Z240006 Consolidated Handout Memo
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
74977 characters
DATE:
May 8, 2025
TO:
Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
SUBJECT:
Z240006 – Goldhawk at the Preserve
Agenda Item: #5
Since the publication of the staff report, staff has received additional correspondence pertaining
to the referenced case.
Staff received a letter on April 29, 2025, from the office of Arizona State Senator John Kavanagh.
Senator Kavanagh’s letter references concerns pertaining to water supply, wastewater
contamination, and appropriate fire infrastructure. Senator Kavanagh requests that consideration
of the case be postponed for further analysis of these issues, including review of a hydrology
report, a fire mitigation plan, and a wastewater management strategy. The applicant responded
with a subsequent letter dated May 1, 2025. Both Senator Kavanagh’s letter and the applicant’s
response are attached to this handout.
Staff received another letter dated April 30, 2025, from Greg Laney, Chair of the Goldfield Ranch
Fire District (GRFD), whose jurisdiction includes Goldhawk at the Preserve. In his letter, Mr. Laney
alleges that the applicant had not notified GRFD of the project and had not provided GRFD with
project details. Mr. Laney requests that the Planning & Zoning Commission grant an extension on
hearing the case to allow GRFD and the developer time to mitigate the district’s concerns. Mr.
Laney then proceeds to list the district’s primary concerns with the project. On May 6, 2025, the
applicant confirmed to Planning staff that her clients had met with GRFD that morning. She also
provided a copy of email correspondence between the applicant’s client and Mr. Laney from
January 23 and 24, 2025, in which the two attempted to schedule a meeting to formally discuss
the project. The GRFD letter and copies of the applicant’s emails pertaining to the district’s
concerns are attached to this handout.
On May 1, 2025, staff received emails and letters from three property owners in the Goldfield
Ranch area expressing their concerns with and opposition to the case. These are attached to this
handout. Staff had received opposition from each of these owners prior to the publication of the
staff report as well. This opposition is included in the attachments to the staff report.
Attachments:
Letter from Senator Kavanagh (3 pages)
Applicant Response to Senator Kavanagh (3 pages)
Letter from Greg Laney, Chief, GRFD (2 pages)
Email from Applicant re: GRFD, dated 5/6/2025 (1 page)
Correspondence between Applicant’s Client & GRFD, dated 1/23-24/2025 (1 page)
Citizen Emails & Letters of Opposition (49 pages)
wr@berryriddell.com
Direct: (480) 682-3902
May 1, 2025
Via Email to:
Arizona State Senate
Attn: John Kavanagh
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
jkavanagh@azleg.gov
Re:
Goldhawk at The Preserve (Case No. Z240006)
Dear Senator Kavanagh,
Maricopa County has shared with us the letter you provided to them dated March 27th,
2025 (sic). I represent Grayhawk Development, the applicant for the downzoning of the
approximate 1,941-acre site within Goldfield Ranch. I sincerely wish you had taken a moment
to contact us prior to sending your letter so we would have had an opportunity to share some
of the facts with you directly.
You claim that we have not been working with the tribal communities and the other
interested stakeholders prior to moving this case forward. You should know that this case was
first filed on July 12, 2024, more than nine months ago, and we in fact voluntarily agreed to
continue the Comprehensive Plan Amendment three times at the request of the tribal
communities so that it could be heard concurrently with the zoning case. Most recently we
agreed to continue the rezoning case once before the Planning & Zoning Commission because
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community believed that notice had not been sufficient.
While the County, who is responsible for providing this notice maintains that the notice was
indeed sufficient, we nonetheless voluntarily agreed to continue the case out of respect for the
Community’s concern.
Further, while the County’s Zoning Ordinance does not require us to host neighborhood
meetings, we in fact hosted two of them regarding this development at the Fountain Hills
Community Center, a location suggested by an involved community stakeholder. The first was
attended by approximately forty-five (45) people, and the second by significantly less - twelve
(12) people. In addition to these two neighborhood meetings, we have had at least two meetings
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
May 1, 2025
Page 2
with each of the tribal communities, as well as significant dialogue outside of those meetings.
There are ample letters and emails demonstrating that robust dialogue has been occurring since
the Fall of 2024 with all interested stakeholders.
I was also very startled by your assertion that there is no clear path for fire protection.
As the representative for this area, I would have thought you knew about the Goldfield Ranch
Fire District. My client is a long-time contributing member to the District and has been since
its’ formation. With the site developing as we are proposing, this contribution would increase
by at least five times, which will in turn give a significant financial boost to the ultimate fire
provider. You should also know that it is my client who currently allows the District to use
their well and tank for fire suppression, providing the only viable means of fire suppression
for Goldfield Ranch today. Additionally, we have committed to sprinkler each proposed home
and bring fire hydrants to Goldfield Ranch. The reality is that this proposal will bring much
needed fire infrastructure that is currently not present anywhere within Goldfield Ranch. It will
also increase revenue to the Fire District making fire infrastructure for the rest of Goldfield
Ranch possible and sustainable.
I was also surprised by your statement that our proposal “will have” at least two large
production wells directly adjacent to the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. You should know
that the wells on our site exist today and have since 1985. You should also know that the Verde
River adjudication court has already determined that our wells are outside the sub flow zone.
Additionally, my client has had an Analysis of Assured Water Supply from the Arizona
Department of Water Resources for 731.69-acre feet of water since 2007, though with this plan
we would use substantially less water. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have
committed to obtaining a Certificate of Assured Water Supply before developing this site
through the subdivision process.
Lastly you claim that this project should not move forward because my client is not
proposing “a modern wastewater treatment plant” on site. We have been very transparent
throughout our extensive outreach that such a treatment plant is cost prohibitive without
substantially more density which is not supported by the stakeholders in the area. We have
also suggested to these same stakeholders that the use of septic within a controlled master
planned community with oversight is a preferable alternative to the unregulated septic systems
that exist throughout the rest of Goldfield Ranch. Incidentally this same logic would apply to
our proposed water solution – developing the site and utilizing production wells and a water
provider is a significantly better outcome than the proliferation of individual exempt wells that
currently exist through the rest of Goldfield Ranch.
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
May 1, 2025
Page 3
I trust now that we have provided this information, you would agree that nine months
is not an “expedited pace of planning and zoning deliberations” and that a large-lot master
planned community done by a well-respected developer with the commitments I have outlined
above is a much better alternative to the inevitable wildcat subdivisions that would otherwise
occur. We are of course happy to discuss any of this with you.
