For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on April 21, 2021

Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of April 21, 2021, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.

The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
St., 15th Floor.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 11



Report

Summary
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.




Page 12
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: February 21, 2024
From: Mayor Kate Gallego

Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES

The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:

Alhambra Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Laura Pastor recommends the following for appointment:

Marshall Pimentel
Mr. Pimentel is a Senior Legislative Associate at the League of Arizona Cities and
Towns and a resident of District 4. He fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19,
2024.

Civil Service Board

I recommend the following for reappointment:

Elisa De La Vara
Ms. De La Vara will serve her second term to expire February 21, 2027.

Encanto Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Laura Pastor recommends the following for appointment:

Erin Garcia
Ms. Garcia is the Vice President of Social Services & Education at Chicanos Por La
Causa and a resident of District 4. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19,
2025.

Robert Warnicke
Mr. Warnicke is an Attorney at Warnicke Law and a resident of District 4. He fills a
vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2025.

Samantha Weiss




Page 13
Ms. Weiss is an Interpersonal Violence Program Specialist at the Department of
Economic Security and a resident of District 4. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire
November 19, 2025.

Maryvale Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Laura Pastor recommends the following for appointment:

Cindy Alonzo
Ms. Alonzo is a Teacher at the Isaac School District and a resident of District 4. She fills
a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2024.

Phoenix Business & Workforce Development Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Pearl Esau
Ms. Esau is the Owner of Shan Strategies and a resident of District 6. She replaces
Scott Holman as a Business Human Resources representative for a partial term to
expire June 30, 2024.

Planning Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Joshua Matthews
Mr. Matthews is a Planner II at Valley Metro and Vice Chair of the North Mountain
Village Planning Committee. He replaces Shannon Simon as a Village Planning
Committee representative for a term to expire February 21, 2026.

Sister Cities Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Melissa Werner
Ms. Werner is the Director of the University Ceremonies Offices at Arizona State
University and a resident of District 6. She serves a term to expire February 21, 2027.




Page 14



Report

Liquor License - Sonny's Sip Snack & Smoke

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 267031.

Summary

Applicant
David Evans, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
8925 N. 43rd Ave., Ste. 1
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 1

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This location requires a Use Permit to allow package liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is March 8, 2024.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of


Page 15

Arizona.

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Born and raised in retro Phoenix and owner of multiple retail businesses over the last
10 plus years. Friend to community, attended ASU West. Extensive experience in
client management and customer service”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Allow local consumers to have variety of venues to purchase goods from an
experienced vendor with close ties to the community.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Attachment - Sonny's Sip Snack & Smoke - Data
Attachment - Sonny's Sip Snack & Smoke - Map

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 16
Liquor License Data: SONNY'S SIP SNACK & SMOKE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 3 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 2

Restaurant 12 6 3



Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 56.58 58.7

Violent Crimes 12.31 11.78 9.44

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 47 110

Total Violations 82 172




Page 17
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

0923084 1154 85 7 39

0923091 1517 72 0 6

0923094 666 94 0 10

1042062 1557 65 6 34

1042063 998 92 7 3

1057011 1471 65 4 6

1057012 2012 87 15 6

1057021 2725 66 7 22

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 18
Liquor License Map: SONNY'S SIP SNACK & SMOKE
8925 N 43RD AVE




Ü
Date: 1/9/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 19



Report

Liquor License - Mommas Soul Fish & Chicken

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 273762.

Summary

Applicant
Keith Turner, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
15414 N. 19th Ave., Ste. H
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 27, 2024.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.


Page 20


Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Our prior experience and training in addition to successfully completing basic and
management Title 4 training, we have hired a former DLLC Detective Keith Turner to
assist us in our application process and he will be working with us as our agent, for
continued success.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“There was a prior business in this location which was of the same license type, in
another suite. Our business will operate professionally and the owner will be working
daily to better facilitate the highest quality of service.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Attachment - Mommas Soul Fish & Chicken - Data
Attachment - Mommas Soul Fish & Chicken - Map

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 21
Liquor License Data: MOMMAS SOUL FISH & CHICKEN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Government 5 1 1

Bar 6 1 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 0

Hotel 11 1 0



Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 124.84 53.92

Violent Crimes 12.31 11.17 12.95

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 47 23

Total Violations 82 51




Page 22
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1036041 2174 87 7 29

1036051 2033 100 6 0

1036081 2434 69 11 7

1036092 982 83 3 14

1036093 1696 0 5 20

1036123 1542 94 8 0

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 23
Liquor License Map: MOMMAS SOUL FISH & CHICKEN
15414 N 19TH AVE




Ü
Date: 1/3/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 24



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Brophy College Preparatory

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Julie Peterson

Location
4701 N. Central Ave.
Council District: 4

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 9, 2024 - 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 25



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Knights of Columbus Cathedral Council 12708

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Richard Garrison

Location
6351 N. 27th Ave.
Council District: 5

Function
Dinner and Dance

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 20, 2024 - 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 280 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 26



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Kiwanis Club of Ahwatukee Foundation, Inc.

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Pettyjohn

Location
4700 E. Warner Road
Council District: 6

Function
Chili Cook Off

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 9, 2024 - 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. / 100 attendees
March 10, 2024 - 10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. / 100 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 27



Report

Liquor License - Pho 32 Vietnamese Kitchen

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 270185.

Summary

Applicant
Camila Alarcon, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3170 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is March 9, 2024.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.


Page 28


Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant has operated restaurants in both Arizona and California since 2018. At this
location, managers and staff will receive applicable and regular Title 4 liquor law
training.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Pho 32 Vietnamese Kitchen has served its neighborhood since 2019. Providing the
option for the purchase of beer, wine, and distilled spirits will enhance the dining
experience for those customers.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment - Pho 32 Vietnamese Kitchen - Data
Attachment - Pho 32 Vietnamese Kitchen - Map

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 29
Liquor License Data: PHO 32 VIETNAMESE KITCHEN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 6 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1

Liquor Store 9 4 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 6 4

Restaurant 12 26 12



Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 123.96 157.43

Violent Crimes 12.31 19.29 25.79

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 47 22

Total Violations 81 37




Page 30
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1083012 1221 72 5 1

1083021 1229 70 16 3

1084001 718 2 38 46

1084002 673 72 16 3

1084004 1641 65 7 19

1084005 422 16 37 13

1108011 1736 56 27 40

1108012 1115 19 30 33

1108013 1077 47 26 14

1109011 665 96 10 13

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 31
Liquor License Map: PHO 32 VIETNAMESE KITCHEN
3170 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD




Ü
Date: 1/11/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 32



Report

Liquor License - Z' Greek

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 270369.

Summary

Applicant
Zaia Makou, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4029 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is March 4, 2024.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.


Page 33


Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
"When I had my first business in 1999 I had a #12 License back then. We bought
Z'Greek 2006 at that time we didn't think getting #12. We have so many inquires for
me out clint tthat they like to have a beer with their meals our hours are short and not a
bar.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We like increase our sales and make our customers happy instead of going accros
the seet wher is more convinec. Allso Greek beer ad wine is best with our food. Today
economy very bad and that will help us and improve our business. Thank you.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments
Attachment - Z' Greek - Data
Attachment - Z' Greek - Map

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 34
Liquor License Data: Z' GREEK
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 2 2

Bar 6 4 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 3

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 4

Restaurant 12 35 21



Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 95.35 99.89

Violent Crimes 12.31 9.47 8.38

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 45 45

Total Violations 78 74




Page 35
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1082002 1178 45 8 8

1082003 1225 76 13 17

1083022 1824 50 13 4

1109021 2609 33 21 40

1109022 2224 39 7 18

1110001 781 25 11 3

1110002 1105 63 8 19

1110003 1587 64 17 24

1110004 707 59 25 0

1110005 698 88 19 5

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 36
Liquor License Map: Z' GREEK
4029 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD




Ü
Date: 2/12/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 37



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Phoenix Children's Hospital Foundation

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Jillian Absalom

Location
380 N. 1st Ave.
Council District: 7

Function
Fashion Show

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 24, 2024 - 5 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. / 200 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 38



Report

Liquor License - Diablo From the Rooftop

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 275157.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
222 E. Portland St., Rooftop
Zoning Classification: DTC - Evans Churchill West
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales with a Series 11 - Hotel/Motel liquor license and may currently
operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is March 8, 2024.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of


Page 39

Arizona.

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Owner will ensure employees handing alcohol will attend the Title 4 liquor law training
course with ALIC. I have owned and operated a business for the past couple years
with no issues.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location has been operational for several years. We would like to continue to
service the surrounding neighbors and visitors with a place to enjoy a great meal and
an adult beverage if they choose.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment - Diablo From the Rooftop - Data
Attachment - Diablo From the Rooftop - Map

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 40
Liquor License Data: DIABLO PHX
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 4 2

Government 5 7 4

Bar 6 45 11

Beer and Wine Bar 7 17 7

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 15 6

Hotel 11 7 1

Restaurant 12 124 52

Club 14 2 0



Crime Data

I Description

Property Crimes
Average*

64.2
1 Mile Average**

261.43
1/2 Mile Average***

398.72
I
Violent Crimes 12.31 56.28 76.22
I
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

I Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
I
Parcels wNiolations 47 90
I
Total Violations 82 143
I



Page 41
Page 42
Liquor License Map: DIABLO PHX
222 E PORTLAND ST
1D. •10


rll f �6

G 6
10 1h 1010
10 10
E In
,&

-
-
f:_
� 16









E tDS
--,
E Bu ey-e-Rd o

u,
iE Ptma




Date: 1/9/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
■M.::::::1M•:::::i••••c::===:::::i•••-mi

City Clerk Department
Page 43



Report

Liquor License - Diablo PHX

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 275159.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
222 E. Portland St., Fl. 1
Zoning Classification: DTC- Evans Churchill West
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales with a Series 11 - Hotel/Motel liquor license and may currently
operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is March 9, 2024.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of


Page 44

Arizona.

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Owner will ensure employees handling alcohol will attend the Title 4 liquor law training
course with ALIC. I have owned and operated a business for the past couple years
with no issues.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location has been operational for several years. We would like to continue to
service the surrounding neighbors and visitors with a place to enjoy a great meal and
an adule beverage if they choose.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment - Diablo PHX - Data
Attachment - Diablo PHX - Map

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48



Report

Liquor License - Throne Brewing & Pizza Kitchen

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 273493.

Summary

Applicant
Doajo Hicks, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
1326 N. Central Ave., Unit 101
Zoning Classification: DTC-Downtown Gateway
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 26, 2024.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations


Page 49

on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.

Coronado Vineyards (Series 19)
515 Main St., Jerome
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Coronado Vineyards Inc. (Series 13)
2909 E. Country Club Drive, Willcox
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have taken and recieved all of the Arizona State Liquor training/certificates, and I am
the owner of Throne Brewing Company (Microbrewery and I am the owner of
Coronado Vineyards (farm winery). Both of the aforementioned entities are Arizona
alcohol producers and I have complied with all of Arizona's liquor laws and policies.
Therefore, I believe that I am capable of maintaining a liquor license.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I will provide the community with an experience of Arizona produced wine, beer, and
food that will show the community that Arizona is able to produce quality wine, beer,
spiritous alcohol and food.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.

Attachments


Page 50

Attachment - Throne Brewing & Pizza Kitchen - Data
Attachment - Throne Brewing & Pizza Kitchen - Map

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 51
Liquor License Data: THRONE BREWING & PIZZA
KITCHEN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 5 3

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 6 3

Bar 6 34 9

Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 9

Liquor Store 9 3 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 13 2

Hotel 11 4 1

Restaurant 12 99 42

Club 14 2 0


Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 225.45 306.47

Violent Crimes 12.31 47.5 51.16

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 47 52

Total Violations 82 74




Page 52
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1118002 1030 67 9 17

1118004 671 62 6 6

1129001 1670 70 4 19

1130001 1218 23 16 11

1130002 873 29 21 38

1131001 1015 7 8 28

1131002 1242 3 7 33

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 53
Liquor License Map: THRONE BREWING & PIZZA KITCHEN
1326 N CENTRAL AVE




Ü
Date: 1/3/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 54



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Alwun House Foundation

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Dana Johnson

Location
1204 E. Roosevelt St.
Council District: 8

Function
Art Exhibit

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 8, 2024 - 7 p.m. to 1 a.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 55



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Down Syndrome Network, Inc.

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Jennifer O'Connell

Location
215 N. 7th St.
Council District: 8

Function
Dance

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 12, 2024 - 6:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. / 230 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 56



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Laveen Community Council

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Stephanie Hurd

Location
8440 S. 35th Ave.
Council District: 8

Function
Community Celebration

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 24, 2024 - 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. / 4,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 57



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
George Momich

Location
4436 E. McKinley St.
Council District: 8

Function
Golf Tournament

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 6, 2024 - 6 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. / 200 attendees
March 7, 2024 - 6 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. / 200 attendees
March 8, 2024 - 6 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. / 250 attendees
March 9, 2024 - 5 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. / 250 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 58



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Southwest Kids' Cancer Foundation, Inc.

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Shannon L. Collins

Location
435 S. 3rd Ave.
Council District: 8

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 23, 2024 - 6:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 150 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 59



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Valiant College Preparatory

Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.

Summary

Applicant
Michael Douglas

Location
1601 E. Jackson St.
Council District: 8

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 6, 2024 - 4 p.m. to Midnight / 2,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 60



Report

Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Ole Brass Rail

Request for an Off-track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.

Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-track Pari-Mutuel Wagering
Permit can be issued. This request is for a permit for off-track betting on horse races
conducted at Turf Paradise.

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for TP Racing L.L.L.P.

Location
3738 E. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. The comment
period expired Feb. 2, 2024. No protest or support letters were received within the 20-
day public comment period.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment - Ole Brass Rail - Data
Attachment - Ole Brass Rail - Map

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 61
Liquor License Data: OLE BRASS RAIL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 1

Bar 6 7 3

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1

Liquor Store 9 7 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 3

Restaurant 12 21 6



Crime Data

Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***

Property Crimes 64.2 262.87 470.91

Violent Crimes 12.31 37.5 54.03

*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 47 60

Total Violations 82 82




Page 62
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1109012 2669 23 19 27

1109021 2609 33 21 40

1109022 2224 39 7 18

1110003 1587 64 17 24

1113002 930 52 7 20

1114011 2444 62 7 27

1114021 1986 38 14 27

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 63
Liquor License Map: OLE BRASS RAIL
3738 E THOMAS RD




Ü
Date: 1/10/2024
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 64



PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-50576) (Items 21-27)
Ordinance S-50576 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of paying
vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing additional
payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This section also
requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts indicated below, for
the following contracts, contract extensions and/or bids awarded. As
indicated below, some items below require payment pursuant to Phoenix
City Code Section 42-13.

21 Sprint Solutions, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
For $50,000 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or about
Dec. 26, 2023, for a term of 14 months for Internet of Things (IoT) Data
Services. The Information Technology Services Department is obtaining
IoT Data Services that provide real-time data in support of the Police
Department’s Real-Time Operations Center and the reliability for their
cameras.

22 Arizona Humanities Council, Inc., dba Arizona
Humanities
For $57,500 in payment authority for reimbursement of a portion of utility
payments to the Arizona Humanities Council, per Lease 123292-0, at the
Ellis-Shackelford House. The payment authority is for Calendar Years
2024 through 2028, for the Parks and Recreation Department.

23 Aquatic Consulting & Testing, Inc.
For $175,000 in payment authority to enter into a contract for lake and
waterway management services, for a three-year period starting Calendar
Year 2024 through 2026. This contract will provide the Parks and
Recreation Department with urban lake and waterway maintenance
services as needed to maintain the proper ecology. The vendor will
monitor/test the pH, hardness, alkalinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
unionized ammonia and golden algae, as well as perform tests for all


Page 65

metals. These services will improve the community with greater water
quality, enhance the fish habitats, decrease mosquito activity and remove
any foul odors from urban lakes and waterways.

24 Knock Software Inc., dba Ride Report
For $37,500 in payment authority for a new contract, entered into on or
about Feb. 7, 2024, for a term of two years, with three one-year options to
extend for a Micromobility Data Management Platform for the Street
Transportation Department. In January 2023, the Street Transportation
Department launched the Shared Micromobility Program as a means of
providing residents and visitors with another option to move thru the City
via bicycle, electric scooter, electric pedal-assist bike, and similar adaptive
vehicles in certain key areas of the City. Staff established program
regulations to promote safety for both riders and non-riders, including
proper parking within designated areas, response times, fleet caps, and
distribution requirements. In order to ensure compliance from the
micromobility operators, staff will utilize this online dashboard platform to
track performance metrics.

25 Salt River Valley Water Users' Association dba Salt River
Project
For $38,740 in additional payment authority for Contract 100353 for the
water delivery and use agreement with the Salt River Valley Water Users'
Association (Association) to provide wholesale water for resale by the
Water Services Department within the Salt River Reservoir District, for
Fiscal Year 2023-24. The water delivered to the City by the Association
from the Salt and Verde rivers represents approximately 60 percent of the
City's water supply.

26 Settlement of Claim(s) Armendariz v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $400,000 in settlement of claim(s) in
Armendariz v. City of Phoenix, CV2022-009774, 21-0691-001, GL, BI, for
the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This
is a settlement of a claim involving the Street Transportation Department
that occurred on Aug. 2, 2021.

27 Settlement of Claim(s) Finley v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $50,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Finley v.
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a


Page 66

settlement of a claim involving the Street Transportation Department that
occurred on April 20, 2021.




Page 67



Report

American Rescue Plan Act February 2024 Reallocation

This report provides an update on American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) spending to date
and the reallocation of current unspent ARPA funds. The City is on track to meet all
ARPA spending deadlines.

Summary
The federal government allocated $396 million to the City of Phoenix as part of ARPA.
On June 8, 2021, and June 7, 2022, City Council approved the ARPA Strategic Plan
and at several subsequent Council meetings, approved additional programs which
included new programs in affordable housing and homelessness funded through the
first large reallocation in December 2022. Additional homelessness programs were
funded through the second reallocation in November 2023.

There are currently 70 programs across 19 City departments and as of Jan. 31, 2024,
over $236 million (nearly 60 percent) has been spent.

Reallocation of Unused, Underspent, or Reprioritized ARPA Funds
During the June 7, 2022, City Council Formal meeting, staff indicated reallocation
exercises would be performed throughout the remaining duration of the grant to
analyze all programs with unused, underspent, or reprioritized funding that may be
used for other ARPA eligible uses. The intent of the reallocation exercises is to ensure
full utilization of all awarded ARPA funds. The ARPA covered period will end Dec. 31,
2024, and after this date, staff will be unable to reallocate funding to other programs
and any unspent funds must be returned to the United States Treasury. To avoid this,
staff plans to complete at least one additional reallocation exercise before June 2024
to ensure all funds are obligated and will be spent by the expenditure deadline of Dec.
31, 2026.

The first reallocation exercise resulted in the approval of $21.2 million, for three
affordable housing and homelessness projects. The second reallocation exercise
resulted in the approval of $19.6 million to fund various homelessness programs. The
second reallocation included four programs that required additional funding which had
not yet been identified. This had been reduced to three programs and funding has
been identified in this reallocation totaling $3.84 million. See further information in the


Page 68

Reallocation Programs section of this report.

The third reallocation exercise is seeking to approve approximately $15 million to
various programs. The potential range of funding has been identified due to savings in
contracts and program spending and include the following programs: Digital Divide,
Financial Assistance for Phoenix Refugee and Asylee Communities, COVID-19 Health
Care Expenses, Vacant Storefront program, and various administrative savings.

Reallocation Programs
As the City continues to work towards providing solutions for homelessness and
increasing the supply of affordable housing units, staff, with the assistance of City
Council and community feedback, has identified 11 programs for feedback which
target these high-need areas. Funding has also been prioritized to provide resources
to programs that would otherwise require General Fund resources to continue. Given
the anticipated budget status, using ARPA funds to alleviate this pressure is a sound
financial decision.

Continuing Partially Funded Programs - $3,840,000
Three programs required additional funding from the November 2023 reallocation:
Temporary Lodging, Heat Response/Temporary Shelter - Washington Shelter, and
CASS Haven Project. Due to limited funding in the last reallocation, these programs
were only partially funded. Funding has now been identified to fully support these
programs, several of which will end in June 2025.

Homelessness Projects - Rio Fresco - $3,000,000
This is an existing program and is a contract with Community Bridges, Inc., for the
operation of the Rio Fresco shelter. Funding will cover operational costs until June
2025.

Library Technology, Capital and Staff Support - Outdoor LED Signage - $2,000,000
This is an existing project and includes installing outdoor LED signage at all library
locations. Capital costs have significantly increased since the start of the pandemic
and additional funding will allow the project to install 18 signs across the library
system. Signs are critical to provide information to the community on important
messaging, such as summer heat respite information, public safety information, and
more.

Homeless Services - General - $1,413,044
Many City projects have experienced increased costs of doing business due to the
pandemic, inflation, etc. Due to these continued increases in costs, staff recommends
allocating a portion of reallocation funds to be used on current ARPA homeless


Page 69

projects as needs arise this calendar year. This will also assist in staff meeting the
ARPA obligation deadline.

Homeless Services - Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS) - $1,068,000
This is a new program. Funding will assist CASS with a budget shortfall this fiscal year
to support the Single Adult Shelter and the Vista Colina Family Shelter.

Keys to Change Contract - $911,870
The City currently has a contract with Keys to Change (formerly known as the Human
Services Campus) and will be entering into a new contract to continue to provide
homeless services. Funding will cover costs until June 2025.

Overnight Summer Heat Respite - $700,000
This program was part of the November 2023 reallocation and included an allocation
of $1,800,000. Additional funding will cover heat-related costs until June 2025. Staff
will be presenting a detailed report to Council on summer heat relief at the Feb. 27,
2024, Policy Session.

Temporary Lodging - $600,000
This project was part of the November 2023 reallocation and included an increase of
$5,000,000 to the current Community Bridges, Inc., contract under the Homelessness
Projects Program to provide temporary lodging to individuals experiencing
homelessness. Additional funds are required due to an unforeseen increase in overall
project costs.

Safe Outdoor Space - $570,000
This program increase was part of the November 2023 reallocation and included an
increase of $3,000,000. Additional funding will cover program costs until June 2025.

Cooling Pavilion - $500,000
This is a new project with Steel and Spark and would be in partnership with the State
of Arizona. A cooling pavilion is proposed to provide heat relief to individuals
experiencing homelessness. Staff is working collaboratively with Steel and Spark to
identify the ideal location.

Human Services Department Administrative Services - $80,000
This is a new administrative cost for ARPA and will cover the Human Services
Department financial monitoring contract. Staff has experienced a sharp increase in
contracts due to grant funding and need additional funding to cover the financial
monitoring costs of the additional contracts. This funding will cover costs associated
with the increase of ARPA contracts and assist with ensuring compliance with federal


Page 70

regulations.

Attachment A summarizes each proposed program and funding amounts.

Recommendation
Staff requests approval to reallocate approximately $15 million for the programs listed
on Attachment A to support the City’s efforts to assist residents experiencing
homelessness. Approval will also provide departments adequate time to complete
procurement processes and contract authorizations.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the City Manager's Office.




Page 71
ATTACHMENT A - February 2024 Reallocation

Program Dept. Recommended Allocation
Continuing Partially Funded Programs*
Funding will cover three projects from the November 2023 OHS $3,840,000
reallocation.
Homelessness Projects - Rio Fresco
Funding will cover operational costs at the Rio Fresco shelter OHS $3,000,000
until June 2025.
Library Technology, Capital and Staff Support - Outdoor LED
Signage
This is an existing project. Funding will cover the installation of LIB $2,000,000
18 outdoor LED signs across the library system for important
community information, such as public safety and health.
Homeless Services - General
Due to the continued increase in costs throughout the
OHS $1,813,044
economy, this funding will be used on current ARPA homeless
projects where needed.
Homeless Services - Central Arizona Shelter Services (CASS)
Funding will assist CASS with their current budget shortfall this
OHS $1,068,000
fiscal year and support the Single Adult Shelter and the Vista
Colina Family Shelter.
Keys to Change Contract
OHS $911,870
Funding will cover contract costs at the campus until June 2025.
Overnight Summer Heat Respite
This program was part of the November 2023 reallocation.
OHS $700,000
Funding will provide additional summer heat resources until
June 2025.
Temporary Lodging
This project was part of the November 2023 reallocation.
OHS $600,000
Funding will provide temporary lodging to individuals
experiencing homelessness.
Safe Outdoor Space
This is an existing program and funding will cover program costs OHS $570,000
until June 2025.
Cooling Pavilion
This is a new project with Steel and Spark. In partnership with
OHS $500,000
the State, a cooling pavilion will be constructed at a location still
to be identified.
Human Services Department Administrative Services
Funding will cover increased financial monitoring costs for HSD HSD $80,000
ARPA contracts.
TOTAL $15,082,914
* Programs include Temporary Lodging ($2M) , Heat Response/Temporary Shelter - Washington Shelter ($1.5M) , and CASS Haven Project
($340k).




Page 72



Report

Grant of Electrical Easement to Arizona Public Service Company Across City-
owned Property Located Along Litchfield Road Between Olive and Peoria
Avenues (Ordinance S-50577)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an electrical
easement to Arizona Public Service Company (APS) across City-owned property
located along Litchfield Road between Olive and Peoria avenues, at market value.
Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this
item.

Summary
The property, to be encumbered by the easement, includes four Maricopa County
Assessor Parcel numbers (APNs) totaling approximately 443.57 acres. The easement
is requested by APS to upgrade the existing electrical transmission and distribution
lines in the area. The easement, a total of approximately 26.79 acres, is located along
the western and northern boundary of the properties, reducing the net site size of the
parcels by six percent and leaving a total of 416.78 net acres. APS will compensate
the City for the easement based on market value as determined by an appraisal or
other valuation method accepted by the Finance Department's Real Estate Division.

a City-contracted broker on May 3, 2023. The City will be fully compensated for any
loss of use to the land caused by the easement encumbrance with the remainder of
the property still marketable as originally intended.

The properties to be encumbered by the easement are identified by address or
location and APN include:
· Northeast Corner of Olive Avenue and Litchfeld Road, 501-43-012C
· Southeast corner of Peoria Avenue and Litchfield Road, 501-43-013C
· Along the east side of Litchfield Road between Olive and Peoria avenues, 501-43-
013D
· 9816 N. Litchfield Road, 501-43-023A

Financial Impact
Revenue will be reflective of the market value of the easement.


Page 73


Concurrence/Previous Council Action

Location
Along Litchfield Road between Olive and Peoria avenues.
Council District: Outside of the City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation and
Finance departments.




Page 74



Report

Amend Ordinance S-50159 for Acquisition of Real Property for Roadway
Improvements Along Alta Vista Road and Encinas Lane from 26th Avenue to
19th Street (Ordinance S-50584)

Request the City Council amend Ordinance S-50159 for authorization to acquire
additional real property and related property interests required for roadway
improvements along Alta Vista Road and Encinas Lane from 26th Avenue to 19th
Street.

Summary
Ordinance S-50159 authorized the acquisition of real property for roadway
improvements along Alta Vista Road and Encinas Lane, from 26th Avenue to 19th
Street, to enhance roadway and sidewalk conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
vehicular traffic. Acquisition of property from five parcels not identified during
preliminary design is necessary to accommodate project construction. All other
conditions and stipulations stated in Ordinance S-50159 remain the same.

The additional parcels impacted by this project and included in this request are
identified in Attachment A.

Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.

Concurrence/Previous Action
Ordinance S-50159 was adopted Sept. 20, 2023.

Location
Along Alta Vista Road and Encinas Lane from 26th Avenue to 19th Street.
Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.



Page 75
ATTACHMENT A
Property Identification

S-50159 for Acquisition of Real Property for Roadway Improvements Along Alta
Vista Road and Encinas Lane From 26th Avenue to 19th Street

The following improved and/or unimproved parcels affected by acquisition and
included in this request are identified by the Maricopa County Assessor’s parcel
number (APN) and the address or location.

APN Address / Location
114-08-005A 329 E. Alta Vista Road
122-38-119 1901 E. Encinas Lane
122-38-120 1907 E. Encinas Lane
122-38-143E 1913 E. Encinas Lane
122-38-145C 1919 E. Encinas Lane




Page 76



Report

Acceptance and Dedication of a Deed and Easement for Roadway and Public
Utility Purposes (Ordinance S-50590)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate a deed and easement for roadway
and public utility purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

Summary
Accepting the property interests below meets the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.

Deed (a)
Applicant: Build a Better Phoenix, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 6733 N. 26th Ave. (6737 N. 26th Ave.)
File: FN 230110
Council District: 5

Easement (b)
Applicant: Build a Better Phoenix, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 6733 N. 26th Ave. (6737 N. 26th Ave.)
File: FN 230110
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.




Page 77



Report

Custodial Services - IFB 19-076 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50591)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 149369 with Commercial Custodial Services and Contract 149368 with Janco
FS2, LLC dba Velociti Services to extend the contract terms and add additional
expenditures. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $2,030,000.

Summary
These contracts provide custodial services and general cleaning for facilities in the
Police and Library departments. The contract will include labor and supervision. If
necessary, the contract will also include cleaning supplies, materials, equipment and
tools to perform complete custodial services to maintain acceptable levels of
cleanliness at various facilities.

Contract Term
With approval, the contracts will be extended through April 30, 2025 with options to
extend through April 30, 2026.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $2,030,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $10,537,418. Funds are available in the Police and Library
departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· Custodial Services contracts 149368 and 149369 Ordinance S-45406 on Feb. 20,
· Custodial Services Contract 149368 Ordinance S-47806 on July 12, 2021
· Custodial Services Contract 149368 Ordinance S-48761 on June 15, 2022
· Custodial Services Contract 149368 Ordinance S-49324 on Jan. 25, 2023

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Inger Erickson and the Police and Library departments.


Page 78



Report

LUCAS Devices Contract - RFA-24-0003 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
50596)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Howmedica Osteonics Corp dba Stryker Sales, LLC to provide Lund University
Cardiopulmonary Assist System (LUCAS) compression devices for the City of Phoenix
Fire Department (PFD). Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $1,250,000.

Summary
This contract will provide LUCAS compression devices and annual onsite preventative
maintenance inspection and unlimited repairs. The City of Phoenix Fire Department
(PFD) uses this chest compression device in the treatment of patients in cardiac
arrest. The PFD has used these devices since 2016, and they have shown to
administer consistent and high-quality chest compressions, ultimately resulting in
better patient outcomes. The LUCAS devices are an essential tool in the PFD's
mission to provide emergency Advanced Life Support (ALS) to the community.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition. The City of Phoenix Fire Department
(PFD) requests a contract with Howmedica Osteonics Corp dba Stryker Sales, LLC for
purchase of new, and annual onsite preventative maintenance inspection and
unlimited repairs of LUCAS devices. The City of Phoenix currently owns 64 LUCAS
devices and retaining Howmedica Osteonics Corp dba Stryker Sales, LLC as its
vendor will provide cost savings from continuity of maintenance, ease of use, training,
and eliminating the need for replacing the current devices with different equipment.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about March 1, 2024, for a five-year term with two one-
year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1,250,000 for the seven-year aggregate


Page 79

term.

Funding is available in the City of Phoenix Fire Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the City of Phoenix
Fire Department.




Page 80



Report

Dedication of an Alley Across City-owned Property Along the North Side of 1730
E. Monroe St. (Ordinance S-50602)

Request for the City Council to dedicate to public use an alley across City-owned
property along the north side of 1730 E. Monroe St., for the Sidney P. Osborn 1
housing project; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

Summary
Expansion of the alley across City-owned property controlled by the Housing
Department is a required stipulation by the Planning and Development Department
through Dedication Application Number DEDI 230113. The dedication of five feet along
the north side of 1730 E. Monroe St., between N. 17th and N. 18th streets, will
increase the alley width to meet the minimum 20-foot requirement for development of
the Sidney P. Osborn 1 housing project.

Location
Along the north side of 1730 E. Monroe St., identified by Maricopa County Assessor's
parcel number 115-04-148.
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing and
Finance departments.




Page 81



Report

Information Technology Research, Advisory and Consulting Services Qualified
Vendor List - Amendment (Ordinance S-50588)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend the term of the
existing qualified vendor list for professional Information Technology (IT) research,
advisory, and consulting services; authorize contracts or contract extensions with the
current list of vendors; and authorize additional expenditures on an as-needed basis
for the Information Technology Services Department in support of multiple City
departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $9,620,000.
Remaining funds previously authorized by the City Council will be applied to the
extended term.

Summary
The IT Research, Advisory and Consulting Services Qualified Vendor List (QVL) allows
the City to engage with the qualified firms to provide the most current industry
research, develop strategy, perform fit-gap and similar analysis, recommend process
improvements, assist with industry-driven requirement, an perform pre-project planning
and quality assurance.

Recent advisory and consulting services have provided critical support to IT projects
and initiatives Citywide, including Police Records Management System Assurance,
Case Management System Support, and Enterprise Customer Relationship
Management Assessment. Authorizing the extension and additional funds would also
allow the Planning and Development Department to continue to utilize services to
provide project oversight, quality assurance support services, and project management
support related to ShapePHX.

The qualified firms are:

Qualified for Small Engagements:
• Cadenza, LLC;
• CISOSHARE;
• Dimension Systems, Inc.;
• Education, Leadership and Analytics, LLC;


Page 82

• Gaea Global Technologies, Inc.;
• ISOutsource;
• Mission Critical Partners;
• OZ Engineering;
• Paradigm Solutions, LLC;
• Paramount Software Solutions, Inc.;
• Rishaank, LLC;
• Securance LLC;
• SeNet International Corporation;
• Sensei Project Solutions, Inc.;
• ServiceTec International, Inc.; and
• The Evolvers Group, L. P.

Qualified for Any Engagement:
• Arcadis U.S., Inc.;
• Ernst & Young;
• Gartner, Inc.;
• IDC Research, Inc.;
• Public Consulting Group, Inc.;
• Slalom Inc. ;
• Timmons Group, Inc.; and
• Zolon Tech, Inc.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Dec. 31, 2026, with a one-year
option to extend through Dec. 31, 2027.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $9,620,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $22,120,000. Funds are available in the various department’s
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• IT Research, Advisory and Consulting Services QVL award S-44256 on Feb. 7, 2018
• IT Research, Advisory and Consulting Services QVL extension S-48977 on Sept. 7,

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Information
Technology Services Department.


Page 83



Report

Authorization to Amend Contract with United Methodist Outreach Ministries
(UMOM) New Day Centers, Inc. (Ordinance S-50600)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 145546
with United Methodist Outreach Ministries (UMOM) New Day Centers, Inc. to add
$455,000 for continued emergency shelter services for families with children and
single women experiencing homelessness. The new total contract amount is not to
exceed $8,771,000 over the life of the contract. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item for the life of the contract.

Summary
In July 2017, the Human Services Department executed a contract with UMOM New
Day Centers as a result of a competitive process to serve 16 families with children and
130 single women experiencing homelessness each night at shelter facilities owned
and operated by UMOM New Day Centers. These services had previously been
provided by a contractor at the City-owned Watkins facility. The purpose of the change
was to improve services and relieve the City of the costly repairs and maintenance for
the Watkins building.

The Watkins facility was closed in July 2017 following the transfer of services to
UMOM New Day Centers facilities.

Contract Term
The term of the contract is seven years, which began on July 1, 2017, and will end on
June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
General and grant funds to support this increase are available in the Human Services
Department budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· City Council approved Contract 145546 on May 10, 2017, with Ordinance S-43482;
· City Council approved a funding increase on Nov. 1, 2017, with Ordinance S-44028;
and
· City Council approved a funding increase on June 20, 2018, with Ordinance


Page 84

S-44822.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 85



Report

Retroactive Authorization to Apply for, Accept and Disburse Arizona Department
of Housing Grant Funding (Ordinance S-50603)

Request retroactive authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for
Arizona Department of Housing (ADOH) grant funding in an amount not to exceed
$500,000. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item for the life of the grant.

Summary
ADOH provides funds for housing and housing related services, with current available
funding designated for extreme weather and shelter response. The available grant
funding will be used to expand existing emergency response to severe weather
conditions (i.e. heat) for individuals and/or families experiencing unsheltered
homelessness. Allowable activities to expand response to extreme weather include,
but are not limited to: opening of indoor spaces, community notification, transportation,
and site operations. If awarded, funding will be used to support summer heat relief
efforts by providing overnight cooling and navigation centers throughout Phoenix to
offer safe, indoor spaces for unsheltered individuals in the summer months. This
request is retroactive because there was a short window to apply, and there was not
adequate time to request authority prior to the grant submission due date.

Contract Term
If awarded, the grant term will begin on or about May 1, 2024, and end on or about
June 30, 2025.

Financial Impact
Funding in an amount up to $500,000 will be provided by ADOH. No matching funds
are required. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 86



Report

Authorization to Amend Contract with Community Bridges, Inc. for Operation
and Maintenance of the Central City Addiction Recovery Center (Ordinance S-
50608)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 147736
with Community Bridges, Inc. (CBI) to a) extend the term of the contract through Dec.
31, 2031, and b) add an additional $290,000 annually, upon annual budget approval,
for a new contract total not to exceed $4.06 million. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item for the life of the contract.

Summary
The City had an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Arizona Department of
Health Services (ADHS) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the
Central City Addiction Recovery Center (CCARC) (formerly known as Local Alcohol
Reception Center or LARC) on the grounds of the Arizona State Hospital. The IGA
expired Dec. 31, 2017. The City constructed the facility that houses CCARC.

CCARC serves the community of Phoenix and combines medical and behavioral
interventions to address a patient's psychiatric and substance abuse issues. CCARC
provides methadone detox services and substance abuse treatment, which includes
day treatment, partial hospitalization, inpatient detox and hospital inpatient treatment
services.

In 2015, Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care (MMIC) was competitively selected and
entered into a contract with State of Arizona for the delivery of mental health services
in Maricopa County. The contract includes the provision of local alcoholism reception
center services as described in Arizona Revised Statutes title 36, chapter 18, article 2.
As a result, MMIC is the sole source for the Regional Behavioral Health Authority and
has contracted with CBI to be its service provider; no other entities can be solicited for
proposals for this service.

Since Jan. 1, 2018, the City has contracted with CBI for CCARC operations and
maintenance. CBI was recently awarded federal grant funding to renovate the CCARC,
with a condition that Contract 147736 with CBI be extended through at least Dec. 31,
2031, to satisfy federal minimum period of use requirements.


