Neighborhood Meeting Summaries
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
26294 characters
Price Road Innovation Campus Neighborhood Meeting Summary Case No. PLH24-0046 Submittal: March 2025 A. Details and Techniques Used to Involve the Public The required neighborhood meetings for the Price Road Innovated Campus (“PRIC” or the “Project”) (Case No. PLH24-0046) were held at Jacobson Elementary School, Multi-Purpose Room, 1515 NW Jacaranda Pkwy, Chandler, AZ, 85248 on February 26, 2025 and March 3, 2025, at 6:00 PM, in accordance with the City’s Zoning Code requirements. B. Notification Details The neighborhood meetings were noticed in accordance with the City’s Zoning Code requirements for rezonings involving a mid-rise overlay and data center uses. The notifications consisted of a mailed notification and site posting, both completed on or before February 11, 2025 (see Tab 1, Notification Letter and Tab 2, Site Posting Affidavit), as well as digital notices by the City of Chandler. The applicant mailed the required notification to 965 applicable property owners and registered neighborhood organizations (see Tab 3, Mailing List) located within a half mile radius of the Property, as depicted below. C. Summary of Neighborhood Meeting #1 The first neighborhood meeting, held on February 26, 2025, began at approximately 6:00pm and ran until approximately 7:15pm. According to the sign-in sheets (attached at Tab 4), there were approximately nine (9) neighbors or interested parties, including a representative from the Ocotillo Management Group, that attended the initial meeting. The applicant commenced the neighborhood meeting by providing an introduction of the development team and an overview of the history of the Property. The applicant discussed site challenges, land use trends and suitability of land uses for the subject site given the area’s context. The applicant then discussed the scope of the rezoning request and provided an overview of the proposed development, including a discussion regarding architectural design and building heights, site layout and operational functions. Finally, an overview was provided regarding the city’s rezoning process and timing for development. The attendees were generally supportive and encouraging of the proposal with the exception of one individual who repeated the speaking points identical to staff’s internal memo dated February 21, 2025. She admitted that her comments were based on her conversation with staff prior to attending the meeting. Nobody else at that first meeting shared her sentiments. After the applicant’s presentation, general comments from attendees focused on: (1) utility infrastructure; (2) substation design; (3) solar capabilities; (4) data center operations and screening; (5) potential uses; (6) the present site conditions and ongoing vacancy; and (7) public benefits. The applicant responded to attendee comments as outlined below: 1. Utility Infrastructure One of the neighborhood meeting attendees had expressed that she had spoken with members of City of Chandler staff regarding the proposal and had concerns about power sources and water availability. The applicant confirmed that the proposed data center would be air-cooled, thus no potable water would be used for the data center outside of domestic services such as handwashing, showers for employees and similar functions. Further, it was discussed that the applicant continues to work with SRP through its process to determine power capacity and project-specific mitigation. The applicant advised that SRP confirmed during an in-person meeting earlier in the day that it was too early to determine any facility locations or requirements to provide electricity to the site, or if the project will trigger any mitigation requirements. The applicant stated they will continue to work with SRP through the demand and design phase to mitigate impacts. There was further discussion regarding the existing facilities along Old Price Road and the potential to tap into those facilities. 2. Substation Design A concern was raised by an attendee regarding the scale of a proposed substation. Specifically, the attendee wanted to confirm the difference between the proposed Project’s substation and the existing substation at the southwest corner of Price Road and Germann Road. The applicant advised that the size of the Project’s substation is a fraction of the size of the referenced substation, and further explained the proposed screening elements for the substation including via buildings, landscaping and screen walls. The applicant advised attendees that the proposed substation should not be visible from adjacent right-of-way once the Project is complete. 3. Solar Capabilities An attendee inquired whether solar power was an option for the site. The applicant advised that it is possible solar could be provided on carports, however that would be per tenant demand. Furthermore, the structural design for Buildings B-G includes additional load capacity to support roof mounted solar arrays. 4. Data Center Operations and Screening One of the attendees wanted to confirm the difference between the proposed data center and other nearby data centers, in addition to any screening or mitigation measures. The applicant confirmed that the proposed data center would be air-chilled rather than water chilled, which reduces overall impacts. It was further discussed that the Project would be required to comply with the City of Chandler’s data center ordinance, including noise limits, and pre- and post-development noise monitoring and reporting, along with other city requirements. The applicant discussed screening and confirmed that in many locations, the site is well below grade of the adjacent roadways, thus building height and views into the site are mitigated. It was further discussed that the proposed data center building is located adjacent to city facilities which may mitigate some of the noxious impacts of those facilities as well. Finally, the applicant discussed how the design of the data center is consistent with a high-quality office design, similar to other nearby projects, and incorporates meaningful setbacks. 