Sincerely,
Wendy Riddell
cc: Jimmy Lindblom
Larry Lazarus
Stephen Anderson
Tom Ellsworth
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Wendy Riddell <wr@berryriddell.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, May 6, 2025 11:24 AM
To:
Darren Gerard (PND)
Cc:
Tom Ellsworth (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND); Chris Harrison
(charrison@grayhawk.com); ttryhus@grayhawk.com; Sarah Sawyer; Elyse DiMartino
Subject:
RE: Z240006 Goldhawk
Attachments:
RE: The Preserve at Goldfield aka Goldhawk
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Darren – Do you have our response to the Kavanaugh letter included as well?
You should also know that my clients met with the Goldfield Ranch Fire District this morning, a meeting that they
had been trying to set up since January. Please see the attached email.
Regarding the stipulations, we are still working on these with SRP-MIC, and I think we need to hear from them
before I can agree to stipulations. Please note that there is also a typo in the last stipulation.
More to come!
Best,
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.
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Greg Laney <GLaney@spray-eri.com>
Sent:
Friday, January 24, 2025 10:56 AM
To:
Chris Harrison
Cc:
Taylor Tryhus; chrisvan50@hotmail.com
Subject:
RE: The Preserve at Goldfield aka Goldhawk
Mr. Harrison,
I have received your email. If this meeting could be scheduled for the week of March 10th in afternoon that would
be preferred. We could meet at your oƯice if that is acceptable.
Thank you,
Greg Laney
Goldfield Ranch Fire District
From: Chris Harrison <charrison@grayhawk.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2025 10:51 AM
To: Greg Laney <GLaney@spray-eri.com>
Cc: Taylor Tryhus <ttryhus@grayhawk.com>
Subject: The Preserve at Goldfield aka Goldhawk
Hi Mr. Laney-
My name is Chris Harrison/Grayhawk Development, and I am working on the Goldhawk at the Preserve project. I
hope to twist your arm for an in-person meeting in the next couple of weeks. We are currently pursuing a DMP
Amendment and Rezoning, with hearings expected towards the end of 1Q. As members of the Goldfield Ranch
Fire District, we are interested in understanding how our presence can be of benefit, as well as addressing the
questions/concerns you tendered and opening a dialogue for measures we might incorporate into our planning to
mitigate future fire danger. We are happy to come to see you or host you at our oƯice; whichever is most
convenient. Grayhawk OƯice is located in the Gainey Ranch area of Scottsdale. For this intro meeting, we’d have
two or three people from our end. Please let me know a couple dates and times you are available and we can go
from there. Note the week of Feb 2-8 will be challenging for us so next week or after Feb 12 works best.
Regards
Chris Harrison
Grayhawk Development
480-694-8434
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
jim mcneil <jlmau2010@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 1, 2025 7:28 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Case number--Z240006 or CPA2024004---GoldHawk
Attachments:
JM-preserve case -Z240006- Copy.docx
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 Day Nicholas,
I am submitting my opinions and comments for GoldHawk--
Thank You
Jim McNeil
21511 E Northwood Pass
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Jim McNeil
21511 E Northwood Pass
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
JLMAU2010@yahoo.com
Parcel #219-16-066K
May 1, 2025
Nicholas Schlimm
Planning
Maricopa County
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear Nicholas Schlimm,
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed Development in Goldfield Ranch
known as (The Preserve).
I am wriƟng to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre parcel in the Goldfield
Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from one single-family home per five acres
to one home per acre, along with the addiƟon of high-density apartments, condominiums, and a golf course, raises
significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic issues. The development poses a severe threat to the local
ecosystem, water resources, community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region. This leƩer outlines the
negaƟve impacts this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem, parƟcularly considering the
ongoing and possible future drought condiƟons and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a 35-year period of water
scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged drought has already significantly
affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for agricultural, residenƟal, and environmental needs.
The proposed increase in housing density, coupled with water-intensive ameniƟes such as a golf course, will only
exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are criƟcally low due to prolonged periods of reduced precipitaƟon. The increased
demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the aquifers, which are the primary
sources of water for local communiƟes and ecosystems. As a result, this could lead to the drying up of wells, reduced
water availability for exisƟng residents, and the deterioraƟon of local water quality due to increased groundwater
pumping. Moreover, any reducƟon in groundwater levels could have long-lasƟng effects on the desert's natural
vegetaƟon, which is already under stress from drought condiƟons, thereby altering the landscape and ecological balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this development proceeds, it
could lead to further depleƟon of the aquifers, potenƟally requiring exisƟng homeowners to drill new wells beyond 1,000
feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibiƟve, which could render surrounding properƟes virtually worthless due to
the financial burden of accessing water. Given the decades that have passed since the original zoning approval—long
before the current drought condiƟons—it is crucial to conduct new, independent water surveys to assess the current
situaƟon and potenƟal impact of increased water usage.
Several of the current residents in the Goldfield are very concerned about our water wells and not to have a similar
concern as North ScoƩsdale recently experienced. I and other never desire top haul water and our resources needs to be
research and evaluated.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid condiƟons and rely on specific ecological condiƟons to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
condiƟons by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
polluƟon, and the introducƟon of invasive species.
ParƟcularly at risk are the local wildlife populaƟons, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in
biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns about the disposal of
wastewater. The addiƟon of over 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses, and a golf course will generate
substanƟal amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure, could contaminate local groundwater supplies.
This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of the region and the well-being of its residents.
AddiƟonally, the increased populaƟon density will place a considerable strain on the local highway infrastructure. The
exisƟng two-lane highway in each direcƟon is inadequate for the anƟcipated traffic influx. Approving this proposal would
necessitate construcƟng acceleraƟon and deceleraƟon lanes and likely expanding the highway to three to four lanes in
each direcƟon along with the necessary stop lights at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge crossing the Verde River
may need to be rebuilt to handle increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both direcƟons, exacerbaƟng the negaƟve
impact on the surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potenƟal influx of students resulƟng from
this development. This could necessitate the construcƟon of new schools, a burden that should fall on the developer,
given the strain the development will place on exisƟng educaƟonal infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services infrastructure to support
such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which does
not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from this development. Building new fire staƟons and emergency
services faciliƟes will be necessary to ensure community safety.
Furthermore, the development's addiƟonal infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads, bridges, and public services,
could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potenƟal tax increase would place an undue financial burden on all
residents, especially those who are reƟred and living on fixed incomes. Higher property taxes to fund the necessary
infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would be parƟcularly challenging for these residents,
potenƟally forcing them out of their homes due to rising costs.
5. Environmental and Legal ConsideraƟons.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid condiƟons and rely on specific ecological condiƟons to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
condiƟons by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
polluƟon, and the introducƟon of invasive species.