Page 87


Contract Term
The initial term of Contract 147736 with CBI began on Jan. 1, 2018, through Dec. 31,
2022, with one, five-year option to extend. In December 2022, the City extended
Contract 147736 through Dec. 31, 2027. This item, if approved will authorize the City
to extend the contract through Dec. 31, 2031.

Financial Impact
The revised total value of this contract shall not exceed $4.06 million. Additional
funding is available in the Human Services Department General Funds, upon annual
budget approval.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 147736 and IGA 159842 with Ordinance S-44380
on March 21, 2018.

Location
2770 E Van Buren St.
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 88



Report

Authorization to Enter Contract with Human Services Campus, Inc. dba Keys to
Change (Ordinance S-50614)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract
with Human Services Campus, Inc. dba Keys to Change to provide essential services
for individuals experiencing homelessness. The Brian Garcia Welcome Center located
on the Key Campus is open 365 days per year, 7 days per week, and 24 hours per
day, including holidays. Funding will be used for expenses related to operations,
security, janitorial, and maintenance of the Key Campus. This includes operation of a
storage program that enables clients to keep and access their belongings while
accessing shelter services. The Key Campus services include engaging with people
immediately outside the Welcome Center and Key Campus. In addition, the Welcome
Center provides 24-hour access to restrooms and in the summer provides access to
water for those in need. The term of the contract will begin on or about March 1, 2024
and run through June 30, 2025. The aggregate amount will not exceed $2,125,000.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item for the life of the contract. Funds are available from the City’s allocation of the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.

Summary
Keys to Change is a service hub that provides essential services to individuals
experiencing homelessness. Directly and through its 16 partners, the Key Campus
provides shelter, food, navigation, case management, postal services, workforce
development and housing, among other services. There is a growing need for these
services targeting individuals experiencing homelessness in the community. Maricopa
Association of Governments 2022 Point in Time Count numbers showed a 34 percent
increase in unsheltered homelessness over the last two years. These services will
have a significant impact on overall health and safety of the Phoenix community. The
agency’s programs include services for the homeless that serve thousands each day
and provide general assistance for individuals in need.

Keys to Change recognizes the urgent need for providing essential services to
individuals experiencing homelessness and is committed to providing services aligned
with the City of Phoenix’s Strategies to Address Homelessness. The Key Campus
provides a safe haven for individuals in need of help and provides a myriad of services


Page 89

that have assisted thousands of individuals end their homelessness.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about March 1, 2024 and run through June
30, 2025.

Financial Impact
The total value of this contract shall not exceed $2,125,000. There is no impact to
General Fund. Funding is available through the City's ARPA allocation.

Location
220 S. 12th Avenue
Phoenix, Az 85007
District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 90



Report

Request Authorization to Increase Funding for Contract 159075 with Central
Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. (Ordinance S-50615)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to increase funding for
Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. (CASS) in an amount of up to $1.5 million to
provide gap funding for emergency shelter services. The revised total contract value
will not exceed $6,735,990. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item for the life of the contract.

Summary
The City has contracted with CASS to provide emergency shelter services since July
1, 2007. The facility currently serves up to 600 single adult men and women. The
shelter is located on the Key Campus, formerly known as the Human Services
Campus, a coordinated entry access point which is run out of the Brian Garcia
Welcome Center. This coordination is critical to serving the homeless population in this
area and to regional efforts to end homelessness. CASS is a provider of shelter
services for single adults and families in Phoenix and Maricopa County and is the only
facility that has the capacity to serve this large number of homeless individuals.

The additional gap funding is essential for the continuation of shelter services for the
agency's single adult shelter and family shelter. In addition, enhanced reporting
requirements will be implemented to ensure CASS is aligned with regional standards
for emergency shelter services.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will remain unchanged, beginning on or about July 1, 2023,
with four one-year options to extend, which may be exercised by the City Manager or
his designee.

Financial Impact
The contract will have an annual budget of up to $1,347,198 subject to annual budget
approval. The total contract value shall not exceed $6,735,990. General Purpose
funding is available in the Office of Homeless Solutions' budget, subject to annual
budget approval, and within the City’s American Rescue Plan Act allocation.



Page 91

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On June 14, 2023, the City Council approved Contract 159075 with Ordinance S-
49849.
On Feb. 7, 2024, the City Council approved an increase in funding under Contract
159075 with Ordinance S-50555.

Location
230 S. 12th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.




Page 92



Report

Insurance Eligibility and Electronic Claims Processing Service Contract - RFA 24
-0013 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50607)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Zoll Data Systems, Inc. to provide insurance eligibility and electronic claims for the Fire
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $1,354,050.

Summary
This contract will provide billing solutions for insurance eligibility and electronic claims
for the Fire Department's Emergency Transportation Services (ETS). Services
provided by Zoll Data Systems, Inc. will allow ETS to verify insurance eligibility and
have the ability for electronic claims submissions. The functionality of the services will
allow ETS to reduce the time it takes to verify insurance eligibility and provide
electronic claims to insurance providers that require electronic claims forms.

This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reasons:
Special Circumstances Without Competition. Zoll Data Systems, Inc., is the only
vendor that integrates with the ETS accounts receivable software and provides both
insurance eligibility and electronic claims. A Request for Proposal was issued for the
same services and was unsuccessful as no offers were received.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Feb. 21, 2024, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1,354,050 for the five-year aggregate
term. Funding is available in the Fire Department's budget.



Page 93

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.




Page 94



Report

Accept Supplemental Funding for FEMA Urban Search & Rescue Response
System Cooperative Agreement Awards (Ordinance S-50610)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively accept and
disburse Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Urban Search &
Rescue (US&R) Response System Readiness supplemental funds awarded for Fiscal
Years (FY) 2022, 2021, and 2020 totaling $387,745. Further request authorization for
the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to
this item.

Summary
The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA provide support and funding for the
maintenance and readiness of the US&R Response System. The purpose of this
funding is to support the continued development and maintenance of a national US&R
capability. As the sponsoring agency of Arizona Task Force One (AZ-TF1), one of the
28 national US&R teams, the Phoenix Fire Department receives yearly cooperative
agreement awards to maintain this capability.

Due to rising expenses associated with maintaining US&R teams, FEMA has begun
providing additional financial support beyond what is already funded through their
annual cooperative agreements. These additional funds are distributed as part of the
ongoing awards and are available throughout the term of the current award
agreements.

Contract Term
The period of performance to utilize the supplemental funding will run through Aug. 31,
2026.

Financial Impact
The Fire Department will receive supplemental funding not to exceed $387,745 from
FEMA for the FY 2022, 2021 and 2020 US&R Response System Readiness
Cooperative Agreements.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Council has previously passed Ordinance S-48942, Ordinance S-47955, and


Page 95

Ordinance S-46869 authorizing acceptance of the FEMA US&R Cooperative
Agreement awards for fiscal years FY2022, 2021 and 2020.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.




Page 96



Report

Fixed Wing Pilot Training- IFB 19-016-Amendment (Ordinance S-50599)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 149441 with Bird Acquisition, LLC, dba Aeroguard Flight Training Center, to
extend contract term. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. No additional funds are needed, request to continue using
Ordinance S-45431.

Summary
This contract will provide training to new pilots, as in-house pilot training is no longer
feasible. This contract will streamline the training process for new pilots and reduce the
length of time it takes to achieve the pilot certificates. It will also provide the Air
Support Unit with oversight from a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified flight
instructor school.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through March 14, 2025, with an option to
extend to March 14, 2026.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $285,000 and no additional funds
are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Fixed Wing Pilot Training Contract 149441 (Ordinance S-45431) on March 6, 2019.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.




Page 97



Report

General Police Towing Services - RFP 13-006 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50583)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 135125 with DV Towing, LLC to amend contract to assign all rights, interests,
and obligations to a new vendor, DVT Enterprises, LLC. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No additional funds are
needed, request to continue using Ordinance S-39460.

Summary
The Police Department requires general towing services to remove vehicles for
citizens involved in vehicle crashes, and tow abandoned vehicles, vehicles left in the
roadways, illegally parked vehicles and other law enforcement impoundments. Towing
services are essential to the Police Department and mandated by the Arizona Revised
Statutes, Phoenix City Codes and Police Department policies. DV Towing, LLC seeks
to assign its assets, payables, and receivables, including its rights and obligations
under Contract 135125, to DVT Enterprises, LLC. Approval is requested to amend this
contract accordingly and continue receiving services from DVT Enterprises, LLC.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Dec. 31, 2026.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $1,329,832 and no additional
funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· General Police Towing Services - contracts 135124, 135125, 135126 and 135191
(Ordinance S-39460) on Dec. 19, 2012
· General Police Towing Services - contracts 135124, 135125, 135126 and 135191
(Ordinance S-44209) on Jan. 24, 2018
· General Police Towing Services - contracts 135124, 135125, 135126 and 135191
(Ordinance S-44333) on March 21, 2018
· General Police Towing Services - contracts 135124, 135125, 135126 and 135191



Page 98

(Ordinance S-45345) on Feb. 6, 2019
· General Police Towing Services - contracts 135124, 135125, 135126 and 135191
(Ordinance S-45759) on June 5, 2019
· General Police Towing Services - contracts 135124, 135125, 135126 and 135191
(Ordinance S-47246) on Jan. 20, 2021

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.




Page 99



Report

Request Authorization to Apply for, Accept and Enter Into Agreements for Fiscal
Year 2024-25 Governor's Office of Highway Safety Grants (Ordinance S-50613)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow staff to apply for,
accept and enter into grant contracts for Fiscal Year 2024-25 with the Arizona
Governor's Office of Highway Safety (GOHS). Further request authorization for the
City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item.

Summary
The GOHS announced the availability of funding in January 2024. Grant proposals are
due by March 8, 2024. If awarded, these funds will be used to support new traffic
safety programs and enhance existing programs in the City Prosecutor's Office, as well
as the Fire, Street Transportation, and Police departments. The total Citywide request
for funding is $1,929,000.

City Prosecutor's Office - Total Funding Request $300,000
If awarded, grant funds will be used to pay the salary, expenses, supplies and travel
for an existing Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor (TSRP), Attorney IV. Approximately
half of the funding will be sought from the Oversight Council on Driving or Operating
Under the Influence Abatement Council. The other half will be requested through a
grant from GOHS. GOHS will administer all funds. The TSRP program has four
primary objectives:
· Provide training for prosecutors and law enforcement officers in the prosecution of
traffic safety related crimes.
· Act as a resource for questions about traffic laws and trial advocacy.
· Improve communication between prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and
members of the judiciary.
· Act as a liaison for individuals and agencies committed to the enforcement and
prosecution of traffic safety related crimes.

GOHS has funded the TSRP program since its inception in 2007. Though the grant
project is administered by Phoenix, it also benefits citizens, law enforcement, and
prosecutors across Arizona. The TSRP is a resource to both small and large


Page 100

jurisdictions for legal issues related to the enforcement of DUI and traffic laws. The
TSRP also provides training to prosecutors, law enforcement officers, crime lab
personnel, interns and community groups. It is anticipated that up to $45,000 of
employee-related expenses may need to be covered by City general funds.

Fire Department - Total Funding Request $445,000
Occupant protection and child car seat: Funding will be requested for training,
overtime, related fringe benefits, materials, public education, and equipment related to
child safety seats and seat belt usage. This funding will maintain current occupant
protection efforts and increase the frequency for conducting child safety technician
certification and recertification classes, increase the opportunities to educate residents
at car seat check events, increase the number of locations of designated car seat
check fitting stations to enhance geographical outreach, and to enhance outreach for
occupant protection public education in K-12 schools ($360,000).

Youth Alcohol Awareness: Funding will be requested for overtime and related fringe
benefits, materials, and equipment related to young drivers in high school and/or
community college education campaigns including dramatic mock crashes and
classroom education. The program informs young drivers of the danger of alcohol and
other drug impairment while driving and how serious the consequences can lead to
injury and death. Educating young drivers of the danger of impaired driving is an
effective way to decrease preventable injuries and fatalities associated with alcohol
and drug-impaired driving ($40,000).

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: Funding will be requested for overtime, related fringe
benefits, materials, and equipment related to education campaigns to increase safety
awareness, traffic awareness, and skills necessary for young pedestrians and
bicyclists. This program provides bike rodeos for young cyclists, bike and pedestrian
school safety assemblies, and public education opportunities at community safety fairs
and events ($45,000).

Police Department - Total Funding Request $1,000,000
DUI Enforcement (Traffic Bureau): Funding will provide training, overtime, related
fringe benefits and equipment to support and enhance DUI enforcement within the City
of Phoenix and joint enforcement efforts throughout the valley.

Occupant Protection (Traffic Bureau): Funding will provide training, materials, supplies,
overtime and related fringe benefits associated with "Click It or Ticket" enforcement
activities, child passenger safety technician certification classes, car seat events,
"Buckle Up, Baby" hotline and various seatbelt enforcement campaigns.



Page 101

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (Traffic Bureau): Funding will provide training, materials,
supplies, overtime and related fringe benefits associated with education and
enforcement campaigns designed to increase safety awareness, traffic law knowledge,
and skills among pedestrians and bicyclists.

Traffic Services (Traffic Bureau): Funding will provide training, materials, supplies,
equipment (radar/laser speed detection devices), overtime and related fringe benefits
associated with education and enforcement campaigns, such as Traffic Impact
Programs, school zone enforcement, construction zone enforcement, Traffic Complaint
Hotline enforcement, and selective traffic enforcement programs.

DUI Abatement Council (Traffic Bureau): Funding will be requested from the DUI
Abatement Council for overtime and related fringe benefits associated with DUI
enforcement and innovative "Know Your Limit" Programs.

Street Transportation Department - Total Funding Request $184,000
This funding will promote the advertising campaign and tools for school, bicycle, and
pedestrian/driver safety. Requests for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety ($184,000)
include funds for: pedestrian safety vests, bicycle helmets, LED flashing STOP
paddles, roll out signs, safety enhancement items, and advertising safety media
campaigns.

Contract Term
One year beginning Oct. 1, 2024, through Sept. 30, 2025.

Financial Impact
Total funding request is $1,929,000. The cost to the City is personnel expenses and in-
kind resources only.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager Alan
Stephenson, the Fire, Police and Street Transportation departments, and the City
Prosecutor's Office.




Page 102



Report

Request Authorization for Sale of Canine Zadie (Ordinance S-50612)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the sale of canine
Zadie to Detective Elizabeth Poole for $1.00. Det. Poole and canine Zadie are
assigned to the Drug Enforcement Bureau in the Commercial Narcotic Interdiction
Unit. Det. Poole has requested to purchase and retire her assigned canine Zadie in
accordance with Administrative Regulation 4.21.

Summary
Canine Zadie is 10 years old and has served the Commercial Narcotic Interdiction Unit
detecting narcotics and human remains for eight years. Canine Zadie has met the
Bureau's standard of service and allowing her to retire will lessen the strain on her
body and increase her life expectancy. Det. Poole has already been assigned another
canine, and has been working with both since October 2021.

This request is for the authorization of the sale of canine Zadie for $1.00. The
purchase of canine Zadie is being made by Detective Elizabeth Poole, who agrees to
accept full responsibility and liability for canine Zadie and to care for her for the
remainder of her life.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.




Page 103



Report

High-Rise and Single-Story Building Window Cleaning Services IFB 24-FMD-021
- Request for Award (Ordinance S-50579)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Viewmaker, LLC dba Squeegee Squad and Prestige Window Cleaning, Inc. dba
Professional Window Cleaning to provide window cleaning services for high-rise and
single-story buildings Citywide. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total aggregate amount of contracts will not
exceed $1,103,160.

Summary
The high-rise and single-story building window cleaning services are used for interior
and exterior window washing, high dusting, and stainless steel polishing on an as-
needed basis.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 24-FMD-021 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. The Public Works Department, Procurement Section, received two
offers. All groups received a bid and both offers were deemed to be responsive to the
posted specifications, and responsible to provide the required services. The evaluation
was based on the price for each group.
· Viewmaker, LLC Group 1 - Fire Department Locations: $4,950
· Viewmaker, LLC Group 2 - Human Services Department Locations: $3,600
· Viewmaker, LLC Group 3 - Library Services Department Locations: $7,605
· Viewmaker, LLC Group 4 - Police Department Locations: $7,200
· Viewmaker, LLC Group 5 - Public Works Department Locations: $8,950
· Prestige Window Cleaning, Inc. Group 6 - Water Services Department Locations:
$12,209
· Viewmaker, LLC Group 7 - High-Rise Locations: $111,400

Contract Term
The initial one-year contract term shall begin on or about March 1, 2024, with four
options to extend in increments of up to one year, for a total contract term of five years.




Page 104

Financial Impact
The contracts will have a combined estimated annual expenditure of $220,632, with a
total aggregate amount of $1,103,160 over the life of the contracts. Funds are
available in the Fire, Human Services, Library Services, Police, Public Works, and
Water Services departments' budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Managers
Gina Montes, Inger Erickson, Ginger Spencer and Mario Paniagua, and the Fire,
Human Services, Library Services, Police, Water Services and Public Works
departments.




Page 105



Report

Purchase of Light and Medium Duty Vehicles Contract - IFB 24-FSD-030 Request
for Award (Ordinance S-50580)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
contracts with Courtesy Chevrolet Corp., Don Sanderson Ford, Inc., SanTan Auto
Partners LLC, doing business as San Tan Ford, and PFVT Motors, LLC, doing
business as Peoria Ford for purchase of light and medium duty vehicles for various
City departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $200,000,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for purchasing light and medium duty
vehicles on behalf of all City departments. Every year, Public Works prepares a list of
City equipment due for replacement based on age or miles, or a combination thereof.
This contract will allow Public Works to purchase replacement vehicles that have
exceeded the useful life and add new vehicles to the fleet as needed for operations.
The vehicles that will be purchased will include, but are not limited to: sedans, sport
utility vehicles, trucks, vans, patrol-rated police cruisers and medium duty vehicles that
are essential to City services. These vehicles will be used by various City departments
including Police, Fire, Water Services, and Street Transportation.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10. The Public Works Department, Procurement Section, received four
bids with all four being recommended for award based on base model pricing of
vehicles. Due to the extensive lists provided by the bidders for possible vehicle
purchases, the following recommended vendors are divided by manufacturer.

Chevrolet:
Courtesy Chevrolet Corp.

Ford:
Don Sanderson Ford, Inc.
PFVT Motors LLC dba Peoria Ford
San Tan Auto Partners, LLC dba San Tan Ford


Page 106


Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about April 1, 2024 for a three-year term with two one-
year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The value of the contracts will not exceed $200,000,000.

Funding is available in various departments' budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.




Page 107



Report

Vernell Myers Coleman Ceremonial Street Name Signage

Request City Council approval to install ceremonial street name signage recognizing
Vernell Myers Coleman at the intersection of 7th Avenue and Buckeye Road.

Summary
Vernell Myers Coleman (Aug. 28, 1918 - March 27, 1990) first moved to Phoenix from
Henderson, Texas, in 1938 and returned in 1944. Mrs. Coleman, along with her
children, moved into the City's Matthew Henson Housing Project in 1945.

Mrs. Coleman made numerous contributions to the City of Phoenix and community.
One of the most notable achievements of her historical influence was the revival of the
Juneteenth Celebration in Phoenix. June 19, 1865, also known as Juneteenth,
commemorates the day when black slaves in Texas first learned about the
Emancipation Proclamation that Abraham Lincoln had signed two and a half years
earlier. Phoenix's first Juneteenth occurred in 1911 after a visit by Booker T.
Washington, with smaller celebrations held through the mid-1940s. In 1968, as head of
the Matthew Henson Tenants' Council, Mrs. Coleman renewed the Juneteenth
celebration in Phoenix. Held at Dunbar School, residents of the housing project cooked
food, and the young people played a baseball game against the police team. She
worked to make Juneteenth a multi-racial event for all to enjoy, while ensuring black
people learned their history. Juneteenth Tradition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation
developed under Mrs. Coleman's guidance, raised scholarship money for
underprivileged students. Mrs. Coleman served as the honorary chairperson of the
organization until shortly before her death.

Mrs. Coleman became an advocate for her fellow tenants at the Matthew Henson
Housing Project. She organized a tenants' council, which addressed substandard
living conditions, and the surge of crime and violence in the community. During the late
1960s, as a member of the Matthew Henson Anti-Crime Committee, Mrs. Coleman
was instrumental in toppling barriers between community and police, which led to
improved police services and decreased crime in the area. In the 1970s, she
organized a tenant strike; residents refused to pay rent without basic improvements,
such as the installation of cabinet doors, linoleum tile, and ventilation ducts. The strike
was a success and appropriate changes were made to residents' apartments. Mrs.


Page 108

Coleman served as president of the tenants' council for ten years, becoming known as
the "Mayor of Projects."

Mrs. Coleman was active outside of the Matthew Henson area as well. She served as
a commissioner of the Leadership and Education of the Advancement of Phoenix
(LEAP) for three years during the 1960s. She was a member of the Board of Directors
of the Phoenix Urban League and the City of Phoenix Housing Advisory Board. She
also served as both the chairwoman and treasurer for the Phoenix Human Resources
Council.

In the late 1970s, Mrs. Coleman began preparing healthy dinners for the elderly in her
housing project. Mrs. Coleman was instrumental in helping to organize the St. Mary's
Food Bank with Founder John Van Hengel, and she served on the board for several
years. She also expanded her meal service and continued to cook every Wednesday
for the program through 1982.

As a member of First Institutional Baptist Church, Mrs. Coleman was on the Pastor's
Aide Committee where she continued to utilize her celebrated organizational,
fundraising, and cooking skills. Alongside her long-time friend Hallie Anderson and
other women on the committee, Mrs. Coleman worked diligently to raise funds to pay
off the church's deed. They did this by selling dinners from Mrs. Coleman's kitchen and
holding rummage sales with quality merchandise that she solicited from department
stores such as Goldwater's, JCPenney, Diamond's, etc. The church's Deed of
Reconveyance was secured under the ministry of the late Robert N. Nesby.

For more than 40 years, Vernell Coleman diligently worked to improve the lives of the
poor in Phoenix. She also campaigned for the Seventh Avenue Clinic, which provided
free podiatry to the elderly and handicapped.

Despite being confined by her arthritis to crutches or a wheelchair, she stayed busy
guiding various committees, talking with politicians, and working with her neighbors.
She gave endlessly of herself, not for recognition, but out of a sincere desire to
improve conditions in her community.

Vernell Coleman's many works did not go unnoticed. Between 1971 and 1988, she
received numerous awards and honors from the State of Arizona, the City of Phoenix,
businesses, and social organizations. In 1974, the Greyhound Corporation named her
Phoenix Woman of the Year. The Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai's of Phoenix in 1979
presented her with the first Willie L. Robertson Memorial Human Rights award for her
efforts in finding housing for the poor, while encouraging youth to continue their
education. To honor her years of volunteer work, Luke's Men of St. Luke's Medical


Page 109

Center and KPNX-TV of Phoenix gave her the 10th Annual Hon Kachina award. The
following year she was named Woman of Distinction by the Women of Achievement
group, a coalition of the Junior League of Phoenix, Meyer Inc., and Soroptimist
International of Phoenix. In 1988, Mrs. Coleman received the Spirit of Arizona award
for serving her community in extraordinary ways. In 1990, she was inducted into the
Arizona Women's Hall of Fame.

The Vernell Coleman Youth Recreation Center (830 W. Tonto St.) is named in honor of
Mrs. Coleman.

The ceremonial street name signs will be mounted on the mast arms of the northeast
and southwest traffic signal poles at 7th Avenue and Buckeye Road. See Attachment
A for an illustration of the proposed signs.

Financial Impact
The fabrication and installation costs of the ceremonial signs will be funded by the
Mayor's Office and Council District 8.

Location
7th Avenue and Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation Department.




Page 110
ATTACHMENT A
Vernell Myers Coleman Ceremonial Signs




Vernell Myers Coleman Way




Ceremonial Street
Name Sign




Ceremonial Street
Name Sign




Page 111



Report

Medium Diameter Transmission Mains - Job Order Contracting Services -
4108JOC225 (Ordinance S-50578)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with two contractors listed below, to provide Medium Diameter
Transmission Mains Job Order Contracting services for the Water Services
Department. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements
as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below,
and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $54,405,000.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The Job Order Contracting (JOC) contractors’ services will be used on an as-needed
basis to provide Medium Diameter Transmission Mains Job Order Contract services
for the installation, rehabilitation, or relocation of water transmission mains, and
structures in the waterline right-of-way and other critical assets citywide. Additionally,
the JOC contractors will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business Enterprise program
requirements.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received


Page 112

or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Five firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:

Selected Firms
Rank 1: B & F Contracting, Inc.
Rank 2: Talis Construction Corporation

Additional Proposers
Rank 3: Kinkaid Civil Construction LLC
Rank 4: FPS Civil, LLC
Rank 5: Arrowmark Underground LLC dba Local Underground Construction

Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $27,202,500,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The master agreement value for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed
$27,202,500, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $54,405,000.

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute job order
agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $4 million each. In no
event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department Capital Improvement Program
budgets. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 113



Report

91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Rehabilitation Phase I -
Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services Amendment - WS90100111
(Ordinance S-50581)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 153445 with PCL Construction, Inc. to provide additional Construction
Manager at Risk Construction Services for the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Solids Rehabilitation Phase I project. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure
authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The additional fee for services included in this amendment will not exceed
$26.2 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate, replace, and make improvements to the
solids thickening, solids digestion, and solids dewatering equipment, piping,
instrumentation, and processes at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP).

This amendment is necessary to provide additional funds to the agreement.

The 91st Avenue WWTP is owned by the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG) and
operated by the City of Phoenix.

Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged. Work scope identified and incorporated into
the agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work
may extend past the termination of the agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) Construction
Services was approved for an amount not to exceed $45,351,000, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.



Page 114

· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $26,200,000, for a
new total amount not to exceed $71,551,000, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs.

Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget utilizing SROG funds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The SROG advisors authorized the project on June 10, 2020.

The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 152491 (Ordinance S-46821) on July 1, 2020;
· CMAR Preconstruction Services Agreement 152492 (Ordinance S-46823) on July
1, 2020;
· CMAR Construction Services Agreement 153445 (Ordinance S-47146) on Dec. 2,
2020; and
· CMAR Construction Services Agreement Amendment 153445 (Ordinance S-49302)
on Jan. 4, 2023.

Location
91st Avenue WWTP
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 115



Report

Cast Iron Water Transmission Main Replacement - Engineering Services -
WS85508004 (Ordinance S-50585)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Entellus, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include design and possible
construction administration and inspection for the Cast Iron Water Transmission Main
Replacement project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The total fee for services will not exceed $760,000.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to replace cast iron transmission mains in the central
Phoenix area, including approximately 4,000 linear feet of 20-inch diameter
transmission main along 9th Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Washington
Street, approximately 1,600 linear feet of 14-inch transmission main along 44th Street
from Van Buren Street to McKinley Street, and other cast iron replacements as
identified within the design phase.

Entellus,Inc.'s services include but are not limited to: reviewing as-builts and providing
recommendations for the alignment of the 20-inch water transmission main and the
new parallel water distribution main, developing construction documents for 4,000
linear feet of transmission main along 9th Avenue between Roosevelt and Washington
Streets, approximately 1,600 linear feet of water distribution main along 9th Avenue


Page 116

between Roosevelt Street and Taylor Street, developing construction documents for
other areas requiring replacement of cast iron transmission mains as identified in the
design phase, conducting geotechincal evaluation as necessary, and provide survey
services as needed to support the field investigation and design at each location.
Entellus,Inc. will also identify all utility locations vertically and horizontally along the
pipeline route, coordinate with the City potholing contractor as necessary to establish
utility locations, prepare opinion of probable cost for construction, obtain all applicable
permits, assist with developing detailed shutdown plans, provide data reflection
changes to the asset registry in the City's computer maintenance management
systems and GIS, and assist with the development of scope documents for Job Order
Contract support agreements.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Entellus,Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Sunrise Engineering, Inc.
Rank 3: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Rank 4: Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is three years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Entellus, Inc., will not exceed $760,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the


Page 117

agreement termination.

Location
General Location: 9th Avenue between Roosevelt Street and Washington Street and
44th Street from Van Buren Street to McKinley Street
Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 118



Report

Instrumentation And Control System Inspection And Testing Services For Water
Remote Facilities - Engineering Services - WS85400011 (Ordinance S-50586)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Stephen C. Clements dba Clements Inspection Services to provide Engineering
Services that include design review, construction administration and inspection, and
commissioning testing of all projects associated with instrumentation and control
systems for the Water Services Department's Water Remote Facilities. Further request
to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the
Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $1.6
million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include but
are not limited to, electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads, and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
This project aims to improve the functionality, efficiency, and maintenance of the
instrumentation and control systems. The City has incorporated instrumentation and
control system inspection and testing services to assist the engineer and contractor
during upgrades or expansions of the water distribution systems. The City has
developed instrumentation and control standards for the entire Water Services
Department, which provide consistency in the control systems, and will be enforcing
these standards on all projects. The work areas are in the design phase, construction
installation inspections, and commissioning testing and calibrations of the
instrumentation and control systems. Operations and maintenance support may be
required when staff are performing tests on new and existing equipment.


Page 119


Stephen C. Clements dba Clements Inspection Services' services include, but are not
limited to: attending design meetings and project engineer demonstrations, supporting
the engineer with research of existing conditions, conducting 30 percent, 60 percent,
90 percent, and 100 percent reviews of the project plans and specifications, supporting
the engineering consultant with the understanding of the Water Services Department's
standards for instrumentation and control systems, and is required to maintain and
update the standards if revisions or acceptable changes have occurred during the
design review process. Also, coordinate design reviews and construction and
commissioning inspections and other requirements with the firm selected for Electrical
and Arc Flash support services. Construction support services will include submittal
review, conducting reviews on the equipment installation, providing field observation
reports, participating in factory testing, reviewing the completeness of required
equipment testing documentation, and witnessing the instrumentation calibrations and
loop checks. Commissioning support services will include providing assistance on
computer control strategy checkout, tuning of control loops, performing loop tests,
troubleshooting for the computer control system programmers, maintaining designated
instruments through final acceptance, educating the plant staff on the systems,
supporting the maintenance staff on developing maintenance procedures for
designated equipment, and reviewing the accuracy of the as-built documentation for
electrical drawings, and the process and instrumentation diagrams.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Two firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Stephen C. Clements dba Clements Inspection Services

Additional Proposer
Partners in Controls, Inc. dba Enterprise Automation

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.



Page 120

Financial Impact
The total fee for all services will not exceed $1.6 million, including all subconsultant
and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 121



Report

Utility Service Meter Cabinets - IFB 18-317 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50587)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 148407 with JTB Supply Co., Inc. to modify the scope of work to include
additional Utility Service Meter Cabinet Type A. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not
exceed $600,000.

Summary
This contract will provide the Street Transportation Department use of these utility
service meter cabinets at intersections throughout the City to provide power to traffic
signals. In the event of a power outage, these cabinets will operate the traffic signals
on battery power for up to eight hours. If the power outage is longer than eight hours,
the City can plug in a generator to provide power, which will recharge the batteries and
continue operating the traffic signal system.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Sept. 5, 2024, with an option to
extend through Sept. 5, 2025.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $600,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $2,500,000. Funds are available in the Street Transportation
Department’s budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved:
· Utility Service Meter Cabinets Contract 148407 (Ordinance S-44970) on Sept. 5,
2018;
· Utility Service Meter Cabinets Contract 148407 Amendment (Ordinance S-48918)
on Aug. 31, 2022; and
· Utility Service Meter Cabinets Contract 148407 Amendment (Ordinance S-50094)
on Aug. 28, 2023.




Page 122

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Street
Transportation Department.




Page 123



Report

Fire Station 15 Architectural Services - FD57100031 (Ordinance S-50589)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Perlman Architects of Arizona, Inc. to provide Architectural Services that include:
design and possible construction administration and observation services for the new
Fire Station 15 project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $500,000.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to build a new one-story fire station with four apparatus
bays and 16 dorms to enable Phoenix Fire Department staff to support the surrounding
community and create quicker response time to calls.

Perlman Architects of Arizona’s services include, but are not limited to: general project
administration, complete design drawings and specifications, commissioning, cost
analysis, possible construction administration and observation services, materials
testing coordination, and other work as required for a complete project.

Procurement Information
Perlman Architects of Arizona, Inc. was chosen for this project using a Direct Select
process set forth in section 34-103 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). The
Direct Select process will reduce the time to procure architectural services as opposed


Page 124

to an advertised selection process, meeting the project deadline and ensuring
continuity and the most efficient use of staff and funding resources. Perlman Architects
of Arizona, Inc is the designer of record for Fire Station 62. These plans will be site
adapted to construction of Fire Station 15.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is three years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term
may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Perlman Architects of Arizona, Inc. will not exceed $500,000,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Fire Department's Capital Improvement Program budget.
The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve funding
availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Public Outreach
Planned activities during design include: provide presentation boards and renderings
to support community meetings or outreach materials as needed during design.

Location
45th Avenue and Camelback Road
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager Alan
Stephenson, the Fire Department and the City Engineer.




Page 125



Report

Cave Creek and Lone Mountain Waterline Connection - Construction Manager at
Risk Construction Services - Amendment - WS85100032, WS85500451 and
WS85400007 (Ordinance S-50592)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 155550 with Garney Companies, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at
Risk Construction Services for the Cave Creek and Lone Mountain Waterline
Connection project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $4,850,000.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to construct approximately one mile of new waterline to
connect between existing infrastructure south of Carefree Highway and the new 10A-
B1 Booster Pump Station (BPS). Approximately one mile of new waterline will also be
constructed along Lone Mountain Road for system resiliency when the BPS is
operational.

This amendment is necessary because of the change in cost due to market escalation
and additional time due to unanticipated construction issues. This amendment will
provide additional funds and time to the agreement.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is for an additional two years from issuance of
the Notice to Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior
to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the
termination of the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of
the term.

Financial Impact
The initial agreement for Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services was
approved for an amount not to exceed $14,050,000, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs. This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional
$4,850,000, for a new total amount not to exceed $18.9 million, including all


Page 126

subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services Agreement 153443
(Ordinance S-47136) on Dec. 2, 2020; and
· Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services Agreement 155550 (Ordinance
S-48093) on Nov. 17, 2021.

Location
Cave Creek Road from Apache Rain Road to Carefree Highway; and Lone Mountain
Road from Cave Creek Road to 56th Street
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 127



Report

Thomas Road and Indian School Road Traffic Signal Upgrades - Design-Bid-
Build Services - ST89340584 (Ordinance S-50594)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept AJP Electric, Inc. as
the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter into an agreement
with AJP Electric, Inc. for Design-Bid-Build Services for the Thomas Road and Indian
School Road Traffic Signal Upgrades project. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed
$4,928,213.50.

Summary
The purpose of this project is for safety by increasing visibility of the traffic signal and
pedestrian crosswalk for four traffic signals along Thomas Road and Indian School
Road located at Thomas Road and 71st Avenue, Thomas Road and 75th Avenue,
Indian School Road and 51st Avenue, and Indian School Road and 67th Avenue.

AJP Electric, Inc.’s services include, but are not limited to: rebuild of the signals, add
signal heads and flashing yellow left turn arrows, install crosswalk illumination and
modify ramps per the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and other
work as required for a complete project.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Two bids were received on Dec. 12,
2023, and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in demonstrating
responsiveness to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program requirements.

The Opinion of Probable Cost and the two lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:
· Opinion on Probable Cost: $4,096,746
· AJP Electric, Inc.: $4,928,213.50
· Combs Construction Company, Inc.: $7,351,165.50

Although the bid exceeds the Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost by more than 10


Page 128

percent, it has been determined the bid represents a fair and reasonable price for the
required work scope. Additionally, the bid award amount is within the total budget for
this project.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 270 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for AJP Electric, Inc. will not exceed $4,928,213.50, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

This project will utilize federal funds and is subject to the requirements of 49 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 26 and the U.S. Department of Transportation DBE program.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and
approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.

Location
Thomas Road and Indian School Road
Council Districts: 4, 5 and 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 129



Report

Apply for U.S. Department of Transportation Saving Lives with Connectivity:
Accelerating Vehicle to Everything Deployment Grant Opportunity for Federal
Fiscal Year 2023-24 - Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding (Ordinance
S-50597)

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for,
accept and, if awarded, enter into an agreement(s) for disbursement of Federal
funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) through the Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY) 2024 Saving Lives with Connectivity: Accelerating Vehicle to
Everything (V2X) Deployment grant opportunity. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Funding for this grant opportunity is available through the Federal Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. The total grant funds applied for will not exceed $20 million, and the
combination of City and private sector local match will not exceed $7 million.

Summary
The V2X grant is a new funding program under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
which was signed into law on Nov. 15, 2021. The V2X grant offers private, public, and
academic partners an opportunity to accelerate and spur new deployments of vehicle-
to-everything technologies. The initiative is focused on road safety, mobility, and
efficiency through technology that enables vehicles and wireless devices to
communicate with each other and with roadside infrastructure and provide warnings.

The proposed grant submittal will provide red-light running data, near miss data, signal
detection, and vehicle to everything technology. The proposed goals will be to reduce
vulnerable road user incidents and risk, reduce red-light running risk, and improve the
efficiency of City emergency vehicles by deploying onboard units for preemption and
priority. The deployment will focus on 300 signalized intersections within the City's
identified high-injury network while also focusing on the underserved communities in
the region.

There is $40 million available through this funding opportunity with a required minimum
local match of 20 percent. The USDOT issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity on Oct.
26, 2023, and it was determined to be viable on Jan. 4, 2024. The grant application
submittal deadline was Jan. 17, 2024.


Page 130


Financial Impact
The grant application includes a public private partnership. The City's participation
would be a combination of in-kind services for the installation and a matching funds,
while private sector partners will provide in-kind engineering services.

The estimated total cost for the project is approximately $27 million. The maximum
federal participation rate is 80 percent, with a minimum local match of 20 percent of
the total eligible project cost. If awarded, the federal participation would not exceed
$20 million (74 percent), the City’s costs would be approximately $6 million (22
percent) and private sector partners would provide an in-kind match of $1 million (4
percent).

Funding for the local match is available in the Street Transportation Department's
Capital Improvement Program budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Mario
Paniagua, and the Street Transportation Department.




