to Boards and Commissions

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 9
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: January 24, 2024
From: Mayor Kate Gallego

Subject: *REVISED BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES

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

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee

Councilman Kevin Robinson recommends the following for appointment:

Jill Ostendorp
Ms. Ostendorp is a Realtor Team Lead at West USA and a resident of District 6. She
fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2025.

Camelback East Village Planning Committee

Councilman Kevin Robinson recommends the following for appointment:

Kelli Williams
Ms. Williams is a Senior Litigation Counsel at CNA Insurance Companies. She fills a
vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2025.


*Citizens Commission on Salaries for Elected City Officials
The City Charter Chapter Ill, Section 12 requires the City Council to appoint a
Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials every four years during the same year a
regular election for Mayor is scheduled.
The Commission is required to conduct a review of the rates of pay of elected City
officials. The purpose of this review is to determine a recommendation of pay levels
appropriate to the duties and responsibilities of city elected officials. The Commission
must submit to the City Clerk, no later than April 1, 2024, a report of the results of the
review and its recommendations.
The Commission's salary recommendations must be certified by the Commission to the
City Clerk. If the Commission recommends a salary increase, the City Council shall
submit the question to the qualified electors at the next regular municipal election for
their approval or rejection. In the event the Commission recommends no change in
salaries for the elected officials, it shall file such recommendation of no change with the
City Clerk and no question shall be submitted to the electorate.
The Commission is composed of a Chair plus six residents to serve a term not to
exceed three months.
*The Commission is composed of seven residents to serve a term not to exceed three
months. A Chair will be selected among the Commission members.
Councilman Jim Waring recommends the following for appointment:
Matthew Kenney
Mr. Kenney is the President at Public Square Public Affairs.

Councilwoman Debra Stark recommends the following for appointment:

Barbie Johnson
Ms. Johnson is a neighborhood leader.

Councilwoman Laura Pastor recommends the following for appointment:

Tony Moya
Mr. Moya is the Director of Strategic Projects at Chicanos Por La Causa.

Councilwoman Betty Guardado recommends the following for appointment:

Paul Johnson
Mr. Johnson is a former mayor of the City of Phoenix.

Councilman Kevin Robinson recommends the following for appointment:

Michelle Kemp
Ms. Kemp is a local neighborhood leader.

Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari recommends the following for appointment:

Brent Kleinman
Mr. Kleinman is a Professor at Glendale Community College.

Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington recommends the following for appointment:

Dr. Ann Hart
Dr. Hart is an educational consultant at The Heart of Education.
Development Advisory Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Emilio Gaynor
Mr. Gaynor is the Director of International Development at Chicanos Por La Causa, and
a resident of District 1. He replaces Marcia Busching as the Planning Commission
representative for a term to expire January 24, 2027.

Fast Track Cities Ad-Hoc

I recommend the following for appointment:

Dr. Angel Algarin
Dr. Algarin is an Assistant Professor at Arizona State University. He fills a vacancy for a
term to expire January 24, 2025.

Stacey Jay Cavaliere
Mr. Cavaliere is the Executive Director of Aunt Ritas. He replaces Jimmy Thomason for
a term to expire October 6, 2030.

Human Services Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Gail Knight
Ms. Knight is a Balsz School District Board Member and a resident of District 8. She fills
a Category III vacancy for a term to expire January 24, 2026.

Mayor’s Human Trafficking Task Force

I recommend the following for appointment:

Kaleigh Jenkins
Ms. Jenkins is a representative of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. She replaces
Sarah Micfilikier for a term to expire May 18, 2025.

Lt. Chris Parese
Lt. Parese is a member of the HEAT Unit at the Phoenix Police Department. He
replaces Lt. Rick Leyvas for a term to expire September 7, 2030.
James Sampanes
Mr. Sampanes is a Prosecutor at the City of Phoenix. He replaces Bob Smith for a term
to expire October 7, 2025.

Shauna Sexton
Ms. Sexton is the Executive Director of Young Adults Programs with the Dream Center.
She will serve a term to expire January 24, 2025.

North Mountain Village Planning Committee

Vice Mayor Debra Stark recommends the following for appointment:

Steve Pamperin
Mr. Pamperin is a retiree and resident of District 3. He fills a vacancy for a term to
expire November 19, 2024.
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: January 24, 2024
From: Mayor Kate Gallego

Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES

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

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee

Councilman Kevin Robinson recommends the following for appointment:

Jill Ostendorp
Ms. Ostendorp is a Realtor Team Lead at West USA and a resident of District 6. She
fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2025.

Camelback East Village Planning Committee

Councilman Kevin Robinson recommends the following for appointment:

Kelli Williams
Ms. Williams is a Senior Litigation Counsel at CNA Insurance Companies. She fills a
vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2025.


Citizens Commission on Salaries for Elected City Officials
The City Charter Chapter Ill, Section 12 requires the City Council to appoint a
Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials every four years during the same year a
regular election for Mayor is scheduled.
The Commission is required to conduct a review of the rates of pay of elected City
officials. The purpose of this review is to determine a recommendation of pay levels
appropriate to the duties and responsibilities of city elected officials. The Commission
must submit to the City Clerk, no later than April 1, 2024, a report of the results of the
review and its recommendations.




Page 10
The Commission's salary recommendations must be certified by the Commission to the
City Clerk. If the Commission recommends a salary increase, the City Council shall
submit the question to the qualified electors at the next regular municipal election for
their approval or rejection. In the event the Commission recommends no change in
salaries for the elected officials, it shall file such recommendation of no change with the
City Clerk and no question shall be submitted to the electorate.
The Commission is composed of a Chair plus six residents to serve a term not to
exceed three months.
Councilman Jim Waring recommends the following for appointment:
Matthew Kenney
Mr. Kenney is the President at Public Square Public Affairs.

Councilwoman Debra Stark recommends the following for appointment:

Barbie Johnson
Ms. Johnson is a neighborhood leader.

Councilwoman Laura Pastor recommends the following for appointment:

Tony Moya
Mr. Moya is the Director of Strategic Projects at Chicanos Por La Causa.

Councilwoman Betty Guardado recommends the following for appointment:

Paul Johnson
Mr. Johnson is a former mayor of the City of Phoenix.

Councilman Kevin Robinson recommends the following for appointment:

Michelle Kemp
Ms. Kemp is a local neighborhood leader.

Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari recommends the following for appointment:

Brent Kleinman
Mr. Kleinman is a Professor at Glendale Community College.

Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington recommends the following for appointment:

Dr. Ann Hart
Dr. Hart is an educational consultant at The Heart of Education.

Development Advisory Board




Page 11
I recommend the following for appointment:

Emilio Gaynor
Mr. Gaynor is the Director of International Development at Chicanos Por La Causa, and
a resident of District 1. He replaces Marcia Busching as the Planning Commission
representative for a term to expire January 24, 2027.

Fast Track Cities Ad-Hoc

I recommend the following for appointment:

Dr. Angel Algarin
Dr. Algarin is an Assistant Professor at Arizona State University. He fills a vacancy for a
term to expire January 24, 2025.

Stacey Jay Cavaliere
Ms. Cavaliere is the Executive Director of Aunt Ritas. He replaces Jimmy Thomason for
a term to expire October 6, 2030.

Human Services Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Gail Knight
Ms. Knight is a Balsz School District Board Member and a resident of District 8. She fills
a Category III vacancy for a term to expire January 24, 2026.

Mayor’s Human Trafficking Task Force

I recommend the following for appointment:

Kaleigh Jenkins
Ms. Jenkins is a representative of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. She replaces
Sarah Micfilikier for a term to expire May 18, 2025.

Lt. Chris Parese
Lt. Parese is a member of the HEAT Unit at the Phoenix Police Department. He
replaces Lt. Rick Leyvas for a term to expire September 7, 2030.

James Sampanes
Mr. Sampanes is a Prosecutor at the City of Phoenix. He replaces Bob Smith for a term
to expire October 7, 2025.




Page 12
Shauna Sexton
Ms. Sexton is the Executive Director of Young Adults Programs with the Dream Center.
She will serve a term to expire January 24, 2025.

North Mountain Village Planning Committee

Vice Mayor Debra Stark recommends the following for appointment:

Steve Pamperin
Mr. Pamperin is a retiree and resident of District 3. He fills a vacancy for a term to
expire November 19, 2024.




Page 13



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Assyrian Church of the East - St. Peter AZ

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

Summary

Applicant
Henry Benjamin

Location
1915 W. Thunderbird Road
Council District: 3

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 10, 2024 - 8 p.m. to 1 a.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 14



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Free Serbian Orthodox Church St. Nicholas

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

Summary

Applicant
Milan Djordjic

Location
11640 N. 16th Place
Council District: 3

Function
Folk Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 3, 2024 - 3 p.m to Midnight / 350 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 15



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - North Valley Symphony Orchestra

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

Summary

Applicant
Breana Keen

Location
4530 E. Gold Dust Avenue
Council District: 3

Function
Gala

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 3, 2024 - 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. / 150 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 16



Report

Liquor License - Cactus Jack's Bar & Grill

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 268966.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
4747 E. Elliot Road, Ste. 5
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 6

This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 17, 2024.

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

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


Page 17

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.

Mesa Drummer Bar & Grill (Series 6)
1211 N. Country Club Drive, Ste. 9, Mesa
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:
“We have owned and operated another establishment in Arizona. We ensure our
employees follow the Title 4 liquor laws.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Cactus Jack's Bar and Grill has operated for several years. We would like to continue
to serve our regulars and new guests.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment - Cactus Jack's Bar & Grill - Data
Attachment - Cactus Jack's Bar & Grill - Map

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




Page 18
Liquor License Data: CACTUS JACK'S BAR & GRILL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 1

Liquor Store 9 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 2

Restaurant 12 5 4


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 41.87 74.09

Violent Crimes 12.31 4.08 7.96

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 47 13

Total Violations 82 21




Page 19
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1167071 1481 69 3 3

1167072 1353 90 10 3

1167082 1243 52 3 17

1167083 1314 34 0 7

1167084 1551 93 10 2

1167092 790 90 9 11

1167151 1267 94 0 5

1167152 888 81 17 2

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 20
Liquor License Map: CACTUS JACK'S BAR & GRILL
4747 E ELLIOT ROAD




Ü
Date: 12/19/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 21



Report

Liquor License - Postino Winebar

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 264807.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3939 E. Campbell Ave. Ste. 100
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location is currently
licensed for liquor sales with a Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar, liquor license.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 12, 2024.

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

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.


Page 22


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 an experienced license committed to upholding the highest standards to
maintain 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:
“Postino is known for its delicious food and wide selection of curated wines and
specialty beers. In response to customer requests, Postino would like to offer spirits to
guests 21+ who prefer craft cocktails with the fresh meals they enjoy at the
restaurant.”

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

Attachments
Attachment - Postino Winebar - Data
Attachment - Postino Winebar - Map

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




Page 23
Liquor License Data: POSTINO WINEBAR
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 2 0

Bar 6 6 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 1

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2

Restaurant 12 45 6



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 89.09 78.34

Violent Crimes 12.31 7.37 5.73
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 47 34

Total Violations 82 53




Page 24
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1081001 1849 78 1 7

1082001 717 56 23 6

1082003 1225 76 13 17

1083012 1221 72 5 1

1083013 982 75 18 1

1083021 1229 70 16 3

1083022 1824 50 13 4

1109022 2224 39 7 18

1110001 781 25 11 3

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 25 2/2
Liquor License Map: POSTINO WINEBAR
3939 E. CAMPBELL AVE.




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


City Clerk Department
Page 26




PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-50493) (Items 7-13)
Ordinance S-50493 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.

7 Line of Duty Death Benefit Payment to Miguel H. Angulo
Jr. and Maria H. Angulo
The Human Resources Department request authority to pay the total sum
of $93,525 to the beneficiaries of Miguel Angulo, to be split equally
between Miguel H. Angulo Jr. and Maria H. Angulo in one payment to
each. Funds are available in the Human Resources Department budget.

8 Settlement of Claim(s) Boehle v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $450,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Boehle v.
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of a claim involving the Water Services Department that
occurred on Dec. 12, 2019.

9 Settlement of Claim(s) Foster v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $34,500 in settlement of claim(s) in Foster v. City of
Phoenix, 22-0026-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department pursuant to
Phoenix City Code Chapter 42.This is a settlement of a claim involving the
Water Services Department that occurred on July 6, 2022.




Page 27

10 Settlement of Claim(s) Gonzalez v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of $90,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Gonzalez v.
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of a claim involving the Police Department that occurred on
April 14, 2021.

11 Settlement of Claim(s) Hamilton v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $153,190 in settlement of claim(s) in Hamilton v.
to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim involving
the Water Services Department that occurred on Jan. 6, 2023.

12 Settlement of Claim(s) Polihonki v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $100,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Polihonki v.
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of a claim involving the Fire Department that occurred on Dec.
28, 2019.

13 Settlement of Claim(s) Windes Farm, LLC v. City of
Phoenix
To make payment of $114,810 in settlement of claim(s) in Windes
Farms, LLC v. City of Phoenix, CV2023-002368, 22-0398-001 GL, PD,
for the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42.
This is a settlement of a claim involving the Water Services Department
that occurred on Oct. 11, 2022.




Page 28



Report

An Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds (Ordinance
S-50520)

Requests City Council approval of an ordinance to authorize the City Manager, or his
designee, the issuance of one or more series of various purpose general obligation
bonds not to exceed the principal amount of $500,000,000 to provide funding for fire,
police, roadway and pedestrian infrastructure projects; library, parks and historic
preservation projects; education, economic development, reducing waste, resource
management, arts and culture projects; affordable housing and senior center projects.
Further this request authorizes the City Controller to receive and expend all necessary
funds related to this item.

Summary
On Dec. 13, 2022, after an extensive community input based process, the Phoenix
Bond Program"). On May 3, 2023, the Phoenix City Council ordered and called a
special bond election and approved the form of ballot for the 2023 GO Bond Program.
On Nov. 7, 2023, Phoenix voters approved all four questions related to the 2023 GO
Bond Program. This ordinance provides authorization to issue obligations in one or
more series not to exceed $500,000,000 principal amount, plus related financing costs
to acquire, construct, expand and improve real and personal property.

The generated funds will be used to pay for all necessary design, construction,
reconstruction, improvement, repair, renovation, equipment, and associated costs,
including the acquisition of land or interests necessary for such purposes, all legal,
financial, consulting, and other costs and fees in connection therewith. The debt will be
supported by property taxes to pay financing costs; the ordinance grants an exemption
to Phoenix City Code section 42-18 to include indemnification and legal remedy
limitations.