ParƟcularly at risk are the local wildlife populaƟons, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in
biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago, necessitate thorough
reconsideraƟon considering current environmental condiƟons and regulaƟons. Given the significant changes in water
availability and ecological condiƟons since the original proposal, new environmental impact studies should be conducted
to ensure compliance with state and federal environmental laws, including the NaƟonal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area that encompasses the Salt
River, Verde River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
6. Electrical Power. So far SRP and Fort McDowell have not given permission to upgrade the 12 kV power line that
crosses the reservaƟon we have here that is meant to support about 300 homes total (we have around 140 currently).
The tribe is not in favor of this project either as it will sit on their boundary as well.
7. The land in this region is choppy with hills and many washes. To have any type of dwelling on one or two acres is
difficult. The areas of drainage and sepƟc locaƟons are a concern as the building sites would be difficult in many areas
due to the restricƟon of surface space or inadequate soil permeability.
8. Law enforcement is provided by Maricopa County sheriff office and would slightly impact their services as well. Fort
McDowell has no jurisdicƟon in this same area as well.
9. Fire protecƟon and services would also be impacted as well. This proposal is too dense for the current environment
and road usage would greatly be impacted as the is no designated road for access to the development unless using
exisƟng roads that are owned by the residents of Goldfield Ranch—not the county of Maricopa.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potenƟally irreversible impacts on water resources, local infrastructure, the environment,
and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authoriƟes to reconsider the proposed
development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is crucial to prioriƟze sustainable development
pracƟces that respect the unique and fragile environment of the Sonoran Desert and consider the economic and social
impact on the community, especially those most vulnerable.
Thank you for your aƩenƟon to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideraƟon will be given to protecƟng our natural
environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Sincerely,
Jim McNeil
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Larry Webster <larry.webster.az@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 1, 2025 8:51 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk Letter of Concern
Attachments:
Goldhawk Preserve Letter of Concern.pdf
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 Mr. Schlimm,
Please see our attached letter of concern for the Goldhawk Project
Larry Webster
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Larry Webster <larry.webster.az@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:23 AM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Gold Hawk Letter of concern with Parcels
Attachments:
Goldhawk Preserve Letter of Concern Showing Parcels.pdf
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 Nick,
Here is my protest letter showing the Parcels we own
Larry Webster
Larry & Margaret Webster
21731 E. Thirsty Earth Trail,
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
480-601-8029
Larrry.Webster.AZ@gmail.com
Parcel #’s:
219-16-050D
219-16-050C
219-16-051H
Nicholas Schlimm
Planning
Maricopa County
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear Nicholas Schlimm, Me and my wife currently own 30 acres in Goldfield ranch. One of our
lots borders the preserve land in question.
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed
Development in Goldfield Ranch
known as (The Preserve).
I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre
parcel in the Goldfield
Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from
one single-family home per five acres
to one home per acre, along with the addition of high-density apartments, condominiums, and a
golf course, raises
significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic issues. The development poses a
severe threat to the local
ecosystem, water resources, community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region.
This letter outlines the
negative impacts this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem,
particularly considering the
ongoing and possible future drought conditions and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a
35-year period of water
scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged drought has
already significantly
affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for agricultural, residential, and
environmental needs.
The proposed increase in housing density, coupled with water-intensive amenities such as a golf
course, will only
exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are critically low due to prolonged periods of reduced
precipitation. The increased
demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the aquifers,
which are the
primary sources of water for local communities and ecosystems. As a result, this could lead to
the drying up of wells,
reduced water availability for existing residents, and the deterioration of local water quality due
to increased
groundwater pumping. Moreover, any reduction in groundwater levels could have long-lasting
effects on the desert's
natural vegetation, which is already under stress from drought conditions, thereby altering the
landscape and ecological
balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this
development proceeds, it
could lead to further depletion of the aquifers, potentially requiring existing homeowners to drill
new wells beyond
1,000 feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibitive, which could render surrounding
properties virtually worthless
due to the financial burden of accessing water. Given the decades that have passed since the
original zoning
approval—long before the current drought conditions—it is crucial to conduct new, independent
water surveys to
assess the current situation and potential impact of increased water usage.
Several of the current residents in the Goldfield are very concerned about our water wells and
not to have a similar
concern as North Scottsdale recently experienced. I and other never desire top haul water and
our resources needs to
be research and evaluated.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are
adapted to the region's
arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed development
threatens to disrupt these
conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to
habitat loss, increased
pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds
that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing
and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water,
thus leading to a decline
in biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns
about the disposal of
wastewater. The addition of over 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses, and a
golf course will generate
substantial amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure, could contaminate local
groundwater supplies.
This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of the region and the well-being of its
residents.
Additionally, the increased population density will place a considerable strain on the local
highway infrastructure. The
existing two-lane highway in each direction is inadequate for the anticipated traffic influx.
Approving this proposal would
necessitate constructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and likely expanding the highway
to three to four lanes in
each direction along with the necessary stop lights at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge
crossing the Verde River
may need to be rebuilt to handle increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both directions,
exacerbating the negative
impact on the surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potential influx of
students resulting from
this development. This could necessitate the construction of new schools, a burden that should
fall on the developer,
given the strain the development will place on existing educational infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services
infrastructure to support
such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Indian Tribe, which does
not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from this development. Building new fire
stations and emergency
services facilities will be necessary to ensure community safety.
Furthermore, the development's additional infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads,
bridges, and public services,
could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potential tax increase would place an undue
financial burden on all
residents, especially those who are retired and living on fixed incomes. Higher property taxes to
fund the necessary
infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would be particularly challenging for
these residents,
potentially forcing them out of their homes due to rising costs.
5. Environmental and Legal Considerations.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are
adapted to the region's
arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed development
threatens to disrupt these
conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to
habitat loss, increased
pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds
that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing
and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water,
thus leading to a decline
in biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago,
necessitate thorough
reconsideration considering current environmental conditions and regulations. Given the
significant changes in water
availability and ecological conditions since the original proposal, new environmental impact
studies should be conducted
to ensure compliance with state and federal environmental laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area
that encompasses the Salt
River, Verde River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique
area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
6. Electrical Power. So far SRP and Fort McDowell have not given permission to upgrade the 12
kV power line that
crosses the reservation we have here that is meant to support about 300 homes total (we have
around 140 currently).
The tribe is not in favor of this project either as it will sit on their boundary as well.
7. The land in this region is choppy with hills and many washes. To have any type of dwelling on
one or two acres is
difficult. The areas of drainage and septic locations are a concern as the building sites would be
difficult in many areas
due to the restriction of surface space or inadequate soil permeability.