Page 131



Report

Independent Construction Cost Evaluation On-Call Services (Ordinance S-
50601)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the three consultants listed below, to provide Independent
Construction Cost Evaluation On-Call Services Citywide. Further request to authorize
execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all services will not exceed $9
million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing On-Call Independent
Construction Cost Evaluation services that include, but are not limited to: preparing
programming/design concept review level estimates; preparing detailed construction
estimates; performing detailed quantity take-offs and providing quantity verifications;
evaluating contractor proposals and providing support during negotiations for
Construction Manager at Risk and Job Order Contract projects; conducting confidential
market inquiries; evaluating Value Engineering proposals and alternatives; evaluating
claims and providing support during settlement process; reviewing impact and
estimation of non-City utilities or other agency coordination; preparing constructability
review estimates; comparing site conditions and design plans to ensure actual field
conditions are accurately depicted on the plans; recommending construction phasing


Page 132

and the relative costs associated with phasing options; and checking project
measurements and payment sections; and adequately address the scope of each bid
item to ensure quantity take-off of major work items are valid.

Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Seven firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firms
Rank 1: Rider Levett Bucknall, LTD.
Rank 2: Marc Taylor, Inc.
Rank 3: Kitchell/CEM, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 4: Hill International, Inc.
Rank 5: Dynamic Preconstruction Services, LLC
Rank 6: Capo Projects Group
Rank 7: Titanium Engineering

Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to five years, or up to $3 million, whichever occurs
first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the
term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $3 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $9 million.

Funding is available in the Citywide Capital Improvement Program and Operating
budgets. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more. Payments
may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may
extend past the agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.



Page 133



Report

Water Main Replacement - Area Bounded By: Indian Bend Road to Mockingbird
Lane and 60th Street to Scottsdale Road - Construction Manager at Risk
Construction Services Change Order 2 - WS85509054 (Ordinance S-50604)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a change order to
Agreement 154200 with B & F Contracting, Inc. to provide additional Construction
Manager at Risk Construction Services for the Water Main Replacement Area
Bounded By: Indian Bend Road to Mockingbird Lane and 60th Street to Scottsdale
Road project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement
as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below,
and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee
for services included in this change order will not exceed $1.5 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to construct approximately 50,000 linear feet of new four-
inch to eight-inch water mains throughout the area bounded by Indian Bend Road to
Mockingbird Lane and 60th Street to Scottsdale Road. Also included is installation of
approximately 27 new fire hydrants and 225 water services connections throughout the
area.

This change order is necessary because of increased scope of work due to
unforeseen conditions, material escalation, and additional modifications to complete
the water main replacement project. This change order will provide additional funds to
the agreement.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged.

Financial Impact
The initial agreement for Construction Services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $10,862,382, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
· Change Order 2 will increase the agreement by an additional $1,500,000 for a new
total amount not to exceed $12,362,382.

Funding for this change order is available in the Water Services Department's Capital


Page 134

Improvement Program. The Budget and Research Department will separately review
and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments. Payments
may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may
extend past the agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· CMAR Preconstruction Services Agreement 149800 (Ordinance S-45638) on May
15, 2019; and
· CMAR Construction Services Agreement 154200 (Ordinance S-47509) on May 5,
2021.

Location
Area bounded by Indian Bend Road to Mockingbird Lane and 60th Street to Scottsdale
Road
Council District: Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 135



Report

48th Street: South Pointe Parkway to Baseline Road - Design-Build Services
Amendment - ST85100355 (Ordinance S-50605)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 137514 with FNF Construction, Inc. to provide additional Design-Build
Construction Services for the 48th Street: South Pointe Parkway to Baseline Road
project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee for
services included in this amendment will not exceed $3 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to improve the segment of 48th Street from the
roundabout on South Pointe Parkway to Baseline Road to change the classification
from a private local road to a standard section C-M major arterial and classify it as a
pubic street with a 110-foot right-of-way.

This amendment is necessary because of changes to Salt River Project contracts,
installation of additional electrical conduits and asphalt pavement, unforeseen utility
conflicts, and various miscellaneous work required to complete the project. This
amendment will provide additional funds and time to the agreement.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is 153 calendar days from the issuance of the
Notice to Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to
the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the
termination of the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of
the term.

Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Design-Build Services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $50,000, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
· Amendment 1 increased the agreement value by an additional $418,546.99, for a
new total amount not to exceed $418,596.99, including all subcontractor and



Page 136

reimbursable costs.
· Amendment 2 increased the agreement value by an additional $5,825,000, for a
new total amount not to exceed $6,243,596.99, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs.
· Amendment 3 increased the agreement value by an additional $1,700,380, for a
new total amount not to exceed $7,943,976.99, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $3,000,000, for a new
total amount not to exceed $10,943,976.99, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs.

Funding for this amendment is available in the Street Transportation Department's
Capital Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will
separately review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any
amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered
agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Design-Build Agreement 137514 (Ordinance S-40491) on Dec. 18, 2013;
· Design-Build Agreement 137514 Amendment (Ordinance S-43513) on May 10,
2017;
· Design-Build Agreement 137514 Amendment (Ordinance S-45696) on June 5,
2019;
· Design-Build Agreement 137514 Amendment (Ordinance S-47882) on Aug. 25,
2021: and
· Design-Build Agreement 137514 Amendment (Ordinance S-48771) on June 15,
2022.

Location
48th Street from the roundabout on South Pointe Parkway to Baseline Road
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 137



Report

Request to Revoke Contract 154012-0 (Revocable Permit 2020101) (Ordinance
S-50606)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to revoke a permit,
Contract 154012-0. Subject to City Code section 31-80(H), revocable permits
authorized by the City Manager are subject to revocation at any time at the
discretion of the Street Transportation Director with ratification by the City Council.

Summary
It was determined the existing revocable permit, approved through Contract 154012
-0, did not accurately account for all nonstandard items in the right of way. As a
result, a new revocable permit, Contract 159469-0, was issued for the same
property and ownership at the southeast corner of Garfield Street and 6th Street for
the use and maintenance of approximately 1,495 square feet of shade canopy,
outdoor dining with tables and chairs, benches, planter pots, trash receptacles, bike
racks and bike station, (2) Fire Department Connection (FDC) locations, raised
steel edging at planters and gas meter with enclosure within the City public right-of-
way. This request is made to remove duplication of contracts assigned to the
property and the owner.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact.

Location
815-821 N. 6th St (southeast corner of Garfield Street and 6th Street)
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.




Page 138



Report

Apply for U.S. Department of Transportation Rebuilding American Infrastructure
with Sustainability and Equity Grant Opportunity for Federal Fiscal Year 2023-24
- Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding (1 of 2) (Ordinance S-50611)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept and, if
awarded, enter into an agreement for disbursement of Federal funding from the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) through the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2023-24
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant
opportunity. If awarded, the funding will be used to evaluate and update the design of
the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer
to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. Funding for
this grant opportunity is available through the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The total grant funds applied for will not exceed $5.2 million, and the City’s local match
would not exceed $1.3 million.

Summary
The Parks and Recreation and Street Transportation departments are collaborating on
a planning grant submittal for the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel. The purpose of
the planning grant is to evaluate and update the design of a dual-purpose amenity
channel that extends 5.5 miles in the Laveen Village of Phoenix, serving to capture
and convey local regional drainage while also serving the community as an active
transportation corridor. The goal of the planning grant will be to evaluate and make
recommendations that would best serve the existing transportation amenity, including
but not limited to improvements to the existing channel design, and to design a 10-foot
multi-use path on the north side, including landscaping, updated irrigation, turf
improvements, exercise equipment, improved drainage system equipment, a booster
pump and well, path lighting, and other transportation or green infrastructure
appropriate for the surrounding corridor. This planning project will meet the grant
criteria for competitiveness. The U.S. Department of Transportation issued a Notice of
Funding Opportunity for the FFY 2023-24 RAISE grant program on Nov. 30, 2023. The
deadline for application submittal is Feb. 28, 2024. RAISE grants are awarded on a
competitive basis considering these evaluative criteria:
· Improves safety,
· Environmental justice and equity,



Page 139

· Sustainability,
· Quality of life,
· Mobility and community connectivity,
· Economic competitiveness and opportunity,
· State of good repair,
· Partnership and collaboration,
· Innovative,
· Project readiness, and
· Cost effective.

The FFY 2023-24 RAISE planning grant specifies no minimum award amount for
urban projects and no greater than $25 million.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the project is approximately $6.5 million. The maximum
federal participation rate is 80 percent, with a minimum local match of 20 percent of
the total eligible project cost. If awarded, the federal match would not exceed $5.2
million (80 percent) and the City’s cost would be approximately $1.3 million (20
percent) for the local match.

Funding for the local match is available in the Parks and Recreation Department's
Capital Improvement Program budget.

Location
Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson, Inger Erickson and
Mario Paniagua, and the Street Transportation and Parks and Recreation
departments.




Page 140



Report

Apply for U.S. Department of Transportation Rebuilding American Infrastructure
with Sustainability and Equity Grant Opportunity for Federal Fiscal Year 2023-24
- Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding (2 of 2) (Ordinance S-50609)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept and, if
awarded, enter into an agreement for disbursement of Federal funding from the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) through the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2023-24
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant
opportunity. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. Funding for this grant opportunity
is available through the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The total grant funds
applied for will not exceed $5.2 million for the planning grant and $40 million for the
capital construction grant, and the City’s local match would not exceed $1.1 million and
$11 million, respectively. Additionally request, if awarded, to enter into separate
agreements with Arizona State University and Mayo Clinic regarding their financial
commitments.

Summary
The Street Transportation Department is submitting two separate grant applications for
consideration under the FFY 2023-24 USDOT RAISE grant. The first grant submittal is
a planning grant that would be used to engage with the community on the final design
and environmental study for a multi-modal transportation improvement project along
the scenic, historic Dobbins Road corridor between 27th and Central avenues. The
project would include bicycle and pedestrian improvements; new curb, gutter,
sidewalk, and streetlights; and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and transit
improvements.

The second grant submittal would be a capital construction grant to advance the
detailed design of a new 1.2-mile multi-lane roadway on 64th Street from Bell Road to
Mayo Boulevard. It would also provide the funding to construct the new roadway,
including a new roadway bridge across the Central Arizona Project (CAP) Canal that
would connect Phoenix residents south of the canal to a growing educational, medical,
and commercial area north of the canal to Mayo Boulevard. In addition to the new
roadway connection, the project would include multi-modal amenities, including bike
lanes and pedestrian facilities, streetlights, traffic signals, and drainage improvements.


Page 141

The project will include a public-private partnership with both Arizona State University
and Mayo Clinic, each with a financial commitment of up to $2 million.

The USDOT issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity for the FFY 2023-24 RAISE grant
program on Nov. 30, 2023. The deadline for application submittal is Feb. 28, 2024.
RAISE grants are awarded on a competitive basis considering these evaluative
criteria:
· Improves safety,
· Environmental justice and equity,
· Sustainability,
· Quality of life,
· Mobility and community connectivity,
· Economic competitiveness and opportunity,
· State of good repair,
· Partnership and collaboration,
· Innovative,
· Project readiness, and
· Cost effective.

The FFY 2023-24 RAISE grant specifies that the minimum award amount for urban
projects must be at least $5 million and no greater than $25 million.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for each project is approximately $5.2 million for the planning
grant and $40 million for the capital construction grant. The maximum federal
participation rate is 80 percent, with a minimum local match of 20 percent of the total
eligible project cost. If awarded, the federal planning grant would not exceed $4.1
million (79 percent), and the City’s cost would be approximately $1.1 million (21
percent) for the local match. The federal capital construction grant would not exceed
$25 million (69 percent), and the City's cost would be approximately $11 million (31
percent). A separate public-private partnership agreement with Arizona State
University and Mayo Clinic would be required for their participation of up to $4 million
toward the capital construction grant.

Funding for the local match is available in the Street Transportation Department's
budget.

Location
Council Districts: 2 and 8


Page 142


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Mario Paniagua
and the Street Transportation Department.




Page 143



Report

Apply for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Grant Opportunity for Federal Fiscal Years
2023 and 2024 - WaterSMART: Title XVI congressionally Authorized Water
Reclamation and Reuse Projects (Ordinance S-50582)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively apply for, and
if awarded, accept, and enter into an agreement for disbursement of Federal funding
from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, funding announcement number R23AS00463. If
awarded, the funding will be used for the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) Solids Improvements Phase 2 project. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
The total grant funds applied for will not exceed $4 million, and the City’s local match
would not exceed $3 million.

Summary
The WaterSMART Program provides a framework for Federal leadership and
assistance to stretch and secure water supplies for future generations in support of the
Department’s priorities. Through WaterSMART, the Bureau of Reclamation leverages
Federal and non-Federal funding to support stakeholder efforts to stretch scarce water
supplies and avoid conflicts over water. If grant funding is awarded, the 91st Avenue
WWTP Solids Improvements Phase 2 project will develop an engineering design that
includes improved biological treatment of residuals from the WWTP to meet future
regulations. The design will entail enhancements that will enable the plant to continue
to treat residual solids reliably and successfully and thus improve overall quality of the
plant effluent. These enhancements are a critical element in the development of the
Advanced Water Purification program, since the WWTP's effluent will be used to
produce reclaimed water.

If awarded, the City of Phoenix will use grant funds for design for the following:
· digester mixing/Mixing pumps;
· digester control buildings;
· electrical power, controls and instrumentation;
· and digester dome replacement.

The grant submittal deadline was Dec. 7, 2023.



Page 144

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the project is approximately $4 million. The maximum
federal participation rate is 25 percent with a minimum local match of 75 percent of the
total eligible project cost. If awarded, the federal match would not exceed $1 million
and the City’s costs would be approximately $3 million for the local match.

Funding for the local match on awarded grants will be incorporated into future Capital
Improvement Program budgets, and is anticipated to utilize revenue funds. Potential
grant funding received is available through the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.




Page 145



Report

Polymers - IFB- 1718- 36 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50593)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Agreement 146988 with Polydyne, Inc. to provide additional time and funding to the
agreement. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $48,000,000.

Summary
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the term of the agreement for an
additional four years and add incremental funds to continue the supply of potable
polymers for water production and non-potable polymers for the treatment of
wastewater for the Water Services Department. The additional time and funds will
allow the Wastewater and Water Production Divisions to continue to provide quality
water services to the City's water customers without interruption or adding significant
cost to the department operations.

This agreement is used for supplying polymer products that are proprietary to
Polydyne, Inc. which are compliant with the City's Water Production and Wastewater
production systems. Polydyne, Inc. is one of the largest providers of proprietary
polymers in the industry.

Contract Term
This amendment will extend the end date of the agreement term from Feb. 29, 2024 to
Feb. 28, 2028.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Polymers was for an expenditure not-to-exceed
$25,000,000. An amendment increased the authorization for the agreement by
$16,862,000. This amendment will increase the authorization for the agreement by an
additional $48,000,000, for a new total not-to-exceed agreement value of $89,862,000.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
Polymers Contract 146988 (Ordinance S-44265) on Feb. 21, 2018.
Polymers Contract 146988 (Ordinance S-48863) on July 1, 2022.


Page 146


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.




Page 147



Report

Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona Department of Transportation to
Protect City of Phoenix Water Main at Interstate 17 and Greenway Road
(Ordinance S-50595)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Department of Transportation to protect
an existing water main at Interstate 17 (I-17) and Greenway Road impacted during the
I-17 Drainage Improvement Project. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure
authority, as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The total value of this agreement will not exceed $45,000.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical; water; sewer; natural gas; telecommunications; cable
television; railroads and other modes of transportation.

Also request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code
section 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be
prohibited by Phoenix City Code section 42-18. This authorization excludes any
transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The I-17 Drainage Improvement Project upgraded cross street drainage facilities along
I-17 from Greenway Road to the Arizona Canal Diversion Channel north of Dunlap
Avenue. The Water Services Department owns a 48-inch water main crossing I-17 at
Greenway Road. This water main was installed after I-17 was constructed. Therefore,
the water main does not have prior rights and if in conflict, must be relocated at the
expense of the City. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) modified their
design and construction to protect the existing 48-inch water main in place. The City
will reimburse ADOT for the construction costs associated with the modifications.



Page 148

Contract Term
The term of this agreement is one year from the effective date.

Financial Impact
The total value for this agreement will not exceed $45,000. Funding for this project is
available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program Budget.

Location
I-17 at Greenway Road
Council Districts: 1 and 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.




Page 149



Report

Final Plat - Meritum Sonoran Desert - PLAT 230015 - Northwest Corner of 29th
Avenue and Sonoran Desert Drive

Plat: 230015
Project: 21-2303
Name of Plat: Meritum Sonoran Desert
Owner: Acero Sonoran Desert SPE, LLC, 4655 N. 56th Street, LLC, and Bloomquist
Sonoran, LLC
Engineer: Kirk J. Pangus, RLS
Request: A Two-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 26, 2024
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of 29th Avenue and Sonoran Desert Drive
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 150



Report

Final Plat - Verdin-Development Parcel A1 - PLAT 230032 - West of Cave Creek
Road and South of Sonoran Desert Drive

Plat: 230032
Project: 18-2079
Name of Plat: Verdin-Development Parcel A1
Owner: Taylor Morrison
Engineer: Brian J. Benedict, RLS
Request: A 114-Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 18, 2024
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located west of Cave Creek Road and south of Sonoran Desert Drive
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 151



Report

Final Plat - Verdin-Development Parcel A2 - PLAT 230033 - West Cave Creek
Road and South of Sonoran Desert Drive

Plat: 230033
Project: 18-2079
Name of Plat: Verdin-Development Parcel A2
Owner: Taylor Morrison
Engineer: Brian J. Benedict, RLS
Request: A 111-Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 18, 2024
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located west of Cave Creek Road and south of Sonoran Desert Drive
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 152



Report

Final Plat - Verdin-Development Parcel A3 - PLAT 230034 - West of Cave Creek
Road and South of Sonoran Desert Drive

Plat: 230034
Project: 18-2079
Name of Plat: Verdin-Development Parcel A3
Owner: Taylor Morrison
Engineer: Brian J. Benedict, RLS
Request: A 40-Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 18, 2024
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located west of Cave Creek Road and south of Sonoran Desert Drive
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 153



Report

Final Plat - Verdin-Development Parcel A4 - PLAT 230031 - West of Cave Creek
Road and South of Sonoran Desert Drive

Plat: 230031
Project: 18-2079
Name of Plat: Verdin-Development Parcel A4
Owner: Taylor Morrison
Engineer: Brian J. Benedict, RLS
Request: A 148-Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 18, 2024
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located west of Cave Creek Road and South of Sonoran Desert Drive
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 154



Report

Final Plat - Encantado Estates - PLAT 230101 - Northwest Corner of Encanto
Boulevard and 79th Avenue

Plat: 230101
Project: 21-962
Name of Plat: Encantado Estates
Owner: FSB Encanto, LLC and Encanto Land QOZB, LLC
Engineer: Colin D. Harvey, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 17, 2024
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of Encanto Boulevard and 79th Avenue
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 155



Report

Final Plat - 134 E. Bethany Home Road - PLAT 230107 - Northwest Corner of
Bethany Home Road and 2nd Street

Plat: 230107
Project: 99-39823
Name of Plat: 134 E. Bethany Home Road
Owner: DL Dalton, LLC
Engineer: Lance C. Dickson, RLS
Request: A Two-Lot Detached Single Family Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 12, 2024
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of Bethany Home Road and 2nd Street
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 156



Report

Final Plat - 56th Street & Camelback - PLAT 230097 - East of 56th Street and
North of Camelback Road

Plat: 230097
Project: 19-1919
Name of Plat: 56th Street & Camelback
Owner: True Freedom Investments, LLC
Engineer: James A. Loftis, RLS
Request: A Four-Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 25, 2024
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located east of 56th Street and north of Camelback Road
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 157



Report

Final Plat - Sunland Manor - PLAT 220087 - Northwest Corner of Sunland Avenue
and 15th Avenue

Plat: 220087
Project: 21-3703
Name of Plat: Sunland Manor
Owner: PV-V Arcadia Sunland, LLC
Engineer: Robert J. Blake, RLS
Request: A 38-Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 22, 2024
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of Sunland Avenue and 15th Avenue
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 158



Report

Historic Preservation Exterior Rehabilitation Grants (Ordinance S-50598)

Request for approval of 14 Historic Preservation Exterior Rehabilitation Grants for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 totaling $226,497. In exchange for receiving grant funds, the
property owners agree to sell the City a 15- or 20-year conservation easement to
protect the historic character of the property's exterior. Further request authorization
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
Applications for the FY 2023-24 Exterior Rehabilitation grant program were due on
Nov. 17, 2023. A total of 38 property owners submitted applications. Eleven of these
were disqualified because they were incomplete or requested less than the $5,000
minimum grant amount. The remaining 27 applications were forwarded to the Exterior
Rehabilitation grant panel for evaluation.

A panel consisting of staff, a member of the Historic Preservation Commission, and a
past grant recipient met on Dec. 15, 2023, to review the applications. Scoring criteria
included whether the application followed historic preservation standards; addressed
the physical needs of the property; reflected a logical sequence or logical planning of
an overall rehabilitation project; resulted in a positive visual impact on the historic
appearance of the property and streetscape; addressed a critical maintenance issue;
and returned a vacant building to productive use. Additional points were awarded for
projects that were individually listed or in a priority historic district (Brentwood, East
Evergreen, Garfield, Idylwilde Park, North Garfield, Oakland, Phoenix Homesteads,
Roosevelt Park, Villa Verde, and Woodland), as well as for the significance and
integrity of the property, the adequacy of the proposed bids and budget, and for the
overall quality of the application.

The panel recommended the 14 grant applications listed below for a total of $226,497.
Panel members agreed that the next highest application, which requested $20,000 and
received a score of 33.7, as well as those that scored lower, should not be funded.
Applicants who are not recommended for funding will be encouraged to meet with staff
to improve their application and resubmit it during a future round.
· Marc Bianco; 32 E. Hoover Ave.; Ashland Place - install new asphalt shingle roof.



Page 159

Score: 42.5. Amount: $5,400.
· Cristi Pettibone; 520 W. Portland St.; Roosevelt - repair wood windows. Score: 42.4.
Amount: $11,078.
· Robert Madera; 1921 W. Palm Lane; Villa Verde - repair foundation. Score: 42.3.
Amount: $19,968.86.
· Jennifer and Michael Hauer; 325 W. Lewis Ave.; Willo - install new wood shingle
roof. Score: 42.1. Amount: $14,184.
· Zachariah Collins and Rebecca Cohen-Collins; 901 W. Lynwood St.; F Q Story -
repair steel windows. Score: 41.7. Amount: $20,000.
· Hue-Tam Jamme; 1104 E. Taylor St.; Garfield - install new asphalt shingle roof.
Score: 41.5. Amount: $5,375.
· Sarah Bingham and Brett Long; 2041 N. 11th St.; Coronado - repair foundation.
Score: 40.7. Amount: $17,869.65.
· Kevin and Allison McGinnis; 2213 N. Laurel Ave.; Fairview Place - repair foundation.
Score: 40.3. Amount: $15,689.69.
· Betty and Harvey Hartzler; 1702 W. Thomas Road; North Encanto - repair tile roof.
Score: 40.1. Amount: $20,000.
· Brian Poirier and Erin Finkelstein; 522 W. Monte Vista Road; Willo - repair
foundation. Score: 39.9. Amount: $20,000.
· Mary Parot; 34 E. Colter St.; Windsor Square - install new asphalt shingle roof,
masonry repair. Score: 39.7. Amount: $20,000.
· Wixom Family Trust; 1602 W. Encanto Blvd.; Del Norte Place - repair foundation.
Score: 39.1. Amount: $20,000.
· D.L.D. Living Trust; 303 E. Colter St.; Windsor Square - repair steel windows.
Score: 38.9. Amount: $20,000.
· The MT Trust; 1617 W. Virginia Ave.; Del Norte Place - repair steel windows. Score:
38.8. Amount: $16,932.

In exchange for the grant funds, the property owners agree to sell the City a
conservation easement to protect the historic character of the properties' exteriors. The
term of the easement will be 15 years for grant amounts $10,000 or less or 20 years
for grant amounts between $10,001 and $20,000. The conservation easement will be



Page 160

recorded on the property's title and will run with the land.

Financial Impact
The 14 grant awards total $226,497. Funds are available in the General Fund Historic
Preservation operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of this item on Jan. 8,
2024, by an 8-0 vote.

The City Council Transportation Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee heard this
item on Jan. 31, 2024, and voted to approve the Historic Preservation Commission's
recommendation and recommend City Council approval, by a 4-0 vote.

Location
Twelve of the residential property addresses above are located in District 4, one is in
District 7, and one is in District 8
Council Districts: 4, 7 and 8

Responsible Department
The item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 161



Report

Amendments to the Phoenix City Code Chapter 31, Chapter 32, and Appendix
A.2 Related to Plat Approval Process (Ordinance G-7233)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve an Ordinance to
amend the Phoenix City Code in areas related to the plat approval process.

Summary
The State of Arizona Senate Bill 1103 approved on March 3, 2023, allows the
legislative body of a city to authorize personnel to review and approve preliminary
plats, final plats and plat amendments without an administrative approval by the City
Council. The proposed amendments to the city code will allow the Planning and
Development Director or his designee to approve plats. The following sections of
Phoenix City Code will be amended:
· Section 31-102.f.2 Street Improvements - Assessment procedure
· Section 32-3 Definitions
· Division 3. Final Plat
· Section 32-19.B Final Plat Submission
· Section 32-20.C Final Plat Review
· Section 32-21 Final Plat Approval
· Section 32-36 Approval by the City Council
· Appendix A.2 Glossary of Terms - Plat, Final
Amending the plat approval process to allow approval by the Planning and
Development Director or his designee will reduce the amount of time for customers to
receive final approval of their plats by approximately 30 days. This time savings will
speed up the overall development process. The effective date of these amendments
will be April 1, 2024.

Concurrence
The Development Advisory Board (DAB) recommended approval of these
amendments at their Jan. 18, 2024, meeting.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.


Page 162
ATTACHMENT A

THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE


ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PHOENIX CITY CODE
CHAPTER 31, CHAPTER 32, AND APPENDIX A.2; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 1, 2024.

_______________


BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as

follows:

SECTION 1. Phoenix City Code Chapter 31 is hereby amended as

follows:

Sec. 31-102.Street improvements—Assessment procedure.

***
f. The manner of collecting unpaid assessments shall be as follows:
***
2. The Planning and Development Director shall collect any unpaid
assessment prior to the City Council’s PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR’S OR THEIR DESIGNEE approval of any final subdivision plat
which plat will result in a subdivision of assessed property pursuant to
chapter 32 of the Phoenix City Code.
***


SECTION 2. Phoenix City Code Chapter 32 is hereby amended as

follows:



Sec. 32-3. Definitions.




Page 163
***

Abandonment by plat means the procedure whereby the owner of land may abandon
temporary easements and landscape easements by including those easements on a
subdivision plat. Such easements are abandoned, removing any City interest therein,
upon approval of the plat by the City Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE and recording of the plat in the office of the County
Recorder. Roadway, as defined by Section 31-63 of the City Code, can be abandoned
by plat only if processing of the plat complies with the requirements of Section 31-63 et
seq. of the City Code.

***

Final approval means the unconditional approval of the final plat, INCLUDING THE
ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS AND OTHER
PROPERTY INTERESTS DEDICATED TO THE CITY PER THE FINAL PLAT, by the
Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE as
evidenced by certification on the plat by the Phoenix City Clerk authorizing recordation
of the plat.


***

SECTION 3. Phoenix City Code, Chapter 32, Division 3 is hereby

amended as follows:

Division 3. Final Plat

The final plat stage includes the final design of the subdivision, engineering of public
improvements, and submittal of the plat and plans by the subdivider. It includes review
of the final plat by the Planning and Development Department, and if applicable, the
and final APPROVAL action taken by the Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE.


SECTION 4. Phoenix City Code, Chapter 32 is hereby amended as

follows:

Sec. 32-19. Final plat submission.




Page 164
A. The subdivider shall file with the Planning and Development Department the
final plat, with a letter of transmittal, and a fee for final plat review (non-refundable) as
set forth in Appendix A.2 of the City Code.
B. The City Clerk shall be responsible for recording all plats with the Maricopa
County Recorder’s office. Once a subdivision plat AND ALL ENGINEERING PLANS
ARE is approved by the Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR
THEIR DESIGNEE and all of the engineering plans have been approved by the
Planning and Development Department, the Department will not hold the recording at
the request of the subdivider for longer than 90 days from the date of the Council
PLANNING AND DEVELOPENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE’S approval unless
extended by Section 32-21, or by the Planning and Development Director. One copy
shall be kept on file in the City Clerk’s Department for public access.

Sec. 32-20. Final plat review.

A. Upon receipt of the final plat submittal, the Department shall check it for
completeness. If incomplete, the date of the filing shall be voided, and the submittal
shall be returned to the subdivider. If complete, the Department shall review the plat for
substantial conformity to the approved preliminary plat and route copies of the submittal
to the appropriate reviewing offices.
1. City Parks and Recreation Department, when applicable;
2. Street Transportation Department, Floodplain Management Section, for
review where the plat includes or abuts an area of special flood hazard;
and
3. Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), for approval (where the
plat abuts a State highway).
3. ANY APPLICABLE CITY DEPARTMENTS
B. The Department shall prepare a concise summary of recommendations. In
the event that the Department finds that the final plat does not conform to the
preliminary plat as approved, the final plat shall be returned to the applicant for
corrections. The final submittal process shall MAY be repeated until EITHER all
requirements are met, OR THE EXPIRATION OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL.


C. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE
SHALL APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT IF THE FINAL PLAT CONFORMS TO THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS. Upon final plat
approval the subdivider shall submit the original plat with all required owner signatures
and certifications for City signature. The Planning and Development Director OR THEIR
DESIGNEE shall sign the APPROVED FINAL plat. The Department shall determine the
next available Council approval date. The Department shall transmit the plat to the City




Page 165
Clerk and the request for Council approval to the City Manager’s office.

D. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE’S
DECISION UNDER THIS SECTION IS THE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.

32-21. Final plat approval.

A. Upon receipt of a request for Council action from the City Manager, the Clerk
shall place the case on the agenda of the next regular Council meeting, whereupon the
Council shall approve or deny the plat.
B A. If the Council approves the plat, tThe CITY Clerk shall transcribe a
certificate of approval upon the plat, first making sure that the other required
certifications (see Section 32-24 (F)) have been duly signed, and that the Department
has certified that all of the civil engineering plans have been approved.
C B. The City Clerk shall notify the Planning and Development Department of all
plats for which a certification of approval of engineering plans has not been received
within 90 days of final plat approval by the Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE. The Subdivision Committee, upon receipt of valid
written justification, may extend the period for up to 90 days. The Planning and
Development Department will subsequently report the status of the plat to the Council
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE with one of the
following recommendations:
1. The Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR
DESIGNEE should revoke approval of the final plat and require the
applicant to resubmit the final plat to the Department for review (with
payment of fees) and reapproval by the Council PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE. This review may
require additional dedications or improvements, or a revised plat if
conditions or ordinances have changed since the Council’s PLANNNIG
AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE’S approval of
the final plat; or
2. The Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR
DESIGNEE may extend the time for the approval of engineering plans for
a specific period of time not to exceed 90 days.
DC. A subdivider may withdraw an approved plat by submitting a written request
to the Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE
through the Planning and Development Department. The Council PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR or their designee may formally rescind its approval and
void the plat.
ED. When the plat (reference subsection C of this section) has been revoked by
the Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE, or
withdrawn by the subdivider (reference subsection D of this section), the City Clerk shall



Page 166
transmit the plat to Planning and Development Department who shall return it to the
subdivider or engineer. If the subdivider or engineer cannot be found or does not
respond within 60 days, the plat will be destroyed.


***


Sec. 32-36. Approval by the City Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE.

The approval by the City Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR
THEIR DESIGNEE of the final plat is subject to the following conditions:

***

SECTION 5. The Appendix A.2, Phoenix City Code, Part 22 is amended

as follows:

Part 22. Glossary of Terms

***

PLAT, FINAL: A map dividing property and dedicating public right-of-way in
final form with all required owner signatures that is ready for
the City Council PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OR THEIR DESIGNEE approval and recording.

***

SECTION 6. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be April 1, 2024



PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 21st day of February,

2024.

_________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:




Page 167
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:_________________________

_________________________


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
PML:ac:(LF24-0149):2-21-24:




Page 168



Report

Public Hearing - Certificate of Economic Hardship (HP-229-23-ECH and HP-231-
23-ECH) - Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission’s Decision - 333-337 N.
7th Ave. (332-334 N. 6th Ave.)

Request to hold a public hearing on Certificate of Economic Hardship Decisions (HP-
229-23-ECH and HP-231-23-ECH) by the Historic Preservation (HP) Commission on
Demolition Applications HP-217-23-DEM and HP-218-23-DEM for the property at 333-
337 N. 7th Ave. (a.k.a. 332-334 N. 6th Ave.), Phoenix Laundry & Dry Cleaning (a.k.a.
Milum Textile Services), for total demolition at the subject property. The property is
zoned DTC-Van Buren (Downtown Code - Van Buren Character Area), although an
application for HP overlay zoning (Z-117-23-8), initiated by the HP Commission, is
pending and scheduled to come before City Council on May 1, 2024. Requested City
Council action is to uphold the Historic Preservation Commission's denial of the
Certificate of Economic Hardship as the standards set forth in the Ordinance have not
been met.

Summary
Applications to demolish the subject property were filed in October 2023, with a 30-day
demolition hold commencing on Oct. 13, 2023. During the 30-day period, HP staff
researched the property and recommended it eligible for HP zoning, concurring with a
previous recommendation of eligibility from the 1984 Historic Phoenix Commercial
Properties Survey. The Phoenix Dry Cleaning & Laundry property qualifies for historic
designation. It is historically significant for its association with commercial development
in early Phoenix and is architecturally significant for its Streamlined Moderne-style
design and use of multiple lamella roofs. Despite some changes, the property retains a
high degree of historic integrity, still resembling its 1935 appearance (Appendix A).

On Nov. 20, 2023, the HP Commission initiated HP zoning for the northern portion of
the property, prior to the end of the 30-day hold (Appendix B). Once the HP zoning
was initiated (Z-117-23-8), the HP Officer revisited the demolition requests under
Section 806 of the Zoning Ordinance and denied them, since the property was
deemed to have historic value. A hearing was then scheduled, per Section 806.E.3 of
the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the applicant to dispute the historic eligibility of the
property or to establish that an economic hardship exists. The HP Hearing Officer
heard the case on Dec. 8, 2023, and denied the demolition requests, finding that the


Page 169

applicant had failed to establish that the property was ineligible or that an economic
hardship existed. The owners appealed the decision of the HP Hearing Officer to the
HP Commission. The HP Commission upheld the denial decision of the hearing officer
at its Jan 1, 2024, meeting. The owner appealed the decision of the HP Commission
on Jan. 9, 2024.

Standards for Granting Demolition Approval
Section 806.E.5 states that for properties under consideration for HP designation, a
demolition permit shall only be granted if the applicant demonstrates one of the
following:

A. That the building is of minimal historic significance because of its location,
condition, modifications, or other factors, and its demolition shall be
inconsequential to historic preservation needs of the area; or
B. If the building is determined to have historic or architectural significance,
that the denial of the demolition permit will result in an economic hardship to the
property owner. Such hardship shall be determined in accordance with Section
814.

Section 814 states that the basis to establish economic hardship for an income
producing property shall be that a reasonable rate of return cannot be obtained from
the property in either its present condition or if its historic features or structures are
rehabilitated. Demonstration of an economic hardship shall not be based on or include
any of the following circumstances:
1. Willful or negligent acts by the owner;
2. Purchase of the property for substantially more than market value;
3. Failure to perform normal maintenance and repairs;
4. Failure to diligently solicit and retain tenants; or
5. Failure to provide normal tenant improvements.

In this case, the applicant has not disputed the historic significance of the property, so
the question at hand is whether an economic hardship exists. To establish whether a
hardship exists, the applicant must submit required items on the Checklist for
Requests for Certification of Economic Hardship (Appendix C). While some items on
the checklist pertain only to specific cases, others are essential to establishing whether
an economic hardship exists. In this case, #27 is essential; it reads, “For vacant, semi-
vacant and under-utilized buildings, or buildings in need of rehabilitation, owner is
required to submit a statement of potential return on investment based on existing or
new uses, including costs of rehabilitation, and supplementary new construction, and
using fair market value for the property, a reasonable rate of return on investment, and
prevailing rehabilitation and rental rates in the area”.


Page 170


To date, staff has received the following information (Appendix D):
1. Emails from the property owner stating they have calculated in excess of
$100,000 spent to save the property, received a bill in June 2023 for $18,975.38
to insure the property but are now having difficulty obtaining insurance, and paid
approximately $40,000 in property taxes.
2. Emails from the property owner with references to articles about lamella roof
collapses/lack of structural integrity.
3. An email and letter from commercial real estate agents Justin Horwitz and Paul
Borgesen documenting the challenges they’ve had selling the property with
historic designation pending and the potential loss of value that may occur. They
estimate that based on comparable sales, the property could be worth as much
as $21 million, but is currently being marketed at $9.2 million, with no qualified
parties pursuing at that price. They also note that they had a licensed general
contractor walk the property who provided a rough estimate of $10 million to
bring the building up to code. This figure is only to bring the building to code in a
“vanilla shell” condition and does not include the cost to customize the interior
layout for an end user.
4. Photos from property owner of existing conditions.
While the information provided by the applicant and the real estate agents is helpful, it
does not meet the standard required for economic hardship applications. The $10
million verbal cost estimate for rehabilitation may be valid, but cost estimates should
be itemized and provided directly by a licensed contractor (or other qualified
professional), as required by the checklist. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided
any information regarding what the investment return on any new uses would be. This
potential return would be based on fair market value for the property and prevailing
rental rates in the area. It should also consider the availability of grant funds and other
preservation incentives from the City and other sources. Because no information
regarding a return on investment has been provided, the test for economic hardship
has not been met.

Staff recommends the City Council uphold the Historic Preservation Commission's
decision to uphold the Historic Preservation Hearing Officer's denial of the Certificate
of Economic Hardship, as the standards for granting demolition approval set forth in
Section 806.E.5 have not been met.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the city.

Concurrence/Previous Action


Page 171

· The HP Hearing Officer denied the Certificate of Economic Hardship on Dec. 8,
2023;
· The Hearing Officer's decision was appealed on Dec. 8, 2023, by property owners
Craig and Marilyn Milum;
· The HP Commission voted 8-0 to uphold the hearing officer's decision on Jan. 8,
2024; and
· The HP Commission's decision was appealed on Jan. 9, 2024, by property owners
Craig and Marilyn Milum.