Financial Impact
The City will levy secondary property taxes for the repayment of the obligations.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.


Page 29
ATTACHMENT A

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


ORDINANCE S-


AN ORDINANCE ORDERING THE SALE OF NOT EXCEEDING
THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $500,000,000 VARIOUS PURPOSE
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, OF
THE CITY OF PHOENIX, MAKING PROVISION FOR THE
REGISTRATION, TRANSFER AND PAYMENT OF ALL BONDS
AUTHORIZED HEREBY, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS AND THE RETENTION OF
CERTAIN AGENTS OF THE CITY IN THAT CONNECTION,
GRANTING AN EXEMPTION TO PHOENIX CITY CODE SECTION
42-18 TO INCLUDE INDEMNIFICATION AND LEGAL REMEDY
LIMITATIONS; MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS AND
AGREEMENTS IN THAT CONNECTION AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY CONTROLLER TO RECEIVE AND EXPEND ALL
NECESSARY FUNDS THEREFOR.

____________


WHEREAS at a special bond election duly called and held in the City on

November 7, 2023, the following questions (collectively, the “Bond Questions”), carried:

QUESTION NUMBER 1

Enhance Community Safety through Fire, Police,
Roadway and Pedestrian Infrastructure


Shall the City of Phoenix, Arizona be authorized to issue and sell general

obligation bonds in the principal amount of up to $214,000,000 to provide funding for

fire, police, roadway and pedestrian infrastructure projects, including, but not limited to

projects intended to:

• Reduce response times and improve service delivery by
modernizing public safety infrastructure




Page 30
• Construct, improve, repair, and renovate local fire and police
stations

• Repair streets and enhance safety conditions for drivers and
pedestrians, including resurfacing, lighting, crosswalks and
sidewalks

• Improve roadway mobility and reduce congestion for commuters

• Expand and enhance transportation connectivity options for the
disabled community and in areas where access to safe
transportation is limited

• Mitigate the impact of floods and storms through infrastructure
improvements, including sewers, detention basins, and flood
control projects

• Create facilities for city residents struggling with mental and
behavioral health, including unhoused residents

Generated funds will be used to pay for all necessary design, construction,

reconstruction, improvement, repair, renovation, equipment and associated costs,

including the acquisition of land or interests necessary for such purposes, all legal,

financial, consulting, and other costs and fees in connection therewith. Such bonds to

be issued in one or more series as tax-exempt or taxable bonds, and may be sold at

prices that include premiums not greater than permitted by law. Such bonds may bear

fixed or variable interest not exceeding 10% per annum and may have principal payable

not later than 25 years from the date of issuance of each series. Such bonds will be

issued as general obligations bonds and the issuance of these bonds will result in a

property tax increase sufficient to pay the annual debt service on the bonds.




2 Ordinance S-

Page 31
QUESTION NUMBER 2

Improve Quality of Life in Phoenix Neighborhoods


Shall the City of Phoenix, Arizona be authorized to issue and sell general

obligation bonds in the principal amount of up to $108,615,000 to provide funding for

library, parks and historic preservation projects, including, but not limited to:

• Build or improve new and existing libraries

• Enhance existing parks and add additional park space across the
city

• Construct and renovate playgrounds and recreational facilities

• Increase accessibility and improve ADA compliance in publicly
owned spaces and facilities

Generated funds will be used to pay for all necessary design, construction,

reconstruction, improvement, repair, renovation, equipment and associated costs,

including the acquisition of land or interests necessary for such purposes, all legal,

financial, consulting, and other costs and fees in connection therewith. Such bonds to

be issued in one or more series as tax-exempt or taxable bonds and may be sold at

prices that include premiums not greater than permitted by law. Such bonds may bear

fixed or variable interest not exceeding 10% per annum, and may have principal

payable not later than 25 years from the date of issuance of each series. Such bonds

will be issued as general obligations bonds and the issuance of these bonds will result

in a property tax increase sufficient to pay the annual debt service on the bonds.




3 Ordinance S-

Page 32
QUESTION NUMBER 3

Create an Efficient, Modern Phoenix to Live and Work


Shall the City of Phoenix, Arizona be authorized to issue and sell general

obligation bonds in the principal amount of up to $114,385,000 to provide funding for

education, economic development, reducing waste, resource management, arts and

culture projects, including, but not limited to:

• Drive healthcare workforce development with an educational facility

• Develop land parcels to encourage new business/industry
investment and recruitment

• Establish heat resiliency projects to cool public spaces and high-
density urban areas

• Upgrade city facilities to be energy and water efficient and/or use
renewable energy

• Renovate and enhance arts and cultural facilities and museums

Generated funds will be used to pay for all necessary design, construction,

reconstruction, improvement, repair, renovation, equipment and associated costs,

including the acquisition of land or interests necessary for such purposes, all legal,

financial, consulting, and other costs and fees in connection therewith. Such bonds to

be issued in one or more series as tax-exempt or taxable bonds, and may be sold at

prices that include premiums not greater than permitted by law. Such bonds may bear

fixed or variable interest not exceeding 10% per annum, and may have principal

payable not later than 25 years from the date of issuance of each series. Such bonds

will be issued as general obligations bonds and the issuance of these bonds will result

in a property tax increase sufficient to pay the annual debt service on the bonds.



4 Ordinance S-

Page 33
QUESTION NUMBER 4

Enhance, Preserve and Increase the Supply
of Affordable Housing and Senior Centers


Shall the City of Phoenix, Arizona be authorized to issue and sell general

obligation bonds in the principal amount of up to $63,000,000 to provide funding for

affordable housing and senior center projects, including, but not limited to:

• Construct new affordable housing units throughout the city to
support low to moderate income residents and address
homelessness

• Repair and refurbish existing affordable housing units

• Build and renovate new and existing senior centers

Generated funds will be used to pay for all necessary design, construction,

reconstruction, improvement, repair, renovation, equipment, and associated costs,

including the acquisition of land or interests necessary for such purposes, all legal,

financial, consulting, and other costs and fees in connection therewith. Such bonds to

be issued in one or more series as tax-exempt or taxable bonds and may be sold at

prices that include premiums not greater than permitted by law. Such bonds may bear

fixed or variable interest not exceeding 10% per annum and may have principal payable

not later than 25 years from the date of issuance of each series. Such bonds will be

issued as general obligations bonds and the issuance of these bonds will result in a

property tax increase sufficient to pay the annual debt service on the bonds.

WHEREAS, the City intends for the bonds authorized hereby (the

“Bonds”) to be sold by negotiated sale in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes,

Section 35-457.C, to one or more underwriters selected by the City (the “Underwriters”),

5 Ordinance S-

Page 34
as provided in one or more bond purchase agreements (each, a “Bond Purchase

Agreement”), in substantially the same form as that used in connection with the sale of

the City’s General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2022, with such changes as are

approved by the Chief Financial Officer or her designee; and

WHEREAS, the Bonds will be reoffered by the Underwriters pursuant to

one or more Preliminary Official Statements (as defined herein) and one or more Official

Statements (as defined herein); and

NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Phoenix,

as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. That for the purpose of providing funds for the

projects and related costs authorized under the Bond Questions, the City hereby

authorizes the issuance of its General Obligation Bonds in one or more series which

may include bonds, the interest on which is intended to be excludible from gross income

for federal income tax purpose (the “Tax-Exempt Bonds”) in the aggregate principal

amount not to exceed $500,000,000. Any net premium received from the sale of the

Bonds shall be subject to Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 35-457.D. The City

Manager, the Chief Financial Officer, in each case, whether interim or actual or their

designee (each, an “Authorized Officer”) shall determine the dollar amounts and

respective ballot propositions under which each series of Bonds shall be issued.

Section 2. Authorization of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued as fully

registered bonds registered as to both principal and interest, in the denominations

determined by an Authorized Officer or any integral multiple thereof and shall be dated

the date of delivery of the Bonds.



6 Ordinance S-

Page 35
Interest on the Bonds shall be payable on January 1 and July 1 of each

year (the “Interest Payment Dates”), at the rates to be set forth in each Bond Purchase

Agreement (not to exceed an aggregate yield of 10%) until the principal amount has

been paid or provided for. The Bonds shall bear interest from the most recent date to

which interest has been paid or provided for or, if no interest has been paid or provided

for, from the date of delivery, or such other date as approved by an Authorized Officer.

Interest on the Bonds will be computed on the basis set forth in each Bond Purchase

Agreement. The final amounts and respective maturity dates of the Bonds shall be set

forth in each Bond Purchase Agreement, but none of the Bonds shall mature later than

twenty-five (25) years from then date of issuance.

Section 3. Sale of Bonds. Each Authorized Officer is authorized to

determine the amount of the Bonds to be sold to the Underwriters pursuant to

negotiated sale as described in the applicable Official Statement (such entity purchasing

the Bonds, the “Purchasers”). Each such sale will be evidenced by the execution and

delivery of a Bond Purchase Agreement for each series of Bonds to be sold

concurrently, if applicable. Each Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to execute and

deliver a Bond Purchase Agreement for each series of Bonds to be sold concurrently,

with such insertions, omissions and changes as are necessary and consistent with this

Ordinance, the execution of a Bond Purchase Agreement for each series of Bonds to be

sold concurrently, if applicable, being conclusive evidence of such approval. An

Authorized Officer may make provision for insurance and/or liquidity support of the

Bonds, if such Authorized Officer determines that such insurance or credit support




7 Ordinance S-

Page 36
would provide a net borrowing cost savings or enhance the marketability of the Bonds.

Such determinations shall be included in each Bond Purchase Agreement.

If bond insurance and/or liquidity support is obtained with respect to any of

the Bonds, an Authorized Officer is authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the

City, appropriate agreements with the bond insurer and/or liquidity provider and the

Bond Registrar with provisions concerning, without limitation, any of the following:

(i) the terms of the bond insurance and/or liquidity support and the premium to be paid

for it, (ii) procedures for payments under the bond insurance and/or liquidity support and

reimbursement of amounts advanced including subrogation to the rights of bondholders

paid, (iii) voting rights, (iv) remedies and (v) notices and providing of information with

respect to the Bonds.

Section 4. Custody of Registered Bonds. Such Bonds shall only be

issued in book entry form, except as provided in Section 10 hereof, and (i) one

certificate for each Bond maturity in typewritten form shall be registered in the name of

the Depository (as defined herein) or its nominee, as registered owner, and immobilized

in the custody of the Depository; (ii) the beneficial owners of the Bonds (the “Beneficial

Owners”) shall have no right to receive the Bonds in the form of physical securities; (iii)

ownership of beneficial interests in the principal amounts of $5,000 or integral multiples

thereof shall be shown by book entry on the system maintained and operated by the

Depository and its participants, and transfers of the ownership of beneficial interest shall

be made only by book entry by the Depository and its participants; and (iv) the Bonds as

such shall not be transferable or exchangeable, except in transfer to another Depository

or to another nominee of a Depository.



8 Ordinance S-

Page 37
The City and the Bond Registrar shall treat the Depository or its nominee

in whose name the Bonds are registered in the Bond Registrar as the owner of the

Bonds for all purposes. Accordingly, principal and interest payments will be paid to the

Depository as the registered owner of the Bonds. All notices required by this Ordinance

to be given to the registered owners of Bonds shall be given to the Depository as the

registered owner of the Bonds. The transfer of principal and interest and of notices to

the Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of the Depository and its Participants or

other nominees of the Beneficial Owners. The City will not be responsible or liable for

such transfers or the failure thereof or for maintaining, supervising or reviewing records

of the Depository.

For the purposes of this Ordinance, “Depository” means any securities

depository that is a clearing agency under federal law operating and maintaining, with

its participants or otherwise, a book entry system to record ownership of beneficial

interests in Bonds, and to effect transfers of such beneficial interests in the Bonds, in

book entry form, and includes and means initially The Depository Trust Company (a

limited purpose trust company), New York, New York.

Section 5. Execution. The Bonds shall be signed by the Mayor and

attested by the City Clerk (references in this Ordinance to such officers shall include

persons acting in the capacity of such officers) in their official capacities. The signature

of any or all of such officers may be facsimiles. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for

any purpose or shall be entitled to any security or benefit under this Ordinance unless

and until the certificate of authentication printed on the Bond is signed by the Bond

Registrar as authenticating agent. Authentication by the Bond Registrar shall be



9 Ordinance S-

Page 38
conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly issued, signed and

delivered under this Ordinance and is entitled to the security and benefit of this

Ordinance.

Section 6. Registrar and Paying Agent. U.S. Bank Trust Company,

National Association is hereby appointed as the authenticating agent, bond registrar,

transfer agent and paying agent (collectively, the “Bond Registrar”) for the Bonds. An

Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to appoint a qualified financial institution to

serve as a successor or replacement Bond Registrar.

Section 7. Payment of Bonds. The principal of, premium, if any, and

interest on the Bonds shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America

without deduction for the services of the Bond Registrar as paying agent. Subject to

Section 9 hereof, (a) principal and premium, if any, shall be payable when due upon

presentation and surrender of the Bonds at the principal corporate trust office of the

Bond Registrar and (b) interest on a Bond shall be paid on each Interest Payment Date

by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name the Bond was registered in the

Bond Register, at the close of business on the 15th day of the calendar month next

preceding that Interest Payment Date (the “regular record date”) at that person’s

address appearing on the Bond Register (as defined in Section 9 below), or at such

other address as is furnished to the Bond Registrar, in writing, by the registered owner

before the regular record date. Any interest which is not timely paid or duly provided for

shall cease to be payable to the person who is shown as the registered owner thereof

(or of one or more predecessor bonds) as of the regular record date and shall be

payable to the registered owner hereof (or of one or more predecessor bonds) at the



10 Ordinance S-

Page 39
close of business on a special record date for the payment of that overdue interest. The

special record date shall be fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever monies become

available for payment of the overdue interest and notice of the special record date shall

be given to registered owners not less than ten days prior thereto.

Section 8. Prior Redemption.

(a) Each series of Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to

maturity as set forth in the applicable Bond Purchase Agreement and the form of Bond.

