado sobre el futuro crecimiento, el desarrollo y la 
preservación hasta el ano 2040. ¡Únete a nosotros para compartir tus 
pensamientos, ideas y comentarios!

167
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
 SÉ PARTE DEL FUTURO 
 
El Condado de Maricopa está actualizando el Plan Integral del Condado, 
mirando de 10 a 20 años hacia el futuro. 
Esta es su oportunidad de influir en el futuro del Condado de Maricopa. 
Únete a nosotros en nuestra primera reunión para informarte sobre el proceso 
y escuchar tus opiniones sobre el estado del Condado de Maricopa hoy. Para 
información específica sobre la reunión, consulta a continuación. 
Para aprender más y cómo involucrarte: www.Framework2040.com 
 
Eventos en persona 
Distrito #4 
Fecha: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2024 
Hora: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM 
Ubicación: Valley Vista High School – Biblioteca, 15550 N Parkview Pl, 
Surprise, AZ 85374 
Confirme su Asistencia:

168
HAZ CLIC AQUÍ 
(Se agradecen las confirmaciones de asistencia para fines de 
planificación)    
Dime más sobre el plan y el proceso… 
La ley estatal de Arizona (ARS 11-804) requiere que todos los condados 
adopten y actualicen regularmente Planes Integrales que sean consistentes 
con las leyes estatales y otros requisitos y directrices. El Plan Integral aborda 
temas como el uso de terreno, la circulación, los recursos de agua, la energía, 
los espacios abiertos, el crecimiento, el medio ambiente y el costo del 
desarrollo. 
El proceso de actualización será guiado por la opinión de los miembros de la 
comunidad del Condado de Maricopa. La opinión pública durante el proceso de 
participación será registrada y catalogada para asegurar que los tomadores de 
decisiones tengan un entendimiento completo sobre el sentimiento del público 
al considerar el plan final. 
Para obtener más información, visite www.Framework2040.com 
 
 
 
x 
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 
Manage Subscriptions  |  Unsubscribe All  |  Help 
.

169

170
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Greg Loper <greg.loper@peoriaaz.gov>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 20, 2024 5:40 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Reminder: Upcoming Meeting for Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hey Adam – I won’t be able to attend/participate in your meeting in Surprise, but hope to at a future 
date/location. 
 
Please keep me in the loop as the update goes through the process, and please send me draft updates for 
review and formal comments – thanks! 
 
Greg Loper, AICP 
Parks, Open Space & Natural/Cultural Resources Senior Planner 
Strategic Planning 
O: 623-773-4613 
M: 602-550-7004 
Greg.Loper@PeoriaAZ.gov 
 
City of Peoria | Planning Department 
9875 N. 85th Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85345  
Monday through Thursday, 7am to 6pm | Closed Friday 
PeoriaAZ.gov/planning 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 4:54 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Reminder: Upcoming Meeting for Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan 
 
 
 



This email arrived from an external source. Please exercise caution when opening 
attachments or clicking on links.



  
 
Join us to shar e your thoughts, idea s, and feedback! View as a webpage Guiding Mari copa County’s Future Gr owth and Development Maricopa County is pleased to a nnounce the kickoff of the process to update the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital 
 
Join us to shar e your thoughts, i deas, and feedback!  
 
View as a webpage

171
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County Logo
 
Guiding Maricopa County’s Future Growth 
and Development 
Maricopa County is pleased to announce the kickoff of the process to update 
the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital document that guides county 
decisions on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 
2040.  
Join us to share your thoughts, ideas, and feedback! 
 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Be Part of Our Future Framework 2040 - Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
 
Maricopa County is updating its Comprehensive Plan looking 10-20 years in 
the future. 
This is your chance to influence the future of Maricopa County.

172
We'll be holding our first public meeting soon to explain the process and get 
your thoughts about the state of Maricopa County today. 
For specific meeting information, see below. 
To learn more and how to get involved, visit: www.Framework2040.com 
 
In-person events 
District 4 
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2024  
Time: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM  
Location: Valley Vista High School - Library, 15550 N Parkview Pl, Surprise, AZ 
85374 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
Tell me more about the plan & process... 
Arizona state law (ARS 11-804) requires all counties to adopt and regularly 
update Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with state laws, and other 
requirements and guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan addresses topics such 
as land use, circulation, water resources, energy, open space, growth, 
environment, and cost of development. 
The update process will be guided by input from community members of 
unincorporated Maricopa County. Public input from engagement opportunities 
will be recorded and catalogued to ensure that decision-makers have a full 
understanding of public sentiment when considering the final plan. 
To learn more, visit www.Framework2040.com

173
Guiando el Crecimiento y Futuro Desarrollo 
del Condado de Maricopa 
El Condado de Maricopa se complace en anunciar el inicio del proceso para 
actualizar el Plan Integral del Condado, un documento vital que guía las 
decisiones del Condado sobre el futuro crecimiento, el desarrollo y la 
preservación hasta el ano 2040. ¡Únete a nosotros para compartir tus 
pensamientos, ideas y comentarios! 
 
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
 SÉ PARTE DEL FUTURO 
 
El Condado de Maricopa está actualizando el Plan Integral del Condado, 
mirando de 10 a 20 años hacia el futuro. 
Esta es su oportunidad de influir en el futuro del Condado de Maricopa. 
Únete a nosotros en nuestra primera reunión para informarte sobre el proceso 
y escuchar tus opiniones sobre el estado del Condado de Maricopa hoy. Para 
información específica sobre la reunión, consulta a continuación. 
Para aprender más y cómo involucrarte: www.Framework2040.com

174
Eventos en persona 
Distrito #4 
Fecha: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2024 
Hora: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM 
Ubicación: Valley Vista High School – Biblioteca, 15550 N Parkview Pl, 
Surprise, AZ 85374 
Confirme su Asistencia:  
HAZ CLIC AQUÍ 
(Se agradecen las confirmaciones de asistencia para fines de 
planificación)    
Dime más sobre el plan y el proceso… 
La ley estatal de Arizona (ARS 11-804) requiere que todos los condados 
adopten y actualicen regularmente Planes Integrales que sean consistentes 
con las leyes estatales y otros requisitos y directrices. El Plan Integral aborda 
temas como el uso de terreno, la circulación, los recursos de agua, la energía, 
los espacios abiertos, el crecimiento, el medio ambiente y el costo del 
desarrollo. 
El proceso de actualización será guiado por la opinión de los miembros de la 
comunidad del Condado de Maricopa. La opinión pública durante el proceso de 
participación será registrada y catalogada para asegurar que los tomadores de 
decisiones tengan un entendimiento completo sobre el sentimiento del público 
al considerar el plan final. 
Para obtener más información, visite www.Framework2040.com 
 
 
 
x

175
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 
Manage Subscriptions  |  Unsubscribe All  |  Help 
.

176
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
RC <rd_cam@cox.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 20, 2024 7:04 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Reminder: Upcoming Meeting for Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
This is sent 5 days after the meeting in Litchfield Park? 
On Nov 19, 2024, at 4:56 PM, "Adam Cannon (PND)" <adam.cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Join us to shar e your thoughts, idea s, and feedback! View as a webpage Guiding Mari copa County’s Future Gr owth and Development Maricopa County is pleased to a nnounce the kickoff of the process to update the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital 
Join us to shar e your thoughts, i deas, and feedback! 
  
  
View as a webpage 
  
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County Logo

177
Guiding Maricopa County’s Future Growth 
and Development 
Maricopa County is pleased to announce the kickoff of the process to update 
the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital document that guides county 
decisions on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 
2040.  
Join us to share your thoughts, ideas, and feedback! 
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Be Part of Our Future Framework 2040 - Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
  
Maricopa County is updating its Comprehensive Plan looking 10-20 years in 
the future. 
This is your chance to influence the future of Maricopa County. 
We'll be holding our first public meeting soon to explain the process and get 
your thoughts about the state of Maricopa County today. 
For specific meeting information, see below.