Location
333-337 N. 7th Ave. (a.k.a. 332-334 N. 6th Ave.)
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
View from 7th Avenue, 10/20/2023




View from 6th Avenue, 10/20/2023


Page 175
Interior view, 10/20/2023




Interior view, 10/20/2023


Page 176
Page 177
Page 178




Phoenix Laundry & Dry Cleaning
333-337 North 7th Avenue (a.k.a. 332-334 North 6th Avenue)

Proposed Historic Preservation (HP) Zoning Overlay shown in purple
KIVA # HPDA
Permit Name:
Property Address:
Historic Property/District:

CHECKLIST FOR REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP APPLICATIONS
Documents submitted for Requests for Certification of Economic Hardship become the property of the city of
Phoenix Historic Preservation Office and are subject to public record requests. Please be certain that you have a
copy of them prior to submission. Historic Preservation Office staff basis may require additional information
beyond what is listed below on a case-by-case.
Required for All Properties
Need

1. Completed application form
2. Photos documenting the condition of the building(s) in question, both inside and outside
3. The date purchased and the amount paid for the property when purchased
4. The name of the party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between
the owner and the person from whom the property was purchased
5. Information on the property condition when purchased, including any photos from time of purchase
6. The assessed value of the land and improvements thereon according to the two most recent
assessments
7. Real estate taxes for the previous two years
8. An itemized statement showing the annual costs of all insurance on the property, and any insurance
statements indicating an unwillingness to insure property in part or whole
9. Professional report(s) substantiating the condition, e.g., a sealed assessment by a registered professional
engineer or licensed architect
10. A termite inspection/treatment report, if termite damage is being used as part of the justification for the
demolition
11. A mold inspection/treatment report, if applicable, if mold is being used as part of the justification for the
demolition
12. At least one itemized cost estimate by a licensed contractor detailing the work required and costs for
rehabilitating the existing structure(s) to return it to original condition (including any needed termite and
mold treatments). Note: this itemized estimate helps to establish what work needs to be completed to
restore the property to productive use and what, if any, historic fabric would be lost in the rehabilitation
13. At least one itemized cost estimate by a licensed contractor detailing the work required and costs for
replacing it with new construction (where applicable). This should be for a similarly sized building.
14. The extent to which financial incentives have been pursued to rehabilitate the structure(s) such as city
rehabilitation grants, state property tax reduction, and other available state and federal grants and tax
incentives.




Page 179
Required for All Properties except Garages and Other Small-scale Accessory Buildings
Need

15. All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the
purchase, financing, or ownership of the property
16. Annual debt service for mortgages and other financing secured by the property, if any, for the previous
two years
17. Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received within the last two years
18. Any consideration by the owner as to profitable adaptive uses for the property
19. An estimate of fair market value of property as is and after rehabilitation based on the last six months
sales data for area
20. A statement of potential return on investment based on existing or new uses, including costs of
rehabilitation and supplementary new construction and using fair market value for the property, a
"reasonable" rate of return on investment, and prevailing rehabilitation and rental rates in the area
Additional Information Required for Income-Producing Properties
21. Annual gross income (including itemized rental income by unit) and net income (income after expenses)
of the property for the previous two years
22. Itemized operating (e.g., utility costs), maintenance (e.g., weed and trash removal, painting) and other
related property management expenses for the previous two years
23. Whether or not the property was occupied when purchased, and any known income from the property at
the time it was purchased or immediately prior to purchase
24. For vacant, semi-vacant and under-utilized buildings, owner is required to include all of the following
A. Any supplementary new construction necessary to accommodate existing and potential new uses
allowable under existing zoning, e.g., potential conversion of house to professional office in areas
with R-5 HP zoning
B. Fair market value for potential reuses of the property based on last six months’ sales data for
area
25. Prevailing rental rates in the area for similar uses
26. Anticipated income from the property after demolition of the structure(s) and completion of any new
construction
27. For vacant, semi-vacant and under-utilized buildings, or buildings in need of rehabilitation, owner is
required to submit a statement of potential return on investment based on existing or new uses, including
costs of rehabilitation, and supplementary new construction, and using fair market value for the property,
a reasonable rate of return on investment, and prevailing rehabilitation and rental rates in the area
Additional Information
28.
29.
30.
Contact staff below for questions regarding the Administrative Log-In Review Screening.




Staff Signature: Print Name:
Phone: E-mail: Date:




Page 180
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 7:03 AM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter
Subject: Fw: 333 N 7th Ave.


Hi Kevin,
The letter below is from one of our brokers we have been using for the last few years representing the property at 333 N
7th Ave.
Please include this for our file concerning the hardship meeting. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Milum


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

Begin forwarded message:

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023, 1:25 PM, Justin Horwitz wrote:

Craig/Marilyn,
Please let this email serve as my insight on the value of the property and particularly how the value has
been impacted by the existing structures over the course of 3+ years of attempting to sell your property.
Generally speaking, the majority of developers that are willing to pay market pricing for development
property are not structured for nor interested in pursuing sites that require historic preservation as part
of a planned development. We are finding that most of the development community is interested solely
in the land so that they can more freely plan a development with a clearer path to entitlements. We are
currently asking $9.2mm for the 2.39 AC site. That is ±$88 PSF on land value which I believe is right in
line with the market and I do believe the site would have sold long ago if it weren't for the complexities
created by the push for historic preservation. It's hard to specifically gauge how much loss in value will
occur if a developer is to incorporate these structures, but at this moment and certainly for the
foreseeable future, we are finding that there is not any interested parties at any price.


Justin Horwitz, SIOR | Senior Advisor
SVN Desert Commercial Advisors | AZ O/I CRE Sales Team
5343 N. 16th St., Suite 100 | Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone 480.425.5518 | Mobile 480.220.2674
justin.horwitz@svn.com | www.svndesertcommercial.com [svndesertcommercial.com]
AZ O/I LinkedIn [linkedin.com]

All SVN® Offices Independently Owned and Operated.





Page 181
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 10:30 AM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter
Subject: Another break-in


The police were there again this morning.
Homeless people sleeping in the building.
More wasted resources of Phoenix PD
The police have to clear the property each time and make sure no one is inside, that is a big job. And a dangerous job.
Swat units, canine units and the use of many officers was not meant to be used in this way.
Marilyn

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]





Page 182
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 11:14 PM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter
Subject: Fw: 333 N 7th Ave.


Hi Kevin,
Please add this letter of opinion from one of the primary brokers who has had it listed since 2019.
Than you,
Marilyn Milum

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]

Begin forwarded message:

On Wednesday, December 6, 2023, 9:35 PM, Paul Borgesen wrote:

Marilyn,



It is my opinion that potential HP restrictions have kept multiple groups from making an offer on the
property as it is not financially feasible to bring the current structure up to code as well as incorporate it
into a new development. Most developers are not willing to take on the city or HP try and deal with this
potential hurdle. Most groups hear that there may be an interest in the property from HP and that is the
end of the conversation about the project. The property is zoned to allow apartments and is
surrounded by new apartment development and this in my opinion would be the highest and best use
for the land this would also bring you as the seller the highest value.




Paul Borgesen, SIOR
Senior Vice President

Capital Markets | Investment Sales




TRANSWESTERN
2501 E. Camelback Rd, Suite 1

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Direct: 602.296.6377

Cell: 602.214.9033



transwestern.com [transwestern.com]


Page 183
From: marilyn milum
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 1:44 PM
To: Paul Borgesen
Subject: Fw: 333 N 7th Ave.



Hi Paul ,Please write us a similar letter and also state we missed that window of opportunities where Justin also told me earlier there may have well been multiple bidders , bidding war if HP buildings did not need to stay and interests rates and building rates were lower , etcTh




Hi Paul ,

Please write us a similar letter and also state we missed that window of opportunities where Justin also
told me earlier there may have well been multiple bidders , bidding war if HP buildings did not need to
stay and interests rates and building rates were lower , etc

Thank you

P S this is being used in our hardship hearing and they wanted a statement of this sort for

An argument in addition to what you had provided previously.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]




Begin forwarded message:

On Tuesday, December 5, 2023, 1:25 PM, Justin Horwitz wrote:

Craig/Marilyn,
Please let this email serve as my insight on the value of the property and
particularly how the value has been impacted by the existing structures over the
course of 3+ years of attempting to sell your property. Generally speaking, the
majority of developers that are willing to pay market pricing for development
property are not structured for nor interested in pursuing sites that require historic
preservation as part of a planned development. We are finding that most of the
development community is interested solely in the land so that they can more
freely plan a development with a clearer path to entitlements. We are currently
asking $9.2mm for the 2.39 AC site. That is ±$88 PSF on land value which I
believe is right in line with the market and I do believe the site would have
sold long ago if it weren't for the complexities created by the push for historic
preservation. It's hard to specifically gauge how much loss in value will occur if a
developer is to incorporate these structures, but at this moment and certainly for
the foreseeable future, we are finding that there is not any interested parties at
any price.


Justin Horwitz, SIOR | Senior Advisor
SVN Desert Commercial Advisors | AZ O/I CRE Sales Team

Page 184
5343 N. 16th St., Suite 100 | Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone 480.425.5518 | Mobile 480.220.2674
justin.horwitz@svn.com | www.svndesertcommercial.com [svndesertcommercial.com]
AZ O/I LinkedIn [linkedin.com]

All SVN® Offices Independently Owned and Operated.




This email and any files transmitted with it are the property of Transwestern and its affiliated
companies, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which this
email is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipients or if you have reason to believe you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your
computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is
strictly prohibited.





Page 185
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 1:26 AM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter
Subject: 333 N 7th ave



Kevin,
You may wonder why two different brokers letters.
The two brokers have been working since 2019 on trying to sell our property on &th ave.
Justin is still at SVN and Paul has chosen to change companies but they are still co-
listing since the two had it listed at the one compant when they were associates.
You are possibly wondering why I am up so late my husband just left to check on the
property on 7th since we are have had tresspassers coming in at night sleepng, and
making messes,very hazadous.
After multiple breakends we secured the building further and he needs to check if the
barriers we used are working or weather they are down, meaning they got in again.
Marilyn





Page 186
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 9:08 PM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter; marilyn milum
Subject: Invoice for one year


Please note that this is just for one year in which we extended it it for as long as we were under contract with the
developer which was in the purchase agreement.
We have a different carrier now and at this moment I cannot locate our invoice.





Page 187
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 9:15 PM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter
Subject: insurance and taxes



I have been trying to download our tax amounts we have paid for the last two years.
The site has been down.
It is public knowledge so I will say when I looked up a few days ago it was a little over
$40,000.00 and has been that amout approx., for the last two years.





Page 188

Page 189
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]





Page 190
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2023 11:11 PM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter
Subject: comments about 333N 7th ave




To:marilyn milum
Thu, Dec 7 at 11:06 PM
Kevin,

Please include this in the files. Thank you.

In case you are wondering why there are two different companies with our brokers, Justin and Paul were
associates at the same firm before Paul went to work for a different firm. Both of these gentlemen have worked
very hard to represent us and are still working on the listing. They have reported to us during the last several
years their obstacles in selling our property that have been mainly the “Historical Preservation” (“HP”) problem
we have with the City that prevents successful sales efforts. Non one wants to buy such a property, which has
been confirmed repeatedly by our brokers’ many sales contacts.

Both have told us repeatedly that buyers are not interested in dealing with HP. We have also have had
extensive feedback that it would be cost prohibitive to even try to save these structures.

We can no longer maintain them. It has caused a huge burden financially on us not to mention what is has done
to us mentally and physically and our quality of life. We are septuagenarians that want to retire and the property
is our retirement fund. My husband is ill and this is not equitable for us to bear the burden and expense of this
property. It has been debilitating. We can no longer deal with these costs after four years of determined sales
efforts. To impose such a mandate on two individuals is criminal or at least unconstitutional. We feel like
someone has stolen our property and we have to bear the burden of paying a ransom for it as well as in the
interim maintaining the property for the thieves.

Property taxes, Insurance, utilities, and to maintain such as broken windows, kicked in doors, trash, feces,
graffiti, and our precious time.

Prop 207 was a clear indication that the citizens in Arizona do not want this abuse by government officials.

I hate to be so blunt, but that is now how we are feeling . We have earnestly tried to work with the City, we are
in the fifth year of this tyrany and we are tired of all the red tape and emotional, physical, financial abuse we
have been dealt by the city and it is truly time for the City to release this terrible burden. We feel the City has
gone too far.

We are asking for fairness and justice. We also think there are political schemes behind this to stop more
contemporary development rather than just to save a “priceless” building. There is no significant historic value
to preserve, it is simply a manipulation and political effort by primarily a very small number of people who
want to limit the density.

We have been damaged. These are dilapidated buildings that have outlived their use.

Page 191
We believe this mandate has enough severe impact to our rights that it warrants compensation. The whole idea
of "historic" is so subjective. The City should bear the cost and pay for it if they want a museum.
Instead the City wants to give rich developers, taxpayers money at their whim and when the taxpayer will
probably never see the inside of these buildings they want to keep. I s that fair and equitable?
The City is on record telling us over and over do not pursue a demo permit , it will be turned down and told us
they would not let the buildings go.

These are decaying buildings that need to be torn down for useful housing.

Since it has gotten cold now, the homeless are trespassing causing the SWAT teams, the canine teams and
multiple officers (a dozen or more, yesterday), more today. Every time a break in occurs, we call the police
they have to search the property and clear it. What a horrible use of our police resources. This is inviting
criminal activity downtown. These officers could lose their lives going into the dilapidated buildings to search
nooks and corners, closets, all room by room. These intruders are scared inside the building and could react
with violence towards our City’s finest.

Our freedom has been taken from us.

All of this has occurred because a very small number of people have a whim for saving these junky, old
buildings with no modern times commercial, viable use.

Please help resolve these serious matters in the near future well before October by when these issues would be
five years with out resolution.

A solution will also help our efforts to sell the property which has been substantially slowed by other
substantially more complex matters than HP considerations for a building that does not seem to meet any
realistic HP concerns compared to other HP properties.

We have reviewed the check lists requested and feel like most of these requests i.e., getting itemized
construction costs to restore the 100 year old property are burdensome and are not applicable to the site. We
never plan on using the property for another commercial laundry and to get an itemized costs would be so
expensive and unrealistic it assumed these request would be for much smaller projects. To do what you are
requesting would be a hardship and speaking with a contractor undoable.

It would be 10’s of thousands of dollars and a waste of the contractors time and ours.

The contractors would not take us seriously.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Marilyn Milum





Page 192
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 8:50 AM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter
Subject: Property Taxes, Utilities, maintanence , insurance



Good morning Kevin,

TO add to file please
WE have calclated between $ in excess of 100,000 a year saving the property for PHOENIX

Multiple insurance companies turned us down for insuranc

Insuring an empty building is risky and to keeping this place up is simply
unsastainable for us

In the last couple of weeks we have turned off utilities

Aps we beleive has left one meter on by mistake.

We need to call them to turn off the last meter





Page 193
45 6 7 89 5 ÿ9 5 5 ÿ
8ÿ4 56 5ÿ06ÿ67
9 ÿ 
866ÿ
5 ÿ
6

!"#$ÿ&&'(&ÿ)*+*ÿ,-ÿ./0*ÿ123ÿ1(&& 4567896ÿ;<=>ÿ7?@?ÿABÿC7D?ÿE>FÿG>;;
HÿJKLLMNOÿPQRSPPTÿTMSMUVÿTMUVWÿPUOÿPXÿPUYZÿXPQTÿPXÿMRLÿ[MUSÿMUÿR\Oÿ]PQURTZÿKUSÿKÿYP]KYÿ\MLRPTM]
YKUSJKT[Wÿ]PYYK^LOSÿZOLROTSKZÿKXROTUPPUÿKXROTÿZOKTLÿPXÿSO]KZÿKUSÿ_OMV\OSÿSP_Uÿ̀ZÿLONOTKY
XOORÿPXÿTO]OURÿLUP_a
b\Oÿ̀QMYSMUVÿPXXÿcYMNOÿdRTOORÿ_KLÿ̀TPQV\RÿRPÿR\OÿLMROÿMUÿefghÿ̀ZÿiMYYÿdM̀LPUWÿhfWÿ_\P
SMLKLLOJ`YOSÿR\Oÿjklÿ̀ZÿemklXPPRÿ̀QMYSMUVÿKRÿR\OÿPYSÿnKLOO[KÿoKTJÿPUÿp\OLRUQRÿdRTOORÿ_MR\
R\Oÿ\OY^ÿPXÿXKJMYZÿKUSÿXTMOUSLaÿqUÿefgfWÿ\Oÿ^QRÿMRÿ̀K][ÿRPVOR\OTÿKRÿ\MLÿJPR\OTrLÿsYOKUJPQTK
oKTJWÿ_\M]\ÿJOKULÿtKTZrLÿsYOUÿMUÿsKOYM]a
b\Oÿ̀QMYSMUVÿ\KSÿTKTOÿsOTJKUÿYKJOYYKÿTPPXÿKT]\MRO]RQTOWÿ_\M]\ÿVKNOÿR\OÿK^^OKTKU]OÿPXÿ]TMLLl
]TPLLOSÿKT]\OLÿmhÿXOORÿK`PNOÿR\OÿTMSMUVÿXYPPTaÿb\KRÿLRTQ]RQTOÿ\OYSÿR\OÿTPPXÿQ^ÿ_MR\PQRÿUOOSMUV
KUZÿ^PYOLÿPTÿ̀OKJLÿMUÿR\Oÿ]OUROTÿPXÿR\OÿXYPPTWÿ_\M]\ÿJKSOÿMRÿKÿ^OTXO]RÿTMSMUVÿTMUVÿXPTÿ\PTLO
YOLLPULa
b\Oÿ̀QMYSMUVÿ_KLÿXMTLRÿ]PULRTQ]ROSÿKTPQUSÿefmkÿKLÿKÿ̀MTR\SKZÿVMXRÿXPTÿKÿSKQV\ROTÿMUÿR\O
uP_OTLÿXKJMYZÿKRÿnKLOO[KÿoKTJWÿdM̀LPUÿLKMSa
vYOVKURÿMUÿK^^OKTKU]OÿKRÿR\Oÿ\OMV\RÿPXÿMRLÿQLOWÿ_\KRÿTOJKMUOSÿZOLROTSKZÿ_KLÿKÿ^KU]K[OSÿ\OK^
PXÿRMJ`OTLÿKUSÿ̀PKTSLa
wqÿ_KLÿ_KY[MUVÿJZÿSPVWÿKUSÿqÿ\OKTSÿKÿYPQSÿ]TK][WÿKUSÿqÿLK_ÿMRÿ]PYYK^LOWwÿLKMSÿxPTZÿnKTTOUW
_\PÿYMNOLÿPUÿpYMURPUÿdRTOORÿMUÿyP^[MURPUÿKUSÿ_KLÿPUOÿPXÿR\Oÿ^OP^YOÿ_\Pÿ\OY^OSÿdM̀LPU
KLLOJ`YOÿR\OÿTMUVÿSO]KSOLÿKVPaÿwqRrLÿMUÿLONOUÿLO]RMPULWÿKUSÿMRÿzQLRÿ]KJOÿSP_UÿYM[OÿSPJMUPOLaw
nKTTOUÿKUSÿdM̀LPUÿLKMSÿLUP_ÿLRK][OSÿPUÿR\OÿTPPXÿ_KLÿSOXMUMROYZÿR\OÿTOKLPUÿXPTÿZOLROTSKZrL
]PYYK^LOÿKTPQUSÿm{ehÿ^aJaWÿKYR\PQV\ÿR\OÿLRTQ]RQTOÿ_KLÿMUÿTPQV\ÿL\K^OÿKUSÿ\KSÿKYTOKSZÿLRKTROS
RPÿYOKUÿ̀OXPTOÿR\MLÿ_MUROTa
HL\YKUSÿoMTOÿ|Raÿ}KNMSÿqKTQLLMÿLKMSÿUOMV\`PTLÿ\OKTSÿR\Oÿ]PYYK^LOÿKUSÿ]KYYOSÿ^PYM]OÿKUSÿXMTO
SO^KTRJOURLaÿ~PÿPUOÿ_KLÿMUÿPTÿUOKTÿR\Oÿ̀QMYSMUVÿ_\OUÿMRÿXOYYWÿKUSÿKÿ\QVOÿ]YPQSÿPXÿSQLRÿXYO_
Q^a
Page 194
01234ÿ267ÿ8944ÿ9ÿÿ6429 ÿ42270ÿ1 44ÿ4 
 7ÿ7887ÿ267ÿ2ÿ9ÿ267ÿ 9 2277ÿ99ÿÿ267ÿ482ÿ9ÿ24ÿ627
79 ÿ74ÿ66ÿ8897ÿ9ÿ276 787ÿ 24
09ÿ234ÿ97ÿÿ42ÿÿ87ÿ9ÿ99ÿ9ÿ267ÿ90ÿ 7ÿ4 
67ÿ267ÿ  8ÿ444787ÿ267ÿ98ÿÿÿ !ÿ7"7ÿ982ÿ2ÿÿ4687ÿ84ÿ267
8788ÿ8#4ÿ77ÿ4297ÿÿ 74ÿÿ 4ÿÿ2#7ÿ9"7ÿ9ÿ$67422ÿ%2772ÿÿ267
 8ÿ4229ÿ 9ÿÿ28ÿ267ÿ98ÿ7ÿ 42#8ÿ2ÿ #ÿ297267
07ÿ6 ÿ29ÿ234 ÿ7"7ÿ 8ÿ92ÿ9ÿ20ÿ%49ÿ4 
%49ÿ4 ÿ67ÿ26#4ÿ267ÿ9267ÿ2677ÿ8788ÿ84ÿÿ267ÿ92ÿ77ÿ 7ÿ29ÿ  2
6  4
01ÿ#7ÿ26 2ÿ2ÿ 4ÿ9ÿ29ÿ9ÿÿ2ÿ1ÿ32ÿ26#ÿ2ÿ98ÿ46ÿ49ÿ820ÿ%49ÿ4 
%49ÿ4 ÿ67ÿ6974ÿ267ÿ29ÿ88ÿ872ÿ6ÿ48"7ÿ497ÿ9ÿ267ÿ8788ÿ9 4ÿ264ÿ4 ÿ49
67ÿÿ97ÿ ÿ8ÿÿ4 88ÿÿ26ÿ267ÿ6429 ÿ774
&'()ÿ+,-./0.-ÿ1,-ÿ).ÿ2.,13.4ÿ,5ÿ23,-./061-171(8ÿ(2ÿ9:;<=>=7@




Page 195
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 12:30 AM
To: Helana Ruter; Kevin Weight
Subject: A little more complicated Lamella




https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=lamella%20roof%20collapses&tbm=&shem=rime&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5#fpstate=
ive&vld=cid:2426b60c,vid:YsJqJKtrwlk,st:0 [google.com]


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]





Page 196
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 12:40 AM
To: Helana Ruter; Kevin Weight
Subject: Complicated


Politically I’m not sure the Lamella enthusiast
Would be as supportive if they knew Zollinger was part of the Nazi party . Is the public going to be accepting of the Nazi
link with the Nazi example of superior engineering…?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsJqJKtrwlk [youtube.com]


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]





Page 197
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2023 3:48 PM
To: Helana Ruter; Kevin Weight
Subject: Roof collapse


Not sure if I sent this one





Page 198

Page 199
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]





Page 200
Justin Horwitz - SVN
Paul Borgesen - Transwestern
5343 N. 16th St. #100
Phoenix, AZ 85016

Helena Ruter
200 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003


Dear Ms. Ruter,

On behalf of Paul Borgesen, Senior Vice President with Transwestern, and myself, Justin Horwitz, Senior
Advisor with SVN, please accept this letter in relation to the Milum Textile property located at 333 N 7th
Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

Paul and I are commercial real estate agents with substantial experience selling development properties
particularly in Downtown Phoenix. In April 2020, we began actively listing the subject property for sale and
to this point, we have been unsuccessful in solidifying a buyer for the property. Throughout the course of
our listing, the subject property has received good interest from prospective buyers. However, following
initial conversation with various zoning attorneys, the overwhelming majority of prospective buyers do not
pursue the purchase of the property due to concerns over multiple City of Phoenix interests in historical
preservation of several major structures. This has presented a number of challenges, but a few of the
main issues are as follows:

1. The process is relatively more complex. Incorporating historical structures on any site adds
multiple layers of processes to the design, planning, and zoning stages that eliminates a number
of quality developers. The majority of developers we have presented the site to ultimately are not
equipped to handle an abnormal development process or do not have an interest in taking on the
risk given the amount of unpredictable expenses in the pre-development and construction
phases. Simply put, our experience has been that most developers want a “cookie cutter” site that
allows them to repeat their typical planning, zoning, design, and construction processes. This site
does not allow for that with historical structures in place.
2. Historical structures in their current location dramatically hinder design capabilities and limit a
developers ability to maximize density in its planned development. This directly impacts the
ultimate price they are willing to pay for the property.
3. Retaining the structures creates liability that adds significant costs to a project making it
infeasible. The existing structures are quite old and have had years of industrial wear and tear
placed on them. Again placing more unpredictability and liability into a project than any
prospective buyer has been willing to take on.
4. Items 1-3 listed above are primarily addressing the items of contention solely from a
redevelopment perspective. We have also spent countless hours over these last few years
attempting to identify end users that have an interest in retaining and using the existing
structures. While we have had groups acknowledge the unique elements of the structures and
have a vision for an end use, the estimated costs of renovations steer groups away from pursuing
a purchase of the property. To be more specific, we had a licensed general contractor walk the
property and while we could not get a specific bid, we were provided with a rough estimate
upwards of $10MM to simply bring the building up to code. This was purely contemplating the




Page 201
costs to bring the building up to current code (i.e. remove and replace the existing complex utility
system, replace the electrical system, treat any asbestos due to the age of the structure, sure up
the roof system that requires significant inspection to even understand its current condition,
redesign and replace the entire HVAC system, and address general ADA items just to name a
few). Again, this is only to bring the building to code in a “vanilla shell” condition and does not
include the cost to customize the interior layout for an end user.

The main purpose of this letter is to attempt to identify how much the property is worth as raw land with all
structures demolished as opposed to its value with various structures historically preserved. This proves
to be a rather difficult task. While we have contemplated comparable sales for land sites in the immediate
area (please see Exhibit “A” - Comparable Sales enclosed), it’s virtually impossible to identify a value for
the property with structures in place. As mentioned above, in over three years of tireless efforts to find a
buyer, we have come up empty handed. One could argue that there is no buyer in the foreseeable future
for this property at any price given the significant cost of improvements due to the issues listed above.
Alternatively, as it pertains to the potential value of the land with all structures demolished, we have
identified seven comparable sites based on location, land size, and/or intended use for the property. The
sales comparables range from $111 PSF to $316 PSF on land value only. The average of the seven
comparable sales is $201 PSF. Relative to the subject property, one could argue that without any
historically preserved structures, the land’s value is upwards of $21MM for the 2.39 AC of land. Our
current asking price for the property is $9.2MM with no qualified parties pursuing at this price. We do
however have a number of groups that have indicated a high level of interest in the property if the owner
of the property can deliver the property with either a demo permit for the entirety of the site or with all
structures fully demolished.

In closing and as mentioned above, without any prospective buyers to currently reference, it is difficult for
Paul or I to determine the value of the property with historically preserved structures in place. However, it
is safe to assume that the loss in value to the property would be significant relative to the comparable
sales in the area.

Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions.

Sincerely,




Justin Horwitz Paul Borgesen




Page 202
Exhibit “A” - Comparable Sales



Site Land Size Sale Price/ Sale Date Notes
Land PSF

520 S. 5th St. 2.56 AC $17,300,000 12/8/23 Existing parking lots;
Phoenix, AZ 85004 $155 PSF Covered land purchase.

840 N. Central Ave. 1.11 AC $10,500,000 12/8/23 Part of assemblage.
Phoenix, AZ 85004 $217 PSF

343 E. Lincoln St. 1.00 AC $8,643,000 10/2/23 Future use for Phoenix
Phoenix, AZ 85004 $198 PSF Suns/Mercury.

114 E. Portland St. 0.64 AC $8,820,000 2/2023 Future development site.
Phoenix, AZ 85004 $316 PSF

510 E. Lincoln St. 1.60 AC $9,500,000 1/5/23 Future development site.
Phoenix, AZ 85004 $136 PSF

601 N. Central Ave. 1.83 AC $22,000,000 3/2/22 Future development site.
Phoenix, AZ 85004 $275 PSF

362 N. 3rd Ave. 0.76 AC $3,700,000 12/29/21 Future development site
Phoenix, AZ 85003 $111 PSF

AVERAGES $201 PSF




Page 203
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:22 PM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter
Subject: Important information


Please add this to our HP file and please make available to HP commission and city council members.

We feel like the city of Phoenix has not done their due diligence in insisting on keeping structures when they know
virtually nothing about their safety.

This is very risky.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Milum


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]





Page 204
Kevin Weight

From: marilyn milum
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:17 PM
To: Kevin Weight; Helana Ruter; Roger Strassburg
Subject: Sensitivity analysis of Kiewitt-Lamella reticulated domes due to member loss -
ScienceDirect




https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143974X21004983__;!!Lkj
WUF49MRd51_ry!YS_y5Q2hnymJZQY8-OEQ-SbJlQ36tP5gb5x5whpMlF5Upyv_9NY1x9eMw_Z-
NMfaAnWPo1FVyLmapJpS4ssrj66u9Lqs-Q$

Sent from my iPhone





Page 205
0123456ÿ18ÿ91162
4ÿ32ÿ05425134ÿ56ÿÿ6ÿ53



24ÿ54ÿ2ÿ2ÿ5!4ÿ"54
1#ÿ13
53 9 
 $%&&'1(13&(&)() 3((
ÿ3 ÿ54'ÿ144




Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
01234415616ÿ8921




ÿ15ÿÿ
5ÿÿ36ÿ92!
"ÿ#93$ÿÿ
%5$ÿ"8ÿ&58'!
(ÿ1)8 1*856ÿÿ
ÿ35 9ÿ11ÿ01!
+ÿ,ÿÿ
%5$ÿ92-!
,.ÿ/85ÿÿ
ÿ35 9ÿ11ÿ01!
,ÿ085$ÿÿ
ÿ35$15$ÿ852ÿ3545!
6ÿ,
-!
ÿ8ÿÿ

"ÿ783ÿÿ
&92 12ÿ92ÿ61 $5-!
89ÿ985ÿÿ
5ÿÿ11ÿ925!
:1;ÿ4391ÿ91<191521


Page 209
01002ÿ456785769ÿ459 5ÿ968ÿ78ÿ68ÿ01002ÿÿÿ8785ÿ5ÿ4ÿÿ45ÿ68

01002ÿÿ488ÿ4569!
"ÿ7ÿ5#5
$ÿ010%ÿ&'6ÿ(5)ÿ ÿ6*5ÿ66')




 ÿ855ÿÿ5ÿ5ÿ6*5ÿ$ÿ010+ÿ&'6ÿ,)")2ÿ5ÿ862ÿ9ÿ856 756)ÿ ÿ6*5ÿ96ÿ66'2ÿ87*ÿ5ÿ6ÿ5#5ÿ9ÿ959ÿ- *2ÿ.ÿ569*2ÿ9ÿ- 96ÿ58*)ÿ/6ÿ9 ÿ
988ÿ8552ÿ5ÿ695'ÿ--ÿ8*ÿ56-ÿ9 )




Page 210
aÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ



0123ÿ5236378197ÿÿ529838197
ÿÿÿÿÿ!
"# ÿÿÿ$%ÿÿ&ÿ' ÿ(# ÿÿÿ&ÿ)!%ÿÿÿ)%ÿ*#(ÿÿ&
(#+ÿ$(,ÿ-ÿ)))(ÿ*(#ÿ(#)ÿ. )(%ÿ(/)ÿ') ÿ)0 ÿ0!((ÿ'()ÿ(#(
ÿ*(#&ÿÿ&ÿ') (1
# ÿ7 ÿ8 ÿ9 ÿ: ÿ;
-)ÿÿ<)('(ÿ=#ÿ((ÿ(


>?ÿ@9A7ÿB4ÿC18837D92E
BA37ÿ23FD17GÿFÿHI1JD17GKÿD9ÿ?9Iÿ17JID3ÿ8A3ÿ299Eÿ17ÿ?9I2ÿL1M3NIOKÿF7Dÿ1EÿL9KÿPAF8ÿF23ÿ?9I
8A17Q17GÿFH9I8RÿS9ÿFLL1L8ÿP18Aÿ8A1LÿTI3L8197KÿJ38ULÿ97L1D32ÿL9V3ÿ1VO928F78ÿEF892Lÿ8AF8ÿF23
P928A?ÿ9Eÿ?9I2ÿ97L1D32F81974ÿWH619ILJ?KÿL9V3ÿEF892LÿP1JJÿH3ÿD3O37D378ÿ97ÿ8A3ÿ8?O3ÿ9Eÿ299E
97L82I8197ÿ17ÿ?9I2ÿOF281IJF2ÿF23FKÿA9P3632KÿB3L8ÿX9FL8ÿ299ELÿF7DÿYFL8ÿX9FL8ÿ299ELÿAF63ÿF
J98ÿ17ÿ9VV97ÿ17ÿH98Aÿ97L82I8197ÿV38A9DLÿF7DÿL8?J3L4
WO37ÿP3HÿHF2ÿZ91L8ÿ[92ÿV38FJÿD3Q\ÿ299ELÿF23ÿ8A3ÿ9VV321FJÿ299Eÿ9EÿA913ÿ17ÿ8A3ÿC1DP3L8
F7DÿYFL8327ÿO928197Lÿ9Eÿ8A3ÿ9I782?ÿF7DÿF23ÿO21VF21J?ÿL833Jÿ82ILLÿ97L82I8197ÿI7D3273F8AÿF
V38FJÿD3Q17Gÿ[]ÿD3Q17G\4ÿSA3ÿV38FJÿD3Q17Gÿ1Lÿ96323DÿH?ÿHI1J8NIOÿJF?32Lÿ9Eÿ17LIJF8197
VF8321FJKÿ8F2KÿF7Dÿ9VO9L181974ÿ^LÿL833JÿJ9L3Lÿ18ULÿL8237G8AÿF29I7Dÿ2K333ÿD3G233LKÿLIAÿ299EL
AF63ÿFÿTI1QÿEF1JI23ÿ2F83ÿP18AÿV171VFJÿPF2717GKÿF7DÿLIOO23LL197ÿO32L9773JÿLA9IJDÿH3ÿFPF23
9Eÿ8A3L3ÿAFMF2DL4ÿ_9P3632KÿF798A32ÿV923ÿLIH8J3ÿAFMF2Dÿ1Lÿ8AF8ÿ̀23ÿF7ÿO29OFGF83ÿH38P337
Page 211
012ÿ42056ÿ7582ÿ59 ÿ012ÿ 4 809ÿ 29ÿ291599ÿ012ÿ825ÿÿ2ÿ01ÿ49456
8762ÿ599ÿ898
1282ÿ 8ÿ52ÿ9 ÿ59122ÿ9ÿ012ÿ 90ÿ59 ÿ9ÿ58ÿ028ÿ59 ÿ828ÿ
44256ÿ7698ÿ456ÿ 98002 ÿ9ÿ012ÿ8ÿ906ÿ012ÿ8ÿÿ906ÿ012
90 09ÿÿ012ÿ!50ÿ ÿ01ÿ08ÿ9428ÿ55098ÿ12ÿ62ÿ088ÿ 8ÿ22
9 4566ÿ 98002 ÿ01ÿ5ÿ"652#ÿ82ÿÿ 29ÿ088ÿ424728ÿÿ$ÿ%&91ÿ8125019ÿ58ÿ5
 ÿ7582' 29ÿ59 ÿ59ÿ72ÿ9 ÿ9ÿ9428ÿ80628ÿ58ÿ668(
ÿ18ÿ02ÿ8ÿ2 95762ÿ7ÿ0)8ÿ1550280ÿ86 9ÿ828ÿ29 8ÿ59 ÿ!50ÿ0 
ÿ18ÿ02ÿ8ÿ568ÿ2902 ÿ7ÿ0)8ÿ5762ÿÿ25*2 ÿ ÿ289
+556626ÿ,1 ÿ88(ÿ18ÿ ÿ6 *8ÿ8465ÿ0ÿ012ÿ028ÿÿ!50ÿ 8ÿ70ÿ59ÿ72ÿ9 ÿ9
62ÿ7698ÿ59 ÿ8ÿ 98002 ÿ4ÿ5ÿ"652#ÿ82ÿÿ088ÿ424728ÿ- 4 52 ÿ0ÿ922
610210ÿ088ÿ424728.