8. Law enforcement is provided by Maricopa County sheriff office and would slightly impact their
services as well. Fort
McDowell has no jurisdiction in this same area as well.
9. Fire protection and services would also be impacted as well. This proposal is too dense for
the current environment
and road usage would greatly be impacted as the is no designated road for access to the
development unless using
existing roads that are owned by the residents of Goldfield Ranch—not the county of Maricopa.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potentially irreversible impacts on water resources, local
infrastructure, the environment,
and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the
proposed
development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is crucial to prioritize
sustainable development
practices that respect the unique and fragile environment of the Sonoran Desert and consider
the economic and social
impact on the community, especially those most vulnerable.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideration will be given
to protecting our natural environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Larry & Margaret Webster
1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Kathy and Randy Haines <randyhaines@outlook.com>
Sent:
Thursday, May 1, 2025 4:23 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Wendy Riddell; llazarus@lslawaz.com; Stephen Anderson; scott@carpenter.law;
Benjamin Timm; Darren Gerard (PND)
Subject:
Z240006 Goldhawk Rezoning
Attachments:
SchlimmLtrMay1WithDibbleReport.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Mr. Schlimm, attached is a report from GPOA's Traffic Engineer, Seth Chalmers, PE, Director of Traffic
Engineering, Dibble Engineering. It identifies several major deficiencies regarding the circulation, traffic and
access in the development proposed in the rezoning case Z240006.
This is a major part of the objection that Goldfield Property Owners Assocation has to the proposed rezoning
and development. I am one of the Directors of GPOA and am submitting this report on its behalf. I expect this
to be included in the updated staff report you will soon be transmitting to the Planning and Zoning
Commission in connection with the hearing scheduled for May 8.
Thank you for your attention, and have a happy May Day.
Randy Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
(602) 390-3070
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
May 1, 2025
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve, Planning Review
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am one of the Directors of the Goldfield Property Owners Association (“GPOA”).
GPOA is the “local authority” responsible for maintaining the roads on the originally platted
easements in Goldfield Ranch, which includes all of the land proposed for rezoning in Z240006
as well as the adjacent subdivision that is proposed to provide secondary access and emergency
egress from the rezoned property.
GPOA engaged Seth Chalmers, PE, Director of Traffic Engineering at Dibble
Engineering, Inc., to evaluate the traffic, access and circulation issues raised by the proposed
rezoning. Attached are his CV and his draft report, which should be included in the record
Planning and Development provides to the Planning and Zoning Commission in advance of the
hearing currently scheduled for May 8.
Some of Mr. Chalmers’ key observations include:
The proposed development “needs to include an additional connection to SR 87.”
Using Vista del Oro [in the adjacent subdivision] as the “only second access is not
desirable” because it is “too long and circuitous to offer good functionality and availability.”
The additional access to SR 87 “should be supported by appropriate turn and
accelerations lanes that mitigate the high-speed conflicts of this divided high speed rural
highway.”
The proposed development “lacks a proper street network.” “[T]here is only one main
collector street on the conceptual plan. What is really needed is a collector street that loops
around the the entire development, providing connections to the interior via local streeets and
possibly additional collector streets.” See the conceptual drawing attached behind Report page
27.
2
The “current conceptual site plan does not appear to be fully consistent with [Maricopa
County subdivision] regulation when it comes to the definition of a collector street and minor
[local] street.”
“There needs to be comprehensive plan on how this development will handle” vulnerable
road users including pedestrians, bicyclists, microtransportation vehicles and perhaps
equestrians.
“One of the worst aspects of the Conceptual Site Plan . . . is the amount of traffic it will
funnel onto Palo Pinto and Burnt Water streets. This will cause significant vehicle noise and
visual impacts,” “will change the character of the neighborhood to be more urban with higher
residential intensity,” and “will also encourage higher speeds, necessitating some form of
neighborhood speed management program.”
“Allowing housing intensity like this without a future plan to reduce dependency on SR-
87 is simply urban sprawl.” “This is similar to what happened” in Anthem, which “caused
significanct problems on I-17.” Maricopa County had to build an additional arterial street to
relieve this traffic fiasco.”
Mr. Chalmers’ report stands on its own to demonstrate why this rezoning, narrative,
conceptual site plan and development should not be approved in their current form. It should
also be considered as “specific facts and evidence” showing how the proposed development will
“adversely affect adjacent properties,” in violation of Zoning Ordinance Article 1002.5(3), and
should also be considered as identifying numerous inconsistencies with the Goldfield Area Plan,
contrary to A.R.S.§ 11-814(A).
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Ms. Wendy Riddell, Esq.
Mr. Darren Gerard, Planning Manager
Mr. Larry Lazarus, Esq.
Mr. Stephen Anderson, Esq.
Mr. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
Seth Chalmers, PE
1
seth.chalmers@dibblecorp.com • (602) 363-1854 • 1451 N El Camino Dr Tempe, AZ 85281
Work Experience
Dibble
Director of Traffic Engineering - Phoenix, AZ
March 2019 to Present
Director of Traffic Engineering, Senior Project Manager and Senior Engineer while working for Dibble
Transportation and Land Development Business Units. Dibble (or formally Dibble Engineering) is a
consulting engineering that has offices in Phoenix, Mesa, Goodyear, Tucson and Window Rock Arizona.
It also has an office in Denver, Colorado. Dibble client base in mostly in Arizona and consists of many
cities, counties, and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and numerous private companies
and educational and public health institutions.
• Led and managed over 33 Traffic Impact Studies (TIS), 8 traffic signal or HAWK design projects, 5 road
safety assessment, 3 roadway design project and 2 rural road safety projects for the Navajo Department of
Transportation.
• Conducted shared parking studies for commercial and institutional clients.
• Served as the contract and project manager for over 45 completed assignments with the City of Glendale
per their General Engineering Consultant (GEC) service contract.
• Within Glendale projects, developed and prepared Design Concept Reports (DCR), Project Assessments
(PA), scoping studies and designing projects, cost estimates, street lighting design guide, bike lanes,
sidewalk gaps, traffic signal and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) specification and standards, grant
applications, operations and maintenance policies and guidelines along with preparing Geographical
Information System (GIS) data maps, studies for Citywide safety, level of service and capacity
• Helped the City of Glendale win over $12 million dollars in grants from a variety of local and federal
funding programs such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Congestion Management Air
Quality (CMAQ), Road Safety Program (RSP) to design and construct multimodal transportation and traffic
safety and capacity and facility infrastructure improvements.
• Most recently assisted the City in applying for a Safe Streets and Road for All Grant (SS4A) to develop a
City-wide Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Safety Action Plan and Maricopa Association of Governments Road
Safety Program grants for two HAWKs and completing SAE International EDGE Report on the role that
Advance Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) in making road safer.