178
To learn more and how to get involved, visit: www.Framework2040.com
  
In-person events 
District 4 
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2024  
Time: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM  
Location: Valley Vista High School - Library, 15550 N Parkview Pl, Surprise, AZ 
85374 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
Tell me more about the plan & process... 
Arizona state law (ARS 11-804) requires all counties to adopt and regularly 
update Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with state laws, and other 
requirements and guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan addresses topics such 
as land use, circulation, water resources, energy, open space, growth, 
environment, and cost of development. 
The update process will be guided by input from community members of 
unincorporated Maricopa County. Public input from engagement opportunities 
will be recorded and catalogued to ensure that decision-makers have a full 
understanding of public sentiment when considering the final plan. 
To learn more, visit www.Framework2040.com

179
  
Guiando el Crecimiento y Futuro Desarrollo 
del Condado de Maricopa 
El Condado de Maricopa se complace en anunciar el inicio del proceso para 
actualizar el Plan Integral del Condado, un documento vital que guía las 
decisiones del Condado sobre el futuro crecimiento, el desarrollo y la 
preservación hasta el ano 2040. ¡Únete a nosotros para compartir tus 
pensamientos, ideas y comentarios! 
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SÉ PARTE DEL FUTURO
  
El Condado de Maricopa está actualizando el Plan Integral del Condado, 
mirando de 10 a 20 años hacia el futuro. 
Esta es su oportunidad de influir en el futuro del Condado de Maricopa.

180
Únete a nosotros en nuestra primera reunión para informarte sobre el proceso 
y escuchar tus opiniones sobre el estado del Condado de Maricopa hoy. Para 
información específica sobre la reunión, consulta a continuación. 
Para aprender más y cómo involucrarte: www.Framework2040.com 
  
Eventos en persona 
Distrito #4 
Fecha: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2024 
Hora: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM 
Ubicación: Valley Vista High School – Biblioteca, 15550 N Parkview Pl, 
Surprise, AZ 85374 
Confirme su Asistencia:  
HAZ CLIC AQUÍ 
(Se agradecen las confirmaciones de asistencia para fines de 
planificación)    
Dime más sobre el plan y el proceso… 
La ley estatal de Arizona (ARS 11-804) requiere que todos los condados 
adopten y actualicen regularmente Planes Integrales que sean consistentes 
con las leyes estatales y otros requisitos y directrices. El Plan Integral aborda 
temas como el uso de terreno, la circulación, los recursos de agua, la energía, 
los espacios abiertos, el crecimiento, el medio ambiente y el costo del 
desarrollo. 
El proceso de actualización será guiado por la opinión de los miembros de la 
comunidad del Condado de Maricopa. La opinión pública durante el proceso de 
participación será registrada y catalogada para asegurar que los tomadores de

181
decisiones tengan un entendimiento completo sobre el sentimiento del público 
al considerar el plan final. 
Para obtener más información, visite www.Framework2040.com 
  
  
  
x
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
  
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 
Manage Subscriptions  |  Unsubscribe All  |  Help
.

182
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
RC <rd_cam@cox.net>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 20, 2024 7:05 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Re: Reminder: Upcoming Meeting for Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Laveen Village rather.  
On Nov 20, 2024, at 7:03 AM, RC <rd_cam@cox.net> wrote: 
This is sent 5 days after the meeting in Litchfield Park? 
On Nov 19, 2024, at 4:56 PM, "Adam Cannon (PND)" <adam.cannon@maricopa.gov> wrote: 
Join us to shar e your thoughts, idea s, and feedback! View as a webpage Guiding Mari copa County’s Future Gr owth and Development Maricopa County is pleased to a nnounce the kickoff of the process to update the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital 
Join us to shar e your thoughts, i deas, and feedback! 
  
  
View as a webpage 
  
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Maricopa County Logo

183
Guiding Maricopa County’s Future Growth 
and Development 
Maricopa County is pleased to announce the kickoff of the process to update 
the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital document that guides county 
decisions on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 
2040.  
Join us to share your thoughts, ideas, and feedback! 
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Be Part of Our Future Framework 2040 - Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
  
Maricopa County is updating its Comprehensive Plan looking 10-20 years in 
the future. 
This is your chance to influence the future of Maricopa County. 
We'll be holding our first public meeting soon to explain the process and get 
your thoughts about the state of Maricopa County today. 
For specific meeting information, see below.

184
To learn more and how to get involved, visit: www.Framework2040.com
  
In-person events 
District 4 
Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2024  
Time: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM  
Location: Valley Vista High School - Library, 15550 N Parkview Pl, Surprise, AZ 
85374 
RSVP HERE 
(RSVPs are appreciated, for planning purposes) 
Tell me more about the plan & process... 
Arizona state law (ARS 11-804) requires all counties to adopt and regularly 
update Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with state laws, and other 
requirements and guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan addresses topics such 
as land use, circulation, water resources, energy, open space, growth, 
environment, and cost of development. 
The update process will be guided by input from community members of 
unincorporated Maricopa County. Public input from engagement opportunities 
will be recorded and catalogued to ensure that decision-makers have a full 
understanding of public sentiment when considering the final plan. 
To learn more, visit www.Framework2040.com

185
  
Guiando el Crecimiento y Futuro Desarrollo 
del Condado de Maricopa 
El Condado de Maricopa se complace en anunciar el inicio del proceso para 
actualizar el Plan Integral del Condado, un documento vital que guía las 
decisiones del Condado sobre el futuro crecimiento, el desarrollo y la 
preservación hasta el ano 2040. ¡Únete a nosotros para compartir tus 
pensamientos, ideas y comentarios! 
  
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
SÉ PARTE DEL FUTURO
  
El Condado de Maricopa está actualizando el Plan Integral del Condado, 
mirando de 10 a 20 años hacia el futuro. 
Esta es su oportunidad de influir en el futuro del Condado de Maricopa.

186
Únete a nosotros en nuestra primera reunión para informarte sobre el proceso 
y escuchar tus opiniones sobre el estado del Condado de Maricopa hoy. Para 
información específica sobre la reunión, consulta a continuación. 
Para aprender más y cómo involucrarte: www.Framework2040.com 
  
Eventos en persona 
Distrito #4 
Fecha: miércoles, 20 de noviembre de 2024 
Hora: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM 
Ubicación: Valley Vista High School – Biblioteca, 15550 N Parkview Pl, 
Surprise, AZ 85374 
Confirme su Asistencia:  
HAZ CLIC AQUÍ 
(Se agradecen las confirmaciones de asistencia para fines de 
planificación)    
Dime más sobre el plan y el proceso… 
La ley estatal de Arizona (ARS 11-804) requiere que todos los condados 
adopten y actualicen regularmente Planes Integrales que sean consistentes 
con las leyes estatales y otros requisitos y directrices. El Plan Integral aborda 
temas como el uso de terreno, la circulación, los recursos de agua, la energía, 
los espacios abiertos, el crecimiento, el medio ambiente y el costo del 
desarrollo. 
El proceso de actualización será guiado por la opinión de los miembros de la 
comunidad del Condado de Maricopa. La opinión pública durante el proceso de 
participación será registrada y catalogada para asegurar que los tomadores de

187
decisiones tengan un entendimiento completo sobre el sentimiento del público 
al considerar el plan final. 
Para obtener más información, visite www.Framework2040.com 
  
  
  
x
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
facebo ok
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
To help protect your privacy, 
Micro so ft Office prevented automatic 
download of this picture from the 
Internet.
 
To help protect y our privacy, 
Microsoft Office prevented 
automatic download of this picture 
from the Internet.
To help protect your 
privacy, Microsoft Office 
prevented automatic 
download of this picture 
from the Internet.
 
  
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: 
Manage Subscriptions  |  Unsubscribe All  |  Help
.

188
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
rgw85086@gmail.com
Sent:
Tuesday, November 19, 2024 10:41 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Coordination of county plan with municipal planning
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
Adam – Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the difficulty of your task, especially given the size of Maricopa County 
and everything that is happening here.  
 
PARKS – This issue may not be as difficult to solve as achieving peace in the Middle East, but progress seems to be 
just as elusive. Many people here in Anthem have talked and talked about what we should do, but no practical 
solution has emerged. And residents in the new developments in the North Valley – assuming their parks are 
private like ours – will soon be having the same conversations/debates (while also adding more overcrowding to 
the Anthem Community Park).  
 
This issue isn’t the #1 most important issue for Framework 2040, but it deserves the attention of our county and 
municipal leaders – together – to find a way to provide appropriate parks and amenities that fairly spreads the 
operational and financial burdens. Framework 2040 can be a “cattle prod” to tackle this situation. 
 