ÿ/601 1ÿ018ÿ ÿ59ÿ72ÿ8465ÿ9ÿ2$02956ÿ5 25592ÿ0ÿ012ÿ028ÿÿ51
 8ÿ0ÿ8ÿ89 5906ÿ2290ÿ58ÿ0ÿ58ÿ 98002 ÿ9ÿ59ÿ2ÿ502ÿÿ2 420ÿ
54 9 &500292 ÿÿ289ÿ18ÿ ÿ59ÿ72ÿ9 ÿ9ÿ495848ÿ2250956ÿ7698
652ÿ8 245*208ÿ20
ÿ18ÿ512 ÿ ÿ828ÿ42056ÿ02ÿ 8ÿ0ÿ2ÿ650256ÿ8 0ÿ0ÿ012ÿ5668ÿÿ012
769ÿ2ÿ 8ÿ01ÿ097*628ÿ52ÿ82 ÿ726ÿ251ÿ51ÿ42472ÿ-58ÿ0122ÿ8ÿ9 ÿ7 004
1 .ÿ0ÿ2982ÿ0150ÿ012ÿ5128ÿ ÿ9 0ÿ81ÿ012ÿ2$02ÿ5668ÿ05ÿ001ÿ018ÿ49 ÿ0ÿ8
258ÿ0ÿ822ÿÿ2ÿ2$ 828ÿ42056ÿ02ÿ 8ÿ9ÿ018ÿ02ÿÿ ÿ5ÿ 665 82ÿÿ012ÿ769ÿ8
4 2ÿ0159ÿ5ÿ 88760ÿ190(ÿ2ÿÿ52ÿ22ÿ982ÿ5ÿ769ÿ59 ÿ7822ÿ018ÿ02ÿÿ 
98009ÿ45*2ÿ5ÿ429056ÿ9 02ÿÿ02ÿ22292ÿ58ÿ0ÿ45ÿ852ÿÿ623
ÿ4 80ÿ21028ÿ52ÿ5465ÿ01ÿ012ÿ"7 809ÿ088#ÿ ÿ58ÿ9428
2ÿ822ÿ028ÿ152ÿ5  5026ÿ0029ÿ9ÿ012ÿ1558ÿÿ018ÿ 44 9ÿ 
290228096ÿ12012ÿÿ52ÿ5ÿ2102ÿ9ÿ012ÿ5580ÿÿ0280ÿ 580ÿ-ÿ59122ÿ9
720229.ÿÿ66ÿ6*26ÿ152ÿ018ÿ ÿ9ÿÿ49560ÿ20ÿ8ÿ 98002 ÿÿ"652&82#
 29ÿ424728ÿ-6 02(ÿ4 80ÿ 29ÿ424728ÿ82 ÿ9ÿ01282ÿ62ÿ088ÿ 8ÿ22
"1&0#ÿÿ66ÿ82ÿ6472ÿ59 ÿ82 ÿ80226ÿ65028ÿ59 ÿ7 608ÿÿ 99208.ÿ01ÿÿ$ÿ%&91
8125019ÿ ÿ2*9ÿ46062ÿ2102ÿ25018ÿ500702 ÿ0ÿ018ÿ82 ÿ ÿ152
5092 ÿ21028ÿ0ÿ58842ÿ5ÿ22982ÿ 809ÿÿ5ÿ *9ÿ2ÿ8ÿ29 9022 
7 19ÿ0ÿ40029 ÿ892 ÿ012ÿ9 8ÿ/92628ÿ,0ÿ-,/.ÿ:2ÿ;2 504290ÿ-9/:;.ÿ9ÿ%<ÿ89
0ÿ012ÿ59*ÿÿ5 059ÿ22ÿ058*ÿ2ÿ 4459 2ÿ29ÿÿ12ÿ58ÿ4 02 ÿ0ÿ7500569ÿ12
59 ÿ9ÿ012ÿ25ÿ669ÿ72542ÿ012ÿ 4459 2ÿÿ012ÿ29&=22ÿ599ÿ=209ÿ29ÿ<
12ÿ202 ÿ4ÿ9/:;ÿ502ÿ<ÿ258ÿÿ822ÿ40029 ÿ158ÿ7229ÿ5ÿ42472ÿÿ012
650956ÿ:2ÿ+0209ÿ>28251ÿ: 9 509ÿ9ÿ599222 ÿ910210ÿ, 98009
21956ÿ/ 8ÿ, 440022ÿ12ÿ158ÿ2 ÿ0599ÿ548ÿÿ012ÿ650956ÿ:2
Page 212
0123456ÿ89ÿ558 ÿ26293ÿ4ÿ98486ÿÿ28982ÿ2ÿÿ0944ÿ293ÿ4
88ÿ84ÿ0123456ÿ2ÿ9892ÿ9293ÿ4ÿ8ÿ2ÿ545 4ÿÿ4ÿ43882ÿ2386
23ÿÿ84ÿ9894489ÿ293ÿ2ÿÿ4ÿ!ÿ"1!ÿ5#296ÿ$#4289ÿ%84
9894489ÿ&''()ÿ293ÿ2189ÿ4ÿ*5892ÿ+9484,ÿ%84ÿ9894489ÿ-../)

QF6CH ÿ0 ÿ1 ÿ2 ÿ3 ÿ4
5678ÿ:;<=>ACIÿG<7C6BJKLM5KNÿOPQ5Q
*312 Sÿ21!ÿT4#ÿ6SÿU4ÿU2389ÿ293ÿ29!
44
R


T#89!4ÿT6 45ÿ284ÿ3ÿ42ÿ2ÿV0
T498ÿ89ÿ5#4W


XYÿ$Z182Sÿ+42ÿ"994ÿ934ÿT6924
[4 288\43ÿX426ÿ8389




Page 213
From: marilyn milum
To: Helana Ruter
Subject: Failures of Lamella
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2024 11:15:43 AM
Attachments: image.png


A lot of the integrity is no longer there, not up to US safety standards.




Page 214
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]




Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223



Report

Consideration of Citizen Petition by Tristan Schaub

This report provides the City Council with information in response to the citizen
petition submitted by Mr. Tristan Schaub at the Jan. 24, 2024, Formal Meeting.

Summary
The attached document (Attachment A) was submitted to the City Council to
request that Council act as follows:1) stop all Board of Adjustment (BOA) actions
and decisions until immediate mandatory training on policies and procedures is
provided to all BOA members; 2) institute a formal on-board training program for all
new members to teach them about all BOA policies and procedures and assign a
BOA staff mentor for the first six months; 3) institute mandatory annual refresher
training for all existing BOA members and make it open to the public; 4) mandate
that decisions by the BOA must address Section 307 of the Zoning Ordinance
which includes the 4-tests for a variance and 2-factors for use permit criteria and
that the decisions must be in the proper procedural form; and 5) when overturning a
Zoning Hearing Officer’s (ZHO) decision, the member presenting the motion must
clearly state why (based on Section 307 criteria) the ZHO decided incorrectly.

After reviewing each request, staff recommends the following:

1) Although this request qualifies as a valid citizen petition under Chapter IV,
Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, staff recommends that City Council take no
action on request 1 because halting all BOA proceedings pending further training
may subject the City to legal exposure because of due process requirements for
those applicants and appellants who anticipate having their cases heard
expeditiously in the near term. The current Board is adequately trained and more
than competent to hear all pending cases. Halting Board proceedings is
unnecessary and imposes undue burdens on applicants and appellants.

2) Although this request qualifies as a valid citizen petition under Chapter IV,
Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, staff recommends that the City Council take
no action on request 2 because the City already has a formal on-boarding
process in place. Currently, the Zoning Administrator meets with all new board


Page 224

members for an hour to discuss their legal obligations vis-à-vis their service on the
board. Moreover, there is no need to assign a staff mentor as Board members are
routinely welcomed and encouraged to discuss when appropriate any pending
cases or related issues with the Zoning Administrator or legal counsel if they have
any questions.
3) Although this request qualifies as a valid citizen petition under Chapter IV,
Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, staff recommends that the City Council take
no action on request 3 because refresher training for all current BOA members
will be conducted as part of the March 7, 2024, BOA hearing which is open to the
public. The City staff will also be developing and implementing mandatory annual
refresher training.

4) The City Council cannot take any action on request 4 because it seeks to
have City Council implement a mandate that goes beyond the scope of what is
statutorily required by Arizona Revised Statute 9-462.06 in BOA decisions. The
BOA is not legally required to make explicit findings in its cases, although they are
strongly encouraged to do so. Currently, the BOA follows the “Board of Adjustment
Hearing Process” when reviewing a use permit or variance appeal. The "Board of
Adjustment Hearing Process" establishes the procedural requirements for
submitting written evidence before the hearing, testifying during the Board meeting,
and conducting other Board business. Failure to follow the required substantive and
procedural requirements is a basis for the Superior Court to reverse or remand a
BOA decision. There has never been a court finding that the BOA failed to follow its
procedures in making a decision. In fact, a review of all cases dating back to 2012
involving the application of the use permit or variance test indicate that the court
has never reversed or remanded a BOA’s use permit or variance decision for failure
to follow its procedures.

5) The City Council similarly cannot take any action on request 5 because it
goes beyond the statutory requirements cited above of what should be included in
board of adjustment decisions. Staff routinely encourages BOA members to clearly
articulate the basis for any legal action and routinely stress to the Board the
importance of making findings particularly when overturning a ZHO’s ruling or
decision. Staff will continue to emphasize the importance of this point in the future
mandatory annual refresher trainings.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the
Planning and Development Department.


Page 225
Attachment A




January 23, 2023


200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Re: ACMNA Petition to City Council for Board of Adjustment Training Reform

Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

The Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association formally petitions the Phoenix City Council to introduce New
Board of Adjustment Member Training and Annual Mandatory Refresher training for existing members on Board of
Adjustment Policy and Procedures with the details listed below.

One year ago, a Maricopa County Superior Court Lawsuit involving ACMNA, The City of Phoenix and The Camelback
Church of Christ was dismissed. In our settlement discussions, Phoenix Assistant City Attorney Daniel Inglese stated that the
deposition of Jonathan Ammon unearthed significant concerns regarding the need for proper policy and procedural training.
At that time, he was working directly with the Planning and Zoning department to implement changes. No changes were
made. ACMNA has been told several times by Councilman Kevin Robinson’s office that staff has responded to these
requests and training is being provided. No changes have been made and no training has occured.

As of today, new members to your Board of Adjustment Wallace Graham and Michelle Dodds have not received any formal
training and have requested formal training of Planning and Development. During a deposition of Jonathan Ammon on
9/9/22 he stated he had only received training once in 2018 and nothing else in the past 4 years. After admitting to
wrongdoing, Ammon was asked if he felt there were ways the city could improve its support of him in the role as a Board of
Adjustment member, Ammon replied “YES”, “Refreshers of rules to follow, clarifications on what is and is not permitted.”
These statements and requests are coming from three current Board of Adjustment members and the city fails to supply them
the training needed to do their jobs.

ACMNA requests the following
1 – Stop all BOA Actions and Decisions until immediate mandatory training on Policies and Procedures for their role as
Board of Adjustment Members is completed.
2 – Institute a formal on-boarding training program for new members which teaches the Policies and Procedures for the role
and assigns a BOA staff mentor for the first 6 months.
3 – Institute Mandatory Annual Refresher Training for all existing Board Members and make it an open meeting, in
compliance with state statutes, and open to the public.
4 – Decisions made by the Board must address Section 307 of the Zoning ordinance which includes the 4-Tests for a
Variance and 2-Factors for Use Permit criteria and these decisions must be done so in proper procedural form.
5 – When overturning a ZHO’s decision, the member presenting the motion must clearly state why (based on Sec 307
criteria) the ZHO decided incorrectly.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


Tristahn Schaub
VP, ACMNA
4340 E Indian School Rd #21-293
Phoenix, AZ 85018
www.acmna.org


Page 226
23 January 2024



Mayor Gallego, Vice Mayor Stark and City Council members
200 W. Washington, 11th floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Petition to City Council for Board of Adjustment Training Reform


Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council members:

Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association (AONA) agrees with and supports Arcadia Camelback
Mountain Neighborhood Association’s formal petition of Phoenix City Council to introduce Board of
Adjustment new member training and annual mandatory refresher training for current members on
Board of Adjustment Policy and Procedures with the details listed in ACMNA’s letter to Council.

The Board of Adjustment is an important and vital arm of city government. Because the board acts in a
quasi-judicial capacity within legal parameters, it is of paramount importance to educate and train its
members. We also believe that by conducting the annual refresher training in an open meeting setting,
the City of Phoenix would continue to provide transparency to its processes with its citizens.

The next step beyond the Board of Adjustment for Phoenix citizens is Maricopa County Superior Court.
Citizens should not have to bear the costly burden of going to court to challenge or defend actions by
the board. Education and training will minimize the frequency of those challenges.

Thank you for reviewing and acting positively on ACMNA’s petition.



Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Neal Haddad
President, Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association




Page 227
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022


·1· · · · · · · · · · ·ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · ·MARICOPA COUNTY

·3· · ·ARCADIA CAMELBACK MOUNTAIN· · · ·)
· · · ·NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, an· · ·)
·4· · ·Arizona non-profit· · · · · · · ·)
· · · ·corporation,· · · · · · · · · · ·)
·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )· No. CV2022-004359
· · · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · · · · · ·)
·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
· · · ·v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
· · · ·CITY OF PHOENIX, an Arizona· · · )
·8· · ·municipal corporation; and· · · ·)
· · · ·CITY OF PHOENIX BOARD OF· · · · ·)
·9· · ·ADJUSTMENT, an official body· · ·)
· · · ·of the City of Phoenix,· · · · · )
10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
· · · · · ·Defendants.· · · · · · · · · )
11· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
· · · ·BOOTZ & DUKE SIGN CO., an· · · · )
12· · ·Arizona corporation; CAMELBACK· ·)
· · · ·CHURCH OF CHRIST, an Arizona· · ·)
13· · ·non-profit corporation,· · · · · )
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
14· · · · ·Real Parties in Interest.· · )
· · · ·_________________________________)


· · · · · · · · · · DEPOSITION OF JONATHAN AMMON
· · · · · · · · · · · · · Phoenix, Arizona
· · · · · · · · · · · · ·September 9, 2022



· · · ·Prepared by:
24· · ·CINDY MAHONEY, RPR, RMR
· · · ·Certified Court Reporter
25· · ·Certificate No. 50680


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 228
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 2


·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X

·2· ·WITNESS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE

·3· · JONATHAN AMMON

·4· · · · ·EXAMINATION BY MR. DEWULF· · · · · · · · · · 4

·5· · · · ·EXAMINATION BY MR. INGLESE· · · · · · · · · ·65

·6· · · · ·FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR. DEWULF
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 72
·7

·8

·9

· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS MARKED
· · ·EXHIBITS· · · · · · · · DESCRIPTION· · · · · · · ·PAGE

13· · Exhibit 1· · ·City of Phoenix Application No:· · ·4
· · · · · · · · · · ZA-454-21
· · · Exhibit 2· · ·Rules of Procedure of the Board of 4
15· · · · · · · · · Adjustment, City of Phoenix,
· · · · · · · · · · Arizona
· · · Exhibit 3· · ·Board of Adjustment Training,· · · ·11
17· · · · · · · · · August 30, 2018

18· · Exhibit 4· · ·Zone Adjustment hearing, October· · 23
· · · · · · · · · · 14, 2021, document
· · · Exhibit 5· · ·February 3, 2022, Reporter's· · · · 29
20· · · · · · · · · Transcript of Audio-recorded
· · · · · · · · · · Proceedings
· · · Exhibit 6· · ·City of Phoenix Planning and· · · · 58
22· · · · · · · · · Development Services document





Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 229
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 3


·1· · · · · · · · ·THE DEPOSITION OF JONATHAN AMMON commenced at

·2· ·9:19 a.m. on September 9, 2022, at the law offices of

·3· ·Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, 2800 North Central Avenue,

·4· ·Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona, before Cindy Mahoney, RPR,

·5· ·RMR, Arizona Certified Court Reporter No. 50680.

·6

·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·*· · *· · *

·8· ·APPEARANCES:

·9· · ·For the Plaintiff:
· · · · · ·COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
10· · · · ·By: John E. DeWulf, Esq.
· · · · · · · ·2800 North Central Avenue
11· · · · · · ·Suite 1900
· · · · · · · ·Phoenix, Arizona 85004
12· · · · · · ·602-381-5475
· · · · · · · ·Jdewulf@cblawyers.com

14· · ·For the Defendants:
· · · · · ·OFFICE OF THE PHOENIX CITY ATTORNEY
15· · · · ·CRIS MEYER, CITY ATTORNEY
· · · · · ·By: Daniel Inglese, Esq.
16· · · · · · ·Assistant City Attorney
· · · · · · · ·200 West Washington Street
17· · · · · · ·Suite 1300
· · · · · · · ·Phoenix, Arizona 85003
18· · · · · · ·602-262-6761
· · · · · · · ·Daniel.inglese@phoenix.gov








Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 230
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 4


·1· · · · · · ·(The documents were as marked as Exhibits 1 and 2
·2· ·for identification.)
·3
·4· · · · · · · · · · · · JONATHAN AMMON,
·5· · · · · ·the witness herein, being first duly sworn,
·6· · · · · · ·was examined and testified as follows:
·7
·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
·9· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
09:19:34 10· · · ·Q.· ·Would you please state your name for the record.
11· · · ·A.· ·My name is Jonathan Ammon.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Mr. Ammon, have you been deposed before?
13· · · ·A.· ·No, sir.
14· · · ·Q.· ·So let me go through with you -- and maybe your
09:19:44 15· ·counsel has spoken to you about this as well.· If we get
16· ·some ground rules in place and some understandings, it will
17· ·cause us to be more efficient.
18· · · · · · · · ·So I represent the Arcadia Camelback Mountain
19· ·Neighborhood Association.· I'm going to be referring to
09:20:01 20· ·them as the Arcadia homeowners.· Is that okay for you?
21· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · · ·Q.· ·And the deposition today arises out of a public
23· ·use -- a public use application by Bootz & Duke Sign
24· ·Company.· Do you recall that?
09:20:23 25· · · ·A.· ·Yes.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 231
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 5


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Now, if -- so you're under oath to tell the truth.
·2· ·You understand that; right?
·3· · · ·A.· ·I do.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·And so my goal is to ask you questions regarding
09:20:32 ·5· ·the subject matter of that.· And I want my questions to be
·6· ·clear and understood.· So if you don't understand my
·7· ·questions, will you let me know?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·And if you answer the question I ask you, I'm
09:20:47 10· ·going to assume you understood the question.· Is that fair?
11· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · · ·Q.· ·I generally go about an hour and then take a
13· ·break.· But if there's any point in time where you need to
14· ·take a break, will you let us know?
09:21:01 15· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · ·Q.· ·And we'll stop.· Is that fair?
17· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · · ·Q.· ·We need to extend the courtesy to one another to
19· ·allow the other to complete speaking before the other
09:21:11 20· ·speaks, because it's very difficult for the court reporter
21· ·to take down two people speaking at the same time.· Is that
22· ·understood?
23· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · · ·Q.· ·And your answers will need to be audible so she
09:21:22 25· ·can type them and verbal so that it can be understood in


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 232
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 6


·1· ·the record.· So uh-huh, huh-uh, those kinds of things don't
·2· ·work well.· I'll try to remember if that happens.
·3· · · · · · · · ·I don't think that's going to happen with
·4· ·you.· And if there are times when the question confuses
09:21:42 ·5· ·you, please ask me.· I'll rephrase it.· Okay?
·6· · · ·A.· ·I will.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Did you do anything to prepare for today's
·8· ·deposition?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
09:21:49 10· · · ·Q.· ·What did you do?
11· · · ·A.· ·I spoke -- read through the minutes and spoke with
12· ·my attorney.
13· · · ·Q.· ·And your attorney is Mr. Inglese?
14· · · ·A.· ·That's correct.· Yes, sir.
09:22:12 15· · · ·Q.· ·Did you review anything else other than the
16· ·minutes?
17· · · ·A.· ·No.
18· · · ·Q.· ·How long did you meet?
19· · · ·A.· ·45 minutes.
09:22:27 20· · · ·Q.· ·I'm going to go through some background
21· ·information, if I could.
22· · · · · · · · ·Where do you currently reside?
23· · · ·A.· ·17613 North 56th Place.
24· · · ·Q.· ·Is that Phoenix?
09:22:46 25· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.· It has a Scottsdale area, but the ZIP


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 233
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 7


·1· ·code is in Phoenix, 85254.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Now, I've looked at your background, but I may not
·3· ·precisely know all the details, so I'm going to ask you
·4· ·some questions just for background purposes.
09:23:07 ·5· · · · · · · · ·My understanding is that you got a BA from
·6· ·Trinity in 2004?
·7· · · ·A.· ·I did.· Yes, sir.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Then you also got advanced degrees from Washington
·9· ·University; correct?
09:23:17 10· · · ·A.· ·In St. Louis.· Yes, sir.
11· · · ·Q.· ·You got a master's in architecture and a master's
12· ·in construction management?
13· · · ·A.· ·That's correct, sir.
14· · · ·Q.· ·You attended Washington University from 2007 to
09:23:28 15· ·2011?
16· · · ·A.· ·Western University?
17· · · ·Q.· ·No.· Washington University.
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
19· · · ·Q.· ·Then upon graduation, did you work at Gilbane or
09:23:40 20· ·Gilbane construction?
21· · · ·A.· ·Gilbane Building Company.
22· · · ·Q.· ·And the description I saw was virtual construction
23· ·engineer.· Was that the title?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
09:23:49 25· · · ·Q.· ·What did that entail?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 234
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 8


·1· · · ·A.· ·The coordination of multiple architectural,
·2· ·structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire
·3· ·protection systems for buildings over $25 million in
·4· ·construction cost in Arizona and Massachusetts.
09:24:11 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·And you left that entity in 2015?
·6· · · ·A.· ·I did.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·And you became a cofounder of Devco Development
·8· ·Collaborative?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
09:24:21 10· · · ·Q.· ·And who are you a cofounder with?
11· · · ·A.· ·A gentleman by the name of Adam, last name
12· ·Eggebrecht, E-g-g-e-b-r-e-c-h-t.· Very minimal work.
13· ·Nothing ever really became of that group.
14· · · ·Q.· ·It lasted about a year or so?
09:24:40 15· · · ·A.· ·About that, yes, sir.
16· · · ·Q.· ·What was its business?
17· · · ·A.· ·To identify and possibly acquire land to develop
18· ·buildings.
19· · · ·Q.· ·And then you joined Sundt Construction?
09:24:51 20· · · ·A.· ·Correct, sir.
21· · · ·Q.· ·As an engineer?
22· · · ·A.· ·As a similar job to what I did at Gilbane.
23· · · ·Q.· ·Construction management?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
09:24:58 25· · · ·Q.· ·You were there from 2016 to 2018?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 235
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 9


·1· · · ·A.· ·I was.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Now, it appears that you founded Jammon Studios.
·3· ·Am I pronouncing that correctly?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Jammon Studios.· Close enough.· Yes, sir.
09:25:13 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And you founded that in 2018?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·And you were with that entity as an architect and
·8· ·founder for how long?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Still to this day.
09:25:27 10· · · ·Q.· ·So starting in 2018 and still there?
11· · · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
12· · · ·Q.· ·How would you describe Jammon's business?
13· · · ·A.· ·Architectural practice.
14· · · ·Q.· ·Designing what?
09:25:40 15· · · ·A.· ·Residential, commercial, ground-up, and tenant
16· ·improvement projects.
17· · · ·Q.· ·In your work for any of these entities, have you
18· ·had to appear before either a zoning administrator or the
19· ·Board of Adjustment?
09:26:16 20· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · · ·Q.· ·Let's just limit it to Jammon Studios.· How many
22· ·times have you appeared either before the zoning adjustment
23· ·administrator or the Board of Adjustment?
24· · · ·A.· ·Immediate recollection is twice.
09:26:32 25· · · ·Q.· ·Do you remember what it involved?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 236
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 10


·1· · · ·A.· ·A variance for a height of a concrete masonry wall
·2· ·to go from six feet to seven feet, along with the reduction
·3· ·in open space of a property from five percent to three
·4· ·percent.· That was one.
09:26:55 ·5· · · · · · · · ·And if I may please have a moment, I can give
·6· ·you the information on the other.
·7· · · · · · · · ·The other variance was for the increased
·8· ·square footage of a residential property to allow for, I
·9· ·believe, a two or a five percent increase in lot coverage.
09:27:34 10· · · ·Q.· ·How long have you been on the Board of Adjustment?
11· · · ·A.· ·I believe since the very beginning of 2018, the
12· ·last part of 2017.· I believe it was August or September of
13· ·2017.
14· · · ·Q.· ·And that's a four-year term; right?
09:27:53 15· · · ·A.· ·No, sir.· I do not believe it is.
16· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So you still serve?
17· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Do you believe that you -- that you'll be serving
19· ·for some time in the future?
09:28:06 20· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
21· · · ·Q.· ·That's a voluntary position; right?
22· · · ·A.· ·I was appointed, and I accepted.
23· · · ·Q.· ·Who appointed you?
24· · · ·A.· ·Thelda Williams.· Councilmember -- Councilwoman
09:28:31 25· ·Thelda Williams at the time.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 237
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 11


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Was it a position you sought out with her?
·2· · · ·A.· ·No, sir.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Total surprise?
·4· · · ·A.· ·One that was -- yes.
09:28:45 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·Why did you say yes?
·6· · · ·A.· ·I was flattered to have an opportunity to serve
·7· ·the community and sit on this board.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·So we're here regarding a use permit for a digital
·9· ·sign at 5225 East Camelback Road for the Camelback Church
09:29:23 10· ·of Christ.· You understand that; right?
11· · · ·A.· ·I do, yes, sir.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· I've shown you Exhibit 1.· And is that one
13· ·of the documents relating to that permit -- use permit
14· ·application?
09:29:43 15· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · ·Q.· ·In connection with serving on the Board of
17· ·Adjustment, Mr. Ammon, what kind of education or training
18· ·did you receive?
19· · · ·A.· ·I believe it was a few hours of training with the
09:30:18 20· ·zoning administrator, Tricia Gomes, alongside legal
21· ·counsel, Paul Li, City of Phoenix, as a legal
22· ·orientation -- an orientation to the legal proceedings and
23· ·the processes of the work that we will do.
24· · · · · · · · ·(The document was marked as Exhibit 3 for
09:30:59 25· ·identification.)


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 238
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 12


·1· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 2.
·3· · · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·These are the rules of procedure of the Board of
09:31:17 ·5· ·Adjustment, City of Phoenix, Arizona.· You're familiar with
·6· ·these rules?
·7· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir, I am.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·As part of your training and education provided to
·9· ·you by the city, they would have discussed with you these
09:31:29 10· ·rules?
11· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · · ·Q.· ·The rules would govern how the board goes about
13· ·doing its business?
14· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
09:31:42 15· · · ·Q.· ·The training that you received from Tricia Gomes
16· ·and legal counsel, was it -- did it consist, among other
17· ·things, of PowerPoint presentations or written materials
18· ·provided to you?
19· · · ·A.· ·I would like to better understand the question.
09:32:04 20· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
21· · · ·A.· ·May I ask you a question?· Or do you ask --
22· · · ·Q.· ·Let me ask a better question.· And if I still
23· ·fail, then we can go back and forth.
24· · · · · · · · ·So in terms of what was provided to you in
09:32:16 25· ·connection with the training or education, do you recall?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 239
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 13


·1· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·What were you provided?
·3· · · ·A.· ·The explanation of the type of materials that
·4· ·could be presented to us by appellant opposition or the
09:32:31 ·5· ·people that will be presenting to the Board of Adjustments,
·6· ·understanding that there would be oral presentations by
·7· ·people, along with visual documents that could be in the
·8· ·form of a PowerPoint presentation, a PDF or a video.· It
·9· ·was explained to us that that's the information we should
09:32:49 10· ·anticipate to receive during our board process.
11· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So my question was really going at a
12· ·different angle.
13· · · · · · · · ·In the form that was provided to you by the
14· ·city to educate you or train you to serve in the role on
09:33:08 15· ·the Board of Adjustment, do you remember what form that
16· ·took?
17· · · ·A.· ·I do.
18· · · ·Q.· ·What do you remember?
19· · · ·A.· ·A binder in which we walked through the types of
09:33:19 20· ·presentations that we would see, documentation that would
21· ·be provided to us, and examples of.
22· · · ·Q.· ·So let's look at Exhibit 2.· And if you could go
23· ·to the second page, Roman numeral IV.· It talks about the
24· ·information to be provided, evidence, legal memoranda, and
09:33:47 25· ·other statements to be provided by the parties to the


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 240
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 14


·1· ·proceeding to you.
·2· · · · · · · · ·Now, at the -- it's at the bottom of that
·3· ·second page.· It's called evidence.· Do you see it?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· Sorry.
09:33:59 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·That's all right.
·6· · · ·A.· ·Okay.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·So this talks about the -- you talked a moment
·8· ·ago, Mr. Ammon, about what the city staff anticipated with
·9· ·you as to the kinds of things you would be provided.
09:34:14 10· · · · · · · · ·And the Roman numeral IV talks about the
11· ·evidence.· You understood the evidence to include legal
12· ·memoranda, written statements, other evidence; true?
13· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · · ·Q.· ·And you understood that the evidence that would be
09:34:27 15· ·provided to you by the parties to the proceeding would need
16· ·to be provided ten days in advance of the scheduled
17· ·hearing; correct?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
19· · · ·Q.· ·And did you also understand that the decision to
09:34:41 20· ·be made by the board would be limited to the evidence
21· ·provided to you by the applicants and the opposition to the
22· ·applicant?
23· · · ·A.· ·I did.
24· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Let me take you to the next page.· Roman
09:35:01 25· ·numeral V, Hearings and decisions.· A little over halfway


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 241
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 15


·1· ·down that page.
·2· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·There's a hearing appeal by applicant.· Now, in
·4· ·this instance, Bootz & Duke Sign Company was appealing the
09:35:20 ·5· ·decision by the zoning adjustment administrator; right?· Or
·6· ·hearing officer; right?
·7· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·And so you would have, based on your understanding
·9· ·of how these proceedings were to work, anticipated that
09:35:38 10· ·whatever evidence the board was to consider would be
11· ·provided to you either by Bootz & Duke, in this case the
12· ·appellant, or by the Arcadia homeowners who were opposing
13· ·the application?
14· · · ·A.· ·That is correct.
09:35:56 15· · · ·Q.· ·Let's look at Exhibit 3.· Did this document -- or
16· ·does this document look familiar to you as a form of a
17· ·presentation that would have been provided to you by the
18· ·city in terms of training you and other board members?
19· · · ·A.· ·It does.
09:36:20 20· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And the date of this document is August 30,
21· ·2018.
22· · · · · · · · ·For the record, my client obtained this
23· ·through a public records request.· And I believe it to be
24· ·an authentic document and record from the City of Phoenix.
09:36:42 25· ·It's dated August 30, 2018, which I think would be in the


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 242
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 16


·1· ·time frame when you were a member of the Board of
·2· ·Adjustment.· Would that be fair?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·So is it likely that the presentation embodied in
09:36:58 ·5· ·Exhibit 3 would be an accurate representation of what you
·6· ·were being told, educated about, trained to do as a member
·7· ·of the Board of Adjustment?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·If we go to the -- these pages aren't numbered, so
09:37:20 10· ·let's go to the fourth page of the document.
11· · · · · · · · ·So the top, it says, Legislative versus
12· ·quasi-judicial.· Do you see that?
13· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
14· · · ·Q.· ·And you understood that you, as a board member,
09:37:39 15· ·might be engaged in your formal or official duties both in
16· ·dealing with legislative issues and dealing with
17· ·quasi-judicial issues; correct?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
19· · · ·Q.· ·And the hearing that we're here today about would
09:37:53 20· ·be a quasi-judicial proceeding; correct?
21· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · · ·Q.· ·What do you understand that to mean, something
23· ·being quasi-judicial?
24· · · ·A.· ·Something that was similar to a judgment and a
09:38:08 25· ·ruling that would be enforced or carried out by the group


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 243
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 17


·1· ·that would receive that ruling.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Like a legal proceeding?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·And you and the other members of the board would
09:38:27 ·5· ·be serving as decision-makers or judges for that
·6· ·proceeding?
·7· · · ·A.· ·That is correct.· Yes, sir.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·If you look at the next page, Mr. Ammon, under the
·9· ·column quasi-judicial, it says that ex parte communications
09:38:43 10· ·are not allowed.· Do you see that?
11· · · ·A.· ·I do.
12· · · ·Q.· ·You understood that that was something that was
13· ·prohibited; that is, ex parte communications with
14· ·participants in a hearing before you?
09:38:56 15· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · ·Q.· ·What do you understand ex parte to mean?
17· · · ·A.· ·To be -- not to be looking and using information
18· ·outside of what has been provided.
19· · · ·Q.· ·If it were to relate to a communication between
09:39:22 20· ·you and an individual, would ex parte capture this idea
21· ·that the communication would be about the subject matter of
22· ·a proceeding but outside the actual proceeding?
23· · · ·A.· ·Most respectfully, I don't fully understand the
24· ·question.· I apologize.
09:39:42 25· · · ·Q.· ·That's all right.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 244
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 18


·1· · · · · · · · ·We, as lawyers, run into this concept, but
·2· ·it's probably foreign to non-lawyers.· But frequently ex
·3· ·parte means kind of outside the proceedings, outside the
·4· ·formal legal proceedings.
09:39:59 ·5· · · · · · · · ·So did you understand that you were not to
·6· ·engage in communications outside of the formal proceedings
·7· ·with folks who were involved in the proceedings?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Absolutely.· Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Now, going farther down on that page, the heading,
09:40:16 10· ·Evidence and testimony, I'll read the bullet point.
11· · · · · · · · ·[Reading] Decisions are based only on the
12· ·testimony and evidence presented at the hearing.
13· · · · · · · · ·Did you understand that to be the case?
14· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
09:40:26 15· · · ·Q.· ·And that's what you had been taught by legal
16· ·counsel and Ms. Gomes?
17· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
18· · · ·Q.· ·If we could go a few pages back.· I think it's
19· ·three pages back.· There's a heading, Use permit criteria.
09:40:51 20· ·Do you see that?
21· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
22· · · ·Q.· ·All right.· Take a moment and look at that.
23· · · · · · · · ·Is this generally what you understand to be
24· ·the criteria that the Board of Adjustment was to apply in
09:41:06 25· ·the case where someone is seeking a use permit?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 245
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 19


·1· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And you knew that this was the criteria
·3· ·that would be applied in this instance where Bootz & Duke,
·4· ·as an appellant, were challenging the zoning
09:41:21 ·5· ·administrator's decision?
·6· · · ·A.· ·I did, yes.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Do you have to take any refresher courses or any
·8· ·updating of training or educating as it relates to your
·9· ·responsibility as a Board of Adjustment member?
09:41:46 10· · · ·A.· ·At this time, no.
11· · · ·Q.· ·So would the only training you have had relative
12· ·to serving in that role be what training you got in 2018?
13· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · · ·Q.· ·And do you think that the training you got is
09:42:00 15· ·embodied in Exhibit 3?
16· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Do you think there was anything else beyond
18· ·Exhibit 3 that would have been shared with you either by
19· ·Ms. Gomes or counsel?
09:42:08 20· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· I would advise the witness not
21· ·to reveal any attorney-client privileged communications in
22· ·answering that question.
23· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Would you ask -- please ask the
24· ·question one more time?
09:42:18 25· ·///


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 246
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 20


·1· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Sure.
·3· · · · · · · · ·In connection with the training or education
·4· ·you received from the city; that is, legal counsel and
09:42:29 ·5· ·Ms. Gomes, in connection with your role on the Board of
·6· ·Adjustment, do you think that there were any other
·7· ·materials or information provided to you outside of what's
·8· ·in Exhibit 3?
·9· · · ·A.· ·No.
09:42:41 10· · · ·Q.· ·At one point in the record -- and when you say
11· ·minutes, you're talking about the formal written record of
12· ·what occurred at the proceeding?
13· · · ·A.· ·That is correct.· Yes, sir.
14· · · ·Q.· ·We're going to look at that in a moment.
09:43:00 15· · · · · · · · ·You indicate, and the statements you made on
16· ·the record is that you were very familiar with that section
17· ·of Camelback Road.· Would that be a true statement?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
19· · · ·Q.· ·There were -- also, are you familiar with the
09:43:17 20· ·Arcadia neighborhood both south and north of Camelback
21· ·Road?
22· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · · ·Q.· ·And how do you have that familiarity?
24· · · ·A.· ·Moved to Phoenix when I was ten, started driving
09:43:30 25· ·when I was 16.· I grew up in the north central area.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 247
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 21


·1· ·Friends of mine lived in the Arcadia area.· To this day,
·2· ·colleagues and friends live in the Arcadia area.· And I
·3· ·commute up and down Camelback.
·4· · · · · · · · ·And over the course of years, you get quite
09:43:49 ·5· ·exposed to both the residential and the commercial area
·6· ·specifically.· And there's a number of discussions I've had
·7· ·with clients and potential clients around that area as
·8· ·well.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Are you familiar with where Hopi primary
09:44:07 10· ·school is?
11· · · ·A.· ·Not the specific street address and the
12· ·intersection, but yes, I have driven by it a number of
13· ·times.
14· · · ·Q.· ·There were some references in the record,
09:44:18 15· ·specifically by Bootz & Duke, to the signage that appears
16· ·at Hopi Elementary School.· Did you review that signage
17· ·before the formal hearing?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.· I did.
19· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Did you have any impressions based on your
09:44:32 20· ·review of that sign?
21· · · ·A.· ·I did.
22· · · ·Q.· ·What were the impression?
23· · · ·A.· ·That that sign for Hopi is a larger, higher
24· ·profile sign than the one that was part of the appellant's
09:44:46 25· ·presentation and proposal.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 248
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 22


·1· · · ·Q.· ·So you know this, and this became an issue in the
·2· ·public record.· When we talk about high profile and low
·3· ·profile, it can be kind of an ambiguous term, so let me try
·4· ·to explore that with you.
09:45:00 ·5· · · ·A.· ·Sure.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Did you look at the size of what would be called
·7· ·the digital display on that sign?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And did you compare the size of that
09:45:12 10· ·digital display on the Hopi sign to what was being
11· ·presented as an application by the church, the Camelback
12· ·Church of Christ?
13· · · ·A.· ·I did.
14· · · ·Q.· ·What were your conclusions based on that?
09:45:27 15· · · ·A.· ·That one was -- one was that Hopi was larger and
16· ·taller than the other and that -- perhaps I didn't answer
17· ·the question as well as I could have.· Excuse me.
18· · · · · · · · ·My conclusion was that the Hopi sign in total
19· ·was larger and of a, quote/unquote, higher profile than
09:45:50 20· ·what was being presented at the Camelback sign, not
21· ·specific to the digital sign and its relationship in its
22· ·dimensions and measurement.
23· · · ·Q.· ·I understand, I think.· Let me make sure.
24· · · · · · · · ·You're saying you really didn't compare the
09:46:08 25· ·size of the digital display at Hopi to what was being


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 249
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 23


·1· ·presented by Bootz & Duke in the hearing?
·2· · · ·A.· ·That is correct.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·So when you talk about profile, you're really
·4· ·talking about the monument that existed in which the
09:46:24 ·5· ·digital display was housed?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.· That is correct.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·And so that monument at Hopi is taller than what
·8· ·was contemplated by the application?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
09:46:39 10· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Do you think that a signage for a public
11· ·entity like a primary school is comparable to what a church
12· ·would be seeking from the Board of Adjustment?
13· · · ·A.· ·Depending on the size of the church and size of
14· ·the school, I do believe that they can be comparable.· And
09:47:13 15· ·by size of church, I mean number of congregants, attendees.
16· · · ·Q.· ·Does the amount of street-front footage matter in
17· ·your analysis?
18· · · ·A.· ·If it is in line with the laws and the codes --
19· ·zoning codes of the City of Phoenix, then I would follow
09:47:35 20· ·what the City of Phoenix allows.
21· · · · · · · · ·(The document was marked as Exhibit 4 for
22· ·identification.)
23· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
24· · · ·Q.· ·Showing you Exhibit 4 to your deposition,
09:48:05 25· ·Mr. Ammon.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 250
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 24