(b) (1) Notice of redemption of any Bond shall be mailed by first

class mail, postage prepaid, not more than sixty (60) nor less than thirty (30) days prior

to the date set for redemption to the registered owner of the Bond or Bonds being

redeemed at the address shown on the registration books for the Bonds maintained by

the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent. Failure to give properly such notice of

redemption shall not affect the redemption of any Bond for which notice was properly

given. A notice of optional redemption may contain a statement that the redemption is

conditional upon receipt by the Bond Registrar as paying agent of funds on or before

the date fixed for redemption sufficient to pay the redemption price of the Bonds so

called for redemption, and that if such funds are not available, such redemption shall be

cancelled by written notice to owners of the Bonds called for redemption in the same

manner as the original redemption notice was mailed.

(2) On the date designated for redemption by notice given

as herein provided, the Bonds or portions thereof to be redeemed shall become and be

due and payable at the redemption price for such Bonds or such portions thereof on

such date, and, if moneys for payment of the redemption price are held in separate



11 Ordinance S-

Page 40
accounts by the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent, interest on such Bonds or such

portions thereof shall cease to accrue, such Bonds or such portions thereof shall cease

to be entitled to any benefit or security hereunder, the registered owners of such Bonds

or such portions thereof shall have no rights in respect thereof except to receive

payment of the redemption price thereof and accrued interest thereon and such Bonds

or such portions thereof shall be deemed paid and no longer outstanding.

(c) Any Bond or portion thereof in authorized denominations shall

be deemed paid and defeased and thereafter shall have no claim on ad valorem taxes

levied on taxable property in the City (i) if there is deposited with a bank or comparable

financial institution, in trust, moneys or obligations issued by or guaranteed by the

United States government (“Defeasance Obligations”) or both which, with the maturing

principal of and interest on such Defeasance Obligations, if any, will be sufficient, as

evidenced by a certificate or report of an accountant or nationally recognized public

finance consultant, to pay the principal of and interest and any premium on such Bond

or portion thereof as the same matures, comes due or becomes payable upon prior

redemption and (ii) if such defeased Bond or portion thereof is to be redeemed, notice

of such redemption has been given in accordance with provisions hereof or the City has

submitted to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent instructions expressed to be

irrevocable as to the date upon which such Bond or portion thereof is to be redeemed

and as to the giving of notice of such redemption. Bonds the payment of which has

been provided for in accordance with this Section shall no longer be deemed payable or

outstanding hereunder and thereafter such Bonds shall be entitled to payment only from




12 Ordinance S-

Page 41
the moneys or Defeasance Obligations deposited to provide for the payment of such

Bonds.

Section 9. Registration and Exchange. So long as any of the Bonds

remain outstanding, the City will cause the Bond Registrar to maintain and keep at its

principal corporate trust office all books and records necessary for the registration,

exchange and transfer of Bonds as provided in this Section (the “Bond Register”).

Subject to the provisions of Section 7 above, (a) the person in whose name a Bond is

registered on the Bond Register shall be regarded as the absolute owner of that Bond

for all purposes of this Ordinance, (b) payment of or on account of the principal of,

premium, if any, and interest on any Bond shall be made only to or upon the order of

that person, and (c) neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any

notice to the contrary, but the registration may be changed as provided in this Section.

All such payments shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the City’s liability

upon the Bond, including interest, to the extent of the amount or amounts so paid.

Any Bond may be exchanged for Bonds of any authorized denomination

upon presentation and surrender at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond

Registrar, together with a request for exchange signed by the registered owner or by a

person legally empowered to do so in a form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar. A Bond

may be transferred only on the Bond Register upon presentation and surrender of the

Bond at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar, together with an

assignment executed by the registered owner or by a person legally empowered to do

so in a form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar. Upon exchange or transfer the Bond

Registrar shall complete, authenticate and deliver a new Bond or Bonds of any



13 Ordinance S-

Page 42
authorized denomination or denominations requested by the registered owner equal in

the aggregate to the unmatured principal amount of the Bond surrendered and bearing

interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date.

If manual signatures on behalf of the City are required, the Bond Registrar

shall undertake the exchange or transfer of Bonds only after the new Bonds are signed

by the authorized officers of the City. In all cases of exchanged or transferred Bonds,

the City shall sign, and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver Bonds in

accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. All fees and costs associated with the

exchange or transfer, including any tax or other governmental charges required to be

paid with respect to the exchange or transfer, shall be paid by the registered owner

requesting the exchange or the transferor, as appropriate. The City or the Bond

Registrar may require that those fees and costs, if any, be paid before the procedure is

begun for the exchange or transfer. All Bonds issued upon any exchange or transfer

shall be valid obligations of the City, evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same

security and benefit under this Ordinance as the Bonds surrendered upon that

exchange or transfer.

Any Bond surrendered to the Bond Registrar for payment, retirement,

exchange, replacement or transfer shall be canceled by the Bond Registrar. The City

may at any time deliver to the Bond Registrar for cancellation any previously

authenticated and delivered Bonds that the City may have acquired in any manner

whatsoever, and those Bonds shall be promptly canceled by the Bond Registrar. The

canceled Bonds shall be retained for a period of time and then returned to the City or

destroyed by the Bond Registrar as directed by an Authorized Officer.



14 Ordinance S-

Page 43
The City and the Bond Registrar will not be required (a) to issue or

transfer any Bonds during a period beginning with the opening of business on the 15th

day next preceding any date of selection of Bonds to be redeemed and ending with the

close of business on the day on which the applicable notice of redemption is given or (b)

to transfer any Bonds which have been selected or called for redemption in whole or in

part.

In case any Bond becomes mutilated or destroyed or lost, the City shall

cause to be executed and delivered a new Bond of like date and tenor in exchange and

substitution for and upon the cancellation of such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in

substitution for such Bond destroyed or lost, upon the registered owner’s paying the

reasonable expenses and charges of the City in connection therewith and, in the case

of the Bond destroyed or lost, filing with the City Clerk by the registered owner evidence

satisfactory to the City that such Bond was destroyed or lost, and furnishing the City

with a sufficient indemnity bond pursuant to Section 47-8405, Arizona Revised Statutes.

Section 10. Book-Entry Depository. If any Depository determines not to

continue to act as a Depository for the Bonds for use in a Book Entry System, the City

may attempt to have established a securities depository/book entry relationship with

another qualified Depository. If the City does not or is unable to do so, the City and the

Bond Registrar, after the Bond Registrar has made provision with the Depository for

notification of the Beneficial Owners by the then Depository, shall permit withdrawal of

the Bonds from the Depository, and authenticate and deliver replacement Bonds in fully

registered form in the denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof to the

assignees of the Depository or its nominee. If the event is not the result of City action or



15 Ordinance S-

Page 44
inaction, such withdrawal, authentication and delivery shall be at the cost and expense

(including costs of printing definitive Bonds) of those persons requesting such

authentication and delivery.

Section 11. Form of Bond. The Bonds shall be in substantially the

following form, the officials executing the Bonds to make the insertions and deletions

necessary to conform the Bonds to this Ordinance:

(FORM OF FACE OF BOND)

REGISTERED REGISTERED
NO. $

CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, _____ SERIES _____


INTEREST RATE: MATURITY DATE: DATED AS OF: CUSIP:

_____% per annum July 1, ____ Date of Delivery _______

REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO.

PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: _______________ DOLLARS

The City of Phoenix, Arizona (the “City”), for value received, promises to pay to
the Registered Owner named above, or registered assigns, the Principal Amount on the
Maturity Date, each as stated above, and interest thereon until the Principal Amount is
paid or provided for at the Interest Rate stated above, on January 1 and July 1 of each
year (the “Interest Payment Dates”), commencing ___________. This Bond will bear
interest from the most recent date to which interest has been paid or provided for or, if
no interest has been paid or provided for, from its date. Principal and interest are
payable in lawful money of the United States of America, without deduction for the
paying agent services, to the person in whose name this Bond (or, if applicable, one or
more predecessor Bonds) is registered (the “registered owner” or “owner”) on the
Register maintained by the Bond Registrar, initially U.S. Bank Trust Company, National
Association. Principal is payable upon presentation and surrender of this Bond at the
principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar. Interest is payable by check or
draft mailed by the Bond Registrar on each Interest Payment Date to the registered
owner of this Bond (or one or more predecessor Bonds) as shown and at the address
appearing on the Register at the close of business on the 15th day of the calendar
month next preceding that Interest Payment Date (the “regular record date”). Any
interest which is not timely paid or duly provided for shall cease to be payable to the

16 Ordinance S-

Page 45
registered owner hereof (or of one or more predecessor Bonds) as of the regular record
date and shall be payable to the registered owner hereof (or of one or more
predecessor Bonds) at the close of business on a special record date for the payment of
that overdue interest. The special record date shall be fixed by the Bond Registrar
whenever monies become available for payment of the overdue interest and notice of
the special record date shall be given to registered owners not less than ten days prior
thereto.

This Bond is one of an issue of like date, tenor and effect except as to maturity
and interest rate, aggregating the sum of $__________, issued to pay all or a portion of
certain and to pay all necessary legal, financial, architectural, engineering and
contingent costs in connection therewith (the “Bonds”), under authority of and pursuant
to the laws of the State of Arizona, particularly Title 35, Chapter 3, Article 3, Section 35-
451, et seq., of the Arizona Revised Statutes (the “Act”), the Charter of the City, the
requisite majority vote of the electors of the City cast at a special election held on
November 7, 2023, upon the question of issuing bonds in the original principal amount
of $500,000,000 and Ordinance No. S-_____, passed by the Council of the City on
_____ (the “Bond Ordinance”).

The Bonds are issuable only as fully registered bonds in the denominations of
$5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. This Bond is exchangeable and transferable for
Bonds of other authorized denominations at the principal corporate trust office of the
Bond Registrar, by the registered owner or by a person legally empowered to do so,
upon presentation and surrender hereof to the Bond Registrar, together with a request
for exchange or an assignment, signed by the registered owner or by a person legally
empowered to do so, in a form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, all subject to the
terms, limitations and conditions provided in the Bond Ordinance. All fees and costs
associated with the exchange or transfer, including any tax or governmental charges
payable in connection therewith, shall be paid by the owner requesting the exchange or
the transferor, as appropriate. The City or the Bond Registrar may also require that
such fees and charges be paid prior to the procedure for exchange or transfer. The City
and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the registered owner as the absolute owner
of this Bond for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal or
interest and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be
affected by any notice to the contrary.



The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to their stated maturities as

follows:

Bonds maturing on or after July 1, _________, shall be subject to

redemption prior to maturity at the option of the City on and after July 1, _____, in whole

or in part at any time in increments of $5,000 principal amount from maturities selected

17 Ordinance S-

Page 46
by the City and within any maturity by lot selected by the Bond Registrar, at the principal

amount thereof and accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption, but without

premium.

Bonds maturing on July 1, ____, are subject to mandatory sinking fund

redemption on July 1 of each of the years ____ and ____ by lot to be selected by the

Bond Registrar, at the principal amount thereof and accrued interest to the date fixed for

redemption, without premium, and in the amounts set forth in the Bond Ordinance.

Notice of any such redemption, unless waived, shall be sent by first class

or certified mail, postage prepaid, not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days prior to

the date fixed for redemption to the registered owner of each bond to be redeemed in

whole or in part at the address shown on the bond register of the City maintained by the

Bond Registrar or at such other address as is furnished to the Bond Registrar in writing

by such registered owner. When so called for redemption, this bond, or the portion

thereof being so called for redemption, will cease to bear interest on the specified

redemption date, provided funds for redemption are on deposit at the place of payment

at that time, and shall not be deemed to be outstanding.

The Council of the City of Phoenix has by ordinance ordered the creation

of a special fund for the payment of principal of and interest on the bonds of the issue of

which this bond is one. Payments are to be made into said fund from taxes to be levied

on all taxable property in the City and the money in said fund is to be used solely to pay

principal of and interest on the bonds of the issue of which this is one. Such taxes,

together with other monies to be deposited in said fund (including earnings on




18 Ordinance S-

Page 47
investments made with money in said fund), are required to be sufficient to pay such

principal, interest and redemption premiums, if any, when due.

Reference is made to the Bond Ordinance for a more complete description

of the provisions, among others, with respect to the nature and extent of the security for

the Bonds, the rights, duties and obligations of the City, the Bond Registrar and the

registered owners, and the terms and conditions upon which the Bonds are issued and

secured. The registered owner of this Bond assents, by acceptance hereof, to all of the

provisions of the Bond Ordinance.

It is hereby certified and recited that all acts and conditions necessary to

be performed by the City or to have been met precedent to and in the issuance of the

Bonds in order to make them legal, valid and binding special obligations of the City,

have been performed and have been met in regular and due form as required by law;

that payment in full for the Bonds has been received; and that no statutory, charter or

constitutional limitation on indebtedness has been exceeded in issuing the Bonds.

This Bond shall not be valid or obligatory for any purpose and shall not be

entitled to any security or benefit under the Bond Ordinance until the Certificate of

Authentication below has been signed.




19 Ordinance S-

Page 48
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Phoenix, Arizona has caused this

Bond to be executed in its name by the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and attested

to by the facsimile signature of its City Clerk, all as of __________, 20__.

CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA


(facsimile)
Mayor
ATTEST:



(facsimile)
City Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION

This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the Bond Ordinance referred to
above.

Date of Authentication:

U.S. BANK TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Bond Registrar


By_____________________________
Authorized Representative


Registrable at and Payable by:

_______________________________________________




20 Ordinance S-

Page 49
ASSIGNMENT


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

(Name and Address of Assignee)


(Insert Social Security or Taxpayer
Identification Number of Assignee)

the within bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint

________________, attorney, to transfer the same bond on the books kept for

registration thereof with full power of substitution in the premises.


Dated:________________________
________________________________

Signature Guaranteed: __________________________
Signature guarantee should
be made by a guarantor
institution participating in the
securities transfer agent’s
medallion program or in such
other guarantee program
acceptable to the Registrar


NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name of the

registered owner as it appears upon the face of the within bond in every particular,

without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever.




(END OF FORM OF BOND)



21 Ordinance S-

Page 50
Section 12. Delivery of Bonds. The Mayor or any Authorized Officer shall

cause the Bonds to be prepared and shall have the Bonds signed, authenticated and

delivered, together with a true transcript of proceedings with reference to the issuance

of the Bonds, to the purchasers thereof upon payment of the par value thereof plus the

net premium or less the discount set forth in the applicable Bond Purchase Agreement.

Section 13. Application of Proceeds. The proceeds from the sale of the

Bonds shall be paid into the proper fund or funds and credited to separate book

accounts, and those proceeds are appropriated and shall be used in the amounts and

solely for the purposes as set forth in the respective ballot question submitted to the

qualified voters of the City at the aforesaid special bond elections, as determined by an

Authorized Officer, subject to the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 35-

457.D. The proceeds of the Bonds will be invested pursuant to State law. The City

shall include in its records sufficient information to identify the proceeds, expenditures

and investment income relating to the Bonds.

