← Back to meetings

Meeting phoenix-pdf-2021-04-07 complete

2021-04-07 · Formal Meeting

Items: 108

Formal Meeting

View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
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 13
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: April 7, 2021
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:

Environmental Quality and Sustainability Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Kathy Knoop
Ms. Knoop is an Energy Innovation Advisor at Arizona Public Service and a resident of
District 2. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire April 7, 2024.

I recommend the following for reappointment:

Kelly Barr
Ms. Barr is serving her second term to expire May 10, 2023.

Caroline Lobo
Ms. Lobo is serving her fifth term to expire August 31, 2023.

Library Advisory Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Dominique Medina
Mr. Medina is a Creative Professional at YCM Marketing and a resident of District 8. He
fills a vacancy for a term to expire April 7, 2024.

I recommend the following for reappointment:

Kathleen Ingley




Page 14
Ms. Ingley is serving her second term to expire April 5, 2023.

Brenda Thomson
Ms. Thomson is serving her second term to expire April 5, 2023.

Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Chad Makovsky
Mr. Makovsky is the Director of the Aviation Department and will replace Interim
Director Charlene Reynolds in the ex-officio position.

Phoenix Business Workforce Development Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Jon Ellerston
Mr. Ellerston is the Vocational Rehabilitation Regional Program Manager at the
Rehabilitation Services Administration in the Arizona Department of Economic Security.
He will represent the Vocational Rehabilitation category for a term to expire June 30,
2022.

Tourism and Hospitality Advisory Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Angela Karp
Ms. Karp is the Co-Founder of Angelic Grove/The Croft Downtown and a resident of
District 6. She replaces Debbie Johnson and will represent the Hospitality Industry for a
term to expire September 30, 2022.

I recommend the following for reappointment:

John Chan
Mr. Chan will serve his fifth term to expire September 30, 2022.

Jerry Harper
Mr. Harper will serve his third term to expire September 30, 2022.

Youth and Education Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:




Page 15
Laurence De Respino
Mr. De Respino is the General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer at U-Haul and a
resident of District 6. He will represent businesses and serve a partial term to expire
August 31, 2021.




Page 16



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Coma Sushi & Izakaya Corporation

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 138318.

Summary

Applicant
Duy Nguyen, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
17155 N. 51st Ave., Ste. 122 & 124
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location requires a
Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 10, 2021.

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


Page 17

State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
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.

Angelina's Vietnamese Cuisine Pho & Grill (Series 12)
5350 W. Bell Road, Ste. 123-124, Glendale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: In April 2017, a fine of $375 was paid for delinquent taxes.

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 been running many of the same business and never had any issues. Always
follow the law, Public Safety First.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Public Safety comes first.”

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
Liquor License Data - Coma Sushi & Izakaya Corporation
Liquor License Map - Coma Sushi & Izakaya Corporation

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 18
Liquor License Data: COMA SUSHI & IZAKAYA
CORPORATION
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Liquor Store 9 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 1 1

Restaurant 12 4 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 43.40 17.09 23.56

Violent Crimes 7.97 1.88 2.01

*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 57 31

Total Violations 93 48




Page 19
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1042142 985 72 % 7% 11 %

1042251 1242 53 % 8% 9%

1042253 904 85 % 5% 11 %

6180001 2499 85 % 2% 12 %

6181001 1795 84 % 3% 7%

6181002 1569 92 % 0% 6%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 20
Liquor License Map: COMA SUSHI & IZAKAYA CORPORATION
17155 N 51ST AVE




Ü
Date: 3/15/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 21



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Cook & Craft

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 137378.

Summary

Applicant
Kevin Kramber, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant with Growler Privileges

Location
5310 E. High St., Unit 100
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
Council District: 2

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 18, 2021.

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 22

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.

Cook & Craft (Series 12)
7306 E. Shea Blvd., Scottsdale
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 am currently an Agent on 180 + liquor licenses throughout the state. All partners
currently own & operate a series 12, restaurant, liquor license at their first location.
There have been no Title IV or DLLC compliance actions against their current 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:
“The location is in a very affluent part of Phoenix, and as such we would like to be able
to offer spirits to our customers as a way to enhance their dining experience.”

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
Liquor License Data - Cook & Craft
Liquor License Map - Cook & Craft

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.



Page 23
Liquor License Data: COOK & CRAFT
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 9 7

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 2

Liquor Store 9 3 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 2

Restaurant 12 26 21


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 42.36 26.85 19.53

Violent Crimes 7.67 1.67 1.27

*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 59 0

Total Violations 98 0



Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %

6152002 2127 70 % 10 % 4%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 24
Liquor License Map: COOK & CRAFT
5310 E HIGH ST




Ü
Date: 2/19/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 25



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Humble Bistro

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 136466.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
5415 E. High St., Unit 127
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
Council District: 2

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 April 17, 2021.

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 26

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.

Humble Pie Pizza Wine & Spirits (Series 12)
3890 W. Happy Valley Road, Ste., 169, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 9
Liquor license violations: None

Humble Pie Pizza Wine & Spirits (Series 12)
6149 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste., A1, Scottsdale
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:
"Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Humble Bistro is a neighborhood restaurant featuring pizza, pasta, burgers,
sandwiches, salads, and soup in a family-friendly environment. Applicant would like to
continue to offer guests 21 and over the opportunity to order alcoholic beverages as an
incident to the meals they enjoy.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Humble Bistro
Liquor License Map - Humble Bistro



Page 27

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 28
Liquor License Data: HUMBLE BISTRO
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 9 7

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 2

Liquor Store 9 3 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 2

Restaurant 12 27 22


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 42.36 27.91 19.53

Violent Crimes 7.67 1.80 1.27

*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 59 0

Total Violations 98 0



Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %

6152002 2127 70 % 10 % 4%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 29
Liquor License Map: HUMBLE BISTRO
5415 E HIGH ST




Ü
Date: 2/19/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 30



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Saddlecreek Coffee Co.

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 137073.

Summary

Applicant
James Ebel, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
28212 N. Tatum Blvd., Ste. D6
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2

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 was April 3, 2021. However, the
applicant has submitted a written request for more time.

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


Page 31

State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
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.

Craftsman (Series 12)
20469 N. Hayden Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Craftsman (Series 18)
20469 N. Hayden Road, Scottsdale
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 owned & managed restaurants for over 15 years. I currently hold the liquor
license for the Craftsman restaurant in Scottsdale & before that Two Brothers
Taphouse & Brewery in Scottsdale.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Many of our regular customers have requested us to serve alcoholic beverages.
There are very limited options in the local area for happy hour opportunities. Want to
offer customers opportunity to enjoy an alcoholic beverage with lunch or late
afternoon.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Saddlecreek Coffee Co.
Liquor License Map - Saddlecreek Coffee Co.


Page 32


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 33
Liquor License Data: SADDLECREEK COFFEE CO.
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Liquor Store 9 1 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 1 1

Restaurant 12 4 4


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 42.36 4.64 9.76

Violent Crimes 7.67 0.42 0.21
*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 60 0

Total Violations 100 0



Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6128001 2069 83 % 21 % 1%

6129001 834 80 % 0% 2%

6129002 1521 93 % 18 % 1%

6133001 1688 91 % 7% 2%

6133003 1120 84 % 17 % 15 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 34
Liquor License Map: SADDLECREEK COFFEE CO.
28212 N TATUM BLVD




Ü
Date: 2/5/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 35



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - St. Mary's Roman Catholic High School Phoenix

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

Summary

Applicant
Patricia Hollerbach

Location
2525 N. 3rd St.
Council District: 4

Function
Community Event

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April, 17, 2021 - 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. / 180 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting that approval of this application is
based on criteria set forth in Title IV of the Arizona Revised Statutes and noting that
the applicant has agreed to adhere to the implementation and enforcement of safety
precautions consistent with the guidance issued by both the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the Arizona Department of Health Services.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 36



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Express Beer and Tacos

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 138840.

Summary

Applicant
Juanita Esparza, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
7730 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5

This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine store. This location was
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 April 18, 2021.

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 37

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:
“The owner of Express Beer and Tacos is committed to upholding the highest
standards for it's business practices & employees. Mr. Lazar has been trained along
with all employees in the techniques of legal & responsibility and has taken the Title 4
Liquor Law Training course. As owner of the business he will oversee all employees &
will provide a safe experience for the staff and the public at all times.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Mr. Lazar wishes to provide off-sale privileges of beer and wine to the general public.
Express Beer and Tacos will responsibly adhere to all state and federal tax laws &
maintain a strict adherence to the security requirements of the city and state agencies.”

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
Liquor License Data - Express Beer and Tacos
Liquor License Map - Express Beer and Tacos

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 38
Liquor License Data: EXPRESS BEER AND TACOS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 3 0

Liquor Store 9 3 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2

Restaurant 12 2 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 42.36 113.53 111.67

Violent Crimes 7.67 26.59 26.22

*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 58 374

Total Violations 96 618




Page 39
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1096012 1021 34 % 18 % 34 %

1096013 2174 69 % 19 % 21 %

1096021 1392 71 % 14 % 35 %

1096023 1946 79 % 0% 22 %

1096031 852 79 % 11 % 3%

1096032 1211 75 % 15 % 23 %

1096034 1269 66 % 0% 17 %

1097021 1552 88 % 22 % 35 %

1097032 1653 33 % 12 % 31 %

1097041 1602 68 % 5% 35 %

1097042 784 71 % 19 % 15 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 40
Liquor License Map: EXPRESS BEER AND TACOS
7730 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD




Ü
Date: 2/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 41



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Arcadia Grill & Tavern

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 1207B248.

Summary

Applicant
Korey Boals, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4801 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 1
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales with a Series 12 - Restaurant, liquor
license.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 23, 2021.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.

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.

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,


Page 42

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:
“Establishment has always been in existence - agent change only.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 43



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Dodey's Bar

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070201.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
7051 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a bar. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales with a Series 6 - Bar, liquor license.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 19, 2021.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.

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.

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.

Page 44

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because: “I
was managing this bar for several years and am now the owner. I will continue to
abide by Title 4 liquor laws.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 45



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Sonesta Select Phoenix Camelback

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 135920.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 11 - Hotel

Location
2101 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 CEPCSP
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. 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 April 18, 2021.

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 46

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.

Sonesta Es Suites Flagstaff (Series 7)
1400 N. Country Club Road, Flagstaff
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Sonesta Suites Scottsdale (Series 6)
7300 E. Gainey Suites Dr., Scottsdale
Calls for police Service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor License Violations: None

Sonesta Es Suites Tucson (Series 7)
6477 E. Speedway Blvd., Tucson
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:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Applicant will manage the Sonesta Select Phoenix Camelback Hotel (formerly
Courtyard) in the heart of the Camelback business corridor. Applicant would like to
continue to offer alcoholic beverages to guests 21 and over."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.



Page 47

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Sonesta Select Phoenix Camelback
Liquor License Map - Sonesta Select Phoenix Camelback

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 48
Liquor License Data: SONESTA SELECT PHOENIX
CAMELBACK
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Wholesaler 4 2 0

Bar 6 6 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 2

Liquor Store 9 5 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 4

Hotel 11 4 3

Restaurant 12 37 18


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 42.36 118.84 183.43

Violent Crimes 7.67 12.28 11.88

*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 59 30

Total Violations 98 37




Page 49
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1077002 738 57 % 10 % 8%

1077003 457 26 % 26 % 16 %

1077005 736 14 % 6% 4%

1078002 1477 63 % 28 % 5%

1084004 1641 65 % 7% 19 %

1085011 1023 33 % 6% 13 %

1085012 1416 74 % 21 % 4%

1085022 732 23 % 28 % 12 %

1085023 1475 42 % 20 % 7%

1085024 549 43 % 31 % 15 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 50
Liquor License Map: SONESTA SELECT PHOENIX CAMELBACK
2101 E CAMELBACK RD




Ü
Date: 2/19/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 51



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Club Envy

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 137115.

Summary

Applicant
Bradley Chavez, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
136 E. Washington St.
Zoning Classification: DTC - Business Core
Council District: 7

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application was April 3, 2021. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.

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 52

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 respect and clearly know of the responsibility that I must upkeep to protect our guest
and the public. I hold an active Real Estate License in the state of Arizona and know
what it takes to upkeep code of ethics and principles. I'm grateful for the opportunity
and know that a "Liquor License" is a privilege that can be revoked, just like any other
license. I will continue to strive on enforcing all laws when handling liquor to guarantee
our business is keeping the community safe while obeying all laws. I am fully
committed and capable.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Downtown Phoenix is driven by nightlife and entertainment. Being centered so close
to the Phoenix Suns Arena brings hundreds of thousands of fans that after every event
strole the streets of Jefferson & Washington searching for great and welcoming vibe
entertainment. This serves the best interest for our community because it drives more
revenue for the city in TPT/revenue sales in which we can use to continue to improve
our city, educational systems and community to help the valley continue to grow in
innovation.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Club Envy
Liquor License Map - Club Envy

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 53
Liquor License Data: CLUB ENVY
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 2 1

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 8 5

Bar 6 40 25

Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 6

Liquor Store 9 3 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 10 2

Hotel 11 7 5

Restaurant 12 78 37

Club 14 3 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 43.40 143.25 191.18

Violent Crimes 7.97 41.64 46.49
*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 57 21

Total Violations 93 31




Page 54
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %

1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %

1132022 1257 47 % 29 % 55 %

1140001 1831 25 % 20 % 47 %

1140002 78 77 % 0% 32 %

1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %

1142001 1321 36 % 22 % 50 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 55
Liquor License Map: CLUB ENVY
136 E WASHINGTON ST




Ü
Date: 2/5/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 56



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Pizzeria Del Sol

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 138980.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3010 S. 99th Ave., Ste. 102
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 7

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. This business
is currently under construction with plans to open in May 2021.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is April 19, 2021.

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.




Page 57

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.

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:
“We train all of our employees in responsible liquor service. We also conduct regular
audits to ensure they comply.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We would like the ability to offer our patrons of legal age an adult beverage with their
meal if they choose to have one.”

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
Liquor License Data - Pizzeria Del Sol
Liquor License Map - Pizzeria Del Sol

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 58
Page 59
Page 60



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Legacy Golf Resort

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070498.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
6808 S. 32nd St.
Zoning Classification: RH BAOD
Council District: 8

This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a golf course. 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 April 13, 2021.

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 61

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:
“We will train all of our employees in responsible liquor service.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This golf course has been in operation for many years. We would like to continue to
offer alcohol if our guests choose to have an adult beverage.”

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
Liquor License Data - Legacy Golf Resort
Liquor License Map - Legacy Golf Resort

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 62
Liquor License Data: LEGACY GOLF RESORT
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 3 1

Liquor Store 9 2 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 0

Restaurant 12 11 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 42.36 60.69 16.24

Violent Crimes 7.67 7.88 1.69

*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 58 4

Total Violations 96 7


Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1162033 1381 79 % 23 % 5%

1163001 2349 79 % 10 % 54 %

1163003 2181 70 % 10 % 18 %

1167042 2012 71 % 13 % 9%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 63
Liquor License Map: LEGACY GOLF RESORT
6808 S 32ND ST




Ü
Date: 2/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 64



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Los Cuatro Nietos

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 138479.

Summary

Applicant
Juanita Esparza, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
705 E. Mohave St.
Zoning Classification: C-3 AIO
Council District: 8

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 April 12, 2021.

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 65

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.

El Camaron Gigante (Series 12)
8343 W. Van Buren St., Ste. A-1, Tolleson
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:
“The owner's of Los Cuatros Nietos is committed to upholding the highest standards
for it's business practices & employees. They have been trained in all techniques of
legal & responsibility & have taken the title 4 liquor law training course and will operate
the business on a day to day basis. As owners of the business they will oversee all
employees & will provide a safe experience for all staff & patron.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The owner's of Los Cuatros Nietos wishes to provide dining with alcohol beverages at
the request of the patron. In addition Los Cuatro Nietos will responsibly adhere to all
state and federal tax laws and maintain a strict adherence to the security requirements
of the city and state.”

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
Liquor License Data - Los Cuatro Nietos
Liquor License Map - Los Cuatro Nietos




Page 66

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 67
Liquor License Data: LOS CUATRO NIETOS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 2 0

Government 5 1 0

Bar 6 5 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1

Liquor Store 9 2 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 0

Restaurant 12 8 2

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 42.53 2.60 3.18

Violent Crimes 7.71 0.61 1.69

*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 59 94

Total Violations 98 164




Page 68
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1140002 78 77 % 0% 32 %

1142001 1321 36 % 22 % 50 %

1149001 798 28 % 13 % 57 %

1172001 823 25 % 17 % 70 %

1172002 851 25 % 28 % 20 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 69
Liquor License Map: LOS CUATRO NIETOS
705 E MOHAVE ST




Ü
Date: 2/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 70



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Urban Bricks Pizza

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 137449.

Summary

Applicant
Rohit Patel, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4750 S. 48th St., Ste. 107
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8

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 April 20, 2021.

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 71


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 am successful business man for last 15+ years in restaurant business. I am recently
purchase pizza store which sells beer to its customers. To continue to sell beer, I am
required to have 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:
“Selling beer at pizza store is truly satisfy customer convenience. It is solely depends
on customer choice.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Urban Bricks Pizza
Liquor License Map - Urban Bricks Pizza

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 72
Liquor License Data: URBAN BRICKS PIZZA
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 3

Liquor Store 9 3 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 2

Restaurant 12 3 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 42.36 24.01 35.66

Violent Crimes 7.67 5.65 10.61

*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 58 31

Total Violations 96 43


Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1152001 1118 13 % 16 % 58 %

1152003 546 8% 44 % 45 %

1162041 1426 79 % 6% 24 %

1162042 1819 57 % 0% 32 %

1162043 535 59 % 24 % 8%

3197041 1777 42 % 9% 20 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 73
Liquor License Map: URBAN BRICKS PIZZA
4750 S 48TH ST




Ü
Date: 2/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 74



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Speedy Stop Liquors

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070499.

Summary

Applicant
Minesh Patel, Agent

License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store

Location
5033 S. 16th St.
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 8

This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a liquor store. 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 April 19, 2021.

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


Page 75

State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
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.

Herbal Nail & Spa In Laveen (Series 7)
5185 W. Baseline Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 12
Liquor license violations: None

Ray Mini Mart (Series 10)
797 E. Ray Road, Gilbert
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 run a liquor store in the City of Chandler before and I currently have a gas
station with a beer and wine license. I have many years experience in the industry. I
have also taken appropriate training classes regarding liquor.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This business has been serving the local community for many years. We provide the
essentials the community is looking for within walking distance and help the
community by providing the household needs they need at prices they can afford. It is
a local favorite and many repeat customers numerous times during the day."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Speedy Stop Liquors
Liquor License Map - Speedy Stop Liquors


Page 76


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 77
Liquor License Data: SPEEDY STOP LIQUORS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 4 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0

Liquor Store 9 5 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1

Restaurant 12 1 0

Club 14 1 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 42.36 83.75 74.62

Violent Crimes 7.67 18.20 19.85

*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 58 87

Total Violations 96 137




Page 78
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1153001 1600 47 % 16 % 46 %

1153002 804 36 % 0% 33 %

1159001 1461 63 % 20 % 45 %

1159002 2720 55 % 22 % 30 %

1160002 2674 85 % 19 % 9%

1160003 1802 54 % 17 % 38 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 79
Liquor License Map: SPEEDY STOP LIQUORS
5033 S 16TH ST




Ü
Date: 2/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 80



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Padre Murphy's

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
4338 W. Bell Road
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 81



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Arena Sports Grill

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
6245 E. Bell Road, Ste. 101-104
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 2

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 82



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Azool Grill

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
3134 W. Carefree Hwy., Ste. 3
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 83



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Casey Jones Grill

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
2848 E. Bell Road, Ste. 111 & 112
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 84



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Longshots Bar & Grill

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
13610 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 30-31
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 85



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - The Burg Sports Grill

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
751 E. Union Hills Dr., Ste. 3-6
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 2

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 86



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Big Daddy's Sports Lounge

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
10618 N. Cave Creek Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 87



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Roman's County Line

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
10540 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 88



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Armadillo Grill

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
1904 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: C-1 CEPCSP
Council District: 6

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 89



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Bleacher's Sports Grill

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
15410 S. Mountain Pkwy., Ste. 109
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 6

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 90



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Gallagher's

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
7575 N. 16th St., Ste. 1
Zoning Classification: PSC PCD
Council District: 6

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 91



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Mr. Haney's

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
5110 E. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 92



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - American Legion #1

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
364 N. 7th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-3 CMOD ACOD
Council District: 7

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 93



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit Renewal - Gallagher's Food and Fun

Request for renewal of an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a location
previously approved by the City Council for this purpose.

Summary

Applicant
David Johnson, Agent for Turf Paradise

Location
3220 E. Baseline Road
Zoning Classification: C-1 BAOD
Council District: 8

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.




Page 94




PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-47417) (Items 31-38)
Ordinance S-47417 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.

31 JLL Pioneer, Inc doing business as Pioneer Landscape
Centers
For $20,000.00 in payment authority to purchase 1/2-inch screened
palomino gold road base for the Parks and Recreation Department. The
road base consists of gravel, which will be spread over the Tovrea
Castle's roadways and pathways to significantly reduce the creation of
dust by tour and maintenance vehicles. All vehicles visiting Tovrea Castle
park on dust-free surfaces due to the Phoenix City Code 36-145. Adding
the gravel onto the dirt roadways will increase parking spaces and help
prevent City Code violations that could occur during castle operations.
The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed various material
samples and has determined that 1/2-inch screened palomino gold road
base will be aesthetically the best fit for the Tovrea Castle. The
Environmental Programs Office has provided $20,000.00 to purchase the
gravel.

32 SAMS Technical Publishing, LLC.
For $49,470.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about April 15, 2021 for a term of five years for SAMS Photofact Online
database for the Library Department. SAMS Technical Publishing will
provide access to SAMS Photofact Online database/eLibrary to
customers and staff. The database will be available from the Phoenix


Page 95

Public Library website once customers sign in using their valid library
card. The eLibrary will meet residents' educational and entertainment
needs as well as continue to serve as a primary, high-circulating
collection, and will be available 24/7. SAMS manuals contain a complete
set of schematics with voltages, wave forms, component location guides,
parts list, and service adjustments covering TVs, VCRs, DVDs, radios,
and audio equipment (Micro-HiFi System). The database is searchable,
and searches are completed by entering the model number from the
device being serviced. Partial model numbers can be researched, and the
database will bring back results regarding the availability of manuals in the
database.

33 Aviation Specialties Unlimited, Inc.
For $65,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract entered on or
about May 3, 2021, for a term of five years for Night Vision Goggles
(NVG) and related services for the Phoenix Fire Department. NVG is
specifically designed for fire rescue units to safely and effectively perform
night-time, low-light, and no-light rescue operations, both inside and
outside Phoenix city limits. Aviation Specialties Unlimited is the sole
authorized distributor for L-3 and Harris products and the factory
authorized service provider for testing, certification, and repair of the
equipment. The NVG for the Fire Department hoist operators must be
identical to what is used by the Phoenix Police Department pilots to
ensure interoperability during flight rescue operations. The consistency is
critical because the NVG is calibrated and serviced in compliance with the
Federal Aviation Administration requirements.

34 Settlement of Claim(s) Womble v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $30,860.95 in settlement of claim(s) in
Womble v. City of Phoenix, 19-0669-001, AU, BI, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code chapter 42. This is a
settlement of a bodily injury claim against the Parks and Recreation
Department arising from a motor vehicle accident on Aug. 23, 2019.

35 Settlement of Claim(s) Gonzales v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $70,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in
Gonzales v. City of Phoenix, 18-1258-002, AU, BI, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code chapter 42. This is a


Page 96

settlement of a bodily injury claim against the Police Department arising
from a motor vehicle accident on March 6, 2019.

36 OnSolve, LLC
For $11,400.00 in payment authority to purchase One Call Now services,
a web-based service that will allow departmental staff to communicate
residential, participant and COVID-19 information electronically with the
Public Housing and Section 8 residents via email, telephone, or text within
minutes for the Housing Department. The expenditure is necessary to
ensure residents have the latest information regarding COVID-19 and
other relevant information through a safe and timely communication
medium as information becomes available, and when changes are made.
This is paid for with Federal funds and there is no impact to the General
Fund.

37 Multiforce Corporation
For $75,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 136054 for
fuel site computer maintenance for the Public Works Department. The
contract is utilized to provide hardware and software support to the City's
Fuel Management Systems at 86 fuel site locations. These systems are
used to track fuel, energy usage, monitor fuel inventories and equipment
odometers. The systems track data from 110 City-owned kiosks at the
fuel site locations and are required to maintain employee access to fuel
City-owned vehicles and equipment.

38 National Association of City Transportation Officials,
Inc.
For $25,000.00 in payment authority for a one-year 2021 membership in
the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) for the
Street Transportation and Public Transit departments. The NACTO
Membership is vital to service, delivery, and the operation of the Street
Transportation Department. The Street Transportation Department will pay
$20,000.00 (80 percent) of the total fee, and the Public Transit
Department will pay $5,000.00 (20 percent). The item was approved by
the Transportation, Infrastructure and Innovation Subcommittee on March
3, 2021.




Page 97



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Comment on Proposed MOU Between City of Phoenix and LIUNA, Local
777 (Unit 1)

Request for City Council to receive public comment on the terms of the proposed
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Laborers’ International Union of North
America (LIUNA), Local 777 (Unit 1).

Section 2-218 (G) of the Meet and Confer section in the City Code provides that a
proposed MOU be filed with the City Clerk following its ratification by the employee
organization and, "At the earliest practicable date thereafter the City Council of the City
of Phoenix shall provide on its agenda an opportunity for public comment on the terms
of the Memorandum of Understanding prior to the Council acting thereon."

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 98



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Approving the Memorandum of Understanding Between City of Phoenix and
LIUNA, Local 777 (Unit 1) (Resolution 21913)

The City of Phoenix has met and conferred with Laborers' International Union of North
America (LIUNA), Local 777 (Unit 1) in accordance with the terms of Section 2-218 of
the City Code, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been approved by
the organization's membership. A copy of the proposed MOU has been filed with the
City Clerk and an opportunity for public comment has been requested as an agenda
item preceding this resolution.

The following is a summary of the most significant agreements outlined in the
proposed MOU:

TRANSPARENCY
Based on public dialogue about the need for greater transparency and accountability
for city employees, several sections of the contract are modified. These modifications
are proposed consistently through all City of Phoenix employee contracts. Signing
these modifications is tied to an additional compensation increase as described in the
COMPENSATION section. These transparency and accountability modifications are
as follows:

Investigation language:
Add guidelines for conducting employee investigations.

Discipline to remain for employee’s career:
Change current language that allows discipline to be considered up to 5 years for
progressive discipline, transfers, and promotions. Under this agreement, 10
categories of discipline will last for the life of employment. These are shown in the
attached agreement.

Representation on Grievance Committees:
Update current language that rotates other labor groups on grievance committees to
ensure an impartial review.




Page 99

Purging Files:
Place the process into a single chart that makes it clear that discipline remains in the
City’s human resources files and that there is no “purging” of employee records.

COMPENSATION
LIUNA is proposed to receive the same percentage increases of total compensation as
the other labor groups as follows:

Year 1:
Ongoing 1.5% of total compensation
Non-continuous 2.5% of total compensation

Additional compensation for agreeing to the City’s transparency and accountability
proposals:
Ongoing 0.5% of total compensation
Non-continuous 0.5% of total compensation

Year 2:
Ongoing 1.5% of total compensation
Non-continuous 2.5% of total compensation

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 100
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

2021 – 2023

BETWEEN

LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION

OF NORTH AMERICA,

LOCAL 777, AFL-CIO

AND

CITY OF PHOENIX

REPRESENTING FIELD UNIT I EMPLOYEES





Page 101
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARTICLE 1: RIGHTS ................................................................................................................................ 5

Section 1-1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 5

Section 1-1A. Recognition ................................................................................................................. 5

Section 1-2. City and Department Rights ...................................................................................... 6

Section 1-3: Union Rights .................................................................................................................. 6

Section 1-4. Rights of Unit Employees......................................................................................... 14

Section 1-5. Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts...................................................................... 21

Section 1-6. New Positions / Classifications .............................................................................. 21

ARTICLE 2: GRIEVANCE / ARBITRATION / LABOR MANAGEMENT ....................................... 22

Section 2-1. Grievance Procedure ................................................................................................. 22

Section 2-2. Labor-Management Committee .............................................................................. 27

Section 2-3. Bargaining Unit Work ................................................................................................ 28

Section 2-4. Health and Safety Committee .................................................................................. 28

Section 2-5. Public Outreach & Public/Employee Safety Cross Training ........................... 29

Section 2-6. Laborers’ Apprenticeship Projects ........................................................................ 30

ARTICLE 3: COMPENSATION / WAGES .......................................................................................... 31

Section 3-1. Wages ............................................................................................................................ 31

Section 3-1A. Productivity Enhancement Pay............................................................................ 33

Section 3-2. Overtime ........................................................................................................................ 34

Section 3-2A. Call-Out Pay .............................................................................................................. 36

Section 3-3. Out-Of-Class Pay ........................................................................................................ 36

Section 3-4. Pesticide Applicator Differential ............................................................................. 38

Section 3-5. Shift Differential Pay .................................................................................................. 38

Section 3-5A. Weekend Shift Differential Pay ............................................................................ 38

Section 3-6. Stand-By Pay ............................................................................................................... 39



Page 102
Section 3-7. Show-Up Time ............................................................................................................. 39

Section 3-8. Jury Duty Pay .............................................................................................................. 39

Section 3-9. Deferred Compensation Program .......................................................................... 40

Section 3-10. Sick Leave Conversion at Retirement................................................................. 40

ARTICLE 4: HOURS OF WORK / WORKING CONDITIONS ......................................................... 41

Section 4-1. Hours of Work.............................................................................................................. 41

Section 4-2. Rest and Lunch Periods ........................................................................................... 43

Section 4-3. Clean-Up Time ............................................................................................................. 43

Section 4-4. Seniority ........................................................................................................................ 44

Section 4-5. Transfer Program........................................................................................................ 44

Section 4-6. CDL Renewal ............................................................................................................... 44

ARTICLE 5: BENEFITS.......................................................................................................................... 44

Section 5-1: Employee Assistance ................................................................................................ 45

Section 5-2: Health and Dental Insurance ................................................................................... 45

Section 5-3: Life Insurance .............................................................................................................. 46

Section 5-4. Long Term Disability Insurance.............................................................................. 46

Section 5-5. Holidays, Vacation Pay, Family Leave, and Leave Donations ........................ 47

Section 5-6. Tuition Reimbursement ............................................................................................ 50

ARTICLE 6: MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................................................................... 50

Section 6-1. Saving Clause .............................................................................................................. 50

Section 6-2. Copies of MOU ............................................................................................................ 51

Section 6-3. Aid to Construction of Provisions of MOU .......................................................... 51

Section 6-4. Part-Time Employees ................................................................................................ 51

Section 6-5. Term and Effect of MOU............................................................................................ 52





Page 103
PREAMBLE
Whereas the well-being and morale of employees of the City are benefited by providing
employees an opportunity to participate in the formulation of policies and practices
affecting the wages, hours and working conditions of their employment; and

Whereas the parties hereby acknowledge that the provisions of this Memorandum of
Understanding (hereinafter “Memorandum”) are not intended to abrogate the authority
and responsibility of City government provided for under the statutes of the State of
Arizona or the charter or ordinances of the City except as expressly and lawfully modified
herein; and

Whereas the parties agree that the Phoenix Employment Relations Board (PERB) unit
certification reflects that there exists a clear and identifiable community of interest among
employees covered by this Memorandum; and

Whereas the parties, through their designated representatives, met and conferred in good
faith pursuant to the Meet and Confer Ordinance in order to reach agreement concerning
wages, hours, and working conditions of employees in Field Unit I; and

Whereas it is understood by the parties that any hours or fractions of hours spent outside
the employee's work shift in pursuit of rights and benefits provided by this Memorandum,
shall not be counted as hours or time worked for the purpose of calculating and paying
overtime;

Now therefore, the City of Phoenix, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and Laborers’
International Union of North America, Local 777, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the
"Union", having reached this complete agreement concerning wages, hours and working
conditions for the term specified, the parties submit this Memorandum to the City Council
of the City of Phoenix with their joint recommendation that the body resolve to adopt its
terms.





Page 104
ARTICLE 1: RIGHTS

Section 1-1. Purpose

It is the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter "MOU") to continue
and maintain harmonious relations, cooperation and understanding between the City and
its employees; and to set forth the full and entire understanding of the parties reached as
a result of good faith meeting and conferring regarding wages, hours, terms and
conditions of employment of the employees covered hereby, which understanding the
parties intend jointly to submit and recommend for approval and implementation to the
Mayor and City Council.



Section 1-1A. Recognition

The City of Phoenix recognizes Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local
777, AFL-CIO, (hereinafter "Union") as the sole and exclusive meet and confer agent
pursuant to the Meet and Confer Ordinance for all regular employees in positions as
certified or hereafter certified by the Phoenix Employment Relations Board (PERB) as
constituting Field Unit I. This includes the following positions in Unit I:

All regular full-time and part-time field employees employed by the following City of
Phoenix Departments: (1) City Clerk – Mail Room, (2) Human Services – Laborers, (3)
Parks & Recreation – Division Operations, Sports and Turf Management, Specialized
Maintenance, and Aquatics Division, (4) Public Transit – Minibus Operators, (5) Public
Works – Solid Waste Collections and Disposal Divisions, Landfill Operations and Transfer
Stations, and (6) Street Transportation – Street Maintenance Division, Sign
Manufacturing, Street Marking and Parking Meter Sections.

Whenever any words used herein in the masculine, feminine or neuter, they shall be
construed as though they were also used in another gender in all cases where they would
so apply.

The City will notify the Union, in writing, 30 calendar days in advance before any new
position or classification is placed permanently within Unit 1. The parties agree to consult
on the inclusion or exclusion of new classification(s) in Unit I and will thereafter refer any
such matter to PERB for appropriate action.

If any conflict exists between the language in the Administrative Regulations or
employment/department rule and the language of this MOU, the MOU shall prevail.



Page 105
Section 1-2. City and Department Rights

A. The Union recognizes that the City has and will continue to retain, whether exercised
or not, the sole and exclusive right to operate, administer and manage its municipal
services and work force performing those services in all respects except as expressly
modified by this MOU.

B. The City Manager and Department Heads have and will continue to retain exclusive
decision-making authority on matters not officially and expressly modified by specific
provisions of this MOU, and such decision making shall not be in any way, directly or
indirectly, subject to the grievance procedure contained herein.

C. The exclusive rights of the City shall include, but not be limited to, the right to
determine the organization of City government and the purpose and mission of its
constituent agencies, to set standards of service to be offered to the public, and
through its management officials to exercise control and discretion over its
organization and operations, to establish and effect Administrative Regulations and
employment rules and regulations, consistent with law and the specific provisions of
this MOU to direct its employees, to take disciplinary action for just cause, to relieve
its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons, to
determine the methods, means and personnel by which the City's services are to be
provided, including the right to schedule and assign work and overtime, and to
otherwise act in the interest of efficient service to the community. Nothing herein shall
be construed to diminish the rights of the City under the Meet and Confer Ordinance.



Section 1-3: Union Rights

A. No employee shall suffer reprisal for the exercise of rights granted by this MOU.

B. Union Release

The Phoenix community benefits from harmonious and cooperative relationships
between the City and its employees. The City and LIUNA Local 777 have negotiated
full-time release positions, and release hours, as an efficient and readily available
point of contact for addressing labor-management concerns. Examples of work
performed by the release positions in support of the City include ensuring
representation for unit employees during administrative investigations and
grievance/disciplinary appeal meetings with management; participating in


Page 106
collaborative labor-management initiatives that benefit the City and the unit
employees; serving on City and departmental task forces and committees;
facilitating effective communication between City and Department management and
unit employees; assisting unit employees in understanding and following work rules;
and administering the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding. The cost to
the City for these release positions, including all benefits, has been charged as part
of the total compensation contained in this agreement in lieu of wages and benefits.

1. Full-Time Release Positions

Three (3) persons designated as official full-time release Union representative for
the unit shall be allowed up to 2,080 work hours for each representative per MOU
year to engage in lawful Union activities pursuant to and consistent with this MOU.
The full-time release positions agree to be bound by all City rules and regulations.
Time used for this purpose in excess of 2,080 hours for each representative shall
be at the expense of the Union and the Union shall reimburse the City at the
employee's hourly rate of pay. The City will pay the employee's full-time fringe
benefits.

The Union shall notify Labor Relations and the appropriate Human Resources
Liaison 5 working days in advance when requesting release time for the above
official designated Union representatives.

The Union will submit quarterly reports to the Labor Relations Division
documenting the regular work schedules of the release positions and any leave
used during the quarter.

Upon return from full-time release, the official Union representative shall be
reinstated to their original location/yard and schedule. If the previous location is
no longer available, then the employee will have their choice of location/yard and
schedule based on availability and operational need as determined by the
department. Once at the location/yard the employee will, if applicable, receive an
available assignment of route, truck and partner. They will then have an
opportunity to participate in the next future transfer process in accordance with the
department’s transfer policy. In addition, any approved leave time the employee
had scheduled prior to their return to their department shall be honored by the
department.

The City will provide 3 parking cards to the Union.

2. Union Stewards





Page 107
The Union may designate 45 Union members as stewards and shall notify the
Labor Relations Administrator of such designations. There shall be no obligation
on the City to change or adjust normal departmental scheduling or assignments of
personnel as a result of such designations. Such designations shall be made from
amongst Union members regularly working at the job sites within the proximate
geographic area where they are intended to provide representation. The Union
shall endeavor to be equitable in the distribution of its stewards.

a) One such representative from the Grievant’s home department may, after the
Grievant and the supervisor were unable to resolve the matter informally
(Article 2, Section 2-1-A), when the Union is designated by a Grievant as his
representative, attend mutually scheduled grievance meetings and hearings
with department representatives without loss of pay or benefits. Paid release
time used for any other purpose, such as gathering information, interviewing
the grievant or witnesses, or preparing a presentation shall be charged against
the bank of Union release hours (Section 1-3 D).

b) City employees who are on duty and are, either witnesses, charging parties,
appellants or grievants and the shop steward representing any such employee
from the employee’s home department, may attend grievance, Civil Service,
Phoenix Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.) and department Accident
Review Board meetings on City time provided 1) it is for their particular case
which is either scheduled or on the public meeting agenda for that date and
time and 2) Once a witness testimony has been concluded, or if a grievant,
charging party or appellant once that agenda item has been completed or the
grievance meeting concluded, unless they have made other arrangements in
advance with their immediate supervisors approval, they will promptly return to
work. Management reserves the right to restrict the number of witnesses who
can be off of the job at any one time but will cooperate in rotating witnesses
from the workplace so as to minimize the impact to operations and service to
the public. For group grievances the group will be allowed to select no more
than two non-witness grievant representatives to attend the proceeding. These
do not have to be the same group grievant representative for each step or
meeting of the entire proceeding. As a matter of courtesy, employees will give
management as much notice as possible.

c) Union designated representatives shall be admitted to the buildings and
grounds of the City for the purpose of assisting in the adjustment of grievances
and other official Union business, so long as such will not, in any manner,
interfere with any work operation or the safety and security of any work site.
Such representative will check in with the supervisor involved and will be



Page 108
required to conform with the operational and safety regulations and
procedures as directed by the supervisor.

3. Bank of Union Release Hours

The Union will be allowed, subject to operational and scheduling factors and 4
working days advance request in each instance, a unit total of 4,287.25 hours
paid release time in a bank of release hours per M.O.U. year. Requests for
release time shall be submitted to the Labor Relations Administrator and approval
of release time hereunder shall not be arbitrarily withheld. The cost to the City for
these release hours, including fringe, has been charged as part of the total
compensation contained in this agreement in lieu of wages and benefits.
Examples of how these hours are used by the Union include:

• For Executive Board members to attend meetings of the Executive Board,
meetings of the general membership, and for preparation for negotiations.

• For stewards to provide representation when a steward from the employee’s
home department or a full-time release employee is unavailable.

• For a second representative to attend a grievance or investigative meeting.

• For authorized representatives to attend Union conferences, meetings,
seminars, training classes and workshops so that representatives better
understand issues such as City policies and practices, conflict resolution,
labor-management partnerships, and methods of effective representation.

• For authorized representatives to research and prepare for grievance
meetings and disciplinary hearings.

• For authorized representatives to educate and communicate with unit
employees in support of City policies and programs, and participate in City
partnerships.

Only one representative may be released from the same work group at the same
time. No representative will be permitted to use more than 420 hours of release
time from the bank of hours in any one MOU year.

Any hours used in excess of the bank of Union release hours must be approved
by the Labor Relations Administrator and the LIUNA Local 777 Lead Business
Manager. The number of hours used in excess of the allowable Union release hours at
the end of the contract term will be deducted from the Union release hours available for
the following year. A surplus of hours will be carried over into the next year to a maximum
total Union release of 7500 hours.



Page 109
a) The Union shall be allowed up to $20,000 per MOU year to be used towards
LIUNA Local 777-City of Phoenix Apprenticeship Programs to purchase
training materials, uniforms, promotional outreach materials, instructional
activities such as schools and workshops, and any other activity approved by
the Human Resources Director or his/her designee for Unit employees
approved to participate in the Apprenticeship Programs. These monies are to
be paid to the Union in one lump sum in the first pay period of each MOU year.
The Union will document the nature of the expenditures made for each Unit
employee approved to participate in the Apprenticeship Programs. The City
Auditor Department may conduct an audit of the funds designated for the
Apprenticeship Programs periodically. Any payments not adequately
supported by the documentation of expenses, or payments made for activities
outside the scope of this agreement, will be returned to the City by the Union.

At the end of each fiscal year, any money not expended on the Apprenticeship
Programs will be carried over to the next year for continued use in these
programs. The funds set aside for the Apprenticeship Programs will not
exceed $30,000 and the City and the Union will discuss appropriate measures
to ensure the Union receives the appropriate economic value.

b) In recognition of the mutual benefit provided to the City and the Union by the
full-time release positions, the City agrees to pay the Lead Business Agent of
the Unit two hundred and eight overtime hours each MOU year. The two full
time Union Representatives will be paid 80 hours overtime each MOU year.
The overtime will be paid on the last paycheck of July upon request of the
Union. The Union shall make such request no later than June 1.

The Union agrees to reimburse the City of Phoenix for the equivalent salary
costs plus fringe benefits on or before the last day of July each MOU year.

C. Unit employees may be authorized in advance in writing to engage in lawful Union
related activities during City work hours on a non-paid basis by the City Manager or
his designee in his unrestricted discretion consistent with this MOU.

D. There shall be no use of official time for unit-related activities except as has been
expressly authorized under this MOU. The City reserves the right to deny approval
of request for use of official time for activities not expressly authorized under this
MOU. The City shall not arbitrarily deny requests for use of official time for union
activities.

E. Payroll Deductions





Page 110
1) The City shall deduct from the first and second pay warrants of Union members,
in each month, the regular periodic Union membership dues as certified by an
authorized official of the Union and regular periodic Union sponsored insurance
benefits pursuant to the City's deduction authorization form duly completed and
signed by the employee and transmit such deductions monthly to the Union no
later than the 14th day following the end of the pay period in which the deduction
occurs, along with an alphabetical list of all employees for whom deductions have
been made. Such deductions shall be made only when the Union member's
earnings for a pay period are sufficient after other legally required deductions are
made. Authorization for membership dues deductions herein shall remain in effect
during the term hereof unless revoked by the employee. Revocation of deductions
shall be accepted by the City only during the first week of July or January to be
effective the following payroll period. The City will notify the Union of any
revocations submitted to it, consistent with the PERB Ordinance Section 2-214.

If it is determined by a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction that “Fair
Share” does not violate Arizona State law or the Arizona State Constitution, the
Union and City shall open up this contract to bargain in good faith over the “Fair
Share” issue.

2) The City shall not make dues deductions for unit employees on behalf of any
other employee organization as defined in the Meet and Confer Ordinance, during
the term of this MOU.

3) The City assumes no liability on account of any actions taken pursuant to this
section. The City shall, however, as promptly as technically possible, implement
changes brought to its attention. The City shall, at the written request of the Union
during the term of this agreement, make changes in the amount of deduction
hereunder for the general membership, provided cost for implementing such
changes shall be reimbursed by the Union. This charge shall not apply to
submission of new individual authorization cards or revocations or individual
status changes.

F. Facilities and Services

1) The Union may distribute material which is not abusive of any person or
organization, which does not violate Administrative Regulation (A.R.) 2.16,
and which is not disruptive of the City’s operation. Materials may be posted
or distributed on the City's premises (buildings and grounds) before and after
scheduled working hours or in non-work areas during scheduled work hours
provided both the employee distributing and the employee receiving such material
are on their own time.



Page 111
2) The City shall provide the Union with bulletin board space for its sole and
exclusive use in communicating with its members at mutually agreeable locations.
All bulletin boards will be kept updated with material that is current and up
to date.

3) The Union shall have the right to meet with new unit employees for the purpose of
informing each such employee of the Union and of that employee's right to have
Union dues deducted from his/her pay warrant. The Human Resources
Department will notify the Union when orientation sessions involving new unit
employees are scheduled.

Such opportunity shall be afforded the Union during the new employee
orientation (NEO) sessions conducted by the Human Resources Department,
Public Works Department Orientation Program (PWOP), and Parks &
Recreation Department New Employee Orientation (Parks & Recreation NEO),
Streets Transportation Department New Employee Orientation (Streets
Transportation NEO), Aviation Department New Employee Orientation
(Aviation NEO).

The speaker cannot be defamatory against the City or specific departments
or individuals.

G. List of Unit Employees

Upon the Union’s filing of a Third Party Data Sharing agreement with the HR
Department, the City shall provide electronically, at no cost, a list of unit employees
which includes the following: Emp ID, First Name, Last Name, Initial, Deduct,
Service Date, Dept ID, Department, Job Title, Job Locator Code, Mailing Address,
City, State, Zip, Home Phone, Work Phone, and active Union deduction.

Any and all information furnished by the City shall be used by the Union solely for
the purpose of communicating with unit employees, other legitimate union
purposes, and shall not be shared with any other individual or organization.

H. Upon written request from the Union, the City will provide specific information from
an employee’s personnel files pertinent to a written grievance, arbitration case or
civil service appeal. The City will also provide all pertinent collective bargaining
information requested by the Union. The information will be supplied to the Union at
no charge.

I. In accordance with the City’s selection and interview process guidelines and at
management’s request, Union Designated Employees will participate in City
Selection processes.


Page 112
J. For a unit employee whose regular shift is other than day shift, there will be
flexibility in changing his, her or their normal work hours for the purposes of
attending official Labor-Management meetings called by or with the
concurrence of the Department Head or designee. There shall be a 48-hour
notice to the affected Department to ensure proper coverage.

K. City Email

The City shall send union-requested communication using the City Email
System using the following procedures:

Processing Guidelines

• Requests for email distribution must be submitted by the LIUNA Local 777
Business Manager or their designee from the labor group to the Labor
Relations email address (labor.relations@phoenix.gov).
• Labor Relations will review the email content to ensure compliance with the
guidelines noted below.
• Labor Relations will distribute compliant emails to unit members within 5
business days.
• A limit of one email per month, per labor group will be distributed.
Exceptions will be reviewed by Labor Relations.
• Emails will only be distributed to the corresponding unit members.
• Emails will be sent to unit members via blind copy.
• The standard City notice not to reply will be included on all emails.

Email Content Guidelines

The following is a list of acceptable types of communication. This is not an all-
inclusive list:

• Labor benefit fairs/ meet-and-greets.
• Union Open House's.
• City program/policy changes.
• Open Enrollment.
• Promoting City/union-sponsored training, committees, safety programs or
initiatives.
• City/union/association-sponsored charitable events or community projects.




Page 113
Other Guidelines/Information

• Communication cannot violate City policies.
• Communication cannot reflect negatively on the City organization, City staff,
elected officials, or residents.
• Communication cannot negatively Impact our residents' perception of the
City.
• All distributed emails are subject to the City's public records policy
(reference AR 1.60, Public Records Request Processing).
• Changes may be made to these procedures at any time.
• Changes will be communicated with labor groups prior to implementation.



Section 1-4. Rights of Unit Employees

A. Non-Discrimination

All unit employees have the right to have the Union serve as their meet and confer
representative without discrimination based on membership or non-membership in the
Union.

B. Grievance Representation

All unit employees have the right to present their own grievance, in person or by legal
counsel in accordance with Article 2, Section 2-1. A copy of all MOU grievances, filed
by anyone other than a designated official Union representative, shall be sent to the
Union office. There shall be no cost incurred to the Union.

C. Disciplinary Investigations / NOI Representation


A. Unit employees have the right to be represented by the union and the union
reserves the right to provide representation to its members in dealings with
the City concerning grievances, and matters pertaining to their individual
employment rights and obligations, and during an investigatory interview
concerning allegations focused on the employee which may result in
disciplinary action.

B. Supervisors are encouraged to discuss concerns and attempt to resolve
those concerns with an employee without utilizing a formal investigatory



Page 114
process. Supervisors are encouraged to not utilize an investigatory process
unless they have a reasonable belief that discipline (a written reprimand or
higher) could result. Should information be made during a conversation to
attempt to resolve an issue that could result in discipline, the supervisor will
immediately stop the meeting and utilize an investigatory process as
outlined below. Any interview becomes investigatory when facts or evidence
sought by the City may result in a disciplinary action.

C. The City may, at its sole discretion, either conduct investigatory interviews
with employees or issue employees written questions. In either case, a
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) form will be used. The intent of the NOI is to clearly
put employees on notice that they are under investigation that could result
in discipline, inform them of the nature of the allegations against them, and
inform them of their right to representation.

Time limit for investigations

D. If the City elects to issue written questions to the employee, the following
shall apply:
I. If an NOI is being issued and there is no active questioning,
representation is not required. Employees may bring a representative if
they desire, however there will be no discussion during the issuance of
the NOI.
II. The employee will have 72-hours excluding holidays and N-days to
respond in writing and provide any other material requested. This
deadline may be extended by mutual agreement if there are extenuating
circumstances.

E. If the City elects to conduct an investigatory interview, the following shall
apply:
I. Prior to the employee being interviewed, the unit employee shall be
advised of their right to a representative.

A. Prior to the employee being interviewed, the employee shall be
advised of their right to a representative and given up to 48 hours to
secure representation. The 48-hour time period may not apply in
emergency situations.
B. A unit employee identified solely as a witness will not be prevented
from contacting the union (association) on tier own time to consult
with a union (association) representative prior to their interview.



Page 115
II. The NOI form will be issued at the meeting.

III. The union representative may assist and consult with the employee,
attempt to clarify the facts or questions asked, and suggest other
employees or witnesses who may have knowledge of the underlying
issues. The union representative cannot speak on behalf of the employee
or impede the progress of the interview.

IV. The member or representative may ask for a caucus during the meeting.
Caucuses will be granted for a reasonable timeframe. Ay any time either
party requests a caucus the party shall inform the other party of an
estimate of what time they shall return.

V. The interviewer may not prohibit the union representative from engaging
in representation, including consulting with the employee. The member
shall be allowed to seek advice from their representative in caucus during
the interview. A caucus will not be permitted when a question is pending.
The employee will be given the opportunity to clarify their answer after
the caucus

VI. Neither party will behave in a violent, verbally abusive, insulting, or
demeaning manner toward the interviewer.

VII. Prior to the conclusion of the meeting, the member or representative shall
have the opportunity to make a closing statement for no more than 5
minutes.

VIII. If the department requires a written statement at an investigatory
meeting, the employee will be given up to one hour of City time to write
the statement. Additional time may be granted at the sole discretion of
the department and will not be withheld arbitrarily.

IX. The employee will be provided with a copy of the interview notes and
given 72 hours to confirm their answers and provide any additional
information.

F. Regardless of whether the City elects to interview the employee, or issue
written questions, the following shall apply:




Page 116
I. The employee will be instructed not to speak to anyone regarding an
investigation. This restriction does not apply to the union, the union’s
attorney, the employee’s family, the employee’s attorney, the employee’s
clergy, the investigator, or chain-of-command.

II. The employee will be advised if the inquiry is supervisor initiated or the
result of a citizen complaint, employee/co-worker complaint, or other.

III. The member shall also be informed of the Garrity protections afforded to
public employees who may also be under criminal investigation or whose
actions meet the elements of a crime [Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493,
87 S.Ct. 616 (1967)].

IV. A unit member shall receive a copy of any statement that they are asked
to sign.

V. Every 60 days, a unit employee under investigation may request a status
update. At management’s discretion, the status will be provided either
verbally or in writing.

G. Misc.

No investigatory documentation, such as the NOI or witness statements
shall be kept in the Personnel or Supervisory Files after the investigation is
concluded.

H. Unit employees will be permitted to apply and/or compete in a transfer
process while in a pending investigation. The transfer process will not be
delayed pending the conclusion of the related investigation.

I. An employee who receives a written reprimand or suspension may request
a copy of the information upon which the written reprimand or suspension
was based, pertaining to what was specifically cited in the discipline at no
cost to the employee.

J. It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by this Article shall
not be interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time
worked, any hours or fractions of hours spent outside the employee's work
shift in pursuit of benefits provided by this Article unless otherwise specified
in this MOU. The employer shall count as time worked any hours or fractions



Page 117
of hours spent within the employee's regular work shift in pursuit of benefits
provided by this Article.

D. Personnel Files

1) Any unit employee covered hereunder shall, at their request and by appointment,
be permitted to examine their personnel files in the presence of an appropriate
supervisory official of the Department and/or authorize a Union representative to
obtain copies of documents in their personnel files. Said files shall be in a location
as specified below, one per location. These include the main Human Resources
Department file, the department personnel file, and the official department office
personnel file contained at the district or yard office.

2) No unit employee shall have any adverse statements entered in to their
personnel file without having a discussion about the action.

3) Unit employee may, at their discretion, attach no more than a 1-page rebuttal
statement to any material contained in their personnel file which may be of a
derogatory nature within 7 business days.

E. Fair & Impartial Treatment

All unit employees have the right to be treated equally and in a manner, which is fair
and impartial in any matter associated with the rights of unit employees under the
terms of this MOU.

F. Coaching / Supervisory Counseling

A coaching is a verbal discussion with an employee. A coaching is not to be
considered a first offense for purposes of progressive discipline. A written record of a
coaching may be placed in the supervisor’s files for both positive and negative
incidences. A coaching is to be one-on-one. When 2 or more supervisors are present
at the coaching, the employee shall be advised of their right to representation. An
employee may receive more than 1 coaching for a similar matter.

A supervisory counseling is a warning that the supervisor shall document in memo
form. A supervisory counseling is not discipline. They are to be used to determine only
notice to the employee. If a supervisory counseling is to be used in any disciplinary or
personnel action or any performance rating, the employee will be given the
supervisory counseling in memo form, that identifies the behavior requiring



Page 118
improvement, the reason for the improvement, and the consequences of continuing
the unacceptable behavior. The memo will contain a line for the employee’s signature
and an above the line statement of “The employee shall date and sign the supervisory
counseling, not as an indication of agreement, but solely as evidence of being advised
of its existence.” The employee will receive a copy of the memo.

Discipline older than 5 years from the date of issuance will not be considered
for progressive discipline or job related promotion/transfer purposes except
for the following types of discipline, which may be considered for the duration
of employment (and upon the employee's return to employment, if applicable):

Final sustained discipline of suspension or higher of the following:

• The employee has been abusive or threatening in language or conduct
towards fellow employees or the public;
• The employee has solicited or taken for personal use a fee, gift or favor
in the course of the assigned work or in connection with it, which would
lead toward favoritism or the appearance of favoritism or a conflict of
interest;
• That the employee is in possession of a deadly weapon (as defined in
ARS 13-3101), except a pocketknife (as provided in ARS 13-3102) at a
City worksite;
• The employee has intentionally falsified records or documents made,
kept, or maintained for or on behalf of the City of Phoenix;
• The employee has stolen or is in unauthorized possession of City
property or the property of another employee or citizen;
• The employee is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs on the
job;
• The employee has violated City of Phoenix anti-harassment or anti-
discrimination policies;
• The employee committed a violation of the City's Ethics Policy;
• The employee committed an act of intentional dishonesty;
• The employee committed an act meeting the elements of a felony.

The official discipline record is maintained in the Personnel File by the Human
Resources Department. Copies maintained in either the Supervisory and/or
Department files are not the official record. Employees may request to
remove/inactivate eligible documents based on the below criteria by
contacting the department Human Resources Officer. Official records may
only be inactivated and not removed per records retention law, and



Page 119
members/employees will receive confirmation once the requested record is
removed/inactivated.

Department File Personnel File
Document Supervisory File (if applicable) (OFFICIAL FILE)
Maintain original
in file.
Coaching’s/Supervisory Not maintained Not maintained in
Remove annually
Counseling’s in file. file.
provided no
further incidents.
Maintain copy in Maintain original
file. in file.
Employee may Employee may
Written Reprimands
request to request to
remove inactivate
after 3 years. after 3 years.
Maintain copy in
Maintain copy in Maintain original
file.
file. in file.
Remove annually
Suspensions Employee may Employee may
provided no
(other than below) request to request to
further incidents.
remove inactivate
after 10 years. after 10 years.
Discipline under 21b2, Maintain original
Maintain copy in
21b4, 21b5, 21b12, in file.
file.
21b13, 21b14, 21b15, May not be
Cannot Remove
21b18, 21b19, 21b20. inactivated


G. Performance Evaluation

Although the terms “coaching” or “supervisory counseling” will not be used, the
employee’s behavior or performance which resulted in the “coaching” or “supervisory
counseling” can, along with any other behavior or performance, be discussed in the
performance evaluation.

If an employee is not given their performance evaluation by the annual review date,
the employee’s merit increase shall be processed within 21 calendar days following
the above due date and be retroactive to the performance evaluation annual review
date. (If an overall “met”).

H. Departmental Policies




Page 120
The City will notify employees and Unit 1 of new or revised written City or
Departmental policies affecting unit employees as soon after release as possible. The
City shall post on their bulletin boards any new policies and/or revisions in City or
written department policies and procedures affecting Unit I employees. Notice shall
remain posted for no less than 21 calendar days. Review of policy and procedure
revisions shall be included in employee group meetings when appropriate and
practical to do so.



Section 1-5. Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts

A. The provisions of the Meet and Confer Ordinance are expressly incorporated herein.

B. The City nor its agents for any reason shall authorize, institute, aid or promote any
lockout of employees covered by this MOU.


Section 1-6. New Positions / Classifications

A. Classification and Compensation Studies

The City shall give notice to the Union within 10 working days whenever a
classification or compensation study is undertaken that includes active
positions belonging to the Union. The Human Resources Department shall
provide the Union with an opportunity to meet with the person conducting the
study prior to preparation of any report or recommendations. The City shall
notify the affected Union of the results and recommendations resulting from
any study 30 calendar days prior to that study being presented to the Human
Resources Committee. It should be noted that there is no guarantee, either
expressed or implied that changes to a classification or its grade and salary
range will result from a study.

B. New Classifications

The parties agree to consult on the inclusion or exclusion of new
classification(s) in the bargaining unit and may thereafter refer any such matter,
jointly or individually, to the Phoenix Employment Relations Board (PERB) for
appropriate action.

C. Position Management



Page 121
The City shall give written notice to the Union 30 days in advance of a position
being reallocated or reclassified such that the position is removed from the unit.

D. Union Requested Job Classification Studies

The Union may submit written requests for job classification studies to the Human
Resources Department. Requests from the Union will be prioritized with other standing
requests.

1) All written requests for classification studies submitted by the Union shall include,
but not be limited to, the following information:

a) A full description of the new duties and responsibilities.
b) A full explanation of why the Union feels the position(s) should be reclassified.
c) A list of comparative positions/ classifications that led to the Union's request.
d) Such other information as is normally considered relevant to a classification
review.

2) The results of the audit of any classification study shall be subject to review by the
City's Personnel Committee in accordance with existing procedures.

3) The Union may submit a prioritized written request of classifications specific
to the unit that they wish to have studied. All written requests shall include a
full explanation of why the classification should be studied. This explanation
shall indicate whether the Union is requesting a full classification study
(including job levels and job architecture) or if the request is limited to a
compensation review to assess market competitiveness and grade and salary
levels. At least one request by the Union shall be completed by the Human
Resources Department in order of their ranking if the City Manager has
authorized the HR Department to conduct studies.


ARTICLE 2: GRIEVANCE / ARBITRATION / LABOR MANAGEMENT

Section 2-1. Grievance Procedure

It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by this Article shall not be
interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time worked, any hours or
fractions of hours spent outside the employee’s work shift in pursuit of benefits provide
by this Article. The employer shall count as time worked any hours or fractions of hours



Page 122
spent within the employee’s regular work shift in pursuit of benefits provided by this
Article.

A. Informal Resolution

1. As a matter of good labor-management relations the parties encourage unit
employees who believe that they have a bona fide grievance to discuss and attempt
to resolve it with their immediate non-unit supervisor.

2. If the above informal discussion is held and does not resolve the grievance, the
unit employee may file a formal grievance in accordance with the following procedure.

B. Definition of Grievance

1. A grievance is a written allegation by a unit employee, submitted as herein
specified, claiming violation(s) regarding the interpretation and/or application of the
specific express terms of this Memorandum for which there is no other specific and
formal method of review; and doesn’t have a fact pattern that has been presented to
and decided upon by the City Manager in a prior grievance. However, disputes
specifically excluded in other Articles of this Agreement from the Grievance and
Arbitration procedure shall not be construed as within the definition set forth above
and shall not be handled in accordance with this procedure. It is agreed that such
excluded disputes are not grievable or arbitrable under the terms of this Article or
under this contract.

2. The City continues to retain the format used for grievances, including forms,
technology, etc.

3. A grievance which does not meet the requirements set forth in this Article shall be
null and void, and will not be processed in accordance with this procedure.

C. Procedure

All grievances covered by this Article shall be handled exclusively in the following
manner:

A grievance must be reduced to writing, citing the specific Article and Section of this
Memorandum alleged to have been violated.

1. Step 1



Page 123
The unit employee shall reduce the grievance to writing by signing and completing
the grievance form provided by the City and submit it to the division head, or designee,
within 14 calendar days of the initial commencement of the occurrence being grieved.

The division head, or designee, may investigate, further consider, and discuss the
grievance with the grievant and the grievant’s representative, if any, as deemed
appropriate, and shall, within 14 calendar days of having received the written
grievance, submit a response thereto in writing to the grievant. By mutual agreement,
the parties can agree to skip Step 1 and proceed to Step 2 of the grievance procedure.

2. Step 2

If the written response of the Step 1 does not result in a resolution of the grievance,
the grievant may appeal the grievance by signing and completing the City form and
presenting it to the department head, or designee within 14 calendar days of the
grievant’s receipt of the Step 1 response.

The department head, or designee, may further consider and discuss the grievance
with the grievant and the grievant’s representative, if any, as deemed appropriate, and
shall, within 14 calendar days of having received the written grievance, submit a
response thereto in writing to the grievant. By mutual agreement, the parties can agree
to skip Step 2 and proceed to Step 2.5 or Step 3 of the grievance procedure.

3. Step 2.5

After the Step 2 response, but prior to review by the Grievance Committee, the parties
involved may mutually agree to submit the grievance to Labor Relations. The
grievance, as originally written and Step 1 and Step 2 responses, must be submitted
to Labor Relations within 14 calendar days of receipt of the Step 2 response. Labor
Relations shall, within 14 calendar days of the receipt of the grievance, meet with the
department head, or designee, and the grievance and the grievant’s representative, if
any, in an attempt to resolve the grievance. Labor Relations shall then submit a written
response to all parties within 14 calendar days of the meeting.

4. Step 3

a. If the written response of the Step 2 (or 2.5 if applicable) does not result in a
resolution of the grievance, the grievant may, within 14 calendar days of the Step
2 response, appeal the grievance by signing and completing the City form and
presenting it to Labor Relations. A Grievance Committee hearing will be scheduled
at which the grievant shall be afforded the opportunity to fully present their position
and to be represented.




Page 124
The Grievance Committee shall be composed of:

Chairman – A member of the City Manager’s Office designated by the City
Manager.
Member – A City function head on a rotating schedule.
Member – An individual mutually agreed upon between the City
Manager, or his designee, and LIUNA Local 777.

The Grievance Committee shall submit findings and advisory recommendation(s)
to the City Manager. The City Manager shall make the final determination of the
grievance and submit it in writing to the grievant and their designated
representative.

b. If the grievant so elects in writing within the above time limit, in lieu of such hearing
the grievance may be reviewed by an arbitrator. The parties, or their designated
representatives, shall agree on an arbitrator, and if they are unable to agree on an
arbitrator within a reasonable time, either party may request the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service to submit to them a list of 7 arbitrators who have had
experience in the public sector. The parties shall, within 7 calendar days of the
receipt of said list, select the arbitrator by alternately striking names from said list
until one name remains. Such person shall then become the arbitrator. The
arbitrator so selected shall hold a hearing as expeditiously as possible at a time
and place convenient to the parties, and shall be bound by the following:

i. The arbitrator shall be bound by the language of this Memorandum and
departmental rules and regulations consistent therewith in considering any
issue properly before him/her.

ii. The arbitrator shall expressly confine him/herself to the precise issues
submitted to him/her and shall have no authority to consider any other issue
not so submitted to him/her.

iii. The arbitrator shall be bound by applicable State and City law.

iv. The cost of the arbitrator and any other mutually incurred costs shall be borne
equally by the parties.

The arbitrator shall submit findings and advisory recommendations to the City
Manager. The City Manager shall make the final determination of the grievance
and submit it in writing to the grievant and his designated representative.



Page 125
D. Time Limits

Failure of City Management representatives to comply with time limits specified in
Paragraph C shall entitle the grievant to appeal to the next level of review; and failure
of the grievant to comply with said time limits shall constitute abandonment of the
grievance; except however, that the parties may extend time limits by mutual written
agreement in advance of the deadline.

E. Union Grievance

The Union may, in its own name, file a grievance that alleges violation by the City of
the rights accorded to the Union by the specific terms of Article 1-3 of this
Memorandum. The Union shall file such grievance at Step 3 of this Procedure.

F. Group Grievance

When more than one unit employee claims the same violation of the same rights
allegedly accorded by this Memorandum, and such claims arise at substantially the
same time and out of the same circumstances, a single group grievance may be filed
in the name of all such members. Such group grievances shall be filed at the Step of
this Procedure which provides the lowest level of common supervision having
authority over all named grievants. Each unit employee that is a party Grievant must
be named and must sign such group grievance.

G. Employer Grievances

Should they occur as a result of official Union activities or actions, including the failure
to act as required under the terms of this Memorandum, employer grievances will be
presented directly to the Union president or any officer of the Union within 14 days of
the occurrence prompting the grievance. The president, or designee, shall in each
case provide a written answer within 14 days from receipt of the grievance.
Unresolved employer grievances may be submitted to arbitration pursuant to Step 3.

H. Municipal Court
It is understood concerning the administration of this grievance procedure in the
Municipal Court, specifically Step 2 that the designated "Department Head" is the
Executive Court Administrator, and the "City Manager's Office" or "City Manager" shall
mean the Presiding Judge, or his designee as provided in the procedure.




Page 126
Section 2-2. Labor-Management Committee

The benefits granted by this Article shall not be interpreted or applied as requiring the
employer to count as time worked, any hours or fractions of hours spent outside the
employee's work shift in pursuit of benefits provided by this Article. The employer shall
count as time worked any hours or fractions of hours spent within the employee's regular
work shift in pursuit of benefits provided by this Article.

A. There shall be a Labor-Management Committee consisting of the three Union
Authorized Representatives, one LIUNA staff member, and four representatives
from management that are agreed upon by the LIUNA staff member and the
Labor Relations Administrator. The Labor-Management Committee shall be
facilitated by Labor Relations staff. The purpose of the Committee shall be to
facilitate improved relations, provide a forum for open and informal discussion,
and make recommendations for operational or other rules changes that are of
mutual benefit.

B. The Committee shall meet, at least once a month per MOU year, or more often by
mutual agreement, at mutually agreed upon times. The Committee will meet to discuss
matters to be of a mutual benefit including, but not limited to, methods of improving
the level of productivity when needed. The members shall, upon request for a meeting,
provide the Chairman with proposed agenda items and the Chairman shall provide
the members with the meeting agenda in advance of the meeting.

C. Any signed/dated written Labor/Management agreements with the signatures of the
parties and the Chairman will be binding on the parties for the remaining term of the
MOU.

D. If the representative of the Union is a unit employee, such representative shall not
lose pay or benefits for meetings mutually scheduled during duty time.

E. During this Memorandum of Understanding, the City and the Union will establish a
Labor-Management Committee dedicated to the discussion of cost analysis for
potential contracted work presently performed by Unit employees, the reduction in
force process and any other matters deemed relevant by the Committee.

F. During this Memorandum of Understanding, the City and the Union will discuss the
following topics at the Labor Management Committee Meetings

• The City’s disciplinary process



Page 127
Section 2-3. Bargaining Unit Work

A. The City will schedule a meeting with the Union, with a minimum of seven calendar
days’ notice, except in emergency situations, to discuss management
recommendations and basis for contracting of work presently being performed by unit
employees, which would directly result in a reduction in the number of regular unit
positions during the term of this agreement. The meeting will occur prior to any final
recommendation to the City Council. Failure by the City to meet with the Union under
this Article may be subject to the Grievance Procedure (Article 2, Section 2-1) of this
MOU. The management recommendation, and final decision thereon by the City, shall
not be subject to the Grievance Procedure (Article 2, Section 2-1.)

B. The Management recommendation, and final decision thereon by the City, shall not
be subject to the Grievance Procedure (Article 2, Section 2-1) of this MOU.

C. The City agrees that it will not assign work currently performed by LIUNA represented
employees to non-represented City employees or to employees in any other City of
Phoenix bargaining unit, for a period up to 90 days.

The exception will be when individuals are being placed in an effort to comply with
federal law, in which case the Union will be notified.

By mutual consent, the City and the Union may agree to a time period longer than 90
days.



Section 2-4. Health and Safety Committee

The benefits granted by this Article shall not be interpreted or applied as requiring the
employer to count as time worked, any hours or fractions of hours spent outside the
employee's work shift in pursuit of benefits provided by this Article. The employer shall
count as time worked any hours or fractions of hours spent within the employee's regular
work shift in pursuit of benefits provided by this Article.

A. The City will continue to undertake all reasonable efforts to provide for employee
health and safety in accordance with the State's Occupational Safety and Health Law.

B. In order to facilitate this policy, a joint committee entitled "Health and Safety
Committee" shall be established. This Committee shall be composed of 2 unit



Page 128
employees appointed by the Union and 2 City representatives as designated by the
City Manager. The Chairmanship shall rotate among the members.

C. The Committee shall meet quarterly at mutually scheduled times or more frequently
by mutual agreement to consider on-the-job safety matters referred to it by the existing
departmental safety committees and safety officers, or otherwise coming to its
attention, and shall advise Department Heads and the City Manager concerning on-
the-job safety and health matters.

All written recommendations of the Committee shall be submitted to the Department
Head concerned and to the City Manager.

D. The Committee shall be guided by the applicable regulations of the State's OSHA
agency, and the City's existing practices and rules relating to safety and health, and
formulate suggested changes.

E. Employee members of the Committee shall not lose pay or benefits for meetings
mutually scheduled during their duty time.

Incident Review Board

An Incident Review Board is an effective management tool to minimize injuries and
protect property. The function of an Incident Review Board is to determine if a vehicular
or operational incident is preventable or non-preventable. The City shall establish an
Incident Review Board in each Unit One represented department. Each Incident Review
Board shall have the same rules, and all rules shall be applied in the same manner in
each department.

Section 2-5. Public Outreach & Public/Employee Safety Cross Training

It is understood that bargaining unit employees are frequently required to address
social service needs and problems as well as threats to public health and
public/employee safety posed in our streets and parks.

To ensure that bargaining unit employees are trained adequately to safely deal directly
with members of the public and to properly refer citizens to appropriate City agencies, all
bargaining unit employees shall be cross-trained with public outreach and
public/employee safety skills in accordance with department needs.





Page 129
Section 2-6. Laborers’ Apprenticeship Projects

A. Gardener Apprenticeship Project

The Union and the City shall continue the Joint Pilot Apprentice Program as needed
and when positions are available for the Gardener classification in the City of
Phoenix, entitled “Phoenix Gardener Apprenticeship Program”.

The Phoenix Gardener Apprenticeship Program shall be organized with a set of
standards established by a 5 person Joint Apprenticeship Committee (Committee).
The Committee shall be comprised of 2 Union representatives, 2 City of Phoenix Parks
and Recreation Department representatives, and 1City of Phoenix Human
Resources Department Safety Section employee.

The Phoenix Gardener Apprenticeship Program is designed to prepare individuals,
and produce highly qualified and well trained workers who have solid knowledge as
well as specific, technical job skills for occupations in the skilled trades and crafts.
The Joint Apprenticeship Committee shall award a Certificate of Completion of
Apprenticeship to each apprentice who has successfully completed the Phoenix
Gardener Apprenticeship Program.

B. SWEO Apprenticeship Project

The Union and the City shall establish a continue the Joint Pilot Apprentice Program
as needed and when positions are available for the Solid Waste Equipment
Operator classification in the City of Phoenix, entitled “Phoenix SWEO Apprenticeship
Program”.

The Phoenix SWEO Apprenticeship Program shall be organized with a set of
standards established by a 5 person Joint Apprenticeship Committee (Committee).
The Committee shall be comprised of 2 Union representatives, 2 City of Phoenix
Public Works Department representatives, and 1 City of Phoenix Human Resources
Department Safety Section employee.

The Phoenix SWEO Apprenticeship Program is designed to prepare individuals, and
produce highly qualified and well trained workers who have solid knowledge as well
as specific, technical job skills for occupations in the skilled trades and crafts. The
Joint Apprenticeship Committee shall award a Certificate of Completion of
Apprenticeship to each apprentice who has successfully completed the Phoenix
SWEO Apprenticeship Program.


Page 130
C. Street Maintenance Worker I Apprenticeship Project

The Union and the City shall continue the Joint Pilot Apprentice Program as needed
and when positions are available for the Street Maintenance Worker classification in
the City of Phoenix, entitled “Phoenix Street Maintenance Worker Apprenticeship
Program”.

The Phoenix Street Maintenance Worker Apprenticeship Program shall be organized with
a set of standards established by a 5 person Joint Apprenticeship Committee
(Committee). The Committee shall be comprised of 2 Union representatives, 2 City of
Phoenix Streets Department representatives, and 1 City of Phoenix Human Resources
Department Safety Section employee.

The Phoenix Street Maintenance Worker Apprenticeship Program is designed to prepare
individuals, and produce highly qualified and well trained workers who have solid
knowledge as well as specific, technical job skills for occupations in the skilled trades and
crafts. The Joint Apprenticeship Committee shall award a Certificate of Completion of
Apprenticeship to each apprentice who has successfully completed the Phoenix Street
Maintenance Worker Apprenticeship Program.



ARTICLE 3: COMPENSATION / WAGES

Various sections of this MOU contain a form of compensation, wages, or benefits that
have been negotiated in good faith and may or may not provide a direct payment of wages
or other benefit to each member. Those forms of compensation, wages, or benefits that
do not provide a direct payment to each unit employee have been negotiated in place of
a direct payment and costed as part of the overall economic package. Examples include:
life insurance, long term disability insurance, leave payouts, etc.

Section 3-1. Wages

A. In year one of this agreement, the economic value of ongoing total compensation
increases will equal 1.5%. Unit 1 employees will also receive a non-continuous
payment equal to the economic value of 2.5% total compensation. Finally, Unit 1
employees will also receive an additional ongoing increase equal to the
economic value of 0.5% of total compensation, and a non-continuous payment
equal to the economic value of 0.5% total compensation for agreeing to the City’s
transparency and accountability proposals. This will be paid as follows:



Page 131
1. 2.34% base wage increase, effective the first full pay period in July 2021.
2. A non-continuous payment of $2,191 for each full-time employee and
$200 for each part-time employee in year one, to be paid out on the first
full pay period in August 2021.
3. Increase pesticide application differential by $.50/hr
4. Increase 2nd shift differential by $.50/hr
5. Increase 3rd shift differential by $.75/hr
6. Provide 3 parking cards for Union use.

B. In year two of the agreement, the economic value of ongoing total compensation
increases will equal 1.5%. Unit 1 employees will also receive a non-continuous
payment equal to the economic value of 2.5% total compensation. This will be
paid as follows:

1. A 1.77% base wage increase effective the first full pay period in July
2022.
2. A non-continuous payment of $1,860 for each full-time employee and
$200 for each part-time employee in year two, to be paid out on the first
full pay period in August 2022.

The City will evaluate the American Rescue Plan Act and will provide a (non-
specified) percentage of premium pay as allowed by the legislation and
deemed appropriate by the City Council, balancing the needs of the
community and employees in their development of a strategic plan for the
ARPA funds. The strategic plan will follow guidelines provided by the
Department of Treasury. This language will expire at the conclusion of the
2021-2023 MOU.

C. During the term of this MOU the City will provide an annual budget presentation to the
LIUNA Local 777 Chapter Board. This presentation will be scheduled within 30 days
of the final budget being presented to Council.

D. It is understood that for implementation purposes, the practice of rounding of fractional
cents shall be done in accordance with accepted mathematical and accounting
principles.

E. Notwithstanding the rates of pay set forth in any appendix or attachment to the
agreement for reference, the term "Pay Schedule" shall mean the schedule computed
and published by the Human Resources Department for payroll purposes pursuant to
Council Action in the Pay and Compensation Ordinance.



Page 132
Section 3-1A. Productivity Enhancement Pay

In recognition of continuous service and overall performance, the City agrees to the
following productivity enhancement pay formula for unit employees.

A. Pay Benefit:

In November 2021, May 2022, November 2022, and May 2023, unit employees who
meet the additional qualifications of this section shall qualify for $50.00 for each full year
of continuous full-time service in excess of 5 years, up to an annual maximum of
$1,400.00 at 19 years.

In November 2021, May 2022, November 2022, and May 2023, unit employees who
have completed at least 20 years of full-time service and who meet the additional
qualifications of this section shall qualify for $65.00 for each full year of continuous full-
time service in excess of 5 years, up to an annual maximum of $1,820.00.

B. Qualifications:

1) An employee must have completed at least 1 year of continuous full-time service
at the top step in his pay range. Qualifications for Productivity Enhancement pay
are made in the base class and will not be affected by movement into or out of
assignment positions. As well, Productivity Enhancement pay will not be affected
by movements to positions within the same pay range.

2) An employee must have received a performance rating of overall "Met” on his latest
scheduled performance evaluation on file at the time of the qualifying date. For
employees who are otherwise eligible for Productivity Enhancement pay, an
employee who receives an overall “Not Met” evaluation shall receive another
evaluation within 90 days to 120 days, and if that evaluation is an overall “Met”, he,
she, they will be eligible to start receiving Productivity Enhancement pay the first
paycheck for the first full pay period after the next qualifying date. A unit employee
who receives an overall “Not Met” rating may appeal by memo through his chain
of command to the Department Head.

3) An employee must be on full-time active status. Employees on industrial leave
shall qualify for this payment for only the first year of the industrial leave. However,
the entire period of industrial leave shall qualify as continuous service when the
employee returns to active employment.




Page 133
C. Terms of Payment:

1) The Productivity Enhancement payment will be pro-rated and included each pay
period in the qualifying unit employee’s regular paycheck.

2) When a position is reclassified to a higher classification, or when classification is
assigned to a higher pay range, incumbents who are receiving Productivity
Enhancement pay shall be moved to that step of the new range which corresponds
the closest to their combined base pay and previous Productivity Enhancement
amount (incumbent’s annualized payment), and which does not result in a
decrease from that total amount. The placement in the new range will be limited to
the maximum step in the range. If the reclassification or pay range change only
results in a maximum possible one-range increase, and the incumbent is receiving
Productivity Enhancement pay, the employee will be moved to the top step and
continue to be eligible for Productivity Enhancement pay.



Section 3-2. Overtime

A. As a regular practice, overtime shall not be used. The parties agree that at times the
City may require overtime work outside of an employee’s regularly-scheduled shift.

B. Overtime is defined as time assigned and worked beyond the regularly scheduled
40 hours per week.

C. Except for paid sick leave, all duly authorized paid leave time shall be considered as
time worked for the purposes of the regularly scheduled workweek. Paid sick leave
shall not be considered as time worked for the purpose of calculating overtime for
the regularly scheduled workweek.

The employee’s appropriate leave bank will be charged only for the difference
between the scheduled daily work shift and the hours actually worked that day.

D. Overtime shall be worked and shall be allowed if assigned by the non-unit supervisor
or other authorized representative of the City. The City shall endeavor to be
equitable in the distribution of voluntary overtime amongst qualified employees or
crews of employees within the same classification, function, work location, and shift.
Seniority may be used as a factor in determining the assignment of overtime work.
Other factors include skill level, assigned equipment, etc. The City will make
available to the Union upon request reports of overtime worked by unit employees


Page 134
on a quarterly basis. The City reserves the right to assign overtime in the event
insufficient employees volunteer, to avoid inadequate staffing, to insure timely
service delivery or to conduct mandatory training.

Employees may be required to work on scheduled holidays and/or non-work days
during the holiday week in order to provide City services on weeks containing
holidays.

Rotational overtime work lists ranked by seniority shall be posted on city bulletin
boards and updated each time it is worked.

E. Compensation for overtime work as defined in Section B. above will be as follows:
1-½ times the regular rate. The regular rate shall include, if applicable, night shift
differential, stand-by pay, and out-of-class pay. Overtime will be compensated after
the first 7 minutes assigned and worked beyond a member's regularly scheduled
work week or work shift, as outlined in Section B, calculated to the nearest 1/4 hour.
There shall be no compounding or pyramiding of overtime pay with regular or
premium pay except as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

F. There shall be a minimum of 12 hours off between shifts. If this is not possible and
the unit employee is not receiving overtime pay for the additional hours worked (the
unit employee is not entitled to both overtime and 12-Hour Rule time), the unit
employee shall receive 12-Hour Rule compensation (1-1/2 times the regular rate)
for each full hour worked within the described 12 hour period. This language only
applies to employees who work 2 full shifts.

Example #1:
Monday Tuesday Wed – Fri Total for Week
6a.m. – 5:30 p.m. 3:30 a.m. – 1p.m. 6a.m. – 2:30 p.m. 44 hrs. Worked
40 hrs. Paid at Regular Rate
11 hrs. Worked 9 hrs. Worked 8 hrs. Worked per Day
of Pay
2 hrs. within
4 hrs. Paid at 1-1/2 (OT)
12-Hour Rule


In example #1, the 12-Hour Rule time is not paid for the two hours worked within
the 12-Hour Rule because overtime was earned for the additional hours worked.

Example #2:
Monday Tuesday Wed – Thurs Friday Total for Week
6 a.m. – 5:30 3:30 a.m. – 1 6 a.m. – 10
6 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. 40 hrs. Worked
p.m. p.m. a.m.




Page 135
8 hrs. Worked per 38 hrs. Paid at
11 hrs. Worked 9 hrs. Worked 4 hrs. Worked
Day Regular Rate of Pay
2 hrs. within 2 hrs. Paid at 1-1/2
12-Hour Rule (12-Hour Rule)


In example #2, the 12-Hour Rule time is paid for the two hours worked within the 12-
Hour Rule because overtime was not earned for the additional hours worked.

G. In lieu of cash payment, a unit employee may request compensatory time credits up
to a maximum accumulation of 210 hours. The request for compensatory credit must
be made at the time the overtime is worked. Use of compensatory time off within the
work period shall be subject to departmental approval and scheduling.

Accumulated compensatory time in excess of 210 hours must be paid in cash.

Effective July 2009, 210 hours is increased to 215 hours.



Section 3-2A. Call-Out Pay

A. A unit employee called out for work after going home from a shift or called out for
overtime work while on stand-by pay shall be entitled to a minimum of 3 hours pay at
1 ½ times the employee's regular rate of pay.

B. Travel time shall be included in the minimum call-out guarantee and shall be paid only
if the total work and allowed travel time exceed the 3 hour minimum. The total travel
time compensated for round trip travel to and from the job site shall be 45 minutes.

C. Travel time shall not apply when the employee is working on overtime which was
planned in advance. An employee requested to report early, before the normal starting
time of the shift, shall not be eligible for travel time, but would qualify for overtime for
the extra time worked at the job site.

D. Once called out, Standby Pay will stop.



Section 3-3. Out-Of-Class Pay

A unit employee temporarily required to serve in a regular authorized position in a higher
classification shall be compensated at a higher rate of pay in accordance with the
following:


Page 136
A. To be eligible for the additional compensation, the unit employee must first
accumulate 10 regular working shifts of assignment in the higher class within any 24
month period; satisfactory performance during a previous appointment to the higher
class will be credited to the qualifying period. The days of out-of-class assignment
need not necessarily be consecutive.

The days of out-of-class will be credited to the qualifying period. Once this qualification
is satisfied, no additional re-qualification will be required.

B. Temporary assignments out-of-class shall be recorded only in full-shift units. A unit
employee working out-of-class for 4 hours in an 8 hour shift or 5 hours in a 10 hour
shift or more in a given shift shall be credited with working out-of-class for the entire
shift. No out-of-class credit shall be given for out-of-class work of less than 4 or 5
hours in any given shift.

C. To qualify for out-of-class pay, a unit employee must be assuming substantially the
full range of duties and responsibilities of the higher level position. Out-of-class pay is
not authorized, for example, if the organization of a work unit is such that each unit
employee carries on his normal duties during the temporary absence of a supervisor,
without a need for the direction which the supervisor would provide on a longer term
basis. However, eligibility for out-of-class compensation shall take place when an
employee becomes responsible on a regular basis, for the full range of duties normally
assigned to the higher class.

D. Time worked in a higher class shall not earn credits toward the completion of
probationary requirements in the higher class.

E. A unit employee who has qualified under these provisions shall be compensated at
the minimum rate established for the higher class for each completed work shift served
in the higher class. In the event of overlapping unit salary ranges, a minimum one-
step differential shall be paid for out-of-class assignments into unit classifications. The
higher rate of pay shall be used in computing overtime when authorized overtime is
served in out-of-class work assignments; the overtime rate shall be the rate
established by the overtime regulations that apply to the higher rank.

F. The City shall endeavor to be equitable in the distribution of out-of-class assignments
amongst qualified unit employees.





Page 137
G. The City shall not make out-of-class assignments pursuant to this Article in an arbitrary
and capricious manner.



Section 3-4. Pesticide Applicator Differential

Licensed Pesticide Applicators shall receive $1.00 in addition to their base hourly rate for
each hour engaged in assigned and authorized activities when applying, mixing, or
managing herbicide or pesticides. This compensation includes any preparation and
maintenance of application equipment.


Section 3-5. Shift Differential Pay

Unit employees shall receive $1.00 per hour in addition to their hourly rate of pay when
working a night shift which ends at or after 9:00 p.m. and before midnight, and $1.50 per
hour in addition to their hourly rate of pay when working a night shift which includes work
during the period after midnight to 3:30 a.m.
Employees shall receive night shift pay differential only for hours scheduled and worked,
and not while on paid leave time.

Employees participating in a 4/10 work schedule shall receive $1.00 per hour in addition
to their hourly rate of pay when working a regular night shift which ends between 10:00
p.m. and 3:30 a.m., inclusive, and $1.50 per hour in addition to their hourly rate of pay
when working a regular night shift which ends after 3:30 a.m. Night shift differential shall
continue to be paid at the rate of the regular shift for any additional hours worked following
the regular shift.



Section 3-5A. Weekend Shift Differential Pay

A unit employee shall receive $0.45 per hour added to his base hourly rate of pay and
any other shift differential or any other premium pay he, she, they may be receiving for
working a weekend shift. A designated weekend shift is defined as any shift that starts on
or after 2:00 p.m., on Friday, and continuing through any shift that starts on or before, but
not after 11:59 p.m. on Sunday.

A unit employee shall receive weekend shift pay differential only for hours scheduled and
worked, and not while on paid leave.





Page 138
A unit employee, who is called out and works between 2:00 p.m. on Friday and 11:59
p.m. on Sunday, will be paid weekend shift differential for all hours worked at the rate
specified in this article. If a unit employee was called out while on stand-by status, he,
she, they will not receive weekend shift differential.



Section 3-6. Stand-By Pay

When a unit employee is required and assigned to be available for emergency call back,
outside of his regular daily or weekly work schedule, the employee shall be compensated
for such stand-by hours that he, she, they remained available at $3.25 per hour. Unit
employees serving in stand-by assignments shall be subject to contact requirements as
provided for by the Department Head.



Section 3-7. Show-Up Time

Except in emergencies, an employee who is scheduled to report for work, has not been
notified to the contrary, and presents himself/herself for work as scheduled, shall be paid
for at least 4 hours at the hourly rate of pay. If work on the employee's regular job is not
available for reasons beyond his control, the City may assign the employee substitute
work. Where there is substitute work readily available, the opportunity for such work will
not be arbitrarily denied.

In the event scheduled work is interrupted due to conditions beyond the City's control,
and substitute work is not available to be assigned, affected employees shall be paid for
4 hours at the hourly rate of pay, beginning at release, or to the end of the scheduled
work shift, whichever occurs first. An employee shall have the option of using either
vacation or comp time. If there is no other leave available, unit employee shall be
able to use unpaid leave for the balance of the regular shift in compliance with the
personnel rules.

Employees released hereunder prior to the end of their scheduled shift may be required
to stand-by and keep themselves available for immediate call-back during the balance of
their scheduled shift (for which time they shall be entitled to stand-by pay under Article 3,
Section 3-6 hereof). Employees called back to work shall be entitled to their hourly rate
of pay only and not any guaranteed minimums for work performed during the balance of
their regularly scheduled shift.



Section 3-8. Jury Duty Pay

Page 139
A unit employee called for jury duty or subpoenaed by a court as a witness shall be
granted a leave of absence for the period of jury or witness service and will be
compensated his/her regular pay and jury or witness pay for work absences necessarily
caused by such jury or witness duty. To be eligible for such pay, an employee must
present verification of the call to jury or witness duty.

A unit employee required by the Court to call in for jury duty the morning of his/her
scheduled daily work shift may elect to take the day off on vacation or compensatory time.
Such leave request shall not be denied. Should the unit employee be required by the
Court to report for jury duty, the vacation or compensatory time will be restored from the
actual time of reporting required by the Court through the end of the scheduled work shift.
To be eligible for such leave restoration, the unit employee must present verification of
the jury service.

Unit employees subpoenaed to appear as a witness in court as a result of their official
duties on their status as a City employee shall return all fees tendered for such service to
the City.

Paid Jury Duty leave shall not be allowed when the unit employee is the defendant,
plaintiff, or voluntary character witness in a court action.



Section 3-9. Deferred Compensation Program

The current percentage of base pay for deferred compensation is .45 %.



Section 3-10. Sick Leave Conversion at Retirement

A. Sick Leave Cash Out Formula

A unit employee who has accumulated a minimum of 750 qualifying hours or more of
accrued and unused sick leave at the time of retirement shall be paid an amount of
compensation equal to 25% of his base hourly rate for all hours in excess of 250 hours.

B. Final Average Salary

The number of sick leave hours eligible to be cashed out and included in an employee’s
Final Average Salary upon retirement will be limited to the number of sick leave hours in




Page 140
the employee’s leave bank on July 1, 2012, provided all criteria are met as described in
Subsection A.

Employees with less than 250 hours of accrued and unused sick leave on July 1, 2012,
will not meet the minimum balance requirements for a sick leave cash out that can be
included in their Final Average Salary.

The portion of accrued and unused sick leave that is not included in the Final Average
Salary upon retirement can be cashed out as a lump sum upon retirement, provided all
criteria are met as described in Subsection A.

The number of vacation leave hours eligible to be cashed out and included in an
employee’s Final Average Salary upon retirement will be limited to the number of vacation
leave hours in the employee’s bank on June 30, 2014, not to exceed 450 hours.



ARTICLE 4: HOURS OF WORK / WORKING CONDITIONS

Section 4-1. Hours of Work

The City, in collaboration with the Union, may approve flextime schedules when
all the following conditions are met:

1. Approval of Department Head
2. Approval of LIUNA Local 777 Business Manager or their Designee
3. Mutually agreed schedule between Unit Employee and Supervisor
4. The City, the Union and the affected employee(s) shall sign a written
agreement.

A. This Article is intended to define the normal hours of work and to provide the basis for
calculation and payment of overtime pursuant to Article 3, Section 3-2.

B. Work Week Defined

The regular work week for regular full-time unit employees shall consist of 5
consecutive work days in a 7 day pre-established work period, except as provided in
Article 4, Section 4-1-F and except in those departments performing normal services
regularly on Saturday and/or Sunday and except in those operations utilizing a
different work week, such as a 4 day work week.

C. Work Day Defined


Page 141
The work day for regular full-time unit employees shall consist of 8 hours of work
within any 24 hours in a pre-established work schedule, exclusive of unpaid time
allotted for meals except in those operations utilizing a different workday schedule
such as a 10 hour work day.

D. Work Schedule Changes

Except for emergency situations, permanent regular work schedules shall not be
changed without notice by the Department of at least 14 days to the affected
employee(s) and to the Union. Exceptions for more or less than the 14 days notice
mentioned above may be mutually agreed to by labor and management on a case by
case non-precedent basis.

When temporary work schedule changes are necessary, the Department will try to
give affected employees at least 2 calendar days notice or, if less notice, it will be
considered an emergency.

When changes are to be made by the City on a permanent basis for other than
emergency reasons, or where new permanent schedules are to be adopted, the City
will notify the Union of such changes or new schedules, prior to implementation.
Overtime work or stand-by, before or after the normal work day or work week, does
not constitute a change in the work schedule. A department will not reassign
employees to another work location temporarily for arbitrary or capricious reason(s).

E. Summer Work Schedules

Summer hours may begin no later than the first Monday in April, and may terminate
no earlier than the second Monday in October whenever such scheduling impacts
operations, all of which are within the discretion and control of the City, and where
such summer scheduling has been customarily used in the past. Summer scheduling
may, at the discretion of the City, be implemented earlier or terminated later in the
year than specified in this section. Summer work schedules in the Streets Department
and Parks Department may begin at 5:00 a.m.

It shall be within the Department Head's discretion to determine starting times for
summer hours based on such operational considerations as dividing and/or rotating
crew starting times to facilitate safety to the public, employees and equipment, to
guarantee a high level of convenient service to the public, to preclude negative impact
on traffic flow, and similar factors.



Page 142
F. SWEO Schedule

The City may implement a 10 hour workday, 4 workdays per week schedule in all
functions of the Solid Waste Management Division.

Except for Solid Waste Collections and Disposal, the regular work-week for regular
full-time unit employees working a “four/ten” work schedule shall consist of 4
consecutive work days in a 7 day pre-established work period.



Section 4-2. Rest and Lunch Periods

A. Existing workday schedules spanning 9 elapsed hours shall continue to include a 60
minute unpaid meal period. Existing workday schedules of 8-1/2 hours and 10-1/2
hours shall continue to include a 30 minute unpaid meal period. Workday schedules
of 8 and 10 consecutive hours shall include a paid straight time meal period of up to
½ hour on the job. Two (2) non-work periods of up to 15 minutes during a regular daily
shift shall be permitted by supervision to promote the health, safety, and efficiency of
employees on the job. Emergency situations may make this impossible in rare
situations. Activities of employees during those non-work periods shall not be subject
to any unreasonable restrictions.

B. When a unit employee does not receive a paid meal period, his/her meal period shall
be uninterrupted and duty-free.



Section 4-3. Clean-Up Time

Employees will be given time, in keeping with past practice, at the end of a normal daily
shift for personal clean-up.

Such time is in addition to and exclusive of any time the City requires be spent for
maintaining equipment.

The intent of the above provision has always been to allow field employees who need
personal clean-up prior to rest or lunch periods a reasonable amount of time to do so.
Clean-up material should be supplied on an as needed basis to field employees. If the
field supervisors and employees act reasonably in addressing the issue, everyone will
have a healthier and safer work environment.



Page 143
Section 4-4. Seniority

A. The City shall provide the Union with a list of unit employees showing each unit
employee’s employment date and class date.

B. Seniority shall be by length of service within a class. If seniority within a class is not
determinative, then length of service with the City shall prevail.

C. Seniority shall be used as a factor consistent with established Civil Service procedures
in choice of work assignments, vacation schedules, and in the determination of layoffs.

Department policies for work assignment selection and vacation scheduling will be
discussed with the Union at least 30 days prior to implementation.



Section 4-5. Transfer Program

The City and the Union acknowledge mutual interest in the success of the present
program of minimizing layoffs of employees by seeking to place such employees in other
positions, consistent with Civil Service Rules on seniority. The Union agrees to provide
positive counseling to unit employees so affected to ease the transition to other positions.
The City agrees to make available, on request, job counseling in order to provide training
assistance to the employee during the first 30 days of the new work assignment.

Although not required to honor a request for a voluntary transfer for an employee having
documented extraordinary personal hardship beyond his/her control, the City will try to
honor the request. In such a case, factors such as, but not limited to, the employee’s shift,
seniority, and work record may be considered.

To every extent practicable, a transferred unit employee will be allowed to maintain his
previous vacation schedule.

Section 4-6. CDL Renewal

Employees will be allowed City time to renew their CDL license and or related
endorsements and will be reimbursed for such renewal fees which will include the
HAZMAT background screening fee.

ARTICLE 5: BENEFITS



Page 144
Section 5-1: Employee Assistance

The City Employee Assistance Program, will provide confidential, individual and family
counseling to all employees and their household members. These services will be
furnished by an independent contract agency to be chosen by the City.


Section 5-2: Health and Dental Insurance

A. The City shall maintain the current 80/20 split for health insurance for both single and
family coverage. If there is a rate increase or decrease the City shall pay 80% of the
new monthly contribution and the employee will pay 20%.

B. The City agrees to the continuation of a Healthcare Taskforce for the purpose of
studying existing plans and to explore alternative plans. The Taskforce shall include
representatives of the City and Union.

C. The City shall retain the dental insurance plan for unit employees and their qualified
dependents. The plan shall consist of 80% payment of reasonable and customary
charges covered for preventive and diagnostic services, basic services, and major
services. The plan shall also include an orthodontia benefit providing for 80% payment
of reasonable and customary charges up to a maximum lifetime benefit of $4,000 per
person. This plan is subject to the deductibles and limitations contained in the contract
between the dental insurance carrier and the City of Phoenix. The City shall pay the
premium costs for single unit employees for employees enrolled in the base dental
HMO or PPO plan (employee only coverage), and 75% of the premium costs for unit
employees and their qualified dependents (family coverage).

The City shall maintain the current dental premium split. If there is a rate increase or
decrease, the City will pay 100% of the new monthly contribution for single coverage
for employees enrolled in the base dental HMO or PPO plan. If there is a rate
increase or decrease, the City will pay 75% of the new monthly contribution, and the
employee will pay 25% for family dental coverage.

D. The City agrees to continue the formalized complaint procedure with respect to the
service under all plans.

E. Unit employees retiring on or after July 1, 2006, who meet all other MERP eligibility
requirements and enroll in either single or family City of Phoenix health insurance,
shall receive an additional $100.00 per month to help defray the cost of health
insurance.



Page 145
Unit employees retiring after August 1, 2022, who meet eligibility requirements,
shall receive the $150 month allowance for Post Employment Health Plan accounts
(PEHP).



Section 5-3: Life Insurance

The City will provide regular full-time unit employees the existing off-the-job and on-the-
job life and dismemberment insurance coverage. The face value of the policy being
$15,000; in addition the City will pay $75,000 for death in-the-line-of-duty insurance.

The designated beneficiary of a unit employee will be paid for all accumulated sick leave
hours that remain on the City's official file at the time of a line-of-duty death of the unit
employee and payment will be based upon the unit employee’s current base hourly rate.
The beneficiary shall be designated in the eCHRIS Benefits portal for the City of
Phoenix Group Life Insurance Program on file in the City Human Resources Department.

Additionally, the City will provide to each unit employees a $200,000 death benefit
covering the unit employee’s commutation to and from their City work location. The
current City Life Insurance carrier will cover the unit employee’s commute for up to
two hours before their shift begins, and two hours after their shift concludes. The Union
will only pay the cost of their benefit the first year of the MOU.

In the event of the death of a unit employee while commuting to or from their work
location, for a period of two hours each way, the City will continue to pay the full monthly
health insurance premium for the spouse and all eligible dependents. The current City
Life Insurance carrier for the payment of a supplementary commutation life insurance
policy for each unit employee. The Union will pay the cost of this benefit, if any, the first
year of each new MOU period.



Section 5-4. Long Term Disability Insurance

Employees who have been continuously employed and working on a full-time basis for
twelve consecutive months are eligible for long term disability coverage. After an
established 90 calendar day qualifying period, the plan will provide up to 66-2/3% of the
employee's basic monthly salary at the time disability occurs and continue up to age 75
for employees who have been employed full-time for 36 months and one day. This
coverage will be coordinated with leave payments, industrial insurance payments,
unemployment compensation, social security benefits and disability provisions of the
retirement plan.




Page 146
Employees who have been employed full-time with the City of Phoenix for 36 months or
less, will be eligible to apply for long term disability coverage for no more than 30
months.


Section 5-5. Holidays, Vacation Pay, Family Leave, and Leave
Donations

A. Holidays / Personal Days

The City agrees to incorporate into the MOU the benefits provided under A.R. 2.11
modified to indicate the following holidays.

Employees, except those on hourly paid status, shall, when possible without disrupting
the various municipal services, be allowed the paid holidays listed below:

New Year’s Day January 1
Martin Luther King’s Birthday January, Third Monday
President’s Day February, Third Monday
Cesar Chavez Birthday March 31
Memorial Day May, Last Monday
Independence Day July 4
Labor Day September, First Monday
Veteran’s Day November 11
Thanksgiving Day November, Fourth Thursday
Friday after Thanksgiving Day Friday after Thanksgiving
Christmas Eve Half an employee’s paid regular shift on
December 24
Christmas Day December 25
Two Personal Leave Days After completion of six months of full-time
employment.

When a holiday named in this regulation falls on Sunday, it shall be observed on the
following Monday. When a holiday named in this regulation falls on Saturday, it shall
be observed on the preceding Friday except that in the case of 6 day operations such
holidays may be observed on Saturday. This paragraph shall not apply to Christmas
Eve, which shall only be granted when it falls on the employees' regular scheduled
workday. In the case of continuous 24 hour, 7 day operations and 7 day non-continuous
operations, holidays shall be observed only on the calendar days on which they actually
fall.




Page 147
The Personal Leave Days are added to an employee’s vacation leave bank and may
be taken on any day of the employee’s choosing after completion of six months of full-
time employment, subject to operational and scheduling factors and the limitations of
A.R. 2.11. This time does not alter the maximum carryover of vacation hours outlined
in A.R. 2.18.

If a full-time unit employee’s regularly scheduled day off falls on a holiday to which he,
she, they are entitled under this Article, 1st consideration shall be given to allowing 3
consecutive days off, but if this is not feasible, a substitute day off of 8 hours with pay
shall be given at straight time on a day designated by the Department Head. Unit
employees who work a 4/10 schedule, whose regularly scheduled day off falls on one
of the holidays listed in paragraph C of this Article, shall receive 10 hours of
compensatory time. An employee shall not be paid in cash in lieu of a substitute holiday
except that in extraordinary circumstances the City Manager's office may approve
payment in cash at a straight-time rate. The substitute holiday shall not be granted
when an employee is on paid industrial leave.

A unit employee whose regular scheduled day-off falls on a holiday specified in this
Article, and who is called in to work a regular shift on such holiday and scheduled day
off, shall be compensated at 1-1/2 the regular rate for each hour assigned and worked
in addition to the substitute holiday provided above.

B. Vacation Accumulation

Vacation accrual and carryover shall be governed according to the following table:

MONTHLY MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
SERVICE ACCRUAL CARRYOVER PAYOUT

0-5 years 8 hours 192 hours 290 hours
6-10 years 10 hours 240 hours 350 hours
11-15 years 11 hours 264 hours 380 hours
16-20 years 13 hours 312 hours 440 hours
21+ years 15 hours 360 hours 500 hours
C. The parties agree that on all holidays, unit employees whose regularly assigned work
week consists of 4 10 shifts, shall not be required to submit documentation for 2 hours
of paid leave.

Unit employees shall be allowed a vacation buyout twice per calendar year, by
notifying the Department payroll staff in writing of such intent during the month of
either October or April, to be paid on the last paycheck of November and May. The
total annual buyout is up to a maximum of 80 hours taken in no more than 40 hour



Page 148
increments, after the employee has accumulated a minimum of 175 hours and has
used 40 hours of vacation/comp-time during the calendar year.

D. Parental/Family Leave

The City will, as a matter of general policy, and subject to operational needs, authorize
up to 3 months of unpaid leave for an employee who is the parent of a newly born or
legally adopted child or any Unit employee who needs to care for an ill family member.
Family members include spouse, children (natural, adopted, foster, or stepchildren),
brother, sister, parents, grandparents, as well as others living in the same household
with the employee. Approval and use of this leave shall be subject to existing
Personnel Rules.

E. An employee may use up to 10 hours of accumulated sick leave in at least one-hour
increments each calendar year for the home care or medical treatment for an
immediate family member residing in the employee’s household. This will be marked
as “BO” on leave slips. When there is an extreme illness or injury situation where a
life or death question exists involving an immediate family member, an employee may
use up to 5 days of accumulated sick leave. (This should not be construed as
bereavement leave under Personnel Rule 15g). This will be marked as “BN” on leave
slips.

In addition, employees may have dependent care situations where the above leave is
insufficient to cover their absence. Therefore, employees will be allowed to use
unscheduled accumulated vacation or compensatory time for the care of an immediate
family member up to a maximum of 5 incidents not to exceed a total of 40 hours each
calendar year.

For all the above mentioned leaves, (sick leave, vacation, and compensatory leave)
the employee will not have these leaves be considered a negative factor, when
evaluating the job performance of an employee involved in a leave management
program, up to a maximum total of 7 incidents per calendar year. An incident is defined
as an absence from work, regardless of the length of time.

An immediate family member is defined as the employee’s spouse, qualified domestic
partner, mother, father or child. A child is defined as a biological, adopted, foster or
stepchild, legal ward, or a child of a person standing in place of a parent. A brother,
sister, grandparent, or in-law who is living with the employee under his/her care is also
defined as an immediate family member.

F. Leave Donations



Page 149
Unit employees may contribute accrued vacation or compensatory time to other
employees in accordance with City policy governing contribution of leave for serious
illness or injury of an employee or their immediate family member. An immediate family
member is defined as the employee’s spouse, qualified domestic partner, mother,
father, or child. A child is defined as a biological, adopted, foster or stepchild, legal
ward, or a child of a person standing in place of a parent. A brother, sister,
grandparent, or in-law who is living with the employee under his/her care is also
defined as an immediate family member. Requests to receive such leave
contributions will require a completed doctor’s certification.



Section 5-6. Tuition Reimbursement

A. Unit Employees who participate in the Tuition Reimbursement Program shall be
eligible for tuition reimbursement pursuant to the following provisions:

1. The maximum sum reimbursable to unit employees each MOU year shall be
$6,500.

2. To be eligible for any reimbursement, unit employees must have successfully
completed academic or training courses approved by the department and the
Human Resources Director as provided in existing Administrative Regulations.

B. Tuition Reimbursement, in accordance with this Article, shall be made in the event an
employee’s approved course of instruction is terminated by the educational institution.
Tuition reimbursement shall not occur in the event of any voluntary termination of
employment by the employee.

C. The City will reimburse unit employees for expenses incurred as a result of requiring
and maintaining certification required by the City. The City will not reimburse unit
employees for classes the City provides at no cost, or for classes the City identifies
for unit employees to be taken at no cost.

D. Unit employees shall be allowed to utilize up to $150 to attend one-day, in-state, City-
related seminars/training.



ARTICLE 6: MISCELLANEOUS

Section 6-1. Saving Clause

Page 150
A. If any article or section of this MOU should be held invalid by operations of law or by
a final judgment of any tribunal of competent jurisdiction, or if compliance with or
enforcement of any article or section should be restrained by such tribunal, the
remainder of this MOU shall not be affected thereby.


Section 6-2. Copies of MOU

A. Within 60 days after this MOU is adopted by the City Council, the Union will arrange
for printing of jointly approved copies of it for furnishing one to every unit employee,
unit supervisor and to management personnel. The costs of such duplication and
distribution will be borne equally by the Union and the City.

B. Printing vendors secured by the Union shall comply with Chapter 18, Articles IV (City
Construction Contractors' Affirmative Action Requirements) and V (Supplier's and
Lessee's Affirmative Action Requirements), Phoenix City Code.



Section 6-3. Aid to Construction of Provisions of MOU

A. The provisions of this MOU shall be in harmony with the rights, duties, obligations and
responsibilities which by law devolve upon the City Council, City Manager, and other
City boards and officials, and these provisions shall be interpreted and applied in such
manner.

B. The lawful provisions of this MOU are binding upon the parties for the term thereof, it
being understood that the Union is precluded from initiating any further meeting and
conferring for the term thereof relative to matters under the control of the City Council
or the City Manager.



Section 6-4. Part-Time Employees

Hourly paid unit employees, excluding seasonal and temporary employees, who have
worked a minimum of 50 hours in each pay period for 26 consecutive weeks shall be
entitled to the same benefits for authorized work on holidays as received by regular full-
time unit employees. In addition, such employees shall receive vacation credits prorated
for the number of hours worked after the qualifying period is satisfied. Vacation credits
shall be calculated and paid in cash in December and June. These hourly-paid employees



Page 151
shall be considered for advancement from Pay Step 1 to Pay Step 2 after completing
1,040 hours of work in Step 1 and for advancement from Pay Step 2 to Pay Step 3 after
working 2,080 hours in Pay Step 2.

Hourly paid unit employees who have worked a minimum of 50 hours in each pay
period for 26 consecutive weeks shall be entitled to the same benefits as received by
regular full-time unit employees. Members that meet these requirements shall be
eligible for participation in the City's Health, Life, and Dental insurance programs. The
City's premium participation will be the same as that provided for full-time employees.
Continuation of participation under these plans will be determined by reviewing the
average hours worked in the prior 12-month period every calendar year on October 1.
This qualifying period will be determined for the following benefit year effective January
1. If the employee separates from City employment, the participation will cease.

Part-time employees are allowed an hours reduction of up to 2 weeks in one pay period
in the (26 week qualifying period and each period thereafter, without impacting their
eligibility to participate in the part-time employees’ benefit programs.



Section 6-5. Term and Effect of MOU

A. This Memorandum shall remain in full force and effect commencing with the beginning
of the first regular pay period in July 2019, up to the beginning of the first regular pay
period commencing in July 2021. In compliance with the Meet and Confer Ordinance
(Phoenix City Code Chapter 2, Article XVII, Division 1) as may be amended, on or
before December 1, 2020, LIUNA 777 shall submit its proposed memorandum of
understanding for the next contract period.

B. Except as expressly provided in this MOU, the City shall not be required to meet and
confer concerning any matter, whether covered or not covered herein, during the term
or extensions thereof.

C. The provisions of this MOU shall be subject to Federal, State and local law that vests
jurisdiction and authority in other public boards and officials, including the City Council,
Phoenix Employment Relations Board, Phoenix Civil Service Board, City Manager and
Department Managers, or determines issues contrary to the provisions hereof.

D. This Memorandum constitutes the total and entire agreements between the parties
and no past written or verbal statement/agreements shall supersede any of its
provisions. All side agreements executed during this MOU contract period will expire



Page 152
on or before the contract end date unless incorporated into the MOU or extended by
mutual agreement. Any supplement, amendments, or modifications to this MOU which
are mutually agreed upon must be reduced to writing and signed by both parties.





Page 153
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands this

____ of April, 2021



______________________________________________________________________
Jennifer Grøndahl, LIUNA Local 777 Representative


______________________________________________________________________
Ashley Pritchett, Deputy Human Resources Director, City of Phoenix


______________________________________________________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager, City of Phoenix


ATTEST:


______________________________________________________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk, City of Phoenix


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


______________________________________________________________________
Acting City Attorney, City of Phoenix




LIUNA 777 Team: City of Phoenix Team:
Jennifer Grøndahl Ashley Pritchett, Human Resources
Robert Reidenbach Larry Polk, Parks and Recreation
Daniel Salinas Chris Ewell, Street Transportation
Wilfredo Cancel Felipe Moreno, Public Works
Ronald March Shenal Hooks, Human Resources (Coordinator)
Alexis Petrinovic Melissa Huffman, Human Resources (Scribe)
Jessie Martinez





Page 154



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Comment on Proposed MOU Between City of Phoenix and Phoenix Law
Enforcement Association, PLEA (Unit 4)

Request for City Council to receive public comment on the terms of the proposed
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Phoenix Law Enforcement
Association, PLEA (Unit 4).

Section 2-218 (G) of the Meet and Confer section in the City Code provides that a
proposed MOU be filed with the City Clerk following its ratification by the employee
organization and, "At the earliest practicable date thereafter the City Council of the City
of Phoenix shall provide on its agenda an opportunity for public comment on the terms
of the Memorandum of Understanding prior to the Council acting thereon."

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 155



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Approving the Memorandum of Understanding Between City of Phoenix and
Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, PLEA (Unit 4) (Resolution 21914)

The City of Phoenix has met and conferred with the Phoenix Law Enforcement
Association, PLEA (Unit 4), in accordance with the terms of Section 2-218 of the City
Code, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been approved by the
organization's membership. A copy of the proposed MOU has been filed with the City
Clerk and an opportunity for public comment has been requested as an agenda item
preceding this resolution.

The following is a summary of the most significant agreements outlined in the
proposed MOU:

TRANSPARENCY
Based on public dialogue about the need for greater transparency and accountability
for city employees, several sections of the contract are modified. These modifications
are proposed consistently through all City of Phoenix employee contracts. Signing
these modifications is tied to an additional compensation increase as described in the
COMPENSATION section. These transparency and accountability modifications are
as follows:

Public warning language:
Remove current language warning public complainants that “any false report in an
attempt to unjustly defame police personnel or place their employment in jeopardy can
result in criminal charges and or civil liability.”

Using vacation time for suspensions:
Remove current language that allows employees to use up to 40 hours of vacation
time toward a suspension.

Police Chief's discretion for pre-termination timing:
Provide the Police Chief discretion for setting a Loudermill (pre-termination meeting)
resulting from arrest for a job-related felony crime.




Page 156

Witness representation language:
Remove language that provides employees identified only as a witness the ability to
meet with the union prior to an interview.

Discipline to remain for employee’s career:
Change current language that allows discipline to be considered up to 5 years for
progressive discipline, transfers, and promotions. Under this agreement, 10
categories of discipline will last for the life of employment. These are shown in the
attached agreement.

Representation on Grievance Committees:
Update current language that rotates other labor groups on grievance committees to
ensure an impartial review.

Purging Files:
Update current language on purging/inactivating files to accurately reflect that the
official Human Resources file is not purged.

COMPENSATION
PLEA is proposed to receive the same percentage increases of total compensation as
the other labor groups as follows:

Year 1:
Ongoing 1.5% of total compensation
Non-continuous 2.5% of total compensation

Additional compensation for agreeing to the City’s transparency and accountability
proposals:
Ongoing 0.5% of total compensation
Non-continuous 0.5% of total compensation

Year 2:
Ongoing 1.5% of total compensation
Non-continuous 2.5% of total compensation

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 157
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

2021 – 2023

CITY OF PHOENIX

AND

PHOENIX LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION

REPRESENTING UNIT 4 EMPLOYEES




Page 158
PREAMBLE .................................................................................................................... 4

ARTICLE 1: RIGHTS ...................................................................................................... 4
SECTION 1-1: PURPOSE/GENDER ...............................................................................................................................4
SECTION 1-2: CITY AND DEPARTMENT RIGHTS .........................................................................................................4
SECTION 1-3: RIGHTS OF ASSOCIATION .....................................................................................................................6
SECTION 1-4: RIGHTS OF UNIT MEMBERS................................................................................................................ 11
SECTION 1-5: PROHIBITION OF STRIKE AND LOCKOUTS........................................................................................... 20
ARTICLE 2: GRIEVANCE/ARBITRATION/LABOR MANAGEMENT .......................... 21
SECTION 2-1: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 21
SECTION 2-2: LABOR-MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE .................................................................................................. 25
SECTION 2-3: ........................................................................................................................................................... 26
ARTICLE 3: COMPENSATION/WAGES ...................................................................... 26
SECTION 3-1: WAGES .............................................................................................................................................. 26
SECTION 3-1A: PRODUCTIVITY ENHANCEMENT PAY............................................................................................... 27
SECTION 3-1B: CAREER ENHANCEMENT PAY.......................................................................................................... 29
SECTION 3-1C: TRAINING PAY ................................................................................................................................ 29
SECTION 3-1D: COMPENSATION FOR INTERPRETING AND TRANSLATION BY SWORN POLICE OFFICERS .................. 30
SECTION 3-2: OVERTIME ......................................................................................................................................... 31
SECTION 3-2A: COURT TIME OVERTIME ................................................................................................................. 32
SECTION 3-2B: CALL-OUT PAY ............................................................................................................................... 33
SECTION 3-3: OUT-OF-RANK PAY ........................................................................................................................... 34
SECTION 3-4: SICK LEAVE CONVERSION AT RETIREMENT ....................................................................................... 35
SECTION 3-4A: SICK LEAVE PAYOUT ...................................................................................................................... 36
SECTION 3-5: NIGHT SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL/WEEKEND SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL ........................................................... 36
SECTION 3-6: STAND-BY PAY ................................................................................................................................. 37
SECTION 3-6A: COURT TIME STANDBY PAY ........................................................................................................... 37
SECTION 3-7: OFF-DUTY EMPLOYMENT .................................................................................................................. 38
SECTION 3-8: JURY DUTY ........................................................................................................................................ 38
SECTION 3-9: DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS .................................................... 38
SECTION 3-10: NON-DIRECT PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OR BENEFITS............................................................... 39
ARTICLE 4: HOURS OF WORK/WORKING CONDITIONS ........................................ 39
SECTION 4-1: WORK SCHEDULES ............................................................................................................................ 39
SECTION 4-2: SENIORITY ......................................................................................................................................... 42
ARTICLE 5: BENEFITS ................................................................................................ 42
SECTION 5-1: HEALTH INSURANCE .......................................................................................................................... 42
SECTION 5-1A: RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE......................................................................................................... 43
SECTION 5-2: DENTAL INSURANCE .......................................................................................................................... 43
SECTION 5-3: LIFE INSURANCE ................................................................................................................................ 43
SECTION 5-4: LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE ................................................................................................ 44
SECTION 5-5: HOLIDAYS AND VACATION LEAVE .................................................................................................... 44
SECTION 5-5A: OUT-OF-STATE VACATION RECALL ................................................................................................ 47
SECTION 5-5B: MILITARY LEAVE ............................................................................................................................ 47
SECTION 5-6: UNIFORM, CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE ........................................................................ 48
SECTION 5-7: REIMBURSEMENT FOR EDUCATION EXPENSES ................................................................................... 52
SECTION 5-8: LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................................................................................... 52
SECTION 5-9: WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ............................................................................................................... 53
ARTICLE 6: MISCELLANEOUS .................................................................................. 53
SECTION 6-1: SAVING CLAUSE ................................................................................................................................ 53
SECTION 6-2: COPIES OF MEMORANDUM................................................................................................................. 54
SECTION 6-3: AID TO CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISIONS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ............................. 54


Page 159
SECTION 6-4: CHANGES IN DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS ORDERS PURSUANT TO THIS MEMORANDUM ..................... 54
SECTION 6-5: PHYSICAL FITNESS ............................................................................................................................. 55
SECTION 6-6: TERM AND EFFECT OF MEMORANDUM .............................................................................................. 55
ATTACHMENT A .......................................................................................................... 58

ATTACHMENT B .......................................................................................................... 59

ATTACHMENT C .......................................................................................................... 60




Page 160
Preamble
WHEREAS the parties, through their designated representatives, met and conferred in
good faith pursuant to Chapter 2, Article XVII (Employer-Employee Relations), Phoenix
City Code in order to reach agreement concerning wages, hours, and working conditions
of employees in the Police Officers Unit, and

WHEREAS the parties hereby acknowledge that the provisions of this Memorandum are
not intended to abrogate the authority and responsibility of City government provided for
under the statutes of the State of Arizona or the Charter or ordinances of the City of
Phoenix except as expressly and lawfully limited herein,

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that this Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter
“Memorandum”) shall be submitted to the City Council of the City of Phoenix for its
consideration.


ARTICLE 1: Rights
Section 1-1: Purpose/Gender

Wherever any words used herein in the masculine, feminine or neutral, they shall be
construed as though they were also used in another gender in all cases where they would
so apply.


Section 1-2: City and Department Rights

A. The Association recognizes that the City and the Police Chief retain, whether
exercised or not, solely and exclusively, all express and inherent rights and
authority pursuant to law with respect to determining the level of and the manner
in which the City’s law enforcement activities are conducted, managed, and
administered, and the Association recognizes the exclusive right of Police Chief
to establish and maintain departmental rules and procedures for the administration
of the Police Department during the term of this Memorandum provided that such
rules and procedures do not violate any of the specific express provisions of this
Memorandum.

B. The City and Police Chief have the exclusive right and authority to schedule work
and/or overtime work as required in the manner most advantageous to the City.

C. It is understood by the parties that every incidental duty connected with operations
enumerated in job descriptions is not always specifically described; nevertheless,
it is intended that all such duties shall be performed by the employee.

D. The Police Chief and City Manager reserve the right to discipline or discharge
employees for just cause, defined as follows, pursuant to the Civil Service laws.
The City reserves the right to lay off personnel of the Department.

Page 161
1. The employer informed the law enforcement officer of the possible
disciplinary action resulting from the officer's conduct through agency
manuals, employee handbooks, the employer's rules and regulations, or
other communications to the officer or the conduct was such that the
officer should have reasonably known disciplinary action could occur.

2. The disciplinary action is reasonably related to the standards of conduct
for a professional law enforcement officer, the mission of the agency, the
orderly, efficient or safe operation of the agency, or the officer's fitness
for duty.

3. The discipline is supported by a preponderance of evidence that the
conduct occurred.

4. The discipline is not excessive and is reasonably related to the
seriousness of the offense and the officer's service record.

E. The City and the Police Chief shall determine assignments and establish methods
and processes by which assignments are performed. This is not grievable under
the MOU.

F. The City and Police Chief shall have the right to transfer employees within the
Police Department in a manner most advantageous to the City. This is not
grievable under the MOU.

G. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Memorandum, the City and the
Police Chief retain unqualifiedly all rights and authority to which by law they are
entitled.

H. The City shall have the authority without prior meeting and conferring to effect
reorganizations of the Police Department.

I. The Association recognizes that the City has statutory and Charter rights and
obligations in contracting for matters relating to municipal operations.

J. The Association pledges cooperation to the increasing of departmental efficiency
and effectiveness. Any and all rights concerning the management, organization,
and direction of the Police Department and the police force, including those set
forth in this Memorandum, shall be exclusively the right of the City and the Police
Chief unless otherwise provided by the express terms of this Memorandum as
permitted by law.

K. The inherent and express rights of the City and the Police Chief, including those
herein specifically referred to, which are not expressly modified or restricted by a
specific provision of this Memorandum, are not in any way, directly or indirectly,
subject to the Grievance Procedure herein.



Page 162
Section 1-3: Rights of Association

A. The Association, as the authorized representative, has the exclusive right to
serve as the meet and confer representative of all employees in the Police
Officers Unit as described in the City Code.

Under no circumstance shall the department create or request unit members to
sign or agree to individual employment contracts without mutual agreement with
the Association. Unit members will still be required to sign for receipt of materials.

B. Union Release:
The Phoenix community benefits from harmonious and cooperative relationships
between the City and its employees. The City and the Association have
negotiated six full-time release positions, and release hours, as an efficient and
readily available point of contact for addressing labor-management concerns.
Examples of work performed by the release positions in support of the City
include ensuring representation for unit employees during administrative
investigations and grievance/disciplinary appeal meetings with management;
participating in collaborative labor-management initiatives that benefit the City
and the unit members; serving on Police Department task forces and
committees; facilitating effective communication between City and Department
management and unit employees; assisting unit members in understanding and
following work rules; and administering the provisions of the Memorandum of
Understanding. The cost to the City for these release positions, including all
benefits, has been charged as part of the total compensation contained in this
agreement in lieu of wages and benefits.

1. Full-Time Release Positions:

a. The 6 full time release positions shall be sworn, full time, paid police
officers of the Phoenix Police Department, who will at all times remain
qualified to perform such duties as are normally expected and required of
a municipal police officer in the City of Phoenix, Arizona. These 6 full time
release positions will receive their regular salary including fringe benefits,
and the employer shall make all employer contributions to the Public
Safety Personnel Retirement System required by law so as to maintain
their full eligibility under the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System.

b. The 6 full time release positions shall participate in all appropriate training
requirements necessary to maintain membership in the department,
including all training mandated by the Arizona Peace Officers Standards
and Training Board (AZ POST).

c. The 6 full time release positions agree to be bound by the City’s and the
Police Department’s rules, regulations, and operations orders, including
but not limited to proper notification when utilizing sick or vacation leave.



Page 163
The full time release employees may be subject to disciplinary action for
violations of any such rules, regulations, general or operations orders.

d. The 6 full time release positions may work supplemental overtime shifts
consistent with the processes and policies set in place by the Phoenix
Police Department for all sworn police officers. Employees will submit all
overtime slips to their current supervisor to ensure that overtime is being
used appropriately.

2. Association Representatives:

The Association may designate up to 42 representatives and shall notify the
Police Chief and Labor Relations in writing of such designations as they
occur. There shall be no obligation on the City to change or adjust normal
departmental scheduling or assignments of personnel as a result of such
designations or as changes occur.