ROADS – A more important issue, in my opinion, is providing better roads that safely serve all the new 
development in the North Valley. Have you had the pleasure of driving on 43rd Avenue when parents are taking their 
kids to (or picking up from) the charter school just north of the Post Office? Admittedly, this has improved, but 
more new developments on the east side of 43rd Ave. will negate much of the progress that was made.  
 
There is a second traffic nightmare we will soon face when all the new development is completed on the east-side 
frontage road between Anthem Way and New River Road. This one concerns me because of the multiple entities 
involved. A solution requires ADOT, MCDOT and Phoenix to DO something TOGETHER! Several hundred vehicles, if 
not more, will be added to this road which cannot handle that load at the present time. And it seems as though 
nothing is happening. 
 
I suspect there are other equally serious road issues elsewhere in the County. I don’t believe it is the responsibility 
of Framework 2040 to SOLVE these issues, but I encourage you and your team to be a very vocal catalyst to get the 
right people to focus on each situation. Solving the two road issues that I’ve mentioned will go a long way to 
improving the daily commute of MANY residents of Anthem, New River and Phoenix. 
 
Thank you for your efforts to keep Maricopa County a great place to live.  
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 5:58 PM 
To: rgw85086@gmail.com 
Subject: RE: Coordination of county plan with municipal planning 
 
Good morning Roger,

189
 
Thank you for your comments and your participation in the virtual meeting.  Anthem is indeed a great place.  I’ll attempt 
to address your comments as best as I can: 
 
1) Parks are definitely difficult to control, particular if you have open access.  On one hand, you have pocket parks 
that you really can’t control who shows up as they are open, unless a community is gated – though it would be 
strange/rare for people to just pick a random community’s pocket park without them being a visitor of a friend 
in that neighborhood.  On the other hand you have the Community Park which, as you note, is an amenity that is 
paid for by the residents of Anthem.  I think if there is a crowding issue and its affecting the quality of life, the 
Anthem community and park management will need to make some tough decisions about who and how access 
is granted.  For example, there are recreation facilities in Sun City exclusive to residents.   
 
Other questions to ask would be whether the park is holding/advertising special events that are open to the 
public and attracting individuals from outside of Anthem.  If that is being done, its like with the Superbowl, 
people come to the valley and want to move here.  People come to that park during an event, and then people 
will want to go to it more.  That’s not going to stop if fun and exciting events like festivals or sports competitions 
are happening drawing those people in.   
  
2) I’ve forwarded this comment onto MCDOT.  The City of Phoenix coordinates with their applicants of 
developments to work with their streets department and if there is MCDOT jurisdiction, with MCDOT, on traffic 
improvements.  A traffic study will likely need to be approved by both the City, MCDOT and potentially 
ADOT.  The traffic study should capture traffic generated from the specific development(s) you are referring 
to.  In general, both the City and MCDOT have long range plans geared at anticipating potential traffic 
needs.  Our comp plan generally coordinates its goals and policies with their goals and policies.  I would 
recommend contacting them if you have any further questions about specific sites. 
 
Thank you again Roger.  
 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-3301 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and 
beyond.   
Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! 
 
 
 
From: rgw85086@gmail.com <rgw85086@gmail.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 7:45 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Coordination of county plan with municipal planning 
 
Adam – I wish you great success in your efforts on Framew ork 2040. And thanks for responding to the question I submitted at the end of tonite’s virtual meeting. I want to expand on the question that I raised… I reside in Anthem.  
 
 
Adam – I wish you great success in your eƯorts on Framework 2040. And thanks for responding to the question I 
submitted at the end of tonite’s virtual meeting.

190
I want to expand on the question that I raised… 
 
I reside in Anthem. Our unincorporated community is a great place to live, and we are very proud of that. But as 
you know, there are something like 20,000 new dwelling units planned for areas within 15 miles of us. Most (all?) of 
them will be part of Phoenix. There are two situations that I believe deserve a much closer relationship between 
Phoenix and Anthem/Maricopa County: 
 
1. Anthem is blessed with some really nice amenities, including a large Community Park, several smaller 
“pocket parks,” and a large indoor recreation center. The amenities are private, funded solely by the 
residents of Anthem through assessments, and intended for the use of Anthem residents only. We try to be 
welcoming to all visitors, but for several years now those amenities – especially the Community Park – 
seem to be considered “pubic” by residents outside of Anthem. This has led to crowding, especially on 
weekends and holidays. And with 20,000 new dwelling units popping up over the next few years, 
overcrowding will become a greater problem. 
2. Several of those 20,000 new dwelling units are currently or will soon be under construction along a stretch 
of the frontage road on the east side of I-17 between Anthem Way and New River Road. That stretch of road 
is simply incapable of safely handling the traƯic that will accompany all the new dwelling units – in 
particular, “rush hours” will be a real challenge. Phoenix has jurisdiction of the developments, but the 
responsibility for the road seems to be split between the County and Phoenix (and maybe the state?). As a 
result, it is very unclear if anyone is taking responsibility to resolve the problem which, if left unresolved, 
will cause some massive traƯic headaches. 
 
I don’t expect or suggest that Framework 2040 is intended to solve current, specific issues like these. It would be 
great if you could, but as I understand your scope, creating a framework for the County and municipalities to 
coordinate their plans and eliminate gaps and conflicts between them could be within scope. This would not be a 
problem in an area that is stable and with little or no growth, but that is not the case with Maricopa County. I hope 
that you will be able to address this issue; proactive coordination will prevent potential out-of-control 
development in the future. 
 
You may reach me via this email, or my mobile phone (text messages, too) at 630-258-9667. 
 
Thank You, 
Roger Willis  
Anthem, AZ

191
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Merissa Hamilton <merissa@merissahamilton.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 13, 2024 6:44 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Framework 2040
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam, 
 
Thank you so much for your community engagement on the Framework 2040 plan. 
 
I am the Chairwoman of the grassroots organization EZAZ.org. Many of our members have been very 
engaged with Maricopa County, and it would be very beneficial if the County could do a presentation for 
our group.  
 
We have a friendly environment with very passionate citizens. We have a monthly Pie Club meeting 
where we serve pie and ice cream and learn about our government. We'd love to have a representative 
share the plan with our group and get feedback from our membership. 
 
Please let me know if this is possible. 
 
Thank you so much for prioritizing outreach. This is great! 
 
 
Merissa Hamilton 
(480) 374-0102

192
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
rgw85086@gmail.com
Sent:
Tuesday, November 12, 2024 7:45 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
Coordination of county plan with municipal planning
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender 
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. 
Always validate the sender first.  
 
Adam – I wish you great success in your eƯorts on Framework 2040. And thanks for responding to the question I 
submitted at the end of tonite’s virtual meeting. 
 
I want to expand on the question that I raised… 
 
I reside in Anthem. Our unincorporated community is a great place to live, and we are very proud of that. But as 
you know, there are something like 20,000 new dwelling units planned for areas within 15 miles of us. Most (all?) of 
them will be part of Phoenix. There are two situations that I believe deserve a much closer relationship between 
Phoenix and Anthem/Maricopa County: 
 
1. Anthem is blessed with some really nice amenities, including a large Community Park, several smaller 
“pocket parks,” and a large indoor recreation center. The amenities are private, funded solely by the 
residents of Anthem through assessments, and intended for the use of Anthem residents only. We try to be 
welcoming to all visitors, but for several years now those amenities – especially the Community Park – 
seem to be considered “pubic” by residents outside of Anthem. This has led to crowding, especially on 
weekends and holidays. And with 20,000 new dwelling units popping up over the next few years, 
overcrowding will become a greater problem. 
2. Several of those 20,000 new dwelling units are currently or will soon be under construction along a stretch 
of the frontage road on the east side of I-17 between Anthem Way and New River Road. That stretch of road 
is simply incapable of safely handling the traƯic that will accompany all the new dwelling units – in 
particular, “rush hours” will be a real challenge. Phoenix has jurisdiction of the developments, but the 
responsibility for the road seems to be split between the County and Phoenix (and maybe the state?). As a 
result, it is very unclear if anyone is taking responsibility to resolve the problem which, if left unresolved, 
will cause some massive traƯic headaches. 
 