·1· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·This is the zoning adjustment hearing officer's
·3· ·decision.· You've seen it before?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
09:48:15 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·And did you review this document before the public
·6· ·hearing on the application which is embodied in Exhibit 1?
·7· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.· I did.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·And you understood that the zoning adjustment
·9· ·hearing officer had denied the application by Bootz & Duke?
09:48:37 10· · · ·A.· ·I did.
11· · · ·Q.· ·You understood, among other things, that part of
12· ·the reason for the denial was -- well, in fact, we can look
13· ·at it together.
14· · · · · · · · ·If you look on the first page, paragraph 3,
09:48:53 15· ·it reads, Granting of the use permits may have a negative
16· ·impact on the surrounding area and will not contribute in a
17· ·measurable way the downgrading of property values.
18· · · · · · · · ·Then the next sentence, Although similar,
19· ·generally smaller electronic message displays have been
09:49:09 20· ·approved at churches in less character-driven parts of
21· ·Phoenix.· The proposed sign is not compatible at this
22· ·location within the Arizona Camelback Special District
23· ·(ACSD) adopted in 1999.
24· · · · · · · · ·Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
09:49:27 25· · · ·A.· ·I disagree with that statement.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 251
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 25


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Why?
·2· · · ·A.· ·Because I do not believe it has a negative impact
·3· ·on the surrounding area, because I do not believe that the
·4· ·amount of light emitted exceeds that of ambient conditions
09:49:45 ·5· ·and therefore qualifies for the granting of the use permit.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Are you aware of any other digital signs or signs
·7· ·that produce the amount of light that this sign would
·8· ·between 44th Street and 68th Street on Camelback Road --
·9· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Foundation.
09:50:07 10· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
11· · · ·Q.· ·-- if you know?
12· · · ·A.· ·I do not believe there are any.
13· · · ·Q.· ·The next -- let's go to the next page.
14· · · · · · · · ·Go down about nine lines.· There's a sentence
09:50:29 15· ·that begins, All signage.
16· · · ·A.· ·This is off of that first paragraph?
17· · · ·Q.· ·This is on the first paragraph.
18· · · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
19· · · ·Q.· ·Are you there?
09:50:38 20· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
21· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· It reads, All signage should be "low
22· ·profile and in keeping with the character of the Arcadia
23· ·area."· At eight feet high by ten feet wide, the sign
24· ·cannot be considered "low profile."· It is larger than
09:50:57 25· ·other EMD signs approved for churches recently at zoning


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 252
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 26


·1· ·adjustment hearings.· Its location, electronic message
·2· ·display, and gray and white design (plus message display)
·3· ·are not inconsistent with area character.
·4· · · · · · · · ·Did I read that correctly?
09:51:13 ·5· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
·7· · · ·A.· ·I disagree.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Why?
·9· · · ·A.· ·The design review that occurred at the City of
09:51:23 10· ·Phoenix with this project in order for it to get its permit
11· ·beforehand was reviewed by the city and moved forward and
12· ·approved.· And I felt as though that the design was in
13· ·keeping with what was reviewed by the city.
14· · · ·Q.· ·But your determination on a use permit included
09:51:42 15· ·this concept of whether it was consistent with the
16· ·character of the area; correct?
17· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
18· · · ·Q.· ·That really goes beyond what the sign permit was
19· ·about; right?
09:51:50 20· · · ·A.· ·It does.
21· · · ·Q.· ·So you understood that was -- part of your
22· ·responsibility was to evaluate how this fits or does not
23· ·fit within the character of the Arcadia area?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
09:52:00 25· · · ·Q.· ·Do you understand what the term extra record


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 253
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 27


·1· ·means?
·2· · · ·A.· ·At this time, no.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· You've never heard the term extra record
·4· ·relating to, in terms of a legal proceeding or a hearing
09:52:24 ·5· ·such as the one we're here about today, where evidence or
·6· ·information is provided that's outside of the record
·7· ·developed by the parties?· You never heard that term?
·8· · · ·A.· ·I have heard that term, yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Do you understand the term extra record as
09:52:43 10· ·it relates to these proceedings we're here about today?
11· · · ·A.· ·I'm still a little confused, respectfully.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· What are you confused about?
13· · · ·A.· ·Whether or not this is -- if extra record has to
14· ·do with additional information that was provided by either
09:53:01 15· ·party or if extra record is something that someone on the
16· ·board looks up or drives by or looks at Google Earth. I
17· ·don't understand extra record in terms of this
18· ·conversation.
19· · · ·Q.· ·All right.· So we looked a moment ago at
09:53:22 20· ·Exhibit 2, which is the rules of procedure of the Board of
21· ·Adjustment, which provides that the parties are to provide
22· ·ten days in advance the evidence that they intend to use at
23· ·the hearing; right?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
09:53:38 25· · · ·Q.· ·Would -- in your view, evidence that's first


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 254
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 28


·1· ·provided at the hearing that is not ten days before the
·2· ·hearing, would that be extra record?
·3· · · ·A.· ·I believe that to be extra record.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·When we use the word evidence, we're talking about
09:53:58 ·5· ·factual information that would be presented to and reviewed
·6· ·by the board in its determining whether or not to grant the
·7· ·relief requested?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·When the zoning adjustment hearing officer talked
09:54:35 10· ·about high profile versus low profile as it relates to
11· ·signage, in your definition, how would you distinguish high
12· ·profile from low profile?
13· · · ·A.· ·A size of monument and height comparison of two
14· ·separate signs.
09:54:56 15· · · ·Q.· ·Not the size or luminescence or glare of the
16· ·digital portion of that sign?
17· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Did you say yes?
19· · · ·A.· ·Would you please ask that one more time?
09:55:16 20· · · ·Q.· ·Let me back up, because I just want to be clear
21· ·about this.
22· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
23· · · ·Q.· ·When you're talking about high profile versus low
24· ·profile, in your view, that's a function of how big the
09:55:30 25· ·monument of the sign is, the size of the overall structure;


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 255
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 29


·1· ·correct?
·2· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·High profile or low profile, in your view, does
·4· ·not relate to the amount of luminescence or glow of a
09:55:46 ·5· ·digital sign or the size of that digital sign?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Although I could be wrong, that is correct.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Why do you say you could be wrong?
·8· · · ·A.· ·There could be a definition -- standard definition
·9· ·of industry signage companies that qualify what constitutes
09:56:09 10· ·a high-profile versus a low-profile sign that could be more
11· ·than monument size and might very well include
12· ·luminescence, other numbers.
13· · · ·Q.· ·So I'm going to show you the reporter's transcript
14· ·of the Board of Adjustment hearing.
09:56:26 15· · · · · · · · ·(The document was marked as Exhibit 5 for
16· ·identification.)
17· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
18· · · ·Q.· ·So let me ask you, Mr. Ammon, before the hearing
19· ·on -- let me back up.
09:56:51 20· · · · · · · · ·Exhibit Number 5 is the reporter's
21· ·transcript.· Earlier in your testimony you talked about
22· ·having reviewed the minutes of the meeting.· And this is
23· ·what you were referring to; right?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
09:57:04 25· · · ·Q.· ·Exhibit 5.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 256
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 30


·1· · · · · · · · ·And you understood that this was a
·2· ·transcription of what occurred at the hearing?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·Why did you review Exhibit 5 before you came to
09:57:23 ·5· ·your deposition?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Seemed like a prudent direction to familiarize
·7· ·myself with what was communicated during the time of this
·8· ·hearing.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Let me ask you to go to page 24.· This begins
09:57:56 10· ·line 10 on page 24.· Are you there?
11· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Board Member Ammon -- that's you -- says, For the
13· ·gentleman that just spoke, everybody, thank you again for
14· ·all your presentations and points.
09:58:17 15· · · · · · · · ·Do you recall that when you spoke, both
16· ·parties; that is, Bootz & Duke and the Arcadia homeowners,
17· ·had both made their presentations?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · · ·Q.· ·And by that, the process is one where the
09:58:33 20· ·appellant, in this case Bootz & Duke, is provided a certain
21· ·amount of time to present its case; and then the opposition
22· ·in this case, the Arcadia homeowners, had an opportunity to
23· ·present their view; and then Bootz & Duke then has a
24· ·rebuttal opportunity; correct?
09:58:50 25· · · ·A.· ·Yes.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 257
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 31


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know that after those presentations are
·2· ·made, the microphones are muted; that is, those folks can
·3· ·no longer speak unless given the opportunity by the city?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
09:59:02 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·So do you know that after the Arcadia homeowners
·6· ·association's representative, Tristahn Schaub, did his
·7· ·presentation for ten minutes, then the city muted his
·8· ·microphone?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
09:59:20 10· · · ·Q.· ·And page 24, you say, Everybody, thank you again
11· ·for all of your presentations and points.· I'm looking at
12· ·the Bootz & Duke -- Bootz & Duke website, and I know it's
13· ·not -- I can't bring it up on this page or anything like
14· ·that, but I'm looking at some of your other church signs
09:59:43 15· ·and things like that.· It looks like the St. Luke's
16· ·Catholic Church, that one was done.· That was a digital
17· ·sign that was a little smaller.· It certainly would have
18· ·been nice to see some church signs up in comparison.
19· · · · · · · · ·Did I read that correctly?
10:00:02 20· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
21· · · ·Q.· ·And so you're reflecting at this point in the
22· ·hearing that you are actually doing a search of the Bootz &
23· ·Duke website?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
10:00:11 25· · · ·Q.· ·Let me ask you: Before the hearing on February 3,


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 258
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 32


·1· ·2022, for which these minutes were generated, did you
·2· ·review any other information that was extra record or
·3· ·outside of the record presented by the parties?
·4· · · ·A.· ·No, I did not.
10:00:36 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Did you look at the Bootz & Duke website
·6· ·before the hearing?
·7· · · ·A.· ·No, I did not.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·And when you looked at the Bootz & Duke website --
·9· ·let me rephrase that.
10:00:49 10· · · · · · · · ·Why did you look at the Bootz & Duke website?
11· · · ·A.· ·Because I was looking -- let's see, how do I say
12· ·this?
13· · · · · · · · ·As I have had stated on the record, it
14· ·certainly would have been nice to see some church signs up
10:01:17 15· ·in comparison.· To best -- to come to the most prudent
16· ·decision, I wanted to see other signs completed by -- other
17· ·church signs that are digital, as I did not see them in
18· ·either presentations.
19· · · ·Q.· ·Did you know by doing so you would be favoring the
10:02:01 20· ·Bootz & Duke efforts to get the sign approved?
21· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.· You can
22· ·answer.
23· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I did not know.
24· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
10:02:09 25· · · ·Q.· ·But in your judgment, you had determined that


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 259
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 33


·1· ·Bootz & Duke had fallen short of fully informing you as to
·2· ·what a church sign would look like that was the subject of
·3· ·the application?
·4· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
10:02:23 ·5· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I did.· And I also did not see
·6· ·that in opposition's view -- in opposition's presentation
·7· ·either.
·8· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Do you recall that the opposition, Arcadia
10:02:34 10· ·homeowners, did provide some examples of signage that were
11· ·created by Bootz & Duke?
12· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
13· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· You're just saying you didn't see something
14· ·for a church?· Is that the distinction you're drawing?
10:02:45 15· · · ·A.· ·Of a similar size, a similar height sign of a
16· ·similar low-profile sign, per my understanding of the
17· ·definition of low profile.
18· · · ·Q.· ·So you're at that point supplementing the
19· ·information provided to the board by the Bootz & Duke
10:03:05 20· ·party?
21· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
22· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I was, yes.
23· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
24· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Because you felt that the record that they
10:03:11 25· ·were creating by their presentation was inadequate for the


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 260
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 34


·1· ·board to make a decision?
·2· · · ·A.· ·Even though I would have come to the same
·3· ·conclusion based off of the information that was provided
·4· ·to us, I did want to see additional information.
10:03:30 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·Because you still had questions as to what this
·6· ·sign would actually look like in this location on Camelback
·7· ·Road?
·8· · · ·A.· ·I wanted to get a better understanding of the
·9· ·scale and scope of what the image would look like in real
10:03:49 10· ·life as opposed to a computer rendering that was seen on a
11· ·screen as a drawing in comparison to a real example in an
12· ·image or a drive-by or something like that.
13· · · ·Q.· ·Because you thought that that would help inform or
14· ·educate you in making your decision regarding the
10:04:12 15· ·application?
16· · · ·A.· ·Supplementally.· But as I said very candidly, I
17· ·do -- I would still have come to the same conclusion.
18· · · ·Q.· ·You say that now, frankly, but you felt the need
19· ·to do this notwithstanding the fact that you knew that that
10:04:30 20· ·was outside of the record; right?
21· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
22· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
23· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
24· · · ·Q.· ·So you say you would have made the same decision,
10:04:44 25· ·yet you felt compelled to do this extra research as related


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 261
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 35


·1· ·to the decision so you would feel comfortable about the
·2· ·decision; fair?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·But the information that you found -- let me back
10:04:57 ·5· ·up.
·6· · · · · · · · ·When you went on the website, Mr. Ammon, did
·7· ·the digital sign for the church appear immediately upon
·8· ·getting to the website or did you have to search for
·9· ·something like the St. Luke's sign?
10:05:11 10· · · ·A.· ·Click church signs, up came images.· It did not
11· ·appear immediately.
12· · · ·Q.· ·So you think it was church signs versus digital
13· ·display signs?
14· · · ·A.· ·From what I remember, I had to search.
10:05:23 15· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Do you remember how -- how many times you
16· ·had to click in order to get from first arriving at the
17· ·Bootz & Duke website to the point of locating the specific
18· ·example of the St. Luke's sign?
19· · · ·A.· ·To the best of my knowledge, two clicks.
10:05:45 20· · · ·Q.· ·You felt that this information was valuable to
21· ·your determination as to whether to grant the use permit or
22· ·not; true?
23· · · ·A.· ·No, sir.· Not particularly.
24· · · ·Q.· ·I keep coming back -- why go through the exercise
10:06:06 25· ·if you don't think it's helpful?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 262
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 36


·1· · · ·A.· ·Much of my job and my responsibilities is to be
·2· ·detail-oriented and, out of curiosity, to get an
·3· ·understanding of what the sign could look like in its
·4· ·visual real form in the real world.
10:06:35 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·So being detail-oriented, you felt that this was
·6· ·detail that was important in you making your decision; that
·7· ·is, the detail from the example of a sign on Bootz & Duke's
·8· ·website?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
10:06:53 10· · · ·Q.· ·All right.· Now, if you need to refer back to
11· ·Exhibit 3, you understood that the decisions by the Board
12· ·of Adjustment were, specifically by rule and procedure, to
13· ·be based only on the testimony and the evidence presented
14· ·at the hearing; correct?
10:07:09 15· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
16· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's correct.
17· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
18· · · ·Q.· ·And did you understand by going onto the Bootz &
19· ·Duke website and introducing that information about the
10:07:19 20· ·sign, you were bringing in evidence outside of the
21· ·testimony and evidence presented at the hearing?
22· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
23· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· As a lapse in judgment and
24· ·error, yes.
10:07:36 25· ·///


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 263
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 37


·1· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Sitting here today, do you think you violated the
·3· ·rules and procedures of the City of Phoenix as it relates
·4· ·to the process and procedure for the Board of Adjustment?
10:07:47 ·5· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
·6· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· By the strict letter of the
·7· ·law, yes.
·8· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·9· · · ·Q.· ·So the information that you did locate that you
10:08:00 10· ·thought was helpful to you; that is, an actual digital sign
11· ·being utilized by a church, did you share that information
12· ·with the other board members?
13· · · ·A.· ·No, I did not.
14· · · ·Q.· ·You didn't do it even after the hearing?
10:08:13 15· · · ·A.· ·No.
16· · · ·Q.· ·And you didn't share it with the Arcadia
17· ·homeowners; right?
18· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
19· · · ·Q.· ·There's a point in the minutes or -- or the
10:08:25 20· ·transcript of the proceedings where you conclude -- the
21· ·part that I read is on page 24, and you can go back and
22· ·look at it.
23· · · · · · · · ·Lines 10 through 20, you say, It looks like
24· ·the St. Luke's Catholic Church, that one was done.· That
10:08:45 25· ·was a digital sign that was a little smaller.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 264
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 38


·1· · · · · · · · ·Then you go on.
·2· · · · · · · · ·[Reading] It certainly would have been nice
·3· ·to see some church signs up in comparison.
·4· · · · · · · · ·Let me break that down into two parts.· The
10:09:00 ·5· ·first part is, you concluded on your own review of this
·6· ·website information that no one else in the room was seeing
·7· ·that the St. Luke's digital sign was smaller than the one
·8· ·that was the subject of the application by the Camelback
·9· ·church; correct?
10:09:18 10· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · · ·Q.· ·Were you able to discern that just by looking at
12· ·the website?
13· · · ·A.· ·I believe I was.
14· · · ·Q.· ·But wasn't it just a picture?
10:09:30 15· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · ·Q.· ·Did it have the dimensions of the sign?
17· · · ·A.· ·No, sir.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Did it have the surrounding area so you can check
19· ·proportion or dimensions vis-a-vis the surrounding area?
10:09:41 20· · · ·A.· ·From what I recall with the sidewalk, plants in
21· ·front, some detail from what I recall, my estimate is that
22· ·I was able to get an idea of the size of the scale, being
23· ·that much of what I do on a day-to-day basis is individual
24· ·feel.
10:10:04 25· · · ·Q.· ·So you saw a visual image on the Bootz & Duke


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 265
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 39


·1· ·website of a church sign, and based on your sense of scale,
·2· ·concluded that it was smaller than the applicant's or
·3· ·the -- the church that was -- I'm sorry.· Let me rephrase
·4· ·that.
10:10:24 ·5· · · · · · · · ·You concluded, upon your visual review of the
·6· ·sign, the picture of the St. Luke's sign contained on the
·7· ·Bootz & Duke website, that looking at the picture, it was
·8· ·smaller than the sign that was the subject of the hearing?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· And even though the -- there was not a
10:10:53 10· ·question noted in my record, Mr. Gibson's response had
11· ·communicated that height of the board as well.
12· · · ·Q.· ·So let me just ask you: The introduction of this
13· ·evidence that was outside of the record, do you think that
14· ·was fair to the Arcadia homeowners?
10:11:18 15· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
16· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· No, I do not.
17· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
18· · · ·Q.· ·And when it becomes a situation where you're
19· ·bringing in new evidence, then the parties ought to have an
10:11:33 20· ·opportunity to respond to that, don't you think?
21· · · ·A.· ·Absolutely.· Yes, sir.
22· · · ·Q.· ·But the Arcadia homeowners didn't have an
23· ·opportunity to respond to this new evidence, did it?
24· · · ·A.· ·Regrettably, no.· They did not.
10:11:45 25· · · ·Q.· ·But Bootz & Duke did have an opportunity because


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 266
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 40


·1· ·their mic was still on, and then you allowed them to talk
·2· ·specifically about this extra-record evidence; right?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·And I don't recall the gentleman's name, but the
10:11:59 ·5· ·individual from Bootz & Duke who was a presenter -- I think
·6· ·it's Mr. Gibson -- talked about the fact that he was
·7· ·familiar with this sign; right?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·But we don't today even know whether he was
10:12:14 10· ·telling the truth or whether the two signs were similar or
11· ·not, do we?
12· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
13· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· As he was under oath, I would
14· ·hope that he would be speaking the truth.
10:12:24 15· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
16· · · ·Q.· ·We both know that people being under oath don't
17· ·always tell the truth; right, unfortunately?
18· · · ·A.· ·Unfortunately.
19· · · ·Q.· ·So not only were you introducing extra-record
10:12:35 20· ·evidence that Arcadia homeowners didn't get an opportunity
21· ·to review or respond to, but you also were giving the sign
22· ·company an opportunity to talk extemporaneously about that
23· ·extra-record evidence; right?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
10:12:48 25· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 267
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 41


·1· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·2· · · ·Q.· ·So the information that you gathered from the
·3· ·Bootz & Duke website, was that ever shared with the other
·4· ·members of the board?
10:12:59 ·5· · · ·A.· ·No, it was not.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Could you have -- if you talked to Ms. Gomes or
·7· ·the people in the room, could you have taken a break or
·8· ·taken an opportunity to share that information so that it
·9· ·formally became a part of the record so the parties could
10:13:16 10· ·address it?
11· · · ·A.· ·No, I do not believe we could have.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So let's go to -- let me ask a question,
13· ·because you just mentioned Mr. Gibson's comments a moment
14· ·ago.
10:13:40 15· · · · · · · · ·When you raised this issue of St. Luke's sign
16· ·being similar but smaller on the record, you recall that
17· ·testimony; right?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes, I do.
19· · · ·Q.· ·He -- Mr. Gibson shared with you that he knew that
10:13:55 20· ·sign and then talked about it; correct?
21· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · · ·Q.· ·Have you ever independently, up to today, ever
23· ·determined whether the signs were similar in size?
24· · · ·A.· ·No.
10:14:13 25· · · ·Q.· ·You know that the sign, the St. Luke's Catholic


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 268
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 42


·1· ·Church sign was located on 7th Avenue?· Do you know that?
·2· · · ·A.· ·South of the 101, yes, sir.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Have you ever driven by or looked at that?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes, I have.
10:14:24 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·Did you do that after the hearing or before the
·6· ·hearing?
·7· · · ·A.· ·After the hearing.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· To the extent that context, character of
·9· ·neighborhood, those kinds of things were issues before the
10:14:39 10· ·board -- and we know that they were; right?
11· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Giving Arcadia homeowners and the other board
13· ·members an opportunity to review the St. Luke's Catholic
14· ·Church environment, street, traffic, surrounding area would
10:14:58 15· ·have been helpful in the deliberation process; fair?
16· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So let's look at page 30 of the Exhibit 5.
18· · · · · · · · ·I'm kind of summarizing here, but in these
19· ·proceedings involving the sign at Camelback Church of
10:15:37 20· ·Christ, the appellant, Bootz & Duke Sign Company, gave its
21· ·presentation after it had, prior to the hearing, provided
22· ·all the evidence and its written materials to the city;
23· ·right?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
10:15:53 25· · · ·Q.· ·And then the Arcadia homeowners had also presented


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 269
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 43


·1· ·their evidence and their arguments on the record, and then
·2· ·Bootz & Duke then provided rebuttal presentations; correct?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·And then you engaged -- after all the parties had
10:16:19 ·5· ·closed their presentations, then you engaged in what was
·6· ·basically a dialogue between you and Mr. Gibson from Bootz
·7· ·& Duke about this sign at St. Luke's Catholic; correct?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·And then based on all that information -- and I --
10:16:50 10· ·let me step back a minute.
11· · · · · · · · ·You work with these board members all the
12· ·time in the context of handling these kinds of matters
13· ·where you're addressing hearings by applicants, community
14· ·citizens, organizations; fair?
10:17:06 15· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · ·Q.· ·So you've gained a level of trust and respect
17· ·between the board members; fair?
18· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
19· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
10:17:19 20· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
21· · · ·Q.· ·And would you agree with me that you would have
22· ·credibility with the rest of the board if you are
23· ·presenting information based on your own work?
24· · · ·A.· ·Not particularly, no, sir.
10:17:32 25· · · ·Q.· ·Do you think you would not be credible with the


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 270
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 44


·1· ·other board members?
·2· · · ·A.· ·If it's outside the rules of the -- of what we're
·3· ·allowed to do at the Board of Adjustment in terms of
·4· ·gathering additional information outside of what's been
10:17:46 ·5· ·provided to us, and I'm making an error, my assumption is
·6· ·that someone that recognizes my error would know that I was
·7· ·making an error.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·So that assumption is not borne out by the record,
·9· ·is it?
10:18:05 10· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
11· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't quite know.
12· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
13· · · ·Q.· ·Do you recall any board member -- after hearing
14· ·your observations about what was contained on the Bootz &
10:18:16 15· ·Duke website, did any board member say within the context
16· ·of the hearing, that's improper; we can't consider that;
17· ·you shouldn't be doing that?
18· · · ·A.· ·There is one area.· If I may, I would like to
19· ·check in the record before a vote was cast, if I may.
10:18:32 20· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Sure.
21· · · ·A.· ·I'm looking for -- it's possible on page 32 on
22· ·line 20, Board Member Cole.· This is just from my
23· ·recollection.· This could be completely an error and not
24· ·specific to your question, sir.
10:19:28 25· · · ·Q.· ·Aren't these comments by Mr. Cole more relating to


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 271
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 45


·1· ·when the sign would come on and go off?
·2· · · ·A.· ·I believe so.· That was my recollection.
·3· · · · · · · · ·And so in error, if I may, would you please
·4· ·repeat the question.
10:19:40 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·Sure.
·6· · · · · · · · ·You said that you, in effect, made an
·7· ·assumption that if someone disagreed with your having
·8· ·brought in extra-record evidence, they would have said
·9· ·something or observed that it was improper.· Is that your
10:19:56 10· ·testimony?
11· · · ·A.· ·It is possible that is the case.
12· · · ·Q.· ·But my -- my follow-up question was: But the
13· ·record doesn't bear that out; that is, no member of the
14· ·board ever called you out on the fact you were bringing in
10:20:09 15· ·improper evidence to the proceedings; correct?
16· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
17· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's correct.
18· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
19· · · ·Q.· ·Now, Ms. Gomes was in attendance at the hearing;
10:20:21 20· ·correct?
21· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · · ·Q.· ·Did she make any objection or raise any issues
23· ·with respect to this activity where you were bringing in
24· ·extra-record evidence?
10:20:28 25· · · ·A.· ·No, she did not.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 272
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 46


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Was counsel present?· Were there lawyers present
·2· ·from the city there for this hearing?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·Who was there?
10:20:35 ·5· · · ·A.· ·To my knowledge, Mr. Danny Inglese was there and
·6· ·possibly Mr. Paul Li.· But respectfully, I do not recollect
·7· ·if he was or was not there at that time.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Mr. Paul Li is also a city attorney?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
10:20:53 10· · · ·Q.· ·Did either Mr. Inglese or Mr. Li, if he was there,
11· ·raise any objections, either substantive or procedural,
12· ·about you bringing in this outside evidence?
13· · · ·A.· ·As the record states, no.· They did not.
14· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· I'd just like to clarify for
10:21:09 15· ·the court reporter it's Li, L-i.
16· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
17· · · ·Q.· ·So I'm going to go back to the original.· You said
18· ·you made an assumption, but there really is nothing in the
19· ·record that supports the assumption.· Let me go back to the
10:21:25 20· ·earlier question I asked.
21· · · · · · · · ·You having credibility with the other board
22· ·members, sitting here today, do you believe that they would
23· ·trust and respect you if you were to present evidence to
24· ·them about a matter that's the subject of their review?
10:21:43 25· · · ·A.· ·Yes, I do.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 273
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 47


·1· · · ·Q.· ·So do you think that the evidence you were
·2· ·providing from the Bootz & Duke website; that is, the
·3· ·evidence regarding the St. Luke's Catholic sign, was a part
·4· ·of their decision-making process?
10:22:04 ·5· · · ·A.· ·Could have been.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·It may have affected their decision?
·7· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to form and foundation.
·8· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· It may have.
·9· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
10:22:12 10· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· It's hard to reconstruct that now; right?
11· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · · ·Q.· ·And it would be fair to say that they like and
13· ·respect you, so they're not looking to make things
14· ·difficult for you; fair, the other board members?
10:22:30 15· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Foundation.
16· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
17· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
18· · · ·Q.· ·So is it possible that this review you did of the
19· ·Bootz & Duke website affected your decision-making process?
10:22:53 20· · · ·A.· ·It is possible.
21· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Now, if we go to then page 30, line 8,
22· ·you -- you can review if you need to, Mr. Ammon.· But at
23· ·this point, basically all the discussion has occurred?
24· · · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
10:23:14 25· · · ·Q.· ·And I think under normal proceedings then, one of


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 274
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 48


·1· ·the board members would move for a particular result; is
·2· ·that fair, in the proceedings?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·In this case -- I'm reading from the transcript of
10:23:28 ·5· ·your testimony.· You're being asked by the chairman if you
·6· ·have a motion or comments or questions or -- I'm sorry.
·7· · · · · · · · ·He says, I will entertain a motion.
·8· · · · · · · · ·Then you say, I do certainly, in respecting
·9· ·everybody's opinion in the matter, and certainly the zoning
10:23:49 10· ·adjustment hearing officer, but seeing some of the other
11· ·work that's been done, I -- I do actually make a motion to
12· ·overturn the zoning adjustment hearing officer's take on
13· ·this so as to approve the sign.· I approve this to be
14· ·transition, and that is -- that is my motion based off of
10:24:09 15· ·the points that we have heard, and that I do think it meets
16· ·the needs, and it's certainly not detrimental.
17· · · · · · · · ·Did I read that correctly?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
19· · · ·Q.· ·So when you say "but seeing some of the other work
10:24:18 20· ·that's been done," you're referring to the St. Luke's
21· ·Catholic Church sign?
22· · · ·A.· ·No, sir.· I'm not.
23· · · ·Q.· ·Are you looking at the signage that's been done by
24· ·Bootz & Duke?
10:24:31 25· · · ·A.· ·I'm looking at information that was presented to


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 275
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 49


·1· ·us, along with experience with the city and having grown up
·2· ·here and seeing signs and just personal experience and
·3· ·personal knowledge of the -- personal knowledge.
·4· · · · · · · · ·And respectfully, this was made clear at the
10:24:53 ·5· ·following Board of Adjustment meeting where I clarified
·6· ·that statement on the record.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·So let's go back to this statement.
·8· · · · · · · · ·It says, But seeing some of the other work
·9· ·that's been done.
10:25:08 10· · · · · · · · ·What other work are you referring to?
11· · · ·A.· ·The work throughout the city that I had seen that
12· ·I had driven by, and including the work that was seen on
13· ·the Bootz & Duke website.
14· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So when you're talking about the other work
10:25:24 15· ·that's been done, it includes the work that you viewed on
16· ·the Bootz & Duke website?
17· · · ·A.· ·And it -- and it includes additional --
18· ·additional -- it also includes the presentation that was
19· ·given to us by Bootz & Duke.
10:25:44 20· · · ·Q.· ·When you say other work, wouldn't you be saying --
21· ·if you're just talking about the presentations by the
22· ·parties at the hearing, wouldn't you be saying this work?
23· · · ·A.· ·Most respectfully, as you can see, I am quite
24· ·wordy in my explanations, and there's a much more pithy way
10:26:00 25· ·to communicate much of what I say.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 276
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 50


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So you're saying -- but some of the other
·2· ·work that's been done, you're talking about other signs
·3· ·you've seen in the city and the information you got on the
·4· ·Bootz & Duke website?
10:26:15 ·5· · · ·A.· ·And the Hopi Elementary presentation and the Hopi
·6· ·Elementary documentation that was shown to us in our
·7· ·presentation.· And to answer your question, yes.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Have you ever seen this happen -- well, let me ask
·9· ·you: Have you ever engaged in this process of bringing in
10:26:37 10· ·extra-record evidence to a hearing before the Board of
11· ·Adjustment --
12· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
13· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
14· · · ·Q.· ·-- other than this instance?
10:26:44 15· · · ·A.· ·No.
16· · · ·Q.· ·Do you know whether any other board member, in
17· ·your experience, has ever brought in extra-record evidence
18· ·during the hearing -- an ongoing hearing by an applicant?
19· · · ·A.· ·No.
10:27:03 20· · · ·Q.· ·Do you ever do any texting during hearings when
21· ·you're a decision-maker?
22· · · ·A.· ·No.
23· · · ·Q.· ·And do you know whether any of the other board
24· ·members ever do any texting during the board proceedings?
10:27:19 25· · · ·A.· ·No.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 277
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 51


·1· · · ·Q.· ·So the -- are you familiar with the hearing that
·2· ·occurred regarding a marijuana dispensary at 4456 East
·3· ·Thomas Road?
·4· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
10:27:38 ·5· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I believe so, yes.
·6· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·7· · · ·Q.· ·And were you one of the members of the Board of
·8· ·Adjustment that was reviewing the application by the
·9· ·dispensary?
10:27:48 10· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · · ·Q.· ·Do you remember what they were seeking to do?
12· · · ·A.· ·If I am thinking of the correct case, I believe
13· ·they were requesting a variance for a hardship -- due to a
14· ·hardship based off of specific -- searching a hardship --
10:28:12 15· ·for a hardship to get a variance, if I'm thinking of the
16· ·right case.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So the date of the hearing was January 8,
18· ·2021.· So it wasn't that long ago.
19· · · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
10:28:22 20· · · ·Q.· ·And it's ZA-324-20.· And this may refresh your
21· ·memory.
22· · · · · · · · ·Do you remember there being an issue that
23· ·arose in the hearing regarding a gate on the dispensary?
24· · · ·A.· ·I do remember there being a gate associated with
10:28:41 25· ·the presentation.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 278
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 52


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Do you recall you, during the hearing, doing a
·2· ·Google Earth search to determine what the gate looked like
·3· ·and where it was located on the property?
·4· · · ·A.· ·I do.· Yes, sir, I do.
10:28:55 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·Do you recall that you used that information to
·6· ·support your vote in favor of the variance or whatever they
·7· ·were seeking?
·8· · · ·A.· ·I do.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And that was because you felt that the
10:29:07 10· ·presence of the gate then prevented dispensary customers or
11· ·traffic from interfering with the adjacent residential
12· ·parties?
13· · · ·A.· ·I believe so.
14· · · ·Q.· ·Do you remember that there was a condo complex
10:29:21 15· ·adjacent to the dispensary?
16· · · ·A.· ·If it is the condo complex to the north of the
17· ·dispensary, then yes.· The answer to the question is yes.
18· · · ·Q.· ·So your Google Earth search played a role in your
19· ·decision to grant the variance or grant whatever the relief
10:29:37 20· ·being requested was?
21· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
22· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
23· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
24· · · ·Q.· ·Did you share that information with the other
10:29:43 25· ·board members in connection with this application by the


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 279
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 53


·1· ·dispensary?
·2· · · ·A.· ·If -- not having the minutes in front of me and
·3· ·not knowing what was communicated, by sharing,
·4· ·communicating that I had looked and was looking on Google
10:29:57 ·5· ·Earth so as to make the statement, then the answer is yes,
·6· ·I shared information verbally based on what I was looking
·7· ·at.
·8· · · · · · · · ·But in terms of sharing via any digital or
·9· ·face-to-face, then the answer to that question is no.
10:30:11 10· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
11· · · ·Q.· ·So you again, in that instance, were verbally
12· ·providing information to the other board members regarding
13· ·a -- in a hearing for an active application without sharing
14· ·the information with the participants in the hearing?
10:30:29 15· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
16· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I drive many of the sites
17· ·before the cases.· Google Earth takes you there as well. I
18· ·drove that site.· I know that site.· I -- so I guess the
19· ·answer to your question is yes.
10:30:42 20· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
21· · · ·Q.· ·Well, you drove the site, but did you notice where
22· ·the gate was located?
23· · · ·A.· ·Respectfully, I do not recall.
24· · · ·Q.· ·Probably didn't need -- well, do you typically
10:30:53 25· ·drive by the sites that are the subject of the decisions


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 280
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 54


·1· ·that the board has to make?
·2· · · ·A.· ·More than 50 percent of them, yes.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· But you felt the need in this case; that
·4· ·is, the marijuana dispensary case, to do a Google Earth
10:31:10 ·5· ·review because you did not know whether there was a gate or
·6· ·not on the property?
·7· · · ·A.· ·That is correct.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And so once you discovered there was a gate
·9· ·on the property, then you assumed that there would not be
10:31:23 10· ·an adverse impact on the neighbors?
11· · · ·A.· ·That is correct.
12· · · ·Q.· ·Did you know that the neighbors that were impacted
13· ·by this, that residential building contained a business
14· ·office as well?
10:31:35 15· · · ·A.· ·No, I did not know that.
16· · · ·Q.· ·Did you ever learn that the business office
17· ·required the gate to be open during the daylight hours?
18· · · ·A.· ·No, sir.
19· · · ·Q.· ·Would that change your view about whether the
10:31:45 20· ·variance ought to have been granted if you learned that
21· ·that gate wasn't kept closed during the daylight hours?
22· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to form.
23· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· In hindsight, it could have.
24· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
10:31:56 25· · · ·Q.· ·But sitting here today, that's news to you?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 281
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 55


·1· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. DEWULF:· Go off the record.
·4· · · · · · · · ·(An off-the-record discussion ensued.)
10:32:28 ·5· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Do you think, sitting here today, after having
·7· ·served on the Board of Adjustment for four years, that
·8· ·there are ways that the city could improve its support of
·9· ·you in the role as a Board of Adjustment member?
10:32:55 10· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
12· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
13· · · ·Q.· ·How?
14· · · ·A.· ·Sorry.· Yes.
10:32:58 15· · · ·Q.· ·How?
16· · · ·A.· ·Refreshers of rules to follow, clarifications on
17· ·what is and is not permitted, especially in relation to --
18· ·and I say this as clearly as possible -- software that
19· ·virtually immerses us in the location so as to physically
10:33:36 20· ·be present in those spaces.· It's a very important point.
21· · · ·Q.· ·So are you saying that you think a way that the
22· ·city could support you is to provide you such software in
23· ·connection with the performance of your duties?
24· · · ·A.· ·No.· It would be to give us guidance on what is
10:33:52 25· ·and isn't allowed in the use of the software so as to come


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 282
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 56


·1· ·to prudent conclusions for the betterment of the community.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·So you're saying that in connection with the city
·3· ·supporting the Board of Adjustment in its performance of
·4· ·its duties, they could use more clarity in terms of what
10:34:16 ·5· ·can or can't be brought in as evidence and refreshers
·6· ·periodically about that?
·7· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·In your view, as a member of the Board of
·9· ·Adjustment, what is required to uphold a hearing officer's
10:34:38 10· ·decision?
11· · · ·A.· ·To uphold a hearing -- zoning adjustment hearing
12· ·officer's decision is to -- may I look at an exhibit?
13· · · ·Q.· ·You can look at anything you want.
14· · · ·A.· ·I'll be quick with my time here.
10:35:04 15· · · ·Q.· ·You're fine.
16· · · ·A.· ·The question is specific to upholding ZAHO's
17· ·decision?
18· · · ·Q.· ·Yes.
19· · · ·A.· ·Is to either confirm or deny that their decision
10:35:18 20· ·is in line with the granting of the use permit or the
21· ·variances, and to decide whether or not the ZAHO's decision
22· ·is in line with the requirements that need to be met for
23· ·the granting of the use permit variances.
24· · · ·Q.· ·When you say ZAHO --
10:35:39 25· · · ·A.· ·Zoning adjustment hearing officer.· I apologize