Every quarter, PLEA will provide a list of stewards that will be posted.

a. Up to two PLEA representatives may, when the Association is designated
by the unit member as his representative, attend mutually scheduled
grievance meetings, Use of Force Boards, Disciplinary Review Boards,
IRP Meetings, and hearings with department representatives and hearings
scheduled and conducted by the Civil Service Board without loss of pay or
benefits. Up to two PLEA representatives may attend hearings with the
department representative if more than one department representative is
in attendance. Paid release time used for any other purposes, such as
gathering information, interviewing the grievant/appellant or witnesses, or
preparing a presentation shall be charged against the bank of release
hours as described in Section 1-3 D. PLEA representatives are required to
obtain the permission of their non-unit supervisor to absent themselves
from their duties to attend scheduled meetings and provide representation.

b. When new work units, precinct(s)/bureau(s) are created, the Association
may designate up to 1 additional representative per bureau and up to 3
additional representatives per precinct. The increased number will be
consistent with current practice and will be based solely on the addition of
new work unit(s). Any deviation from the above will be discussed at a
Labor-Management meeting.

3. Bank of Release Hours:

A bank of 1,859 hours of paid Association release time shall be created per
M.O.U. year for use by the Association to engage in legitimate Association
business. PLEA will utilize best efforts to provide advanced notice of the
use of these hours to Labor Relations so the affected chain of
commands can be notified. In all instances, PLEA will provide Labor
Relations with notice of hours used. The cost to the City for these release

Page 164
hours, including fringe, has been charged as part of the total compensation
contained in this agreement in lieu of wages and benefits. Examples of how
these hours are used by the Association include:

a. For Executive Board members to attend meetings of the Executive Board,
meetings of the general membership, and for preparation for negotiations
pursuant to Chapter 2, Article XVII (Employer-Employee Relations),
Phoenix City Code.

b. For unit members to attend seminars, meetings, training classes and
conferences so that representatives better understand issues such as City
policies and practices, conflict resolution, labor-management partnerships,
and methods of effective representation.

c. For Association representatives to communicate with members,
investigate grievances or prepare for hearings. A PLEA representative
wishing to enter a work area for the purpose of investigating a formal
grievance must first gain the permission of the work area supervisor. This
permission will not be unreasonably withheld, giving proper consideration
to essential work of the department and the occupational safety of the
PLEA representative. When requesting a meeting with the work unit/site
supervisor, the PLEA representative will inform the supervisor of the
purpose of the meeting. PLEA representatives will attempt to schedule an
appointment in advance whenever possible. One additional PLEA
representative may be allowed to attend such meetings for training
purposes.

Approval for use of paid release time hereunder shall be subject to
Departmental operational and scheduling factors. When using such paid
time, Association representatives and members of the Executive Board
shall give at least 24 hours written notice in advance.

In recognition of the mutual benefit to both the City and the Association, a
unit member using Association release time as defined by Articles in this
MOU to conduct Association business shall be accorded all insurance-
related benefits. Approval of claims made for benefits will be determined
on a case by case basis.

Any hours used in excess of the bank must be approved by the Police
Chief, the Labor Relations Administrator, and the PLEA president. The
number of hours used in excess of the bank at the end of the contract
term will be deducted from the bank at the start of the first year of the
following contract. Unused hours will be carried over into the first year of
the next contract.

C. The president may appoint a legislative representative for the Association if the
legislative representative is registered with the Secretary of State as a lobbyist
and if the legislative representative has agreed to work with and assist the city’s


Page 165
legislative lobbyist. The legislative representative shall receive 500 hours of
release time per MOU year.

D. A member of the Executive Board of the Association, or a designated PLEA
representative, will, with the approval of the Police Chief or his designee, subject
to 24 hours written notice in advance, be authorized to engage in Association
related activities during City work hours on a non-paid basis. Approval for such
authorization for more than 2 Executive Officers or Board members of the
Association or designated shift representatives is subject to 48 hours written
notice in advance. Approval for use of unpaid time hereunder shall be subject to
Department operational and scheduling factors and administration control as to
usage of such time, but shall not be arbitrarily withheld. There shall be no use of
official paid time for Association related activities under this paragraph.

E. Upon the Association’s filing of a Third Party Data Sharing Agreement with the
Labor Relations Division, during the term of this Memorandum, upon request,
the City shall furnish to the Association bimonthly at no cost a listing of all unit
members, indicating name, mailing address, phone number and assignment.

F. The City shall deduct monthly from the pay warrants of Association members the
regular periodic Association membership dues and/or special assessments in
accordance with Chapter 2, Article XVII (Employer-Employee Relations), Phoenix
City Code and pursuant to the City’s existing dues deduction authorization form
duly completed and signed by the Association member, and transmit such
deductions to the Association on a monthly basis; except, however, that such
deduction shall be made only when an Association member’s earnings for a pay
period are sufficient after other legally required deductions are made. The City
shall, at the request of the Association, make changes in the amount of the
deduction hereunder during the term of this Memorandum at cost for
implementing such change. The City shall not make dues deductions for unit
members on behalf of any other employee organization as defined in Chapter 2,
Article XVII (Employer-Employee Relations), Phoenix City Code during the term
of this Memorandum. The City assumes no liability on account of any action
taken pursuant to this paragraph.

G. The Association is authorized to use mutually agreed upon non-work areas in
City facilities for pick-up by or distribution to unit members of official Association
literature that is not political in nature, abusive of any person or organization, or
disruptive of the department’s operations, it being understood and agreed,
however, that such activity shall not be done during the on-duty time of any unit
member. The Association may, using its own resources, use the mailboxes at
work locations to communicate with unit members. The association may use
Inter-departmental mail to communicate with unit members on two occasions a
year.

H. The Association and the Department will jointly present a 4-hour Employee
Wellness course to recruits who are expected to become sworn police
officers. Immediately following, the Association will be allowed 1 hour to talk to


Page 166
and possibly sign newly sworn police officers into the Association and to explain
the rights and benefits under the MOU. This time will be allotted prior to
reporting for the first patrol training shift at the offices of the Association. The
content of such information shall not be political in nature, abusive of any person
or the Department or disruptive of the Department’s operation. Curriculum will
be jointly approved with the Training Bureau Division Chief.

I. It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by this Article shall not be
interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time worked, any
hours or fractions of hours spent outside the unit member’s work shift in pursuit
of benefits provided by this Article. The employer shall count as time worked any
hours or fractions of hours spent within the unit member’s regular work shift in
pursuit of benefits provided by this Article.

J. Any unit representative attending any IRP, DRB, UFB, DAC, or any other review
board will be allowed to adjust their work schedule by an equal amount of time
spent in the meeting. The adjustment will require the approval of the
representative’s supervisor with operational consideration. Approval will not be
unreasonably withheld.

K. In the interest of encouraging continuing education for unit members, the
department will mail to the Association president the AZ POST calendar and all
other job related seminar notices it receives.

L. The Association will have 2 PLEA positions, designated in writing, on continuous
paid stand-by for the mutual benefit of both the City and the Association to
respond to critical incidents as needed. No member will be placed on stand-by if
the member is not available for call-out. If call-out occurs, overtime will be paid in
accordance with Article 3, Section 3.2.

M. Upon written request from the Association, the City will provide specific
information pertinent to a written grievance, arbitration case, or Civil Service
appeal. The City will also provide pertinent collective bargaining information. This
material will be supplied to the Association at no cost.

N. To improve communication and relationships between labor and management,
the Association will be allowed an opportunity to attend one mutually agreed
upon briefing quarterly with each squad to discuss Association business and
issues of mutual concern to labor and management. PLEA will utilize best
efforts to provide advance notice of meeting.

O. The City values and benefits from the participation of Union leaders on citywide
task forces and committees, Police Department task forces and committees,
Labor –Management work groups, and a variety of Health and Safety
committees. These activities take time away from expected tasks such as
representation and communicating with the membership and may occur outside
the regular work day of the Union officials. The full-time release positions agree


Page 167
to participate in these important committees and task forces. In recognition of this
commitment, the City agrees to provide a 960 hour bank of compensation for use
by the full-time release positions each MOU year.

P. Unit members who are not Association members at the beginning of the last pay
period in June of each year will receive 3.5 hours of vacation time, in addition to
their normal annual accruals, credited to their vacation leave bank on the second
paycheck in August of that same year. Unit members who are not Association
members at the beginning of the last pay period in December of each year will
receive 3.5 hours of vacation time in addition to their normal annual accruals,
credited to their vacation leave bank on the second paycheck in February of the
following year.

The number of hours distributed to Unit members who are not Association
members will be deducted from the leave banks described in Section 1-3,
beginning with the Section 1-3(C) leave bank, then the Section 1-3(B)(3) leave
bank, and then the Section 1-3(O) leave bank. If there are not enough hours in
the leave banks to refund the hours to Unit members who are not Association
members, the Association will reduce the number of full-time release positions for
the remainder of the six-month period. The value of each reduced full-time
release position will be converted to hours and credited to the Section 1-3(B)(3)
leave bank.

On or before the second paycheck in August and February, the City will provide
Unit members who are not members of the Association “opt in” forms, to be
approved by the Association, allowing them to donate vacation leave to be
deposited into the Section 1-3(B)(3) leave bank. At any time during the term of
this MOU, any Unit member may request this “opt in” form in order to donate
vacation time in the manner above-described.

Q. As the certified unit 4 bargaining unit, the Association will be notified
electronically of Use of Force Boards and Disciplinary Review Boards at the
time of scheduling.


Section 1-4: Rights of Unit Members

A. A unit member has the right to have the Association serve as his meet and confer
representative as set forth in Chapter 2, Article XVII (Employer-Employee
Relations), Phoenix City Code.

B. A unit member has the right to be represented by the Association in dealings with
the City concerning grievances and matters pertaining to his individual
employment rights and obligations.

1. If a unit member requests, representation will be allowed when the member is
the subject of an administrative investigation by Professional Standards
Bureau, any Police Department supervisor, or other City employee who is

Page 168
conducting an investigatory interview. The City will notify the Association who
will obtain the most readily available unit Association representative, who must
be a bargaining unit member. The unit representative will make every
reasonable attempt to arrive within one hour from the time a phone is made
available to the unit member. Management will make a concerted attempt to
release the association representative giving the consideration of the
departments’ and the associations’ scheduling concerns. The unit Association
representative may make a request for a caucus prior to, during, or after the
interview to bring to the investigator's attention issues which may be violations
of the MOU as set forth in this Memorandum or questions outside the scope of
the N.O.I. Prior to the conclusion of the meeting, the member, or representative
on behalf of the employee, will have the opportunity to make a closing
statement.

The Union representative may assist and consult with the employee, attempt
to clarify the facts or questions asked, and suggest other employees or
witnesses who may have knowledge of the underlying issues. The Union
representative may not turn the meeting into an adversarial proceeding, unduly
disrupt the interview, interfere with the objective of the examination, or
compromise the integrity of the interview. The Union representative may not
interrupt the employee’s response to a question, speak on behalf of the
employee, or prevent the employee from responding to a question. The Union
representative also may not behave in a violent, verbally abusive, insulting, or
demeaning manner toward the interviewer.

During the interview, the interviewer may insist that he is only interested in
hearing the employee’s own account of the matter under investigation at that
time. The interviewer may not prohibit the Union representative from engaging
in meaningful representation, including assisting and consulting with the
employee.

2. The interview session shall be a reasonable period of time, taking into
consideration the gravity and complexity of the misconduct being investigated.

3. Prior to conducting an administrative interview, the City/Department will
consider the necessity of interviewing a Unit Member who is impaired by
alcohol or drugs. If the City/Department deems an immediate administrative
interview is not necessary, it will/may be scheduled at a later time.

4. At the time of the scheduled interview by Professional Standards Bureau, a
Police Department Supervisor, or other City Employee, the investigator will
make available for review to the unit member and/or his representative any
material that is being used as the basis for an allegation of misconduct. Material
includes any video, audio, photographs, or documents at the time the internal
investigation is initiated, and which is specifically related to the conduct of the
unit member under investigation. Material does not include audio recorded
interviews of witnesses, or investigative leads captured during the investigative
process. All materials will be made available to the unit member and/or his


Page 169
representative in the draft investigation prior to the investigative review process
(IRP). .

For investigations related to critical incidents such as officer involved
shootings, in-custody deaths, and/or police contract that result in serious
physical injury or death, Body Worn Camera (BWC) video will be made
available to a unit member prior to his administrative (PSB) interview if the
unit member first completes the criminal interview process with criminal
investigators. The parties understand that there are inherent limitations to
BWCs and memory. They also recognize that the inability to review BWC
video can impact reporting accuracy.

During the course of the administrative investigation, the investigator will not
knowingly misrepresent any fact or material issue to the unit member.

Prior to interviewing an involved employee, an Internal Investigation
Material List form documenting what materials, the investigating
supervisor or PSB investigator provided to the involved employee will be
completed.

5. A unit member under investigation, and the association, will be notified in
writing every 3 months as to the current status of the investigation. This will
include a brief description of the number of known witnesses still to be
interviewed and other investigative processes remaining to be completed, as
well as an estimated date of completion.

6. If a Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) investigation has not been
completed within 180 days, the unit member may request that the PLEA
grievance chair meet with the PSB Division Commander to discuss the status
of the investigation.

7. When a draft investigation is provided to a Unit member, it will contain an
explanation of the member’s right to review the investigation within the time
period provided in Ops Order 3.19 before signing the investigative review
control form.

8. If changes are made to an investigation after an IRP, the unit member and
representative will be provided with a revised draft of the investigation. The
unit member will have up to 5 business days to review the revised draft, and
may attach a rebuttal, before signing an IRC form.

9. If new information is added, outside what was discussed during the IRP, to the
draft investigation, the member reserves the right to have an additional IRP to
discuss the new information. The additional IRP will only be afforded to
specifically discuss the added information, not to revisit items already
discussed in the initial IRP. The additional IRP will be scheduled and
completed within 7 calendar days, unless mutually agreed upon in writing prior
to the deadline.


Page 170
10. As the certified bargaining unit for all unit 4 members, all finalized investigations
(that the unit member has authorized via a checkbox on the IRC form) will be
provided to the Association monthly.

C. A unit member has the right to present his own grievance, in person or by legal
counsel.

D. Unit members are entitled to representation if an overall "Not Met" performance
evaluation is appealed and is at the Executive Level (Assistant Chief or Chief) or
when management has more than one representative at the meeting to discuss
the appeal of the performance evaluation.

E.
1. A unit member covered hereunder shall, on his request and by appointment,
be permitted to examine his departmental or divisional personnel file, in the
presence of an appropriate supervisory official of the Department. The unit
member may be accompanied by another person of his choosing. When a city
directed work fitness/job performance medical evaluation process is
completed, the employee may request his/her medical information from the city
doctor. The city agrees to give the city doctor a release to give the information
to the requesting employee.

2. No unit member shall have any adverse comments entered into his
departmental or divisional personnel file without the member being informed by
a supervisor. If the unit member requests, he may receive a copy of the adverse
comment.

3. A unit member may, at his discretion, attach rebuttal statements to any material
contained in his departmental or divisional personnel file which may be adverse
in nature.

4. Discipline older than 5 years from the date of issuance will not be
considered for progressive discipline or promotion/transfer purposes
except for the following types of discipline, which may be considered for
the duration of employment (and upon the employee's return to
employment, if applicable):

Final sustained discipline of suspension or higher of the following;

• The employee has been abusive or threatening in attitude, language,
or conduct towards fellow employees;
• The employee has solicited or taken for personal use a fee, gift or favor
in the course of the assigned work or in connection with it, which
would lead toward favoritism or the appearance of favoritism or a
conflict of interest;
• The employee has intentionally falsified records or documents made,
kept, or maintained for or on behalf of the City of Phoenix;


Page 171
• The employee has stolen or is in unauthorized possession of City
property or the property of another employee or citizen;
• The employee is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs on the
job;
• The employee has violated City of Phoenix anti-harassment or anti-
discrimination policies;
• The employee committed a violation of the City's Ethics Policy;
• The employee committed an act of dishonesty;
• The employee committed an act meeting the elements of a felony; or
• The employee has committed a Class 3 violation of use of force.

5. A Supervisory Counseling is a documented warning presented to the
employee for signature. The effective date for any applicable appeal will
start from the date that the employee signs the Counseling.

6. Once a unit member has been disciplined, no further disciplinary action may be
imposed for the same specific allegation during the same incident of
misconduct. If a unit member has received a coaching for the same incident, it
may be considered as a mitigating factor in the final determination of discipline.
A unit member may be subjected to additional discipline if further investigation
reveals additional allegations arising from the same incident.

F. A unit member and his Association Representative shall have the right to appear
before the departmental Disciplinary Review Board when disciplinary matters are
brought before the Board involving the unit member.

1. The purpose of such appearance is to give the unit member an opportunity to
respond to the assertions made against him.

2. The Department shall notify the unit member 10 calendar days prior to such
opportunity to respond to the Board. The notification shall contain the date,
time, violation(s) and basis of each violation that has been sustained. In
addition, the unit member, if he chooses, may meet with his immediate
supervisor along with his second level supervisor or the unit member’s
Bureau/Precinct Commander for the purpose of discussing the basis of each
violation to be reviewed by the DRB. If the immediate supervisor conducted the
investigation, the unit member, if he chooses, may meet with the next
supervisor in his chain of command. Such request shall be made in writing to
the unit member’s immediate supervisor. Also, the unit member, if he chooses,
may be accompanied by an Association representative at either meeting.

a. At the IRP meeting, the unit member shall be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to review the written investigation. Realizing that in some cases
there may be information that would be detrimental to the department’s
ability to conduct misconduct investigations, that information may be
deleted. However, all other information will be available for review.




Page 172
3. The unit member under investigation may request a copy of the DRB
information at no cost. The DRB information will be made available to the unit
member or his representative at the same time the unit member is served with
the DRB notice. Any written or electronic material to be presented by the
employee or his representative to the DRB shall also be given to the
department in a reasonable time. The information will be supplied
electronically if possible; if not, it will be supplied in written form. In addition,
the department will supply any audio/video tapes and computer graphics which
have been produced.

4. The unit member may, at his discretion, appear before the Board with an
Association representative of his choosing and may state his reasons why the
proposed action is unjustified. The unit member and his representative may
passively observe all presentations made to the board and all responses made
to questions by board members. The unit member and non-board members will
be excluded from the room during board deliberations.

5. The unit member may submit relevant written matter in support of his position.

6. If the unit member requests, representation will be allowed, consistent with
Article 1, Section 1-4(B)(1) of this Memorandum, during Use Of Force Board
(UFB) hearings. A unit Association representative will be allowed to observe all
presentations made to the Board and all responses to questions by Board
members.

a. At least 10 days prior to the convening of the UFB the unit member will be
provided at no cost with a copy of all documentation concerning his
involvement in the matter under investigation that is made available to the
UFB Board members.

b. At the conclusion of the UFB, the Board Chair will verbally advise the unit
member and representative of policies violated that support the
recommendation. The unit member and representative will also be provided
a copy of the UFB recommendation submitted to the Chief within 3 business
days.

c. The Association has the right to meet with the Police Chief, or designee,
within 7 business days of the board’s decision, as scheduled by the Police
Chief’s office, to discuss an “out of policy” recommendation by the UFB
before a final decision is rendered.

7. A unit member will be provided written notice of a Loudermill hearing at least 5
working days before the scheduled hearing along with copies of all supporting
documentation. This is to ensure the member will have a meaningful
opportunity to prepare for the hearing. The unit member may submit written
information for the Chief’s consideration in advance of the hearing. At the
hearing, the unit member may present any information the member deems



Page 173
relevant, including one character witness to provide a statement. The witness
will not read written statements submitted by others.

a. The timeline for written notice of a Loudermill hearing resulting from
an arrest for a felony crime under color of authority will be at the
discretion of the Police Chief.

8. In recognition of the mutual benefit to both the city and the unit member,
suspensions MAY BE served under the following time limits, at the unit
member’s option. Unit members may serve suspensions of more than 40
hours on an alternating weekly schedule. The city retains the option to deviate
from this provision for suspensions involving sexual harassment, violence in
the work place, felonies, and drugs/alcohol.

G. A unit member under investigation by Professional Standards Bureau or a Police
Department supervisor for a disciplinary matter that may lead to a written
reprimand, suspension, demotion, or discharge, and who is interviewed or
interrogated, or requested to produce any documentation, shall be given a written
Notice Of Investigation (Form 80-58DB) informing him of the specific nature of the
investigation, his status in the investigation, and all known allegations of
misconduct involved in the interview of the unit member. In addition, the unit
member and/or the Police Department supervisor/Professional Standard Bureau
representative may mechanically record such interview/interrogation. Should any
mechanical recordings take place, the department reserves the right to transcribe
any such interview/interrogation for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the
interview/interrogation and, if requested, the unit member shall sign the
transcription if it is accurate. In the event that the investigator intends to segment
the interview or the interrogation, the NOI will inform the member of the specific
nature and all known allegations pertaining to the portion or portions of the
investigation being covered by the segmented Notice of Investigation.

1. A copy of the signed and dated Notice of Investigation will be given to the unit
member prior to the beginning of the interview. The unit member shall have the
right to retain the NOI for his use throughout the entire course of the interview.

2. The unit member will be provided a copy of all the interview/interrogation in
digital media format.

3. If any unit member is told not to speak to anyone regarding an investigation,
this admonition does not apply to speaking with an attorney functioning within
the attorney-client relationship. In addition, if an accused unit member is told
not to speak to anyone regarding an investigation, this admonition does not
apply to speaking with an Association representative, who may discuss the
matter only with the grievance chairman/Association president or his
designated representative. Once the investigation is completed, any unit
member may speak with an Association representative regarding the incident.
When the investigation is completed, the accused unit member will be notified
in writing of the findings. A unit member under internal or administrative


Page 174
investigation may be reassigned (may include reassignment to his home), until
the completion of the investigation.

4. If during the course of the above mentioned investigation, information is learned
concerning additional misconduct on the part of the unit member being
interviewed, an NOI will be issued to the unit member prior to the unit member
being questioned about the additional misconduct information.

5. Investigations alleging serious misconduct and/or issues of veracity will be
investigated by Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) or other appropriate
City entity.

6. Notification regarding the general nature of a Professional Standards Bureau
(PSB) interview at the time of scheduling will be left at the discretion of the PSB
Commander.

7. If any additional NOI’s are served during the course of a misconduct interview
where a PLEA representative is not present (has not been requested), a break
in the interview of up to 1 hour will be granted (if requested) for the employee
to obtain a PLEA representative.

8. The unit member or the unit member’s representative may make a request to
the Chief, or his designee, in unusual circumstances such as a unit member’s
extended duty or hospitalization, to delay the PSB interview for up to 24 hours
after a critical incident.

9. A unit member will not be terminated for the sole reason of having been served
with an order of protection or injunction against harassment unless that court
order precludes the officer from performing their essential functions, including
but not limited to carrying a firearm; until appeal processes have been
exhausted.

H. It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by this Article, shall not be
interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time worked, any hours
or fractions of hours spent outside the unit member’s work shift in pursuit of
benefits provided by this Article. The employer shall count as time worked any
hours or fractions of hours spent within the unit member’s regular work shift in
pursuit of benefits provided by this Article.

I. The affected employee attending any IRP, DRB, UFB, DAC, Grievance meeting,
Civil Service Appeal, or any other review board while off duty shall be allowed to
adjust their work schedule by an equal amount of time spent in the meeting. The
adjustment will require the approval of the unit member’s supervisor, with
operational considerations. Approval will not be unreasonably withheld.

J. After a separation notice has been signed by the appropriate authorities, and if the
unit member is given the opportunity to resign, the unit member will have 3 hours
to consult with an Association representative.


Page 175
K. A unit member who receives a written reprimand will be provided a copy of the
official documentation, if any, supporting the written reprimand at the time the unit
member receives the reprimand.

L. If the Driving Analysis Committee sends a case to the DRB for review, the unit
member will receive a copy of the facts supporting the DAC position upon request.
Prior to the DAC review, unless the unit member declines, an IRP will be completed
with the unit member’s commander.

M. A unit member seeking an "at request" transfer will only have discipline of a
relevant nature considered in the determination of the transfer using the following
prescribed time frames. The class will be determined by the finalized PSB
investigation.

Written Reprimands: 12 months from date of NOI
Class I Discipline: 12 months from date of NOI
Class II Discipline: 18 months from date of NOI
Class III Discipline: 24 months from date of NOI

N. If a polygraph examination is required of a unit member, an Association
representative may monitor the interview and examination from the monitoring
room. Monitoring will include both visual and audio. A unit member will be allowed
an association representative during the post exam interviews. The PSB
Investigator will also have the right to be present.

O. If an employee is not given their performance evaluation by the annual review
date, the employee may request the merit increase in writing by sending a
memorandum directly to the Human Resources Officer in the Fiscal Management
Bureau. If the performance evaluation is an overall “met,” the request will be
processed within 21 calendar days of submittal and will be retroactive to the
performance evaluation annual review date.

P. Unit members will not be excluded from applying and/or competing in a transfer
process based solely on a pending investigation. The investigation is no longer
considered “pending” once the NOF has been served to the member. However,
the transfer process will not be delayed pending the conclusion of the related
investigation. If a unit member is passed over for transfer based on the pending
investigation, he/she may be eligible for the next available opening depending
upon the outcome of the investigation.

Q. An association member, or the association at the request of the member, may
request the opportunity to discuss a good-of-the-department transfer decision with
the member's Division Commander. The Division Commander will make
him/herself available, but the transfer action will not be delayed based on this
provision. This provision does not apply to transfers made to adjust staffing levels,
reduce staff in a specific area or other similar operational need.



Page 176
R. A unit member or their representative may request the opportunity to discuss and
review a transfer that is the subject of a grievance with the Chief or their designee.
The Chief or their designee shall make themselves available to discuss, but the
transfer action will not be delayed based on this provision. The transfer action
could be delayed or reversed at the discretion of the Chief or their designee. (This
paragraph does not apply to at-request transfers or transfers based on a selection
process).

S. If the City overpays a unit member for any reason, the money will be recovered at
the same rate at which it was paid unless total amount is less than $250.00, at
which the entire amount may be recovered in one lump sum.

T. Progressive Discipline time periods will be based on date of the NOI.


Section 1-5: Prohibition of Strike and Lockouts

A. The Association and the unit members covered by this Memorandum recognize
and agree that rendering of police services to the community cannot under any
circumstances or conditions be withheld, interrupted, or discontinued, and to do so
would endanger the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Phoenix.

B. The Association pledges to maintain unimpaired municipal services as directed by
the City. Neither the Association, nor any unit member, for any reason, will
authorize, institute, aid, condone or engage in a slowdown, work stoppage, strike,
or any other interference with the work and statutory functions and obligations of
the City or the Department. During the term of this Memorandum neither the City
nor its agents for any reason shall authorize, institute, aid or promote any lockout
of unit members covered by this Memorandum.

C. Should any unit member during the term of this Memorandum, and until such time
that it is expressly and legally rescinded, breach the obligations of Section 1-5B,
the City Manager or his designee shall immediately notify the Association that a
prohibited action is in progress.

D. The Association shall forthwith, through its executive officers and other authorized
representatives, disavow said strike or other prohibited action, and shall notify in
writing all Association members and representatives of their obligation and
responsibility for maintaining compliance with this Article, including their
responsibility to remain at work during any interruption which may be caused or
initiated by others. Copies of such notification shall be delivered to the office of the
City Manager. In addition, the Association shall order all unit members violating
this Article to immediately return to work and cease the strike or other prohibited
activity. Such order shall be delivered both orally and in writing to all unit members
violating this Article with copies of the written order to be delivered to the office of
the City Manager.




Page 177
E. Penalties or sanctions the City may assess against a unit member who violates
this Section shall include, but not be limited to:

1. Discipline up to and including discharge.

2. Loss of all compensation and benefits, including seniority, during the period of
such prohibited activity.

F. Should the Association during the term of this Memorandum and until such time
that it is expressly and legally rescinded, breach its obligations under this Section,
it is agreed that all penalties set forth in Chapter 2, Article XVII (Employer-
Employee Relations), Phoenix City Code, shall be imposed on the Association, in
addition to any other legal and administrative remedies available to the City that in
its discretion it may elect to pursue.

G. Nothing contained herein shall preclude the City from obtaining judicial restraint or
from seeking damages from the Association, in the event of a violation of this
Section.



ARTICLE 2: Grievance/Arbitration/Labor Management

Section 2-1: Grievance Procedure

It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by this Article shall not be
interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time worked, any hours or
fractions of hours spent outside the employee's work shift in pursuit of benefits provided
by this Article. The employer shall count as time worked any hours or fractions of hours
spent within the employee's regular work shift in pursuit of benefits provided by this
Article.

A. Informal Resolution

1. As a matter of good labor-management relations, unit members who believe
that they have a bona fide grievance will discuss and attempt to resolve it with
the appropriate lowest level of supervision.

2. If the above informal discussion is held and does not resolve the grievance, the
unit member may file a formal grievance in accordance with the following
procedure.

B. Definition of Grievance

1. A grievance is a written allegation by a unit member, submitted as herein
specified, claiming violation(s) regarding the specific express terms of this

Page 178
Memorandum for which there is no other specific and formal method of review.
However, disputes specifically excluded in other Articles of this Agreement from
the Grievance and Arbitration procedure shall not be construed as within the
definition set forth above and shall not be handled in accordance with this
procedure. It is agreed that such excluded disputes are not grievable or
arbitrable under the terms of this Article or under this contract.

2. The City continues to retain the format used for grievances, including forms,
technology, etc.

3. A grievance which does not meet the requirements set forth in this Article shall
be null and void, and will not be processed in accordance with this procedure.

4. The City is not under any obligation to accept grievances where the City
Manager has previously decided on the same fact pattern.

C. Procedure

All grievances covered by this Article shall be handled exclusively in the following
manner:

A grievance must be reduced to writing, citing the specific Article and Section of
this Memorandum alleged to have been violated.

1. Step 1

The unit member shall reduce the grievance to writing by signing and
completing the grievance form provided by the City and submit it to the
Commander/Administrator, or designee, within 14 calendar days of the initial
commencement of the occurrence being grieved.

The Commander/Administrator, or designee, may investigate, further
consider, and discuss the grievance with the grievant and the grievant's
representative, if any, as deemed appropriate, and shall, within 14 calendar
days of having received the written grievance, submit a response thereto in
writing to the grievant. The parties by written mutual agreement may move the
grievance to Step 2 of the grievance procedure.

2. Step 2

If the written response of the Step 1 does not result in a resolution of the
grievance, the grievant may appeal the grievance by signing and completing
the City form and presenting it to the division head, or designee within 14
calendar days of the grievant's receipt of the Step 1 response.




Page 179
The division head, or designee, may further consider and discuss the
grievance with the grievant and the grievant's representative, if any, as deemed
appropriate, and shall, within 14 calendar days of having received the written
grievance, submit a response thereto in writing to the grievant. The parties by
written agreement may move the grievance to Step 3 of the grievance
procedure.

3. Step 2.5

After the Step 2 response, but prior to review by the Grievance Committee, the
parties involved may mutually agree to submit the grievance to Labor Relations.
The grievance, as originally written and Step 1 and Step 2 responses, must be
submitted to Labor Relations within 14 calendar days of receipt of the Step 2
response. Labor Relations shall, within 14 calendar days of the receipt of the
grievance, meet with the department head, or designee, and the grievant and
the grievant's representative, if any, in an attempt to resolve the grievance.
Labor Relations shall then submit a written response to all parties within 14
calendar days of the meeting.

4. Step 3

a. If the written response of the Step 2 (or 2.5 if applicable) does not result in
a resolution of the grievance, the grievant may, within 14 calendar days of
the Step 2 response, appeal the grievance by signing and completing the
City form and presenting it to Labor Relations. A Grievance Committee
hearing will be scheduled at which the grievant shall be afforded the
opportunity to fully present his position and to be represented.

The Grievance Committee shall be composed of:

Chairman – A member of the City Manager’s Office designated by the
City Manager.
Member – A City department head on a rotating schedule.
Member – The President of another union, other than the Grievant’s,
representing employees with the City of Phoenix.

The Grievance Committee shall submit findings and advisory
recommendation(s) to the City Manager. The City Manager shall make the
final determination of the grievance and submit it in writing to the grievant
and his designated representative.

b. If the grievant so elects in writing within the above time limit, in lieu of such
hearing the grievance may be reviewed by an arbitrator. The parties, or
their designated representatives, shall agree on an arbitrator, and if they
are unable to agree on an arbitrator within a reasonable time, either party
may request the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to submit to


Page 180
them a list of 7 arbitrators who have had experience in the public sector.
The parties shall, within 7 calendar days of the receipt of said list, select the
arbitrator by alternately striking names from said list until one name
remains. Such person shall then become the arbitrator. The arbitrator so
selected shall hold a hearing as expeditiously as possible at a time and
place convenient to the parties, and shall be bound by the following:

i. The arbitrator shall be bound by the language of this Memorandum and
departmental rules and regulations consistent therewith in considering
any issue properly before him/her.

ii. The arbitrator shall expressly confine him/herself to the precise issues
submitted to him/her and shall have no authority to consider any other
issue not so submitted to him/her.

iii. The arbitrator shall be bound by applicable State and City law.

iv. The cost of the arbitrator and any other mutually incurred costs shall be
borne equally by the parties.

The arbitrator shall submit findings and advisory recommendations to the
City Manager. The City Manager shall make the final determination of the
grievance and submit it in writing to the grievant and his designated
representative.


D. Time Limits

Failure of City Management representatives to comply with time limits specified in
Paragraph C shall entitle the grievant to appeal to the next level of review; and
failure of the grievant to comply with said time limits shall constitute abandonment
of the grievance; except however, that the parties may extend time limits by mutual
written agreement in advance of the deadline.

E. Union Grievance

The Union may, in its own name, file a grievance that alleges violation by the City
of the rights accorded to the Union by the specific terms of Article 1-3 of this
Memorandum. The Union shall file such grievance at Step 3 of this Procedure.

F. Group Grievance

When more than one unit member claims the same violation of the same rights
allegedly accorded by this Memorandum, and such claims arise at substantially
the same time and out of the same circumstances, a single group grievance may
be filed in the name of all such members. Such group grievances shall be filed at

Page 181
the Step of this Procedure which provides the lowest level of common supervision
having authority over all named Grievants. Each unit member that is a party
Grievant must be named in such group grievance.

G. Employer Grievances

Should they occur as a result of official Union activities or actions, including the
failure to act as required under the terms of this Memorandum, employer
grievances will be presented directly to the Union president or any officer of the
Union within 14 days of the occurrence prompting the grievance. The president,
or designee, shall in each case provide a written answer within 14 days from
receipt of the grievance. Unresolved employer grievances may be submitted to
arbitration pursuant to Step 3 so long as the City pays the cost of the arbitrator.


Section 2-2: Labor-Management Committee

A. There shall be a Labor-Management Committee consisting of up to 6
representatives of the Association and up to 6 representatives of the Department
and City. The purpose of the Committee is to facilitate improved Labor-
Management relationships by providing an informal forum for the free exchange of
views and discussions of mutual concerns and problems as distinguished from
meeting and conferring.

B. The Committee shall meet as needed by union request, quarterly at mutually
scheduled times. Parties may mutually agree to meet more frequently.

C. The City’s Labor Relations Administrator or his designee shall be the Chairman.
The members shall, in advance of a meeting, provide the meeting’s Chairman with
proposed agenda items, and the Chairman shall provide the members with the
meeting agenda in advance of the meeting.

D. Representatives of the Association on the Committee who are unit members shall
not lose pay or benefits for meetings mutually scheduled during their duty time up
to a maximum of 3 hours per unit member per meeting.

E. It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by this Section shall not be
interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time worked, any hours
or fractions of hours spent outside the unit member’s work shift in pursuit of
benefits provided by this Section. The employer shall count as time worked any
hours or fractions of hours spent within the unit member’s regular work shift in
pursuit of benefits provided by this Article.

F. For a unit member whose regular shift is other than Shift 1, there will be flexibility
in changing his normal work hours for the purposes of attending official Labor-
Management meetings called by or with the concurrence of City management or
the Police Chief or designee.



Page 182
Section 2-3:

In the spirit of continually developing good labor-management relations all parties
are encouraged to address general complaints at the lowest level of
management in attempt to seek resolution before escalating issues up the chain
of command.



ARTICLE 3: Compensation/Wages

Section 3-1: Wages

A. In year one of this agreement, the economic value of ongoing total compensation
increases will equal 1.5%. Unit 4 employees will also receive a non-continuous
payment equal to the economic value of 2.5% total compensation. Finally, unit
employees will also receive an additional ongoing increase equal to the
economic value of 0.5% of total compensation and a non-continuous
payment equal to the economic value of 0.5% of total compensation for
agreeing to the City’s transparency and accountability proposals. This will
be paid as follow:

1. A 2.40% base wage increase effective the first full pay period in July 2021.

2. A non-continuous payment of 6.38% of base wage in year one, to be paid
out on the first paycheck in December 2021.

In year two of the agreement, the economic value of ongoing total compensation
increases will equal 1.5%. Unit 4 employees will also receive a non-continuous
payment equal to the economic value of 2.5% total compensation. This will be
paid as follows:

1. A 1.81% base wage increase effective the first full pay period in July 2022.

2. A non-continuous payment of 5.33% of base wage in year two, to be paid
out on the first paycheck in December 2022.

The City will evaluate the American Rescue Plan Act and will provide a
(non-specified) percentage of premium pay as allowed by the legislation
and deemed appropriate by the City Council, balancing the needs of the
community and employees in their development of a strategic plan for the
ARPA funds. The strategic plan will follow guidelines provided by the
Department of Treasury. This language will expire at the conclusion of the
2021-2023 MOU.




Page 183
B. Unit members assigned to the Air Support Unit, and who have achieved and
maintained the qualification level of Pilot in Command, shall be placed at step one
of Police Officer*Pilot, Job Code 62211, in the pay schedule outlined in Attachment
C.

C. Unit members assigned to the Air Support Unit, and who have achieved and
maintained the qualification level of Rescue Qualified Pilot or PC12 Qualified Pilot,
shall be placed at step one for Police Officer*Rescue Pilot, Job Code 62212, in the
pay schedule outlined in Attachment C.

D. Unit members assigned to the Air Support Unit, and who have achieved and
maintained the qualification level of Unit Certified Flight Instructor, shall be placed
at step one of Police Officer*Flight Instr, Job Code 62213, in the pay schedule
outlined in Attachment C.

E. A unit member assigned to the Air Support Unit, and who has achieved and
maintained the qualification level of Chief Pilot, shall be placed at step one of Police
Officer*Chief Pilot, Job Code 62214, in the pay schedule outlined in Attachment C.

F. Unit members assigned to one of the four described Air Support assignments may
only qualify for and receive pay for one pay step at a time. Example: A unit member
qualified as a Unit Certified Flight Instructor and receiving pay at pay step one of
Job Code 62213 shall not receive the premium pay for any other pay step the unit
member may also qualify for.

G. Unit members designated as Team Leaders on SAU squads will receive an
additional 5% base hourly rate of pay while assigned to this position.

H. It is understood that for implementation purposes, the practice of rounding of
fractional cents shall be done in accordance with accepted mathematical and
accounting principles.

I. When a conflict arises between the Pay Schedule attached hereto as Appendices
and the Pay Ordinance due to mathematical, typographical, or printing error, the
Pay Ordinance shall be the controlling authority.

J. It is the intent of the parties to permanently move the effective date of any wage
increase to the start of the first pay period in July.


Section 3-1A: Productivity Enhancement Pay

In recognition of dedicated public service and overall performance, the City agrees to
implement the following Productivity Enhancement Pay formula for unit members:

A. Pay Benefit:




Page 184
1. In December 2021, May 2022, December 2022, and May 2023, a unit
employee who has completed at least 7 years of continuous full-time service
and who meets the additional qualifications specified in this Article shall receive
$80, pro-rated and included each pay period in the qualifying unit member’s
regular pay check, for each full year of continuous full-time service in excess of
6 years, up to a semi-annual maximum of $1,040, annual maximum of $2,080
at 20 years.

2. In December 2021, May 2022, December 2022, and May 2023, a unit
employee at 20 years and one day of continuous full-time service shall receive
$125, pro-rated and included each pay period in the qualifying unit member’s
regular pay check, for each full year of continuous service in excess of 6 years,
up to a semi-annual maximum of $2,000, annual maximum of $4,000 at 22
years or more.

B. Qualifications:

1. A unit member must have completed at least 1 year of continuous full-time
service at the top step in his classification. Employees in step 8 as of July 8,
2002 will receive Productivity Enhancement Pay when they reach one year at
step 8 and maintain their Productivity Enhancement Pay eligibility when they
move to step 9. Employees in step 7 or below as of July 8, 2002 will be required
to complete one year at step 9 to be eligible for Productivity Enhancement Pay.

2. Effective July 1, 1999, a unit member must have completed 7 years of
continuous full-time service. A unit member who has continuous, full time City
service in another classification(s) may apply that time to the 7 year
requirement.

3. A unit member must have achieved the overall performance rating of meets
standards or better on his latest scheduled performance evaluation on file in
the Human Resources Department.

4. A unit member who receives a less than meets standards rating may appeal
that rating by memo through his chain of command to the Police Chief. A unit
member’s eligibility shall be reinstated once the unit member receives a
scheduled or unscheduled performance rating that meets standards.

5. A unit member must be on full-time active status. A unit member on industrial
leave shall qualify for this payment for only the first year of the industrial leave.
However, the entire period of industrial leave shall qualify as continuous service
when the unit member returns to active employment.

C. Terms of Payment:

1. The City will make adjustments to an employee’s Productivity Enhancement
payment within 30 days of the qualifying date.



Page 185
Section 3-1B: Career Enhancement Pay

Effective July 14, 2008, Career Enhancement Pay (CEP) will be paid to qualified unit
members at the levels fixed below:

1. CEP Level 1 pay shall be $1,903.20 per year ($73.20 per pay period).

2. CEP Level 2 pay shall be $3,806.40 per year ($146.40 per pay period).

3. CEP Level 3 pay shall be $5,709.60 per year ($219.60 per pay period).

4. CEP Level 4 pay shall be $7,612.80 per year ($292.80 per pay period).


Section 3-1C: Training Pay

A. Master Field Training Officers (FTOs) whom the department selects to conduct
department-approved officer field training; will receive an additional 5% of their
base hourly rate of pay for every day they are assigned to an officially authorized
field training position.

B. Field Training Officers who train in place or unit member assigned to train an
O.I.T. in traffic/DUI enforcement will receive 5% base hourly rate of pay for every
day the unit member actually trains.

C. Unit members assigned to the Canine Unit, who have achieved and maintain the
qualifications for the position of Canine Unit Trainer, will receive an additional 5%
of their base hourly rate of pay for every day they are assigned to an officially
authorized Canine Unit Trainer Position. The following is a list of requirements to
receive payment as a Canine Unit Trainer:

1. The unit member must be, or be designated by the Department to become,
certified by an outside association to train police service dogs. The certifications
include patrol, narcotics detection and/or explosive detection.

2. Training being provided must include basic level training for canines and
handlers assigned to the unit. This section is not meant to include a canine
handler training only his or her assigned canine; it is meant for those who
provide basic and in service training to other canine teams in the unit.

3. An officially authorized Canine Unit Trainer Position must include responsibility
for proper written evaluation of each canine and handler being trained.

D. Detectives whom the department selects to conduct department-approved
new Detective training; will receive an additional 5% of their base rate of pay
for every day the Detective is training.



Page 186
Section 3-1D: Compensation for Interpreting and Translation by Sworn Police
Officers

A. Purpose

1. This regulation is written to provide guidelines for adjusting the compensation
of sworn police officers who are authorized and required by a sworn police
supervisor to utilize a language other than English, including sign language, to
conduct an official Police Department function or activity.

2. This compensation shall be for police-related functions or activities in which the
unit member is called upon to interpret in addition to their normal assigned
duties.

B. Payment Authorization

Compensation provided for by this regulation shall be given only when approved
by a sworn police supervisor prior to the actual interpretation or translation.

C. Performance Activities Approved for Special Compensation

1. Verbal interpretation, in excess of 7 consecutive minutes per occurrence, while
conducting any assigned formal police function or activity.

2. Written translation, in excess of 7 consecutive minutes per occurrence, while
conducting any assigned formal police function or activity.

3. Signing interpretation and translation, in excess of 7 consecutive minutes per
occurrence, while conducting any assigned formal police function or activity.

D. Compensation

A unit member who meets linguistic skills qualifications, as determined by a
management review panel, or in the case of sign language determined by
presenting certification recognized by the Arizona Commission for the Deaf and
Hard of Hearing (ACDHH), shall be paid a premium of $10.00 per hour calculated
to the nearest 1/4 hour, in addition to his base hourly rate, for each hour he is
engaged in assigned and authorized interpretation, translation, or signing
activities.

Consistent with Section 5-7, 3 of this Memorandum and A.R. 2.51, employees are
eligible to use the seminar and professional membership portion of their
reimbursement benefit for the ACDHH certification.

E. Supervisory Authorization




Page 187
Authorization must be provided by a sworn police supervisor in each case. Written
notification which includes a listing of the specific time periods for which the
premium payment is sought along with signatures of the unit member and the
appropriate supervisor should be forwarded to the Police Department’s Fiscal
Management Bureau before the end of the pay period in which the additional duty
occurred.


Section 3-2: Overtime

A. Overtime is defined as time assigned and worked beyond the regularly scheduled
40 hour work week or 8 hour work shift, or 10 hour work shift if a 4 day work week
is implemented. Duly authorized paid leave shall be considered as time worked for
purposes of the regularly scheduled work week. This provision shall not apply to
unpaid leave.

B. Overtime shall be worked and shall be allowed if assigned by the Police Chief or
his designees.

C. Overtime work will be compensated in either cash or compensation time at 1-1/2
times the regular rate of pay after the first 7 minutes assigned and worked beyond
the end of the unit member’s regularly scheduled shift, calculated to the nearest
1/4 hour.

D. A unit member may, subject to approval of his non-unit supervisor based on
considerations of departmental scheduling and operations factors, request to use
overtime as compensatory time subject to the limitation of 300 hours on the
accumulation of compensatory time. Use of compensatory time shall be subject to
advance approval of the non-unit supervisor. If a unit member submits overtime
requests that are in excess of 300 hours, he will be paid the difference.

E. Unit members may contribute accrued compensatory time to other employees in
accordance with City policy governing contributions of leave for serious illness of
an employee or their immediate family member.

F. A unit member may be paid for accumulated compensatory time by submitting a
memorandum to the Fiscal Bureau requesting payment for any portion of the
compensatory time. This may be done at any time upon the unit member’s request,
and such payment will be made in the pay period following receipt of the
memorandum by the Fiscal Bureau.

G. At the direction of the immediate supervisor in each case, a unit member shall be
entitled to overtime in accordance with Article 3, Section 3-2 hereof, while he is
being evaluated by the authorized and designated City physician for return to work
at times he is not scheduled to be on duty nor is on paid leave or disability benefit
status, based on actual check-in and check-out time recorded by Health Center
staff. This time shall not qualify for the guaranteed minimum overtime provision
contained in Section 3-2B, but shall be compensated at a minimum of 1 hour at 1-


Page 188
1/2. No unit member shall be compensated for other than the supervisor directed
evaluation(s) by the City physician for return to work.

H. After 4 consecutive hours of overtime, a unit member shall be entitled to a paid
meal break of 1/2 hour, but in no event shall a unit member be entitled to more
than one such meal break for every 8 consecutive hours of overtime.

For a unit member participating in the 4/10 schedule, this provision shall mean that
before a unit member is entitled to a second 1/2 hour paid meal break, he shall
have worked on an overtime basis for a minimum of 4 hours beyond the end of his
regularly scheduled 10 hour work shift.

I. If work demands preclude a unit member from taking a meal period, the unit
member will be paid an additional 30 minutes at the straight time rate. This benefit
shall apply only if the interruption occurs during the first 30 minutes of the meal
period.

J. When a unit member is off duty and is contacted by telephone by his supervisor
because of the unit member’s official duties, for purposes other than call-out, or a
supervisor approves of the making or receiving of the call, the unit member will be
paid a minimum of 15 minutes at time and one-half his regular rate of pay when
any combination of calls equals 7 minutes or more. If the call extends past this
minimum, the overtime will be calculated to the nearest 1/4 hour. He will not receive
overtime for additional duty-related calls received during this compensation period.

K. A unit member on industrial leave and assigned to his home will be considered to
have the same duty hours and N-days, up to a 7 calendar day period, as the squad
he was on when the injury/illness occurred. After the 7 days, he may be reassigned
to new duty hours and/or N-days.

L. A unit member who scheduled a leave day 30 calendar days in advance through
his immediate non-unit supervisor in accordance with departmental policy and who
subsequently is placed on court stand-by, or is required to appear in court will, by
his choice, receive overtime pay in accordance with this Section and Section 3-2A
and/or Section 3-2B, in addition to the leave day.

M. A unit member who scheduled a leave day but failed to do so within 30 calendar
days in advance, and who is placed on stand-by or called to court, will receive
overtime pay in accordance with this Article and Section 3-2A. However, the
number of leave hours taken will be reduced by the number of overtime hours paid.
Court stand-by hours do not apply to this provision.


Section 3-2A: Court Time Overtime

A. When court time constitutes overtime, a unit member shall be entitled to overtime
compensation/minimum call-out pay consistent with Section 3-2B of this
Memorandum.


Page 189
1. Court time overtime shall be continuous time compensated consistent with
Section 3-2, subsection C.

2. No cost parking will be provided for unit members who are called to testify or
appear at any City of Phoenix Municipal Court facility for any official police
department business, whether on or off-duty.

3. If performed virtual, the unit employee must report to a Phoenix Police
facility to be eligible for Court Time Overtime. If performed at a location
of the unit employee’s discretion, other than a work location, the unit
member will be paid a minimum of 15 minutes at time and one-half his
regular rate of pay when any combination of calls equals 7 minutes or
more. If the call extends past this minimum, the overtime will be
calculated to the nearest 1/4 hour. The unit employee will not receive
overtime for additional duty-related calls received during this
compensation period.

B. For purposes of this Article the term Court shall be defined as including Federal
District Court; Superior Court, State of Arizona; City Court, City of Phoenix, State
of Arizona; Municipal Courts in Maricopa County; Justice Court; Federal, State,
County Grand Juries; Motor Vehicle Department hearings, and Prosecutorial and
Defense interviews. It is understood that this Article shall not apply to
administrative hearings including but not limited to arbitration hearings pursuant to
the MOU, Civil Service Board hearings, PERB hearings, and hearings pursuant to
the A.R. 2.61 grievance procedure.

C. After a unit member verifies his need to appear in court to testify concerning the
performance of his official duties at a time other than his regularly scheduled tour
of duty, and he is notified less than 12 hours in advance of the scheduled
appearance time that he need not appear, the unit member will receive 2 hours of
pay at 1-1/2 times his base hourly rate of pay.


Section 3-2B: Call-Out Pay

A. A unit member called back because of his own negligence, whether in the proper
care and use of City equipment, or for his failure to complete official reports prior
to securing for the day, shall be paid for such call- back consistent with Section 3-
2, subsection C, provided, however, the unit member shall not be eligible for the 3
hour guaranteed minimum pursuant to this Article. If a claim of negligence is
disputed, it may become subject to the grievance procedure herein.

B. Anytime that a unit member is called back after leaving City facilities at a time other
than his regularly assigned shift, the unit member will receive a minimum of 3 hours
pay at time and one-half the unit member’s base pay calculated to the nearest 1/4
hour, except that a unit member shall not be eligible for additional compensation
during that three hour period.


Page 190
Compensation to a unit member who is called out at times other than his regularly
scheduled shift will begin at the time the unit member is notified. The compensation
will continue up to 30 minutes beyond the completion of the duties for which the
unit member was called out, or until the member returns to his residence,
whichever is first. Where applicable, the travel time shall be paid only if the total
work and allowed travel time exceed the minimum call out guarantee. Travel time
shall not apply when a unit member is working overtime planned in advance.

C. A unit member beginning an overtime period within 3 hours or less prior to the
regularly scheduled duty reporting time, will be compensated from the time the
overtime period begins to the time he is scheduled to report for duty except that a
unit member shall not be eligible for additional compensation during that period.

D. Holdover time, i.e., being held over on shift (no break in duty exceeding 15
minutes) will be compensated for actual time spent in accordance with Section 3-
2, subsection C.


Section 3-3: Out-of-Rank Pay

A. A unit member who is temporarily required to serve in a regular authorized position
in a supervisory classification, (e.g., sergeant), shall be compensated at the higher
rate of pay in accordance with the following:

B. To be eligible for the additional compensation, the unit member must first
accumulate 10 regular working shifts of assignment in the higher rank within any
12 month period; satisfactory performance during a previous appointment to the
higher rank will be credited to the qualifying period. The days of out-of-rank
assignment need not necessarily be consecutive. Once this qualification is
satisfied, no additional re-qualification will be required. All shifts worked beyond
the 10th shift in the supervisory classification will be subject to the higher rate of
pay.

C. Temporary assignments out-of-rank shall be recorded only in full shift units. A unit
member working out-of-rank for less than 1 full shift will not be credited with
working out-of-rank service time.

D. To qualify for out-of-rank pay, a unit member must be assuming substantially the
full range of duties and responsibilities of the higher level position. Out-of-rank pay
is not authorized, for example, if the organization of a work unit is such that each
unit member carries on his normal duties during the temporary absence of a
supervisor, without a need for the direction which the supervisor would provide on
a longer term basis.

E. Time worked in a higher rank shall not earn credits toward the completion of
probationary requirements in the higher rank.



Page 191
F. A unit member who has qualified under these provisions shall be compensated at
the minimum rate established for the higher rank for all shifts worked beyond the
10th shift served in the higher rank. In the event of overlapping salary ranges, a
one-step differential shall be paid for out-of-rank assignments. The higher rate of
pay shall be used in computing overtime when authorized overtime is served in
out-of-rank work assignments; the overtime rate shall be the rate established by
the overtime regulations that apply to the higher rank.


Section 3-4: Sick Leave Conversion at Retirement

Effective at the beginning of the first pay period in July, 1992, the following benefits shall
apply:

A. Definitions:

1. Qualifying hours - the minimum number of accrued and unused sick leave
credits existing on the last day of service prior to retirement, which are
necessary before a unit member can participate in the benefit program.

2. Base number of hours or base hours - the number of hours of accrued and
unused sick leave credits which are uncompensated under this Article and
above which the City will compensate the unit member.

3. Base hourly wage - the base hourly rate of pay being paid at the time of
retirement to the retiring unit member who qualifies for participation in this
benefit program.

B. Benefit and Eligibility:

1. A unit member who has accumulated a minimum of nine hundred (900) hours
or more of accrued and unused sick leave at the time of a duty-related
retirement shall be eligible for payment of an amount of compensation equal to
35% of his base hourly wage for all hours in excess of 450 hours; or

2. A unit member who has accumulated a minimum of 1286 qualifying hours or
more of accrued and unused sick leave at the time of a duty related retirement
shall be eligible for payment of an amount of compensation equal to 60% of his
base hourly for all hours in excess of 386 hours.

3. Commencing July 1, 1998, a unit member who has accumulated a minimum of
1714 hours or more of accrued and unused sick leave at the time of a duty
related retirement shall be eligible for payment of an amount of compensation
equal to 60% of his base hourly wage for all hours.

4. A unit member who has accrued 1,286 hours or more of unused sick leave may
elect to have one hundred 150 hours of sick leave paid out at the member’s
hourly rate in one lump sum. A unit member may only elect to exercise this


Page 192
benefit 3 times in their career, and not more than 1 time in a fiscal year. Eligible
employees may elect to buy back their hours between July 1 and the last pay
period in January each fiscal year.

5. The payments described in numbers 1 through 4 above are not considered
Final Average Salary for purposes of pension calculations.

C. Administration:

1. At the time of retirement, the City’s Employee Benefits Division, or such other
individual or agency as the City may designate, shall determine the unit
member’s eligibility and the amount of unused sick leave to be compensated.

2. The unit member shall verify in writing the computations of the Employee
Benefits Division.

3. In the event a unit member’s eligibility for participation or the amount of
compensation is disputed, then the dispute shall be submitted to the City
Auditor for binding resolution.


Section 3-4A: Sick Leave Payout

All accumulated sick leave hours on the city's official file at the time of the member's death
will be paid. Payment will be based upon the member's base hourly rate at the time of
death.


Section 3-5: Night Shift Differential/Weekend Shift Differential

A. A unit member shall receive $.60 per hour in addition to his base hourly rate of pay
when working a night shift or any portions of a night shift which ends at or after
10:00 PM.

B. A unit member shall receive night shift pay differential only for hours scheduled
and worked, and not while on paid leave time.

C. A unit member who is called out and works between the hours of 10:00 PM and
6:00 AM will be paid night shift differential for all hours worked at the rate specified
in this Article. If a unit member was called out while on a stand-by status, he will
not receive night shift differential.

D. A unit member shall receive $.25 per hour in addition to his base hourly rate of pay
and any other shift differential or any other premium pay he may be receiving for
working a weekend shift. A designated weekend shift is defined as any shift that
starts on or after 2:00 PM on Friday, and continuing through any shift that starts
on or before, but not after 11:59 PM on Sunday.



Page 193
1. A unit member shall receive weekend shift pay differential only for hours
scheduled and worked, and not while on paid leave.

2. A unit member who is called out and works between 2:00 PM on Friday and
11:59 PM on Sunday will be paid weekend shift differential for all hours worked
at the rate specified in this Article. If a unit member was called out while on
stand-by status, he will not receive weekend shift differential.


Section 3-6: Stand-By Pay

A. When a unit member is required and assigned to be available for immediate
emergency call-out at times that he is not otherwise on duty and the unit member
complies with departmental regulations incident thereto, he shall be compensated
as follows: $60.00 on the unit member’s non-work day and $40.00 on a work day.

B. When management determines it is necessary to provide call-out service, stand-
by assignments will be maintained by any detail in the department.


Section 3-6A: Court Time Standby Pay

A. When a unit member receives a subpoena or other notice requiring him to stand-
by to appear in court to testify concerning the performance of his official duties at
a time other than his regularly scheduled tour of duty, and he was not notified 12
hours or more in advance of the court appearance that he need not stand-by, he
shall be entitled to a minimum of 2 hours of pay at 1-1/2 times his base hourly rate
of pay for court dockets scheduled before 1200 hours, and an additional minimum
of 2 hours of pay at 1-1/2 times his base hourly rate of pay for court dockets
scheduled after 1200 hours, for each day the subject court proceeding is in session
and the Unit member is subject to call, providing the provisions of subsection B
hereof are satisfied. If a unit member is required to remain on stand-by after 1200
hours, the unit member shall receive an additional 1 hour of pay at 1-1/2 times his
base hourly rate of pay.

If call-out occurs before the expiration of stand-by pay, then stand-by status shall
continue until the occurrence of either (a) the expiration of stand-by pay; or (b)
arrival at the duty location or participation in virtual appearance begin. Call-out
pay and stand-by pay shall not be permitted to overlap resulting in the
compounding of compensation.

B. If a unit member fails to exercise his responsibility to contact the appropriate
representative of the court or a party 16 hours or less before the time indicated on
the subpoena to determine the continued need for him to stand-by, he is not eligible
for any stand-by pay.

C. For the purpose of this Memorandum, subpoena refers to a subpoena duly issued
by a court or the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department.


Page 194
D. For purposes of this Article the term Court shall be defined as including Federal
District Court; Superior Court, State of Arizona; City Court, City of Phoenix, State
of Arizona; Municipal Courts in Maricopa County; Justice Court; Federal, State,
County Grand Juries; Motor Vehicle Department hearings; Mental Health Court;
and Prosecutorial and Defense interviews. It is understood that this Article shall
not apply to administrative hearings including but not limited to arbitration hearings
pursuant to the MOU, Civil Service Board hearings, PERB hearings, and hearings
pursuant to the A.R. 2.61 grievance procedure.


Section 3-7: Off-Duty Employment

A. The Department agrees to maintain a list of unit members who are interested in
off-duty work for use in making job referrals, provided the unit member has
received prior approval to engage in off-duty employment from the immediate
supervisor.

B. Off-duty employment shall be governed by the rules and regulations of the Phoenix
Police Department. Should the Department contemplate any changes in these
rules and regulations during the term of this Memorandum, it shall meet and
consult with the Association on such changes in the Labor-Management
Committee prior to implementation.

C. The Police Chief agrees to eliminate the limitation of the number of off-duty work
hours permitted. However, the Department reserves the right to take appropriate
action in the event that a unit member’s wellness, welfare, or performance is
adversely affected.

D. A unit member who works off duty in a police function for a City-sponsored event
or project, and is paid through City payroll, will be compensated at time and one-
half his regular rate of pay for all time worked.


Section 3-8: Jury Duty

When a unit member is called upon to serve as a juror in any court action, he will be
allowed leave from his duties without loss of pay for the time required for his service.


Section 3-9: Deferred Compensation and Defined Contribution Plans

A. The City’s contribution to DCP will continue at 2.56%.


B. At the employee’s separation, for either retirement or exiting the Deferred
Retirement Options Program, the employee’s sick leave payout amounts will be
automatically contributed into the City’s 401(a) plan. Any excess amount over the


Page 195
Internal Revenue Code 401(a) plan contribution maximum limits will be
automatically contributed into the City’s 457(b) plan. Any portion of the excess
amount that cannot be contributed to the 457(b) plan because of Internal Revenue
Code 457(b) plan contribution maximum limits will be paid as taxable income. The
401(a) Plan document as approved by the Deferred Compensation Board will be
the governing document.

C. Discuss alternatives to the Union’s participation in the City’s Deferred
Compensation Plans.

D. After the City receives official Internal Revenue Service approval and a private
letter ruling regarding the City’s 401(a) plan, the parties agree to schedule a
meeting to discuss a possible change in the distribution of the current benefit
between the 457(b) and 401(a) plans. Any agreement will be conditional on
Deferred Compensation Board approval.


Section 3-10: Non-Direct Payment of Compensation or Benefits

Various sections of this Memorandum contain a form of compensation, wages, or benefits
that have been negotiated in good faith and may or may not provide a direct payment of
wages or other benefit to each member. Those forms of compensation, wages, or
benefits that do not provide a direct payment to each unit member have been negotiated
in place of a direct payment and costed as part of the overall economic package.
Examples include: life insurance, long term disability insurance, leave payouts, etc.



ARTICLE 4: Hours of Work/Working Conditions

Section 4-1: Work Schedules

A. The regular duty hours for a unit member shall be 5 consecutive shifts of 8 hours
in a 7 calendar day work week. These 5 consecutive shifts will be preceded and
followed by 2 “N” days. If, by reason of transfer, a unit member’s “N” days are
changed, the provisions of this section pertaining to “N” days shall not apply. The
8 duty hours per shift shall be consecutive and may include any “briefing time” and
shall include a meal period of 30 minutes. When work demands permit, with a
supervisor’s approval, a unit member may combine this 30 minute meal period with
one of his 15 minute rest periods described under Subsection D of this Article to
achieve a 45 minute meal period. This shall also apply to a unit member working
a 4/10 schedule. At times, the department may have operational needs which
necessitate a change in current work schedules. The department shall give a unit
member a minimum 7 day advance written notice when his “N” days or hours will
be changed. If this (7 day written notice is not given, and there is no operational
need for not providing the notice, the “N” days or hours change will be rescheduled
to allow for a 7 day notice period.

Page 196
B. If a 10 hour, 4 day work week is implemented; the regular duty hours for an affected
unit member shall be 4 consecutive shifts of 10 hours in a 7 calendar day work
week. These 4 consecutive shifts will be preceded and followed by 3 “N” days. If,
by reason of transfer, a unit member’s “N” days are changed, the provisions of this
Subsection pertaining to “N” days shall not apply. The 10 duty hours per shift shall
be consecutive and may include any “briefing time” and shall include a meal period
of 30 minutes. At times, the department may have operational needs which
necessitate a change in current work schedules. The department shall give a unit
member a minimum 7 day advance written notice when his “N” days or hours will
be changed. If this 7 day written notice is not given, and there is no operational
need for not providing the notice, the “N” days or hours change will be rescheduled
to allow for a 7 day notice period.

C. All unit four members assigned to patrol squads with beat responsibility only will
work the work schedule defined in subsection B of this section (4/10’s) through
June 30, 2023.

D. If a unit member’s normal duty hours are changed with less than 7 days’ notice,
then the unit member is entitled to premium pay.

If a unit member’s normal “N” days are changed, then the unit member is entitled
to premium pay.

"Premium Pay" is calculated as follows:

• For a unit member assigned to a 5/8’s schedule:
• A change in normal duty hours: 2 hours at their base hourly rate of
pay.
• One “N” day change: 4 hours at their regular rate of pay.
• Two “N” days changed: 20 hours at their regular rate of pay.
• For a unit member assigned to a 4/10’s schedule:
• A change in normal duty hours: 2.5 hours at their base hourly rate of
pay.
• One “N” day change: 5 hours at their regular rate of pay.
• Two “N” days changed: 10 hours at their regular rate of pay.
• Three “N” days changed: 20 hours at their regular rate of pay.

Subject to the discretion of the Chief, or designee, official mobilization as defined
in Operations Order 9.1 is exempt from this section.

A unit member, who requests a change in work schedules, will not receive
premium pay since the request is not a department directed change.

This section does not apply to the 30 hour or more block of annual module training.

A unit member is not eligible to receive both premium pay and overtime for the
same hours.

Page 197
E. When used in the context of this Article, “Operational Needs” will be defined as:
Service demands or other required actions performed to accomplish the mission
of the department. These actions may be routine (anticipated) or emergency
(unanticipated). For routine operational actions, a seven-day written notice will be
given to change schedules. For emergency operational actions, unit members will
be provided with as much advance notice and information as the situation will
allow.

F. In addition to all duties as assigned by the Police Chief or his designees, work
hours shall continue to include 2 15 minute rest periods as work demands allow.

G. There shall be a minimum of 15 hours off between shifts, 13 hours for a unit
member working a 4/10 schedule. If this is not possible, the unit member shall
receive overtime compensation at his regular rate of pay for each full hour worked
within the described 15 hour period, 13 hour period for a unit member working a
4/10 schedule. A unit member assigned to a specialty bureau may sign individual
statements waiving the provisions of this section. Signed waivers shall continue in
effect per fiscal year.

This section does not apply to mandatory training conducted by the Advanced
Training Detail when a member is given 30 days written notice of the required
training. The intent is not for supervisors to work employees on a double shift.
Employees’ chain of command will ensure employee’s shift prior to training is
adjusted to afford 13/15 hours off before reporting to training.

H. A unit member will be permitted to take the meal period at a location within the
squad/team area, or if no suitable eating location is available, then with the
approval of the designated supervisor, at a location outside the squad/team area.
A meal period may be taken at a private residence, with supervisory approval,
provided such residence is within the unit member’s beat area.

I. A unit member may return to his work station 20 minutes before his scheduled end
of shift if work demands permit for the purpose of completing required paperwork,
notifying oncoming unit members of any beat conditions, and to notify his
supervisor of any unusual occurrences he encountered during his shift.

J. A unit member assigned to the Canine Detail shall be allowed 4 hours of paid time
per work week to care for his police dog at his residence. The City will determine
when and how the hours will be scheduled.

K. A unit member may waive the provision of section A and B of this section to
facilitate an alternative work schedule upon written agreement of both the
Association and the Department.

L. “On duty” training will be approved at the Division Chief level.




Page 198
Section 4-2: Seniority

A. The City shall provide the Association with a list of unit members showing each
unit member’s City employment date and class employment date.

B. Seniority shall be by length of service within a class. If seniority within the class is
not determinative, then length of service with the City shall prevail.

C. Seniority shall be used as a factor consistent with established Civil Service
procedures in choice of work assignments, vacation schedules and in the
determination of layoffs.



ARTICLE 5: Benefits

Section 5-1: Health Insurance

A. The City and Association agree to maintain the current 80/20 split for health
insurance monthly contribution for the single and family coverage. If there is a rate
increase or decrease, the city will pay 80% of the new monthly contribution and
the employee will pay 20%.

B. If there is a substantive change in the City’s Health Insurance Plan design, the
Labor Relations Administrator will discuss such change with the Association.

C. In the event of the death of a unit member while on duty or while performing a
police function as determined by the City, the City will continue to pay the full
monthly health insurance premium for the spouse and all eligible dependents.
Should the surviving spouse remarry, the benefits of this provision shall be
discontinued for the spouse. Benefits for remaining eligible dependents, e.g.
children, step children, or adopted children, will remain in effect as federal law
prescribes.

In the event of the death of a unit member while commuting to or from his work
location, for a period of two hours each way, the City will continue to pay the full
monthly health insurance premium for the spouse and all eligible dependents. This
policy will be consistent with the terms of the 1997 agreement between the City of
Phoenix and CIGNA Group Insurance, for the payment of a supplementary
commutation life insurance policy for each unit member. The Association will pay
the cost of this benefit, if any, the first year of each new Memorandum period.

D. In the event Congress or the State of Arizona passes legislation which considers
the amount the City contributes to health or dental insurance as imputed income,
then the City will consider such contributions as income to the employee.




Page 199
E. During the next 12 months, the City will participate in Labor-Management meetings
to discuss alternatives to the Union’s participation in the Health Care Plans
currently provided by the City.


Section 5-1A: Retiree Health Insurance

A. Upon retirement of a unit member, or bargaining unit member who retired on
August 1, 1992 or later, the City’s contribution to health care premiums will be
calculated without regard to age.

B. In no event will the combination of this contribution and the amount paid by the
PSPRS (Public Safety Personnel Retirement System) exceed the monthly
premium for the chosen health insurance benefit.

C. The City of Phoenix agrees to participate in the Post Employee Health Plan
(PEHP) for unit members in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Plan's
Participation Agreement, a copy of which is attached to this agreement. The
Employer agrees to contribute to the Plan on behalf of unit members:

Effective July 1, 2017, the Employer shall contribute for each unit member the
amount of $6.00 per pay period. If any contribution is an amount other than an
equal dollar amount per unit member, that contribution shall be deposited in the
unit member's Health Insurance Premium Reimbursement sub-account, otherwise
the Employer's equal dollar amount contribution per unit member shall be
deposited into the unit member's Universal Health Care Reimbursement sub-
account pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Plan.


Section 5-2: Dental Insurance

A. The City shall pay the full premium costs for single coverage for employees
enrolled in the base HMO or PPO plan. and 75% of the premium costs for family
coverage for a City dental plan.

B. The plan shall consist of 80% payment of reasonable and customary charges
covered for preventive and diagnostic services, basic services, and major services.
The plan shall also include an orthodontia benefit providing for 80% payment of
reasonable and customary charges up to a maximum lifetime benefit of $4,000 per
person. This plan is subject to the deductibles and limitations contained in the
contract between the dental insurance carrier and the City of Phoenix. Enrollment
in prior City of Phoenix dental plans counts toward major services time limit
exclusions.


Section 5-3: Life Insurance




Page 200
A. The City will continue the existing off-the-job and on-the-job life and
dismemberment insurance coverage, and will continue the face value of the policy
at $15,000. The City will continue the current policy for death in the line of duty at
$100,000.00.

B. Effective August 1, 2001, the City will increase the $35,000.00 line of duty life and
dismemberment insurance coverage to each unit member to $100,000.00.

C. Additionally, the City will provide to each unit member a $200,000 death benefit
covering the unit member’s commute to and from his city work location. This policy
will be consistent with the policy negotiated in 1997 with CIGNA Group Insurance
and will cover the unit member’s commute for up to two hours before his shift
begins and two hours after his shift concludes. The Association will only pay the
cost of this benefit the first year of the MOU.


Section 5-4: Long-Term Disability Insurance

A. The City will offer a long-term disability benefit for all full-time, regular unit members
pursuant to A.R. 2.323 as may be amended (providing that such amendments shall
not be in conflict with the MOU). Employees who have been continuously
employed and working on a full-time basis for twelve consecutive months are
eligible for long-term disability coverage. Applicants must apply for benefits
they may be eligible to receive. After an established 90 calendar day qualifying
period, the plan will provide up to 66-2/3% of the employee's basic monthly salary
at the time disability occurs and continue up to age 75 for employees who have
been employed full-time for 36 months and one day. Employees who have been
employed full-time with the City of Phoenix for 36 months or less, will be eligible to
receive a long term disability benefit for no more than 30 months.

B. This benefit will be coordinated with sick leave, industrial insurance payments,
social security benefits, unemployment insurance and disability provisions of the
retirement plan.


Section 5-5: Holidays and Vacation Leave

A unit member shall be entitled to holiday benefits as set forth in Paragraph 2 of
Operations Order No. 3.6, including overtime compensation for hours assigned and
worked on a specified holiday in accordance with and subject to Article 3, Section 3-2,
Overtime.

A. The compensation of a unit member who actually works on a day designated as a
holiday shall include, in addition to his regular day’s pay, additional pay or
compensatory time for hours worked up to 8 excluding overtime pay.

B. A unit member who is not scheduled to work on a designated holiday will still be
compensated for 8 hours pay or compensatory time for each holiday.


Page 201
C. Paid holidays shall include:

New Year’s Day
Martin Luther King, Jr's Birthday
President’s Day
Caesar Chavez Birthday
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Friday after Thanksgiving
Christmas Day
Two Personal Leave Days* & **

* After 6 months of continuous service.
** Personal leave will be a total of 20 hours for all unit members.

Subject to operational and scheduling factors, a unit member’s personal
leave days shall be taken each calendar year on any day of the unit
member’s choosing.

D. For a unit member participating in the 4/10 schedule, holiday pay shall be applied
as follows:

1. When a designated paid holiday falls on a unit member’s scheduled day off,
the unit member shall be paid 8 hours of holiday pay.

2. When a designated paid holiday falls on a unit member’s normally scheduled
work day and the unit member is directed to not work that day, the unit member
shall be paid for 8 hours of holiday pay. The additional 2 hours necessary to
receive 10 hours of pay will be deducted at the unit member’s discretion as
either non-paid time, accumulated vacation or compensatory time. If a unit
member has no accumulated vacation or compensatory time, the unit member
will receive only 8 hours of pay. Alternatively, the unit member may work for 2
hours on the holiday, paid at straight time, performing tasks at the direction of
a supervisor. The compensation of a unit member who actually works on a day
designated as a holiday shall include, in addition to his regular day’s pay,
additional pay or compensatory time for hours worked up to 8 hours, excluding
overtime pay.

E. A unit member will continue to receive holiday pay while on industrial leave.

F. Holidays shall be observed on the calendar days on which they fall for unit
members directly involved in providing continuous 24-hour or seven-day service
operations.



Page 202
G. The City agrees to maintain its present vacation selection procedure and, to every
extent practicable, allow a transferred unit member to maintain his previous
vacation schedule.

H. A unit member who works a schedule at full time 52 weeks of the year shall be
credited with vacation credits for every completed calendar month of paid service
according to the following schedule:

1. Through 5 years of service 8 hrs. per month
2. 6th through 10th year of service 10 hrs. per month
3. 11th through 15th year of service 11 hrs. per month
4. 16th through 20th year of service 13 hrs. per month
5. 21st year of service and thereafter 15 hrs. per month

I. Unit members who have accrued 312 hours or more of vacation, may elect to have
150 hours of vacation leave paid out at the member’s hourly rate in one lump sum
or converted into their comp bank. The member may only elect to exercise this
benefit 4 times in their career, and not more than 1 time in a fiscal year. This
payment is not considered Final Average Salary for purposes of pension
calculations. Eligible employees may elect to buy back their hours between July
1 and the last pay period in January each fiscal year.

Additionally, 80 hours of vacation time can be accumulated above the maximum
vacation carryover into the last 3 years of service. These hours must be used as
paid time off prior to retirement.

J. Vacation accrual, carryover and compensation at separation is as follows:

MAX ACCRUAL THAT
CAN BE
MONTHLY ACCRUAL MAXIMUM CARRYOVER COMPENSATED AT
YEARS OF SERVICE RATE (HOURS) (HOURS) SEPARATION (HOURS)

0 – 5th 8 232 280

6th - 10th 10 280 340

11th - 15th 11 304 370

16th - 20th 13** 352 430

21st+ 15** 400 490


** In the last three years of service an additional 80 hours may be carried over into
a new calendar year.

During the 2021-2023 MOU, a workgroup will be formed with participants
from City management and include a leader from PLEA for the purpose of
exploring the possible creation of a Citywide bank of hours supplied by

Page 203
vacation cutback hours for use by employees with approved donation
petitions. The workgroup will submit a recommendation to the City Manager
before the end of the 2021-2023 MOU.

K. For the purposes of determining monthly vacation Accrual rates for a unit member
who had a break in service, if the unit member was reemployed within 5 years, the
amount of time the person is gone is subtracted from his previous service, thereby
giving the unit member a new accrual service date.

L. A unit member may sell back up to 40 hours of vacation time each calendar year
(unit member must use a minimum of 40 hours of vacation/comp-time leave during
the calendar year to qualify for this benefit). This payment shall be made on the
first payday of December of each year, and shall be included in the unit member’s
regular, bi-weekly paycheck.


Section 5-5A: Out-of-State Vacation Recall

When a unit member is temporarily recalled to duty from out-of-state while on an
authorized vacation by order of the Police Chief, or designee, he shall be reimbursed for
necessary and provable transportation expenses as determined by the Police Chief.


Section 5-5B: Military Leave

A. Definition
1. Pursuant to ARS 26-168 and ARS 38-610, employees who are members of the
Arizona National Guard or the Reserves of the United States Armed Forces,
will be entitled to a leave of absence from their duties for a period not to exceed
30 days when they are engaged in ordered annual training or to attend camps,
maneuvers, formations, or drills under orders of any branch, including the
reserve or auxiliary.

2. This leave will be granted without loss of pay or other employment rights.

B. Leave Guidelines
1. National Guard and Military Reserve leave time will be calculated using working
days.

2. Employees will not be charged with military leave time for days that fall on their
regularly scheduled days off.

3. Leave days do not have to be taken consecutively, the only limitation is the
300-hour maximum in any two consecutive military fiscal years (October 1
through September 30).


Page 204
4. Travel time will not be allowed in addition to inclusive dates shown on requests.

5. A copy of the Military Orders will accompany leave requests.


Section 5-6: Uniform, Clothing and Equipment Allowance

A. Department-issued equipment, as follows:

1. The Police Department will furnish to each unit member entering the
department the following:
1 Uniform Belt
1 Handcuff Case
1 Holster
1 Helmet
1 Magazine Pouch
1 Service Weapon
1 Pepper Spray Holder
1 Pepper Spray Canister
1 Pair of Handcuffs and Key
1 Uniform Breast Badge
1 Flat Badge with Case
1 (pair) Puncture resistant gloves

The department also agrees to provide spit masks on a continuous basis.

2. Pilot’s equipment list as follows:

The Police Department will furnish the following to each unit member assigned
to the Air Support Detail:

2 Nomex (or equivalent in quality) Flight Suits
1 Flight Helmet
1 Standard Headset

3. The Department shall replace those items as they, in the judgment of the
Department, become unserviceable due to wear or damage in the course and
scope of official duties.

B. A unit member will receive $1,150 clothing allowance per annum. Barring
unforeseen circumstances, payment for uniform allowance will be made on or
before August 1 of each fiscal year. Such payment will be made to cover the cost
of uniforms, maintenance, cleaning of such uniforms, and for other duty-related
expenses and for the unit member to provide a required flashlight and fresh
batteries.



Page 205
C. A new unit member will receive an initial fiscal year uniform allowance equal to
1/12 of the annual allowance per month from the first day of the month of his
employment through the end of the fiscal year. This payment will be made in a
lump sum during the first 60 days of employment.

D. A unit member who leaves City Employment shall repay to the City the uniform
allowance equal to 1/12 of the annual allowance per month for each month
remaining in the fiscal year after the last day of the month in which separation
occurs, provided, however, that a unit member who retires will not be required to
repay any uniform allowance. In addition, the family or beneficiary of a unit member
who dies while in the employment of the City shall not have to pay back any uniform
allowance.

E. A unit member who has been on extended leave (paid or unpaid), excluding
industrial leave, sick leave, or military leave of 2 months or longer, shall have the
next annual uniform allowance reduced by 1/12 of the annual allowance for each
month of extended leave.

F.
1. On or before August 1 of each fiscal year, a unit member assigned to the
following details/squads/units will, in addition to his annual clothing allowance,
be provided a one-time payment per the following schedule upon initial transfer
to that assignment.

Canine $320
SAU (Tactical) $320
Air Unit $320
Solo Motor $320
TRU*** $320
Detectives* $320
Bike Officers** $320
Honor Guard $320

* Detective is defined as a certified detective who is in a detective or
investigative assignment or an assignment that normally requires the unit
member to wear civilian business clothes.

** Bicycles will be furnished by the City. To be eligible for the one-time
payment of $320, a bicycle officer must successfully complete the 40-hour
bicycle certification class and be assigned to NET, DOU, CAO, the airport,
or a School Resources Assignment, or any designated bike squad approved
by the Police Chief (i.e. the Desert Horizon Precinct Bike Squad).

2. A unit member assigned to the following details/squads/units will receive, on or
before August 1 of each fiscal year, in addition to his initial uniform allowances
described in section F1 above, an annual maintenance allowance per the
following schedule:



Page 206
Canine $320
SAU (Tactical) $320
Air Unit $320
Solo Motor $320
Detectives $320
TRU*** $320
Bike Officers** $320
Honor Guard $320

The provisions of Subsection D of this Section shall apply to this Subsection.

** To be eligible for the one-time payment of $320, a bicycle officer must
successfully complete the 40-hour bicycle certification class and be
assigned to NET, DOU, CAO, the airport, or a School Resources
Assignment, or any designated bike squad approved by the Police Chief
(i.e. the Desert Horizon Precinct Bike Squad). All bicycle officers, assigned
to one of the details above, who do not ride during the course of their regular
duties, will be required to work at a minimum, one shift every fiscal year with
DOU, during a regular shift or a special event, utilizing Department issued
bicycles. This event will be coordinated with DOU command staff and the
affected units’ command. Proper notice of schedule change will occur of
the shift is outside of the unit members normal work hours.

*** TRU is defined as an officer who has completed the annual TRU
certification course and is assigned to a TRU response/support squad. The
Unit member must attend annual training and maintain certification to be
eligible for allowances.

G.
1. A unit member who purchases a new ballistic vest shall, upon showing proof of
purchase, be reimbursed an amount up to, but not exceeding, $1,000.

2. At the time of the purchase, the member can utilize the remainder of
stipend to purchase department authorized armor plates.

3. Upon replacement of his ballistic vest, a unit member shall be entitled to the
above $1,000 reimbursement every 5 years.

H.
1. The City agrees to reimburse a unit member for the repair or replacement of
uniform items and for other personal property damaged in the course of
employment and performance of their assigned duties without fault or
negligence on the part of the unit member, other than normal wear and tear in
accordance with the schedule of items and maximum amounts authorized for
reimbursement outlined below:

Business Suit $250
Business Dress $100


Page 207
Sport Coat $150
Dress Shirt $50
Dress Trousers $75
Dress Skirt $75
All Shoes $100
Uniform Boots ALL
Motorcycle Boots ALL
Motorcycle Gloves $100
Glasses and contacts RX ALL
Sunglasses -non-RX $80
Watches $80
Jewelry $75
Police Uniform Trousers ALL
Police Motorcycle Breeches ALL
Police Uniform Shirt ALL
Police Jacket ALL
Police Motorcycle Jacket ALL
Flashlight $100
Ballistic Vest ALL
Service Weapon and (up to cost of City weapon) authorized attached
accessories

2. Reimbursements for full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, value are based on the supervisor’s
evaluation and recommendations of the article’s condition and age. Items not
listed above are not covered by the policy.

3. The option to repair or replace damaged items, and to determine whether
replaced property will be returned to unit member, rests with the City.

4. The provisions of this policy shall not apply if the unit member has concealed
or misrepresented any material fact or circumstances concerning the subject
of the loss, his interests therein, or in the case of any fraud or false statements
by the unit member relating thereto.

I. Upon duty related retirement, the City will provide the retiring member a Retired
Police Officer’s Commission Card similar in appearance to the regular Commission
Card.

J. Upon retirement, with Chief approval, a unit member will receive his breast badge
mounted on a plaque, a retired flat badge and case, handcuffs, and his fully
functional department-issued service weapon, including all 3 duty magazines, for
$1.00. If the unit member dies in the line of duty or while employed by the
department, the unit member’s spouse or an adult survivor may elect to receive
these items, except for the flat badge and case, for $1.00 which will be paid by
PLEA. The unit member’s spouse or adult survivor will have the option of receiving
the service weapon in a fully functional condition, or may request the unit member’s
service weapon be disabled and mounted in a shadow box, or may decline



Page 208
receiving the service weapon. The choice will be made in writing. PLEA will provide
a gun safety device, upon request by the unit member.

K. A unit member assigned to the Canine Detail will have the option of purchasing his
dog as follows:

1. If both the police dog and the unit member have been in the Canine Detail in
excess of 5 years, at retirement the unit member may purchase his dog for
$1.00.

2. If both the police dog and the unit member have been in the Canine Detail in
excess of 5 years and the unit member leaves other than for retirement, the
decision to allow the purchase of his dog will be made on a case by case basis
and this decision will not be arbitrary.

L. Unit members who are assigned a rifle, currently qualified, and assigned to patrol
or a patrol specialty unit, Downtown Operations Unit, and Airport Bureau will
receive a stipend to offset costs of any Department authorized equipment already
purchased, that assists them with deployment and utilization of their rifle as follows:

• Eligible employees will be able to submit a memo with attached receipts for
new and/or replacement rifle related equipment up to a limit of $500 every
5 years.

Members will accumulate receipts for newly purchased equipment and will make
one submission to fiscal for reimbursement.


Section 5-7: Reimbursement for Education Expenses

A. A unit member who participates in the Tuition Assistance Program shall be eligible
for tuition reimbursement pursuant to the following provisions:

1. For the 2021-2023 fiscal years, an employee may submit tuition expenses
incurred in the prior fiscal year such that the maximum total reimbursed does
not exceed $13,000 across any two-year period.

2. To be eligible for any reimbursement, a unit member must have successfully
completed academic or training courses approved by the Police Chief and the
Human Resources Director as provided in existing regulations.

3. Unit members shall be allowed to use up to $500.00 of their reimbursement
benefit for job-related seminars, workshops, and professional memberships
each fiscal year.


Section 5-8: Leave of Absence



Page 209
Subject to development of administrative controls, a unit member who has no other
accumulative paid leave may use up to 10 hours per year of accumulated sick leave for
non-emergency home care or medical treatment for a member of the unit member’s
immediate family subject to operational and scheduling factors. When utilizing this benefit,
the member shall identify the use of such time as non-emergency family illness. Such
leave request shall not be unreasonably withheld.


Section 5-9: Workers’ Compensation

A. Employees shall continue to receive 100% of their current rate of pay while off-
duty due to an industrial injury based on current practice which is a maximum of 1
year per injury, thereafter the rate becomes 66-2/3%.

B. Should the Association believe that a dispute in jurisdiction is unduly delaying a
Workers’ Compensation claim, or if the Association believes the City needs to
provide greater assistance to an employee trying to reopen an old claim, the
Association may request a meeting with City Workers’ Compensation staff
(provided the involved employee signs a release to do so) and such meeting will
be scheduled within 14 calendar days.

C. The City will first attempt to use physicians from specialty lists created by City of
Phoenix Pension Boards for Independent Medical Examinations for employees in
Unit 4.

D. Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave shall not run concurrent with leave
paid as industrial injury/illness (e.g. Workers’ Compensation).




ARTICLE 6: Miscellaneous

Section 6-1: Saving Clause

A. If any Article or Section of this Memorandum should be held invalid by operation
of law or by a final non-appealable order of the Phoenix Employment Relations
Board or a final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, or if compliance
with or enforcement of any Article or Section should be restrained by such tribunal,
the remainder of this Memorandum shall not be affected thereby; and upon
issuance of such final order or decree, the parties, upon request of either of them,
shall meet and confer to endeavor to agree on a substitute provision or that such
a substitute provision is not indicated.

B. It is recognized by the parties that currently the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act are applicable to certain of the wage and premium pay provisions
of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and that this MOU shall be
administered in compliance with the Act for so long as the Act is applicable.

Page 210
C. It is recognized by the parties that currently the provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act are applicable to certain of the provisions of this Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) and that this MOU shall be administered in compliance with
the Act for so long as the Act is applicable.


Section 6-2: Copies of Memorandum

Within 60 days from the date that this Memorandum is adopted by the City Council, the
Association will arrange for printing of it for furnishing one to every unit member, unit
supervisor and to management personnel. The cost of such duplication and distribution
will be borne equally by the Association and the City. Printing vendors secured by the
Association shall comply with Chapter 18, Articles IV (City Construction Contractors'
Affirmative Action Requirements) and V (Supplier's and Lessee's Affirmative Action
Requirements), Phoenix City Code.


Section 6-3: Aid to Construction of Provisions of Memorandum of Understanding

A. It is intended by the parties hereto that the provisions of this Memorandum shall
be in harmony with the rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities which by law
devolve upon the City Council, City Manager, Police Chief, and other City boards
and officials, and these provisions shall be interpreted and applied in such manner.

B. The Association recognizes the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Police
Chief as set forth in the Charter and Ordinances and that pursuant thereto the
Police Chief has the authority to establish rules and regulations applicable to the
operation of the Police Department and to the conduct of the police officers
employed therein, subject to the express provisions of this Memorandum.

C. The lawful provisions of this Memorandum are binding upon the parties for the term
thereof. The Association having had an opportunity to raise all matters in
connection with the meet and confer proceedings resulting in this Memorandum is
precluded from initiating any further meeting and conferring for the term thereof
relative to matters under the control of the Police Chief, the City Council or the City
Manager. This section shall not be construed to limit free and informal discussions
under, Section 2-2 hereof.


Section 6-4: Changes in Department Operations Orders Pursuant to this
Memorandum

A. Within 60 days from the date this Memorandum is adopted by the City Council, the
Department shall provide electronic copies of those Department and Operations
Orders reflecting changes pursuant to this Memorandum. Copies of such changes
shall be available to each unit member on or about July 1 of each fiscal year or as
soon thereafter as possible.


Page 211
B. During the preparation of changes to the Department’s Operations Orders, and
precinct/bureaus manuals, drafts of the proposed changes will be staffed out to the
Association.


Section 6-5: Physical Fitness

A. It is recognized by the parties that it is the responsibility of a unit member at all
times to make every effort to maintain his physical condition so as to be fully fit to
perform his duties with maximum effectiveness.

To assist a unit member in this respect, the City agrees to provide and maintain
exercise equipment for each precinct station, Deer Valley, Resource Bureaus,
Police Headquarters, and at the Training Academy.

B. The City will provide required FAA physicals to pilots assigned to the Air Support
Unit.

C. If a unit member, while carrying out his official duties is exposed to an infectious
disease/virus, the City agrees to pay the expenses for inoculation of the member.


D. Unit members are allowed to work out on their “Code 7” at Police Department
facilities. Unit members are required to remain in workpants/boots. Employees
who work out on their “Code 7”:

• Must adhere to Operations Order 4.1 (Meals and Breaks);
• Must submit a workout memo through the Chain of Command to the
Department Fitness Coordinator;
• Adhere to Operations Order 3.7 (Industrial Injuries);
• Must limit their activity to Strength Training/Cardio Training;
• May not work out on their “Code 7” during overtime shifts; and,
• May not work out during the last 2 hours of their duty shift, unless
approved by their supervisor.

Program viability will be reviewed annually by the Police Chief.


Section 6-6: Term and Effect of Memorandum

A. This Memorandum shall remain in full force and effect beginning with the first
regular pay period commencing in July 2021, up to the beginning of the first regular
pay period commencing in July 2023.

B. Except as expressly provided in this Memorandum, the City shall not be required
to meet and confer concerning any matter, whether covered or not covered herein,



Page 212
during the term or extensions thereof. This paragraph is not intended to preclude
informal discussions under Article 2, section 2-2 hereof.

C. The provisions of this Memorandum shall be subject to Federal, State, Charter,
and existing local laws that vest jurisdiction and authority in the City Council,
Phoenix Employment Relations Board, and Phoenix Civil Service Board.

D. This Memorandum constitutes the total and entire agreements between the parties
and no past written or verbal statement/agreements shall supersede any of its
provisions.




Page 213
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands this ____ of April, 2021.


_______________________________________________________
Darrell Kriplean, Chief Negotiator, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA)


_______________________________________________________
Xavier Frost, Deputy Human Resources Director/Labor Relations, City of Phoenix


_______________________________________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager, City of Phoenix


ATTEST:


_______________________________________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk, City of Phoenix


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_______________________________________________________
Acting City Attorney, City of Phoenix

PLEA Team: City of Phoenix Team:
Darrell Kriplean, Chief Negotiator Xavier Frost, Deputy HR Director, Labor Relations
Micheal London Michael Kurtenbach, Executive Assistant Police Chief
Toby Sexton Gabriel Lopez, Assistant Police Chief
Michael Thomas Brian Freudenthal, Commander
Yvette Bro Matthew Siekmann, Commander
John Maxwell Tobin Daily, Public Safety HR Liaison
Becky Maldonado (Scribe) Mark Bizik, Management Assistant II
Marie Rabusa, Management Intern (Scribe)




Page 214
ATTACHMENT A

DRUG TESTING
The Phoenix Police Department’s Operations Order 3.21, Controlled Substance
Screening policy, is added to this Memorandum as Attachment B.




Page 215
ATTACHMENT B

RETIREE HEALTH CONTRIBUTION


The City shall provide Basic Medical Reimbursement Plan (MERP) benefits to MERP
eligible unit retirees and to unit members who are hired before August 1, 2007 and are
eligible to retire no later than August 1, 2022 (the date of an individual’s retirement
eligibility was determined on August 1, 2007), at the monthly amounts based on years of
service listed below:

5 to 14 years of service $135.00
15 to 24 years of service $168.00
25 or more years of service $202.00

Unit employees hired on or after August 1, 2007, regardless of years of service, may
qualify for a Post Employment Health Plan (PEHP) account.



Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (These benefits are not under City of
Phoenix control)*

Retiree only not on Medicare $150.00
Retiree & family not on Medicare $260.00
Retiree only on Medicare $100.00
Retiree - one with Medicare $215.00
Retiree - all on Medicare $170.00
*Rates shown are for the 2012 calendar year. For current rates, see http://www.psprs.com/




Page 216
ATTACHMENT C
Unit 4 – Police Officers
WAGES

Police Officer, Job Code 62210
Effective July 1, 2019 Effective July 13, 2020
STEP HOURLY BI- ANNUAL HOURLY BI- ANNUAL
WEEKLY WEEKLY
1 22.23 1,778.40 46,238 22.23 1,778.40 46,238
2 23.40 1,872.00 48,672 23.40 1,872.00 48,672
3 24.75 1,980.00 51,480 24.75 1,980.00 51,480
4 26.19 2,095.20 54,475 26.19 2,095.20 54,475
5 27.74 2,219.20 57,699 27.74 2,219.20 57,699
6 29.34 2,347.20 61,027 29.34 2,347.20 61,027
7 31.01 2,480.80 64,501 31.01 2,480.80 64,501
8 33.47 2,677.60 69,618 33.47 2,677.60 69,618
9 36.01 2,880.87 74,903 36.90 2,952.31 76,760


Police Officer*Pilot, Job Code 62211
Effective July 1, 2019 Effective July 13, 2020
STEP HOURLY BI- STEP HOURLY BI- STEP
WEEKLY WEEKLY
1 37.37 2,989.25 77,721 38.29 3,063.39 79,648


Police Officer*Rescue Pilot, Job Code 62212
Effective July 1, 2019 Effective July 13, 2020
STEP HOURLY BI- STEP HOURLY BI- STEP
WEEKLY WEEKLY
1 38.76 3,100.95 80,624.58 39.72 3,177.85 82,624


Police Officer*Flight Instr, Job Code 62213
Effective July 1, 2019 Effective July 13, 2020
STEP HOURLY BI- STEP HOURLY BI- STEP
WEEKLY WEEKLY
1 40.21 3,216.78 83,636.17 41.21 3,296.55 85,710


Police Officer*Chief Pilot, Job Code 62214
Effective July 1, 2019 Effective July 13, 2020
STEP HOURLY BI- STEP HOURLY BI- STEP
WEEKLY WEEKLY
1 41.69 3,335.09 86,712 42.72 3,417.80 88,863


Page 217



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Comment on Proposed MOU Between City of Phoenix and Phoenix Fire
Fighters Association, IAFF Local 493 (Unit 5)

Request for City Council to receive public comment on the terms of the proposed
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Phoenix Fire Fighters Association,
IAFF Local 493 (Unit 5).

Section 2-218 (G) of the Meet and Confer section in the City Code provides that a
proposed MOU be filed with the City Clerk following its ratification by the employee
organization and, "At the earliest practicable date thereafter the City Council of the City
of Phoenix shall provide on its agenda an opportunity for public comment on the terms
of the Memorandum of Understanding prior to the Council acting thereon."

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 218



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Approving the Memorandum of Understanding Between City of Phoenix and
Phoenix Fire Fighters Association, IAFF Local 493 (Unit 5) (Resolution 21915)

The City of Phoenix has met and conferred with the Phoenix Fire Fighters Association,
IAFF Local 493 (Unit 5), in accordance with the terms of Section 2-218 of the City
Code, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been approved by the
organization's membership. A copy of the proposed MOU has been filed with the City
Clerk and an opportunity for public comment has been requested as an agenda item
preceding this resolution.
The following is a summary of the most significant agreements outlined in the
proposed MOU:

TRANSPARENCY
Based on public dialogue about the need for greater transparency and accountability
for city employees, several sections of the contract are modified. These modifications
are proposed consistently through all City of Phoenix employee contracts. Signing
these modifications is tied to an additional compensation increase as described in the
COMPENSATION section. These transparency and accountability modifications are
as follows:

Investigation language:
Add guidelines for conducting employee investigations.

Discipline to remain for employee’s career:
Change current language that allows discipline to be considered up to 5 years for
progressive discipline, transfers, and promotions. Under this agreement, 10
categories of discipline will last for the life of employment. These are shown in the
attached agreement.

Representation on Grievance Committees:
Update current language to rotate mutually agreed representation on grievance
committees to ensure an impartial review.

Purging Files:
Place the process into a single chart that makes it clear that discipline remains in the


Page 219

City’s human resources files and that there is no “purging” of employee records.

COMPENSATION
IAFF is proposed to receive the same percentage increases of total compensation as
the other labor groups as follows:

Year 1:
Ongoing 1.5% of total compensation
Non-continuous 2.5% of total compensation

Additional compensation for agreeing to the City’s transparency and accountability
proposals:
Ongoing 0.5% of total compensation
Non-continuous 0.5% of total compensation

Year 2:
Ongoing 1.5% of total compensation
Non-continuous 2.5% of total compensation

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 220
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

2021 – 2023

CITY OF PHOENIX

AND

PHOENIX FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

LOCAL 493

REPRESENTING UNIT 5 EMPLOYEES




Page 221
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREAMBLE............................................................................................................................... 2

Article 1: Rights ....................................................................................................................... 2
Section 1-1. Gender ................................................................................................................................. 2
Section 1-2. City and Department Rights ................................................................................................. 2
Section 1-3. Rights of the Union ............................................................................................................... 3
Section 1-4. Rights of Unit Employees ..................................................................................................... 8
Section 1-5. Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts .................................................................................... 13

Article 2: Grievance/Arbitration/Labor Management ...........................................................14
Section 2-1. Grievance Procedures ....................................................................................................... 14
Section 2-2. The RBO / Labor-Management Process ............................................................................ 17
Section 2-3. Productivity Discussions .................................................................................................... 19

Article 3: Compensation/Wages............................................................................................19
Section 3-1. Wages ................................................................................................................................ 19
Section 3-1A. Productivity Enhancement Pay ........................................................................................ 22
Section 3-2. Overtime ............................................................................................................................. 23
Section 3-2A. Call Out Pay ..................................................................................................................... 24
Section 3-3. Out-of-Class Pay ................................................................................................................ 24
Section 3-4. Sick Leave Conversion at Retirement ................................................................................ 24
Section 3-5. Deferred Compensation and Defined Contribution Plans .................................................. 26
Section 3-6. Non-Direct Payment of Compensation or Benefits ............................................................ 26

Article 4. Hours of Work/Working Conditions ......................................................................27
Section 4-1. Hours of Work .................................................................................................................... 27
Section 4-2. Shift Trades ........................................................................................................................ 28
Section 4-3. Filling Vacancies ................................................................................................................ 28

Article 5. Benefits ...................................................................................................................29
Section 5-1. Health Insurance ................................................................................................................ 29
Section 5-2. Dental Insurance ................................................................................................................ 30
Section 5-3. Life Insurance ..................................................................................................................... 30
Section 5-4. Long Term Disability Insurance.......................................................................................... 31
Section 5-5. Holidays, Vacations, and Donated Vacation Leave ........................................................... 31
Section 5-6. Uniforms ............................................................................................................................. 34
Section 5-7. Tuition Reimbursement ...................................................................................................... 36
Section 5-8. Wellness, Health and Fitness............................................................................................. 36
Section 5-9. Worker’s Compensation ..................................................................................................... 36
Section 5-10. Employee Benefit Trust Fund........................................................................................... 37

Article 6. Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................39
Section 6-1. Saving Clause .................................................................................................................... 39
Section 6-2. Printing of M.O.U. ............................................................................................................... 40
Section 6-3. Fire Watch .......................................................................................................................... 40
Section 6-4. Term and Effect of Memorandum ...................................................................................... 41

ATTACHMENT A .....................................................................................................................43

ATTACHMENT B .....................................................................................................................50





Page 222
PREAMBLE

WHEREAS, the parties, through their designated representatives, met and
conferred in good faith pursuant to Ordinance G-3303 in order to reach agreement
concerning wages, hours, and working conditions of employees comprising the Fire
Fighter Unit, and,

WHEREAS, the parties hereby acknowledge that the provisions of this
Memorandum are not intended to abrogate the authority and responsibility of City
government provided for under the statutes of the State of Arizona or the Charter or
ordinances of the City of Phoenix except as expressly and lawful limited herein,

NOW, THEREFORE, having reached this complete agreement concerning wages,
hours, and working conditions for the term specified, the parties submit this Memorandum
to the City Council of the City of Phoenix with their joint recommendation that body resolve
to adopt its terms and take such other action as may be necessary to implement its
provisions.


Article 1: Rights

Section 1-1. Gender

Whenever any words used herein in the masculine, feminine or neutral, they shall be
construed as though they were also used in another gender in all cases where they would
so apply.


Section 1-2. City and Department Rights

A. The Union recognizes that the City and the Fire Chief retain, whether exercised or
not, solely and exclusively, all express and inherent rights and authority pursuant to
law with respect to determining the level of and the manner in which the Fire
Department's service delivery activities are conducted, managed, and administered,
and the Union recognizes the exclusive right of the Chief to establish and maintain
departmental rules and procedures for the administration of the Fire Department
during the term of this Memorandum provided that such rules and procedures do not
violate any of the specific express provisions of the Memorandum.

B. The City and the Chief have the exclusive right and authority to schedule work and/or
overtime work as required in the manner most advantageous to the City subject to
the express terms of this Memorandum.

C. It is understood by the parties that every incidental duty connected with operations




Page 223
enumerated in job descriptions is not always specifically described; nevertheless, it
is intended that all such duties shall be performed by the employee.

D. The Chief and City Manager reserve the right to discipline or terminate employees
for just cause subject to Civil Service procedures.

E. The City and the Chief shall determine and establish methods and processes by
which duties are performed subject to the express terms of this Memorandum.

F. The City and Chief shall have the right to transfer employees within the Department
in a manner most advantageous to the City subject to the express terms of this
Memorandum.

G. Except as otherwise specifically provided in the Memorandum, the City and the Chief
retain unqualifiedly all rights and authority to which, by law, they are entitled.

H. The City shall have the authority to effect reorganizations of the Department.
However, any such reorganization shall be discussed by the Labor-Management
Committee prior to implementation.

I. The Union recognizes that the city has statutory and Charter rights and obligations in
contracting for matters relating to municipal operations.

J. The inherent and express rights of the City and the Chief, including those herein
specifically referred to, which are not expressly modified or restricted by a specific
provision of this memorandum, are not, in any way directly or indirectly, subject to the
Grievance Procedure herein.

K. Nothing herein shall be construed to diminish the rights of the City under Section 5
of Ordinance G-3032 or to diminish the provisions of the Civil Service Rules.


Section 1-3. Rights of the Union

A. The Union, as the authorized representative, has the exclusive right to serve as the
meet and confer representative of all employees in the Fire Fighter's Unit as certified
by the Phoenix Employment Relations Board on July 29, 1976.

B. The Phoenix community benefits from harmonious and cooperative relationships
between the City and its employees. The Union plays an important role furthering this
relationship and ultimately improving service to the City and its citizens. Accordingly,
the City and the Union have negotiated various rights for unit employees as set forth
in this MOU, in exchange for services to the City and in lieu of increased
compensation. These bargained-for rights will promote and improve enhanced





Page 224
service delivery models and public safety, along with other tangible benefits to the
City’s residents.

C. The Phoenix City Council has determined, and Unit 5 agrees, there are specific
activities that confer a public benefit; a dual public/private purpose or an exclusively
public purpose, for which up to 2 Unit 5 (IAFF) members may be released and will
perform these duties under City Business.

D. The City’s Labor Relations Administrator or authorized designee will be responsible
for coordinating the City Business Time. The Labor Relations Administrator shall
work directly with Unit 5 in order to confirm any and all paid activity of the Authorized
Employees is consistent with the activity approved below. The two Unit 5 members
identified in Subsection B shall submit reports each pay period to the Labor Relations
Administrator documenting the City Business and any leave (e.g., donated leave,
vacation leave, sick leave, etc.) used during that pay period. The City has the right
to audit time cards submitted. In the event there is disagreement, the parties will
meet to discuss the matter at the request of Unit 5 or the City. The audit may result
in Unit 5 reimbursing the City, by submitting Union Release hours, donated leave,
personal leave, or monetary payment from the Union, for activity not deemed City
Business under this Agreement.

E. City Business Time

The City has determined there are activities that confer a public benefit, a dual
public/private purpose or an exclusively public purpose for which members of Unit 5
should be released from their official duties to perform. Unit 5 acknowledges its
members will receive City Business time for the time spent performing the following
activities:

1. Authorized Employees will attend trainings that have been authorized in advance
by Administration.

2. Authorized Employees will facilitate communication between employees and
management ensuring a safe and efficient delivery of services, as well as
developing a heightened degree of labor/management cooperation.

3. In coordination with management, Authorized Employees will communicate new
programs and/or policy changes to the broader City workforce that are members
of the bargaining unit in order to streamline service delivery and ensure timely
implementation of changes in policy or programs. Changes in safety or security
policy and procedure will be prioritized.

4. In coordination with management, as a means of achieving a healthier workforce
and driving down costs associated with workers’ compensation, the cost of
providing healthcare and the use of sick time, Authorized Employees will assist




Page 225
bargaining members with understanding coordination of benefits.

5. In order to ensure City resources are well coordinated, upon the direction of the
City and consent of IAFF, Authorized Employees will participate in various City
committees, labor management meetings, or labor management work groups as
a member of the committee or group.

6. Participate in Department-authorized or City-sponsored authorized community
projects and events.

7. Represent employees involved in critical incidents at the time of incident (e.g.,
personal injury related).

8. As a means of controlling administrative and litigation costs associated with
employee matters in a large and complex City and with the goal of resolving
matters at the earliest possible stage, at management’s request Authorized
Employees will assist bargaining unit members/employees and management in
matters related to employer/employee relations.

9. Legislative, lobbying or political activities with the approval of the City Manager
or authorized designee.

F. Activities not eligible for City Business Time

Authorized Employees shall be prohibited from engaging in any of the following
activities while on paid City Business time:

1. Lobbying. This includes letter writing or telephone calls, without approval of the
City Manager or authorized designee.

2. Legislative Activity. This includes participating in the preparation or distribution
of legislative proposals, without approval of the City Manager or authorized
designee.

3. Organizing. This includes preparing and/or distributing union related materials.

4. Civil Service Discipline. This includes the representation of any bargaining unit
member/employee in disciplinary matters before the Civil Service Board.

5. Bargaining/Negotiations. This includes any matters deemed to be a mandatory
subject of bargaining.

6. Representation in grievance or disciplinary proceedings.

G. Requests for City Business Time




Page 226
1. A union member who wishes to use City Business time must submit a written
request (e-mail will suffice) as soon as the need for time is known but no later
than 72 hours in advance, when practical, of the time requested to an individual
designated by the Labor Relations Administrator or authorized designee. Any
such request must specify what the time will be used for. A request for City
Business time will be approved only if the activity has either a dual public/private
purpose or an exclusively public purpose. Upon Labor Relations Administrator
approval, Fire Department time management will be notified of the approved
leave for entry into Telestaff.

H. Union Representatives

1. The Union may designate 2 shift representatives for each of the 3 24 hour shifts
(Shift A, Shift B, and Shift C) and 1 for the day shift with the understanding that
the Union will make every effort to ensure that the shift representative works on
the shift represented and shall notify the Fire Chief of such designations. There
shall be no obligation on the Department to change or adjust normal
departmental scheduling or assignments of personnel as a result of such
designations.

2. Union representatives may attend mutually scheduled grievance, investigative,
and disciplinary meetings and hearings with department representatives during
duty hours by using the Bank of Donated Leave. Time spent during duty hours
for any other union activity, such as gathering information, interviewing the
grievant or witnesses, attending a union meeting, or preparing a presentation
shall also be charged against the Bank of Donated Leave as described in Article
5, Section 5-5.

I. Union members may be authorized in advance in writing to engage in Union related
activities during duty hours on a non-paid basis by the Fire Chief at such time and in
such instances when in the discretion of the Chief such will not in any manner
interfere with the efficient and economical operations of the Department nor
adversely impact the level of Fire Fighting services or support services.

J. There shall be no use of official time for Union-related activities except as expressly
authorized under Section 1-3E of Article 1. The Department shall maintain
procedures to administer and control use of official time in conformity with the
provisions of this Section.

K. Upon the Union’s filing of a Third Party Data Sharing Agreement with the Labor
Relations Division, the City shall furnish to the Union on request, at actual cost, a
listing of Union members on City payroll deduction in July and January during the
term of this agreement indicating name, mailing address, and job assignment.





Page 227
L. The City shall, in conformity with Ordinance G-3303, deduct monthly the Union
members regular periodic Union membership dues and/or special assessments
pursuant to authorization on a form to be provided by the City, duly completed and
signed by the Union member, and transmit such deductions to the Union on a monthly
basis; except, however, that such deduction shall be made only when the employee's
earnings for a pay period are sufficient after other legally required deductions are
made. The City shall, at the request of the Union, make changes in the amount of the
deduction hereunder during the term of this Memorandum at cost for implementing
such change. The City shall not make dues deductions for Unit employees on behalf
of any other employee organization during the term of this Memorandum. The City
assumes no liability on account of any action taken pursuant to this paragraph. In
addition, with sufficient notice the Union may request a change in dues deduction to
either monthly or bi-weekly for the entire membership each July 1 or at other times
agreed to by the parties. By filling out and submitting a voluntary deduction form for
membership dues, each unit member/employee is clearly and affirmatively
consenting to the deduction of the stated amount of money for membership dues
from their pay check.

M. The City will continue to provide those bulletin boards as designated by the City in
the past exclusively for posting of official Union literature that is not political in nature,
abusive of any person or organization, or disruptive of the department's operations.
In addition, the Union will be allowed to use all Fire Department Communications
tools to disseminate such information when necessary. Such announcements shall
not be political in nature, nor shall they be abusive of any person or organization or
disruptive of the department's operation. The Assistant Chief in charge of personnel,
or his designee, shall review the content of the buck slip communications prior to
distribution.

N. Nothing herein shall be construed to diminish the Union's rights under Ordinance G-
3303.

O. The City will provide the Union, upon request, non-confidential and readily available
information concerning the Union that is necessary to Union representatives for
negotiations, and is not otherwise available to the Union, such as personnel census,
employee benefit data, and survey information. Such requests shall be made through
the Assistant Chief in charge of personnel. Any unusual costs incurred by the City in
connection with this Section shall be borne by the Union.

P. The Union and the Department will jointly present training to new Fire Fighter recruits
about the activities that are mutually beneficial to the City and the Community. This
time will be allotted sometime during the last 4 weeks of training of said recruits at
the Training Academy. During such discussions, Union representatives shall avoid
the dissemination of information that is political in nature, abusive of any person or
organization or disruptive of the Department's operation. City business time will be
available for this purpose.




Page 228
Q. Seniority

1. The City shall provide the Association with a list of unit members/employees
showing each unit member’s/employee’s City employment date and class
employment date.
2. Seniority shall be by length of service within a class. If seniority within the class
is not determinative, then length of service with the City shall prevail.
3. Seniority will be applied in conjunction with City of Phoenix Personnel Rule 14.
4. The Department will also post an annual seniority list (beginning of the fiscal
year) on the Department’s internal webpage. In addition, new promotional lists
for Fire Engineer and Fire Captain will be posted on the internal webpage after
they are certified and finalized by City HR.


Section 1-4. Rights of Unit Employees

A. All employees have the right to have the Union serve as their meet and confer
representative without discrimination based on membership or non-membership in
the Union or any other organization. Whenever the terms “employee, Unit employees,
grievant” or some derivation of those, is used in this MOU it shall be synonymous
with the term “Unit member/employee.”

B. Union employees have the right to be represented or not to be represented by the
Union in dealings with the City concerning grievances and matters pertaining to their
individual employment rights and obligations.

C. It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by Section 1-4 of Article 1
shall not be interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time worked
any hours or fractions of hours spent outside the employee's work shift in pursuit of
benefits provided by this Section. The employer shall count as paid leave any hours
or fractions of hours spent within the employee's regular work shift in pursuit of
benefits provided by this Section.

D. The official discipline record is maintained in the Personnel File by the Human
Resources Department. Copies maintained in either the Supervisory and/or
Department files are not the official record. Employees may request to
remove/inactivate eligible documents based on the below criteria by contacting
the department Human Resources Officer. Official records may only be
inactivated and not removed per records retention law, and
members/employees will receive confirmation once the requested record is
removed/inactivated.







Page 229
Department File Personnel File
Document Supervisory File (if applicable) (OFFICIAL FILE)
Maintain original in
file.
Coaching’s/Supervisory Not maintained in Not maintained in
Remove annually
Counseling’s file. file.
provided no further
incidents.
Maintain copy in Maintain original in
file. file.
Written Reprimands Employee may Employee may
request to remove request to inactivate
after 3 years. after 3 years.
Maintain copy in file. Maintain copy in Maintain original in
Remove annually file. file.
Suspensions
provided no further Employee may Employee may
(other than below)
incidents. request to remove request to inactivate
after 10 years. after 10 years.
Discipline under 21b2, Maintain original in
Maintain copy in
21b4, 21b5, 21b12, file.
file.
21b13, 21b14, 21b15, May not be
Cannot Remove
21b18, 21b19, 21b20. inactivated

Discipline older than 5 years from the date of issuance will not be considered
for progressive discipline or promotion/transfer purposes except for the
following types of discipline, which may be considered for the duration of
employment (and upon the employee's return to employment, if applicable}:

Final sustained discipline of suspension or higher of the following;

• The employee has been abusive or threatening in language or conduct
towards fellow employees;
• The employee has solicited or taken for personal use a fee, gift or favor in
the course of the assigned work or in connection with it, which would lead
toward favoritism or the appearance of favoritism or a conflict of interest;
• That the employee Is In possession of a deadly weapon (as defined In ARS
13-3101), except a pocketknife (as provided In ARS 13-3102) at a City
worksite;
• The employee has intentionally falsified records or documents made, kept,
or maintained for or on behalf of the City of Phoenix;
• The employee has stolen or is in unauthorized possession of City property
or the property of another employee or citizen;
• The employee is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs on the job;
• The employee has violated City of Phoenix anti-harassment or anti-
discrimination policies;
• The employee committed a violation of the City's Ethics Policy;
• The employee committed an act of dishonesty;
• The employee committed an act meeting the elements of a felony.





Page 230
E. Supervisors are encouraged to discuss concerns and attempt to resolve those
concerns with a member/employee without utilizing a formal investigatory
process. Supervisors are encouraged to not utilize an investigatory process
unless they have a reasonable belief that discipline (a written reprimand or
higher) could result. Should information be made during a conversation to
attempt to resolve an issue that could result in discipline, the supervisor will
stop the meeting and utilize an investigatory process as outlined below. Any
interview becomes investigatory when facts or evidence sought by the City
may result in a disciplinary action.

1. The City may, at its discretion, either conduct investigatory interviews with
members/employees or issue members/employees written questions. In
either case, a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) form will be used. The intent of the NOI
is to clearly put members/employees on notice that they are under
investigation that could result in discipline, inform them of the nature of the
allegations against them, and inform them of their right to representation.

2. If the City elects to issue written questions to the member/employee, the
following shall apply:

a. If an NOI is being issued and there is no active questioning,
representation is not required. Members/employees may bring a
representative if they desire, however there will be no discussion
during the issuance of the NOI.

b. The member/employee will have 72-hours excluding holidays and N-
days to respond in writing and provide any other material requested.
This deadline may be extended by mutual agreement if there are
extenuating circumstances.

3. If the City elects to conduct an investigatory interview, the following shall
apply:

a. Prior to the member/employee being interviewed, the
member/employee shall be advised of their right to a representative.

b. The NOI form will be issued at the meeting.

c. The union representative may assist and consult with the
member/employee, attempt to clarify the facts or questions asked,




Page 231
and suggest other members/employees or witnesses who may have
knowledge of the underlying issues. The union representative cannot
speak on behalf of the member/employee or impede the progress of
the interview.

d. The member/employee or representative may ask for a caucus
during the meeting. Caucuses will be granted for a reasonable
timeframe.

e. The interviewer may not prohibit the union representative from
engaging in representation, including consulting with the
member/employee. The member shall be allowed to seek advice from
their representative in caucus during the interview. A caucus will not
be permitted when a question is pending. The member/employee will
be given the opportunity to clarify their answer after the caucus.

f. All parties may not behave in a violent, verbally abusive, insulting, or
demeaning manner toward the interviewer.

g. Prior to the conclusion of the meeting, the member/employee or
representative shall have the opportunity to make a closing
statement.

h. If the department requires a written statement at an investigatory
meeting, the member/employee will be compensated up to one hour
of City time to write the statement. Additional time may be granted at
the discretion of the department and will not be withheld arbitrarily.

i. The member/employee will be provided with a copy of the interview
notes and given 72 hours to confirm their answers and provide any
additional information.

j. Except for emergency situations, the unit members/employees shall
have a minimum of 48 hours to arrange for union representation
when the member/employee is the subject of an administrative
investigatory interview. The union representative will make every
reasonable attempt to arrive within the 48 hours. A
member/employee may waive the 48-hour time requirement if the
member/employee is not opting for representation.





Page 232
4. Regardless of whether the City elects to interview the member/employee,
or issue written questions, the following shall apply:

a. The member/employee will be instructed not to speak to anyone
regarding an investigation. This restriction does not apply to the
union, the union’s attorney, the member/employee’s family, the
member/employee’s attorney, the investigator, or chain-of-command.

b. The member/employee will be advised if the inquiry is supervisor
initiated or the result of a citizen complaint, employee/co-worker
complaint, or other.

c. The member/employee shall also be informed of the Garrity
protections afforded to public employees who may also be under
criminal investigation or whose actions meet the elements of a crime
[Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616 (1967)].

d. A unit member/employee shall receive a copy of any statement that
they are asked to sign.

e. Every 60 days, a unit member/employee under investigation or their
designated representative may request a status update. At
management’s discretion, the status will be provided either verbally
or in writing.

5. Miscellaneous

a. A unit member/employee identified solely as a witness will not be
prevented from contacting the union (association) on their own time
to consult with a union (association) representative prior to their
interview.

b. No investigatory documentation, such as the NOI or witness
statements shall be kept in the Personnel or Supervisory Files after
the investigation is concluded.

6. Unit members/employees will be permitted to apply and/or compete in a
transfer process while in a pending investigation. The transfer process will
not be delayed pending the conclusion of the related investigation.






Page 233
7. A member/employee who receives a written reprimand or suspension may
request a copy of the information upon which the written reprimand or
suspension was based, pertaining to what was specifically cited in the
discipline at no cost to the member/employee.

8. It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by this Article shall
not be interpreted or applied as requiring the member/employer to count as
time worked, any hours or fractions of hours spent outside the
member/employee's work shift in pursuit of benefits provided by this
Article unless otherwise specified in this MOU. The employer shall count as
time worked any hours or fractions of hours spent within the
member/employee's regular work shift in pursuit of benefits provided by
this Article.

F. Member Discipline

Any member receiving discipline that results in a loss of hours, or days or
work, will have those hours converted to match their appropriate work
schedule. Discipline for 40-hour members shall be equal to 8 hours for one
work day. Discipline for 56-hour members shall be equal to 11.2 hours for one
work day. Any discipline exceeding one day will be increased proportional to
the hours outlined in this section.


Section 1-5. Prohibition of Strikes and Lockouts

A. The Union pledges to maintain unimpaired Fire Fighting and related supported
services as directed by the Fire Chief. It shall not cause, condone, counsel or permit
employees, to strike, fail to fully and faithfully perform duties, slow down, disrupt,
impede or otherwise impair the normal functions and procedures of the Department.

B. Should any employees of the bargaining Unit during the term of this Memorandum,
and until such time that it is expressly and legally rescinded, breach the obligations
of Paragraph A, the Fire Chief or his designee shall immediately notify the Union that
a prohibited action is in progress. The Union shall forthwith disavow said strike or
other prohibited action and shall endeavor in good faith to cause such employees to
immediately return to work and/or cease the prohibited activity or, alternatively accept
the responsibility for the strike or other prohibited activity.

C. There shall be no lockout by the City during the term of the Memorandum.

D. The provisions of Section 2 (17) and section (13) of Ordinance G-1532, are
incorporated into this Memorandum.




Page 234
Article 2: Grievance/Arbitration/Labor Management

Section 2-1. Grievance Procedures

It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by this Article shall not be
interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time worked, any hours or
fractions of hours spent outside the employee's work shift in pursuit of benefits provided
by this Article. The employer shall count as time worked any hours or fractions of hours
spent within the employee's regular work shift in pursuit of benefits provided by this
Article.

A. Informal Resolution

1. As a matter of good labor-management relations the parties encourage unit
members/employees who believe that they have a bona fide grievance to
discuss and attempt to resolve it with their immediate non-unit supervisor.

2. If the above informal discussion is held and does not resolve the grievance, the
unit member/employee may file a formal grievance in accordance with the
following procedure.

B. Definition of Grievance

1. A grievance is a written allegation by a unit member/employee, submitted as
herein specified, claiming violation(s) regarding the interpretation and/or
application of the specific express terms of this Memorandum for which there is
no other specific and formal method of review; and doesn’t have a fact pattern
that has been presented to and decided upon by the City Manager in a prior
grievance. However, disputes specifically excluded in other Articles of this
Agreement from the Grievance and Arbitration procedure shall not be construed
as within the definition set forth above and shall not be handled in accordance
with this procedure. It is agreed that such excluded disputes are not grievable or
arbitrable under the terms of this Article or under this contract.

2. The City continues to retain the format used for grievances, including forms,
technology, etc.

3. A grievance which does not meet the requirements set forth in this Article shall
be null and void, and will not be processed in accordance with this procedure.

C. Procedure




Page 235
All grievances covered by this Article shall be handled exclusively in the following
manner:

A grievance must be reduced to writing, citing the specific Article and Section of this
Memorandum alleged to have been violated.

1. Step 1

The unit member/employee shall reduce the grievance to writing by signing and
completing the grievance form provided by the City and submit it to the division head,
or designee, within 14 calendar days of the initial commencement of the occurrence
being grieved.

The division head, or designee, may investigate, further consider, and discuss the
grievance with the grievant and the grievant's representative, if any, as deemed
appropriate, and shall, within 14 calendar days of having received the written
grievance, submit a response thereto in writing to the grievant. The parties by written
mutual agreement may move the grievance to Step 2 of the grievance procedure.

2. Step 2

If the written response of the Step 1 does not result in a resolution of the grievance,
the grievant may appeal the grievance by signing and completing the City form and
presenting it to the department head, or designee within 14 calendar days of the
grievant's receipt of the Step 1 response.

The department head, or designee, may further consider and discuss the grievance
with the grievant and the grievant's representative, if any, as deemed appropriate,
and shall, within 14 calendar days of having received the written grievance, submit a
response thereto in writing to the grievant. The parties by written agreement may
move the grievance to Step 3 of the grievance procedure.

3. Step 2.5

After the Step 2 response, but prior to review by the Grievance Committee, the parties
involved may mutually agree to submit the grievance to Labor Relations. The
grievance, as originally written and Step 1 and Step 2 responses, must be submitted
to Labor Relations within 14 calendar days of receipt of the Step 2 response. Labor
Relations shall, within 14 calendar days of the receipt of the grievance, meet with the
department head, or designee, and the grievant and the grievant's representative, if
any, in an attempt to resolve the grievance. Labor Relations shall then submit a
written response to all parties within 14 calendar days of the meeting.

4. Step 3




Page 236
a. If the written response of the Step 2 (or 2.5 if applicable) does not result in a
resolution of the grievance, the grievant may, within 14 calendar days of the
Step 2 response, appeal the grievance by signing and completing the City form
and presenting it to Labor Relations. A Grievance Committee hearing will be
scheduled at which the grievant shall be afforded the opportunity to fully
present his position and to be represented.

The Grievance Committee shall be composed of:

Chairman – A member of the City Manager’s Office designated by the City
Manager.
2 Members – Mutually agreed upon by City Manager’s Office and Local 493.

The Grievance Committee shall submit findings and advisory
recommendation(s) to the City Manager. The City Manager shall make the
final determination of the grievance and submit it in writing to the grievant and
his designated representative.

b. If the grievant so elects in writing within the above time limit, in lieu of such
hearing the grievance may be reviewed by an arbitrator. The parties, or their
designated representatives, shall agree on an arbitrator, and if they are unable
to agree on an arbitrator within a reasonable time, either party may request
the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to submit to them a list of 7
arbitrators who have had experience in the public sector. The parties shall,
within 7 calendar days of the receipt of said list, select the arbitrator by
alternately striking names from said list until one name remains. Such person
shall then become the arbitrator. The arbitrator so selected shall hold a
hearing as expeditiously as possible at a time and place convenient to the
parties, and shall be bound by the following:

i. The arbitrator shall be bound by the language of this Memorandum and
departmental rules and regulations consistent therewith in considering
any issue properly before him/her.

ii. The arbitrator shall expressly confine him/herself to the precise issues
submitted to him/her and shall have no authority to consider any other
issue not so submitted to him/her.

iii. The arbitrator shall be bound by applicable State and City law.

iv. The cost of the arbitrator and any other mutually incurred costs shall be
borne equally by the parties.