5. Potential Uses A question was raised regarding the types and nature of tenants for the building. The applicant described that the majority of buildings are designed as research and development buildings with parking ratios that could support those uses as well as possible mezzanine capabilities. The applicant further discussed that the proposed site plan, with very limited dock or at-grade door capabilities, would not be conducive to more industrial land use types. It was further discussed that, through the PAD zoning, land uses would be limited through regulatory means. 6. Present Conditions A question was asked about the condition of the building and prior leasing efforts. The applicant explained how the property condition is functionally obsolete for today’s modern tech user. The property has been marketed consistently since it was abandoned in 2018, and no legitimate user can repurpose the existing building. Additionally, the surrounding site conditions, including the odor from the City’s adjacent sewer treatment plant, have been a deterrent to re-tenanting the building. 7. Public Benefits The topic of public benefits was discussed, including anticipated water reductions compared to the existing site generation; creating hundreds of high quality jobs, significant fiscal and economic impacts for the City and beyond; as well as the creation of a buffer with the built environment from the City’s facilities. Several residents were complimentary of the Project and communicated that the proposed development is a significant improvement over the existing building. The applicant concluded the meeting by providing attendees with applicant contact information and a discussion regarding next steps, including a potential follow-up meeting should any major changes occur. D. Summary of Neighborhood Meeting #2 The second neighborhood meeting, held on March 3, 2025, began at approximately 6:00pm and ran until approximately 7:00pm. According to the sign-in sheets (attached at Tab 5), there were approximately twelve (12) neighbors or interested parties that attended the second meeting, including representatives from the Ocotillo Community Associate Board of Directors and the Siena at Ocotillo Homeowners Association Board of Directors. Similar to the initial meeting, the applicant provided an introduction of the development team, as well as an overview of the site history and Project proposal. After the applicant’s presentation, general questions were raised regarding: (1) building height; (2) data center operations and anticipated hours of operation; (3) noise standards; (4) job generation; (5) traffic generation; (6) processing and Project timeline; (7) power demand; and (8) site plan design. The applicant responded to attendee comments as outlined below: 1. Building height One of the attendees raised a question about building height and how the community could be certain about the location of increased building heights and where they would occur on site. The applicant provided context regarding the existing building height, confirming the existing buildings were up to approximately fifty feet tall, and then discussed the proposed building heights, emphasizing that Building A (the data center) is located adjacent to city facilities and is intentionally placed at that location as a buffer for the unsightly activities occurring to the west and south. It was further discussed that building height would be limited in height and location per the PAD and PDP. The applicant also discussed that, in many locations, the site is at a lower grade than adjacent right-of- way and together with the distance from right-of-way, building height is mitigated. Several attendees were complimentary of the site design and mitigation efforts. 2. Data center operations and hours Attendees raised questions regarding air-chilled data center facilities and hours of operation. The applicant advised there are several examples of air-chilled data center facilities within the Phoenix valley, including in Mesa. It was also confirmed there will likely be three (3) shifts for the data center, and that hours would be 24-7 due to the nature of the use. 3. Noise standards Attendees raised concerns regarding existing noise within the immediate area (from the Intel facility). The applicant advised that the data center use would be required to comply with the City’s newly adopted data center ordinance, which provides mitigation and protections for the neighborhood. There was a discussion about the City’s requirements including maximum sound requirements, monitoring and on-site liaison requirements, among others. The applicant also discussed that the site, by design, orients the data center use adjacent to existing city facilities as a means to mitigate externalities. 4. Job generation The applicant confirmed an economic impact study has been undertaken and is in draft form. The economic and fiscal analysis predicts that the proposed development may create 600 to 800 direct jobs, and 1300 direct, indirect and induced jobs, which is a benefit for the area in light of recent layoffs by other employers along the Price Road Corridor. 5. Traffic generation Some attendees asked about traffic generation, citing recent increases in vehicular traffic incidents in the area. The applicant discussed that, compared to the existing entitlement and historical operations for the site, the proposed Project is expected to generate less daily and peak hour trips than what is entitled today. Further, it was discussed that contemplated street improvements adjacent to the Project will assist with mitigation of issues adjacent to the site, such as potential removal of the pedestrian crossing west of the Price Road and Dobson Road intersection, which is a source of conflict for the area. Lastly, a resident expressed their support for the project and its associated traffic as they perceive that traffic speeds along Price Road and southbound Dobson Road will decrease as this site is re-occupied and normal traffic pattern resumes (as opposed to the empty building). 6. Processing and project timeline Some of the attendees were interested in the entitlement and development timeline. The applicant advised that the timing for rezoning is targeted for a summer timeframe, and following rezoning, the construction document review process is likely to take six (6) months, followed by demolition and construction of specific buildings, which will be established in working with the City. The applicant advised that the data center portion of the development is anticipated to be operating within approximately three (3) years. 