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 283
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 57


·1· ·for interrupting you.· Excuse me.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·That's okay.· Most people won't be familiar with
·3· ·that term.
·4· · · ·A.· ·Pardon me.· ZAHO, as I'm referring to, is the
10:35:50 ·5· ·zoning adjustment hearing officer.· I will use zoning
·6· ·adjustment hearing officer from here on out.
·7· · · · · · · · ·MR. DEWULF:· Could you go back and read the
·8· ·answer that he gave?· The lengthy one before the last back
·9· ·and forth.
10· · · · · · · · ·(The record was read by the reporter as
11· ·follows:
12· · · · · · · · ·A.· Is to either confirm or deny that their
13· ·decision is in line with the granting of the use permit or
14· ·the variances, and to decide whether or not the ZAHO's
15· ·decision is in line with the requirements that need to be
16· ·met for the granting of the use permit variances.)
17· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
18· · · ·Q.· ·Let me ask a related question, which is: What do
19· ·you think is required to overturn a hearing officer's
10:36:36 20· ·decision?
21· · · ·A.· ·To disagree with a zoning adjustment hearing
22· ·officer's decision is to decide whether or not the
23· ·application to overturn -- whether or not to decide that
24· ·the zoning adjustment hearing officer's decision did or did
10:37:15 25· ·not meet the requirements for a variance or a use permit to


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 284
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 58


·1· ·be granted.
·2· · · · · · · · ·(The document was marked as Exhibit 6 for
·3· ·identification.)
·4· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
10:37:52 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·I'm showing you Exhibit 6, Mr. Ammon.· And there
·6· ·are two items addressed here.· The first one is,
·7· ·Requirements for granting use permits.· Do you see that?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·And in this case, the Bootz & Duke folks were
10:38:10 10· ·seeking a use permit for Camelback Church of Christ;
11· ·correct?
12· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
13· · · ·Q.· ·And when you talked a moment ago in your testimony
14· ·about the requirements for use permit, are these the
10:38:23 15· ·requirements you're referring to?· This would guide the
16· ·decision by you and the other members of the board as to
17· ·whether or not to grant a use permit?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · · ·Q.· ·And then I guess drawing from that, this would
10:38:42 20· ·also guide whether or not you would affirm the decision by
21· ·the zoning adjustment administrator -- administrative
22· ·officer?
23· · · ·A.· ·That's correct.
24· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.
10:38:58 25· · · · · · · · ·MR. DEWULF:· Let's take a five-minute break.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 285
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 59


·1· ·Let me look at my notes.· I think I'm close to being done.
·2· · · · · · · · ·(A recess ensued.)
·3· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·4· · · ·Q.· ·So I wanted to clarify something.
10:51:49 ·5· · · · · · · · ·At the time of the hearing that is
·6· ·transcribed in Exhibit 5, which is the February 3, 2022,
·7· ·hearing, you did not know anything about the St. Luke's
·8· ·Catholic Church sign other than what you visually saw on
·9· ·the Bootz & Duke website?
10:52:12 10· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
11· · · ·Q.· ·So you really didn't know anything about its
12· ·location, the surrounding environment, the area, anything
13· ·like that; fair?
14· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
10:52:20 15· · · ·Q.· ·So in terms of whether it was an analogous
16· ·situation; that is, the sign at St. Luke's Catholic Church
17· ·on 7th Avenue versus the sign being contemplated for the
18· ·Camelback Church of Christ, you didn't know one way or the
19· ·other?
10:52:35 20· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
21· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· You indicated in your testimony, Mr. Ammon,
22· ·that one of the ways that the city could better support you
23· ·would be, among other things, to refresh you and your
24· ·knowledge and to clarify approaches to things like evidence
10:52:55 25· ·and procedural issues in your performance as a member of


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 286
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 60


·1· ·the Board of Adjustment; correct?
·2· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Have you gotten any sort of additional training,
·4· ·refreshers, updates after the training that you got, which
10:53:14 ·5· ·is reflected in the PowerPoint in Exhibit 3 on August 30,
·6· ·2018?
·7· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· I would caution the witness not
·8· ·to reveal any private conversations with counsel.
·9· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The only additional guidance --
10:53:28 10· ·and I will call it guidance as opposed to training -- was
11· ·as we were transitioning into remote work due to COVID.
12· · · · · · · · ·So getting used to the remote sessions
13· ·included a few conversations with the -- with the zoning
14· ·administrator and Paul Li communicating to us that we would
10:53:53 15· ·be transitioning to remote work.· The details of those
16· ·conversations and what was refreshed and trained,
17· ·respectfully, I do not recall.
18· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
19· · · ·Q.· ·Whatever training that you received in connection
10:54:06 20· ·with working remotely would not have been addressing issues
21· ·of evidence, legal procedure, testimony, those kinds of
22· ·things?
23· · · ·A.· ·That is correct.
24· · · ·Q.· ·All right.· After the events that occurred on
10:54:22 25· ·February 3 in the aftermath of the vote by the board, other


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 287
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 61


·1· ·than communications with counsel, did you talk to anyone
·2· ·else about that hearing?
·3· · · ·A.· ·No, I did not.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· There was a follow-up vote, I guess, in
10:54:40 ·5· ·response to a motion for reconsideration; correct?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Did you talk to any other board members in the
·8· ·context of making a decision on the motion for
·9· ·reconsideration?
10:54:53 10· · · ·A.· ·No.
11· · · ·Q.· ·So when you came -- when you had the vote and the
12· ·motion for reconsideration, the board members did not speak
13· ·among themselves about that decision, but rather each just
14· ·voted separately as to whether they favored or did not
10:55:10 15· ·favor the motion for reconsideration?
16· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
17· · · ·Q.· ·So you never, after the hearing that was
18· ·February 3, 2022, ever spoke to any other board member as
19· ·to the substance of the hearing?
10:55:25 20· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
21· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Correct.
22· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
23· · · ·Q.· ·Sitting here today, and looking back on the
24· ·situation, the hearing and what transpired, do you think
10:55:40 25· ·you would do anything differently?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 288
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 62


·1· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·What would you have done?· Or what would you do?
·3· · · ·A.· ·What I would do is allow for questions of the
·4· ·opposition as opposed to moving right into a motion.
10:56:00 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·Would it have been prudent or fair to perhaps
·6· ·provide a delay or a continuance to allow the parties to
·7· ·specifically address this issue of the Bootz & Duke website
·8· ·and the St. Luke's sign?
·9· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to form.
10:56:20 10· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· No, I don't believe it would
11· ·be.· I can't state the specific ones because I do not
12· ·recall.· We have not had many continuances for reasons
13· ·specific to what you have addressed.
14· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
10:56:35 15· · · ·Q.· ·So I'm thinking about from a fairness standpoint,
16· ·you have the Arcadia homeowners who were caught flatfooted
17· ·regarding this evidence they've never seen or heard about;
18· ·right?
19· · · ·A.· ·Uh-huh.
10:56:45 20· · · ·Q.· ·Yes?
21· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · · ·Q.· ·And you have the appellant, Bootz & Duke, who at
23· ·least purport to know a lot about the St. Luke's Catholic
24· ·sign; correct?
10:56:57 25· · · ·A.· ·Yes.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 289
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 63


·1· · · ·Q.· ·So even if you were to allow on-the-record
·2· ·responses to questions or statements relating to the
·3· ·signage that you introduced into the hearing from the Bootz
·4· ·& Duke website, the Arcadia homeowners would still be at a
10:57:12 ·5· ·disadvantage because they wouldn't have had an opportunity
·6· ·to research whether in fact the sign that you're referring
·7· ·to, the St. Luke's Catholic Church, is analogous to the
·8· ·situation before the board and its decision --
·9· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to form.
10:57:25 10· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
11· · · ·Q.· ·-- right?
12· · · ·A.· ·Based off of the presentation that the Arcadia
13· ·homeowners association gave, they referenced images from
14· ·Bootz & Duke that did not represent other church signs.
10:57:44 15· ·From my recollection, there was a Botox sign, hair removal
16· ·sign, and I believe an image of Kramer getting roasted in
17· ·one of the Seinfeld episodes.· Those are the three images I
18· ·remember from that presentation.
19· · · · · · · · ·It could have been prudent for them to
10:58:05 20· ·include other church signs, as it would have been prudent
21· ·for Bootz & Duke to include additional church signs.· To
22· ·answer your question -- I believe the answer to your
23· ·question is yes.
24· · · ·Q.· ·Yes what?
10:58:23 25· · · ·A.· ·You asked about the fairness.· If you could please


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 290
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 64


·1· ·restate the question.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Well, what I'm asking you is: Would you agree with
·3· ·me that it was not fair to the Arcadia homeowners to spring
·4· ·this new evidence upon them regarding a sign that has
10:58:41 ·5· ·never -- that isn't in the record when Bootz & Duke
·6· ·purports to know that sign and its history and its detail
·7· ·and Arcadia has no familiarity with it?
·8· · · ·A.· ·That is correct.· That is unfair.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Now, but you wouldn't be willing -- looking
10:58:59 10· ·back on it now, and if you had your druthers and you could
11· ·redo all of this, you don't think that a continuance or
12· ·some sort of an opportunity to research and determine
13· ·whether that sign, which played a role in the decision of
14· ·the board, could be evaluated on whether it was analogous
10:59:18 15· ·to the sign that was the subject of the application by the
16· ·Camelback Church of Christ?
17· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
18· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think that would have been a
19· ·very -- I think that would have been a prudent direction to
10:59:30 20· ·go with the introduction of additional material based off
21· ·of a board member communicating to both parties stating
22· ·that some additional communication could be had based off
23· ·of additional evidence that could be introduced.
24· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
10:59:47 25· · · ·Q.· ·So in looking at the proceedings, it was Bootz &


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 291
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 65


·1· ·Duke's burden of proof to -- as the applicant/appellant to
·2· ·persuade the Board of Adjustment to overturn the decision
·3· ·by the zoning adjustment hearing officer; right?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11:00:17 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·So if they were interested in presenting to the
·6· ·board analogous church signs, they could have done that;
·7· ·right?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·And in your view, it would have been prudent for
11:00:29 10· ·them to do so; right?
11· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · · ·Q.· ·And because they failed to make that presentation;
13· ·that is, there is a gap in the presentation, you felt the
14· ·need to do the additional research to answer for your own
11:00:41 15· ·purposes whether there were church signs that they had done
16· ·that could be analogous to the one that was the subject of
17· ·the application?
18· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
19· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
11:00:51 20· · · · · · · · ·MR. DEWULF:· No further questions.
22· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXAMINATION
23· ·BY MR. INGLESE:
24· · · ·Q.· ·I have a few questions.
11:00:56 25· · · · · · · · ·Mr. Ammon, are you familiar with the factors


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 292
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 66


·1· ·that the board is supposed to assess when granting or
·2· ·denying a use permit?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·And do you recall any discussion today about glare
11:01:12 ·5· ·exceeding ambient conditions?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Did Bootz & Duke submit any evidence regarding the
·8· ·glare that would be emitted by the sign?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11:01:21 10· · · ·Q.· ·What did that evidence consist of?
11· · · ·A.· ·I believe it was light studies of how far -- of
12· ·how the intensity of the glare at specific distances in
13· ·plan view or bird's eye view of what the glare would be
14· ·after a specific distance and showing that it decreased
11:01:45 15· ·over a period of -- over distance.
16· · · ·Q.· ·Did you find that evidence credible?
17· · · ·A.· ·I did.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Did you find that evidence persuasive?
19· · · ·A.· ·I did.
11:01:52 20· · · ·Q.· ·Did you believe that this sign would cause a
21· ·significant increase in vehicular or pedestrian traffic in
22· ·any adjacent residential areas?
23· · · ·A.· ·No, I did not.
24· · · ·Q.· ·Did you believe this sign would emit odor, dust,
11:02:05 25· ·gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare at levels


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 293
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 67


·1· ·exceeding ambient levels?
·2· · · ·A.· ·No.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Did you believe that this sign would contribute in
·4· ·a measurable way to the deterioration of the area or the
11:02:17 ·5· ·lowering of property values?
·6· · · ·A.· ·No, I did not.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·And why not?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Because based off of the material that was
·9· ·presented to us with the lighting conditions, I decided
11:02:33 10· ·that the glare or the light levels of that area are below
11· ·that of ambient conditions based off of the studies that
12· ·were shown to us.
13· · · ·Q.· ·And did you believe that the sign would comply
14· ·with all relevant zoning laws?
11:02:51 15· · · ·A.· ·Yes, I did.· And I believe there is information in
16· ·the minutes that support that.
17· · · ·Q.· ·Do you recall discussion today about the term low
18· ·profile?
19· · · ·A.· ·I do.
11:03:03 20· · · ·Q.· ·Are you aware of any industry standard or other
21· ·standardized meaning of that term?
22· · · ·A.· ·No, I'm not.
23· · · ·Q.· ·Do you remember any discussion today about the
24· ·term extra record?
11:03:17 25· · · ·A.· ·About today?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 294
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 68


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Today.
·2· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·To the best of your knowledge, does that term
·4· ·appear anywhere in the Board of Adjustment's rules of
11:03:27 ·5· ·procedure?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·The term extra record?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Oh, no, it does not.· Excuse me.· I misunderstood
·9· ·that.
11:03:35 10· · · ·Q.· ·Do you recall discussing use of Google Earth and
11· ·Google Maps today?
12· · · ·A.· ·I do.
13· · · ·Q.· ·In your service as a member of the Board of
14· ·Adjustment, do you frequently look at Google Earth or
11:03:48 15· ·Google Maps either during hearings or in preparation for
16· ·hearings?
17· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
18· · · ·Q.· ·Has anybody ever advised you that it would be
19· ·improper to look at Google Earth or Google Maps?
11:03:58 20· · · ·A.· ·No, they have not.
21· · · ·Q.· ·Do you believe that other members of the Board of
22· ·Adjustment also use those tools?
23· · · ·A.· ·I do.
24· · · ·Q.· ·Remind me how -- how long have you lived in the
11:04:11 25· ·city of Phoenix?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 295
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 69


·1· · · ·A.· ·On and off, 32 years.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Do you have knowledge of the various neighborhoods
·3· ·within the city?
·4· · · ·A.· ·Yes.· Based off of timeframe and knowledge of
11:04:36 ·5· ·living here, but also as a practicing architect who has a
·6· ·passion for the built environment, yes.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Do you rely on that knowledge as a member of the
·8· ·Board of Adjustment?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11:04:47 10· · · ·Q.· ·Has anybody ever advised you that it is improper
11· ·to rely on that knowledge?
12· · · ·A.· ·No.
13· · · ·Q.· ·Do you believe that knowledge helps you in service
14· ·of your duties as a member of the Board of Adjustment?
11:04:55 15· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
16· · · ·Q.· ·I'd like to briefly -- do you recall Mr. DeWulf
17· ·asking you questions about the Bootz & Duke website today?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · · ·Q.· ·When you said -- did you say that you had to
11:05:11 20· ·search the website?
21· · · ·A.· ·I did.
22· · · ·Q.· ·Do you recall -- when you use the word "search,"
23· ·did you mean searching on a search bar or just clicking
24· ·through the website?
11:05:21 25· · · ·A.· ·Clicking through the website.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 296
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 70


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Do you believe that decisions of the Board of
·2· ·Adjustment are precedential?
·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. DEWULF:· I'll object.· Vague and
·4· ·ambiguous.
11:05:39 ·5· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· I'll retract the question.
·6· ·BY MR. INGLESE:
·7· · · ·Q.· ·In discussing cases before the Board of
·8· ·Adjustment, do you ever discuss previous cases that the
·9· ·board has heard?
11:05:52 10· · · ·A.· ·Would you ask the question one more time?
11· · · ·Q.· ·Sorry.· It was not well-worded.
12· · · ·A.· ·It's fine.
13· · · ·Q.· ·At Board of Adjustment hearings, do you and your
14· ·fellow members of the Board of Adjustment ever make
11:06:02 15· ·reference to or discuss other cases that you've decided
16· ·previously in the context of deciding a case before you?
17· · · ·A.· ·I believe so, yes.
18· · · ·Q.· ·And finally, do you remember Mr. DeWulf asking you
19· ·questions about your preparation for today's deposition?
11:06:18 20· · · ·A.· ·I do.
21· · · ·Q.· ·You said that you reviewed the minutes of the
22· ·Board of Adjustment, but did you -- what did you mean when
23· ·you used the word "minutes"?
24· · · ·A.· ·I read through the reporter's transcript of the
11:06:42 25· ·audio recordings.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 297
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 71


·1· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Did you also read the record that was
·2· ·submitted to the Board of Adjustment?
·3· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So we -- and you said you and I met for
11:06:56 ·5· ·45 minutes this morning; is that correct?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·Did we meet at any other time before today?
·8· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·9· · · ·Q.· ·How long did we meet for?
11:07:04 10· · · ·A.· ·I believe around 30 to 45 minutes, maybe an hour.
11· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Do you recall when that was?
12· · · ·A.· ·I believe it was the week before last.
13· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· Let me just review my notes really quickly.
14· · · · · · · · ·Are there signs similar to the one at issue
11:07:29 15· ·in this hearing in your neighborhood?
16· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
17· · · ·Q.· ·And do you believe, as a member of the Board of
18· ·Adjustment, you are permitted to rely on your knowledge of
19· ·those signs in cases you hear before the Board of
11:07:44 20· ·Adjustment?
21· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
22· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· No further questions.
23· ·///
24· ·///
11:07:48 25· ·///


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 298
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 72


·1· · · · · · · · · · · FURTHER EXAMINATION
·2· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·3· · · ·Q.· ·I have a couple of questions to follow up and
·4· ·clarify.
11:07:57 ·5· · · · · · · · ·Would you agree with me that the Arcadia
·6· ·neighborhood is unique?
·7· · · ·A.· ·I would.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·And we know that it is -- it was the subject of --
·9· ·I'm trying to get the name of the plan.
11:08:34 10· · · · · · · · ·There was a master plan for that area;
11· ·correct?
12· · · ·A.· ·Is this in reference to the Frank Lloyd Wright
13· ·house?
14· · · ·Q.· ·No.· The actual neighborhood was the subject of a
11:08:45 15· ·study by the city and came up with recommendations on how
16· ·the city ought to be mindful of the kinds of things that
17· ·made it unique, and to try to be consistent with the
18· ·character of the neighborhood.
19· · · ·A.· ·Is this in their 1999 submittal that was approved
11:09:05 20· ·by city council of the Arcadia board or the Arcadia design
21· ·committee?
22· · · ·Q.· ·I don't know the answer to that.· There is the
23· ·Arcadia Camelback Special District adopted in 1999.
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
11:09:19 25· · · ·Q.· ·Are you familiar with that?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 299
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 73


·1· · · ·A.· ·I am.· Yes, sir.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Have you read it?
·3· · · ·A.· ·I have not perused it.· I have skimmed it.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·Would you agree with me that that is a reflection
11:09:29 ·5· ·at least to the fact that Arcadia is a unique neighborhood
·6· ·whose character needs to be preserved and protected?
·7· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·8· · · ·Q.· ·And you understood that that fact; that is, the
·9· ·unique character and traits of the Arcadia neighborhood,
11:09:48 10· ·was an important part of the decision made by the zoning
11· ·adjustment hearing officer in originally denying the sign
12· ·application; correct?
13· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · · ·Q.· ·So when you talk about -- or counsel asked you
11:10:09 15· ·about discussing previous cases relating to signage, every
16· ·case is unique because your decision is going to be a
17· ·function of all of those kinds of things that bear on the
18· ·analysis of how it impacts the neighboring area; correct?
19· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11:10:27 20· · · ·Q.· ·And we looked at the use permit analysis that is
21· ·in Exhibit 6, and it does talk about things like vehicular
22· ·and pedestrian traffic, odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration,
23· ·smoke, heat, and glare; correct?
24· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11:10:48 25· · · ·Q.· ·Ambient conditions, in your vernacular, does that


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 300
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 74


·1· ·just mean surrounding conditions?
·2· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·3· · · ·Q.· ·And the former sign that existed on this property
·4· ·for the Camelback church was a backlit, low-profile sign;
11:11:15 ·5· ·correct?
·6· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
·7· · · ·Q.· ·And the new sign that was the subject of their
·8· ·application was larger and was a digital display; right?
·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
11:11:27 10· · · ·Q.· ·And so clearly, visually it's a very different
11· ·presentation to a person who's driving down Camelback or
12· ·walking by the church; true?
13· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So it would -- that is, the presence of a
11:11:43 15· ·digital sign compared to a small backlit sign would
16· ·increase the level of glare as a part of the ambient
17· ·conditions; true?
18· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
19· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
11:11:59 20· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
21· · · ·Q.· ·So your counsel asked you about looking at Google
22· ·Maps and Google Earth.· Do you recall those questions?
23· · · ·A.· ·I do.
24· · · ·Q.· ·In terms of fairness to the parties in the Board
11:12:12 25· ·of Adjustment hearings, if you are bringing in evidence


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 301
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 75


·1· ·that is not being presented by the parties, do you feel an
·2· ·obligation to share that with the parties?
·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
·4· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
11:12:26 ·5· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·6· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· And so while most of us might have the
·7· ·ability to go on Google Earth and check, for example, what
·8· ·the view was of the marijuana dispensary on 44th Street, in
·9· ·order to be fair to the parties, they would have had --
11:12:49 10· ·they should be given notice ahead of time so they could
11· ·prepare for analyzing and responding to that evidence;
12· ·correct?
13· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
14· · · ·Q.· ·And similarly, in our case, if we're going to
11:13:01 15· ·bring in evidence that relates to something that's not a
16· ·part of the presentations by the parties that's evidence
17· ·that could relate to the decision by the board, you ought
18· ·to be giving notice and an opportunity to respond by the
19· ·participants --
11:13:19 20· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to form.
21· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
22· · · ·Q.· ·-- in the hearing?
23· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
24· · · ·Q.· ·Counsel asked you whether the word "extra record"
11:13:28 25· ·was a part of the presentations or preparation materials


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 302
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 76


·1· ·that the city had provided to you, and you said, no, it
·2· ·wasn't; right?
·3· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
·4· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's correct.
11:13:41 ·5· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·6· · · ·Q.· ·But when we talked about -- in my questioning of
·7· ·you in your deposition, when we talked about extra record,
·8· ·you understood that to be evidence or testimony that was
·9· ·outside of the evidence being provided by the parties at
11:13:54 10· ·the hearing; right?
11· · · ·A.· ·Yes.
12· · · ·Q.· ·And so in the way we commonly understand this
13· ·term, the introduction of evidence from the Bootz & Duke
14· ·website, including specifically information regarding the
11:14:10 15· ·St. Luke's Catholic Church sign, was extra-record evidence
16· ·or evidence outside of the -- of that which is presented by
17· ·the parties at the hearing; right?
18· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
19· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
11:14:22 20· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
21· · · ·Q.· ·There were questions asked by your counsel about
22· ·the impact on traffic.· But you understood that part of the
23· ·reason the church wanted the sign is to draw more people to
24· ·their church; right?
11:14:43 25· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 303
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 77


·1· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.
·2· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
·3· · · ·Q.· ·Save a few souls if they could?
·4· · · ·A.· ·If they could.
11:14:48 ·5· · · ·Q.· ·All right.· So that -- to the extent that we're
·6· ·talking about traffic or traffic congestion, either
·7· ·pedestrian or vehicular, clearly that would be a change in
·8· ·the traffic; that is, that would result from the sign
·9· ·change; right?
11:15:06 10· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· Object to the form.
11· · · · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Most respectfully, yes.
12· ·Although there are -- I'm going to throw out a random
13· ·number here.· Let's say there are 75 parking spaces in that
14· ·area and currently the church has zero cars parked.
11:15:21 15· ·Ambient conditions of parking is not zero.· It's 75.· And
16· ·they have an allowance to meet 75 parking spaces in that
17· ·area.
18· · · · · · · · ·And if they have a sign that is pulling
19· ·people in, it's increasing vehicular traffic, but it's also
11:15:35 20· ·filling an allowable amount of parking spaces on that site.
21· ·So it's not necessarily breaking ambient condition.
22· ·BY MR. DEWULF:
23· · · ·Q.· ·Did you ever do a traffic study of what would
24· ·happen before and after the introduction of this sign at
11:15:47 25· ·this location?


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 304
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 78


·1· · · ·A.· ·Not personally, no.
·2· · · ·Q.· ·Did anyone?
·3· · · ·A.· ·No.
·4· · · ·Q.· ·Did Bootz & Duke ever do a traffic study?
11:15:52 ·5· · · ·A.· ·They did not.
·6· · · ·Q.· ·So you don't know one way or the other whether
·7· ·folks are filling those 75 spots of parking in that lot or
·8· ·not; right?
·9· · · ·A.· ·No, sir.
11:16:02 10· · · ·Q.· ·But it would be fair to say that the whole purpose
11· ·of spending the money on the sign is to draw people into
12· ·that location so they can park their cars in that lot;
13· ·right?
14· · · ·A.· ·Correct.· Yes, sir.
11:16:14 15· · · ·Q.· ·Okay.· So you've driven -- I think you testified
16· ·earlier you've driven Camelback Road many, many times?
17· · · ·A.· ·Yes, sir.
18· · · ·Q.· ·And I think you said that you lived here since you
19· ·were ten or something; right?
11:16:44 20· · · ·A.· ·Correct.
21· · · ·Q.· ·So in that span between 44th Street and Scottsdale
22· ·Road, this digital sign will be unique, a one-and-only type
23· ·of sign like that for that entire span of Camelback Road;
24· ·correct?
11:17:02 25· · · ·A.· ·I believe there are a few digital signs just west


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com YVer1f




Page 305
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 79


·1· ·of Scottsdale Road on Camelback, but yes, up through --
·2· ·getting close to Camelback -- getting close to Scottsdale
·3· ·Road and Camelback from 44th Street, the answer is yes.
·4· · · · · · · · ·MR. DEWULF:· No further questions.· Thanks.
11:17:16 ·5· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· I'm good.
·6· · · · · · · · ·THE COURT REPORTER:· Daniel, do you want a
·7· ·copy of the transcript?
·8· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· That would be great.
·9· · · · · · · · ·THE COURT REPORTER:· E-tran only?· Electronic
11:17:28 10· ·only with exhibits?
11· · · · · · · · ·MR. INGLESE:· That's fine.
12· · · · · · · · ·(The deposition concluded at 11:17 a.m.)
13· · · · · · · · · · · · ·(Signature not requested)
14· · · · · · · · · · · ______________________________
15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·JONATHAN AMMON


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 306
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 80


·1· ·STATE OF ARIZONA· ·)

·2· ·COUNTY OF MARICOPA )

·3· · · · · · ·BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceedings

·4· ·were taken before me; that the witness before testifying

·5· ·was duly sworn by me to testify to the whole truth; that

·6· ·the foregoing pages are a full, true, and accurate record

·7· ·of the proceedings all done to the best of my skill and

·8· ·ability; that the proceedings were taken down by me in

·9· ·shorthand and thereafter reduced to print under my

10· ·direction.

11· · · · · · ·I CERTIFY that I am in no way related to

12· ·any of the parties hereto; nor am I in any way

13· ·interested in the outcome hereof.

14· · · · ·[ ] Review and signature was requested.

15· · · · ·[ ] Review and signature was waived.

16· · · · ·[X] Review and signature was not requested.

17· · · · · · ·I CERTIFY that I have complied with the

18· ·ethical obligations set forth in ACJA 7-206(F)(3) and

19· ·ACJA 7-206(J)(1)(g)(1) and (2).· Dated at Phoenix,

20· ·Arizona, this 23rd day of September, 2022.



23· · · · · · · ______________________________________

24· · · · · · · · · · · · · CINDY MAHONEY
· · · · · · · · · · · · · Certified Reporter
25· · · · · · · · · · · ·Arizona CR No. 50680


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 307
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 81


·1· · · · · · ·I CERTIFY that Coash & Coash, Inc., has
·2· ·complied with the ethical obligations set forth in ACJA
·3· ·7-206(J)(1)(g)(1) through (6).
·4
·5· · · · · ·__________________________________________
·6· · · · · · · · · · · ·COASH & COASH, INC.
·7· · · · · · · · · · Registered Reporting Firm
·8· · · · · · · · · · · Arizona RRF No. R1036
·9


Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 308
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: $25..applicant

2021 51:18 ability 75:7 affected 47:6,19
Exhibits
2022 32:1 59:6 61:18 Absolutely 18:8 39:21 affirm 58:20
Ammon Exhibit 1 2:13 24 30:9,10 31:10 37:21 accepted 10:22 aftermath 60:25
11:12 24:6
accurate 16:5 agree 24:24 26:6 43:21
Ammon Exhibit 2 2:14 3 64:2 72:5 73:4
12:2 13:22 27:20 acquire 8:17
3 11:24 15:15 16:5 19:15, ahead 75:10
Ammon Exhibit 3 2:16 ACSD 24:23
18 20:8 24:14 31:25 36:11 allowable 77:20
11:24 15:15 16:5 19:15,18 active 53:13
59:6 60:5,25 61:18
20:8 36:11 60:5 allowance 77:16
30 15:20,25 42:17 47:21 activity 45:23
Ammon Exhibit 4 2:18 allowed 17:10 40:1 44:3
60:5 71:10 actual 17:22 37:10 72:14
23:21,24 55:25
32 44:21 69:1 Adam 8:11
Ammon Exhibit 5 2:19 alongside 11:20
29:15,20,25 30:4 42:17 additional 27:14 34:4
59:6 4 ambient 25:4 66:5 67:1,
44:4 49:17,18 60:3,9
11 73:25 74:16 77:15,21
Ammon Exhibit 6 2:21 63:21 64:20,22,23 65:14
4 23:21,24
58:2,5 73:21 ambiguous 22:3 70:4
address 21:11 41:10 62:7
4456 51:2
Ammon 4:4,11,12 11:17
addressed 58:6 62:13
$ 44th 25:8 75:8 78:21 79:3 14:8 17:8 23:25 29:18
addressing 43:13 60:20 30:12 35:6 47:22 58:5
$25 8:3 45 6:19 71:5,10
59:21 65:25 79:15
adjacent 52:11,15 66:22
amount 23:16 25:4,7 29:4
5 adjustment 9:19,22,23
1 30:21 77:20
10:10 11:17 12:5 13:15
1 4:1 11:12 24:6 5 29:15,20,25 30:4 42:17 15:5 16:2,7 18:24 19:9 analogous 59:15 63:7
59:6 20:6 23:12 24:2,8 26:1 64:14 65:6,16
10 30:10 37:23 27:21 28:9 29:14 36:12
50 54:2 analysis 23:17 73:18,20
101 42:2 37:4 44:3 48:10,12 49:5
5225 11:9 50:11 51:8 55:7,9 56:3,9, analyzing 75:11
11:17 79:12 11,25 57:5,6,21,24 58:21
56th 6:23 angle 13:12
16 20:25 60:1 65:2,3 68:14,22 69:8,
14 70:2,8,13,14,22 71:2, answering 19:22
17613 6:23 6 18,20 73:11 74:25
answers 5:24
1999 24:23 72:19,23 6 58:2,5 73:21 Adjustment's 68:4
anticipate 13:10
68th 25:8 Adjustments 13:5
2 anticipated 14:8 15:9
administrative 58:21
apologize 17:24 56:25
2 4:1 12:2 13:22 27:20 7
administrator 9:18,23
appeal 15:3
20 37:23 44:22 75 77:13,15,16 78:7 11:20 15:5 58:21 60:14
administrator's 19:5 appealing 15:4
2004 7:6 7th 42:1 59:17
adopted 24:23 72:23 appeared 9:22
2007 7:14
8 advance 14:16 27:22 appears 9:2 21:15
2011 7:15
advanced 7:8 appellant 13:4 15:12
2015 8:5 8 47:21 51:17
19:4 30:20 42:20 62:22
2016 8:25 85254 7:1 adverse 54:10
appellant's 21:24
2017 10:12,13 advise 19:20
applicant 14:22 15:3
A
2018 8:25 9:5,10 10:11 advised 68:18 69:10 50:18
15:21,25 19:12 60:6 a.m. 79:12



Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 309
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: applicant's..church

applicant's 39:2 assumption 44:5,8 45:7 14:20 15:10,18 16:1,7,14
46:18,19 17:4 18:24 19:9 20:5 C
applicant/appellant
23:12 27:16,20 28:6 29:14
65:1 attendance 45:19 call 60:10
30:12 33:19 34:1 36:11
applicants 14:21 43:13 attended 7:14 37:4,12 39:11 41:4 42:10, called 14:3 22:6 45:14
12 43:11,17,22 44:1,3,13,
application 4:23 11:14 attendees 23:15 15,22 45:14 46:21 47:14 Camelback 4:18 11:9
15:13 22:11 23:8 24:6,9 20:17,20 21:3 22:11,20
attorney 6:12,13 46:8 48:1 49:5 50:10,16,23,24
33:3 34:15 38:8 51:8 24:22 25:8 34:6 38:8
51:7 52:25 53:12 54:1
52:25 53:13 57:23 64:15 attorney-client 19:21 55:7,9 56:3,8 58:16 60:1, 42:19 58:10 59:18 64:16
65:17 73:12 74:8 72:23 74:4,11 78:16,23
audible 5:24 25 61:7,12,18 63:8 64:14,
applied 19:3 21 65:2,6 66:1 68:4,13,21 79:1,2,3
audio 70:25 69:8,14 70:1,7,9,13,14,22
apply 18:24 candidly 34:16
August 10:12 15:20,25 71:2,17,19 72:20 74:24
appointed 10:22,23 60:5 75:17 capture 17:20

approaches 59:24 authentic 15:24 Bootz 4:23 15:4,11 19:3 carried 16:25
21:15 23:1 24:9 30:16,20,
approve 48:13 Avenue 42:1 59:17 cars 77:14 78:12
23 31:12,22 32:5,8,10,20
approved 24:20 25:25 aware 25:6 67:20 33:1,11,19 35:17 36:7,18 case 15:11 18:13,25
26:12 32:20 72:19 38:25 39:7,25 40:5 41:3 30:20,21,22 45:11 48:4
42:20 43:2,6 44:14 47:2, 51:12,16 54:3,4 58:9
Arcadia 4:18,20 15:12 B 19 48:24 49:13,16,19 50:4 70:16 73:16 75:14
20:20 21:1,2 25:22 26:23 58:9 59:9 62:7,22 63:3,14,
30:16,22 31:5 33:9 37:16 BA 7:5 cases 53:17 70:7,8,15
21 64:5,25 66:7 69:17
39:14,22 40:20 42:12,25 71:19 73:15
back 12:23 18:18,19 76:13 78:4
62:16 63:4,12 64:3,7 72:5, 28:20 29:19 35:4,24 36:10 cast 44:19
20,23 73:5,9 borne 44:8
37:21 43:10 46:17,19 49:7
Catholic 31:16 37:24
architect 9:7 69:5 57:7,8 61:23 64:10 Botox 63:15
41:25 42:13 43:7 47:3
architectural 8:1 9:13 background 6:20 7:2,4 bottom 14:2 48:21 59:8,16 62:23 63:7
76:15
architecture 7:11 backlit 74:4,15 break 5:13,14 38:4 41:7
58:25 caught 62:16
area 6:25 20:25 21:1,2,5,7 bar 69:23
24:16 25:3,23 26:3,16,23 breaking 77:21 caution 60:7
based 15:8 18:11 21:19
38:18,19 42:14 44:18 22:14 34:3 36:13 39:1 briefly 69:16 central 20:25
59:12 67:4,10 72:10 73:18 43:9,23 48:14 51:14 53:6
77:14,17 bring 31:13 75:15 chairman 48:5
63:12 64:20,22 67:8,11
areas 66:22 69:4 bringing 36:20 39:19 challenging 19:4
45:14,23 46:12 50:9 74:25
arguments 43:1 basically 43:6 47:23 change 54:19 77:7,9
brought 45:8 50:17 56:5
arises 4:22 basis 38:23 character 25:22 26:3,16,
building 7:21 54:13 23 42:8 72:18 73:6,9
Arizona 8:4 12:5 24:22 bear 45:13 73:17
buildings 8:3,18 character-driven 24:20
arose 51:23 beginning 10:11
built 69:6 check 38:18 44:19 75:7
arriving 35:16 begins 25:15 30:9
bullet 18:10 Christ 11:10 22:12 42:20
assess 66:1 betterment 56:1 58:10 59:18 64:16
burden 65:1
association 4:19 63:13 big 28:24 church 11:9 22:11,12
business 8:16 9:12 12:13 23:11,13,15 31:14,16,18
association's 31:6 binder 13:19
54:13,16 32:14,17 33:2,14 35:7,10,
assume 5:10 bird's 66:13 12 37:11,24 38:3,9 39:1,3
assumed 54:9 board 9:19,23 10:10 11:7, 42:1,14,19 48:21 58:10
16 12:4,12 13:5,10,15 59:8,16,18 63:7,14,20,21




Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 310
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: churches..decision-maker