The arbitrator shall submit findings and advisory recommendations to the




Page 237
City Manager. The City Manager shall make the final determination of the
grievance and submit it in writing to the grievant and his designated
representative.

c. The City is not under any obligation to accept grievances where the City
Manager has previously decided on the same fact pattern.

D. Time Limits

Failure of City Management representatives to comply with time limits specified in
Paragraph C shall entitle the grievant to appeal to the next level of review; and failure
of the grievant to comply with said time limits shall constitute abandonment of the
grievance; except however, that the parties may extend time limits by mutual written
agreement in advance of the deadline.

E. Union Grievance

The Union may, in its own name, file a grievance that alleges violation by the City of
the rights accorded to the Union by the specific terms of Article 1-3 of this
Memorandum. The Union shall file such grievance at Step 3 of this Procedure.

F. Group Grievance

When more than one unit member/employee claims the same violation of the same
rights allegedly accorded by this Memorandum, and such claims arise at substantially
the same time and out of the same circumstances, a single group grievance may be
filed in the name of all such members. Such group grievances shall be filed at the
Step of this Procedure which provides the lowest level of common supervision having
authority over all named Grievants. Each unit member/employee that is a party
Grievant must be named and must sign such group grievance.

G. Employer Grievances

Should they occur as a result of official Union activities or actions, including the failure to
act as required under the terms of this Memorandum, employer grievances will be
presented directly to the Union president or any officer of the Union within 14 days of the
occurrence prompting the grievance. The president, or designee, shall in each case
provide a written answer within 14 days from receipt of the grievance. Unresolved
employer grievances may be submitted to arbitration pursuant to Step 3.


Section 2-2. The RBO / Labor-Management Process

A. The purpose of the Relationships by Objectives (RBO) committee is to enhance
service delivery models and address public safety employee-related issues. The




Page 238
RBO process is done through the facilitation and open discussion of mutual concerns
and problems which may include; implementation of major department programs
and/or substantial modifications of existing major programs that will have a significant
impact on service delivery or work schedules. Items of concern are then enacted as
initiatives to be in accomplished over the course of the year that follows.

B. The RBO Committee shall meet annually at mutually scheduled times, and at other
mutually agreed upon times as necessary. The RBO Committee process consists
of a Correlating Team. The Correlating Team includes the following representatives
from Labor and Management: the Fire Chief and Executive Staff (Assistant Fire
Chiefs) and the Union President and Labor Executives. For each initiative mutually
identified in the RBO process, a Committee is established consisting of
representatives from labor and management and facilitated by co-chairs. Sub-
committees are further developed to facilitate meetings to achieve goals as set forth
in the agreed upon initiatives. Throughout the year, Committees and Sub-
Committees will meet regularly to accomplish their RBO initiatives.

C. There shall be a Fire Labor-Management Committee consisting of the Fire Chief and
Union President. The Fire Labor-Management Committee provides oversight for the
entire RBO / Labor-Management Process.

D. A standing agenda will be developed. The members shall, in advance of a meeting,
provide the co-chairs with proposed additional agenda items, and the co-chairs will
provide the members with the meeting agenda.

E. Representatives of the Union on the Committee shall not lose pay or benefits for
meetings mutually scheduled during their duty time.

F. The Sub-Committees may be supplemented by representative(s) of the City Manager
if it is proposed to discuss mutual aid or fire protection contract matters.

G. The Sub-Committees may, if they deem proper, suggest recommendations to the
Fire Chief and the City Manager for their consideration and determination.

H. Employees who are designated by the Fire Labor-Management Committee as
RBO/Labor Management Coordinators will be eligible for compensation from a bank
of 2,112 hours. These individuals, limited to no more than 11 employees, will work
with management on the priorities determined through the RBO (Relationships by
Objectives) process. These initiatives pertain to enhancing operational efficiencies,
service delivery, and improvements to employee safety and organizational
performance.

I. It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by Section 2-2 of Article 2
shall not be interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time worked
any hours or fractions of hours spent outside the employee's work shift in pursuit of




Page 239
benefits provided by this Section. The employer shall count as paid leave any hours
or fractions of hours spent within the employee's regular work shift in pursuit of
benefits provided by this Section.

J. The City will provide the professional services of a secretary for the labor-
management process. The secretary will be assigned to the community affairs
division of the Phoenix Fire Department and will work at the direction of the Fire
Labor-Management Committee. The selection process for this position shall be
determined by the Fire Labor-Management Committee.

K. In the interest of encouraging member total wellness and providing customer service
delivery, the City of Phoenix Fire Department and Phoenix Fire Fighters Association
Local 493 will develop a drug testing policy through the Fire Labor/Management
process. The drug testing program will be administered and managed by the Fire
Department.


Section 2-3. Productivity Discussions

A. Recognizing the need to provide the highest practical level of fire protection and
emergency medical service to the citizens of Phoenix, the City, Fire Department, and
Union, pledge to continue to work towards increasing the productivity of the Phoenix
Fire Department. In a continuing commitment towards increased productivity, the joint
Labor-Management Productivity Committee shall meet on a regular basis during the
term of the M.O.U. to discuss the development of structured productivity programs
within the Phoenix Fire Department.

B. The distribution of any demonstrated economic savings or other productivity
rewarding measures resulting from the implementation of productivity programs shall
be a proper subject for the Meet and Confer process pursuant to Ordinance G-3303.

C. It is understood by the parties that the benefits granted by Section 2-3 of Article 2
shall not be interpreted or applied as requiring the employer to count as time worked
any hours or fractions of hours spent outside the employee's work shift in pursuit of
benefits provided by this Section. The employer shall count as paid leave any hours
or fractions of hours spent within the employee's regular work shift in pursuit of
benefits provided by this Section.



Article 3: Compensation/Wages

Section 3-1. Wages





Page 240
A. In year one of the agreement, the economic value of ongoing total compensation
increases will equal 1.5%. Unit 5 members/employees will also receive a non-
continuous payment equal to the economic value of 2.5% total compensation.
Finally, Unit 5 members/employees will also receive an additional ongoing
increase equal to the economic value of 0.5% of total compensation and a non-
continuous payment equal to the economic value of 0.5% of total compensation
for agreeing to the City’s transparency and accountability proposals. This will
be paid out as follows:

1. A 1.77% base wage increase for all steps (to include assignment steps),
effective the first full pay period in July 2021.

2. A change in sick leave conversion at retirement (see Section 3-4)

3. Restoration of vacation buy-back (see Section 5-5E)

4. A non-continuous payment of $5,217 for each Unit 5 member/employee in
year one, to be paid out on the first full pay period in August 2021.

B. In year two of the agreement, the economic value of ongoing total compensation
increases will equal 1.5%. Unit 5 members/employees will also receive a non-
continuous payment equal to the economic value of 2.5% total compensation.
This will be paid as follows:

1. A 1.65% base wage increase for all steps (to include assignment steps),
effective the first full pay period in July 2022.

2. A non-continuous payment of $4,433 for each Unit 5 member/employee in
year two, to be paid out on the first full pay period in August 2022

The City will evaluate the American Rescue Plan Act and will provide a (non-
specified) percentage of premium pay as allowed by the legislation and
deemed appropriate by the City Council, balancing the needs of the
community and employees in their development of a strategic plan for the
ARPA funds. The strategic plan will follow guidelines provided by the
Department of Treasury. This language will expire at the conclusion of the
2021-2023 MOU.

C. Employees assigned to, or assigned as rovers to, Special Operations Teams, canine
search specialists, and the ARFF program, and who have also achieved and
maintained the level of Technician, or equivalent, through specific training and
education, shall receive assignment pay. Members certified in both hazmat (HMT)
and technical rescue (TRT) and assigned to, or assigned as rovers to fill cross trained
positions on the heavy rescue squads and/or C-957 shall receive both assignment




Page 241
pays. An employee who is awarded and occupies a Special Operations position
may receive their assignment pay no later than 6 months, if the following
parameters are applicable:

The Fire Department has not offered the employee a training spot in the
required entry level Special Operations course within 6 months of
occupying their assignment,
And
The employee must have a documented history of attending and
completing Special Operations training modules once they occupy their
position.

If Employees who are required to obtain dual technician certification (C957
Captains and employees assigned to heavy rescue squads) do not have
either certification and meet the above parameters, they will receive
assignment pay for one of the two disciplines. If the employee has one
technical certification in good standing and is receiving assignment pay, the
member will receive assignment pay for the second discipline if the above
parameters are met.

D. Effective July 14, 2008, employees who meet the Fire Department’s linguistic skill
qualifications and become certified, shall receive a premium of $75.00 per month.

E. It is understood that the pay rates set forth in Attachment “A” are interpreted to be
specific with regards to steps, corresponding years of service and monthly salaries,
except that performance related items including, but not limited to, special merit
increases, special salary adjustments, demotions, assignment pay and extensions in
merit pay anniversary dates resulting from extended leave without pay, industrial and
light duty assignments, and reinstatements may alter an employee’s step progression
and monthly salaries as indicated in Attachment “A.”

If an employee is not given his/her performance evaluation by the annual review
date, the employee may request his/her merit increase in writing by sending a
memorandum directly to the Human Resources Officer. If the performance
evaluation is an overall “met,” the request will be processed within 21 calendar days
of submittal and will be retroactive to the performance evaluation annual review
date.

F. Employees assigned by the Fire Chief to staff assignments in authorized staff
positions (40 hours) will be entitled to 10% assignment pay if such assignment is to
exceed 2 consecutive pay periods, and shall continue to receive such assignment pay
for the duration of such assignment. This provision shall not apply to employees
attending recruit training or employees assigned to limited duty. Employees assigned
to authorized 40 hour staff assignments and who begin receiving staff assignment pay
shall also be eligible to continue all other current assignment pays provided all




Page 242
required certifications are maintained. Employees assigned to limited duty shall
continue to receive holiday pay and FLSA/work week adjustments (Section 4-1,
Paragraph E, of Article 4) for the duration of their limited duty assignment, irrespective
of their actual work hours.

G. Employees assigned to any 40 hour staff positions shall receive 2 8 hour or 10 hour
professional development days per year depending on their schedule. The employee
shall decide the days and areas of development. These days shall be assigned
through the vacation signup process. No employee shall receive these days in addition
to the full amount of Local 493 days.

H. The Fire Department's 21-day pay schedule normally begins on B-Shift Mondays. In
any leap year, ERSO, South Shift Command, Payroll and Local 493 will identify the
first and most appropriate "Payroll Monday" to switch to a leap year schedule.
Following is an example schedule that was utilized during the 2020 leap year:

• Friday, February 7, 2020 (B-Shift Works)
• Saturday, February 8, 2020 (C-Shift Works)
• Sunday, February 9, 2020 (A-Shift Works)
• Monday, February 10, 2020 (B-Shift normally scheduled; however, B-Shift will
be converted to C-Shift to coincide with 21-day pay schedule)
• Tuesday, February 11, 2020 (A-Shift works to begin regular A, B, C schedule)
• Wednesday, February 12, 2020 (B-Shift works) and 24 hour shifts continue on
as normal until next leap year (2024).


Section 3-1A. Productivity Enhancement Pay

A. In recognition of the significant increase in service delivery and cost savings to the
implement the following Productivity Enhancement Pay formula for employees:

1. In December of each calendar year and June of each calendar year, employees
who have completed at least 7 years of continuous full-time service and who meet
the additional qualifications specified in Section 3-1A of Article 3 shall be paid
$80.00, pro-rated and included each pay period in the qualifying unit
member’s/employee’s regular pay check throughout the year, for each full year
of continuous full-time service in excess of 5 years, up to a semi-annual maximum
of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), annual maximum of $4,000.00 at 30 years.

2. Employees on industrial leave shall qualify for this payment for only the first year
of the industrial leave. However, the entire period of industrial leave shall qualify
as continuous service when the employee returns to active employment.






Page 243
3. Adjustments to payments will be made as soon as possible but no later than 30
days of the qualifying date.

B. An employee must have achieved the overall performance rating of "meets
standards" on his latest scheduled performance evaluation on file in the Human
Resources Department.

C. An employee who receives a below "meets standards" evaluation shall receive
another evaluation within 90 to 120 days, and if that evaluation is "meets standards,"
he will be eligible for Productivity Enhancement Pay starting with the next qualifying
date.


Section 3-2. Overtime

A. Employees who are assigned to be and are on duty beyond their scheduled work
shift shall be compensated for such assigned overtime work at 1 ½) times their
regular rate, 56 hours or 40 hours, after the first 7 minutes of assigned and worked
overtime calculated to the nearest 1/4 hour.

B. Employees shall have the option of being paid in cash for overtime, or allow the
overtime to accrue as compensatory time up to a maximum of 168 hours for
employees working a 56 hour schedule, or 120 hours for employees working a 40
hour schedule.

C. Overtime compensation shall not be paid twice for the same hours worked.

D. Use of compensatory time shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Fire
Chief and shall take into consideration departmental scheduling and operational
factors.

E. Payment for time worked shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Fire
Chief and shall take into consideration departmental scheduling and operational
factors.

F. The provisions of Section 3-2 of Article 3 shall not apply where an employee is
assigned out-of-class to a non-Unit position.

G. Allocation and opportunities for overtime shall be discussed in the
Labor/Management process.

H. Fire department “peak time” rescues will only be staffed by employees on an overtime
basis. This item reflects an agreement between the Fire Department and the Union
in 1984 on the future staffing of the rescues. The increased work-load and
responsibility of the full time rescues was incented by agreement that there would be




Page 244
overtime opportunities on peak time rescues. Further, the department was
reorganized through the RBO process in 1993 to enhance ALS and rescue
capabilities throughout the city. This reorganization included a pool of employees to
staff back rescues and guarantee that no new employee would have to work more
than 200 shifts on a rescue. Employees agreeing to be in this pool are then entitled
to work on the peak time rescues on an overtime basis when their name comes up
in a rotation.


Section 3-2A. Call Out Pay

A. Call out time shall be at a minimum of 3 hours at 1 ½ times the employee’s regular
rate of pay, 56 hours or 40 hours depending on assignment, after the first 7 minutes
calculated to the nearest 1/4 hour. If a unit member/employee leaves a call out event
without authorization prior to the termination of the event, Section 3-2A of Article 3
shall not apply.

B. The provisions of this Section shall not apply where an employee is assigned out-of-
class to a non-Unit position.


Section 3-3. Out-of-Class Pay

Pursuant to A.R. 2.201, 16 hours of out-of-class work on a shift for employees will
constitute a full shift of out-of-class assignment pay. There will be no out-of-class pay for
working less than 16 hours.

In order to qualify to be eligible to receive out-of-class assignment pay, employees must
complete 8 shifts of out-of-class assignment (16 hour minimum to constitute a full shift).
As an alternative for qualifying only, 192 hours of out-of-class assignment shall satisfy the
minimum qualifications required to become eligible for out-of-class pay. For the purpose
of the 192 hour qualifier, out-of-class hours must be in increments of no less than 7 hours.

Employees on a 40 hour schedule will complete 11 shifts, 6 hours minimum of out-of-
class assignment, to satisfy the minimum qualifications for out-of-class pay.


Section 3-4. Sick Leave Conversion at Retirement

The following benefit will apply:

A. Definitions

1. "Qualifying Hours" - The minimum number of accrued and unused sick leave
credits existing on the last day of service prior to retirement, which are necessary




Page 245
before an employee can participate in the benefit program.

2. "Base Number of Hours" or "Base Hours" - The number of hours of accrued and
unused sick leave credits which are uncompensated under Section 3-4 of Article
4 which the City will compensate the employee.

3. "Base Hourly Rate" - The base hourly rate of pay being paid at the time of
retirement to the retiring employee who qualifies for participation in the benefit
program.

B. Benefit and Eligibility

1. An employee that has between 1 – 1,259 hours of sick leave remaining in
their sick leave bank at the time of retirement, or the 40 hour equivalent,
shall be eligible for payment of an amount of compensation equal to his/her
base wage for 50% of their hours.

2. An employee who has accumulated a minimum of 1,260 qualifying hours or more
of accrued and unused sick leave at the time of retirement, or the 40 hour
equivalent, shall be eligible for payment of an amount of compensation equal to
his/her base hourly rate for 65% of their sick hours.

3. An employee who has accumulated a minimum of 1,800 qualifying hours or more
of accrued and unused sick leave at the time of retirement, or 40 hour equivalent,
shall be eligible for payment of an amount of compensation equal to his/her base
hourly rate for 80% of their sick hours.

4. An employee who has accumulated a minimum of 2,400 hours, or the 40 hour
equivalent, or more of accrued and unused sick leave at the time of retirement
shall be eligible for payment of an amount of compensation equal to 100% of
his/her base hourly wage for all hours.

5. Effective July 1, 2014, and thereafter, an employee who has accrued at least
1286 hours for 56 hour members, or 919 hours for 40 hour employees, of
unused sick leave may elect to have 168 hours for a 56 hour unit
member/employee, or 120 hours for a 40 hour unit member/employee paid out
in a lump sum. Any unit member/employee may only elect to exercise this benefit
3 times in their career, and not more than one time in a fiscal year. Eligible
employees may elect to buy back their hours between July 1 and the last pay
period in January each fiscal year.

6. The payments described in numbers 1 through 5 above are not considered Final
Average Salary for purposes of pension calculations.

C. Administration




Page 246
1. At the time of retirement or death of an active employee who is eligible for
retirement, the City's Employee Benefits Division, or such other individual or
agency as the City may designate, shall determine the employee’s eligibility and
the amount of accrued and unused sick leave to be compensated.

2. The employee shall verify in writing the computation of the Employee Benefits
Division.

3. In the event an employee’s eligibility for participation or the amount of
compensation is disputed, the dispute shall be submitted to the City Auditor for
resolution.


Section 3-5. Deferred Compensation and Defined Contribution Plans


A. The City shall contribute an amount equal to 4.42% of each employee’s biweekly
gross pay to the City’s 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan. Pension contributions will
be made by both the City and the employee on the contributions.

B. At the employee’s separation, for either retirement or exiting the Deferred Retirement
Options Program, the employee’s sick leave payout amounts will be automatically
contributed into the City’s 401(a) plan. Any excess amount over the Internal Revenue
Code 401(a) plan contribution maximum limits will be automatically contributed into
the City’s 457(b) plan. Any portion of the excess amount that cannot be contributed
to the 457(b) plan because of Internal Revenue Code 457(b) plan contribution
maximum limits will be paid as taxable income. The 401(a) Plan Document as
approved by the Deferred Compensation Board will be the governing document.


Section 3-6. Non-Direct Payment of Compensation or Benefits

Various sections of this MOU contain a form of compensation, wages, or benefits that
have been negotiated in good faith and may or may not provide a direct payment of wages
or other benefit to each member. Those forms of compensation, wages, or benefits that
do not provide a direct payment to each unit member/employee have been negotiated in
place of a direct payment and costed as part of the overall economic package. Examples
include: life insurance, long term disability insurance, leave payouts, member donated
release time, etc.








Page 247
Article 4. Hours of Work/Working Conditions

Section 4-1. Hours of Work

A. The duty hours for employees assigned to Operations or Emergency Services,
excluding 40 hour staff assignments, shall continue to average 56 hours per week.
Shifts shall continue to be 24 hours in duration.

B. The work hours and schedule of employees assigned to an administrative staff
assignment (Non-Operations/56-hour schedule) shall be 5 8 hour days (excluding
authorized meal breaks), or 4 10 hour days (excluding authorized meal breaks) at the
discretion of the Fire Chief.

C. The work hours and schedule of employees assigned to the Fire Investigations
Section may only be mutually changed by the Fire Chief and the Union President
through the Labor-Management process. Fire Investigation employees will be
assigned to one of two 40-hour schedules that may include a 4/10 or a modified A,
B, C shift schedule. All schedules will equal a 40-hour work week. All Fire
Investigators, regardless of schedule will be paid overtime at the 40-hour rate.

Fire Investigation employees assigned to the modified shift schedule will be required
to work on City paid holidays when their regular schedule shift occurs on that day.
Those employees required to work on a City holiday as a result of the shift schedule
will receive pay in lieu of time off. The Fire Department shall continue its long-standing
practice of using sworn Fire Captains as Fire Investigators.

The Fire Department will attempt to maintain staffing levels of the Investigations
Section, in order to provide for investigatory needs of the Department. Any future
proposed staffing level recommendations will be discussed through the
labor/management process. A maximum of one vacation shift will be allowed per shift
for those employees assigned to the modified A, B, C shift schedule, unless pre-
approved by department head or designee.

D. When an employee is required to change from one type of a schedule to another by
the Fire Department, the Department shall allow a minimum of 16 hours between
tours of duty.

E. The work week for employees on a 56 hour schedule shall be 53 hours. Employees
will continue to work the existing 56 hour schedule. Employees working the existing
56 hour schedule will be compensated as follows:

1. The first 53 hours will be paid at the base 56 hour rate.

2. The 54th hour will be paid at 1 ½ times the regular hourly rate.




Page 248
3. The 55th and 56th hours will be paid at 2 times the base 56 hour rate.

F. Employees attending a Department Sponsored Training Programs or courses may
be placed on one of two optional training schedules, based upon Operational,
Training, and budgetary considerations:

Schedule 1. Employees may be placed on a 40-hour work week schedule and be
entitled to a 10% increase in pay in accordance with Section 3-1 (H) of this
Memorandum of Understanding. Employees shall be paid on a 40-hour work week
until completion of the respective Training Program. In the event an employee
attending the Training Program does not receive their regular Local 493 Days (as
per Section 3-1 (I) of this Memorandum of Understanding), any missed Local 493
Days will be re-scheduled prior to the employee’s return to the Operations Division.

Schedule 2. Employees may remain on their normal Operations schedule (A, B, or
C Shift) and be provided paid Fire Department leave to attend the Training Program
when their training is scheduled on shift. When members are required to attend
training on their days off, employees will be compensated at 1 ½ times their regular
rate for the hours they are in attendance. Compensation and Local 493 Days will
remain the same as any other employee assigned to a 56-hour work week. The
decision to utilize Schedule 1 or 2 will be discussed in a labor/management setting.

G. Each 56 hour unit employee shall receive 4 shifts off per year, referred to in this
MOU as Local 493 days. This will allow for an hours reduction without specifying a
specific number of hours in this reduction or reducing current rates of pay, FLSA, or
hours reduction pay as specified in Section 4-1, Paragraph E, of Article 4. The rotation
system shall be worked out between the Fire Chief and the Union President with the
consent of the Labor Relations Division. These Local 493 Days shall be awarded
based on total seniority as a sworn member of the Fire Department.


Section 4-2. Shift Trades

Two (2) employees serving in the same classification may be granted the opportunity to
exchange shifts up to a maximum of 45 such exchanges per employee in a contract year.
Shift exchanges shall not qualify an employee for premium overtime payment and cannot
be repaid in any other form of compensation. All employees seeking shift exchanges
(AWRs) must be current with all certifications and required training before being approved
for the exchange. All shift exchanges are subject to the approval of the Fire Chief or
his/her designee and shall be in conformance with regulations issued by the Fire Chief.


Section 4-3. Filling Vacancies





Page 249
The Fire Chief will endeavor to permanently fill vacancies in regular positions, that are
duly authorized to be filled, expeditiously within limitations imposed on him by
administrative and operational factors, and thereafter, consistent with applicable Civil
Service Rules, based on length of service by classification when fitness and qualifications
of interested employees for the particular vacancy are deemed to be equal by the Fire
Chief. When requested, departmental management shall indicate the reason why an
employee was or was not transferred into a vacancy as part of Labor-Management
Committee proceedings. "Vacancy" hereunder is defined as a regular opening in any
position created by death, retirement, dismissal, promotion, demotion, creation of a new
regular position or transfer, provided, however, that with the filling of staff positions, all
applicants shall be considered, and the Fire Chief shall make the final determination.



Article 5. Benefits

Section 5-1. Health Insurance

A. The City and Union agree to maintain the current 80/20 split for health insurance for
both single and family coverage. If there is a rate increase or decrease in the second
year of this M.O.U., the City shall pay 80% of the new monthly contribution and the
employee will pay 20%.

B. In the event Congress or the State of Arizona passes legislation which considers the
amount the City contributes to health insurance premiums as imputed income, then
the City will consider such contribution as income to the employee.

C. The City shall provide the Basic Medical Reimbursement Plan (MERP) benefits to
MERP eligible Unit retirees and to those employees who are hired before August 1,
2007 and are eligible to retire no later than August 1, 2022 at no less than $202.00
per month. The City also contributes an additional $50 toward City retiree family
medical coverage; this credit is applied directly to the retiree’s premium deduction.
Any employee hired on or after August 1, 2007, regardless of years of service, may
qualify for a Post Employment Health Plan (PEHP) account.

D. Additional MERP amounts will be paid to eligible retirees for the following
categories:

RETIREE COVERAGE – RETIREE NOT ON MEDICARE
ADDITIONAL MERP AMOUNTS
Retiree or Survivor Retiree or Survivor
Retiree or Survivor
w/family coverage – with family coverage
Only NOT on
any dependent NOT – all dependent(s)
Medicare
on Medicare ON Medicare





Page 250
HMO OR PPO
$105 $325 $210
COVERAGE

RETIREE COVERAGE – RETIREE ON MEDICARE
ADDITIONAL MERP AMOUNTS
Retiree or Survivor Retiree or Survivor
Retiree or Survivor w/family coverage – with family coverage
Only - ON Medicare any dependent NOT – all dependent(s)
on Medicare ON Medicare
HMO OR PPO
$90 $195 $185
COVERAGE

These MERP amounts are what the City agrees to pay. It is solely at the discretion
of the City Manager to increase these amounts in the future.

E. During the next 12 months, the City will participate in Labor-Management meetings
to discuss alternatives to the Union’s participation in the Health Care Plans
currently provided by the City. Meetings will occur at the request of the union, not
to exceed two per month.


Section 5-2. Dental Insurance

A. The dental insurance plan shall consist of 80% payment of reasonable and customary
charges covered for preventive and diagnostic services, basic services, and major
services. The plan shall also include an orthodontia benefit providing for 80%
payment of reasonable and customary charges up to a maximum lifetime benefit of
$2,500.00 per person, maximum lifetime benefit increases to $4,000.00 per person
effective August 1, 2003. This plan is subject to the deductibles and limitations
contained in the contract between the dental insurance carrier and the City of
Phoenix. The City shall continue to pay 100% of the premium costs for single
employees for employees enrolled in the base dental HMO or PPO plan
(employee only coverage), and 75% of the premium costs for employees and their
qualified dependents (family coverage). Enrollment in prior City of Phoenix Dental
Plans counts towards major services time limit exclusions.

B. In the event Congress or the State of Arizona passes legislation that considers the
amount the City contributes to health insurance premiums as imputed income, then
the City will consider such contribution as income to the employee.


Section 5-3. Life Insurance

A. The City will continue the existing off the job and on-the job life and dismemberment
insurance coverage. The policy shall provide a benefit for each employee equal to
the member’s base annual salary. In addition, the City will continue the existing death
in the line of duty insurance of $75,000.00. Additionally, the City will provide to each




Page 251
employee a $200,000.00 death benefit covering the employee’s commutation to and
from his City work location. This policy will cover the employee’s commute for up to
2 hours before his shift begins, and 2 hours after his shift concludes.

B. In the event of the death of an employee while commuting to or from his work location,
for a period of 2 hours each way, the City will continue to pay the full monthly health
insurance premium for the spouse and all eligible dependents. This policy will be
consistent with the payment of a supplementary commutation life insurance policy for
each employee.


Section 5-4. Long Term Disability Insurance

The City will offer a long-term disability benefit for all full-time, regular unit
members/employees pursuant to A.R. 2.323 as may be amended (providing that such
amendments shall not be in conflict with the MOU). Employees who have been
continuously employed and working on a full-time basis for twelve consecutive months
are eligible to apply for long term disability coverage. After an established 90 calendar
day qualifying period, the plan will provide up to 66 2/3% of the employee's basic
monthly salary at the time disability occurs and continue up to age 75 for employees
who have been employed full-time for 36 months and one day. This benefit will be
coordinated with leave payments, industrial insurance payments, unemployment
compensation, social security benefits and disability provisions of the retirement plan.

Employees who have been employed full-time with the City of Phoenix for 36 months or
less, will be eligible to receive a long term disability benefit for no more than 30 months.


Section 5-5. Holidays, Vacations, and Donated Vacation Leave

A. Bank of Donated Leave

1. Each unit member/employee may complete a form to voluntarily donate vacation
leave time for a specified number of hours, not to exceed the maximum number
of hours as noted in Section 5-5, Subsection A, 3. These forms will be processed
on July 1, October 1, January 1, and April 1. The voluntary donation will continue
each subsequent year on the second paycheck in July, unless revoked by the
unit member/employee. This donated time is to be used by union officers and
representatives for Union-related activities as determined by the Unit 5 Union
President and Executive Board. It is recognized that all hours negotiated in lieu
of additional pay and benefits have been donated by the members of Unit 5 from
their bank of vacation leave. By filling out and submitting a voluntary donation
form, each unit member/employee is clearly and affirmatively consenting to the
donation of the stated number of hours from their bank of vacation leave.





Page 252
2. The total hours donated by the members of Unit 5 will be considered the
maximum number of hours available for donated hours under Article 5, Section
5-5.

3. The maximum number of hours that may be donated by any Unit member is 100
hours per fiscal year.

4. Only members of Unit 5 may donate hours to the Unit 5 bank of hours; Unit 5
may only accept donated hours from Unit 5 members.

5. No union member may use more than 120 hours of donated time during any one
pay period.

6. Donated time does count towards hours worked for overtime purposes.

7. Examples of work performed by representatives on member donated release in
support of the City include ensuring representation during administrative
investigations and grievance/disciplinary appeal meetings with management;
assisting unit members/employees in understanding and following work rules;
administering the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding; organizing
and participating in charity functions within the greater Phoenix area to aid our
communities. Member donated release is also used for authorized
representatives to attend Union conferences, meetings, seminars, training
classes, and workshops so that representatives better understand issues such
as City policies and practices, conflict resolution, labor-management
partnerships, and methods of effective representation, or any other purpose
authorized by the President or Executive Board.

B. The City agrees to incorporate into the Memorandum the benefits provided under
Administrative Regulation 2.11 as amended, indicating the following holidays:

1. New Year's Day
2. Martin Luther King's Birthday
3. President's Day
4. Cesar Chavez Birthday (March 31)
5. Memorial Day
6. Independence Day
7. Labor Day
8. Veteran's Day
9. Thanksgiving Day
10. Friday after Thanksgiving
11. Christmas Eve Day (6 hours for 56-hour employees and 4 hours for 40 hour
employees).
12. Christmas Day





Page 253
Employees working a 56 hour schedule shall receive 12 hours pay or compensatory
time each holiday.

C. Employees will continue to receive holiday pay while on industrial leave.

D. Effective January 1, 1987, vacation accrual for employees with less than 5 years shall
be increased to 11.2 hours per month, or the 40 hour equivalent. Vacation accrual
for all other employees shall remain the same as currently authorized.

E. Employees covered by this M.O.U. shall be permitted to sell back up to 80 hours total
per M.O.U. year of accrued vacation leave to the City at the employee's regular
straight-time hourly rate. This benefit shall not exceed a total of 80 hours and may
be used as follows: 40 hours on the last pay period in November and/or May of each
M.O.U. year. Employees will only be permitted to sell back an amount of accrued
vacation hours that would not result in their total bank of hours to drop below 150 or
210 hours, depending upon the work schedule.

F. Effective July 1, 2014, and thereafter, an employee who has accrued at least 312
hours, or 223 hours for 40 hour employees, may elect to have 252 hours of vacation
for a 56 hour unit member/employee or 180 hours of vacation for a 40 hour unit
member/employee paid out in a lump sum or converted into their comp bank. Any
unit member/employee may only elect to exercise this benefit 4 times in their career,
and not more than one time in a fiscal year. This payment is not considered Final
Average Salary for purposes of pension calculations. Eligible employees may elect
to buy back their hours between July 1 and the last pay period in January each fiscal
year.

G. Employees may donate accrued vacation leave to other City employees who are on
medical leave and who have exhausted all of their paid leave based on guidelines
contained in A.R. 2.144, with the understanding that no employee shall receive more
than 12 months of donated time.

H. Employees who have less than 40 hours vacation may buy up to 120 hours personal
leave. The cost of the personal leave shall be 110% of the employee’s base hourly
rate. Such personal leave use and purchase shall not impact positively or negatively
on the employee’s pension or any other benefits.

I. On the second paycheck in July 2019, and every year thereafter, every unit
member/employee will receive 8.5 hours of vacation time, in addition to their other
accruals, added to their vacation leave. This benefit will continue in perpetuity until
otherwise agreed upon in good faith, by Unit 5 and the City, through the Meet and
Confer process.

J. Military Leave





Page 254
Pursuant to ARS 26-168, ARS 38-610, and A.R. 2.39, employees who are
members of the Arizona National Guard or the Reserves of the United States
Armed Forces, will be entitled to a leave of absence from their duties for a period
not to exceed 30 days in two consecutive years when they are engaged in ordered
annual training or to attend camps, maneuvers, formations, or armory drills under
orders of any branch, including the reserve or auxiliary. A day is defined as a shift
of work.


Section 5-6. Uniforms

A. In lieu of the $135.00 per employee per year amount which was previously paid by
the City to the Fire Department for additional uniform items, employees will now
receive an equivalent annual uniform allowance amount of $129.75. Payment of this
uniform allowance will be made on or about August 1 of each MOU year. Such
payment will be made to cover the cost of uniforms, maintenance, and cleaning of
such uniforms.

B. New employees will receive the entire annual uniform allowance within 30 days of
the time they are directed to wear and maintain a uniform. The second uniform
allowance, received at the start of the next fiscal year, will be equal to 1/12 of the
annual uniform allowance for each month of the preceding fiscal period, starting with
the first month the employee was directed to wear and maintain a uniform, to the start
of the new fiscal year.

Prior to entering the Fire Academy, the Fire Department will furnish all new Firefighter
Recruits with the following:

• 3 long sleeve red shirts
• 3 short sleeve red shirts
(Recruits can select any combination of the long and short sleeve shirts noted
above – not to exceed a total of six red shirts)
• 3 pair of blue fatigue pants
• 5 blue physical training (PT) shorts
• 1 pair of blue sweatpants
• 1 red sweatshirt (seasonally dependent)
• 1 belt
• 1 pair of OSHA/ANSI approved work boots; and,
• All necessary PPE’s required to participate in Fire Academy functions.

The Fire Department will provide a full Class A dress uniform upon successful
completion of the Fire Academy and promotion to Firefighter to include the following:

• 1 approved Class A dress jacket complete with patches and full fitment




Page 255
• 1 approved Class A dress shirt complete with patches and full fitment
• 1 pair of approved Class A dress pants
• 1 approved Class A dress hat
• 1 approved Class A dress tie
• 1 approved Class A belt
• 1 approved Class A pair of shoes
• All approved hardware required (badges/pins etc.) to complete the approved
Class A dress uniform; and,
• All necessary PPE’s required to participate in field functions.

Additionally, any Captain RTO (Recruit Training Officer) or Firefighter Mentor
(Firefighter or Engineer) assigned to the Recruit Training Academy will be provided
a full Class A uniform (one time purchase) if the member has not already purchased
one.

Upon promotion to Fire Engineer or Fire Captain, the Fire Department will provide a
full Class A uniform to include the following:

• 1 approved Class A dress jacket complete with patches and full fitment
• 1 approved Class A dress shirt complete with patches and full fitment
• 1 pair of approved Class A dress pants
• 1 approved Class A dress hat
• 1 approved Class A dress tie; and,
• All approved hardware required (badges/pins etc.) to complete the approved
Class A dress uniform.

The Fire Department will provide a Class A uniform to the Unit 5 member as a “one
time only” purchase based upon whichever qualifying criteria previously listed is
initially met. Until all Unit 5 members have been provided a Class A dress uniform
by the Fire Department, no additional Class A dress uniforms will be issued to
members who have already received the benefit. Labor and Management will
continue to discuss funding options for additional Class A dress uniforms and the
implementation plan for the new uniform language outlined above.

Labor and Management will meet to discuss an implementation plan for the new
uniform language outlined above.

C. Employees who leave Department employment shall repay to the City the uniform
allowance equal to 1/12 of the annual allowance per month for each month remaining
in the fiscal year after the last day of the month in which the separation occurs.
Provided, however, that employees who retire after August 31 will not be requested
to repay any uniform allowance.

D. An employee who has been on extended leave (paid or unpaid) of 2 months or longer




Page 256
shall have the next annual uniform allowance reduced by 1/12 of the annual
allowance for each month of extended leave.


Section 5-7. Tuition Reimbursement

A. Employees who participate in the Tuition Assistance Program shall be eligible for
tuition reimbursement pursuant to the following provisions:

1. The maximum sum reimbursable to employees each fiscal year shall be $6,500.

2. To be eligible for any reimbursement, employees must have successfully
completed academic or training courses approved in advance by the Fire Chief
and the Human Resources Director and meet the requirements of A.R. 2.51 as
may be amended, provided such amendments are not in conflict with the M.O.U.


Section 5-8. Wellness, Health and Fitness

A. For each employee, the City of Phoenix shall contribute $2.00 per month to a fitness
fund to maintain and purchase fitness equipment for fire stations which has been
charged against Unit 5’s contract. The Fire Department will also contribute $2.00
each month per member to the fitness fund. The fund will be maintained by the City
and Fire Administration. The Health and Fitness labor management committee shall
oversee the funds and purchase equipment after reviewing input from all Fire
Department personnel.

B. The Phoenix Fire Department Honor Guard is a professional organization that
represents the Fire Department at official events, memorial services, and fire fighter’s
funerals. Through the work of the United Phoenix Fire Fighters Association, a
registered 501c-3 non-profit association (ID#866053047), the Honor Guard provides
public education and community service. Each year of this agreement, the Chief
Financial Officer will direct $25,000 to a fund maintained by the City/and managed by
Fire Administration, which is charged to the total compensation of the Unit 5 economic
package, to support the work and related expenses of maintaining the Honor Guard
for Unit 5 members only. The Union President and/or his designee will participate in
identifying expenditures through the RBO process. Expenditures shall be in line with
the general mission of the Honor Guard. Travel expenses and reimbursements must
be in accordance with City travel policies and administrative regulations.


Section 5-9. Worker’s Compensation

A. Employees who agree to participate in the Fire Department's health centers
consultation and rehabilitation programs shall continue to receive 100% of their




Page 257
current rate of pay while off-duty due to an industrial injury based on current practice
which is a maximum of 1 year per injury, thereafter the rate becomes 66-2/3%.

B. If there is a disagreement in treatment between the Fire Department physician and
the employee's physician, the (2 physicians shall agree on a third physician whose
decision shall be the final authority. Employees who refuse to adhere to the above
conditions shall only receive 66-2/3% based on current state law and the current
maximum monthly rate allowed. If an employee receives 66-2/3%, he/she may use
sick leave, vacation, or compensatory time to make up the difference between 66-
2/3% and 100%.

C. Should the Union believe that a dispute in jurisdiction is unduly delaying a Worker’s
Compensation claim, or if the Union believes the City needs to provides greater
assistance to an employee trying to reopen an old claim, the Union may request a
meeting with City Worker’s Compensation staff (provided the involved employee
signs a release to do so) and such meeting will be scheduled within 14 calendar days.

D. The City will first attempt to use physicians from specialty lists created by City of
Phoenix Pension Boards for Independent Medical Examinations for employees in
Unit 5 (represented by Phoenix Fire Fighters Association Local 493).

E. Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave shall not run concurrent with leave paid
as industrial injury/illness (e.g. Workers’ Compensation).


Section 5-10. Employee Benefit Trust Fund

A. Effective July 2016, the City will contribute $35.00 per employee, per month ($16.154
per pay period), into a fund for the purpose of providing a monthly stipend for retirees
to apply to the costs of their health and/or dental insurance, medical and dental co-
pays, prescriptions, cancer benefits for active employees not covered by the Public
Safety Retirement System’s cancer insurance and other benefits as the Trustees may
determine. This contribution will be matched by a $29.00 per pay period contribution
to the same fund by each employee.

B. The trust fund shall be managed and administered by a board of 5 trustees selected
as follows:

1. Two (2) trustees shall be appointed by the City Manager;
2. Two (2) trustees shall be appointed by the Phoenix Fire Fighters Association,
Local 493; and
3. One (1) trustee, who shall serve as chairman, shall be selected by the 4
appointees specified above.






Page 258
C. The fund shall be invested in prudent, protected investments in compliance with
applicable State and Federal laws. The Fund Managers may seek such outside
advice and consultation, as they deem appropriate.

D. The Fund Managers may adopt such rules and regulations as they deem appropriate
and are authorized to secure a formal trust instrument. The trust instrument and any
amendments there to, must be specifically approved by the City Manager and the
association before they can become effective.

E. Sums contributed to the trust shall be divided into 2 equal parts.

1. The employee’s contribution, together with all of the interest received from the
entire fund, shall be considered the first part and shall be available for distribution
as follows:

a. All retired employees shall be eligible to receive no less than $150.00 per
month from the fund to assist them with their insurance premiums.

b. Employees who retired after August 1, 1994 shall receive $75.00 per month
plus 5%, of the $75.00, for each full year they have contributed to the fund.

c. Employees who retired beginning in August 1998 through July 2000 shall
receive two hundred $250.00 per month. Employees retiring beginning in
August 2000 shall receive $200.00 per month

d. Employees who retire for any reason and have less than 12 years of service
shall receive $75.00 per month plus 5% for each full year they have contributed
to the fund or the benefits covered in Section 5-10, Paragraph (a), of Article 5
whichever is larger.

e. Effective July 8, 2004 each retired employee covered under paragraphs (b)
and (d) of Section 5-10, Article 5 shall receive up to an additional $50.00, but
no retiree shall receive more than the benefits described in Section 5-10,
Paragraph (c) of Article 5.

f. In each month any sums remaining in the first part, after the distributions
specified above, along with another $27.00 per employee, per pay period,
shall pour-over into the second part and be treated as hereinafter specified for
"second part funds." Second part funds other than interest generated from the
funds, shall be for investment purposes only and are not to be used to provide
direct benefits to active or retired members.

g. An employee who separates from the bargaining unit may apply to the fund
managers to continue participation in the fund. To become eligible to apply,
the employee must pay to the fund an amount equal to his contributions and




Page 259
the City's contributions for the entire period which he was out of the bargaining
unit, but not for anytime prior to the start up for the fund. This amount is in
addition to regular bi-weekly contributions by the employee and the City.

h. In addition to health insurance premiums, the monthly stipend may also be
used to pay for co-payments for doctor visits and hospital stays, dental
expenses, prescriptions and eye care.

2. The second part shall be the main corpus of the trust and shall be invested and
managed as specified in Section 5-10, Paragraph B, of Article 5.

F. Any fund participant who separates from the bargaining unit prior to retirement, or
who promotes out of the Unit shall receive an amount equal to all of his or her
contributions to the fund, plus interest based on the average annual interest earned
by the fund, but shall receive no other benefits and have no other claim on the fund.

G. Upon the death of any employee or retiree, the fund will provide a contribution to
assist with funeral expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 for a retired employee and
$2,500.00 for an active employee from the Trust Fund. A surviving spouse shall
continue to receive the employee’s benefit for the rest of the spouse’s life. Survivor
benefits under Section 5-10, Paragraph G, of Article 5 extend only for a surviving
spouse and neither such surviving spouse nor the decedent's estate shall have any
other claim on the fund.

H. Effective July 7, 2003, the fund will provide a long-term care benefit as the Trustees
may determine.

I. If the trust fund is terminated for any reason, undistributed funds shall be distributed
to those individuals (whether active or retired) who contributed to fund. Such
distribution shall be on a pro rata basis based upon the amount of their contribution
to the fund less any disbursements they have received under Paragraph E hereof.

J. Payments to retirees from the trust fund shall be in addition to current City
contributions to retiree health insurance premiums.



Article 6. Miscellaneous

Section 6-1. Saving Clause

A. If any Article or Section of this Memorandum should be held invalid by operation of
law or by a final judgment of any tribunal of competent jurisdiction, or if compliance
with or enforcement of any Article or Section should be restrained by such tribunal,




Page 260
the remainder of this Memorandum shall not be affected thereby. In the event the
decision of the court in Cheatham, et al v. Gordon, is stayed, reversed, vacated or
otherwise not given effect in whole or in part, by any court, then the City agrees to
meet and confer within 30 days of said ruling with Unit 5 to resolve any additional
issues resulting from the ruling of the court. The basis for negotiations will be the
document dated April 13, 2014, Proposed Unit 5 Addendum.

B. It is recognized by the parties that the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act are
currently applicable to certain of the wage and premium pay provisions of this M.O.U.,
and that this M.O.U. shall be administered in compliance with the FLSA for so long
as the Act is applicable.

C. Nothing contained in the Memorandum shall preclude the parties from being in
compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.


Section 6-2. Printing of M.O.U.

Printing vendors secured by the Union shall comply with Ordinance G-1372 (Affirmative
Action Supplier's Ordinance), as may be amended, and Ordinance G-1901 (Affirmative
Action Employment by Contractors, Subcontractors, and Suppliers), as may be amended.
Printing of the M.O.U. shall be done by a Union printer only.


Section 6-3. Fire Watch

A. Whenever a Fire Department employee is required by the Fire Marshal or requested
by a private party, to perform a fire watch, standby, or other associated duties for Fire
Code compliance, such opportunities shall first be offered to Unit
members/employees. Such work shall be offered to those members that are suitably
qualified and who volunteer for such duty during their off-duty hours within a rotation
system approved by the Fire Chief after consultation with the Union. In the event that
no employee accepts such work, or in case of emergency, such work shall be offered
to qualified non-Unit employees. It is understood that the rate of payment shall be at
1 ½ times the employee’s base 40 hour rate, except in cases where non-Unit
employees are utilized in which case payment shall be at 1 ½ times the non-Unit
employee’s base 40 hour rate. For purposes of Section 6-3, Article 6 only, the terms
"qualified" is defined as follows:

1. "Qualified" shall mean any employee of the Fire Department who is familiar with
the Fire Code and has successfully completed the Fire Watch training program
provided by the Department.

2. “Emergency” shall mean any fire watch situation that cannot be pre-scheduled.





Page 261
Section 6-4. Term and Effect of Memorandum

A. This Memorandum shall remain in full force and effect commencing with the
beginning of the first regular pay period in July 2021, up to the beginning of the first
regular pay period commencing in July 2023.

B. Except as expressly provided in this Memorandum, the City shall not be required to
meet and confer concerning any matter, whether covered or not covered herein to
take effect during the term or extensions thereof.

C. This Memorandum constitutes the total and entire agreements between the parties
and no past written or verbal statement/agreements shall supersede any of its
provisions. Throughout the term of this Memorandum, the City and the union may
jointly decide to participate in Labor-Management meetings to discuss items of
mutual interest on an as-needed basis.

D. It is intended by the parties hereto that the provisions of this Memorandum shall be
in harmony with the rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities which by law
devolve upon the City Council, City Manager, Fire Chief, and other City boards and
officials, and these provisions shall be interpreted and applied in such manner.

E. The Union recognizes the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Fire Chief as set
forth in the Charter and Ordinances and that pursuant thereto the Fire Chief has the
authority to establish rules and regulations applicable to the operation of the Fire
Department and to the conduct of the employees and officers employed therein,
subject to the express provisions of this Memorandum.

F. The lawful provisions of this Memorandum are binding upon the parties for the term
thereof. The Union having had an opportunity to raise all matters in connection with
the Meet and Confer proceedings resulting in the Memorandum is precluded from
initiating any further meeting and conferring for the term thereof relative to matters
under the control of the Fire Chief, the City Council or the City Manager.








Page 262
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands this
____ of June, 2021


_________________________________________________________________
Steve Beuerlein, President, Phoenix Fire Fighters Association Local 493


_________________________________________________________________
David Mathews, Assistant Human Resources Director, City of Phoenix


_________________________________________________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager, City of Phoenix


ATTEST:


_________________________________________________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk, City of Phoenix


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


_________________________________________________________________
City Attorney, City of Phoenix

Local 493 Team: City of Phoenix Team:
Steve Beuerlein, President David Mathews, Assistant HR Director
Bryan Willingham Daniel Seville, Assistant Fire Chief
Ed Beuerlein Mark Gonzales, Assistant Chief
PJ Dean Gerome Dunn, Division Chief
Tim West Reda Riddle-Bigler, Battalion Chief
Ben Lindquist Joey Felipe, Deputy Chief
Brian Moore Julie Taylor, Fire HR Officer
Ruben Saavedra Ariel LeBarron, Management Intern, (Scribe)
Josh Klemm
Iasha Hernandez
Tim Gammage Jr.
Scott Crowley







Page 263
ATTACHMENT A
HOURLY PAY RATES



HOURLY PAY RATES

56 HOUR 40 HOUR

Effective Effective Effective Effective
July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020 July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020

HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
FIREFIGHTER STEP STEP
RATE RATE RATE RATE
Upon Graduation
1 $16.496 $16.496 1 $25.410 $25.410
from Academy
6 Months
After Graduation 2 $16.909 $16.909 2 $26.040 $26.040
from Academy
1 ½ Years
After Graduation 3 $17.662 $17.662 3 $27.200 $27.200
from Academy
2 ½ Years
After Graduation 4 $18.209 $18.209 4 $28.050 $28.050
from Academy
3 ½ Years
After Graduation 5 $19.094 $19.094 5 $29.410 $29.410
from Academy
4 ½ Years
After Graduation 6 $20.119 $20.119 6 $30.970 $30.970
from Academy
5 ½ Years
After Graduation 7 $21.123 $21.123 7 $32.510 $32.510
from Academy
6 ½ Years
After Graduation 8 $22.215 $22.215 8 $34.230 $34.230
from Academy
7½Years
After Graduation 9 $24.032 $24.053 9 $37.011 $37.044
from Academy








Page 264
56 HOUR 40 HOUR

Effective Effective Effective Effective
July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020 July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020

FIREFIGHTER HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
PARAMEDIC RATE RATE RATE RATE
Fire Fighter upon
assignment as a 21 $21.123 $21.123 21 $32.510 $32.510
Paramedic
Fire Fighter
Paramedic after one 22 $22.215 $22.215 22 $34.230 $34.230
year
Fire Fighter
Paramedic after two 23 $23.376 $23.376 23 $35.990 $35.990
years
Fire Fighter
Paramedic after 24 $24.486 $24.486 24 $37.710 $37.710
three years
Fire Fighter
Paramedic after four 25 $26.485 $26.509 25 $40.778 $40.815
years


HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
FIREFIGHTER SO STEP STEP
RATE RATE RATE RATE
Firefighter at Step 1
31 $17.643 $17.662 31 $27.189 $27.219
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 2
32 $18.057 $18.076 32 $27.798 $27.828
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 3
33 $18.809 $18.828 33 $28.969 $28.998
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 4
34 $19.357 $19.376 34 $29.819 $29.848
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 5
35 $20.242 $20.261 35 $31.168 $31.198
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 6
36 $21.268 $21.287 36 $32.739 $32.768
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 7
37 $22.271 $22.290 37 $34.309 $34.339
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 8
38 $23.366 $23.385 38 $35.978 $36.007
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 9
39 $25.180 $25.220 39 $38.779 $38.842
upon assignment








Page 265
56 HOUR 40 HOUR

Effective Effective Effective Effective
July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020 July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020

FIREFIGHTER HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
SO/PARA RATE RATE RATE RATE
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 51 $22.271 $22.290 51 $34.309 $34.338
21 upon assignment
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 52 $23.366 $23.385 52 $35.979 $36.008
22 upon assignment
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 53 $24.525 $24.544 53 $37.769 $37.798
23 upon assignment
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 54 $25.633 $25.652 54 $39.489 $39.518
24 upon assignment
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 55 $27.633 $27.676 55 $42.568 $42.634
25 upon assignment

FIREFIGHTER HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
HMT &TRT RATE RATE RATE RATE
Firefighter at Step 1
61 $18.793 $18.831 61 $28.947 $29.006
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 2
62 $19.206 $19.244 62 $29.567 $29.626
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 3
63 $19.958 $19.996 63 $30.717 $30.776
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 4
64 $20.505 $20.543 64 $31.577 $31.636
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 5
65 $21.390 $21.428 65 $32.947 $33.006
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 6
66 $22.414 $22.452 66 $34.547 $34.606
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 7
67 $23.420 $23.458 67 $36.057 $36.116
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 8
68 $24.512 $24.550 68 $37.757 $37.816
upon assignment
Firefighter at Step 9
69 $26.328 $26.388 69 $40.548 $40.640
upon assignment








Page 266
56 HOUR 40 HOUR

Effective Effective Effective Effective
July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020 July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020

FIREFIGHTER HMT HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
&TRT/PARA RATE RATE RATE RATE
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 81 $23.420 $23.458 81 $36.057 $36.116
21 upon assignment
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 82 $24.512 $24.550 82 $37.757 $37.816
22 upon assignment
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 83 $25.672 $25.710 83 $39.537 $39.596
23 upon assignment
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 84 $26.784 $26.822 84 $41.257 $41.316
24 upon assignment
Firefighter
Paramedic at Step 85 $28.780 $28.842 85 $44.316 $44.411
25 upon assignment


HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
ENGINEER STEP STEP
RATE RATE RATE RATE
Engineer upon
1 $23.239 $23.239 1 $35.780 $35.780
promotion
Engineer six months
2 $24.450 $24.450 2 $37.660 $37.660
after promotion
Engineer one and ½
years after 3 $26.364 $26.477 3 $40.610 $40.784
promotion


ENGINEER HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
PARAMEDIC RATE RATE RATE RATE
Engineer upon
21 $26.665 $26.702 21 $41.074 $41.132
assignment
Considered for
increase on 22 $28.577 $28.728 22 $44.004 $44.235
anniversary date








Page 267
56 HOUR 40 HOUR

Effective Effective Effective Effective
July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020 July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020

HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
ENGINEER SO STEP STEP
RATE RATE RATE RATE
Engineer upon
31 $25.599 $25.618 31 $39.429 $39.458
assignment
Considered for
increase on 32 $27.514 $27.647 32 $42.389 $42.593
anniversary date


ENGINEER HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
SO/PARA RATE RATE RATE RATE
Engineer upon
51 $27.814 $27.871 51 $42.833 $42.919
assignment
Considered for
increase on 52 $29.726 $29.896 52 $45.783 $46.044
anniversary date


ENGINEER HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
HMT &TRT RATE RATE RATE RATE
Engineer upon
61 $26.748 $26.787 61 $41.197 $41.256
assignment
Considered for
increase on 62 $28.663 $28.815 62 $44.127 $44.360
anniversary date


ENGINEER HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
HMT&TRT/PARA RATE RATE RATE RATE
Engineer upon
81 $28.961 $29.037 81 $44.601 $44.717
assignment
Considered for
increase on 82 $30.875 $31.064 82 $47.551 $47.842
anniversary date

HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
CAPTAIN STEP STEP
RATE RATE RATE RATE
Captain upon
8 $25.733 $25.733 8 $39.630 $39.630
promotion
Captain after 1 year 9 $27.017 $27.017 9 $41.600 $41.600
Captain after 2 10 $29.088 $30.711 10 $44.805 $47.306




Page 268
56 HOUR 40 HOUR

Effective Effective Effective Effective
July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020 July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020

years
CAPTAIN HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
PARAMEDIC RATE RATE RATE RATE
Captain upon
21 $27.945 $27.982 21 $43.024 $43.081
assignment
Considered for
increase on 22 $29.231 $29.268 22 $45.004 $45.061
anniversary date
Considered for
increase on 23 $31.302 $32.962 23 $48.199 $50.756
anniversary date


HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
CAPTAIN SO STEP STEP
RATE RATE RATE RATE
Captain upon
31 $26.881 $26.900 31 $41.409 $41.439
assignment
Considered for
increase on 32 $28.166 $28.185 32 $43.379 $43.409
anniversary date
Considered for
increase on 33 $30.237 $31.879 33 $46.554 $49.083
anniversary date


HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
CAPTAIN SO/PARA STEP STEP
RATE RATE RATE RATE
Captain upon
51 $29.094 $29.150 51 $44.813 $44.900
assignment
Considered for
increase on 52 $30.379 $30.435 52 $46.793 $46.880
anniversary date
Considered for
increase on 53 $32.450 $34.130 53 $49.968 $52.554
anniversary date








Page 269
56 HOUR 40 HOUR

Effective Effective Effective Effective
July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020 July 1, 2019 July 13, 2020

CAPTAIN HMT HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
&TRT RATE RATE RATE RATE
Captain upon
61 $28.028 $28.066 61 $43.157 $43.216
assignment
Considered for
increase on 62 $29.314 $29.352 62 $45.137 $45.196
anniversary date
Considered for
increase on 63 $31.385 $33.047 63 $48.322 $50.881
anniversary date


CAPTAIN HMT HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY HOURLY
STEP STEP
&TRT/PARA RATE RATE RATE RATE
Captain upon
81 $30.244 $30.320 81 $46.582 $46.698
assignment
Considered for
increase on 82 $31.528 $31.604 82 $48.552 $48.668
anniversary date
Considered for
increase on 83 $33.598 $35.297 83 $51.747 $54.363
anniversary date


Progression through these steps shall be in accordance with established regulations and
the City's Pay Ordinance. It is understood that any time a member is promoted to another
classification or assigned as a firefighter paramedic and is within a pay classification
range, the member will proceed to the next higher step upon promotion or assignment.








Page 270
ATTACHMENT B
VACATION CARRYOVER

With the reinstatement of vacation buy back in FY 2021-2022, vacation carryover will be
the established maximum plus 240 hours (or the 56-hour equivalent). In FY 2022-2023,
the vacation carryover will be the established maximum plus 160 hours (or the 56-hour
equivalent).








Page 271



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Repeal and Replace Personnel Rule 22 (Ordinance S-47446)

Request City Council approval of amendments to City of Phoenix Personnel Rule 22,
Hearing Procedures. This action establishes final rules and adopts changes to update
procedures for Civil Service appeal hearings.

Summary
The proposed rule changes were developed over several years by the Civil Service
Board, with input by both City and Labor stakeholders. The proposed rule changes
are designed to provide more guidance and structure to the Civil Service Appeal
Procedures and improve current City practices (Attachment A - Personnel Rule 22).

Public Outreach
Several public meetings were conducted by the Civil Service Board, that included
stakeholders, to formally solicit comments on the proposed amendments. In
accordance with Personnel Rule 23, the proposed changes were posted on March 8,
2021 and a public hearing was conducted on March 15, 2021.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 272
Attachment A



PURPOSE – The proposed rule changes were developed over several years by the Civil
Service Board members, with input by both City and Labor stakeholders. The proposed
rule amendments are designed to provide more guidance and structure to the Civil Service
Appeal Procedures and improving current City practices.

New language to be included in the Personnel Rules is identified in all capital letters.
Deletions are indicated by strikethrough. For convenience all amendments,
including formatting changes, are highlighted.

Proposed language accomplishes the following:




Page 273
RULE 22

HEARING PROCEDURES

REPEAL AND REPLACE RULE 22

22a. Request for Hearing:
The employee shall have fourteen calendar days after date of service of
notice of the order of suspension, demotion or dismissal on them personally,
or twenty-one calendar days from the date of mailing by certified mail the
notice of the order of suspension, demotion or dismissal, to request a hearing
before the Board. The request for hearing must be in writing and must state
the specific allegations in the discipline notice with which the employee
disagrees. The request for hearing must be personally delivered to the Board
or deposited in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, addressed to the office of the Civil Service Board, within the
above-stated time.

The employee shall also immediately thereafter file copies thereof with the
complainant department head and the City Attorney. At the time the
employee files the request for hearing, the employee shall set forth whether
they desire a public or a private hearing.

Failure on the part of a suspended, demoted or dismissed employee to file a
request for hearing within the time allowed in this Rule shall terminate the
employee’s right to a hearing and the order of suspension, demotion or
dismissal made by the appointing authority shall be deemed final.

22b. Time for Hearing:
The Board shall determine if the hearing will be public or private, set the date
of the hearing and shall, when possible within thirty days, hear and determine
the matter and either affirm, modify, or revoke such order.

22c. Conduct of Hearing:
The appellant shall be entitled to appear personally, produce evidence, and
to have counsel and a public or private hearing. The appointing authority
may also be represented by counsel. All hearings and investigations before
the Board shall be governed by these rules of practice and procedure; and in
the conduct thereof, the Board shall not be bound by technical rules of
evidence, nor shall informality in any of the proceedings or in the matter of
taking testimony invalidate any order, decision, rule or regulation made or
approved by the Board.

The Board may appoint a paid hearing officer to conduct the hearing. The
conduct of the hearing and procedures shall be the same as if the Board
were holding the meeting, and shall serve as the hearing provided in these
Rules. It shall be the duty of the hearing officer, within two weeks of the
conclusion of the hearing, to forward all records and the recommendation
concerning the appeal to the Board for appropriate action.

Page 274
22d. Hearing Procedure:
A record of the charges shall be included in the minutes of the Board, and a
time and place set for a hearing. The Board shall have the power to
subpoena and require the attendance of witnesses and the production of
pertinent documents, and to administer oaths and, if necessary, to continue
the hearing from time to time. Subpoenas issued by the Board must be
served by personal service. If a Board subpoena is issued at least seven
calendar days prior to the hearing date, a party seeking service on a City
employee may contact the employee's department head for purposes of pre-
arranging a specific date, time and place during the employee's shift where
service can be completed. Upon receiving such request, it shall be the duty
of the department head to establish a date, time and place reasonably
convenient to the employee and the party seeking to serve the subpoena,
unless said employee is on leave or vacation. The order of proof in any
hearing of complaint shall be as follows:

22d1. The appointing authority, or the complainant, shall present evidence
in support of the charges.

22d2. The defendant shall then produce such evidence as they may wish
to offer in their defense.

22d3. The parties in interest may then offer rebuttal evidence.

22d4. No employee shall be disciplined or retaliated against for appealing
a disciplinary action to the Civil Service Board, or for testifying at a
Civil Service Board hearing.

If a private hearing has been approved by the Board, the Chairman of the
Board or the Hearing Officer shall clear the hearing room of all persons not
directly involved in the hearing.

If the hearing is open to the public, the Chairman of the Board or the Hearing
Officer may order that no cameras or tape recorders be operated in the
hearing room while the hearing is in progress, if in the judgment of the
Chairman or Hearing Officer, the use of such devices would be disruptive to
the hearing.

At the request of either party, the Chairman of the Board or the Hearing
Officer shall order that witnesses who will testify during the hearing be
excluded from the hearing room until such time as they testify. The City may
exclude from the operation of this provision one representative of the
appointing authority.

22e. Disposition of Appeal:
Following the hearing and such investigations as the Civil Service Board may
see fit to make, the Board shall report its finding and decision to the
appointing authority responsible for the removal, suspension, demotion, or
reduction in compensation, as specified in the notice. Thereupon the

Page 275
appointing authority shall make such final disposition of the matter as has
been determined by the Civil Service Board. The Board may at its discretion:

22e1. Order the restoration of the employee to their position with or without
loss of pay during the period between the filing of the charges and
the making of the order.

22e2. Uphold or modify the order of suspension, demotion, or dismissal.

22e3. When an employee's competency is questioned upon charges filed
by the appointing authority, the Board may require an examination of
fitness, the result of which may be taken into consideration in
determining such fact.

22f. Finding and Decision:
The finding and decision of the Board shall be final, and shall be certified to
the official from whose order the appeal is taken, and shall forthwith be
enforced and followed. If the finding and decision of the Board orders the
reinstatement of a dismissed employee without back pay, time off in excess
of thirty working days caused by the Board's hearing procedure shall not be
considered a suspension in violation of Rule 19, and shall not be
compensated.

22g. Record Filed:
A copy of the order in writing and the request for hearing, together with a
copy of the finding and decision of the Board, shall be filed as a public record
in the office of the Board.

22h. Rule Interpretation:
If a dispute arises over the interpretation of a Personnel Rule, an aggrieved
party shall file in writing a request for Rule interpretation by the Human
Resources Director. This request shall be filed within fifteen calendar days of
the date that the dispute arose. Within ten calendar days of the receipt of the
request, the Human Resources Director shall respond to the aggrieved party.
If the party is still dissatisfied with the interpretation, they may submit a
request in writing for a review by the Civil Service Board. This appeal shall
be submitted within ten days of the receipt of the Human Resources
Director's reply.

The Civil Service Board may assign a hearing officer to investigate the
complaints and the hearing officer shall submit findings to the Board within
two weeks of the completion of the investigation. The decision of the Board
shall be final.





Page 276
RULE 22

HEARING PROCEDURES

22A – DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS RULE:
22B ENFORCEMENT OF THIS RULE:
22C – COMPUTATION OF TIME UNDER THIS RULE:
22D – HEARING RIGHTS:
22E – REQUEST FOR HEARING:
22F – HEARING SCHEDULE:
22G – HEARING OFFICER ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
22H – HEARING PROCEDURE:
22I – BOARD DISPOSITION OF APPEALS:
22J – RECORD FILED:
22K – CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
22L – RULE INTERPRETATION:

22A DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS RULE:

DEFINITIONS FOUND IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX PERSONNEL RULES
REMAIN APPLICABLE TO THIS RULE 22. THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS ARE
APPLICABLE TO RULE 22 ONLY.

THE SINGULAR OF A WORD INCLUDES THE PLURAL AND THE PLURAL
INCLUDES THE SINGULAR.

“APPEAL” MEANS A WRITTEN REQUEST FILED WITH THE BOARD
BY AN ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEE TO CHALLENGE A QUALIFIED
DISCIPLINARY ACTION THAT HAS BEEN TIMELY FILED AND MEETS
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RULE.

“CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICER” MEANS AN EMPLOYEE OF A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHO HAS MET THE QUALIFICATIONS,
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR
CERTIFICATION BY THE ARIZONA PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND
TRAINING BOARD.

“FOR CAUSE” MEANS THE EMPLOYEE’S FAILURE TO MEET THE
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, DUTIES, OR WORK PERFORMANCE FOR
THE REASONS LISTED IN RULE 21 OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX
PERSONNEL RULES.

“HEARING” MEANS A PROCEEDING CONDUCTED BY A HEARING OFFICER
TO HEAR AND EVALUATE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES AS
PART OF A CHALLENGE TO A QUALIFIED DISCIPLINARY ACTION FROM
WHICH A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS MADE TO THE BOARD.

“HEARING OFFICER” MEANS AN ARBITRATOR, FACT FINDER, OR OTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER HIRED BY THE BOARD TO PRESIDE
OVER A HEARING OF AN APPEAL.

Page 277
“HIRING AUTHORITY” MEANS THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR OR
FUNCTION HEAD WITHIN THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR THE EMPLOYEE
FILING AN APPEAL.

“JUST CAUSE (FOR A CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICER)” HAS THE SAME
DEFINITIONS AS PROVIDED IN A.R.S. § 38-1101(7).

“POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS ORDERS” MEANS THE POLICIES
AND PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE THAT APPLY TO
THE EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE CITY OF PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT.

“PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE” MEANS THAT THE EVIDENCE AS
A WHOLE SHOWS THE FACT SOUGHT TO BE PROVED IS MORE
PROBABLE THAN NOT.

“QUALIFIED DISCIPLINARY ACTION” MEANS A SUSPENSION, DEMOTION,
OR DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE IN THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE WHO IS
ELIGIBLE TO PURSUE AN APPEAL.

22B ENFORCEMENT OF THIS RULE:

ANY ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THESE RULES SHALL FIRST BE BROUGHT
TO THE ATTENTION OF THE HEARING OFFICER ASSIGNED TO THE
APPEAL FOR CONSIDERATION. SUCH ALLEGED RULE VIOLATIONS SHALL
BE RULED ON BY THE ASSIGNED HEARING OFFICER. THESE ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OR ISSUES MAY ARISE PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE HEARING, OR DURING THE HEARING. HEARING OFFICER RULINGS
ON ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THESE RULES CAN BE APPEALED
IMMEDIATELY TO THE BOARD ONLY (1) IF BOTH PARTIES CERTIFY TO
THE HEARING OFFICER THAT THE RULING IS OF SUCH SIGNIFICANCE
THAT IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MATERIALLY PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF
ONE OR BOTH OF THE PARTIES, OR (2) THE HEARING OFFICER CERTIFIES
TO THE BOARD THAT THE RULING HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MATERIALLY
PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF ONE OR BOTH OF THE PARTIES. IF SUCH A
CERTIFICATION IS MADE TO THE BOARD, THE HEARING SHOULD BE
SUSPENDED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE BOARD’S DECISION ON
THE ISSUE. ALL OTHER RULINGS BY THE HEARING OFFICER RELATED TO
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THESE RULES WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE
BOARD AFTER THE HEARING OFFICER HAS PROVIDED THE BOARD WITH
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPEAL. THE BOARD
AND THE HEARING OFFICER HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE SUCH
SANCTIONS AS THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE
ALLEGED VIOLATION AND THE POTENTIAL PREJUDICE TO THE OPPOSING
PARTY. THE BOARD MAY ISSUE SANCTIONS UP TO AND INCLUDING
DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL, VACATING THE DISCIPLINE, OR IMPOSING
MONETARY SANCTIONS ON A PARTY, OR COUNSEL.

22C COMPUTATION OF TIME UNDER THIS RULE:

IN COMPUTING ANY PERIOD OF TIME PRESCRIBED OR ALLOWED BY
THESE RULES, THE DAY OF THE ACT OR EVENT FROM WHICH THE

Page 278
DESIGNATED PERIOD OF TIME BEGINS TO RUN WILL NOT BE INCLUDED.
THE LAST DAY OF THE PERIOD SO COMPUTED WILL BE INCLUDED
UNLESS IT IS A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY, OR A CITY OF PHOENIX
HOLIDAY, IN WHICH EVENT, THE PERIOD RUNS UNTIL 5:00 P.M. OF THE
NEXT DAY THAT IS NOT A SATURDAY, SUNDAY, OR CITY OF PHOENIX
HOLIDAY. ALL DAYS ARE CALENDAR DAYS.

22D HEARING RIGHTS:

THE EMPLOYEE PURSUING AN APPEAL SHALL BE ENTITLED TO APPEAR
PERSONALLY, TO HAVE COUNSEL OR A REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR
CHOOSING AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, PRODUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE,
AND TO HAVE A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE HEARING. THE HIRING AUTHORITY
MAY ALSO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. ALL HEARINGS AND
INVESTIGATIONS BEFORE THE BOARD SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THESE
RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE; AND IN THE CONDUCT
THEREOF, THE BOARD SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY TECHNICAL RULES OF
EVIDENCE, NOR SHALL INFORMALITY IN ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OR
IN THE MATTER OF TAKING TESTIMONY INVALIDATE ANY ORDER,
DECISION, RULE OR REGULATION MADE OR APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

THE BOARD MAY APPOINT A PAID HEARING OFFICER TO CONDUCT THE
HEARING.

22E REQUEST FOR HEARING:

1. APPEAL PROCEDURES. AN EMPLOYEE IN THE CLASSIFIED
SERVICE MUST FOLLOW THESE PROCEDURES TO APPEAL A
QUALIFIED DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO THE BOARD.

2. FILING OF APPEAL. A NOTICE OF QUALIFIED DISCIPLINARY
ACTION, GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS A DISCIPLINE NOTICE OR
A LETTER OF DISCIPLINE, MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE
EMPLOYEE BY HAND OR SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. IF NOTICE OF
QUALIFIED DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS HAND DELIVERED TO THE
EMPLOYEE, THE EMPLOYEE MUST FILE AN APPEAL OF
DISCIPLINE IN WRITING WITHIN 14 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE
NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE. IF NOTICE OF QUALIFIED DISCIPLINARY
ACTION IS DELIVERED BY CERTIFIED MAIL, AN EMPLOYEE MUST
FILE AN APPEAL OF DISCIPLINE IN WRITING WITHIN 21 DAYS OF
THE DATE THE NOTICE OF DISCIPLINE WAS MAILED. AN APPEAL
OF QUALIFIED DISCIPLINE MUST BE IN WRITING AND MAY BE
HAND DELIVERED TO THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OR SENT BY
E-MAIL, OR SENT BY FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL POSTMARKED BY
THE APPLICABLE DEADLINE. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY WILL
PROVIDE A COPY OF THE APPEAL TO THE HIRING AUTHORITY
AND CITY ATTORNEY.

3. APPEAL REQUIREMENTS. A WRITTEN APPEAL MUST INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION:


Page 279
A. THE NAME, ADDRESS, EMAIL ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE
NUMBER OF THE EMPLOYEE WHO REQUESTS THE APPEAL,
AND THE NAME, ADDRESS, EMAIL ADDRESS, AND
TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE EMPLOYEE’S
REPRESENTATIVE IF THE EMPLOYEE IS REPRESENTED.

B. THE EMPLOYEE SHALL SPECIFY IN THE WRITTEN APPEAL
WHETHER THEY ARE ASSERTING THAT THEY DID NOT
COMMIT THE ALLEGED VIOLATION(S), OR THAT THE
DISCIPLINE IMPOSED IS TOO SEVERE, OR BOTH. A FORM
THAT CAN BE USED TO SUBMIT AN APPEAL WILL BE
PROVIDED TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO PURSUE
AN APPEAL WITH THE DISCIPLINE NOTICE.

C. THE EMPLOYEE’S PREFERENCE FOR A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
HEARING.

D. IF THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT MAY WARRANT
AN EXPEDITED HEARING, A REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED
HEARING MUST BE MADE AT THE TIME THE WRITTEN
APPEAL IS FIRST FILED, AND THE APPEAL MUST INCLUDE
THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL GROUNDS FOR AN EXPEDITED
HEARING. ANY REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING
WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY AS
PART OF THE HEARING OFFICER ASSIGNMENT PROCESS.

4. FAILURE TO TIMELY APPEAL. FAILURE ON THE PART OF A
SUSPENDED, DEMOTED OR DISMISSED EMPLOYEE TO FILE A
REQUEST FOR HEARING WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED IN THIS RULE
SHALL TERMINATE THE EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO A HEARING AND
THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION, DEMOTION OR DISMISSAL MADE BY
THE HIRING AUTHORITY SHALL BE DEEMED FINAL.

22F HEARING SCHEDULE:

1. SCHEDULING OF HEARING. UPON RECEIPT OF A TIMELY AND
PROPERLY SUBMITTED APPEAL, THE RECORDING SECRETARY
WILL ASSIGN EACH APPEAL A DOCKET CONTROL NUMBER. THE
RECORDING SECRETARY WILL REQUEST FIVE AVAILABLE DATES
DURING A SPECIFIED TIMEFRAME FOR THE HEARING FROM THE
PARTIES. THE PARTIES SHALL RESPOND AS SOON AS
REASONABLY POSSIBLE, HOWEVER, THE HEARING OFFICER AND
THE HEARING DATE WILL BE ASSIGNED AT THE EXPIRATION OF
14 DAYS. HEARING OFFICERS WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THE
GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE ON A ROTATING BASIS, BUT ALSO
CONSISTENT WITH THEIR AVAILABILITY ON THE DATE(S)
PROPOSED BY THE PARTIES. THE RECORDING SECRETARY WILL
INFORM THE PARTIES ABOUT THE ASSIGNED HEARING OFFICER
AND HEARING DATE. THE RECORDING SECRETARY WILL MAINTAIN
THE APPEAL DOCKET, ALL LEGAL PAPERS, DOCUMENTS AND


Page 280
OTHER INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES AS PART OF
THE APPEAL, AND THE RECORD ON APPEAL.

2. CITY DISCLOSURE. WITHIN 14 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF AN APPEAL,
THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE TO THE APPELLANT A COPY OF THE
DISCIPLINARY FILE MAINTAINED BY THE HIRING AUTHORITY IN
ISSUING THE DISCIPLINE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL.
PRODUCTION OF THESE DOCUMENTS DOES NOT LIMIT THE
EXHIBITS THAT CAN BE USED AT THE HEARING.

3. LENGTH OF HEARING. THE PRESUMED LENGTH OF THE
HEARING FOR AN APPEAL IS ONE DAY, OR LESS. IF EITHER OF
THE PARTIES REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT THE HEARING WILL
TAKE MORE THAN ONE DAY, THE PARTY SEEKING THE LONGER
HEARING WILL INFORM THE RECORDING SECRETARY NOT LATER
THAN 14 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING OFFICER IS ASSIGNED. THE
PARTIES SHALL THEN PARTICIPATE IN A SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE WITH THE HEARING OFFICER AS DIRECTED IN
RULE 22F4.

4. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. FOR HEARINGS PREDICTED TO
TAKE MORE THAN ONE DAY, THE HEARING OFFICER AND THE
PARTIES’ REPRESENTATIVES, OR THE EMPLOYEE IF THEY ARE
NOT REPRESENTED, SHALL PARTICIPATE IN A TELEPHONIC, OR
IN PERSON, SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. THE PURPOSE OF THE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE IS TO CONFIRM THE TIME, DATE,
AND PLACE OF THE HEARING, RESOLVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT
THE DEADLINES ESTABLISHED IN THE STANDARD SCHEDULING
ORDER REQUIRED BY RULE 22F6, RULE ON ANY REQUEST FOR
AN EXPEDITED HEARING, AND DISCUSS THE EXCHANGE OF
DOCUMENTS, WITNESS INFORMATION, AND POTENTIAL
EXHIBITS.

5. SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM. EXCEPT FOR GOOD CAUSE
SHOWN, OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, NO LATER THAN 45
DAYS BEFORE A SCHEDULED HEARING, EITHER PARTY MAY
REQUEST THAT THE RECORDING SECRETARY ISSUE A
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS OR OTHER MATERIALS. THE DOCUMENTS OR
ITEMS REQUESTED THROUGH THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
WILL BE PRODUCED NO LATER THAN 21 DAYS AFTER SERVICE
OF THE SUBPOENA.

A. ANY PARTY REQUESTING A SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
MUST PROVIDE A COPY OF THE REQUEST TO THE OTHER
PARTY AT THE TIME THE REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
THE SUBPOENA IS MADE.

B. THE PARTY WHO WOULD BE RESPONDING TO THE
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM HAS 7 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF
THE REQUEST FOR THE SUBPOENA, OR SERVICE OF THE

Page 281
SUBPOENA , WHICHEVER IS SOONER, TO SUBMIT WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE HEARING OFFICER. THE PARTY
REQUESTING THE SUBPOENA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUBMIT
A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTIONS. THE
HEARING OFFICER SHALL RULE ON THE OBJECTIONS AS
SOON AS PRACTICAL AND MAY SET A TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE WITH THE PARTIES TO DISCUSS THE
OBJECTIONS. THE HEARING OFFICER HAS THE AUTHORITY
TO UPHOLD THE OBJECTIONS AND REFUSE TO ISSUE, OR
WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA, MODIFY THE SCOPE OF THE
SUBPOENA, OR OVERRULE THE OBJECTIONS AND ISSUE
THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AS SUBMITTED.

C. SERVICE OF THE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM MAY BE BY
CERTIFIED MAIL, OR EMAIL TO THE PARTY, OR THE
PARTY’S REPRESENTATIVE.

6. STANDARD SCHEDULING ORDER. WITHIN 3 DAYS AFTER THE
HEARING DATE HAS BEEN SET, THE RECORDING SECRETARY WILL
PROVIDE TO THE PARTIES A STANDARD SCHEDULING ORDER. THE
STANDARD SCHEDULING ORDER WILL SET OUT THE FOLLOWING:

A. THE DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR THE HEARING.

B. EXCHANGE OF WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS. NO LATER THAN
14 DAYS BEFORE A SCHEDULED HEARING, THE PARTIES
WILL EXCHANGE THE NAMES AND CONTACT INFORMATION
FOR ALL WITNESSES, A BRIEF SUMMARY OF EACH
WITNESS’ PROPOSED TESTIMONY, AND COPIES OF ALL
DOCUMENTS OR EXHIBITS THE PARTY ANTICIPATES
OFFERING INTO EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING.

C. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION. ANY SUPPLEMENTAL
HEARING INFORMATION MUST BE EXCHANGED BY THE
PARTIES NO LATER THAN 7 DAYS BEFORE A SCHEDULED
HEARING.

D. EXCEPT FOR GOOD CAUSE AS DETERMINED BY THE
HEARING OFFICER, A PARTY IS PROHIBITED FROM
PRESENTING ANY WITNESS OR EXHIBIT THAT WAS NOT
TIMELY DISCLOSED AND EXCHANGED.

E. FILING OF WRITTEN MOTIONS. IF ANY PARTY
ANTICIPATES FILING A WRITTEN MOTION PRIOR TO THE
HEARING, THE HEARING OFFICER WILL SPECIFY A
SCHEDULE FOR FILING ANY WRITTEN MOTIONS. ALL
PRE-HEARING MOTIONS MUST BE FILED 10 DAYS PRIOR
TO THE SCHEDULED HEARING TO ALLOW AT LEAST 5
DAYS FOR THE OPPOSING PARTY TO RESPOND. THIS
PROVISION IS NOT INTENDED TO PRECLUDE ORAL


Page 282
MOTIONS, OR OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE, THAT MAY
ARISE AT THE START OF, OR DURING, THE HEARING.

F. REQUEST FOR SUBPOENAS. NO LATER THAN 5 DAYS
BEFORE A SCHEDULED HEARING, A PARTY SHALL
SUBMIT ALL REQUESTS FOR SUBPOENAS FOR THE
APPEARANCE OF WITNESSES TO THE RECORDING
SECRETARY. ANY PARTY REQUESTING A SUBPOENA
MUST PROVIDE A COPY OF THE REQUEST TO THE
OTHER PARTY AT THE SAME TIME THE REQUEST IS
MADE. THE RECORDING SECRETARY WILL NOT ISSUE
THE SUBPOENA ABSENT CONFIRMATION THAT THE
OTHER PARTY HAS RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE REQUEST.

7. OBJECTION TO PROPOSED HEARING OFFICER. ANY OBJECTION
TO AN ASSIGNED HEARING OFFICER FOR AN APPEAL MUST BE
FILED WITH THE RECORDING SECRETARY NO LATER THAN 14
DAYS FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE THAT IDENTIFIES THE ASSIGNED
HEARING OFFICER, OR SUCH OBJECTION SHALL BE DEEMED
WAIVED. IF AN OBJECTION IS MADE, THE RECORDING SECRETARY
WILL ASSIGN A NEW HEARING OFFICER. AFTER THE NEW HEARING
OFFICER IS ASSIGNED, THE PARTY THAT DID NOT OBJECT TO THE
ORIGINAL HEARING OFFICER MAY OBJECT TO THE NEW HEARING
OFFICER WITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE NOTICE OF THE NEW HEARING
OFFICER. IF ANY OBJECTION IS MADE, THE RECORDING
SECRETARY WILL ASSIGN A DIFFERENT HEARING OFFICER. EACH
SIDE MAY SUBMIT ONLY ONE OBJECTION TO AN ASSIGNED
HEARING OFFICER FOR EACH APPEAL. THERE SHALL BE NO
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE OF THE ASSIGNED HEARING OFFICER
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES.

8. REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING. AFTER THE ASSIGNMENT OF
THE HEARING OFFICER, THE HEARING OFFICER WILL RULE ON
ANY REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED HEARING. IF THE REQUEST IS
GRANTED, TO THE EXTENT ALL PARTIES AND A HEARING OFFICER
ARE AVAILABLE AND AGREE, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, THE
EXPEDITED HEARING WILL BE PLACED IN PRIORITY ORDER FOR
SCHEDULING AND TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY, THE OTHER TIME
LIMITS SET FORTH IN THIS RULE MAY BE MODIFIED.

9. REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING. EACH PARTY MAY REQUEST
TO CONTINUE A SCHEDULED HEARING FOR GOOD CAUSE BY
PROVIDING A WRITTEN MOTION. SAID MOTION IS TO BE
PROVIDED TO THE ASSIGNED HEARING OFFICER, THE
RECORDING SECRETARY, AND TO THE OPPOSING PARTY. IF THE
REQUEST TO CONTINUE IS BASED ON THE LACK OF AVAILABILITY
OF A MATERIAL WITNESS DUE TO VACATION OR OTHER
IDENTIFIED SCHEDULE CONFLICT, THE WRITTEN REQUEST MUST
BE MADE WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE RECORDING SECRETARY
OR THE HEARING OFFICER SETS THE HEARING DATE. EACH

Page 283
WRITTEN REQUEST MUST INCLUDE DETAILED INFORMATION TO
SUPPORT THE CONTINUANCE, CONFIRM THE OPPOSING PARTY
HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE REQUEST, AND LIST ALTERNATIVE
HEARING DATE(S). THE OPPOSING PARTY SHALL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO AGREE TO THE REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE
HEARING, OR OBJECT. THE ASSIGNED HEARING OFFICER MAY
GRANT OR DENY THE REQUEST WITH OR WITHOUT ARGUMENT.
ORAL ARGUMENT MAY BE CONDUCTED BY TELEPHONE
CONFERENCE. EMERGENCY REQUESTS MADE LESS THAN 28
DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING MAY BE HANDLED BY A
CONFERENCE CALL BEFORE A WRITTEN MOTION IS FILED AND
SHOULD ONLY BE GRANTED FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN. THE
PARTY MAKING THE EMERGENCY REQUEST SHOULD SUBMIT THE
REQUEST IN WRITING AFTER THE EMERGENCY CALL, AND
INCLUDE THE SAME INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR ALL OTHER
MOTIONS. IF THE GRANTING, OR FAILURE TO GRANT, AN
EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE IS OF SUCH
SIGNIFICANCE THAT IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MATERIALLY
PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF ONE, OR BOTH, OF THE PARTIES, THE
AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY APPEAL THAT RULING TO THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE BOARD, OR IN THEIR ABSENCE, THE VICE CHAIRMAN,
WHO SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY ON THEIR OWN TO AFFIRM OR
MODIFY THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER ON THE
EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE. A DELAY IN A
RESPONSE TO A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, OR PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUEST, SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED GOOD CAUSE
FOR A CONTINUANCE.

10. SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS. SUBPOENAS ISSUED BY THE BOARD
FOR THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES MUST BE SERVED BY
PERSONAL SERVICE, UNLESS ALTERNATIVE MEANS HAVE BEEN
AGREED TO BY THE WITNESS OR A PARTY. IF A BOARD
SUBPOENA IS ISSUED AT LEAST 5 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
HEARING DATE, A PARTY SEEKING SERVICE ON A CITY EMPLOYEE
MAY CONTACT THE HUMAN RESOURCES REPRESENTATIVE FOR
THE EMPLOYEE'S DEPARTMENT FOR PURPOSES OF PRE-
ARRANGING A SPECIFIC DATE, TIME AND PLACE DURING THE
EMPLOYEE'S SHIFT WHERE SERVICE CAN BE COMPLETED. UPON
RECEIVING SUCH REQUEST, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE
DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH A DATE, TIME AND PLACE
REASONABLY CONVENIENT TO THE EMPLOYEE AND THE PARTY
SEEKING TO SERVE THE SUBPOENA, UNLESS SAID EMPLOYEE IS
ON LEAVE OR VACATION.

22G HEARING OFFICER ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

1. HEARING OFFICER RESPONSIBILITIES. THE HEARING OFFICER
SHALL HEAR AND REVIEW ALL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE
HEARING, HEAR ALL ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES, MAKE
FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECOMMEND WHETHER TO SUSTAIN,

Page 284
MODIFY, OR RESCIND THE DISCIPLINE. THE HEARING OFFICER
PRESIDING OVER A HEARING SHALL POSSESS ALL POWER
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO CONDUCT A FULL, FAIR, AND
IMPARTIAL HEARING, INCLUDING THE POWER TO EXCLUDE
IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL, OR UNDULY REPETITIVE EVIDENCE,
WITNESSES, OR EXHIBITS. THIS POWER INCLUDES BUT IS NOT
LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

A. TO ADMINISTER OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS;

B. TO RECEIVE RELEVANT EVIDENCE;

C. TO RULE UPON EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS AND CONSIDER
OFFERS OF PROOF;

D. TO REGULATE THE COURSE OF THE HEARING AND THE
CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES;

E. SET REASONABLE TIME LIMITS FOR THE PRESENTATION
OF EVIDENCE BASED ON THE NATURE AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEAL.

F. TO RULE ON REQUESTS FOR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY
WHERE WITNESSES CANNOT ATTEND AS A RESULT OF
UNDUE HARDSHIP, PROVIDING THAT THE TELEPHONIC
TESTIMONY WILL NOT CAUSE UNDUE PREJUDICE TO ANY
PARTY AND THE PROPONENT OF THE TELEPHONIC
TESTIMONY ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS;

G. TO CONSIDER AND RULE UPON PROCEDURAL REQUESTS;

H. TO SANCTION PARTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THESE RULES,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXCLUDING
UNDISCLOSED WITNESSES OR EXHIBITS, LIMITING
TESTIMONY OR LIMITING CLAIMS OR DEFENSES, OR
ISSUING MONETARY SANCTIONS. SEE RULE 22B.

I. TO EXAMINE WITNESSES AND DIRECT WITNESSES TO
TESTIFY, LIMIT REPETITIVE OR CUMULATIVE TESTIMONY,
AND SET REASONABLE LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME
EACH WITNESS MAY TESTIFY BASED ON THE NATURE
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEAL;

J. TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING AT SUCH TIME AS ALL
RELEVANT TESTIMONY HAS BEEN PRESENTED; AND,

K. TO RULE ON OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM
IN ORDER TO KEEP DISCOVERY WITHIN REASONABLE
LIMITS.



Page 285
2. HEARING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. THE
HEARING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE ALL RECORDS AND A
WRITTEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
RECORDING SECRETARY WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE
CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. THE RECORDING SECRETARY
WILL DELIVER A COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION TO EACH
PARTY AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN 2 DAYS OF
RECEIPT OF THE HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT.

3. CONTENTS OF HEARING OFFICER REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION. THE HEARING OFFICER’S WRITTEN
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SHALL CONTAIN:

A. DATE OR DATES OF THE HEARING.

B. NAME OF EMPLOYEE WHO IS APPEALING THE DISCIPLINE.

C. DISCIPLINE BEING APPEALED.

D. NAME OF EMPLOYEE’S REPRESENTATIVE, IF ANY.

E. NAME OF CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE.

F. ADMINISTRATIVE AND/OR PERSONNEL RULES CITED.

G. WHETHER THE HEARING WAS PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.

H. LIST OF ALL WITNESSES (CITY AND APPELLANT).

I. LIST OF ALL EXHIBITS ADMITTED (CITY AND APPELLANT).

J. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE/DISCIPLINE BEING
PRESENTED.

K. A SUMMARY OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE PRESENTED.

L. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF FACT BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED DURING THE HEARING.

M. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES.

N. HEARING OFFICER’S CONCLUSIONS.

O. FOR CAUSE FINDING OR A FAILURE TO FIND CAUSE
(JUST CAUSE FOR A POLICE OFFICER).

P. FINAL RECOMMENDATION, INCLUDING WHETHER THE
DISCIPLINE IMPOSED WAS APPROPRIATE, OR SHOULD
BE MODIFIED OR RESCINDED.





Page 286
22H HEARING PROCEDURE:

1. EX PARTE COMMUNICATION PROHIBITED. A PARTY SHALL NOT
COMMUNICATE WITH THE HEARING OFFICER REGARDING THE
MERITS OF A CASE EXCEPT: 1) IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL PARTIES
TO THE HEARING INCLUDING A TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE; OR 2)
UNLESS ALL PARTIES TO THE HEARING ARE NOTIFIED OF THE
COMMUNICATION IN ADVANCE. THE HEARING OFFICER SHALL
NOT INITIATE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH ANY INTERESTED
PERSON OR PARTY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN REFERENCE TO
ANY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE ON THE APPEAL.

2. ROUTINE MATTERS. NOTHING SHALL PREVENT THE HEARING
OFFICER FROM COMMUNICATING ABOUT ROUTINE MATTERS
SUCH AS REQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES OR MOTIONS, AS LONG
AS ALL PARTIES ARE INFORMED OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
COMMUNICATION. THE DATE AND TYPE OF COMMUNICATION, THE
PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE RESULTS OF SUCH ROUTINE
COMMUNICATIONS SHALL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD.

3. ORDER OF HEARING. THE HEARING OFFICER SHALL MANAGE THE
ORDER OF THE HEARING AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE
INCLUDING TAKING WITNESSES OUT OF ORDER. AS A GENERAL
MATTER, THE ORDER OF THE HEARING SHALL BE:

A. HEARING OFFICER TO IDENTIFY THE APPEAL,
IDENTIFY PARTIES PRESENT, AND WITNESSES FOR
THE RECORD.

B. STIPULATIONS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD.

C. PRESENTATION, ARGUMENT, AND DISPOSITION OF
MOTIONS PRELIMINARY TO THE HEARING.

D. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CITY, UNLESS WAIVED.

E. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE EMPLOYEE, UNLESS WAIVED
OR RESERVED UNTIL AFTER THE CITY HAS PRESENTED ITS
CASE.

F. PRESENTATION OF THE CITY’S CASE.

G. PRESENTATION OF THE EMPLOYEE’S CASE.

H. REBUTTAL TESTIMONY BY THE CITY.

I. ALL WITNESSES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO CROSS EXAMINATION
AT THE TIME THEY TESTIFY, SCHEDULES PERMITTING. THE
PARTY CALLING THE WITNESS IS ALLOWED TO QUESTION THE
WITNESS ON REDIRECT AFTER CROSS EXAMINATION, BUT



Page 287
REDIRECT TESTIMONY SHALL BE LIMITED TO MATTERS
RAISED DURING CROSS EXAMINATION.

J. CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY THE CITY.

K. CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY THE EMPLOYEE.

L. REBUTTAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY THE CITY.

4. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HEARINGS. HEARINGS SHALL BE OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE REQUESTS A PRIVATE
HEARING. ANY EMPLOYEE REQUEST THAT THE HEARING BE
PRIVATE MUST BE MADE NO LATER THAN 14 DAYS PRIOR TO
THE HEARING DATE. ONCE THE PRIVATE HEARING OPTION IS
SELECTED, IT CANNOT BE CHANGED BY THE APPELLANT LESS
THAN 14 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING. IN THE EVENT OF A
PRIVATE HEARING, THE HEARING OFFICER SHALL CLEAR THE
ROOM OF ALL PERSONS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE
HEARING. IF THE HEARING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, THE HEARING
OFFICER OR BOARD CHAIRPERSON MAY ORDER THAT NO
CAMERAS OR RECORDING TAKE PLACE IF IT IS DEEMED TO BE
DISRUPTIVE TO A FAIR HEARING PROCESS. THE HEARING
OFFICER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO LIMIT, OR PROHIBIT, THE USE
OF CELL PHONES WHILE TESTIMONY IS BEING TAKEN.

5. RECORDING OF HEARINGS. ALL HEARINGS, AND TO THE
GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, CONFERENCES BETWEEN THE
HEARING OFFICER AND THE PARTIES, SHALL BE RECORDED BY
AN AUDIO RECORDING DEVICE. IF EITHER PARTY DESIRES, A
COURT REPORTER MAY TAKE DOWN THE PROCEEDINGS. THE
PARTY REQUESTING A COURT REPORTER MUST MAKE
ARRANGEMENTS FOR AND PAY THE COURT REPORTER. IF A
CONFERENCE WITH THE HEARING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN
RECORDED, THE HEARING OFFICER WILL CREATE A WRITTEN
RECORD OF THE ISSUES DISCUSSED AND THE OUTCOME OF THE
CONFERENCE FOR THE RECORD.

6. EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES. WITNESSES SHALL BE EXCLUDED
FROM THE HEARING ROOM AT THE REQUEST OF EITHER PARTY,
OR BY THE HEARING OFFICER. WHEN EXCLUSION OF WITNESSES
HAS BEEN REQUESTED, THE CITY MAY HAVE COUNSEL AND A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HIRING AUTHORITY PRESENT AND THE
APPEALING EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE COUNSEL AND A UNION
REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT.

7. BURDEN OF PROOF. THE CITY MUST SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF
PROOF BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.
THE RULE AND POLICY VIOLATIONS ALLEGED IN THE DISCIPLINE
NOTICE, AND ONLY THOSE RULES AND POLICY VIOLATIONS, SHALL
BE CONSIDERED BY THE HEARING OFFICER AND THE BOARD.


Page 288
8. EXCHANGE OF LEGAL PAPERS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE
RULES, PARTIES TO AN APPEAL SHALL FURNISH COPIES OF ANY
PLEADINGS, DOCUMENTS, OR WRITTEN MOTIONS TO THE OTHER
PARTY. THE HEARING OFFICER MAY REFUSE TO ADMIT ANY
DOCUMENT, PLEADING, OR MOTION THAT IS NOT TIMELY
SUBMITTED, THAT IS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE OTHER PARTY, OR
THAT DOES NOT OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THESE RULES. A
DOCUMENT OR PIECE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE
ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE DURING THE HEARING MUST FIRST BE
IDENTIFIED FOR THE RECORD AND PRODUCED TO EACH PARTY
AND THE HEARING OFFICER FOR REVIEW. THE HEARING OFFICER
RETAINS THE DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AS
NECESSARY.

9. RECORDED INFORMATION. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
OFFERING PARTY TO PROVIDE THE MEANS FOR PRESENTING
ANY AUDIO OR VIDEO EVIDENCE BEING OFFERED.

10. CONDUCT OF PARTIES AND WITNESSES. AT ALL TIMES DURING A
HEARING, THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL ARE EXPECTED TO
OBSERVE PROFESSIONAL AND RESPECTFUL CONDUCT. EACH
PARTY MUST TREAT ALL OTHER PARTIES AND WITNESSES WITH
COURTESY, RESPECT AND DIGNITY.

11. RETALIATION PROHIBITED. NO EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DISCIPLINED
OR RETALIATED AGAINST FOR APPEALING A DISCIPLINARY ACTION
TO THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, OR FOR PARTICIPATING IN A CIVIL
SERVICE BOARD PROCEEDING.

22I BOARD DISPOSITION OF APPEALS:

1. BOARD CONSIDERATION OF HEARING OFFICER REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION. THE BOARD SHALL CONSIDER AND RULE
UPON THE APPEAL AT EITHER A REGULARLY SCHEDULED, OR
SPECIAL MEETING, OF THE BOARD FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES
OUTLINED IN THIS RULE.

2. HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT. THE HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PARTIES
OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WITHIN TWO DAYS AFTER THE
RECORDING SECRETARY RECEIVES THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HEARING OFFICER. THE HEARING
OFFICER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WILL BE PROVIDED
TO THE BOARD MEMBERS PRIOR TO THE BOARD MEETING
DURING WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AND DECIDED.

3. EXHIBITS. THE RECORDING SECRETARY WILL HAVE AVAILABLE
AT THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE BOARD ALL EXHIBITS THAT
WERE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE BY THE HEARING OFFICER.
EXCEPT FOR AUDIO RECORDINGS OR VIDEO EXHIBITS, EITHER


Page 289
PARTY MAY PRESENT TO THE BOARD COPIES OF EXHIBITS
ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE BY THE HEARING OFFICER.

4. USE OF RECORDED INFORMATION BEFORE THE BOARD. IF EITHER
PARTY WISHES TO PRESENT AN AUDIO OR VIDEO RECORDING TO
THE BOARD THAT WAS ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE BY THE HEARING
OFFICER, THE PARTY PROPOSING TO USE THE RECORDING OR
VIDEO MUST INFORM THE OTHER PARTIES NO LESS THAN 7 DAYS
BEFORE THE BOARD MEETING. IF ANY PARTY OBJECTS TO THE
USE OF THE AUDIO OR VIDEO, THE PARTIES ARE REQUIRED TO
ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THEIR OBJECTIONS. IF THERE HAS BEEN
TIMELY DISCLOSURE, BUT THERE ARE UNRESOLVED OBJECTIONS,
THOSE OBJECTIONS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR
ITS DETERMINATION. IF THE OFFERING PARTY FAILS TO TIMELY
DISCLOSE ITS INTENTION TO USE THE AUDIO OR VIDEO AT THE
BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD SHALL NOT HEAR THE AUDIO
RECORDING, OR ALLOW THE VIDEO TO BE USED, IN THE ABSENCE
OF GOOD CAUSE.

5. PRESENTATION BY PARTIES. EACH PARTY TO THE APPEAL WILL
HAVE 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THE REASONS WHY THE BOARD
SHOULD ACCEPT, MODIFY OR REJECT THE HEARING OFFICER’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ADDRESS ANY PERCEIVED
ERRORS OF FACT IN THE REPORT. THE PARTY WHO DISAGREES
WITH THE HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION SHALL
PRESENT FIRST. THE EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEE’S
REPRESENTATIVE, BUT NOT BOTH, MAY ADDRESS THE BOARD.
THE CHAIRPERSON MAY PERMIT MORE TIME FOR EACH OF THE
PARTIES IF A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS DEEM IT
BENEFICIAL. NO PARTY, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYEE, MAY
PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AT
THE HEARING. NOTHING IN THIS RULE PRECLUDES EITHER
PARTY FROM SUBMITTING TO THE BOARD ANY ISSUE RELATED
TO A DECISION MADE BY THE HEARING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE
THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS, OR TO FAIL TO ADMIT AN EXHIBIT
OFFERED DURING THE HEARING.

6. PRESENCE OF PARTIES. THE APPEALING EMPLOYEE AND/OR HIS
OR HER REPRESENTATIVE, AND A CITY REPRESENTATIVE, ARE
EXPECTED TO BE PRESENT AT THE BOARD MEETING WHEN THE
APPEAL IS SCHEDULED TO BE CONSIDERED. IF EITHER PARTY OR
A REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT PRESENT AT THE BOARD HEARING,
AND NO REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY
THE RECORDING SECRETARY, OR THE BOARD, THE BOARD CAN,
ON ITS OWN MOTION POSTPONE DECIDING THE APPEAL, OR MOVE
FORWARD AND DECIDE THE APPEAL. IF A REQUEST FOR A
CONTINUANCE HAS BEEN MADE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, THE
BOARD MAY GRANT A POSTPONEMENT.




Page 290
7. OPEN MEETING LAW. IF THE HEARING FOR THE APPEAL WAS
CONDUCTED AS A PRIVATE HEARING, UNLESS WAIVED BY THE
PARTIES, THE BOARD SHALL VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE
SESSION IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARIZONA LAW TO HEAR THE
PRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES. ALL VOTES TO RESOLVE AN
APPEAL WILL BE HELD IN OPEN SESSION. THE BOARD MAY GO
INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ANY REASON PERMITTED BY LAW
AND AS INDICATED IN THE MEETING AGENDA.

8. BOARD CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE. THE BOARD WILL
CONSIDER THE HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, THE PRESENTATION OF THE PARTIES, AND
ANY OF THE ADMITTED EXHIBITS THAT IT WANTS TO REVIEW IN
RENDERING ITS DECISION. EACH BOARD MEMBER MAY ASK
QUESTIONS OF THE PARTIES, OR OF THE HEARING OFFICER, TO
CLARIFY ANY ASPECT OF THE PRESENTATION, OR THE REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION. THE BOARD WILL NOT REQUIRE THE
HEARING OFFICER TO DEFEND THE RECOMMENDATION.

9. BOARD DISCRETION. THE BOARD MAY IN ITS DISCRETION:

A. UPHOLD, MODIFY, OR REJECT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
HEARING OFFICER.

B. DIRECT THE PREPARATION OF A TRANSCRIPT OF THE
HEARING AND REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPT AND
EXHIBITS BEFORE MAKING A DETERMINATION OF AN
APPEAL.

C. MAKE A DETERMINATION OF BACK PAY FOR TERMINATIONS
AND DEMOTIONS. THE BOARD MAY ORDER RESTORATION
OF THE EMPLOYEE TO THEIR PREVIOUS POSITION WITH OR
WITHOUT BACK PAY FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN THE
BEGINNING OF THE DISMISSAL OR DEMOTION AND THE
DECISION ON THE APPEAL. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
WHO PREVAIL ON THEIR APPEAL SHALL BE AWARDED BACK
PAY CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF A.R.S. §38-
1106.J. (2016), OR THE THEN CURRENT VERSION OF THAT
STATUTE AS AMENDED. IN MAKING A BACK PAY
DETERMINATION, THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER (A) AMOUNTS
EARNED DURING THE TIME THE EMPLOYEE WAS SEPARATED
FROM THE CITY, (B) DELAYS IN RESOLVING THE APPEAL,
AND (C) ANY OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS. IF THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD ORDERS REINSTATEMENT
WITHOUT BACK PAY, TIME OFF IN EXCESS OF 30 WORKING
DAYS CAUSED BY THE BOARD’S HEARING PROCEDURE
SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A SUSPENSION IN VIOLATION
OF PERSONNEL RULE 19 AND SHALL NOT BE COMPENSATED.
UNPAID TIME OFF IN EXCESS OF 30 DAYS WILL BE NOTED AS
UNPAID LEAVE IN THE EMPLOYEE’S RECORD.


Page 291
10. VOTING REQUIRED. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT SHALL NOT BE
EXCUSED FROM VOTING. A FAILURE TO VOTE OR A VOLUNTARY
ABSTENTION SHALL COUNT AS AN “AYE” VOTE UNLESS EXCUSED
BY AN ANNOUNCED CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IF A BOARD
MEMBER FAILS TO VOTE, OR VOLUNTARILY ABSTAINS, THE
BOARD MEMBER SHALL EXPLAIN THE REASON(S) FOR NOT
VOTING.

11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. EACH BOARD MEMBER MUST COMPLY
WITH PHOENIX CHARTER CHAPTER XI AND PROVISIONS OF
STATE LAW GOVERNING CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF OFFICERS
AND EMPLOYEES (ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES SECTIONS 38-
501 AND FOLLOWING). CONSISTENT WITH ARIZONA LAW, A
BOARD MEMBER MUST MAKE KNOWN A SUBSTANTIAL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND MUST NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY
FORM OR MANNER IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE MATTER.

12. CITY OF PHOENIX ETHICS POLICY. EACH BOARD MEMBER MUST
COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF PHOENIX ETHICS POLICY, PHOENIX
CITY CODE SECTION 2-52. ACCORDINGLY, A BOARD MEMBER
SHOULD MAINTAIN THE UTMOST STANDARDS OF PERSONAL
INTEGRITY, TRUTHFULNESS, HONESTY AND FAIRNESS IN
CARRYING OUT THEIR PUBLIC DUTIES, AVOID ANY IMPROPRIETIES
IN THEIR ROLE AS PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND NEVER USE A BOARD
POSITION OR POWER FOR IMPROPER PERSONAL GAIN.

13. TIE VOTE. IF THERE IS A TIE VOTE OF THE BOARD ON ANY
MOTION PENDING BEFORE IT, THAT MOTION SHALL BE
CONSIDERED DEFEATED. AN INITIAL TIE VOTE ON A MOTION
RELATED TO AN APPEAL DOES NOT BRING CONSIDERATION OF
THE APPEAL TO A CONCLUSION. IF THERE HAS BEEN A TIE VOTE,
THE BOARD WILL FIRST CONDUCT A VOTE ON WHETHER THE CITY
MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT CAUSE EXISTS FOR
DISCIPLINE. IF THE BOARD CONTINUES TO BE TIED, OR VOTES
NO, THEN THE EMPLOYEE PREVAILS ON THE APPEAL. IF THE
BOARD VOTES YES, IT WILL THEN VOTE TO DETERMINE THE
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE.

14. BOARD DECISION FINAL. THE FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE
BOARD SHALL BE FINAL AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO THE HIRING
AUTHORITY FOR ACTION.

22J RECORD FILED:

FOR APPEALS CONDUCTED AS PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE RECORDING
SECRETARY WILL RETAIN AS THE PUBLIC RECORD THE NOTICE OF
DISCIPLINE, THE HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, THE
EXHIBITS ADMITTED BY THE HEARING OFFICER, ANY MOTIONS FILED
DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL, THE AUDIO RECORDINGS OF BOTH
THE HEARING AND THE BOARD MEETING WHERE ACTION WAS TAKEN, AND A
RECORD OF THE FINAL ACTION OF THE BOARD. FOR APPEALS CONDUCTED

Page 292
AS PRIVATE HEARINGS, THE RECORDING SECRETARY WILL RETAIN THE
ENTIRE RECORD, BUT THE ONLY RECORDS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING WILL CONSIST OF ONLY THE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING OFFICER
ADOPTED BY THE BOARD AND A RECORD OF THE FINAL ACTION BY THE
BOARD.

22K CALL TO THE PUBLIC:

1. OPEN MEETING LAW. BOARD PROCEEDINGS ARE SUBJECT TO
THE ARIZONA OPEN MEETING LAW, A.R.S. § 38-431, ET SEQ.,
(“OPEN MEETING LAW”). FOR BOARD PROCEEDINGS THAT
SATISFY THE DEFINITION OF MEETING UNDER THE OPEN MEETING
LAW, THE BOARD MAY DISCUSS, CONSIDER, OR TAKE ACTION
ONLY THOSE MATTERS PROPERLY POSTED AND LISTED ON AN
AGENDA. EACH MEETING AGENDA MAY INCLUDE A CALL TO THE
PUBLIC WHERE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PRESENT
INFORMATION TO THE BOARD. DURING CALL TO THE PUBLIC,
BOARD MEMBERS MAY LISTEN TO THE INFORMATION, BUT MAY
NOT DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED.

2. PUBLIC SPEAKERS. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO
SPEAK DURING CALL TO THE PUBLIC MUST COMPLETE A
PUBLIC COMMENT CARD, WHICH WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT
EACH MEETING. A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD MUST BE
SUBMITTED TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE, BUT NO LATER THAN BEFORE THE CALL TO THE
PUBLIC BEGINS.

3. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR ALL SPEAKERS. THE BOARD
ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES FOR ALL SPEAKERS.
THESE GUIDELINES WILL BE AVAILABLE IN PRINT AT EACH
BOARD MEETING.

A. WHEN SPEAKING, A SPEAKER SHOULD FIRST STATE THEIR
NAME FOR THE RECORD.

B. NO PROFANITY OR THREATS WILL BE TOLERATED. EACH
SPEAKER SHOULD PRESENT COMMENTS IN A
RESPECTFUL AND COURTEOUS MANNER.

C. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER RECOGNIZED
BY THE CHAIRPERSON.

D. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING
SHOULD REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING OR OTHERWISE
CREATING DISTRACTIONS THAT PREVENT THE BOARD
FROM THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF BUSINESS.

E. COMMENTS DURING CALL TO THE PUBLIC ARE HEARD AT
THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRPERSON. A SPEAKER

Page 293
SHALL RECEIVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENTS
TO THE BOARD DURING CALL TO THE PUBLIC.

F. A SPEAKER MAY SPEAK FOR UP TO THREE MINUTES TO
MAKE COMMENTS TO THE BOARD DURING THE CALL TO
THE PUBLIC. THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS PERMITTED TO
SPEAK AT ANY MEETING WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE
CHAIRPERSON AND MAY BE LIMITED BY THE TIME OF DAY
AND ANY REMAINING AGENDA ITEMS THAT MUST BE
ADDRESSED AT THE MEETING.

G. A SPEAKER MUST ADDRESS THE BOARD AND NOT STAFF OR
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

H. WHEN THE TIME FOR A SPEAKER HAS EXPIRED, THE
CHAIRPERSON MAY ASK THE SPEAKER TO CONCLUDE
ANY COMMENTS.

22L RULE INTERPRETATION:

IF A DISPUTE ARISES OVER THE INTERPRETATION OF A PERSONNEL
RULE, AN AGGRIEVED PARTY SHALL FILE IN WRITING A REQUEST FOR
RULE INTERPRETATION BY THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR. THIS
REQUEST SHALL BE FILED WITHIN FIFTEEN CALENDAR DAYS OF THE
DATE THAT THE DISPUTE AROSE.

WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE REQUEST, THE
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR SHALL RESPOND TO THE AGGRIEVED
PARTY. IF THE PARTY IS STILL DISSATISFIED WITH THE INTERPRETATION,
HE MAY SUBMIT A REQUEST IN WRITING FOR A REVIEW BY THE CIVIL
SERVICE BOARD. THIS APPEAL SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITHIN TEN DAYS
OF THE RECEIPT OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR'S REPLY.

THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD MAY ASSIGN A HEARING OFFICER TO
INVESTIGATE THE COMPLAINTS AND THE HEARING OFFICER SHALL
SUBMIT FINDINGS TO THE BOARD WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE
COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION. THE DECISION OF THE BOARD
SHALL BE FINAL.





Page 294



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amendments to Classification Ordinance S-5815 in Accordance with Human
Resources Committee 609 Recommendations (Ordinance S-47459)

As part of a classification and compensation study, the following amendments to the
Classification Ordinance [S-5815] are recommended in accordance with the
recommendation of Human Resources Committee 609, effective July 12, 2021. The
amendments also require the City’s Pay Ordinance (S-45840) to be updated. Those
will be processed under a separate ordinance.

Modify the classification of Police Comm Operator, Job Code 01830, Salary Plan 006,
Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support,
FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 328 ($19.28 - $28.30/hourly) to Grade 331
($22.28 - $32.73/hourly).

Modify the classification assignment of Police Comm Op*Radio/911, Job Code 01832,
Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 329 ($20.23 -
$29.66/hourly) to Grade 332 ($23.33 - $34.31/hourly).

Modify the classification assignment of Police Comm Op*Lead Radio/911, Job Code
01833, Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 330 ($21.23 -
$31.21/hourly) to Grade 333 ($24.53 - $36.05/hourly).

Modify the classification of Police Communications Supv, Job Code 01870, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative
Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 032 ($23.11 - $35.26/hourly) to Grade
034 ($25.61 - $38.97/hourly).

Modify the classification of Police Comm Shift Supervisor, Job Code 01800, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative
Support, FLSA Status: Exempt, from Grade 034 ($53,268.80 - $81,057.60/annually) to
Grade 036 ($58,905.60 - $59,544.00/annually).

Modify the classification assignment of Police Comm Shift Supv*Lead, Job Code


Page 295

01801, Salary Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Exempt, from Grade 035 ($55,931.20 -
$85,176.00/annually) to Grade 037 ($61,859.20 - $94,203.20/annually).

Modify the classification of Emergency Dispatcher, Job Code 01860, Salary Plan 006,
Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support,
FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 329 ($20.23 - $29.66/hourly) to Grade 332
($23.33 - $34.31/hourly).

Modify the classification of Fire Emergency Dispatcher, Job Code 01820, Salary Plan
006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative
Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 329 ($20.23 - $29.66/hourly) to Grade
332 ($23.33 - $34.31/hourly).

Modify the classification assignment of Fire Emergency Dispatcher*Lead, Job Code
01822, Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 330 ($21.23 -
$31.21/hourly) to Grade 333 ($24.53 - $36.05/hourly).

Modify the classification of Fire Communications Supervisor, Job Code 01850, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative
Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 032 ($23.11 - $35.26/hourly) to Grade
034 ($25.61 - $38.97/hourly).

Abolish the classification assignment of Fire Comm Supervisor*Telecom, Job Code
01851, Salary Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, Grade 033
($24.39 - $37.12/hourly), EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt.

Abolish the classification assignment of Communications Dispatcher*Av, Job Code
01811, Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, Grade 326
($17.69 - $25.67/hourly), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Non-
Exempt.

Abolish the classification assignment of Aviation Supv II*Comm, Job Code 25231,
Salary Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, Grade 032 ($48,069 -
$73,341/annually), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Exempt.

Abolish the classification assignment of Emergency Dispatcher*Lead (Assignment),
Job Code 01861, Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, Grade
330 ($21.23 - $31.21/hourly), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status:
Non-Exempt.


Page 296


Establish the classification of Aviation Dispatcher, Job Code 24100, Salary Plan 006,
Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, Grade 329 ($20.23 - $29.66/hourly), EEO-
4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt.

Establish the classification of Aviation Dispatch Supervisor I, Job Code 24110, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, Grade 031 ($22.09 -
$33.52/hourly), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt.

Establish the classification of Aviation Dispatch Supervisor II, Job Code 24120, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, Grade 034 ($53,269 -
$81,058/annually), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Exempt.

Summary
BACKGROUND
Concerns about the high number of vacancies among classifications responsible for
public safety dispatch operations prompted a market review of salaries for
classifications with these responsibilities. At this same time, the Aviation Department
brought forward concerns about its classification and pay structure for the dispatch
operations at Sky Harbor Airport.

FINDINGS
A survey of the salaries for journey-level Police Communications Dispatchers for the
local agencies of Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale,
Surprise, and Tempe as well as Austin, Houston, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and San
Diego nationally revealed the City of Phoenix’s starting salary is the lowest of all the
cities in the Valley. In fact, of all the cities surveyed, only San Diego, Austin and
Houston reported a lower starting salary.

Agency Classification title Starting Hourly Rate
Gilbert Dispatcher II $23.76
Tempe Communications Dispatcher II $23.27
Mesa Police Dispatcher $22.54
Scottsdale Police Communications Dispatch $22.23
Avondale Police Communications Dispatcher $22.11
Peoria Communications Specialist $22.08
Surprise Police Dispatcher $22.03
Chandler Dispatcher $21.83
Philadelphia Police Communication Dispatcher (B) $20.56
Glendale Police Communications Specialist $20.54
San Antonio Police Communications Dispatcher $20.43


Page 297

Phoenix Police Communications Operator*Radio/911 $20.23
San Diego Dispatcher II $20.16
Austin 911 Call Taker $18.25
Houston Senior 9-1-1 Telecommunicator $18.00

Currently, the vacancy rate at the entry and journey levels in the Police Department is
over 17%. Additionally, when analyzing turnover data from last year for the Police
Communications Operator and the Police Communications Operator*Radio/911
positions, 87.5% of those who voluntarily resigned were being paid below the median
of the range and had been in their jobs for three years or less.

In reviewing the structure of the Communications Center in Aviation, it currently
consists of two Aviation Supervisor II*Communication Center (assignment), six Aviation
Supervisor I (no assignment) and 24 Communication Dispatcher*Aviation
(assignment). It is notable that the Aviation Supervisor I is the only classification in the
Communications Center that is not an assignment position. In addition, the Aviation
Supervisor I classification is used in a variety of different contexts within the Aviation
Department with no means to delineate and differentiate those within the
Communications Center. There is a compression issue between the dispatcher and
the first line supervisor, with a median differential of only 4%.

CONCLUSION
The grade changes recommended are necessary to achieve a pay range appropriate
to attract and retain staff who will be serving the largest municipal population in the
state. The changes to the other grades maintain the appropriate relationship among
the various classification levels as well.

The assignment positions in the Aviation Communications Center are very distinct and
vary greatly from their base classifications due to the required level of technical
knowledge of communications equipment. To mitigate compression, and to recognize
the distinction of these classifications, we recommend abolishing the assignment
classifications, and creating in their place regular (non-assignment) classifications of
Aviation Dispatcher, Aviation Dispatch Supervisor I and Aviation Dispatch Supervisor II.
Creating the recommended classifications in Aviation would create consistency within
the Aviation dispatch center, as the primary and sole function of each classification
would be Aviation Dispatch Center duties. The recommended salary grades would
relieve the current compression between the dispatcher and first-line supervisor,
moving from a 4% differential to a more appropriate supervisor/employee differential of
11%. Additionally, the midpoint differential between the first- and second-line
supervisors (Aviation Dispatch Supervisor I and Aviation Dispatch Supervisor II) would
move from 22% to a more reasonable 16%.


Page 298


In 2020, the Police Communications Bureau received over 2 million calls of which
nearly 1.2 million were 911 calls. All calls come in to 911 at Police and are then sent,
as appropriate to Fire where their alarm room handled nearly 500,000 calls last year.
In Aviation, nearly 141,000 of the roughly 322,000 calls they handled were emergency
related. The higher percentage of emergency calls through Police/Fire accounts for the
grade differential between the Police/Fire and Aviation classifications. These grade
changes would maintain the current grade relativity to the classifications in Aviation,
Police, and Fire Emergency Dispatch consistent with the other recommendations
made in this report.

Financial Impact
The estimated costs of these actions for a full fiscal year, including benefits, is
approximately $608,027. Funding is available in the Police, Fire, and Aviation
Departments.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This action was reviewed and recommended for approval by Human Resources
Committee 609 on February 26, 2021.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 299



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amendments to Pay Ordinance S-45840 in Accordance with Human Resources
Committee 609 Recommendations (Ordinance S-47460)

As part of a classification and compensation study, the following amendments to the
Pay Ordinance [S-45840] are recommended in accordance with the recommendation
of Human Resources Committee 609, effective July 12, 2021. The amendments also
require the City’s Classification Ordinance [S-5815] to be updated. Those will be
processed under a separate ordinance.

Modify the classification of Police Comm Operator, Job Code 01830, Salary Plan 006,
Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support,
FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 328 ($19.28 - $28.30/hourly) to Grade 331
($22.28 - $32.73/hourly).

Modify the classification assignment of Police Comm Op*Radio/911, Job Code 01832,
Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 329 ($20.23 -
$29.66/hourly) to Grade 332 ($23.33 - $34.31/hourly).

Modify the classification assignment of Police Comm Op*Lead Radio/911, Job Code
01833, Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 330 ($21.23 -
$31.21/hourly) to Grade 333 ($24.53 - $36.05/hourly).

Modify the classification of Police Communications Supv, Job Code 01870, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative
Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 032 ($23.11 - $35.26/hourly) to Grade
034 ($25.61 - $38.97/hourly).

Modify the classification of Police Comm Shift Supervisor, Job Code 01800, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative
Support, FLSA Status: Exempt, from Grade 034 ($53,268.80 - $81,057.60/annually) to
Grade 036 ($58,905.60 - $59,544.00/annually).

Modify the classification assignment of Police Comm Shift Supv*Lead, Job Code


Page 300

01801, Salary Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Exempt, from Grade 035 ($55,931.20 -
$85,176.00/annually) to Grade 037 ($61,859.20 - $94,203.20/annually).

Modify the classification of Emergency Dispatcher, Job Code 01860, Salary Plan 006,
Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support,
FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 329 ($20.23 - $29.66/hourly) to Grade 332
($23.33 - $34.31/hourly).

Modify the classification of Fire Emergency Dispatcher, Job Code 01820, Salary Plan
006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative
Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 329 ($20.23 - $29.66/hourly) to Grade
332 ($23.33 - $34.31/hourly).

Modify the classification assignment of Fire Emergency Dispatcher*Lead, Job Code
01822, Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 330 ($21.23 -
$31.21/hourly) to Grade 333 ($24.53 - $36.05/hourly).

Modify the classification of Fire Communications Supervisor, Job Code 01850, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative
Support, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt, from Grade 032 ($23.11 - $35.26/hourly) to Grade
034 ($25.61 - $38.97/hourly).

Abolish the classification assignment of Fire Comm Supervisor*Telecom, Job Code
01851, Salary Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, Grade 033
($24.39 - $37.12/hourly), EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt.

Abolish the classification assignment of Communications Dispatcher*Av, Job Code
01811, Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, Grade 326
($17.69 - $25.67/hourly), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Non-
Exempt.

Abolish the classification assignment of Aviation Supv II*Comm, Job Code 25231,
Salary Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, Grade 032 ($48,069 -
$73,341/annually), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Exempt.

Abolish the classification assignment of Emergency Dispatcher*Lead (Assignment),
Job Code 01861, Salary Plan 006, Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, Grade
330 ($21.23 - $31.21/hourly), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status:
Non-Exempt.


Page 301


Establish the classification of Aviation Dispatcher, Job Code 24100, Salary Plan 006,
Benefit Category 003, Labor Unit Code 003, Grade 329 ($20.23 - $29.66/hourly), EEO-
4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt.

Establish the classification of Aviation Dispatch Supervisor I, Job Code 24110, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, Grade 031 ($22.09 -
$33.52/hourly), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Non-Exempt.

Establish the classification of Aviation Dispatch Supervisor II, Job Code 24120, Salary
Plan 001, Benefit Category 007, Labor Unit Code 007, Grade 034 ($53,269 -
$81,058/annually), EEO-4 Category: Service Maintenance, FLSA Status: Exempt.

Summary
BACKGROUND
Concerns about the high number of vacancies among classifications responsible for
public safety dispatch operations prompted a market review of salaries for
classifications with these responsibilities. At this same time, the Aviation Department
brought forward concerns about its classification and pay structure for the dispatch
operations at Sky Harbor Airport.

FINDINGS
A survey of the salaries for journey-level Police Communications Dispatchers for the
local agencies of Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale,
Surprise, and Tempe as well as Austin, Houston, Philadelphia, San Antonio, and San
Diego nationally revealed the City of Phoenix’s starting salary is the lowest of all the
cities in the Valley. In fact, of all the cities surveyed, only San Diego, Austin and
Houston reported a lower starting salary.

Agency Classification title Starting Hourly Rate
Gilbert Dispatcher II $23.76
Tempe Communications Dispatcher II $23.27
Mesa Police Dispatcher $22.54
Scottsdale Police Communications Dispatch $22.23
Avondale Police Communications Dispatcher $22.11
Peoria Communications Specialist $22.08
Surprise Police Dispatcher $22.03
Chandler Dispatcher $21.83
Philadelphia Police Communication Dispatcher (B) $20.56
Glendale Police Communications Specialist $20.54
San Antonio Police Communications Dispatcher $20.43


Page 302

Phoenix Police Communications Operator*Radio/911 $20.23
San Diego Dispatcher II $20.16
Austin 911 Call Taker $18.25
Houston Senior 9-1-1 Telecommunicator $18.00

Currently, the vacancy rate at the entry and journey levels in the Police Department is
over 17%. Additionally, when analyzing turnover data from last year for the Police
Communications Operator and the Police Communications Operator*Radio/911
positions, 87.5% of those who voluntarily resigned were being paid below the median
of the range and had been in their jobs for three years or less.

In reviewing the structure of the Communications Center in Aviation, it currently
consists of two Aviation Supervisor II*Communication Center (assignment), six Aviation
Supervisor I (no assignment) and 24 Communication Dispatcher*Aviation
(assignment). It is notable that the Aviation Supervisor I is the only classification in the
Communications Center that is not an assignment position. In addition, the Aviation
Supervisor I classification is used in a variety of different contexts within the Aviation
Department with no means to delineate and differentiate those within the
Communications Center. There is a compression issue between the dispatcher and
the first line supervisor, with a median differential of only 4%.