I don’t expect or suggest that Framework 2040 is intended to solve current, specific issues like these. It would be 
great if you could, but as I understand your scope, creating a framework for the County and municipalities to 
coordinate their plans and eliminate gaps and conflicts between them could be within scope. This would not be a 
problem in an area that is stable and with little or no growth, but that is not the case with Maricopa County. I hope 
that you will be able to address this issue; proactive coordination will prevent potential out-of-control 
development in the future. 
 
You may reach me via this email, or my mobile phone (text messages, too) at 630-258-9667. 
 
Thank You, 
Roger Willis  
Anthem, AZ

193
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Lauren Trobaugh <ltrobaugh@bfsolaw.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 12, 2024 3:42 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: 11/12 Public Input Sessions Grand Virtual Event 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam,  
 
Thank you for this information. If its not public, we will definitely reach out for a formal request. 
 
Thank you again,   
 
Lauren Trobaugh 
Project Coordinator  
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 
Phoenix, Arizona 85018 
Direct: 602.888.7869 
Fax: 602.888.7856 
  
 
  
Visit us at www.bfsolaw.com 
  
The informaƟon contained in this message is privileged and confidenƟal.  It is intended only to be read by the 
individual or enƟty named above or their designee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, 
you are on noƟce that any distribuƟon of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
this message in error, please immediately noƟfy the sender by telephone at 602.888.7860 or by fax at 
602.888.7856 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.  Thank you. 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 3:32 PM 
To: Lauren Trobaugh <ltrobaugh@bfsolaw.com> 
Subject: RE: 11/12 Public Input Sessions Grand Virtual Event  
 
Hi Lauren, 
 
We have not yet decided whether to post it publicly on the website or make it available on request.  We will make that 
decision after the event has concluded. 
 
Thanks, 
Adam

194
From: Lauren Trobaugh <ltrobaugh@bfsolaw.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 12:34 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: RE: 11/12 Public Input Sessions Grand Virtual Event  
 
Hi Adam, Thanks for your response. Do you know where it will be able to be watched at a later date? Thanks again, Lauren Trobaugh Project Coordinator Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 Phoenix , 
 
Hi Adam,  
 
Thanks for your response. Do you know where it will be able to be watched at a later date?  
 
Thanks again,  
 
Lauren Trobaugh 
Project Coordinator  
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 
Phoenix, Arizona 85018 
Direct: 602.888.7869 
Fax: 602.888.7856 
  
 
  
Visit us at www.bfsolaw.com 
  
The informaƟon contained in this message is privileged and confidenƟal.  It is intended only to be read by the 
individual or enƟty named above or their designee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, 
you are on noƟce that any distribuƟon of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
this message in error, please immediately noƟfy the sender by telephone at 602.888.7860 or by fax at 
602.888.7856 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.  Thank you. 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 12:32 PM 
To: Lauren Trobaugh <ltrobaugh@bfsolaw.com> 
Subject: RE: 11/12 Public Input Sessions Grand Virtual Event  
 
Hi Lauren, 
 
Yes we plan to record it and make it available the coming week after the meeting.  Thanks! 
 
Thanks, 
Adam 
 
From: Lauren Trobaugh <ltrobaugh@bfsolaw.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 11:51 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: 11/12 Public Input Sessions Grand Virtual Event  
 
Hi Adam, Is this evenings Public Input sessions virtual event going to be recorded or not to watch later? Please let me know . Thanks, Lauren Trobaugh Project Coordinator Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 4343 East Camelback Road, 
 
Hi Adam,  
 
Is this evenings Public Input sessions virtual event going to be recorded or not to watch later? Please let me know.

195
Thanks,  
 
Lauren Trobaugh 
Project Coordinator  
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 
Phoenix, Arizona 85018 
Direct: 602.888.7869 
Fax: 602.888.7856 
  
 
  
Visit us at www.bfsolaw.com 
  
The informaƟon contained in this message is privileged and confidenƟal.  It is intended only to be read by the 
individual or enƟty named above or their designee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, 
you are on noƟce that any distribuƟon of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
this message in error, please immediately noƟfy the sender by telephone at 602.888.7860 or by fax at 
602.888.7856 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.  Thank you.

196
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Lauren Trobaugh <ltrobaugh@bfsolaw.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 12, 2024 12:34 PM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: 11/12 Public Input Sessions Grand Virtual Event 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam,  
 
Thanks for your response. Do you know where it will be able to be watched at a later date?  
 
Thanks again,  
 
Lauren Trobaugh 
Project Coordinator  
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 
Phoenix, Arizona 85018 
Direct: 602.888.7869 
Fax: 602.888.7856 
  
 
  
Visit us at www.bfsolaw.com 
  
The informaƟon contained in this message is privileged and confidenƟal.  It is intended only to be read by the 
individual or enƟty named above or their designee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, 
you are on noƟce that any distribuƟon of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
this message in error, please immediately noƟfy the sender by telephone at 602.888.7860 or by fax at 
602.888.7856 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.  Thank you. 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 12:32 PM 
To: Lauren Trobaugh <ltrobaugh@bfsolaw.com> 
Subject: RE: 11/12 Public Input Sessions Grand Virtual Event  
 
Hi Lauren, 
 
Yes we plan to record it and make it available the coming week after the meeting.  Thanks! 
 
Thanks, 
Adam

197
From: Lauren Trobaugh <ltrobaugh@bfsolaw.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 11:51 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: 11/12 Public Input Sessions Grand Virtual Event  
 
Hi Adam, Is this evenings Public Input sessions virtual event going to be recorded or not to watch later? Please let me know . Thanks, Lauren Trobaugh Project Coordinator Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 4343 East Camelback Road, 
 
Hi Adam,  
 
Is this evenings Public Input sessions virtual event going to be recorded or not to watch later? Please let me know.  
 
Thanks,  
 
Lauren Trobaugh 
Project Coordinator  
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 
Phoenix, Arizona 85018 
Direct: 602.888.7869 
Fax: 602.888.7856 
  
 
  
Visit us at www.bfsolaw.com 
  
The informaƟon contained in this message is privileged and confidenƟal.  It is intended only to be read by the 
individual or enƟty named above or their designee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, 
you are on noƟce that any distribuƟon of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
this message in error, please immediately noƟfy the sender by telephone at 602.888.7860 or by fax at 
602.888.7856 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.  Thank you.

198
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Lauren Trobaugh <ltrobaugh@bfsolaw.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 12, 2024 11:51 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
11/12 Public Input Sessions Grand Virtual Event 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam,  
 
Is this evenings Public Input sessions virtual event going to be recorded or not to watch later? Please let me know.  
 
Thanks,  
 
Lauren Trobaugh 
Project Coordinator  
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC 
4343 East Camelback Road, Suite 210 
Phoenix, Arizona 85018 
Direct: 602.888.7869 
Fax: 602.888.7856 
  
 
  
Visit us at www.bfsolaw.com 
  
The informaƟon contained in this message is privileged and confidenƟal.  It is intended only to be read by the 
individual or enƟty named above or their designee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, 
you are on noƟce that any distribuƟon of this message, in any form is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
this message in error, please immediately noƟfy the sender by telephone at 602.888.7860 or by fax at 
602.888.7856 and delete or destroy any copy of this message.  Thank you.

199
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Aimee Bergstrom <ab@berryriddell.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 12, 2024 9:57 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Meetings for the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update 
Begin Next Week!
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Received, thanks! 
 
Aimee Bergstrom 
Legal Assistant 
BERRY RIDDELL LLC 
6750 E. Camelback Road | Suite 100 | Scottsdale, AZ 85251 
480-565-3017 | 480-385-2757 fax 
ab@berryriddell.com | www.berryriddell.com 
 
This message and any of the aƩached documents contain informaƟon from Berry Riddell LLC that may be confidenƟal and/or 
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this informaƟon, and no privilege has 
been waived by your inadvertent receipt.  If you have received this transmission in error, please noƟfy the sender by reply e-mail 
and then delete this message.  Thank you. 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 9:56 AM 
To: Aimee Bergstrom <ab@berryriddell.com> 
Subject: RE: Meetings for the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update Begin Next Week! 
 
Hi Aimee, 
 
Just sent to you. 
 