7. Power demand One attendee had questions regarding power demand. The applicant advised that SRP anticipates completing their load study in May and that SRP confirmed during an in-person meeting on February 26, 2025, that it could not confirm what, if any, improvements or mitigation would be required due to this project. The applicant stated that they requested SRP serve the property from their existing equipment on Old Price Road. 8. Site plan design Several neighborhood meeting attendees, including primarily residents, were complimentary of the thoughtful site design, and communicated their excitement and well wishes for improvements to the site. Two attendees asked if the applicant had any concerns with the marketability of the project given the persistent noxious odors emanating from the adjacent Chandler Water Reclamation Facility, which in their opinion has become unbearable in the neighboring community. The applicant responded that the data center and flex warehouse buildings were intentionally planned on the west side as it is anticipated the occupants of those buildings would be less irritated than the occupants of the other buildings. However, given their recent experience while on-site and in the surrounding community, the applicant also stated they too were concerned about the odor’s potential negative impacts on attracting tenants to the property. The applicant concluded the meeting by providing attendees with the applicant’s contact information and a discussion regarding next steps, including a potential follow-up meeting should any major changes occur. E. Support In response to the applicant’s written notification to property owners, two (2) letters of support have been received by the applicant. See Tab 6. F. Conclusion The applicant will continue to be available to discuss the proposal with interested neighbors and stakeholders through the process. TAB 6 letter of support from local residents. G. Adam Baugh, Esq. Withey Morris Baugh, PLC 2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Circle, Ste A-212 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602-230-0600 Main 602-346-4603 Direct Check out our podcast: Dirt to Development Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication, but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. From: Steven Pickard <steven.pickard@weslyn.net> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2025 11:20 AM To: Adam Baugh <adam@wmbattorneys.com> Subject: Case No. PLH24-0046 As a local resident of 29 years and one who has also visited the building as a Motorola employee, I know the long-term eye sore this site has been and the need to “start from scratch”. Based on the information in the mailer regarding the property, you have my support. Regards, Steve Cell: 480-622-1267 2101 W Redwood Dr, Chandler, AZ 85248-4132 From: krisendean@gmail.com <krisendean@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2025 2:05 PM To: Adam Baugh <adam@wmbattorneys.com> Subject: Regarding redevelopment of Orbital Sciences Corporation vacant lot Dear Sir, As a resident of the Ocotillo Community Association for the past five years, I and my family have come to value and appreciate the high standard of aesthetics, recreation, and local commerce that makes OCA a great place to live. One of the continual disappointments has been the vacant lot on the southwest corner of Price Road and Dobson Road. I recently received a notice that Active Infrastructure is requesting to rezone the property to allow for more flexibility with the space. I am unable to attend the public neighborhood meetings, but I wanted to register my support for this proposal for the following reasons: 1. A new facility on this corner will help restore the value of this vacant property and provide a face lift with a modern, attractive facility. 2. The proposed data center provides a visual barrier against the less-sightly, adjacent water treatment plant. And yet the datacenter is set back appropriately from housing across Dobson or Price Road, helping mitigate some of the ambient noise that data centers create. 3. The mixed-use commercial spaces in Downtown Ocotillo and other corners around OCA provide a heightened standard of living for local residents. Adding this additional space will enhance the appeal. I realize that there will be potential drawbacks, including additional traffic at this already busy intersection, and additional noise from the datacenter and other commercial activities. But none of these is any more significant than what is already created by the Intel campus immediately to the south. I believe that the city should seriously consider this proposal. Sincerely, Kristopher Endean OCA Resident Price Road Innovation Campus 3rd Neighborhood Meeting Summary (Voluntary) Case No. PLH24-0046 Submittal: October, 2025 A. Details and Techniques Used to Involve the Public Following the two (2) required neighborhood meetings being held for the Price Road Innovated Campus (“PRIC” or the “Project”) (Case No. PLH24-0046), the applicant hosted a third voluntary neighborhood meeting for PRIC, to provide an additional opportunity for interested parties to learn about the proposed development, and update the community on new plan changes. The voluntary neighborhood meeting was held at the subject property, located at 3380 South Price Road, Chandler, AZ, 85248, on Thursday, August 28, 2025 at 6:00 PM. B. Notification Details The notifications for the neighborhood meeting consisted of a mailed notification and site posting (see Tab 1, Notification Letter and Tab 2, Site Posting Affidavit), as well as digital notice by the City of Chandler. The applicant mailed the required notification to 962 applicable property owners and registered neighborhood organizations (see Tab 3, Mailing List) located within a half mile radius of the property, as depicted below. C. Summary of Neighborhood Meeting The voluntary neighborhood meeting, held on August 28, 2025, began at approximately 6:00pm and ran until approximately 7:00pm. According to the sign-in sheets (attached at Tab 4), there were approximately six (6) neighbors or interested parties, including a representative from the Ocotillo Management Group, that attended the voluntary meeting. The applicant commenced the neighborhood meeting by providing an introduction of the development team and an overview of the history of the property and challenges with the