Section 14. Allocation of Bonds Between 6% and 20% Debt Limits;

Ratification of Prior Actions. An Authorized Officer is hereby authorized to determine

the respective allocations between the 6% and 20% debt limitations set forth and in

accordance with applicable law.

Section 15. Security for the Bonds; Covenants. For the purpose of paying

principal of and interest on the bonds herein authorized there shall be levied on all

taxable property in the City of Phoenix a continuing, direct, annual ad valorem tax

sufficient to produce the amounts required below; said amounts are hereby found

sufficient and necessary to assure payment of the principal of and interest on said



22 Ordinance S-

Page 51
Bonds as the same become due at or prior to maturity. In each year the money derived

from said tax shall be paid into separate funds which are hereby created and named the

“Interest Fund” and the “Redemption Fund”. Such Interest Fund and Redemption Fund

shall be kept separately by the City for the equal benefit of the holders of the Bonds

herein authorized and used solely for the payment of principal of and interest on such

Bonds. There shall be paid into said Interest Fund and Redemption Fund the accrued

interest and any premium received by the City from the Purchasers of the Bonds herein

authorized plus an amount sufficient to pay all interest when due on said Bonds plus the

amounts on or prior to July 1 in the years determined by an Authorized Officer.

If at the time of any annual tax levy the amount in the Interest Fund and

Redemption Fund accumulated as hereinabove required shall not be sufficient to pay all

principal and interest falling due on said Bonds prior to the time that taxes will become

available from the next succeeding tax levy, the City shall include in such earlier tax levy

such additional amount as shall produce funds sufficient to remedy any such deficiency

and deposit the proceeds of said taxes into the Interest Fund and Redemption Fund.

Whenever there shall be insufficient money in the Interest Fund and Redemption Fund

to pay Bonds and interest thereon payable therefrom when due, the City may pay such

principal and interest from any other legally available fund and shall reimburse such

other fund when money becomes available from the proceeds of the taxes hereinabove

required.

Section 16. Official Statement. All actions of the City related to preparing

and distributing a form of Preliminary Official Statement, to be used if any of the Bonds

are sold by negotiated sale to the Underwriters, in substantially the same form as that



23 Ordinance S-

Page 52
was used in connection with the offer and sale of the City’s General Obligation

Refunding Bonds, Series 2022, which may be distributed in connection with the offer

and sale of the Bonds (as prepared in accordance with the terms of this Ordinance, the

“Preliminary Official Statement”), are hereby approved and ratified. The portions of

each Preliminary Official Statement regarding the Bonds which concern and describe

the non-financial characteristics of the City are hereby approved and, if so necessary,

each Authorized Officer is hereby authorized and directed to execute the same and any

required certificates as to the accuracy and completeness of said Official Statement

descriptions of the City.

If so necessary, each Authorized Officer is authorized to approve the

distribution of each, and to deem each Preliminary Official Statement “final” (except for

permitted omissions), by the City as of its date for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(1)

and, if so necessary, a final official statement (the “Official Statement”) will be prepared

and distributed to the Underwriters for purposes of SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(3) and (4).

Each Authorized Officer is authorized and directed to complete and sign on behalf of the

City and in his or her official capacity, the Official Statement, with such modifications,

changes and supplements as being necessary to carry out and comply with the terms,

provisions, and intent of this Ordinance. Each Authorized Officer is authorized to use

and distribute, or authorize the use and distribution of, the Official Statement and any

supplements thereto as so signed in connection with the original issuance of the Bonds

as may in his or her judgment be necessary or appropriate.

Section 17. Continuing Disclosure Undertaking. Each Authorized Officer

is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Continuing



24 Ordinance S-

Page 53
Disclosure Undertaking in substantially the same form as now executed in connection

with the City’s General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2022, or with such changes

therein as the individual executing the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking on behalf of

the City shall approve, his or her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of

his or her approval of such changes. If a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking is

executed and delivered on behalf of the City as herein provided, such Continuing

Disclosure Undertaking will be binding on the City and the officers, employees and

agents of the City, and the officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby

authorized, empowered and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all

such documents as may be necessary to carry out and comply with the provisions of the

Continuing Disclosure Undertaking as executed. Notwithstanding any other provision of

this Ordinance, the sole remedies for failure to comply with the Continuing Disclosure

Undertaking shall be the ability of the Beneficial Owner of any Bond to seek mandamus

or specific performance by court order, to cause the City to comply with its obligations

under the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking.

Section 18. Tax Covenants. The City covenants that it will use, and will

restrict the use and investment of, the proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds in such

manner and to such extent as may be necessary so that (a) the Tax-Exempt Bonds will

not (i) constitute private activity bonds, arbitrage bonds or hedge bonds under Sections

141, 148 or 149 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), or (ii)

be treated other than as bonds to which Section 103(a) of the Code applies, and (b) the

interest thereon will not be treated as a preference item under Section 57 of the Code.




25 Ordinance S-

Page 54
The City further covenants (a) that it will take or cause to be taken such

actions that may be required of it for the interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds to be and

remain excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, (b) that it will not

take or authorize to be taken any actions that would adversely affect that exclusion, and

(c) that it, or persons acting for it, will, among other acts of compliance, (i) apply the

proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds to the governmental purposes of the borrowing, (ii)

restrict the yield on investment property, (iii) make timely and adequate payments to the

federal government, (iv) maintain books and records and make calculations and reports,

and (v) refrain from certain uses of those proceeds and, as applicable, of property

financed with such proceeds, all in such manner and to the extent necessary to assure

such exclusion of that interest under the Code.

Each Authorized Officer is hereby authorized (a) to make or effect any

election, selection, designation, choice, consent, approval, or waiver on behalf of the

City with respect to the Tax-Exempt Bonds as the City is permitted or required to make

or give under the federal income tax laws, including, without limitation thereto, any of

the elections provided for or available under Section 148 of the Code, for the purpose of

assuring, enhancing or protecting favorable tax treatment or status of the Tax-Exempt

Bonds or interest thereon or assisting compliance with requirements for that purpose,

reducing the burden or expense of such compliance, reducing the rebate amount or

payments of penalties, or making payments of special amounts in lieu of making

computations to determine, or paying, excess earnings as rebate, or obviating those

amounts or payments, as determined by that officer, which action shall be in writing and

signed by the officer, (b) to take any and all other actions, make or obtain calculations,



26 Ordinance S-

Page 55
make payments, and make or give reports, covenants and certifications of and on

behalf of the City, as may be appropriate to assure the exclusion of interest from gross

income and the intended tax status of the Tax-Exempt Bonds, and (c) to give one or

more appropriate certificates of the City for inclusion in the transcript of the proceedings

for the Tax-Exempt Bonds, setting forth the reasonable expectations of the City

regarding the amount and use of all the proceeds of the Tax-Exempt Bonds, the facts,

circumstances and estimates on which they are based, and other facts and

circumstances relevant to the tax treatment of the interest on and the tax status of the

Tax-Exempt Bonds.

Section 19. Further Actions. All actions of the officers and agents of the

City which are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Ordinance and in

furtherance of the issuance and sale of the Bonds as contemplated by this Ordinance

whether heretofore or hereafter taken shall be and are hereby ratified, confirmed and

approved. The Mayor, each Authorized Officer and the City Clerk and other appropriate

officers and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to do all such acts

and things and to execute and deliver all such documents on behalf of the City as may

be necessary to carry out the terms and intent of this Ordinance.

Section 20. All Conditions Met. This Council determines that all acts and

conditions necessary under the Act and other applicable laws to be performed by the

City or to have been met precedent to and in the issuing of the Bonds in order to make

them legal, valid and binding special obligations of the City, have been performed and

met, or will at the time of delivery of the Bonds have been performed and met, in regular

and due form as required by law; and that no statutory, charter or constitutional



27 Ordinance S-

Page 56
limitation of indebtedness or taxation will have been exceeded in the issuance of the

Bonds.

Section 21. Open Meeting. This Council finds and determines that all

formal actions of this Council concerning and relating to the passage of this Ordinance

were taken in an open meeting of this Council and that all deliberations of this Council

and of any committees that resulted in those formal actions were in meetings open to

the public, in compliance with all legal requirements.

Section 22. Requests of City. Whenever any action is to be taken by the

Bond Registrar or any depository bank, issuing and paying agent, trustee, tender agent,

paying agent or remarketing agent at the request of the City under this Ordinance, if no

other means of authenticating such request is required herein or therein, such request

shall be evidenced by a written instrument signed by an Authorized Officer or by such

other City official or employee (one or more) as may from time to time be designated by

the Mayor and Council; a duly certified copy of such designation shall have been filed

with such entity.

Section 23. Severability. If any section, paragraph or provision of this

Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or

unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the

remaining provisions of this Ordinance.

Section 24. Other Actions in Furtherance of Ordinance. Each Authorized

Officer is and hereby authorized to take any and all actions and execute all documents

or instruments necessary or appropriate to carry out the transactions contemplated by

this Ordinance and the documents described herein and to employ such professionals



28 Ordinance S-

Page 57
and consultants as are necessary in order to accomplish the purposes of this

Ordinance, professionals for the services of bond counsel, accounting and auditing

purposes, registrar, remarketing, issuing and paying agent, financial advisory services,

and any other services necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Ordinance. Any

contracts for the provision of such services shall be executed by an Authorized Officer,

and the execution of such contracts shall represent approval by the City of the terms of

such contracts. Such instruments shall include, but shall not be limited to (a) one or

more swap agreements for the purpose of managing interest rate risk relating to the

debt service on any or all of the Bonds pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes,

Section 35-1002 and (b) one or more forward purchase agreements relating to the

reinvestment of the proceeds of certain government obligations acquired with the

proceeds of the Bonds, each in such form as acceptable to such Authorized Officer.

Section 25. Ordinance Constitutes a Contract. This Ordinance

constitutes a contract with the Bondholders binding the City, and, therefore, it is proper

and appropriate for the Mayor of the City to execute the same on behalf of the City and

for the City Clerk of the City to attest the same.

Section 26. City Code Section 42-18 (A) and (B) Exemption. That the

Council grants an exemption to Phoenix City Code Sections 42-18 (A) and (B) to allow

the City’s provision of indemnification and to allow limitations on the City’s damages

with respect to all contractual documents or instruments necessary or appropriate to

carry out the transactions contemplated by this Ordinance and the contractual

documents described herein, including but not limited to, documents or instruments

entered into with bond trustees, escrow agents, bond underwriters and lenders or credit



29 Ordinance S-

Page 58
enhancement providers where providing these parties with indemnity and agreeing to

limit City’s damages are standard terms in the contemplated transactions.

Section 27. Expenditure of Funds. The City Controller is hereby

authorized to receive and expend such funds as necessary to accomplish the purposes

of this Ordinance. It is the intention of this Council that if any or all of such expenditures

occur prior to the issuance and delivery of the Bonds, such expenditures shall be

reimbursed from the proceeds of such obligations as and when they, or another issue of

tax-exempt obligations out of which Council evidences its intention to pay such

expenditures, are issued and delivered. Each Authorized Officer is hereby authorized

and directed to file with respect to the expenditures herein authorized one or more

Declarations of Official Intent as may be required by Treasury Regulations

Section 1.150-2 based upon the best information as to the source of reimbursement

available to them at the time of execution of such declarations.

PASSED and adopted by the Council of the City of Phoenix this _____

day of _______________, 2024.




________________________________
MAYOR


________________________________
Date

ATTEST:


____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk



30 Ordinance S-

Page 59
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:_________________________

_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



JS:tml:LF____:[date]:2416071v1




31 Ordinance S-

Page 60



Report

Request to Enter into Education Partnership Intergovernmental Agreement with
Maricopa County Community College District for Student Placements

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow Volunteer PHX to
renew Intergovernmental Agreement with Maricopa Community College District for
student learning placements.

Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide Maricopa Community College District
(MCCCD) students with opportunities for learning and serving in the City of Phoenix
departments, including service learning and volunteering. MCCCD will coordinate with
and assist the City of Phoenix to match students’ interests with opportunities for
service and volunteering with City departments. Phoenix will provide instruction and
support to students to ensure students meet learning objectives as well as the City’s
objectives for each opportunity.

MCCCD includes 10 accredited colleges across the valley, with four Phoenix locations:
Phoenix College, Paradise Valley Community College, GateWay Community College,
and South Mountain Community College. Campuses support more than 200,000
students annually. MCCCD offer students Service-Learning opportunities, combining
service and volunteering with academic learning for a more comprehensive
educational experience. Students serve within government agencies, civic
organizations, education associations and citizen advocacy groups.

Contract Term
The agreement will be valid for five years from the date of execution by all parties but
may be terminated for convenience by either party with written notice to the other
party.

Financial Impact
There is no cost or financial impact for these activities.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and Volunteer PHX
Chief Service Officer.


Page 61



Report

Acceptance and Dedication of Easements and Deeds for Roadway, Public Utility
and Sidewalk Purposes (Ordinance S-50514)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements and deeds for
roadway, public utility and sidewalk purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

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

Easement (a)
Applicant: W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility and Sidewalk
Location: South of the southwest corner of W. Dove Valley Road and N. North Valley
Parkway
File: FN 230094
Council District: 1

Deed (b)
Applicant: W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: South of the southwest corner of W. Dove Valley Road and N. North Valley
Parkway
File: FN 230094
Council District: 1

Easement (c)
Applicant: Winslow Guidance Associates, Inc., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 12424 N. 28th Drive
File: FN 230058
Council District: 1




Page 62

Easement (d)
Applicant: Francisco Sales; Norinelda Barrera, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 11430 N. Bancroft Drive
File: FN 230112
Council District: 3

Deed (e)
Applicant: Jeffrey M. Slaughter, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 2940 E. South Mountain Ave.
File: FN 230109
Council District: 8

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




Page 63



Report

Industrial/Commercial Doors - Service and Supply Contract - IFB 23-128 -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-50506)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
DH Pace Company, Inc., to provide maintenance, repair, and installation of industrial
and commercial doors for Citywide departments on an as-needed basis. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
total value of the contract will not exceed $7,100,000.