Thanks, 
Adam 
 
From: Aimee Bergstrom <ab@berryriddell.com>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 9:53 AM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>

200
Subject: RE: Meetings for the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update Begin Next Week! 
Importance: High 
 
Hi Adam, Is there a link for the virtual meeti ng tonight? I RSVP’d for Wendy Riddell but did not see a link anywhere. Thanks! Aimee Bergstrom Legal Assistant BERRY RIDDELL LLC 6750 E. Camel back Road | Suite 100 | Scottsdale, AZ 85251 480-565-3017 
 
Hi Adam, 
 
Is there a link for the virtual meeting tonight? I RSVP’d for Wendy Riddell but did not see a link anywhere. 
 
Thanks! 
 
Aimee Bergstrom 
Legal Assistant 
BERRY RIDDELL LLC 
6750 E. Camelback Road | Suite 100 | Scottsdale, AZ 85251 
480-565-3017 | 480-385-2757 fax 
ab@berryriddell.com | www.berryriddell.com 
 
This message and any of the aƩached documents contain informaƟon from Berry Riddell LLC that may be confidenƟal and/or 
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this informaƟon, and no privilege has 
been waived by your inadvertent receipt.  If you have received this transmission in error, please noƟfy the sender by reply e-mail 
and then delete this message.  Thank you. 
 
 
From: Wendy Riddell <wr@berryriddell.com>  
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2024 2:40 PM 
To: Aimee Bergstrom <ab@berryriddell.com> 
Subject: FW: Meetings for the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update Begin Next Week! 
 
 
Wendy R. Riddell, Esq. 
BERRY RIDDELL LLC 
6750 E. Camelback Road, Suite 100 
Scottsdale, Arizona  85251 
480-682-3902 direct 
602-616-8771 cell 
480-385-2757 fax 
wr@berryriddell.com | www.berryriddell.com  
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from Berry Riddell LLC that may be confidential and/or 
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information, and no privilege 
has been waived by your inadvertent receipt.  If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply 
e-mail and then delete this message.  Thank you.

201
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 6:42 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Meetings for the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update Begin Next Week! 
 
Good evening all:  
 
As you may know, we are in the beginning stages of updaƟng our Comprehensive Plan and the public meeƟngs for that 
begin next week (see below).  With a certain recent big event, some of the other media we released disappeared fast so 
I wanted to ensure this made its way over to you.  Please consider having a member of your firm/company aƩend or 
forwarding on to any clients you would like to aƩend, parƟcularly if they are a resident of and/or develop in 
unincorporated county, so that there are addiƟonal voices represented.   
 
The meeƟng content will be the same across this first wave of meeƟngs.  If these dates/Ɵmes don’t work, there’s going 
to be another round (with different content, but same opportunity to provide comments) in Spring 2025 as well.   
 
Also - have a good weekend! Please feel free to contact me if you have any quesƟons or feedback! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn

202
Maricopa County looking to the future 
with update of Comprehensive Plan 
Maricopa County, AZ – Maricopa County is pleased to announce the kickoff of the 
process to update the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital document that guides 
county decisions on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 
2040. 
The Framework 2040 - Comprehensive Plan will serve as a guide to promoting the 
success, safety, and general welfare of Maricopa County, providing a basis to guide 
the development of both the natural and built environment while working to sustain 
and improve quality of life for residents of unincorporated Maricopa County. The 
Plan will address various county-wide topics, including land use, transportation 
systems, parks and open spaces, water resources, energy, economic growth, 
environmental planning and cost of development. When completed, the Plan will 
reflect the values and priorities of residents within unincorporated Maricopa County 
and will be used as a roadmap for decision-making over the next decade and 
beyond. 
The County adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 2016, and much has 
changed since then. New growth patterns, evolving industry, and Arizona law 
necessitate a comprehensive update to ensure Maricopa County's continued 
evolution aligns with long-term community values. 
To ensure the plan accurately represents the aspirations of County residents (i.e. 
those who live outside the municipal limits of a city or town), the Maricopa County 
Board of Supervisors is committed to a transparent and inclusive process. 
Board of Supervisors Chairman Sellers remarked, 
“The Comprehensive Plan is our blueprint for the future. 
It guides our decisions on land use, transportation, housing, open 
space, and more. A policy decision this important deserves full

203
participation from all corners of our County. We look forward to a 
comprehensive citizen-involved process.” 
We invite all residents, landowners, business owners, and other stakeholders within 
unincorporated Maricopa County to participate in upcoming public input sessions 
designed to gather feedback, ideas, and concerns that will shape the content and 
direction of the Comprehensive Plan. We know not everyone will be able to join us 
in-person. As a result, community members will be able to participate through both 
in-person and virtual events over the life of this update effort. 
 
Public Input Sessions 
VIRTUAL EVENTS 
GRAND VIRTUAL EVENT 
Tuesday, November 12, 2024 
Time: 5:30 PM – 6:30 PM  Location: Online 
 
RSVP Here 
IN-PERSON EVENTS 
DISTRICT 1 
Monday, December 2, 2024 
Time: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM Location: Arizona College Prep High School 
(Cafeteria), 4477 S Gilbert Rd, Chandler, AZ 85249 
DISTRICT 2 
Wednesday, November 13, 2024 
Time: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM  Location: Fountain Hills High School (Cafeteria), 
16100 E Palisades Blvd, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 
DISTRICT 3 
Thursday, November 21, 2024 
Time: 5:00 PM – 6:30 PM Location: Anthem Civic Building (Community Room),
3701 W Anthem Way, Anthem, AZ 85086 
DISTRICT 4 
Wednesday, November 20, 2024 
Time: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM  Location: Valley Vista High School (Library), 
15550 N Parkview Pl, Surprise, AZ 85374 
DISTRICT 5 
Thursday, November 14, 2024

204
Time: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM Location: Betty H. Fairfax High School (Cafeteria), 
8225 S 59th Ave, Laveen Village, AZ 85339 
 
Get More Event Details Here 
The input gathered during these initial events will be carefully reviewed and used to 
inform the Plan drafting process. There will also be additional opportunities for 
public review and comment as the Plan progresses. 
 
For more information about the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, to 
stay informed about upcoming events and sign up for email notifications, 
please visit www.Framework2040.com. 
 
 
_
 
_
 
_
 
_
 
_
 
Click to edit this placeholder text.

205
Adam Cannon (PND)
From:
Aimee Bergstrom <ab@berryriddell.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 12, 2024 9:53 AM
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Subject:
RE: Meetings for the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update 
Begin Next Week!
Importance:
High
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
Hi Adam, 
 
Is there a link for the virtual meeting tonight? I RSVP’d for Wendy Riddell but did not see a link anywhere. 
 
Thanks! 
 
Aimee Bergstrom 
Legal Assistant 
BERRY RIDDELL LLC 
6750 E. Camelback Road | Suite 100 | Scottsdale, AZ 85251 
480-565-3017 | 480-385-2757 fax 
ab@berryriddell.com | www.berryriddell.com 
 
This message and any of the aƩached documents contain informaƟon from Berry Riddell LLC that may be confidenƟal and/or 
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this informaƟon, and no privilege has 
been waived by your inadvertent receipt.  If you have received this transmission in error, please noƟfy the sender by reply e-mail 
and then delete this message.  Thank you. 
 
 
From: Wendy Riddell <wr@berryriddell.com>  
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2024 2:40 PM 
To: Aimee Bergstrom <ab@berryriddell.com> 
Subject: FW: Meetings for the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update Begin Next Week!

206
Wendy R. Riddell, Esq. 
BERRY RIDDELL LLC 
6750 E. Camelback Road, Suite 100 
Scottsdale, Arizona  85251 
480-682-3902 direct 
602-616-8771 cell 
480-385-2757 fax 
wr@berryriddell.com | www.berryriddell.com  
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from Berry Riddell LLC that may be confidential and/or 
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information, and no privilege 
has been waived by your inadvertent receipt.  If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply 
e-mail and then delete this message.  Thank you. 
 
 
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>  
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 6:42 PM 
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Cc: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: Meetings for the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update Begin Next Week! 
 
Good evening all:  
 
As you may know, we are in the beginning stages of updaƟng our Comprehensive Plan and the public meeƟngs for that 
begin next week (see below).  With a certain recent big event, some of the other media we released disappeared fast so 
I wanted to ensure this made its way over to you.  Please consider having a member of your firm/company aƩend or 
forwarding on to any clients you would like to aƩend, parƟcularly if they are a resident of and/or develop in 
unincorporated county, so that there are addiƟonal voices represented.   
 