Public Works Division Manager
Pima County Department of Transportation - Tucson, AZ
January 2013 to March 2019
Public Works Manager for three different Divisions, the last two were during a major re-organization
of the Department as dictated by the County Executive. The TECH Services Division (8 months),
Analytics Division (6 months) and Traffic Engineering Divisions (5 years) for the Pima County
Department of Transportation (PCDOT). Main Office 201 North Stone Avenue, 4th Floor, Tucson,
Arizona 85701. Phone 520-724-6410
TECH Services Division - Asked by Department Management to take over this new
Division after the previous Division Manager abruptly retired and there was
immediate need for leadership and management (August 2018 to March 2019).
• Division Units include Survey, Materials Laboratory and Structures (Bridge and Culverts)
• Continued with the implementation of the Departments Transportation Improvement Plan by
developing Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to transfer Bridge & Culvert inspection program to
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), New Survey Monument Plan and a Pavement
Optimization Initiative as well as host of other process improvements. Developed a standard
operating procedure (SOP) program to organize, prioritize, schedule, develop and implement these
improvements.
• Help lead the Department to begin to migrate to AASHTO’s new Mechanistic-Empirical (ME)
Pavement Design approach.
• Oversees the Department’s Monthly Coordination Meetings with Pima County Sheriff Department to
discuss enforcement, crash analytics, safety, and projects.
• Overseeing 21 Employees with direct supervisorial responsibility for three managers and a Civil
Engineering Assistant Senior with an annual budget of $2.3 million.
Seth Chalmers, PE
2
• Attended and participated in Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) National Dialogue on Highway
Automation – Developed and submitted a statement on what FHWA needs to consider from a local
government perspective on road readiness criteria for Automated Vehicles.
• Review and approve temporary speed regulations for permits and CIP projects
Public Works Manager of the new Analytics Division, Pima County Department of
Transportation (PCDOT) (January 2018 to August 2018)
• New Division created after reorganization of Pima County Department of Transportation that became
effective in January 2018.
• Division Units included Maps (GIS) and Records which includes Road Proceedings as defined in ARS
28-6701 through 28-6703 and Traffic Studies and traffic and Crash Data Collection and Processing
Services.
• Assisted in the scoping and development of the implementation of the Departments Transportation
Improvement Plan which includes Transportation Network Management System (TNMS) which a
combination of ESRI GIS and IBM Maximo Enterprise System. The goal of the TNMS is to help improve
how the Department allocates resources to achieve its mission: “Getting you there safely, efficiently, and
conveniently.”
• Help discover and develop methods and approaches to modernize the Pima County ESRI GIS mapping
and asset inventory systems to be more consistent and in line with Federal Highway Administrations
(FHWA) Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), Model Inventory of Roadway Elements (MIRE)
and All Roads Network of Linear Reference Data (ARNOLD)
• Oversaw the Department’s Monthly Coordination Meetings with Pima County Sheriff Department to
discuss enforcement, crash analytics, safety, and projects.
• Reviewed and approved temporary speed regulations for permits and CIP projects
• Oversaw annual meeting with School Districts and individual schools to discuss traffic and parking
issues and special event permits.
• Researched and promoted adoption of American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Transportation Asset Management (TAM).
• Participated in Tucson and Pima County Bike Advisory Committee (BAC) meetings are a regular basis.
• Oversaw 30 employees with direct supervisorial responsibly for 4 managers and a budget of $2.1 million.
• Participated on Pima County Association of Governments (PAG) SMART growth task group.
Public Works Manager of the Traffic Engineering Division (TED), Pima County Department
of Transportation (PCDOT) (January 2013 to January 2018 (beginning of Department Re-
organization)
• Division units included Traffic Studies and Data Unit, Safety Management System (SMS) Unit, Signals
and Lighting Unit, Intelligence Transportations Systems (ITS) Unit, Pavement Marking Unit, Signing Unit,
Administration Unit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Program.
• Oversaw 50 employees with direct supervisorial responsibility for five managers and an annual
budget of $6.3 million.
• Cultivated a strong and productive workplace culture by pursuing and completing multiple
improvement initiatives including: attention to team building (inside and outside the Division),
restructure of all TED units to enable better leadership and opportunity, continue to evaluate structure and
assignments based on turn-over and other needs (e.g. task and responsibility organization chart), updating
the SMS program to include latest FHWA requirements and AASHTO Highway Safety Manual processes
including a program approach to improvement projects, developing and implementing Division
guidelines, established a formal standards program, establishing budget setting and tracking processes,
developed a 5-year capital budget plan for facilities and equipment, implementation of
a strong administration unit and promoting and arranging for leadership and technical training and
technical conference attendance (e.g. Roads and Streets, ITE / IMSA Spring Conference, ATSSA, etc.).
• Improvement initiatives included improved special event permitting process, a master routine
maintenance schedule for all units, improved field asset data bases, transformation of the SMS into a
front line defense tool for tort claims, instituting a staff technical training program, modernization of
work order and tracking systems, updating signing, marking, signal and lighting standards and work
approaches.
• Implemented and aggressively pursued developing a program of applying for and achieving potential
safety related funding that included the Governor’s Office for Highway Safety (GHOS), Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP), Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) and Pima County Association of
Government (PAG) Project Development and Assessment Funds (PDAF).
• Implemented a goal to have two Road Safety Assessment (RSA) done every year for the Department
Seth Chalmers, PE
3
through either ADOT or PAGs program.
• Achieved HSIP Grant to have all the roads in the County Scanned with LIDAR to update the traffic sign
inventory along with retroreflectivity and conditions assessment. Results were used to develop a sign
panel replacement plan. LIDAR scan was also post-processed to audit and establish a more
complete and up-to-date inventory of other Pima County road features. Achieved numerous other HSIP
grants and STP funding for spot safety improvements.
• Collaborated with Pima County Development Services Department (DSD) on updating the
Subdivisions Streets Standard and developing DSD traffic and transportation engineering capabilities so
they are more self-sufficient. Revamp the left turn warranting process along with setting criteria for safety
analysis and requirements for mitigations that have Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).
• Led the development of a long-range capital improvement plan for Tucson Mountain and Saguaro
National Park (east and west) roadways to better position both the County and the Park Service to
develop and submit Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant proposals.
• Promoted and developed a strong working relationship and student intern program with the University
of Arizona College of Engineering and Civil Engineering Department including implementing an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for research and intern employment.
• Worked with Pima County Risk Management and Attorney Office on numerous tort liability claims and
lawsuits.
• Traffic and Transportation Representative on Pima County Emergency Operation Center (EOC)
Planning and Response team.