Summary
The contract is intended to fulfill the City's ongoing needs for the supply, maintenance,
and repair of industrial and commercial doors. The functionality and durability of these
doors are essential to meeting the operational and security requirements of the City.
Furthermore, ensuring the ongoing functionality of these doors is imperative,
necessitating both preventative maintenance and on-demand repairs.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a bid deemed to be responsive to posted specifications and
responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following an evaluation based
on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the following vendor:

Selected Bidder
DH Pace Company, Inc.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Feb. 1, 2024, for a five-year term with no options to
extend the term.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $7,100,000.

Funding is available in the various department budgets including Fire, Water, Public


Page 64

Works and Phoenix Convention Center.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.




Page 65



Report

Plumbing Services, Including Rooter and Drain Cleaning - Requirements
Contract - IFB 18-123 (Ordinance S-50511)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 146660 with Above All Plumbing Services, Inc., to extend the contract term
and add additional expenditures. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed
$1,050,000.

Summary
This contract will provide all standard labor, materials, supplies, equipment, permits,
tools, vehicles, transportation and security fees necessary for plumbing repairs and/or
service for various privately and publicly owned city properties or facilities on an as-
needed basis. This contract is currently in use throughout the city and an extension will
allow for uninterrupted availability of services. Contracted services are needed to
maintain health and safety operations associated with water and sewer within city
buildings.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through Jan. 31, 2025, with an option to
extend through Jan. 31, 2026.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $1,050,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $7,800,000. Funds are available in various department
budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request;
· Plumbing Services, including Rooter and Drain Cleaning 146660 (Ordinance
S-44185) on Jan. 10, 2018;
· Plumbing Services, including Rooter and Drain Cleaning 146660 (Ordinance
S-47345) on March 3, 2021;
· Plumbing Services, including Rooter and Drain Cleaning 146660 (Ordinance
S-49359) on Jan. 25, 2023;

Page 66

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.




Page 67



Report

Sports Uniforms and Promotional Items - IFB 19-055 - Amendment (Ordinance S-
50516)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 150154 with Dumars Industries, LLC dba Explosion Sportswear and Image
Sourcing (Dumars) to amend contract to assigned vendor, Sportswear Express AZ,
LLC. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. No additional funds are needed as the request is to continue using
Ordinance S-45726.

Summary
This contract provides a large variety of sports uniforms, trophies, awards and
promotional items to support community classes, exercises, sporting events and
children’s sports leagues throughout the City. Additionally, this contract provides
promotional items to promote City services and programs at outreach events. On Aug.
1, 2023, Dumars assigned its assets and contracts to Sportswear Express AZ, LLC.
Approval is requested to amend this contract accordingly and continue receiving
products and services from Sportswear Express AZ, LLC.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 14, 2024.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $1,309,000 and no additional
funds are needed.

Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Sports Uniforms and Promotional Items - Contract 150151, Contract 150152,
Contract 150153, and Contract 150154 (Ordinance S-45726) on June 5, 2019;
· Sports Uniforms and Promotional Items - Contract 150151, Contract 150152,
Contract 150153, and Contract 150154 (Ordinance S-49039) on Oct. 12, 2022.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.


Page 68



Report

Street Sweeper Replacement Brooms - IFB 19-022 - Amendment (Ordinance S-
50526)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 149139 with United Rotary Brush Corporation, to extend the contract term.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. No additional funds are needed. Staff requests to continue using Ordinance S-
45271.

Summary
This contract will provide replacement brooms to maintain a fleet of sweep vehicles of
various makes, such as Elgin, Mobil, Tennant, and Tymco. As part of the maintenance
for these vehicles, replacement tube brooms and gutter brooms are needed to
maintain performance of routine sweeping duties.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Jan. 31, 2025, with an option to
extend through Jan. 31, 2026.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $1,960,000 and no additional
funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Street Sweeper Replacement Brooms (Contract 149139, Ordinance S-45271) on
Jan. 9, 2019.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.




Page 69



Report

Contract Extension with Hyas Group for Investment Consulting for 401(A)/457
Plans and Post Employment Health Plan (PEHP) (Ordinance S-50504)

This report requests City Council approval to extend Contract 149752 with Hyas
Group, LLC for a one year period and add $120,000 in additional payment authority for
consulting services over the term of the extension. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this extension.

Summary
Hyas Group was awarded a contract to provide consulting services to the 401(A)/457
("Deferred Compensation Plan", "DCP") and PEHP Plans following a competitive
procurement in 2019. The original three-year agreement included two, one-year
options to extend which have been exercised, with a total contract value of an amount
not to exceed $600,000. A one-year contract extension is requested to allow for
continuing investment and plan consulting services to allow Hyas Group to continue
providing consulting services and implementation of the 2024 provisions of the federal
regulations included in the SECURE 2.0 (Setting Every Community Up for Retirement
Enhancement) legislation. SECURE 2.0 makes several important changes to the
retirement savings that greatly benefit all City employees and their beneficiaries. There
are a total of 38 federal statutory changes that apply to Phoenix' DCP and PEHP
Plans. The 2024 changes include the addition of plan provisions that allow for penalty
free emergency withdrawals for unforeseeable or immediate financial needs, penalty
free withdrawals for individuals involved in cases of domestic abuse and extends the
age at which required minimum distributions must be taken, to name a few.

During this time, a new procurement process will be started.

Contract Term
The initial contract term was for three years covering Feb. 27, 2019 through Feb. 27,
2022, and included two options to extend in one year increments which extend the
expiration date to Feb. 27, 2024. The additional contract extension term will be for one
year beginning Feb. 28, 2024, through Feb. 28, 2025.

Financial Impact
The additional funding authority will not exceed $120,000, for a total contract value not


Page 70

to exceed $720,000. The consulting service fees are paid from the City of Phoenix
Employees' Deferred Compensation Plan Trust. The Trust funding source is retained
revenue from the DCP investment earnings and are restricted funds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved the original Contract 149752 on Apr. 3, 2019.
The DCP/PEHP Board of Trustees recommended approval of the Contract 149752
extension on Dec. 14, 2023.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.




Page 71



Report

Transfer of Retirement Funds to Arizona State Retirement System (Ordinance S-
50518)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Stefanie C. Blahut in the amount of $10,398.19 to the Arizona State Retirement
System. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the funds.

Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, sections 38-730 and 38-322, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees' Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System upon approval
by the City Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of her credited service:

Blahut, Stefanie: $10,398.19

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at the Oct. 5, 2023, meeting.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.




Page 72



Report

Transfer of Retirement Funds to Arizona State Retirement System (Ordinance S-
50519)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Gonzalo Muniz, Jr. in the amount of $5,399.35 to the Arizona State Retirement
System. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the funds.

Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, sections 38-730 and 38-322, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees' Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System upon approval
by the City Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of his credited service:

Muniz Jr., Gonzalo: $5,399.35

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at the Nov. 2, 2023, meeting.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.




Page 73



Report

Authorization to Apply, Accept, Disburse Funds and Enter into Agreements for
the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program Phase II Competitive
Implementation Grant (Ordinance S-50527)

Request approval for the City Manager, or his designee, to serve as the lead applicant
and submit a grant application on behalf of regional coalition members from eligible
entities in the Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) to develop
and implement climate pollution reduction strategies. Phase II implementation funds
for programs, policies, measures, and projects can be up to a $500 million award.
Further request the City Manager to execute all contracts and Memorandums of
Agreement (MOA), if awarded. Additionally, request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, grant funds.

Summary
The Climate Pollution Reduction Grant (GPRG) program, through the 2022 Inflation
Reduction Act, provides investments to support states, municipalities, air pollution
control agencies, tribes, and groups to develop and implement climate pollution
reduction strategies. The two-staged grant program offers funding of $250 million for
non-competitive planning grants (Phase I) and $4.6 billion for competitive
implementation grants (Phase II).

The Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is receiving $1 million
under Phase I of this grant to develop a regional Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP) to
reduce harmful air pollution. Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) is the lead
agency for the Phase I Planning Level Grant with oversight and management of funds
to develop a regional PCAP by March 1, 2024.

The PCAP (Phase I) is a pre-requisite for competing in Phase II of the CPRG program,
which will competitively award $4.6 billion for implementation. Eligible applicants
include coalitions formed by eligible entities in the MSA. Phase II implementation funds
for programs, policies, measures, and projects can be up to a $500 million award. The
implementation grant items must be in the final PCAP due to EPA March 1, 2024.
Below are examples of types of projects that may be funded:




Page 74

· Electrification;
· Weatherization;
· Green/organic waste diversion;
· Expansion of existing programs at the County (residential / commercial lawn and
garden equipment to electric, fireplace retrofit, fire pit replacement); and
· Mass transit.

Office of Environmental Programs staff is collaborating regionally to apply for Phase II
funding. Eligible cities and towns have shown significant interest in participating in a
coalition to execute programs broadly in the region, which may increase chance of
award. Office of Environmental Programs staff is requesting to be the lead applicant for
Phase II implementation funding as Maricopa County and MAG cannot serve as the
lead applicant, and Phoenix is the only other entity in the region eligible to apply.

The Phase II Competitive Implementation grant deadline is April 1, 2024. Award
announcements will be made before the end of 2024.

Contract Term
The grant term is for up to four years.

Financial Impact
The program is funded through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act Grant. There is no
financial impact to the City.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Office of
Environmental Programs.




Page 75



Report

Choice Neighborhoods Supplemental Grant Application (Ordinance S-50501)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for a U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Choice Neighborhoods
Supplemental Grant for up to $2.5 million or the maximum award, for the Edison-
Eastlake Community (EEC), and to enter into program contracts and amendments as
needed to implement the grant. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept and the City Controller to disburse all funds for the life of the grant.

Summary
Choice Neighborhoods is a federal initiative through HUD that is designed to transform
distressed neighborhoods and public housing into mixed-income neighborhoods,
linking housing and neighborhood improvements with appropriate services,
transportation, and access to jobs. In July 2018, the City of Phoenix was awarded a
$30 million Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant to revitalize the EEC.

Recently, HUD recognized that many of the current Choice Neighborhoods
Implementation grantees were struggling to absorb significant cost increases resulting
from the COVID-19 pandemic and related supply chain disruptions and has offered
Supplemental Grant opportunities to assist with these unforeseen expenses.
Supplemental Grant funds may only be used for the construction of replacement
housing in mixed-income developments. In 2023, the Housing Department applied for
and was awarded a $10 million Choice Neighborhoods Supplemental Grant to further
support the development of replacement housing in conjunction with the
Transformation Plan for the EEC.

HUD has now released a new Notice of Funding Opportunity for previously awarded
Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grantees, allowing for an application for an
additional $2.5 million to support housing redevelopment. Applications are due to HUD
on March 4, 2024. Together with the previously awarded Choice Neighborhoods
funding, these funds will be used for the redevelopment of the City's former A.L. Krohn
Homes and Sidney P. Osborn public housing sites that will result in approximately 475
brand new units of mixed-income housing within the EEC. In total, more than 1,000
units of mixed-income housing will be built as part of the Housing Department's Choice
Neighborhoods redevelopment efforts, in addition to the neighborhood beautification
and improvement projects.

Page 76

Contract Term
If awarded, the Housing Department will execute the appropriate contract agreement
(s) with HUD.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Dec. 14, 2022, City Council authorized implementing additional Choice
Neighborhoods Program resources, initiatives, and program amendments via
Ordinance S-49244 including the $10 million Supplemental Grant.

On Oct. 4, 2017, through Ordinance S-43959, the City Council authorized applying for
and implementing a $30 million HUD Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant for
the EEC, that also included approval to apply for and accept grants and to expend
matching funds, in-kind and other funding sources to support and implement the Grant.

Location
Edison-Eastlake Choice Neighborhoods Community (bounded by the I-10 Freeway on
the north and east, 16th Street on the west, and the Union Pacific Railroad on the
south).
Council District: 8

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




Page 77



Report

Amend Ordinance to Add Federal Community Development Block Grant Funding
for Maryvale Parkway Terrace Affordable Housing Rehabilitation (Ordinance S-
50509)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Ordinance S-49245
to add up to $1.5 million in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and to take all
necessary actions and execute all documents as needed for the rehabilitation of the
Maryvale Parkway Terrace affordable housing community. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. There is no impact to the
General Fund.

Summary
On Dec. 14, 2022, City Council approved Ordinance S-49245 to appropriate, expend
and disburse up to $12 million in Public Housing, Capital Fund Program and/or
Affordable Housing Program funds to provide for the pre-development, development,
rehabilitation, programming, and/or operations to implement the Maryvale Parkway
Terrace rehabilitation project to renovate the outdated units and community center,
including common area improvements, replacement of major systems, upgrade of
exterior paint and asphalt, etc. Maryvale Parkway Terrace, comprised of 108 one-
bedroom units, is owned by the City of Phoenix Housing Department and operates as
a senior Public Housing community.

The Housing Department is seeking approval to add $1.5 million in CDBG funds to
implement the Maryvale Parkway Terrace rehabilitation project and address additional
hard construction costs due to increasing prices as well as upgrades for better
operational efficiency, resident amenities, safety, and code compliance purposes.
Construction is currently underway and is anticipated to be completed in March 2025.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available in the Neighborhood
Services Department’s CDBG program.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action


Page 78

federal public housing and affordable housing resources, initiatives, and program
amendments, including the Maryvale Parkway Terrace rehabilitation project.

Location
4545 N. Maryvale Parkway
Council District: 5

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




Page 79



Report

Authorization to Amend Federal HOME Program Affordable Housing Loan
Agreement, Contract 130000 (Ordinance S-50521)

Request for City Council to grant authorization for the City Manager, or his designee,
to amend the federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Acquisition
and Rehabilitation Loan Agreement, Contract 130000, between the City of Phoenix
and Oasis TC, LLC, or a City-approved nominee, to increase the number of City
HOME units to 46 units and increase the period of affordability by five years in
exchange for a forgiveness of the outstanding interest on the loan up to $950,000.
Authorization is also requested for the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all
necessary documents.

Summary
Contract 130000, was executed on Nov. 9, 2010, for $3,195,000 of HOME funds to
assist with the rehabilitation of the 60-unit Oasis on Grand located at 1534 and 1538
W. Roosevelt St., and 1501 NW Grand Ave. The loan agreement currently secures 38
City HOME units serving households whose income does not exceed 60 percent of the
Area Median Income (AMI).

The current owner, Oasis TC, LLC, is in the process of selling the property and to
facilitate the transaction, the parties have agreed to increase the public benefit by
extending the period of affordability by five years to 2057, along with providing the City
an additional eight HOME units (for a total of 46 affordable housing units serving those
at 60 percent AMI or below) in exchange for a forgiveness of the outstanding interest
up to $950,000.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Sept. 21, 2011, through Ordinance S-38190, City Council authorized an additional
$195,000 in HOME program funding to Oasis TC, LLC for the rehabilitation of the
Oasis on Grand adaptive reuse affordable housing complex.