The meeƟng content will be the same across this first wave of meeƟngs.  If these dates/Ɵmes don’t work, there’s going 
to be another round (with different content, but same opportunity to provide comments) in Spring 2025 as well.   
 
Also - have a good weekend! Please feel free to contact me if you have any quesƟons or feedback! 
 
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-372-0292 
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov  
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn

207
 
 
  
 
  
 
Maricopa County looking to the future 
with update of Comprehensive Plan 
 
Maricopa County, AZ – Maricopa County is pleased to announce the kickoff of the 
process to update the county’s Comprehensive Plan, a vital document that guides 
county decisions on future growth, development, and preservation through the year 
2040. 
The Framework 2040 - Comprehensive Plan will serve as a guide to promoting the 
success, safety, and general welfare of Maricopa County, providing a basis to guide 
the development of both the natural and built environment while working to sustain 
and improve quality of life for residents of unincorporated Maricopa County. The 
Plan will address various county-wide topics, including land use, transportation 
systems, parks and open spaces, water resources, energy, economic growth, 
environmental planning and cost of development. When completed, the Plan will 
reflect the values and priorities of residents within unincorporated Maricopa County

208
and will be used as a roadmap for decision-making over the next decade and 
beyond. 
The County adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 2016, and much has 
changed since then. New growth patterns, evolving industry, and Arizona law 
necessitate a comprehensive update to ensure Maricopa County's continued 
evolution aligns with long-term community values. 
To ensure the plan accurately represents the aspirations of County residents (i.e. 
those who live outside the municipal limits of a city or town), the Maricopa County 
Board of Supervisors is committed to a transparent and inclusive process. 
Board of Supervisors Chairman Sellers remarked, 
“The Comprehensive Plan is our blueprint for the future. 
It guides our decisions on land use, transportation, housing, open 
space, and more. A policy decision this important deserves full 
participation from all corners of our County. We look forward to a 
comprehensive citizen-involved process.” 
We invite all residents, landowners, business owners, and other stakeholders within 
unincorporated Maricopa County to participate in upcoming public input sessions 
designed to gather feedback, ideas, and concerns that will shape the content and 
direction of the Comprehensive Plan. We know not everyone will be able to join us 
in-person. As a result, community members will be able to participate through both 
in-person and virtual events over the life of this update effort. 
 
Public Input Sessions 
VIRTUAL EVENTS 
GRAND VIRTUAL EVENT 
Tuesday, November 12, 2024 
Time: 5:30 PM – 6:30 PM  Location: Online 
 
RSVP Here 
IN-PERSON EVENTS 
DISTRICT 1 
Monday, December 2, 2024 
Time: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM Location: Arizona College Prep High School 
(Cafeteria), 4477 S Gilbert Rd, Chandler, AZ 85249

209
DISTRICT 2 
Wednesday, November 13, 2024 
Time: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM  Location: Fountain Hills High School (Cafeteria), 
16100 E Palisades Blvd, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268 
DISTRICT 3 
Thursday, November 21, 2024 
Time: 5:00 PM – 6:30 PM Location: Anthem Civic Building (Community Room),
3701 W Anthem Way, Anthem, AZ 85086 
DISTRICT 4 
Wednesday, November 20, 2024 
Time: 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM  Location: Valley Vista High School (Library), 
15550 N Parkview Pl, Surprise, AZ 85374 
DISTRICT 5 
Thursday, November 14, 2024 
Time: 5:30 PM – 7:00 PM Location: Betty H. Fairfax High School (Cafeteria), 
8225 S 59th Ave, Laveen Village, AZ 85339 
 
Get More Event Details Here 
The input gathered during these initial events will be carefully reviewed and used to 
inform the Plan drafting process. There will also be additional opportunities for 
public review and comment as the Plan progresses. 
 
For more information about the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, to 
stay informed about upcoming events and sign up for email notifications, 
please visit www.Framework2040.com.

210
_
 
_
 
_
 
_
 
_
 
Click to edit this placeholder text.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Adam Cannon (PND)
To:
"Maggie Soffel"
Cc:
Michelle Montijo (COA); Michelle Hindman (GVR); Nathan Pryor; Max Hartgraves; Cecilia Riviere
Bcc:
Tom Ellsworth (PND); Darren Gerard (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
RE: Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan - Rio Reimagined reference
Date:
Thursday, February 19, 2026 10:36:00 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
Hi Maggie,
 
Thank you for taking the time to review the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan and for
sharing your suggestion. We appreciate your engagement and continued interest in the
County’s planning efforts.
The policy language was crafted to remain broad and adaptable, but we value your feedback
and will keep your comment in mind as we finalize the document.
 
Best regards,
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning & Development
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003
O: 602-372-0292
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov
[ Maricopa.Gov ]
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and
development for the next decade and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be
heard!
 
From: Maggie Soffel <Maggie.Soffel@asu.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 12:25 PM
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>
Cc: Michelle Montijo (COA) <Michelle.Montijo@Maricopa.Gov>; Michelle Hindman (GVR)
<Michelle.Hindman@Maricopa.Gov>; Nathan Pryor <npryor@azmag.gov>; Max Hartgraves
<max@gplinc.org>; Cecilia Riviere <Cecilia.Riviere@asu.edu>
Subject: Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan - Rio Reimagined reference
 
Hi Adam, I hope this note finds you well. The Framework 2040 Comp Plan looks great! I was reading through the draft plan and was wondering whether Open Space Policy #1. 3 is in reference to Rio Reimagined? It reads… “Maricopa County
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Adam,
 
I hope this note finds you well. The Framework 2040 Comp Plan looks great!
 
I was reading through the draft plan and was wondering whether Open Space Policy #1.3 is in

reference to Rio Reimagined? It reads…
 
“Maricopa County will coordinate with the planning initiative that seeks to revitalize the Salt
and Gila River corridors as vital ecological, cultural, and economic assets.”
 
Would it be possible to add “Rio Reimagined” before “the planning initiative” for clarity? Open
Space Policy #1.4 specifically calls out the Lower Gila River Collaborative, so I thought this
addition might help clarify and identify alignment with Rio Reimagined.
 
Thank you for your consideration,
 
Maggie
 
Maggie Soffel, AICP
Senior Director
University City Exchange  I  Rio Reimagined
Arizona State University
777 Novus Place, Suite 105, Tempe, AZ 85281
office: 602-496-3221
email: maggie.soffel@asu.edu
web: universitycityexchange.asu.edu I rioreimagined.org
ASU is a proud partner of the Rio Reimagined river revitalization initiative. To learn more and receive regular updates, email
info@rioreimagined.com.

DATE:  
April 15, 2026 
 
TO: 
 Planning and Zoning Commission    
 
FROM: 
 Adam Cannon, AICP, Senior Planner  
 
SUBJECT: 
 Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Changes 
 
  
 
Included with this memorandum is a list of changes to the Comprehensive Plan occurring 
following the printing of the Planning and Zoning Commission draft.   
 
1) The City of Peoria commented requesting a change to the following language on 
page 48.   
 
“Maricopa County will refer to evaluate development proposals for alignment with 
municipal comprehensive and general plans as guides when making decisions 
involving County Islands and will also consider them elsewhere when reasonable 
when located within their planning boundary. Maricopa County will provide 
written notice of all entitlement actions requiring a public hearing to all 
municipalities within 3 miles of the boundaries of an entitlement proposal, and 
include municipality comments in staff report attachments. However, until land is 
annexed Maricopa County retains planning authority.” 
 
2) Revisions to pages 14-15, 100-101 and 109 of the draft plan are included in 
response to the feedback that the framework for urban services read more like a 
regulatory checklist requirement and less like an evaluative process framework.  
Please see the memorandum attachment for changes to those pages. 
 
If recommended for adoption, the revisions will be included in the final draft of the plan 
that is produced following the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing on April 23, 
2026.  Any additional changes recommended will occur via a handout memorandum for 
CPA260002. 
 