• Worked with Pima County Sheriff Department on a variety of projects which included monthly
coordination meetings, crash data analysis, critical crash follow-up studies, special events, school
issues and enforcement.
• Oversaw improvements and restructuring in the Division’s Arizona 811 (Blue Stake) Services.
Founder, President and Owner Chalmers
Engineering Services
-
Tempe, AZ
September 2001 to January 2013
• As President and sole owner ran the entire business side of the company via the business plan. This
included bookkeeping, accounting processes, billing, accounts payable/receivable, taxes, Corporate
matters, company HR, insurance at the same time conducting project management and engineering
billable work for variety of clients.
• Designed, managed, and completed numerous traffic and transportation engineering projects for
the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Traffic Engineering Group, Traffic Operations,
Traffic Design and Traffic Safety Section, ADOT Transportation Research Center (ATRC), ADOT
Arizona Technical Assistance Program (AzLTAP), Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Arizona Attorney Generals (AG) Office, and other private and public
clients. Highlighted project accomplishments were as follows:
• Develop procurement specification for traffic related products and services for ADOT including traffic
signal control cabinet.
• Project Manager and Engineer for a complete revision to ADOT Traffic Signal and Lighting (TS)
Standard Drawings.
• Developed and conducted a number of pavement marking and traffic signing test projects for ADOT that
included the I-10 Deck Tunnel retroreflective raise pavement marker (RRPM), I-17 Dugas to Cherry paint
test deck.
• Develop and taught technical training classes for ADOT on topics light Street Lighting, pavement
marking inspection, signing, and Syncro.
• Project manager and engineer for over 100 HSIP projects for ADOT and local governments all over the
state. Develop procurement approach and specifications for count down pedestrian signal, traffic sign
inventory / replacement, pavement marking and guardrail projects. Tasks included developing and
finalizing Joint Project Agreements (JPA), environmental clearances, utility clearances, material
clearances, right of way clearances, authorization documents, and close out certifications.
• Conducted numerous Road Safety Assessment (RSA) for ADOT and local governments.
• Helped AG and other private law firm clients win settlements as a consultant or expert witness on a
number of road defect cases
Co-Founder, President and Co-Owner TASK
Engineering Company
-
Phoenix, AZ May
1995 to August 2001
Seth Chalmers, PE
4
• As President and co-owner ran the entire business side of the company via the business plan. This
included bookkeeping, accounting processes, billing, accounts payable/receivable, taxes, Corporate
matters, company HR, insurance at the same time conducting project management and engineering
billable work for variety of clients.
• In-house consultant for ADOT Traffic Engineering Group's reviewing and designing traffic control,
signing and pavement marking plans and special provisions; reviewing project assessments
and roadway design plans; reviewing and developing engineering scopes of work and cost estimates;
preparing and developing specifications and evaluating bids for procurement
contracts; developing and participating in the test installation and evaluation of a variety of pavement
marking, signing, traffic signal and roadway lighting products. Developing and preparing stored
specifications, standard specification and standard drawing updates; providing technical assistance
to ADOT staff and on-call consultants, especially in the areas of pavement markings, signing, traffic signals,
roadway lighting and procurement policy.
• Project manager and principle investigator for the Intelligent Vehicle Systems (ITS) and the Electrical
Approved Product List (EAPL) project for ADOT-Arizona Transportation Research Center (ATRC).
• Provided technical assistance on ADOT's behalf to the AZTECH ITS Model Deployment team on
developing a traffic signal coordination system along Grand Avenue (US 60).
• Designed freeway, arterial street, residential street, park and parking lot lighting systems for a
variety of clients that included: ADOT, Phoenix, Gilbert, Mesa, Peoria and Chandler.
• Developed and taught a two-day course "Roadway Lighting Design" for the Tennessee Transportation
Assistance Program (TTAP) and ADOT.
Project Manager
Lee Engineering -
Phoenix, AZ
August 1993 to April 1995
• April 1994 to April of 1995 served as ADOT Traffic Design Section in-house consultant. Conducted
numerous traffic control product evaluations (as part of the traffic product evaluation program), wrote
specifications and did a variety of traffic engineering-related design projects (temporary traffic control,
pavement marking, signing, traffic signal, and lighting). Started attending Traffic Control Product
Evaluation Committee (TCPEC) meetings in March of 1994.
• Project Manager/Engineer on design of traffic signals for Home Depot at Thunderbird Rd and I-17, for
Bashas' new store in Thatcher; the Nevada Department of Transportation at the diamond interchanges of I-
95 and Horizon Road and College Road in Henderson, Nevada; City of Phoenix Signal System
• Economic and Feasibility Study; design of traffic control plans and special provisions for I-10 San Simon
and signing plans and special provisions for US 191 Douglas Pan-American Highway; improvement and
traffic study for Taxiway "X" at Sky Harbor International Airport; and North Las Vegas Boulevard (The
Strip) Pedestrian Study for the Nevada Resort Association
Project Manager & Engineer
BRW -
Phoenix, AZ
May 1992 to August 1993
• Project Manager/ Engineer for the design of construction traffic control, signing and pavement
marking plans for variety of projects for ADOT state-wide on numerous state routes.
• Assisted in the preparation of pavement marking, signing, traffic signal and lighting plans for the
redevelopment of downtown Flagstaff.
• Developed the "universe" of alignment alternatives for the I-17 Extension Study, which explored the
feasibility of extending 1-17 north from Flagstaff to I-15 in Utah to provide a Canada and Mexico
connection through Arizona.
• Developed a BRW engineering student summer intern program.
Project Manager & Engineer
Tudor Engineering Company (ICF Kaiser) -
Phoenix, AZ
October 1990 to May 1992
Seth Chalmers, PE
5
• Project Manager/ Engineer for the Grand Avenue TSM project - reconstruction of pavement marking,
signing, traffic signals, minor roadway improvement, at grade railroad crossing signaling, signing and
marking upgrades and lighting for 18 intersections in Phoenix, Glendale and Peoria. Successfully
confronted the challenge of upgrading traffic control at intersections having 5-6 legs and being adjacent
to an active Santa Fe rail line. The project involved traffic studies, plan preparation and extensive
coordination work with four jurisdictions and twelve utility companies.
• Conducted a traffic study for the General Services Administration for developing safety and vehicle
capacity improvement strategies for border stations along the Mexican/USA California border.
Design Engineer
Arizona Department of Transportation -
Phoenix, AZ
October 1988 to October 1990
• Design Engineer in the Urban Highways Section for the East Papago/Hohokam/Sky Harbor/Red
Mountain freeway corridors.