existing on-site building in present day. Ironically, one of the meeting attendees formerly worked for a prior corporate tenant of the building and was able to further convey some of the nuances with the building and its design. The applicant proceeded to discuss the proposed land use and economic trends, as well as suitability of land uses for the subject site given the area’s context. The applicant then discussed the scope of the rezoning request and provided an overview of the proposed development, including a discussion regarding architectural design, site layout, operational functions, project phasing and other application related updates that occurred through the review process. After the applicant’s presentation, general comments from attendees focused on: (1) traffic; (2) tenant prospects; (3) water and power demand; (4) status of ownership; (5) lake requirements; (6) design requirements; and (7) demolition and construction phasing. The applicant responded to attendee comments as outlined below: 1. Traffic Some attendees asked about traffic generation, citing recent increases in vehicular traffic incidents in the area. It was also noted that there are capital improvements along the Price Road corridor that are being performed by the City, and that those improvements have increased delays in the short term. The applicant discussed that, compared to the existing entitlement and historical operations for the site, the proposed Project is expected to generate less daily and peak hour trips than what is entitled today. Further, it was discussed that contemplated street improvements adjacent to the Project will assist with mitigation of issues adjacent to the site, such as potential removal of the pedestrian crossing west of the Price Road and Dobson Road intersection, which is a source of conflict for the area. 2. Tenant Prospects One of the attendees raised a question regarding the role of the data center as part of the proposal and how the inclusion of a data center with the rezoning request benefits the area. The applicant discussed the current economic challenges with the market, and highlighted that the data center provides an opportunity not only for collocating opportunities—which other Valley jurisdictions have recently experienced with high-technology AI based businesses—but, a competitive advantage for attracting new, high-quality employment uses that align with the City’s strategic goals, which is achieved by land value offsets by the data center. One of the attendees expressed enthusiastic support for this approach, noting a sentiment that new employers to the area may have a positive correlation with home values and other long-term benefits for the community. 3. Water and Power Demand One attendee had general questions regarding water use and power demand. The applicant discussed that the Project will be required to go through the City’s approval process for generated water demand, however because of the modern cooling process that will be employed for the data center, it is anticipated that the majority of water use for the data center component of the Project will be for domestic uses (i.e. handwashing, toilet flushing). Since there are no current tenants for the employment buildings, basic assumptions have been made for those buildings, and future development will ultimately need to comply with the City’s requirements. As it relates to power, the applicant advised that one important project update since the last neighborhood meeting is that SRP has confirmed that no new powerlines will be necessary along Price Road to serve the Project. It was further discussed that there is currently capacity for power and that the applicant will contribute to already approved power infrastructure in the area. 4. Ownership Status One of the neighborhood meetings inquired about property ownership. The applicant confirmed that it owns the subject property and will retain the data center property long-term. Ownership emphasized its commitment to openness throughout the development process and beyond, and expressed a desire to remain visible as the face of the Project. 5. Lake Requirements An attendee expressed an interest in the existing lake and whether it would be retained in its current form. The applicant confirmed that the Ocotillo Community Association governs requirements for the lake and that some reductions were proposed, but none that would significantly alter the existing visual appearance of the lake. 6. Design Requirements One of the attendees, which attended a prior meeting, made a comment regarding building height to ensure attendees were aware of the height. The applicant provided context regarding the existing building height, confirming the existing buildings were up to approximately fifty feet tall, and then discussed the proposed building heights, emphasizing that Building A (the data center) is located adjacent to city facilities and is intentionally placed at that location as a buffer for the unsightly activities occurring to the west and south. No other attendees expressed concerns with building height. 7. Demolition and Construction Phasing. A few of the attendees raised questions regarding timing for demolition and construction. The applicant advised that once the necessary approvals are in place, demolition can commence and is anticipated to occur immediately. The applicant then discussed the plan for project phasing, noting that development will be executed in a phased manner to ensure orderly progress and to create initial opportunities for a single-tenant user—which is the City’s preference—prior to constructing future speculative buildings. One of the attendees had remarks regarding the interim condition and visual appeal of the property, and the applicant advised that the streetscape would remain as-is, with enhancements to mitigate the interim condition of the property. Another attendee expressed an understanding of the phasing and appreciated the work the applicant has done to bring quality employment to the area. D. Conclusion The follow up voluntary neighborhood meeting was productive and the applicant received positive feedback regarding building design and the overall development concept. Many attendees made well wishes for the client proceeding forward. The applicant will continue to be available to discuss the proposal with interested neighbors and stakeholders through the process.