Enclosure: 
 
 
City of Peoria Comments (3 pages) 
 
Edited pages 14-15, 100-101 & 109 (5 pages)

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the
county.
From:
Greg Loper
To:
Adam Cannon (PND)
Cc:
Klyszeiko, Matthew; Darren Gerard (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
RE: Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update: City of Peoria Comment
Date:
Wednesday, April 8, 2026 1:36:09 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Thank you Adam and Maricopa County Team – we appreciate (again) the opportunity to
review and comment on the Comprehensive Plan update and understand your position.
 
Greg Loper, AICP
Parks, Open Space & Natural, Cultural & Historic Resources
Planning Department | Strategic Planning
O: 623-773-4613
M: 602-550-7004
Greg.Loper@PeoriaAZ.gov
 
City of Peoria | Planning Department
9875 N. 85th Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85345
Monday through Thursday, 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays
PeoriaAZ.gov/Planning
 
From: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov> 
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 12:38 PM
To: Greg Loper <greg.loper@peoriaaz.gov>
Cc: Klyszeiko, Matthew <matthewk@mbakerintl.com>; Darren Gerard (PND)
<Darren.Gerard@Maricopa.Gov>; Rachel Applegate (PND)
<Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: RE: Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update: City of Peoria Comment
 
 ⚠⚠This email arrived from an external source. Please exercise caution
when opening attachments or clicking on links.⚠⚠ 
Hi Greg,
 
Thank you for sending this comment.  We appreciate you, the Peoria team and the
compliment on the plan.  We’re willing to adjust some of this statement in the plan.  Please
see below for our revisions:
 
“Maricopa County will evaluate development proposals for alignment with municipal
comprehensive and general plans when located within their planning boundary.  Maricopa
County will provide written notice of all entitlement actions requiring a public hearing or site

plan review to all municipalities within 1 mile 3 miles of the boundaries of an entitlement
proposal, and include that municipality’s response and or recommendations of approval in
any staff report, and include municipality comments in the staff report
attachments.  However, until land is annexed Maricopa County retains planning
authority.”
 
The reason we are taking out “or site plan review” is because we do not route administrative
applications to municipalities and that is not a practice we intend to start.  With that said, if
there is a particular property that Peoria is interested in that is in administrative review, we
will be happy to share that information upon request with the understanding that the County
can’t require any site standards beyond what is specified in the ordinance or a prior
legislative action’s conditions of approval.  Where we can best coordinate with the City is
during zone change and special use permit applications when the City’s comments can be
taken into consideration.
 
Thank you again for reaching out to us and your comment on the plan.
 
Best regards,
 
Adam Cannon, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning & Development
301 W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003
O: 602-372-0292
E: adam.cannon@maricopa.gov
[ Maricopa.Gov ]
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and
development for the next decade and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings
and be heard!
 
From: Greg Loper <greg.loper@peoriaaz.gov> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 11:50 AM
To: Adam Cannon (PND) <Adam.Cannon@maricopa.gov>; matthewk@mbakerintl.com
Subject: Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan Update: City of Peoria Comment
 
Adam & Matthew – My apologies for the lateness in the City’s response. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the 60-Day Review Draft of the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan. This is an excellent
 
Adam & Matthew – My apologies for the lateness in the City’s response.
 
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the 60-Day Review Draft of
the Framework 2040 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan. This is an excellent
document, and we commend both Maricopa County and its consultant, Michael
Baker International, on the significant amount and scope of outreach completed in
the preparation of the document and the exceptional quality of both the written
document and the exhibits and graphics within the Plan itself.
 
The City does have one comment though. In regard to language within Chapter 3
(The Comprehensive Plan in Context); the Section with the heading that reads

“Relating to Other Jurisdictions’ Plans” there is a paragraph entitled “Municipal
General Plans.” The last sentence of this paragraph reads as follows:
 
“Maricopa County will refer to municipal
plans as guides when making decisions
involving County Islands and will also
consider them elsewhere when
reasonable. However, until land is annexed
Maricopa County retains planning
authority.”
 
While the City of Peoria is much appreciative of the County’s efforts to refer to a
municipality’s plans when considering land use decisions that may affect a given
municipality, we would ask Maricopa County to consider the following alternative
language:
 
“Maricopa County will evaluate
development proposals for alignment with
municipal comprehensive and general
plans when located within their planning
boundary. Maricopa County will provide
written notice of all entitlement actions
requiring a public hearing or site plan
review to all municipalities within 1 mile of
the boundaries of an entitlement proposal,
and include that municipality’s response
and or recommendations of approval in
any staff report.”
 
 
Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 60-day
review version of the
 
Greg Loper, AICP
Parks, Open Space & Natural, Cultural & Historic Resources
Planning Department | Strategic Planning
O: 623-773-4613
M: 602-550-7004
Greg.Loper@PeoriaAZ.gov
 
City of Peoria | Planning Department
9875 N. 85th Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85345
Monday through Thursday, 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays
PeoriaAZ.gov/Planning

The Municipal-Rural Influence 
Framework
The Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan introduces 
a new strategic framework for managing both urban 
and rural development across the unincorporated 
County’s vast and varied landscape. It is titled the 
Municipal-Rural Influence Framework, and it will 
function as the signature guidestone for regarding 
development decisions. 
Municipal-Rural Influence 
Framework
Identifies two areas in unincorporated Maricopa County: 
	
„ Area 
of 
Municipal 
Influence: 
Areas 
capable 
of 
supporting urban or suburban context development 
provided necessary infrastructure and services are 
available. 
	
„ Area of Rural Influence: Areas more appropriate for rural 
land uses and character and preservation of natural 
landscape.
Urban Solutions for Urban 
Development (USUD) Strategy
The evaluative strategy that Maricopa County employs to: 
	
„ Determine theEvaluate infrastructure readiness (water, 
sewer, roads, emergency services) prior toas part of 
considering urban development in unincorporated 
Maricopa County.
	
„ Gauge the ultimate feasibility of a Comprehensive Plan 
Amendment or zoning district change in unincorporated 
Maricopa County.
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
14

Table 1.   Plan Goals and Policies
                 LAND USE
Land Use Goal #1: Achieve a coordinated pattern of development.
Goal Statement: Ensure that development across the County is well-planned and cohesive, promoting 
efficient land use and infrastructure, and leading to a more organized growth pattern. 
Land Use Policy #1.1: Maricopa County supports phasing plans for new urban development to coordinate 
such development with new urban services and infrastructure.
Land Use Policy #1.2: Maricopa County supports market feasibility studies, cost/benefit where warranted 
to help determine when new urban development in unincorporated areas is appropriate. 
Land Use Policy #1.3: Maricopa County supports considering the existence or readiness of urban 
services and infrastructure as a factor in the approval or denial of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a 
Zoneing District Change in accordance with the Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy.
Land Use Policy #1.4: Maricopa County supports limiting development in undeveloped areas where 
infrastructure and public services do not exist, or where no major infrastructure projects are planned, 
such as state and/or federal highwayscarefully evaluating development in areas where infrastructure 
and public services are limited or not planned, with consideration of long-term service delivery and fiscal 
impacts.
Land Use Policy #1.5: Maricopa County supports coordinating land use and infrastructure planning with 
state agencies, other counties, municipalities, relevant utilities, federal agencies, and other regulatory 
bodies. 
Land Use Policy #1.6: Maricopa County supports annexation of urban development in unincorporated 
Maricopa County by municipalities.
Land Use Policy #1.7: Maricopa County supports annexation of any unincorporated area of the County 
that is within a municipal planning area and completely surrounded by a municipality or municipalities.
Land Use Policy #1.8: Maricopa County supports the prevention of forming new County Islands.
Plan Goals & Policies
The following represents this plan’s important goals and policies, listed in Table 1, organized based on their Chapter and 
Element order:
 Chapter 1 •  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
15