CONCLUSION
The grade changes recommended are necessary to achieve a pay range appropriate
to attract and retain staff who will be serving the largest municipal population in the
state. The changes to the other grades maintain the appropriate relationship among
the various classification levels as well.

The assignment positions in the Aviation Communications Center are very distinct and
vary greatly from their base classifications due to the required level of technical
knowledge of communications equipment. To mitigate compression, and to recognize
the distinction of these classifications, we recommend abolishing the assignment
classifications, and creating in their place regular (non-assignment) classifications of
Aviation Dispatcher, Aviation Dispatch Supervisor I and Aviation Dispatch Supervisor II.
Creating the recommended classifications in Aviation would create consistency within
the Aviation dispatch center, as the primary and sole function of each classification
would be Aviation Dispatch Center duties. The recommended salary grades would
relieve the current compression between the dispatcher and first-line supervisor,
moving from a 4% differential to a more appropriate supervisor/employee differential of
11%. Additionally, the midpoint differential between the first- and second-line
supervisors (Aviation Dispatch Supervisor I and Aviation Dispatch Supervisor II) would
move from 22% to a more reasonable 16%.


Page 303


In 2020, the Police Communications Bureau received over 2 million calls of which
nearly 1.2 million were 911 calls. All calls come in to 911 at Police and are then sent,
as appropriate to Fire where their alarm room handled nearly 500,000 calls last year.
In Aviation, nearly 141,000 of the roughly 322,000 calls they handled were emergency
related. The higher percentage of emergency calls through Police/Fire accounts for the
grade differential between the Police/Fire and Aviation classifications. These grade
changes would maintain the current grade relativity to the classifications in Aviation,
Police, and Fire Emergency Dispatch consistent with the other recommendations
made in this report.

Financial Impact
The estimated costs of these actions for a full fiscal year, including benefits, is
approximately $608,027. Funding is available in the Police, Fire, and Aviation
Departments.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This action was reviewed and recommended for approval by Human Resources
Committee 609 on Feb. 26, 2021.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 304



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Multi-City Subregional Operating Group User Charge Rates for Fiscal Year 2022
(Ordinance G-6833)

Request City Council approval to amend Phoenix City Code for the Multi-City
Subregional Operating Group User Charges.

Summary
This request amends the Phoenix City Code Chapter 28, Article V, section 28-39 (a) 4,
implementing changes to the sewer user charges to the Multi-City Subregional
Operating Group (SROG) members effective July 1, 2021 (Attachment A).

The City of Phoenix participates with the cities of Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale, and
Tempe in Intergovernmental Agreement 22699 (IGA), for construction, operation and
maintenance of the jointly-used 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). As
lead agency, the City of Phoenix is responsible for the planning, budgeting,
construction, operation and maintenance of the plant, and for billing member cities.
The other members pay for costs of operation and maintenance based on anticipated
use of the facility measured by sewage flows and strengths. These costs are
recovered from the other members through user charges implemented annually on
July 1 of each fiscal year.

The charges, to be effective July 1, 2021, are used as a basis to fairly allocate costs to
the member cities for use of the 91st Avenue WWTP for Fiscal Year 2022. The Fiscal
Year 2022 estimated costs shown below were included in this year’s wastewater
financial planning process.

The following SROG user charges and allocation of estimated costs were approved by
the SROG Committee on Feb. 10, 2021 (Attachment B).

User Charge Allocation of
per Fiscal Year 2022
SROG Member 1,000 Gallon Estimated Costs

City of Glendale $1.30780 $3,771,049
City of Mesa $1.22344 $8,037,970


Page 305

City of Scottsdale $1.33436 $4,383,372
City of Tempe $0.87909 $6,295,405

Subtotal $22,487,796


Total $55,468,067

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Multi-City Subregional Operating Group User Charge Rates
for Fiscal Year 2021 (Ordinance G-6689) on April 15, 2020.

The SROG Committee approved this item on Feb. 10, 2021.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance and Water
Services departments.




Page 306
ATTACHMENT A

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



ORDINANCE NO. G- ___________


AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE
PHOENIX CITY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 28-39(a)4
PERTAINING TO SEWER USER BILLING RATES TO
SUBREGIONAL OPERATING GROUP (SROG) MEMBER
CITIES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF
JULY 1, 2021

______________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. That the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 28, entitled “Sewers”,

Section 28-39(a)4, is hereby amended as follows:

“4. Multi-City Subregional Operating Group (SROG) Agreement Members.

Sewer User
Billing Rate Per
Member Thousand Gallons

City of Glendale $ 1.28058 $ 1.30780
City of Mesa $ 1.17477 $ 1.22344
City of Scottsdale $ 1.33237 $ 1.33436
City of Tempe $ 0.85818 $ 0.87909



SECTION 2. The amendments to Chapter 28 of the Phoenix City Code as

set forth in this ordinance shall be effective and enforceable July 1, 2021.




Page 307
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of April, 2021.



_____________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:

__________________________ City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


__________________________ City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:


__________________________ City Manager




Page 308
Attachment B




February 10, 2021

Mr. Craig Johnson
City of Glendale
7070 W Northern Ave
Glendale, Arizona 85303

RE: ACTIONS OF THE SROG COMMITTEE

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This letter serves to inform you that at their February 10, 2021 meeting, the SROG Committee took the
following actions:

Approved the proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Operations and Maintenance Budget base request of
$55,468,067, which includes a contribution of $5,000,000 to the replacement fund and estimated
expenditures of $5,500,000 from that fund; to include the adoption of the recommended five-
year CIP Replacement Fund schedule for Fiscal Years 2021-22 through 2025-2026; and that the
Operating Fund Balance Reserve be increased by $211,886, in order to maintain the required
12.5% of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 budget. This increase in the Operating Fund Balance Reserve
will be billed to the SROG cities on their O&M billing for the month of July 2021.

Approved the SROG User Charge Rates for Fiscal Year 2021-22 as presented.

Approved the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Projects Cash Flow Estimate for the
91st Avenue WWTP for $45,311,000 as presented.

Accepted the SROG Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2020, and Year-End Settlement, as presented for the same fiscal year.

If you have any questions regarding the above action, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,



Michelle Barclay
SROG Manager




Arizona Municipal Water Users Association
3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1550, Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Ÿ (602) 248-8482 Ÿ amwua.org

Page 309



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Grant Electrical Easement to Salt River Project at Papago
Sports Complex (Ordinance S-47423)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an electrical
easement to Salt River Project across City-owned property at Papago Sports
Complex, for consideration in the amount of $1.00 and/or other valuable consideration.

Summary
The electrical easement is required by Salt River Project in order to provide service to
the newly constructed facility improvements by the San Francisco Giants Baseball
Club, LLC at Papago Sports Complex. The easement area consists of approximately
3,145 square feet.

Location
1802 N. 64th St., identified by Maricopa County Assessor parcel number 129-38-001C.
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.




Page 310



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easement for Water Rehabilitation
Project at 7th Street and Roeser Road (Ordinance S-47426)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire real property and
related property interests by donation, purchase within the City's appraised value, or
by the power of eminent domain for a water rehabilitation improvement project at 7th
Street and Roeser Road. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item.

Summary
The City is undertaking a project to rehabilitate a 48-inch water transmission main at
7th Street and Roeser Road. Improvements will include installation of new steel lining
inside the existing pipeline located within the existing Roeser Road right-of-way. The
temporary construction easement is necessary for construction staging purposes to
facilitate improvements to the water transmission main pipeline.

The parcel affected by this project and included in this request is identified by
Maricopa County Assessor's parcel number 113-48-050A located at 702 E. Roeser
Road.

Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Water Services Department Capital Improvement Program
budget.

Location
702 E. Roeser Road
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters, and the Water Services
and Finance departments.




Page 311



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance of Easements for Water and Vehicular Non-Access Purposes
(Ordinance S-47440)

Request for the City Council to accept easements for water and vehicular non-access
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

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

Easement (a)
Applicant: HLSSII Black Canyon, LLC, its successor and assigns.
Purpose: Water
Location: 21427 N. Black Canyon Highway
File: FN 210006
Council District: 1

Easement (b)
Applicant: Katherine Heuerman Trust dated Aug. 9, 2012, its successor and assigns.
Purpose: Vehicular Non-Access
Location: 3902 W. Whitton Ave.
File: FN 210007
Council District: 4

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




Page 312



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Grant of a Public Utility Easement on City-owned Property for Construction of a
Ranger Station at South Mountain Park (Ordinance S-47428)

Request City Council to grant a public utility easement, for consideration of $1.00
and/or other valuable consideration, for electrical facilities and the installation of a new
transformer and equipment pad on City-owned property within the Salt River Project
service area, and further ordering the ordinance recorded. The public utility easement
is required for the construction of South Mountain Park Ranger Station.

Summary
This public utility easement will be more fully described in the legal description
("Easement Premises"), to be recorded with the ordinance and will be granted to all
public service corporations, agricultural improvement districts and telecommunication
corporations providing utility service (collectively "Grantee") to the property located at
10409 S. Central Ave., in perpetuity so long as Grantee uses the Easement Premises
for the purposes herein specified for an indefinite period, subject to the following terms
and conditions:

A. Grantee is hereby granted the right to construct, reconstruct, replace, repair,
operate and maintain utility facilities together with appurtenant fixtures for use in
connection therewith (collectively "Grantee Facilities") to, through, across and
beyond Grantor's property within the Easement Premises. Subject to the notice
requirements provided in paragraph "I," Grantee shall at all times have the right of
full and free ingress and egress to and along the Easement Premises for the
purposes herein specified. Grantee acknowledges and accepts that Grantee shall
share the Easement Premises with other Grantees and shall use such Easement
Premises with other Grantees in accordance with and consistent with industry
standards and customs for shared use. Grantor agrees to coordinate the location of
Grantee's Facilities within the Easement Premises and to pay costs for relocation of
Grantee's Facilities as provided in paragraph "F."
B. Grantor shall not locate, erect or construct, or permit to be located or erected or
constructed, any building or structure within the limits of the Easement Premises.
However, Grantor reserves all other rights, interests, and uses of the Easement
Premises that are not inconsistent with Grantee's easement rights herein conveyed
and which do not interfere with or endanger any of the Grantee Facilities.


Page 313

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor shall not have the right to lower by more
than one foot or raise by more than two feet the surface grade of Easement
Premises without the prior written consent by the Grantee whose facilities will be
affected by the change of elevation.
C. Grantee shall not have the right to use the Easement Premises to store gasoline or
petroleum products, hazardous or toxic substances, or flammable materials;
provided however, that this prohibition shall not apply to any material, equipment or
substance contained in, or a part of, the Grantee Facilities, provided that Grantee
must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations in
connection therewith. Additionally, the Easement Premises may not be used for the
storage of construction-related materials or to park or store construction-related
vehicles or equipment except on a temporary basis to construct, reconstruct,
replace, repair, operate or maintain the Grantee Facilities.
D. Grantor shall maintain an appropriate three-foot clear area around all edges of all
equipment pads for Grantee Facilities in addition to a clear operational area that
extends 12 feet immediately in front of all transformer or switching cabinet
openings, within the Easement Premises. No obstruction, trees, shrubs, fixtures or
permanent structures shall be placed or permitted by Grantor within said areas.
Grantee is hereby granted the right to trim, prune, cut, and clear away trees, brush,
shrubs or other obstruction within said areas.
E. Grantee shall exercise reasonable care to avoid damage to the Easement Premises
and all improvements thereon and agrees that following any work or use by Grantee
within the Easement Premises, the affected area, including without limitation, all
pavement, landscaping, concrete and other improvements permitted within the
Easement Premises pursuant to this easement will be restored by Grantee to as
close to original condition as is reasonably possible, at the expense of Grantee.
F. Grantor reserves the right to require the relocation of Grantee Facilities to a new
location within Grantor's property; provided however, that: (1) Grantor pays the
entire cost of redesigning and relocating existing Grantee Facilities to the new
location; and (2) Grantor provides Grantee with a new and substantially similar
public utility easement at no cost to Grantee. After relocation of Grantee Facilities to
the new easement area, Grantee shall abandon its rights to use the Easement
Premises granted in this easement without cost or consequence to Grantor.
G. Each public service corporation and telecommunication services corporation as a
Grantee shall coordinate and work with other Grantees in the use of the Easement
Premises. In the event that a third party or other Grantee requests the relocation of
existing Grantee Facilities to a new location (whether or not) within the Easement
Premises, the requesting party shall pay the entire cost of redesigning and
relocating the existing Grantee Facilities.
H. Grantee shall not have the right to transfer, convey or assign its interests in this
easement to any individual, corporation or other entity without the prior written


Page 314

consent of Grantor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantee
shall notify Grantor of any proposed transfer, conveyance or assignment of any
rights granted herein at address listed below.
I. Except in emergencies or exigent circumstances such as service restoration,
Grantee agrees to contact Grantor at least one business day prior to Grantee's
entrance onto the Easement Premises where the Easement Premises are located:
(1) on a site that includes Aviation Department facilities; (2) water and wastewater
treatment facilities; (3) Police Department headquarters located at 620 W.
Washington St.; (4) Fire Department headquarters located at 150 S. 12th St.; (5)
City Hall located at 200 W. Washington St.; (6) City Court Building located at 300 W.
Washington St.; (7) Calvin C. Goode Building located at 251 W. Washington St.; (8)
Transit Operations Center located at 320 N. 1st Ave. or West Transit Facility located
at 405 N. 79th Ave.; or (9) in a secured or fenced area.

Location
10409 S. Central Ave., identified by Maricopa County Assessor parcel number 300-66-
001.
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson, and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.




Page 315



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of a Deed and Easements for Roadway and Sidewalk
Purposes (Ordinance S-47441)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate of a deed and easements for
roadway and sidewalk purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

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

Deed (a)
Applicant: Affronti Enterprises, LLC, its successor and assigns.
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 910 E. Roma Ave.
File: FN 210002
Council District: 4

Easement (b)
Applicant: Haidar Al-Bedery, also known as Al-Bedry Haidar, its successor and
assigns.
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 5550 W. Buckeye Road
File: FN 210005
Council District: 7

Easement (c)
Applicant: Zekelman Property, LLC, its successor and assigns.
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 2822 N. 59th Ave.
File: FN 210011
Council District: 7

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

Page 316



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance for Acquisition of Real Property for Roadway Improvements
Along Jomax Road at the 67th Avenue and Pyramid Peak Parkway Intersection
(Ordinance S-47438)

Request the City Council amend Ordinance S-47194 to add a parcel to be acquired for
roadway improvements at the 67th Avenue and Pyramid Peak Parkway intersection.

Summary
Ordinance S-47194 authorized the acquisition of real property for roadway
improvements at the 67th Avenue and Pyramid Peak Parkway intersection. It is
necessary to amend the ordinance to add an affected parcel that was not identified in
the original ordinance. All other conditions and stipulations previously stated in the
above referenced ordinance will remain the same.

The additional parcel affected by acquisition and included in this request is identified
by Maricopa County Assessor's parcel number 201-07-130, located at 26621 N. 67th
Ave.

Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget using Arizona Highway User Revenue Funds (HURF).

Location
West Jomax Road at North 67th Avenue and North Pyramid Parkway.
Council District: 1

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Acquisition of Real Property for Roadway Improvement
Along Jomax Road at the 67th Avenue and Pyramid Peak Parkway Intersection
(Ordinance S-47194) on Dec. 16, 2020.

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



Page 317



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Preformed Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Materials - Requirements Contract -
IFB 18-249B (Ordinance S-47429)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Agreement 147995 with Ennis-Flint, Inc., Agreement 147996 with
Centerline Supply West, Inc., and Agreement 147994 with Geveko Markings, Inc., for
the purchase of preformed thermoplastic pavement marking materials for the Street
Transportation Department. Further request the City Manager, or his designee, to allow
use of funds previously authorized under S-46432 for Agreement 147994 to also be
used for purchases under Agreements 147995 and 147996. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $250,000.

Summary
These contracts provide thermoplastic pavement marking materials in a variety of
colors and sizes and are intended to supply commonly used yellow and white
thermoplastic paint. The additional funds are needed to complete pavement
maintenance projects through the remainder of the contract duration. With the
approval of the Accelerated Pavement Maintenance program and additional projects
called for under the Transportation T2050 plan, the need for additional contract
capacity is significantly greater than originally anticipated. The additional funds are
needed to continue with projects already underway.

Contract Term
The contract term is five years from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2023, and remains
unchanged.

Financial Impact
· The initial authorization for Preformed Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Materials
agreements were for an expenditure not-to-exceed $341,405.
· Additional expenditures for Agreement 147994 were authorized for $151,500, for a
new aggregate expenditure not-to-exceed $492,905.
· This amendment will increase the authorization for the agreements by an additional
$250,000, for a new total not-to-exceed agreement value of $742,905.



Page 318

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

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
Preformed Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Materials Agreements 147994-147996
(Ordinance S-44815) on June 20, 2018; and
Preformed Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Materials Agreement 147994 (Ordinance
S-46432) - Additional Expenditures on March 18, 2020.

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




Page 319



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Equipment - EXC 21-092 (Ordinance S-
47436)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to purchase physical therapy
and rehabilitation equipment from Team Marathon Fitness, Inc., dba Marathon Fitness,
for the Fire Department. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The one-time expenditure will not exceed
$125,000.

Summary
This equipment is needed for the Fire Department’s program which provides in-house
physical therapy and rehabilitation, by a licensed physical therapist, to firefighters
recovering from job-related injuries and surgeries, with emphasis on specific
mechanics geared to the firefighter job functions. This unique program was awarded
by the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and requires the purchase of specific,
specialty physical therapy and rehabilitation equipment.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of an approved determination memo which stated the need for expedited
purchase in accordance with the timeline of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) 2018 Assistance to Firefighters Act Grant Program to purchase
physical therapy and rehabilitation equipment.

The Deputy Finance Director recommends the contract with Team Marathon Fitness,
Inc., dba Marathon Fitness, be accepted.

Contract Term
The one-time purchase will begin on or about April 7, 2021.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $125,000; funds are available in the Fire
Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Fire Department.


Page 320



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Wireless Communication Services, Accessories, and Equipment (Ordinance S-
47458)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Letter of
Agreement with AT&T Mobility National Accounts LLC; Sprint Solutions, Inc.; T-Mobile
USA, Inc.; and Verizon Wireless to continue to provide wireless communication
services, accessories, and equipment for departments citywide in an amount not to
exceed $5,137,500. This authorization is needed to continue existing wireless services
while the City adopts new State of Arizona cooperative agreements. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
City departments utilize mobile devices, wireless services, equipment and accessories
to conduct City business every day. Equipment and services are procured utilizing the
State of Arizona cooperative agreements, which offer significant cost savings due to
the benefit from national government pricing and volume discounts. This request is for
authorization for an interim agreement to allow the City to pay for monthly cellular
services and purchase equipment and accessories as needed while the City adopts
the new State of Arizona cooperative agreements. These expenses are essential to
the City, as devices are used by staff to provide critical services to the public in various
locations throughout the valley. Currently, the City pays for services for the following
devices: 5,003 cellular phones, 6,127 air cards, 6,244 push to talk radios, 470 tablets,
and various other services and equipment.

In addition, this request would allow for an additional two thousand mobile devices for
the Phoenix Police Department. Phoenix Police would obtain equipment with FirstNet
LTE SIM cards, which provide unlimited voice, data, and text capabilities using
compatible smart devices that operate on a nationwide network. The FirstNet network
also provides public safety personnel with priority access and emergency preemption
for high network reliability and availability.

Contract Term
The term will extend through Dec. 31, 2021. The State of Arizona is scheduled to
release the new cooperative agreements in the coming weeks. This request will allow
adequate time for the State of Arizona to release the new cooperative agreements and


Page 321

for the City to enter into linking agreements and obtain Council authorization to adopt
them.

Financial Impact
The $5,137,500 request is based on current usage and known additional requirements
to cover a nine-month period. Funds are available in various departments' budgets.

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




Page 322



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Transfer of Retirement Funds to Arizona State Retirement System (Ordinance S-
47435)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Julia Farnsworth in the amount of $53,602.18 to the Arizona State Retirement System,
and further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse funds.

Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, sections 38-730 and 38-922, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) upon
approval by the Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of their credited service:

Farnsworth, Julia: $53,602.18

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at its March 4, 2021 meeting.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Retirement
Office.




Page 323



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Banner Employer Solutions, LLC, Vaccine Administration Services (Ordinance S-
47464)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Banner Employer Solutions, LLC, to allow Banner to utilize the City’s Employee Driver
Training Academy (3535 S. 35th Ave.) to administer COVID-19 vaccinations to City of
Phoenix employees and other local businesses. There is no cost or charge related to
this contract; it is only for use of the City's site.

Summary
Banner will no longer be operating at the Arizona State Fairgrounds after April 11,
2021. A contract is required to provide Banner with access to utilize the City’s
Employer Driver Training Academy to continue to administer vaccinations against the
COVID-19 virus to employees, contractors, and other local businesses.

Contract Term
The contract term shall begin on or about April 12, 2021 and end on July 31, 2021.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.




Page 324



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Public Library Phased Reopening Plan for In-Building Visits

This report provides an overview on Phoenix Public Library service delivery to the
community during the coronavirus pandemic and requests City Council authorization to
safely reopen libraries in phases as outlined in this report.

Summary
Response to COVID-19
In early March of 2020, as part of the City's response to the Coronavirus pandemic,
Phoenix Public Library closed all 17 book drops and library facilities to in-building
visits. All library materials checked out at that time had the check-out period extended
by 90 days. In addition, the Library Department transitioned service delivery to virtual
platforms including: downloading and streaming eBooks, movies, music, recorded and
live streaming of library programs through phoenixpubliclibrary.org. Bookdrops were
reopened and Curbside Services were launched at 16 Phoenix Public Library locations
in May of 2020 (*South Mountain Community Library - 7050 S. 24th St - remains
closed as it is part of the South Mountain Community College campus).

To date Phoenix Public Library has hosted nearly 300,000 Curbside pickups,
circulating more than 2.5 million physical items; and 19.2 million visits to
phoenixpubliclibrary.org with library customers accessing nearly 5.7 million digital
items. Curbside Service, which offers both drive-up and walk-up service, is provided 6
days a week, including three evenings and Saturday mornings, as well as 24/7 access
to digital materials and streaming online.

Curbside Service includes:
· Kids' Cafe meals at 9 library locations
· Providing "drop in" book bundles for children, adults and families
· Family friendly MACH1 to-go and hand-on STE/AM and craft kits
· Mobile printing pick up
· Free WiFi in library parking lots (7 days a week, 8 a.m. - 9 p.m.)

Phased Reopening of In-Building Visits
As the number of COVID-19 cases in Arizona continue to decline, the Library
department began to develop a reopening plan that will increase the number of


Page 325

libraries and services available to residents based on benchmark indicators and
thresholds from Arizona Department of Health Services and Maricopa County.
Currently, the city of Phoenix is in Orange/Substantial Spread for the number of total
new cases per 100,000 (53.24 as of week of March 7 - 13, 2021). In the
Orange/Substantial Spread level, library facilities are proposed to open at 25 percent
of the permitted public occupancy level. As trends continue downward and the
benchmark statistics reach the Yellow/Moderate Spread level, occupancy will be
increased to 50 percent of the permitted public occupancy level. Library facilities will
continue to operate at 50 percent occupancy with COVID-19 safety protocols until the
level of community spread reaches minimal levels.

The services selected for in-building visits equally reflect the need expressed by the
community, and prioritized health and safety measures considered for the visiting
public and staff. Hours of operation for library locations transitioning to offering in-
building visits six days a week, Monday through Saturday, are as follows:

· 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.: Curbside Service
· 12:00 - 12:30 p.m.: Breakdown of Curbside Service and readiness efforts for in-
building visits
· 12:30 - 5:30 p.m.: In-building visits
· Library locations groupings Two and Three will continue with the current Curbside
Service and hours (Mon-Sat: 8 a.m. - 12 p.m. & Tues-Wed-Thurs evenings, 3:30 -
5:30 p.m.) until they transition to offering in-building visits.

Reopening of in-building visits will roll out in three separate library locations groupings.
The first group selection is driven primarily by providing geographic coverage
throughout Phoenix at larger library locations, and computer & circulation volume.
Reopening of in-building visits will be implemented first in Group 1; followed by library
locations in Group 2, two weeks later; and finally with Group 3 library locations
reopening in-building visits two weeks after the second group of libraries.

Group 1 (Proposed reopening - Monday, April 19th):
· Burton Barr Central Library (1221 N. Central Ave.)
· Agave Library (23550 N. 36th Ave.)
· Cesar Chavez Library (3635 W. Baseline Rd.)
· Cholla Library (10050 Metro Parkway E.)
· Ironwood Library (4333 E. Chandler Blvd.)
· Mesquite Library (4525 E. Paradise Village Parkway N.)
· Palo Verde Library (4402 N. 51st Ave.)
· Desert Broom Library (29710 N. Cave Creek Rd.)


Page 326


Group 2 (Proposed reopening - Monday, May 3rd):
· Desert Sage (7602 W. Encanto Blvd.)
· Harmon Library (1325 S. 5th Ave.)
· Juniper Library (1825 W. Union Hills Dr.)
· Saguaro Library (2808 N. 46th St.)

Group 3 (Proposed reopening - Monday, May 17th):
· Acacia Library (750 E. Townley Ave.)
· Yucca Library (5648 N. 15th Ave.)
· Century Library (1750 E. Highland Ave.)
· Ocotillo Library (102 W. Southern Ave.)

South Mountain Community Library (7050 S. 24th St.) will be added when the South
Mountain Community College Campus is open.

Library Services to be available through Phoenix Public Library
All in-building visits will require a 45-minute appointment. Residents will be able to
reserve time slots on phoenixpubliclibrary.org, or through the Library Call Center.
Additionally, each location will have a reserved block of time slots in order to
accommodate walk-up patrons. In-building visits for Phoenix Public Library customers
will provide access to:

· Computer and internet access
· Collection browsing
· Printing, scanning, and copier services
· Library Laptop and WiFi Hotspots lending
· Self-service checkout kiosks
· Signing up for or renewing Phoenix Public Library cards.

Library security will clear each building at the 45-minute mark, allowing 15 minutes of
preparation and cleaning for the next reservation block.

Health and Safety Measures
The following COVID-19 safety protocols were reviewed by the City's Public Health
Advisors and will be implemented at all Library locations:

· Wearing of face coverings and social distancing throughout each facility required.
· Contact-less infrared temperature screening will be utilized as customers enter


Page 327

each building.
· Installation of health shields at all staff service desks and customer computer
workstations.
· Service desks provide contact-less customer service.
· Signage, similar to the "CDC Facilities Entries Survey" will be prominent advising
customers that, "If you have experienced any of the following symptoms in the past
48 hours, please do not enter".
· Social distancing at tables and furniture.
· Daily on-site custodial staff to disinfect frequently touched surfaces and restrooms
throughout the day.
· Cleaning of computer workstations will occur between each session utilizing CDC
recommended cleaning guidelines.
· Abundant availability of disinfectant wipes, hand sanitizer, and disposable masks for
customers and staff.
· Implementation of a temporary bag policy limiting one backpack per person.

The Phoenix Public Library website will be updated to inform all patrons of face mask
and social distancing requirements as well as other safety protocols while on-site.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan, and the Library
Department.




Page 328



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Enter into Contracts with Central Arizona Shelter Services and
the Human Services Campus (Ordinance S-47463)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. for COVID-19 related essential services, facility
improvements, operations and homeless support activities; and also with the Human
Services Campus for COVID-19 related essential services, operations and/or facility
improvements. The term for each contract will begin on or about April 1, 2021 and end
on Sept. 30, 2022. The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $4 million over
the life of the contracts. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. Funding is one-time monies from a combination of
Emergency Solutions Grant and Community Development Block Grant funds. There is
no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
On Feb. 3, 2021 City Council approved an increase in the number of shelter beds at
the Human Services Campus (HSC) with Ordinance G-6799. Shelter services are
provided at the HSC by Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. (CASS) for adults ages
18 years and older.

On Feb. 17, 2021 City Council approved a $4 million allocation of funds for HSC and
CASS to fund homeless support activities to prevent, prepare for and respond to the
COVID-19 pandemic in one of the City's most vulnerable populations and allow those
individuals to move into shelters at a much quicker pace. The HSC will use funding to
support the needs of the campus partners for essential services, operations and/or
facility improvements. CASS will use funding for essential services, facility
improvements, operations and homeless support activities. The funding distribution is
as follows:

· Human Services Campus: $1.6 million
· CASS: $2.4 million

Contracts will include terms requiring metrics, documentation and timeline for
performance.



Page 329

Procurement Information
Due to the need for an emergency response during the COVID-19 pandemic, the City
of Phoenix has obtained all necessary federal waivers to enter into these emergency
agreements.

Contract Term
The term of this contract will begin on or about April 1, 2021 and end on Sept. 30,
2022.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $4 million over the life of the combined
contracts. Funding is one-time monies from Emergency Solutions Grant and
Community Development Block Grant funds. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Jan. 21, 2021, the Land Use and Livability Subcommittee recommended City
Council approval of broad allocations of ESG-CV2 funds to prevent, prepare for and
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on individuals and families who are
experiencing homelessness or receiving homeless assistance, and to support
homelessness prevention activities to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19.

On Feb. 3, 2021 City Council approved the increase of the amount of shelter beds at
the Human Services Campus with Ordinance G-6799.

On Feb. 17, 2021 City Council approved a Substantial Amendment to the 2015-2020
Consolidated Plan's 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan with Ordinance S-47330 and
directed a $4 million allocation from those funds to go to CASS and the HSC.

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




Page 330



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Loan Federal HOME Funds for Pueblo Apartments Affordable Housing
Development (Ordinance S-47452)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Affordable Housing Loan Program agreement for up to $1 million in federal U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development HOME Investment Partnerships
Act Program funds with CPLC Broadway and Central LIHTC, LLC, or a City-
approved nominee, for the Pueblo Apartments affordable housing development
project, and to take all actions and execute all documents to complete the loan.
Authorization is also requested for the City Controller to disburse the funds for the
life of the contract. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
On Nov. 16, 2020, the Housing Department issued a Call for Interest (CFI) seeking
proposals for the acquisition, new construction, and/or rehabilitation of affordable
rental housing based on the Affordable Housing Community Priorities approved by
1. Acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new construction of properties that focus on
homeless or special needs populations, and that provide appropriate services to
assist and sustain these populations; and
2. Acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction of properties where the
developer qualifies as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
as defined by the HOME Investment Partnerships Act Program (HOME)
Program.

Procurement Information
Six proposals were received and reviewed by an evaluation committee comprised
of two City staff members and two community representatives. The proposals were
evaluated on a 1,000-point scale based on the following criteria: Developer
Experience; Project Merits/Approach; Financial Feasibility; and Project Impact. The
evaluation panel scored the proposals as follows:

· Pueblo Apartments (Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.): 923 points.
· Acacia Heights II (Trinity Housing Development, LLC): 914 points.


Page 331

· Reserve at Thunderbird - Phase 1 (Glenmark Construction, Inc. and Antares
Development & Investing [Mark Breen and Jessica Raymond]): 911 points.
· Rehoboth Place II (Gorman and Company, LLC and Rehoboth Community
Development Corporation): 820 points.
· Commons at 9 South (UMOM/Helping Hands Housing Services): 766 points.
· Mustang Villas (YES Housing of Arizona, Inc.): 708 points.

Based on funding availability, all six projects were recommended for funding.

Pueblo Apartments, located at 316 W. Broadway Road, includes the new
construction of a 161-unit permanent housing community. Chicanos Por La Causa,
Inc. (CPLC), a non-profit developer, through CPLC Broadway and Central LIHTC,
LLC, requested $1 million to assist with the development of this project. All units will
serve households with incomes at or below 60 percent of the Area Median Income
(AMI) with at least 11 units serving households at or below 40 percent AMI.
Supportive services will be provided by CPLC and will include financial coaching,
resident service coordinator, and homeownership advising and resources. Other
proposed funding for this project includes permanent debt financing, Low Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) equity, and Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB)
Affordable Housing Program (AHP) funds.

Project awards are contingent on full underwriting, environmental release of funds,
commitments of other financing, and availability of federal funds. The overall loan
structure will be consistent with the Housing Department's Underwriting Guidelines
for affordable rental housing projects.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME is a federally-funded program.
Funding for this CFI is made available from 2020 HOME funds, and a forward
allocation of 2021 HOME funds. Funding commitments for projects with LIHTC
equity are reliant upon receiving a LIHTC award from the Arizona Department of
Housing. Funding is budgeted in the Housing Department Capital Improvement
Program. Loan execution is anticipated for FY 2021-22 and the loan will be paid to
the developer over a two-year period.

Public Outreach
All applicants were required to hold at least one community meeting with the
surrounding neighborhood to inform them of their proposed housing development.
Per the evaluation criteria, applicants that held more than one community meeting
were given additional points.

Page 332

Location
316 W. Broadway Road
Council District: 7

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Land Use and Livability
Subcommittee meeting on March 17, 2021, by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Housing
Department.




Page 333



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Loan Federal HOME Funds for Acacia Heights II Affordable Housing
Development (Ordinance S-47453)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Affordable Housing Loan Program agreement for up to $1 million in federal U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development HOME Investment Partnerships
Act Program funds with Acacia Heights II, LLC, or a City-approved nominee, for the
Acacia Heights II affordable housing development project, and to take all actions
and execute all documents to complete the loan. Authorization is also requested for
the City Controller to disburse the funds for the life of the contract. There is no
impact to the General Fund.

Summary
On Nov. 16, 2020, the Housing Department issued a Call for Interest (CFI) seeking
proposals for the acquisition, new construction, and/or rehabilitation of affordable
rental housing based on the Affordable Housing Community Priorities approved by
1. Acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new construction of properties that focus on
homeless or special needs populations, and that provide appropriate services to
assist and sustain these populations; and
2. Acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction of properties where the
developer qualifies as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
as defined by the HOME Investment Partnerships Act Program (HOME)
Program.

Procurement Information
Six proposals were received and reviewed by an evaluation committee comprised
of two City staff members and two community representatives. The proposals were
evaluated on a 1,000-point scale based on the following criteria: Developer
Experience; Project Merits/Approach; Financial Feasibility; and Project Impact. The
evaluation panel scored the proposals as follows:

· Pueblo Apartments (Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.): 923 points.
· Acacia Heights II (Trinity Housing Development, LLC): 914 points.


Page 334

· Reserve at Thunderbird - Phase 1 (Glenmark Construction, Inc. and Antares
Development & Investing [Mark Breen and Jessica Raymond]): 911 points.
· Rehoboth Place II (Gorman and Company, LLC and Rehoboth Community
Development Corporation): 820 points.
· Commons at 9 South (UMOM/Helping Hands Housing Services): 766 points.
· Mustang Villas (YES Housing of Arizona, Inc.): 708 points.

Based on funding availability, all six projects were recommended for funding.

Acacia Heights II, located at 4737(proposed) N. 7th Ave., includes the new
construction of a 66-unit permanent housing community. Trinity Housing
Development, a for-profit developer, through Acacia Heights II, LLC, requested $1
million to assist with the development of this project. All units will serve households
with incomes at or below 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) with at least
11 units serving households at or below 40 percent AMI. Supportive services will be
provided by Catholic Charities Community Services, Inc. and will include resident
services coordinators who will serve in a case management capacity developing
service plans with residents, arranging on-site services, and connecting residents to
additional service providers as needed. Other proposed funding for this project
includes permanent debt financing, Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) equity,
and a deferred developer fee.

Project awards are contingent on full underwriting, environmental release of funds,
commitments of other financing, and availability of federal funds. The overall loan
structure will be consistent with the Housing Department's Underwriting Guidelines
for affordable rental housing projects.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME is a federally-funded program.
Funding for this CFI is made available from 2020 HOME funds, and a forward
allocation of 2021 HOME funds. Funding commitments for projects with LIHTC
equity are reliant upon receiving a LIHTC award from the Arizona Department of
Housing. Funding is budgeted in the Housing Department Capital Improvement
Program. Loan execution is anticipated for FY 2021-22 and the loan will be paid to
the developer over a two-year period.

Public Outreach
All applicants were required to hold at least one community meeting with the
surrounding neighborhood to inform them of their proposed housing development.


Page 335

Per the evaluation criteria, applicants that held more than one community meeting
were given additional points.

Location
4737(proposed) N. 7th Ave.
Council District: 4

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Land Use and Livability
Subcommittee meeting on March 17, 2021, by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Housing
Department.




Page 336



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Loan Federal HOME Funds for Reserve at Thunderbird Phase 1 Affordable
Housing Development (Ordinance S-47454)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Affordable Housing Loan Program agreement for up to $1 million in federal U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development HOME Investment Partnerships
Act Program funds with Reserve at Thunderbird LP, or a City-approved nominee, for
the Reserve at Thunderbird Phase 1 affordable housing development project, and
to take all actions and execute all documents to complete the loan. Authorization is
also requested for the City Controller to disburse the funds for the life of the
contract. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
On Nov. 16, 2020, the Housing Department issued a Call for Interest (CFI) seeking
proposals for the acquisition, new construction, and/or rehabilitation of affordable
rental housing based on the Affordable Housing Community Priorities approved by
1. Acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new construction of properties that focus on
homeless or special needs populations, and that provide appropriate services to
assist and sustain these populations; and
2. Acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction of properties where the
developer qualifies as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
as defined by the HOME Investment Partnerships Act Program (HOME)
Program.

Procurement Information
Six proposals were received and reviewed by an evaluation committee comprised
of two City staff members and two community representatives. The proposals were
evaluated on a 1,000-point scale based on the following criteria: Developer
Experience; Project Merits/Approach; Financial Feasibility; and Project Impact. The
evaluation panel scored the proposals as follows:

· Pueblo Apartments (Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.): 923 points.
· Acacia Heights II (Trinity Housing Development, LLC): 914 points.


Page 337

· Reserve at Thunderbird - Phase 1 (Glenmark Construction, Inc. and Antares
Development & Investing [Mark Breen and Jessica Raymond]): 911 points.
· Rehoboth Place II (Gorman and Company, LLC and Rehoboth Community
Development Corporation): 820 points.
· Commons at 9 South (UMOM/Helping Hands Housing Services): 766 points.
· Mustang Villas (YES Housing of Arizona, Inc.): 708 points.

Based on funding availability, all six projects were recommended for funding.

Reserve at Thunderbird Phase 1, located at 3045 W. Thunderbird Road, includes
the new construction of a 108-unit permanent housing community. Glenmark
Construction, Inc. and Antares Development & Investing, for-profit developers (Mark
Breen and Jessica Raymond), through Reserve at Thunderbird LP, requested $1
million to assist with the development of this project. All units will serve households
with incomes at or below 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) with at least
11 units serving households at or below 40 percent AMI. Supportive services will be
provided by Greater Phoenix Urban League and other non-profit partners, and will
include credit and financial counseling, kids meal programs, and job
search/placement assistance. Other proposed funding for this project includes
permanent debt financing, Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) equity, solar
credits, additional gap funding, and a deferred developer fee.

Project awards are contingent on full underwriting, environmental release of funds,
commitments of other financing, and availability of federal funds. The overall loan
structure will be consistent with the Housing Department's Underwriting Guidelines
for affordable rental housing projects.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME is a federally-funded program.
Funding for this CFI is made available from 2020 HOME funds, and a forward
allocation of 2021 HOME funds. Funding commitments for projects with LIHTC
equity are reliant upon receiving a LIHTC award from the Arizona Department of
Housing. Funding is budgeted in the Housing Department Capital Improvement
Program. Loan execution is anticipated for FY 2021-22 and the loan will be paid to
the developer over a two-year period.

Public Outreach
All applicants were required to hold at least one community meeting with the
surrounding neighborhood to inform them of their proposed housing development.


Page 338

Per the evaluation criteria, applicants that held more than one community meeting
were given additional points.

Location
3045 W. Thunderbird Road
Council District: 1

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Land Use and Livability
Subcommittee meeting on March 17, 2021, by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Housing
Department.




Page 339



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Loan Federal HOME Funds for Rehoboth Place II Affordable Housing
Development (Ordinance S-47455)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Affordable Housing Loan Program agreement for up to $1 million in federal U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development HOME Investment Partnerships
Act Program funds with Rehoboth Place II, LLC, or a City-approved nominee, for
the Rehoboth Place II affordable housing development project, and to take all
actions and execute all documents to complete the loan. Authorization is also
requested for the City Controller to disburse the funds for the life of the contract.
There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
On Nov. 16, 2020, the Housing Department issued a Call for Interest (CFI) seeking
proposals for the acquisition, new construction, and/or rehabilitation of affordable
rental housing based on the Affordable Housing Community Priorities approved by
1. Acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new construction of properties that focus on
homeless or special needs populations, and that provide appropriate services to
assist and sustain these populations; and
2. Acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction of properties where the
developer qualifies as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
as defined by the HOME Investment Partnerships Act Program (HOME)
Program.

Procurement Information
Six proposals were received and reviewed by an evaluation committee comprised
of two City staff members and two community representatives. The proposals were
evaluated on a 1,000-point scale based on the following criteria: Developer
Experience; Project Merits/Approach; Financial Feasibility; and Project Impact. The
evaluation panel scored the proposals as follows:

· Pueblo Apartments (Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.): 923 points.
· Acacia Heights II (Trinity Housing Development, LLC): 914 points.


Page 340

· Reserve at Thunderbird - Phase 1 (Glenmark Construction, Inc. and Antares
Development & Investing [Mark Breen and Jessica Raymond]): 911 points.
· Rehoboth Place II (Gorman and Company, LLC and Rehoboth Community
Development Corporation): 820 points.
· Commons at 9 South (UMOM/Helping Hands Housing Services): 766 points.
· Mustang Villas (YES Housing of Arizona, Inc.): 708 points.

Based on funding availability, all six projects were recommended for funding.

Rehoboth Place II, located at 4625 N. 27th Ave., includes the new construction of a
66-unit permanent housing community. Rehoboth Community Development
Corporation (CDC), a non-profit developer, and Gorman and Company, LLC, a for-
profit developer, through Rehoboth Place II, LLC, requested $1 million to assist with
the development of this project. All units will serve households below 60 percent of
the Area Median Income (AMI) with at least 11 units serving households at or below
40 percent AMI. Supportive services will be provided by Rehoboth CDC and will
include job placement assistance, income tax assistance, financial coaching and
education, and first-time homebuyer and entrepreneur training. Other proposed
funding for this project includes permanent debt financing, Low Income Housing Tax
Credit (LIHTC) equity, a seller carryback loan, and a deferred developer fee.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME is a federally-funded program.
Funding for this CFI is made available from 2020 HOME funds, and a forward
allocation of 2021 HOME funds. Funding commitments for projects with LIHTC
equity are reliant upon receiving a LIHTC award from the Arizona Department of
Housing. Funding is budgeted in the Housing Department Capital Improvement
Program. Loan execution is anticipated for FY 2021-22 and the loan will be paid to
the developer over a two-year period.

Public Outreach
All applicants were required to hold at least one community meeting with the
surrounding neighborhood to inform them of their proposed housing development.
Per the evaluation criteria, applicants that held more than one community meeting
were given additional points.

Location
4625 N. 27th Ave.
Council District: 4


Page 341


Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Land Use and Livability
Subcommittee meeting on March 17, 2021, by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Housing
Department.




Page 342



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Loan Federal HOME Funds for Commons at 9 South Affordable Housing
Development (Ordinance S-47456)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Affordable Housing Loan Program agreement for up to $1 million in federal U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development HOME Investment Partnerships
Act Program funds with UMOM Housing 8, LLC, or a City-approved nominee, for
the Commons at 9 South affordable housing development project, and to take all
actions and execute all documents to complete the loan. Authorization is also
requested for the City Controller to disburse the funds for the life of the contract.
There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
On Nov. 16, 2020, the Housing Department issued a Call for Interest (CFI) seeking
proposals for the acquisition, new construction, and/or rehabilitation of affordable
rental housing based on the Affordable Housing Community Priorities approved by
1. Acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new construction of properties that focus on
homeless or special needs populations, and that provide appropriate services to
assist and sustain these populations; and
2. Acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction of properties where the
developer qualifies as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
as defined by the HOME Investment Partnerships Act Program (HOME)
Program.

Procurement Information
Six proposals were received and reviewed by an evaluation committee comprised
of two City staff members and two community representatives. The proposals were
evaluated on a 1,000-point scale based on the following criteria: Developer
Experience; Project Merits/Approach; Financial Feasibility; and Project Impact. The
evaluation panel scored the proposals as follows:

· Pueblo Apartments (Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.): 923 points.
· Acacia Heights II (Trinity Housing Development, LLC): 914 points.


Page 343

· Reserve at Thunderbird Phase 1 (Glenmark Construction, Inc. and Antares
Development & Investing [Mark Breen and Jessica Raymond]): 911 points.
· Rehoboth Place II (Gorman and Company, LLC and Rehoboth Community
Development Corporation): 820 points.
· Commons at 9 South (UMOM/Helping Hands Housing Services): 766 points.
· Mustang Villas (YES Housing of Arizona, Inc.): 708 points.

Based on funding availability, all six projects were recommended for funding.

Commons at 9 South, located at 4048 and 4050 S. 9th St., includes the new
construction of a 60-unit permanent housing community. UMOM/Helping Hands
Housing Services, a non-profit CHDO, through UMOM Housing 8, LLC, requested
$1 million to assist with the development of this project. All units will serve persons
with incomes at or below 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) with at least
5 units serving households at or below 40 percent AMI. Supportive services will be
provided through Helping Hands Housing Services and its partners and will include
assistance with furniture and household goods, food boxes, utility assistance
programs, job development, financial management, and homeownership and credit
counseling. Other proposed funding for this project includes permanent debt
financing and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) equity.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME is a federally-funded program.
Funding for this CFI is made available from 2020 HOME funds, and a forward
allocation of 2021 HOME funds. Funding commitments for projects with LIHTC
equity are reliant upon receiving a LIHTC award from the Arizona Department of
Housing. Funding is budgeted in the Housing Department Capital Improvement
Program. Loan execution is anticipated for FY 2021-22 and the loan will be paid to
the developer over a two-year period.

Public Outreach
All applicants were required to hold at least one community meeting with the
surrounding neighborhood to inform them of their proposed housing development.
Per the evaluation criteria, applicants that held more than one community meeting
were given additional points.

Location
4048 and 4050 S. 9th St.
Council District: 8


Page 344


Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Land Use and Livability
Subcommittee meeting on March 17, 2021, by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Housing
Department.




Page 345



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Loan Federal HOME Funds for Mustang Villas Affordable Housing
Development (Ordinance S-47457)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Affordable Housing Loan Program agreement for up to $1 million in federal U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development HOME Investment Partnerships
Act Program funds with Mustang Villas LLC, or a City-approved nominee, for the
Mustang Villas affordable housing development project, and to take all actions and
execute all documents to complete the loan. Authorization is also requested for the
City Controller to disburse the funds for the life of the contract. There is no impact to
the General Fund.

Summary
On Nov. 16, 2020, the Housing Department issued a Call for Interest (CFI) seeking
proposals for the acquisition, new construction, and/or rehabilitation of affordable
rental housing based on the Affordable Housing Community Priorities approved by
1. Acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new construction of properties that focus on
homeless or special needs populations, and that provide appropriate services to
assist and sustain these populations; and
2. Acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction of properties where the
developer qualifies as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
as defined by the HOME Investment Partnerships Act Program (HOME)
Program.

Procurement Information
Six proposals were received and reviewed by an evaluation committee comprised
of two City staff members and two community representatives. The proposals were
evaluated on a 1,000-point scale based on the following criteria: Developer
Experience; Project Merits/Approach; Financial Feasibility; and Project Impact. The
evaluation panel scored the proposals as follows:

· Pueblo Apartments (Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc.): 923 points.
· Acacia Heights II (Trinity Housing Development, LLC): 914 points.


Page 346

· Reserve at Thunderbird Phase 1 (Glenmark Construction, Inc. and Antares
Development & Investing [Mark Breen and Jessica Raymond]): 911 points.
· Rehoboth Place II (Gorman and Company, LLC and Rehoboth Community
Development Corporation): 820 points.
· Commons at 9 South (UMOM/Helping Hands Housing Services): 766 points.
· Mustang Villas (YES Housing of Arizona, Inc.): 708 points.

Based on funding availability, all six projects were recommended for funding.

Mustang Villas, located at the Southwest Corner of 59th Ave. and McDowell Road,
includes the new construction of a 60-unit permanent housing community. YES
Housing of Arizona, Inc., a non-profit corporation, through Mustang Villas LLC,
requested $1 million to assist with the development of this project. All units will
serve persons with incomes at or below 60 percent of the Area Median Income
(AMI) with at least 10 units serving households at or below 40 percent AMI. YES
Housing will provide services including referrals and coordination with local service
providers, and employment resources. Other proposed funding for this project
includes permanent debt financing and Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
equity.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME is a federally-funded program.
Funding for this CFI is made available from 2020 HOME funds, and a forward
allocation of 2021 HOME funds. Funding commitments for projects with LIHTC
equity are reliant upon receiving a LIHTC award from the Arizona Department of
Housing. Funding is budgeted in the Housing Department Capital Improvement
Program. Loan execution is anticipated for FY 2021-22 and the loan will be paid to
the developer over a two-year period.

Public Outreach
All applicants were required to hold at least one community meeting with the
surrounding neighborhood to inform them of their proposed housing development.
Per the evaluation criteria, applicants that held more than one community meeting
were given additional points.

Location
Southwest Corner of 59th Ave. and McDowell Road
Council District: 7



Page 347

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Land Use and Livability
Subcommittee meeting on March 17, 2021, by a vote of 4-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Housing
Department.




Page 348



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Electronic Donation Portal to Support Tree Planting

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to implement an electronic
donation portal to allow donations from the public to fund planting of new trees in City
rights-of-way and City-owned properties. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
roadmap to create a healthier, more livable and prosperous 21st-century desert city. In
addition to public education programs and urban forest management best practices,
the plan included an ambitious goal to double the tree and shade canopy to 25 percent
by 2030. Recently, the public and the City are renewing efforts on the Master Plan
goals alongside a growing concern about rising temperatures and the urban heat
island effect - particularly in neighborhoods with both vulnerable populations and a
more limited tree canopy.

City departments have developed creative ways to fund new tree planting projects to
meet the 2030 goal, including: actively seeking grant funds; selling carbon offsets;
partnering with utilities; and seeking assistance of AmeriCorps VISTAs to work on
neighborhood tree planting projects to increase the number of trees planted. Although
these efforts have resulted in a sharp increase in the number of trees planted each
year, it is far short of what is needed to reach a 25 percent tree canopy. To meet the
tree canopy goal, approximately 10,000 new trees need to be planted each year--more
than double the current rate.

Formation of the Tree Donation Portal
When staff surveyed the community prior to adoption of the City’s 2050 goals, it
identified remarkable public support for the tree canopy goal. Of 1,240 respondents, 92
percent agreed with the statement that "…the 25 percent tree and shade canopy goal
is a good idea." Over 50 percent of the respondents indicated that they would be
willing to donate to a tree campaign. Given the strong public support, staff explored
examples of other city tree donation programs and websites and found several
examples including onetreeplanted.org and the National Forest Foundation's tree
donation program.


Page 349


The City of Phoenix has accepted public donations by check for many purposes in the
past (including for trees), but the City has not had a donation campaign specifically for
trees or with the ability to accept electronic payments for these types of donations.
Based on examples from other donation sites, the City has set up a donation webpage
(phoenix.gov/plantatree) and worked with the Finance Department and the City's
vendor, Chase Bank, to set up, at no cost, a secure electronic payment portal. The
new donation portal can accept deposits and track donations into a dedicated fund
from which funds can be allocated to specific projects in the following program
categories:

a. Tree donations designated for parks or street right-of-way will be transferred to the
Parks and Recreation or Street Transportation department budget/cost centers,
respectively, and used for specific tree planting projects selected by the Urban
Forest Implementation Team (UFIT) prioritizing tree planting in heat-vulnerable
neighborhoods and pedestrian corridors. The UFIT is a City staff committee that
includes representatives from the Planning and Development, Water Services,
Neighborhood Services, Parks and Recreation, and Street Transportation
departments, as well as the Offices of Sustainability and Environmental Programs;
and
b. Donations designated to neighborhoods will be administered by the Neighborhood
Services Department's "Love Your Block" program. Funds will be distributed
monthly or quarterly to "Love Your Block" as donations become available. The
"Love Your Block" program will manage the funds through a neighborhood grant
program in partnership with the Citizen Forester program and the AmeriCorps
VISTA program.

The portal allows donors to direct their donations toward any of the program areas
listed rather than select specific projects. The website includes a disclaimer indicating
the City cannot guarantee when the trees will be planted, but does list recent and
upcoming tree planting projects. There is also a comment box on the donation page
where users can propose future projects. Individuals and organizations will also be
able to apply to "Love Your Block" to receive neighborhood grants as part of the
program.

Management of a New Tree Donation Program
Initial management of the program will be led by the Office of Sustainability in
partnership with the receiving departments listed above.

Financial Impact
The program will accept electronic donations from individuals and businesses from $5


Page 350

up to $25,000, specifically for purchase and planting of trees.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters, Mario Paniagua and
Inger Erickson, and the Parks and Recreation, Neighborhood Services and Street
Transportation departments, and the Office of Sustainability.




Page 351



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Sell City-Owned Property Located at 11 W. Cypress St.
(Ordinance S-47418)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to sell approximately 617
square feet of City-owned property adjacent to 36 W. Holly St. to JAG Development,
LLC and Studio Ma, Inc., or its City-approved designee (Developer). Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.

Summary
The City-owned property, identified by assessor parcel number 118-51-109, consists of
approximately 1.17 acres of land developed with a parking garage and other
improvements serving the City's Family Advocacy Center. The portion of property to be
sold for $17,900 is an approximately 4-foot by 165-foot remnant strip of unimproved
land along the western property line, the land is not needed for the operations of the
Family Advocacy Center developed on the balance of the property; the strip will be
assembled with the abutting property to the west for purposes of expanding and
securing the residential site. The property will be conveyed by Special Warranty Deed,
with the purchase price based on appraised value. The buyer will pay all closing costs,
including the cost of the survey.

This property will not be transferred from the City's ownership until the zoning is
complete on the property and the two adjacent properties known as 36 and 42 W.
Holly Street. In addition, building permits must be ready to issue on the project prior to
the sale to Developer.

Financial Impact
The sale of this property will generate a one-time $17,900 sales proceeds to the City.
Sale proceeds will be applied towards the 2007 and 2009 bond debt used to purchase
the property.

Location
11 W. Cypress St.
Council District: 4




Page 352

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and Interim Deputy City
Manager John Chan, and the Human Services and Community and Economic
Development departments.




Page 353
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE S-

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
SELL APPROXIMATELY 617 SQUARE FEET OF CITY-
OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO 36 WEST HOLLY




AF
STREET TO JAG DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND STUDIO MA,
INC.; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
TREASURER TO ACCEPT ALL FUNDS.

__________




follows:

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



SECTION 1. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to sell

approximately 617 square feet of City-owned property adjacent to 36 W. Holly Street



R
(Subject Property) to JAG Development, LLC and Studio Ma, Inc., or its City-approved

designee (Developer), for the purchase. The Subject Property is part of Assessor

Parcel Number 118-51-109, an approximately a 4-foot by 165-foot strip of unimproved


D
land along the western property line. Developer will pay $17,900 for the Subject

Property, as well as all closing costs, and the cost of a survey for the Subject Property

and the adjacent property. The Subject Property will be conveyed by special warranty

deed.




Page 354
SECTION 2. The City Treasurer is authorized to accept all funds for the

purposes of this Ordinance.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of April,

2021.



____________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:




AF
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:



T
Cris Meyer, City Attorney



BY: ____________________________________
____________________________________ TGS


R
REVIEWED BY:




D
____________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager


TGS:rb:LF20-2230:4/7/21:2224810_1




2 Ordinance S-
Page 355



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
GateWay Community College Phoenix Forge Makerspace Parking Agreement
(Ordinance S-47427)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) on behalf of GateWay
Community College to provide parking spaces in the Adams Street Garage located at
310 W. Adams St. in downtown Phoenix.

Summary
GateWay Community College’s makerspace, Phoenix Forge, a ONE Maricopa
Initiative, serves as a learning environment offering students a location to learn the
practical application of coursework, while providing the entrepreneur, hobbyist,
inventor, and small business community, with a place to access the tools and
equipment needed for idea fabrication and product development. Phoenix Forge is
open to the public, MCCCD students, and staff.

Phoenix Forge builds on a nationwide effort to forge meaningful and collaborative
relationships between Arts and Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEAM).
It serves as a cross-disciplinary learning lab for students of the Maricopa Community
College system and is available to the public for a nominal membership fee. The
makerspace offers an academic model of credit and non-credit courses and short, one
-time workshops. This model creates a rich learning environment that supports student
success by encouraging critical-thinking, creativity, and innovation.

The Phoenix Forge makerspace facility is located in buildings currently owned by
MCCCD at 535 W. Van Buren St. in downtown Phoenix, and consists of 22,500 square
feet of workspace, flexible classroom and community engagement/event space.

In preparation of the Phoenix Forge opening, the Phoenix Convention Center
Department (PCCD) will provide 100 parking spaces at the City-owned Adams Street
Garage located at 310 W. Adams St. Parking will be available to parkers solely in
connection with Phoenix Forge by badge access. In lieu of parking revenue, an annual
parking maintenance fee of $2,000 will be collected for each year of the five-year term
to assist in maintaining the garage. The Community and Economic Development
Department has agreed to pay this fee on behalf of Gateway Community College.


Page 356


Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about April 1, 2021 for a five-year term.

Financial Impact
CEDD will be charged $2,000 annually by PCCD for the parking maintenance fee, not
to exceed $10,000 over the life of the five-year term. There is no impact to the General
Fund. Funding is available in the Downtown Community Reinvestment Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Workforce and Economic
Development Subcommittee at the March 24, 2021 meeting by a vote of 2-0.

Location
310 W. Adams St.
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan, and the Phoenix
Convention Center and Community and Economic Development departments.




Page 357



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Three-Year Membership with Arizona Israel Technology Alliance (Ordinance S-
47444)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to pay membership dues to
the Arizona Israel Technology Alliance for May 2021 through April 2023 in the amount
of $15,000 annually, for a total amount not to exceed $45,000. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse funds related to this item. There is no
impact to the General Fund.

Summary
The City entered into its first one-year membership with the Arizona Israel Technology
Alliance (AITA) in September 2019. With 22 members, representing the private sector,
economic development organizations, municipalities and trade organizations from
Arizona and Israel, the AITA focuses on attracting Israeli foreign direct investment
(FDI) to Phoenix and Arizona. In addition, the AITA provides support to any Israeli
mergers and acquisitions business, and continued expansion of existing Israeli
businesses in Phoenix.

Through monthly briefings with Community and Economic Development Department
(CEDD) staff, AITA is proving vital to the City's long-term strategic international
economic initiatives. AITA, along with its members, has generated a number of warm
leads between the City and Israeli Agrifood Tech companies. It is hoped these warm
leads will yield agreements as part of CEDD's Agrifood Tech 100 Business Attraction
strategy and its broader Food System Entrepreneurship and Innovation Program.
Beyond just Agrifood Tech, AITA's program manager in Israel continues to assist in the
building of connections with Biotech companies in Israel in support of CEDD's
Bioscience Healthcare Strategic Initiative.

AITA connects Phoenix to Israel - a world leader in startups, with more than 2,000
startups in the past decade, focused in areas contributing to Phoenix's international
trade strategy of FDI and business attraction in defense and security, autonomous
vehicles, biotech, cyber tech and agrifood tech. Since its inception in 2017, AITA has
assisted 70 Israeli companies with Arizona projects including business development,
hiring personnel and more. AITA also provides webinars to promote business-to-
business connections, such as "The Growth of Israeli Companies in Arizona" in


Page 358

October 2020, attended by more than 100 individuals representing companies in Israel
and Arizona (roughly evenly split).

If approved, the City's thee-year membership will be valid through the following years:

· May 2021 - April 2022
· May 2022 - April 2023
· May 2023 - April 2024

Financial Impact
Membership dues are $15,000 annually, not to exceed a total of $45,000 over the
course of three years. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available in
the Downtown Community Reinvestment Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Workforce and Economic
Development Subcommittee at the March 24, 2021 meeting by a vote of 3-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 359



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Intergovernmental Agreement with Maricopa County Community College
District for Culinary Support Services Hub Feasibility Study (Ordinance S-47450)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Maricopa County Community College District
for the Center for Entrepreneurial Innovation at GateWay Community College, to
extend the term for a feasibility study on a culinary support services hub. There is no
expense impact as a result of this action.

Summary
On Feb. 5, 2020, City Council authorized the Community and Economic Development
Department (CEDD) to enter into a contract with GateWay Community College
(GWCC) to fund a feasibility study on a culinary support services hub. The goal of the
feasibility study is to determine the market to support a commercial culinary hub and to
prepare a preliminary business plan addressing the potential to convert a vacant
property into a culinary incubator center.

In October 2020, the Center for Entrepreneurial Innovation (CEI) at GWCC of the
Maricopa County Community College District requested additional time and funding
that was needed to support an extension of services under the existing
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to include the coordination of project partners to
create the business and collaboration agreements necessary to complete the study.
The request for additional funding and a term extension to Dec. 31, 2020 was
approved by City Council on Nov. 4, 2020. The term of the IGA has since expired, and
an extension is requested to complete the study.

The City, in partnership with CEI, seeks to complete a feasibility study for the adaptive
reuse of vacant commercial property into a culinary support services hub for K-12 and
community college education, business incubation, workforce development and
training purposes. This study aligns with CEDD's action plan to cultivate
entrepreneurship and emerging enterprise ecosystems by supporting incubator and
accelerator space, mentoring and business planning to promote and facilitate business
ownership, in addition to assisting in retaining and expanding food-related businesses
in support of the City’s 2050 Local Food System Sustainability Goal.



Page 360

Contract Term
If approved, the term of the IGA, City Contract No. 153040, will be extended from Dec.
31, 2020 to March 31, 2022.

Financial Impact
There is no expense impact as a result of this action.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Feb. 5, 2020, City Council authorized $35,000 in payment authority to fund a
feasibility study on a culinary support services hub through Ordinance S-46357. On
Nov. 4, 2020, City Council authorized an amendment to the IGA via Ordinance S-
47058 for $10,000 in additional funding and an extension of the term.

Location
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 361



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amendment to Financial Advisory Services Contract with Rounds Consulting
Group Inc. to Add Downtown Absorption Rate Study (Ordinance S-47462)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and allow additional
expenditures of up to $15,000 under City Contract No. 149681 with Rounds Consulting
Group Inc. for a Downtown Residential and Commercial Absorption Rate study for the
Community and Economic Development Department. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. There is no impact to the
General Fund.

Summary
At present, there are approximately 3,767 new residential units under construction and
another approximately 2,811 units in the pipeline with some form of approval in
downtown Phoenix. For comparison, between 1996 and today, a total of 6,747 new
residential units were completed in the same general area. This unprecedented growth
cycle is the result of the collaborative work led by the Phoenix City Council to
redevelop downtown into the economic, educational and entertainment center of the
region. To better understand the market’s ability to absorb the new construction, a
Residential and Commercial Absorption Rate study is needed. Community and
Economic Development Department staff will work with Rounds Consulting Group Inc.
to gather and analyze available data to provide a report on the Downtown market to
the City's Workforce and Economic Development Subcommittee.

Financial Impact
The City's total estimated expenditure for this project will not exceed $15,000. There is
no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available in the Downtown Community
Reinvestment Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City's Workforce and Economic Development Subcommittee provided direction for
staff to move forward with the study at its Feb. 24, 2021 meeting.

Ordinance S-45562 for Affordable Housing Financial Advisory Services was approved
by Council on April 17, 2019. Contract No. 149681 began on June 1, 2019 with a five-
year term ending on May 31, 2024.


Page 362


Location
Council Districts: 4, 7 & 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 363



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Apply for and Accept 2020 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) Grant (Ordinance S-47448)

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, and
accept, if awarded, up to $7,255,358 from federal fiscal year (FFY) 2020 Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant Program funds through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Further request authorization for
the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to
this item. If not approved, the grant, if awarded, would be turned down.

Summary
The purpose of the SAFER Grant Program is to increase the number of firefighters to
help communities meet industry minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to
provide adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards. The grant application
will request $7,255,358 to hire 22 firefighter positions lost through attrition (retirements
and resignations). These positions will be used to increase service coverage area and
improve emergency response times. Funding will be distributed over a three-year
period with no cost match required. If awarded, federal funding will be up to
$7,255,358, over the period of performance.

Contract Term
The performance period of this grant, if awarded, is three years. The anticipated start
date is on or around Aug. 24, 2021, with an anticipated end date on or around Aug. 24,
2024.

Financial Impact
If awarded, the Fire Department will receive up to $7,255,358 in grant funding for 22
firefighter positions. No match will be required from the City.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The grant application period opened on Feb. 8, 2021 and closed on March 12, 2021.
The timeline did not give the Fire Department an opportunity to present this item to the
Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee.




Page 364

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Fire Department.




Page 365



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Contract with Maricopa County Department of Public Health to Provide
Seasonal Influenza and Other Vaccines (Ordinance S-47461)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
City Contract No. 153292 to accept additional funds in the amount of $50,000 from the
Maricopa County Department of Public Health (MCDPH) to continue to provide
seasonal influenza and other vaccines. Further request authorization for the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
City Contract No. 153292, in the original amount of $50,000, was approved by the City
Council on Oct. 7, 2020 to provide seasonal influenza and other vaccines. MCDPH will
provide an additional $50,000 for the first renewal period of July 1, 2021 through
March 31, 2022.

The Phoenix Fire Department (PFD) has a long history of providing immunizations at
community locations, schools, community centers and other non-medical facilities, to
children and adults. The PFD has successfully immunized many Maricopa County
residents in partnership with MCDPH through previous agreements.

The City has partnered with MCDPH, to provide seasonal influenza vaccines (as well
as other types of vaccines if needed) to individuals six months of age and older. The
intent of this agreement is to increase access to vaccines thereby decreasing the
overall spread of viruses.

Contract Term
The initial term of the agreement is Nov. 2, 2020 through June 30, 2021 with four
additional one-year periods, not to exceed a total extended term of five years.

Financial Impact
MCDPH will reimburse the PFD for the vaccinations on a per unit cost basis up to
$100,000 over a five-year period.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
City Contract No. 153292 was approved by the City Council on Oct. 7, 2020.


Page 366


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Fire Department.




Page 367



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Airport Financial Advisory Services (Ordinance S-47439)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Frasca & Associates, LLC, to provide financial advisory services to the Aviation
Department in an amount not to exceed $1.8 million for a five-year aggregate contract
term. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item.

Summary
The contract provides financial and business consulting services to the Aviation
Department, including long-term financial planning and Capital Improvement Program
review, bond issuance, bond-rating agency advice, and other financial-related
assistance such as revenue and expenditure forecasts; rates, charges and leases
review; Passenger Facility Charges and Customer Facility Charges support; and
annual report support. These consulting services are crucial to the Aviation
Department's ability to issue bonds, provide for the capital improvement program,
maintain the airport's credit, and pursue its business objectives.

Procurement Information
Three firms from the current City of Phoenix Financial Advisory Services Qualified
Vendors List were selected for further evaluation. Each firm offers infrastructure
finance experience with various specialties, including airports. The proposals from the
selected qualified vendors were evaluated by a three-member evaluation panel for
their qualifications to perform financial advisory services for the Aviation Department.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Frasca & Associates, LLC

Additional Qualified Vendors
Rank 2: FirstSouthwest, a Division of Hilltop Securities Inc.
Rank 3: Montegue DeRose and Associates, LLC

Frasca & Associates, LLC was selected based on the firm's extensive experience with
large hub airports, Passenger Facility Charges, and Customer Facility Charges.



Page 368

Contract Term
The term of the contract is five years and will begin on or about May 1, 2021. The
contract will not contain an option to extend the term.

Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $1.8 million for the five-year aggregate contract
term. Funding is available in the Aviation Department's budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on Feb.
18, 2021 by a vote of 6-0.
· The Transportation, Infrastructure and Innovation Subcommittee recommended this
item for approval on March 3, 2021, by a vote of 4-0.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8

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




Page 369



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with City of Avondale for Processing Recyclable
Materials (Ordinance S-47425)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Avondale to accept and process
recyclable materials collected in the City of Avondale and delivered to the City of
Phoenix's North Gateway and 27th Avenue Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs).
Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
The City of Avondale offers recycling services to its residents and has delivered these
recyclables to the City of Phoenix since 2016. The City of Avondale would like to
continue this arrangement. The City of Phoenix can continue to accept these materials
with some change of terms to address changing market conditions resulting in lower
commodity prices and increased processing costs from contamination in the
recyclables. This Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will authorize the City of Phoenix
to charge a processing fee to the City of Avondale for recycling tonnage processed at
the two City MRFs, which is designed to ensure all costs associated with processing
recyclables are recovered. The terms of this IGA include:
· In a market with low recycling commodity prices, the City of Phoenix will charge a
processing fee to the City of Avondale, and no revenue share to the City of
Avondale will be available; and
· In a market with high recycling commodity prices, the City of Avondale will pay a
processing fee and will receive 50 percent of the net revenue share and the City of
Phoenix will receive the remaining 50 percent.

Annually, the City of Avondale will deliver up to 6,000 tons of recyclable materials to

Contract Term
The one-year term of this IGA will begin on or about July 1, 2021 and conclude on or
about June 30, 2022. Provisions of the IGA include four, one-year options to extend
the agreement.



Page 370

Financial Impact
Over the life of the agreement, the City of Avondale's 50 percent of the revenue share
is not expected to exceed $150,000. Funding for the revenue share payments to City
of Avondale is available in the Public Works Department's budget.

Location
North Gateway Material Recovery Facility - 30205 N. Black Canyon Highway
27th Avenue Material Recovery Facility - 3060 S. 27th Ave.
Council Districts: 2 and 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.




Page 371



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
One-time Purchase of Asphalt Distributor (Ordinance S-47430)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Musgrove Enterprises, LLC dba SealMaster Arizona for the purchase of one
asphalt distributor. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total agreement will not exceed $24,300.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for the purchase, repair and maintenance
of equipment in the City's fleet. Public Works is seeking to purchase one asphalt
distributor for the Street Transportation Department. This equipment is used to seal
and coat asphalt roads and parking lots to increase the surface life while improving the
appearance by protecting against water damage, ultraviolet rays and oxidation.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a Request for Quote (RFQ) procurement process in
accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.

The RFQ was sent to 49 vendors. The Public Works Department received one quote
from SealMaster Arizona for $21,682.05 (excluding applicable tax).

Contract Term
This item is a one-time purchase.

Financial Impact
This is a one-time expenditure in the amount of $24,300. Funding is available in the
Street Transportation Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Karen Peters,
and the Street Transportation and Public Works departments.




Page 372



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
One-time Purchase of Boat Trailer (Ordinance S-47431)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Technology International, Inc. for purchase of one boat trailer. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This item will
have an aggregate amount of $10,400.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for the purchase, maintenance and repair
of the City's fleet, which includes passenger vehicles, off-road equipment and trailers
used to transport other equipment. Public Works is seeking to purchase one boat
trailer for the Parks and Recreation Department to transport a metal boat to and from
urban lakes. The original boat trailer was purchased in 1982 and has reached the end
of its useful life. The boat is used to complete water surface clean-up at the City's
public parks.

Procurement Information
A Request for Quote was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation
3.10. The Public Works Department received one bid from the recommended vendor
at the below cost:

Technology International, Inc.: $9,374 (excluding tax)

Contract Term
This item will be for the one-time purchase of a boat trailer that will begin upon Council
approval on April 7, 2021.

Financial Impact
This item will have a one-time expenditure of $10,400. Funding is available in the
Parks and Recreation Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Karen Peters, and
the Parks and Recreation and Public Works departments.



Page 373



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
One-Time Purchase of Four Traffic Attenuators (Ordinance S-47437)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. for the purchase of four traffic attenuators. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
contract will have a one-time expenditure in the amount of $133,821.68.

Summary
The Public Works Department is seeking to purchase four TL3 Scorpion trailer-
mounted traffic attenuators for the Street Transportation Department. The Scorpion
TL3 trailer attenuator is designed to provide a crash barrier between the towing vehicle
and oncoming traffic and will be used during roadway striping operations. There is an
immediate need for the attenuators to maintain employee safety, create time
efficiencies and save money with repairing vehicle damages.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid (IFB) 21-FSD-027 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. The Public Works Department received three bids, with low bid being
determined by the cost of each attenuator. RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc. was
deemed the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and is being recommended for
award.

RoadSafe Traffic Systems, Inc.: $26,137.67
Statewide Safety Systems: $27,293
Striping Service and Supply, Inc.: $29,305

Contract Term
This item will be for a one-time purchase of four attenuators, and the contract shall
begin on or about April 7, 2021.

Financial Impact
The agreement will have a one-time expenditure of $133,821.68. Funding is available
in the Street Transportation Department's budget.




Page 374

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Karen Peters,
and the Street Transportation and Public Works departments.




Page 375



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Environmental Protection Agency Grant for Clean Fuel Funding Assistance
Program Fiscal Year 2021 (Ordinance S-47445)

This report requests the City Council to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to
retroactively apply for; accept; enter into an agreement; and disburse a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant, under the Clean Diesel Funding
Assistance Program Fiscal Year 2021. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer
to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Solid Waste refuse fleet includes some older diesel vehicles with emissions that
exceed those achieved by the most current emission control technologies. Emissions
from diesel engines contribute to production of ground level ozone, a pollutant for
which Maricopa County region is not currently meeting federal health standards. The
intent of the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) grant program is to provide grant
funding to help subsidize vehicle costs to replace higher polluting diesel emission
engines with cleaner operating units to reduce harmful emissions. Solid Waste is
seeking to replace up to 11 refuse trucks with alternative fuel powered units. Reducing
vehicle emissions from the municipal fleet will demonstrate the City's commitment to
lead by example toward the 2050 sustainability goal of clean air.

EPA Region 9 will administer the Federal DERA Grant Program. If awarded, funding
will be provided to purchase new ultra-low NOx fleet vehicles to replace old, higher
polluting fleet vehicles with 2022 models or newer.

Staff anticipates obtaining grant funding for up to 45 percent of the new vehicle cost for
replacement. The Public Works Department has been awarded over $2 million of grant
monies under the same DERA grant program the last two fiscal years.

The application to EPA Region 9 was due March 16, 2021. The granting agency
anticipates notifying applicants on or about July 1, 2021 with an expected project
completion date of September 2023.

Contract Term
Up to two years beginning on or about July 1, 2021.


Page 376


Financial Impact
The federal amount requested for this proposal is $1,815,000. If grant funds are
awarded in full, the City would need to match up to $3,030,000. Funding is available in
the Public Works Department’s Solid Waste vehicle replacement fund.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.




Page 377



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Recycling Partnership Grant Opportunity for Improved Recycling and Programs
for Fiscal Year 2021 (Ordinance S-47449)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively apply for,
accept, and enter into an agreement, and disburse grants from The Recycling
Partnership through its Polypropylene Recycling Request for Proposal Program to
support the purchase of a new polypropylene optical sorter at the North Gateway
Material Recovery Facility. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept,
and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. The City match for
grant funds will not exceed $100,000.

Summary
Plastics continue to be a growing component of the national solid waste stream and
new recycling markets have developed for certain types of plastics. Polypropylene,
commonly known as #5 plastic, is used to make yogurt containers, some drink
containers, and to-go containers. Investment in optical sorting technology will increase
capture of polypropylene allowing the City to increase diversion of this material from
the landfill, access the market for polypropylene, and further efforts to build a circular
economy and achieve zero waste by 2050.

The Recycling Partnership is a national non-profit organization that works with local
governments, national brands and industry leaders to improve recycling programs. The
Recycling Partnership's polypropylene grant aims to improve and increase sortation
and capture of polypropylene in recycling programs.

Through the Polypropylene Request for Proposal, the Public Works Department is
seeking grant funds up to $450,000 to increase polypropylene capture via improved
optical sortation. If awarded, funding will support the purchase of a new polypropylene
optical sorter at the North Gateway Material Recovery Facility to replace a nine-year-
old system that has limited capture abilities when considering size and capture of
polypropylene. Replacement of the system was not critical in the recent North
Gateway Material Recovery Facility Upgrade; however, staff would like to leverage use
of grant funds to replace the equipment and increase the capture rate of polypropylene
to meet changes in the market. The first deadline to be considered for full funding is
March 31, 2021.


Page 378


Financial Impact
The amount requested for this proposal is $450,000. If grant funds are awarded in full,
Phoenix would need to match up to $100,000 in funding. Funding for the Phoenix cost
share is available in the Public Works Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. Other costs may be incurred by the department to support critical system
needs that arise during the project period (electrical, fire systems, etc.), which will be
funded by Public Works.

Location
North Gateway Material Recovery Facility - 30205 N. Black Canyon Highway
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.




Page 379



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Original Equipment Manufacturer Scorpion Parts and Services Contract -
Amendment (Ordinance S-47451)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 151182, with BTE Body Company, Inc. to provide additional funding to the
agreement for purchase of Scorpion refuse truck parts for the Public Works
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. This item will have an additional aggregate amount of $2,571,999.

Summary
This agreement with BTE Body Company, Inc., is used to provide Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) parts for the Scorpion refuse truck fleet. These parts allow in-
house technicians to perform maintenance repairs needed to put the fleet back in
service for solid waste collections. BTE Body Company, Inc. is the sole Arizona dealer
where these OEM parts can be obtained.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for OEM Scorpion Parts and Services was for an expenditure
not to exceed $1.35 million. This amendment will increase the authorization for the
agreement by an additional $2,571,999, for a new total not-to-exceed amount of
$3,921,999. Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Original Equipment Manufacturer Scorpion Parts and
Services Agreement 151182 (Ordinance S-46009) on Sept. 18, 2019.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.




Page 380



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
35th Avenue and Camelback Road Relief Sewer - Engineering Services -
WS90500303 (Ordinance S-47420)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd., to provide Engineering Services to perform
an alignment study, to design and prepare construction drawings, and perform
construction administration and inspection services for the 35th Avenue and
Camelback Road Relief Sewer 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 $339,637.

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 would be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The purpose of this relief sewer project is to perform an alignment study and to design
the relief sewer generally along Camelback Road from 35th to 29th Avenues This
project is part of the Sanitary Sewer Relief Program. The intent of this ongoing
program is to review and manage the capacity of Phoenix's wastewater collection
system to avoid sanitary sewer overflows.

Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd.’s services include, but are not limited to: conduct
an alignment study, sewer capacity analysis, data collection and field survey; perform
geotechnical investigations; provide public information services; prepare design and
construction documents; cost estimates; bid phase assistance; construction


Page 381

administration and inspection, and other work as required for a complete project.

This Agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
operations for the City.

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. Six firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Rank 3: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Rank 4: Garver, LLC
Rank 5: Strand Associates, Inc.
Rank 6: Primatech, LLC

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is one year 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 Project Engineering Consultants, Ltd. will not exceed
$339,637, 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.

Public Outreach
Planned activities during design include: Initial Project Design Phase Notice, possible
meetings with adjacent properties, project hotline and development of a


Page 382

communication plan that will transition into the construction phase.

Location
Between 29th and 35th Avenues in the area south of Camelback Road
Council Districts: 4 and 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.




Page 383



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
FY2019 Federal Tap HAWK Installation - Design-Bid-Build Services - ST89330184
(Ordinance S-47421)

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 FY2019 Federal Tap
HAWK (High-intensity Activated Crosswalk) Installation project. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for
services will not exceed $1,127,585.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide safe and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
-compliant pedestrian crossings at various locations throughout the city. AJP Electric,
Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to, construction of new ADA-compliant curb
ramps, new HAWK beacons, and associated signing and markings and other work to
complete the project.

This Agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
operations for the City.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Three bids were received on Dec. 29,
2020, 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 of Probable Cost: $923,762.37
AJP Electric, Inc.: $1,127,585.00
C S Construction, Inc.: $1,169,942.00

Bidders who were deemed non-responsive are listed below, in alphabetical order:
B&F Contracting, Inc.


Page 384


Although the bid exceeds the Opinion of Probable Cost by more than 10 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.

The reason for the variance from the Opinion of Probable Cost to the lowest,
responsive, responsible bid is the construction industry is flooded with abundance of
available work; the amount of available work in the Phoenix Metro area exceeds the
current labor forces; and most traffic signal contractors have full workloads; therefore,
costs have increased and bids are higher. Material costs, particularly concrete and
steel, have increased significantly over the past year. Updated traffic signal details for
new poles and arms were unique to the City of Phoenix; therefore, no past data was
available for cost comparison.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 120 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 $1,127,585, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

This project will utilize federal funds and is subject to the requirements of 49 Code of
Federal REgulation (CFR) 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
· Maryvale Parkway and Glenrosa Avenue
· Behrend Road and 35th Avenue
· Van Buren and 30th streets
· Yale and 32nd streets
Council Districts: 1, 5 and 8




Page 385

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




Page 386



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Northwest Water and Wastewater Master Plan - Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction and Construction Services - WS85500455 and WS90500307
(Ordinance S-47422)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with four contractors listed below to provide Construction Manager at Risk
(CMAR) Preconstruction and Construction Services for the Northwest Water and
Wastewater Master Plan project. 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 services will not exceed $146.86 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to construct new water and wastewater infrastructure for
potential growth in the area of Phoenix north of the Central Arizona Project canal,
south of Carefree Highway, west of I-17 to the City of Phoenix city limits. The City
anticipates the work may be done in multiple phases depending on development
progress. Phase One includes four packages advertised and awarded separately.
Phase One water and wastewater infrastructure includes a Pressure Reducing Valve
(PRV) station, water transmission mains, booster pump station, lift station, force
mains, and large diameter gravity sewer mains. Phase One work was divided into four
packages as follows:
· Package One: PRV Station at 51st Avenue and Carefree Highway; 51st Avenue
Corridor (gravity sewer and 54-inch water transmission main); 16-inch water main
along Carefree Highway from 51st Avenue to North Valley Parkway; 6B-B1 upgrade
from 15 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) to 25 MGD.
· Package Two: 12 MGD Lift Station Northeast of Loop 303 and 51st Avenue.
· Package Three: Water and Wastewater mains north of Loop 303 Corridor and
Sonoran Desert Drive to North Valley Parkway, including a 36-inch water
transmission main, three 24- to 36-inch sewer force mains, and one gravity sewer
main west of I-17.
· Package Four: 60-inch Gravity Main in North Valley Parkway or alternative route to
Lift Station 66.

Garney Companies, Inc. (Garney), Felix Construction Company (Felix), Sundt


Page 387

Construction, Inc. (Sundt), and McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. (McCarthy) will all
begin in agency support roles for CMAR Preconstruction Services. The contractors will
assume the risk of delivering the projects through Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
agreements. A Small Business Enterprise goal will be established for this project
during preconstruction services and reviewed prior to the start of construction.

Garney, Felix, Sundt, and McCarthy will then transition to preparation of GMP
proposals for the Construction Services provided under the agreements, and
participate with the City's Small Business Enterprise (SBE) program. The contractors
will be responsible for construction means and methods related to the project and
fulfilling the SBE program requirements. The contractors will be required to solicit bids
from prequalified subcontractors and to perform the work using the City's
subcontractor selection process. The contractors may also compete to self-perform
limited amounts of work.

The Contractors' services for both preconstruction and construction services include
but are not limited to: design and constructability reviews; providing cost estimates and
developing cost models; procuring long-lead items; preparing a GMP proposal; and
constructing the first phase water and wastewater infrastructures.

These agreements are essential to the health, safety and welfare of the public and
critical operations for the City.

Procurement Information
The selections were 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. A total of 13 firms submitted
proposals for the four packages and are listed in Attachment A.

Contract Term
The term of each agreement is three 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 agreement values for:
· Garney, Inc. will not exceed $33 million;
· Felix Construction Company will not exceed $22 million;



Page 388

· Sundt Construction, Inc. will not exceed $66 million; and
· McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. will not exceed $25.86 million.
All agreement values include all subcontractor 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.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreements 153380 and 153381 (Ordinance S-47069) on
Nov. 18, 2020.

Location
North of the Central Arizona Project, south of Carefree Highway, west of I-17, and east
of the City's west limits.
Council District: 1

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.




Page 389
ATTACHMENT A

Selected Firm Package 1
Rank 1: Garney Companies, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: PCL Construction, Inc.
Rank 3: McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
Rank 4: Sundt Construction, Inc.
Rank 5: Archer Western Construction, LLC
Rank 6: Achen-Gardner Construction, LLC
Rank 7: MGC Contractors, Inc.
Rank 8: Felix Construction Company
Rank 9: Ames Construction
Rank 10: T & T Construction, Inc.

Selected Firm Package 2
Felix Construction Company

Additional Proposers
Rank 1: McCarthy Building Companies,Inc. (Selected Package 4)
Rank 2: Felix Construction Company (Selected for Package 2)
Rank 3: PCL Construction, Inc.
Rank 4: MGC Contractors, Inc.
Rank 5: Sundt Construction, Inc.
Rank 6: Achen-Gardner Construction, LLC
Rank 7: Archer Western Construction, LLC
Rank 8: Hunter Contracting Co.
Rank 9: T & T Construction, Inc.
Rank 10: Ames Construction


Selected Firm Package 3
Rank 1: Sundt Construction, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Achen-Gardner Construction, LLC
Rank 3: B & F Contracting, Inc.
Rank 4: Haydon Building Corp.
Rank 5: Ames Construction



Page 390
Selected Firm Package 4
Rank 1: McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Achen-Gardner Construction, LLC
Rank 3: Sundt Construction, Inc.
Rank 4: B & F Contracting, Inc.
Rank 5: Haydon Building Corp.
Rank 6: Ames Construction




Page 391



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Salt River Project Construction Services Agreement for Relief Sewer Project at
Van Buren and 52nd Streets - WS90500295 (Ordinance S-47442)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a construction
services agreement with Salt River Project for relocation of facilities occurring outside
of City right-of-way for City of Phoenix project WS90500295 Relief Sewer Project Van
Buren and 52nd streets. Further request 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. Additionally request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the agreement
will not exceed $15,854.

Summary
The City is constructing a relief sewer line at Van Buren and 52nd Streets, which is
directly impacting an existing electrical service located outside City right-of-way, which
serves an apartment complex. This construction services agreement represents the
cost for Salt River Project's relocation of the existing electrical service that will be
relocated to a new location outside of City right-of-way.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement will begin on or about April 7, 2021, and will expire when
the project is completed and accepted.

Financial Impact
Funding in the amount of $15,854 is available in the Water Services Department's
Capital Improvement Program budget.

Location
Van Buren and 52nd streets
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Karen Peters,
and the Street Transportation and Water Services departments.


Page 392



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Salt River Project Construction License for Traffic Signal Installation at 12th
Street and Osborn Road (Ordinance S-47443)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Construction
License with Salt River Project to perform required maintenance work on the existing
traffic signal installation at 12th Street and Osborn Road. 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.

Summary
The purpose of this license is to allow the City to install two traffic signal conduit
crossings and one conduit installation that will be parallel to existing Salt River Project
irrigation facilities, in order to replace damaged conduit.

Contract Term
The term of the Construction License is one year, effective when the City begins
construction, expected to be on or about April 7, 2021.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact for this license.

Location
12th Street and Osborn Road
Council District: 4

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




Page 393



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant Electrical, Instrumentation and Control
Systems Inspection and Testing - Engineering Services - WS901000092
(Ordinance S-47447)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Wilson Engineers, LLC (Wilson), to provide Engineering Services that include
design support, construction inspections, and commissioning testing for multiple
projects associated with the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant Electrical,
Instrumentation and Control Systems Inspection and Testing 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 $5 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate 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 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 would 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 assist with projects at the facility to improve the
functionality, efficiency, and maintenance of the electrical, instrumentation and control
systems. The City has developed electrical, instrumentation and control standards for
the entire Water Services Department which are used to provide consistency
throughout the Department. One of Wilson's objectives will be to assist the City in
ensuring adherence to these standards on all projects during the design, construction,
calibration, testing and commissioning of the electrical, instrumentation and control
systems. Wilson will provide operations and maintenance support when City staff are
replacing existing equipment or installing new equipment. Additionally, Wilson will


Page 394

provide Arc Flash Hazard Analysis services by providing support to update and
maintain Arc Flash modeling and documentation for compliance with National Fire
Protection Agency (NFPA) requirements.

Wilson's services include, but are not limited to: Design support services consisting of
technical support and consultations relative to installation techniques and procedures,
ensuring adherence to the City standards, and ensuring adherence to applicable
electrical codes. Wilson will attend design meetings and demonstrations, support
research of existing conditions, conduct design reviews, and support facility-wide
understanding of the Water Services Department's standards for electrical,
instrumentation and control systems. In addition, Wilson may be required to support
City staff in updating and maintaining the Water Services Department's standards as
necessary.

Construction support services consist of reviewing equipment submittals, conducting
reviews on the equipment installation, providing field observations reports, participating
in factory testing, reviewing the completeness of required equipment testing
documentation and witnessing the instrumentation calibrations and loop checks.

Commissioning support services consist of providing assistance on computer control
strategy checkout, tuning of control loops, and 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.

Wilson will be required to provide Arc Flash Hazardous Testing services using a
professional electrical engineer. The Arc Flash Hazardous Testing will include as-
building existing single line diagrams, conducting load calculations for motor control
centers, switchgear and power panels and having the knowledge to conduct a power
system study. The selected firm will be required to access energized equipment and
provide all arc flash safety personal protective gear that meets the requirements of
NFPA.

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

This agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
for operations for the City.



Page 395

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. Five firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Wilson Engineers, LLC

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Black & Veatch Corporation
Rank 3: Quantum Engineering, Inc.
Rank 4: Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Rank 5: M3 Engineering and Technology Corporation

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is for five 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 agreement value for Wilson's contract will not exceed $5 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.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The SROG Advisors authorized this project on Feb. 18, 2021.

Location
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.

Page 396



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Purchase Supply of Water/Wastewater Disinfectant - Amendment (Ordinance S-
47419)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 144726 with DPC Enterprises, Inc. to provide additional funding for the
agreement. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures for goods included in this amendment
will not exceed $553,000.

Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to continue to provide the Water Services
Department (WSD), Water Production and Wastewater Treatment plants with supply of
water/wastewater disinfectant. Due to the increase in the cost of water/wastewater
disinfectant which took effect on April 1, 2019, an increase in water production output
since the agreement was originally executed on April 1, 2017, and a decrease of the
region's raw water quality, it is necessary to add funds to continue to purchase the
disinfectant. Without a supply of disinfectant for the Water and Wastewater Treatment
plants, WSD would lack the ability to disinfect drinking water and treat wastewater
discharge to state and federal regulatory standards.

Contract Term
The agreement’s term will remain unchanged, ending on March 31, 2022.

Financial Impact
The initial agreement for the Water/Wastewater Disinfectant Contract was authorized
for an expenditure not-to-exceed $4.3 million. This amendment will increase the
authorization for agreement’s cost by an additional $553,000, for a new total not-to-
exceed agreement value $4,853,000.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Water/Wastewater Disinfectant Agreement 144726
(Ordinance S-43355) on March 22, 2017.



Page 397

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.




Page 398



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Machine Shop and Related Services (Ordinance S-47424)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Device Development, LLC to provide machine shop and related services for the
Water Services Department. 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 agreement value will not exceed $1.42 million.

Summary
Disassembly and assembly services are needed to keep motors, generators, pumps,
stub shaft, auger, bearing housing, gear boxes and other mechanical devices
operational by performing repairs and replacement of parts, when needed, at
Wastewater Treatment Plants, Water Treatment Plants and other locations.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

One bid was received and was deemed responsive. The Procurement Officer solicited
quotes from several companies to compare hourly rates and the bid received was
deemed fair and reasonable.

Selected Bidder
Device Development, LLC

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is six years and will begin on or about July 1, 2021.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Device Development, LLC will not exceed a total value of
$1.42 million. Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating
budget.




Page 399

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.




Page 400



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement for Delivery, Treatment, and Wheeling of Avondale
Colorado Water through City of Phoenix Infrastructure to an Avondale
Interconnect - Amendment (Ordinance S-47432)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an
amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement 148411 between the City of Phoenix and
the City of Avondale for treatment and delivery of the City of Avondale’s Colorado River
Water through the City of Phoenix’s water distribution system to an interconnection
with the City of Avondale’s water distribution system to account for water losses in the
treatment and wheeling process.

Summary
On Sept. 11, 2018, the City of Phoenix (Phoenix) executed an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) with the City of Avondale (Avondale) to treat and deliver Avondale’s
Colorado River Water through Phoenix’s existing water infrastructure and distribution
system for delivery to an interconnect constructed by Avondale. Phoenix now proposes
to amend the IGA to account for water losses in the treatment and wheeling process to
Avondale from Phoenix. The parties will assume a five percent loss occurring in
treatment and transportation of Avondale’s water to the interconnect. This loss will
count toward the amount of water that the City of Phoenix delivers to the City of
Avondale (i.e. Phoenix will add this loss to Avondale’s meter reading at the point of
delivery).

This amendment is necessary to provide for accurate accounting and water loss
between the City of Phoenix and the City of Avondale.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Delivery, Treatment, and Wheeling of Avondale Colorado
Water to Avondale through City of Phoenix Infrastructure IGA 148411 (Ordinance S-
44009) on Nov. 1, 2017.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.



Page 401



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement for Storage, Recovery, and Exchange of Colorado
River Water Between the Cities of Phoenix and Avondale - Amendment
(Ordinance S-47433)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Intergovernmental Agreement 148412 between the City of Phoenix and the City of
Avondale for storage, recovery, and exchange of Colorado River water to expand the
agreement to permit the storage and exchange of New Conservation Space water
from the Salt River.

Summary
On Nov. 1, 2017, the City of Phoenix (Phoenix) executed an Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA) with the City of Avondale (Avondale) in which Avondale agreed to
allow Phoenix to store some of its Colorado River water in Avondale’s underground
storage facility for later recovery and exchange during times of shortage. Phoenix
would like to expand the IGA to permit storage and exchange of New Conservation
Space (NCS) water from the Salt River that is captured in the storage capacity created
by Modified Roosevelt Dam. Unlike Salt River Project water, NCS water can be used
anywhere in the City or stored underground to earn long-term storage credits. While
Phoenix continues to pursue a water resource management strategy of storing
Colorado River water available today for use during future shortages, authorizing the
storage of NCS water in this agreement creates additional water resource
management options. During times of shortage, Phoenix can recover those credits
(pump water) from Avondale’s wells and exchange the pumped water with an equal
amount of Avondale’s Colorado River water delivered to Phoenix through the Central
Arizona Project aqueduct.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Storage, Recovery, and Exchange of Colorado River Water
Between the Cities of Phoenix and Avondale IGA 148412 (Ordinance S-44010) on
Nov. 1, 2017.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.


Page 402



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Perkin Elmer Laboratory Services Agreement - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
47434)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Perkin Elmer Health Sciences, Inc. to provide equipment maintenance services
for the purpose of maintaining proper functionality of Perkin Elmer equipment for water
sampling. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related
to this item. The total value of the agreement will not exceed $143,748.

Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide maintenance, repair services, parts and
consumables for Perkin Elmer Health Sciences, Inc. laboratory instruments.

This direct selection is necessary because of the requirement to provide service by an
authorized Perkin Elmer service team and maintaining the equipment with only Perkin
Elmer Health Sciences, Inc. factory new or refurbished repair parts.

Perkin Elmer's services include but are not limited to: repair; replacement parts; labor;
telephone support; mechanical inspection; calibration; cleaning and any associated
services required to maintain equipment to its original standards on a monthly and bi-
annual service cadence over the term of the agreement.

Procurement Information
An exception to the procurement process was determined to select the contractor as
set forth in City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. A direct selection was made
because there exists a specific warranty requirement to use only authorized service
technicians and Perkin Elmer Health Sciences, Inc. factory new or refurbished repair
parts which makes a competitive selection process impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.

Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about July 1, 2021 for a five-year aggregate term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Perkin Elmer Health Sciences, Inc. expenditures will be
$143,748.

Page 403

Funding is available in the Water Services Department’s Operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.




Page 404



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Windsor Soleil - PLAT 190078 - 312 W. Windsor Ave.

Plat: 190078
Project: 18-1610
Name of Plat: Windsor Soleil
Owner(s): Urban Windsor, LLC
Engineer(s): XCL Engineering, LLC
Request: A 20 Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: March 9, 2021
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
Located at 312 W. Windsor Ave.
Council District: 4

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 405



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Park7 On Windsor - PLAT 200612 - Southwest Corner of 7th Street
and Windsor Avenue

Plat: 200612
Project: 18-1748
Name of Plat: Park7 On Windsor
Owner(s): Park7 Windsor, LLLP
Engineer(s): Shane R. Barnett, RLS
Request: A 24 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Feb. 5, 2021
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. This plat needs to record concurrently with Abandonment ABND 210006.

Location
Generally located at the southwest corner of 7th Street and Windsor Avenue.
Council District: 4

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 406



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Park McDowell - PLAT 200613 - 2200 N. 95th Ave.

Plat: 200613
Project: 99-8024
Name of Plat: Park McDowell
Owner(s): Terralane at Park McDowell, LLC
Engineer(s): Bowman Consulting
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: March 4, 2021
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
2200 N. 95th Ave.
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 407



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Hayden Views Amended - PLAT 200546 - 7040 N. 23rd St.

Plat: 200546
Project: 19-93
Name of Plat: Hayden Views Amended
Owner(s): 7 Views, LLC, Chadwic Gifford
Engineer(s): Robert J. Blake, RLS
Request: A 7 Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: March 11, 2021
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. This plat needs to record concurrently with Abandonment ABND 190048. The
sequence of recording to be followed is that the resolution of abandonment is recorded
first, then the plat is recorded second.

Location
Generally located at 7040 N. 23rd St.
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 408



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Majestic 55 - PLAT 200572 - North of Lower Buckeye Road and East
of 55th Avenue

Plat: 200572
Project: 19-2029
Name of Plat: Majestic 55
Owner(s): Majestic 55th Avenue Partners, LLC
Engineer(s): Hunter Engineering
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: March 4, 2021
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 north of Lower Buckeye road and east of 55th Avenue.
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 409



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Sunset Place Phase 2 - PLAT 200595 - 850 feet West of 67th Avenue
and South of Broadway Road

Plat: 200595
Project: 18-2042
Name of Plat: Sunset Place Phase 2
Owner(s): Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc.
Engineer(s): Robert A. Johnston, RLS
Request: A 140 Lot Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: March 5, 2021
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 850 feet west of 67th Avenue and south of Broadway Road
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 410



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Liberty 1A - PLAT 200562 - Northeast Corner of 27th and Southern
Avenues

Plat: 200562
Project: 17-430
Name of Plat: Liberty 1A
Owner(s): Lennar Arizona, Inc. and KB Home Phoenix, Inc.
Engineer(s): Thomas E. Granillo, RLS
Request: A 112 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 20, 2021
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. This plat needs to record concurrently with the resolutions of abandonment for
ABND V170053A and ABND 200524. The sequence of recording to be followed is that
the resolutions are recorded first, then the plat is recorded second.

Location
Generally located at the northeast corner of 27th and Southern Avenues
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 411



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easement - ABND 210001- 112 W. Camelback Road (Resolution
21908)

Abandonment: ABND 210001
Project: 19-2547
Applicant(s): EMC Management, LLC; Nicholas Maxwell
Request: The south drainage easement and the northeast temporary drainage
easement of parcel APN 102-59-017.
Date of Decision/Hearing: Jan. 28, 2021

Location
112 W. Camelback Road
Council District: 5

Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this abandonment, although filing
fees were paid.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 412



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easement - V190048A - West of 23rd Street, between Glenn
Drive and Lincoln Way (Resolution 21911)

Abandonment: V190048A
Project: 02-1501
Applicant: Porchlight Homes
Request: To abandon 23rd Street, the 8-foot public utility easement and 10-foot
drainage easement in Hayden Views Estates as recorded in Book 659, page 08 MCR.
Date of Decision/Hearing: Aug.15, 2019

Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 200546 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.

Location
West of 23rd Street, between Glenn Drive and Lincoln Way
Council District: 6

Financial Impact
A consideration fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of
$1,627.20.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 413



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easement - ABND 200555 - 2620 S. 12th Place (Resolution
21907)

Abandonment: ABND 200555
Project: 04-4082
Applicant: Kim Schroeder
Request: To abandon the following drainage easements on Lot 3:1 (6.42 - foot
drainage easement recorded Document No. 20200812006; and 2) 20 feet drainage
easement per book 1007 page 44.
Date of Decision/Hearing: Dec. 7, 2020

Location
2620 S. 12th Place
Council District: 8

Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this abandonment, although filing
fees were paid.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 414



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 210006 - Southwest Corner 7th Street and
Windsor Avenue (Resolution 21909)

Abandonment: ABND 210006
Project: 18-1748
Applicant: Stuart Rayburn, RCC Design Group
Request: To abandon the southern 2-feet of the existing 27-foot right-of-way on
Windsor Avenue. The 2-foot abandoned right-of-way will be retained as a sidewalk
easement.
Date of Decision/Hearing: March 1, 2021

Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 200612 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.

Location
Southwest corner 7th Street and Windsor Avenue
Council District: 4

Financial Impact
A consideration fee of $2,700 was paid as a part of this abandonment.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 415



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 200560 - East of Randolph Road and West
of 15th Street (Resolution 21910)

Abandonment: ABND 200560
Project:94-0002212
Applicant: Thomas S. Maroun
Request: To abandon 14-foot alleyway, bounded by properties addressed 1426, 1422
E. Pinchot Ave., 3021, 3027, 3031 N. Randolph Road, and 3026, 3030 N. 15th St.
Date of Decision/Hearing: Jan. 14, 2021

Location
East of Randolph Road and West of 15th Street
Council District:4

Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Art. 5, sec. 31-64 (e) as the City acknowledges the
public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the city,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, also replatting of the area
with alternate roadways and new development as sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.

A consideration fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of
$782.00.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 416



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND V170053A - Northeast Corner of 27th and
Southern Avenues (Resolution 21906)

Abandonment: V170053A
Project: 17-430
Applicants: Sean B. Lake/Valerie Claussen; Pew and Lake PLC
Request: To abandon all public right-of-way and public easements dedicated in the plat
"Liberty," Book 944, Page 39, Maricopa County Recorder. Except any right-of-way and
adjacent public utility easements dedicated for Southern Avenue, Roeser Road, and
27th and 23rd Avenues.
Date of Hearing: Oct. 31, 2017

Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and the subdivision plat Final Plat For "Liberty 1A,"
PLAT 200562, are to be recorded together with the Maricopa County recorder on the
same day, at the same time. The sequence of recording to be followed is that the
resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded second.

Location
Northeast corner of 27th and Southern Avenues
Council District: 8

Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Art. 5, sec. 31-64 (e) as the City acknowledges the
public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the city,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, also replatting of the area
with alternate roadways and new development as sufficient and appropriate
consideration in this matter.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 417



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1211 (Ordinance G-6829)

Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1211. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-156-99-1 and the entitlements are fully vested.

Summary
To rezone a parcel located 1,400 feet north of Happy Valley Road and east of 47th
Avenue.
Application No.: Z-156-99-1
Zoning: R1-18
Owner: Multiple
Acreage: 30.44

Location
On 1,400 feet north of Happy Valley Road and east of 47th Avenue
Address: Multiple
Council District: 1

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 418
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING
OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1211

____________


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:

SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is

hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1211 signed by the

Mayor and City Clerk, which is accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and

declared a part hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of April 2021.



_____________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________ City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:




Page 419
_________________________ City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________ City Manager




Page 420
Attachment B


OFFICIAL SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP NO. 1211 Sheet 1 of 1

ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE

Passed by the Council of the City of Phoenix, Arizona this 7th day of April 2021.




N
DE
EM
HI
LL S
W
PK
Y
Page 421 W EL CORTEZ PL
R1-18 *
Z-156-99


N 49TH AVE



W SADDLEHORN RD

N 47TH AVE




Z-156-99


ZONING SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS: *
Drawn by: KS
_______ AREA INVOLVED BOUNDED THUS:



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Amend City Code -
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-41-20-3 (Honor Health Outpatient
Medical Center - Shea PUD) - Approximately 400 Feet West of the Northwest
Corner of 54th Street and Shea Boulevard (Ordinance G-6832)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
Medical Center - Shea PUD) and rezone the site from C-O (Approved PAD-2 SP)
(Commercial Office, Approved Planned Area Development, Special Permit) and PAD-2
(Approved PAD-2 SP) (Planned Area Development, Approved Planned Area
Development, Special Permit) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow a hospital
and commercial uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-O (Approved PAD-2 SP) (0.12 acres) and PAD-2 (Approved PAD-2
SP) (3.07 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD (3.19 acres)
Acreage: 3.19 acres
Proposed Use: Hospital and commercial uses

Owner: 5316 East Shea Boulevard, LLC
Applicant: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell , LLC
Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Nov.
2, 2020 for information only. The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard
the case on Feb. 1, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation,
with two additional stipulations, by a vote of 10-4-2.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on March 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 6-3.

Location
Approximately 400 feet west of the northwest corner of 54th Street and Shea


Page 422

Boulevard
Council District: 3
Parcel Addresses: 5320 E. Shea Blvd.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 423
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



To: Mario Paniagua Date: March 26, 2021
Deputy City Manager

From: Alan Stephenson df'
Planning and Dev�fo�ent Director

Subject: WITHDRAWAL OF ITEM 110 ON THE APRIL 7, 2021 FORMAL AGENDA­
Z-41-20-3 (HONOR HEALTH OUTPATIENT MEDICAL CENTER- SHEA PUD)
(G-) -APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF 54TH STREET AND SHEA BOULEVARD

Item 110, rezoning application Z-41-20-3, is a request to rezone 3.19 acres located
approximately 400 feet west of the northwest corner of 5 4th Street and Shea Boulevard
from C-O (Approved PAD-2 SP) and PAD-2 (Approved PAD-2 SP) to PUD for a Planned
Unit Development to allow a hospital and other commercial uses.

The applicant has requested to continue this item to April 21, 2021, at the request of
Councilwoman Stark, in order to allow the rezoning request to be heard as a public
hearing item. Staff recommends this case be withdrawn to be advertised as a public
hearing item at the April 21, 2021 City Council formal meeting.




Approved: J_Qc,_,_:,�;�
Mario Paniagua, DepuyCityManager



Enclosure: Continuance request from the applicant




Page 424
Page 425
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-41-20-3) FROM C-O (APPROVED PAD-2
SP) (COMMERCIAL OFFICE, APPROVED PLANNED AREA
DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL PERMIT) AND PAD-2
(APPROVED PAD-2 SP) (PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT,
APPROVED PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL
PERMIT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).


____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.19 acre site located approximately 400 feet

west of the northwest corner of 54th Street and Shea Boulevard in a portion of Section

20, Township 3 North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is

hereby changed from 0.12-acres of “C-O (Approved PAD-2 SP)” (Commercial Office,

Approved Planned Area Development, Special Permit) and 3.07 acres of “PAD-2

(Approved PAD-2 SP)” (Planned Area Development, Approved Planned Area

Development, Special Permit) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).




Page 426
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the HonorHealth Outpatient
Medical Center - Shea PUD reflecting the changes approved through
this request shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The
updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped January 6, 2021, as modified by
the following stipulations:

a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal
date information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: July 29, 2020
2nd Submittal: October 14, 2020
Hearing Draft: January 6, 2021

b. Add parking standards to the comparative development standards
table.

c. Add standards for the detached sidewalk in the Development
Standards table as depicted on the landscape plan.

d. Provide a dimensioned landscape plan depicting distance
between sidewalk and back of curb at a 5-foot minimum, sidewalk
widths at a minimum of 5 feet wide and landscape setbacks.
Include caliper sizes of trees, number of shrubs under each tree,
groundcover percentages in a table format on the plan.

2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps,
streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per
plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.




Page 427
3. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for
this development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until
the study had been reviewed and approved by the City. Additional off-
site improvements and right-of-way dedications may be required as
identified in the approved traffic study. Development shall be responsible
for the cost associated with these improvements and dedications.

4. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during
construction, the developer shall immediately cease all ground
disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the
City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to properly
assess the materials.

5. The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Shea
Boulevard and 54th Street, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

6. The operator of this facility shall not contract with Emergency Medical
Services (“EMS”) to bring patients to the facility by ambulance with lights
and sirens (Code 3).

7. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with
the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be
included in the rezoning application file for record.


SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of April 2021.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:




Page 428
____________________________City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 429
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-41-20-3

LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE MARKING THE
SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, FROM WHICH A CITY OF
PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
BEARS SOUTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
2638.35 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 20, A DISTANCE OF 498.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
60.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF LOT SPLIT
“MOUNTAINSIDE FITNESS” RECORDED IN BOOK 1483, PAGE 7, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
40.11 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
94.31 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
65.25 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
45.24 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 02 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
294.64 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
267.48 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
343.28 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
107.50 FEET;



Page 430
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
56.72 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF LOT SPLIT
“MOUNTAINSIDE FITNESS” RECORDED IN BOOK 1483, PAGE 7, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;

THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
60.00 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A
DISTANCE OF 425.57 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 137,958 SQUARE FEET OR 3.167 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.




Page 431
Page 432



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-64-20-4 -
Approximately 490 Feet West of the Northwest Corner of 11th Avenue and Indian
School Road (Ordinance G-6830)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-5 (Multifamily Residence District) to C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) for a
music recording studio.

Summary
Current Zoning: R-5 (Multifamily Residence District)
Proposed Zoning: C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District)
Acreage: 0.64 acres
Proposed Use: Music recording studio

Owner: Randy and Laura Smith
Applicant: Randy and Laura Smith
Representative: Tom Galvin, Rose Law Group

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on March 1,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with a deleted
stipulation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on March 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee recommendation
with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Approximately 490 feet west of the northwest corner of 11th Avenue and Indian School
Road
Council District: 4
Parcel Addresses: 1142 W. Indian School Road

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.

Page 433
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(Z-64-20-4) FROM R-5 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
TO C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.64 acre site located approximately 490 feet

west of the northwest corner of 11th Avenue and Indian School Road, in a portion of

Section 19 Township 2 North and Range 3 East, as described more specifically in

Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “R-5” (Multifamily Residence District) to “C-2”

(Intermediate Commercial District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,




Page 434
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. Upon any subsequent phase or phases of development that modify the
cumulative floor area by more than 15 percent from that depicted on the
site plan date stamped November 24, 2020, the sidewalk shall be
detached from the back of curb by a landscape area of at least 5-feet in
width which shall be improved to the below standards, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist,
the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department
on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.

a. Large canopy, single-trunk shade trees shall be placed 25 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings. All required trees shall be a
minimum 3-inch caliper.
a.
b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalk to a minimum
75 percent

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers with a
maximum mature height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

2. The developer shall dedicate a 10-foot sidewalk easement along the
north side of Indian School Road, as approved by Planning and
Development.

3. The south building setback along Indian School Road shall be planted
with drought tolerant, minimum 3-inch caliper shade trees, placed 20 feet
on center or in equivalent groupings and located to shade the public
sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. A minimum landscape setback of 10 feet shall be required along the
north property line and shall be planted with drought tolerant, minimum 2-
inch caliper shade trees, placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. All rooftop equipment, including existing equipment, shall be screened in
accordance with the provisions of Section 507 Tab A of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

6. The developer shall provide a minimum of two Inverted-U bicycle racks
located in close proximity to the primary building entrances and installed
per the requirements of Section 1306.H. of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.



Page 435
7. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

8. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence,
and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future
owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such
documents shall be according to the templates and instructions provided
which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during
construction, the developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing
activities within a 33- foot radius of the discovery, notify the City
Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to properly
assess the materials.

10. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with
the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be
included in the rezoning application file for record.


SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of April 2021.




________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________City Clerk



Page 436
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager


Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 437
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-64-20-4


A portion of Section 19 Township 2 North and Range 3 East; more specifically,

Lot 13, Del Monte North Plat 2, a subdivision recorded in Book 78 of Maps, page

2, records of Maricopa County, Arizona; EXCEPT that portion of said Lot 13 lying

North of the following described line:

Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 13 which is South 00 degrees 23
minutes 43 seconds West 124 feet from the Northeast corner of said Lot 13;


Thence North 89 degrees 18 minutes 07 seconds West to the point on the
intersection with the West line of said Lot 13 and the terminus of this line; and


EXCEPT the South 10 feet thereof.




Page 438
Page 439



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-55-20-7 -
Approximately 200 Feet North of the Northwest Corner of 9th Avenue and Minton
Street (Ordinance G-6831)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District) to
allow single-family residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: R1-8
Acreage: 1.32
Proposed Use: Single-family residential

Owner: Jose Gustavo Ruiz and Maria Pina
Applicant: Jose Gustavo Ruiz and Maria Pina
Representative: Manuel A. Inurriaga, M&M Civil Engineering

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb.
9, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 15-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Mar. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Approximately 200 feet north of the northwest corner of 9th Avenue and Minton Street
Council District: 7
Parcel Addresses: 7110 S. 9th Ave.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.



Page 440
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-55-20-7) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO R1-8 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.32-acre property located approximately

200 feet north of the northwest corner of 9th Avenue and Minton Street in a portion of

Section 31, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

“A”, is hereby changed from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to “R1-8” (Single-

Family Residence District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,




Page 441
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. Where residential homes contain front-loaded garages or carports, these
elements shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the front face of the
home along the adjacent public street, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. Residential homes shall include a porch facing the adjacent public street, at a
minimum of 60 square feet in area and at a depth of at least 6 feet and
enclosed on each side with fencing, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. The developer shall complete the cul-de-sac bulb on Carter Road with curb,
gutter, sidewalk and associated right-of-way or sidewalk easement, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

5. The developer shall record a Notice of Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to
Airport in order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and contents of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been viewed and
approved by the City Attorney.

6. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.

7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for
the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

8. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents
that disclose to purchasers of property within the development the existence
and operational characteristics of agricultural uses. The form and content of
such documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

9. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the



Page 442
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.


SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of April, 2021.


________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


____________________________City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney



REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager

Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 443
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-55-20-7

A PORTION OF FARM UNIT "R" OR LOT 5 OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH,
RANGE 3 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
180.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOT 5;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 38 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
495.95 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN
DOCKET 3524, PAGE 16, AND EASTERLY AND WESTERLY EXTENSIONS THEREOF
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 50 SECONDS EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 139.00 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 9TH AVENUE
AS DESCRIBED IN DOCKET 7885, PAGE 380, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
346.66 FEET ALONG THE SAID RIGHT OF WAY TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DOCKET 5987, PAGE 242, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
139.00 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL;

THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
346.30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.




Page 444
Page 445



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-40-20-7 -
Northeast Corner of 79th Avenue and Encanto Boulevard (Ordinance G-6828)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 and RSC to PUD to allow multifamily residential and a senior living community.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 (17.32 acres) and RSC (10.01 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 27.33
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential and senior living community

Owner: Westpen Associates, LLC
Applicant: Jeff Huggett, Dominium, Inc.
Representative: Susan Demmitt, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard this case for information
only on Sep. 9, 2020.
VPC Action: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb. 10,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with modified
stipulations, by a vote of 9-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Mar. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Maryvale Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Northeast corner of 79th Avenue and Encanto Boulevard
Council District: 7
Parcel Addresses: 7800 W. Encanto Blvd.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.


Page 446
ATTACHMENT A

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



ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-40-20-7) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL




AF
DISTRICT) AND RSC (REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER
DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________




follows:


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



SECTION 1. The zoning of a 27.33 acre site located at the northeast

corner of 79th Avenue and Encanto Boulevard in a portion of Section 35, Township 2




R
North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed

from 17.32 acres of “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial District) and 10.01 acres of “RSC”

(Regional Shopping Center District) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).



D SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,




Page 447
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the 79th Avenue and Encanto
Boulevard PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be
submitted to the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City
Council approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be
consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped January 11, 2021, as
modified by the following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:




AF
2nd Submittal: November 17, 2020
Hearing Draft: January 11, 2021

b. Page 22, Lot Standards, Maximum Density: Modify to 26 du/a.




2.
c.




T
Page 25, Frontage Standards, Fence Standards: Modify to include
“Primary Frontage and Secondary Frontage: 72 inches maximum height
exclusive of column caps and a maximum of 36 inches of solid fence
unless screening above grade utilities or trash enclosures. Columns
caps to be no more than two feet wide.”

The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way and a
minimum 18-foot-wide public sidewalk easement along the east side of 79th


3.
R Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way and a
minimum 2-foot-wide public sidewalk easement along the north side of Encanto
Boulevard consistent with the Maryvale Village Core Plan, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.


D4. The developer shall construct a minimum 2-foot-wide landscape strip from the
existing face of curb with an adjacent at-grade, concrete, minimum 6-foot wide
active transportation path, and an adjacent minimum 6-foot-wide landscape
strip behind the active transportation path, along the north side of Encanto
Boulevard, consistent with the Maryvale Village Core Plan, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.

5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation
2 Ordinance G-




Page 448
Department to discuss the requirements of the statement/study. Upon
completion of the TIS the developer shall submit the completed TIS to the
Planning and Development Department counter with instruction to forward the
study to the Street Transportation Department.

6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

7. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the




AF
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

8. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 Waiver of Claims form. The Waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.




T
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity




R
of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of April, 2021.




D
ATTEST:
________________________________
MAYOR




____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk



3 Ordinance G-

Page 449
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney



By:________________________________
________________________________


REVIEWED BY:


______________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager



Exhibits:

AF
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




T
R
PL:tml:LF21-0313:4-7-2021:2245553v1




D
4 Ordinance G-

Page 450
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-40-20-7

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING FOR A TIE AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION
35, THE NORTHEAST CORNER BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 36
SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2598.21 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER, 1007.93 FEET;




AF
THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 52 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
35.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 88 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 52 SECONDS EAST,
255.00 FEET;




T
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
147.99 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE LEFT;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 274.50 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 51 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 56 SECONDS, AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 246.81 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE SOUTH 49 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST, 254.71 FEET;




R
THENCE SOUTH 35 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST, 331.94 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 52 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 46 SECONDS EAST, 588.03 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST, 303.97 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 49 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF


D
157.08 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE LEFT;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.00 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 53 SECONDS, AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 49.47 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 59 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 18 SECONDS, AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 20.65 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
482.51 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE RIGHT, SAID POINT BEING ON THE


5 Ordinance G-

Page 451
NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF ENCANTO BLVD AS RECORDED IN
INSTRUMENT NO. 87-023218, M.C.R.;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, ON SAID CURVE RIGHT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 34.42 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 54 DEGREES 26
MINUTES 15 SECONDS, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 32.70 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID
NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 577.30 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE
RIGHT HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 42 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 32
SECONDS EAST, LYING ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE AS RECORDED IN
INSTRUMENT NO, 87 023218 M.C.R.;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY ON SAID CURVE RIGHT HAVING A
RADIUS OF 24.42 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 06




AF
SECONDS, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 20.24 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID
NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 41.16 FEET TO A POINT ON A
CURVE RIGHT HAVING A RADIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES




T
38 SECONDS WEST;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE ON SAID CURVE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 24.42 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47 DEGREES 29
MINUTES 06 SECONDS AN ARC DISTANCE OF 20.24 FEET TO A POINT OF
TANGENCY;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID
NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 562.16 FEET;



R
THENCE NORTH 44 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 07 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID
NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 29.23 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
EAST LINE OF THE WEST 35.00 FEET OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 35;



D
THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID
EAST LINE, 1,575.35 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.




6 Ordinance G-

Page 452
Page 453




7 Ordinance G-



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-AL-NM-
1-19-4-5 (19 North TOD Policy Plan) - Area generally bounded by Dunlap Avenue
on the North, 15th Avenue on the East, Montebello Avenue on the South, and
23rd Avenue on the West (Resolution 21912)

Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if
approved. Request to adopt a resolution approving the 19North Transit Oriented
Development Policy Plan.

Summary
Application: General Plan Amendment GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5

Owner: Various
Applicant: City of Phoenix
Representative: City of Phoenix

Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Info: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard this case for information
only on Dec. 15, 2020 and the North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this
case for information only on Dec. 16, 2020.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb.
17, 2021 and recommended approval, per staff recommendation, by a vote of 14-0.
VPC Action: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard this case on Feb. 23,
2021 and recommended approval, per staff recommendation, by a vote of 10-4.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Mar. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval per the Alhambra and North Mountain Village Planning
Committee recommendations, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Area generally bounded by Dunlap Avenue on the north, 15th Avenue on the east,
Montebello Avenue on the south, and 23rd Avenue on the west.
Council Districts: 4 and 5
Parcel Addresses: Several



Page 454

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 455
ATTACHMENT A

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




RESOLUTION _____

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 19NORTH TRANSIT
ORIENTED DEVEOPMENT POLICY PLAN, APPLICATION
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5.
____________


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. That the 19North Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan as set

forth by Application GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5 and as shown in Exhibit 1 be approved and

adopted.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 7th day of

April 2021.



MAYOR

ATTEST:


City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:




Page 456
Acting City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:


_______________________ City Manager
PL:amt:____v1 (CM __) (Item _) 4/7/21




Page 457
Attachment B - Exhibit 1
DRAFT




19NORTH TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT POLICY PLAN
DRAFT February 10, 2021




DRAFT
Page 458
Acknowledgements




2 19North Policy Plan Page 459
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL

_____, 2021
Kate Gallego, Mayor

CITY COUNCIL

Thelda Williams, Vice Mayor, District 1
Jim Waring, District 2
Debra Stark, District 3
Laura Pastor, District 4
Betty Guardado, District 5
Sal DiCiccio, District 6
Michael Nowakowski, District 7
Carlos Garcia, District 8

PREPARED BY:

Department

CITY STAFF

Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Milton Dohoney Jr., Assistant City Manager

Planning and Development Neighborhood Services
Alan Stephenson, Director Spencer Self, Director
Sandra Hoffman, Assistant Director Lisa Huggins-Hubbard
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Planning Director
Samantha Keating, Principal Planner Arts and Culture
Nick Klimek, AICP, Planner II* Village Planner Mitch Menchaca, Executive Director
Maja Brkovic, Planner II* Village Planner (former) Ed Lebow
Joél Carrasco, Planner III Kati Ballares
Kristi Trisko, Planner III (former)
Street Transportation
Community and Economic Development Kini Knudson, Director
Christine Mackay, Director Matthew Wilson, Deputy Director
Nathan Wright, Deputy Director Chris Kowalsky
Jeff Stapleton Brian Fellows
Karla Scott Mailen Pankiewicz
Kedrick Ellison Maja Brkovic
Marielle Brown
Housing
Cindy Stotler, Director SPECIAL THANKS TO:
Sheree Bouchee Shannon McBride, Executive Director, 19North
Victoria Toris, Planning Intern (former)
Light Rail Administration Julia Loewen, Planning Intern (former)
Markus Coleman, Light Rail Administrator SmithGroup
Carla Kahn
Winsome Benjamin




Page 460 19North Policy Plan 3
Executive Summary




INTRODUCTION:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
The 19North Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District Policy Plan is a community-driven plan intended
to provide guidance for redevelopment along the northernmost segment of the existing light rail line in
the area between Montebello Avenue (south), Dunlap Avenue (north), 23rd Avenue (west), and 15th Avenue
(east).

The plan was developed over a 3-year period which included community and stakeholder engagement to
gather information related to community vision and needs for the high capacity transit corridor.
Building upon previous work to create walkable communities with opportunities for all in Downtown as
well as the five ReinventPHX districts, 19North is the sixth TOD District Policy Plan to be developed by the

During the numerous workshops, the community-identified assets, goals, redevelopment opportunity
areas, preferred investments, and actions that can later be taken by community leaders, municipal leaders
and other stakeholders to help achieve the community’s vision. During each workshop the community
expressed their desires for a walkable corridor that emphasized safety, shade, a well-connected multimodal
network, local businesses, diversity of housing types, community-serving public gathering areas, and
creating a sense of place.

Staff evaluated the community feedback, desired outcomes and current conditions. From this, urban
principles and strategies, vetted by the community, were identified and categorized as a means to achieve
the overall vision. Furthermore, the community assessed quantifiable conditions along the corridor and
established desired conditions that can be evaluated in the future to track changes anticipated by the
community. This plan also serves as a policy document to guide future development decisions and shall be
used when considering zoning changes to implement the identified community vision.

Plan Organization
The plan provides an evaluation of the current conditions in the corridor, a vision for the future and a guide
to achieving the vision. The plan is organized into the following four parts:

• Introduction – Describes foundational policy to support the community vision and change towards
a more walkable urban form along this corridor. This section also provides a summary of public
participation and a brief history of the project area.

• Today – Provides an overview of community-identified assets and current conditions broken up into six
planning elements (Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Health, Mobility and Green Systems).

• Tomorrow – Establishes the community vision based on feedback provided at the community
workshops. Furthermore, this section of the plan identifies community priority areas for retrofit and
redevelopment, and prioritizes investments in the vicinity of each priority area.

• How We Get There – Introduces four urban principles and and supporting strategies that promote TOD
design. In addition, strategies are linked to quantifiable measures that contribute to rpromote the goals
of the six planning elements and help implement the community’s vision.



4 19North Policy Plan Page 461
Executive Summary




19North Policy Plan:
A Transit Oriented Development Plan
for the 19th Avenue Light Rail Corridor
from Montebello Avenue to
Dunlap Avenue




19NORTH




DOWNTOWN


Page 462 19North Policy Plan 5
Page 463
INTRODUCTION 09
Foundational Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Policy Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Strategic Policy Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Corridor History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Public Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20




TODAY
Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Planning Economic Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Elements
Health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Green Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36




TOMORROW 39
Overall Vision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Vision Themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Community Change Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
19th Avenue and Glendale Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
19th Avenue and Northern Avenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54




HOW WE GET THERE 59
Achieving the Vision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Measurable Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Urban Principles + Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Five Year Action Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82



Page 464
8 19North Policy Plan Page 465
Part I: Introduction




PART I




INTRODUCTION
The community and the City of Phoenix
partnered with a goal of strengthening
the community through transit oriented
development.

This plan articulates the community’s vision
for the future, based on current conditions
and aspirations, and identifies a path forward
through investment, partnerships, and
policies.