64:16 65:6,15 74:4,12 60:14 64:21 confuses 6:4 counsel 4:15 11:21 12:16
76:15,23,24 77:14 18:16 19:19 20:4 46:1
communication 17:19, congestion 77:6
60:8 61:1 73:14 74:21
churches 24:20 25:25 21 64:22
congregants 23:15 75:24 76:21
citizens 43:14 communications 17:9,
connection 11:16 12:25 couple 72:3
13 18:6 19:21 61:1
city 11:21 12:5,9 13:14 20:3,5 52:25 55:23 56:2
courses 19:7
14:8 15:18,24 20:4 23:19, community 11:7 43:13 60:19
20 26:9,11,13 31:3,7 37:3 56:1 court 5:20 46:15 79:6,9
considered 25:24
42:22 46:2,8 49:1,11 50:3
commute 21:3 courtesy 5:18
55:8,22 56:2 59:22 68:25 consist 12:16 66:10
69:3 72:15,16,20 76:1 companies 29:9 coverage 10:9
consistent 26:15 72:17
clarifications 55:16 company 4:24 7:21 15:4 COVID 60:11
constitutes 29:9
40:22 42:20
clarified 49:5 created 33:11
construction 7:12,20,22
comparable 23:11,14
clarify 46:14 59:4,24 72:4 8:4,19,23 creating 33:25
compare 22:9,24
clarity 56:4 contained 39:6 44:14 credibility 43:22 46:21
compared 74:15 54:13
clear 5:6 28:20 49:4 credible 43:25 66:16
comparison 28:13 31:18 contemplated 23:8
click 35:10,16 criteria 18:19,24 19:2
32:15 34:11 38:3 59:17
clicking 69:23,25 curiosity 36:2
compatible 24:21 context 42:8 43:12 44:15
clicks 35:19 61:8 70:16 customers 52:10
compelled 34:25
client 15:22 continuance 62:6 64:11
complete 5:19
D
clients 21:7 continuances 62:12
completed 32:16
close 9:4 59:1 79:2 contribute 24:16 67:3 Daniel 79:6
completely 44:23
closed 43:5 54:21 conversation 27:18 Danny 46:5
complex 52:14,16
code 7:1 conversations 60:8,13, date 15:20 51:17
comply 67:13
16 dated 15:25
codes 23:18,19
computer 34:10
coordination 8:1 day 9:9 21:1
cofounder 8:7,10
concept 18:1 26:15
copy 79:7 day-to-day 38:23
Cole 44:22,25
conclude 37:20
correct 6:14 7:9,13 8:20 daylight 54:17,21
Collaborative 8:8
concluded 38:5 39:2,5 14:17 15:14 16:17,20 17:7
colleagues 21:2 79:12 20:13 23:2,6 26:16 29:1,6 days 14:16 27:22 28:1
30:24 36:14,16 37:18 38:9 dealing 16:16
column 17:9 conclusion 22:18 34:3, 41:20 43:2,7 45:15,17,20
17 decide 56:21 57:14,22,23
comfortable 35:1 51:12 54:7,11 58:11,23
conclusions 22:14 56:1 59:10,14,20 60:1,23 61:5,
comments 41:13 44:25 decided 67:9 70:15
16,21 62:24 64:8 71:5
48:6 concrete 10:1 72:11 73:12,18,23 74:5 deciding 70:16
commercial 9:15 21:5 condition 77:21 75:12 76:4 78:14,20,24
decision 14:19 15:5 19:5
committee 72:21 conditions 25:4 66:5 correctly 9:3 26:4 31:19 24:3 32:16 34:1,14,24
67:9,11 73:25 74:1,17 48:17 35:1,2 36:6 47:6 52:19
commonly 76:12 56:10,12,17,19,21 57:13,
77:15 cost 8:4
communicate 49:25 15,20,22,24 58:16,20
condo 52:14,16 council 72:20 61:8,13 63:8 64:13 65:2
communicated 30:7 73:10,16 75:17
confirm 56:19 57:12 Councilmember 10:24
39:11 53:3
confused 27:11,12 decision-maker 50:21
communicating 53:4 Councilwoman 10:24




Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 311
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: decision-makers..episodes

decision-makers 17:5 Dewulf 4:9 12:1 20:1 distinction 33:14 E-TRAN 79:9
23:23 25:10 29:17 32:24
decision-making 47:4, distinguish 28:11 earlier 29:21 46:20 78:16
33:8,23 34:23 36:17 37:1,
8 39:17 40:15 41:1 43:20 District 24:22 72:23 Earth 27:16 52:2,18 53:5,
decisions 14:25 18:11 44:12 45:18 46:16 47:9,17 17 54:4 68:10,14,19 74:22
document 11:24 15:15,
36:11 53:25 70:1 50:13 51:6 52:23 53:10,20 75:7
16,20,24 16:10 23:21 24:5
54:24 55:3,5,12 57:7,17
decreased 66:14 58:4,25 59:3 60:18 61:22
29:15 58:2 East 11:9 51:2
definition 28:11 29:8 62:14 63:10 64:24 65:20 documentation 13:20 educate 13:14 34:14
33:17 69:16 70:3,18 72:2 74:20 50:6
75:5,21 76:5,20 77:2,22 educated 16:6
degrees 7:8 79:4 documents 4:1 11:13
educating 19:8
13:7
delay 62:6 dialogue 43:6 education 11:17 12:8,25
downgrading 24:17
deliberation 42:15 differently 61:25 20:3
draw 76:23 78:11
denial 24:12 difficult 5:20 47:14 effect 45:6
drawing 33:14 34:11
denied 24:9 digital 11:8 22:7,10,21,25 efficient 4:17
58:19
deny 56:19 57:12 23:5 25:6 28:16 29:5 efforts 32:20
31:16 32:17 35:7,12 drive 53:16,25
denying 66:2 73:11 37:10,25 38:7 53:8 74:8, Eggebrecht 8:12
drive-by 34:12
Depending 23:13 15 78:22,25 electrical 8:2
driven 21:12 42:3 49:12
deposed 4:12 dimensions 22:22 38:16, 78:15,16 electronic 24:19 26:1
19 79:9
deposition 4:22 6:8 drives 27:16
23:24 30:5 70:19 76:7 direction 30:6 64:19 Elementary 21:16 50:5,6
driving 20:24 74:11
79:12 disadvantage 63:5 embodied 16:4 19:15
drove 53:18,21
describe 9:12 disagree 24:24,25 26:6,7 24:6
57:21 druthers 64:10
description 7:22 EMD 25:25
disagreed 45:7 due 51:13 60:11
design 26:2,9,12 72:20 emit 66:24
discern 38:11 Duke 4:23 15:4,11 19:3
Designing 9:14 emitted 25:4 66:8
21:15 23:1 24:9 30:16,20,
detail 36:6,7 38:21 64:6 discovered 54:8 23 31:12,23 32:5,8,10,20 enforced 16:25
discuss 70:8,15 33:1,11,19 35:17 36:19
detail-oriented 36:2,5 38:25 39:7,25 40:5 41:3
engage 18:6
details 7:3 60:15 discussed 12:9 42:20 43:2,7 44:15 47:2, engaged 16:15 43:4,5
19 48:24 49:13,16,19 50:4 50:9
deterioration 67:4 discussing 68:10 70:7
58:9 59:9 62:7,22 63:4,14,
73:15 engineer 7:23 8:21
determination 26:14 21 64:5 66:7 69:17 76:13
35:21 discussion 47:23 55:4 78:4 ensued 55:4 59:2
66:4 67:17,23
determine 52:2 64:12 Duke's 36:7 65:1 entail 7:25
discussions 21:6
determined 32:25 41:23 duly 4:5 entertain 48:7
dispensary 51:2,9,23
determining 28:6 dust 66:24 73:22 entire 78:23
52:10,15,17 53:1 54:4
detrimental 48:16 75:8 duties 16:15 55:23 56:4 entities 9:17
69:14
Devco 8:7 display 22:7,10,25 23:5 entity 8:5 9:7 23:11
26:2 35:13 74:8
develop 8:17 E environment 42:14
displays 24:19 59:12 69:6
developed 27:7
distance 66:14,15 E-G-G-E-B-R-E-C-H-T episodes 63:17
Development 8:7 8:12
distances 66:12



Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 312
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: error..granting

error 36:24 44:5,6,7,23 extent 42:8 77:5 finally 70:18 function 28:24 73:17
45:3
extra 26:25 27:3,9,13,15, find 66:16,18 future 10:19
estimate 38:21 17 28:2,3 32:2 34:25
fine 56:15 70:12 79:11
67:24 68:7 75:24 76:7
evaluate 26:22 G
fire 8:2
extra-record 40:2,19,23
evaluated 64:14 gained 43:16
45:8,24 50:10,17 76:15 fit 26:23
events 60:24 gap 65:13
eye 66:13 fits 26:22
everybody's 48:9 gas 66:25 73:22
five-minute 58:25
evidence 13:24 14:3,11, F gate 51:23,24 52:2,10
flatfooted 62:16
12,14,20 15:10 18:10,12 53:22 54:5,8,17,21
27:5,22,25 28:4 36:13,20, face-to-face 53:9 flattered 11:6
21 39:13,19,23 40:2,20,23 gathered 41:2
fact 24:12 34:19 40:6 folks 18:7 31:2 58:9 78:7
42:22 43:1 45:8,15,24 45:14 63:6 73:5,8 gathering 44:4
46:12,23 47:1,3 50:10,17 follow 23:19 55:16 72:3
56:5 59:24 60:21 62:17 factors 65:25 gave 42:20 57:8 63:13
64:4,23 66:7,10,16,18 follow-up 45:12 61:4
factual 28:5 generally 5:12 18:23
74:25 75:11,15,16 76:8,9, footage 10:8 23:16 24:19
13,15,16 fail 12:23
foreign 18:2 generated 32:1
EXAMINATION 4:8 failed 65:12
65:22 72:1 form 13:8,13,15 15:16 gentleman 8:11 30:13
fair 5:10,16 16:2 35:2 32:21 33:4,21 34:21 36:4,
examined 4:6 39:14 42:15 43:14,17 15,22 37:5 39:15 40:12,25 gentleman's 40:4
47:12,14 48:2 59:13 62:5 43:18 44:10 45:16 47:7
examples 13:21 33:10 64:3 75:9 78:10
Gibson 40:6 41:19 43:6
50:12 51:4 52:21 53:15
exceeding 66:5 67:1 fairness 62:15 63:25 54:22 55:11 61:20 62:9 Gibson's 39:10 41:13
74:24 63:9 64:17 65:18 74:19 Gilbane 7:19,20,21 8:22
exceeds 25:4
75:3,20 76:3,18,25 77:10
Excuse 22:17 57:1 68:8 fallen 33:1 give 10:5 55:24
formal 16:15 18:4,6 20:11
exercise 35:24 familiar 12:5 15:16 20:16, 21:17 giving 40:21 42:12 75:18
19 21:9 40:7 51:1 57:2
exhibit 11:12,24 12:2 65:25 72:25 formally 41:9 glare 28:15 66:4,8,12,13,
13:22 15:15 16:5 19:15,18 25 67:10 73:23 74:16
20:8 23:21,24 24:6 27:20 familiarity 20:23 64:7 forward 26:11
glow 29:4
29:15,20,25 30:4 36:11 familiarize 30:6 found 35:4
42:17 56:12 58:2,5 59:6 goal 5:4
60:5 73:21 farther 18:9 foundation 25:9 47:7,15
Gomes 11:20 12:15
exhibits 4:1 79:10 favor 52:6 61:15 founded 9:2,5 18:16 19:19 20:5 41:6
founder 9:8 45:19
existed 23:4 74:3 favored 61:14
favoring 32:19 four-year 10:14 good 79:5
experience 49:1,2 50:17
February 31:25 59:6 fourth 16:10 Google 27:16 52:2,18
explained 13:9 53:4,17 54:4 68:10,11,14,
60:25 61:18 frame 16:1
explanation 13:3 15,19 74:21,22 75:7
feel 35:1 38:24 75:1 Frank 72:12
explanations 49:24 govern 12:12
feet 10:2 25:23 frankly 34:18
explore 22:4 graduation 7:19
fellow 70:14 frequently 18:2 68:14
exposed 21:5 grant 28:6 35:21 52:19
felt 26:12 33:24 34:18,25 friends 21:1,2 58:17
extemporaneously 35:20 36:5 52:9 54:3
40:22 65:13 front 38:21 53:2 granted 54:20 58:1
extend 5:18 filling 77:20 78:7 fully 17:23 33:1 granting 24:15 25:5
56:20,23 57:13,16 58:7



Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 313
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: gray..knowledge

66:1 helpful 35:25 37:10 42:15 improper 44:16 45:9,15 interested 65:5
68:19 69:10
gray 26:2 helps 69:13 interfering 52:11
improve 55:8
great 79:8 high 22:2 25:23 28:10,11, interrupting 57:1
23 29:3 improvement 9:16
grew 20:25 intersection 21:12
high-profile 29:10 inadequate 33:25
ground 4:16 introduced 63:3 64:23
higher 21:23 22:19 include 14:11 29:11
ground-up 9:15 introducing 36:19 40:19
63:20,21
hindsight 54:23
group 8:13 16:25 introduction 39:12 64:20
included 26:14 60:13
history 64:6 76:13 77:24
grown 49:1
includes 49:15,17,18
homeowners 4:20 15:12 involved 9:25 18:7
guess 53:18 58:19 61:4
30:16,22 31:5 33:10 37:17 including 49:12 76:14
involving 42:19
guidance 55:24 60:9,10 39:14,22 40:20 42:12,25
inconsistent 26:3
62:16 63:4,13 64:3 issue 22:1 41:15 51:22
guide 58:15,20
increase 10:9 66:21 62:7 71:14
hope 40:14
74:16
issues 16:16,17 42:9
H Hopi 21:9,16,23 22:10,15,
increased 10:7 45:22 59:25 60:20
18,25 23:7 50:5
hair 63:15 increasing 77:19 items 58:6
hour 5:12 71:10
halfway 14:25 independently 41:22 IV 13:23 14:10
hours 11:19 54:17,21
handling 43:12 individual 17:20 38:23
house 72:13
happen 6:3 50:8 77:24 40:5 J
housed 23:5
hard 47:10 industry 29:9 67:20 Jammon 9:2,4,21
huh-uh 6:1
hardship 51:13,14,15 inform 34:13 Jammon's 9:12
heading 18:9,19 information 6:21 10:6 January 51:17
I
13:9,24 17:17 20:7 27:6,
hear 71:19 14 28:5 32:2 33:19 34:3,4 job 8:22 36:1
idea 17:20 38:22
heard 27:3,7,8 48:15 35:4,20 36:19 37:9,11 joined 8:19
identification 4:2 11:25 38:6 41:2,8 43:9,23 44:4
62:17 70:9
23:22 29:16 58:3 48:25 50:3 52:5,24 53:6, Jonathan 4:4,11 79:15
hearing 14:17 15:3,6 identify 8:17 12,14 67:15 76:14 judges 17:5
16:19 17:14 18:12 21:17
23:1 24:2,6,9 27:4,23 image 34:9,12 38:25 informing 33:1 judgment 16:24 32:25
28:1,2,9 29:14,18 30:2,8 63:16 Inglese 6:13 19:20 25:9 36:23
31:22,25 32:6 36:14,21 32:21 33:4,21 34:21
images 35:10 63:13,17
37:14 39:8 42:5,6,7,21 36:15,22 37:5 39:15 K
44:13,16 45:19 46:2 immediately 35:7,11 40:12,25 43:18 44:10
48:10,12 49:22 50:10,18 45:16 46:5,10,14 47:7,15 keeping 25:22 26:13
immerses 55:19
51:1,17,23 52:1 53:13,14 50:12 51:4 52:21 53:15
56:9,11,25 57:5,6,19,21, impact 24:16 25:2 54:10 54:22 55:11 60:7 61:20 kind 11:17 18:3 22:3
24 59:5,7 61:2,17,19,24 76:22 62:9 63:9 64:17 65:18,23 42:18
63:3 65:3 71:15 73:11 70:5,6 71:22 74:19 75:3, kinds 6:1 14:9 42:9 43:12
75:22 76:10,17
impacted 54:12
20 76:3,18,25 77:10 79:5, 60:21 72:16 73:17
hearings 14:25 26:1 impacts 73:18 8,11
knew 19:2 34:19 41:19
43:13 50:20 68:15,16 important 36:6 55:20 instance 15:4 19:3 50:14
70:13 74:25 73:10 53:11 knowing 53:3
heat 66:25 73:23 impression 21:22 intend 27:22 knowledge 35:19 46:5
49:3 59:24 68:3 69:2,4,7,
height 10:1 28:13 33:15 impressions 21:19 intensity 66:12 11,13 71:18
39:11




Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 314
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: Kramer..numbered

Kramer 63:16 location 24:22 26:1 34:6 20:7 42:22 75:25 misunderstood 68:8
55:19 59:12 77:25 78:12
matter 5:5 17:21 23:16 moment 10:5 14:7 18:22
L long 6:18 9:8 10:10 51:18 46:24 48:9 20:14 27:19 41:13 58:13
68:24 71:9
L-I 46:15 matters 43:12 money 78:11
longer 31:3
land 8:17 meaning 67:21 monument 23:4,7 28:13,
looked 7:2 27:19 32:8 25 29:11
lapse 36:23 means 18:3 27:1
42:3 52:2 53:4 73:20
morning 71:5
larger 21:23 22:15,19 measurable 24:17 67:4
lot 10:9 62:23 78:7,12
25:24 74:8 motion 48:6,7,11,14 61:5,
measurement 22:22
Louis 7:10 8,12,15 62:4
lasted 8:14 mechanical 8:2
low 22:2 25:21,24 28:10, Mountain 4:18
law 37:7 12,23 29:3 33:17 67:17 meet 6:18 57:25 71:7,9
move 48:1
laws 23:18 67:14 77:16
low-profile 29:10 33:16
moved 20:24 26:11
lawyers 18:1 46:1 74:4 meeting 29:22 49:5
moving 62:4
learn 54:16 lowering 67:5 meets 48:15
multiple 8:1
learned 54:20 Luke's 31:15 35:9,18 member 16:1,6,14 19:9
37:24 38:7 39:6 41:15,25 30:12 44:13,15,22 45:13 muted 31:2,7
left 8:5 42:13 43:7 47:3 48:20 50:16 55:9 56:8 59:25
legal 11:20,21,22 12:16 59:7,16 62:8,23 63:7 61:18 64:21 68:13 69:7,14
N
13:24 14:11 17:2 18:4,15 76:15 71:17
20:4 27:4 60:21 luminescence 28:15 members 15:18 17:4 necessarily 77:21
legislative 16:11,16 29:4,12 37:12 41:4 42:13 43:11,17 negative 24:15 25:2
44:1 46:22 47:14 48:1
lengthy 57:8 50:24 51:7 52:25 53:12 neighborhood 4:19
M 20:20 42:9 71:15 72:6,14,
letter 37:6 58:16 61:7,12 68:21 70:14
18 73:5,9
made 14:20 20:15 30:17 memoranda 13:24 14:12
level 43:16 74:16 31:2 34:24 45:6 46:18 neighborhoods 69:2
levels 66:25 67:1,10 49:4 72:17 73:10 memory 51:21
neighboring 73:18
Li 11:21 46:6,8,10,15 make 22:23 34:1 45:22 mentioned 41:13
47:13 48:11 53:5 54:1 neighbors 54:10,12
60:14 message 24:19 26:1,2
65:12 70:14 news 54:25
life 34:10 met 56:22 57:16 71:4
making 34:14 36:6 44:5,7 nice 31:18 32:14 38:2
light 25:4,7 66:11 67:10 61:8 mic 40:1
noise 66:25 73:22
lighting 67:9 management 7:12 8:23 microphone 31:8
non-lawyers 18:2
limit 9:21 Maps 68:11,15,19 74:22 microphones 31:2
normal 47:25
limited 14:20 marijuana 51:2 54:4 75:8 million 8:3
north 6:23 20:20,25 52:16
lines 25:14 37:23 marked 4:1 11:24 23:21 mindful 72:16
29:15 58:2 noted 39:10
live 21:2 mine 21:1
masonry 10:1 notes 59:1 71:13
lived 21:1 68:24 78:18 minimal 8:12
Massachusetts 8:4 notice 53:21 75:10,18
living 69:5 minute 43:10
master 72:10 notwithstanding 34:19
Lloyd 72:12 minutes 6:11,16,19 20:11
master's 7:11 29:22 31:7 32:1 37:19 number 21:6,12 23:15
locate 37:9
53:2 67:16 70:21,23 71:5, 29:20 77:13
located 42:1 52:3 53:22 material 64:20 67:8 10 numbered 16:9
locating 35:17 materials 12:17 13:3



Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 315
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: numbers..proceeding

numbers 29:12 opposing 15:12 people 5:21 13:5,7 40:16 Powerpoint 12:17 13:8
41:7 57:2 76:23 77:19 60:5
numeral 13:23 14:10,25 opposition 13:4 14:21
78:11
30:21 33:9 62:4 practice 9:13
percent 10:3,4,9 54:2
O opposition's 33:6 practicing 69:5
performance 55:23 56:3
oath 5:1 40:13,16 oral 13:6 precedential 70:2
59:25
object 32:21 33:4,21 order 26:10 35:16 75:9 precisely 7:3
period 66:15
34:21 36:15,22 37:5 39:15 organizations 43:14 preparation 68:15 70:19
40:12,25 43:18 44:10 periodically 56:6
75:25
45:16 47:7 50:12 51:4 orientation 11:22
permit 11:8,13 18:19,25
52:21 53:15 54:22 55:11 prepare 6:7 75:11
original 46:17 25:5 26:10,14,18 35:21
61:20 62:9 63:9 64:17 56:20,23 57:13,16,25 presence 52:10 74:14
65:18 70:3 74:19 75:3,20 originally 73:11 58:10,14,17 66:2 73:20
76:3,18,25 77:10 present 30:21,23 46:1,23
overturn 48:12 57:19,23 permits 24:15 58:7 55:20
objection 45:22 65:2
permitted 55:17 71:18 presentation 13:8 15:17
objections 46:11 16:4 21:25 31:7 33:6,25
P person 74:11
obligation 75:2 42:21 49:18 50:5,7 51:25
pages 16:9 18:18,19 personal 49:2,3 63:12,18 65:12,13 74:11
observations 44:14
paragraph 24:14 25:16, personally 78:1 presentations 12:17
observed 45:9 13:6,20 30:14,17 31:1,11
17 persuade 65:2
obtained 15:22 32:18 43:2,5 49:21 75:16,
Pardon 57:4 persuasive 66:18 25
occurred 20:12 26:9 30:2
47:23 51:2 60:24
park 78:12 perused 73:3 presented 13:4 18:12
parked 77:14 22:11,20 23:1 28:5 32:3
odor 66:24 73:22 Phoenix 6:24 7:1 11:21 36:13,21 42:25 48:25 67:9
parking 77:13,15,16,20 12:5 15:24 20:24 23:19,20
off-the-record 55:4 75:1 76:16
78:7 24:21 26:10 37:3 68:25
office 54:14,16 presenter 40:5
part 10:12 12:8 21:24 physically 55:19
officer 15:6 24:9 28:9 24:11 26:21 37:21 38:5 presenting 13:5 43:23
picture 38:14 39:6,7 65:5
48:10 56:25 57:5,6 58:22 41:9 47:3 73:10 74:16
65:3 73:11 75:16,25 76:22 pithy 49:24 preserved 73:6
officer's 24:2 48:12 56:9, parte 17:9,13,16,20 18:3 place 4:16 6:23 prevented 52:10
12 57:19,22,24 plan 66:13 72:9,10
participants 17:14 53:14 previous 70:8 73:15
official 16:15 75:19 plants 38:20 previously 70:16
on-the-record 63:1 parties 13:25 14:15 27:7, played 52:18 64:13
21 30:16 32:3 39:19 41:9 primary 21:9 23:11
one-and-only 78:22 plumbing 8:2
43:4 49:22 52:12 62:6 prior 42:21
ongoing 50:18 64:21 74:24 75:1,2,9,16 point 5:13 18:10 20:10
76:9,17 private 60:8
open 10:3 54:17 31:21 33:18 35:17 37:19
parts 24:20 38:4 47:23 55:20 privileged 19:21
opinion 48:9
party 27:15 33:20 points 30:14 31:11 48:15 procedural 46:11 59:25
opportunity 11:6 30:22,
24 31:3 39:20,23,25 passion 69:6 portion 28:16 procedure 12:4 27:20
40:20,22 41:8 42:13 63:5 36:12 37:4 60:21 68:5
Paul 11:21 46:6,8 60:14 position 10:21 11:1
64:12 75:18 procedures 37:3
PDF 13:8 possibly 8:17 46:6
opposed 34:10 60:10 proceeding 14:1,15
62:4 pedestrian 66:21 73:22 potential 21:7 16:20 17:2,6,22 20:12
77:7 27:4



Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 316
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: proceedings..reside

proceedings 11:22 15:9 recently 25:25 related 34:25 57:18
18:3,4,6,7 27:10 37:20 Q
recess 59:2 relates 19:8 27:10 28:10
42:19 45:15 47:25 48:2
qualifies 25:5 37:3 75:15
50:24 64:25 recognizes 44:6
qualify 29:9 relating 11:13 27:4 44:25
process 13:10 30:19 37:4 recollect 46:6
63:2 73:15
42:15 47:4,19 50:9 quasi-judicial 16:12,17, recollection 9:24 44:23
20,23 17:9 relation 55:17
processes 11:23 45:2 63:15
question 5:9,10 6:4 relationship 22:21
produce 25:7 recommendations
12:19,21,22 13:11 17:24 72:15 relative 19:11
profile 21:24 22:2,3,19 19:22,24 22:17 39:10
23:3 25:22,24 28:10,12, 41:12 44:24 45:4,12 46:20 reconsideration 61:5,9, relevant 67:14
23,24 29:3 33:17 67:18 50:7 52:17 53:9,19 56:16 12,15
relief 28:7 52:19
prohibited 17:13 57:18 63:22,23 64:1 70:5, reconstruct 47:10
10 rely 69:7,11 71:18
project 26:10 record 4:10 6:1 15:22,24
questioning 76:6 remember 6:2 9:25
20:10,11,16 21:14 22:2
projects 9:16 13:15,18 35:14,15 51:11,
questions 5:4,5,7 7:4 26:25 27:3,6,9,13,15,17
22,24 52:14 63:18 67:23
pronouncing 9:3 34:5 48:6 62:3 63:2 65:20, 28:2,3 32:2,3,13 33:24
70:18
24 69:17 70:19 71:22 72:3 34:20 39:10,13 41:9,16
proof 65:1
74:22 76:21 79:4 43:1 44:8,19 45:13 46:13, Remind 68:24
property 10:3,8 24:17 19 49:6 55:3 57:10 64:5
quick 56:14 67:24 68:7 71:1 75:24
remote 60:11,12,15
52:3 54:6,9 67:5 74:3
quickly 71:13 76:7 remotely 60:20
proportion 38:19
quote/unquote 22:19 recordings 70:25 removal 63:15
proposal 21:25
records 15:23 rendering 34:10
proposed 24:21
R redo 64:11 repeat 45:4
protected 73:6
raise 45:22 46:11 reduction 10:2 rephrase 6:5 32:9 39:3
protection 8:3
raised 41:15 refer 36:10 reporter 5:20 46:15 57:10
provide 27:21 33:10
79:6,9
55:22 62:6 random 77:12 reference 70:15 72:12
read 6:11 18:10 26:4 referenced 63:13 reporter's 29:13,20
provided 12:8,18,24
70:24
13:2,13,21,24,25 14:9,15, 31:19 37:21 48:17 57:7,10
references 21:14
16,21 15:11,17 17:18 20:7 70:24 71:1 73:2 represent 4:18 63:14
27:6,14 28:1 30:20 33:19 referring 4:19 29:23
reading 18:11 38:2 48:4 representation 16:5
34:3 42:21 43:2 44:5 76:1, 48:20 49:10 57:4 58:15
9 reads 24:15 25:21 63:6 representative 31:6
providing 47:2 53:12 real 34:9,11 36:4 reflected 60:5 request 15:23
prudent 30:6 32:15 56:1 reason 24:12 76:23 reflecting 31:21 requested 28:7 52:20
62:5 63:19,20 64:19 65:9 79:13
reasons 62:12 reflection 73:4
public 4:22,23 15:23 22:2 requesting 51:13
rebuttal 30:24 43:2 refresh 51:20 59:23
23:10 24:5
recall 4:24 12:25 30:15 refreshed 60:16 required 54:17 56:9
pulling 77:18 57:19
33:9 38:20,21 40:4 41:16
refresher 19:7
purport 62:23 44:13 52:1,5 53:23 60:17 requirements 56:22
62:12 66:4 67:17 68:10 refreshers 55:16 56:5 57:15,25 58:7,14,15
purports 64:6
69:16,22 71:11 74:22 60:4
purpose 78:10 research 34:25 63:6
receive 11:18 13:10 17:1 Regrettably 39:24 64:12 65:14
purposes 7:4 65:15
received 12:15 20:4 relate 17:19 29:4 75:17 reside 6:22
60:19



Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 317
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: residential..St

residential 9:15 10:8 run 18:1 shown 11:12 50:6 67:12 situation 39:18 59:16
21:5 52:11 54:13 66:22 61:24 63:8
sidewalk 38:20
respect 43:16 45:23 S size 22:6,9,25 23:13,15
sign 4:23 11:9 15:4 21:20,
46:23 47:13 28:13,15,25 29:5,11 33:15
Save 77:3 23,24 22:7,10,18,20,21
38:22 41:23
respectfully 17:23 27:11 24:21 25:7,23 26:18
46:6 49:4,23 53:23 60:17 scale 34:9 38:22 39:1 28:16,25 29:5,10 31:17 skimmed 73:3
77:11 Schaub 31:6 32:20 33:2,15,16 34:6
small 74:15
35:7,9,18 36:3,7,20 37:10,
respecting 48:8 scheduled 14:16 25 38:7,16 39:1,6,8 40:7, smaller 24:19 31:17
respond 39:20,23 40:21 school 21:10,16 23:11,14 21 41:15,20,25 42:1,19,20 37:25 38:7 39:2,8 41:16
75:18 43:7 45:1 47:3 48:13,21
scope 34:9 59:8,16,17 62:8,24 63:6,
smoke 66:25 73:23
responding 75:11 15,16 64:4,6,13,15 66:8,
Scottsdale 6:25 78:21 software 55:18,22,25
response 39:10 61:5 20,24 67:3,13 73:11 74:3,
79:1,2 sort 60:3 64:12
4,7,15 76:15,23 77:8,18,
responses 63:2 screen 34:11 24 78:11,22,23 sought 11:1
responsibilities 36:1 search 31:22 35:8,14 signage 21:15,16 23:10 souls 77:3
responsibility 19:9 52:2,18 69:20,22,23 25:15,21 28:11 29:9 33:10
48:23 63:3 73:15 south 20:20 42:2
26:22 searching 51:14 69:23
signature 79:13 space 10:3
rest 43:22 section 20:16
significant 66:21 spaces 55:20 77:13,16,
restate 64:1 seeking 18:25 23:12 20
result 48:1 77:8 51:11 52:7 58:10 signs 25:6,25 28:14
31:14,18 32:14,16,17 span 78:21,23
retract 70:5 Seinfeld 63:17
35:10,12,13 38:3 40:10 speak 31:3 61:12
reveal 19:21 60:8 sense 39:1 41:23 49:2 50:2 63:14,20,
21 65:6,15 71:14,19 78:25 speaking 5:19,21 40:14
review 6:15 21:16,20 24:5 sentence 24:18 25:14
similar 8:22 16:24 24:18 speaks 5:20
26:9 30:4 32:2 38:5 39:5 separate 28:14
40:21 42:13 46:24 47:18, 33:15,16 40:10 41:16,23 Special 24:22 72:23
22 54:5 71:13 separately 61:14 71:14
specific 21:11 22:21
reviewed 26:11,13 28:5 September 10:12 similarly 75:14 35:17 44:24 51:14 56:16
29:22 70:21 serve 10:16 11:6 13:14 sir 4:13 6:14,25 7:7,10,13, 62:11,13 66:12,14
reviewing 51:8 18,24 8:9,15,20,24 9:4,6 specifically 21:6,15
served 55:7
10:15,17 11:2,11 12:7 36:12 40:2 62:7 76:14
Road 11:9 20:17,21 25:8 service 68:13 69:13 14:18 15:2,7 16:3,13,18
34:7 51:3 78:16,22,23 17:3,7 18:17,21 20:13,18 spending 78:11
79:1,3 serving 10:18 11:16 17:5 21:18 23:6,9 24:1,4,7
19:12 spoke 6:11 30:13,15
roasted 63:16 25:20 26:5,17,24 27:24 61:18
sessions 60:12 30:11 31:20 33:12 35:23
role 13:14 19:12 20:5 38:17 39:21 40:3,24 42:2, spoken 4:15
52:18 55:9 64:13 share 37:11,16 41:8 16 43:24 44:24 46:3,9
52:24 75:2 spots 78:7
Roman 13:23 14:10,24 48:18,22 52:4 54:18 58:8
shared 19:18 41:3,19 72:24 73:1 78:9,14,17 spring 64:3
room 38:6 41:7 53:6 sit 11:7 square 10:8
rule 36:12 sharing 53:3,8,13 site 53:18,21 77:20 St 7:10 31:15 35:9,18
rules 4:16 12:4,6,10,12 short 33:1 37:24 38:7 39:6 41:15,25
27:20 37:3 44:2 55:16 sites 53:16,25 42:13 43:7 47:3 48:20
68:4 show 29:13 sitting 37:2 46:22 54:25 59:7,16 62:8,23 63:7
showing 23:24 58:5 55:6 61:23 76:15
ruling 16:25 17:1
66:14




Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 318
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: staff..variances

staff 14:8 59:22 67:16 thinking 51:12,15 62:15 Tristahn 31:6
standard 29:8 67:20 supporting 56:3 Thomas 51:3 true 14:12 20:17 35:22
74:12,17
standardized 67:21 supports 46:19 thought 34:13 37:10
trust 43:16 46:23
standpoint 62:15 supposed 66:1 throw 77:12
truth 5:1 40:10,14,17
started 20:24 surprise 11:3 time 5:13,21 10:19,25
16:1 19:10,24 27:2 28:19 type 5:25 13:3 78:22
starting 9:10 surrounding 24:16 25:3
30:7,21 43:12 46:7 56:14
38:18,19 42:14 59:12 74:1 types 13:19
state 4:10 62:11 59:5 70:10 71:7 75:10
sworn 4:5 typically 53:24
stated 32:13 timeframe 69:4
systems 8:3
statement 20:17 24:24, times 6:4 9:22 21:13
U
25 26:6 49:6,7 53:5 35:15 78:16
T uh-huh 6:1 9:11 12:3
statements 13:25 14:12 title 7:23
20:15 63:2 25:18 47:24 51:19 62:19
takes 53:17 today 4:22 16:19 27:5,10
states 46:13 37:2 40:9 41:22 46:22 understand 5:2,6 11:10
talk 22:2 23:3 40:1,22
54:25 55:6 61:23 66:4 12:19 14:19 16:22 17:16,
stating 64:21 61:1,7 73:14,21
67:17,23,25 68:1,11 69:17 23 18:5,13,23 22:23 26:25
step 43:10 talked 14:7 28:9 29:21 71:7 27:9,17 36:18 76:12
40:6 41:6,20 58:13 76:6,7
stop 5:16 today's 6:7 70:19 understanding 7:5 13:6
talking 20:11 23:4 28:4, 15:8 33:16 34:8 36:3
street 21:11 25:8 42:14 23 49:14,21 50:2 77:6 told 16:6
75:8 78:21 79:3 understandings 4:16
talks 13:23 14:7,10 tools 68:22
street-front 23:16 understood 5:6,10,22,25
taller 22:16 23:7 top 16:11 14:11,14 16:14 17:12
strict 37:6 total 11:3 22:18 24:8,11 26:21 30:1 36:11
taught 18:15 73:8 76:8,22
structural 8:2 traffic 42:14 52:11 66:21
telling 40:10 unfair 64:8
structure 28:25 73:22 76:22 77:6,8,19,23
ten 14:16 20:24 25:23 78:4 unique 72:6,17 73:5,9,16
studies 66:11 67:11 27:22 28:1 31:7 78:19
train 13:14 78:22
Studios 9:2,4,21 tenant 9:15
trained 16:6 60:16 University 7:9,14,16,17
study 72:15 77:23 78:4 term 10:14 22:3 26:25
training 11:17,19 12:8, updates 60:4
subject 5:5 17:21 33:2 27:3,7,8,9 57:3 67:17,21,
24 68:3,7 76:13 15,25 15:18 19:8,11,12,14 updating 19:8
38:8 39:8 46:24 53:25 20:3 60:3,4,10,19
64:15 65:16 72:8,14 74:7 terms 12:24 15:18 27:4, uphold 56:9,11
17 44:3 53:8 56:4 59:15 traits 73:9
submit 66:7 upholding 56:16
74:24 transcribed 59:6
submittal 72:19 utilized 37:11
testified 4:6 78:15 transcript 29:13,21 37:20
submitted 71:2 48:4 70:24 79:7
testimony 18:10,12
substance 61:19 V
29:21 36:13,21 41:17 transcription 30:2
substantive 46:11 45:10 48:5 58:13 59:21 Vague 70:3
60:21 76:8 transition 48:14
summarizing 42:18 valuable 35:20
texting 50:20,24 transitioning 60:11,15
Sundt 8:19 values 24:17 67:5
Thelda 10:24,25 transpired 61:24
Supplementally 34:16 variance 10:1,7 51:13,15
things 6:1 12:17 14:9 Tricia 11:20 12:15
52:6,19 54:20 57:25
supplementing 33:18 24:11 31:15 42:9 47:13 Trinity 7:6
59:23,24 60:22 72:16 variances 56:21,23
support 52:6 55:8,22 57:14,16
73:17,21



Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 319
Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association vs City of Phoenix CV2022-004359
Jonathan Ammon September 9, 2022 Index: vehicular..zoning

vehicular 66:21 73:21 well-worded 70:11
77:7,19
west 78:25
verbal 5:25
Western 7:16
verbally 53:6,11
white 26:2
vernacular 73:25
wide 25:23
versus 16:11 28:10,23
Williams 10:24,25
29:10 35:12 59:17
word 28:4 69:22 70:23
vibration 66:25 73:22
75:24
video 13:8
wordy 49:24
view 27:25 28:24 29:3
work 6:2 7:19 8:12 9:17
30:23 33:6 54:19 56:8
11:23 15:9 43:11,23
65:9 66:13 75:8
48:11,19 49:8,10,11,12,
viewed 49:15 14,15,20,22 50:2 60:11,15
violated 37:2 working 60:20
virtual 7:22 world 36:4
virtually 55:19 Wright 72:12
vis-a-vis 38:19 written 12:17 14:12 20:11
42:22
visual 13:7 36:4 38:25
39:5 wrong 29:6,7
visually 59:8 74:10
Y
voluntary 10:21
vote 44:19 52:6 60:25 year 8:14
61:4,11 years 21:4 55:7 69:1
voted 61:14
Z
W
ZA-324-20 51:20
walked 13:19 ZAHO 56:24 57:4
walking 74:12 ZAHO's 56:16,21 57:14
wall 10:1 ZIP 6:25
wanted 32:16 34:8 59:4 zoning 9:18,22 11:20
76:23 15:5 19:4 23:19 24:2,8
Washington 7:8,14,17 25:25 28:9 48:9,12 56:11,
25 57:5,21,24 58:21 60:13
ways 55:8 59:22 65:3 67:14 73:10
website 31:12,23 32:5,8,
10 35:6,8,17 36:8,19 38:6,
12 39:1,7 41:3 44:15 47:2,
19 49:13,16 50:4 59:9
62:7 63:4 69:17,20,24,25
76:14
week 71:12




Coash & Coash, Inc. 602-258-1440
staff@coashandcoash.com www.coashandcoash.com
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334



Report