As Maricopa County considers where urban development is appropriate in its area of jurisdiction, it will continue to use 
its Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD) strategy. This strategy requires that services and infrastructure be 
currently or readily available to meet the needs of residents and businesses, protect taxpayers, and protect public health 
and safety. This means that the following should be identified before approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a 
Zoning District Change for urban development:
The Urban Solutions for Urban Development (USUD) strategy is a policy approach used to evaluate the availability and 
accessibility of infrastructure and services when considering urban development. This strategy helps inform decisions 
related to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Zoning District Change by identifying whether infrastructure and services 
can support proposed development over time.
The USUD strategy is advisory and is not a regulatory requirement. It does not establish conditions of approval or require 
that infrastructure or public facilities be constructed or in place prior to development approval.
The following factors may be considered as part of the evaluation of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Zoning 
District Change for urban development. These considerations are used to inform staff analysis and decision-making. Not 
all factors will apply in every case, and they are not intended to function as minimum thresholds or approval criteria. These 
factors are not applied uniformly and will vary based on the type, scale, and location of the proposed development.
1 
That 
there 
is 
sufficientThe 
availability 
of 
potable 
water 
service, 
including 
confirmation 
of infrastructure, a Certificate of 
Convenience and Necessity and 
verification by the service provider of 
the ability to adequately serve new 
residents and businesses
2 
That 
there 
is 
sufficienttThe 
availability 
and 
capacity 
of 
sewer service, including verification 
by the service provider of the ability 
and capacity to adequately serve new 
residents and/or businesses
3 
That there is sufficient roadThe 
capacity of the roadway network 
to accommodate expected traffic 
increases from residents and/or 
businesses
4 
That 
there 
isThe 
presence 
of 
regional 
flood 
control 
infrastructure, 
to 
protect 
new 
residents and/or businesses aswhere 
necessary
5 
ThatThe availability of dry utilities 
(electric, telephone, natural gas), 
as applicable, are available to serve 
new residents and/or businesses
6 
That adequateThe availability of 
law enforcement and fire service 
is available to serve new residents 
and/ or businesses
7 
That adequateAccess to hospital 
or emergency medical facilities, 
are available and proximate to serve 
new residentswhere applicable
8 
That there is adequate The 
availability 
and 
proximity 
of elementary, middle and high 
school capacity, as appropriate, to 
serve new residents, and that such 
schools are proximate to applicable 
neighborhoods
9 
That adequateThe availability 
and 
proximity 
of 
 
parks, 
recreation, and community facilities 
are available and proximate to serve 
new residents
10 
That 
The 
availability 
and 
proximity 
of 
libraries 
are 
available and proximate to serve new 
residents as necessaryand other 
community facilities, as applicable
11 
ThatThe 
availability 
and 
proximity 
of 
alternative 
transportation facilities are available 
and proximate to serve new residents 
as necessary, as applicable
12 
ThatThe 
availability 
of 
other 
urban 
services 
and 
infrastructure, as necessary and on 
a case-by-case basis, are available 
to 
serve 
new 
residents 
and/or 
businessesapplicable and based on 
the specific development proposal
Not all urban development requires these services or infrastructure, so Table 6 identifies which services and infrastructure 
should be confirmed to exist or be readily available prior to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or a Zoning District Change 
(note: the numbers in Table 6 correspond to the paragraph numbers listed above). However, not all of these listed urban 
services and infrastructure are expected to be present or resolved at the time of application.
Confirming Considering these listed urban services and infrastructure in Table 6 achieves several important objectives:
	
„ Protecting taxpayers as well as public health, safety, and general welfare;
	
„ Identifying which unincorporated areas are able to support urban development;
	
„ Implementing an important county policy: have orderly, timely and efficient urban development; and
	
„ Helping the county determine when and where urban development is appropriate.
Urban Solutions for Urban Development Strategy
FRAMEWORK 2040 | Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
100

Coordinated Pattern of Development
Achieving 
a 
coordinated 
pattern 
of 
development 
is 
essential 
to 
supporting Maricopa County’s long-
term strategic goals. Coordinated 
development 
can 
help 
produce 
balanced and economically efficient 
land use patterns that include a 
well-integrated mix of residential, 
retail, office, industrial, employment 
centers, open space, and community 
amenities. This approach advances 
several 
key 
objectives, 
including 
the implementation of the County’s 
Strategic 
Priorities, 
enhancement 
of overall quality of life, expansion 
of the economic and tax base, 
maintenance of fiscal stability, and 
reduction of reliance on residential 
development as the primary source 
of growth. In addition, balanced land 
use contributes to public health by 
increasing access to recreational 
opportunities, shortening travel times, 
and allowing residents more personal 
time.
This planning approach is especially 
important in unincorporated areas, 
where 
long 
distances 
between 
homes, workplaces, services, and 
recreational spaces are common. 
Land 
use 
imbalances 
in 
these 
areas can result in increased traffic 
congestion, 
longer 
commutes, 
and limited access to essential 
services. Achieving balance in these 
settings is often challenging due to 
differing community expectations, 
infrastructure constraints, and the 
evolving nature of growth at the edge 
of urban development. As expansion 
continues, new challenges arise in 
areas where urban and rural lifestyles 
converge. These urban and rural 
interface zones require thoughtful 
planning and practical solutions to 
maintain compatibility and livability.
Service / Infrastructure
Urban 
Residential
Urban 
Commercial
Urban 
Industrial
1  Water
YES
YES
YES
2  Sewer
YES
YES
YES
3  Roads
YES
YES
YES
4  Flood Control
YES
YES
YES
5  Dry Utilities
As Applicable
As Applicable
As Applicable
6  Police & Fire
YES
YES
YES
7  Medical
YES
NO
NO
8  Schools
YES
NO
NO
9  Parks & Recreation
YES
NO
NO
10  Libraries
As Applicable
NO
NO
11  Alternative Transportation 
As Applicable
As Applicable
As Applicable
12  Other Services
As Applicable
As Applicable
As Applicable
Source: Maricopa County Planning & Development Department
Table 6.   Urban Service and Infrastructure Requirements for UrbanConsiderations by Land Use Types
Note: The numbers in Table 6 correspond to the paragraph numbers listed on page 100.
Note: This table illustrates typical service relationships by land use type. It is not a set of requirements and is not used as a checklist for development approval.
The USUD strategy is used to inform staff recommendations and Board of Supervisors decisions by identifying infrastructure 
conditions, service availability, and long-term planning considerations. It does not operate as a checklist or pass-fail test 
for approval. Final decisions are based on the full range of adopted goals, policies, and case-specific factors.
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
101

1.4
Maricopa County supports limiting development in undeveloped areas where infrastructure 
and public services do not exist, or where no major infrastructure projects are planned, 
such as state and/or federal highwayscarefully evaluating development in areas where 
infrastructure and public services are limited or not planned, with consideration of long-
term service delivery and fiscal impacts.
1.5
Maricopa County supports coordinating land use and infrastructure planning with state 
agencies, other counties, municipalities, relevant utilities, federal agencies, and other 
regulatory bodies.
1.6
Maricopa County supports annexation of urban development in unincorporated Maricopa 
County by municipalities.
1.7
Maricopa County supports annexation of any unincorporated area of the County that is within 
a municipal planning area and completely surrounded by a municipality or municipalities.
1.8
Maricopa County supports the prevention of forming new County Islands.
1.9
Maricopa County supports planning coordination with adjacent municipalities, landowners, 
and neighboring public community members for proposed development within County 
Islands or municipal planning areas.
1.10
Maricopa County supports considering the plans and projects of overlapping or neighboring 
agencies in the planning of unincorporated lands and invite comments and coordination 
when appropriate.
1.11
Maricopa County supports flexible design and zoning techniques within County Islands or 
municipal planning areas through pre-annexation agreements, as needed, to align future 
development with the standards and service expectations of the adjacent municipalities.
1.12
Maricopa County supports directing new urban development to the Urban Growth Area 
identified in this plan and complying with the Urban Solutions for Urban Development 
strategy.
1.13
Maricopa County supports balanced land use patterns that include various residential, retail, 
non-retail employment, and public and civic land uses when appropriate urban services are 
available.
1.14
Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new urban development on existing 
rural land uses, including but not limited to, agriculture, mining, and forestry.
1.15
Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new rural development and new 
agriculture on existing urban land uses.
1.16
Maricopa County supports periodic reviews of the Area Plan Program and the individual 
Area Plans to assess relevance, implementation progress, and alignment with the Maricopa 
County Comprehensive Plan.
1.17
Maricopa County supports decommissioning an individual Area Plan upon Board 
consideration and approval if the amount of unincorporated land within the area equals less 
than 50% of the original total Area Plan limits.
1.18
Maricopa County supports requiring any Area Plan Update or new Area Plan to use the land 
use designations in the Comprehensive Plan.
 Chapter 5 •  LAND USE
109