On Jan. 20, 2010, through Ordinance S-36825, City Council authorized a loan of up to
$3 million in HOME funds for use in the rehabilitation of the Oasis Motel into a 60 unit
affordable housing project with at least 48 percent of the units rented to persons with
incomes at or below 60 percent AMI.


Page 80


Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the General Fund. HOME is a federally funded program.

Location
1534 and 1538 W. Roosevelt St., and 1501 NW Grand Ave.
Council District: 4

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




Page 81



Report

Substantial Amendment to the 2020-24 Consolidated Plan's 2022-23 Annual
Action Plan

Request City Council approval of a Substantial Amendment to the 2020-24
Consolidated Plan's 2022-23 Annual Action Plan to include the reallocation of
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds to eligible activities.

Summary
The 2020-24 Consolidated Plan defines how the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG),
and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funds will be used to
address how the priorities and goals outlined in the five-year Consolidated Plan and is
carried out through Annual Action Plans. The 2022-23 Annual Action Plan provides a
concise summary of activities the City prioritized in fiscal year 2022-23 to address the
priority needs identified by the community in support of the goals outlined in the
Consolidated Plan.

The Human Services Department Office of Homeless Solutions is proposing the
following Substantial Amendment to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan's 2022-2023
Annual Action Plan to reallocate ESG funding for the following purpose: providing
homelessness prevention assistance due to the continued increase in persons
entering the homeless service system.

The following outlines how the City of Phoenix intends proposes to reallocate Fiscal
Year 2022-23 ESG funds to provide homelessness assistance and supportive
services:

Current budget:
· Emergency Shelter Program - $38,866.39
· Rapid Rehousing - $347,956.26
· HMIS - $9,638.50
· Homeless Prevention - $0
Total: $396,461.15




Page 82

Proposed revised (reallocated) budget:
· Emergency Shelter Program - $0
· Rapid Rehousing - $50,000
· HMIS - $0
· Homeless Prevention - $346,461.15
Total: $396,461.15

Further City Council action will be required to enter into any new contracts, or to
modify any existing contracts, with service providers for services funded under these
eligible activities.

Procurement Information
Services may be procured, as needed, by utilizing procurement in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to implement and administer HUD funded programs
intended to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 national pandemic.

Financial Impact
These programs are federally funded by HUD. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Public Outreach
As part of ESG, HUD requires that proposed substantial amendments be made public
and provide for a 30-day public comment period.

The City of Phoenix published a 30-day comment period and public hearing notice in
the Arizona Republic on Nov. 20, 2023. A public hearing was held to provide an
opportunity for public comment on Dec. 11, 2023. The public comment period was
open from Dec. 4, 2023, to Jan. 3, 2024.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee recommended approval of
the 2022-23 Annual Action Plan on May 4, 2022, by a 4-0 vote.
· City Council approved the 2022-23 Annual Action Plan on May 11, 2022.
· The Economic Development and Housing Subcommittee recommended approval of
this item on Jan. 10, 2024, by a 4-0 vote.

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




Page 83



Report

Authorization to Amend Contract 156398 with AVID Consulting, LLC to Expand
Scope and Budget (Ordinance S-50502)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 156398
with AVID Consulting, LLC (AVID) to add $75,000 for a new contract amount not to
exceed $400,000. AVID provides workplace readiness skills training through the City’s
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Adult and Dislocated Worker
Programs to adult learners residing in Phoenix and adjacent areas. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Funds are
available from the City’s allocation of WIOA grant funds.

Summary
AVID provides behavioral training services to clients enrolled as an adult or dislocated
worker to help build and refine soft-skills, increase workplace readiness, and increase
opportunities for attaining employment in high-growth industry positions at family
sustaining wages. The expanded scope and additional funding will allow for increased
training and inclusion of substitute teaching options to continue coverage and support
for AVID over the term of the agreement.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will remain unchanged. The contract began on or about July
1, 2022 and runs through June 30, 2023, with four one-year options to extend, which
may be exercised by the City Manager, or his designee.

Financial Impact
The new total value of the contract shall not exceed $400,000. Funds are available
from WIOA grant funds in the Human Services Department budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On Feb. 2, 2022, the City Council authorized $300,000 on Contract 156398 with
Ordinance S-48312; and
· On Jan. 25, 2023, the City Council authorized $25,000 on Contract 156398 with
Ordinance S-49353.




Page 84

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




Page 85



Report

Authorization to Amend Contract with Community Legal Services Tenants
Eviction Assistance Project (TEAP) Program (Ordinance S-50505)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend the term of Contract
159091 with Community Legal Services, Inc. (CLS) through Dec. 31, 2024 and add an
additional $1 million in funding to allow CLS to continue to provide legal assistance,
advocacy and representation to Phoenix tenants facing eviction proceedings through
local Justice Courts. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. Funding is provided from the American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA). There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
In June 2020, CLS created the Tenants Assistance Eviction Project (TEAP). TEAP is
staffed with attorneys providing legal assistance, advocacy and representation to low-
income Phoenix residents experiencing eviction and related court action. CLS does not
charge a fee for this service, has an established relationship with the Phoenix-area
Justice Courts, and has considerable familiarity in working with low income and
vulnerable populations.

meeting as part of the ARPA November 2023 reallocation.The amendment will add an
additional $1 million in ARPA funds for CLS to serve Phoenix residents and allow
continuation of program operations through Dec. 31, 2024.

Contract Term
The initial term of the contract was July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024. The
amendment will extend the contract through Dec. 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
The revised total value of this contract shall not exceed $1.3 million. Additional funding
is provided from the ARPA. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 159091 via Ordinance S-49929 on June 28, 2023.



Page 86

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




Page 87



Report

Financial Community Assistance Services - EXC 22-082 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-50524)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 155846 with Partnership for Economic Innovation (PEI) to add additional
funds. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $400,000. There is no impact to
the General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government.

Summary
The contract will provide administrative and customer support services to City
programs. The Business and Workforce Development Division of the City's Human
Services Department requires funding in the amount of $400,000 to cover additional
costs, which include student stipends, administrative costs, and insurance coverage.
The additional funding is available within the City Council's allocation of ARPA funds
for workforce development.

The objective of the contract remains the same, except that all funding for the Family
Assistance Resource program has been exhausted, and the remaining program,
Workforce Wraparound, is the only resource left. Upon approval of the additional
expenditures, the City shall exercise the first of two optional one-year renewals
extending the contract through Feb. 6, 2025.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Feb. 6, 2025, with one one-year
option to extend.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $400,000 in additional funds, the revised total value of the contract
will not exceed $17,400,000. There is no impact to the General Fund as funding is
available through the City's allocation of the ARPA funding received from the federal
government.




Page 88

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Financial Community Assistance Services Contract 155846 Ordinance S-48212 on
Dec.15, 2021.

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




Page 89



Report

Authorization to Amend Ordinance S-49884 Authorizing Development Agreement
with Republic Services, Inc. and CN Associates A, LLC and CN Associates K,
LLC (Ordinance S-50495)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Ordinance S-
49884, and to execute any other additional agreements, instruments or documents
necessary with Republic Services, Inc., and its affiliates or subsidiaries (Republic) and
CN Associates A, LLC and CN Associates K, LLC (Crown), or their City-approved
designees, to apply certain funds towards a performance-based job creation
reimbursement program for Republic with the eligible portion of certain transaction
privilege taxes (TPT). Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse
funds under the terms of the agreement.

Summary
On June 14, 2023, the Phoenix City Council approved Ordinance S-49884, authorizing
the City to provide $2,500 from the Strategic Economic Development Fund to
Republic, in arrears, for each qualifying new employee at Republic's new Phoenix
corporate headquarters, with a cap of $1.5 million in payments. Ordinance S-49884
also authorized the City to reimburse Crown up to $2.4 million (Reimbursement Cap)
for public infrastructure improvements derived from the General Fund share of the TPT
generated from construction, leasing, and other activity at the site of Republic's new
corporate headquarters over 15 years.

Request amending Section 3 of Ordinance S-49884 to add the following terms:

· If Crown should not utilize or qualify for the full Reimbursement Cap for public
infrastructure, Republic will be eligible for additional job creation payments to be
paid from the eligible share of the TPT generated at the site.
· Additional job creation payments will only be made for each new employee with an
average annual wage at or above $97,000 (including base pay, overtime,
commissions and bonuses) in their second year of employment.
· The total combined reimbursement to Crown and Republic shall not exceed the
TPT Reimbursement Cap.




Page 90

All other terms and conditions of the Ordinance will remain unchanged.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement will not exceed 15 years from the Construction
Commencement Date or extend beyond the date the Reimbursement Cap is reached,
whichever occurs sooner.

Financial Impact
This action will not change the total financial impact as approved by Ordinance S-
49884. The action modifies how the reimbursement of the eligible General Fund share
of the TPT generated from the site over 15 years, with a maximum of $2.4 million in
payments, can be remitted. Financial terms of the agreement will be provided to the
Budget and Research and Finance departments for review prior to execution of the
agreements.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Previously approved by the City Council on June 14, 2023 (Ordinance S-49884).

Location
Desert Ridge, Phoenix, Ariz.
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community and
Economic Development Department.




Page 91



Report

Greater Phoenix Chamber Foundation Contract Amendment (Ordinance S-50496)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 157892
with the Greater Phoenix Chamber Foundation (GPCF) to extend the term through
July 31, 2024 for the Elevate Education Workforce Development Program
(ElevateEdAZ).

Summary
This contract provides consulting services to expand the ElevateEdAZ program to
schools in the Phoenix Union High School District, the Paradise Valley Unified School
District, and Deer Valley Unified School District to address the skills gap in high-
wage,high-demand careers. To date, GPCF has established a Memorandum of
Understanding with each of these districts, increased staffing to fully support the
expansion of ElevateEdAZ, coordinated eleven business advisory council meetings,
enrolled three educators into externships, and provided 46 students with job shadow
experiences and eleven students with internship opportunities. GPCF also coordinated
two career awareness events: one at Betty Fairfax High School that served 1,200
students and the second at Barry Goldwater High School that served 1,350 students.

If approved, the extension will align the contract term with the end of the 2023-24
school year and provide the time needed to capture ElevateEdAZ student participation
data.

Procurement Information
In compliance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, an exception to the procurement
process was approved to select GPCF as it is the only organization in Arizona licensed
to implement the national ElevateEd Program.

Contract Term
The initial one-year term of the contract began on March 4, 2023 and ends March 3,
2024. Upon approval, the contract will be extended through July 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
The total contract value will not exceed the previously authorized amount of $750,000.



Page 92

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 157892 (Ordinance S-49007) on Sept. 21, 2022.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community and
Economic Development Department.




Page 93



Report

Amend Contract 147086 the West Fillmore Redevelopment and Purchase
Agreement with High Street Fillmore, LLC. and High Street Fillmore Phase 2,
LLC (Ordinance S-50508)

Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 147086, the West
Fillmore Redevelopment and Purchase Agreement (Agreement) with High Street
Fillmore, LLC and High Street Fillmore Phase 2, LLC (Developer) to extend the
construction commencement performance deadline for Phase 2 of the High Street
Fillmore project.

Summary
On March 20, 2018, the City entered into the Agreement with High Street Fillmore, LLC
and High Street Fillmore Phase 2, LLC for the sale of multiple city-owned parcels in
downtown Phoenix for a mixed-use project to be developed in multiple phases. Phase
1 was completed in 2022 with 330 residential units, approximately 10,000 square feet
(SF) of retail, and completion of the Taylor Street Paseo (4th Ave. to 6th Ave.). Two
future phases, known as Lots 4 and 5, are currently in the visioning and design phases
respectively. Phase 2, the subject of this request, will include 330 residential units and
approximately 10,000 SF of additional retail. The Agreement, as currently authorized,
requires the Developer to commence construction of Phase 2 by Feb. 7, 2024. The
Developer is currently paying an annual carry payment of 2.5 percent of the Phase 2
purchase price and, because of the current state of the financial markets, has asked
for an additional two years to commence construction on Phase 2. If approved, this will
extend the Phase 2 construction commencement date to Feb. 7, 2026. All other terms
of the Agreement will remain unchanged.

Financial Impact
The financial return to the City will not be altered by this request. Upon the sale of the
Phase 2 Site, 7.6 acres will return to private ownership which will generate net new
property tax revenues. The total project is estimated to generate approximately $1.3
million in construction taxes.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Economic Development and Housing
Subcommittee meeting on Jan. 10, by a vote of 4-0. City Council approved Contract


Page 94

147086 (Ordinance S-43802) on July 6, 2017.

Location
Two parcels located between 5th and 6th Avenues, south of Fillmore Street. Parcel
Numbers: 111-41-184, 111-41-185
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Community and
Economic Development Department.




Page 95



Report

Medium Voltage Maintenance Contract - IFB PCC 24-0067 Request for Award
(Ordinance S-50500)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Sabino Electric, Inc., to provide medium voltage maintenance and thermal imaging for
the Phoenix Convention Center Department (PCCD). Further request to authorize for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the
contract will not exceed $780,000.

Summary
This contract will provide all labor and materials to service, maintain, troubleshoot and
repair; perform factory-recommended preventive and predictive maintenance; and
conduct the testing and inspection of all switch gears, breakers and cables for all
medium voltage power for PCCD's North and West buildings and the electrical
infrastructure equipment located adjacent to Symphony Hall. This is an essential
service to aid in maintaining compliance with all applicable standards and regulations.
Additionally, this service aids in reducing repair and replacement costs by helping to
detect problems before they occur.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a bid deemed to be responsive to posted specifications and
responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following an evaluation based
on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the following vendor:

Bidder A: Sabino Electric, Inc. - $148,209.60, plus as needed repairs billed hourly

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Feb. 1, 2024, for a five-year term with no options to
extend.

Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $780,000.


Page 96


Funding is available in the PCCD Operating budget.

Location
North Building, 100 N. Third St., Phoenix, Ariz., 85004
West Building, 100 N. Third St., Phoenix, Ariz., 85004
Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Phoenix
Convention Center Department.




Page 97



Report

Pharmaceuticals and Emergency Medical Supplies - IFB 19-095 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-50528)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 151652 with Life-Assist, Inc.; Contract 151653 with
Bound Tree Medical, LLC; Contract 151654 with Nashville Medical & EMS Products,
Inc; and Contract 151655 with Henry Schein, Inc. for the purchase of pharmaceuticals
and emergency medical supplies for the Fire and Police departments. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $2,313,300.