• Assisted in the management and coordination of all aspects of design of 15 miles of urban freeways
which include the channelization of the Salt River, on and off site drainage, design concepts, traffic
studies, public participation, environmental clearances, utility clearances, roadway geometry, utility
relocations (water, sewer, power, communications & gas) structures, signing, pavement marking, traffic
signals, roadway lighting and construction sequencing and traffic control.
• Worked on the Urban Highway Design Procedure Manual update, value engineering studies, directed the
traffic pole standard drawing update project
Civil Engineer
HNTB Corporation -
Phoenix, AZ
January 1983 to October 1988
• Responsible for managing five design consultants in preparing pavement marking, signing,
traffic signal and roadway lighting plans as member of HNTB I-10, Inner Loop/Papago Freeway
management consultant team.
• Developed and prepared numerous traffic signal and signing plans and specifications for a variety
of projects and clients.
Affiliations – Present and Past
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Member
Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Arizona Section - Past Chair ITE / IMSA Arizona Section’s Annual Spring Conference (2004-2009),
Currently Member of Conference Program Committee and Safety Subcommittee (2019 to present).
ITE Nation - Past member of the ITE LED Traffic Ball, Arrow and Pedestrian Signal Specification
Committee (2005 -2010)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Member of D04 Road and Paving Materials Committee / D04.38 Traffic Control Materials Subcommittee
American Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA)
Member and Chair of Traffic Signal Committee and Chair of the Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) Task Force
University of Arizona (UArizona) – College of Engineering
Chair of Civil Architectural Engineering and Mechanics (CAEM) Department Industrial and Alumni
Council (AIC)
Boy Scouts of America (BSA)
Former Scoutmaster, Venture Crew, Committee Chairperson, and Merit Badge Council for Road Safety.
Also, was volunteer Civil Engineer for Grand Canyon Council’s Camp Geronimo summer camp.
Seth Chalmers, PE
6
\
Education
Bachelor's in Civil Engineering
University of Arizona
-
Tucson, AZ
January 1980 to December 1982
Associate in Transfer
Phoenix College
-
Phoenix, AZ
August 1977 to December 1979
Certifications/Licenses
Professional Engineer (Civil) in Arizona #21668
Since October 1988 to present
Honors
Boy Scouts of American (BSA)
Eagle Scout with Bronze Palm
Wipala Wiki Lodge 432 Order of the Arrow – Tomahawk Award for Camp Building
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
1994 Construction Excellence Award for Grand Avenue US 60 Transportation Management System
University of Arizona (UArizona)
J.R. Van Horn Scholarship for Transportation
1
Goldfield Ranch Property Owners Association (GRPOA)
Comments, Questions, & Suggestions Regarding the Proposed Grayhawk at the Preserve ‐ DRAFT
Maricopa County, Arizona
04/30/2025 Version By Seth Chalmers, PE
Director of Traffic Engineering Dibble
3020 East Camelback Road, Suite 201 Phoenix, Arizona 85016
Seth.chalmers@dibblecorp.come / 602‐363‐1854
Purpose & Scope
The purpose of this report is to offer comments, questions, and suggestions regarding this proposed Goldhawk at the
Preserve development. This input is offered on behalf of the Goldfield Ranch Property Owners Association, who have
hired Dibble to do this.
#1 – Lack of Redundant Access to State Route 87 (SR 87) Issue
The proposed HilgartWilson Goldhawk at the Preserve Residential Unit Plan of Development Conceptual Site Plan Figure
3 needs to include an additional connection to SR 87. Using Vista del Oro as it’s only second access is not desirable, as its
route to SR 87 is too long and circuitous to offer good functionality and availability. Because of this, most traffic will use
the Burnt Water access instead, as it does not make sense for them to use Vista del Oro, especially if they are entering
from the north and exiting to the south. Hence, to balance traffic demand, another connection to SR 87 is needed in the
southwest corner of this proposed development. This access to SR 87 should have right‐in, right‐out, and left‐in access,
supported by appropriate turn and acceleration lanes that mitigate the high‐speed conflicts of this divided high speed
rural highway.
#2 – Street/Road Network & SR 87 Issues
The proposed site plan, with its residential intensity, is very vehicle‐centric and is not consistent with modern street
network planning and design practices. It appears to lack consideration for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) and the modes
of travel they use (such as walking and rolling). The proposed intensity of residential development also significantly
changes the character of this area from a rural setting to a more urban environment.
Thus, it is very much a throwback to the less desirable street network plans and designs of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s,
when the concepts of local and collector streets were known but often ignored or not well understood by developers
and many civil engineers who provided designs for those developers. Figure 1 illustrates the basic theory that strikes a
balance between mobility and land access. The key is to have a network of local streets, which are typically not very
long, that then connect into a network of collector streets, which typically do not have residential land use access
(private driveways). These collector streets then connect into the arterial network, which subsequently connects to
highways and freeways.
Figure 1 – Access to Mobility Relationship
The issue related to this proposed development, and indeed the entire Goldfield Ranch area, is that it lacks a proper
street network. Instead, it has local streets that are very long (sometimes miles in length) and connect directly to a
2
major highway, SR 87, which is likely to become a freeway in the future. This is evidenced by the grade separation of SR
87 with the Bush Highway, which features a freeway‐grade separated traffic interchange. It is likely that more grade‐
separated traffic interchanges will be added in the future. Figure 2 presents a table from the Pima County Department of
Transportation’s Subdivision Street Design Manual, providing evidence and specific details of the current approach to
designing a street system for a proposed development like Goldhawk at the Preserve:
Figure 2 – PCDOT Subdivision Street Design Criteria
It is important to note that this criterion was developed in conjunction with the Southern Arizona Home Builders
Association (SAHBA). It would seem reasonable for this development to consider these criteria in its proposed site plan.
The current conceptual site plan does not appear to embrace any of these criteria. Additionally, as it stands, there is only
one main collector street on the conceptual plan. What is really needed is a collector street that loops around the entire
development, providing connections to the interior via local streets and possibly additional collector streets. The single
street will act as a funnel, with all entry and exiting traffic using it.
It is important to note that Maricopa County Subdivision Regulations, dated October 23, 2024, does embrace the
concept of the role of function classifications, see the Maricopa County appendix for more information on this. It does
not get into as much detail as the Pima County manual does. It calls a local street a minor street. However, the current
conceptual site plan does not appear to be fully consistent with this regulation when it comes to the definition of a
collector street and minor street. The whole development appears to be mostly based on the minor street definition
while fully embracing the secondary role that a collector street can provide direct residential lot access.
As SR 87 continues to evolve into a freeway, it is highly probable that frontage roads will be constructed on both sides to
maintain local access. These frontage roads would connect to interchanges, like the existing traffic interchange setup at
the Bush Highway, rather than providing direct access to SR 87.