Page 466 19North Policy Plan 9
Part I: Introduction




FOUNDATIONAL POLICY:
CITYWIDE POLICY
PlanPHX: The Phoenix General Plan
The Phoenix General Plan, was adopted by the voters in 2015 after an extensive public engagement
process. As a result of thousands of ideas from more than 150 meetings, a new vision and framework
was built around the promise of creating a “Connected Oasis.” This promise serves as the foundation for
Phoenix’s future and the guiding principle in the General Plan Update. The Phoenix General Plan provides
an umbrella vision for the future of Phoenix as a whole; under the visionary General Plan, other city policies
provide functional guidance and direction toward achieving its vision on specific topic areas.


Three Community Benefits
The Vision of the Connected Oasis aims to ultimately enhance the quality of life for all city of
Phoenix residents. It is framed by residents’ enhanced levels of prosperity, improved health and
a thriving natural environment (Prosperity, Health, and the Environment). These three categories
create a framework from which the plan provides a balanced and equitable approach towards
making Phoenix an even better place to call home. Simply stated, Prosperity, Health and the
Environment are the three Community Benefits that the General Plan strives to integrate into the
future of our city.



Five Core Benefits
The PlanPHX Leadership Committee and staff identified Five Core Values that will help achieve
the Vision and embed the Community Benefits into our city. This effort begins and ends with
the residents of Phoenix. These Core Values provide the framework for the policy portion of the
plan and serve as the new principles for growth and development in the city. Each of the Core
Values addresses Phoenix’s many assets. By building on and ultimately expanding these assets,
Phoenix employs an asset based approach to community development. This approach enhances
Phoenix residents’ connectivity to the benefits that all of these assets provide, and further enhances
Phoenix’s unique character and identity.




10 19North Policy Plan Page 467
Part I: Introduction




Complete Streets Design Guidelines
Adopted March 8, 2018



Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SUCCESSFUL COMPLETE STREETS................................................................................................................ 2

DESIGN FOR SAFETY .................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
DESIGN FOR COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
DESIGN FOR CONTEXT.................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
DESIGN FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS.................................................................................................................................................................. 3
DESIGN FOR CONNECTIVITY........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3. NACTO URBAN STREET DESIGN GUIDE ............................................................................................................................................... 4

4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................................................. 5




Housing Phoenix
In recognition of a shortfall of 163,000 housing units (affordable
and market rate), the Phoenix City Council established a target
to create and preserve 50,000 housing units by 2030 and transit
oriented development is inherently most sustainable.


Tree and Shade Master Plan
Phoenix’s urban forest is as much city infrastructure as roads, stormwater
retention basins,and water lines. The goal is to achieve an average 25%
canopy coverage in Phoenix.



Complete Streets Design Guidelines
Through complete streets, Phoenix will be a healthier place to live. Phoenix’s
transportation network has been designed almost exclusively for the vehicle. This
principle strives to return balance to the transportation network for users of all modes
of transportation resulting in a safer city.



Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
Phoenix will be a safe transportation and recreation option for users of all skill levels with well
connected infrastructure connecting people and places to make bicycling a preferred option for
daily transportation.
Page 468 19North Policy Plan 11
Part I: Introduction




INTRODUCING:
THE POLICY PLAN
Background: Transit Oriented Development in Phoenix
DEFINING
:
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is broadly defined as compact, pedestrian-scaled,
mixed-use development strategically located within a short walk of high capacity
TOD transit. TOD provides opportunities for residential, business, and recreation spaces
within walking distance of public transit such as the light rail line. This proximity reduces
commute times and the loss of productivity associated with traffic. The intent is to make
walking, bicycling and using transit convenient, safe and enjoyable for daily life.

In 2008, the largest light rail construction project in the nation’s history was completed in Phoenix. This
major achievement was the result of a partnership between local and federal agencies, strong civic
leadership, and visionary urban planning that began decades earlier. The infrastructure, however, was
designed to not only to add high quality transportation options, but to also lay a foundation for reinventing
the neighborhoods surrounding it and creating new urban living choices in a city planned almost entirely
for the automobile.

A collaborative partnership and initiative between the City of Phoenix, the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, and numerous other organizations resulted in the creation of five district policy plans
along the first phase of the light rail; like these predecessors, the 19North TOD Policy Plan articulates the
community’s vision and aligns it with holistic strategies for making that vision a reality.


About: 19North
19North is situated along the 19th Avenue light rail corridor and encompasses an area from Montebello
Avenue at the south, Dunlap Avenue at the north, from 15th Avenue on the east to 23rd Avenue to the west.
This document serves as a policy plan to guide transit oriented and neighborhood-focused enhancements
and reinvestments along the northernmost segment of the Phoenix light rail.

This policy plan was initiated by the community stakeholders, driven by the residents, and will be
implemented through a collaboration between the City, stakeholders, and the 19North community. The
framework for the 19North Plan was established with the adoption of the Transit Oriented Development
Strategic Policy Framework, adopted in 2013 and amended in 2016 and 2018.


The Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework articulates a new
model of community development along the City’s high capacity transit corridors.
The ReinventPHX District Policy Plans were the first district-specific plans developed
along the light rail corridor. These plans set the framework generally applied to the 19North Policy
Plan.
The 19North Policy Plan is an extension of the policy framework and a collaborative effort
between the City of Phoenix and the community to bring transit oriented development practices
to the 19North Planning Areas. Local planning efforts began after the adoption of the ReinventPHX
district policy plans.




12 19North Policy Plan Page 469
Part I: Introduction




TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT




STRATEGIC POLICY FRAMEWORK




REINVENT PHX
POLICY PLANS




Page 470 19North Policy Plan 13
Part I: Introduction




STRATEGIC POLICY
FRAMEWORK:
PLACE TYPES
Phoenix has a long history of guiding density to identified urban centers. The urban village
model in the 1980’s divided the Phoenix into 15 urban villages with each having its own
“village core.” The Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework (“Strategic
Policy Framework”) refined this model for high capacity transit corridors by prescribing a
Place Type for each station area along light rail.

The plan expands upon this framework to articulate the vision and appropriate scale for
development throughout the 19North Planning Area.
• The Urban Village Model places the 19North Planning Area between two primary urban cores
(Christown Spectrum Mall, the Alhambra Village Core; and Metrocenter, the North Mountain
Village Core).
• The Strategic Policy Framework identifies two Neighborhood Centers and two Medium
Urban Center within the 19North Planning Area. The Montebello Place Type was addressed in
the Solano ReinventPHX Plan.

Translating Place types
Place Types are used along the light rail as a guide for scale and intensity including the
implementation of the City’s Walkable Urban Code (WU Code). Rezoning to WU Code is one
tool to achieve the community’s vision for transit and people oriented development.




19North Dunlap Avenue




Northern Avenue




15th Avenue
Glendale Avenue




19th Avenue

23rd Avenue
Bethany Home Road

14 19North Policy Plan Page 471
Neighborhood Center Place Type
19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue
19th Avenue and Northern Avenue

Land Use Mix: primarily residential;
neighborhood serving retail; limited
employment.

Housing: apartment; town / row house; live
/ work units; 2 or 3 unit products; and single
unit products.

Commercial: low-rise office; under 40,000
square feet single tenant retail footprint
(incentive: 50,000 square feet)

Transit Node: neighborhood destination;
less regional accessibility

Intensity: low intensity; 2-4 stories
(incentive: 5 stories)

Potential Walkable Urban Transects:
• T5:2 - T5:3 (Within 1/4 mile of light rail)*
• T4:2 - T4:3 (Beyond 1/4 mile of light rail)*
*Case by case, context specific




Minor Urban Center Place Type
19th Avenue and Glendale Avenue

Land Use Mix: balance of commercial and
residential; retail destination; entertainment
destination; some employment

Housing: mid-rise; apartment; townhouse;
row house; live / work space

Commercial: low rise office; under 40,000
square feet single tenant retail (incentive:
60,000 square feet)

Transit Node: sub-regional destination;
medium regional accessibility

Intensity: medium to low intensity; 2-5
stories (incentive: 7 stories)

Potential Walkable Urban Transect
• T5:2 - T5:5 (Within 1/4 mile of light rail)
• T4:2 - T4:3 (Beyond 1/4 mile of light rail)*
*Case by case, context specific




Page 472 19North Policy Plan 15
Part I: Introduction




19NORTH: HISTORY
AND HERITAGE
Introduction:
Lying in Central Phoenix, 19North is focused along 19th Avenue between Montebello
Avenue to the south and Dunlap Avenue to the north. The area was annexed into the City
of Phoenix during the late 1950s when the majority of the properties were rural agricultural
land with an abundance of citrus groves along 19th Avenue. Maricopa County Historical
Aerials indicate that there were single-family homes to the west of 19th Avenue as early as
1949. Following World War II, more and more suburbs began to emerge as the population
of Phoenix continued to grow; significant housing districts around 19th Avenue followed
thereafter. Eventually, the citrus fields turned into residential subdivisions and commercial
areas.


Growing Neighborhoods: Hoffmantown
In 1951, located at the corner of 19th Avenue and Bethany Home Road, Hoffmantown 2
became an extension of the earlier neighborhood, Hoffmantown, and expanded on its
aspects of curved and angled streets. The lots in this neighborhood varied but were well
known for its transition from Early Ranch style to Classical Ranch style homes within a
subdivision. Shortly after, in 1954 Westwood Heights followed on 19th Avenue and Myrtle
Avenue. This neighborhood was directed toward middle to higher-end market and was
meant for growing families. A 10-acre exclusion from this subdivision became Orangewood
Elementary School, which made Westwood Heights a desirable place to live. Orangewood
School followed shortly after the Westwood Heights development. The school officially
opened in the late 1950s and has since been remodeled in 1998. Washington High School,
also located near 19th Avenue opened in 1955 thus laying emphasis on the importance of
uprising neighborhoods surrounding education.


Washington Park: Open Space for the People
In 1957, the City of Phoenix acquired a 40-acre piece of land with the use of bonds
immediately south of Washington High School. The majority of this site became open
green space for Washington Park. Included in the area, Washington Park today consists of
the Phoenix Tennis Center, a PetSmart Dog Park, an Activity Center and a public pool. The
16-court tennis center was designed by Architect Gabor Lorant. The tennis courts broke
ground in 1968 when the Mayor at the time, Mayor Milton H. Graham, threw out the first
ball.

After being removed from the plans many times, the community felt that the courts and
park would not be complete without a clubhouse. The Adult Clubhouse Center was able
to open in 1969. This center includes multipurpose rooms used for a variety of activities
such as dancing classes, crafts, games, potluck lunches, square dancing in the evenings and
much more. This 15,000-square foot center drew in a variety of people 18 years of age and
older; today the center is open for all ages.




16 19North Policy Plan Page 473
Part I: Introduction



The Good Shepherd Home:
School for Girls
One of the first major developments was The Good Shepherd
Home that stood alone among the irrigated citrus groves. The
Good Shepherd School for Girls opened in 1939 and was a
popular boarding school for unwed young mothers designed
by Lescher and Mahoney. Teenage girls between the ages of
12 and 17 years old were referred to the school by the State of
Arizona, juvenile courts, city or county agencies, or parents. The
Good Shepherd Home for Girls closed in 1981 when the state’s
philosophy on how to deal with troubled juveniles began to
change.

The convent-chapel was determined to be eligible for the City
of Phoenix Register of Historic Places. The buildings in the area
were good examples of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture,
with the convent-chapel being a significant and appealing
Mayor Graham during the opening architectural landmark. The exterior of the building has been well
ceremony of the Tennis Courts. preserved but the inside has been modified.

The Good Shepherd Building -
Convent Chapel




Page 474 19North Policy Plan 17
Part I: Introduction




PLANNING PROCESS:
3 KEY STEPS
Assessment, Visioning, and How We Get There
The planning process was structured in three phases - 1) Assessment, 2) Visioning and 3) How We Get There
- and public engagement was integrated into each of these phases.

• The Assessment phase entailed a data-driven analysis of the current conditions within the District using
information derived from resident workshops and existing plans and databases.

• The Visioning process included surveys and facilitated community conversations that helped describe a
desirable future using narratives and illustrations.

• The How We Get There phase applies a best practices across multiple disciplines to build upon existing
strengths, reduce and overcome liabilities, and catalyze progress toward the vision.




Six Planning Element: Perspectives of Analysis
A complete plan must be built from a comprehensive analysis of existing conditions. This plan applies a six-lens
perspective to explore the built, market, and social factors present in the district. The analysis utilizes objective
data sources - such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Phoenix, Valley Metro, Arizona State University - that
can be easily replicated to measure change over time. The Planning Elements are interrelated and segue as a
foundation upon the remainder of the plan, including the Vision and How We Get There sections.

The Health Element focuses on
The Land Use Element focuses on
aspects of the environment that
the spatial pattern of urban
impact public health, such as the
development, including intensity,
availability of healthy food, public
design, building form, and unique
recreation amenities, and safe
place-making characteristics.
places to walk and bicycle.



The Mobility Element focuses on
The Housing Element focuses on
the movement of people and
the affordability, quality and
goods, including the availability of
diversity of residential living
quality multi-modal transportation
options.
options.


The Economic Development
The Green Systems Element
Element focuses on the financial
focuses on the design of buildings
prosperity of businesses and
and infrastructure to improve
residents, including the access to
resource efficiency and
jobs, training and educational
environmental protection.
opportunities.



18 19North Policy Plan Page 475
Part I: Introduction



1 ASSESSMENT
SIX PLANNING ELEMENTS
Economic
Land Use Development Mobility



Housing Health Green Systems


Smith Group Mapping Change Community Prioritized Community Speaks:
Visioning Exercise Areas Investments Vision Phrases




PLANNING PROCESS: 3 KEY STPPS
2 VISIONING
VISION
Safe, Employment,
Walkable and Outdoor Life
THEMES
Affordable, and Education, and
Bikeable and Commerce
Vibrant Training




MEASURABLE

OUTCOMES

SIX PLANNING ELEMENTS
Economic




TOWARDS ACHIEVING
Land Use Development Mobility



TOWARDS ACHIEVING
Green
Housing Health Systems




MEASURABLE PROGRESS
THE VISION
3 HOW WE GET THERE

IMPLEMENTATION URBAN
People- People-
Infill Placemaking
Oriented Oriented
Development Fundamentals
Streetscape Site Design




STRATEGIES PRINCIPLES



5 YEAR ACTION PLAN


Page 476 19North Policy Plan 19
Part I: Introduction




PLANNING PROCESS:
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Phase 1: January, 2018 (Understanding 19North Today)
The beginning of the planning process introduced the concept of transit oriented development. Participants
provided input through a variety of methods including comment cards, facilitated discussions, and
interactive exercises. The dialogue helped determine how the plan would evaluate existing conditions.




Phase 2: April, 2018 (Identifying Areas for Change)
The second phase of the project sought to identify change areas. In a workshop format, participants
identified the areas they felt should be redeveloped, retrofitted for vitality and walkability, and the areas that
should be preserved or stabilized.




Phase 3: Throughout, 2019 (Evaluating 19North Today)
The third phase of the project was an objective analysis of existing conditions through the lens of six
planning elements: 1) land use; 2) housing; 3) economic development; 4) health; 5) mobility; and 6) green
systems. The metrics used to evaluate existing conditions are carried forward throughout the plan to later
set goals and evaluate progress.




Phase 4: April, 2019 (Guiding Investment and Change)
The fourth phase of the project sought to engage constituents in the type of investment and change
they envision throughout the corridor. At a workshop, participants were invited to identify the type of
investments they would like to see and at what location in the study area, all based on the six planning
elements.




Phase 5: August, 2019 (Validating the Vision)
The fifth phase of the project included the development of a vision for the future of the corridor and for
the vicinity of each transit station in 19North. A workshop was held to share the draft plan, to validate and
refine ideas, and to engage participants and stakeholders in the implementation process. At this workshop,
attendees reviewed content regarding the Today section, the Vision section, and contributed their ideas to
the How We Get There section including how they can best help to implement the plan.




20 19North Policy Plan Page 477
Part I: Introduction




Phase 6: Spring 2021
(Formal Adoption)
The sixth phase of the project included the
formal process of adopting the 19North




COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Policy Plan into the Phoenix General
Plan. This phase included presentations
to the North Mountain and Alhambra
2 Village Planning Committees, the Phoenix
Planning Commission, and the Phoenix

ADOPT INTO THE
PHOENIX GENERAL PLAN




POLICY DEVELOPMENT
ASSESSMENT OF
CONDITIONS










Page 478 19North Policy Plan 21
22 19North Policy Plan Page 479
Part II: Today




PART II




TODAY
The policy plan is built upon an
assessment of existing conditions,
organized by planning elements.

By understanding the current state of
affairs, we can best understand how to
shape the future.




Page 480 19North Policy Plan 23
Part II: Today

Dunlap

19NORTH: Avenue




15th Avenue
ASSETS 23rd Avenue 19th Avenue


Current Condition
Analysis: Assets 14



Assets are strengths that currently exist within a
district, such as employment districts, schools,
historic buildings, community organizations, 6

initiatives, and institutions.
Northern 1

Avenue 10
By using the assets identified by the community,
the process can highlight those elements which
embody the character of 19North Planning Area.
In turn, this becomes a list of items to preserve,
improve, support, or build upon. Likewise, policies
to implement a long range vision should be
designed to harness the advantages created from
a community’s unique assets.

1. Good Shepherd Building
2. Washington Park
3. Bowlero Christown Mall Glendale
4. Dog Park - PetSmart Dog Park Avenue
5. Tennis Center - Phoenix Tennis Center
6. Washington High School
7. Bookmans Phoenix Entertainment Exchange
8. Library - Yucca Library
9. 15th Avenue Equestrian Trail



23rd Avenue 19th Avenue 15th Avenue
2 4
10. Rio Salado Community College
11. Butler Park (Royal Palm Park) 5
12. Solano Park
13. Palo Verde Golf Course
14. 19North Community Garden
15. Abrazo Central Campus 13

16. Alhambra Village Core
(Christown Spectrum Mall) Bethany
17. North Mountain Village Core Home
(Metrocenter Mall) Road

N 12



24 19North Policy Plan Page 481
Part II: Today



Locational Opportunity
The 19North corridor is uniquely situated
between the North Mountain Village Core (which
encompasses Metrocenter Mall) and the Alhambra
Village Core (which encompasses Christown
North Mountain
Spectrum Mall). Both areas are positioned
Village Core
for high-quality, walkable, urban, mixed-use
(Metrocenter)
development.
Dunlap Avenue
In addition to being bookended by two Village
Cores, 19North also encompasses areas that have
been previously studied. The northeast portion
of the corridor borders the Royal Palm Special
Planning District area, whereas the southern
North Mountain Village
portion of the corridor was included in the Solano
TOD Policy Plan. The vision and goals from these
Alhambra Village
previous efforts have been carefully reviewed
during this Plan’s development in order to ensure
that the plans are complimentary.
Glendale
The larger corridor, from the Alhambra Village Avenue
Core on the south to the North Mountain Village
Core to the northwest presents a valuable
opportunity to ensure residents and businesses
in 19North are provided with a variety of services,
shopping, entertainment, restaurants, and daily
amenities, all accessibe via the light rail. Bethany Home
Road Alhambra
Royal Palm Neighborhood Special
Village
Planning District Plan
Core
Adopted in 1999, the Royal Palm Neighborhood
Special Planning District Plan reviews land use,
traffic circulation, community character and
security within the Royal Palm area. Goals and
objectives detailed in the plan serve to guide
Indian School

19th Ave 15th Ave
residents and the city in achieving desired
accomplishments reflective of the community’s Road
values.

Solano TOD Policy Plan

The Solano TOD Policy Plan, completed as part
of the Reinvent PHX project in 2015, provides a
blueprint for fully achieving the transformative
potential of light rail in a sustainable manner. The
plan contains three chapters - Today, Tomorrow
and How We Get There - to analyze the existing
conditions of the corridor, describe the vision
for the future and detail strategies to achieve the
vision.



Page 482 19North Policy Plan 25
Part II: Today




LAND USE
ELEMENT
BY THE Current Conditions
NUMBERS
--------------------------- Character
The 19North Planning Area is home to a mix of single-

83%
family residential, multifamily, suburban commercial, and
major medical facilities. The Royal Palm Neighborhood,
land zoned for located in the northeast section of the planning area,
residential uses is characterized by large, flood-irrigated residential lots.
Historic assets include the Good Sheperd Building and
Washington Park. In terms of employment character,
56.9% single-family
19North is home to the Abrazo Central Hospital, the Core
25.8% multifamily
Institute, and other major employers.

--------------------------- Planning and Zoning Policy
A small area at the southern edge of the 19North Planning

14 acres
Area was also located in the ReinventPHX Solano District
Policy Plan; this area has access to the Walkable Urban
of vacant land Code and some parcels are further regulated under the
Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District 1 (TOD-
1), The remainder of the district is governed through
traditional zoning.
---------------------------
The 19North Planning Area includes the Royal Palm

15%
Special Planning District Overlay which is designed
to preserve and protect the historic Royal Palm
of the area is Neighborhood. Additionally, the 19North Planning Area
is adjacent to the Maricopa / Black Canyon Freeway
eligible for Specific Plan Area; a policy plan focused on balancing
Walkable economic development with impact mitigation.
Urban Code
Zoning Regionally, the 19North Planning Area is split between
the Alhambra and North Mountain Village and is situated
between their respective Village Cores, Christown
Sprectrum Mall and Metrocenter Mall respectively.

Vacant Land
There is a limited amount of vacant and undeveloped
land within the 19North Planning Area. The majority of
vacant land is comprised of small remnant parcels along
19th Avenue. Since the writing of this report, several
large vacant parcels redeveloped including one at the
All data represents a singular point-in-time and is limited
northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Bethany Home
by its collection methods. The data used is from the U.S. Road and the western half of the former El Caro Golf
Census Bureau (2019 ACS) and / or the City of Phoenix. Course north of Northern Avenue.
The 2019 ACS utilizes methodologically sound sampling
methods. Data reports are included in the appendix.



26 19North Policy Plan Page 483
Dunlap
Avenue




Northern
Avenue




Glendale
Avenue




Bethany
Home

23rd Ave 15th Ave 23rd Ave 15th Ave
Road




Generalized Zoning Vacant Land Planning Areas
As of 2/2021

Interim Transit-Oriented
Overlay District (TOD-1)




N

Page 484 19North Policy Plan 27
Part II: Today




HOUSING
ELEMENT
BY THE Current Conditions
NUMBERS
--------------------------- Housing Types
The 19North Planning Area includes a mix of single-family

13,287
homes and multifamily facilities which vary in size from
duplexes to large complexes. Many of the single-family
occupied homes are in long-established neighborhoods throughout
housing units the planning area. In addition to traditional housing
developments, the corridor also contains large senior
living facilities which allow residents to age in place.
While much of the housing is well-maintained, there are
--------------------------- single-family and multifamily units that have fallen into
poor condition. Reinvestment is evident in single-family

1,200 and multifamily developments over the past few years.

residents Housing Mix
living in group quarters The 19North Planning Area is home to a large number
of medium-to-large multifamily complexes (those with
such as assisted living, 10 or more units per building) which comprise 62% of
dormitories all multifamily housing units in addition to 27% of small
multifamily complexes (those with between 2 and 9
--------------------------- units per building). Many of the larger complexes are
near 19th Avenue, where residents can take advantage of
the proximity to the light rail to travel to and from work

housing types
or school. In recent years, the planning area has seen
growth in both traditional single-family units as well as
multifamily units in location throughout the planning
38.5% single-family area..
18.4% multifamily (2-9 units per bldg)
42.2% multifamily (10+ units per bldg) Housing Vacancy
The 19North Planning Area has a slightly higher level
of housing vacancy compared to the City of Phoenix
as a whole, however vacancy rates have been trending
downward. While the vacancy rate is slightly higher in
19North than the city as a whole, some of the vacancy
can be attributed to the percent of renter occupied units
which tend to have a higher vacancy rate.

Housing Affordability
The district struggles with several housing affordability
challenges. The median home value in 19North is higher
All data represents a singular point-in-time and is limited
than that of the city-wide value; however, the median
by its collection methods. The data used is from the U.S. household income is significantly lower. There are other
Census Bureau (2019 ACS) and / or the City of Phoenix. high-cost burdens for 19North residents such as driving
The 2019 ACS utilizes methodologically sound sampling
commutes. While many use public transportation, 36%
methods. Data reports are included in the appendix.
of employees residing in the district travel more than 10
miles, each way, to work.
28 19North Policy Plan Page 485
Dunlap
Avenue




Northern
Avenue




Glendale
Avenue




Bethany
Home
19North
19North
23rd Ave 15th Ave 23rd Ave 15th Ave 23rd Ave 15th Ave
Road
Residential
Residential
19North
Development
Development
Residential
19North
Development
Single-Family
Single-Family
Residential
Generalized Zoning Density for New Residential
Development
Single-Family
Density
Density for for 19North
Residentially Units
ZonedMultifamily
Multifamily (2015 - 2020)
Single-Family
Residentially
Residentially Zoned
Zoned Residential
Property
Property (dwelling Multifamily
8 8- -10
10Units
Units
Property (Dwelling
(Dwelling Development
units
Units
Units Per
per acre)
Per Acre)
Acre) 10- -8 6010
-
Multifamily
10 60 Units
Units
Units
Single-Family
00 -- 55 10 60 Units
6060- -708 Units
70 - Units
55 -- 15
15 10- -70
Multifamily
60 60Units
Units
15+
15+
N 860- -1070Units
Units
10 - 60 Units
Page 486 29
60 - 70 Units
Part II: Today




ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
BY THE ELEMENT
NUMBERS Current Conditions
--------------------------- Jobs and Workforce
Approximately 15,000 members of the laborforce call

14,991 jobs
19North home and more than 15,600 individuals are
employed within the district, however, there is little

32,725 residents overlap between these groups who both live and work
within the study area. The presence of the light rail and
Interstate 17 make rapid transportation to and through
--------------------------- 19North extremely efficient, with specific regard to
employment centers.


3,090 Major Employers
Many of the major employers operate in the field of
jobs in key health care with individuals employed in a variety of
industries occupations. Numerous assets position the district for
job growth in these industries, including Abrazo Health
Care Center Central Campus and the Core Institute
--------------------------- Specialty Hospital. The most common occupations are
management, business, science and the arts (29.4%),
followed by sales and office (24.6%), and service (25.1%).

32% Education
residents have a The 19North Planning Area is home to many educational
post-secondary facilities including nine K-12 schools, Devry University,
Chamberlain University College of Nursing, one public
degrees library, and a variety of trade programs.

--------------------------- Opportunity Zones
West of 19th Avenue are three of the City’s 42 federally
qualified Opportunity Zones exist in 19North. Opportunity
3 Zones allow for increased investment in targeted areas
by allowing tax benefits for investors who, in turn,
qualified provide postivie economic and social impacts within the
opportunity community.
zones




All data represents a singular point-in-time and is limited
by its collection methods. The data used is from the U.S.
Census Bureau (2019 ACS) and / or the City of Phoenix.
The 2019 ACS utilizes methodologically sound sampling
methods. Data reports are included in the appendix.



30 19North Policy Plan Page 487
Part II: Today



Dunlap
Avenue




Northern
Avenue




Glendale
Avenue




Bethany
Home

23rd Ave 15th Ave 23rd Ave 15th Ave
Road




Employees by Site Industry Industry
Business Opportunity Zones
Business and
Industry Opportunity
OpportunityZones
Zones
Finance
Business and
Education
Finance
Government and
Education
Social Services
Government
Health Careand
Social Services
N Retail and
Health Care
Entertainment
Retail and
Page 488 19North Policy Plan 31
Entertainment
Part II: Today




HEALTH
ELEMENT
BY THE Current Conditions
NUMBERS
--------------------------- Access to Food
The 19North Planning Area is home to seven full service

35%
grocery stores which all participate in the Women Infant
Children (WIC) program to provide food assistance for
of areas are low income residents. Approximately 24% of the district
within a 1/4 is within a 5-minute walk of their nearest grocery store;
walking distance is especially important because 20
mile walk of a percent of district households do not own a vehicle.
park This information is from the 2017 American Community
Survey.

--------------------------- Access to Recreation Areas
The 19North Planning Area contains two public parks -
Alicia Park at Alice and 19th Avenue and Washington Park

24% at 21st Avenue and Maryland Avenue. These parks contain
a variety of amenities ranging from passive picnic areas
of areas are to the expansive and historic tennis facility at Washington
within a 1/4 Park. Just outside of the 19North corridor lies Royal
Palm Park (at 15th Avenue and Butler Road) and Solano
mile walk of a Park (immediately south of Christown Spectrum Mall).
grocer Approximately 35% of the total area is within a 5-minute
walk of a nearby park or recreational amenity
---------------------------
Transportation
Regionally, residents of the 19North Planning Area have
11 pedestrian access to light rail, bus routes and bike lanes, which link
residents to downtown Phoenix and destinations located
or bicyclist along the light rail corridor.
fatalties
The evolution of development preferences led to a

40 serious
system more comfortable to navigate by car than on
foot. Consequently, between 2013 and 2017 there have
injuries (33 pedestrians been 40 serious injuries or fatalities resulting from car-
pedestrian and bike-pedestrian crashes. Many of these
and 8 bicyclists) crashes occurred less than 1/4 mile from a signaled
*2013 - 2017 intersection.




All data represents a singular point-in-time and is limited
by its collection methods. The data used is from the U.S.
Census Bureau (2019 ACS) and / or the City of Phoenix.
The 2019 ACS utilizes methodologically sound sampling
methods. Data reports are included in the appendix.



32 19North Policy Plan Page 489
Dunlap
Avenue




Northern
Avenue




Glendale
Avenue




Bethany
Home

23rd Ave 15th Ave 23rd Ave 15th Ave
Road




Access to Food Parks and Public Art Bicyclist and
Grocery Locations Pedestrian Safety
Crashes Resulting in Severe
Injury or Death of Pedestrian
or Bicyclist. 2013 - 2017




N

Page 490 19North Policy Plan 33
Part II: Today




MOBILITY
ELEMENT
BY THE Current Conditions
NUMBERS
--------------------------- Pedestrian Mobility
“Everyone has different preferences when it comes to

10%
transportation, but at one time or another everyone
is a pedestrian.” - National Highway Traffic Safety
of residents Administration
walk, bicycle, The 19North Planning Area is comprised mostly of
or take transit suburban scale and auto-oriented shopping centers,
to work; malls, and drive-throughs; while each of these typically
another 12% does serve people on foot, they are characterized by vast
carpool parking lots, speed optimized drive-aisles, and distance
between destinations which are barriers to pedestrians.
---------------------------
43% While designed for automobile owners, 21 percent of
households do not own a car, 43 percent of households
of households have only own only one vehicle. Additionally 10 percent of residents
one car; another 21% walk, ride, or take transit to work. Pedestrian Mobility is
have no important to transit oriented development because all
transit riders are also pedestrians.
car
Bicycle Mobility
--------------------------- Bicycle rates continue to rise in Phoenix as more

7,072 residents move into the urban core. It is an affordable
and healthy mode of transportation which is made viable
daily light rail by the climate, designated routes, and transit which can
boardings (average) extend a trip many miles. There are six miles of bicycle
lanes in the Planning Area including along 15th Avenue
and 23rd Avenue with 19th Avenue being designated as
2,628 at Dunlap
1,077 at Northern a shared lane facility. A significant share of residents and
1,353 at Glendale households use alternative transportation as their primary
2,012 at Montebello mode.

Transit Mobility
The 19North Planning Area is well-served by transit
including light rail and several bus routes. The light rail
sees approximately 7,000 boardings across the four light
rail stations each day. Currently, planning is underway for
a connection to Metrocenter Mall, the North Mountain
Village Core. This planned light-rail extension will allow
All data represents a singular point-in-time and is limited
the area to become even more connected to the assests
by its collection methods. The data used is from the U.S. in the larger area.
Census Bureau (2019 ACS) and / or the City of Phoenix.
The 2019 ACS utilizes methodologically sound sampling
methods. Data reports are included in the appendix.



34 19North Policy Plan Page 491
Dunlap
Avenue
2,628




Northern
1,077
Avenue




Glendale 1,353
Avenue




Bethany

19th Ave
Home

23rd Ave 15th Ave 23rd Ave 15th Ave 23rd Ave 15th Ave
Road

2,012
Percent Households
With No Vehicle For
Percent Households Average Daily Light Transit and Bikeway
Residentially Zoned
with No Vehicle
Percent
PropertyHouseholds Rail Boardings Routes
With No Vehicle For
0% - 25%
Residentially Zoned
25% - 75%
Property
75%- +
0% 25%
25% - 75%
N 75% +

Page 492 19North Policy Plan 35
Part II: Today




GREEN
SYSTEMS
BY THE ELEMENT
NUMBERS Current Conditions
--------------------------- Heat
As with the rest of Phoenix, it is hot in 19North and

12% the heat can produce related illnesses. Some areas
are hotter than others because features such as vast
of total area parking lots and wide streets which absorb and radiate
are public heat. Green systems, such as trees and vegetative
ground cover, can reduce surface temperatures and,
streets. when used in aggregate, these measures can positively
An additional 7% are impact the urban heat island effect. The threshold for
surface parking lots human health is 115 degrees Fahrenheit and less than
1.1% of the district has a summer surface temperate at or
below this threshold; the most pressing are the 8.8% of
--------------------------- the district experiencing temperatures in excess of 135
degrees Fahrenheit. The urban heat island is continuing
to worsen with further development in the region which

More than 8%
makes the importance of mitigation factors an essential
consideration for continued development.
of surface
Surface Parking Lots
temperatures Impervious surfaces contribute to the overall heat of
exceed 135 the district, the retention of heat through the night,
degrees in and the rapid discharge of much needed rainfall
summer events. Approximately 7.34% of the total study area is
comprised of surface parking lots, which are partially or
mostly empty for much of the day. Approximately 12%
--------------------------- of the total study area is comprised of street surfaces,
which often contain an excess amount of pavement to

Only 1% accommodate on-street parking, which anecdotally, is
rarely in full use.
of surface
temperatures Impervious Ground Cover
In addition to the heat generated and retained by
are below 115 pavement areas, the sheer amount of pavement also
degrees in contributes to a significant amount of temporary ponding
summer in roadways and parking areas. Thanks to decades of
on-site retention which have mitigated the street flooding
problems of the 1960’s, it may be possible to reallocate
private stormwater basins to be managed by green streets
and joint use neighborhood parks/retention, with an
All data represents a singular point-in-time and is limited approach that views rainwater as a resource rather than a
by its collection methods. The data used is from the U.S. waste product.
Census Bureau (2019 ACS) and / or the City of Phoenix.
The 2019 ACS utilizes methodologically sound sampling
methods. Data reports are included in the appendix.



36 19North Policy Plan Page 493
Dunlap
Avenue




Northern
Avenue




Glendale
Avenue




Bethany
Home

23rd Ave 15th Ave 23rd Ave 15th Ave 23rd Ave 15th Ave
Road




Pavement Coverage Pervious Landcover Summer Surface
Temperature
Surface Parking
Roadway Surface




N

Page 494 19North Policy Plan 37
38 19North Policy Plan Page 495
Part III: Tomorrow




PART III




TOMORROW
Through an analysis of current conditions and the
goals of the community, the vision for the district
emerged.

A series of public presentations and interactive
workshops allowed each participant to provide input
towards a shared community vision, themes, and
community-identified investments.




Page 496 19North Policy Plan 39
Part III: Tomorrow




19NORTH IN 2040:
Assessmen
Existing Cond



Vision
VISION
The vision is a story of life in 19North circa 2040. Through transit oriented
development and thoughtful placemaking, it is a story of how 19North
can position itself as a walkable, vibrant, and prosperous corridor. Many
residents, business owners, property owners, and other stakeholders
contributed to the spirit and content of this vision through multiple
workshops and forums.


Community Vision: 19North in 2040
In 2040, 19North is a vibrant and culturally diverse district that is truly unique by design.
Through creative and transit oriented redevelopment, grassroots community building, and
participatory placemaking, 19North has become a model for district revitalization throughout
the region.

Preserved single-family homes, renewed and revitalized multifamily housing, and new
pedestrian-friendly development near light rail stations provide quality housing and
transportation for people of all ages and incomes.

Mixed-use buildings have attracted new residents, high quality affordable housing, jobs
and job training opportunities, additional neighborhood services, entertainment, and retail
offerings. Together, investment in the people, places, and institutions has allowed 19North to
flourish as a neighborhood and destination.




40 19North Policy Plan Page 497
Crafting the Vision
nt of Smith Group Community Speaks: Mapping Change Community Prioritized
ditions Visioning Exercise Vision Phrases Areas Investments




Refinement:

19North Vision

Community Community Speaks: Vision Phrases
Prioritized Participants at the first workshop were asked to select the
Investments: top ten phrases that best describe their vision for the future
of 19North. From the 35 phrases provided, the ten most
Participants at the third popular were:
workshop identified the
types of investments Safety (8.90%); Walkable (6.75%); Community (5.21%);
they felt were most Clean (5.21%); Restaurants (4.91%); Sense of Place (4.60%)
appropriate at different Revitalization (4.60%); Neighborhoods (4.60%); Pride
locations in the corridor. (4.60%); Outdoor Dining (4.60%).




Page 498 19North Policy Plan 41
Part III: Tomorrow




19NORTH IN 2040:
Vision
VISION THEMES
Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
People from all backgrounds live and thrive in 19North. Mixed use buildings,
revitalized institutions, and public amenities unite the corridor into a series
of distinct neighborhoods where its residents live, work, and play. Mixed-
use centers along the light rail transition transition gracefully with distance
into traditional detached neighborhoods. Newly walkable streets and shaded
sidewalks welcome residents into casual conversation and community with
their neighbors. A focus on safety, comfort, and visual interest underpin the
built environment which places all residents are within a comfortable walk or
bike ride to light rail that puts employment, recreation, and social gatherings
within reach

Walkable and Bikeable
People of all ages and abilities feel safe and comfortable walking or riding a
bike for transportation or recreation. New and improved pathways provide
safe, comfortable, and convenient access points to the 19th Avenue corridor.
New projects including retrofits have placed the comfort of walkers and
bicyclists at the forefront and are now welcoming to people of all ages,
including families. Continuous sidewalks and bike facilities, in concert with
wayfinding signage, seamlessly residents and visitors to safely navigate the
area. Since many residents work in the district or along the regional light rail
system, safe and comfortable bike and walking routes have led to significant
increases in local employment and light rail ridership and a decrease in
automobile dependence.

Employment, Education, and Training
Investment in education and job training has built a creative, highly skilled,
and diverse workforce. Education and employment readiness begins early in
a child’s life and the unified “cradle to career” model offered by local schools,
Arizona State University, and Maricopa Community Colleges. These programs
continue to produce a workforce with exceptional skills, an eye toward
innovation, and a spirit for entrepreneurship.

Outdoor Life and Commerce
The plazas of 19th Avenue - a series of vibrant and connected districts - are
alive with the sights and sounds of outdoor dining, live music, and gatherings,
both formal and informal. New mixed use centers and long-standing
businesses have embraced the idea of pedestrian oriented commerce.
The built environment is seamlessly unified under a cohensive brand that
underpins both the public and private realms through a landscape palette, art,
and other features. Together, these elements has made 19North a destination.


42 19North Policy Plan Page 499
Part III: Tomorrow




Page 500 19North Policy Plan 43
Part III: Tomorrow




COMMUNITY-
IDENTIFIED:




COMMUNITY-IDENTIFIED CHANGE AREAS:

CHANGE AREAS


Sub-Area Visions: Light Rail Station Areas

In February of 2018, workshop participants were asked to help identify “Change Areas”
throughout the 19North Planning Area and to sort the district into three categories based
on the type of change they would envision (categories and definitions below). This effort,
combined with additional data such as vacant land, produced the “Community Identified
Change Area Maps” to the right.

These change area maps depict the general appetite for where the community would like
to see development occur versus the areas that should be stabilized and strengthened.
Proposed redevelopment is generally shown on vacant properties, in locations where
redevelopment is likely to occur based on future market trends, or in areas where parking
areas may be reallocated for land development based on the proximity to the light rail.

It is important to note that even during the creation of the plan since the above referenced
workshop, many of the areas identified for redevelopment have fulfilled that vision or made
steps toward securing zoning entitlement to enable redevelopment.




Preserve / Stabilize:
Those areas that would stay as they currently exist, such as
single-family residential neighborhoods with an established
density (dwelling units per acre) or restoration of existing
buildings.

Retrofit:
Those areas that would benefit from additional landscaping
within the right-of-way or parking lot, adaptive reuse of structures
or adding new buildings to vacantproperties or parking lots at the
same scale as surrounding neighborhoods.

Redevelop:
Those areas that may may completely redevelop including a
change in the scale and intensity of the land use.




44 19North Policy Plan Page 501
Part III: Tomorrow


Dunlap
Avenue




Dunlap and 19N


Northern and 19N

Northern
Avenue




Glendale
Avenue


Glendale and 19N




N
Bethany
Home Road




23rd 19th 15th
Ave Ave Ave


Page 502 19North Policy Plan 45
Part III: Tomorrow




PRIORITY AREA:
Vision
19TH & GLENDALE
Community Vision: 19th Avenue and
Glendale Avenue in 2040
In 2040, 19th Avenue and Glendale Avenue is a walkable urban center. It is a place where
parking lots and aging multifamily complexes have become active with projects designed
for experiential shopping and gathering; one such example is the development of the
Fry’s Marketplace parking lot for new development in a way that positioned the front
facade of the grocery along a newly created main street, alive with residents and patrons
who now call the area home.

Through high quality site design and thoughtful development and redevelopment, people
now view 19th Avenue and Glendale Avenue as a place to live, work, and play. It is a place
people want to live near and even visit for shopping, entertainment, and leisure.

As an anchor to the surrounding neighborhoods, new streets provide convenient access
into the heart of the mainstreet and to the light rail station. New infill development of
mixed-use projects ranging from two-to-four stories transition gracefully from the station
areas into the lower density neighborhoods at the periphery of the mainstreet.


19th Ave and Glendale Ave
Conceptual Infill Development




Glendale


19N
Infill Example


“Main Street”

Fry’s Marketplace
46 19North Policy Plan Page 503
Part III: Tomorrow




Community-Identified Change Areas: Stakeholder
generated map of prospective change areas
As depicted on the below map, stakeholders identified the multifamily apartment
complexes surrounding the transit node as requiring the highest level of intervention.
While most of this area is identified as a redevelopment opportunity, it is likely that many
of the complexes could be repositioned through reinvestment and site retrofits such as
the addition of paseos to break up large, single-use developments.




Community-Identified Change Areas: 19th Avenue and Glendale Avenue
Preserve
Retrofit
Redevelop




Page 504 19North Policy Plan 47
Part III: Tomorrow




low rise housing pedestrian only walkway




small commercial retail




landscape-buffered sidewalks murals, sculptures, creative enhancements




Conceptual Redevelopment Rendering


Community Prioritized Investment Types: Participants
identified the following for this target area.
Walkable Urban Neighborhood
Dense residential areas where streets and buildings are designed
to prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists. Characteristics include:
landscape-buffered sidewalks, small block sizes, low rise housing,
quality transit services and small commercial retail establishments
at key intersections.


Paseos (Shaded Pedestrian Walkways)
A pedestrian-only walkway, that provides open space, building access
and enhanced pedestrian circulation for neighborhoods. Paseos can
provide connections through long blocks where options for constructing
new streets are difficult or cost prohibitive.



Public Art
Artwork intended to be experienced by the general public and visible
from streets, parks and other public spaces. Examples include murals,
sculptures, creative enhancements to bridges, transit stations, civic
spaces, canals and other infrastructure.


48 19North Policy Plan Page 505
SmithGroup Visioning:
The architectural firm SmithGroup provided pro-bono
analysis to the visioning phase of the 19North planning
efforts. The analysis included considerations of existing
conditions, transportation connectivity, and thematic
conditions that may be leveraged for placemaking.

The study noted the prevalence of educational and
healthcare institutions and provided a series of inspirational
images for how placemaking efforts can reposition the
built-environment for greater vitality. Below is a sample of
the inspirational images for this priority area. A full Analysis
can be within the Appendix of this document.




Images and Diagrams Page 506 19North Policy Plan 49
Courtesy of the Smith Group
Part III: Tomorrow




PRIORITY AREAS:
Vision
19TH & NORTHERN
Community Vision: 19th Avenue and
Northern Avenue in 2040
In 2040, 19th Avenue and Northern Avenue has become the anchor for the surrounding
neighborhoods and their revitalization processes and now functions as the town center
for the surrounding neighborhoods - a place of convenience, of community, and of
neighborhood identity.

While the core of the intersection has undergone a notable amount of reinvestment from
anchor mixed-use projects including the revitalization of the Good Sheperd Building,
the most significant change has come from the adjacent neighborhoods. Now with an
identity and brand to build upon, residents have reinvested in their homes and a new
neighborhood has emerged on the former El Caro Golf Course. The reinvestment,
redevelopment, and retrofit actions in the core have reinforced the quality of the
surrounding neighborhood.




50 19North Policy Plan Page 507
Part III: Tomorrow




Community-Identified Change Areas: Stakeholder
generated map of prospective change areas
As depicted on the below map, stakeholders identified small areas of the immediate
corridor as redevelopment opportunities with the remainder being identified for retrofit
enhancements. Many of the areas identified for retrofit enhancements include auto-
oriented shopping centers which could be repositioned with amenities and density; as
well as multifamily complexes which could benefit from reinvestment and addition of
amenities such as paseos.

The largest area identified for redevelopment is the former El Caro Golf Course located
northwest of the intersection which has sat vacant and deteriorated for a decade.
Walkable urban redevelopment was strongly expressed through the 19North public
engagement efforts.




Community-Identified Change Areas: 19th Avenue and Northern Avenue
Preserve
Retrofit
Redevelop




Page 508 19North Policy Plan 51
Part III: Tomorrow




low rise housing




outdoor dining




building entrances from the sidewalk




landscape-buffered sidewalks

Conceptual Redevelopment Rendering


Community Prioritized Investment Types: Participants
identified the following for this target area.
Walkable Urban Neighborhood
Dense residential areas where streets and buildings are designed to
prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists. Characteristics include: landscape-
buffered sidewalks, small block sizes, low rise housing, quality transit
services and small commercial retail establishments at key intersections.




Active Frontages
A development feature which orients the business activity to pedestrian
and vehicular traffic. Examples include window displays, building
entrances from the sidewalk, and outdoor dining.




Community Gathering Place
An outdoor space that can be support a variety of activities. From informal
gatherings and small concerts to as a farmers market or cultural festival,
these spaces can range in size and design but should be designed to
facilitate social interactions.

52 19North Policy Plan Page 509
SmithGroup Visioning:
The visioning efforts identified the 19th Avenue and
Northern Avenue as a Community District, citing the
prevalence of established and emerging residential
neighborhoods.

Further, the visioning efforts included a series of
inspirational images for how placemaking efforts can
reposition the built-environment for greater vitality.

Below is a sample of the inspirational images for this
priority area. A full Analysis can be within the Appendix of
this document. Examples of inspirational images include
pocket-parks, paseos, outdoor dining, and outdoor
recreation amenities.




Images and Diagrams Page 510 19North Policy Plan 53
Courtesy of the Smith Group
Part III: Tomorrow




PRIORITY AREAS:
Vision
19TH & DUNLAP
Community Vision: 19th Avenue and
Dunlap Avenue in 2040
In 2040, 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue has branded itself as a gateway district from the
north - a gateway to the light rail, to 19North, and to new opportunities for its residents.
This serves as the headwaters of the 19North streetscape, wayfinding, and pedestrian/
bicycle improvements which are carried forward through the corridor.

It remains a major transit center but also the center of community and commercial life
for nearby residents - from 19th Avenue and Dunlap, residents can walk to their favorite
local shops, can work in the neighborhood if they so choose, and can access the full
extent of the light rail corridor within walking distance.

While the light rail has been extended to the newly revitalized Metrocenter which
offers a new realm of services, jobs, and opportunities for residents, 19North thrives
independently based on its identity and the community developed and strengthened
throughout the revitalization process; it all begins at 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue.




54 19North Policy Plan Page 511
Part III: Tomorrow




Community-Identified Change Areas: Stakeholder
generated map of prospective change areas
As depicted on the below map, stakeholders identified this area with a balanced
mix of preservation (the single-family homes at the periphery of the station), retrofit
enhancements for the nearby commercial centers in the vicinity of the station, and
redevelopment for the areas immediately adjacent to the station.

The El Rancho Market shopping center at the southeast corner of the intersection is
identified as a retrofit opportunity; this auto-oriented complex includes vast parking areas
which may be prime for redevelopment along 19th Avenue and retrofit enhancements
such as pedestrian connectivity and paseos.

The multifamily complex immediately south of the transit station overlooks a park and
ride lot but is detached from the lot by a block wall. While identified as redevelopment,
the multifamily complex may benefit from the redevelopment of the parking lot through
additional density and the inclusion of amenities such as pedestrian paseos and common
open space to connect, rather than divide adjacent land uses.




Preserve
Retrofit Community-Identified Change Areas:
Redevelop 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue




Page 512 19North Policy Plan 55
Part III: Tomorrow




housing revitalization




trees within patio areas
public gathering place




integrates trees and plants along pedestrian paths


Conceptual Redevelopment Rendering


Community Prioritized Investment Types: Participants
identified the following for this target area.
Housing Revitalization
Improvements to existing residential buildings that improve quality,
health, accessibility, safety and efficiency. Air filtration systems,
weatherization, HVAC replacement, window shading, solar panels,
slab repair, and historic façade restoration are examples of Housing
Revitalization.



Green Pedestrian Realm
A feature that integrates trees and plants along pedestrian paths and
in patios, parking lots, and parks. This cools the environment, increases
human comfort, and reduces the urban heat island by lowering surface
and air temperatures.



Community Gathering Place
An outdoor space that can be support a variety of activities. From
informal gatherings and small concerts to as a farmers market or
cultural festival, these spaces can range in size and design but should
be designed to facilitate social interactions.


56 19North Policy Plan Page 513
SmithGroup Visioning:
The visioning efforts identified the 19th Avenue and
Dunlap Avenue as a Gateway District, citing the
importance of its location at the terminous of the light rail
and the presence of a major park and ride facility.

The visioning efforts included a series of inspirational
images for how placemaking efforts can reposition the
built-environment for greater vitality. Below is a sample of
the inspirational images for this priority area. A full Analysis
can be within the Appendix of this document. Examples
of inspirational images include art installations to denote
the entrance to a distinct place, to provide visual interest,
and to create a shaded place for individuals to enjoy.




Images and Diagrams Page 514 19North Policy Plan 57
Courtesy of the Smith Group
58 19North Policy Plan Page 515
Part IV: How We Get There




PART IV




HOW WE GET
THERE
The effectiveness of a planning process should
be evaluated by how well it is implemented and
by whom.

The 19North Policy Plan has been developed
through an engagement process which
included city leaders and departments,
community organizations, business owners,
and members of the general public. This
section outlines the many small actions
necessary to accomplish the community’s
vision for 19North.




Page 516 19North Policy Plan 59
Part IV: How We Get There




HOW WE GET THERE:
ACHIEVING THE VISION
Organized for Success
The 19North Vision is feasible but also bold and ambitious. Implementing the plan will require focused,
efficient, and organized execution that spans multiple decades. This plan is designed to facilitate
collaboration, align policies, and coordinate action across a multi-sector coalition of public, private, and
non-profit investors. This section is organized to pull the many elements of the plan together, to articulate
the measurable outcomes that would quantify success, and the strategies that can make the vision a reality.


1. Community Vision (Tomorrow, Part III)
2. Vision Themes (Tomorrow, Part III)
3. Measurable Outcomes
Thirty-two (32) measurable outcomes provide an objective analysis of what the community would
consider success towards achieving the vision themes and ultimately the overall Community Vision.
Individually, each measurable outcome is accompanied by measurable targets to create progress
toward the community’s vision through the lens of existing conditions outlined in the Today section.
As the ultimate goal of this planning document is measurable progress, the Measurable Outcomes
are introduced out-of-this-order and woven into the Urban Principles and Implementation
Strategies.


4. Urban Principles
Introduced here, Urban Principles are a series of lenses through which we can focus on the
operational characteristics of revitalization and reinvestment. The four urban principles - 1)
Infill Development; 2) People-Oriented Streetscape; 3) People-Oriented Site Design; and 4)
Placemaking Fundamentals - are a framework to explore the strategies that can be implemented to
achieve the long range community vision.


5. Implementation Strategies
Whereas the Urban Principles are primarily an organizational structure in the plan, in them reside 14
strategies designed to make measurable progress toward the implementation of the community’s
vision. These strategies range from big ideas and capital projects to small activities that individual
neighborhoods can achieve.


6. The Five Year Action Plan
A long range plan is best implemented in small pieces. The five-year action plan articulates a
series of activities, partnerships, and steps towards achieving the vision. Action items are aligned
to vision themes, measurable outcomes and ultimately the six planning element framework. When
accomplished, actions help “jump start” the larger implementation strategies.




60 19North Policy Plan Page 517
Part IV: How We Get There




1 COMMUNITY VISION




PLANNING PROCESS: HOW WE GET THERE
VISION
Safe, Employment,
Walkable and Outdoor Life
2 THEMES
Affordable, and
Vibrant
Bikeable
Education, and
Training
and Commerce




MEASURABLE
OUTCOMES

SIX PLANNING ELEMENTS
Economic




TOWARDS ACHIEVING
Land Use Development Mobility



TOWARDS ACHIEVING
Green
Housing Health Systems




MEASURABLE PROGRESS
THE VISION
HOW WE GET THERE

IMPLEMENTATION URBAN
People- People-
4 Infill
Development
Oriented
Streetscape
Oriented
Site Design
Placemaking
Fundamentals




STRATEGIES PRINCIPLES


6 5 YEAR ACTION PLAN




Page 518 19North Policy Plan 61
Part IV: How We Get There




HOW WE GET THERE:
MEASURABLE OUTCOMES
The purpose of a plan is to guide action toward a goal.
The Vision for the Future is the goal for 19North. The
themes reflect the values of the community and the
components of the vision, whereas the measurable
outcomes serve as a target toward achieving the vision for
2040.

For the purpose of organization, the measurable
outcomes are sorted first by the theme to which they
most closely relate and second by the planning element
introduced in the Today section.

Periodic updates and analyses of the indicators could
be done by the City, community partners, universities,
research institutions, and urban policy organizations in
collaboration with the City.




62 19North Policy Plan Page 519
Part IV: How We Get There



Planning Element



Measurable Outcome Current
State
Target
nd
Ho U se
us
Ec ng
on i
(20 year time horizon) He mi o
al c D
M h
ob t ev.
Gr eeili t y
n Sy st
La em s
Theme: Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
1. Decrease vacant land (acres) 14 7 ⚫ ⚫
2. Decrease surface parking (percent of total area) 7.3 5 ⚫ ⚫
3. Increase area eligible for the Walkable Urban Code (percent) 15 100 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
4. Decrease housing vacancy rate (percent) 12 9 ⚫ ⚫
5. Increase new rental units affordable to median income households (percent of
new)
- 30
⚫ ⚫
6. Increase the new ownership units affordable to median income households - 30
(percent of new)
7. Decrease house burdened renters (more than 30% of household income on
gross rent)
52.2 30

8. Decrease house burdened owners (more than 30% of household income on
mortgage)
- -
⚫ ⚫
9. Increase properties listed on the Phoenix Register of Historic Places (number) 1 6 ⚫ ⚫
10. Add bike lanes to public streets, not including shared lane markings (miles) 6 10 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Walkable, Bikeable, and Transit Oriented
11. Increase projects utilizing the Walkable Urban Code (percent of new) 0 80 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
12. Increase average “Walkscore” (at arterials and 19th Ave, at collectors and 19th
Ave)
75, 54 90
⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
13. Increase average “Bikescore” (at arterials and 19th Ave, at collectors and 19th
Ave)
61, 60 75
⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
14. Increase percent of residents who walk, bicycle, use transit, and carpool to work 13 50 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
15. Increase average daily light rail boardings 7,000 14,000 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
16. Increase miles of collector streets with parking 0 3 ⚫
17. Decrease the average annual number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per
household (miles)
9,200 7,000
⚫ ⚫
18 Decrease pedestrian and bicycle Injuries and fatalities over a 5 year period
(number)
41 0
⚫ ⚫
19. Increase the percent of households within 1/4 mile walk to public recreation
facilities or public open space areas (percent)
18 25
⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
20. Increase the percent of households within 1/4 mile walk to a grocery store
(percent)
17 25
⚫ ⚫
21. Increase the number of intersections per square mile to promote walkability 123 130 ⚫
22. Increase the percent households without a vehicle 20 30 ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Employment, Education and Training
23. Increase the number of jobs 15,600 18,000 ⚫
24 Increase the number of jobs in key industries 3,000 5,000 ⚫
25. Increase the percent residents with a post-secondary degree 21 40 ⚫ ⚫
26. Decrease the unemployment rate (percent) - 6 ⚫
Theme: Outdoor Life and Commerce
27. Increase the number of properties on the Phoenix Historic Property Register 1 4 ⚫ ⚫
28 Increase the number of public art installations 3 6 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
29. Increase the number of public open spaces 2 2 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
30. Increase the percent of total area with surface temperature under 105 degrees 1 10 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
31. Decrease the percent of total area with surface temperatures over 130 degrees 8 5 ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
32. Decrease the percent of impervious groundcover (surface parking lots and
roadway surfaces)
19 15
⚫ ⚫ ⚫

Page 520 19North Policy Plan 63
Part IV: How We Get There




URBAN PRINCIPLE:
INFILL DEVELOPMENT
Infill development is the transformation of vacant Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
and underutilized land into productive community
resources, either for urban development or as a Walkable and Bikeable
new amenity for the community. Transforming
these lots can eliminate blight, introduce vibrant
economic and pedestrian amenities, increase
Employment, Education, and Training
safety, and make an area more comfortable for
bicyclists, pedestrians, and entrepreneurs. Outdoor Life and Commerce


The measurable outcomes directly aligned with, and
achievable by, this urban principle and its strategies. Urban Principle



Measurable Outcome
op m
St le
re - O en t
Pe e t ri e
s n
c a te
o
Si ple pe d
(20 year time horizon)
elte - O
D ri e
ev Pl e s i n t e
ac g n d
lD Fu em
opn d ak
fil am ing
en
In Pe ts

Theme: Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
1. Decrease vacant land (acres) ⚫ ⚫
2. Decrease surface parking (percent of total area) ⚫ ⚫
3. Increase area eligible for the Walkable Urban Code (percent) ⚫
4. Decrease housing vacancy rate (percent) ⚫
5. Increase new rental units affordable to median income households ⚫
6. Increase the new ownership units affordable to median income households ⚫
7. Decrease house burdened renters (more than 30% of household income on rent) ⚫
8. Decrease house burdened owners (more than 30% of household income on mortgage) ⚫
Theme: Walkable, Bikeable, and Transit Oriented
11. Increase projects utilizing the Walkable Urban Code (percent of new) ⚫ ⚫
12. Increase average “Walkscore” (at arterials and 19th Ave, at collectors and 19th Ave) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
13. Increase average “Bikescore” (at arterials and 19th Ave, at collectors and 19th Ave) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
14. Increase percent of residents who walk, bicycle, use transit, and carpool to work ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
15. Increase average daily light rail boardings ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
17. Decrease the average annual number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household ⚫ ⚫
19. Increase the percent of households within 1/4 mile of public recreation or open space ⚫
20. Increase the percent of households within 1/4 mile of a grocery store ⚫
22. Increase the percent households without a vehicle ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Employment, Education and Training
23. Increase the number of jobs ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
24 Increase the number of jobs in key industries ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Outdoor Life and Commerce
27. Increase the number of properties on the Phoenix Historic Property Register ⚫ ⚫
28 Increase the number of public art installations ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
29. Increase the number of public open spaces ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
64 19North Policy Plan Page 521
Part IV: How We Get There




Strategy 1: Expand the Walkable Urban Code to all
of 19North and Apply to Future Projects
1.a. Encourage mixed-use projects within
1/2 mile of light rail:
Projects that include a mix of land uses - most often
residential, employment, and service or retail amenities
- provide “eye’s on the street” at all times of day,
contribute to a sense of security and vibrancy, and add
both amenities and an additional economic viability.
Measurable Outcomes: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,




1.b. Require pedestrian oriented frontages:
Pedestrian Oriented Frontages may include storefront
windows, roll-up shop doors, residential patios, or
public open spaces. These features make the streets
and sidewalks come alive with activity, commerce, and
a sense of ownership. Conversely, development should
prohibit blank walls or parking areas between the building
and the curb which disrupts pedestrian circulation,
comfort, and visual interest.
Measurable Outcomes: 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 28, 29




1.c. Integrate public open spaces into
projects:
Infill development projects are an opportunity to create
public open spaces from previously auto-dominated sites;
by integrating public open spaces into redevelopment,
the corridor can gain visual interest, destinations, and
become more desirable as a place to live, work, and play.
Measurable Outcomes: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 28, 29




Page 522 19North Policy Plan 65
Part IV: How We Get There




INFILL
DEVELOPMENT
Strategy 2: Promote adaptive reuse of
underutilized land and buildings
2.a. Encourage adaptive reuse of
underutilized buildings
Much of the land in the planning area has already been
developed over the history of the corridor. Ingrained
in these buildings is the collective history of the area;
the conversion of these old buildings, sometimes even
those often overlooked, can created beloved community
assets. The City of Phoenix Office of Customer Advocacy
assists with the adaptive reuse projects and has an
exceptional inventory of meaningful projects.
Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 24




2.b. Repurpose and redevelop surplus
parking areas
Often parking areas are the most inefficient resources
in urban corridors. By leveraging high capacity transit
to reducing parking demand, reconfiguring parking
lots for greater efficiency, and utilizing shared parking
models, surplus parking areas can be repurposed for
development, pedestrians, or amenities. Improvements to
former parking lots should include additional pedestrian
amenities, outdoor commerce, active frontages, and
ample shade.
Measurable Outcomes: 2, 12, 13, 15, 20




2.c. Retrofit existing development with
intensity and pedestrian-oriented features
When commercial and multifamily property owners
choose to reinvest in their properties, it is a great
opportunity to integrate additional pedestrian features
and additional intensity. Examples may include: shaded
pedestrian routes between the sidewalk and entries, new
entryways oriented to the sidewalk. A central feature
walkable districts is the concentration of complementary
uses; existing uses should be preserved and new uses
added when practical.
66 19North Policy Plan Measurable Outcomes: 2, 5, 6, 14, 15, 17, 22, 28, 29
Page 523
Part IV: How We Get There




Strategy 3: Utilize the Place Types from the
Strategic Policy Framework
The City’s Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework provides guidance on the appropriate scale
and intensity of development within walking distance of all light rail stations through the use of “Place Types.”
Measurable Outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 22

Commercial / Mixed-use Residential
4 - 5 Story Configuration +3 Story Multifamily




2 - 4 Story Configuration 2 Story Multifamily




Scale and Intensity




2 Story Configuration Single-Family




Page 524 67
19North Policy Plan
Part IV: How We Get There




URBAN PRINCIPLE:
PEOPLE-ORIENTED
STREETSCAPE
A street environment includes: 1) the transportation Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
realm (the light rail and vehicular lanes) to move
people; 2) the pedestrian realm including the Walkable and Bikeable
sidewalks, crosswalks, and patios to allow people
to walk, gather, and patronize businesses; and
3) the business interface (access to commerce) Employment, Education, and Training
which functions as the front door for commerce..
These elements must achieve balance to operate Outdoor Life and Commerce
effectively for all users.




The measurable outcomes directly aligned with, and
achievable by, this urban principle and its strategies. Urban Principle



Measurable Outcome
op m
St le
re - O en t
e t ri e
Pe s c a n t e
o
Si ple pe d
(20 year time horizon)
elte - O
D ri e
ev Pl e s i n t e
ac g n d
lD Fu em
opn d ak
fil am ing
en
In Pe ts

Theme: Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
10. Add bike lanes to public streets, not including shared lane markings (miles) ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Walkable, Bikeable, and Transit Oriented
12. Increase average “Walkscore” (at arterials and 19th Ave, at collectors and 19th Ave) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
13. Increase average “Bikescore” (at arterials and 19th Ave, at collectors and 19th Ave) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
14. Increase percent of residents who walk, bicycle, use transit, and carpool to work ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
15. Increase average daily light rail boardings ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
16. Increase miles of collector streets with parking ⚫ ⚫
17. Decrease the average annual number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household ⚫ ⚫
18 Decrease pedestrian and bicycle Injuries and fatalities over a 5 year period (number) ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Employment, Education and Training
23. Increase the number of jobs ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
24 Increase the number of jobs in key industries ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Outdoor Life and Commerce
28 Increase the number of public art installations ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
29. Increase the number of public open spaces ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
32. Decrease the percent of impervious groundcover (surface parking lots and roadway
surfaces)
⚫ ⚫

68 19North Policy Plan Page 525
Part IV: How We Get There




Strategy 1: Promote pedestrian plazas and open
spaces at key locations
1.a. Encourage sidewalk-oriented cafes:
Sidewalk cafes encourage pedestrian activity, improve
safety and comfort, and invigorate the economic
and social vitality of the street. Sidewalk cafes can be
achieved on wide (or widened) sidewalks, in shared
plazas, as parklets as described below, or in setback
areas. Sidewalk cafes promote pedestrian traffic and
safety by reducing traffic speeds, incorporating pedestrian
lighting with bollards, planters with plants and on-street
parking. Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13, 14, 15




1.b. Implement “parklets” to add pedestrian
and economic vitality:
A “parklet” is a small open space that is often as
an extension of the sidewalk using space formerly
occupied by on-street parking or travel lanes. A parklet
adds pedestrian and economic vitality to an area once
dominated by vehicular traffic to change the feel of the
street. Parklets may include greenery, shade, seating,
bicycle parking, art, and interactive features. Parklets
can be provided as a temporary intervention or as a
permanent installation. Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13,
28, 29




1.c. Provide paseos through developments
and to destinations:
Paseos are shaded pedestrian streets with gathering
spaces, intimate art and sculptural elements, and human
scale lighting lined with active uses and business entries.
A paseo, when designed well, can become a destination
in and of itself while also serving to physically connect
destinations within a larger area. Measurable Outcomes:
14, 15, 18, 23, 24, 32



Page 526 19North Policy Plan 69
Part IV: How We Get There




PEOPLE-ORIENTED
STREETSCAPE
Strategy 2: Design streets for all user groups
including pedestrians and bicyclists
2.a. Require detached and shaded sidewalks:
Shaded and detached sidewalks are safer, more
comfortable, and more frequently used. Sidewalks should
be wide enough to promote pedestrian activity (at least
6 feet wide), landscape areas should be large enough
to support shade trees for the long term (at least 6 feet
wide), and the sidewalk area should be shaded to at
least 75%. In areas where utility conflicts preclude trees,
sidewalks should be detached and alternatives explored
to provide shade.
Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16




2.b. Require conveniently located bicycle
infrastructure and outward facing building
entries:
Bicycle parking and bicycle fix-it stations promote multi-
modal transportation and extends the viability of transit
by providing an extended “last mile” solution. Residential
and employee parking should be provided secure
bicycle parking facilities and guest. This strategy focuses
on situating bicycle parking as an extension of the
streetscape in, or adjacent to, the public right of way to
ensure they are convenient and highly visible.
Measurable Outcomes: 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 23




2.c. Create a clear boundary between the
vehicular and pedestrian realms:
Physical barriers such as low hedges, a landscaped area,
or artistic treatment should buffer the sidewalk from
vehicular traffic. By buffering the pedestrian realm, the
sidewalks can become a safe and comfortable place to
walk and enjoy; in some cases, it may be appropriate to
buffer the pedestrian zone with vehicular parking. Once
the pedestrian realm is safe and comfortable, it can be
programmed with pedestrian lighting, cafes, art, and
other items to activate the space.
70 19North Policy Plan Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13, 14, 15, 18
Page 527
Part IV: How We Get There




Strategy 3: Utilize street design for placemaking and
as a catalyst for district enhancement
3.a. Implement decorative and high
visibility crosswalks :
Painted crosswalks can contribute to enhanced safety
for pedestrians, create a sense of place, and promote
activation of nearby public space and economic
development. Enhanced crosswalks can be provided as
a temporary intervention or as a permanent installation
Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13, 14, 18




3.b. Implement protected and context
appropriate bicycle facilities :
The National Association of City Transportation Officials
Urban Bikeway Design Guide contains a hierarchy of
bicycle facilities and their appropriateness for street
environments. Protected bike lanes offer barriers from
vehicular traffic such as raised curbs, flexible lane
delineators, or landscape areas. Protected bike lanes
provide a dedicated space for bicyclists and further
separate the sidewalk from high-speed vehicular traffic.
Measurable Outcomes: 10, 13, 14, 18




3.c. Explore and encourage roadway
reconfigurations
Support reconfigured roadways to lower vehicular
speeds, to allocate space for alternative road users,
and to decrease pedestrian crossing distances. The
Solano ReinventPHX Plan contains street sections that,
for consistency between the planning areas, should be
considered for capital projects. These factors should be
prioritized for transit streets to improve pedestrian safety
and comfort.
Measurable Outcomes: 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18
Page 528 19North Policy Plan 71
Part IV: How We Get There




URBAN PRINCIPLE:
PEOPLE-ORIENTED
SITE DESIGN
A segment of virtually every trip is completed as a
pedestrian; whether by train, by bus, or when a driver
Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
arrives at their destination and exits their car door,
everyone becomes a pedestrian daily. As such, both Walkable and Bikeable
sites and streets should be designed with pedestrian
infrastructure at the forefront.
Employment, Education, and Training

Outdoor Life and Commerce




The measurable outcomes directly aligned with, and
achievable by, this urban principle and its strategies. Urban Principle



Measurable Outcome
op m
St le
re - O en t
Pe e t ri e
s n
c a te
o
Si ple pe d
(20 year time horizon)
elte - O
D ri e
ev Pl e s i n t e
ac g n d
lD Fu em
opn d ak
fil am ing
en
In Pe ts

Theme: Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
1. Decrease vacant land (acres) ⚫ ⚫
2. Decrease surface parking (percent of total area) ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Walkable, Bikeable, and Transit Oriented
11. Increase projects utilizing the Walkable Urban Code (percent of new) ⚫ ⚫
12. Increase average “Walkscore” (at arterials and 19th Ave, at collectors and 19th Ave) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
13. Increase average “Bikescore” (at arterials and 19th Ave, at collectors and 19th Ave) ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
14. Increase percent of residents who walk, bicycle, use transit, and carpool to work ⚫ ⚫
15. Increase average daily light rail boardings ⚫ ⚫
17. Decrease the average annual number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household ⚫ ⚫
18 Decrease pedestrian and bicycle Injuries and fatalities over a 5 year period (number) ⚫
22. Increase the percent households without a vehicle ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Employment, Education and Training
23. Increase the number of jobs ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
24 Increase the number of jobs in key industries ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Outdoor Life and Commerce
28 Increase the number of public art installations ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
29. Increase the number of public open spaces ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
30. Increase the percent of total area with surface temperature under 105 degrees ⚫
31. Decrease the percent of total area with surface temperatures over 130 degrees ⚫
32. Decrease the percent of impervious groundcover (surface parking lots and roadway
surfaces)
⚫ ⚫

72 19North Policy Plan Page 529
Part IV: How We Get There




Strategy 1: Retrofit and redevelop surplus land for
pedestrian-oriented development
1.a. Require shaded and separated paseos
through Sites :
Comfortable and clearly delineated pedestrian ways
encourage patrons to walk from place to place within
a development. When retrofitting or developing a
property, pedestrian ways should be shaded to 75% and
be separated from vehicular circulation areas with broad
landscape areas. Where a path must cross a drive aisle,
the path should be raised or delineated by a material or
color change.
Measurable Outcomes: 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 30,
31, 32




1.b. Redevelop underutilized parking lots and
encourage shared parking configurations :
Much of the land in our city is occupied by large single-user
parking areas which sit underutilized much of the time. With
high-capacity transit, smart parking policies, and emerging
technologies, this surplus land can be adapted and
redeveloped. A shared parking model leverages the fact that
often parking demand occurs at different times for different
users. New parking structures or parking areas should be
screened from the street and sidewalk by liner buildings to
avoid blank walls along the pedestrian realm.
Measurable Outcomes: 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 17, 23, 24, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32



1.c. Require dual purpose traffic calming :
Traditional traffic calming devices focus primarily on
slowing vehicular traffic. Dual purpose devices such as
speed tables, bulb-outs, and chicanes both slow traffic
and increase pedestrian safety but making them more
visible and decreasing the pedestrian crossing distance.
Dual purpose traffic calming can be implemented in both
public street environments and private site development.
Measurable Outcomes: 23, 24, 25, 26


Page 530 19North Policy Plan 73
Part IV: How We Get There




PEOPLE-ORIENTED
SITE DESIGN
Strategy 2: Require pedestrian and bicycle
facilities in new and retrofit projects
2.a. Require convenient bicycle facilities in
all development :
In the same way that a driver has come to expect a
parking space at both their origin and destination,
developments in 19North shall include facilities to serve
the growing demand (current and latent) for individuals
who utilize a bicycle for even a portion of their daily
transportation. Facilities include bicycle parking (long and
short term), showers, and repair facilities. These amenities
can also be an opportunity to brand the community and
activate street frontages.
Measurable Outcomes: 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 23




2.b. Require building entries be oriented to
public sidewalks and paseos :
Buildings are nearly always designed to greet people for
how they are expected to arrive and for many years this
meant orienting the entrance to the parking lot. In the
new model of transit oriented development, it means
designing for patrons on-foot. Therefore, buildings should
be designed to face the public sidewalk, paseos, and
any public open spaces and plazas. By creating lively
pedestrian pathways, it is then possible to create “park-
once” districts with multiple complementary ventures.
Measurable Outcomes: 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 30, 31, 32




2.c. Design sites for safety, security, and
vitality :
Site design should focus on how individuals will experience
the space. This strategy asks that sites be designed to
answers the following questions: 1) do the common areas
clearly belong to someone; 2) are the intended uses
of the space clearly defined; and 3) does the physical
design match the intended use? An example analysis for a
pedestrian pathway follows: is visible from end-to-end, is
it illuminated, and is it visible and directly accessible from
adjacent dwellings?
74 19North Policy Plan Measurable Outcomes: 1, 2, 14, 17, 18, 22, 29
Page 531
Part IV: How We Get There




Strategy 3: Design for and encourage the creation of
“park-once” (or walk-up) districts
3.a. Encourage the creation of “park-once”
(or walk-up) districts
Virtually all trips include a pedestrian component. By
orienting buildings to safe and comfortable pedestrian
ways, it becomes possible (and attractive) for a patron
to visit multiple businesses without short vehicle trips;
further, by clustering businesses together and near both
transit and a strong pedestrian environment, the land use
is inherently walkable and transit oriented. Additionally,
integrated wayfinding signage can direct pedestrian
visitors to local landmarks and amenities on foot.
Measurable Outcomes: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23, 24




3.b. Promote “pedestrian-first” restaurant
models and discourage auto-oriented design
Restaurants, coffee shops, and other retailers play
an important role in transit oriented and community
development; they provide amenities, a comfortable
and neutral “third place” between home and work,
and often contribute a certain vitality to the area.
Development along arterial and collector streets should
apply a “pedestrian-first” model in which dine-in facililies
(including patios) comprise the majority of the site visible
from the street.
Measurable Outcomes: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22




3.c. Reduce the number of driveways along
19th Avenue
Frequent driveways interrupt the pedestrian environment
and make the area uncomfortable and often unsafe.
By reducing the total number of driveways along 19th
Avenue, orienting business entrances to the sidewalk, and
promoting a mix of complementary uses, the area will be
more viable for walking.
Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13, 14, 18



Page 532 19North Policy Plan 75
Part IV: How We Get There




URBAN PRINCIPLE:
PLACEMAKING
FUNDAMENTALS
Much of revitalization is achieved through policy Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
guidance and advocacy for high quality features
(examples: shaded sidewalks, active frontages, and Walkable and Bikeable
pedestrian pathways), however, many of the things
that make a place truly remarkable are the small
details and the community relationships formed. Employment, Education, and Training

Outdoor Life and Commerce




The measurable outcomes directly aligned with, and
achievable by, this urban principle and its strategies. Planning Element



Measurable Outcome
op m
St le
re - O en t
Pe e t ri e
s n
c a te
o
Si ple pe d
(20 year time horizon)
elte - O
D ri e
ev Pl e s i n t e
ac g n d
lD Fu em
opn d ak
fil am ing
en
In Pe ts

Theme: Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
9. Increase properties listed on the Phoenix Register of Historic Places (number) ⚫
10. Add bike lanes to public streets, not including shared lane markings (miles) ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Walkable, Bikeable, and Transit Oriented
12. Increase “Walkscore” (Average of arterials at 19th Avenue, average of collectors at 19th
Avenue)
⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
13. Increase “Bikescore” (Average of arterials at 19th Avenue, average of collectors at 19th
Avenue)
⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
16. Increase miles of collector streets with parking ⚫ ⚫
21. Increase the number of intersections per square mile to promote walkability ⚫
Theme: Employment, Education and Training
23. Increase the number of jobs ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
24 Increase the number of jobs in key industries ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
25. Increase the percent residents with a post-secondary degree ⚫
26. Decrease the unemployment rate (percent) ⚫
Theme: Outdoor Life and Commerce
27. Increase the number of properties on the Phoenix Historic Property Register ⚫ ⚫
28 Increase the number of public art installations ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫

76 19North Policy Plan Page 533
Part IV: How We Get There




Strategy 1: Establish and advance district branding

1.a. Support the inclusion of district
branding into public and private
improvements.
19North has made significant progress in branding
the area through the use of its logo, the installation
of banners, and the creation of the community
garden which advances the citrus theme. Additional
opportunities include incorporating elements of the
brand into bike racks, sidewalk insets, murals, enhanced
crosswalks, and in wayfinding signage to local landmarks
and amenities.
Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13, 28




1.b. Establish character area development
standards for 19North:
An element of the Walkable Urban Code is the inclusion
of character area design standards for each of the
policy plan area; as an extension of these plan areas,
19North has the opportunity to establish additional
design standards. The consistent application of character
treatments over time will reinforce the feel that 19North
wants to achieve. Based on public input, conceptual
character guidelines are contained in the appendix.
Measurable Outcomes: 10, 12, 13, 16, 21




1.c. Promote a landscape palette that
symbolizes the context of the area :
An specific landscape palette, implemented over time,
can help articulate the history of the area and create
continuity among developments resulting in an easily
achieved sense of place (example: Central Avenue, Palm
Lane, or South 32nd Street). A landscape palette for
19North should be diverse, representative of the area, be
a native species, and function to shade the pedestrian
realm.
Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13
Page 534 19North Policy Plan 77
Part IV: How We Get There




PLACEMAKING
FUNDAMENTALS
Strategy 2: Encourage public and private art

2.a. Encourage art that reflects the
community and its aspirations
Art should be representative of the community and
be scaled appropriately with respect to the associated
project. Public facing art can be archived in many
ways such as but not limited to: murals, landscaping,
sculptures, street furniture, or infrastructure such as
bridges. The Arts and Culture Department and Valley
Metro can be used as resources to find resources for art
development including those aligned with larger capital
projects.
Measurable Outcome: 28




2.b. Use art to create a sense of community
When used effectively, art is placemaking, economic
development, and a reflection of identity and values. The
installation must be tailored to its context, thoughtful
to its desired audience, and complemented by the
urban design and land use decisions surrounding it.
Projects should create visual interest and excitement
while facilitating social connections, historic awareness,
economic development, and capacity building.
Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13, 28




2.c. Use participatory art to create vibrant
spaces and engaged communities
Under the guidance of a professional artist, participatory
art is a way of pulling together members of the
community to create a piece of collaborative art.
Participatory art can be permanent or temporary, on
public or private land, and be large or small, but it should
always seek to truly make its participants into community
stakeholders.
Measurable Outcomes: 10, 16, 28

78 19North Policy Plan Page 535
Part IV: How We Get There




Strategy 3: Promote walkable design

3.a. Promote small development blocks and
paths through large developments :
Previous developments have resulted in superblocks that
catered to the automobile and not pedestrians. New
developments should create small blocks and break up
buildings. These can be achieved by providing enhanced
pedestrian connections, pedestrian only thoroughfares
that can connect along an entire block. Existing
developments can be retrofitted with paseos to allow a
resident or pedestrian to navigate through a development
on foot.
Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13, 16, 21




3.b. Encourage of pedestrian circulation
plans in private developments :
In much the same way that developments are critically
reviewed for flow, circulation, and potential conflicts,
developments should be evaluated through the same
lens, but for the people on foot. A pedestrian circulation
plan should depict convenient and direct pathways
between destinations, minimize vehicular conflicts, and
include features - such as art, shade, and intentional
vistas - to promote walking as a site amenity.
Measurable Outcomes: 12, 13




3.c. Use pilot projects to demonstrate
opportunities for walkability and
placemaking :
The power of a plan comes from the willingness of
individuals to come together to make their community
a more livable place. Demonstration projects allow
constituents to come together to test ideas in a temporary
or reversable manner. Example projects include sidewalk
oriented cafes, plazas, art installations, traffic calming,
and wayfinding signage to local landmarks and amenities.
Measurable Outcomes: 10, 12, 13, 16, 21
Page 536 19North Policy Plan 79
Part IV: How We Get There




PLACEMAKING
FUNDAMENTALS
Strategy 4: Develop and implement a atrategy
for business recruitment and retention
4.a. Partner with the Community and
Economic Development Department to
promote 19North :
The Community and Economic Development promotes
and facilitates economic development activities
throughout the City of Phoenix. The department, in
partnership with 19North could promote the vision for a
transit oriented destination district to local developers,
investors, and businesses owners. 19North is identified as
a retail corridor and this partnership may be expanded to
focus more urban and destination based prospects into
the corridor.
Measurable Outcomes: 23, 24, 26



4.b. Leverage opportunity zone designations
for responsible reinvestment :
The federal program is designed to offer tax advantages
for reinvestment in designated Opportunity Zones. A
condition of the program is the existence of a plan for
the type of development desired. This recommendation is
the creation of a sub-area plan for priority redevelopment
areas which articulates a further desire for walkable
and transit oriented development that is tailored to
the requirements of the Opportunity Zone program.
Measurable Outcomes: 9, 23, 24, 27




4.c. Explore the creation of job training
opportunities and facilities :
The district contains multiple schools, colleges, local
businesses, and a public library; any of these could
be home to a job training program to develop skill
proficiency for jobs in key industries. By building a skilled
workforce, it is possible to decrease local unemployment
and increase the ability to attract new employers to the
area.
Measurable Outcomes: 23, 24, 25, 26


80 19North Policy Plan Page 537
Part IV: How We Get There




Strategy 5: Enhance educational opportunities and
workforce development
5.a. Partner with local schools to provide
community engagement activities :
Local schools are a tremendous community partner
and these schools have already been engaged in the
revitalization of 19North. Further engagement should be
tailored to engage individuals, especially the youth, in the
leadership of their neighborhoods; these individuals are
literally the next generation and community engagement
should be tailored to prepare them for their future
responsibilities to their community.
Measurable Outcomes: 23, 24, 25, 26




5.b. Partner with local schools to develop job
training opportunities :
The local schools have been a strong partner in 19North
for many years. By continuing to foster this partnership,
19North can become an extension of the classroom and
a place for students to practice, learn, and return upon
the completion of their education.
Measurable Outcomes: 23, 24, 25, 26




5.c. Promote the expansion and
reinvestment of local colleges, trade
schools, and internships :
Higher education and real-world experience forge
skill proficiency in desired fields and connections
with employers. By building a skilled and
connected workforce, it is possible to decrease
local unemployment and increase the ability to
attract new employers to the area.
Measurable Outcomes: 23, 24, 25, 26


Page 538 19North Policy Plan 81
Part IV: How We Get There




HOW WE GET THERE:
ACTION PLAN
Existing Capacity and the
stage for success
The not-for-profit “19North” was established to
strengthen the area that would only later become
universally known as “19North.”
Unlike other areas that convene a leadership
committee around a planning effort, the planning
effort in 19North convened around its existing
multi-agency and multi-discliplinary entity - the
19North Community Alliance is comprised of
neighborhood leaders, business leaders, the city
council offices, community-oriented non-profits,
and multiple city departments.
Before the formal planning effort even began, this
organization was preaching the vision of safety,
security, and vitality and had already achieved
major successes. These early efforts established
The multi-agency leadership team
their credibility and built their capacity that can
now be pointed toward the vision of this policy already driving implementation


Planning and Implementation:
early achievements B e fo r e
Like many neighborhood groups, early efforts focused
on the most evident problems facing the district -
vacant lots and blighted properties; however, the
positive vision of the 19North Community Alliance
quickly asked the question of these properties,
“how can we make these something special for the
community?”
This simple question, applied broadly and in a
manner of focused on collaboration: Promoting Reinvestment
• encouraged many multifamily complexes to
make reinvestments,
• promoted community-oriented redevelopment
of key properties including affordable housing,
• led to the creation of a first-class community
garden and its own governing board,
• and led to the completion of branding efforts

A f te r
including murals and enhanced bus stops.


82 19North Policy Plan Page 539
Part IV: How We Get There



Action Plan 2021 - 2026
The Action Plan outlines tasks designed to jump-start the implementation of the vision. Each Action item is
assigned to partner category - Government, Community or Business - that is most suited to lead the task.
Success will be based on these partnerships and effective collaboration as the vision cannot be achieved
solely by one constituent group. To facilitate progress, the type of implementation tool used for each
action step is indicated and includes Codes, Financing, Knowledge, Plans, Operations and Partnerships,
which are further detailed below. The Action Plan should be reviewed regularly and updated often to create


Implementation : Partners and Tools
Government Partners include Code Tools are regulations, such as zoning, that
local, state, and federal agencies. can encourage or discourage different patterns and
forms of urban development

Business Partners include banks, Financing Tools refer to grants, loans, bonds, taxes,
real estate developers, and and government funding programs.
private companies, ranging from Knowledge Tools means capacity building forums, professional
large corporations to small mom training, and seminars to promote technical understanding.
n’ pop shops.
Plan Tools include engineering studies, best practices research,
redevelopment areas, market analyses and other similar
Community Partners include documents.
not-for-profits, foundations,
Operations Tools are management practices such as inter-
schools, neighborhood
departmental coordination, decision making transparency and
associations, and individual
residents. approaches to service delivery.
Partnership Tools are mutually beneficial agreements between
two or more parties such as joint use agreements, development
agreements or corporate sponsorships.




Enhancing Infrastructure Creating Community Spaces




Page 540 19North Policy Plan 83
Part IV: How We Get There




Five Year Action Plan:
The first steps to implementing the community vision,
Lead Time Required
organized by vision theme, lead agency, and time horizon.

Action Items ve
B u rn m
Co ess i en
m sn
m un it y
t
(5 year time horizon)
On go
Sh ing
or t
Tool
M Te
i d rm
L o e rmT
Go ng Te rm

Theme: Walkable, Bikeable, and Transit Oriented

1.
Create a fact sheet about the Complete Street Concept for property
owners on 19th Avenue
Knowledge ⚫ ⚫
2.
Provide transit passes for sale at employers and service establishments
along 19th Avenue
Operations ⚫ ⚫
Complete or pilot a minimum of three active transportation improvement
3. projects in alignment with the community vision and to provide safe Plan ⚫ ⚫
convenient connections to and from existing light rail stations

Pursue partnership for clustering of mobility enhancements around
4. transit stations such as secure bike parking and wayfinding to Plan ⚫ ⚫
community identified assets

5.
Complete an active transportation analysis through the Street
Transportation Department's T2050 Mobiility Improvements Program
Plan ⚫ ⚫
Identify opportunities to coordinate with Neighborhood Services
6. Department in aligning the Consolidated Plan with the Vision and Partnership ⚫ ⚫
Strategies contained in the 19North Policy Plan

Coordinate Transportation Programs, particularly the City of Phoenix
7. Capital Improvement Program, with the Vision and Strategies in the Operations ⚫ ⚫
19North Policy Plan

Support increased public transit usage through a marketing campaign
8. distributed via small businesses, apartment communities, large Operations ⚫ ⚫
employers, educational institutions, and neighborhood associations.


Pursue grant and funding for a corridor wide infrastructure needs
9. assessment to analyze impacts and trade-offs of a complete street Finance ⚫ ⚫
concept for 19th Avenue and a District Parking program for 19North


Support transit oriented redevelopment of the Christown Spectrum
10. Mall (the Alhambra Village Core) in a manner generally consistent with Plan ⚫ ⚫
that envisioned by the Solano Policy Plan


11.
Support transit oriented redevelopment of the Metrocenter Mall (the
North Mountain Village Core)
Plan ⚫ ⚫
12.
Develop and implement a system of wayfinding signage to direct
visitors to local landmarks and amenities such as Washington Park
Plan ⚫ ⚫




84 19North Policy Plan Page 541
Part IV: How We Get There




Five Year Action Plan:
The first steps to implementing the community vision,
Lead Time Required
organized by vision theme, lead agency, and time horizon.

Action Items (cont.) ve
B u rn m
Co ess i en
m sn
m un it y
t
(5 year time horizon)
On go
Sh ing
M Te or t
Tool
i d rm
L o e rmT
Go ng Te rm

Theme: Employment, Education and Training
13. Sponsor an Adopt a Street program for segments of 19th Avenue Partnership ⚫ ⚫
14. Create marketing materials for development sites Knowledge ⚫ ⚫
15.
Write a federal grant for economic development assistance to encourage
healthcare job growth
Finance ⚫ ⚫
16.
Write a grant for enhanced school enrichment activities and
community improvement projects at schools within 19North corridor
Finance ⚫ ⚫
17.
Hold a capacity building forum on Community Development
Corporations and identify a lead non-profit within the planning area
Knowledge ⚫ ⚫
18.
Pursue partnerships to provide elementary students with free access
to educational destinations
Partnership ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Outdoor Life and Commerce
19.
Hold a community tree planting event in walking corridors to light rail
stations
Partnership ⚫ ⚫
20.
Research utility spacing standards to identify the potential to improve
the ability to plant shade trees that will grow to full size
Knowledge ⚫ ⚫
21.
Hold a professional training forum on financing methods for Green
Infrastructure, including the Water Infrastructure Financing Authority
Knowledge ⚫ ⚫
22.
Write a Green Infrastructure grant to promote the conversion of surplus
parking areas
Finance ⚫ ⚫
23.
Identify city owned properties appropriate to develop and rezone to the
Walkable Urban Code
Partnership ⚫ ⚫
24.
Rehabilitate one commercial façade with Community Development
Block Grant storefront funds or other source.
Finance ⚫ ⚫
Theme: Safe, Affordable, and Vibrant
25. Hold three neighborhood events, such as cleanups and celebrations Partnership ⚫ ⚫
26.
Complete three beautification projects such as murals, colorful
branding, and tree plantings
Partnership ⚫ ⚫
27.
Hold a property owner workshop to educate on sites and
neighborhoods potentially eligible for the Phoenix Register of Historic
Knowledge ⚫ ⚫
28.
Hold a workshop to educate on the Walkable Urban Code, why it is
important, and how it is used
Knowledge ⚫ ⚫
29. Identify code violations and issue notices to property owners Operations ⚫ ⚫
30.
Complete three housing rehabilitation projects in each of the one-mile
station areas along 19th Avenue
Partnership ⚫ ⚫
31.
Position a new or retrofit project as a demonstration of walkable urban
housing that can serve as an example for the development community
Partnership ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
32. Develop a mixed-use housing demonstration project Partnership ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
33. Support the creation of a mixed income housing demonstration project Partnership ⚫ ⚫ ⚫ ⚫
Page 542 19North Policy Plan 85
86 19North Policy Plan Page 543
Part IV: How We Get There




APPENDIX




Page 544 19North Policy Plan 87
Appendix




Natural
surveillance




Shaded for beauty
and comfort




Functional
plea




Activated by connecting
destinations




A1: ANATOMY OF A PASEO

88 19North Policy Plan Page 545
Appendix




Natural
surveillance


Shaded for beauty
Pedestrian and comfort
scale lighting




l and
asant
Activated by
amenities




Page 546 19North Policy Plan 89
Appendix




19North
Draft Character Area Development Standards



1. Establish character area development standards for 19North:
An element of the Walkable Urban Code is the inclusion of character area design standards for each
policy plan area; as an extension of these plan areas, 19North has the opportunity to articulate
regulatory streetscape design standards. The consistent application of character treatments will
reinforce the feel that 19North wants to achieve. Based on public input through this process,
preliminary findings propose:

a broad setback from 19th Avenue with pedestrian ways shaded to 75% (8-10’ landscaped area
planted with trees and shrubs, 6-8’ sidewalk, and 5-8’ landscaped area planted with shrubs and
trees).

a build-to line on 19th Avenue to support consistent redevelopment that addresses the shaded
public sidewalk.

a landscape palette for private trees that may pay homage to the historic citrus groves and public
trees including large canopy shade trees.




A2: DRAFT CHARACTER AREA STANDARDS

90 19North Policy Plan Page 547
Appendix




ReinventPHX Solano Plan: Conceptual Reconfiguration of 15th Avenue

Current Condition Concepual




ReinventPHX Solano Plan: Conceptual Reconfiguration for Collector Streets

Current Condition Concepual




A3: WALKABLE URBAN CROSS SECTIONS, SOLANO PLAN
Page 548 19North Policy Plan 91
Appendix




Included by reference.
Available as a separate attachment (68 pages)




A4: VISIONING DOCUMENT, SMITH GROUP

92 19North Policy Plan Page 549
Appendix




19 NORTH
R E TA I L C O R R I D O R
19 North is an emerging, multigenerational community
who pride themselves on their place-based community
development where every business thrives, every
student succeeds and every neighborhood is safe.


10 Minute Drive

26% of
residents are
under the age
of 18




The average
age of residents
is

The average
household
income is

$66,270

2019 Population: 238,642

2024 Projection: 250,637




A5: RETAIL CORRIDOR MARKETING ANALYSIS
Page 550 19North Policy Plan 93
Appendix




Glendale Avenue and 19th Avenue
Glendale Avenue and19th
Conceptual: 19th Avenue
Avenue and Glendale Avenue




nue
nue
Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Glendale Avenue




A6: ADDITIONAL CORRIDOR RENDERINGS

94 19North Policy Plan Page 551
Appendix




Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Glendale Avenue




Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Glendale Avenue




Page 552 19North Policy Plan 95
Appendix




Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Glendale Avenue




Northern Avenue and 19th Avenue
Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Northern Avenue




96 19North Policy Plan Page 553
Appendix




Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Northern Avenue




Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Northern Avenue




Page 554 19North Policy Plan 97
Appendix




Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Northern Avenue




98 19North Policy Plan Page 555
Appendix




Conceptual:
19th Avenue 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue
and Dunlap




Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue




Page 556 19North Policy Plan 99
Appendix




Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue




Conceptual: 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue




100 19North Policy Plan Page 557
Appendix




2019 ACS - Block Groups (24 Selected) Report
Topic Estimate Percent
Gender and Age
Total Population 32,725 -
Gender
Male 15,500 -
Female 17,225 -
Age
Median Age - -
Under 5 years 2,738 -
5 to 9 years 2,460 -
10 to 14 years 1,692 -
15 to 19 years 1,521 -
20 to 24 years 2,427 -
25 to 34 years 5,723 -
35 to 44 years 4,455 -
45 to 54 years 3,988 -
55 to 59 years 1,450 -
60 to 64 years 1,567 -
65 to 74 years 2,325 -
75 to 84 years 1,421 -
85 years and over 958 -
Race and Ethnicity
Total Population 32,725 -
Hispanic 10,769 -
Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic 13,264 -
Black, Non-Hispanic 4,666 -
Native American, Non-Hispanic 1,739 -
Asian, Non-Hispanic 1,017 -
Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 40 -
Other, Non-Hispanic 220 -
Two or More, Non-Hispanic 1,010 -
Minority 19,461 -
Educational Attainment
Population 25 years and over 21,887 -
Less than 9th Grade 1,195 -
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 1,981 -
High School Graduate (includes equivalency) 6,287 -
Some College, No Degree 5,387 -
Associate Degree 2,120 -
Bachelor's Degree 3,149 -
Graduate or Professional Degree 1,768 -




Page 558 19North Policy Plan 101
Appendix




2019 ACS - Block Groups (24 Selected) Report
Topic Estimate Percent
Gender and Age
Total Population 32,725 -
Gender
Male 15,500 -
Female 17,225 -
Age
Median Age - -
Under 5 years 2,738 -
5 to 9 years 2,460 -
10 to 14 years 1,692 -
15 to 19 years 1,521 -
20 to 24 years 2,427 -
25 to 34 years 5,723 -
35 to 44 years 4,455 -
45 to 54 years 3,988 -
55 to 59 years 1,450 -
60 to 64 years 1,567 -
65 to 74 years 2,325 -
75 to 84 years 1,421 -
85 years and over 958 -
Race and Ethnicity
Total Population 32,725 -
Hispanic 10,769 -
Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic 13,264 -
Black, Non-Hispanic 4,666 -
Native American, Non-Hispanic 1,739 -
Asian, Non-Hispanic 1,017 -
Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 40 -
Other, Non-Hispanic 220 -
Two or More, Non-Hispanic 1,010 -
Minority 19,461 -
Educational Attainment
Population 25 years and over 21,887 -
Less than 9th Grade 1,195 -
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 1,981 -
High School Graduate (includes equivalency) 6,287 -
Some College, No Degree 5,387 -
Associate Degree 2,120 -
Bachelor's Degree 3,149 -
Graduate or Professional Degree 1,768 -




102 19North Policy Plan Page 559
Appendix




2019 ACS - Block Groups (24 Selected) Report
Ability to Speak English
Topic Estimate Percent
Population
Gender and Age 5 years and over 29,987 -
TotalSpeak Only English
Population 20,435
32,725 --
Speak
Gender Other Languages 9,552 -
Speak English ''very well''
Male 6,182
15,500 --
Persons
Female with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) 3,370
17,225 --
Age Speak English ''well'' 1,643 -
SpeakAge
Median English ''not well'' 1,175- --
Speak
Under 5 yearsEnglish ''not at all'' 552
2,738 --
Veterans
5 to Status
9 years 2,460 -
Civilian Population
10 to 14 years 18 years and over 24,884
1,692 --
Civilian veterans
15 to 19 years 1,641
1,521 --
Veterans by
20 to 24 years Gender 2,427 -
Male
25 to 34 years 1,439
5,723 --
Female
35 to 44 years 202
4,455 --
Veterans by Age
45 to 54 years 3,988 -
18 to 34
55 to 59 yearsyears 178
1,450 --
6035toto6454years
years 539
1,567 --
6555toto7464years
years 207
2,325 --
65 to 74
75 to 84 yearsyears 254
1,421 --
8575years
yearsandandover
over 463
958 --
Households
Race and Ethnicity
Total
Total Households
Population 13,287
32,725 --
Average
Hispanic Household Size 10,769- --
Family Households
Non-Hispanic (Families) 6,980 -
Married-couple
White, Non-Hispanic family 3,684
13,264 --
Female Householder, no spouse present
Black, Non-Hispanic 2,459
4,666 --
with own children under
Native American, Non-Hispanic 18 years 1,381
1,739 --
Nonfamily Households
Asian, Non-Hispanic 6,307
1,017 --
Householder
Pacific living alone
Islander, Non-Hispanic 5,108
40 --
Household Income (in
Other, Non-Hispanic 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars) 220 -
Total Households
Two or More, Non-Hispanic 13,287
1,010 --
Median
MinorityHousehold Income (dollars) 19,461- --
Less than
Educational $10,000
Attainment 1,342 -
$10,000
Population 25toyears
$14,999
and over 835
21,887 --
$15,000 to $24,999
Less than 9th Grade 1,880
1,195 --
$25,000 to $34,999
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 1,770
1,981 --
$35,000
High to 49,999
School Graduate (includes equivalency) 2,117
6,287 --
$50,000 to $74,999
Some College, No Degree 2,144
5,387 --
$75,000 to $99,999
Associate Degree 1,122
2,120 --
$100,000
Bachelor'stoDegree
$149,999 1,140
3,149 --
$150,000 to $199,999
Graduate or Professional Degree 429
1,768 --
$200,000 or more 508 -




Page 560 19North Policy Plan 103
Appendix




2019 ACS - Block Groups (24 Selected) Report
Poverty
TopicStatus in the Past 12 Months Estimate Percent
Persons for whom
Gender and Age poverty status is determined 32,512 -
TotalPersons with income below poverty level
Population 7,814
32,725 --
Persons with income below 150% of poverty level
Gender 12,032 -
Persons
Male with income below 200% of poverty level 15,728
15,500 -
Poverty Status for Families in the Past 12 Months
Female 17,225 -
Total
AgeFamilies 6,980 -
Families
Median Agewith income below poverty level 1,437- -
Married-couple
Under 5 years family 398
2,738 -
with related
5 to 9 years children under 18 years 246
2,460 -
Female
10 to householder, no spouse present
14 years 918
1,692 -
with
15 to related children under 18 years
19 years 834
1,521 -
Male householder,
20 to 24 years no spouse present 121
2,427 -
with
25 to related children under 18 years
34 years 102
5,723 -
Employment
35 Status
to 44 years 4,455 -
Civilian Labor Force,
45 to 54 years 16 Years and Over 16,417
3,988 --
Employed
55 to 59 years 14,991
1,450 -
Unemployed
60 to 64 years 1,426
1,567 -
Commuting to Work
65 to 74 years 2,325 -
Workers 1684
75 to years
yearsand over 14,894
1,421 --
Car or Truck -
85 years and over drive alone 10,215
958 -
Race Car
andor Truck - carpool
Ethnicity 1,786 -
TotalPublic Transportation
Population 1,419
32,725 --
Bicycle
Hispanic 168
10,769 -
Walked
Non-Hispanic 238 -
Other means
White, (taxicab, motorcycle, etc.)
Non-Hispanic 427
13,264 -
Work at home
Black, Non-Hispanic 641
4,666 -
Native American, Non-Hispanic 1,739 -
Asian, Non-Hispanic 1,017 -
Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 40 -
Other, Non-Hispanic 220 -
Two or More, Non-Hispanic 1,010 -
Minority 19,461 -
Educational Attainment
Population 25 years and over 21,887 -
Less than 9th Grade 1,195 -
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 1,981 -
High School Graduate (includes equivalency) 6,287 -
Some College, No Degree 5,387 -
Associate Degree 2,120 -
Bachelor's Degree 3,149 -
Graduate or Professional Degree 1,768 -




104 19North Policy Plan Page 561
Appendix




2019 ACS - Block Groups (24 Selected) Report
Occupation
Topic Estimate Percent
Civilian employed
Gender and Age population 16 years and over 14,991 -
Management, business, science, and arts occupati
Total Population 4,406
32,725 --
Management,
Gender business, and financial occupation 1,708 -
MaleManagement occupations 1,100
15,500 --
Business and financial operations occupations
Female 608
17,225 --
Age Computer, engineering, and science occupations 740 -
Computer
Median Age and mathematical occupations 402- --
Architecture
Under 5 years and engineering occupations 233
2,738 --
Life, physical,
5 to 9 years and social science occupations 105
2,460 --
Education,
10 to 14 years legal, community service, arts, and m 1,469
1,692 --
Community
15 to 19 years and social service occupations 269
1,521 --
Legal
20 to occupations
24 years 105
2,427 --
Education,
25 to 34 years training, and library occupations 708
5,723 --
Arts, design,
35 to 44 years entertainment, sports, and media 387
4,455 --
Healthcare
45 to 54 years practitioners and technical occupatio 489
3,988 --
Health
55 to diagnosing and treating practitioners an
59 years 332
1,450 --
Health technologists
60 to 64 years and technicians 157
1,567 --
Service
65 to 74occupations
years 3,766
2,325 --
Healthcare
75 to 84 yearsupport occupations 889
1,421 --
Protective service
85 years and over occupations 564
958 --
Race andFirefighting
Ethnicity and prevention, and other protecti 391 -
Law enforcement workers including supervisor
Total Population 173
32,725 --
Food preparation and serving related occupation
Hispanic 1,024
10,769 --
Building
Non-Hispanicand grounds cleaning and maintenance 835 -
Personal care
White, Non-Hispanicand service occupations 454
13,264 --
Sales andNon-Hispanic
Black, office occupations 3,682
4,666 --
Sales
Nativeand related occupations
American, Non-Hispanic 1,424
1,739 --
Office and administrative
Asian, Non-Hispanic support occupations 2,258
1,017 --
Natural resources,Non-Hispanic
Pacific Islander, construction, and maintenance 1,196
40 --
Farming, fishing,
Other, Non-Hispanic and forestry occupations 30
220 --
Construction and extraction
Two or More, Non-Hispanic occupations 774
1,010 --
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupation
Minority 392
19,461 --
Production,
Educational Attainmenttransportation, and material moving o 1,941 -
Production
Population 25 years occupations
and over 726
21,887 --
Transportation
Less than 9th Grade occupations 513
1,195 --
Material moving occupations
9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 702
1,981 --
High School Graduate (includes equivalency) 6,287 -
Some College, No Degree 5,387 -
Associate Degree 2,120 -
Bachelor's Degree 3,149 -
Graduate or Professional Degree 1,768 -




Page 562 19North Policy Plan 105
Appendix




2019 ACS - Block Groups (24 Selected) Report
Housing
Topic Estimate Percent
Total Housing
Gender and Age Units 14,834 -
Total Occupancy
Population and Tenure 32,725 -
Occupied Housing Units
Gender 13,287 -
Average
Male Household Size 15,500 - -
Owner Occupied Housing Units
Female 4,412
17,225 -
Age Average Household size of Owner Occupied Ho - -
Median
Median Age Value (dollars) - -
Renter
Under Occupied Housing Units
5 years 8,875
2,738 -
Average
5 to 9 years Household size of Renter Occupied Ho 2,460 - -
Median
10 to 14 Rent (dollars)
years 1,692- -
Vacant
15 to 19Housing
years Units 1,547
1,521 -
For seasonal,
20 to 24 years recreational, or occasional use 58
2,427 -
25Allto 34
other vacant
years 1,489
5,723 -
Units
35 toin44Structure
years 4,455 -
1, detached
45 to 54 years 4,706
3,988 -
1, attached
55 to 59 years 1,010
1,450 -
260toto964 years 2,732
1,567 -
10 or more
65 to 74 years 6,266
2,325 -
Mobile
75 to 84Home
years 92
1,421 -
Boat, RV, van,
85 years and over etc. 28
958 -
Vehicles
Race andAvailable
Ethnicity
TotalOccupied
Population Housing Units 13,287
32,725 --
No vehicle
Hispanic available 2,798
10,769 -
1 vehicle
Non-Hispanic available 5,672 -
2 White,
vehicles available
Non-Hispanic 3,482
13,264 -
3 Black,
or more vehicles
Non-Hispanic available 1,335
4,666 -
Area Native American, Non-Hispanic 1,739 -
Total Area in Acres
Asian, Non-Hispanic 2,769.3
1,017 -
Total Area in
Pacific Square Miles
Islander, Non-Hispanic 4.3
40 -
Source:Other,United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey
Non-Hispanic 220 2015-2019-
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. ACS data are
Two or More, Non-Hispanic 1,010 -
based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate is
Minority 19,461
represented through the use of a margin of error (MOE). In addition to sampling variability, the ACS -
Educational
estimates Attainment
are subject to nonsampling error. The MOE and effect of nonsampling error is not represented in
these tables. Supporting documentation on subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be
Population 25 years and over 21,887 -
found on the American Community Survey website (www.census.gov/acs) in the Data and Documentation
section. Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response -
Less than 9th Grade 1,195
9thbetofound
rates) can 12thon Grade, No Community
the American Diploma Survey website (www.census.gov/acs) 1,981
in the Methodology-

High School Graduate (includes equivalency) 6,287 -
Some College, No Degree 5,387 -
Associate Degree 2,120 -
Bachelor's Degree 3,149 -
Graduate or Professional Degree 1,768 -




106 19North Policy Plan Page 563
Appendix



U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2015 ACS
INFLOW / OUTFLOW ANALYSIS




TRAVEL INTO 19NORTH TRAVEL FROM 19NORTH
FOR WORK FOR WORK

LIVE AND WORK
IN 19NORTH




U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2015 ACS U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2015 ACS
DISTANCE AND DIRECTION ANALYSIS - DISTANCE AND DIRECTION ANALYSIS -
19NORTH RESIDENTS, WORK LOCATION 19NORTH EMPLOYEES, HOME LOCATION




Page 564 19North Policy Plan 107
Page 565
Attachment C




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS

Application: GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5

Applicant: City of Phoenix Planning Commission

Location: Area generally bounded by Dunlap Avenue on the
north, 15th Avenue on the east, Montebello Avenue
on the south, and 23rd Avenue on the west.

Approximate Acres: 2,054 +/-

Requested Change: To establish the 19North TOD Policy Plan

Reason for Requested Change: To provide a district plan with policies for land use
decisions and investments in the 19North Transit
Oriented Development area to ensure a walkable
community adjacent to light rail along 19th Avenue.

Village Planning Committee Dates: North Mountain – February 17, 2021
Alhambra – February 23, 2021

Staff Recommendation: Approval


SUMMARY

The purpose of this request is to establish the 19North Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) Policy Plan. The plan is a result of a collaborative effort between city staff and
community residents, businesses and schools that articulates a future vision for the
area that seeks to ensure a walkable community near the light rail along 19th Avenue.




Page 566
Staff Analysis
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5


The 19North district is an
approximately 2,054-acre
area generally bounded by
Dunlap Avenue on the north,
15th Avenue on the east,
Montebello Avenue on the
south, and 23rd Avenue on
the west. Building upon the
previous work to create
walkable communities for all
residents in Downtown as
well as the five
ReinventPHX districts
(Solano, Uptown, Midtown,
Eastlake Garfield and
Gateway), 19North will serve
as the sixth TOD district
policy plan developed by the
19North district is located at
the northernmost segment of
the exiting light rail line, as
shown on the map to the
right.
Map of TOD districts, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and
Development Department


BACKGROUND

The original 14-mile light rail line received federal funding in 2012 to develop the five
ReinventPHX policy plans, including the Solano TOD Policy Plan. Because the majority
of the 19North area was served by the Northwest Extension Phase I, it was not included
in that planning effort. Approval of the TOD Strategic Policy Framework in 2013
established Place Types for the planned station areas for the Northwest Extension,
thereby providing guidance on scale and intensity for the corridor.

The 19North area is uniquely situated between the North Mountain Village Core, which
encompasses the former Metrocenter Mall, and the Alhambra Village Core, which
encompasses Christown Spectrum Mall. The corridor also contains segments that are
within the existing planned areas of the Royal Palm Special Planning District and
Solano TOD District that provided valuable insight on the community’s desired vision,
goals and values.

Seeing a void without additional policy to help guide development along with the
increased infrastructure investment in the corridor, local community leaders convened a




Page 567
Staff Analysis
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5

multidisciplinary and multiagency leadership team to start to conceptualize a vision for
the future of the area. Utilizing the established leadership team and building upon the
locational opportunity of the corridor, the Planning and Development Department
embarked on a planning process in 2018 to develop a TOD policy plan for the 19North
district.

Between January 2018 and August 2019, a series of workshops were held with city staff
and the community to understand the existing state of the corridor, categorizing future
change areas, identification of desired investments and refinement of the vision
developed with the community’s input.

PLAN STRUCTURE

Borrowing from the framework established with the ReinventPHX TOD policy plans,
19North is comprised of an introduction and three substantive sections – Today,
Tomorrow, and How We Get There.

Introduction
The introduction section provides a brief history of the planning corridor and details
existing adopted policy that influences the remainder of the plan.

Today
This section contains an overview of community-identified assets along and adjacent to
the 19North corridor. The Today section also provides a current state assessment of
the planning area through six different planning elements: land use, housing, economic
development, health, mobility, and green systems.

Tomorrow
The Tomorrow section outlines the vision of the community in 2040. Based on input
received during the public workshops, four vision themes were developed: a safe,
affordable and vibrant community; a community that is walkable and bikeable; a focus
on employment, education and training; and finally, a community that has ample
opportunities for outdoor life and commerce. This vision is further defined for each of
the three priority areas located at the intersections of 19th Avenue and Glendale
Avenue, Dunlap Avenue and Northern Avenue.




Page 568
Staff Analysis
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5

The Tomorrow section also contains a
community-identified change area map,
depicted on the right, intended to help guide
future development within the planning area.
Along with the adopted place types
established in the TOD Strategic Policy
Framework, this map will help city staff and the
community evaluate future rezoning requests
within the corridor. The map depicts areas to
preserve, where the scale and intensity should
remain the same; areas of retrofit, where small
incremental changes would be embraced; and
areas slated for redevelopment, where the
community indicated they would be amenable
with a change in current scale or intensity.

How We Get There
The How We Get There section serves as the
implementation guide for the plan.
Measurable outcomes, designed to
demonstrate success toward achieving the
vision, are introduced and organized by the
vision themes introduced in the Tomorrow
section of the plan. The measurable outcomes
are further categorized between four urban
principles – infill development, people-oriented
streetscape, people-oriented site design, and
placemaking fundamentals. The urban
principles each contain several implementation
strategies that can be applied to new
development or projects within the corridor.
Change Area Map, Source: Draft 19North
The How We Get There section also includes TOD Policy Plan
a five-year action plan that articulates a series
of activities, partnerships and steps toward achieving the vision. Noting the established
19North Community Alliance leadership team as well as early achievements already
accomplished by the community, several of the action plan items are underway and will
serve as catalyst to completion of additional actions.

HOW THE PLAN WILL BE USED

The 19North TOD Policy Plan represents a vision for the planning area that will used by
both city staff and the community. First and foremost, the plan embodies a community-
supported vision for the corridor which will aid in supporting investment and
reinvestment that is consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the plan.




Page 569
Staff Analysis
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5

Similarly, city staff will utilize the plan as a policy guide for redevelopment projects
seeking rezoning approval. Additionally, the implementation section of the plan
identifies priority actions and investments that will provide valuable information that can
help inform future decisions made by residents, business owners and government
entities.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Planning activities hosted by the Planning and Development Department that
contributed to the content of the plan took place in 2018 and 2019 in collaboration with
the 19North community leadership team. Additional opportunities for public input were
completed in 2020 and early 2021 once a formal draft plan was developed. The
following are a summary of those activities:

Understanding 19North Today (January 2018) – Public meeting that introduced the
concept of transit oriented development. Participants provided input on the existing
state of the corridor through comment cards, facilitated discussions and interactive
exercises.

Identifying Areas for Change (April 2018) – Community workshop where participants
identified areas of change and associated scale. Input received contributed to the
plan’s Priority Area Map.

Guiding Investments and Change (April 2019) – Guided discussions and interactive
exercises designed to engage community input regarding the type and location of
investments and change by station area. Results of the exercises provided the
framework for the individual priority area visions detailed in the Tomorrow section of the
plan.

Validating the Vision (August 2019) – Interactive public meeting to share portions of the
draft plan, validate and refine big ideas, and engage stakeholders in the implementation
process. Feedback on implementation strategies directly influenced the final action plan
included in the plan.

Draft Plan Posted (December 2020) – In preparation for the VPC informational
sessions, a draft copy of the plan was posted on the city’s website. The draft was
distributed to VPC members as well as 19North’s list of interested parties.

Village Planning Committee and Planning Commission Informational Sessions
(December 2020 and January 2021) – An overview of the plan was presented as an
informational item at the Alhambra and North Mountain Village Planning Committee
meetings as well as the Planning Commission.

Community Meetings to Review Draft Plan (January 2021) – Hosted by the 19North
Community Alliance, two meetings were held to review the draft plan and provide an
opportunity for stakeholders to provide additional input. Attendees included residents,




Page 570
Staff Analysis
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5

business owners, developers and city staff.
As a result of comments received during the meetings in late 2020 and early 2021,
updates were made to the draft plan that include updating existing conditions data with
2019 American Community Survey information, minor additions to vision strategies, and
refinement of several do list items.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5 as the 19North Transit Oriented
Development Policy Plan will help guide land use and investment decisions within the
19North corridor.

Writer
Samantha Keating
February 11, 2021

Exhibits
Exhibit A: 19North Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan




Page 571
Attachment D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5


Date of VPC Meeting December 15, 2020

Request INFORMATION ONLY: A General Plan Amendment to
adopt the 19North Transit Oriented Development Policy
Plan
Location Montebello Avenue to Dunlap Avenue; 15th Avenue to
23rd Avenue


VPC DISCUSSION:

Two speaker cards were received from individuals in support of the item and wishing to
speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the purpose and planning process behind the
19North Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan. Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) is a type of growth which utilizes land use and design decisions to position transit
as a convenient and affordable lifestyle amenity to strengthen the nearby
neighborhoods.

The original 14 miles of light rail in Phoenix received federal funding through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to create area plans for the adjacent
neighborhoods. However, 19North was served by light rail through a subsequent phase
of construction and therefore did not receive funding for any land use planning; to fill this
policy gap along 19th Avenue from Montebello to Dunlap and from 15th Avenue to 23rd
Avenue, Planning Department staff developed this policy plan in-house over the course
of 3 years and a series of public workshops.

The purpose of TOD is to leverage the potential of light rail to move people and to
strengthen neighborhoods and for 19North, the plan fills a policy gap and complements
the long-established growth policy of Village Cores by connecting the North Mountain
Village Core (Metrocenter Mall) and the Alhambra Village Core (Christown Spectrum).

The vision for 19North emerged from a community led process where leaders convened
a large group of stakeholders to establish a positive vision that embraces the


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 572
investment and opportunity that light rail presents. Following these efforts, city staff
began the formal planning process to establish the policy plan through a robust public
engagement process and in close collaboration with community leaders, multiple
agencies, and city departments.

The plan is designed to be used: as a policy guide for entitlement cases by a variety of
stakeholders and decision makers ranging from city staff and elected / appointed
officials to neighborhood residents; as a method of prioritizing and aligning actions in
the efficient pursuit of the community’s vision; and to support investment and
reinvestment by articulating the vision as an expectation.

Klimek, staff, then provided an overview of the policy plan, its structure, and where it
can be found for further review.

The plan builds upon the foundation of the Phoenix General Plan and other city-wide
policy documents, borrows its structure from the ReinventPHX TOD Policy Plans that
preceded it, and formalizes the recommendations of the TOD Strategic Policy
Framework which established high level policy guidance for the full light rail system,
both built and planned. By paying homage to foundational policy plans, the 19North
Plan embraces the investment of time given by staff, consultants, and most importantly,
the people of Phoenix who participated in these efforts. The direct tributes to these
foundational plans include the organization of the document into four sections, the “six
planning elements” as a means of examining conditions within the study area, the use
of “measurable outcomes” as a means of quantifying and measuring success, and a
“five year action plan” to break the vision into strategic and manageable pieces.

The plan contains:
 the foundational policy the plan is built upon;
 an assessment of existing conditions and community identified assets;
 a district wide vision for 19North in 2040 which is then divided into four vision
themes;
 a vision for each of the three light rail station areas including community
prioritized investments, the areas the community identified as being more
palatable for change, and a series of aspirational images and renderings;
 a series of four urban principles for TOD (infill development, people oriented
streetscape, people oriented site design, and placemaking fundamentals) which
are used to organize 40 implementation strategies; and
 a five year action plan used to identify the many small steps that can be used to
incrementally achieve the big vision.

At this time, staff is seeking community input through presentations to the North
Mountain and Alhambra Village Planning Committees and through two upcoming public
meetings. The plan will then return to the Village Planning Committees for
recommendation before proceeding to the Planning Commission for a recommendation,
and City Council for action.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Chair McCabe thanked staff for developing the plan and sharing it with the committee.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 573
PUBLIC COMMENTS

Shannon McBride introduced herself as the Executive Director of 19North and shared
that she is thankful for so many people including staff, member Fitzgerald, and the
many stakeholders who contributed their time, energy and ideas to the plan. The policy
plan has been a collaboration, a process, and a journey and that she is very proud of
the collective vision that was created together. She concluded by expressing her
support for the policy plan. Chair McCabe thanked McBride for her tremendous
leadership and for all that her community has been able to accomplish; these efforts
and the planning effort are incredible and an example for others in the city.

Sarah and Ian Curtis introduced themselves and expressed their appreciation for all of
the work that has gone into this planning effort, the incredible work on the policy plan,
and the pro-active thinking that has gone into this document. They stated that they are
excited to see this plan be formally adopted so the community can continue
implementing its ideas and collaborate with investors through this formalized vision.
This plan sets the stage for continued collaboration with investors toward the stated
vision and this collaboration and progress makes 19North an exciting place to live and
energizes community members to get more involved.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Fitzgerald echoed the comments about everything said about McBride and the
accomplishments made in 19North. She explained that upon meeting McBride they had
the same vision for the area but Shannon’s vision included all of the small steps
between now and the goal and this has produced incredible partnerships,
accomplishments, and the plan reflects this philosophy. McBride thanked Fitzgerald,
the other speakers, and staff from the Planning and Development on making this plan a
reality which has truly been a collaboration.

McCabe stated that the community coming together and really discussing what they
would like to see is what makes these policy documents so much more impactful and
useful for all constituents. He concluded by thanking all of the contributors and
expressed excitement over continued progress in 19North, especially once the
pandemic is in the rear-view.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 574
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5


Date of VPC Meeting December 16, 2020

Request INFORMATION ONLY: A General Plan Amendment to
adopt the 19North Transit Oriented Development Policy
Plan
Location Montebello Avenue to Dunlap Avenue; 15th Avenue to
23rd Avenue


VPC DISCUSSION:

Three speaker cards were received from individuals in support of the item and wishing
to speak.

Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the purpose and planning process behind the
19North Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan. Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) is a type of growth which utilizes land use and design decisions to position transit
as a convenient and affordable lifestyle amenity to strengthen the nearby
neighborhoods.

The original 14 miles of light rail in Phoenix received federal funding through the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to create area plans for the adjacent
neighborhoods. However, 19North was served by light rail through a subsequent phase
of construction and therefore did not receive funding for any land use planning; to fill this
policy gap along 19th Avenue from Montebello to Dunlap and from 15th Avenue to 23rd
Avenue, Planning Department staff developed this policy plan in-house over the course
of 3 years and a series of public workshops.

The purpose of TOD is to leverage the potential of light rail to move people and to
strengthen neighborhoods and for 19North, the plan fills a policy gap and complements
the long-established growth policy of Village Cores by connecting the North Mountain
Village Core (Metrocenter Mall) and the Alhambra Village Core (Christown Spectrum).

The vision for 19North emerged from a community led process where leaders convened
a large group of stakeholders to establish a positive vision that embraces the
investment and opportunity that light rail presents. Following these efforts, city staff
began the formal planning process to establish the policy plan through a robust public



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 575
engagement process and in close collaboration with community leaders, multiple
agencies, and city departments.

The plan is designed to be used: as a policy guide for entitlement cases by a variety of
stakeholders and decision makers ranging from city staff and elected / appointed
officials to neighborhood residents; as a method of prioritizing and aligning actions in
the efficient pursuit of the community’s vision; and to support investment and
reinvestment by articulating the vision as an expectation.

Klimek, staff, then provided an overview of the policy plan, its structure, and where it
can be found for further review.

The plan builds upon the foundation of the Phoenix General Plan and other city-wide
policy documents, borrows its structure from the ReinventPHX TOD Policy Plans that
preceded it, and formalizes the recommendations of the TOD Strategic Policy
Framework which established high level policy guidance for the full light rail system,
both built and planned. By paying homage to foundational policy plans, the 19North
Plan embraces the investment of time given by staff, consultants, and most importantly,
the people of Phoenix who participated in these efforts. The direct tributes to these
foundational plans include the organization of the document into four sections, the “six
planning elements” as a means of examining conditions within the study area, the use
of “measurable outcomes” as a means of quantifying and measuring success, and a
“five year action plan” to break the vision into strategic and manageable pieces.

The plan contains:
 the foundational policy the plan is built upon;
 an assessment of existing conditions and community identified assets;
 a district wide vision for 19North in 2040 which is then divided into four vision
themes;
 a vision for each of the three light rail station areas including community
prioritized investments, the areas the community identified as being more
palatable for change, and a series of aspirational images and renderings;
 a series of four urban principles for TOD (infill development, people oriented
streetscape, people oriented site design, and placemaking fundamentals) which
are used to organize 40 implementation strategies; and
 a five year action plan used to identify the many small steps that can be used to
incrementally achieve the big vision.

At this time, staff is seeking community input through presentations to the North
Mountain and Alhambra Village Planning Committees and through two upcoming public
meetings. The plan will then return to the Village Planning Committees for
recommendation before proceeding to the Planning Commission for a recommendation,
and City Council for action.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Chair Carrell asked McBride what the committee can do to support the planning efforts
at this time? McBride responded that this has been the culmination of years of work
and that this is a time to celebrate, to get the word out, and to raise awareness for this
accomplishment in the community. She added that there are an additional two public

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 576
meetings where the plan will be shared virtually, and she asked staff to share the
meeting invitations.

Jaramillo expressed his support for the plan and the work done by staff and members
of the community. He asked if there is a way to make this plan regulatory, noting that in
other areas of the city, these plans are often neglected by developers.

Klimek responded that the plan is not regulatory in the traditional sense. To
implement the vision and recommendations, it often comes down to whether
members of the community, staff, and elected and appointed officials understand
and can stand firm behind the plan.

In 19North, the community leadership and its organization offer the greatest
strength in communicating the vision. The leadership team has been successful
in making developers and investors feel like they are part of the community as a
foundation for their collaboration. Additionally, the strong neighborhood
leadership allows staff to seamlessly connect developers and investors with the
19North organization. By adding an adopted policy plan, the community has
effectively spoken to share its vision and expectations.

Argiro thanked McBride for her service and city staff for producing this plan which will
offer tremendous value to the community served. He then stated that he has been
looking for opportunities for his chamber to connect more directly with businesses in
19North and that he believes this is a great opportunity. He asked staff to share the
location of the draft policy plan and the invitations for the upcoming meetings.

Matthews echoed the positive comments about McBride and the policy plan developed
by staff. He added to the question by Jaramillo an element of Arizona Land Use Law
restricts the ability of municipalities to amend zoning to add restrictions that could
negatively impact property values. With few exceptions, plans have shifted to policy
recommendations rather than regulatory amendments and overlays.

Viedmark applauded the work completed by Shannon, the 19North organization, and
by staff in developing this plan.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Rod Bailey introduced himself as the Senior Vice President of the Beatitudes Campus
and as a founding member of 19North. He expressed gratitude to the leadership
exhibited by Shannon McBride and the types of accomplishments the 19North
organization has been able to achieve. The organization has pulled together a dynamic
and extensive collaboration of many stakeholders including residents, business owners,
and many others to create a sustainable vision for the community. The collaboration in
19North produced great results through hard work, positivity, and good intentions - the
adoption of this policy plan brings their planning to the next level by formalizing the
vision and intentions.