Summary
These contracts will provide pharmaceuticals and emergency medical supplies to the
Fire and Police departments to provide emergency services to the residents of
Phoenix as needed throughout the term of the contract. The additional funds will
ensure continuation of these services throughout the greater Phoenix area.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Jan. 31, 2025.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $2,313,300 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $21,532,300. Funds are available in the Fire and Police
departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Pharmaceuticals and Emergency Medical Supplies Contracts 151652, 151653,
151654, and 151655 (Ordinance S-46370) on Feb. 19, 2020.

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




Page 98



Report

LeadsOnline Web-Based Pawn Application - City of Mesa 2016122 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-50507)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 147014 with LeadsOnline, LLC to extend contract term and add additional
expenditures. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $475,791.

Summary
This contract will allow the Police Department's Pawnshop Detail to report pawnshop
and second-hand dealer transactions to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO)
as required by Arizona Revised Statue 44-1625, in addition to tracking and collecting
transaction fees as required by Ordinance 19-40. The Pawnshop Detail receives
monthly regulatory fees that result in approximately 1.2 million revenue dollars each
year from pawnshops and second-hand dealer transactions. Additionally, the Police
Department Pawnshop Detail assists in investigations and recovers stolen property for
victims. The web-based system will allow consolidation of reporting, billing for
transaction fees, property release hearing requests and inspections, and investigative
queries by detectives. Utilizing the web-based system increases staff productivity,
improves business relationships with pawnshops and second-hand dealers and is in
alignment with current City of Phoenix business practices and technical requirements.
The additional funds will allow for continuation of this service throughout the contract
term.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Jan. 31, 2025, with an option to
extend through Jan. 31, 2026.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $475,791 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $1,435,536. Funds are available in the Police Department’s
budget.

Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:


Page 99

· Pawnshop Web-based Application Services - Contract 147014 (Ordinance S-
44267) on Feb. 21, 2018;
· Pawnshop Web-based Application Services - Contract 147014 (Ordinance S-
47386) on March 17, 2021;
· Pawnshop Web-based Application Services - Contract 147014 (Ordinance S-
49358) on Jan. 25, 2023.

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




Page 100



Report

Fiscal Year 2023 Community Policing Development Microgrant (Ordinance S-
50512)

Request retroactive authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the
Police Department to accept grant funding in the amount of $172,900 and enter into an
agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Community Policing Development
Microgrant. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Community Policing Development (CPD) Microgrants provide funding to propose
implementation or pilot projects in the following subcategories: Community Violence
Intervention, Officer Recruitment and Retention and Workforce Diversification, Hate
Crimes and Domestic Extremism, Underserved Populations, Building Trust and
Legitimacy with the Community.

The CPD Microgrants award is to provide funding to research why officers are being
called to respond to a persistently high volume of mental health calls that include a
significant number of recurrent contacts with the same individuals. The Phoenix Police
Department and Maricopa County currently follow best practices recommended by the
U.S. Federal Government but many people still face challenges in entering a more
supportive system for mental health related situations.

This grant will allow the Police Department to:

· Engage community stakeholders to help identify the system gaps that are resulting
in a failure of the mental health system to meet the needs of certain individuals.
· Partner with researchers at Arizona State University to collect and analyze
community responses and identify evidence-based recommendations for system
improvements.
· Partner with necessary stakeholders to apply for a larger Bureau of Justice
Assistance grant to fund a pilot of any needed system improvements that are
identified.



Page 101


The grant was awarded on Nov. 8, 2023. If authorization is denied, the grant award
will be rescinded.

Contract Term
One year beginning Oct. 1, 2023, through Sept. 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
The total funding request is $172,900. No matching funds are required.

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




Page 102



Report

Request Authorization for Sale of Canine Turbo (Ordinance S-50517)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the sale of canine
Turbo to Officer Paul Meintel for $1.00. Officer Meintel was assigned to the Tactical
Support Bureau's Canine Unit and in January 2024 will be moving to the Airport
Bureau. Officer Meintel has requested to purchase and retire his assigned canine
Turbo in accordance with Administrative Regulation 4.21.

Summary
Canine Turbo has served the Canine Unit as a patrol and narcotics canine for over six
years. Canine Turbo has met the Bureau's standard of five years of service and, due to
his age and bond with his handler, it is not operationally beneficial to try to pair him
with a new handler.

This request is for the authorization of the sale of canine Turbo for $1.00. The
purchase of canine Turbo is being made by Officer Paul Meintel, who agrees to accept
full responsibility and liability for canine Turbo and to care for him for the remainder of
his life.

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




Page 103



Report

Taser Equipment, Parts and Accessories - EXC 20-055 - Amendment (Ordinance
S-50525)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 151421 with Axon Enterprises, Inc. to modify scope of work. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No additional
funds are needed, request to continue using Ordinance S-46254.

Summary
This contract will provide the Police Department with tasers, parts and accessories.
This amendment will offer a trial period for 90 days, for 30 Taser-10 devices, excluding
device delivery and set up time, at no cost.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Dec. 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $12,141,400 and no additional
funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Taser Equipment Contract 151421 S-46254 on Dec. 18, 2019.

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




Page 104



Report

Automated Teller Machine Services at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
AVN RCS 24-006 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50522)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Bank of America, National Association to provide Automated Teller Machine (ATM)
Services at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), for a five-year term with
three one-year renewal options at the sole discretion of the Aviation Director. Further
request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.

Summary
To maintain desired passenger amenities and the overall concessions program at
PHX, the Aviation Department sought a qualified financial institution with airport
experience to provide their expertise in ATM services at PHX. ATM services continue
to be a key amenity for travelers and placing ATMs at key locations within the airport
terminals and Rental Car Center will provide our customers with the convenience of
services including withdrawing money, depositing checks, viewing their account
balances, and more. The Aviation Department also sought an experienced financial
institution to provide foreign currency exchange services at PHX.

Procurement Information
The Aviation Department issued Revenue Contract Solicitation (RCS) 24-006 on Sept.
12, 2023, with responses due on Nov. 15, 2023, for both ATM services and Foreign
Currency Exchange services. One response was received for ATM services, and the
respondent was deemed responsive and responsible. No responses were received for
Foreign Currency Exchange services.

The Response Opening was held on Nov. 15, 2023, and it was determined that Bank
of America, National Association submitted the response for ATM services with the
highest proposed Minimum Annual Guarantee (MAG) of $150,000, providing the most
financial benefit to the City. The Response was evaluated based on the highest
proposed MAG, which meets or exceeds the minimum required MAG of $100,000.

Contract Term
The contract term is five years with three one-year renewal options to extend at the
sole discretion of the Aviation Director.


Page 105


Financial Impact
The estimated annual revenue to the City will be the established MAG or percentage
of gross sales, whichever is greater. For the first year, MAG will be $150,000 or 10
percent of gross sales, whichever is greater. MAG will be adjusted annually thereafter
at 85 percent of the prior year's annual rent or 100 percent of MAG for the first lease
year, whichever is greater. The estimated revenue is $1.2 million over the eight-year
aggregate contract term.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Business and Development Subcommittee recommended approval of the item on
Dec. 7, 2023, by a vote of 2-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval of the item on Dec. 21,
2023, by a vote of 8-0.

Public Outreach
The solicitation process included all standard and required local and national outreach
efforts, including advertising in Aviation industry publications.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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




Page 106



Report

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport New Crossfield Taxiway U -
Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services - AV08000085 FAA,
AV06000025 FAA, AV16000031 FAA, AV16000036 (Ordinance S-50529)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Construction Services for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport New Crossfield
Taxiway U 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 $279.5 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to modify each of the following to enable the new
taxiway: the existing Facilities and Services complex, ramp, roadways, and utilities;
and construct new cross field Taxiway U and associated airfield improvements at
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. In 2020, the Aviation Department completed
the New West Crossfield Taxiway Conceptual Design and Program Report to highlight
important project considerations. Detailed design development for the project began in
2022 and is nearly complete.

Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.’s initial services will include preparation of a Guaranteed
Maximum Price proposal for the Construction Services provided under the agreement
and participating with the City in a process to establish a Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) goal for the project. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. will be responsible
for construction means and methods related to the project and fulfilling the DBE
program requirements. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. will be required to solicit bids
from prequalified subcontractors and to perform the work using the City’s
subcontractor selection process.

Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.’s services include, but are not limited to: construct
Taxiway U, airfield modification, Facilities and Services Complex modifications, West
Air Cargo modifications, roadway modifications, utility modifications and relocation
corridor; select subcontractors/suppliers; coordinate with various City of Phoenix
departments, utility companies, and other agencies as needed; arrange for


Page 107

procurement of materials and equipment; schedule and manage site operations; bid,
award, and manage all construction related contracts while meeting City bid
requirements including the DBE participation goal; provide quality controls; bond and
insure the construction; address all federal, state, and local permitting requirements;
maintain a safe work site for all project participants; maintain all project records in
electronic format; and other work as required for a complete project.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Scoring and selection were made in
conjunction with the Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services selection
process.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 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 Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. will not exceed $279.5 million,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. This project anticipates federal
funds and is subject to the requirements 49 CFR Part 26 and the U.S. Department of
Transportation Disadvantage Business Enterprise program.

Funding is available in the Aviation 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 CMAR Preconstruction Services Agreement 156127
(Ordinance S-48513) on April 20, 2022.

Location
2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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

Page 108



Report

Request to Issue Solicitation of Proposals for the South Central Transit Oriented
Development Implementation

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) to conduct a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) study for cross-
disciplinary implementation efforts regarding equitable land use, transportation, and
infrastructure investments along the South Central light rail corridor.

Summary
In November 2022, the Public Transit Department received a $1 million grant from the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2021-22
Pilot Program for TOD Planning. The funding will be used to conduct a TOD study for
cross-disciplinary implementation efforts regarding equitable land use, transportation,
and infrastructure investments along the South Central light rail corridor. These efforts
will work toward achieving the established South Central TOD Community Plan’s
shared vision for environmentally equitable, compact, and connected communities
that: are sustainable and resilient; show incremental change and growth; and make a
world-class regional destination that supports local small businesses, shares cultures,
and improves health for existing and future residents.

Procurement Information
The solicitation for services will be issued in early 2024.

Contract Term
The resulting contract is expected to commence on or about July 1, 2024, and will
have a three-year term.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved staff to accept and disburse the grant funding for this item
on Aug. 31, 2022.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the contract is approximately $1.21 million, as the in-kind
match does not contribute to contract cost. The FTA awarded the City a $1 million
grant under the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law through the FFY 2021-22 Pilot


Page 109

Program for TOD Planning. The City's costs would be approximately $285,000, with in-
kind contributions included for the local match. This amounts to an approximate total of
$1.285 million in federal and local funding.

Funding for the local match is available from the following departments:
· Public Transit Department - $50,000 (Transportation 2050)
· Street Transportation Department - $50,000 (CIP)
· Community and Economic Development Department - $50,000 (CIP)
· The Office of Environmental Programs - $50,000 (General Funds)
· The Office of Sustainability - $10,000 (Grant)
· Planning and Development Department - $50,000 (in-kind)
· Housing Department - $25,000 (in-kind)

Location
South Central TOD Community Plan Area
Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua, Alan Stephenson,
John Chan and Gina Montes, the Public Transit, Planning and Development, Street
Transportation, Community and Economic Development, and Housing departments,
the Office of Sustainability, and the Office of Environmental Programs.




Page 110



Report

Appraisal Services COOP BPM004770 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50523)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Karl Baltutat Valuation Services, LLC; Paul Hendricks Real Estate Appraisal &
Counseling, PLLC; Richard Rothwell Jr, PLLC DBA Rothwell Appraisal; Southwest
Appraisal Associates, Inc.; and Top Hat, Inc. DBA Glover Valuation Group, using a
competitively procured State of Arizona Cooperative Purchasing Contract (RFP No.
BPM004770), to provide real estate and appraisal services on an as-needed basis for
the Public Transit Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total combined value of the contracts will not
exceed $1,250,000.

Summary
These contracts will provide real estate and appraisal services, including commercial
real estate appraisals, residential real estate appraisals, real estate appraisal review
services, real estate consulting services, and billboard/outdoor advertising appraisals.
These services will be used on an as-needed basis by the Public Transit Department
for real property acquisitions, such as land for bus and light rail projects and facilities.
Contracts with these providers will include terms and conditions required by the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for projects receiving federal funding.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Alternative Competition. The State of Arizona's Cooperative
Purchasing Contract best aligns with the Public Transit Department's need for
appraisal service contracts compliant with FTA requirements.

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about Jan. 24, 2024 and will continue through Jan. 28,
2028.

Financial Impact
The combined aggregate value for all five contracts will not exceed $1,250,000 for
their contract term. Funding is available in the Public Transit Department's budget.


Page 111


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




Page 112



Report

Apply for Water Infrastructure Finance Authority - Water Conservation Grant
Funding Opportunity: High Efficiency Toilet Replacement Downtown Facilities,
High Efficiency Toilet Replacement Valley Wide, and MIOX Cooling Tower
Retrofits (Ordinance S-50499)

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and if
awarded accept and enter into an agreement for disbursement of Arizona State and
Federal funding from the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority, beginning on or about
May 2023 through Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 the Water Conservation Grant Fund
(WIFA-WCGF) opportunity. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept
and the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total grant funds
applied for will not exceed $8,225,648 and the City's local match will not exceed
$2,056,413.

Summary
The Water Services Department (WSD) submitted three grant applications to the
Water Infrastructure Finance Authority for a Water Conservation Grant Fund award on
behalf of the Public Works Department (PWD). The awards would be used as follows:
1) The grant for the Phoenix Valley Wide Plumbing Fixture Replacement Water Saving
Initiative involves plumbing fixture replacements across eight City departments with
work occurring at approximately 300 city buildings to replace and retrofit approximately
4,400 fixtures resulting in 82.9 acre feet in water savings per year, 2) the grant for the
Downtown Plumbing Fixture Replacement Water Saving Initiative involves fixture
replacements across a minimum of four downtown city buildings replacing
approximately 1,100 bathroom fixtures resulting in 19.87 acre feet of water savings per
year, 3) the grant for the Cooling Tower Water Savings Project involves installing
upgrades to include a combination of MIOX and water softeners at four sites to
improve the operational efficiency of seven cooling towers resulting in 40.19 acre feet
of water savings.