It is also important to note that when the Goldfield Ranch area was originally developed, SR 87 in its rural areas was a
two‐lane, two‐way rural highway. However, from the 1980s through the early 2000s, it underwent almost continuous
improvement and is now a full two‐lane highway/freeway in each direction between Mesa and Payson. Along with these
3
improvements and the growth in Arizona, traffic volumes have continued to increase, as shown in Figure 3, which
presents a graph and table obtained from a 2019 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) study.
Figure 3 – SR 87 Traffic Growth ‐ Source: ADOT SR 87 Corridor Development Study – September 2019 Draft Feasibility Report
The Conceptual Site Plan proposed by Hilgartwilson, dated July 2024, features main access roads that are far from
desirable. This layout will not meet the vehicle transportation needs given the proposed land use and its intensity.
Instead, it will functionally create a huge cul‐de‐sac, funneling all traffic onto Palo Pinto and Burnt Water roadways
leading to Highway 87. Additionally, the local streets are way too long and will create speeding issues. Thus, the current
conceptual site plan must undergo significant revisions to enhance its functionality and avoid repeating the mistakes
made in past residential developments.
#3 ‐ Consideration of Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs)
As already stated, what consideration is being given to pedestrians, bicyclists, microtransportation vehicles, and perhaps
equestrians to access these areas? Are these vulnerable road users (VRUs) also supposed to use the streets and roads
directly? What about a separated path system along with sidewalks? What about road crossing, where will these be,
and what treatments will be provided to ensure VRUs have equal opportunity to cross the road?
There needs to be a comprehensive plan on how this development will handle VRUs. Simply stating that they will use
the streets and roads is not sufficient. It is highly recommended that separate off‐road paths and off‐street sidewalks be
included; otherwise, the past mistakes of similar developments will be repeated.
4
#4 – Traffic Noise & Visual Impact Mitigations
One of the worst aspects of the Conceptual Site Plan proposed by Hilgartwilson, dated July 2024, is the amount of traffic
it will funnel onto Palo Pinto and Burnt Water streets. This will cause significant vehicle noise and visual impacts from
vehicles moving to and from these streets. One of the reasons people choose to live in rural areas like this is to escape
traffic issues. However, the current plan fails to address this concern and instead resembles living in a more urban
environment. This development will change the character of the neighborhood to be more urban with higher residential
intensity. The long street segments will also encourage higher speeds, necessitating some form of neighborhood speed
management program. A better approach would be to make the local streets shorter and provide a collector road that
loops around the entire development, taking advantage of the terrain to be less visible and below the elevation of the
houses. The Dove Mountain development in Tucson is a prime example of how not to design a collector street for a
development like this.
#5 ‐ Access To/From SR 87 at Burnt Water & Vista del Oro Issues
The existing access at both Burnt Water and Vista del Oro will need to be fully improved to provide modern, safe,
efficient, and effective access to and from SR 87. This would include rebuilding the connector roads to current ADOT
standards and possibly providing merge lanes for traffic entering SR 87. These merge lanes will help mitigate the chances
of high‐speed rear‐end collisions that can result in serious injuries or fatalities. Additionally, it might be desirable to
provide street lighting at these intersections with SR 87 to help make drivers aware of potential conflicts. Research has
shown this to be an effective safety improvement.
From a safety perspective, it might also be advantageous to change both of these accesses to right‐in/right‐out
configurations. This would include indirect left turns and through movements supported by restricted crossing U‐turns
(RCUT) and median U‐turns (MUT), as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 – Indirect left turns and through Movements
5
A safety treatment like this helps reduce the chances of high‐speed angle or left‐turn crashes, which often result in
serious injuries or fatalities.
#6 – Future Potential Collector or Arterial Accesses
Allowing housing intensity like this without a future plan to reduce dependency on SR 87 is simply urban sprawl. This is
similar to what happened in Maricopa, Anthem, and many other locations in Arizona, especially in Maricopa and Pima
Counties, and what is now happening in Pinal County. Maricopa caused huge issues on SR 349 and that section of I‐10,
while Anthem caused significant problems on I‐17. Although Anthem built new interchanges, the traffic assumptions for
the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) done for this major development were way off regarding the negative consequences on
the I‐17 mainline. Maricopa County had to build an additional arterial street to relieve this traffic fiasco.
#7 – Comments on Access Regulation Past, Present & Future
Some might say that the Goldfield Ranch accesses to SR 87 are all grandfathered in, and nothing can be done to change
them. That is not correct. Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Title 33, Chapter 22, Article 1 (§ 33‐2401) governs this subject.
Key provisions include:
Reasonable Access: The state or any political subdivision cannot deny reasonable access to private property.
Right‐of‐Way: If private property is surrounded by state or political subdivision land, the owner can request a
nonexclusive right‐of‐way for at least 30 years.
Granting Access: The state or political subdivision must grant this right‐of‐way to ensure legal access to private
property.
Location and Width: The state or political subdivision will determine the appropriate location and width of the
right‐of‐way after consulting with the property owner. They can also relocate the right‐of‐way at their
discretion.
Reasonable access means the state, county, city, or town has regulatory authority to exercise access management, or
partial control of access, on its streets. This authority is typically confirmed in municipal codes under "Streets and
Sidewalks." These regulations apply to arterial streets, collector streets, or local streets.
Access management allows certain restrictions on how, where, and how much access can be gained to a street. Full
control of access means no private driveway access to a designated roadway, typically a high‐speed freeway or a
highspeed divided highway to which SR 87 has become in this area.
Thus, the term reasonable access regulations apply to new and existing driveways. The state or subdivision can impose
partial access control on existing driveways if traffic operational or safety issues arise. Provision D of § 33‐2401 states:
“Following reasonable consultation with the owner of the private property, this state or any political subdivision of
this state shall determine the appropriate location and width of the right‐of‐way to be granted and may relocate the
right‐of‐way after the grant at the discretion of this state or the political subdivision of this state.”
This provision allows the state or subdivision of the state (like Maricopa County) to reevaluate and reconfigure access to
address issues on public streets, including driveway closures and consolidations or other access approaches which might
have been ok back in the day, but have become undesirable today.
6
Attachments:
Appendix A – Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Related
Reference: ADOT SR 87 Corridor Development Study – September 2019 Draft Feasibility Report
7
Appendix B ‐ Maricopa County Related Plans & Related Documents
8
9
10
Reference: Microsoft Word ‐ GoldfieldAreaPlan.doc
Transportation Portion of the Comprehensive Plan:
11
12
13
Reference:
VISION 2030.pub
The End
Maricopa County Subdivision Regulations: Subdivision‐Regulations‐PDF
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The end