Ben Graff introduced himself as a Land Use Attorney with Quarles and Brady but
stated that he is not speaking on behalf of a client but is instead here to share his
experience working on development projects in 19North and to share the value he sees
in this type of policy plan. He stated that when he has clients interested in a project in
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 577
19North, that the community will be open to the discussion and collaboration that
produces great projects. From a zoning perspective, a policy plan like this offers
transparency and predictability by setting the expectations of what a project should
incorporate and what it is expected to achieve. The policy plan offers a clear and
concise vision and strategy for what the community is looking for in its built
environment.

Bree Bohlke introduced herself as a member of the 19North Board and shared that she
is a renter and a transit rider. The walkability of 19North was one of the main reasons
she moved to 19North and that this plan was thoughtfully developed with input from the
community and will make the area more walkable and vibrant. She added that the plan
and its vision does a nice job of including renters as members of the community
because renters do care about their neighborhoods.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION.

McBride stated that she is full of gratitude for the kind words and support from
members of the committee, the staff from the Planning and Development Department
for creating this plan, the many partners who contributed throughout the planning
process, and for those who came out this evening to support the plan. She stated that
this is a community changing moment where this plan will formalize the community’s
vision and ensure the positive momentum in 19North remain sustainable into the future.

Alauria expressed her support for McBride, the 19North community, and the policy
plan. As a leader of theHUB (Hatcher Urban Businesses), this organization is a
neighbor to 19North and has been learning from 19North on grassroots organizing and
policy planning.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 578
Attachment E1




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5

Date of VPC Meeting February 23, 2021

Request A General Plan Amendment to adopt the 19North Transit
Oriented Development Policy Plan

Location Montebello Avenue to Dunlap Avenue; 15th Avenue to
23rd Avenue

VPC Recommendation Approve per staff recommendation

VPC Vote 10-4-0


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

No speaker cards were received for this item

STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the 19North Transit Oriented Development Plan,
its purpose, the process of its development, and recent presentations to both the
Alhambra and North Mountain VPCs for information, and the Planning Commission for
information. At this time, staff is recommended approval of the plan which will then be
presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation, before ultimately
requiring action by the City Council to adopt the plan as a General Plan Amendment.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Bryck expressed support for the project. He noted that he was involved in the Midtown
TOD Plan and stated that the action plans contained in these plans should be regularly
updated as originally planned. Klimek responded that one of the steering committees
had been reconvened for this purpose.

DeGraffenreid noted the presence of affordable housing as a recommendation and
asked whether the creation of high-paying jobs is as important. Klimek responded that
the plan includes recommendations to house current residents, future residents, and to
create high-paying jobs in the area.

Vice Chair Williams asked about attendance at the public meetings, the locations of


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 579
the public meeting, and how the “change area maps” were developed. Klimek
responded that each of the meetings was attended by approximately 50 – 150
individuals, that each of the meetings was held in the corridor, and that attendees
developed those maps at the one workshop and that the draft maps were validated and
refined at later meetings. Vice Chair Williams asked how the individual change areas
were identified objectively. Klimek responded that this is not a regulatory element of the
plan where owners would receive benefit or penalty for not abiding by the change area
maps. Participants applied their own perspectives on the areas they felt would be most
palatable to change based on their knowledge of the corridor, its property, and how they
felt those could be adapted through reinvestment.

Adams requested studies on the impact of light rail on businesses and crime. Klimek
responded that he did not have such studies available at the moment. Fitzgerald noted
that crime is way up related to transient populations including drug dealing and violent
crime and that the community is keeping the Police Department busy.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

STAFF RESPONSE
None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

Bryck noted that he supports the plan but wants to make sure this plan, and others,
continue to be updated and remain relevant.

Vice Chair Williams stated that he does not feel community engagement was enough
and therefore cannot support the request.

MOTION:
McCabe motioned to approve the request per staff recommendation. Fitzgerald
seconded the motion.

VOTE: 10-4-0, motion passes, with: Bryck, Fitzgerald, Harris, Jones, Keyser, Krietor,
LeBlanc, McCabe, Sanchez, and Chairman Sore in favor; with Adams, DeGraffenreid,
Smith, and Vice Chair Williams in dissent; and none in abstention.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 580
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 581
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5
(Revised March 3, 2021)

Date of VPC Meeting February 17, 2021

Request A General Plan Amendment to adopt the 19North Transit
Oriented Development Policy Plan

Location Montebello Avenue to Dunlap Avenue; 15th Avenue to
23rd Avenue

VPC Recommendation Approve per staff recommendation

VPC Vote 14-0-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

No speaker cards were received for this item

At this time Magallanez departed the meeting and Larson arrived bringing the quorum to
14 members (11 being required for a quorum).

STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the 19North Transit Oriented Development Plan,
its purpose, the process of its development, and recent presentations to both the
Alhambra and North Mountain VPCs for information, and the Planning Commission for
information. At this time, staff is recommended approval of the plan which will then be
presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation, before ultimately
requiring action by the City Council to adopt the plan as a General Plan Amendment.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

STAFF RESPONSE
None.



200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 582
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

Matthews stated that if the committee chooses to make a recommendation to approve,
that McBride be allowed to make the motion.

McBride stated that she is very excited for the collaboration and that she is assembling
a community advisory board that will represent the demographics of the area and help
build new leaders.

O’Hara, Whitney, Perez, and others offered their support for the plan and
congratulations to McBride for the accomplishment.

MOTION:
McBride enthusiastically motioned to approve the request per staff recommendation.
Ford seconded the motion.

VOTE: 14-0-0, motion passes, with: Argiro, Barraza, Larson, McBride, O’Hara,
O’Connor, Perez, Whitney, Ford, Sommacampagna, Herrera, Matthews, Vice Chair
Jaramillo, and Chair Krentz in favor; and with none in dissent or abstention.




STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 583
Attachment F

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
March 4, 2021

ITEM NO: 4
DISTRICT NO.: 4 and 5
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-AL-NM-1-19-4-5
Location: Area generally bounded by Dunlap Avenue on the north, 15th
Avenue on the east, Montebello Avenue on the south, and 23rd
Avenue on the west
Acreage: Approximately 2,054
Proposal: General Plan Amendment to create the 19North TOD District Policy
Plan
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Owner: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Alhambra 12/15/2020 Information only.
Alhambra 2/23/2021 Approval. Vote: 10-4.
North Mountain 12/16/2020 Information only.
North Mountain 2/17/2021 Approval. Vote: 14-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the North Mountain and
Alhambra Village Planning Committee recommendations.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner McCabe made a MOTION to approve GPA-AL-NM-1-19-
4-5, per the North Mountain and Alhambra Village Planning Committee
recommendations.

Maker: McCabe
Second: Howard
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No

Findings:

1. The 19North Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan will help guide land
use and investment decisions within the 19North corridor.

2. The plan is a result of a collaborative effort between city staff and community
residents, businesses and schools that articulates a future vision for the area




Page 584
that seeks to ensure a walkable community near the light rail along 19th
Avenue.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 585



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
(CONTINUED FROM MARCH 3 AND 17, 2021) - Public Hearing and Ordinance
Adoption - Amend City Code - Rezoning Application Z-56-20-4 - Southeast
Corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street (Ordinance G-6818)

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposal to amend the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning
Application Z-56-20-4 and rezone the site from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
and R-5 (Multifamily Residence District) to WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code,
Transect 5:5 District, Transit Uptown Character Area) for multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (0.18-acres) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) (3.11 acres)
Proposed Zoning: WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5 District,
Transit Uptown Character Area)
Acreage: 3.29 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential

Owner: Donor Network of Arizona
Applicant: Trinsic Residential Group, Todd Gosselink
Representative: Withey Morris, PLC, Jason Morris

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard this case on Jan. 26,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 15-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Feb. 4, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Alhambra Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Feb. 10, 2021 and a
petition for a 3/4 vote was submitted on Feb. 11, 2021. A 3/4 vote is required.

Location
Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street
Council District: 4
Parcel Addresses: 201 W. Coolidge St.


Page 586


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 587
Page 588
Page 589
Page 590
Page 591
Page 592
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(Z-56-20-4) FROM R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
AND R-5 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO WU CODE
T5:5 UT (WALKABLE URBAN CODE, TRANSECT 5:5 DISTRICT,
TRANSIT UPTOWN CHARACTER AREA).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.29-acre property located at the southeast

corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street, in a portion of Section 20, Township 2 North,

Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from

0.18-acres of “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District) and 3.11 acres of “R-5” (Multifamily

Residence District) to “WU Code T5:5 UT” (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5 District,

Transit Uptown Character Area).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.




Page 593
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
incorporate Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types described in Section 1305
for a minimum 40 percent of the building face(s), as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. For the purpose applying the above provisions,
the above shall be treated as a Secondary Frontage with regard to glazing.

2. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
contain architectural embellishments, design detailing, and / or space
programming to activate and provide visual access onto the canal, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Examples of
appropriate enhancements may include textural changes, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, overhang canopies, balconies with a
depth greater of than 3 feet, and amenities such as gathering spaces.

3. Between the southern mass of the building and the south property line (the
Grand Canal right-of-way), the developer shall plant minimum 3-inch caliper,
large canopy shade trees, at a minimum frequency of 25 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. The provisions of Section 1310.A.2. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance shall
apply to require shaded open space of which a minimum 50 percent shall be
situated adjacent to the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-way), as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

5. No solid perimeter wall greater than 36 inches in height shall be oriented to
and located within 30 feet of the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-
way), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The developer shall provide a minimum of two direct and accessible
pedestrian connections from the amenity areas located south of the building
mass to the shared use path along the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.




Page 594
8. The developer shall provide and maintain the following bicycle infrastructure
as described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A bicycle repair station (fix-it station) along the southern edge
of the site, visible, and accessible from the public sidewalk and
/ or the Grand Canal Trail. The station shall include but not
limited to: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire
gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows
pedals and wheels to spin freely while adjusting the bike.

b. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section
1307.H.6.d. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be
secured parking.

c. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be
provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a
maximum of 50 spaces near entrances of buildings and
installed per the requirements of Section 1306.H. of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

9. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

10. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013.
The following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:

a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain
boundary limits on the Grading and Drainage plan and ensure
that impacts to the proposed facilities have been considered,
following the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3); this includes, but not
limited to provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain
Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to
the Floodplain Management section of Public Works
Department for review and approval of Floodplain
requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or
CLOMR prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.



Page 595
11. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.

13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for
the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

14. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.


SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 3rd day of March 2021.




________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


Page 596
____________________________City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager


Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 597
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-56-20-4

A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CALCULATED CENTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION
20, BEING THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL AVENUE AND CAMPBELL
AVENUE AS REFERENCED IN THE MONUMENT CORNER TIES FOR LINE
SECTION 2 CENTRAL PHOENIX LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, IN
DOCUMENT 2009-0003295, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20,
A DISTANCE OF 1,318.52 FEET TO A CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP
FLUSH “RLS 39131” MARKING THE CENTERLINE OF 3RD AVENUE AND
CAMPBELL AVENUE;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST, ALONG
THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 3RD AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 564.11 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 20 SECONDS
WEST ALONG SAID LINE, A DISTANCE OF 416.71 FEET TO THE
CENTERLINE OF 3RD AVENUE AND COOLIDGE STREET, BEING SOUTH
1.69 FEET AND 3.40 FEET OF TWO CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAPS;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 41 SECONDS EAST, ALONG
THE CENTERLINE OF SAID COOLIDGE STREET A DISTANCE OF 358.31
FEET, BEING 966.10 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL
AVENUE AND COOLIDGE STREET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 348.85, FEET DEPARTING SAID COOLIDGE STREET, ALONG
THE EAST LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF THAT SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
RECORDED IN 2001-0882094, AND THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION
THEREOF, TO A POINT 25 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE
OF SAID PARCEL 1, MEASURED AT 90 DEGREES;
THENCE ALONG A 25 FOOT SOUTHERLY OFFSET OF THE SOUTH LINES
FOR LOTS 15, 17 AND 19 OF ‘SUBURBAN ACRES’ AS RECORDED IN
BOOK 13, PAGE 22 RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
SOUTH 72 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 53 SECONDS WEST, DISTANCE OF
65.89 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY OFFSET, SOUTH 74
DEGREES 12 MINUTES 10 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 147.10 FEET;




Page 598
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY OFFSET, SOUTH 78
DEGREES 50 MINUTES 02 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 123.95 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 142,789 SQUARE FEET OR 3.278 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.




Page 599
Page 600
$WWDFKPHQW%




Staff Report Z-56-20-4
January , 2021

Alhambra Village Planning Committee January 26, 2021
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: February 4, 2021
Request From: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(0.18 acres) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) (3.11 acres)
Request To: WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban
Code, Transect 5:5, Uptown Character
Area) (3.29 acres)
Proposed Use: Multifamily Residential
Location: Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Street
Owner: Donor Network of Arizona

Applicant: Trinsic Residential Group, Todd
Gosselink
Representative: Withey Morris PLC, Jason Morris

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity

Residential 15+
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Dwelling Units Per Acre


Local Varies from 30 to 40
3rd Avenue
Street foot east half street
Street Map
Classification
Local Varies from 25 to 30
Coolidge Street
Street foot south half street




Page 601
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
The development, as proposed, will create new housing opportunities in the area and
within close proximity to a light rail station, the educational facilities, and the North
Central Avenue Employment Center, especially via the Grand Canal Multiuse Trail.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Locate parking to the rear of a site to create a more
pedestrian environment, when adequate shielding from noise and light can be
provided to adjacent established neighborhoods. On-street parking in some
areas may also promote a pedestrian environment.
The development, as required by provisions of the Walkable Urban Code, will situate
buildings to frame the street environment with vehicle parking lots situated at the
interior of the site and to allow for the creation of a comfortable pedestrian
environment along the public streets. Further, the development, as stipulated, will
screen parking from the Grand Canal and its multiuse trail.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREE AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The development, as stipulated, will create an attractive streetscape with detached
and shaded sidewalks. The shade incorporated into the development along its
frontages will reduce the urban heat island effect and increase thermal comfort which
will make the area more walkable, bikeable, and sustainable.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The development, as stipulated, includes bicycle parking and bicycle facilities as a
central component of the project to facilitate bicycling as a way of life. Features
include secure bicycle parking for residents, convenient racks for guests, and a
bicycle repair station situated as a public amenity; together, these features will
complement the Grand Canal and its multiuse trail.




Page 602
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; CANALS AND TRAILS;
LAND USE PRINCIPLES: Plan, design, and develop pedestrian linkages
between parks, open spaces, village cores, neighborhood shopping centers,
neighborhood schools, and neighboring municipalities.
The subject site is immediately adjacent to the Grand Canal which recently was
improved through the Canalscape Project and provides regional connectivity, direct
connections to Phoenix Central High School, the Phoenix Coding Academy, Xavier
&ROOHJH3UHSDUDWRU\, Brophy &ROOHJH3UHSDUDWRU\, Steele Indian School Park, and
access to Central Avenue and the rail. The development, as stipulated, will add
vitality to this section of the Grand Canal and its multiuse trail as a community asset.


Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives

Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework: Background Item No.
5.
Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan: Background Item No. 6.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 9.
Complete Streets Guidelines: Background Item No. 10.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background Item No. 11.
Housing Phoenix: Background Item No. 12.
Reimagine Phoenix: Background Item No. 13.


Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Office R-3 and R-5
East Multifamily R-5
North (across Coolidge
Various residential R-3 and R-5
Street
South (across the
Multifamily R-4
Grand Canal)
West Single-family residential R-3




Page 603
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




Walkable Urban Code
Transect 5:5 UT
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed Site Plan
Gross Acreage No minimum 3.29
Total Number of Units No maximum 218 units
Density No maximum 66.26
Building Height 56 foot maximum 56 feet (Met)
Parking Structure Height Cannot exceed building height 58 feet (Not Met*)
Streetscape Standards (Section 1312.E)
Minor Collector and Local Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet 5 feet (Met)
Streets Minimum landscape width: 5 5 feet (Met)
feet (if no public utility conflict)
Main Building Setbacks
Primary Frontage (Coolidge 12 foot maximum Varies but less than
Street) 12 feet (Met)
Secondary Frontage (3rd 10 foot maximum 10 feet (Met)
Avenue)
Non Street (South and East) 0 foot minimum 15 feet and 10 feet
respectively (Met)
Parking Setbacks
Primary Frontage 30 foot minimum or behind Behind building
building (Met)
Secondary Frontage 20 foot minimum with a 10 foot Behind building
landscape setback measured (Met)
from the street right of way
Rear (West) 0 foot minimum Behind building
(Met)
Lot Requirements
Lot Coverage 80 percent maximum 73 percent (Met
Primary Building Frontage 70 percent minimum 94 percent (Met)
Secondary Building Frontage 50 percent minimum 83 percent (Met)




Page 604
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




Walkable Urban Code
Transect 5:6 UT (Cont.)
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed Site Plan
Frontage Types Allowed
Primary Frontage All frontages or alternative Storefront and
(Coolidge Street) frontages as per Section Stoop / Doorwell,
1305.B.1.c Met)
Secondary Frontage All frontages or alternative Stoop / Doorwell,
(3rd Avenue) frontages as per Section Met)
1305.B.1.c
Entry Requirements Common Entry: minimum one Not provided.
per 50 feet of primary building
frontage and one per 80 feet of
secondary frontage.

Other frontages as per Table
1305.1
Glazing Requirements Ground floor and second floor Not provided.
T4 standards apply for 25 percent minimum.
multifamily
Second floor (east and west):
10 percent minimum

Upper floors: not applicable
*Site plan adjustment required

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 3.29 acres at the southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Street from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) to WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code Transect 5:5,
Uptown Character Area).

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The proposed zoning of WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code Transect 5:5,
Uptown Character Area) permits a maximum height of 56 feet. The site is
currently developed with an office building. The Zoning Context Map depicts the
zoning entitlements of the subject site and the surrounding area.




Page 605
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




East: Immediately east of Title: Zoning Context Map
the subject site is a
multifamily complex which
is zoned R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District). The
zoning permits a maximum
height of 48 feet but the
existing buildings do not
exceed three stories in
height.

West: West of the subject
site across 3rd Avenue are
residential structures of a Source: Planning and Development Department
single-story and single
-family detached character. The R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) zoning
permits a maximum height of 30 feet by right, and up to 48 feet with increased
setbacks.

North: North of the subject site across Coolidge Street are various residential
structures ranging from a single-family detached character to small apartment
complex, with neither type exceeding two stories. The approximate west half of
sites immediately north of the subject site are zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) which permits a maximum height of 30 feet by right, and up to 48 feet
with increased setbacks, and the remaining sites to the east are zoned R-5
(Multifamily Residence District) which permits a maximum height of 48 feet.

South (the Grand Canal): South of the subject site is the Grand Canal which
was recently improved through the Canalscape project which brought lighting,
landscaping, and seating improvements to this section of the canal.

South (beyond the Grand Canal): South of the subject site across the Grand
Canal is a multifamily community zoned R-4 (Multifamily Residence District)
which permits a maximum height of 48 feet.

3. Located along Central Avenue and several properties east of the subject site is
the Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1). The primary
purpose of TOD-1 was to encourage an appropriate mixture and density of
activity around transit stations to increase ridership along the light rail corridor
and promote alternative modes of transportation to the automobile while the
Walkable Urban Code was developed.




Page 606
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
4. The General Plan Title: General Plan Land Use Map Excerpt
Land Use Map
depicts a land use
designation of
Residential 15+
dwelling units per
acre which is
consistent with the
density proposed.

Surrounding the
subject site are
designations for
multifamily
densities including Source: Planning and Development Department
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre to the south and east and Residential 10
to 15 dwelling units per acre to the north and west. The proposed use and
density of the subject site is consistent with the surrounding context.

5. The Encanto Village Character Plan was approved and adopted in the Phoenix
General Plan through General Plan Amendment GPA-1-19. Each of the 15
Urban Villages have a Character Plan.

The proposed project advances the following items identified in the Encanto
Village Character Plan: encourage growth along the light rail; integrating canals
into project design; and new development being consistent with adopted plans.

One such area of alignment is with the North Central Employment Center
(profile attached) which identifies the presence of approximately 770,000 young,
well-educated, workers within a 10 to 20 minute drive and projected growth of
170,000 new residents within a 30 minute drive. The proposed development will
provide housing opportunities for the growing population in proximity to the
growing employment center while also reducing the need for long vehicle
commutes.




Page 607
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




6. Transit Oriented Title: Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy
Development Strategic Framework Place Type Map
Policy Framework:
The Transit Oriented
Development Strategic Policy
Framework is part of the
City’s General Plan. The
framework identifies planning
typologies to describe urban
environments in terms of
appropriate scale and
intensity

As depicted on the right, the
subject site is located within
one-quarter mile from two
light rail stations. The nearest
station, Central and
Campbell, is identified in the
Strategic Policy Framework
as a Minor Urban Center Source: Planning and Development Department
Place Type.

The Minor Urban Center Place Type is characterized by two to five story
buildings with allowances for up to seven when incentive criteria are met or
when a special circumstance exists. The proposed development, using the
Walkable Urban Code and depicting a height of four stories, is consistent with
the Minor Urban Center Place Type.

7. Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan:
The subject site is located within the Uptown TOD Planning Area which is
depicted on the following page. The policy plan adopted for the Uptown TOD
District provides a blueprint for fully achieving the transformative potential of
light rail in a sustainable manner. Changes advocated in the plan can lower
transportation costs for residents, create new business opportunities, encourage
active, healthy lifestyles, ensure Phoenix increases its competitive advantage in
the global marketplace, and improve prosperity by growing the economy in
locations with existing infrastructure and public services.




Page 608
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




While the subject site is Title: Uptown TOD Planning Area
not mapped for a specific
recommended transect for
redevelopment, the
Uptown TOD District Plan
provides the following
direction relevant to the
subject site:

Activating the Grand
Canalscape:
The Uptown TOD Plan
describes at length the
importance and
opportunity of embracing
the Grand Canal as an
open space amenity, as a
regional active Source: Planning and Development Department
transportation trail, and as
waterfront. While the Canalscape Project is complete, it is the projects adjacent
to the Grand Canal that will enliven the waterfront.

Increase the Population Using Alternative Transportation: .
The Uptown TOD Plan includes several measurable outcomes focused on
increasing ridership on the light rail, increasing the number of individuals riding
bikes or walking to work, and decreasing the number of Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT). The proposed project will position new households within walking and
bicycling distance to jobs, schools, and major park facilities.

PROPOSAL
8. Site Plan
As depicted on the conceptual site plans and elevations on the following pages,
the proposal is for four floors of housing with five levels of parking located at the
interior of the site. The site plan depicts one point of vehicular access from
Coolidge Street. The site plan depicts 218 dwelling units with 46 studios, 116
one-bedroom, and 56 two-bedroom units. At a rate of 1.3 parking spaces per
studio and 1.5 spaces per one and two bedroom units, the code would require
318 parking spaces but due to the proximity to light rail, a 10 percent reduction
is applied for a total of 287 spaces.




Page 609
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




Title: Conceptual Site Plan




Source: Rich Barber Architects

The ground floor units fronting 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street will employ
stoop and doorwell frontages and the main leasing area oriented to Coolidge
Street will employ a storefront frontage; these ground level treatments abide by
the intent of the Walkable Urban Code to active the street frontage in addition to
detached sidewalks and trees planted between the curb and sidewalk as
required by the Walkable Urban Code.

The conceptual site plan depicts frontage types along the southern face of the



Page 610
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




building mass to activate the interface with the canal. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 1 to require the frontage types along 40 percent of the canal
oriented building frontage.

9. Canal Interface
The conceptual site plan and building elevations depict measures intended to
embrace and activate the frontage to the Grand Canal including amenity areas,
common areas, bike racks, a bicycle repair station, vegetation, and a perimeter
wall comprised mostly of view fence for ground level transparency. The Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance governs canal interface through the design standards
contained in Section 507 Tab A.

To advance the intent of the design guidelines and the Walkable Urban Code,
staff is recommending a series of stipulations to provide additional specificity
regarding improvements to the area between the southern mass of the building
and the Grand Canal right-of-way including the following:

x Stipulation No. 1: To require Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types along
a minimum 50 percent of the canal-facing building façade.
x Stipulation No. 2: To require architectural enhancements along the canal-
facing building façade.
x Stipulation No. 3: To require large canopy shade trees to soften the canal
environment and provide thermal comfort in the amenity areas and near
the canal.
o Due to the presence of an SRP easement at this location, the
extent to which the developer will be allowed to improve this are is
unknown and, therefore, the stipulation contains the language “as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
x Stipulation No. 4: To require shaded open space adjacent to the canal
right-of-way through the application of Section 1310.A.2 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
o Due to the presence of an SRP easement at this location, the
extent to which the developer will be allowed to improve this are is
unknown and, therefore, the stipulation contains the language “as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
x Stipulation No. 5: To require all walls and fences within 30 feet and
oriented-to the canal right-of-way to have a maximum opaque height of
36 inches to promote interface between the project and the canal
amenity.




Page 611
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




10. Conceptual Elevations
The conceptual building elevations, pictured below, depict a four story
multifamily complex exhibiting modern design elements, multiple colors, building
articulation, shaded upper floor balconies, and a mix of ground floor frontage
treatments including stoops, doorwells, and storefronts.

Title: Conceptual Building Elevations




Source: Rich Barber Architects




Page 612
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




STUDIES AND POLICIES
11. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached
from the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to
provide thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island
effect.

The Walkable Urban Code contains landscape standards to provide enhanced
tree plantings with a focus on thermal comfort and the conceptual site plan
complies with code requirements.

To require tree shade be integrated into the project between the southern
building mass and the Grand Canal right-of-way, staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 3 requiring large canopy shade trees, placed 20 feet on center or
in equivalent groupings, and with a minimum caliper of 3-inches at installation;
the purpose of this stipulation is to promote thermal comfort for the amenity
areas and along the Grand Canal.

12. Complete Streets Guidelines:
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The Walkable Urban Code contains
requirements for detached sidewalks with vegetative shade which will enhance
the thermal comfort and sense of security for pedestrians passing on adjacent
sidewalks.

Staff is recommending Stipulation No. 8 to require enhanced bicycle facilities on
the site including secure bicycle parking for residents, bicycle racks for guests,
and a publicly accessible bicycle repair station near the southern edge of the
site; the purpose of these stipulations is to complement 3rd Avenue which is
identified as the Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway and the Grand Canal multiuse trail
which provides regional trail connectivity.

13. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan:
The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan is a guide for creating a culture and
environment conducive to bicycling as a viable mode of transportation. The
proximity to high capacity transit underscores the importance of walking and
bicycling in this area.




Page 613
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




Recognizing the presence of the Grand Canal, the recently completed
Canalscape investments, the presence of the Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway, and
proximity to high capacity transit, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 8 which
requires secure bicycle parking for residents, bicycle parking for guests, and a
publicly accessible bicycle repair station.

14. Housing Phoenix:
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with the vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.

The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant or
underutilized land in a more sustainable fashion.

15. Zero Waste PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a
goal to become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and
mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The provision of recycling
containers was not addressed in the applicant’s submittals.

COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
16. As of the writing of this report, one letter of opposition was received detailing
concerns relating to scale, privacy, traffic, the abundance of multifamily, and the
design compatibility with the historic district.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
17. The Fire Department commented that the site plan must comply with the
Phoenix Fire Code and further indicated there are no problems anticipated with
the case. Further, the Department commented that they do not know the water
supply at this site and noted that additional water supply may be required to
meet the required fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.




Page 614
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




18. The Public Works Department, Floodplain Management Division determined the
site is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel 1740 L of
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The Public
Works Department provided Stipulation No. 10 to require the applicant follow
and document all necessary processes and improvements.

19. The Street Transportation Department provided Stipulation Nos. 6, 7, and 9 to
require traffic calming at vehicular driveways, two pedestrian connections to the
Grand Canal trail, and their standard stipulation regarding the applicant being
responsible for construction of adjacent streets, respectively.

The Street Transportation Department including the Pedestrian Safety
Coordinator further commented on the importance of enhanced pedestrian and
bicycle facilities including detached sidewalks, bicycle parking, a bicycle repair
station, and connections to the Grand Canal trail. These issues are addressed
in other stipulations or will be addressed through the application of the Walkable
Urban Code.

20. The Public Transit Department commented on the need for a robust system of
shaded pedestrian pathways with measures to delineate pedestrian crossings at
drive-aisles. These issues are addressed in other stipulations or will be
addressed through the application of the Walkable Urban Code.

OTHER
21. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 13.

22. Based on the proximity to Sky Harbor Airport, the Aviation Department is
requiring Stipulation Nos. 11 and 12 which require recorded documents to
disclose the existence of Sky Harbor Airport to future owners and residents, and
that an avigation easement be recorded.

23. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments may be required.




Page 615
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




Findings

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Residential 15+ Dwelling Units Per Acre and the TOD Strategic Policy Framework
Minor Urban Center Place Type designation.

2. The development advances the vision and recommendations contained in the
Uptown Transit Oriented Development Plan and will support pedestrian oriented
development near the light rail and multiple urban bikeways.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options for the significant number of
residents in the Uptown TOD District.

Stipulations

1. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
incorporate Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types described in Section 1305
for a minimum 40 percent of the building face(s), as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. For the purpose applying the above provisions,
the above shall be treated as a Secondary Frontage with regard to glazing.

2. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
contain architectural embellishments, design detailing, and / or space
programming to activate and provide visual access onto the canal, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Examples of
appropriate enhancements may include textural changes, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, overhang canopies, balconies with a
depth greater of than 3 feet, and amenities such as gathering spaces.

3. Between the southern mass of the building and the south property line (the
Grand Canal right-of-way), the developer shall plant minimum 3-inch caliper,
large canopy shade trees, at a minimum frequency of 25 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. The provisions of Section 1310.A.2 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance shall
apply to require shaded open space of which a minimum 50 percent shall be
situated adjacent to the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-way), as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.




Page 616
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




5. No solid perimeter wall greater than 36 inches in height shall be oriented to
and located within 30 feet of the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-
way), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The developer shall provide a minimum of two direct and accessible pedestrian
connections from the amenity areas located south of the building mass to the
shared use path along the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

8. The developer shall provide and maintain the following bicycle infrastructure as
described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A bicycle repair station (fix-it station) along the southern edge of the
site, visible, and accessible from the public sidewalk and / or the Grand
Canal Trail. The station shall include but not limited to: standard repair
tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair
stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while adjusting the
bike.

b. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

c. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at
a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 spaces near
entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of Section
1306.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

9. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

10. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The
following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:




Page 617
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary
limits on the Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to the
proposed facilities have been considered, following the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3); this
includes, but not limited to provisions in the latest versions of the
Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review
and approval of Floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR
prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.

11. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.

13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

Writer
Nick Klimek
January 20, 2021

Team Leader
Samantha Keating

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan and Elevations date stamped October 19, 2020 (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (4 pages)




Page 618
Staff Report: Z-56-20-4
January 20, 2021




North Central Employment Center Profile (2 pages)




Page 619
ELM ST



1ST AVE
C-2 H-R*
R-4 HP R-4A H-R * Z-60-85
Z-83-05
Z-9-89
P-1 * R-5 C-2
R-4 Z-341-83
HIGHLAND AVE

R-3
3RD AVE
R-3
R-3 PUD
Z-31-12
Z-83-05

COOLIDGE ST
R-3
R-5
R-5 *
Z-245-82 TOD District Canalscape
C-2
- UpTown
HAZELWOOD ST


R-4
CENTRAL AVE
HGT/WVR PKG/WVR
Central Avenue Z-175-87
Development Z-147-97
Standards
P-1 Transit C-2
MINNEZONA AVE Overlay District
(TOD-1)
C-2
R1-6 H-R
R1-6 P-2
2ND AVE
R-4 HP * HP
5TH AVE
Z-SP-16-72 Z-12-97 C-2
CAMPBELL AVE


R-4A*
Z-12-97
Z-102-98



I
Miles
Z-56-20 NORTHERN AVE


GLENDALE AVE

0.055 0.0275 0 0.055 BETHANY HOME RD
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE
CAMELBACK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
43RD AVE 7ST AVE
7TH AVE
19TH AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE

I-17


APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Trinsic Residential Group, Todd Gosselin
FROM:
R-3 ( 0.18 a.c.)
10/23/2020
R-5 ( 3.11 a.c.)
DATE:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-56-20 REVISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
3.29 Acres QS 18-27 H-8 TO: WU Code T5:5 UT ( 3.29 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-3, R-5 2, 135 3, 162
WU Code T5:5 UT No Maximum N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-56-20.mxd
Page 620
ELM ST



1ST AVE
C-2 H-R*
R-4 HP R-4A H-R * Z-60-85
Z-83-05
Z-9-89
P-1 * R-5 C-2
R-4 Z-341-83
HIGHLAND AVE

R-3
3RD AVE
R-3
R-3 PUD
Z-31-12
Z-83-05

COOLIDGE ST
R-3
R-5
R-5 *
Z-245-82 TOD District Canalscape
C-2
- UpTown
HAZELWOOD ST


R-4
CENTRAL AVE
HGT/WVR PKG/WVR
Central Avenue Z-175-87
Development Z-147-97
Standards
P-1 Transit C-2
MINNEZONA AVE Overlay District
(TOD-1)
C-2
R1-6 H-R
R1-6 P-2
2ND AVE
R-4 HP * HP
5TH AVE
Z-SP-16-72 Z-12-97 C-2
CAMPBELL AVE


R-4A*
Z-12-97
Z-102-98
Maricopa County Assessor's Office



I
Miles
Z-56-20 NORTHERN AVE


GLENDALE AVE

0.055 0.0275 0 0.055 BETHANY HOME RD
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE
CAMELBACK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4
43RD AVE 7ST AVE
7TH AVE
19TH AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE

I-17


APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Trinsic Residential Group, Todd Gosselin
FROM:
R-3 ( 0.18 a.c.)
10/23/2020
R-5 ( 3.11 a.c.)
DATE:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-56-20 REVISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
3.29 Acres QS 18-27 H-8 TO: WU Code T5:5 UT ( 3.29 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-3, R-5 2, 135 3, 162
WU Code T5:5 UT No Maximum N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-56-20.mxd
Page 621
(;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/< (;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/< (;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/< (;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/< (;,67,1*6,1*/()$0,/<
/(*$/'(6&5,37,21 5 5 5 5 5
'(9(/230(17'$7$
7+(/$1'5()(55('72+(5(,1%(/2:,66,78$7(',17+(&2817< 6
2+( 2+( 2+(
2+( 2+( 2+( 2+( 352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
2)0$5,&23$67$7(2)$5,=21$$1',6'(6&5,%('$6)2//2:6 AURA
* * * * 75,16,&5(6,'(17,$/*5283,17(1'672'(9(/23$1(;&(37,21$/81,708/7,)$0,/<
3$5&(/12
5(6,'(17,$/ )255(17 3523(57</2&$7('217+(6287+($67&251(52)5'$9(18(
7+(:(67+$/)2)/27$1'7+(($67+$/)2)/2768%85%$1 6/*
&22/,'*(675((7 38%/,&52$':$< $1'&22/,'*(675((7
$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+(
:: * * *
( * * : :
&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1 : : * * *
°  °63


=21,1* '(16,7< $31
%22.2)0$363$*( 5&
35,0$5<)5217$*(/275(48,5(0(170,1
5&
: : : :
COOLIDGE
3529,'(' &855(175 352326(' % 3RD AVENUE AND COOLIDGE
(;&(377+(1257+)((7)25675((7385326(6 )2
2+( 6725()5217 67223 '225:(//   67223 '225:(// 352326(':87 '8$&5( 81,76
3$5&(/12 : : : 67223 '225:(// : : : : : : :
PHOENIX, AZ 85013
: : : : : :
7+(:(67+$/)2)/2768%85%$1$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$7
2)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+(&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$                     /27$5($ $00(1,7,(6
    
&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1%22.2)0$363$*( :  (
*8/<+='?  52:  *5266 6) DFUHV 322/63$),71(66
(;&(377+(1257+)((7)2552$' :
: :
:
3$5&(/12  1(7 6) DFUHV 5(&5($7,21&/8%5220%,.(
  
6725$*(
f Rich B
/2768%85%$1$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+( 6ƒ  : 




2)),&(2)7+(&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$
2+(  6ƒ  (
( (




( ( (
)2 )2 )2 )2 ( &216758&7,217<3( 6(7%$&.6 3(5&+$37(575$16(&77
eo
5(&25'(',1%22.2)0$363$*( 6
6ƒ  ( 
(;&(377+(5()5207+(1257+)((77+(5(2) )2  3$5.,1**$5$*( ,$ 35,0$5<)5217$*( &22/,'*(   0$;
(;&(377+(5()5207+(:(67)((77+(5(2)$1'   *$5$*(  (/(&  5(6,'(17,$/ 9$ 6(&21'$5<)5217$*( UG$9(   0$;
     ( %8,/',1*+(,*+7
(;&(377+(5()520$1<3$577+(5(2)/<,1*:,7+,17+(:(67  (175<(;,7 6,'(/27/,1( ($67   0,1
)((72)7+(6287+($6748$57(52)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)  0$;)((7
Of
 3529,'(' )((7
6(&7,2172:16+,31257+5$1*(($672)7+(*,/$$1' : %8,/',1*$5($6
6$/75,9(5%$6($1'0(5,',$10$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$$6    
3529,'(',1'(('5(&25'(',1'2&.(73$*(
 0$; 81,70,; /(9(// %8,/',1*$5($ 6)

er Arch
2+(  /(9(// %8,/',1*$5($ 6)
3$5&(/12   67$,5
678',2 
6725<5(&/($6,1* 6(7%$&.
LLC fic
7+(6287+)((72)7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1  67$,5  (/(& /(9(// %8,/',1*$5($ 6)
%('5220 
arb
$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+( 81,76:,7+  /(9(// %8,/',1*$5($ 6)
&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1 )2  %('5220 
 0$;  6725< 727$/ 6)
%22.2)0$363$*( 6(7%$&. 6725< 0(==$1,1($%29( 727$/81,76 
cture,
(;&(377+()2//2:,1*'(6&5,%('3$5&(/)2552$':$<  0(==$1,1(
  0(==$1,1(  *$5$*(%8,/',1*$5($6 ite
385326(6 ‡ $//81,766+$//%(2)$7/($67$16,
( /(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
7+$73$572)7+(6287+)((72)7+(1257+)((72)/27    7<3( % $&&(66,%,/,7<67$1'$5'6
2+( : /(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
68%85%$1$&5(6/<,1*:,7+,1)((72)7+(02180(17/,1(2)     ‡ 2)81,7672%($16,7<3( $  WorldHQ@ORBArch.com
7+,5'$9(18($66$,'02180(17/,1(,66+2:1217+(3/$72) $&&(66,%,/,7<67$1'$5'6 /(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
6287+3,(56213/$&(7+(3/$72):+,&+,65(&25'(',1%22.  /(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
(/(9 75$6+
2)0$363$*( *$5$*(/(9(// *$5$*($5($ 6)
 /27&29(5$*(
3$5&(/12
)2   67$,5 /(9(// *$5$*( *$5$*($5($ 6) 8 + * ' 8 ). /
7+(6287+)((72)7+(:(67)((72)7+(($67)((72) :+ :+
 $5($3529,'('  /9
1ƒ  ( 727$/ 6) - :/
, / )' : + ) :
7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1$&5(6$1'7+(1257+ (/(9 8+
+8
6,7(1(7$5($  ) 
)((72)7+(6287+)((72)7+(:(67)((72)7+(($67 6725<5(6,'(17,$/ /2%%< 3(5&(173529,'(' 
2+(  
)((72)7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1$&5(6 23(163$&( 

$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+(&2817< 35,0$5<)5217$*(5(48,5('0,1,080 5LFK%DUEHU
:  5(48,5(' 2)*5266$&5($*( 
5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1%22.  3529,'('     
( *G Z 
2)0$363$*( 6(& K 
9O M 
   $5($3529,'(' T K J    
3$5&(/12 6(&21'$5<)5217$*(5(48,5('0,1,080 '8 
7+(1257+)((72)7+(:(67)((72)7+(($67)((72) (;,67,1* 9$1 &(17(5&2857<$5' 6) / @ 5 4  ;  9 '
'
3529,'('   
7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1$&5(6$&&25',1*72 )2 6287+&2857<$5' 6) +^VOXKY°°
6,1*/(
3/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+(&2817<5(&25'(52)     727$/ 6)
)$0,/< 2+(
0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1%22.2)0$363$*( 6,7(*5266$5($ 
5
 3$5.,1* 3(5&(173529,'(' 6)6)
(;&(37,1*7+(5()5207+$73257,212)7+(/$1'&219(<('72  6(6 (;,67,1* 
:$7(5
7+(&,7<2)3+2(1,;$081,&,3$/&25325$7,21025( )($785( 5 5(48,5('
:
 0$,17(1$1&(
3$57,&8/$5/<'(6&5,%(',148,7&/$,0'(('5(&25'(' 63$&(63(5678',2 [ 
129(0%(5$62)2)),&,$/5(&25'6   63$&(63(5 %(' [  */$=,1*

3$5&(/12 ),5( 727$/5(48,5(' 36
3,7 (
 
7+(($67)((72)7+(1257+)((72)/2768%85%$1 2+(  5(485,('3(57$%/(75$16(&77
$&5(6$&&25',1*723/$72)5(&25',17+(2)),&(2)7+( )2 5$0383 5('8&7,21
   0,1,080*5281')/225
&2817<5(&25'(52)0$5,&23$&2817<$5,=21$5(&25'(',1 1ƒ  (  0$;   5('8&7,21)25352;,0,7<72/,*+75$,/ )5217$*(  ;  6)
%22.2)0$363$*(  6(7%$&. 67$7,21 
*/$=,1* 6)
(;&(377+(1257+)((77+(5(2) 36[ 5(48,5('63$&(6
            

3529,'('
3529,'('
&,7<2)3+2(1,;6,7(3/$1127(6   6)6) 
:
UG$9(18( 38%/,&52$':$<
/2$',1* 35263(&7,9(5(6,'(17 
=21(

 'HYHORSPHQWDQGXVHRIWKLVVLWHZLOOFRQIRUPZLWKDOODSSOLFDEOHFRGHV   5(6,'(17*$5$*(  ),5(635,1./(56
 (/(9
DQGRUGLQDQFHV 2+(   6ƒ  : 727$/3529,'(' 
)2 6725<5(6,'(17,$/
 $OOQHZRUUHORFDWHGXWLOLWLHVZLOOEHSODFHGXQGHUJURXQG 1ƒ  : 
(;,67,1* 1)3$
 ³6WUXFWXUHVDQGODQGVFDSLQJZLWKLQDWULDQJOHPHDVXUHGEDFN¶ IURP 6,1*/(
*$5$*(   +(,*+7 $&&(66,%/(3$5.,1* ,1&/8'(',1&2817
WKHSURSHUW\OLQHDQG¶ DORQJWKHSURSHUW\OLQHRQHDFKVLGHRIWKH )$0,/<  5(48,5('  
GULYHZD\VHQWUDQFHVZLOOEHPDLQWDLQHGDWDPD[LPXPKHLJKWRI¶´
%8,/',1*)5217$*((175<
5 
 6WUXFWXUHVDQGODQGVFDSLQJZLWKLQDWULDQJOHPHDVXULQJ¶ [¶ DORQJ 6(&21'$5<)5217$*(/275(48,5(0(170,1,080
 *$5$*(/ 36 9$1$&&(6,%/( 5(48,5(0(176
WKHSURSHUW\OLQHVZLOOEHPDLQWDLQHGDWDPD[LPXPKHLJKWRI¶ *$5$*(/ 36
 $Q\OLJKWLQJZLOOEHSODFHGVRDVWRGLUHFWOLJKWDZD\IURPDGMDFHQW :   *$5$*(/ 36 5(48,5(' 75$16(&77
6ƒ  ( 35,0$5<%8,/',1*)5217$*(
UHVLGHQWLDOGLVWULFWVDQGZLOOQRWH[FHHGRQHIRRWFDQGOHDWWKHSURSHUW\  5$0383
OLQH1RQRLVHRGRURUYLEUDWLRQZLOOEHHPLWWHGDWDQ\OHYHOH[FHHGLQJ 3529,'(' 36 9$1$&&(6,%/( 6(&21'$5<%8,/',1*)5217$*(
6725<
WKHJHQHUDOOHYHORIQRLVHRGRURUYLEUDWLRQHPLWWHGE\XVHVLQWKHDUHD
Page 622
:
2+( :
RXWVLGHRIWKHVLWH )2  0(==$1,1(
 2ZQHUVRISURSHUW\DGMDFHQWWRSXEOLFULJKWVRIZD\ZLOOKDYHWKH .(<127(6
UHVSRQVLELOLW\IRUPDLQWDLQLQJDOOODQGVFDSLQJORFDWHGZLWKLQWKHULJKWVRI 
3529,'('
:
  
ZD\LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKDSSURYHGSODQV  
 $OOURRIWRSHTXLSPHQWDQGVDWHOOLWHGLVKHVVKDOOEHVFUHHQHGWRWKH  $&&(66,%/(*$5$*(63$&( [ 

KHLJKWRIWKHWDOOHVWHTXLSPHQW   9(+,&8/$56/,',1**$7(
)2
 $OOVHUYLFHDUHDVVKDOOEHVFUHHQHGWRFRQFHDOWUDVKFRQWDLQHUVORDGLQJ   6,'(:$/.6((/$1'6&$3(
GRFNVWUDQVIRUPHUVEDFNIORZSUHYHQWHUVDQGRWKHUPHFKDQLFDORU     6,'(:$/.6((/$1'6&$3(
HOHFWULFDOHTXLSPHQWIURPH\HOHYHODGMDFHQWWRDOOSXEOLFVWUHHWV 52: (/(9
)2   [ 6,*+79,6,%,/,7<75,$1*/(
/2%%<
67223 '225:(//
 %DUEHGUD]RURUFRQFHUWLQDZLUH RUVLPLODU VKDOOQRWEHXVHGRQWKLV 67$,5
   322/ 9$1 9$1   [ 6,*+79,6,%,/,7<75,$1*/(
VLWHZKHUHYLVLEOHIURPSXEOLFVWUHHWVRUDGMDFHQWUHVLGHQWLDODUHDV &29(5(' (48,30(17
+( 3$9,/,21 (/(9
  
 $OOVLJQDJHUHTXLUHVVHSDUDWHUHYLHZVDSSURYDOVDQGSHUPLWV1R )2  %8,/',1*(175<(;,7

VLJQVDUHDSSURYHGSHUWKLVSODQ :  (;7(1'('3$7,2672236
 *DWHVDUHWRUHPDLQRSHQRUDUHWRRSHQDXWRPDWLFDOO\EHWZHHQWKH    (175<67$,5
%%4
KRXUVRIBBBBBBDQGBBBBBB )2        
   *$5$*((175<$7*5281'/(9(/:,7+5(6,'(17,$/81,76/(9(/6
3OHDVHFRQVLGHUSODFLQJWKHIROORZLQJQRWH VLJQHGDQGGDWHG RQWKHVLWH
SODQWRDXWKRUL]HPLQRUDPHQGPHQWWRWKHSODQLQWKHIXWXUH 6($7:$//  75$6++2/',1*5220)8//<6&5((1('$7*5281'/(9(/:,7+5(6,'(17,$/
)2 81,76/(9(/6((62/,':$67(1$55$7,9(7+,66+((7
,FRQVHQWWRWKHUHSURGXFWLRQRIWKLVVLWHSODQSURYLGHGWKDWLI *$0(/$:1  75$6+&203$&725

PRGLILFDWLRQVDUHPDGHWKHSURIHVVLRQDOVZKRPDNHVXFKFKDQJHV )2
 6($7:$//  9(+,&8/$57851$55281'63$&(
DVVXPHIXOOUHVSRQVLELOLW\DQGOLDELOLW\IRUWKHPRGLILHGSRUWLRQVRIWKH  0(&+$1,&$/9(17,/$7,216+$)7
),5(
SODQ 3,7
2+(   *8/<+='?   [ /2$',1*=21(21(/2$',1*%$<5(48,5('3(5:8&2'(7$%/(
)2 :
 
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
6,*1$785(2)&23<5,*+72:1(5'$7(  (;+,67,1*),5(+<'5$17
)2
6725<
5LFK%DUEHU   
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 0(==$1,1(
35,17('1$0(2)&23<5,*+72:1(5
2+(
),5(3/$&(



62/,':$67(127(6 1ƒ  : 
:
&2857<$5'
62/,':$67(1$55$7,9(
75$6+&+87(6$5(/2&$7(',17+(3$5.,1**$5$*(21$//   
)/2256$1'$1$'',7,21$/&+87(/2&$7('217+(:(676,'( 67$,5
  6<17+(7,&
2)%8,/',1* %%4 /$:1

6725<),71(66 6725< 5(9,6,21668%0,77$/6
75$6+7(50,1$7,2152206$5(/2&$7(',13$5.,1**$5$*(
$7*5$'(/(9(/$1'21:(676,'(2)%8,/',1*:+(5(75$6+ 81,76:,7+ 0(==$1,1( '$7( '(6&5,37,21
)2 )2 )2 )2 )2 )2 )2 )2




,6&203$&7('$1'3/$&(',172<'%,1675$6+%,16$5( 0(==$1,1($%29( 75/( .,9$352-(&7
7$.(172+2/',1*5220/2&$7('$7*5$'(/(9(/211257+ 67$,5 
6(  : 6'(9 
6,'(2)*$5$*(+2/',1*5220,6&203/(7(/<(1&/26('$1' (;
  )$&7 
/,*+7
  / 
 6ƒ 
6&5((1(':,7+*$7(6 6(((/(9$7,216 2175$6+3,&.83  0$;  (17 3$33

'$<6%,16$5(7$.(1287%<67$))723529,'('67$*,1*$5($ 2+( 6(7%$&. ($60 46
)25&2//(&7,21<'5(&<&/(%,1:,//%(3529,'(',1 %(1&+
237,21$/
 
/$:1

3257$/ 
*$5$*($&&(66,%/(72$//5(6,'(1765(&<&/(%,1:,//%(
*$0(/$:1
%.
52//('287213,&.83'$<7267$*,1*$5($ ),71(66/$:1
  6725<
5(48,5('62/,':$67(&$3$&,7< %,.(
5(3$,5 0(==$1,1( %%4
),5(3,7 %(1&+
 0,1,75$6+&203$&7256$5(/2&$7(',17+(3$5.,1* &2857<$5' 6($7:$//

*$5$*(/(9(/($&+&203$&725&203$&7675$6+,172<' 2+( 5'$9(18(
%,.( :  7+$9(18(
%,16 /$:1
5$&.6
&(175$/$9(18(
  &22/,'*(675((7
 0,1,75$6+&203$&725,6/2&$7('21/(9(/ :(676,'( 6ƒ 

2)%8,/',1* &203$&725&203$&7675$6+,172<'%,16 6,7(
1(,*+%25+22' (;
&8%,&<$5'63(581,7; &<6(59,&('7:,&( 3$5.3$7,2 /,*+7

3(5:((.  &<&203$&7,212) &<3(5
%(1&+ %,.(
6(59,&(7:,&(3(5:((. 5$&.6 $1$/
5$03
&<3(56(59,&(&<3(5%,1 0,12)%,16,1+2/',1* *5$1'& DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2020 ORB #: 20-212
5220
$6,1*/(&<5(&<&/(%,1$5(/2&$7(',1*$5$*(1($50$,1 $60(17 &$03%(//$9(18(




(175<6(59,&(:,//%(%$6('2186($1'%8,/',1* /$:1
 ( 
(: $/.
2&&83$1&<  *  6,'
%.  : 7,1 $/
(;
ƒ (;,6 '&$1
/,*+7
6  *5$1
( 
2+
2+(

2+
(
35(/,0,1$5<6,7(3/$1    
9,&,1,7<0$3
A1.10
 6&$/(   
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
127726&$/(
(/3° °'[XG°)UUROJMKE'[XG°)UUROJMKX\Z
Page 623
&LW\RI3KRHQL[(PSOR\PHQW&HQWHU3UR´OH

NORTH CENTRAL
The North Central
employment center Labor Force Accessibility and Skills
offers an exceptional The North Central employment center offers excellent access to a large portion
of the metro area’s 1.7 million workers. Approximately 770,000 young, well-educated
location in one of the workers reside within a 30 minute drive time.1 High concentrations of service and
FLW\­VSUHPLHURI´FH health care workers live within 10 to 20 minutes. In addition, about 16 percent of the
corridors. workforce living within a 20 minute drive time is made up of executives, managers
and technical professionals.2
Projected growth for this area will result in close to 170,000 new residents within
a 30 minute drive time by 2020, providing a continually expanding labor pool.3
This employment
center extends from 1, 2, 3 Claritas, 2015.
McDowell Road north
to Camelback Road
between Seventh
Street and Seventh Employment by Occupation
Avenue. The North Workforce 10 Min. Drive 20 Min. Drive 30 Min. Drive
Central area includes Number % Number % Number %
KLJKULVHRI´FHDQG
Management 7,416 7 57,595 8 131,498 9
residential buildings
Engineering & Science 2,224 2 16,777 2 36,046 3
surrounded by
historic single family Healthcare & Education 11,089 10 82,493 11 170,387 12
neighborhoods, parks Service 16,173 15 109,119 15 195,911 14
and cultural amenities. Sales 10,112 9 81,075 11 167,369 12
Clerical & Admin. Support 15,143 14 117,524 16 219,346 16
Construction 8,978 8 48,001 6 71,611 5
Production 6,210 6 39,874 5 64,441 5
Trans./Material Mover 6,373 6 46,614 6 76,283 5
Total 83,718 599,072 1,132,892
Source: Claritas, 2015.




Commute Shed
Commuters who travel to
Employment Corridor per
Square Mile
4 to 10
10 to 25
25 to 50
More than 50
• Access to a large executive Phoenix North Central Job Center
and professional workforce Phoenix North Central Job
Center Catchment Area

• Advanced
telecommunications
infrastructure

• /DUJHLQYHQWRU\RIRI´FH
space

• Competitive lease rates
Source: Maricopa Association of
• Superior accessibility to Governments, TRP Reduction Database,
NH\EXVLQHVVDQG´QDQFLDO 2013
services
Equal Opportunity Employer/Program. Auxiliary Aids and services are available upon request to individuals with
disabilities. Products and services made available through Federal Funding provided by the Workforce Investment Act.
Page 624
Camelback Rd.
Metro Light Rail
Existing and Planned
Sites and Buildings Development
The North Central employment center offers 1. Century Link Tower
a large inventory of office and commercial 586,403 sq. ft.


Central Ave.
space mixed with a variety of hotel and Office

7th Ave.
Steele Indian
residential developments. From high-rise office
7th St.
2. Viad Tower Phase II School Park
buildings and condominiums to palm tree-lined 478,488 sq. ft.
streets of historic single-family neighborhoods, Office - Proposed
diversity enhances the appeal of this 3. Phoenix Corporate Tower
445,811 sq. ft.
conveniently located area. Indian School Rd.
Office
The area has about 14.5 million square feet 4. Phoenix Plaza Tower II
of existing office space in close proximity to 419,453 sq. ft.
downtown. For companies that require build-to- Office
suit space, there are prime commercial high-rise 5. Phoenix Plaza Tower I
418,613 sq. ft. 8
parcels available.4 Osborn Rd.
The map to the right highlights the type Office
of community real estate in the North Central 6. Younan Central Plaza
405,693
area. Our team can provide more detail, custom 3
Office
information based on your requirements. 7. 2800 Tower 4
364,533 sq. ft. 5 1
Thomas Rd.
4 CoStar Realty Information Inc., 2015 Office
8. 3550 Tower 7
287,269 sq. ft.
Connectivity Office
9. Park Central - Bldg 7
The North Central employment center 224,953 sq. ft.
features modern, reliable telecommunications Office
10. Security Title Plaza
infrastructure that is supported by multiple
219,032 sq. ft.
providers. These providers are able to offer Office 2
specialized capabilities such as complete digital
infrastructure, T-1 (DS1) lines, T-3 (DS3) lines, McDowell Rd.
Source: CoStar Realty Information Inc., 2015
self-healing fiber ring architecture and high-
speed data communications. Local exchange
carriers with service in the North Central area Amenities and Attractions
include CenturyLink and Cox Communications.
The exciting Phoenix Arts District includes the Phoenix Art Museum
and Theater, the Playhouse on the Park and the internationally renowned
Infrastracture Heard Museum of Native American Art. Steele Indian School Park, located
Abundant and reliable power sources at the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Indian School Road, features
are available from a highly advanced network an expansive 15-acre entry garden, several historical buildings depicting the
system that provides redundant feeds from history of Phoenix Indian School, an amphitheater with seating for 1,500, a
multiple sub-stations. 2.5-acre bird-shaped lake and waterfall and a 15-acre neighborhood park.
The North Central employment center enjoys Located in the heart of the North Central employment center, Park Central
easy access to a modern network of urban is a 500,000 square foot mixed-use redevelopment featuring offices, retail,
freeways and arterial streets. This employment restaurants and business-oriented hotels. In addition, there are a number
center has excellent transit service and is of new luxury apartment developments in the area that provide a variety
located along the METRO light rail transit line of housing options for workers and support continued office and retail
that connects the area to downtown Phoenix, development.
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and
surrounding cities. Major Area Employers
For businesses that require convenient
air access, Phoenix Sky Harbor International CenturyLink PricewaterhouseCoopers
Telecommunications Accounting and Management Consulting
Airport is located just 15 minutes away. The Deloitte LLP Dignity Health
airport is one of the busiest in the U.S. based Accounting and Management Consulting Hospital Administration
on passenger traffic and offers more than 830 Fennemore Craig IBM Corporation
Law Firm Administrative Operations
daily non-stop flights to nearly 80 domestic
SCF Arizona U-Haul International
destinations and 13 international destinations.5 Direct Property and Casuality Insurance - HQ Leasing Services - Corp. HQ
Viad Corporation Xerox Corporation
5 Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2015. Business Services - HQ Copiers and Office Products
BMO Harris Bank
Banking and Financial Services

Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 2013



PHOENIX IS DESIGNED City of Phoenix
Community and Economic Development Department


TO WORK. Page 625
200 W. Washington St., 20th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85003
www.phoenix.gov/econdev | 602-262-5040
From: Adam Ghiz
To: Nick Klimek
Cc: ben@witheymorris.com
Subject: Re: Z-56-20 (3rd Avenue and Coolidge)
Date: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 12:07:07 PM


One Additional concern.

The large grassy area on the corner of 3rd and Coolidge has been used for years by the
neighborhood as a makeshift park. Families have used this area for recreation with their
children and pets. It provides for a grassy green area, in an otherwise paved jungle. You will
be taking this away from all residents, and instead of providing more greenery, will be adding
more concrete.

~Adam


On Nov 3, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Adam Ghiz wrote:


Here are my concerns for this project:

1. 56ft building height allowed by T5:5
2. 10 ft setback from current sidewalk, this in combination of the height will
basically provide for an entire block of apartments from the canal to Coolidge
looking directly over my fence and into my yard and house.
3. Noise, this is an extremely quiet section and adding an additional 218 housing
units will greatly increase the noise factor of the neighborhood.
4. Traffic. Hazelwood turns into 3rd ave and as a result, there is a very low traffic
density. Even with the the garage entry on Coolidge, traffic is going to greatly
increase on these streets and most likely all street parking with cease to exist.
5. Saturation. There are already 5 or 6 (possibly even more) high density
apartment complexes in this immediate area. Adding yet another complex will
adversely and disproportionately affect this neighborhood vs other
neighborhoods.
6. Historic district. This complex is almost surrounded on the 3rd ave and
Coolidge street sections by the Pierson Place Historic district. Constructing this
large complex when surrounded by a historic district diminishes the intention of
having a historic district. The proposed elevations are quoted as “blending in” yet
it looks like every other apartment complex built.

This project adversely affects my property disproportionately as I am on the
corner of 3rd and Hazelwood and this apartment complex will be towering over
my house, and on the entire east side of my property I will now stare at 56ft of
apartment building.

~Adam


On Nov 3, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Nick Klimek
wrote:


Page 626
Good morning, Adam –

I apologize but I believe I failed to answer one of your primary questions,
expressed via Maura, regarding whether the property is currently
approved for development. The answer is both yes and no… please allow
me to explain.

The property is currently zoned R-5 which generally means they could
build to a height of 48 feet.

However, the applicant has elected to pursue additional zoning
entitlement under the Walkable Urban Code. The process will take 4-6
months and include 3 public hearings and a neighborhood meeting.
During this process, the site plan may change and evolve in response to
community concerns and priorities. I recommend putting your concerns in
writing and sending them over to me. I also suggest reaching out to the
applicant’s representative, Ben Tate, to express yours concerns early on.

In the coming weeks, I will be reviewing the proposal in greater detail.

Kind regards,

Nick



Nick Klimek, AICP
Village Planner
Office: 602-534-7696
E-mail: nick.klimek@phoenix.gov

Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better
Phoenix

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be
checking voicemails multiple times per day. Please feel free to leave me a
voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank you.***




From: Adam Ghiz
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 10:45 AM
To: Nick Klimek



Page 627
Subject: Re: Z-56-20 (3rd Avenue and Coolidge)

Thanks for the response. So I am in the house directly across from this and
will be affected greatly as most of my exposure is to the east where the
current donor network building is. This picture is what I see from most of
my house. I estimate that these trees are approximately 30ft tall and
from what I have seen, it looks like the building will be 56ft tall. Also,
correct me if I am wrong, but the building will only be setback 10 ft from
the current sidewalk?

If this is the case, how can I expect any modicum of privacy? Not to
mention, that all I will be able to see from my windows will now be
building.

How does a project this large get approved so close to a historic
residential neighborhood? It destroys any point in trying to preserve the
original feel of the neighborhood.

I am greatly distressed by this news and also would like to know if there is
an estimated time when construction will begin.

Thanks,
Adam



On Nov 3, 2020, at 10:38 AM, Nick Klimek
wrote:


Good morning, Mr. Ghiz –

My name is Nick Klimek and I am the Alhambra Village
Planner. I received your contact information from Maura
Jackson from our Historic Preservation Office. Please feel
free to send any written comments to me and I will ensure
they be provided to the applicant and included with the staff
report as the request is processed; in your email, please
reference the case number Z-56-20.

If you would like to discuss, please feel free to call me at the
below number but please note that the request is very new
so I may be light on exact details regarding the site plan.

Kind regards,




Page 628
Nick



Nick Klimek, AICP
Village Planner
Office: 602-534-7696
E-mail: nick.klimek@phoenix.gov

Planning & Development
Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation
for a Better Phoenix

***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule,
but will be checking voicemails multiple times per day.
Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me
for a more timely response. Thank you.***




Page 629
Attachment C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-56-20-4

Date of VPC Meeting January 26, 2021

Request From R-3 and R-5
Request To WU Code T5:5 UT
Proposed Use Multifamily Residential

Location Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street

VPC Recommendation Approve per staff recommendation

VPC Vote 15-1-0, motion passes with Farina, Ammon, Ender,
Fitzgerald, Adams, Keyser, Kreitor, LeBlanc, Sanchez,
Jones, Solorio, McCabe, Bryck, Vice Chair Williams, and
Chair Shore in favor; Smith in dissent; and none in
abstention.

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

One speaker card was received on this item from an individual wishing to speak
in opposition to the request.

During this item, Becker was unavailable by audio or video and did not vote on
the item. For the purpose of the vote, he is considered absent reducing the
quorum to 16 members (10 being needed for a quorum).

STAFF PRESENTATION

Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the site, the request, the proposal, and the
recommendation. Located at the southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge
Street, the site is currently occupied by an office complex, and the request is to
rezone the property from R-3 and R-5 to the Walkable Urban Code Transect 5:5
Uptown to allow for multifamily redevelopment. The site is within 0.25 miles of
light rail, multiple schools, and immediately adjacent to both the Phoenix Sonoran
Bikeway (3rd Avenue) and the Grand Canal which position the property at the
junction of two major bicycle routes.

The request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and with the Transit Oriented



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 630
Alhambra Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 26, 2021

Development Strategic Policy Framework which is identified as supporting
intensity of 2 to 5 stories and up to 7 when certain bonus criteria are met.
Further, the proposal will advance the Canalscape Catalyst Project identified in
the Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan.

The proposal for a 4 story multifamily complex with 218 units includes shaded
and detached sidewalks along 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street and “frontage
types” to activate the streetscape environment. The elevations and conceptual
site plan depict measures to engage and activate the Grand Canal including
frontage types oriented to the canal, plazas and amenities between the building
and the canal, and low walls designed to embrace the waterfront.

Staff is recommending approval, subject to 13 stipulations, on the basis of the
request being consistent and aligned with the recommendations of the Phoenix
General Plan, the TOD Strategic Policy Framework, the Uptown TOD Policy
Plan, and the Housing Phoenix Plan.

Stipulation Nos. 1 – 5 seek to promote a strong interface with the Grand Canal.
Stipulations Nos. 6 – 8 seek to promote a safe and comfortable environment for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Stipulation Nos. 9 – 13 include standard language
pertaining to street improvements, removing the site from the special flood
hazard area, aviation disclosures, and archaeology.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Jason Morris, of Withey Morris, introduced himself, his client, the project, and
the change happening in this area. Trinsic Residential has done many projects
throughout the region and their investment model is to hold their properties long
term due, in large part to their ownership structure which includes the Texas
Teachers’ Retirement Fund.

The property is currently an office complex but its tenant, the Donor Network of
Arizona, has relocated to Tempe. There is a concentration of multifamily
development here because of the urban core, because of the transit overlay, and
because of the transportation patterns in the area. The developer views this
location as an excellent opportunity for multi-modal transportation with the
adjacency to the Grand Canal, the Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway, and the light rail
along Central Avenue. Unlike the nearby multifamily residential projects, these
projects did not embrace the canal nor their street frontages. The subject site
currently is entitled for 4 story multifamily development, the developer is seeking
to transition this entitlement to the Walkable Urban Code to yield a better and
more context-appropriate project.

Multiple city adopted policies call for this level of intensity at this location
including the General Plan, the Transit Oriented Strategic Policy Framework, and
the Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan. The location is ideal to



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 631
Alhambra Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 26, 2021

leverage the city’s investment in the light rail and in the Canalscape
improvements and the project is designed to embrace these policies and
investments.

The Walkable Urban Code is a newer zoning category that is much more
restrictive or directive in terms of the types of things that should be done in the
project while also being more flexible in other ways. He then provided an
overview of the site plan and renderings focusing on the street environment, the
canal interface designed to create more eyes and interaction onto this waterfront,
and the building architecture which includes offsets, recesses, and a variety of
materials to break up the mass of the building. The project is designed with units
wrapped around the parking structure which will not be visible from the perimeter.

Through the neighborhood outreach efforts which included an additional meeting
with the Pierson Place Historic Neighborhood, stakeholders raised a series of
concerns and the plan responds to these as follows:
• On Street Parking. Parking is provided in excess to the amount required
by code. To reduce the likelihood of street parking, the project was
designed to make street parking less convenient than garage parking for
future tenants. As a buy-hold builder, tenant retention is important to the
ownership group they are therefore conscious that parking must be
sufficient. Further, the applicant has agreed to work with the city to prohibit
on street parking along the 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street frontages.
• Traffic. The development is served by a single-point of vehicular access
located at the far northeast corner of the site to reduce westbound traffic
through the neighborhood and to reduce vehicle conflicts with the
bikeway.
• Height. The site is currently permitted to build 48 feet and four stories and
the request for 56 feet and four stories is intended to allow for higher
ceiling heights. The increase in height from 48 to 56 feet will be
imperceptible from ground level and produce a significantly better project.
• Publicly Accessible Open Space. The plan includes a public amenity area
in the southwest corner of the site with a bicycle fix-it station, bike racks,
seating, and shade. The plan also includes publicly accessible lawn areas
and seating along the canal frontage with lush landscaping and a
pedestrian connection into the project.
• Trash Collection. Waste collection will be provided by a private contractor
with all dumpsters located within the parking structure which will reduce
noise.

He concluded by reiterating that the site is permitted for high density multifamily
currently, how the project embraces alternative transportation as an amenity in a
manner consistent with city policy and investments, and will create an enhanced
canalscape including an active interface with publicly accessible open space and
amenities.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 632
Alhambra Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 26, 2021

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Solorio: Does the project include affordable units?
• Morris: No, while there is a need in the region, there is currently no
affordable housing program which would provide an even approach. If
such a program were in place, the applicant would participate.

Adams: What are the price-points for units, the size of units, and the projected
impact on nearby property values?
• Morris: The units will rent from $1,300 – $2,000. The project includes a
mix of unit sizes. Trinsic has studied the issue of property values in the
vicinity of their projects and has found that their projects produce an
increase in values beyond the increase projected by the market baseline.
He added that this trend is not universal for all multifamily projects but
because Trinsic is in it for the long-haul, their projects are well-designed,
well-managed, and well-maintained long term.
• Adams: Expressed concern over how the landscaping and architectural
design elements will likely be unsuccessful in breaking up the mass of the
building in reality.

Smith: Is this a 4 or 5 story building, is there an opportunity to reduce the height
of the building, and are they concerned about security with the site being so open
to the canal? She added concern that parking does not seem sufficient and noted
that it will likely spill over into the neighborhood.
• Morris: There will be a limited number of premium units that have an
interior staircase to a mezzanine level; that the applicant recognizes that
parking is an important consideration for long-term tenant retention and
has therefore studied the topic extensively; and that, while the project
does place more eyes on the canal, security measures include a perimeter
fence, access controlled gates, and all perimeter doors to the building
being locked.

The site is zoned for high-intensity multifamily, identified for high-intensity
residential in the General Plan, located nearly adjacent to the light rail, and
along two major alternative-transportation routes and the proposal
embraces these concepts utilizing the Walkable Urban Code which is
recommended for these types of circumstances. Change can be
challenging especially when it comes from “left field” but all publicly
accessible policy points to this being an area to accommodate growth. He
concluded this point by sharing that there are no single-family, owner
occupied homes north of Coolidge, and that the applicant has worked
extensively with owners west of the subject site to resolve concerns.

The development will include security measures such as a perimeter
fence, access-controlled gates, and all perimeter doors to the building
being locked.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 633
Alhambra Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 26, 2021



Ammon: What improvements are proposed at the 3rd Avenue bridge over the
canal, do the ground floor units have direct street access, is open space being
provided beyond code requirements, and does the project include photovoltaic
energy productions?
• Morris: There will be an open masonry portal that will further enhance and
complement the canalscape improvements. The ground floor units along
3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street have stoop and doorwell frontages and
the lobby will be a storefront. The project will have 12 percent open space
compared to the 5 percent required by code. To reduce the potential for
overflow parking and interference with the bikeway, they will work with the
city to prohibit on street parking.
• Gosselink: Todd Gosselink introduced himself as the developer and
explained that they are proud to include a photovoltaic array on the
building. One of their earlier projects, Aura Watermark, on the north shore
of Tempe Town Lake included a $150,000 solar array and was the first
market-rate, multifamily project, in Arizona to include solar energy. They
currently have a project at Central Avenue and Indianola Avenue with a
$750,000 solar array. Trinsic recognizes the value of solar as long term
investors and this project will have a $750,000 – $1,000,000 solar array on
the rooftop in addition to other efficiency enhancements.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Frank Paoletti introduced himself and state that he lives on Coolidge Street west
of the subject site and has livered there for 22 years and knew some of the
original owners. He expressed concerns related to parking, safety, and traffic
noting that Coolidge does not have sidewalks west of 3rd Avenue. He asked
whether the streets, sewers, and other infrastructure can accommodate another
218 units and 436 cars daily.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

Morris responded that traffic and on street parking had been early concerns from
the neighborhood and the plan had been revised to address these issues. He
added that code could have required less parking but, given its importance to
retaining tenants, the plan includes structured parking in excess of that required
by code. Regarding traffic, the site is zoned for high-intensity development and is
developed as an office complex, and therefore, the proposed multifamily complex
will replace traffic and infrastructure impacts already present on the site.

FLOOR/PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED: DISCUSSION, MOTION AND VOTE

Motion
Bryck moved to approve the request per staff recommendation. McCabe
seconded the motion.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 634
Alhambra Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 26, 2021

VOTE: 15-1-0, motion passes with Farina, Ammon, Ender, Fitzgerald,
Adams, Keyser, Kreitor, LeBlanc, Sanchez, Jones, Solorio, McCabe,
Bryck, Vice Chair Williams, and Chair Shore in favor; Smith in dissent; and
none in abstention.

VPC RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS

1. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
incorporate Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types described in Section 1305
for a minimum 40 percent of the building face(s), as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. For the purpose applying the above provisions,
the above shall be treated as a Secondary Frontage with regard to glazing.

2. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
contain architectural embellishments, design detailing, and / or space
programming to activate and provide visual access onto the canal, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Examples of
appropriate enhancements may include textural changes, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, overhang canopies, balconies with a
depth greater of than 3 feet, and amenities such as gathering spaces.

3. Between the southern mass of the building and the south property line (the
Grand Canal right-of-way), the developer shall plant minimum 3-inch caliper,
large canopy shade trees, at a minimum frequency of 25 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. The provisions of Section 1310.A.2 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance shall
apply to require shaded open space of which a minimum 50 percent shall be
situated adjacent to the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-way), as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

5. No solid perimeter wall greater than 36 inches in height shall be oriented to
and located within 30 feet of the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-
way), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The developer shall provide a minimum of two direct and accessible pedestrian
connections from the amenity areas located south of the building mass to the
shared use path along the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

8. The developer shall provide and maintain the following bicycle infrastructure as



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 635
Alhambra Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 26, 2021

described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A bicycle repair station (fix-it station) along the southern edge of the
site, visible, and accessible from the public sidewalk and / or the Grand
Canal Trail. The station shall include but not limited to: standard repair
tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair
stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while adjusting the
bike.

b. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

c. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at
a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 spaces near
entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of Section
1306.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

9. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

10. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The
following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:

a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary
limits on the Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to the
proposed facilities have been considered, following the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3); this
includes, but not limited to provisions in the latest versions of the
Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review
and approval of Floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR
prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.

11. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 636
Alhambra Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
January 26, 2021

according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.

13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 637
Attachment D


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
February 4, 2021

ITEM NO: 13
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-56-20-4
Location: Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street
From: R-3 and R-5
To: WU Code T5:5 UT
Acreage: 3.29
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Applicant: Trinsic Residential Group, T. Gosselink
Owner: Donor Network of Arizona
Representative: Jason Morris , Withey Morris, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Alhambra 1/26/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 15-1.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Alhambra Village Planning
Committee recommendation, with an additional stipulation.

Motion Discussion: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve Z-56-20-4, per
the Alhambra Village Planning Committee recommendation, with an additional
stipulation as read into the record.

Commissioner McCabe seconded.

Chairwoman Shank asked if there was any questions or comments.

Commissioner Busching made a substitute motion to continue Z-56-20-4.

Chairwoman Shank asked for a second. There was no second, therefore the motion
failed.

Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve Z-56-20-4, per the
Alhambra Village Planning Committee recommendation, with an additional stipulation as
read into the record.

Maker: Howard
Second: McCabe
Vote: 7-1 (Busching)
Absent: Johnson
Opposition Present: Yes




Page 638
Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Residential 15+ Dwelling Units Per Acre and the TOD Strategic Policy
Framework Minor Urban Center Place Type designation.

2. The development advances the vision and recommendations contained in the
Uptown Transit Oriented Development Plan and will support pedestrian
oriented development near the light rail and multiple urban bikeways.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options for the significant number
of residents in the Uptown TOD District.

Stipulations:

1. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
incorporate Walkable Urban Code Frontage Types described in Section 1305
for a minimum 40 percent of the building face(s), as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. For the purpose applying the above provisions,
the above shall be treated as a Secondary Frontage with regard to glazing.

2. The south facing mass of the building(s) oriented to the Grand Canal shall
contain architectural embellishments, design detailing, and / or space
programming to activate and provide visual access onto the canal, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Examples of
appropriate enhancements may include textural changes, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, overhang canopies, balconies with a
depth greater of than 3 feet, and amenities such as gathering spaces.

3. Between the southern mass of the building and the south property line (the
Grand Canal right-of-way), the developer shall plant minimum 3-inch caliper,
large canopy shade trees, at a minimum frequency of 25 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. The provisions of Section 1310.A.2 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance shall
apply to require shaded open space of which a minimum 50 percent shall be
situated adjacent to the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-way), as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

5. No solid perimeter wall greater than 36 inches in height shall be oriented to
and located within 30 feet of the south property line (the Grand Canal right-of-
way), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The developer shall provide traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic exiting the
property with specific regard to pedestrian safety on the public sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The developer shall provide a minimum of two direct and accessible pedestrian
connections from the amenity areas located south of the building mass to the




Page 639
shared use path along the Grand Canal Trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

8. The developer shall provide and maintain the following bicycle infrastructure as
described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A bicycle repair station (fix-it station) along the southern edge of the
site, visible, and accessible from the public sidewalk and / or the
Grand Canal Trail. The station shall include but not limited to:
standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump;
and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin
freely while adjusting the bike.

b. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section
1307.H.6.d of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured
parking.

c. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be
provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of
50 spaces near entrances of buildings and installed per the
requirements of Section 1306.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

9. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

10. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The
following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:

a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary
limits on the Grading and Drainage plan and ensure that impacts to
the proposed facilities have been considered, following the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph
60.3); this includes, but not limited to provisions in the latest
versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.

b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for
review and approval of Floodplain requirements.

c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or
CLOMR prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.

11. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be




Page 640
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.

13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

14. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 641
Attachment E




Page 642
Page 643
Page 644
155-34-051 155-34-049 155-34-011 155-34-008
155-34-119 155-34-087A
155-34-118
155-34-050 155-34-048 155-34-010 155-34-009
I 155-34-117 155-34-116 155-34-155 155-34-088

155-34-046 155-34-045 155-34-007 155-34-004
155-34-104
155-34-115 155-34-114
155-34-084
155-34-047 155-34-044 155-34-006 155-34-005
0 155-34-113 155-34-112
155-34-107
HAZELWOOD ST

Legend
155-34-002
Signed Petition
50 155-34-041
155-34-042 155-34-003
MINNEZONA AVE
155-34-086
155-34-111A 155-34-108A
Lots/Tracts/Condos

155-34-105
Zoning Petition Area

155-34-043 155-34-040 155-34-001
155-34-085

100 Feet
Proposed Amendment Area

3RD AVE

155-29-078D 155-29-078E
155-29-077C
155-29-004A
155-29-003
155-29-079
155-29-001 155-29-002
155-29-076

VALERIE PL
155-29-005A
155-29-071 155-29-070
155-29-068B

155-29-006A
155-29-073A
Attachment F
155-29-072
155-29-009 155-29-008A
155-29-007A


155-29-012A
155-29-066A 155-29-065
155-29-011A
155-29-013A 155-29-067A
155-29-064
2ND DR
COOLIDGE ST
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 2/12/2021



155-29-132A

155-29-060B
155-29-010A 155-29-017A
155-29-060C
155-29-014A
# of Lots/Tracts/Condos:155-29-019A
15/19 = 79%

155-29-015A
3/4 VOTE REQUIRED
155-29-016A

Petition Verification Map 155-29-059A 155-29-061 HIGHLAND AVE

155-29-021A 155-29-069B
155-29-018 155-29-020A
155-29-055A 155-29-056



2ND AVE
% Area = 2.61ac./8.80ac. = 30%
155-29-022A 155-29-054D 155-29-053B
for Z-56-20-4
Page 645



155-29-025A
155-29-026A 155-29-024A
155-29-023A
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
MARCH 3, 2021

APPLICATION NO/ Z-56-20-4 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Southeast corner of opposition x applicant
3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Street
Phoenix, AZ 85013 PC 2/4/2021 308 West Coolidge Street
Phoenix, AZ 85013

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 3/3/2021
HEARING Ron Szematowicz
602-748-5607
Pjharveytrack12@yahoo.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

Petition for Three Quarter Vote on Rezoning Case No. Z-56-20-4. (Sent via email February
11, 2021.)


RECEIVED BY: Racelle Escolar RECEIVED ON: 2/11/2021


Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Stephanie Vasquez
Leah Swanton
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Danielle Jordan
Ra’Desha Williams
Village Planner
Samantha Keating
Paul M. Li
GIS
Applicant




Page 646
From: Racelle Escolar
To: RS
Cc: dillon.hall.mtaz@gmail.com; Victoria C Murrillo
Subject: FW: 3/4 City Council Petition Signatures
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:29:42 PM
Attachments: 34 City Council Petition Signatures with Icon.pdf
34 City Council Petition Signatures Page 2 with Ron Carpenter of 302 W Minnezona.pdf
Mark Daniels, GG ICON LLC.pdf
Importance: High


Hello Ron,

I have received your request for a ¾ vote on Rezoning Case No. Z-56-20-4. We will process this and
let you know if a ¾ vote will be required.

Thanks,

Racelle Escolar, AICP
Planner III

Planning and Development Department
Planning Division
(602) 534-2864


From: R S
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:17 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: dillon.hall.mtaz@gmail.com
Subject: 3/4 City Council Petition Signatures

Hello Racelle

Attached are two pages of signatures including the Icon next door to the proposed project. With the Icon,
I think we have should have covered our 20% land and we are over 75% of land owners I believe. Thank
you. I cc'ed Dillon in case there is anything else you need today.


Ron




Page 647
Page 648
Page 649
To whom it may concern:

Goodman Real Estate has been contracted to provide Asset Management
services to Icon On Central (entity name – GG ICON LLC) located at 77 West
Coolidge Street, Phoenix, AZ 85013. As the Investment Portfolio Manager
assigned to Icon On Central I am responsible to act as agent for ownership for all
issues pertaining to the Icon on Central property. If you have any questions I can
be reached at the contact info listed below.

Sincerely,


Mark Daniels | Investment Portfolio Manager
GOODMAN REAL ESTATE
8400 Normandale Lake Blvd.| Suite 920 | Bloomington, MN 55438
M: 952.451.1206
mdaniels@goodmanre.com |www.goodmanre.com




Page 650
Attachment G

From: pamlperry@cox.net pamlperry@cox.net
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: rezone 3.29 acres located at the southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:55:26 PM




Alhambra Village Planning Committee

Regarding: 7. Z-56-20-4: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation regarding a
request to rezone 3.29 acres located at the southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and
Coolidge Street from R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) and R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) to WU Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5,
Transit Uptown Character Area) to allow multifamily residential.
The Planning Commission will consider this request on February 4, 2021.

The proposed zoning change requested by developers to meet WU code benefits for the
property that used to be known as the donor network site will indeed justify the time and
money spent developing this code. However, the changes proposed fail to meet a walkable
urban situation for residents along Coolidge street. The development would be more
appropriate along a main thoroughfare with existing sidewalks and perhaps even bike lanes.
Density of this level is also questionable in a neighborhood already afforded zoning for level
commercial residential 3 and 5 which was in place when the neighborhood was registered on
The National Historic Register.

The largest concern voiced by residents is generally described as ‘traffic’. To be sure we
understand and observe daily the increased ratio of cars to driveway parking available or
even cars to designed, planned parking in recent multi-unit developments.   Streets are
parked bumper to bumper: vehicles, both sides. Cyclists, pedestrians, runners, dog
walkers, baby strollers all use active traffic lanes. Delivery vehicles are forced to
double park… access for police, ambulance fire equipment is limited and restricted.
Traffic is sometimes defined as the number of trips in and out of a property. More and
more this traffic includes all sorts of deliveries. Currently neighbors are delivered of
something more than half a dozen times a day. Multiply that by two hundred and too
many units! The driveway for this property becomes ingress/ egress for hundreds of
deliveries and an increasingly noticeable traffic hazard for cyclists, pedestrians, dog
walker, toddlers on tiny bikes, moms with strollers…
It is projected that development residents will avail themselves to grand canalscape
project and light rail as a means of going places, but for those excursions to retail
opportunities (some not so very far, but not on canal or train lines) and others when
delivery is not used, people make trips in their cars. Their guests park where there is
space…increased vehicle trips, count them again!
There are limited sidewalks on Coolidge Street. All bike, pedestrian, dog walkers,
children waiting for busses, yes, this will happen again, runners, children going to
school, (there are several proximate), stroller-brigade, toddlers on tiny bikes with
training wheels and parents following along slowly along at decreased rates of speed to
supervise, or just folks going out for a meal or coffee must walk in the street. They run
the gamut along both sides of the thoroughfare of stationary parking, travel lanes
cluttered with delivery vehicles, moving vans, ubers and other gig parcel and package
delivery, trash collectors, city vehicles, cut thru traffic as well as locals simply arriving,
or leaving their homes exiting driveways… . This hardly qualifies as “WALKABLE”.
It will be a very unsafe and not walkable district.


Page 651
Extracting a vehicle from a driveway with sight line impeded by what becomes double
parked vehicles (only for a moment, let me drop off this package…) living in the
neighborhood becomes less and less conducive to personal safety: pedestrians and
vehicles two or 4 wheeled.

Who knows what sort of lurkers find all this stationary parking a good place to while away
time waiting to steal packages delivered or spring on unsuspecting victims…? Is this
“WALKABLE” ? Or Safe? Calls for service by fire trucks, ambulances, and police are all
impeded.

Your developer is investing client’s dollars. He wants to make them a good return, but does
this need to be at the expense of livability in an Historic District? Current zoning may be dated
to earlier planning goals, but perhaps they better reflects the multiple uses of pedestrian,
bicycle and automotive traffic that prevail in our ever-denser central core. Walking and biking
along Coolidge are a chancy thing sometimes already. Let’s not go out our way to make it
worse.

Thank you, Pam Perry 304 W. Coolidge St.

P.S. In case this is not clear, I do not support these rezoning efforts for the old donor network
property!




Page 652
From: RS
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Rezoning effort at Coolidge and 3rd Ave(Meeting Jan 26th... Item: 126 771 4317)
Date: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:49:22 PM



There is a rezoning effort happening within my neighborhood at 3rd Ave and Coolidge St. I
beg you not to allow the zoning change as it will deeply affect the traffic and parking in the
neighborhood as well as a create a hazard on the 3rdAve bike path.  I am not against the
project as much as I am against the increase in units.  Its too much added traffic and parking
into the neighborhood.  Please hear me out.

The developers are trying to increase zoning from the current R3-R5 to a WU which would
basically allow and 4+ story building increase from about 137 units to 213ish.  This apartment
complex would be situated in the  middle of the historic neighborhood rather than on a major
road (like Camelback or Central).  Currently standing in the proposed space is an office
building (formerly Organ Donors) with a private park that the neighborhood has enjoyed for
the 20+ years I have lived here.  The proposed project is at the corner of 3rd Ave and Coolidge
along the canal which coincides with the 3rdAve bike path.

Before covid, I enjoyed walking to businesses and watering hole landmarks but I still
owned a vehicle the entire time as most residents do.  While walkability is an important tool
for those of us that live in the neighborhood, most of us still need to drive to work or the store
or to get out of town.  Just because people walk occasionally does not mean that they do not
own a vehicle and use it.    On top of that, this apartment complex will be very close to the
sidewalk (like Elevation) on a neighborhood street not having the same easement houses are
required.  The front of end of the complex will face the canal while we in the neighborhood
get its backside.  We need easement within our neighborhood.  I understand the importance of
city growth, but cities that grow need to also ensure there is ample green space for the
congested masses living within such areas.  If nothing else give us that easement.

If you look at other apartment complexes in the area such as the Pavilions (Campbell and
Central), Elevation (Coolidge and Central), the Station (Central and Monterosa), you will see
cars constantly parked along the road day and night even with ample parking garages.  It
creates a hazardous congestion and unsightly view of the neighborhood.  Since Elevation was
built here on Coolidge and Central, the traffic on Coolidge St has increased with drivers flying
down the street even with speed bumps.  We also have a constant problem of cars stopping to
load or unload dangerously close to Central.  There is nothing to stop the proposed
development from having irresponsible parking and traffic from inundating the
neighborhood.  The increase in variance is going to add more cars and more
congestion.  Elevation is attractive on the website and from Central Ave but from Coolidge St
is a block monstrosity right on top of the sidewalk with a parking garage and a bunch of
parked cars all around it.  There is nothing attractive about it from Coolidge St.

While I understand I cannot stop the development nor do I necessarily want to, I just want the
city council to understand this complex is going directly into the neighborhood and has no
direct access to a major through street (like Central and Camelback).  It must cut through this
neighborhood.  The developers will try to sell to you people won't need a car, but I implore
you to look at the parking around the apartment complexes I have mentioned.  Its
Phoenix.  Most people own vehicles.  We in the neighborhood are already having to sacrifice
this private park that added much charm and use to an otherwise busy area in Phoenix but an


Page 653
additional 75 units will not help us maintain control of neighborhood streets or the added
congestion of parking.

Sincerely

Ron Szematowicz

home owner living at 308 W Coolidge St

pjharveytrack12@yahoo.com




Page 654
From: frank paoletti
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Rezoning Z-56-20-4
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 10:14:16 AM




Why has the zoning change for the area at 3rd Ave and Coolidge St now state there are to be 165 units minimum to
no maximum. This is not what the developer and lawyer stated in our neighborhood meeting. Also, what about the
parking, no one has ever addressed that and no one from the city has come to see the congestion at the end of
Coolidge St because of the other 2 apartment buildings? Nothing has been done with that problem that already
exists. Will 3rd Ave and Coolidge St have no street parking signs along with fines for violating the parking rules?
Thank you,
Frank Paoletti
449 W. Coolidge St




Page 655
Racelle Escolar

From: gbvalladao@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 12:49 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Case #13 Z-56-20-4



I write in opposition to the rezoning application hearing for rezoning 3rd Avenue & Collidge from R‐5/R‐3 zoning to
Walkable Urban Code zoning. While I am not opposed to the development of the site, it should be within the confines
of it’s current zoning. I oppose the request for the following reasons:

 Pierson Place is one of the few historic neighborhoods in the urban core and Central/Uptown Phoenix and
fabric of it should be preserved if at all possible
 WC Code T5:5T was intended for high traffic urban mixed‐use districts with retail/office/dining uses like Central
Avenue, not the middle of a residential historic neighborhood. Even if a rezone is allowed it should be limited
to either:
o T3:2 since it is a residential neighborhood with single family homes and duplexes with a maximum
height of 30 feet
o T4:3 an area characterized by single and multi‐family residences with a maximum height of 40 feet.
 The 3rd Avenue & Coolidge location is a quiet dead end street that was never intended to accommodate the
heavy vehicular traffic the project will generate. While a traffic study has repeatedly been referenced, it has
not been shared with the neighborhood.
 The developer request to increase the unit count from the currently zoned 136 to 218 adds 80 units to the
project increasing the unit count by 59% with no justification as to why it is needed.
 Increasing the height limitations from 48 feet to 56 feet will impair the sunlight on the north side of Coolidge as
well as impede the southern site lines for homes throughout the neighborhood.
 Overflow parking from a project this size will spill into the single family homes on Coolidge, Hazelwood and 3rd
avenue which is can be witnessed daily on the streets adjacent to The Elevations on Central, The Icon and the
Lexington.

Again, I am not opposed to development of the site, but there is no reason a project should be built beyond the
currently zoning requirements which allows for 136 units and 48 feet of height on the R‐5 zoned parcels.

I thank you for your consideration.

Regards – Greg Valladao

Greg Valladao
VALCOR Commercial
602‐697‐0078

Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10




Page1 656
Racelle Escolar

From: pamlperry@cox.net pamlperry@cox.net
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 12:58 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: case number Z-56-20-4



Planning Committee

The proposed zoning change requested by developers to meet WU code benefits for the property that used to be known
as the donor network site will indeed justify the time and money spent developing this code. However, the changes
proposed fail to make a walkable urban situation for all residents along Coolidge street. The WU development would
certainly be more appropriate along a main thoroughfare Camelback, Central,7th Ave. with existing sidewalks and
perhaps even bike lanes.

Pierson Place Historic District neighborhood already is afforded zoning for commercial residential 3 and 5 which was in
place when the neighborhood was registered on The National Historic Register. Other in‐fil developers are expected to
use these parameters.

Your developer is investing client’s dollars. He wants to make them a good return, but does this need to be at the
expense of walkability in an Historic District? Current zoning may be dated to earlier planning goals, but perhaps they
better reflect the multiple uses of pedestrian, bicycle and automotive traffic that prevail in our ever‐denser central
core. Walking and biking along Coolidge are a chancy thing sometimes already. Let’s not go out our way to make it
worse.

the frequently cited developers of proposed and existing multi‐family projects will not be afforded the privilege of WU
code benefits, having to work withing current zoning. Any developer can add gates to fencing along the canal to avail
residents to easy access to that local feature. Gates in fences is not rocket science for WU code developers only. There
is little excuse to make special exceptions for this project.

The major concern voiced by residents is generally described as ‘traffic’. We understand and observe daily the increased
street parking. Streets are parked bumper to bumper: vehicles, both sides. Cyclists, pedestrians, runners, dog walkers,
baby strollers all use active traffic lanes. Delivery vehicles are forced to double park… access for police, ambulance fire
equipment become more and more limited and restricted. We are seeing increasing numbers of auto related crime as
well.

 There are limited sidewalks on Coolidge Street. All bike, pedestrian, dog walkers, children waiting for busses,
yes, this will happen again, runners, children going to school, (there are several proximate), stroller‐brigade,
toddlers on tiny bikes with training wheels and parents following along slowly along at decreased rates of speed
to supervise, or just folks going out for a meal or coffee must walk in the street. They run the gamut along both
sides of the thoroughfare of stationary parking, travel lanes cluttered with delivery vehicles, moving vans, ubers
and other gig parcel and package delivery, trash collectors, city vehicles, cut thru traffic as well as locals simply
arriving, or leaving their homes exiting driveways… . This hardly qualifies as “WALKABLE”. It will be a very
unsafe and not walkable district.
 Extracting a vehicle from a driveway with sight line impeded by double parked vehicles (only for a moment, let
me drop off this package…) living in the neighborhood becomes less and less conducive to personal safety:
pedestrians and vehicles two or 4 wheeled.
 Who knows what sort of lurkers find all this stationary parking a good place to while away time waiting to steal
packages delivered, break into parked cars, or spring on unsuspecting victims…? Is this “WALKABLE” ? Or Safe?
We are already seeing increased crime in automobiles parked along the east end of Coolidge, and this can be
expected to move west with parked cars!
 Calls for service by fire trucks, ambulances, and police are all impeded.

Page1 657
Thank you, Pam Perry 304 W. Coolidge St.

P.S. In case this is not clear, I do not support these rezoning efforts for the old donor network property!




Page2 658
Racelle Escolar

From: Monica Kearns
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 2:22 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Rezoning case No.Z-56-20-4 WU code T5: 5 UT



good afternoon, regardless this Project we are on opposition, no only the time that will take to build 24 months, we are
families who has to work and we want to rest after work and on our days off too,but also the traffic, our privacy,
because those apartments will face at our houses and when the highschools open again it will be a big, big problem of
traffic I am talking about 2 highschools beside businesses around and other traffic, we are concern about people will
parking on front of our houses specially on the weekends, the noise of the traffic, this is a HISTORIC DISTRICT and we
want to keep this neighborhood that way, WE DONT WANT MORE APARTMENTS AROUND, I INVITE YOU TO STAY ONE
DAY LOOKING AT THE TRAFFIC ON CENTRAL AVE, CAMELBACK RD AND 7 AV. we are living here, we see it every day, I
hope we all from this neighborhood hope to consider our petition to not to build more apartments.


Thank for your time, sincerely:

MM.




Page1 659
Racelle Escolar

From: R S
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2021 9:29 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Rezoning on Coolidge St and 3rd Ave 56-20-4 item 13
Attachments: project 56-20-4 is the Red boxed area.png



To the Phoenix Planning Commission,

I ask you to consider the gravity of the zoning change on case 56-20-4 in this Thursday’s
agenda. The property in question is not on a major thoroughfare, but deep within the historic
Pierson Place neighborhood.

The developers are asking to go from a R3-R5 to a WU because the site in question is on the
canal. While that is true, the area of the canal that the said project would be built on is relatively
small. It is only four to five historic house properties long. In return they want to increase units
from 137 to about 215, which comes out to 275 beds (as there are two bedroom units), increase the
height to 56’ in the middle of the neighborhood, have next to no easement on the street and not
supply adequate parking. On top of that, the project would not face the neighborhood. We would
get its backside. I have attached a copy of a map of the said property.

Please take the time to go the site and inspect the canal area, the bike path and the neighborhood
and you will see this is too great a sacrifice on height, easement, traffic and parking for the limited
canal scaping they will accomplish. Let them use their already in place R3-R5 zoning to help ease
traffic congestion and parking overflow.

Please vote NO on the said project. It will irreversibly hurt the historic neighborhood in which will
reside within. Again it is not on a major street, Camelback, 7th Ave and Central are all a good
distance away and 3rd Ave does not cut through for purposes of limiting traffic.

Sincerely

Ron Szematowicz

home owner living at 308 W Coolidge St

pjharveytrack12@yahoo.com
602-748-5607




Page1 660
Page 661
Racelle Escolar

From: Thomas Rice
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 3:16 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Reasoning Case No Z-56-20-4



Hello,

My name is Thomas Rice; I live at 320 W Hazelwood St. I am writing this letter to oppose the zoning change from R‐3 and
R‐5 to WU Code T5:5 UT. I oppose this for the following reasons:

Not enough parking

Intrudes on Pierson Place Historic Neighborhood

Insufficient access

Takes away a green space in the neighborhood

Too congested

Thank you for your time!

Thomas D. Rice
Owner/Operator
Javelina Tree Work LLC
480‐208‐1974




Page1 662
Racelle Escolar

From: grosso9377@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 3:34 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Oppsition to 56-20-4



To whom it concern (Phoenix Planning Commission),

My name is Michael Grosso, owner of the property at 303 W Coolidge. I am in opposition of the planning and zoning of
the proposed property at 3 ave. and Coolidge.

My concerns are:

1. 218 unit complex built on the edges of Coolidge and 3 ave, to large of a footprint for the area.

2. The building will not allow any parking on Coolidge or limited which turns the street into a single lane
road. Dangerous for riding bikes and walking.

3. Increases the walking traffic and more chance for crime.

4. Coolidge Ave. is a cut‐through for 7 ave to Central, which could be dangerous for residents.

5. The community is going to suffer with all the added walking traffic.




Thank You for you time please do not rezone the location.




Page1 663
Racelle Escolar

From: Jeff Rahm
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:41 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: RE Application #: Z-56-20-4



Attn Planning Commission:
I own a home (306 West Coolidge) just down the street from the proposed apartment development site.
While I am all for growth & expansion, I have reservations with the proposed WU rezone. I foresee a
heavy increase in vehicular traffic, especially on Coolidge, Hazelwood & Highland. Central Ave only allows for a
right turn heading south. To travel north, the only option is to drive to 7th Ave on either street and make a
right. Again, I am all for growth, but just want to be sure that the traffic congestion issue is carefully
considered.
Thank you,
Jeff Rahm

Jeff Rahm • Sr. Digital Media Planner/Buyer
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
OH Partners




o. 602.228.2377
OHPARTNERS.COM [ohpartners.com]
[ohpartners.com]




Page1 664
Racelle Escolar

From: Sarah Simpson
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 4:53 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Rezoning Case No: Z-56-20-4



Hello! I am a resident at 308 W. Hazlewood St. and I am writing to request a reduction in the size of the multifamily
residential dwelling that is planned for the Southeast corner of 3rd avenue and Coolidge. Case Z‐56‐20. Please reduce
the size to 80 units. Please let me know if you have any questions!

‐Sarah Simpson
(602)405‐6943




Page1 665
Racelle Escolar

From: Bill Wells
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 5:15 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Application No. Z-56-20-4



I am opposed to Application No. Z‐56‐20‐4 to change the zoning from R‐3 and R‐5 to WU Code T5:5 UT located on the
Southeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street for several reasons including:

a) constructing a multifamily residential property with no maximum units allowed will significantly increase the traffic on
3 residential streets (Coolidge, Hazelwood, and 3rd Avenue)
b) increased traffic will increase the likelihood of pedestrian getting harmed as this is primarily a residential area
consisting of families with children and older adults
c) Other than a standard size sidewalk along the eastern edge of 3rd Avenue there is no public sidewalk on Coolidge,
Hazelwood, and other nearby residential streets. The proposal is an extremely dangerous mix of increased pedestrian
traffic walking in the street and an increase in vehicle traffic
d) Access to and from the Grand Canal pathway is from 3rd Avenue and Hazelwood which already stresses the
pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the area
e) Increasing the population density within the area will increase levels of crime and lower public safety
f) Parking along Hazelwood, Coolidge, and other nearby residential streets is restricted but does not appear to be
enforced. Additional residents and vehicles will take advantage of unauthorized street parking.

Until such time as the proponent can provide studies that these reasons have been addressed in their proposal or
provide mitigation measures to offset or compensate for this reasons, I am opposed to this application.

Regards,

Bill Wells
498 W Hazelwood St
Phoenix, AZ 85013
bdtgwells@icloud.com




Page1 666
Racelle Escolar

From: Lina Money
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 5:53 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition / 56-20-4, item 13




Zoning case 56‐20‐4. Item 13.

Dear Sir and Madam,

I am deeply troubled to know that there is a high possibility of a new build of apartment complex in our small historic
neighborhood, which we the neighbors have been in charge of making it better, cleaner , more safe and friendlier place
to live. My family and I have been living on Coolidge st since 2007 and we have been part of the transitions in the hood.
I have two small kids and two dogs, as a mother I am very concern of rezoning the corner lot and allowing some Texan
investor developer to make money from the work we did all these years (to maintain and make it a better
neighbourhood) without being considerate to the people and pets in the Pierson Place. We as human have
responsibilities to make life better for all and not just for one company!!! Life is not all about money and we have to
make the right steps to protect each other and not to allow this rezoning!
I deeply ask you to view this case as a person who lives in Pierson Place and not just as an outsider.
If they are allowed to build they should be limited to the current zoning and they should provide place ( trees, green
grass , play area for the families in the neighborhood. We are already overwhelmed by cars parked on the side walks and
fast drivers and lets not forget that 3 ave has a bike lane used by many to commute . It will put a lot of people in
danger!
This letter represents the families living at 510, 505 and 506 W Coolidge Street!

Yours truly,
Lina Money
Tania Bachelot
Olga Pegkova


Lina Money




Page1 667



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
JULY 1, AUG. 26, AND OCT. 7, 2020) - Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption -
Amend City Code - Rezoning Application PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8) - Northwest
Corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road (Ordinance G-6718)

Request to hold a public hearing on the Planning Hearing Officer application for the
following item and consider adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation on
June 4, 2020.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
Existing Zoning: R1-8 and R1-18
Acreage: 59.48

Owner: Virtua 35th LLC
Applicant: Jennifer Hall, Rose Law Group
Representative: Tom Galvin, Rose Law Group

Proposal:
1. Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan date
stamped Oct. 8, 2007 and elevations date stamped Feb. 20, 2007.
2. Modification of Stipulation 7 regarding the landscape setback adjacent to 35th
Avenue.
3. Deletion of Stipulation 19 regarding conditional development approval.
4. Modification of Stipulation 27 regarding height of terraced berms along the quarry
cut slope base.
5. Modification of Stipulation 31 regarding raised, vertical curbs within the R1-18
portion of the site.
6. Modification of Stipulation 37 regarding detached sidewalks and landscape strips
within the R1-8 portion of the site.
7. Deletion of Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes along 35th Avenue.
8. Technical corrections to Stipulations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, and 40.
9. Modification of Stipulation 3 (proposed Stipulation 5) regarding the maximum
number of lots in the R1-8 portion of the site.


Page 668


Concurrence
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Laveen Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Jan. 13, 2020 and recommended denial by an 11-0
vote.
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this
case on Jan. 15, 2020 and took this case under advisement. On Feb. 13, 2020 the
Planning Hearing Officer took this case out from under advisement and recommended
denial as filed and approval with modifications and additional stipulations. See
Attachment B for a complete list of the Planning Hearing Officer's recommended
stipulations.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on May 7, 2020, and the case
was continued to June 4, 2020 Planning Commission by an 8-0 vote and the applicant
and neighbors concerned about the request were asked to try to work on a
compromise.
The Planning Commission heard this case again on June 4, 2020, and recommended
approval per the staff memo dated June 4, 2020 with a modified stipulation, and with
direction to the applicant to modify the application prior to the City Council meeting by
an 8-0 vote.

Location
Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: N/A

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 669
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-165-06-7(8) PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-5020.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located at the northwest

corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road in a portion of Section 10, Township 1 South,

Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Attachment “A”, are hereby modified to

read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

General

1. That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 8, 2007, and elevations date stamped February 20, 2007, as
modified by the following stipulations, and as approved by the Development
Services Department.

1. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019 MAY 26,2020, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND WITH SPECIFIC
REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING:

A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM
35TH AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY
BOUNDARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.


Page 670
B. THE PRIMARY ROADWAY CONNECTING 35TH AVENUE TO THE
WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL TERMINATE AS A
STUB STREET TO THE ADJACENT UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE
WEST TO PROVIDE FOR A FUTURE VEHICULAR CONNECTION.

2. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER
THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR STIPULATION
MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS A
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE DETERMINED
BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER AND THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3. THE R1-18 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 8, 2007, AND ELEVATIONS
DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 20, 2007, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

4. That dDevelopment of the R1-18 portion of the site shall not exceed 22 lots.
2.

5. That dDevelopment of the R1-8 portion of the site shall not exceed a density of
3. 99 63 lots.

6. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 26% OPEN
SPACE, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 12% 8% SHALL BE USABLE OPEN
SPACE, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

Site Design

7. That uUnobstructed pedestrian access (for the purpose of private pedestrian
4. connectivity internal to the site) between the R1-18 and R1-8 portions of the site
shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

8. That nNo solid wall in excess of three feet in height as measured from the
5. finished grade, shall be located on the site (either in private lots or common
tracts) except that solid walls greater than three feet in height shall be allowed for
the following purposes, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

a. Walls utilized to screen utilities, trash enclosures, or other facilities
generally considered to be visually obtrusive.

b. Retaining wall.


Page 671
9. That nNo more than 60,000 square feet of natural turf area shall be located
6. within the common areas of the R1-8 portion of the site (this requirement does
not apply to synthetic turf); if provided, common area natural turf should be
centrally located and grouped so as to create one contiguous natural turf
recreation area, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

10. That a 235-foot (average), 200-foot (minimum) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL
7. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 100 FOOT landscaped setback ALONG THE EAST
PROPERTY LINE adjacent to 35th Avenue shall be provided, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

11. That a A 50-foot (minimum) landscaped setback adjacent to Carver Road (final
8. alignment) shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

12. That tThose portions of spider and jeep trails which are not part of the approved
9. grading envelopes, access drives, or other necessary site disturbance related to
the proposed development of the R1-8 portion of the site shall be re-vegetated in
a manner consistent with adjacent undisturbed vegetation, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Disclosures

13. That pPrior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents
10. that disclose to tenants of the site or purchasers of property within the site, the
existence, proximity, and operational characteristics of active agricultural uses
and non-domesticated animal keeping. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided, which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

14. THAT PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER
SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE TO TENANTS OF THE SITE
OR PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE, THE EXISTENCE,
PROXIMITY, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTIVE AVIATION
USES IN THE HANGAR HACIENDAS UNITS ONE, TWO, AND THREE
SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,300 FEET TO THE EAST OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN MARICOPA COUNTY. THE FORM AND
CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE
TEMPLATES AND INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED, WHICH HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Parks and Recreation

15. That tThe developer shall dedicate a multi-use trail easement and construct a
11. multi-use trail, per adopted standards, along the north side of Carver Road, as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Archaeology


Page 672
16. That tThe applicant shall complete an archaeological survey report of the
12. development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, or grading.

17. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE,
THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING AND SUBMIT
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, LANDSCAPE SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING
APPROVAL.

18. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF THE
RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST, IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED
ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES SUCH DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS
ARE NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE II
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS.

19. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE
ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33-FOOT RADIUS OF
THE DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND ALLOW TIME
FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE
MATERIALS.

Street Transportation

20. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 35th
13. Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. 35th Avenue
shall be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

21. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of Carver
14. Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. Carver Road shall
be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 35TH AVENUE
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARVER ROAD
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

24. That aA traffic impact study shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Street
15. Transportation Department prior to PLANNING AND Development Services


Page 673
Department preliminary site plan approval. That all right-of-way dedications and
associated infrastructure improvements as recommended by the traffic impact
study shall be installed by the developer, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

25. That tThe developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
16. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median
islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as modified by these stipulations,
and as approved by the Street Transportation Department. All improvements
shall comply with all AmericanS with Disabilities Act accessibility standards.

26. That tThe applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information
17. Form for the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Improvement
Program. This form is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency to
meet clean air quality requirements.

27. That pPrior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
18. Proposition 207 waiver of claims utilizing the provided template. The waiver shall
be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and a copy shall be
provided to the PLANNING AND Development Services Department for the case
files.

19. That approval shall be conditional upon the development commencing within 48
months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with
Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection
of the building walls on site.

Neighborhood

28. That bBuilding pad cuts shall be terraced if more than 6 feet in height and treated
20. with a stain, gunnite, or equivalent finish, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

29. That aAll two story homes, within the R1-18 portion of the site, shall be designed
21. in a manner such that the square footage of the second story floor area does not
exceed 66 percent of the first story floor area does not exceed 66 percent of the
first story floor area, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

30. That cConcrete channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
22. through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

31. That tThe use of riprap and engineered culverts shall be minimized and, where
23. utilized, shall be integrated with the desert setting through color, texture, soil
plating, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. To the extent possible, culverts shall be
undersized to allow minor flows (10 cfs or smaller) to cross roadways in their
natural condition.


Page 674
32. That wWashes with a one-hundred-year peak flow of 200 cfs or greater shall be
24. preserved and enhanced with native vegetation as described in Appendix A,
Approved Plant Species List for Sonoran Preserve Edge Treatment Guidelines,
as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

33. That lLots with 2 or more sides abutting undisturbed open space shall be
25. designed with obtuse angles, rather than right angles or acute angles, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

34. That oOn non-hillside lots within the R1-18 portion of the development, all
26. improvements, including driveways, landscaping, and underground utilities shall
be located within a building envelope occupying no more than 50 percent of the
lot up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

35. That a A minimum of three terraced berms with 2:1 fill slopes shall be installed
27. along the full length of the quarry cut slope base. The terraces shall BE LIMITED
TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF be 8 feet tall, minimum, and shall be PLANTED
plated with a staggered combination of 2-inch and 4-inch caliper, drought
resistant, deciduous trees at 25 feet ON center OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS to center, as approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPER MAY ALSO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR
THE NATURALIZING AND BLENDING OF THE QUARRY CUT SLOPE WITH
THE ADJACENT UNDISTURBED HILLSIDE AREA, AS APPROVED OR
MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

36. That sSolid block walls, except for retaining walls or privacy fencing on individual
28. lots, shall not be constructed outside of the building envelopes for the R1-18
portion of the site, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department. Fencing constructed outside of the building envelope shall be
combination solid/view fencing. In addition, all fencing above the 15 percent
slope line shall be 100 percent view fencing.

37. That tThe entire 60-acre site shall have no perimeter fencing, as approved by the
29. PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

38. That pPrivate roadways within the R1-18 portion of the site shall be provided with
30. ribbon curbs and colored asphalt, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

39. That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with a
31. raised, vertical curb, as approved by the Development Services Department.

40. That aAll HVAC units shall be ground mounted.
32.




Page 675
41. That aAll street lighting and wall mounted security fixtures shall be full cut off
33. lighting. Fixture height shall be a maximum of 12 feet. Street lighting fixtures
shall be decorative and have a consistent architectural theme, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

42. That bBollards shall be used for accent lighting at the primary access, entry
34. monument, driveways, and trail crossings, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. Photovoltaic energy sources for bollard
lighting shall be provided.

43. That aAny request to delete or modify these stipulations SHALL be preceded by
35. A presentation to the Laveen Village Planning Committee (VPC) for review and
recommendation, and notification to the following persons two weeks prior to
presentation at the VPC:

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

44. That tThe following individuals shall be notified of any and all PLANNING AND
36. Development Services Department (DSD) meetings which are open to the
public. The applicant shall be responsible for notification to the following via a
first-class letter to be mailed at least two weeks prior to the DSD meeting(s):

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

45. That aAll sidewalks, within the R1-8 portion of the site, WHICH ARE
37. DEVELOPED ALONG STREETS DEVELOPED AS PUBLIC STREETS OR


Page 676
PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall
include minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum rate of 20 feet
on center or IN equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as
approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department. The landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and
maintained by the homeowners’ association.

46. That aA mix of two and three-inch caliper trees shall be provided within all
38. required common open space tracts. With the exception of the open space area
adjacent to 35th Avenue, the species of trees provided shall shade 50 percent of
the area of the open space at tree maturity, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

47. That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.
39.
LOTS 52-61 AND 82-83 1-7, LOCATED ALONG 35TH AVENUE AND AS
DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019 MAY
26,2020, ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20 FEET, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

48. That aA detailed site plan, landscaping plan, elevations, perimeter fence or wall
40. plan, lighting plan, and entry monument signage shall be reviewed by the Laveen
Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.


SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-5020, this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-5020 and as modified in

Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site until

all the stipulations have been met.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 24th day of June, 2020.




Page 677
________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


____________________________City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager

Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (1 Page)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 678
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-19-- Z-165-06-7(8)

The West half of the South half of the Southeast quarter together with the South half of
the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range
2 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.




Page 679
Page 680
Attachment B




Staff Report: Z-165-06-7(8) (PHO-1-19)

APPLICATION: Z-165-06-7(8) (PHO-1-19)

APPLICANT: Jennifer Hall, Rose Law Group

REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Galvin, Rose Law Group

OWNER: Virtua 35th LLC

LOCATION: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road

REQUEST: 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance
to the site plan date stamped October 8, 2007 and elevations
date stamped February 20, 2007.

2) Modification of Stipulation 7 regarding the landscape
setback adjacent to 35th Avenue.

3) Deletion of Stipulation 19 regarding conditional
development approval.

4) Modification of Stipulation 27 regarding height of terraced
berms along the quarry cut slope base.

5) Modification of Stipulation 31 regarding raised, vertical
curbs within the R1-18 portion of the site.

6) Modification of Stipulation 37 regarding detached sidewalks
and landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of the site.

7) Deletion of Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes along
35th Avenue.

8) Technical corrections to Stipulations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this request be denied as filed and approved with modifications
and additional stipulations as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.



Page 681
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission




PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
On January 15, 2020, the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) took this case under
advisement. On February 13, 2020 the Planning Hearing Officer took this case out from
under advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications and
additional stipulations.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
and consists of approximately 59.48 gross acres. The eastern portion is approximately 20
acres and zoned R1-8. The western portion is approximately 40 acres and zoned R1-18.
The applicant’s request would only impact stipulations as applied to the eastern portion of
the site zoned R1-8.

The conceptual site plan depicts a 92-lot single-family detached residential development
at a density of 5.5 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed layout utilizes a cluster
development design, primarily in blocks of four units oriented towards private drives. The
conceptual site plan depicts a total of 40.47 percent open space. However, the applicant
clarified at the January 15, 2020 PHO hearing that the R1-8 portion would provide a
minimum 26 percent open space, after clarifying the City’s standards for calculating open
space. Amenities will include a tot lot, pool, and open space to be centrally located within
the development.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 1, regarding general conformance to
the stipulated site plan and elevations, to accommodate a new site plan for the R1-8
portion of the site. The applicant proposed that the stipulation also be modified to ensure
that the R1-18 portion of the site retain its requirement for conformance with the original
stipulated site plan.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 7, regarding the landscape setback
adjacent to 35th Avenue. The applicant requested to decrease the landscape setback
from a 235-foot average and 200-foot minimum setback to a minimum 100-foot setback.
The applicant stated that the proposed site plan shifted units further east to reduce the
number of proposed lots in the hillside areas at the northwest corner of the site. They
stated that the stipulated landscape setback needs to be reduced in order to further
mitigate impacts on the hillside area.

The applicant requested deletion of Stipulation 19, regarding conditional development
approval. The applicant stated that the deletion of this stipulation would not change the
integrity of the project. Additionally, the original rezoning case was approved by
ordinance adoption and the zoning of the site was vested with the adoption of that
ordinance.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 27, regarding the height of terraced
berms along the quarry cut slope base, and proposed that the stipulated minimum 8-foot




Page 682
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


terrace height be modified to permit a maximum 8-foot terrace height. They noted that
reduced terrace heights would be more consistent with the natural environment.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 31, regarding raised, vertical curbs
within the R1-18 portion of the sire, arguing that the community will be private and will
implement the City’s standard for private accessways, which depicts rolled curbs.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 37 regarding detached sidewalks and
landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of the site. Their proposed modification would
remove the requirement for detached sidewalks and enhanced planting standards.
Instead, the proposal would permit five-foot wide attached sidewalks throughout the
development. The applicant noted that mature trees would thrive in a natural
environment versus a constrained five-foot landscape strip. They also noted that the
proposal would include multi-use trails within the development.

The applicant requested deletion of Stipulation 39, regarding one-story homes along 35th
Avenue arguing that the stipulation language is unclear, and it does not clearly define
what distance or location along 35th Avenue the prohibition would apply to. The
applicant also noted that elimination of the stipulation would allow all buildings in the
development to adhere to the height restrictions for R1-8 zoning.

PREVIOUS HISTORY
On December 15, 2006, the Phoenix City Council approved the rezoning request from S-
1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-18 (Single-Family Residence) and R1-8 (Single-
Family Residence) on an approximately 59-acre property located at the northwest corner
of 35th Avenue and Carver Road, subject to stipulations.

The applicant’s initial application consisted of both RE-35 and R-2 zoning. The
conceptual site plan depicted a gated, mixed residential community including 22 one-acre
hillside lots (RE-35) with custom homes, 55 townhome units (R-2), and 81 condominiums
(R-2) totaling 158 dwelling units for the site and an overall project density of
approximately 2.6 dwelling units per acre. The custom home lots were to be sold and
developed on an individual basis. The custom home lots would be accessible via 39th
Avenue or through the eastern portion of the site via 35th Avenue. Ingress and egress
along 39th Avenue was intended to be gated since the primary entrance would be from
35th Avenue.

The application was modified and ultimately approved for R1-18 on the western 39.6-acre
portion of the site and R1-8 on the eastern 19.4-acre portion of the site. The stipulated
site plan depicted 121 dwelling units on 59 acres with an overall site density of 2.05
dwelling units per acre. There were no changes to the layout of homes on the R1-18
portion of the site, but the new plan now depicted 99 single-family, villa style units on the
R1-8 portion. The villa concept consisted of four detached units surrounding a central
courtyard with garage access around a shared driveway at the rear of each unit.




Page 683
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


The eastern R1-8 portion of the site contains the remnants of an abandoned gravel mine
site. The applicant argued that the area was being developed with a higher density
residential product to rehabilitate the damaged site area. The detached villa product was
also viewed by the developer as an opportunity to enhance the residential diversity in the
Laveen area. Additionally, the higher density villa product was supported by staff given
the costly development associated with the mine. The applicant stated that site is risky
regarding development and would have to remove hazardous debris, import dirt to level
the site, and provide infrastructure improvements.

Numerous residents opposed the proposed density on the eastern portion of the site and
spoke in opposition at various meetings and hearings. Approximately 30 emails or letters
were received that discussed context, compatibility, and traffic conditions. Residents
stated that they wanted responsible development and adherence to the general plan of
Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre. Residents also noted that there was a lack of
communication with the community. The applicant stated that it was difficult to reach a
resolution because there was no common ground between the developer and the
neighborhood and he was not willing to decrease the proposed density.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS

Correspondence
Ninety-eight letters of opposition were received regarding this request. Concerns
expressed in the correspondence include the following:
• The City of Phoenix needs to enforce Ordinance G-5020, which requires zoning to
be placed back to S-1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has
been taken which violated City Zoning Ordinance (83 emails);
• Amend the General Plan to reflect Residential 0 to 1 and Parks/Open Space (83
emails);
• Stipulation 19 protects the neighbors and community from high density
development that does not fit the area (83 emails);
• Proposed density is too high for the area (5 emails);
• City officials and City Council members should advocate for Laveen residents and
consider how residents will be negatively impacted (1 email);
• Approval of the case would indicate corruption between the builder and
government officials (2 emails);
• Two-story development will halt the appeal and devalue the real-estate in the area
(2 emails);
• No notice was received by mail (1 email);
• City signage at the site is hidden, illegible, and ineffective (2 emails);
• The proposal does not address dangerous road conditions on Carver Road (4
emails);
• Density greater than two houses per acre has ruined the rural character of Laveen
(4 emails);
• The subject property is in the path of flood waters (4 emails);




Page 684
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


• The proposed development will increase traffic, consume resources, and increase
noise (3 emails);
• The applicant is not providing elevations (1 email);
• Any buildings within 200 feet of the eastern property line should be limited to one
story with a maximum height of 20 feet (1 email); and
• The developer should provide an Environmental Impact Study (1 email).

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Parks/Open Space – Future 1 dwelling unit per acre, Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, and Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre

CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE

Zoning Land Use

On-site: R1-18, R1-8 Former mine, vacant land

North: S-1, R1-18 PRD Vacant land

South: R1-18, County Vacant land, single-family
residential

East: County Vacant agricultural land, single-family
residential

West: County Vacant land, single-family residential

DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS

Archaeology
The City of Phoenix Archaeology Office (CAO) recommends archaeological survey of the
western portion of the project area to current professional standards. Archaeological
survey is stipulated under the original zoning case (Z-165-06) approved by the City
Phoenix Council on October 10, 2007. Additional archaeological work such as data
testing excavations or monitoring may be necessary based upon the results of the
survey. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in consultation with the

This work is recommended in order to assist the project proponent in complying with the
State Burial Law, ARS 41-865, and Chapter 8, Section 802[B2] of the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.

Aviation
No response.




Page 685
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


Fire Prevention
Fire prevention does not anticipate any problems with this case. The site or/and
building(s) shall comply with the Phoenix Fire Code.

Also, we do not know what the water supply (GPM and PSI) is at this site. Additional
water supply may be required to meet the required fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.

Floodplain Management
We have determined that the project is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) but is located in a Shaded Zone X, on panel 2660 L of the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. Based on the project information provided, there
are no Floodplain Management requirements to fulfill.

Light Rail
No response.

Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Department would require that the developer/owner dedicate a 30-
foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along the west side of 35th Avenue and the
north side of Carver Road and construct a 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) within the
easement as indicated in Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement.

Public Transit
No comments.

Street Transportation
1. The developer shall provide a primary roadway from 35th Avenue extended to the
western property boundary, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

2. The primary roadway connecting 35th Avenue to the western edge of the property
line shall terminate as a stub street to the adjacent undeveloped land to the west
to provide for a future vehicular connection.

3. The proposal shall eliminate the stipulation related to rolled and vertical curbs.

4. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way as determined by Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) for 35th Avenue and as approved by
Planning and Development Department.

5. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way as determined by Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) for Carver Avenue and as approved by
Planning and Development Department.

Pedestrian Safety Coordinator - Street Transportation Department, Traffic Services
Division



Page 686
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


The development should include detached sidewalks along Carver Road and along 35th
Avenue. The south side of Carver Road has a canal and restrictive barriers, which would
make it likely for pedestrians to use the north side of the road. The east side of 35th
Avenue is county jurisdiction, making it unlikely for any future development to include
detached sidewalks on the east side of 35th Avenue. The speed limit on both roads is 45
mph but we often receive complaints from residents in this area that these speed limits
are not respected, and people go 15 and 20 miles over the speed limit. This condition is
aggravated by the road slopes and overall darker conditions in this area. Therefore, in
order to provide a safer environment for pedestrians the developer should include
detached sidewalks with a generous landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the
road.

Water Services
New public water mains required per the Carver Mountain Master Plan. This project falls
within pressure Zone 2S. Anew Zone 2S, 12-inch main shall be required from the existing
12-inch water main east of the proposed project (approximately 2,200 linear feet) within
Elliot Road, west to 35th Avenue, north on 35th Avenue crossing the canal and then
northeast within the Carver Road alignment (north side of canal) and tie into the existing
12-inch main within 27th Avenue. The existing 8-inch main within the Carver Road
alignment west of 27th Ave will need to be replaced by the new 12-inch main. A 12-inch
2S main will also need to be extended north on 35th Avenue along the frontage of the
proposed project. All onsite water will have to remain private, owned and maintained by
the homeowners.

All onsite sewer will have to remain private, owned and maintained by the homeowners.
The closest available sewer is approximately 2,800 linear feet north of the proposed
project. Given topography of the area to reach this available sewer, a private lift station
and private force main will be required. There is another available sewer main within 43rd
Avenue just north of the Elliot Canal but would require crossing several private properties
with the private force mains. Another option is to build a gravity sewer from the proposed
project west along Carver Road to 51st Avenue and then north to Dobbins Road and 51st
Avenue.

Standard Note Applies:
Please be advised that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to
a variety of factors. It is the City's intent to provide water and sewer service. However, the
requirements and assurances for water and sewer service are determined during the site
plan application review. For any given property, water and sewer requirements may vary
over time to be less or more restrictive depending on the status of the City’s water and
sewer infrastructure.

EXISTING WATER
Water mains: No Services

Services: City map shows none




Page 687
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


EXISTING SEWER
Sewer mains: No Services

SERVICES
City map shows none

REPAYMENT: N/A

VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Laveen Village Planning Committee (VPC) heard this case on January 13, 2020 and
recommended denial by a vote of 11-0. The Laveen VPC motion also included a request
that the Planning Hearing Officer recommend to the Planning Commission to initiate a
zoning reversion for the site.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings:

1) The subject property of this request includes the entire 59 acres that comprised
the original rezoning case. However, the applicant only submitted plans
addressing the approximately 19.4 acres of R1-8 zoned property on the eastern
portion of the site, adjacent to 35th Avenue. Modifications are recommended to
the applicant’s request to ensure that the existing stipulations on the approximately
39.6 acres of R1-18 zoned property on the western portion of the site are not
modified or deleted. Additionally, the applicant did not submit elevations with the
request. The original stipulations included a general conformance requirement for
building elevations. A modification is recommended to the applicant’s request to
require a future Planning Hearing Officer application for review of conceptual
building elevations.

2) The stipulated site plan depicted 99 detached single-family units arranged in
clusters of two and four, oriented towards common courtyards. There are also
seven free-standing units depicted at the northwest corner of the site partially in
the hillside-designated area. The proposed conceptual site plan depicts 92 units
in a similar cluster-style arrangement. However, the units have been shifted east
on the property, reducing the total massing of development in the designated
hillside areas. Additionally, the homes are not oriented towards courtyards and
instead include larger private driveways in the front yards. There is more open
space preserved in the hillside area in the northwest portion of the site. There is
also more open space adjacent to the private accessways (Tract “A”) which
separates the homes from the streets. Because the homes are closer to 35th
Avenue, there is less open space provided along the east property line. See
Finding #3 for a more detailed description of the recommendation for minimum
open space and Finding #4 regarding the landscape setback on 35th Avenue.

3) An additional stipulation is recommended to require the developer provide a
minimum of 26% open space, of which a minimum of 12% shall be usable open



Page 688
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


space. The conceptual site plan depicts 40.47% open space. However, there is
no open space exhibit and the applicant indicated that a recalculation was
necessary to adequately represent provided open space in the hillside area,
setbacks, and other locations. The provision of 26% open space is compatible
with the rural character of the surrounding area, consistent with other recent
zoning actions in the Village, and significantly exceeds existing Ordinance
standards.

4) The proposed reduction of the landscape setback on 35th Avenue from 235 feet
(average) to minimum 100 feet accommodates the relocation of some residential
units out of the designated hillside areas, consistent with the City approved slope
analysis. The preservation of the hillside area will contribute to the rural character
of the site and maintain this unique natural feature of the property. See Finding #9
regarding the restoration of the disturbed area on the abandoned gravel mine that
occupies a portion of the remainder of the site.

5) Approximately 2,300 feet to the east of the subject property are the Hangar
Hacienda Units One, Two, and Three subdivisions. These properties are in
Maricopa County jurisdiction. These communities are oriented around an air strip
utilized by residents who own private aircraft. Based on comments from a resident
in this community, the typical flight path runs directly over the subject property of
this request. An additional stipulation is recommended regarding notification of the
aviation uses on these properties for future residents.

6) The subject property is archaeologically sensitive. Three additional stipulations
are recommended which outline the City’s requirements regarding data testing,
data recovery, and archaeological assessments and survey.

7) The public right-of-way along 35th Avenue and a small portion along Carver Road
is in Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) jurisdiction. There
is also an active drainage project along the roadway. Therefore, additional
stipulations are recommended to acknowledge that MCDOT shall determine the
final width and dedications needed for the portion of right-of-way adjacent to the
subject property. City of Phoenix Street Transportation staff noted that in
discussions with MCDOT staff, MCDOT does not have immediate concerns
regarding the location of proposed retention areas shown on the conceptual site
plan in regard to the drainage project.

8) Original Stipulation 19 states that approval shall be conditioned upon the
development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval. For
properties with similar stipulations, the Planning and Development Department has
required that a Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) action be pursued to modify or
delete these conditions at the time that development is proposed, if the proposed
development has exceeded the timeframe identified in the stipulation. The
applicant is pursuing this process through their request for deletion of the
stipulation. The modification or deletion of this stipulation through a PHO action is



Page 689
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


unrelated to the zoning reversion process which is a separate public hearing
process that is described in Section 506 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The applicant’s request for deletion of original Stipulation 19 is recommended for
approval. The current proposal is consistent with the City Council’s original intent
to see the subject property redevelop with a single-family residential land use in
the R1-8 zoning district. Additionally, the request is consistent with City Council
approved General Plan Amendment GPA-LV-1-08-7, which established a
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per gross acre land use designation on the
approximately 19.35 acres that comprises the R1-8 zoned portion of the property.
Both the proposed conceptual site plan, as modified by this recommendation, and
the existing R1-8 zoning designation are consistent with this land use designation.

9) Original Stipulation #27, requiring terraced berms planted with deciduous trees,
may result in an environment that contrasts with the natural landscape of the
existing hillside in the surrounding area. The stipulated terraced berm
configuration is not consistent with the irregular natural landscape of the existing
hillside in the surrounding area and there are no deciduous trees on hillside
locations in the immediate vicinity. Proposals for fill are commonly intended to
continue and promote a natural slope line, rather than creating terracing and other
unnatural finishes.

There are a variety of alternatives to the stipulated requirement for terraced berms
that may be considered for the site that would result in a more natural aesthetic to
the restored hillside. These include chemical treatments and coloration to remove
or camouflage scarring, hydroseeding of the slope to provide a mixture of natural
grasses and plants which may also stabilize the slope, and roughening the cut or
restored slope to integrate pockets for additional native landscaping.

Modified stipulation language is recommended to allow the applicant to work with
City staff on an alternative approach to restoring the quarry cut slope base to
promote a more natural landscape along the hillside.

10) The provision of detached sidewalks is consistent with numerous City policy plans.
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Additionally, the City Council adopted Guiding Principles
for Complete Streets seeks to make Phoenix more walkable by promoting a safe
and inviting pedestrian environment that encourages walkability and thermal
comfort. These principles are also expressed and expanded upon throughout the
2015 General Plan.

Therefore, the applicant’s request to delete this requirement and instead stipulate
a 5-foot sidewalk width is recommended for denial. However, the street layout on
the proposed conceptual site plan may require the utilization of both private drives
(between units) and private accessways (Tract “A”). There are different technical



Page 690
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


requirements and cross sections for these street types and it may be difficult to
integrate detached sidewalks along both sides of private drives.
A modification of the applicant’s request is recommended to require that detached
sidewalks shall be provided, as originally stipulated, along all streets that are
developed as public streets or private accessways.

11) The Street Transportation Department noted that both original Stipulation 31 and
the applicant’s proposed modified language may create conflicts if the
development is to include both attached and detached sidewalks. The City of
Phoenix standard detail for detached sidewalks along private accessways requires
vertical curbs. Attached sidewalks may be permitted to provide rolled curbs.
Deletion of the stipulation will allow the appropriate detail to be utilized based on
the final configuration of sidewalks at appropriate locations throughout the
development.

12) Original Stipulation 39 required that homes along 35th Avenue would be limited to
one-story. The stipulation did not specify a maximum building height. Additionally,
it is unclear whether the stipulation was intended to apply to the individual units
located closest to 35th Avenue or the entire clusters. The original stipulation may
permit a variety of building heights and locations for height-restricted lots.

However, the intent of the stipulation was to mitigate the impacts of building height
for units closest to 35th Avenue and would have impacted homes at approximately
235 feet (the stipulated average setback in original Stipulation 7). This remains a
valid concern and consistent with the design of other recent projects in the Village.
Therefore, the applicant’s request for deletion of this stipulation is recommended
for denial. An alternative stipulation is proposed that limits maximum building
height to 20 feet for the 12 lots that are located within approximately 235 feet of
35th Avenue. This recommendation is intended to clarify the limitation on building
height and identify the specific lots impacted.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS

General

1. That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 8, 2007, and elevations date stamped February 20, 2007, as
modified by the following stipulations, and as approved by the Development
Services Department.

1. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019, AS MODIFIED BY
THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE
FOLLOWING:



Page 691
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission




A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM 35TH
AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

B. THE PRIMARY ROADWAY CONNECTING 35TH AVENUE TO THE
WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL TERMINATE AS A
STUB STREET TO THE ADJACENT UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE WEST
TO PROVIDE FOR A FUTURE VEHICULAR CONNECTION.

2. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER
THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR STIPULATION
MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS A
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE DETERMINED
BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER AND THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3. THE R1-18 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 8, 2007, AND ELEVATIONS
DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 20, 2007, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

4. That dDevelopment of the R1-18 portion of the site shall not exceed 22 lots.
2.

5. That dDevelopment of the R1-8 portion of the site shall not exceed a density of 99
3. lots.

6. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 26% OPEN
SPACE, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 12% SHALL BE USABLE OPEN SPACE,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

Site Design

7. That uUnobstructed pedestrian access (for the purpose of private pedestrian
4. connectivity internal to the site) between the R1-18 and R1-8 portions of the site
shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

8. That nNo solid wall in excess of three feet in height as measured from the finished
5. grade, shall be located on the site (either in private lots or common tracts) except



Page 692
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


that solid walls greater than three feet in height shall be allowed for the following
purposes, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

a. Walls utilized to screen utilities, trash enclosures, or other facilities
generally considered to be visually obtrusive.

b. Retaining wall.

9. That nNo more than 60,000 square feet of natural turf area shall be located within
6. the common areas of the R1-8 portion of the site (this requirement does not apply
to synthetic turf); if provided, common area natural turf should be centrally located
and grouped so as to create one contiguous natural turf recreation area, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

10. That a 235-foot (average), 200-foot (minimum) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL
7. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 100 FOOT landscaped setback ALONG THE EAST
PROPERTY LINE adjacent to 35th Avenue shall be provided, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

11. That a A 50-foot (minimum) landscaped setback adjacent to Carver Road (final
8. alignment) shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

12. That tThose portions of spider and jeep trails which are not part of the approved
9. grading envelopes, access drives, or other necessary site disturbance related to
the proposed development of the R1-8 portion of the site shall be re-vegetated in
a manner consistent with adjacent undisturbed vegetation, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Disclosures

13. That pPrior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents
10. that disclose to tenants of the site or purchasers of property within the site, the
existence, proximity, and operational characteristics of active agricultural uses
and non-domesticated animal keeping. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided, which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

14. THAT PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER
SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE TO TENANTS OF THE SITE
OR PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE, THE EXISTENCE,
PROXIMITY, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTIVE AVIATION
USES IN THE HANGAR HACIENDAS UNITS ONE, TWO, AND THREE
SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,300 FEET TO THE EAST OF



Page 693
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN MARICOPA COUNTY. THE FORM AND
CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE
TEMPLATES AND INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED, WHICH HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Parks and Recreation

15. That tThe developer shall dedicate a multi-use trail easement and construct a
11. multi-use trail, per adopted standards, along the north side of Carver Road, as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Archaeology

16. That tThe applicant shall complete an archaeological survey report of the
12. development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, or grading.

17. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE,
THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING AND SUBMIT
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, LANDSCAPE SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING
APPROVAL.

18. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF THE
RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST,
IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES
SUCH DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THE
APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA
RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS.

19. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE
ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33-FOOT RADIUS OF THE
DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND ALLOW TIME FOR
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE MATERIALS.

Street Transportation

20. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 35th
13. Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. 35th Avenue shall
be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

21. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of Carver



Page 694
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


14. Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. Carver Road shall
be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 35TH AVENUE AS
DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARVER ROAD
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

24. That aA traffic impact study shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Street
15. Transportation Department prior to PLANNING AND Development Services
Department preliminary site plan approval. That all right-of-way dedications and
associated infrastructure improvements as recommended by the traffic impact
study shall be installed by the developer, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

25. That tThe developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
16. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median
islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as modified by these stipulations, and
as approved by the Street Transportation Department. All improvements shall
comply with all AmericanS with Disabilities Act accessibility standards.

26. That tThe applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information
17. Form for the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Improvement
Program. This form is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency to
meet clean air quality requirements.

27. That pPrior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
18. Proposition 207 waiver of claims utilizing the provided template. The waiver shall
be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and a copy shall be
provided to the PLANNING AND Development Services Department for the case
files.

19. That approval shall be conditional upon the development commencing within 48
months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with
Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection
of the building walls on site.

Neighborhood



Page 695
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission




28. That bBuilding pad cuts shall be terraced if more than 6 feet in height and treated
20. with a stain, gunnite, or equivalent finish, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

29. That aAll two story homes, within the R1-18 portion of the site, shall be designed
21. in a manner such that the square footage of the second story floor area does not
exceed 66 percent of the first story floor area does not exceed 66 percent of the
first story floor area, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

30. That cConcrete channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
22. through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

31. That tThe use of riprap and engineered culverts shall be minimized and, where
23. utilized, shall be integrated with the desert setting through color, texture, soil
plating, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. To the extent possible, culverts shall be
undersized to allow minor flows (10 cfs or smaller) to cross roadways in their
natural condition.

32. That wWashes with a one-hundred-year peak flow of 200 cfs or greater shall be
24. preserved and enhanced with native vegetation as described in Appendix A,
Approved Plant Species List for Sonoran Preserve Edge Treatment Guidelines,
as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

33. That lLots with 2 or more sides abutting undisturbed open space shall be
25. designed with obtuse angles, rather than right angles or acute angles, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

34. That oOn non-hillside lots within the R1-18 portion of the development, all
26. improvements, including driveways, landscaping, and underground utilities shall
be located within a building envelope occupying no more than 50 percent of the
lot up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

35. That a A minimum of three terraced berms with 2:1 fill slopes shall be installed
27. along the full length of the quarry cut slope base. The terraces shall BE LIMITED
TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF be 8 feet tall, minimum, and shall be PLANTED
plated with a staggered combination of 2-inch and 4-inch caliper, drought
resistant, deciduous trees at 25 feet ON center OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS to center, as approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.




Page 696
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


THE DEVELOPER MAY ALSO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR
THE NATURALIZING AND BLENDING OF THE QUARRY CUT SLOPE WITH
THE ADJACENT UNDISTURBED HILLSIDE AREA, AS APPROVED OR
MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

36. That sSolid block walls, except for retaining walls or privacy fencing on individual
28. lots, shall not be constructed outside of the building envelopes for the R1-18
portion of the site, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department. Fencing constructed outside of the building envelope shall be
combination solid/view fencing. In addition, all fencing above the 15 percent slope
line shall be 100 percent view fencing.

37. That tThe entire 60-acre site shall have no perimeter fencing, as approved by the
29. PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

38. That pPrivate roadways within the R1-18 portion of the site shall be provided with
30. ribbon curbs and colored asphalt, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

39. That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with a
31. raised, vertical curb, as approved by the Development Services Department.

40. That aAll HVAC units shall be ground mounted.
32.

41. That aAll street lighting and wall mounted security fixtures shall be full cut off
33. lighting. Fixture height shall be a maximum of 12 feet. Street lighting fixtures shall
be decorative and have a consistent architectural theme, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

42. That bBollards shall be used for accent lighting at the primary access, entry
34. monument, driveways, and trail crossings, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. Photovoltaic energy sources for bollard
lighting shall be provided.

43. That aAny request to delete or modify these stipulations SHALL be preceded by
35. A presentation to the Laveen Village Planning Committee (VPC) for review and
recommendation, and notification to the following persons two weeks prior to
presentation at the VPC:

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274



Page 697
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission




d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

44. That tThe following individuals shall be notified of any and all PLANNING AND
36. Development Services Department (DSD) meetings which are open to the public.
The applicant shall be responsible for notification to the following via a first-class
letter to be mailed at least two weeks prior to the DSD meeting(s):

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

45. That aAll sidewalks, within the R1-8 portion of the site, WHICH ARE
37. DEVELOPED ALONG STREETS DEVELOPED AS PUBLIC STREETS OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include
minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum rate of 20 feet on
center or IN equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved
OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. The
landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and maintained by the
homeowners’ association.

46. That aA mix of two and three-inch caliper trees shall be provided within all
38. required common open space tracts. With the exception of the open space area
adjacent to 35th Avenue, the species of trees provided shall shade 50 percent of
the area of the open space at tree maturity, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.




Page 698
Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission


47. That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.
39.
LOTS 52-61 AND 82-83, LOCATED ALONG 35TH AVENUE AND AS DEPICTED
ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019, ARE LIMITED TO
A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

48. That aA detailed site plan, landscaping plan, elevations, perimeter fence or wall
40. plan, lighting plan, and entry monument signage shall be reviewed by the Laveen
Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.


PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this request be denied as filed and approved with modifications
and additional stipulations as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.

ATTACHMENTS
A – Appeal Documents (4 pages)
B – Applicant’s Narrative (4 pages)
C – Aerial Map (1 page)
D – Zoning Map (1 page)
E – Ordinance G-5020 from Rezoning Case No. Z-165-06-7 (11 pages)
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-165-06-7 (1 page)
G – Proposed Site Plan date stamped November 21, 2019 (3 pages)
H – Stipulated Site Plan date stamped October 8, 2007 (1 page)
I – Stipulated Elevations (2 pages)
J – Laveen Village Planning Committee Minutes (13 pages)
K – PHO Summary for Z-165-06-7(8) (PHO-1-19) (18 pages)
L – Correspondence (191 pages)




Page 699
ATTACHMENT A




Page 700
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO: PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
LOCATION: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
PHO HEARING DATE: 1/15/20 (UA 2/13/20) RECEIVED: 2/14/20
APPEALED BY: Opposition Applicant
APPEALED TO: PLANNING 4/2/20
COMMISSION TENTATIVE DATE
CITY COUNCIL
TENTATIVE DATE
NAME/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP PHONE #
Cyd Manning
3220 West Ceton Drive 480-747-0769
Laveen, Arizona 85339
RECEIPT NUMBER:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The City of Phoenix is in violation of its own Zoning Ordinance and is bound to
enforce Ordinance G-5020--Z-165-06-7. The zoning on this property expired October
2011 and is technically S-1. Stipulation 19 was approved with the original case to
protect the community from the R1-8 spot zoning that was clearly inconsistent with
the area in 2007 and is clearly inconsistent today. Deleting Stipulation 19 is
negligence in enforcement. The Planning Commission & City Council can and should
immediately correct the violation and codify the zoning reversion to S-1 and realign
the General Plan, prior to hearing any requested action on this case. The applicant
states they will sue the City if they don't get what they want regarding deleting
Stipulation 19. No one is above the law.
Taken By: Radesha Williams

c: Ben Ernyei – Posting
Benjamin Kim, IS
PDD All


S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\PHO Appeal Form.doc




Page 701
Page 702
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO: PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
LOCATION: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
PHO HEARING DATE: 1/15/20 (UA 2/13/20) RECEIVED: 2/14/20
APPEALED BY: Opposition Applicant
APPEALED TO: PLANNING 4/2/20
COMMISSION TENTATIVE DATE
CITY COUNCIL
TENTATIVE DATE
NAME/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP PHONE #
Lisa Vializ
8921 South 53rd Drive 602-741-5722
Laveen, Arizona 85339
RECEIPT NUMBER:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The City of Phoenix is in violation of its own Zoning Ordinance and is bound to
enforce Ordinance G-5020--Z-165-06-7. The zoning on this property expired October
2011 and is therefore S-1. Stipulation 19 was approved as part of the original zoning
case to protect the community from R-8 spot zoning. That was clearly inconsistent
with the area in 2007 and is clearly inconsistent today. Deleting Stipulation 19 is
negligence in enforcement. The Planning Commission and City Council can and
should immediately correct the violation and codify the zoning reversion to S-1 and
align the General Plan with S-1 prior to hearing and requested action on this case.
The applicant states they will sue the City if they do not set what they want regarding
deleting Stipulation 19. No one is above the law.
Taken By: Radesha Williams

c: Ben Ernyei – Posting
Benjamin Kim, IS
PDD All


S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\PHO Appeal Form.doc




Page 703
Page 704
ATTACHMENT B




Page 705
December 9, 2019


Planning Hearing Officer
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


RE: Request to modify stipulations for Rezoning Case Z-165-06


Dear Planning Hearing Officer:


Rose Law Group pc on behalf of Virtua 35th LLC (the “Owner”) is pleased to request a
Stipulation Modification to Ordinance G-5020 (Case Z-165-06-7) for 58.998 acres of
real property located on the northwest corner of Carver Rd. and 35th Ave. (the
“Property”), APN# 300-11-008V. This request is being made in order to facilitate and
rationalize development on a property that has served as a blighted site for decades.
Although the site has been vacant for over a decade, previous land uses included mining
activity. Unnatural topography and significant disturbance are testament to the site’s
history and can still be seen today. Redevelopment of the Property proposes to
revitalize the scarred areas while protecting those environmental features that still exist.
The Property is located within Council District 7 and the Village of Laveen. Existing and
developing residential communities are located in the surrounding area, including the
property adjacent to the site’s southern boundary, an approximately 96 acre future
residential community. Ancillary roadway and offsite improvements are also
anticipated with the development of this site.
The subject zoning case (Z-165-06) was heard and approved by City of Phoenix Council
on October 10, 2007 after appearing before Planning Commission and the Laveen
Village Planning Committee. The zoning case was approved to rezone approximately
sixty acres of S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to forty acres R1-18 (Single-Family
Residence) and twenty acres R1-8 (Single-Family Residences). In the original
stipulations density per zoning district is stipulated at a maximum of twenty two lots on
the R1-18, 40 acre area, and a maximum of 99 lots on the R1-8, 20 acre portion, for a
total of 121 lots on approximately 60 acres.
The Owner proposes to maintain the intent of the original zoning case by not modifying
those stipulations related to the R1-18 portion, and proposing a similar site plan and
density that was approved, with a more practical, sensitive, and luxury approach on the
R1-8 portion. Connections to the future community to the south, less units overall,
sensitivity and specification on the site’s hillside topography, and trail opportunities are



Page 706
some of the ways the Property owner has holistically designed the site to respond to the
community and the environment. The proposed lot dimensions have been updated
since the original site plan, but maintains consistency with the conceptual elevations.
This responds to market demand while implementing the luxuries of fee simple lots and
private amenities.
Many years have passed since the rezoning and most of the surrounding area has
changed hands and been partially developed. Subsequently some of the stipulations
imposed as conditions of the zone change are no longer relevant or practical.
Accordingly, the applicant believes that is appropriate to modify Z-165-06 stipulations
and request modifications and deletions as shown below in legislative form. Please note
this request only impacts the R1-8 (eastern +/-20 acres) portion and no stipulation or
site plan modifications are requested to the western +/-40 acres of R1-18.
Proposed Modifications to Ordinance G-5020 (Case Z-165-06-7) Stipulations
1. That R1-8 development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 8, 2007 August 29, 2018, and elevations date stamped
February 20, 2007, as modified by the following stipulations, and as approved by
the Development Services Department.

Modification Rationale: A new site plan is proposed with this application to
facilitate an alternative residential development on the eastern 20 acres. The
proposed development will alter lot design and location but will not amend the
approved density. The site plan considers the future development to the south
and offers connectivity through a shared emergency exit road, as well as
pedestrian linkage. Product elevations are still conceptual and will be finalized
upon engagement from a builder. Until this time, the property owner would
like to maintain elevation flexibility, but is willing to stipulate to lot design.

2. That R1-18 development shall be in general conformance with the site
plan date stamped October 8,2007, as modified by the following
stipulations, and as approved by the Development Services
Department.

Addition Rationale: No change to the R1-18 portion of the site (western 40
acres) is proposed with this application. Therefore, the applicant is willing to
maintain general conformance to the site plan provided in the original zoning
case.

7. That a 235-foot (average), 200-foot (minimum) MINIMUM ONE HUNDRED
(100) FOOT landscaped setback adjacent to 35th Avenue shall be provided, as
approved by the Development Services Department.

Modification Rationale: Several reasons play into the justification of a decrease
in landscape setbacks along 35th Ave. First, the site plan setting this
requirement in the zoning case was purely conceptual and did not elevate the
site plan design to a technical level, including but not limited to parking




Page 707
requirements, retention requirements, grading, street standards, etc. The
proposed site plan conforms to the technical standards of the City, and
subsequently requires additional space. The site plan has also slightly shifted
east decreasing the landscape setback along 35th Ave. in order to mitigate
disturbance to the environmentally sensitive areas located in the northwest
corner. Other upgrades to the community have been made that have detracted
from the setback along 35th Ave. including garage parking and additional
common amenity spaces. It is worth noting that the stipulated landscape
setback along Carver Road is maintained with this request.

19. That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48
months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with
Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection
of building walls on site.

Deletion Rationale: As mentioned before the property owner is not a
homebuilder and therefore does not have control of when building permits will
be pulled. It is also likely that the developer of the R1-8 portion will be different
than the builder of the R1-18 area, which is unreasonable to tie both areas to the
same timeline. Additionally, the R1-18 lots lend to custom homesite, where an
individual person could design and build independently. Removing this
stipulation does not change the integrity of the project but allows for flexibility
of timing so a quality developer/person can thoughtfully execute every aspect of
the proposed site plan.

27. That a minimum of three terraced berms with 2:1 fill slopes shall be installed
along the full length of the quarry cut slope base. The terraces shall be 8 feet tall,
minimum MAXIMUM, and shall be plated with a staggered combination of 2-
inch and 4-inch caliper, drought¬ resistant, deciduous trees at 25 feet center to
center, as approved by the Development Services Department.

Modification Rationale: It is likely that the intent of this stipulation was to limit
the disturbance to the area and treat in a way that would blend with the natural
environment. Therefore, limiting the terrace height accomplishes this goal
further.

31. That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with a
raised, vertical curb ROLL CURB, as approved by the Development Services
Department.

Modification Rational: The proposed community will likely be private, and
therefore implement the City of Phoenix standard of “Private Accessway.” This
detail depicts a roll curb.

37. That all sidewalks, within the R1-8 portion of the site, shall be A MINIMUM
WIDTH OF FIVE (5) FEET. detached with a minimum five-foot-wide




Page 708
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include
minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum rate of 20 feet on
center or equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved by
the Development Services Department. The landscape strip shall be installed by
the developer and maintained by the homeowners association.

Modification Rationale: As previously mentioned the site plan approved with
the current zoning case was conceptual and did not take into detail the technical
aspect of implementing detached sidewalks of this magnitude. The proposed
site plan has better utilized the site’s space and has offered attached five foot
wide sidewalks on all major circulation routes, in addition to multi-use trails.
Landscaping has been appropriately planned to maximize areas of shade, while
recognizing the importance of drought tolerant plant species. It should also be
noted that mature trees often thrive in a more natural environment versus a
constrained five foot landscape strip.

39. That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.

Deletion Rationale: This stipulation, as written, is unclear and fails to define
homes “along” 35th Ave. and specification of a building height associated with
the stated stories. Additionally, given the proposed lot size and garage option,
any single-story home would have severe square footage constraints. Deletion
of this stipulation will eliminate various interpretations and mandate that all
building heights conform to the zoning requirement (two stories and thirty feet).

The stipulations imposed in 2007 under zoning case Z-165-06 were based on a
conceptual site plan that didn’t consider the environmental and technical constraints of
this unique site. This coupled with the change in market demand, evolving community,
and adjacent residential development, justifies the needs to update and simplify the
subject stipulations. This will result in a thriving and unique community on a vacant
and otherwise blighted site. The proposed modifications reflect an effort to produce an
appealing and sensitive development that aligns with the desires of the City and the
community.




Page 709
ATTACHMENT C




Page 710
S 35TH AVE




Page 711
RD
ER
RV
CA
W

AL
AN W CETON DR
C
E
L IN
GH
HI




Maricopa County Assessor's Office



PHO-1-19--Z-33-165-06-7
Property Location: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road


Planning & Development Department 0 160 320 640 Feet
´
ATTACHMENT D




Page 712
S-1
R1-18 PRD*




S-1


S 35TH AVE

R1-18*



Page 713
R1-8* RD
ER
RV
CA
W

AL
C AN RE-35*
E
L IN
GH
HI
R1-18* S-1*




PHO-1-19--Z-33-165-06-7
Property Location: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road


Planning & Development Department 0 160 320 640 Feet
´
ATTACHMENT E




Page 714
Page 715
Page 716
Page 717
Page 718
Page 719
Page 720
Page 721
Page 722
Page 723
Page 724
Page 725
ATTACHMENT F




Page 726
OLNEY AV
R1-18 PRD *
D
TR COUNTY
APP
IO
Z-86-01
L R1-10 *
EL
Z-128-02
Z-79-04


S-1


Phoenix City Limits




35TH AV
MARICOPA
COUNTY
MARICOPA
COUNTY
S-1
S-1




CETON RD
(ELLIOT ALIGNMENT)
RD
R
R VE
APP CA
R1-18 PRD *
S-1 Z-51-05
Z-111-05


MARICOPA
ANX 342




COUNTY




Z-165-06
BROADWAY RD

SOUTHERN AVE

BASELINE RD

NORTH
75TH AVE
DOBBINS RD

700 350 0 700 Feet
67TH AVE
ELLIOT RD

ESTRELLA DR

CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT 59TH AVE


LAVEEN VILLAGE 51ST AVE
27TH AVE

43RD AVE 35TH AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
LVA URBAN DESIGN STUDIO - ALAN BEAUDOIN FROM:
S-1 (59.0 ac)
APPLICATION NO. 04-10-2007
Z-165-06
DATE:

REVISION DATES:
12-21-2006 10-09-2007
R1-8 (19.4 ac)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX. TO:
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP


59 Acres R1-18 (39.6 ac)
QUARTER SEC. NO.

Q04-20 C6
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 59 N/A
R1-8 / R1-18 77 / 77 100 / 92
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 727 (N:\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2006\Z-165-06.mxd) 10/9/2007
ATTACHMENT G




Page 728
352326('6,7(3/$1




Page 729
352326('6,7(3/$1




Page 730
352326('6,7(3/$1




Page 731
ATTACHMENT H




Page 732
STIPULATED SITE PLAN




Page 733
ATTACHMENT I




Page 734
STIPULATED ELEVATIONS




Page 735
STIPULATED ELEVATIONS




Page 736
ATTACHMENT J




Page 737
LAVEEN VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 13, 2020
Laveen Elementary School District Office #59
Laveen Education Center, Building B, Room #101
5001 West Dobbins Road, Laveen, Arizona.


Members Present Members Excused Staff Present
Robert Branscomb, Chair Samantha Keating
Tonya Glass, Vice Chair Sarah Stockham
Linda Abegg Christine Mackay
Wendy Ensminger
Cinthia Estela
Gary Flunoy
Rochelle Harlin
Stephanie Hurd
John Mockus
Carlos Ortega
Jennifer Rouse


1. Call to order, introductions and announcements by Chair.

Chairman Robert Branscomb called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. There was a
quorum with 11 members present.

2. Review and approval of the December 9, 2019, meeting minutes.

MOTION

Ms. Stephanie Hurd moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. John Mockus
seconded the motion.

Vote
11-0, Motion to approve, with Committee Members Abegg, Branscomb, Ensminger,
Estela, Flunoy, Glass, Harlin, Hurd, Mockus, Ortega and Rouse in favor.

3. Public comment concerning items not on the agenda.
Mr. Jon Kimoto commented that the Pledge of Allegiance was dropped from the
agenda. He stated that the Pledge represents three basic American values: in God we
trust, liberty, and “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one). He requested that the
committee reaffirm our tradition and implement the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Phil Hertel led the committee and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. INFORMATION ONLY: Presentation and discussion regarding economic development
opportunities for the Loop 202 corridor.


Page 738
Ms. Christine Mackay, Community and Economic Development Director, presented on
economic development along the Loop 202 Corridor. She expects high-tech and
advanced services jobs along the Corridor. She explained that the marketing name is
the “South Mountain Technology Corridor” which intends to bring high-wage jobs to the
area. She explained that her office is doing marketing and outreach to get the right
companies and jobs in Laveen.

Ms. Hurd expressed concern that a large technology company had lost interest in
relocating to the area.

Ms. Mackay replied that her office is continuing to reach out to other large technology
companies.

Mr. Flunoy wanted to see more signage stating the name of the freeway as the Ed
Pastor Freeway.

Vice Chair Glass requested to be included in a subcommittee of community members
who meet with the technology companies. She would also like to help draft marketing
language for Laveen.

Ms. Mackay explained that community members can meet with City staff but meetings
with technology companies must remain confidential due to non-disclosure agreements.

Mr. James Hughes inquired if the City was partnering with the County as there is
County-owned land along the Corridor and if the City has education efforts for the
Corridor as well.

Ms. Mackay replied that education is key and that training the workforce is pivotal to
making the area desirable.

Ms. Jane Craig commented that there is a lack of trees along Baseline Road.

Ms. Mackay replied that the City has a capital improvement program to address those
concerns.

Mr. Dan Penton explained that it is critical that the vision for the Laveen Village be
acknowledged and listed existing area assets.

Ms. Mackay responded that she hoped to return the Village Planning Committee within
the first half of 2020 with an update.

6. Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19): Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation on a
request to modify stipulations of entitlement for a property located on the northwest
corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road. Request to modify stipulation 1 regarding
general conformance to the site plan date stamped October 8, 2007 and elevations date
stamped February 20, 2007; modification of Stipulation 7 regarding the landscape
setback adjacent to 35th Avenue; deletion of Stipulation 19 regarding conditional
development approval; modification of Stipulation 27 regarding height of terraced berms


Page 739
along the quarry cut slope base; modification of Stipulation 31 regarding raised, vertical
curbs within the R1-18 portion of the site; modification of Stipulation 37 regarding
detached sidewalks and landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of the site; deletion of
Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes along 35th Avenue; and technical corrections
to Stipulations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38,
40.

Chair Branscomb elected to hear this item out of order.

1 speaker card was submitted in favor, wishing to speak.

1 speaker card was submitted in favor, not wishing to speak.

28 speaker cards were submitted in opposition, wishing to speak. Ten of those
speakers chose to donate their time to Cyd Manning. Two of those speakers chose to
donate their time to Jon Kimoto. One speaker chose to donate their time to John Knight.
One speaker chose to donate their time to Scott Johnson.

99 speaker cards were submitted in opposition, not wishing to speak.

Ms. Sarah Stockham, staff, provided on overview of the request. She displayed an
aerial map, previously approved site plan, proposed site plan, and briefly reviewed the
request for stipulation modifications and deletions.

Mr. Tom Galvin, with Rose Law Group, explained the history of the case. He stated
that the reason for the request is in response to on-site conditions and to comply with
the Hillside Ordinance. He explained that they are not requesting a change in zoning,
their proposal is less dense than what was originally proposed and that they are
providing twenty-three percent open space. He then reviewed each stipulation
modification and deletion. He explained that the reason to update the dates in
Stipulation 1 is to match the current plan dates. The reason for modification of the
required setbacks along 35th Avenue in Stipulation 7 is that the slope analysis required
that the homes be shifted east to protect the natural hillside feature. He continued that
Proposition 207 renders Stipulation 19 moot. He explained that modifying Stipulation 27
is for safety concerns regarding a terrace height of eight feet or more. He continued that
landscaping and beatification of the quarry is still proposed, but under safer conditions.
He stated that Stipulation 31 with the roll curb requirement violates the City’s current
standard and that the private drives will conform to the City of Phoenix’s standards. He
added that modifying Stipulation 37 to remove the detached sidewalk requirement is to
conform to City standards. He explained that additional trails are offered through
common area open spaces and surrounded by landscaping. Lastly, he explained that
deletion of Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes along 35th Avenue is necessary to
provide diversity of housing size, style, and consumer choices.

Mr. Mockus inquired if the developer will be bringing in water service to the area and
who will bear the cost of the water service extension.

Mr. Jeff Giles, with Clouse Engineering, explained that they will be working with


Page 740
another developer to bring in water and sewer services. He added that there might be
some cost sharing between their group and another developer.

Ms. Rouse shared a concern with lighting in the area. She added that the posted speed
limit is too fast and that is a blind turn when rounding the corner from 35th Avenue to
Carver Road. She argued that reducing the landscape setback would be increasing
safety issues.

Mr. Giles stated that the project will be reviewed by the Streets Transportation
Department with the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County.

Ms. Hurd asked if they had conducted an environmental survey report.

Ms. Alisse Caton with Rose Law Group, answered that there will be a soils report
generated later.

Vice Chair Glass stated that drainage is an issue and development on the site could
potentially cause flooding to the north. She stated that the expectation is that the
developer goes above and beyond.

Ms. Estela stated that she wants quality over quantity and to preserve the character of
Laveen.

Ms. Abegg stated that the Committee does not have the power to revert the zoning on
the property. She identified that the site is a special part of Laveen. She stated that she
wanted the elevations to come back to the Village Planning Committee for approval and
that one-story homes along the perimeter is vital. She sought clarification regarding the
open space amounts and how Proposition 207 affects Stipulation 19.

Ms. Samantha Keating, staff, stated that the property is zoned R1-8 with stipulations.
The zoning and stipulations run with the land, and that the property owner has rights to
that zoning designation. She stated that the purpose of this request is to not decide
what the zoning should be.

Mr. Ortega stated that the site should be held to what it was originally zoned.

Mr. Galvin restated that the slope analysis necessitated that they request to change
stipulations. He continued that the request is only for the right side of the property, and
that the proposed zoning is less than what was originally proposed.

Ms. Abegg stated that the Committee could deny the request completely or approve
with modifications and add stipulations the Committee wants.

Public Comment

Mr. John Knight stated that the request is changing the landscape of everything that
was approved. He stated that the project is cancelled, and that the area is a hazard. He
continued that this project puts lives in jeopardy due to the flooding hazard.


Page 741
Mr. Dan Penton shared that the zoning should have been reverted, and it affects our
land value. He urged the Committee to deny the request.

Ms. Suzee Gelner asked about the tri-plex, the acreage and the size of the lots.

Mr. James Hughes shared concern that the request does not reference the Carver
Hills Storm Drain Plan. He shared that the area floods. He also shared that the 200-foot
setback will help with safety along the dangerous intersection. He urged the Committee
to not change a thing.

Mr. Sandy Hamilton, representing the Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development,
stated that the reversion stipulation is key. He continued that the original owner agreed
to a contract.

Mr. James Parisella stated that he likes one house per acre, and that Laveen is the
last agricultural area that people can build on. He stated that it is quiet, open and does
not have bright lights. He added that his home has been flooded out twice.

John Bizdel asked what they needed to do to initiate a reversion?

Chair Branscomb stated that the process starts here, with whether they recommend to
deny or approve the stipulation modifications.

Ms. Abegg added that Planning Commission is where the reversion process starts.
Rezoning does not happen with the Planning Hearing Officer.

Ms. Keating repeated that the requests is to modify the stipulations. She added that
there is no automatic reversion process, it is a separate process from the request
before the Committee now. She repeated that the zoning is R1-8 and that the applicant
can request to modify the stipulations.

Mr. Phil Hertel stated that the one-minute allotted time for public comment was absurd.
He believed that the applicant misrepresented the amount of open space, which went
from fifty percent to twenty three percent. He requested that the Committee deny the
request until the reversion issue is resolved.

Chair Branscomb asked Mr. Hertel why the Committee approved the project back in
2007.

Mr. Hertel replied that back then the project was tolerable, and now it is intolerable.

Mr. Kimoto stated that the proposed site plan falls short of the current community
quality standards. He recommended the Committee deny the request. He added that
the current site plan shows a repetitive housing layout and believes that the original
plan is achievable. He continued that the only change he agrees with is the roll curbs.
He continued that detached sidewalks were originally requested for pedestrian safety
and shade. Further, he stated that the intent of Stipulation 39 is to avoid a wall along


Page 742
35th Avenue with two-story homes within the view corridor. Lastly, he added that the
reversion stipulation is a City self-induced problem which they try to cover up with a
band aid. He feels that is sends mixed-messages to the community. He requested four
additional stipulations be added to the request:

1. A minimum of three site cross sections, traversing north to south across the 20-acre
site at one-third points from the east property line at 35th Avenue shall be submitted
prior to City Council approval.

The intent is to provide a line of site illustration to show the visual impact of a forty-five-
foot-high change in elevation.

2. A minimum of two oblique aerial perspectives indicating proposed building and site
improvements from south to north (from Carver Road) and from east to west (from 35th
Avenue) shall be submitted prior to City Council approval.

3. A concept drawing showing the vertical mining cut from the terraced base to summit
shall be provided to illustrate how it will be revitalized and to mitigate vertical height
prior to City Council approval.

4. A detailed site plan, landscape plan, perimeter screen wall/fencing plan and
elevations, entry monument plan and elevations, sign plan, and lighting plan shall be
brought to the Village Planning Committee and the community for review and comment.

Mr. Scott Johnson, president of the Hangar Haciendas Home Owners Association,
stated that his community is a private residential airpark subdivision located to the east
of the subject property. He expressed concern that the project will be impacted by the
flight path. He asked the City to initiate the reversion.

Vice Chair Glass shared that the community concerns are not falling on deaf ears, and
that the Committee hears their concerns.

Cyd Manning stated she is directly by the parcel and that there was a lot of passion
surrounding the project now and in 2007. She explained that the current entitlement
was not brokered by the Village, but rather by Mayor Phil Gordon. She shared that she
felt that the applicant is fast-tracking the case and will not meet with the neighbors, and
that history is repeating itself. She clarified that there was an environmental study done
for the site and no environmental issues were found. She continued that the housing
market does not want small homes. She agreed with Ms. Keating that the request is not
about changing the zoning. She continued that the property has been flipped four times
and that Stipulation 19 was to protect the neighbors and is key to the compromise. She
said that she reviewed the current plan and that the open space is reduced, the
amenities are non-luxurious, and that the applicant is attempting to delete any
stipulation that was put in place to protect the neighbors. She continued that the City
has a policy to act on reversions, the City has no excuse to be in violation and the
current request is like trying to travel on an expired passport. She gave an example of a
General Plan Amendment that was initiated in 2008 that took three months to process.
She stated that when the reversion is completed, she would like to work on a different


Page 743
project for the site. She continued that the community has worked with other large
developers in the past, and that she would like to go to City Council and support a
future project at this site. She told the Committee that she is aware that they do not
have the final say on the request and that other large land owners are considering the
property. She believes that this case is precedent-setting. She urged the Committee to
deny the request and recommend that the Planning Hearing Officer initiate a zoning
reversion.

Mr. Tom Galvin responded that the City has said that the request is not about a zoning
reversion. They are trying to find a win-win solution. He continued that they met with Mr.
Kimoto and that they have reached out to the community. He explained that they had a
meeting scheduled with Sandy Hamilton. He said that they hear their frustrations with
the City, and if the community believes that the zoning should be reverted they should
take that request to the City. He finished by saying that their request is to modify
stipulations because of the slope analysis and they are not here to fight over a S-1
zoning reversion.

Ms. Caton clarified that there is a slope analysis for the R1-18 portion of the site and
that an additional slope analysis was done for the R1-8 portion. She stated that “hillside”
is any slope over ten percent. She explained that while they are requested a removal of
the detached sidewalks, they are proposing pedestrian trails that lead to amenities such
as tot lots. She stated that she understands the community’s passion and that she
would be happy to discuss any design or aesthetic issues.

Mr. Giles stated that the site will have less runoff when developed and that they are
proposing single-lot single-family detached homes.

Ms. Abegg asked for clarification on the number of garage spaces per unit. She stated
that if the Committee denies the request, there is no comment to the Planning Hearing
Officer. She stated that the Committee likes to amend the stipulations. She suggested
a motion to recommend approval with modifications and a competing motion to
recommend denial. She continued that if the Committee recommends denying the
request the applicant will not return to the Committee with any updated or detailed
plans. She explained that the reason for the stipulation for general conformance to the
elevations dated February 20, 2007 is that the applicant has not provided new
elevations and that the stipulation should not be modified until they do. The site is
unique with custom homes on large lots and the elevations need to be planned with
care to maintain the character. She stated that the modification to Stipulation 39 is to
provide clarity. She continued that the reason for retaining Stipulation 19 is that the
Laveen Village Planning Committee supports the community’s efforts to revert the
zoning. She stated that the reason for the additional stipulation for enhancing the
elevations is that the applicant states that it will be a luxury development but has not
provided elevation details, and the Committee would like to ensure that the elevations
are upgraded. The reason for adding stipulations for open space and the total number
of lots is to that is what is currently being proposed.

Ms. Keating stated that for procedural purposes the Committee should hear one
motion and act on it and should not have two competing motions.


Page 744
MOTION
Linda Abegg made a motion to recommend approval with three modifications and
seven additional stipulations as follows:

Modifications
1) Modification to Stipulation 1 to maintain that the elevations be in general
conformance with the elevations date stamped February 20, 2007.
2) Retain the existing text of Stipulation 19.
3) Modification of Stipulation 39 to read “Any buildings within two hundred feet of the
eastern property line shall be limited to one-story with a maximum height of twenty
feet.

Additional Stipulations
1) All sides of each building shall be enhanced with a minimum of 50% non-stucco
material such as wood, stone, brick, etc.
2) The developer shall provide a minimum of twelve percent useable open space
centrally located within the community and a minimum of twenty-six percent total
open space
3) The R1-8 portion shall be limited to ninety-two lots
4) The developer shall provide a minimum of two garage spaces per unit
5) The driveways shall be at least twenty-two feet long
6) Prior to site plan approval, a final site plan, building elevations, detailed landscape
plan, detailed entry monument plan, and perimeter fence plans shall be approved
through the Planning Hearing Officer process with alternate site plans listed below
to be provided:
o A minimum of three site cross sections, traversing north to south across the
20-acre site at one-third points from the east property line at 35th Avenue
o A minimum of two oblique aerial perspectives indicating proposed building
and site improvements from south to north (from Carver Road) and from east
to west (from 35th Avenue)
o A concept drawing showing the vertical mining cut from the terraced base to
summit shall be provided to illustrate how it will be revitalized and to mitigate
vertical height prior to City Council approval
o A detailed site plan, landscape plan, perimeter screen wall/fencing plan and
elevations, entry monument plan and elevations, sign plan, and lighting plan
7) Any request to change, delete or modify stipulations be presented through the
Planning Hearing Officer process.

Carlos Ortega seconded the motion.

VOTE
4-7 Motion fails; with members Abegg, Ortega, Glass and Branscomb in favor;
members Ensminger, Estela, Flunoy, Harlin, Hurd, Mockus, and Rouse opposed.

Ms. Keating clarified that the applicant will need to delete or modify Stipulation 19 in
order to move forward and develop the property.




Page 745
MOTION
Stephanie Hurd made a motion to recommend denial of the request. She also
requested that the Planning Hearing Officer recommend to the Planning Commission
to initiate a zoning reversion for the site.

Jennifer Rouse seconded the motion.

VOTE
11-0 Motion passed; with members Abegg, Ensminger, Estela, Flunoy, Harlin, Hurd,
Mockus, Ortega, Rouse, Glass and Branscomb in favor.

5. Z-96-06 (PHO-2-19): Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation on a
request to review and approve conceptual elevations by the Planning Hearing Officer
per Stipulation No. 2 of Rezoning Case No. Z-96-06-7 for a property located on the
southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Southern Avenue.
Four speaker cards were submitted in favor, wishing to speak.
Two speaker cards were submitted in opposition, wishing to speak.
Ms. Stockham, staff, provided an overview of the request and reviewed Stipulation 2
and the proposed elevations.
Ben Tate, with Withey Morris, PLC, reviewed the history of the case and that Stipulation
2 requires the applicant to return with conceptual elevations to be reviewed by the
criteria set forth in the stipulation. He shared that the site plan was approved in October
and that the elevations show variation in color and material. He continued that the
elevations were shown to the Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development and they
are identical to the elevations approved at another project located at 59th Avenue and
Elliot Road.
Vice Chair Glass shared that she did not believe the elevations looked the same.
Mr. Tate replied that this is the single-story version of the elevation, for the property to
the east of the freeway.
Ms. Harlin shared that she thought the west side of the property would be developed
first, and then the east side would be developed.
Mr. Mockus said that when the project was first approved there were roads going
through the entire property. He asked if it will still be one community with connecting
roads.
Mr. Tate replied that there is a common entrance off Southern and that the communities
will have two different names.
Vice Chair Glass commented that the elevations for the project at 59th Avenue and
Elliot Road had been created more thoughtfully.
Mr. Tate responded that he had worked on the project at 59th Avenue and Elliot Road
and assured Ms. Glass that the elevations were the same.
Ms. Abegg reminded the Committee that the request is to evaluate the elevations



Page 746
based on the criteria included in the stipulation.

Public Comment
Mr. Dan Penton commended that they applicant met with the Laveen Citizens for
Responsible Development and that the elevations are identical to the previously
approved project. He shared that the design looked rural and asked what the density
will be for the project.
Mr. Tate responded that the density will be 11.5 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Penton asked if there will be a monument entry sign.
Mr. Tate responded that they will have a low agrarian monument that is more like a
boutique hotel.
Mr. Vance Pierce stated that he was surprised by the elevations and that they need
more projects like this in Laveen. He stated that it is good for developers to listen to the
needs of the community.
Ms. Jadestorm Shamsid-Deen stated that she is the founder of a company called
Mir`Ra I.M.A.G.E, Inc, which inspires young adults to find a better future. She stated
that her complaint was that her company’s name was slandered on the Nextdoor
application. She continued that it is the homeowners that help fund education and that
this project does not help the youth. She added that they are ugly one-story apartments.
Mr. Alex Moctezuma shared that he is the vice president of a small home owners
association near 67th Avenue and Dobbins Road. He questioned what the project will
look like in ten years and that the quality of the build is vital.
Vice Chair Glass asked what the price point will be for these units.
Mr. Tate responded that they will be rented in the range of $1,000 - $1,500 a month, the
same as the units at 59th Avenue and Elliot Road. He added that the developer invests
in quality materials and that they project will look good in ten years due to the design
not being trendy.

MOTION
Linda Abegg made a motion to recommend approval.

Jennifer Rouse seconded the motion.

VOTE

11-0 Motion passed; with members Abegg, Ensminger, Estela, Flunoy, Harlin, Hurd,
Mockus, Ortega, Rouse, Glass and Branscomb in favor.

7. Z-115-A-99-7: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation regarding a
request to rezone an approximately 4.26-acre site located approximately 325 feet south
of the southwest corner of 67th Avenue and Baseline Road from R1-6 PCD (Approved
C-1 PCD) (Single-Family Residence District, Planned Community District, Approved
Neighborhood Retail, Planned Community District) to C-2 SP PCD (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit, Planned Community District) to allow for a self-service


Page 747
storage facility and all underlying C-2 uses.

Mr. Gary Flunoy left at 9:35 PM bringing the quorum down to 10 members.

Two speaker cards were submitted in support, not wishing to speak.

Four speaker cards were submitted in support, wishing to speak.

Ms. Stockham, staff, provided an overview of the request, noting the location, the
history of the site, previous stipulations and current request. She displayed an aerial
map, previously approved site plan, proposed site plan, and briefly reviewed staff’s
recommendation and stipulations.

Mr. Greg Loper introduced himself and stated that the project is named The Collective.
He stated that members of his team met with the Laveen Citizens for Responsible
Development because they want to be conscientious about community concerns and
design that is compatible with the community. He continued that there will be access to
the site from Meadows Loop East and Baseline Road. He added that the site will be a
place for the community and local businesses to store items.

Mr. Ortega asked about adding a stipulation that addresses what would happen if the
project does not get built.

Mr. Mockus asked if the applicant owned the strip of land going north to Baseline
Road.

Mr. Loper replied that they do.

Mr. Mockus asked what would keep the applicant from developing the property

Mr. Loper responded that the developer has done many projects like this.

Ms. Harlin asked for clarification about Stipulation 16.

Public Comment

Mr. Dan Penton thanked the applicant for working with the Laveen Citizens for
Responsible Development (LCRD) and believes it is a great product for the area. He
asked that the Committee recommend approval.

Mr. Jon Kimoto stated that it is a positive project, it creates a passive buffer between
the commercial parcel to the north and the residences. He stated that the issue is with
the existing wall.

Ms. Keating stated that typically a developer adds a wall and then has a landscaped
setback. She added that there is already an existing wall.

Mr. Phil Hertel stated that the community does not want an extra wall and that the


Page 748
existing wall will buffer the neighboring residential uses. He requested that his address
be changed as written in the stipulation.

Mr. Vance Pierce shared that he generally likes a storage facility between homes and
the commercial uses to the north and that the homes along the west side have
shallower yards. He would have preferred to see a more “L”-shaped layout to buffer the
residences to the west more.

Mr. Loper responded that the lighting will be wall-mounted, and motion activated except
for the parking lights. He added that they development will keep light shielded from the
residences.

MOTION
Linda Abegg made a motion to recommend approval with one modification and one
additional stipulation as follows:

Modifications
1) Modification to Stipulation 17 to update Phil Hertel’s address to 2845 W Broadway
Road.

Additional Stipulations
1) The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
elevations date stamped December 23, 2019 as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.

John Mockus seconded the motion.

VOTE

10-0 Motion passed; with members Abegg, Ensminger, Estela, Harlin, Hurd, Mockus, Ortega,
Rouse, Glass and Branscomb in favor.

8. INFORMATION ONLY: Presentation and discussion regarding the 2019 Laveen Village
Annual Report.

Not heard.

9. Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.

No updates given.

10. Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or future
agenda items.

Ms. Rouse urged Committee members to get involved with the budget process.

Ms. Abegg announced that Councilmember Garcia will attend the next meeting.




Page 749
Mr. Dan Penton announced the 20th Anniversary Laveen Parade will be held on
February 1st and the Laveen Barbeque will be on February 8th.

Vice Chair Glass announced that Reid Butler owns the Sachs-Webster House and is
planning to revitalize the workshop.

11. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM.




Page 750
ATTACHMENT K




Page 751
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 1


REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Julianna Pierre, Planner I, Assisting

January 15, 2020

ITEM 5
DISTRICT 7
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-165-06-7(8) (PHO-1-19)
Zoning: R1-8, R1-18
Location: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
Acreage: 59.48
Request: 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to
the site plan date stamped October 8, 2007 and elevations date
stamped February 20, 2007.
2) Modification of Stipulation 7 regarding the landscape setback
adjacent to 35th Avenue.
3) Deletion of Stipulation 19 regarding conditional development
approval.
4) Modification of Stipulation 27 regarding height of terraced berms
along the quarry cut slope base.
5) Modification of Stipulation 31 regarding raised, vertical curbs
within the R1-18 portion of the site.
6) Modification of Stipulation 37 regarding detached sidewalks and
landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of the site.
7) Deletion of Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes along 35th
Avenue.
8) Technical corrections to Stipulations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40.
Applicant: Alisse Caton, Rose Law Group
Owner: Virtua 35th LLC
Representative: Alisse Caton, Rose Law Group

ACTIONS

Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took this
case under advisement. On February 13, 2020 the Planning Hearing Officer took this
case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with
modifications and additional stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Laveen Village Planning
Committee heard this case on January 13, 2020 and recommended denial by an 11-0
vote.




Page 752
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 2


DISCUSSION

35 cards submitted in opposition to the request, 7 wishing to speak.

5 cards submitted expressing no position, 3 wishing to speak.

Thomas Galvin, applicant and representative with Rose Law Group, stated that the
request is a response to site topography, City requests, and to make the area buildable.
He stated that he met with staff in late 2018 and was instructed to conduct a slope
analysis. He stated that the proposed site plan is based upon the results of the slope
analysis and comments received from City staff. He stated that the new site plan
reduces density and depicts seven less lots than the stipulated plan. He added that
there will be an increase in the amount of open space required. He clarified that, after
conducting research, they determined that of the open space required, 50% was to be
tree coverage. Adam Stranieri asked where the requirement for the tree coverage
originated. Alisse Caton, with Rose Law Group, clarified that this was discussed in a
previous hearing and is not a stipulation. Mr. Galvin stated that in 2007 the rezoning
was approved for 22 lots on the western 40 acres and 99 lots on the eastern 20 acres.
He clarified that no changes were being proposed for the western portion and that the
request only impacts the eastern portion.

Mr. Galvin stated that the modification of Stipulation 1, regarding general conformance
to the site plan and elevations, is intended to update plans for the R1-18 portion. The
modification of Stipulation 7, regarding the landscape setback adjacent to 35th Avenue,
is a direct response to the slope analysis and an effort to protect the natural hillside
features by moving the lots further east. He stated that Stipulation 19, regarding
conditional development approval, should be deleted because the zoning change was
approved in 2007 and any reversion would violate Proposition 207. Stipulation 27,
regarding height of terraced berms along the quarry cut slope base, should be modified
to allow landscaping and beautification under safer conditions. He stated that the
modifications of Stipulation 31, regarding raised, vertical curbs within the R1-18 portion
of the site, and Stipulation 37, regarding detached sidewalks and landscape strips within
the R1-8 portion of the site, are to bring the site into conformance with current City
standards. He stated that Stipulation 39, regarding one-story homes along 35th
Avenue, should be deleted to allow consumer choices and a variety of housing types.
Mr. Galvin concluded that all their changes will provide view corridors with appropriate
connectivity and meet City standards.

Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding the proposal to delete the requirement for
detached sidewalks. Ms. Caton stated that there would be attached sidewalks on one
side of the street and pedestrian trail connectivity between the units that provides
connection to amenity spaces and parking. She added that the proposal is intended to
conform with the City standards, but also wants to entertain doing attached 5-foot
sidewalks in addition to the trails. She clarified that detached sidewalks would not be
able to be provided on the private drives and that would be offset by the provided trails.

Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding the percentage of open space being
provided. Mr. Caton stated that the overall open space of the R1-8 and R-18 portions
Page 753
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 3


would be 23%, but the open space in the R1-8 portion would be 26%. She stated that
the open space calculations include both active and passive open space. Mr. Stranieri
stated that the calculation exceeded 5 times what is required in the Zoning Ordinance
and asked if the applicant understood that the calculation would not include any
perimeter landscape setbacks. Jeff Giles, with Clouse Engineering, stated that the 26%
of open space in the R1-8 portion of the site took into account the hillside areas and a
portion of the landscape setback. However, Mr. Giles noted that there were some areas
that were not included in the calculation due to the slope of the site, but could still be
considered open space per the City’s definition.

Linda Abegg, a member of the Laveen Village Planning Committee, stated that she
shared the same concerns as the community regarding Stipulation 19. She also stated
that she had concerns regarding the removal of general conformance to elevations
without the applicant proposing new elevations. She stated that the Laveen Village
always wants to see elevations come through the Planning Hearing Officer process.
She stated that the general conformance could remain with prior elevations or an
additional stipulation could be added that elevations have to come back through the
Planning Hearing Officer process. She stated that the Laveen Village also recommends
a standard for maximum one-story buildings along arterials. She stated that there are
concerns regarding having taller buildings along 35th Avenue, especially with the blind
corner. She also stated that the usable open space was 12% and the total open space
was 26%. She stated that the enhanced open space should be stipulated to ensure that
the open space is centrally located in the community and not only the mountainside.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the subject property of the current PHO is the same as the
entire property of the original rezoning case and includes both the R1-8 and R1-18
portions. He noted that the legislative edit submitted by the applicant takes out the
requirement for conformance to elevations without providing new plans. He stated that
concerns about materials and other design elements could be addressed in a future
PHO hearing at the time that the applicant proposed conceptual building elevations.

Phil Hertel, a member of the Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development (LCRD),
noted that his name and address are outdated in Stipulations 35 and 36, regarding
notifications. He stated that his address has changed and should be updated in the
stipulation. He stated that the applicant did not meet with the LCRD and the applicant
did not receive community input during the official meeting. He stated that he also had
concerns about Stipulation 19 and that the site should be reverted back to S-1. He
stated the community is supportive of development in the area, but that the item should
be continued or denied until the reversion is addressed.

Dan Penton, a representative from the Laveen Community Council, stated that the area
is unique and the proposed development would have a negative impact on the agrarian
character and heritage of the area. He stated that the Laveen Southwest Growth Study
and Laveen Residential Design Guidelines represent the values of the community and
guidelines for future growth in the area. He stated that the intent of these documents
should not be overlooked and that the proposed development is incompatible with the
area. He stated that the reversion matter should be handled first, before the item
moves forward.
Page 754
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 4




Dave Blake, a member of the community, stated that he is a native of Phoenix and also
supported the reversion. He stated that the City should revert the zoning because the
area was never developed. He stated that the area is unique and does not need high
density development.

Tami Blake, a member of the community, stated that most of the properties in the area
are developed with approximately one home per acre. She stated that she often rides
horses and expressed concern regarding the impacts of the proposal on her ability to
continue riding in the area. She noted that this is one of the last areas in the City that
hasn’t had higher density residential development crammed in and that the area should
instead be preserved as is.

John Bzdel, a member of the community, stated that there is an ethical dilemma. He
stated that City employees have a duty to prevent improper government action. He
stated that the process failed in 2011 because the zoning never reverted to S-1. He
stated the second process failure was the acceptance of the PHO case without noting
that the zoning was never reverted. He stated that the case should be taken under
advisement to speak with the City’s Law Department because the ethics policy
violations need to be addressed.

Jon Kimoto, a member of the public, stated that the proposed site plan falls short of the
design quality expected in Laveen. He stated that the proposed plan is a grid that
attempts to impose a flat land subdivision upon a unique hillside situation. He stated
that the proposed plan does not take into account the contours, views, and drainage
issues of the site. He stated that the stipulated plan addressed the distinctive aspects
of the area and had a more attractive entry feature. He added that there was a
significant landscape buffer on the previous plan and there are now concerns about the
height of homes along the perimeter of the subdivision. He stated that there were also
concerns about the terraced berms along the quarry cut slope base. He stated that the
applicant’s proposal could decrease the height of the terraced berms and negatively
impact the safety of residents in the area. He also stated that the City should revert the
zoning and the case should be heard before the correct judicial body. He also stated
that the addresses of those named in Stipulation 35 and 36 should be updated.

Scott Johnson, a member of the public and president of the Hanger Haciendas
Homeowners Association, stated that Hanger Haciendas is a private residential airport
community located 2300 feet east of the subject property. He stated that the subject
property has changed hands several times since 2007 and he wants to ensure that the
developer is aware of the project’s proximity to a private airport. He stated that the
community is 38 lots on 65 acres with 30 aircraft based there. He stated that flights
typically land to the east and take off to the west, placing aircraft at low altitudes in close
proximity to the subject property. He added that the application should never have been
accepted because the zoning was never reverted. He stated that just because the
reversion was missed before does not mean that it should be overlooked now. He
stated that the application should be denied and the reversion initiated.



Page 755
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 5


Stephanie Hurd, a member of the Laveen Village Planning Committee, stated the VPC
is a vital link between the community and City decision makers. She stated that Laveen
has one of the biggest areas of undeveloped land in the City of Phoenix and the
community wants development, but also wants the area to retain its character. She
stated that the area should be kept at low density and the developer should take the
community’s wishes into account. She stated that she agreed with the community and
felt the case should be put on hold until the reversion issue is addressed.

Cyd Manning, a member of the community who was involved with the original rezoning,
stated that she is affected by the site every day because she can see it from both her
back and front yards. She stated that contrary to the applicant’s materials, the area is
not blighted and there are no known environmental issues. She stated that the market
does not want small homes in the Laveen area. She stated that the property has been
flipped numerous times since the original rezoning case. She stated that the proposed
plans are uninspired with no view corridors. She stated the City is in violation of
Ordinance G-5020 which approved the rezoning and should have initiated the reversion
in 2011. She stated that when she requested the City to take action on the reversion
she was told that there was no time or resources to process the cases with reversion
stipulations. She stated that once the reversion is taken care of, she and other
members of the community are willing to sit down with the developer to discuss possible
development.

Mr. Galvin stated that the stipulated site plan does not reflect S-1 zoning and that the
property is not zoned S-1. He stated that their case is not requesting a zoning change
and instead requesting modifications and deletions to stipulations. He clarified that he
did not reject a meeting with the LCRD, but could not meet due to scheduling issues.
He stated that the LCRD also cancelled a planned meeting. He stated that the
applicant is willing to work with the community, but it is impossible to revert back to S-1.
He stated that the area is also a patchwork of land under the City of Phoenix and
Maricopa County jurisdictions. He stated that the City of Phoenix land has more dense
zoning, while land under the County has remained less dense. He stated that the City
is also changing, specifically this area which may become a technology and
employment corridor in the future. He stated that he respects residents who want to
maintain their agrarian lifestyle, but the City should also provide affordable housing for
those wishing to live in Phoenix. He added that the City would not be able to revert the
property due to legal issues.

Ms. Caton clarified that when they stated the site plan responded to environmental
issues they meant the plan was a direct reflection of the slope analysis. She stated that
they have worked with an engineer to address the technical feasibility of the plan. She
also stated that the applicant is working with the developers to the south and their site
plan works in tandem with the proposed site plan.

Mr. Giles stated that Stipulation 27 required berms be a minimum of eight feet in height,
but he noted that there may be a safety issue for hikers or kids in the neighborhood if
the berms are higher than eight feet. He stated that the modification of Stipulation 31 is
intended to allow for drainage considerations. He stated that some areas will require

Page 756
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 6


vertical curb while others require rolled curb, but those decisions would all be engineer
driven.

Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding how the proposed unit types compare to
the stipulated detached villas. Mr. Giles said that the product footprint has not really
changed. The product has four homes clustered together, but without a courtyard. Mr.
Stranieri clarified that the stipulated elevations did not specify if they were specifically
for the R1-8 or R1-18 portion of the site. He stated that since the development was the
entire site, the elevations are required for conformance for the entire site. Ms. Caton
stated that the community would most likely not want a villa product on the 40 acres of
R1-18. Mr. Stranieri agreed and stated that it would most likely be custom home lots.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the proposed minimum 100-foot landscape setback on 35th
Avenue is over 5 times what is required by the Ordinance. He stated that the reduction
will allow the units to be placed farther away from the hillside areas. He stated
Stipulation 27 regarding terraced berms was intended to restore the disturbed hillside.
However, there was no background information in the case file to determine the origin of
the requirement for terraced berms with deciduous trees. He stated that a geotechnical
report would identify what the appropriate slope is to stabilize the hillside. He stated
that he could not confirm that 2:1 is the appropriate slope as stipulated and no existing
report was found. He stated that a native landscaping palette along with some
treatment to allow restoration of the natural aesthetic of the hillside would be most
appropriate. He stated that additional flexibility should be introduced through
consultation with Planning and Development Department staff, submission of a
geotechnical report, and review of any proposed alternatives.

Regarding Stipulation 19, Mr. Stranieri stated that the current request is not a reversion
hearing and he does not have the authority to initiate a reversion during or as a
recommendation of the current PHO request. He stated that the current request solely
involves the applicant’s request for stipulation modifications and deletions. He clarified
that the original rezoning was approved by ordinance adoption and the zoning was
vested with the adoption of that ordinance. He clarified that the rezoning case was
accompanied by a General Plan Amendment (GPA), approved by the City Council,
which updated the General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject property to
correlate with the requested zoning. He stated that GPAs are appended to the City’s
General Plan Map upon adoption and that he did not know of any process or procedure
to revert these requests. He added that if a Proposition 207 lawsuit was raised it would
not be heard under a municipal zoning hearing like the PHO, but rather in a court of law.

Ms. Manning stated that there was a letter written by a Village Planner in 2008 that
initiated an action to amend the General Plan, which was heard by the Planning
Commission and ratified by City Council on October 15, 2008. Mr. Stranieri said that he
would look into the history of this additional GPA and how it related to the base zoning
case.

Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 31, regarding vertical curbs, correlated with the
requirement for detached sidewalks throughout the subdivision. He stated that the
Street Transportation Department recommended deletion of the stipulation because
Page 757
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 7


there are existing technical details and engineering requirements for the different types
of streets in the development. Curb types will be engineered depending on the type of
street. Further, based on the conceptual site plan, some of the proposed streets may
be developed as private drives which would allow rolled curbs.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the City has been consistent with its recent policy plans and
long range planning activities to focus on shade, heat island mitigation, and pedestrian
safety in new developments. He added that the City’s Tree and Shade Master Plan,
Plan all expand upon the principles regarding urban forestry and walkability. He noted
that detached sidewalks may not be able to be implemented on the portions of the right-
of-way between the clusters of homes which may be developed as private drives. He
stated that the originally stipulated detached sidewalks should be provided along all
streets developed as private accessways and public streets, consistent with the original
approval and City policies.

Mr. Stranieri stated Stipulation 39 lacked detail regarding the maximum building height
and which homes the restriction may apply to. He added that “adjacent to 35th Avenue”
does not give much context to the placement of homes given the stipulated 235-foot
landscape setback and primary entry feature. He stated that a more appropriate height
restriction could be implemented to identify a maximum building height and apply the
restriction to houses within a specified distance from the east property line.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the site is archaeologically sensitive and additional stipulations
were warranted regarding City requirements for archaeological data testing.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the Street Transportation Department also indicated that 35th
Avenue is in Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) jurisdiction. He
added that additional stipulations should be added to identify MCDOT’s jurisdiction and
ability to approve the final improvements. He stated that these stipulations would not
conflict with existing right-of-way dedication stipulations because of the jurisdictional
issue.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the Street Transportation Department had concerns regarding
how the site plan proposes access from 35th Avenue and travel through the site to the
west perimeter. He stated that a vehicle would need to make three to four turns to
access the proposed future connection to the west. Ms. Caton stated that she had
spoken with the Street Transportation Department and that they had come to a
resolution regarding the connectivity. Mr. Stranieri stated that revisions may be made to
the site plan due to the stipulations recommended by the Street Transportation
Department. He stated that the recommended stipulations would be appropriately
placed in conjunction with a general conformance stipulation to allow for flexibility to
accommodate an appropriate street layout.

Mr. Stranieri stated that he was aware of the Laveen VPC meeting on Monday night and
that there were 99 speaker cards submitted. He stated that there was over two hours of
discussion and that a summary of the meeting was not yet available. He noted that he
had also received more than 90 pieces of correspondence on the case. He stated that
Page 758
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 8


he would like more time to review all of this material. Because of these reasons, the
PHO stated that he would take the case under advisement.

FINDINGS

1) The subject property of this request includes the entire 59 acres that comprised
the original rezoning case. However, the applicant only submitted plans
addressing the approximately 19.4 acres of R1-8 zoned property on the eastern
portion of the site, adjacent to 35th Avenue. Modifications are recommended to
the applicant’s request to ensure that the existing stipulations on the
approximately 39.6 acres of R1-18 zoned property on the western portion of the
site are not modified or deleted. Additionally, the applicant did not submit
elevations with the request. The original stipulations included a general
conformance requirement for building elevations. A modification is
recommended to the applicant’s request to require a future Planning Hearing
Officer application for review of conceptual building elevations.

2) The stipulated site plan depicted 99 detached single-family units arranged in
clusters of two and four, oriented towards common courtyards. There are also
seven free-standing units depicted at the northwest corner of the site partially in
the hillside-designated area. The proposed conceptual site plan depicts 92 units
in a similar cluster-style arrangement. However, the units have been shifted east
on the property, reducing the total massing of development in the designated
hillside areas. Additionally, the homes are not oriented towards courtyards and
instead include larger private driveways in the front yards. There is more open
space preserved in the hillside area in the northwest portion of the site. There is
also more open space adjacent to the private accessways (Tract “A”) which
separates the homes from the streets. Because the homes are closer to 35th
Avenue, there is less open space provided along the east property line. See
Finding #3 for a more detailed description of the recommendation for minimum
open space and Finding #4 regarding the landscape setback on 35th Avenue.

3) An additional stipulation is recommended to require the developer provide a
minimum of 26% open space, of which a minimum of 12% shall be usable open
space. The conceptual site plan depicts 40.47% open space. However, there is
no open space exhibit and the applicant indicated that a recalculation was
necessary to adequately represent provided open space in the hillside area,
setbacks, and other locations. The provision of 26% open space is compatible
with the rural character of the surrounding area, consistent with other recent
zoning actions in the Village, and significantly exceeds existing Ordinance
standards.

4) The proposed reduction of the landscape setback on 35th Avenue from 235 feet
(average) to minimum 100 feet accommodates the relocation of some residential
units out of the designated hillside areas, consistent with the City approved slope
analysis. The preservation of the hillside area will contribute to the rural
character of the site and maintain this unique natural feature of the property. See

Page 759
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 9


Finding #9 regarding the restoration of the disturbed area on the abandoned
gravel mine that occupies a portion of the remainder of the site.

5) Approximately 2,300 feet to the east of the subject property are the Hangar
Hacienda Units One, Two, and Three subdivisions. These properties are in
Maricopa County jurisdiction. These communities are oriented around an air
strip utilized by residents who own private aircraft. Based on comments from a
resident in this community, the typical flight path runs directly over the subject
property of this request. An additional stipulation is recommended regarding
notification of the aviation uses on these properties for future residents.

6) The subject property is archaeologically sensitive. Three additional stipulations
are recommended which outline the City’s requirements regarding data testing,
data recovery, and archaeological assessments and survey.

7) The public right-of-way along 35th Avenue and a small portion along Carver
Road is in Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) jurisdiction.
There is also an active drainage project along the roadway. Therefore, additional
stipulations are recommended to acknowledge that MCDOT shall determine the
final width and dedications needed for the portion of right-of-way adjacent to the
subject property. City of Phoenix Street Transportation staff noted that in
discussions with MCDOT staff, MCDOT does not have immediate concerns
regarding the location of proposed retention areas shown on the conceptual site
plan in regard to the drainage project.

8) Original Stipulation 19 states that approval shall be conditioned upon the
development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval. For
properties with similar stipulations, the Planning and Development Department
has required that a Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) action be pursued to modify
or delete these conditions at the time that development is proposed, if the
proposed development has exceeded the timeframe identified in the stipulation.
The applicant is pursuing this process through their request for deletion of the
stipulation. The modification or deletion of this stipulation through a PHO action
is unrelated to the zoning reversion process which is a separate public hearing
process that is described in Section 506 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The applicant’s request for deletion of original Stipulation 19 is recommended for
approval. The current proposal is consistent with the City Council’s original intent
to see the subject property redevelop with a single-family residential land use in
the R1-8 zoning district. Additionally, the request is consistent with City Council
approved General Plan Amendment GPA-LV-1-08-7, which established a
Residential 3.5-5 dwelling units per gross acre land use designation on the
approximately 19.35 acres that comprises the R1-8 zoned portion of the property.
Both the proposed conceptual site plan, as modified by this recommendation,
and the existing R1-8 zoning designation are consistent with this land use
designation.



Page 760
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 10


9) Original Stipulation 27, requiring terraced berms planted with deciduous trees,
may result in an environment that contrasts with the natural landscape of the
existing hillside in the surrounding area. The stipulated terraced berm
configuration is not consistent with the irregular natural landscape of the existing
hillside in the surrounding area and there are no deciduous trees on hillside
locations in the immediate vicinity. Proposals for fill are commonly intended to
continue and promote a natural slope line, rather than creating terracing and
other unnatural finishes.

There are a variety of alternatives to the stipulated requirement for terraced
berms that may be considered for the site that would result in a more natural
aesthetic to the restored hillside. These include chemical treatments and
coloration to remove or camouflage scarring, hydroseeding of the slope to
provide a mixture of natural grasses and plants which may also stabilize the
slope, and roughening the cut or restored slope to integrate pockets for additional
native landscaping.

Modified stipulation language is recommended to allow the applicant to work with
City staff on an alternative approach to restoring the quarry cut slope base to
promote a more natural landscape along the hillside.

10) The provision of detached sidewalks is consistent with numerous City policy
plans. The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest
as infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the City’s planning
and development process. Additionally, the City Council adopted Guiding
Principles for Complete Streets seeks to make Phoenix more walkable by
promoting a safe and inviting pedestrian environment that encourages walkability
and thermal comfort. These principles are also expressed and expanded upon
throughout the 2015 General Plan.

Therefore, the applicant’s request to delete this requirement and instead stipulate
a 5-foot sidewalk width is recommended for denial. However, the street layout
on the proposed conceptual site plan may require the utilization of both private
drives (between units) and private accessways (Tract “A”). There are different
technical requirements and cross sections for these street types and it may be
difficult to integrate detached sidewalks along both sides of private drives.
A modification of the applicant’s request is recommended to require that
detached sidewalks shall be provided, as originally stipulated, along all streets
that are developed as public streets or private accessways.

11) The Street Transportation Department noted that both original Stipulation 31 and
the applicant’s proposed modified language may create conflicts if the
development is to include both attached and detached sidewalks. The City of
Phoenix standard detail for detached sidewalks along private accessways
requires vertical curbs. Attached sidewalks may be permitted to provide rolled
curbs. Deletion of the stipulation will allow the appropriate detail to be utilized
based on the final configuration of sidewalks at appropriate locations throughout
the development.
Page 761
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 11




12) Original Stipulation 39 required that homes along 35th Avenue would be limited
to one-story. The stipulation did not specify a maximum building height.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the stipulation was intended to apply to the
individual units located closest to 35th Avenue or the entire clusters. The original
stipulation may permit a variety of building heights and locations for height-
restricted lots.

However, the intent of the stipulation was to mitigate the impacts of building
height for units closest to 35th Avenue and would have impacted homes at
approximately 235 feet (the stipulated average setback in original Stipulation 7).
This remains a valid concern and consistent with the design of other recent
projects in the Village. Therefore, the applicant’s request for deletion of this
stipulation is recommended for denial. An alternative stipulation is proposed that
limits maximum building height to 20 feet for the 12 lots that are located within
approximately 235 feet of 35th Avenue. This recommendation is intended to
clarify the limitation on building height and identify the specific lots impacted.

DECISION: The Planning Hearing Officer took this case under advisement. On
February 13, 2020 the Planning Hearing Officer took this case out from under
advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications and
additional stipulations.

STIPULATIONS

General

1. That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 8, 2007, and elevations date stamped February 20, 2007, as
modified by the following stipulations, and as approved by the Development
Services Department.

1. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019, AS MODIFIED BY
THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE
FOLLOWING:

A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM 35TH
AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

B. THE PRIMARY ROADWAY CONNECTING 35TH AVENUE TO THE
WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL TERMINATE AS A
STUB STREET TO THE ADJACENT UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE WEST
TO PROVIDE FOR A FUTURE VEHICULAR CONNECTION.


Page 762
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 12


2. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER
THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR STIPULATION
MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS A
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE DETERMINED
BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER AND THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3. THE R1-18 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 8, 2007, AND ELEVATIONS
DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 20, 2007, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

4. That dDevelopment of the R1-18 portion of the site shall not exceed 22 lots.
2.

5. That dDevelopment of the R1-8 portion of the site shall not exceed a density of 99
3. lots.

6. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 26% OPEN
SPACE, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 12% SHALL BE USABLE OPEN SPACE,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

Site Design

7. That uUnobstructed pedestrian access (for the purpose of private pedestrian
4. connectivity internal to the site) between the R1-18 and R1-8 portions of the site
shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

8. That nNo solid wall in excess of three feet in height as measured from the finished
5. grade, shall be located on the site (either in private lots or common tracts) except
that solid walls greater than three feet in height shall be allowed for the following
purposes, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

a. Walls utilized to screen utilities, trash enclosures, or other facilities
generally considered to be visually obtrusive.

b. Retaining wall.

9. That nNo more than 60,000 square feet of natural turf area shall be located within
6. the common areas of the R1-8 portion of the site (this requirement does not apply

Page 763
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 13


to synthetic turf); if provided, common area natural turf should be centrally located
and grouped so as to create one contiguous natural turf recreation area, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

10. That a 235-foot (average), 200-foot (minimum) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL
7. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 100 FOOT landscaped setback ALONG THE EAST
PROPERTY LINE adjacent to 35th Avenue shall be provided, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

11. That a A 50-foot (minimum) landscaped setback adjacent to Carver Road (final
8. alignment) shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

12. That tThose portions of spider and jeep trails which are not part of the approved
9. grading envelopes, access drives, or other necessary site disturbance related to
the proposed development of the R1-8 portion of the site shall be re-vegetated in
a manner consistent with adjacent undisturbed vegetation, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Disclosures

13. That pPrior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents
10. that disclose to tenants of the site or purchasers of property within the site, the
existence, proximity, and operational characteristics of active agricultural uses
and non-domesticated animal keeping. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided, which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

14. THAT PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER
SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE TO TENANTS OF THE SITE
OR PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE, THE EXISTENCE,
PROXIMITY, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTIVE AVIATION
USES IN THE HANGAR HACIENDAS UNITS ONE, TWO, AND THREE
SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,300 FEET TO THE EAST OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN MARICOPA COUNTY. THE FORM AND
CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE
TEMPLATES AND INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED, WHICH HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Parks and Recreation

15. That tThe developer shall dedicate a multi-use trail easement and construct a
11. multi-use trail, per adopted standards, along the north side of Carver Road, as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Archaeology


Page 764
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 14


16. That tThe applicant shall complete an archaeological survey report of the
12. development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, or grading.

17. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE,
THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING AND SUBMIT
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, LANDSCAPE SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING
APPROVAL.

18. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF THE
RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST,
IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES
SUCH DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THE
APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA
RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS.

19. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE
ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33- FOOT RADIUS OF
THE DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND ALLOW TIME
FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE
MATERIALS.

Street Transportation

20. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 35th
13. Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. 35th Avenue shall
be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

21. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of Carver
14. Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. Carver Road shall
be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 35TH AVENUE AS
DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARVER AVENUE
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.


Page 765
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 15


24. That aA traffic impact study shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Street
15. Transportation Department prior to PLANNING AND Development Services
Department prior to Development Services Department preliminary site plan
approval. That all right-of-way dedications and associated infrastructure
improvements as recommended by the traffic impact study shall be installed by
the developer, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

25. That tThe developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
16. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median
islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as modified by these stipulations, and
as approved by the Street Transportation Department. All improvements shall
comply with all American with Disabilities Act accessibility standards.

26. That tThe applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information
17. Form for the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Improvement
Program. This form is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency to
meet clean air quality requirements.

27. That pPrior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
18. Proposition 207 waiver of claims utilizing the provided template. The waiver shall
be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and a copy shall be
provided to the PLANNING AND Development Services Department for the case
files.

19. That approval shall be conditional upon the development commencing within 48
months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with
Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection
of the building walls on site.

Neighborhood

28. That bBuilding pad cuts shall be terraced if more than 6 feet in height and treated
20. with a stain, gunnite, or equivalent finish, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

29. That aAll two story homes, within the R1-18 portion of the site, shall be designed
21. in a manner such that the square footage of the second story floor area does not
exceed 66 percent of the first story floor area does not exceed 66 percent of the
first story floor area, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

30. That cConcrete channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
22. through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.


Page 766
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 16


31. That tThe use of riprap and engineered culverts shall be minimized and, where
23. utilized, shall be integrated with the desert setting through color, texture, soil
plating, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. To the extent possible, culverts shall be
undersized to allow minor flows (10 cfs or smaller) to cross roadways in their
natural condition.

32. That wWashes with a one-hundred-year peak flow of 200 cfs or greater shall be
24. preserved and enhanced with native vegetation as described in Appendix A,
Approved Plant Species List for Sonoran Preserve Edge Treatment Guidelines,
as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

33. That lLots with 2 or more sides abutting undisturbed open space shall be
25. designed with obtuse angles, rather than right angles or acute angles, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

34. That oOn non-hillside lots within the R1-18 portion of the development, all
26. improvements, including driveways, landscaping, and underground utilities shall
be located within a building envelope occupying no more than 50 percent of the
lot up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

35. That a A minimum of three terraced berms with 2:1 fill slopes shall be installed
27. along the full length of the quarry cut slope base. The terraces shall BE LIMITED
TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF be 8 feet tall, minimum, and shall be PLANTED
plated with a staggered combination of 2-inch and 4-inch caliper, drought
resistant, deciduous trees at 25 feet ON center OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS to center, as approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPER MAY ALSO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR
THE NATURALIZING AND BLENDING OF THE QUARRY CUT SLOPE WITH
THE ADJACENT UNDISTURBED HILLSIDE AREA, AS APPROVED OR
MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

36. That sSolid block walls, except for retaining walls or privacy fencing on individual
28. lots, shall not be constructed outside of the building envelopes for the R1-18
portion of the site, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department. Fencing constructed outside of the building envelope shall be
combination solid/view fencing. In addition, all fencing above the 15 percent slope
line shall be 100 percent view fencing.

37. That tThe entire 60-acre site shall have no perimeter fencing, as approved by the
29. PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

38. That pPrivate roadways within the R1-18 portion of the site shall be provided with
30. ribbon curbs and colored asphalt, as approved by the PLANNING AND

Page 767
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 17


Development Services Department.

39. That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with a
31. raised, vertical curb, as approved by the Development Services Department.

40. That aAll HVAC units shall be ground mounted.
32.

41. That aAll street lighting and wall mounted security fixtures shall be full cut off
33. lighting. Fixture height shall be a maximum of 12 feet. Street lighting fixtures shall
be decorative and have a consistent architectural theme, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

42. That bBollards shall be used for accent lighting at the primary access, entry
34. monument, driveways, and trail crossings, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. Photovoltaic energy sources for bollard
lighting shall be provided.

43. That aAny request to delete or modify these stipulations SHALL be preceded by
35. A presentation to the Laveen Village Planning Committee (VPC) for review and
recommendation, and notification to the following persons two weeks prior to
presentation at the VPC:

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

44. That tThe following individuals shall be notified of any and all PLANNING AND
36. Development Services Department (DSD) meetings which are open to the public.
The applicant shall be responsible for notification to the following via a first-class
letter to be mailed at least two weeks prior to the DSD meeting(s):

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274


Page 768
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 18


c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

45. That aAll sidewalks, within the R1-8 portion of the site, WHICH ARE
37. DEVELOPED ALONG STREETS DEVELOPED AS PUBLIC STREETS OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include
minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum rate of 20 feet on
center or IN equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved
OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. The
landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and maintained by the
homeowners’ association.

46. That aA mix of two and three-inch caliper trees shall be provided within all
38. required common open space tracts. With the exception of the open space area
adjacent to 35th Avenue, the species of trees provided shall shade 50 percent of
the area of the open space at tree maturity, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

47. That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.
39.
LOTS 52-61 AND 82-83, LOCATED ALONG 35TH AVENUE AND AS DEPICTED
ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019, ARE LIMITED TO
A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

48. That aA detailed site plan, landscaping plan, elevations, perimeter fence or wall
40. plan, lighting plan, and entry monument signage shall be reviewed by the Laveen
Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length of time
through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an individual with a
disability. This publication may be made available through the following auxiliary aids or
services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer diskette. Please contact the
Planning and Development Department, Tamra Ingersoll at voice number 602-534-6648
or TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 769
$77$&+0(17/
The contents of this attachment will be a
separate attachment in the City Council packet




Page 770
Attachment C



5(32572)3/$11,1*&200,66,21$&7,21
0D\

,7(012
 ',675,&712
68%-(&7

$SSOLFDWLRQ 3+2= 
/RFDWLRQ 1RUWKZHVWFRUQHURIWK$YHQXHDQG&DUYHU5RDG
5HTXHVW x 0RGLILFDWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ1RUHJDUGLQJJHQHUDO
FRQIRUPDQFHWRWKHVLWHSODQGDWHVWDPSHG2FWREHU
DQGHOHYDWLRQVGDWHVWDPSHG)HEUXDU\
x 0RGLILFDWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ1RUHJDUGLQJWKHODQGVFDSH
VHWEDFNDGMDFHQWWRWK$YHQXH
x 'HOHWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ1RUHJDUGLQJFRQGLWLRQDO
GHYHORSPHQWDSSURYDO
x 0RGLILFDWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ1RUHJDUGLQJKHLJKWRI
WHUUDFHGEHUPVDORQJWKHTXDUU\FXWVORSHEDVH
x 0RGLILFDWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ1RUHJDUGLQJUDLVHGYHUWLFDO
FXUEVZLWKLQWKH5SRUWLRQRIWKHVLWH
x 0RGLILFDWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ1RUHJDUGLQJGHWDFKHG
VLGHZDONVDQGODQGVFDSHVWULSVZLWKLQWKH5SRUWLRQRIWKH
VLWH
x 'HOHWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ1RUHJDUGLQJRQHVWRU\KRPHV
DORQJWK$YHQXH
x 7HFKQLFDOFRUUHFWLRQVWR6WLSXODWLRQ1RV
 DQG 
$FUHDJH 
$SSOLFDQW -HQQLIHU+DOO5RVH/DZ*URXS
2ZQHU 9LUWXDWK//&
5HSUHVHQWDWLYH 7RP*DOYLQ5RVH/DZ*URXS

$&7,216

6WDII5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ'HQLDODVILOHGDQGDSSURYDOZLWKPRGLILFDWLRQVDQGDGGLWLRQDO
VWLSXODWLRQVDVUHFRPPHQGHGE\WKH3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHU

9LOODJH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLWWHH 93& 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ
/DYHHQ'HQLDO9RWH
7KH/DYHHQ9LOODJH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLWWHHPRWLRQDOVRLQFOXGHGDUHTXHVWWKDWWKH
3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHUUHFRPPHQGWRWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQWRLQLWLDWHD]RQLQJ
UHYHUVLRQIRUWKHVLWH

3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHU5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ
-DQXDU\7KH3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHUWRRNWKLVFDVHXQGHUDGYLVHPHQW
)HEUXDU\7KH3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHUWRRNWKLVFDVHRXWIURPXQGHU
DGYLVHPHQWDQGUHFRPPHQGHGGHQLDODVILOHGDQGDSSURYDOZLWKPRGLILFDWLRQVDQG
DGGLWLRQDOVWLSXODWLRQV




Page 771
3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQ5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ&RQWLQXDQFHWRWKH-XQH3ODQQLQJ
&RPPLVVLRQKHDULQJZLWKRXWIHH

0RWLRQ'LVFXVVLRQ

&RPPLVVLRQHU*RUUDL]PDGHD027,21WRWDEOHWKHLWHPWRDQXQGHWHUPLQHGWLPHWR
DOORZWKHDSSOLFDQWWRZRUNRQDFRPSURPLVHZLWKWKHFRPPXQLW\7KHQWKH\FDQEULQJ
WKHFDVHEDFNZKHQWKH\DUHUHDG\

&RPPLVVLRQHU*RUUDL]VWDWHGWKDWKHZRXOGEHPRUHOLNHO\WRVXSSRUWWKHVLGHWKDWKDV
VHHPHGWRZRUNRXWWKHLVVXHVDQGZRXOGQRWVXSSRUWWKHVLGHWKDWLVQRWZLOOLQJWRZRUN
LWRXW7KDWZRXOGQRWEHUHDVRQDEOH

&KDLUPDQ-RKQVRQFODULILHGWKHPRWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQHU*RUUDL]PRYHGWRFRQWLQXH3+2
=  WRWKHQH[WPHHHWLQJ

&RPPLVVLRQHU*RUUDL]UHVSRQGHGWKDWKHGRHVQRWZDQWDVHWWLPHOLPLW

&KDLUPDQ-RKQVRQUHFRPPHQGHGWKDWLWEHPRYHGWRWKHQH[WDJHQGDDQGLWFRXOG
DOZD\VEHFRQWLQXHGDJDLQ

&RPPLVVLRQHU*RUUDL]DJUHHGWRPRGLI\KLVPRWLRQWRFRQWLQXHWKHLWHPIRURQHPRQWK

&RPPLVVLRQHU6KDQNDVNHGLIWKHPRWLRQFRXOGLQFOXGHDFRQWLQXDQFHZLWKRXWIHH

&RPPLVVLRQHU*RUUDL]DJUHHG

&KDLUPDQ-RKQVRQFODULILHGWKHPRWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQHU*RUUDL]PRYHGWRFRQWLQXH3+2
=  WRWKHQH[WPHHHWLQJZLWKRXWIHH+HDVNHGLIWKHUHZDVDVHFRQGWR
WKHPRWLRQ

&RPPLVVLRQHU*D\QRUVHFRQGHGWKHPRWLRQ

5DFHOOH(VFRODUYHULILHGWKDWWKHWKHQH[W3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQKHDULQJLV-XQHWK

7KHPRWLRQSDVVHGE\DQWRYRWH

0RWLRQGHWDLOV&RPPLVVLRQHU*RUUDL]PDGHD027,21WRFRQWLQXH3+2=
  WRWKH-XQH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQKHDULQJZLWKRXWIHH

0DNHU*RUUDL]
6HFRQG*D\QRU 
9RWH  
$EVHQW0RQWDOYR 
2SSRVLWLRQ3UHVHQW
7KLVSXEOLFDWLRQFDQEHPDGHDYDLODEOHLQDOWHUQDWHIRUPDWXSRQUHTXHVW3OHDVHFRQWDFW
7DPUD,QJHUVROODW  77<XVH





Page 772
Attachment D




To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: June 4, 2020

From: Racelle Escolar
Planner III

Subject: ITEM NO. 18 (PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)) – NORTHWEST CORNER OF 35TH
AVENUE AND CARVER ROAD

This memo is to provide a revised staff recommendation that addresses a revised site plan
submitted by the applicant and date stamped May 26, 2020.

On May 7, 2020 the Planning Commission continued the case to the June 4, 2020 hearing
to allow the applicant to work on a compromise with the community. Since the May
Planning Commission hearing, the applicant conducted additional outreach and submitted
a revised site plan. The applicant has proposed a new lot configuration and reduced the
number of lots from 92 to 63. These site plan changes require modifications to the
stipulations recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.

The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation regarding Stipulation 1 requires that the
R1-8 development be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped November
21, 2019. The recommended revision updates this date to reflect the revised site plan date
stamped May 26, 2020.

The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation regarding Stipulation 47 limits the
maximum building height to 20 feet for lots 52-61 and 82-83 as depicted on the site plan
date stamped November 21, 2019. The recommended revision updates the impacted lot
numbers to reflect the revised site plan date stamped May 26, 2020.

VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Laveen Village Planning Committee heard this case on January 13, 2020 and
recommended denial by a vote of 11-0. The Laveen VPC motion also included a request
that the Planning Hearing Officer recommend to the Planning Commission to initiate a
zoning reversion for the site.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Hearing Officer heard this request on January 15, 2020 and took this case
under advisement. On February 13, 2020 the Planning Hearing Officer took this case out
from under advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications
and additional stipulations.




Page 773
PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8) Backup Memo
June 4, 2020

Staff recommends approval per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation with
modifications to Stipulation Nos 1 and 47 as shown below in bold text:

General

1. That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 8, 2007, and elevations date stamped February 20, 2007, as
modified by the following stipulations, and as approved by the Development
Services Department.

1. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019 MAY 26,2020, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND WITH SPECIFIC
REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING:

A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM
35TH AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY
BOUNDARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

B. THE PRIMARY ROADWAY CONNECTING 35TH AVENUE TO THE
WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL TERMINATE AS A
STUB STREET TO THE ADJACENT UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE
WEST TO PROVIDE FOR A FUTURE VEHICULAR CONNECTION.

2. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER
THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR STIPULATION
MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS A
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE DETERMINED
BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER AND THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3. THE R1-18 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 8, 2007, AND ELEVATIONS
DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 20, 2007, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

4. That dDevelopment of the R1-18 portion of the site shall not exceed 22 lots.
2.

5. That dDevelopment of the R1-8 portion of the site shall not exceed a density of
3. 99 lots.



Page 774
PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8) Backup Memo
June 4, 2020

6. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 26% OPEN
SPACE, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 12% SHALL BE USABLE OPEN SPACE,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

Site Design

7. That uUnobstructed pedestrian access (for the purpose of private pedestrian
4. connectivity internal to the site) between the R1-18 and R1-8 portions of the site
shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

8. That nNo solid wall in excess of three feet in height as measured from the
5. finished grade, shall be located on the site (either in private lots or common
tracts) except that solid walls greater than three feet in height shall be allowed for
the following purposes, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

a. Walls utilized to screen utilities, trash enclosures, or other facilities
generally considered to be visually obtrusive.

b. Retaining wall.

9. That nNo more than 60,000 square feet of natural turf area shall be located
6. within the common areas of the R1-8 portion of the site (this requirement does
not apply to synthetic turf); if provided, common area natural turf should be
centrally located and grouped so as to create one contiguous natural turf
recreation area, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

10. That a 235-foot (average), 200-foot (minimum) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL
7. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 100 FOOT landscaped setback ALONG THE EAST
PROPERTY LINE adjacent to 35th Avenue shall be provided, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

11. That a A 50-foot (minimum) landscaped setback adjacent to Carver Road (final
8. alignment) shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

12. That tThose portions of spider and jeep trails which are not part of the approved
9. grading envelopes, access drives, or other necessary site disturbance related to
the proposed development of the R1-8 portion of the site shall be re-vegetated in
a manner consistent with adjacent undisturbed vegetation, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Disclosures


Page 775
PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8) Backup Memo
June 4, 2020

13. That pPrior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents
10. that disclose to tenants of the site or purchasers of property within the site, the
existence, proximity, and operational characteristics of active agricultural uses
and non-domesticated animal keeping. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided, which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

14. THAT PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER
SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE TO TENANTS OF THE SITE
OR PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE, THE EXISTENCE,
PROXIMITY, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTIVE AVIATION
USES IN THE HANGAR HACIENDAS UNITS ONE, TWO, AND THREE
SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,300 FEET TO THE EAST OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN MARICOPA COUNTY. THE FORM AND
CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE
TEMPLATES AND INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED, WHICH HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Parks and Recreation

15. That tThe developer shall dedicate a multi-use trail easement and construct a
11. multi-use trail, per adopted standards, along the north side of Carver Road, as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Archaeology

16. That tThe applicant shall complete an archaeological survey report of the
12. development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, or grading.

17. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE,
THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING AND SUBMIT
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, LANDSCAPE SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING
APPROVAL.

18. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF THE
RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST, IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED
ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES SUCH DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS
ARE NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE II
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS.

19. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE
ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33-FOOT RADIUS OF
THE DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND ALLOW TIME
Page 776
PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8) Backup Memo
June 4, 2020

FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE
MATERIALS.

Street Transportation

20. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 35th
13. Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. 35th Avenue
shall be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

21. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of Carver
14. Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. Carver Road shall
be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 35TH AVENUE
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARVER ROAD
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

24. That aA traffic impact study shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Street
15. Transportation Department prior to PLANNING AND Development Services
Department preliminary site plan approval. That all right-of-way dedications and
associated infrastructure improvements as recommended by the traffic impact
study shall be installed by the developer, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

25. That tThe developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
16. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median
islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as modified by these stipulations,
and as approved by the Street Transportation Department. All improvements
shall comply with all AmericanS with Disabilities Act accessibility standards.

26. That tThe applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information
17. Form for the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Improvement
Program. This form is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency to
meet clean air quality requirements.

27. That pPrior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
18. Proposition 207 waiver of claims utilizing the provided template. The waiver shall
be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and a copy shall be
provided to the PLANNING AND Development Services Department for the case
files.
Page 777
PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8) Backup Memo
June 4, 2020


19. That approval shall be conditional upon the development commencing within 48
months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with
Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection
of the building walls on site.

Neighborhood

28. That bBuilding pad cuts shall be terraced if more than 6 feet in height and treated
20. with a stain, gunnite, or equivalent finish, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

29. That aAll two story homes, within the R1-18 portion of the site, shall be designed
21. in a manner such that the square footage of the second story floor area does not
exceed 66 percent of the first story floor area does not exceed 66 percent of the
first story floor area, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

30. That cConcrete channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
22. through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

31. That tThe use of riprap and engineered culverts shall be minimized and, where
23. utilized, shall be integrated with the desert setting through color, texture, soil
plating, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. To the extent possible, culverts shall be
undersized to allow minor flows (10 cfs or smaller) to cross roadways in their
natural condition.

32. That wWashes with a one-hundred-year peak flow of 200 cfs or greater shall be
24. preserved and enhanced with native vegetation as described in Appendix A,
Approved Plant Species List for Sonoran Preserve Edge Treatment Guidelines,
as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

33. That lLots with 2 or more sides abutting undisturbed open space shall be
25. designed with obtuse angles, rather than right angles or acute angles, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

34. That oOn non-hillside lots within the R1-18 portion of the development, all
26. improvements, including driveways, landscaping, and underground utilities shall
be located within a building envelope occupying no more than 50 percent of the
lot up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

35. That a A minimum of three terraced berms with 2:1 fill slopes shall be installed
27. along the full length of the quarry cut slope base. The terraces shall BE LIMITED
TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF be 8 feet tall, minimum, and shall be PLANTED
Page 778
PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8) Backup Memo
June 4, 2020

plated with a staggered combination of 2-inch and 4-inch caliper, drought
resistant, deciduous trees at 25 feet ON center OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS to center, as approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPER MAY ALSO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR
THE NATURALIZING AND BLENDING OF THE QUARRY CUT SLOPE WITH
THE ADJACENT UNDISTURBED HILLSIDE AREA, AS APPROVED OR
MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

36. That sSolid block walls, except for retaining walls or privacy fencing on individual
28. lots, shall not be constructed outside of the building envelopes for the R1-18
portion of the site, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department. Fencing constructed outside of the building envelope shall be
combination solid/view fencing. In addition, all fencing above the 15 percent
slope line shall be 100 percent view fencing.

37. That tThe entire 60-acre site shall have no perimeter fencing, as approved by the
29. PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

38. That pPrivate roadways within the R1-18 portion of the site shall be provided with
30. ribbon curbs and colored asphalt, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

39. That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with a
31. raised, vertical curb, as approved by the Development Services Department.

40. That aAll HVAC units shall be ground mounted.
32.

41. That aAll street lighting and wall mounted security fixtures shall be full cut off
33. lighting. Fixture height shall be a maximum of 12 feet. Street lighting fixtures
shall be decorative and have a consistent architectural theme, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

42. That bBollards shall be used for accent lighting at the primary access, entry
34. monument, driveways, and trail crossings, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. Photovoltaic energy sources for bollard
lighting shall be provided.

43. That aAny request to delete or modify these stipulations SHALL be preceded by
35. A presentation to the Laveen Village Planning Committee (VPC) for review and
recommendation, and notification to the following persons two weeks prior to
presentation at the VPC:

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274
Page 779
PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8) Backup Memo
June 4, 2020


c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

44. That tThe following individuals shall be notified of any and all PLANNING AND
36. Development Services Department (DSD) meetings which are open to the
public. The applicant shall be responsible for notification to the following via a
first-class letter to be mailed at least two weeks prior to the DSD meeting(s):

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

45. That aAll sidewalks, within the R1-8 portion of the site, WHICH ARE
37. DEVELOPED ALONG STREETS DEVELOPED AS PUBLIC STREETS OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall
include minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum rate of 20 feet
on center or IN equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as
approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department. The landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and
maintained by the homeowners’ association.

46. That aA mix of two and three-inch caliper trees shall be provided within all
38. required common open space tracts. With the exception of the open space area
adjacent to 35th Avenue, the species of trees provided shall shade 50 percent of
the area of the open space at tree maturity, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

47. That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.
39.
Page 780
PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8) Backup Memo
June 4, 2020

LOTS 52-61 AND 82-83 1-7, LOCATED ALONG 35TH AVENUE AND AS
DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019 MAY
26, 2020, ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20 FEET, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

48. That aA detailed site plan, landscaping plan, elevations, perimeter fence or wall
40. plan, lighting plan, and entry monument signage shall be reviewed by the Laveen
Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Exhibit A:
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped May 26, 2020




Page 781
Page 782
Attachment E



REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 4, 2020

ITEM NO: 18
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:

Application #: PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
Location: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
Request:  Modification of Stipulation No. 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan date stamped October 8, 2007
and elevations date stamped February 20, 2007
 Modification of Stipulation No. 7 regarding the landscape
setback adjacent to 35th Avenue
 Deletion of Stipulation No. 19 regarding conditional
development approval
 Modification of Stipulation No. 27 regarding height of
terraced berms along the quarry cut slope base
 Modification of Stipulation No. 31 regarding raised, vertical
curbs within the R1-18 portion of the site
 Modification of Stipulation No. 37 regarding detached
sidewalks and landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of the
site
 Deletion of Stipulation No. 39 regarding one-story homes
along 35th Avenue
 Technical corrections to Stipulation Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38 and 40
Acreage: 59.48
Applicant: Jennifer Hall, Rose Law Group
Owner: Virtua 35th, LLC
Representative: Tom Galvin, Rose Law Group

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Denial as filed and approval with modifications and additional
stipulations as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Laveen 1/13/2020 Denial. Vote: 11-0.
The Laveen Village Planning Committee motion also included a request that the
Planning Hearing Officer recommend to the Planning Commission to initiate a zoning
reversion for the site.

Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation:
January 15, 2020 The Planning Hearing Officer took this case under advisement.
February 13, 2020 The Planning Hearing Officer took this case out from under
advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications and
additional stipulations.




Page 783
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per staff memo dated June 4, 2020
with a modified stipulation and direction for the applicant to modify the application prior
to the City Council meeting.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve PHO-1-19--Z-165-
06-7(8), per staff memo dated June 4, 2020 with a modification to Stipulation No. 6 to
reduce the useable open space from 12% to 8% and direction for the applicant to modify
the application prior to the City Council meeting to modify Stipulation No. 5 to reflect the
number of lots on the site plan.

Maker: Busching
Second: Shank
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Howard
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The subject property of this request includes the entire 59 acres that comprised
the original rezoning case. However, the applicant only submitted plans
addressing the approximately 19.4 acres of R1-8 zoned property on the
eastern portion of the site, adjacent to 35th Avenue. Modifications are
recommended to the applicant’s request to ensure that the existing stipulations
on the approximately 39.6 acres of R1-18 zoned property on the western
portion of the site are not modified or deleted. Additionally, the applicant did not
submit elevations with the request. The original stipulations included a general
conformance requirement for building elevations. A modification is
recommended to the applicant’s request to require a future Planning Hearing
Officer application for review of conceptual building elevations.

2. The stipulated site plan depicted 99 detached single-family units arranged in
clusters of two and four, oriented towards common courtyards. There are also
seven free-standing units depicted at the northwest corner of the site partially
in the hillside-designated area. The proposed conceptual site plan depicts 92
units in a similar cluster-style arrangement. However, the units have been
shifted east on the property, reducing the total massing of development in the
designated hillside areas. Additionally, the homes are not oriented towards
courtyards and instead include larger private driveways in the front yards.
There is more open space preserved in the hillside area in the northwest
portion of the site. There is also more open space adjacent to the private
accessways (Tract “A”) which separates the homes from the streets. Because
the homes are closer to 35th Avenue, there is less open space provided along
the east property line. See Finding #3 for a more detailed description of the
recommendation for minimum open space and Finding #4 regarding the
landscape setback on 35th Avenue.

3. An additional stipulation is recommended to require the developer provide a
minimum of 26% open space, of which a minimum of 12% shall be usable
open space. The conceptual site plan depicts 40.47% open space. However,




Page 784
there is no open space exhibit and the applicant indicated that a recalculation
was necessary to adequately represent provided open space in the hillside
area, setbacks, and other locations. The provision of 26% open space is
compatible with the rural character of the surrounding area, consistent with
other recent zoning actions in the Village, and significantly exceeds existing
Ordinance standards.

4. The proposed reduction of the landscape setback on 35th Avenue from 235
feet (average) to minimum 100 feet accommodates the relocation of some
residential units out of the designated hillside areas, consistent with the City
approved slope analysis. The preservation of the hillside area will contribute to
the rural character of the site and maintain this unique natural feature of the
property. See Finding #9 regarding the restoration of the disturbed area on the
abandoned gravel mine that occupies a portion of the remainder of the site.

5. Approximately 2,300 feet to the east of the subject property are the Hangar
Hacienda Units One, Two, and Three subdivisions. These properties are in
Maricopa County jurisdiction. These communities are oriented around an air
strip utilized by residents who own private aircraft. Based on comments from a
resident in this community, the typical flight path runs directly over the subject
property of this request. An additional stipulation is recommended regarding
notification of the aviation uses on these properties for future residents.

6. The subject property is archaeologically sensitive. Three additional stipulations
are recommended which outline the City’s requirements regarding data testing,
data recovery, and archaeological assessments and survey.

7. The public right-of-way along 35th Avenue and a small portion along Carver
Road is in Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT)
jurisdiction. There is also an active drainage project along the roadway.
Therefore, additional stipulations are recommended to acknowledge that
MCDOT shall determine the final width and dedications needed for the portion
of right-of-way adjacent to the subject property. City of Phoenix Street
Transportation staff noted that in discussions with MCDOT staff, MCDOT does
not have immediate concerns regarding the location of proposed retention
areas shown on the conceptual site plan in regard to the drainage project.

8. Original Stipulation 19 states that approval shall be conditioned upon the
development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval. For
properties with similar stipulations, the Planning and Development Department
has required that a Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) action be pursued to
modify or delete these conditions at the time that development is proposed, if
the proposed development has exceeded the timeframe identified in the
stipulation. The applicant is pursuing this process through their request for
deletion of the stipulation. The modification or deletion of this stipulation
through a PHO action is unrelated to the zoning reversion process which is a
separate public hearing process that is described in Section 506 of the Zoning
Ordinance.

The applicant’s request for deletion of original Stipulation 19 is recommended
for approval. The current proposal is consistent with the City Council’s original




Page 785
intent to see the subject property redevelop with a single-family residential land
use in the R1-8 zoning district. Additionally, the request is consistent with City
Council approved General Plan Amendment GPA-LV-1-08-7, which
established a Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per gross acre land use
designation on the approximately 19.35 acres that comprises the R1-8 zoned
portion of the property. Both the proposed conceptual site plan, as modified by
this recommendation, and the existing R1-8 zoning designation are consistent
with this land use designation.

9. Original Stipulation #27, requiring terraced berms planted with deciduous trees,
may result in an environment that contrasts with the natural landscape of the
existing hillside in the surrounding area. The stipulated terraced berm
configuration is not consistent with the irregular natural landscape of the
existing hillside in the surrounding area and there are no deciduous trees on
hillside locations in the immediate vicinity. Proposals for fill are commonly
intended to continue and promote a natural slope line, rather than creating
terracing and other unnatural finishes.

There are a variety of alternatives to the stipulated requirement for terraced
berms that may be considered for the site that would result in a more natural
aesthetic to the restored hillside. These include chemical treatments and
coloration to remove or camouflage scarring, hydroseeding of the slope to
provide a mixture of natural grasses and plants which may also stabilize the
slope, and roughening the cut or restored slope to integrate pockets for
additional native landscaping.

Modified stipulation language is recommended to allow the applicant to work
with City staff on an alternative approach to restoring the quarry cut slope base
to promote a more natural landscape along the hillside.

10. The provision of detached sidewalks is consistent with numerous City policy
plans. The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest
as infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the City’s planning
and development process. Additionally, the City Council adopted Guiding
Principles for Complete Streets seeks to make Phoenix more walkable by
promoting a safe and inviting pedestrian environment that encourages
walkability and thermal comfort. These principles are also expressed and
expanded upon throughout the 2015 General Plan.

Therefore, the applicant’s request to delete this requirement and instead
stipulate a 5-foot sidewalk width is recommended for denial. However, the
street layout on the proposed conceptual site plan may require the utilization of
both private drives (between units) and private accessways (Tract “A”). There
are different technical requirements and cross sections for these street types
and it may be difficult to integrate detached sidewalks along both sides of
private drives.

A modification of the applicant’s request is recommended to require that
detached sidewalks shall be provided, as originally stipulated, along all streets
that are developed as public streets or private accessways.




Page 786
11. The Street Transportation Department noted that both original Stipulation 31
and the applicant’s proposed modified language may create conflicts if the
development is to include both attached and detached sidewalks. The City of
Phoenix standard detail for detached sidewalks along private accessways
requires vertical curbs. Attached sidewalks may be permitted to provide rolled
curbs. Deletion of the stipulation will allow the appropriate detail to be utilized
based on the final configuration of sidewalks at appropriate locations
throughout the development.

12. Original Stipulation 39 required that homes along 35th Avenue would be limited
to one-story. The stipulation did not specify a maximum building height.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the stipulation was intended to apply to the
individual units located closest to 35th Avenue or the entire clusters. The
original stipulation may permit a variety of building heights and locations for
height-restricted lots.

However, the intent of the stipulation was to mitigate the impacts of building
height for units closest to 35th Avenue and would have impacted homes at
approximately 235 feet (the stipulated average setback in original Stipulation
7). This remains a valid concern and consistent with the design of other recent
projects in the Village. Therefore, the applicant’s request for deletion of this
stipulation is recommended for denial. An alternative stipulation is proposed
that limits maximum building height to 20 feet for the 12 lots that are located
within approximately 235 feet of 35th Avenue. This recommendation is
intended to clarify the limitation on building height and identify the specific lots
impacted.

Stipulations:

General

1. That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 8, 2007, and elevations date stamped February 20, 2007, as
modified by the following stipulations, and as approved by the Development
Services Department.

1. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019 MAY 26, 2020, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND WITH SPECIFIC
REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING:

A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM
35TH AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY
BOUNDARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

B. THE PRIMARY ROADWAY CONNECTING 35TH AVENUE TO THE
WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL TERMINATE AS
A STUB STREET TO THE ADJACENT UNDEVELOPED LAND TO




Page 787
THE WEST TO PROVIDE FOR A FUTURE VEHICULAR
CONNECTION.

2. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER
THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR STIPULATION
MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS
A LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE
DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER AND THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3. THE R1-18 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE
WITH THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 8, 2007, AND
ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 20, 2007, AS MODIFIED BY
THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

2. 4. That dDevelopment of the R1-18 portion of the site shall not exceed 22 lots.

3. 5. That dDevelopment of the R1-8 portion of the site shall not exceed a density of
99 lots.

6. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 26% OPEN
SPACE, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 12 8% SHALL BE USABLE OPEN
SPACE, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

Site Design

4. 7. That uUnobstructed pedestrian access (for the purpose of private pedestrian
connectivity internal to the site) between the R1-18 and R1-8 portions of the
site shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

5. 8. That nNo solid wall in excess of three feet in height as measured from the
finished grade, shall be located on the site (either in private lots or common
tracts) except that solid walls greater than three feet in height shall be allowed
for the following purposes, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

a. Walls utilized to screen utilities, trash enclosures, or other facilities
generally considered to be visually obtrusive.

b. Retaining wall.

6. 9. That nNo more than 60,000 square feet of natural turf area shall be located
within the common areas of the R1-8 portion of the site (this requirement does
not apply to synthetic turf); if provided, common area natural turf should be
centrally located and grouped so as to create one contiguous natural turf




Page 788
recreation area, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

7. That a 235-foot (average), 200-foot (minimum) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL
10. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 100 FOOT landscaped setback ALONG THE EAST
PROPERTY LINE adjacent to 35th Avenue shall be provided, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

8. That a A 50-foot (minimum) landscaped setback adjacent to Carver Road (final
11. alignment) shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

9. That tThose portions of spider and jeep trails which are not part of the
12. approved grading envelopes, access drives, or other necessary site
disturbance related to the proposed development of the R1-8 portion of the site
shall be re-vegetated in a manner consistent with adjacent undisturbed
vegetation, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

Disclosures

10. That pPrior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record
13. documents that disclose to tenants of the site or purchasers of property within
the site, the existence, proximity, and operational characteristics of active
agricultural uses and non-domesticated animal keeping. The form and content
of such documents shall be according to the templates and instructions
provided, which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

14. THAT PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER
SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE TO TENANTS OF THE
SITE OR PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE, THE
EXISTENCE, PROXIMITY, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
ACTIVE AVIATION USES IN THE HANGAR HACIENDAS UNITS ONE, TWO,
AND THREE SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,300 FEET TO
THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN MARICOPA COUNTY. THE
FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO
THE TEMPLATES AND INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED, WHICH HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Parks and Recreation

11. That tThe developer shall dedicate a multi-use trail easement and construct a
15. multi-use trail, per adopted standards, along the north side of Carver Road, as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Archaeology

12. That tThe applicant shall complete an archaeological survey report of the
16. development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, or grading.




Page 789
17. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY
OFFICE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING AND
SUBMIT AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING, LANDSCAPE
SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING APPROVAL.

18. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF THE
RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST, IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED
ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES SUCH DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS
ARE NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE II
ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS.

19. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY
CEASE ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33-FOOT
RADIUS OF THE DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND
ALLOW TIME FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS
THE MATERIALS.

Street Transportation

13. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 35th
20. Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. 35th Avenue
shall be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

14. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of
21. Carver Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. Carver
Road shall be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins
Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 35TH AVENUE
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARVER ROAD
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

15. That aA traffic impact study shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Street
24. Transportation Department prior to PLANNING AND Development Services
Department preliminary site plan approval. That all right-of-way dedications
and associated infrastructure improvements as recommended by the traffic
impact study shall be installed by the developer, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.




Page 790
16. That tThe developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
25. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as modified by these
stipulations, and as approved by the Street Transportation Department. All
improvements shall comply with all AmericanS with Disabilities Act accessibility
standards.

17. That tThe applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project
26. Information Form for the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation
Improvement Program. This form is a requirement of the Environmental
Protection Agency to meet clean air quality requirements.

18. That pPrior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
27. Proposition 207 waiver of claims utilizing the provided template. The waiver
shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and a copy shall
be provided to the PLANNING AND Development Services Department for the
case files.

19. That approval shall be conditional upon the development commencing within
48 months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance
with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and
erection of the building walls on site.

Neighborhood

20. That bBuilding pad cuts shall be terraced if more than 6 feet in height and
28. treated with a stain, gunnite, or equivalent finish, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

21. That aAll two story homes, within the R1-18 portion of the site, shall be
29. designed in a manner such that the square footage of the second story floor
area does not exceed 66 percent of the first story floor area does not exceed
66 percent of the first story floor area, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

22. That cConcrete channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
30. through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

23. That tThe use of riprap and engineered culverts shall be minimized and, where
31. utilized, shall be integrated with the desert setting through color, texture, soil
plating, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. To the extent possible, culverts shall be
undersized to allow minor flows (10 cfs or smaller) to cross roadways in their
natural condition.

24. That wWashes with a one-hundred-year peak flow of 200 cfs or greater shall
32. be preserved and enhanced with native vegetation as described in Appendix A,
Approved Plant Species List for Sonoran Preserve Edge Treatment Guidelines,
as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.




Page 791
25. That lLots with 2 or more sides abutting undisturbed open space shall be
33. designed with obtuse angles, rather than right angles or acute angles, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

26. That oOn non-hillside lots within the R1-18 portion of the development, all
34. improvements, including driveways, landscaping, and underground utilities
shall be located within a building envelope occupying no more than 50 percent
of the lot up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

27. That a A minimum of three terraced berms with 2:1 fill slopes shall be installed
35. along the full length of the quarry cut slope base. The terraces shall BE
LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF be 8 feet tall, minimum, and shall be
PLANTED plated with a staggered combination of 2-inch and 4-inch caliper,
drought resistant, deciduous trees at 25 feet ON center OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS to center, as approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPER MAY ALSO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
FOR THE NATURALIZING AND BLENDING OF THE QUARRY CUT SLOPE
WITH THE ADJACENT UNDISTURBED HILLSIDE AREA, AS APPROVED
OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

28. That sSolid block walls, except for retaining walls or privacy fencing on
36. individual lots, shall not be constructed outside of the building envelopes for the
R1-18 portion of the site, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department. Fencing constructed outside of the building envelope
shall be combination solid/view fencing. In addition, all fencing above the 15
percent slope line shall be 100 percent view fencing.

29. That tThe entire 60-acre site shall have no perimeter fencing, as approved by
37. the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

30. That pPrivate roadways within the R1-18 portion of the site shall be provided
38. with ribbon curbs and colored asphalt, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

31. That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with
39. a raised, vertical curb, as approved by the Development Services Department.

32. That aAll HVAC units shall be ground mounted.
40.

33. That aAll street lighting and wall mounted security fixtures shall be full cut off
41. lighting. Fixture height shall be a maximum of 12 feet. Street lighting fixtures
shall be decorative and have a consistent architectural theme, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

34. That bBollards shall be used for accent lighting at the primary access, entry
42. monument, driveways, and trail crossings, as approved by the PLANNING




Page 792
AND Development Services Department. Photovoltaic energy sources for
bollard lighting shall be provided.

35. That aAny request to delete or modify these stipulations SHALL be preceded
43. by A presentation to the Laveen Village Planning Committee (VPC) for review
and recommendation, and notification to the following persons two weeks prior
to presentation at the VPC:

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

36. That tThe following individuals shall be notified of any and all PLANNING AND
44. Development Services Department (DSD) meetings which are open to the
public. The applicant shall be responsible for notification to the following via a
first-class letter to be mailed at least two weeks prior to the DSD meeting(s):

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

37. That aAll sidewalks, within the R1-8 portion of the site, WHICH ARE
45. DEVELOPED ALONG STREETS DEVELOPED AS PUBLIC STREETS OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall
include minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum rate of 20
feet on center or IN equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as
approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department. The landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and
maintained by the homeowners’ association.




Page 793
38. That aA mix of two and three-inch caliper trees shall be provided within all
46. required common open space tracts. With the exception of the open space
area adjacent to 35th Avenue, the species of trees provided shall shade 50
percent of the area of the open space at tree maturity, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

39. That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.
47. LOTS 52-61 AND 82-83 1-7, LOCATED ALONG 35TH AVENUE AND AS
DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019
MAY 26, 2020, ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20
FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

40. That aA detailed site plan, landscaping plan, elevations, perimeter fence or wall
48. plan, lighting plan, and entry monument signage shall be reviewed by the
Laveen Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 794
Attachment F


CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:

APPLICATION NO/ PHO-1-19--Z-165- (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION 06-7(8) opposition x applicant
Northwest corner of
35th Avenue and
Carver Road
APPEALED FROM: PC 6/4/2020 Cyd Manning
480-747-0769
sweetbeat@q.com
PC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
TO PC/CC CC 6/24/2020 3220 West Ceton Drive
HEARING Laveen, AZ 85339
CC DATE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Sixty-three lots on 20 acres at 3.2 dwelling units per acre is incompatible land use
with adjacent 40 acres and other adjacent surrounding parcels zoned R1-18, RE-35
and S-1. The R1-8 is speculative spot zoning. Disagree with the deletion of
Stipulation No. 19. There is no connectivity to the 40-acre portion, the circulation is a
90-degree grid and other stipulations recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer
were not included in the applicant’s revised plan.
RECEIVED BY: Jazmine Braswell RECEIVED ON: 6/9/2020


Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Stephanie Vasquez
Leah Swanton
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Danielle Jordan
Applicant




Page 795
Page 796
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:

APPLICATION NO/ PHO-1-19--Z-165- (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION 06-7(8) opposition x applicant
Northwest corner of
35th Avenue and
Carver Road
APPEALED FROM: PC 6/4/2020 Lisa Vializ
602-741-5722
LVIALIZ@COX.NET
PC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
TO PC/CC CC 6/24/2020 8921 S. 53rd Drive
HEARING Laveen, AZ 85339
CC DATE STREET ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
REASON FOR REQUEST:
1) R1-8 zoning is speculative spot zoning.
2) Sixty-three lots on 20 acres at 3.2 dwelling units per acre is incompatible land
use with the adjacent 40 acres. Surrounding zoning districts are: S-1, RE-35,
and R1-18.
3) We disagree with deletion of Stipulation No. 19, personally placed in this case
by then Mayor Phil Gordon to protect the community.
4) There is no connectivity to 40-acre portion. Circulation is 90-degree grid and
other stipulations recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer were not
included in applicant’s revised plan.
RECEIVED BY: Jazmine Braswell RECEIVED ON: 6/9/2020


Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Stephanie Vasquez
Leah Swanton
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Danielle Jordan
Applicant




Page 797
Page 798
Attachment G

Adam Stranieri

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 8:14 AM
To: Julianna Pierre; Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19


FYI

Sofia Mastikhina
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003



From: Ernst Bauer
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 6:20 PM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Samantha
Keating ; PDD Laveen VPC ; Council District 7 PCC
; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19

Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff,

Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for both LVPC and PHO review next week. I respectfully request that you deny Z‐
165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed.

The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of the
subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the
Planning Department. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this
zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the

Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City
Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of
this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on
site.”. City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing, the zoning was set to revert to S‐1
as of 2011. To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning
as required.

Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to
enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In
addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S‐1 zoning. Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐
GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.




Page 799
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council. This stipulation protected the
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Dr. Ernst Bauer
Professor Emeritus
11581 S 28th Ave
Laveen
AZ 85339
e-mail: ernst.bauer@asu.edu
Webpage: http://ernstbauer.physics.asu.edu [ernstbauer.physics.asu.edu]





Page 800
Racelle Escolar

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 7:52 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO 1-19)




Sofia Mastikhina
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: D M
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 4:43 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO 1‐19)


Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,



I request you DENY Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) when it comes before the Planning Commission on April 2. The City of
Phoenix first needs to enforce their ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S‐1 (one house per
acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter.



The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors and
community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area.



Do the required and right thing! Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.



Respectfully,





Page 801
Name Darcy Meyer

Address 3535 W Bohl St, Laveen Village, AZ 85339





Page 802
Racelle Escolar

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 7:52 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)




Sofia Mastikhina
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: Sarah VanSchyndel
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 5:58 AM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Mayor
Gallego ; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District 4
; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,
Councilmen, Councilwomen and Madam Mayor;

Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2. I respectfully request that you
deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed.
The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G-5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of
the subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-165-06-7, on file with
the Planning Department. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the
applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner
as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation 19.
Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the
purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of
building walls on site.”. City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48-month timing, the zoning
was set to revert to S-1 as of 2011. To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by
the City to revert the zoning as required.
Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty
to enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long-overdue zoning reversion to S-1 for the entire
property. In addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5-5 du/a to 0-1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S-1 zoning. Precedent has already been set with Resolution
20714-GPA-LV-1-08-7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15,
2008.
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a

Page 803
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council. This stipulation protected the
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area.
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S-1 zoning.
Sarah Johns
3913 W. Carver Rd.
Laveen, AZ 85339

--
Sarah Johns





Page 804
Racelle Escolar

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 11:19 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan; Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) - Planning Commision Hearing - April 2, 2020




Sofia Mastikhina
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003



From: Scott Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 11:15 AM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Mayor
Gallego ; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District 4
; Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: 'Cyd Manning'
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) ‐ Planning Commision Hearing ‐ April 2, 2020

Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,

Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2. I respectfully request that you deny Z‐
165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed.

The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of the
subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the
Planning Department. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this
zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the

Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City
Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of
this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on
site.”. City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing, the zoning was set to revert to S‐1
as of 2011. To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning
as required.

Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to
enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In
addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S‐1 zoning. Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐
GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.


Page 805
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council. This stipulation protected the
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Thank you for your consideration, Scott Johnson

Scott Johnson, President
Hangar Haciendas HOA
3143 W. Avion Way
Laveen, AZ 85339
602‐320‐2382
sjohnson@scottjce.com




Virus-free. www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]





Page 806
Racelle Escolar

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 12:19 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Rezoning




Sofia Mastikhina
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: David Vaughan
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 12:15 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning


Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,

Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2. I respectfully request that you deny Z-165-06 (PHO-
1-19) as filed.

The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G-5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of the subject property
and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-165-06-7, on file with the Planning Department. Due to the
site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes
Stipulation 19.

Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval
of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation, development
shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on site.”. City Council approval was on October 10,
2007 and with the 48-month timing, the zoning was set to revert to S-1 as of 2011. To date there has been no development on the
property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning as required.

Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to enforce these
requirements to execute and finalize the long-overdue zoning reversion to S-1 for the entire property. In addition, the City should also
execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5-5 du/a to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S-1
zoning. Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714-GPA-LV-1-08-7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and
approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.

The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting multiple stipulation
modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City Planning professionals and included, reviewed and
approved by the City Council. This stipulation protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density
development that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.





Page 807
Racelle Escolar

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 12:25 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan; Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7




Sofia Mastikhina
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003



From: Steven Dougherty
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 12:24 PM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Mayor
Gallego ; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District 4
; Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Steven Dougherty
Subject: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton ‐ Z‐165‐06‐7

Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,

Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2. I respectfully request that you deny Z‐
165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed.

The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of the
subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the
Planning Department. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this
zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the

Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City
Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of
this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on
site.”. City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing, the zoning was set to revert to S‐1
as of 2011. To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning
as required.

Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to
enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In
addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S‐1 zoning. Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐
GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.


Page 808
The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council. This stipulation protected the
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.


Sincerely,
Steven Dougherty
Steven@StevenDougherty.com
11222 S 39th Ln
Laveen AZ 85339
480‐430‐6130 Cell


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ This e‐mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to
it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a
person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play
this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in
or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e‐mail and delete the original transmission and its
attachments without reading, forwarding, saving or re‐distributing in any manner.





Page 809
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


From: Jo Ann Valenta
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 3:21 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,

I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) when it comes before the Planning Commission on
April 2. The City of Phoenix first needs to enforce their ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning
be placed back to S-1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which
violates City Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter.

The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not
fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General
Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Jo Ann Valenta

The Sanctuary at South Mountain
3224 W Carver Road
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 810
Racelle Escolar

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 9:40 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)




Sofia Mastikhina
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003



From: sonya fazio
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 9:38 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Sofia Mastikhina

I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) when it comes before you on January 13 and 15. The
back to S-1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City
Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter.


The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not
fit the area.


Please do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move
to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.


Thank You for your time!

Sonya Fazio
2414 W Corral Rd
Phoenix AZ 85041





Page 811
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW:


From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:26 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina ; Racelle Escolar ; Adam Stranieri

Subject: FW:

From the zoning mailbox.

From: Brenda Miller
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:05 AM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject:

Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff,

Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for both LVPC and PHO review next week. I respectfully request that you deny Z‐165‐06
(PHO‐1‐19) as filed.

The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of the subject property
and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the Planning Department. Due to the
site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes
Stipulation 19.

Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council
approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on site.”. City Council approval was
on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing, the zoning was set to revert to S‐1 as of 2011. To date there has been no
development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning as required.

Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to enforce
these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In addition, the City
should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the
reverted S‐1 zoning. Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July
2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.

The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting multiple
stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City Planning professionals and included,
reviewed and approved by the City Council. This stipulation protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check
for a high density development that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify
the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1
zoning.

Brenda Miller
219 W. Mountain Sage Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85045




Page 812
From: JK Bronson‐Groen
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 7:44 AM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Samantha
Keating ; PDD Laveen VPC
Cc: Mayor Gallego ; Council District 7 PCC ; Council
District 8 PCC ; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District
4
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06‐07


Good morning Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning
Management and staff,
I was surprised to see this posted on 35th ave and Carver rd. Due to these unprecedented times I do not believe holding
a public hearing on April 2nd is appropriate. In lieu of attending the meeting I am emailing my thoughts and opinions
regarding the changes and deletions being requested.

The owner is again requesting deletion of section 19. I am requesting you deny Case Z‐165‐06‐07 when it
comes before you on April 2nd. The City of Phoenix first needs to enforce their
ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S‐1 (one house per
acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning
Ordinance and is a serious matter. The current owner is requesting to delete
stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors and community
from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the
area. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06‐07 as filed. Then immediately
move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to
S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the
S‐1 zoning.
Thank you for your time and assistance in this very important matter.

Kyle Bronson
503‐890‐7885
4034 W Carver Rd
Laveen, AZ 85339




Page 813

Page 814
Sent from Kyle's iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: JK Bronson‐Groen
Date: January 13, 2020 at 9:56:09 AM MST
To: "alan.stephenson@phoenix.gov" , "joshua.bednarek@phoenix.gov"
, Samantha Keating , "LaveenVPC@phoenix.gov"

Cc: "mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov" , "council.district.7@phoenix.gov"
, "council.district.8@phoenix.gov" ,
"council.district.3@phoenix.gov" , "council.district.4@phoenix.gov"

Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)


Good Morning Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff,

I am a resident on Carver Rd, our property backs the beautiful Carver Mountain. I was very concerned when I saw the
rezoning notice posted on the large gravel pit at 35th ave and Carver. This area is beautiful farm country land with
minimum 1 acre lots.

I am requesting you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) when it comes before you on January 13 and 15. The City of Phoenix
first needs to enforce their ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S‐1 (one house per acre) as
of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter. The current
owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors and community from
providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. Do the required and right thing. Deny
Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning
reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter,

Kyle Bronson
4034 W Carver Rd.
Laveen, AZ. 85339
C – 503‐890‐7885


Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10




Page 815
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


From: Kieran Prendergast
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 2:40 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff,

Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) is scheduled for both LVPC and PHO review next week. I respectfully request that
you deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed.

The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G-5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific
nature of the subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-165-06-
7, on file with the Planning Department. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district
applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be
treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation
19.

Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of
the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building
permits and erection of building walls on site.”. City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the
48-month timing, the zoning was set to revert to S-1 as of 2011. To date there has been no development on
the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning as required.

Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and
duty to enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long-overdue zoning reversion to S-1 for the
entire property. In addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5-5
du/a to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S-1 zoning. Precedent has already been set
with Resolution 20714-GPA-LV-1-08-7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City
Council on October 15, 2008.

The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are
requesting multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this
stipulation is a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It
was written by City Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council. This
stipulation protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density
development that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate,
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Sincerely,
Kieran Prendergast
313 W Osborn Rd Phoenix, AZ 85013





Page 816
Racelle Escolar

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 8:20 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Danielle M Jordan
Subject: Fwd: Please help




Get Outlook for iOS

From: Leah
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 9:02:38 AM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Mayor
Gallego ; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District 4
; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Please help


Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management and Staff,

I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) when it comes before you on January 13 and 15. The City of Phoenix first needs to
enforce their ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S-1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action
has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance and is a serious matter.

The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors and community from
providing a blank check for a high densitydevelopment that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Leah Wilson

15601 S 1st Ave
Phoenix, AZ



Sent from my iPad





Page 817
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7


From: Heather Lott
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 4:27 PM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Mayor Gallego ; Joshua Bednarek
; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District 4
; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton ‐ Z‐165‐06‐7

Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,

Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2. I respectfully request that you deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐
1‐19) as filed.

The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of the subject property
and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the Planning Department. Due to the
site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes
Stipulation 19.

Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council
approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on site.”. City Council approval was
on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing, the zoning was set to revert to S‐1 as of 2011. To date there has been no
development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning as required.

Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to enforce
these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In addition, the City
should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the
reverted S‐1 zoning. Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July
2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.

The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting multiple
stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City Planning professionals and included,
reviewed and approved by the City Council. This stipulation protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check
for a high density development that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify
the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1
zoning.

Sincerely,

Heather Lott
11610 S. 43rd Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 818
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)
Attachments: DSC_8431.jpg


From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 7:23 AM
To: Racelle Escolar ; Danielle M Jordan
Subject: Fwd: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Bryan Peltzer
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 5:58:40 PM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Mayor
Gallego ; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District 4
; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) when it comes before the Planning Commission on April 2 for several
reasons. They are as follows:


 The City of Phoenix first needs to enforce their ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to
S‐1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance and
is a serious matter. According to City Zoning Code 506 B.1, the City of Phoenix has a duty and obligation to
initiate a hearing on the reversion of the zoning.
 The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which has protected the neighbors
and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area. The area
along Carver Road between 27th and 51st Avenues is very rural and comprised almost entirely of 1‐acre lots. As
such there is a significant amount of room between homes and the area is relatively dark at night. An attached
photograph depicts the area just after twilight. Approval of zoning that would allow much denser development
would create an eyesore in the community and ruin the ambiance that has developed natural should not be
encouraged.
 Due to the outbreak of Covid‐19, attendance at city meetings, hearings, etc. has been severely curtailed and
possibly eliminated entirely with Gov. Ducey’s executive orders today (March 30, 2020). These restrictions
undermine the ability of concerned residents to voice (and display with their attendance numbers) their
displeasure with the proposed zoning changes. Going ahead with such hearings should give reasonable people
concern regarding the legitimacy of such actions.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Bryan Peltzer
3725 W. Fox Road
Laveen, Arizona 85339


Page 819

Page 820
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: 35th Avenue & Carver Proposed Building Project


From: Kingston, Suzanne
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 8:52:26 AM
To: Joshua Bednarek ; Mayor Gallego ; Council District 7 PCC
; Council District 8 PCC ; Council District 3 PCC ;
Council District 4 ; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: 35th Avenue & Carver Proposed Building Project

March 31, 2020

Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,

Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2. I respectfully request that you deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as
filed.

The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G-5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of the subject property and of the
rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z-165-06-7, on file with the Planning Department. Due to the site’s specific physical
conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in
the same manner as a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance”, which includes Stipulation 19.

Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval of this
change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with
the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on site.”. City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48-month
timing, the zoning was set to revert to S-1 as of 2011. To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to
revert the zoning as required.

Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to enforce these requirements to
execute and finalize the long-overdue zoning reversion to S-1 for the entire property. In addition, the City should also execute a companion General
Plan Amendment from 3.5-5 du/a to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S-1 zoning. Precedent has already been set with
Resolution 20714-GPA-LV-1-08-7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.

The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting multiple stipulation modifications
and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious
matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council. This stipulation
protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required
zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Kingston
11820 S. 38th Avenue
Laveen, AZ 85339

SECURITY/CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This message and any attachments are intended solely for the individual or entity to which
they are addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under
applicable law (e.g., personal health information, research data, financial information). If you are not the intended recipient, or the
employee or person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of the
communication is strictly prohibited. If you received the communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying
to this message AND deleting the message and any accompanying files from your system. If, due to the security risks, you do
not wish to receive further communications via e-mail, please reply to this message and inform the sender that you do not wish to
receive further e-mail from the sender.





Page 821
Racelle Escolar

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 1:37 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Danielle M Jordan
Subject: Fwd: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19), April 2nd, 2020, 6:00 pm, Deny Re-Zoning Request




Get Outlook for iOS

From: Chris Luley
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 9:32:31 AM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Samantha
Keating ; PDD Laveen VPC
Cc: Mayor Gallego ; Council District 7 PCC ; Council
District 8 PCC ; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District
4
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19), April 2nd, 2020, 6:00 pm, Deny Re‐Zoning Request

Good Morning Laveen Village Planning Committee, Planning Management & Staff,

I am a resident on Carver Road in Laveen and our property is adjacent to Carver Mountain.
My wife and I have been made aware of the Re‐Zoning request that you have received and are considering. Please let it
be known that we are opposed to this rezoning request.

I am requesting you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) when it comes before you on April 2nd, The City of
Phoenix first needs to enforce their ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning be placed back to S‐1
(one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has been taken which violates City Zoning Ordinance
and is a serious matter. The current owner is requesting to delete stipulation 19 of this ordinance which
has protected the neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density
development that does not fit the area. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as
filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action
to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.



[google.com]

Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter,



Christopher & Amy Luley

4030 West Carver Road

Laveen, Arizona (85339)





Page 822
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: CASE Z-165-06


From: Janet Morris
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 12:14 PM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Mayor
Gallego ; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Council District 4 ; Sofia Mastikhina
; Council District 3 PCC
Subject: RE: CASE Z‐165‐06

Planning Commission Members, Planning Management and Staff,

Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) is scheduled for Planning Commission review April 2. I respectfully request that you deny Z‐
165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed.

The City of Phoenix is bound to enforce Ordinance G‐5020 in which SECTION 2 specifies: “The specific nature of the
subject property and of the rezoning request is more particularly described in case file Z‐165‐06‐7, on file with the
Planning Department. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district applied for by the applicant, this
zoning is subject to the following stipulations, violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the

Stipulation 19 states “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City
Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of
this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection of building walls on
site.”. City Council approval was on October 10, 2007 and with the 48‐month timing, the zoning was set to revert to S‐1
as of 2011. To date there has been no development on the property and no action taken by the City to revert the zoning
as required.

Before considering any revision to this case, now or in the future, the City of Phoenix first has an obligation and duty to
enforce these requirements to execute and finalize the long‐overdue zoning reversion to S‐1 for the entire property. In
addition, the City should also execute a companion General Plan Amendment from 3.5‐5 du/a to 0‐1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the reverted S‐1 zoning. Precedent has already been set with Resolution 20714‐
GPA‐LV‐1‐08‐7 which was initiated by the City in July 2008 and approved by the City Council on October 15, 2008.

The current applicant/owner is not only requesting a site plan revision on the 20 acre portion, they are requesting
multiple stipulation modifications and deletions, including deletion of Stipulation 19. Deleting this stipulation is a
violation of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter, and simply wrong. It was written by City
Planning professionals and included, reviewed and approved by the City Council. This stipulation protected the
neighbors and community from providing a blank check for a high density development that does not fit the area.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Janet Morris
3624 W. Bohl Street
Laveen, AZ 85339
602.561.9939

Page 823
Racelle Escolar

From: Steven Dougherty
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 5:41 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha
Keating
Cc: Steven Dougherty
Subject: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7




To: Planning Commission Members
Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that
fits the area, with the applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact
as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher),
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also
provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.




Page 824
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Steven Dougherty
11222 S 39th LN
Laveen AZ 85339




Sincerely,
Steven Dougherty
Steven@StevenDougherty.com
480‐430‐6130 Cell


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ This e‐mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to
it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a
person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play
this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in
or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e‐mail and delete the original transmission and its
attachments without reading, forwarding, saving or re‐distributing in any manner.





Page 825
Racelle Escolar

From: D M
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 8:29 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Council
District 7 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha
Keating
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 Do the right thing!


To: Planning Commission Members

Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff



Planning Commission Members,

I request you DENY Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.



In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:



1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not
be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that
fits the area, with the applicant.

 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher),
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces


Page 826
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above



Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.



Darcy Meyer

3535 W Bohl St

Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 827
Racelle Escolar

From: Ol' West
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 8:35 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Council
District 7 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha
Keating
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 Do the right thing!


To: Planning Commission Members

Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff



Planning Commission Members,

I request you DENY Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.



In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:



1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not
be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that
fits the area, with the applicant.

 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher),
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces


Page 828
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above



Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.



David J. Meyer

3535 W Bohl St

Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 829
Racelle Escolar

From: Chris
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 9:07 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha
Keating
Subject: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19


To: Planning Commission Members
Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that
fits the area, with the applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact
as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher),
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also
provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Page 830
Christine A. Danielson
2943 W. Ceton Dr.
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 831
Racelle Escolar

From: Cyd Manning
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:23 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha
Keating
Cc: catherine@mirandaforhouse.com
Subject: FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed

Importance: High


Forwarding the below to you as requested.

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Miranda For House [mailto:catherine@mirandaforhouse.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:33 AM
To: Cyd Manning
Cc: Dan Penton
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed

Cyd,

Can you please forward this letter to appropriate leaders? Thank you for all you are doing!


Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is
complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.

• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large



Page 832
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Catherine Miranda
5412 W. Ellis Dr.
Laveen, Az 85339
480‐284‐2690





Page 833
Racelle Escolar

From: cynthiarojas@cox.net
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:43 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed



Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Cynthia Rojas
1819 W. Desert View Drive
Phoenix AZ 85041
602‐626‐7102





Page 834
Racelle Escolar

From: E douglas
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 9:07 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


To: Planning Commission Members

Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff



Planning Commission Members,



I would like to preface the below letter with some personal observations.




How many of you have driven to this area? Before making a decision take advantage of cheap gas and less traffic and
come on down and drive from 51st Avenue across Carver to 35th Avenue. See the area on the ground, instead of relying
on aerial photography.



When I moved to Laveen in 2000 all the nearby fields were zoned for one acre housing but were developed with four to
six houses per acre. The city (and county) does not address the needed improvements to infrastructure, police/sheriff
presence, fire department capability, surface streets, river crossings, schools, etc. Every month or two the newspaper
runs an alarming article about water in the desert and yet you continue to approve high density developments
throughout the city. I am dreading whatever ends up on the west side of 51st Avenue south of Olney.



With the above in mind:



I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.



In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:


Page 835
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not
be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that
fits the area, with the applicant.

 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher),
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above



Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.



Elizabeth Douglas

4726 West Olney Avenue

Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 836
Racelle Escolar

From: KIM Domovich
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:31 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC; Joshua Bednarek
Subject: PLEASE Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed




Planning Commission Members,

We request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. We are adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete,
my neighbors and we stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.

• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows
site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella
Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and
can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept
any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: We request our names and address be added to these notification stipulations so we will be
formally notified of any future actions.

3. We are supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above





Page 837
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Respectfully,

Kim and Mike Domovich

5218 West Sunland Ave

Laveen AZ 85339

[nextdoor.com]





Page 838
Racelle Escolar

From: Sarah VanSchyndel
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 10:48 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Samantha Keating; Joshua Bednarek; Mayor Gallego;
Council District 8 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council
District 4; Council District 3 PCC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.

• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.




Page 839
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Sarah Johns
3913 W Carver Rd, Laveen Village, AZ 85339





Page 840
Racelle Escolar

From: eddd2@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 1:19 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed




Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S-1 zoning.
Tina Banks
4334 W Apollo Rd
Laveen AZ 85339





Page 841
Racelle Escolar

From: Vance
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 11:53 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed




Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.

• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Page 842
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Vance Pierce
8216 S 42nd Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 843
Racelle Escolar

From: brian hicks
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:53 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha
Keating
Cc: sweetbeat@q.com
Subject: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7


Planning Commission Members,



I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.




In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:



1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not
be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that
fits the area, with the applicant.

 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher),
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.



Page 844
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above



Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.




Brian Hicks

4715 W Carver Rd

Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 845
Racelle Escolar

From: Brian & Karie
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:51 AM
To: Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha
Keating
Cc: Cyd Manning
Subject: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7


Planning Commission Members,



I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.




In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:



1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not
be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that
fits the area, with the applicant.

 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher),
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.



Page 846
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above



Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.




Karie Hicks

4715 W Carver Rd

Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 847
Racelle Escolar

From: Lara Andren
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 9:39 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; Samantha
Keating; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; council.district.6@phoenix.org; Council District 7
PCC; Mayor Gallego; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

CASSIE SAWYER


Page 848
3621 W BOHL STREET
LAVEEN, AZ. 85339

ADDRESS — with Brent Bialik and 15 others at Laveen, Arizona.





Page 849
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


From: Lara Andren
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 9:43 AM
To: Racelle Escolar ; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2 PCC ; Council District
3 PCC ; Council District 4 ; Council District 5 PCC
; council.district.6@phoenix.org; Council District 7 PCC ; Council
District 8 PCC ; Joshua Bednarek ; PDD Laveen VPC
; Mayor Gallego ; Samantha Keating
Subject: Fwd: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed

Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed

Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a
very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows site
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South
Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the elevation
difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the
higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom
homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that
could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of
any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and
does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Lara Andren
3621 W BOHL STREET
LAVEEN, AZ. 85339

Page 850
Racelle Escolar

From: lvializ@cox.net
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 11:32 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) As Filed

Importance: High



Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7th,
2020. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until
after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐
1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date, the City has taken no action, despite
NUMEROUS requests, which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion
stipulation should NOT be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate
Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is
complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the
area, with the applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current
applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother
connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella
Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act
on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east
property line should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue
(lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better
buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The
200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with

Page 851
compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any
debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation
should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted
above.

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In
2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation SPECIFICALLY to protect the neighbors
and community from a high density development that DID NOT fit the area then and DOES
NOT fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the
General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Thank you,
Ivan Vializ
8921 S 53rd Dr.
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 852
Racelle Escolar

From: Rob
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 6:01 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Robert Olson
2809 and 2821 W. Avion Way
Laveen, AZ 85339
Page 853
Racelle Escolar

From: chris johns
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 4:47 PM
To: Alan Stephenson; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Council District 1 PCC; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; Mayor Gallego;
Council District 8 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council
District 4; Council District 3 PCC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed



Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.

• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.




Page 854
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Chris Johns
3913 W Carver Rd, Laveen Village, AZ 85339





Page 855
Racelle Escolar

From: Mike
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:58 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S-1 zoning.
Michael Luzader
9446 S 34th Ln, Laveen





Page 856
Racelle Escolar

From: Sylvia Cox
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 9:56 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Hello City of Phoenix Planning Commission,
As a 21‐year resident of Laveen, I am highly opposed to any more high‐density development in our area. Sadly, much of
Laveen now looks like most of Phoenix. The rural feel and space that make our village so special are rapidly being
destroyed. We have precious few opportunities left to preserve larger lots and open spaces. I beg of you, please work
to preserve some of our rural feel by not approving more high‐density development! Please adhere to the General Plan;
once these spaces are developed, they will be gone forever. I am sure developers will still be able to make money, as
the less‐densely developed areas will be highly coveted by buyers who want some space between themselves and their
neighbors.

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the
surrounding large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain
intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion.


2. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.
Please do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate,
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.


Page 857
Respectfully,
Sylvia Cox
4601 W. Crivello Ave.
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 858
Racelle Escolar

From: alexis cherie
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 2:29 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Alexis Barnes
4323 W Piedmont Rd, Laveen Village, AZ 85339



Page 859
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


From: Andrea Sigala
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 5:34 PM
To: Racelle Escolar ; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2 PCC ; Council District
3 PCC ; Council District 6 PCC ; Council District 4
; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Council District 5 PCC ; Mayor Gallego
; Joshua Bednarek ; Samantha Keating
; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed

Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a
very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows site
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South
Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the elevation
difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the
higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding large acre plus parcels with custom
homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that
could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of
any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and
does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Andrea N. Sigala
4315 West Carver Road, Laveen AZ 85339

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]


Page 860
Racelle Escolar

From: B F
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 1:55 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed

Importance: High



Dear Planning Commission Members:

I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to
this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance,
G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has
taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.
Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the
area, with the applicant.

 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact
as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain.
Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200
feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide
better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot
minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide
safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will
be formally notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above


Page 861
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate,
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Respectfully yours,

Benjamin W. Fisher
4745 W. Piedmont Drive
Laveen, AZ 85339-9644
602.617.6143 – Cell
benjamin_fisher@hotmail.com





Page 862
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


From: Janet Morris
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:03 PM
To: Alan Stephenson ; Council District 1 PCC ; Council
District 2 PCC ; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District
4 ; Council District 5 PCC ; Council District 6 PCC
; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Mayor Gallego ; Joshua Bednarek
; Samantha Keating ; PDD Laveen VPC

Subject: RE: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed

Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you
on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011
and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In
regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. •
Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. •
Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name
and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am
supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion
stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation
specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then
and does not fit the area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. JANET D MORRIS
3624 W BOHL STREET
LAVEEN, AZ 85339





Page 863
Racelle Escolar

From: Jessie McKinley
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 6:45 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed...



Dear Planning Commission Members:



I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to
this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance,
G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date, the City has
taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.



In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:



1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not
be deleted. Instead, it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits
the area, with the applicant.

 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal.
The original follows site contours, provides a smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact
as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 10: The 200-foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west
(higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well
as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200-
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide
safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.



Page 864
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I
will be formally notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above.



Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high-density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate,
approve, and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.



Respectfully yours,


Jessie L. McKinley
4745 W. Piedmont Drive
Laveen, AZ 85339
480-648-5269
jessiemckinley602@gmail.com

‐‐

"Dance, like no one is watching..."





Page 865
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


From: Steven Dougherty
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:42 PM
To: Racelle Escolar ; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Steven Dougherty ; Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2
PCC ; Council District 3 PCC ; Council District 4
; Council District 5 PCC ; Council District 6 PCC
; Council District 7 PCC ; Council District 8 PCC
; Mayor Gallego ; Joshua Bednarek
; Samantha Keating ; PDD Laveen VPC

Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed

Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May
7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces
ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has
taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In regards to the Planning Hearing
Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: • Deletion of original Stipulation 19
(zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate
Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to
develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared
to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion
to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line
should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet
provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain
intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also
provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation
should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be
added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am supportive of PHO’s
recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance
G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the
neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Steven Dougherty
11222 S 39th LN
Laveen AZ 85339

Sincerely,
Steven Dougherty
Steven@StevenDougherty.com
480‐430‐6130 Cell
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ This e‐mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e‐mail messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential
or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
must not read or play this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this
transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e‐mail and delete
the original transmission and its attachments without reading, forwarding, saving or re‐distributing in any manner.





Page 866
Racelle Escolar

From: Susan Quintana
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:00 AM
To: Alan Stephenson; Council District 6 PCC; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Joshua Bednarek; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Samantha Keating
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Susan Quintana
5217 W Grenadine Rd
Laveen, AZ 85339.
‐‐
Susan Quintana 1

Page 867
Racelle Escolar

From: R B
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:37 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: ESCALATE - Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Good afternoon, below is a copy‐paste of the same topic for which your office must have already received lots of
inquiries from us Laveen residents.
Frankly, we as your constituents and fellow residents shouldn’t have to be doing this over and over again ‐ we
already asked you to STOP these developers from building in our community.

Yet you continue to allow these developers to move ahead. You are not acting in the best interest of the people you are
supposed to help and protect ‐ us residents.

You continue to act in the interest of well‐funded developers and that’s not right.

Why do we need to keep begging you to do the right thing and make them stop?
Why do we need to keep having meetings and do letter writing campaigns about this?
We already said NO.
Then we said NO again.

We do not want this developer or any other developer to build in our area at this density level. We made this clear.
Then we made it clear again.

Now we are ‐ once again ‐ making it clear.

So please, add this email to your growing list of pleas to stop this development. We. Do. Not. Want. It.

Thank you

‐Cenk Brown
7259 S. 48TH GLN
Laveen, Arizona 85339

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:


Page 868
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Cenk Brown
7259 S. 48TH GLN
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 869
Racelle Escolar

From: Donna Snow
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed



Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on
May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered
until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning
revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion
stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with
immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better
plan that fits the area, with the applicant.

• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current
applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother
connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact
as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east
property line should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue
(lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with
custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain
intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated

Page 870
with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to
intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these
notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions.

2. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not
noted above,

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be
deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to
protect the neighbors and community from a high density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning
reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Sincerely,

Donna Snow
6806 W. Desert Lane
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 871
Racelle Escolar

From: Jody Monreal
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:40 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3
PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council
District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed




Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-
5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no
action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of
the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due
to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Jody R Monreal 5327 W Allen Street Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 872
Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current
zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City
Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation
should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission
action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to
develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18
portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The
original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west
(higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story
product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with
custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on
the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These
terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper
slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007,
the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and
community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the
area today.
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the
General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

LAURA A MURPHY
4824 W ESTRELLA DR
LAVEEN, AZ 85339




Page 873
Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current
zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City
Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation
should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission
action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to
develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18
portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The
original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west
(higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story
product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with
custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on
the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These
terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper
slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007,
the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and
community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the
area today.
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the
General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

LISA K PIKE
4824 W ESTRELLA DR
LAVEEN, AZ 85339




Page 874
Racelle Escolar

From: M A
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 12:27 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council
District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego; Joshua Bednarek;
Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you
on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011
and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In
regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. •
Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. •
Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name
and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am
supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion
stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation
specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then
and does not fit the area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. Mindy Avina 3522 W Bohl St, Laveen
Village, AZ 85339





Page 875
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed.


From: Moises Quintana
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 11:46 AM
To: Racelle Escolar ; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2 PCC ; Council District
3 PCC ; Council District 4 ; Council District 5 PCC
; Council District 6 PCC ; Council District 7 PCC
; Council District 8 PCC ; Mayor Gallego
; Joshua Bednarek ; Samantha Keating
; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed.

Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a
very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows site
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South
Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the elevation
difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the
higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom
homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that
could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of
any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and
does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Moises Quintana
5217 W Grenadine Rd
Laveen, AZ 85339

Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]


Page 876
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Please deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


From: Randy Holmes
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:30 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2 PCC ; Council District
3 PCC ; Council District 4 ; Council District 5 PCC
; Council District 6 PCC ; Council District 7 PCC
; Council District 8 PCC ; PDD Laveen VPC
; Mayor Gallego ; Racelle Escolar ; Sofia
Mastikhina ; Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek
; Samantha Keating
Subject: Please deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a
very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the
applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views
of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due
to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a
much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and
does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Randy L Holmes
10909 S. 29th Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339

Page 877
Racelle Escolar

From: ROB HARGREAVES
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 3:02 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha
Keating
Subject: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)



To: Planning Commission Members
Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to
this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces
ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the
City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:


1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion
stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning
Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I
stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18
portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The
original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line
should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to
the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐
story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels
with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act
on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These
terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper
slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations
so I will be formally notified of any future actions.


Page 878
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above


Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate,
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Robert Hargreaves
3102 W Ceton Dr.
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 879
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


From: Kristofic, Stephanie L.
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 1:11 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a
very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the
applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and
does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Warm regards,

Stephanie Kristofic 10826 s 30th Ave Laveen
Stephanie Kristofic BSN, RN, CDCES
Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist
Department of Endocrinology
Phoenix VA Health Care System
Phone: 602‐277‐5551 Ext 7081
Fax: 602‐200‐6034 Email: stephanie.kristofic@va.gov


Page 880
Racelle Escolar

From: Swati Joshi
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:57 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you
on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of
Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011
and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In
regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion
is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. •
Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. •
Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced
stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name
and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am
supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion
stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation
specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then
and does not fit the area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. Swati Joshi
8539 S. 40th Drive
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 881
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton - Z-165-06-7


From: Anne McKinney
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 1:33 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2 PCC ; Council District
3 PCC ; Council District 4 ; Council District 5 PCC
; Council District 6 PCC ; Council District 7 PCC
; Council District 8 PCC ; PDD Laveen VPC
; Mayor Gallego ; Racelle Escolar ; Sofia
Mastikhina ; Joshua Bednarek ; Alan Stephenson
; Samantha Keating
Subject: Quarry Case at 35th Ave. & Carver/Ceton ‐ Z‐165‐06‐7
Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the
applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1.
The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very
serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of
the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding
the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as
you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop
zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain
intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above.

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the
area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Anne McKinney
10827 S 30th Ave
Laveen AZ 85339





Page 882
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


From: Bernadette Buehlmann
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 5:03 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

To: Planning Commission Members
Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a
very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the
applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and
does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Thank you,

Bernadette Buehlmann, Laveen





Page 883
Racelle Escolar

From: RK <7359.apps@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 6:40 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete,
my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.

• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows
site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella
Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and
can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept
any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.


2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above.

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Page 884
PLEASE do the required and right thing.

Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning
reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.


Kavi Raj,

4309 W Buist Ave, Laveen, 85339





Page 885
Racelle Escolar

From: Kim Kissel
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 2:11 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as Filed


Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action, which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once
the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the
applicant.

 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of
the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.

 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a
much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment
and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones
to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain
intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Page 886
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

I pray you, your families and colleagues are staying safe and healthy during this new season in our lives.


God Bless,
Kimberly Kissel
June Skies
5124 W Lydia Ln
Laveen AZ 85339

“For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.” Heb 3:4





Page 887
Racelle Escolar

From: Matt Klein
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 4:51 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on
May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix
enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the
City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In regards to the Planning
Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: • Deletion of original
Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is
with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I
stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior
quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to
the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan
should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback
along the east property line should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace
to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum
landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms
should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated
with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the
upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations
43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any
future actions. 3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the
zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included
this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the
area then and does not fit the area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then
immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the
General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning. Matt Klein
9812 S 46th Ln
Laveen, AZ





Page 888
Racelle Escolar

From: drmelissaprice@aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 3:08 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Dear Planning Commission Members,
My neighbors all throughout the Laveen region and I feel that the following is so important. We are untied in the
following statement because this is where we live. Personally, I have watched Laveen grow, in some ways for
the better and some for the worse. Allowing the following four stipulations would clearly fall in the latter
category.
As such, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix
enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to
date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In
regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4
stipulation: • Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not
be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.
Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with
the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east
property line should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the
west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well
as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot
minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The
terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be further
stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any
debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on
the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for
the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020
should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the
neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the
area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-
1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Sincerely,

Dr. Melissa Price
5333 W. Ian Dr.
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 889
Racelle Escolar

From: RK K
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 6:43 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete,
my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.

• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows
site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella
Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and
can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept
any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.


2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above.

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Page 890
PLEASE do the required and right thing.

Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning
reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.


Rohini Kun,

4309 W Buist Ave, Laveen, 85339





Page 891
Racelle Escolar

From: Cyd Manning
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 4:01 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen
VPC
Subject: Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) at May 7 Planning Commission

Importance: High


Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which
requires the zoning to revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is
in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high
density development that was incompatible with the area then and remains incompatible today. The inaction since the
time stipulation expired in 2011 has wronged the community of Laveen as we expected the zoning reversion to
occur. The City needs and should want to do the right thing. This Commission and Council have the obligation, duty and
authority to act and honor the zoning reversion.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that
fits the area, with the applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The
original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and
preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact
as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher),
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also
provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted.



Page 892
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Sincerely,

Cyd Manning
3220 W. Ceton Drive
sweetbeat@q.com





Page 893
Racelle Escolar

From: EMAIL TEAM
Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 10:36 AM
To: Council District 1 PCC; council.distict.2@phoenix.gov; coucil.district.3@phoenix.gov; Council District
4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC;
laveenpc@phoenix.gov; Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua
Bednarek; Samantha Keating
Subject: Quarry Case Z-165-06-7 (PHO-1-19)_1-15-20PHO.PDF


Hello All,
I request you deny the Case # above. And I am opposed to Stipulations 1, 10, 19, 35, 43 and 44.
Please take into consideration our Community life style when making your decision-we would like to keep
it semi-rural.
Sincerly,
Gary Jordan
3603 W. Shawnee Dr.
Laveen, Az 85339





Page 894
Racelle Escolar

From: C Gunderson
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 8:36 PM
To: Alan Stephenson; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed



Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it
comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be
considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning
revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which
is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter. In regards to the Planning Hearing
Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation: • Deletion of
original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted.
Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning.
Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits
the area, with the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to
the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother
connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and
South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. •
Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west
(higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product,
as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom
homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent
height of the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible
colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from
the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these
notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am supportive of
PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning
reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high
density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today. Do the
required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate,
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General
Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Regards,

Carolyn Gunderson
3514 W Cheyenne Dr.
Laveen, AZ85339





Page 895
Racelle Escolar

From: Deirdre Sparling
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 7:59 AM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha
Keating
Subject: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


To: Planning Commission Members
Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff

Planning Commission Members,



I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions
to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces
ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to
date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion
stipulation should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate
Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my
neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the
applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current
applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection
to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and
South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line
should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing
terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher
density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the
large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback
should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of
the exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible
colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could
fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above


Page 896
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the
high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate,
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Sincerely,

Deirdre Sparling
9819 S. 20th Ave
Phoenix, 85041





Page 897
Racelle Escolar

From: Donna Schober
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 11:27 AM
To: Council District 8 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Alan Stephenson; Council District 4; Council District 7
PCC; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 5 PCC; Council
District 6 PCC; PDD Laveen VPC; Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Samantha Keating
Subject: CASE Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)



Planning Commission Members,
We request that you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City enforces
ordinance G‐5020 which requires that the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date
the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

With regard to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations we are opposed to these four
stipulations:

Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion).

Stipulation 1: The original plan is far superior to the applicant's current proposal. The original plan suits site
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella
Mountains and South Mountain.

Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. This
will serve as a needed buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story buildings and provide better buffering
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes.

Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. This will help stabilize the slopes.

Stipulations 43 and 44: Please add our names to the notification stipulations so we will be notified of any
future actions.

We support the PHO's recommendations for the remaining stipulations NOT noted above.

We have lived in Laveen, close to this land, for over 20 years. This is an area where large lots and custom
homes live. Where homeowners and others take advantage of the mountain views and wide open spaces.

Please do the right thing. Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Don't break faith and trust with the
residents of this community.

Sincerely,

Donna J. Schober
Marvin A. Sondag
10840 S 30th Ave
Laveen, AZ 85339
602.237.4887 1

Page 898
Racelle Escolar

From: Elizabeth Banta
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:28 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Denial strongly requested for Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


To: Planning Commission Members

Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff



Planning Commission Members,



I am a member of the area greatly and negatively affected by Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19). So much of Greater Phoenix
contains high density, cookie‐cutter communities. Please preserve a unique jewel in our Valley by denying Case Z‐165‐06
(PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not
be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The
current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a
very serious matter.



In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:



1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:

 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not
be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that
fits the area, with the applicant.

 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the
west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher),
200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as
provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200
foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces

Page 899
also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original
terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be
formally notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above



Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did
not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.



Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S‐1 zoning.



Sincerely,
Elizabeth K Banta
3938 W Kayenta Trail
Laveen, AZ 85339
480‐353‐6019





Page 900
Racelle Escolar

From: Jamie Gunderson
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 8:23 PM
To: Alan Stephenson; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


Planning Commission Members, I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before
you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City
of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in
2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious
matter. In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations: 1. I am adamantly opposed to
these 4 stipulation: • Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation
should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the
zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the
area, with the applicant. • Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current
applicant’s proposal. The original follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to
the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain
intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the
east property line should remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to
the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as
well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot
minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion. • Stipulation 35: The
terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be further
stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any
debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on
the zoning reversion. 2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification
stipulations so I will be formally notified of any future actions. 3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for
the remaining stipulations not noted above Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020
should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the
neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the
area today. Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to
initiate, approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-
1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.


Regards,


Jamie Gunderson
3514 W Cheyenne Drive
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 901
Page 902
5DFHOOH(VFRODU

6XEMHFW ):2SSRVHFDVH= 3+2


&ƌŽŵ͗EŝĐŽůĞ'ůĂƐŐŽǁфŶŝĐŽůĞ͘ŐůĂƐŐŽǁϴϮϭΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗^ƵŶĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϯ͕ϮϬϮϬϮ͗ϭϵWD
dŽ͗ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϭWфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϭΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϮWфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϮΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ
ϯWфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϯΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϰфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϰΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϱW
фĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϱΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϲWфŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϲΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϳW
фĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϳΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϴWфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϴΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖W>ĂǀĞĞŶsW
фůĂǀĞĞŶǀƉĐΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖DĂLJŽƌ'ĂůůĞŐŽфŵĂLJŽƌ͘ŐĂůůĞŐŽΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ZĂĐĞůůĞƐĐŽůĂƌфƌĂĐĞůůĞ͘ĞƐĐŽůĂƌΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖^ŽĨŝĂ
DĂƐƚŝŬŚŝŶĂфƐŽĨŝĂ͘ŵĂƐƚŝŬŚŝŶĂΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ůĂŶ^ƚĞƉŚĞŶƐŽŶфĂůĂŶ͘ƐƚĞƉŚĞŶƐŽŶΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖:ŽƐŚƵĂĞĚŶĂƌĞŬ
фũŽƐŚƵĂ͘ďĞĚŶĂƌĞŬΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖^ĂŵĂŶƚŚĂ<ĞĂƚŝŶŐфƐĂŵĂŶƚŚĂ͘ŬĞĂƚŝŶŐΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗KƉƉŽƐĞĐĂƐĞͲϭϲϱͲϬϲ;W,KͲϭͲϭϵͿ

WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶDĞŵďĞƌƐ͕
/ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚLJŽƵĚĞŶLJĂƐĞͲϭϲϱͲϬϲ;W,KͲϭͲϭϵͿĂƐĨŝůĞĚǁŚĞŶŝƚĐŽŵĞƐďĞĨŽƌĞLJŽƵŽŶDĂLJϳ͘ŶLJƌĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚŝƐĐĂƐĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚďLJ
ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƵŶƚŝůĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨWŚŽĞŶŝdžĞŶĨŽƌĐĞƐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕'ͲϱϬϮϬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƚ
ƚŽ^Ͳϭ͘dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚnjŽŶŝŶŐĞdžƉŝƌĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϭĂŶĚƚŽĚĂƚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŚĂƐƚĂŬĞŶŶŽĂĐƚŝŽŶǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŝŶǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŝƚLJŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕Ă
ǀĞƌLJƐĞƌŝŽƵƐŵĂƚƚĞƌ͘

/ŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƐƚŽƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞƌ;W,KͿƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗

ϭ͘ /ĂŵĂĚĂŵĂŶƚůLJŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐĞϰƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͗
xĞůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭϵ;njŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶͿ͗dŚŝƐnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞ
ĚĞůĞƚĞĚ͘/ŶƐƚĞĂĚŝƚƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶĂƐŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƌĞǀĞƌƚƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ͘KŶĐĞƚŚĞ
ƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ͕ŵLJŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚ/ƐƚĂŶĚƌĞĂĚLJƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂďĞƚƚĞƌƉůĂŶƚŚĂƚĨŝƚƐƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͘
x^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭ͗dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƉůĂŶŝƐŽĨƐƵƉĞƌŝŽƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛ƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů
ĨŽůůŽǁƐƐŝƚĞĐŽŶƚŽƵƌƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƐŵŽŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞZϭͲϭϴƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ͕ĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐǀŝĞǁƐŽĨƚŚĞ
ƐƚƌĞůůĂDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶƐĂŶĚ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƉůĂŶƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƚĂĐƚĂƐLJŽƵĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘
x^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭϬ͗dŚĞϮϬϬĨŽŽƚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶ͘ƵĞƚŽ
ƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨϯϱƚŚǀĞŶƵĞ;ůŽǁĞƌͿĂŶĚĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ;ŚŝŐŚĞƌͿ͕ϮϬϬĨĞĞƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂŵƵĐŚ
ďĞƚƚĞƌďƵĨĨĞƌƚŽƐĐƌĞĞŶƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂŶĚϮͲƐƚŽƌLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞďĞƚƚĞƌďƵĨĨĞƌŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞĂĐƌĞƉůƵƐƉĂƌĐĞůƐǁŝƚŚĐƵƐƚŽŵŚŽŵĞƐ͘dŚĞϮϬϬĨŽŽƚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƐŚŽƵůĚ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƚĂĐƚĂƐLJŽƵĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘
x^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϯϱ͗dŚĞƚĞƌƌĂĐĞĚďĞƌŵƐƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶ͘dŚĞLJƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞĞdžƉŽƐĞĚ
ĞƐĐĂƌƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĐĂŶďĞĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƐƚĂďŝůŝnjĞĚĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞĐŽůŽƌƐ͘dŚĞƐĞƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƐĂůƐŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂĨĞƚLJ
ĚƌŽƉnjŽŶĞƐƚŽŝŶƚĞƌĐĞƉƚĂŶLJĚĞďƌŝƐƚŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚĨĂůůĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƵƉƉĞƌƐůŽƉĞƐ͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƚĞƌƌĂĐĞĚƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƚĂĐƚĂƐLJŽƵĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘
Ϯ͘ ^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐϰϯĂŶĚϰϰ͗/ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŵLJŶĂŵĞĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐďĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƐŽ/ǁŝůůďĞĨŽƌŵĂůůLJ
ŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚŽĨĂŶLJĨƵƚƵƌĞĂĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘
ϯ͘ /ĂŵƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞŽĨW,K͛ƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŶŽƚŶŽƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ

ŐĂŝŶ͕ƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭϵŽĨKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ'ͲϱϬϮϬƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĚĞůĞƚĞĚ͘/ŶϮϬϬϳ͕ƚŚĞDĂLJŽƌĂŶĚŽƵŶĐŝůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚƚŚŝƐ
ƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůLJƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĨƌŽŵĂŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚĚŝĚŶŽƚĨŝƚƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƚŚĞŶĂŶĚ
ĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĨŝƚƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƚŽĚĂLJ͘

ŽƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĂŶĚƌŝŐŚƚƚŚŝŶŐ͘ĞŶLJͲϭϲϱͲϬϲ;W,KͲϭͲϭϵͿĂƐĨŝůĞĚ͘dŚĞŶŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJŵŽǀĞƚŽŝŶŝƚŝĂƚĞ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĂŶĚĨŝŶĂůůLJĐŽĚŝĨLJƚŚĞ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶĂĐƚŝŽŶƚŽ^ͲϭĂŶĚĂŵĞŶĚƚŚĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶƚŽϬͲϭZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůͬWĂƌŬƐͬKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞƚŽŵĂƚĐŚƚŚĞ^ͲϭnjŽŶŝŶŐ͘

EŝĐŽůĞ'ůĂƐŐŽǁ
ϯϳϭϳǁĞƐƚĂƌǀĞƌZĚ
>ĂǀĞĞŶ͕ϴϱϯϯϵ



Page 903
5DFHOOH(VFRODU

)URP 3DXO%DQWDSZEDQWD]#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW 6XQGD\0D\30
7R 5DFHOOH(VFRODU
6XEMHFW 5HTXHVWWRGHQ\&DVH= 3+2


dŽ͗WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶDĞŵďĞƌƐ

Đ͗DĂLJŽƌ'ĂůůĞŐŽ͕ŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕WůĂŶŶŝŶŐDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ^ƚĂĨĨ



WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶDĞŵďĞƌƐ͕



/ůŝǀĞŶĞĂƌƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚďLJĂƐĞͲϭϲϱͲϬϲ;W,KͲϭͲϭϵͿ͘/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽŵƉĂŶLJĐĂŶŵĂŬĞŵŽƌĞ
ŵŽŶĞLJďLJŐĞƚƚŝŶŐĂůŽǁĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƌĞͲnjŽŶĞĚƚŽŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͖ďƵƚƚŚĂƚĂůŽŶĞĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƐĞĞŵůŝŬĞĂƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚƌĞĂƐŽŶ
ƚŽĂůůŽǁƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŶĚ͕ŝĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐƐŽĞĂƐŝůLJƌĞͲnjŽŶĞĚ͕ŚŽǁǁŝůůLJŽƵďĞĂďůĞƚŽĚĞŶLJƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͍dŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚĂǀĞƚŚĞƌŽĂĚƐƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐůŽƚƐŽĨ
ǀĂĐĂŶƚůĂŶĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐĞŶƚƌĂůWŚŽĞŶŝdž͘WůĞĂƐĞĨŝůůƚŚĂƚƵƉĨŝƌƐƚ͘ĞƚƚĞƌ͕ƌĞǀŝƚĂůŝnjĞƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞĚĞĐĂLJĞĚ
ĂŶĚƌƵŶͲĚŽǁŶĂƌĞĂƐŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨũƵƐƚŐŽŝŶŐĨĂƌƚŚĞƌŽƵƚ͘



WůĞĂƐĞĚĞŶLJĂƐĞͲϭϲϱͲϬϲ;W,KͲϭͲϭϵͿĂƐĨŝůĞĚǁŚĞŶŝƚĐŽŵĞƐďĞĨŽƌĞLJŽƵŽŶDĂLJϳ͘ŶLJƌĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚŝƐĐĂƐĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ
ďLJƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƵŶƚŝůĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨWŚŽĞŶŝdžĞŶĨŽƌĐĞƐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕'ͲϱϬϮϬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĞ
njŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƚƚŽ^Ͳϭ͘dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚnjŽŶŝŶŐĞdžƉŝƌĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϭĂŶĚƚŽĚĂƚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŚĂƐƚĂŬĞŶŶŽĂĐƚŝŽŶǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŝŶǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ
ŝƚLJŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ĂǀĞƌLJƐĞƌŝŽƵƐŵĂƚƚĞƌ͘



/ŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƐƚŽƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞƌ;W,KͿƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗



ϭ͘ /ĂŵĂĚĂŵĂŶƚůLJŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐĞϰƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͗

xĞůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭϵ;njŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶͿ͗dŚŝƐnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚ
ďĞĚĞůĞƚĞĚ͘/ŶƐƚĞĂĚŝƚƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶĂƐŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƌĞǀĞƌƚƚŚĞ
njŽŶŝŶŐ͘KŶĐĞƚŚĞƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ͕ŵLJŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚ/ƐƚĂŶĚƌĞĂĚLJƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂďĞƚƚĞƌƉůĂŶƚŚĂƚ
ĨŝƚƐƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͘

x^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭ͗dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƉůĂŶŝƐŽĨƐƵƉĞƌŝŽƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛Ɛ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĨŽůůŽǁƐƐŝƚĞĐŽŶƚŽƵƌƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƐŵŽŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞZϭͲϭϴƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ǁĞƐƚ͕ĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐǀŝĞǁƐŽĨƚŚĞƐƚƌĞůůĂDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶƐĂŶĚ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƉůĂŶƐŚŽƵůĚ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƚĂĐƚĂƐLJŽƵĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘




Page 904
x^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭϬ͗dŚĞϮϬϬĨŽŽƚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞƐŚŽƵůĚ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶ͘ƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨϯϱƚŚǀĞŶƵĞ;ůŽǁĞƌͿĂŶĚĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ;ŚŝŐŚĞƌͿ͕
ϮϬϬĨĞĞƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂŵƵĐŚďĞƚƚĞƌďƵĨĨĞƌƚŽƐĐƌĞĞŶƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂŶĚϮͲƐƚŽƌLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐ
ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞďĞƚƚĞƌďƵĨĨĞƌŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞĂĐƌĞƉůƵƐƉĂƌĐĞůƐǁŝƚŚĐƵƐƚŽŵŚŽŵĞƐ͘dŚĞϮϬϬ
ĨŽŽƚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƚĂĐƚĂƐLJŽƵĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘

x^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϯϱ͗dŚĞƚĞƌƌĂĐĞĚďĞƌŵƐƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶ͘dŚĞLJƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞ
ĞdžƉŽƐĞĚĞƐĐĂƌƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĐĂŶďĞĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƐƚĂďŝůŝnjĞĚĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞĐŽůŽƌƐ͘dŚĞƐĞƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƐ
ĂůƐŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂĨĞƚLJĚƌŽƉnjŽŶĞƐƚŽŝŶƚĞƌĐĞƉƚĂŶLJĚĞďƌŝƐƚŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚĨĂůůĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƵƉƉĞƌƐůŽƉĞƐ͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů
ƚĞƌƌĂĐĞĚƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƚĂĐƚĂƐLJŽƵĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘

Ϯ͘ ^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐϰϯĂŶĚϰϰ͗/ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŵLJŶĂŵĞĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐďĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƐŽ/ǁŝůůďĞ
ĨŽƌŵĂůůLJŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚŽĨĂŶLJĨƵƚƵƌĞĂĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘
ϯ͘ /ĂŵƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞŽĨW,K͛ƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŶŽƚŶŽƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ



ŐĂŝŶ͕ƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭϵŽĨKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ'ͲϱϬϮϬƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĚĞůĞƚĞĚ͘/ŶϮϬϬϳ͕ƚŚĞDĂLJŽƌĂŶĚŽƵŶĐŝů
ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚƚŚŝƐƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůLJƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĨƌŽŵĂŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚĚŝĚ
ŶŽƚĨŝƚƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƚŚĞŶĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĨŝƚƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƚŽĚĂLJ͘



ŽƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĂŶĚƌŝŐŚƚƚŚŝŶŐ͘ĞŶLJͲϭϲϱͲϬϲ;W,KͲϭͲϭϵͿĂƐĨŝůĞĚ͘dŚĞŶŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJŵŽǀĞƚŽŝŶŝƚŝĂƚĞ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĂŶĚ
ĨŝŶĂůůLJĐŽĚŝĨLJƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶĂĐƚŝŽŶƚŽ^ͲϭĂŶĚĂŵĞŶĚƚŚĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶƚŽϬͲϭZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůͬWĂƌŬƐͬKƉĞŶ
^ƉĂĐĞƚŽŵĂƚĐŚƚŚĞ^ͲϭnjŽŶŝŶŐ͘



^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
WĂƵůtĂŶƚĂ
ϯϵϯϴt<ĂLJĞŶƚĂdƌĂŝů
>ĂǀĞĞŶ͕ϴϱϯϯϵ
ϰϴϬͲϯϱϯͲϲϬϭϰ






Page 905
Page 906
5DFHOOH(VFRODU

6XEMHFW ):2SSRVHFDVH= 3+2


&ƌŽŵ͗EŝĐŽůĞ'ůĂƐŐŽǁфďůƵĞͺĞLJĞƐϴϮϭΛĂŽů͘ĐŽŵх
^ĞŶƚ͗^ƵŶĚĂLJ͕DĂLJϯ͕ϮϬϮϬϱ͗ϯϮWD
dŽ͗ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϭWфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϭΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϮWфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϮΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ
ϯWфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϯΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϰфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϰΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϱW
фĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϱΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϲWфŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϲΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϳW
фĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϳΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ŽƵŶĐŝůŝƐƚƌŝĐƚϴWфĐŽƵŶĐŝů͘ĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͘ϴΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖W>ĂǀĞĞŶsW
фůĂǀĞĞŶǀƉĐΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖DĂLJŽƌ'ĂůůĞŐŽфŵĂLJŽƌ͘ŐĂůůĞŐŽΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ZĂĐĞůůĞƐĐŽůĂƌфƌĂĐĞůůĞ͘ĞƐĐŽůĂƌΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖^ŽĨŝĂ
DĂƐƚŝŬŚŝŶĂфƐŽĨŝĂ͘ŵĂƐƚŝŬŚŝŶĂΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖ůĂŶ^ƚĞƉŚĞŶƐŽŶфĂůĂŶ͘ƐƚĞƉŚĞŶƐŽŶΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖:ŽƐŚƵĂĞĚŶĂƌĞŬ
фũŽƐŚƵĂ͘ďĞĚŶĂƌĞŬΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх͖^ĂŵĂŶƚŚĂ<ĞĂƚŝŶŐфƐĂŵĂŶƚŚĂ͘ŬĞĂƚŝŶŐΛƉŚŽĞŶŝdž͘ŐŽǀх
^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗KƉƉŽƐĞĐĂƐĞͲϭϲϱͲϬϲ;W,KͲϭͲϭϵͿ

WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶDĞŵďĞƌƐ͕
/ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚLJŽƵĚĞŶLJĂƐĞͲϭϲϱͲϬϲ;W,KͲϭͲϭϵͿĂƐĨŝůĞĚǁŚĞŶŝƚĐŽŵĞƐďĞĨŽƌĞLJŽƵŽŶDĂLJϳ͘ŶLJƌĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚŝƐĐĂƐĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚďLJ
ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƵŶƚŝůĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨWŚŽĞŶŝdžĞŶĨŽƌĐĞƐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕'ͲϱϬϮϬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƚ
ƚŽ^Ͳϭ͘dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚnjŽŶŝŶŐĞdžƉŝƌĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϭĂŶĚƚŽĚĂƚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŚĂƐƚĂŬĞŶŶŽĂĐƚŝŽŶǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŝŶǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŝƚLJŽŶŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕Ă
ǀĞƌLJƐĞƌŝŽƵƐŵĂƚƚĞƌ͘

/ŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƐƚŽƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐĞƌ;W,KͿƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐ͗

ϭ͘ /ĂŵĂĚĂŵĂŶƚůLJŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐĞϰƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ͗
xĞůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭϵ;njŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶͿ͗dŚŝƐnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞ
ĚĞůĞƚĞĚ͘/ŶƐƚĞĂĚŝƚƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶĂƐŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƌĞǀĞƌƚƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ͘KŶĐĞƚŚĞ
ƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞ͕ŵLJŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚ/ƐƚĂŶĚƌĞĂĚLJƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂďĞƚƚĞƌƉůĂŶƚŚĂƚĨŝƚƐƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͘
x^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭ͗dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƉůĂŶŝƐŽĨƐƵƉĞƌŝŽƌƋƵĂůŝƚLJĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛ƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂů
ĨŽůůŽǁƐƐŝƚĞĐŽŶƚŽƵƌƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƐŵŽŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞZϭͲϭϴƉŽƌƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ͕ĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐǀŝĞǁƐŽĨƚŚĞ
ƐƚƌĞůůĂDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶƐĂŶĚ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƉůĂŶƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƚĂĐƚĂƐLJŽƵĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘
x^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭϬ͗dŚĞϮϬϬĨŽŽƚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĞĂƐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶ͘ƵĞƚŽ
ƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŽĨϯϱƚŚǀĞŶƵĞ;ůŽǁĞƌͿĂŶĚĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ;ŚŝŐŚĞƌͿ͕ϮϬϬĨĞĞƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂŵƵĐŚ
ďĞƚƚĞƌďƵĨĨĞƌƚŽƐĐƌĞĞŶƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂŶĚϮͲƐƚŽƌLJƉƌŽĚƵĐƚ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞďĞƚƚĞƌďƵĨĨĞƌŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞĂĐƌĞƉůƵƐƉĂƌĐĞůƐǁŝƚŚĐƵƐƚŽŵŚŽŵĞƐ͘dŚĞϮϬϬĨŽŽƚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚƐĞƚďĂĐŬƐŚŽƵůĚ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƚĂĐƚĂƐLJŽƵĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘
x^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϯϱ͗dŚĞƚĞƌƌĂĐĞĚďĞƌŵƐƐŚŽƵůĚƌĞŵĂŝŶ͘dŚĞLJƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞĞdžƉŽƐĞĚ
ĞƐĐĂƌƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĐĂŶďĞĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƐƚĂďŝůŝnjĞĚĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞĐŽůŽƌƐ͘dŚĞƐĞƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƐĂůƐŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĂĨĞƚLJ
ĚƌŽƉnjŽŶĞƐƚŽŝŶƚĞƌĐĞƉƚĂŶLJĚĞďƌŝƐƚŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚĨĂůůĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƵƉƉĞƌƐůŽƉĞƐ͘dŚĞŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƚĞƌƌĂĐĞĚƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŽƵůĚ
ƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶƚĂĐƚĂƐLJŽƵĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘
Ϯ͘ ^ƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐϰϯĂŶĚϰϰ͗/ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŵLJŶĂŵĞĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐďĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞƐĞŶŽƚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƐŽ/ǁŝůůďĞĨŽƌŵĂůůLJ
ŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚŽĨĂŶLJĨƵƚƵƌĞĂĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘
ϯ͘ /ĂŵƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞŽĨW,K͛ƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐŶŽƚŶŽƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ

ŐĂŝŶ͕ƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶϭϵŽĨKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ'ͲϱϬϮϬƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĚĞůĞƚĞĚ͘/ŶϮϬϬϳ͕ƚŚĞDĂLJŽƌĂŶĚŽƵŶĐŝůŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚƚŚŝƐ
ƐƚŝƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůLJƚŽƉƌŽƚĞĐƚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĨƌŽŵĂŚŝŐŚĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚĚŝĚŶŽƚĨŝƚƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƚŚĞŶĂŶĚ
ĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĨŝƚƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƚŽĚĂLJ͘

ŽƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĂŶĚƌŝŐŚƚƚŚŝŶŐ͘ĞŶLJͲϭϲϱͲϬϲ;W,KͲϭͲϭϵͿĂƐĨŝůĞĚ͘dŚĞŶŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJŵŽǀĞƚŽŝŶŝƚŝĂƚĞ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĂŶĚĨŝŶĂůůLJĐŽĚŝĨLJƚŚĞ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞǀĞƌƐŝŽŶĂĐƚŝŽŶƚŽ^ͲϭĂŶĚĂŵĞŶĚƚŚĞ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶƚŽϬͲϭZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůͬWĂƌŬƐͬKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞƚŽŵĂƚĐŚƚŚĞ^ͲϭnjŽŶŝŶŐ͘

dŚŽŵĂƐ'ůĂƐŐŽǁ
ϯϳϭϳǁĞƐƚĂƌǀĞƌZĚ
>ĂǀĞĞŶ͕ϴϱϯϯϵ



Page 907
Page 908
Racelle Escolar

From: David Baker
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 11:02 AM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Alan Stephenson; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC;
Mayor Gallego; Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen
VPC
Cc: David Baker
Subject: Item 10 - PHO -1-19-Z-165--06-7(8)


Hello Folks,

Quick, simple note. Regarding the above mentioned development.

Myself, my wife, my kids and all our neighbors over here in the Sunset Cove and Carver Foothill area, DO NOT want this
higher density development. Please do the right thing, keep the zoning at R‐43, which is the plan for the area. It is a
rural, horse property/acreage area……….not a developed area.

Thank you,

David Baker
Keller Williams Realty Phoenix
Cell:602.373.6345
E‐mail: david@beinPhoenix.com
Visit my websites at
http://www.PhoenixLaveenHomes.com [phoenixlaveenhomes.com]
http://www.LaveenRealEstate.co [laveenrealestate.co]
http://www.LaveenAz85339.com [laveenaz85339.com]
http://www.CasasLaveen.com [casaslaveen.com]
http://www.Laveenhomesforsale.net [laveenhomesforsale.net]

Subscribe today to my YOUTUBE Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/dabaker2121 [youtube.com]
"Like" me on Facebook at Phoenix Residential Real Estate [facebook.com]





Page 909
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Case Z-165-06


From: gjnorton0744@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 10:33 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Case Z‐165‐06

To: Planning Commission Members
Cc: Mayor Gallego, Councilmembers, Planning Management and Staff

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case requested by
the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020, which requires the zoning revert
to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a
very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
 Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be
deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the
reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the
applicant.
 Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original
follows site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1‐18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the
Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to
the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much
better buffer to screen the higher density and 2‐story product, as well as provide better buffering for the
surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
 Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed
escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety
drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should
remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G‐5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not fit the area then and
does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify the
required zoning reversion action to S‐1 and amend the General Plan to 0‐1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S‐1 zoning.

Gloria Norton
10823 S 29 Ave
Laveen, Az 85339





Page 910
Racelle Escolar

From: Linda Abegg
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 11:42 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating
Subject: Laveen Case


Good Morning,
I am a Laveen resident and member of the Laveen Village Planning Committee. I ask that this case be denied and that
the reversion stipulation be maintained.

We always talk about having a balance in Laveen housing. This area is at Carver Rd is one of the few rural, low density
areas left. It deserves to keep its character, especially considering all the high density already approved in Laveen.

Furthermore, the community has done its part to participate in the public hearing process. The original compromise with
the reversion stipulation should be honored.

Thank you,

Linda Abegg
5407 W Winston Dr





Page 911
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Request to deny case Z-165-06 PHO-1-19 as filed


From: Margaret Anderson
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 3:05 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2 PCC ;
Council District 3 PCC ; Council District 4 ; Council
District 5 PCC ; Council District 6 PCC ; Council District 7 PCC
; Council District 8 PCC ; PDD Laveen VPC
; Mayor Gallego ; Racelle Escolar
; Sofia Mastikhina ; Alan Stephenson
; Joshua Bednarek ; Samantha Keating

Subject: Request to deny case Z‐165‐06 PHO‐1‐19 as filed





Page 912

Page 913
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: All Laveen Residents Request You Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


From: Bret Burchard
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:43 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2 PCC ; Council District
3 PCC ; Council District 4 ; Council District 5 PCC
; Council District 6 PCC ; Council District 7 PCC
; Council District 8 PCC ; Mayor Gallego
; Racelle Escolar ; Sofia Mastikhina ;
Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Samantha Keating
; laveenpvc@phoenix.gov
Subject: All Laveen Residents Request You Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Planning Commission Members,

I, along with my Laveen neighbors request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020,
which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date, the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1). I am adamantly opposed to these four stipulations:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead, it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant's proposal. The original follows site
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South
Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10 : The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the elevation
difference at 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher
density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The
200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35 : The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept and debris that could
fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2). Stipulation 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of
any future actions.

3). I am supportive of PHO's recommendations for the remaining stipulations NOT noted above.

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from high density development that did not fit the area then, and does
not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify
the required zoning reversions action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1
zoning.

Sincerely,
Bret Burchard
11244 S. 35th Ave.
Laveen, AZ 85339



Page 914
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed


From: Irma Cazarez
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:26 PM
To: Racelle Escolar ; Alan Stephenson
Cc: Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2 PCC ; Council District
3 PCC ; Council District 4 ; Council District 5 PCC
; Council District 6 PCC ; Council District 7 PCC
; Council District 8 PCC ; Mayor Gallego
; Joshua Bednarek ; Samantha Keating
; PDD Laveen VPC
Subject: Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed

Planning Commission Members,
I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this case
requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020, which
requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.
In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulation:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead, it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my
neighbors and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s proposal. The original follows
site contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella
Mountains and South Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10: The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the
elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better
buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large
acre plus parcels with custom homes. The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the
zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can
be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any
debris that could fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.
2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally
notified of any future actions.
3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above
Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council
included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high density development that did not
fit the area then and does not fit the area today.
Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and
finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open
Space to match the S-1 zoning.
Thank you,

Irma Cazarez

3517 W Shawnee Drive, Laveen, AZ 85339



Page 915
Racelle Escolar

From: Judy Brown
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 2:28 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen
VPC
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego
Subject: Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)

Importance: High


Greetings all:

I please request you deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any revisions to this
case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G‐5020,
which requires the zoning revert to S‐1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date the City has taken no action
which is in violation of City Zoning Ordinance.

This case should have been a done deal in 2011, with a reversion back to S‐1. I have heard all of the stories why the City
hasn’t done reversions. Since 2011, twelve times the reversion process has been brought up in LVPC Minutes. At least
one time this case number was mentioned in the minutes prior to the current owner purchasing the property. The
stories vary in how the City of Phoenix refuses to do their job. It is a little hard to grasp a $26,000,000 surplus in last
year’s budget and yet, no additional staff can be found to correct the wrongs on old zoning cases still sitting out there.

I’m not opposed to development. There is a time and place for everything. Honesty, integrity and fair business dealings
are core values I was brought up on. I personally don’t have the resources to fight the legalese or City for compliance
with the law. As I see it, he with the most money or threats wins. That is just not right.

I have been involved in this case since day one when the original owner bought a piece of property for way too much
money. With the help of Councilman Lingner and a prestigious law firm, the owner proceeded to cram a concept down
the throats of residents in our community to make a buck. He was in way over his head on expenses and by trumping up
the condition of the property and the costs associated with making it buildable; the foundation was formed for the
argument that higher density was warranted. The original owner spent over 5 million for the red herring and the
community knew he was going to flip.

We went through that process in 2007. A deal was brokered with Mayor Gordan to protect the community if building did
not occur within 48 months. That is the stipulation #19 – Reversion of the zoning back to S‐1. This way the new owner
would have a clean slate to work with the neighborhood. Stipulation #19, #10, #35, #43, #44 at the very least should be
kept in the PHO’s recent ruling.

The new owner is not a developer and bought the property cheap, $18, 333 per acre or $ .42 psf. That is a total of
$366,660 for the twenty acres in this discussion. The Rose Law Group tried the story of blight, dangerous ordinance,
threating Prop. 207, and submitting an off the shelf inferior flatland building envelop community that just doesn’t fit
with the surroundings. It is aesthetically unappealing and is not the right fit for our community, the proposed planned
unit community, or the original General Plan.

I am a minority, not papered with degrees or pedigree. I am a simple resident of this community that I love. We are a
diverse community with different socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicities, and orientations. What makes this area of
Laveen special are the people that live here. We respect each other and our surroundings. We respect the wildlife, open


Page 916
spaces, and equestrian lifestyle. Twenty years ago I uprooted from Tempe to live under the crown jewel of South
Mountain. What is being proposed on the above mentioned property is a disservice to current and future residents with
regards to density.

Trust me, I’m no Karen, this is just wrong. We need to work together to do the right thing for the community. Please
deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19) as filed on May 7, 2020 and execute the zoning reversion.

Kind regards,

Judy Brown
602.363.1312
3220 W. Ceton Drive
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 917
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Laveen Residents Request You Deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19)


From: Tayler Bell
Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:25 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC ; Council District 2 PCC ; Council District
3 PCC ; Council District 4 ; Council District 5 PCC
; Council District 6 PCC ; Council District 7 PCC
; Council District 8 PCC ; Mayor Gallego
; Racelle Escolar ; Sofia Mastikhina ;
Alan Stephenson ; Joshua Bednarek ; Samantha Keating
; PDD Laveen VPC ; Bret Burchard
Subject: Laveen Residents Request You Deny Case Z‐165‐06 (PHO‐1‐19)

Planning Commission Members,
I, along with my Laveen neighbors request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7. Any
revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix enforces ordinance, G-5020,
which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and to date, the City has taken no action which is in
violation of City Zoning Ordinance, a very serious matter.

In regards to the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:

1). I am adamantly opposed to these four stipulations:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation should not be deleted. Instead, it
should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors
and I stand ready to develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.
• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant's proposal. The original follows site
contours, provides smoother connection to the R1-18 portion to the west, and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South
Mountain. The original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 10 : The 200 foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should remain. Due to the elevation
difference at 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher
density and 2-story product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels with custom homes. The
200 foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.
• Stipulation 35 : The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the exposed escarpment and can be
further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept and debris that could
fall from the upper slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

2). Stipulation 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I will be formally notified of
any future actions.

3). I am supportive of PHO's recommendations for the remaining stipulations NOT noted above.

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and Council included this
stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from high density development that did not fit the area then, and does
not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate, approve and finally codify
the required zoning reversions action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1 Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1
zoning.

Sincerely,
Tayler Burchard
11244 S. 35th Ave.
Laveen, AZ 85339




Page 918
Dear Planning Commission Members,

I request you deny Case Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed when it comes before you on May 7, 2020.
Any revisions to this case requested by the applicant should not be considered until after the City of Phoenix
enforces ordinance, G-5020, which requires the zoning revert to S-1. The current zoning expired in 2011 and
to date the City of Phoenix has taken no action which is in violation of city zoning ordinance, a profoundly
serious matter.

Regarding the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) recommendations:
1. I am adamantly opposed to these 4 stipulations:
• Deletion of original Stipulation 19 (zoning reversion): This zoning reversion stipulation
should not be deleted. Instead it should remain as is with immediate Planning Commission
action to revert the zoning. Once the reversion is complete, my neighbors and I stand ready to
develop a better plan that fits the area, with the applicant.

• Stipulation 1: The original plan is of superior quality compared to the current applicant’s
proposal. The original follows site contours provide smoother connection to the R1-18
portion to the west and preserves views of the Estrella Mountains and South Mountain. The
original plan should remain intact as you act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 10: The 200-foot minimum landscaped setback along the east property line should
remain. Due to the elevation difference of 35th Avenue (lower) and existing terrace to the
west (higher), 200 feet provides a much better buffer to screen the higher density and 2-story
product, as well as provide better buffering for the surrounding the large acre plus parcels
with custom homes. The 200-foot minimum landscaped setback should remain intact as you
act on the zoning reversion.

• Stipulation 35: The terraced berms should remain. They reduce the apparent height of the
exposed escarpment and can be further stabilized and treated with compatible colors. These
terraces also provide safety drop zones to intercept any debris that could fall from the upper
slopes. The original terraced stipulation should remain intact as you act on the zoning
reversion.

2. Stipulations 43 and 44: I request my name and address be added to these notification stipulations so I
will be formally notified of any future actions.

3. I am supportive of PHO’s recommendations for the remaining stipulations not noted above

Again, the zoning reversion stipulation 19 of Ordinance G-5020 should not be deleted. In 2007, the Mayor and
Council included this stipulation specifically to protect the neighbors and community from a high-density
development that did not fit the area then and does not fit the area today.

Do the required and right thing. Deny Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) as filed. Then immediately move to initiate,
approve and finally codify the required zoning reversion action to S-1 and amend the General Plan to 0-1
Residential/Parks/Open Space to match the S-1 zoning.

Sincerely,

Terry Klein
4012 W. Carver Rd
Laveen, AZ 85339




Page 919
Racelle Escolar

From: Bret Burchard
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 10:12 AM
To: Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Mayor Gallego;
Racelle Escolar; Sofia Mastikhina; Alan Stephenson; Joshua Bednarek; Samantha Keating; PDD Laveen
VPC
Subject: Follow Up to Council Meeting - May 7



Mr. Chair and Members,

My name is Bret Burchard and I live at 11244 S 35th Ave in Laveen. I attended - virtually - last night’s
meeting, specifically as it related to the development project on Carver mountain. First, I want to thank you for
enduring the pains of hosting a meeting virtually. I know it wasn’t easy for you, but under the circumstances I
was able to attend while sitting on the swing on my front porch, which has an unobstructed, picturesque view of
the Phoenix skyline. While you all were diligently hearing all sides of every argument, I was watching the
Super Moon rise over South Mountain. Not to rub it in :-)

A year and a half ago my wife and I overpaid for a modified trailer as our first home because it had a 900-
square-foot front patio with panoramic views and no one encroaching on either side. The first thing any visitor
does when arriving at our house is pull out their camera to take pictures.

Part of our view looks directly at the east side of Carver Mountain, the highest density portion of the
development in question. Like Mrs. Irma Cazarez mentioned in her comments during the meeting, this is a
uniquely quiet area of Laveen Village, where neighbors take care of each other. During the meeting our dog was
standing guard, chasing coyotes out of the front yard. As I tried to fall asleep last night I couldn’t get out of my
head the idea of 92 houses crammed at the bottom of our hill. There aren't 92 houses within the eight walking
blocks of our neighborhood! The current pandemic situation has substantially increased the amount of traffic up
our dead end road since we moved in, already making it more dangerous for Irma’s kids to skateboard, the
Schroeder’s kids to ride their scooters, Katherine’s grandkids to learn to ride a bike, Mackenzie to walk her five
dogs, and G dog’s casual patrol of the nighttime wildlife. What will 92 more homes, three blocks away add on
top of that?

I specifically want to commend Commissioner Busching for taking the time to drive out here and see the area
for herself. It is certainly unique. Even since we moved in 18 months ago there have been improvements made
in the surrounding area with the extension of the 202, the Sprouts and adjacent shops, and high-density
development projects. We are excited about all of it improving the quality of our life here. Commissioner
Busching’s point of view is correct though. This is just not the place for one of those developments. Come see
for yourself.

I understand you sent the case back to the developer and the Laveen community for further discussion and
compromise. I would like to caution you in your judgement process, however. There was a comment made in
conjunction with the motion that suggested favor would be shown to the side that concedes the most in the next
iteration of the proposal. Logically, that doesn’t make sense. Hypothetically, if we concede to all of the
developer’s stipulations, does that mean you will support our opposition in the next meeting? Let me be clear, I
am not speaking on behalf of the entire Laveen community. I just went to bed puzzled by this logic.




Page 920
Secondly, and finally, I don’t believe one of the Commissioner’s questions was adequately addressed. He can
correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he was asking if there was actually a 48-month trigger on a previous
compromise that wasn’t honored. I believe it was Ms. Manning who made the Commission aware of this clause
that should have automatically reverted the property back to previous zoning if it wasn’t developed within 48
months of the agreement - which it wasn’t. I hope the Commission can clear up this misunderstanding amongst
the members. It seems to me as the two parties work toward more compromises, the Commission needs to also
review the documents and its scope of authority to help facilitate the correct course of action. There seemed to
be a lot of confusion on what you were and were not able to enforce, or even what you were exactly voting on,
and I don't believe the video conferencing setup assisted in clarity.

I understand you are in a very difficult position. This is a tough case to decide. The difficulty of this should spur
us on to more diligent study. My suggestion to you is come take a drive down 35th Ave. Feel free to stop by our
porch (it's the one with the red roof) and take a look. G dog doesn’t bite and you can see the whole
neighborhood from where we sit. And ask yourself, “Does it make sense? Does it fit?”

Oh yeah, and don’t forget to bring your camera.


Respectfully,

Bret Burchard





Page 921
Racelle Escolar

From: Cyd Manning
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 7:43 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: Alan Stephenson; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2020 and Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19) Item 10

Importance: High


Hi Racelle,
Please provide this letter to the Planning Commission members and Staff, as well as include it in the case file. Thank
you very much.

Best regards,
Cyd

***
Planning Commission Members and Staff,
I am writing to you today regarding the subject case heard during the May 7 Planning Commission meeting, specifically
to provide feedback on the new virtual process, address a few issues and correct a factual error made by the applicant’s
representative. I respectfully request this correspondence be added to the official case file.

Regarding feedback on the new virtual meeting process, I would like to first thank Racelle Escolar and Vikki Cipolla‐
Murillo for their excellent work coordinating all the participation and presentation details for public input. They
thoroughly and patiently answered questions, tested the system and ensured those without technology who wanted to
speak were able to do so. I would also like to thank Chairman Johnson for a job well done facilitating the session. The
meeting wasn’t without challenges, but ran pretty smoothly for the first virtual Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioner Gaynor expressed dissatisfaction with submission of written comments into the chat window of the
WebEx meeting. I want to be clear that I intended no disrespect to the Commission or disruption to the process and I
apologize if that action offended anyone. I absolutely respect the public hearing process and rules of order. I believe
that a factual error is an appropriate reason to raise a hand in order to be called upon. Thus, I utilized the raise hand
feature to correct a factual error made by Mr. Galvin and waited several minutes to be called upon. After waiting, I
submitted the written request and ultimately provided the correction so it would become part of the record. Please
reference the below screen capture. I have firsthand knowledge that the applicant did not agree to a request by
Councilmember Garcia to meet with the neighbors regarding this case.

There are two issues of great concern that occurred during the meeting:
1. With all due respect, the Commission’s request of the applicant’s representative, Mr. Galvin, to provide an
answer regarding the Commission’s authority on zoning reversions may have the appearance of bias.
 Staff clearly advised the Commission and stated that zoning reversion would be a separate action to
initiate a case to be heard as an upcoming agenda item due to posting requirements. Staff also advised
that the commission has the power to initiate a reversion if they want to do it.
 The community request has been and still is clearly consistent with what Staff advised. Again that
request has been and is to deny this current case as filed. Then, immediately initiate and ultimately
approve a zoning reversion case back to S‐1 along with a companion action to revise the General Plan
back to 0‐1 which aligns with the S‐1 zoning.
 Clearly the Commission discussion, before this question was posed to Mr. Galvin, displayed
understanding and agreement of the process to initiate a case for action on a reversion.


Page 922
 Mr. Galvin’s opinion on reversion clouded the discussion and the community was denied equal
opportunity to address the question after respectfully submitting a raised hand, waiting with no
recognition and then submitting the request in writing. Please reference the below screen capture.
 Had the community been able to respond, I would have re‐stated Staff’s explanation and referenced the
applicable City zoning ordinance (Chapter 5, Section 506, B.1 through B.3) as well as ARS Article 6.1
Municipal Zoning, 9‐462.
 Even though the community was not afforded equal opportunity to answer the Commission’s question,
authorized City personnel are the appropriate entities who should be providing answers to the process
and Commission’s powers.

2. The lack of adequately addressing Commissioner McCabe’s question regarding the time stipulation expiration as
a clause previously adopted by Ordinance clouded the discussion.
 Unfortunately Staff did not directly or clearly provide the actual language of Ordinance G‐5020,
Stipulation 19 which states: “That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within
48 months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of
building permits and erection of building walls on site.”.
 This Ordinance condition of zoning approval expired in October of 2011. A required entitlement
expiration should be enforced.
 Staff did advise the Commission of the process to initiate a zoning reversion case, which is exactly what
the community has asked for many times since 2011, up to and including in this May 7 meeting.

I respectfully request Ordinance G‐5020, which was adopted by the City Council on October 10, 2007, and the minutes
from that meeting be provided to and reviewed by all Commissioners. In addition, I respectfully request review of GPA‐
LV‐1‐08‐7 – Resolution 20714. This case resulted from neighborhood requests of the City to act on their policy of
creating consistency between the General Plan and zoning classification. There is a letter in this case file from the
Planning Director at that time that states the action was taken to “ create consistency between the Land Use Map and
the approved R1‐8 zoning and to avoid creating a precedent for higher densities on the surrounding parcels.”. This
neighborhood requested City action was to ensure that an applicant wasn’t going to try and increase the R1‐8 zoning
before it could be reverted in 2011.

Your review of the above records will provide valuable context. If you also review the overwhelming number of letters
in opposition to this case, you will see there are many of us from 2007 that are still residents today. Again, we welcome
development and want and expect it to be consistent land use with the existing neighborhoods.

I sincerely appreciate Commissioner Busching’s action of getting a first‐hand look at the area to truly understand the
unique community, large lots and spacing that we want to preserve. The type of low density in this specific area of
Laveen has been carefully planned that way for well over two decades. Furthermore, low density zoning is appropriate
land use in this area and low density zoning classifications are very underrepresented in Laveen. The video of our area is
only 42 seconds long and can be played directly from this Dropbox
link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tfmz2e6htiasqd/Laveen.mp4?dl=0 [dropbox.com]

I would welcome and respectfully request a conversation or meeting with each individual member of the Commission. I
was significantly involved in the original case and would be happy to answer any questions. In addition, I’d be pleased
to host a tour of the area for anyone who would like to do so.

I understand this is a difficult case for everyone involved. It truly is very unfortunate that enforcement of this reversion
entitlement was overlooked or missed over the last 9+ years, even though the community requested it be done. The
fact of the matter is it is still valid today and the City has a duty and obligation to enforce it.

I sincerely appreciate your time and careful review and consideration of all information.



Page 923
Respectfully,
Cyd Manning

3220 W. Ceton Drive
480.747.0769
sweetbeat@q.com


Attached screen capture as referenced above:





Page 924

Page 925

Page 926
May 20, 2020

To: Phoenix Planning Commission

Subject: Meeting held 6PM, May 7, 2020 re: Z‐165‐05‐(PHO‐1‐19)

Thank you for providing me the opportunity on during the May 7, 2020 Planning Commission meeting to
speak for 60 seconds regarding the subject case.

First, I would like to remind the Planning Commission of its role….and I quote from your Charter below
and would draw your attention to the bolded print:

The Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council on all matters that might be
referred to it by the City Council concerning or relating to a comprehensive plan of City building and
improvement and recommends to the City Council, from time to time, amendments to the City Charter,
ordinances providing for the purchase of sites for City buildings; opening, widening or other changes in
streets and other public ways, and the ornamentation of such sites, streets, grounds and other public
places; and such other ordinances as it may deem necessary and proper in the premises and that may
tend in connection with such comprehensive plan to promote the public health, comfort, safety,
convenience, utility and welfare. The Planning Commission is also authorized to confer and advise with
other similar City planning commissions or county planning commissions.

It became very obvious that during the subject meeting that several members were uncomfortable with
the issue at stake here, the S1 Zoning Reversion specifically called out in Stipulation #19 which states, and
I quote:

That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48 months of the City Council
approval of this change of zoning in accordance with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For
purposes of this stipulation, development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and
erection of building walls on site.

Near the end of meeting the question to Staff was asked “has any action be taken to revert this case” and
the answer was “no”. Herein lies the problem, no action has been taken by the City of Phoenix because
of Senior Leadership (specifically Alan Stephenson and his Deputy Joshua Bednarek) have unwisely,
unethically and likely illegally chosen not to enforce Reversion which is a current documented process
required in Zoning Ordinance Section 506, paragraph B 1 for this case.

Before seeking legal action on behalf of the Community I am providing EVERY opportunity for the City of
Phoenix to help remedy the lack of Senior Leadership Personal Accountability for enforcement of the
previously referenced Reversion Policy. Due to the current Covid‐19 situation a face to face meeting is
unpractical so I have contacted via e‐mail and telecon Leigh Ann Mauger, Sr. Internal Auditor, City of
Phoenix ‐ Audit Department and she has initiated a case to investigate whether the allegations that I have
made regarding the City’s refusal to follow documented Policies and Procedures (specifically Section 506
paragraph B1) have merit or basis. I provided a copy of the meeting minutes that I had with Joshua
Bednarek as the basis for my claims. I am also providing you with a copy of this document for your review.

And as a side note, it was unethical of this Committee to solicit input from only one Party regarding your
discussion of the merits of the case if the Commission elected to deny this case.




Page 927
In addition, Mr. Gavin incorrectly provided the Commission with inaccurate and deceiving information
regarding Prop 207…..the Current Landowner was REQUIRED to sign a waiver giving up ALL rights to Prop
207 when they purchased the property so they have no future claims against Prop 207 if the property
reverts to S1 or any other zoning. When the Landowner had Mr. Gavin’s Law Firm perform their due
diligence prior to purchasing this property, they would have discovered this.

While I respect the decision that you made in an effort to have the Developer and Community “work
together” for an equitable solution I will implore the Commission one last time….when it is time to forward
this case to the City Counsel, take the ethical and morally correct action, tell the City Council the simple
facts regarding this case and recommend the following:

1. This case should have never have been brought forward…..why? Because the City of Phoenix has
chosen not to follow its own Policies and procedures specifically for Reversion because if it did,
back in 2011 (48 months after the initial zoning approval) this case should have been up for
reversion and it was never initiated. Remember, Reversion is another Public Process and it is not
a guaranteed reversion in this case back to S1, the “Reversion Process” is a series of Public
hearings to rezone the land back but it might not be accepted (likelihood is low)!
2. Based on item 1 above do no recommend approval, deny this case.
3. Create a recommendation that the City of Phoenix follow its internal processes and procedures
and initiate Reversion Action in this case.

I look forward to seeing what this Commission determines the correct course of action is for this specific
case because as the Leaders of this Commission you are held to a higher standard than rank and file
employees….you are accountable for what you know and more importantly what you should have
known….and now that you are personally aware of the alleged claims of the City of Phoenix not
following its processes and procedures (and I would ask that you personally verify this on your own, do
not take my word for it) I sincerely hope that this Commission takes the correct steps by deciding not to
be complicit with the City of Phoenix knowing full well that this case should have never existed!

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

John M. Bzdel
253‐549‐6826
bzdel@earthlink.net




Page 928
Meeting Minutes with Joshua Bednarek re: Z‐165‐05‐(PHO‐1‐19)
1‐23/2020, 9AM at Mr. Bednarek's office


Answers to my questions:



 Why was there no action taken in 2011 to “revert” the properties back to S1?

o Since the early 2010’s, the City of Phoenix has reduced the number of available Staff
Personal in the Planning/Zoning Department that would handle this type of activity from
11 people to 5. With the staff shortage the focus and priorities of the Department
changed to reflect available staffing.

o There isn’t a mechanism to automatically do this.

 I asked “is Zoning Ordinance Section 506, paragraph B 1.” Is still a valid and current procedure?

o Joshua stated the City of Phoenix no longer looks at the reversion process as a
necessary process because they City believes that the original “intent” to rezone is still
valid and affords the current property owner(s) the opportunity to further develop the
property based on the City Council’s intended use.

 I then asked Joshua to read the above paragraph aloud where I underlined …”an
application shall be initiated by the Planning Commission to revert zoning to its
former classification, unless an extension of time has been granted prior to the
expiration of the period specified by the schedule of the development”. He was
familiar with this language.

 I asked Joshua to make sure that I fully understood his previous
comments based on this procedural language and asked him that even
though it is a requirement in the documented City’s Procedures to
perform the reversion, that the City has knowingly chosen not to
follow the procedure?

o Joshua waffled a bit and reiterated staffing shortages again and
that the City’s philosophy is a bit different today based on his
above comment that they want to afford Property owners full
development rights via Prop 207. I verified with Joshua that a
waiver does exist on this subject property signed by the current
Property Owner that waives Prop 207 and he then agreed that
the property owner had no rights based on Prop 207.

 I asked Joshua what he believes that the Liability may be if the City specifically
chooses not to follow or enforce their written processes and procedures? He
stated that he wasn’t a Lawyer or from the Law Department so he could fully




Page 929
answer that question. He went on to state that in this situation, where there
are stipulations attached to Properties, that it is no different than someone who
violates a weed ordinance or stipulation….the City doesn’t have the resources to
address it.

 I shared City of Phoenix memo dated October 12, 2010 from Derek D. Horn to Planning
Commission Members and asked if this process that was outlined is still current?

o Joshua stated that the City does not have the resources to undertake the process and as
stated previously, the focus on reversion and the philosophy behind it is different today.

 I asked if I was to review the Metric’s Deck reviewed by Alan at his Staff
Meetings would I see any of the Department metrics include reversion?

 Joshua stated no that no metrics would be available today for the
reversion process because it is not tracked, monitored or reviewed.

 I shared that the Community was concerned that the due to the City’s focus on not following it’s
documented process and procedure that this indicates a bias and it does not afford ALL
stakeholders the opportunity to voice concerns regarding City processes that “should have been
followed” and are not.

o Joshua didn’t fully understand this because he believes Zoning/Planning processes via
the PHO as in this case are available to hear Community input. I reiterated that the PHO
process is clearly for addressing stipulations ONLY and NOT a rezoning discussion and
that Adam Stranier (the PHO in this case) made this VERY clear. Joshua went on to say
that even if the City followed a reversion process, as in this case, that it still has to go
through the Public Posting processes and that “automatic” reversion isn’t a guarantee
because the current property owner has an input as well as the Community and the City
Council.

o I then counter this response and asked a “hypothetical” question…”in this case, if the
the Reversion Process to address the Property Owners concerns as well as those of the
Community and City Council, aren’t ALL stakeholders better served since the potential
outcome has the benefit of ALL stakeholders’ inputs and the City would ALSO be
compliant with it’s documented processes and procedures”? I also added that the
current property owner could also create/add/delete/propose whatever they want
because the flood gate is open…a clear benefit for them as well.

 Joshua had to think about this for a moment before responding and indicated
that this could be a viable path. Based on his comment I asked him if he was
ready to commit for the City that he would do this in this specific case and he
quickly responded that he could not influence the opinion/outcome of the PHO
officer in this case.

 I then asked if he should run this past Legal as an opportunity to be
compliant with documented processes and procedures in the event that




Page 930
this case gets legally challenged and he responded that he didn’t think
so.

o Joshua stated that even if the PHO ruled in favor of the subject
case that any stakeholder has 7 days to appeal the decision to
the City Council and could propose the ”hypothetical” question
to the City Council that I did to Joshua.

 I asked if I could suggest this “hypothetical” path to the PHO in this
case?

o Joshua stated that he could only take comments that were
made public at the hearing and not after the fact.

 I countered with “Adam stated that he needed to take
this under advisement and review all relevant facts and
data…..isn’t the potential path I proposed one of them?

 Joshua countered with he (the PHO) could
come to that same conclusion.

Unfortunately we ran out of time and our meeting concluded.



John Bzdel

253‐549‐6826




Page 931
Racelle Escolar

From: D M
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2020 7:12 PM
To: PDD Laveen VPC; Racelle Escolar; Joshua Bednarek; Alan Stephenson
Subject: To Council Members re: Quarry Case Decision 165 - 06

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Due By: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 4:00 PM
Flag Status: Completed


Good afternoon,
I was present online at the planning meeting on Thurs June 4 and wanted to tell you what a disappointment the
commission's decision was to approve the Quarry Case Z‐165‐06.
After all the patting on the back you did of yourselves and appreciating all of us for our passion, your decision was still
wrong.
If any of you lived on the south side of the Quarry you would be fighting to oppose the type of density that was
approved.
I'm actually surprised with the amount of opposition that this had, not more of your members came around to see our
area. It really goes to show that if it doesn't affect you personally, then the party with the most money wins.
And, because there has been no past case in prior zoning reversions, it doesn't mean that the committee has a right to
overlook and not enforce the intent.
I'm disheartened by your committee's decision but I'm thankful for great neighbors that will continue to appeal this for
our community.

Darcy Meyer
3535 W Bohl St
Laveen, AZ 85339





Page 932
ATTACHMENT H




ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
June 25, 2020

LOCATION: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road

APPLICANT: Jennifer Hall, Rose Law Group

REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Galvin, Rose Law Group

OWNER: Virtua 35th, LLC

REQUEST: 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance to the site plan date stamped October 8,
2007 and elevations date stamped February 20, 2007.

2) Modification of Stipulation 7 regarding the landscape
setback adjacent to 35th Avenue.

3) Deletion of Stipulation 19 regarding conditional
development approval.

4) Modification of Stipulation 27 regarding height of terraced
berms along the quarry cut slope base.

5) Modification of Stipulation 31 regarding raised, vertical
curbs within the R1-18 portion of the site.

6) Modification of Stipulation 37 regarding detached
sidewalks and landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of
the site.

7) Deletion of Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes
along 35th Avenue.

8) Technical corrections to Stipulations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40.

9) Modification of original Stipulation 3 (proposed Stipulation
5) regarding maximum number of lots in the R1-8 portion
of the site.

STAFF Approval, per the Planning Commission recommendation
RECOMMENDATION: with a modification.


Page 933
Addendum A Staff Report – PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
July 1, 2020 City Council


On January 13, 2020, the Laveen Village Planning Committee recommended denial of
the request by an 11 to 0 vote. Their motion also included a request that the Planning
Hearing Officer (PHO) recommend to the Planning Commission to initiate a zoning
reversion for the site.

On January 15, 2020, the PHO took this case under advisement. On February 13, 2020,
the PHO took this case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed
and approval with modifications and additional stipulations.

On May 7, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the request to the June 4, 2020
Planning Commission hearing by an 8 to 0 vote. The continuance was granted to allow
the applicant to work on a compromise with the community.

The applicant met with community members and revised their plan from 92 lots as
shown on the site plan date stamped November 21, 2019 to 63 lots as shown on the
site plan date stamped May 26, 2020. The changes on the revised site plan required
modifications to the stipulations recommended by the PHO.

A staff memo was issued prior to the Planning Commission hearing that addressed the
revised site plan and recommended modifications to Stipulation No. 1 regarding general
conformance to a site plan and Stipulation No. 47 regarding specific lots to be limited to
a maximum of 20 feet in height. The modification to Stipulation No. 1 requires that the
R1-8 portion of the development be in general conformance with the revised site plan
date stamped May 26, 2020. The modification to Stipulation No. 47 updates the specific
lot numbers that are to be limited to 20 feet in height.

On June 7, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended approval, per the staff memo
dated June 4, 2020 with a modified stipulation by an 8 to 0 vote. Commissioner
Busching, who made the motion, also directed the applicant to modify the application
prior to the City Council meeting to modify Stipulation No. 5 (originally Stipulation No. 3)
to reflect the number of lots on the revised site plan. Her motion included a modification
to Stipulation No. 6 to reduce the useable open space from 12 percent (which was
recommended by the PHO) to 8 percent to reflect the open space provided on the
revised site plan.

The applicant has revised their application to modify Stipulation No. 5 (originally No. 3)
as directed by the Planning Commission. The stipulation currently limits the number of
units on the R1-8 portion of the site to 99 lots. The applicant is now requesting to modify
the stipulation to limit the number of lots to 63 to be consistent with their revised site
plan.

Staff is supportive of this modification and recommends approval of the PHO request
per the Planning Commission recommendation with the modification as requested by
the applicant. The stipulations below reflect the revised staff recommendation.




Page 934
Addendum A Staff Report – PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
July 1, 2020 City Council


STIPULATIONS

General

1. That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 8, 2007, and elevations date stamped February 20, 2007, as
modified by the following stipulations, and as approved by the Development
Services Department.

1. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019 MAY 26, 2020, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND WITH SPECIFIC
REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING:

A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM
35TH AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY
BOUNDARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

B. THE PRIMARY ROADWAY CONNECTING 35TH AVENUE TO THE
WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL TERMINATE AS
A STUB STREET TO THE ADJACENT UNDEVELOPED LAND TO
THE WEST TO PROVIDE FOR A FUTURE VEHICULAR
CONNECTION.

2. CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER
THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR STIPULATION
MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS
A LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY.
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE
DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER AND THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3. THE R1-18 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE
WITH THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 8, 2007, AND
ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 20, 2007, AS MODIFIED BY
THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

2. 4. That dDevelopment of the R1-18 portion of the site shall not exceed 22 lots.

3. 5. That dDevelopment of the R1-8 portion of the site shall not exceed a density of
99 63 lots.




Page 935
Addendum A Staff Report – PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
July 1, 2020 City Council


6. THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 26% OPEN
SPACE, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 12 8% SHALL BE USABLE OPEN
SPACE, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

Site Design

4. 7. That uUnobstructed pedestrian access (for the purpose of private pedestrian
connectivity internal to the site) between the R1-18 and R1-8 portions of the
site shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

5. 8. That nNo solid wall in excess of three feet in height as measured from the
finished grade, shall be located on the site (either in private lots or common
tracts) except that solid walls greater than three feet in height shall be allowed
for the following purposes, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

a. Walls utilized to screen utilities, trash enclosures, or other facilities
generally considered to be visually obtrusive.

b. Retaining wall.

6. 9. That nNo more than 60,000 square feet of natural turf area shall be located
within the common areas of the R1-8 portion of the site (this requirement does
not apply to synthetic turf); if provided, common area natural turf should be
centrally located and grouped so as to create one contiguous natural turf
recreation area, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

7. That a 235-foot (average), 200-foot (minimum) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL
10. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 100 FOOT landscaped setback ALONG THE EAST
PROPERTY LINE adjacent to 35th Avenue shall be provided, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

8. That a A 50-foot (minimum) landscaped setback adjacent to Carver Road (final
11. alignment) shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

9. That tThose portions of spider and jeep trails which are not part of the
12. approved grading envelopes, access drives, or other necessary site
disturbance related to the proposed development of the R1-8 portion of the
site shall be re-vegetated in a manner consistent with adjacent undisturbed
vegetation, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.



Page 936
Addendum A Staff Report – PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
July 1, 2020 City Council




Disclosures

10. That pPrior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record
13. documents that disclose to tenants of the site or purchasers of property within
the site, the existence, proximity, and operational characteristics of active
agricultural uses and non-domesticated animal keeping. The form and content
of such documents shall be according to the templates and instructions
provided, which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

14. THAT PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER
SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE TO TENANTS OF THE
SITE OR PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE, THE
EXISTENCE, PROXIMITY, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
ACTIVE AVIATION USES IN THE HANGAR HACIENDAS UNITS ONE, TWO,
AND THREE SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,300 FEET TO
THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN MARICOPA COUNTY. THE
FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ACCORDING
TO THE TEMPLATES AND INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED, WHICH HAVE
BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Parks and Recreation

11. That tThe developer shall dedicate a multi-use trail easement and construct a
15. multi-use trail, per adopted standards, along the north side of Carver Road, as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Archaeology

12. That tThe applicant shall complete an archaeological survey report of the
16. development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, or grading.

17. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY
OFFICE, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING
AND SUBMIT AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE
DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRUBBING, LANDSCAPE
SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING APPROVAL.

18. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF THE
RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY
ARCHAEOLOGIST, IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED
ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES SUCH DATA RECOVERY
EXCAVATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT
PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS.



Page 937
Addendum A Staff Report – PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
July 1, 2020 City Council




19. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY
CEASE ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33-FOOT
RADIUS OF THE DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND
ALLOW TIME FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS
THE MATERIALS.

Street Transportation

13. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 35th
20. Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. 35th Avenue
shall be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

14. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of
21. Carver Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. Carver
Road shall be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins
Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 35TH AVENUE
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARVER ROAD
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

15. That aA traffic impact study shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Street
24. Transportation Department prior to PLANNING AND Development Services
Department preliminary site plan approval. That all right-of-way dedications
and associated infrastructure improvements as recommended by the traffic
impact study shall be installed by the developer, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

16. That tThe developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
25. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as modified by these
stipulations, and as approved by the Street Transportation Department. All
improvements shall comply with all AmericanS with Disabilities Act
accessibility standards.

17. That tThe applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project
26. Information Form for the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation



Page 938
Addendum A Staff Report – PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
July 1, 2020 City Council


Improvement Program. This form is a requirement of the Environmental
Protection Agency to meet clean air quality requirements.

18. That pPrior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
27. Proposition 207 waiver of claims utilizing the provided template. The waiver
shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and a copy shall
be provided to the PLANNING AND Development Services Department for the
case files.

19. That approval shall be conditional upon the development commencing within
48 months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance
with Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and
erection of the building walls on site.

Neighborhood

20. That bBuilding pad cuts shall be terraced if more than 6 feet in height and
28. treated with a stain, gunnite, or equivalent finish, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

21. That aAll two story homes, within the R1-18 portion of the site, shall be
29. designed in a manner such that the square footage of the second story floor
area does not exceed 66 percent of the first story floor area does not exceed
66 percent of the first story floor area, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

22. That cConcrete channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
30. through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

23. That tThe use of riprap and engineered culverts shall be minimized and, where
31. utilized, shall be integrated with the desert setting through color, texture, soil
plating, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. To the extent possible, culverts shall be
undersized to allow minor flows (10 cfs or smaller) to cross roadways in their
natural condition.

24. That wWashes with a one-hundred-year peak flow of 200 cfs or greater shall
32. be preserved and enhanced with native vegetation as described in Appendix
A, Approved Plant Species List for Sonoran Preserve Edge Treatment
Guidelines, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

25. That lLots with 2 or more sides abutting undisturbed open space shall be
33. designed with obtuse angles, rather than right angles or acute angles, as



Page 939
Addendum A Staff Report – PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
July 1, 2020 City Council


approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

26. That oOn non-hillside lots within the R1-18 portion of the development, all
34. improvements, including driveways, landscaping, and underground utilities
shall be located within a building envelope occupying no more than 50 percent
of the lot up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

27. That a A minimum of three terraced berms with 2:1 fill slopes shall be installed
35. along the full length of the quarry cut slope base. The terraces shall BE
LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF be 8 feet tall, minimum, and shall be
PLANTED plated with a staggered combination of 2-inch and 4-inch caliper,
drought resistant, deciduous trees at 25 feet ON center OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS to center, as approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPER MAY ALSO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
FOR THE NATURALIZING AND BLENDING OF THE QUARRY CUT SLOPE
WITH THE ADJACENT UNDISTURBED HILLSIDE AREA, AS APPROVED
OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

28. That sSolid block walls, except for retaining walls or privacy fencing on
36. individual lots, shall not be constructed outside of the building envelopes for
the R1-18 portion of the site, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. Fencing constructed outside of the
building envelope shall be combination solid/view fencing. In addition, all
fencing above the 15 percent slope line shall be 100 percent view fencing.

29. That tThe entire 60-acre site shall have no perimeter fencing, as approved by
37. the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

30. That pPrivate roadways within the R1-18 portion of the site shall be provided
38. with ribbon curbs and colored asphalt, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

31. That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with
39. a raised, vertical curb, as approved by the Development Services Department.

32. That aAll HVAC units shall be ground mounted.
40.

33. That aAll street lighting and wall mounted security fixtures shall be full cut off
41. lighting. Fixture height shall be a maximum of 12 feet. Street lighting fixtures
shall be decorative and have a consistent architectural theme, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.




Page 940
Addendum A Staff Report – PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
July 1, 2020 City Council


34. That bBollards shall be used for accent lighting at the primary access, entry
42. monument, driveways, and trail crossings, as approved by the PLANNING
AND Development Services Department. Photovoltaic energy sources for
bollard lighting shall be provided.

35. That aAny request to delete or modify these stipulations SHALL be preceded
43. by A presentation to the Laveen Village Planning Committee (VPC) for review
and recommendation, and notification to the following persons two weeks prior
to presentation at the VPC:

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

36. That tThe following individuals shall be notified of any and all PLANNING AND
44. Development Services Department (DSD) meetings which are open to the
public. The applicant shall be responsible for notification to the following via a
first-class letter to be mailed at least two weeks prior to the DSD meeting(s):

a. Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b. Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c. Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d. Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e. Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f. Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g. Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

37. That aAll sidewalks, within the R1-8 portion of the site, WHICH ARE
45. DEVELOPED ALONG STREETS DEVELOPED AS PUBLIC STREETS OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide



Page 941
Addendum A Staff Report – PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
July 1, 2020 City Council


landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall
include minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum rate of 20
feet on center or IN equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as
approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department. The landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and
maintained by the homeowners’ association.

38. That aA mix of two and three-inch caliper trees shall be provided within all
46. required common open space tracts. With the exception of the open space
area adjacent to 35th Avenue, the species of trees provided shall shade 50
percent of the area of the open space at tree maturity, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

39. That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.
47. LOTS 52-61 AND 82-83 1-7, LOCATED ALONG 35TH AVENUE AND AS
DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019
MAY 26, 2020, ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20
FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

40. That aA detailed site plan, landscaping plan, elevations, perimeter fence or
48. wall plan, lighting plan, and entry monument signage shall be reviewed by the
Laveen Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Exhibit
Site Plan date stamped May 26, 2020




Page 942
Page 943
Page 944



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Consideration of Citizen Petitions

This report provides the City Council with four citizen petitions regarding public safety
submitted by: Heather Hamel (Attachment A); Derek Begay (Attachment B); Phyllis
Tyson (Attachment C); and Will Knight (Attachment D). The Land Use and Livability
Subcommittee forwarded these petitions to the full City Council for consideration on
March 17, 2021.

Summary
The four citizen petitions each contain essentially the same 26 "whereas" statements.
Each petition then includes a different specific request for action by the City Council.
The "whereas" statements primarily contain allegations and opinions, with few specific
facts, which makes it difficult for staff to respond to the allegations or make
recommendations. Multiple investigations are in progress regarding protests and
related events and the allegations that have arisen from these events.

Petition A - Heather Hamel
Ms. Hamel submitted a petition for the "City Council to: Launch an ethics investigation,
independent of the Phoenix Police Department and the Maricopa County Attorney's
Office, into the policies and practices of the Tactical Response Unit and corresponding
failure of leadership by Chief Jeri Williams and Phoenix Police command staff with
respect to the aforementioned protests and events."

Several investigations have been started regarding protests and surrounding events
and allegations. A majority vote of the City Council may direct staff to initiate or
conduct further investigations. At the March 17, 2021 Formal City Council meeting, the
comprehensive and independent assessment of the Phoenix Police Department’s
Tactical Response Unit’s training and response to First Amendment-related activities,
including but not limited to, demonstrations and protests. The comprehensive and
independent assessment will also focus on the Police Department’s Field Training
Officer program.

Petition B - Derek Begay
Mr. Begay submitted a petition for the "City Council to: Create a reparations fund for all


Page 945

individuals directly impacted by the Phoenix Police Department's use of excessive
force at protests."

Chapter 42 of the City Code establishes a trust fund for the purpose of paying all
liability claims against the City. State law requires that a notice of claim be submitted to
the City for consideration of any claims against the City, including excessive force
claims. The Code also provides a procedure for submitting a notice of claim,
consideration of the claims, and payment of claims for which the City is liable. The
existing fund and process apply to claims of excessive force against the Police
Department. Since a process already exists that applies to all claims, establishment of
a separate fund and process for claims of excessive force is unnecessary and would
be inconsistent with the City Code.

Petition C - Phillis Tyson
Ms. Tyson submitted a petition for the "City Council to: Create a reparations fund for all
individuals directly impacted by the Phoenix Police Department's practice of politically
and falsely prosecuting protesters."

The City's existing Risk Management fund and notice of claim process described for
Petition B also applies to these types of claims against the Police Department. Since a
process already exists that applies to these claims, establishment of a separate fund
and process for these claims is unnecessary and would be inconsistent with the City
Code.

Petition D - Will Knight
Mr. Knight submitted a petition for the "City Council to: Establish enforceable
guidelines and meaningful disciplinary measures to prevent law enforcement officials,
at any level, from providing false information in Form IV probable cause statements,
police reports, or under oath to secure criminal charges against protesters exercising
their First Amendment rights."

The City has existing policies and disciplinary measures applicable to all employees
that specifically prohibit personnel from providing false information in connection with
their duties. These include an Ethics Policy and disciplinary provisions in Rule 21 of
Personnel Rules (Rule 21b12 and 21b18). The Police Department also has
established policies that prohibit this type of conduct. Being truthful, not making false
reports and other expectations of employee conduct are outlined in Operations Order
3.13 - Rules and Regulations. Disciplinary action for these and other types of policy
violations are addressed in Operations Order 3.18a - Discipline Policy. Additionally,
there are existing state statutes (ARS 13-2702-Perjury and ARS 13-2703-False
Swearing) and federal law that prohibit knowingly providing false statements or


Page 946

testimony that are applicable to law enforcement officials.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was heard at the Land Use and Livability Subcommittee on March 17, 2021
and these four citizen petitions were forwarded to the full City Council for consideration
by a vote of 3-1.

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




Page 947
Attachment A

CITIZEN’S PETITION TO PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL

WHEREAS, the Phoenix Police Department, under the leadership of Chief Jeri
Williams, has engaged in a widespread practice of politically motivated
surveillance, violence, and arrests of social justice activists; and

WHEREAS, in August 2017, the Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical Response
Unit engaged in mass civil rights violations against attendees of an Anti-Trump
rally that resulted in numerous serious injuries and the violent suppression of
thousands of individuals’ free speech rights; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical Response Unit is
responsible for creating, keeping, and sharing a Neo-Nazi inspired “challenge
coin” to commemorate and celebrate police violence against Phoenix residents
expressing their First Amendment rights at the Anti-Trump Rally; and

WHEREAS, Sergeant Doug McBride oversees and manages the Tactical
Response Unit;

WHEREAS, United States District Court records indicate that Chief Jeri Williams
and Phoenix Police command staff has known about the Nazi-inspired challenge
coin since at least August 2019, when she was deposed under oath as part of the
2017 Anti-Trump Rally civil rights lawsuit;

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council failed to act to hold Chief Jeri Williams and
Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical Response Unit accountable for physical
harm and civil rights violations in 2017, thereby permitting such unconstitutional
conduct to continue unchecked;

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers engaged in the political prosecution of Black
Lives Matter organizer, Jamaar Williams in 2019 by lying, in police reports, Form
IVs submitted to the Court, and under oath, about Mr. Williams’ purportedly
assaulting two Phoenix police officers; and

WHEREAS, the Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the criminal case
against Jamaar Williams for lack of probable cause;

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams lied to Phoenix City Council about the evidence
that existed to successfully prosecute Jamaar Williams; and




Page 948
WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council did not hold the officers who lied to prosecute
a political opponent accountable for their unconstitutional activities

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council instead retaliated against Jamaar Williams and
removed him from his committee assignments related to police reform in the

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council’s continued failure to hold Chief Jeri Williams
and the Phoenix Police Department accountable for mistreatment of protesters
and political opponents resulted in continued harm;

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers used unconstitutional and excessive force,
including tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and bean bag rounds, against
non-violent protesters on May 28, 2020 - May 31, 2020; and

WHEREAS, this use of force was particularly dangerous during a deadly
pandemic spread through the expulsion of respiratory droplets because tear gas
and pepper-spray cause individuals to expel respiratory droplets by coughing
and sneezing; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers illegally arrested 354 individuals protesting
the murders of George Floyd and Dion Johnson between May 28, 2020 - May 31,
2020; and

WHEREAS, many of these arrests were secured using illegal cut-and-paste
probable cause statements; and

WHEREAS, many of these cases were dismissed for lack of probable cause; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council refused to hold the officers and command staff
involved in the “cut-and-paste” operation responsible; and

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams and Phoenix Police command staff allowed
Tactical Response Unit officers to be trained and coached by the Maricopa
County Attorney’s First Responder’s Bureau; and

WHEREAS, after the training by MCAO, Maricopa Superior Court records show
officers within the Tactical Response Unit made numerous false arrests and lied
in police reports, Form IVs, and under oath about “crimes” allegedly committed




Page 949
by individuals protesting police violence in order to punish Black Lives Matter
protesters;

WHEREAS, Tactical Response Unit Sergeant Doug McBride offered false and
misleading testimony to a Grand Jury about a fictional gang “ACAB” in order to
punish Black Lives Matter protesters; and

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams has engaged in a pattern of misrepresenting her
knowledge of the Department’s tactic and pattern of engaging in political
prosecutions;

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams misrepresented her knowledge of the Neo-Nazi
inspired coin to the residents of Phoenix similar to the way in which she claimed
to be unaware of commemorative tattoos among officers while chief of police in
Oxnard, CA; and

WHEREAS, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office dismissed fifteen protest
cases “in the interest of justice”; and

WHEREAS, the remaining cases against protesters suffer from the same lack of
evidence, evidence of police bias, and misconduct; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council failed to pass and fund meaningful,
independent investigatory civilian oversight of the Phoenix Police Department.



Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, I, Heather
Hamel, a citizen and resident of the City of Phoenix, hereby petition the Phoenix

Launch an ethics investigation, independent of the Phoenix Police Department
and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, into the policies and practices of the
Tactical Response Unit and corresponding failure of leadership by Chief Jerri
Williams and Phoenix Police command staff with respect to the aforementioned
protests and events.




Page 950
Attachment B



From: Derek Begay
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 10:55 PM
To: Council Packet Mailbox CLK
Subject: CITIZEN’S PETITION TO PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL


WHEREAS, the Phoenix Police Department, under the leadership of Chief Jeri Williams, has engaged in a
widespread practice of politically motivated surveillance, violence, and arrests of social justice activists;
and

WHEREAS, in August 2017, the Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical Response Unit engaged in mass
civil rights violations against attendees of an Anti-Trump rally that resulted in numerous serious injuries
and the violent suppression of thousands of individuals’ free speech rights; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical Response Unit is responsible for creating, keeping,
and sharing a Neo-Nazi inspired “challenge coin” to commemorate and celebrate police violence against
Phoenix residents expressing their First Amendment rights at the Anti-Trump Rally; and

WHEREAS, Sergeant Doug McBride oversees and manages the Tactical Response Unit;

WHEREAS, United States District Court records indicate that Chief Jeri Williams and Phoenix Police
command staff has known about the Nazi-inspired challenge coin since at least August 2019, when she
was deposed under oath as part of the 2017 Anti-Trump Rally civil rights lawsuit;

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council failed to act to hold Chief Jeri Williams and Phoenix Police
Department’s Tactical Response Unit accountable for physical harm and civil rights violations in 2017,
thereby permitting such unconstitutional conduct to continue unchecked;

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers engaged in the political prosecution of Black Lives Matter organizer,
Jamaar Williams in 2019 by lying, in police reports, Form IVs submitted to the Court, and under oath,
about Mr. Williams’ purportedly assaulting two Phoenix police officers; and

WHEREAS, the Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the criminal case against Jamaar Williams for
lack of probable cause;

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams lied to Phoenix City Council about the evidence that existed to
successfully prosecute Jamaar Williams; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council did not hold the officers who lied to prosecute a political opponent
accountable for their unconstitutional activities

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council instead retaliated against Jamaar Williams and removed him from his
committee assignments related to police reform in the City of Phoenix; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council’s continued failure to hold Chief Jeri Williams and the Phoenix Police
Department accountable for mistreatment of protesters and political opponents resulted in continued
harm;


Page 951
WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers used unconstitutional and excessive force, including tear gas, pepper
spray, rubber bullets, and bean bag rounds, against non-violent protesters on May 28, 2020 - May 31,
2020; and

WHEREAS, this use of force was particularly dangerous during a deadly pandemic spread through the
expulsion of respiratory droplets because tear gas and pepper-spray cause individuals to expel respiratory
droplets by coughing and sneezing; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers illegally arrested 354 individuals protesting the murders of George
Floyd and Dion Johnson between May 28, 2020 - May 31, 2020; and

WHEREAS, many of these arrests were secured using illegal cut-and-paste probable cause statements;
and

WHEREAS, many of these cases were dismissed for lack of probable cause; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council refused to hold the officers and command staff involved in the “cut-and-
paste” operation responsible; and

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams and Phoenix Police command staff allowed Tactical Response Unit
officers to be trained and coached by the Maricopa County Attorney’s First Responder’s Bureau; and

WHEREAS, after the training by MCAO, Maricopa Superior Court records show officers within the Tactical
Response Unit made numerous false arrests and lied in police reports, Form IVs, and under oath about
“crimes” allegedly committed by individuals protesting police violence in order to punish Black Lives
Matter protesters;

WHEREAS, Tactical Response Unit Sergeant Doug McBride offered false and misleading testimony to a
Grand Jury about a fictional gang “ACAB” in order to punish Black Lives Matter protesters; and

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams has engaged in a pattern of misrepresenting her knowledge of the
Department’s tactic and pattern of engaging in political prosecutions;

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams misrepresented her knowledge of the Neo-Nazi inspired coin to the
residents of Phoenix similar to the way in which she claimed to be unaware of commemorative tattoos
among officers while chief of police in Oxnard, CA; and

WHEREAS, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office dismissed fifteen protest cases “in the interest of
justice”; and

WHEREAS, the remaining cases against protesters suffer from the same lack of evidence, evidence of
police bias, and misconduct; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council failed to pass and fund meaningful, independent investigatory
civilian oversight of the Phoenix Police Department.

Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, I, Derek Begay, a citizen and resident of
the City of Phoenix, hereby petition the City Council to: Create a reparations fund for all individuals directly
impacted by the Phoenix Police Department’s use of excessive force at protests



Page 952
Sincerely,

Derek Begay





Page 953
Attachment C



From: P RaShell Tyson
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 8:14 PM
To: Council Packet Mailbox CLK
Subject: CITIZEN’S PETITION TO PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL




WHEREAS, the Phoenix Police Department, under the leadership of Chief Jeri Williams, has engaged in a
widespread practice of politically motivated surveillance, violence, and arrests of social justice activists; and

WHEREAS, in August 2017, the Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical Response Unit engaged in mass civil
rights violations against attendees of an Anti-Trump rally that resulted in numerous serious injuries and the
violent suppression of thousands of individuals’ free speech rights; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical Response Unit is responsible for creating, keeping, and
sharing a Neo-Nazi inspired “challenge coin” to commemorate and celebrate police violence against Phoenix
residents expressing their First Amendment rights at the Anti-Trump Rally; and

WHEREAS, Sergeant Doug McBride oversees and manages the Tactical Response Unit;

WHEREAS, United States District Court records indicate that Chief Jeri Williams and Phoenix Police command
staff has known about the Nazi-inspired challenge coin since at least August 2019, when she was deposed
under oath as part of the 2017 Anti-Trump Rally civil rights lawsuit;

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council failed to act to hold Chief Jeri Williams and Phoenix Police Department’s
Tactical Response Unit accountable for physical harm and civil rights violations in 2017, thereby permitting
such unconstitutional conduct to continue unchecked;

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers engaged in the political prosecution of Black Lives Matter organizer,
Jamaar Williams in 2019 by lying, in police reports, Form IVs submitted to the Court, and under oath, about Mr.
Williams’ purportedly assaulting two Phoenix police officers; and

WHEREAS, the Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the criminal case against Jamaar Williams for lack
of probable cause;

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams lied to Phoenix City Council about the evidence that existed to successfully
prosecute Jamaar Williams; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council did not hold the officers who lied to prosecute a political opponent
accountable for their unconstitutional activities

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council instead retaliated against Jamaar Williams and removed him from his
committee assignments related to police reform in the City of Phoenix; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council’s continued failure to hold Chief Jeri Williams and the Phoenix Police
Department accountable for mistreatment of protesters and political opponents resulted in continued harm;





Page 954
WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers used unconstitutional and excessive force, including tear gas, pepper
spray, rubber bullets, and bean bag rounds, against non-violent protesters on May 28, 2020 - May 31, 2020;
and

WHEREAS, this use of force was particularly dangerous during a deadly pandemic spread through the
expulsion of respiratory droplets because tear gas and pepper-spray cause individuals to expel respiratory
droplets by coughing and sneezing; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers illegally arrested 354 individuals protesting the murders of George Floyd
and Dion Johnson between May 28, 2020 - May 31, 2020; and

WHEREAS, many of these arrests were secured using illegal cut-and-paste probable cause statements; and

WHEREAS, many of these cases were dismissed for lack of probable cause; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix City Council refused to hold the officers and command staff involved in the “cut-and-
paste” operation responsible; and

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams and Phoenix Police command staff allowed Tactical Response Unit officers to
be trained and coached by the Maricopa County Attorney’s First Responder’s Bureau; and

WHEREAS, after the training by MCAO, Maricopa Superior Court records show officers within the Tactical
Response Unit made numerous false arrests and lied in police reports, Form IVs, and under oath about
“crimes” allegedly committed by individuals protesting police violence in order to punish Black Lives Matter
protesters;

WHEREAS, Tactical Response Unit Sergeant Doug McBride offered false and misleading testimony to a
Grand Jury about a fictional gang “ACAB” in order to punish Black Lives Matter protesters; and

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams has engaged in a pattern of misrepresenting her knowledge of the
Department’s tactic and pattern of engaging in political prosecutions;

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams misrepresented her knowledge of the Neo-Nazi inspired coin to the residents
of Phoenix similar to the way in which she claimed to be unaware of commemorative tattoos among officers
while chief of police in Oxnard, CA; and

WHEREAS, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office dismissed fifteen protest cases “in the interest of justice”;
and

WHEREAS, the remaining cases against protesters suffer from the same lack of evidence, evidence of police
bias, and misconduct; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council failed to pass and fund meaningful, independent investigatory civilian
oversight of the Phoenix Police Department.

Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, I, Phillis Tyson, a citizen and resident of the
impacted by the Phoenix Police Department’s practice of politically and falsely prosecuting protesters


Sincerely,
Phillis R Tyson




Page 955
Attachment D


CITIZEN’S PETITION TO PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL

WHEREAS, the Phoenix Police Department, under the leadership of Chief Jeri
Williams, has engaged in a widespread practice of politically motivated
surveillance, violence, and arrests of social justice activists; and

WHEREAS, in August 2017, the Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical Response
Unit engaged in mass civil rights violations against attendees of an anti-Trump
rally (the “2017 Rally”) that resulted in numerous serious injuries and the violent
suppression of thousands of individuals’ First Amendment rights; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical Response Unit is
responsible for creating, keeping, and sharing a Neo-Nazi inspired “challenge
coin” to commemorate and celebrate police violence against Phoenix residents
expressing their First Amendment rights at the 2017 Rally; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police Sergeant Doug McBride oversees and manages the
Tactical Response Unit; and

WHEREAS, United States District Court records indicate that Chief Jeri Williams
and Phoenix Police command staff have known about the Nazi-inspired
challenge coin since at least August 2019, when Chief Jeri Williams was deposed
under oath as part of a civil rights lawsuit arising from the events of the 2017
Rally; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council failed to hold Chief Jeri Williams, the
Phoenix Police Department, and the Phoenix Police Department’s Tactical
Response Unit accountable for physical harm and civil rights violations in 2017,
thereby permitting such unconstitutional conduct to continue unchecked;

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers engaged in the political prosecution of Black
Lives Matter organizer Jamaar Williams in 2019 by providing knowingly false
information in police reports, Form IVs submitted to the Maricopa County
Superior Court (the “Superior Court”), and under oath, falsely alleging that Mr.
Williams assaulted two Phoenix police officers; and

WHEREAS, the Superior Court dismissed the criminal case against Mr. Williams
for lack of probable cause; and




Page 956
WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams provided false statements to the Phoenix City
Council about the evidence that allegedly existed to legally prosecute Mr.
Williams; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council failed to hold its own law enforcement
officials accountable for unconstitutionally misrepresenting facts in an effort to
prosecute a perceived political opponent; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council instead retaliated against Mr. Williams and
removed him from his committee assignments related to police reform in the

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council’s ongoing failure to hold Chief Jeri
Williams and the Phoenix Police Department accountable for mistreatment of
protesters and political opponents continues to result in harm; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers used unconstitutional and excessive force,
including tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and bean bag rounds against
non-violent protesters between May 28–31, 2020; and

WHEREAS, this use of force was particularly dangerous during a deadly
respiratory pandemic because tear gas and pepper-spray cause individuals to
expel droplets by coughing and sneezing; and

WHEREAS, Phoenix Police officers illegally arrested 354 individuals protesting
the murders of George Floyd and Dion Johnson between May 28–31, 2020; and

WHEREAS, many of these arrests were secured using illegal cut-and-paste
probable cause statements; and

WHEREAS, many of these cases were dismissed for lack of probable cause; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council refused to hold the Phoenix Police officers
and command staff involved in the “cut-and-paste” operation responsible; and

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams and Phoenix Police command staff allowed
Tactical Response Unit officers to be trained and coached by the Maricopa
County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”) First Responders’ Bureau; and




Page 957
WHEREAS, after the training by MCAO, Superior Court records show officers
within the Tactical Response Unit made numerous false arrests and provably
false statements in police reports, Form IVs, and under oath about “crimes”
allegedly committed by individuals protesting police violence in order to punish
Black Lives Matter protesters; and

WHEREAS, Tactical Response Unit Sgt. McBride offered false and misleading
testimony to a Grand Jury about fictional gang “ACAB” to punish Black Lives
Matter protesters; and

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams has engaged in a pattern of misrepresenting her
knowledge of the Phoenix Police Department’s tactic and pattern of engaging in
political prosecutions; and

WHEREAS, Chief Jeri Williams misrepresented her knowledge of the Neo-Nazi
inspired “challenge coin” to the residents of Phoenix similar to the way in which
she denied knowledge of commemorative tattoos among her subordinate law
enforcement officers while she served as chief of police in Oxnard, CA; and

WHEREAS, on February 12, 2021, the MCAO dismissed fifteen protest cases “in
the interest of justice”: and

WHEREAS, the remaining cases against protesters suffer from the same police
bias, misconduct, and lack of evidence; and

WHEREAS, the Phoenix City Council failed to pass and fund meaningful,
independent civilian oversight with investigative authority and discretion over
the Phoenix Police Department.

PURSUANT TO Chapter IV, Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, I, William H.
Knight, a citizen and resident of the City of Phoenix, hereby petition the Phoenix

Establish enforceable guidelines and meaningful disciplinary measures to
prevent law enforcement officials, at any level, from providing false information
in Form IV probable cause statements, police reports, or under oath to secure
criminal charges against protesters exercising their First Amendment rights.




Page 958

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

108 item(s)