These projects would fulfill components of the city's Drought Management Plan.

The grant programs would be phased in over the grant period of FY 2023-24 through
FY 2026-27 with operations beginning as soon as possible. The deadline to utilize the
WIFA-WCGF funds is Dec. 31, 2026.


Page 113


The WIFA-WCGF submittal deadline was May 19, 2023. Due to the timing of the
deadline put forth by WIFA, WSD on behalf of Public Works submitted applications
prior to obtaining City Council approval. If City Council does not approve this
retroactive request, the application will be withdrawn by WSD.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the three water saving projects is approximately
$8,225,648. The maximum WIFA award is $6,169,236. The required local match, if
awarded, is 25 percent of the projects. If the maximum award is received, the minimum
match is $2,056,413. Staff project a savings of nearly 143 acre-feet of water if all three
grants are funded. The water savings is expected to be long term because the
installed equipment is durable and will be maintained. The water savings is expected
to offset the cost of match in the long term.

If awarded, the 25 percent match at $588,506 for the Downtown Facilities High
Efficiency Toilet Replacements would be funded by using funding from approved
plumbing work at PCH and 100 West.

If awarded, the 25 percent match at $720,996 for the Valley Wide High Efficiency Toilet
Replacement would be funded using a Public Works existing funding source for water
savings.

If awarded, the 25 percent match at $746,912 for the MIOX Cooling Tower Retrofits
would be funded by using a Public Works funding source for energy saving initiatives.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Ginger Spencer,
and the Public Works and Water Services departments.




Page 114



Report

Solid Waste Facilities Improvements - Job Order Contracting Services -
4108JOC221 (Ordinance S-50503)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with three contractors listed below, to provide Solid Waste Facilities
Improvements Job Order Contracting services for the Public Works Department.
Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreements as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for all
services will not exceed $15 million.

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

Summary
The Job Order Contracting (JOC) contractors’ services will be used on an as-needed
basis to provide Solid Waste Facilities Improvement services to provide excavation
and earthmoving; roadwork and concrete repair, plumbing, piping, and roof repair for
the transfer stations; supply and installation of landfill gas pipelines in open and closed
landfill environments; supply and installation of landfill gas equipment such as well
heads, valves, sump vaults, wyes, tees and similar connectors; and forming, supplying
and finishing of concrete for pads, foundations and backfill. Additionally, the JOC
contractors will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business Enterprise program
requirements.




Page 115

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

Selected Firms
Rank 1: Rummel Construction, Inc.
Rank 2: BWC Enterprises, Inc. dba Woodruff Construction
Rank 3: Primavera Grading & Paving LLC

Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $5 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The master agreement value for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $5
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for services
will not exceed $15 million.

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute job order
agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $2 million each. In no
event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.

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

Location(s)
Del Rio Landfill, 1150 E. Elwood St.
Skunk Creek Landfill, 3165 W. Happy Valley Road
19th Avenue Landfill Cell A, 1701 W. Lower Buckeye Road
19th Avenue Landfill Cell A-1, 3850 S. 15th Ave.
27th Avenue Landfill, 3060 S. 27th Ave.


Page 116

27th Avenue Transfer Station/MRF, 3060 S. 27th Ave.
North Gateway Transfer Station/MRF, 30205 N. Black Canyon Highway
Deer Valley Landfill/Cave Creek Golf Course, Greenway Road and 19th Avenue
SR-85 Landfill (Out of City), 28361 W. Patterson Road, Buckeye, Ariz.
Council Districts: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and Out of City

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Alan
Stephenson, the Public Works Department and the City Engineer.




Page 117



Report

Intergovernmental Agreement with City of Peoria to Accept and Process
Recyclable Materials (Ordinance S-50513)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Peoria to accept and process
recyclable materials collected in the City of Peoria and delivered to the City of
Phoenix's Material Recovery Facilities (MRF). Additionally, request the City Council to
grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-20(B) to authorize
inclusion of mutual indemnification language that otherwise would be prohibited by
Phoenix City Code section 42-18(A) and (B). Further request authorization for the City
Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item.

Summary
The City of Peoria has requested to enter into an IGA with the City of Phoenix to
accept and process its recyclable material. The City of Phoenix can accept these
materials with terms to address changing market conditions, resulting in lower
commodity prices and increased processing costs from contamination in the
recyclables. This IGA will authorize the City of Phoenix to charge a processing fee to
the City of Peoria for recycling tonnage processed at the City's MRFs, which is
designed to ensure all costs associated with processing recyclables are recovered by
the fee. 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 Peoria, and no revenue share to Peoria will be
available.
· In a market with high recycling commodity prices, the City of Peoria 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 Peoria will deliver up to 20,000 tons of recyclable materials to the
City's MRFs.




Page 118

Contract Term
The one-year term of this IGA will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2024 and conclude on or
about Dec. 31, 2024. Provisions of the IGA include four, one-year options to extend the
agreement.

Financial Impact
The City of Peoria will be paying City of Phoenix to accept recyclables to cover all
expenses associated with proper handling of the materials. If recycle market prices
increase during the term of the agreement, Phoenix and Peoria would share the
additional revenue at a 50/50 split.

Location
North Gateway Material Recovery Facility, 30205 N. Black Canyon Hwy.
27th Avenue Material Recovery Facility, 3060 S. 27th Ave.
Council Districts: 2 and 7

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




Page 119



Report

Authorize Revisions to Phoenix City Code Chapter 32 (Ordinance G-7218)

Request to amend Phoenix City Code 32B (Floodplains) to correct minor typographical
errors and replace text inadvertently removed with the previous revisions in May 2023.

Summary
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) was
implemented in 1990 as a voluntary program for recognizing and encouraging
community floodplain management activities that exceed minimum NFIP standards.
Under the CRS, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reward community
actions that meet the three goals of the CRS:
· Reduce flood damage to insurable property.
· Strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the NFIP.
· Encourage a comprehensive approach to floodplain management.

During the City of Phoenix 2023 CRS Cycle Verification, it was discovered that a
section of text related to mechanical and utility equipment was inadvertently removed
with the previous revisions of Chapter 32B in May 2023. The amended language in the
proposed ordinance meets the CRS Class 8 or better prerequisites for Act. 430 FRB -
freeboard requirements (Attachment A). The amended language is necessary to
remain CRS compliant.

A summary of revisions to this chapters are as follows: Chapter 32B - Corrects minor
typographical errors and replace text inadvertently removed with the previous revision
in May 2023.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council authorized revisions to Phoenix City Code Chapter 32 (Ordinance G-
7116) on May 31, 2023.

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




Page 120
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-XXXX


AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
AMEND PHOENIX CITY CODE CHAPTER 32B
FLOODPLAINS BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION TO
ARTICLE V, SECTION 32B-20.B PERTAINING TO
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS.
__________

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


SECTION 1. Article IV. Administration.
***** ***** ******
Sec. D. Obtain and maintain for public inspection:

***** ***** ******

4. Certification required in Section 32B-23(A)(2) (subdivisions and other
PROPOSED proprosed development standards);



SECTION 2. Article V. Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction.
***** ***** ******
Sec. 32B-20.B Standards of Construction – Materials and Methods.


1. All new construction and substantial improvements must be constructed with
materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage;

2. All new construction and substantial improvements must be constructed using
methods and practices that minimize flood damage;




Page 121
3. ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT AND
OTHER PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT WITH MECHANICAL AND UTILITY
EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY THE STRUCTURE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED TO OR
ABOVE THE REGULATORY FLOOD ELEVATION;

4. Within Zone AH or AO, adequate drainage paths must be constructed around
structures on slopes to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed
structures.

***** ***** ******

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Phoenix this XXth day of

______________, 2024.


_______________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk

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

By:

_________________________


_________________________
REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
RRH/ab:2411947;:LF# XX-XXXX; x/x/24




2 Ordinance G-XXXX

Page 122



Report

Wireless Mesh Radios - IFB 19-043 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50497)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 149367 with L4 Technologies, LLC to extend contract term. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No additional
funds are needed, request to continue using Ordinance S-45384.

Summary
The contract will provide wireless mesh radios for the Street Transportation
Department which maintains a hybrid fiber/wireless network for communications
between the Traffic Management Center and field devices located at more than 1,100
signalized intersections to monitor signal timing throughout the City. The contract
includes the purchase of radio equipment, management tools, training as well as
hardware and software support, on-call remote, and on-site technical assistance to
facilitate the continuing expansion of the ITS Fier/Wireless Network to all signalized
intersections.

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

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through Feb. 19, 2025, with an option to
extend through Feb. 19, 2026.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $6,750,000 and no additional
funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Wireless Mesh Radios Contract 149367 (Ordinance S-45384) on Feb. 20, 2019.

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


Page 123



Report

Citywide General Construction - Job Order Contracting Services Amendment -
4108JOC209 (Ordinance S-50515)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments with
six contractors listed below to provide additional Citywide General Construction Job
Order Contracting Services. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to
the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional total fee for services included in these amendments will not exceed
$120 million.

Summary
The Contractors' services will be used on an as-needed basis to provide Job Order
Contracting Services citywide that include general building/site construction
remodeling, new building construction, re-roofing, HVAC installation, site
enhancements, painting, improvements, and some project related design work.

These amendments are necessary because the amount of work under these contracts
continue to increase and the available capacity for each contractor is being utilized
faster than anticipated. These contracts will also support the General Obligation bond
projects beginning July 2024. These amendments will provide additional funds to the
agreements.

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

Financial Impact
· The initial agreements for General Construction Job Order Contracting Services
was approved for an amount not to exceed $15 million each, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
· These amendments will increase the agreements by an additional $20 million each,



Page 124

for a new total amount not to exceed $35 million each, including all subcontractor
and reimbursable costs.

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

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Citywide Job Order Contracting Services Agreement 156749 with BRYCON
Corporation, Agreement 156750 with Caliente Construction, Inc., Agreement
156751 with ForeSite Design & Construction, Inc., Agreement 156752 with
McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., Agreement 156753 with Okland Construction
Company, Inc., and Agreement 156754 with CHASSE Building Team, Inc.
(Ordinance S-48850) on July 1, 2022;
· Citywide Job Order Contracting Services Agreement 156749 Amendment 1
(Ordinance S-49283) on Aug. 1, 2022; and
· Citywide Job Order Contracting Services Agreement 156753 Amendment 1
(Ordinance S-49602) on April 19, 2023.

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




Page 125



Report

Aqua-Serv Engineering, Incorporated (Ordinance S-50494)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Aqua-Serv Engineering, Inc., to provide testing and chemical treatment to
maintain operational efficiency of boiler systems for the Water Services Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the agreement will not exceed $150,000.

Summary
This agreement will provide monitoring and maintenance of the boiler systems for
Wastewater Treatment. Aqua-Serv Engineering, Inc., will monitor and maintain the
boiler systems in optimal working condition and ensure that the boiler is free of any
fouling due to scale formation, biological growth or slime, and limit corrosion on
equipment as outlined in the scope of work as directly connected to the boiler system.

Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bid procurement in accordance
with Administrative Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a bid and is found to be responsive and responsible. Following
and evaluation based on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the
following vendor:

Selected Bidder
Aqua-Serv Engineering, Incorporated - $1,100

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about March 1, 2024, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $150,000.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating Budget.



Page 126

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




Page 127



Report

ARC Flash Analysis, Electrical Design and Inspection Services for Water Remote
Facilities - Engineering Services - WS85400011 (Ordinance S-50498)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Black & Veatch Corporation to provide Engineering Services that include design
support services and construction and commissioning inspections for the ARC Flash
Analysis, Electrical Design and Inspection Services for Water Remote Facilities
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 $2 million.

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

Summary
The purpose of this project is to conduct ARC flash hazardous analysis on all new
motor control centers, switchgear, and power panels. In addition, each site is required
to have a five year review of ARC flash hazardous analysis to determine if all the
electrical gear is still in compliance with National Fire Protection Association 70E and
that any changes are documented and re-analyzed.

Black & Veatch Corporation's services include, but are not limited to: provide ARC
flash hazardous testing services utilizing a professional electrical engineer, the ARC
flash hazardous testing will include as-built existing single line diagrams, conducting
load calculations for motor control centers, switchgear and power panels, have the
knowledge to conduct a power system study and ground system testing, required to as


Page 128

-built existing control panels, be required to have a complete understanding and
expertise of UL508 requirements, be required to participate on the Water Services
Department (WSD) Process Controls Standards Committee and Arc Flash Hazard
Analysis Committee, provide design support services consisting of presenting advice
and technical consultations relative to installation techniques and procedures for City
of Phoenix as needed, design meetings and project engineer demonstrations, support
the engineer with research of existing conditions, conduct 30 percent, 60 percent, 90
percent and 100 percent reviews of the project plans and specifications, support the
engineering consultants and contractors with the understanding of the WSD’s
standards for electrical systems, and maintain and update WSD standards, coordinate
design reviews and construction and commissioning inspections, and other
requirements with the firm selected for Instrumentation and Control support services.

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: Black & Veatch Corporation

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Canfield Engineering & Integration, LLC
Rank 3: HP Engineering, Inc.
Rank 4: Quantum Engineering, Inc.
Rank 5: The RMH Group of Colorado, Inc.

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

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Black & Veatch Corporation will not exceed $2 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


Page 129

funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

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




Page 130



Report

Apply for Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Water Workforce Development
Funding Opportunity: Phoenix Water Conservation Corps Grant Opportunity for
Fiscal Year 2023-24 (Ordinance S-50510)

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and,
if awarded, enter into agreements for disbursement of Federal funding from the
Environmental Protection Agency, beginning in or about July 2024 through the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2027-28, for the Environmental Protection Agency Water Workforce
Development funding opportunity. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller disburse, all funds related to this item. The total grant
funds applied for will not exceed $6,800,000.

Summary
The Water Services Department (WSD) submitted a grant application to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a Water Workforce Development funding
opportunity. This award would be used to fund a three-year program in which young
adults in the Phoenix metro receive training opportunities and temporary employment
through an applied bridge program, learning about water resources and lowering
barriers to entry in the water work field by participating in project-based job duties and
receiving relevant training. If awarded, the WSD would initiate a program of organizing
the water conservation consultation opportunities throughout the City of Phoenix;
Corps Members would perform water efficiency consultations and learn about water
stewardship, allowing them to become future job candidates for water-related work.
The Corps program would allow Phoenix to create training opportunities, offer jobs for
career entry and transition in the diverse field of water resources and natural resource
management, and apply a community-based solution to help lower barriers for
community-wide water savings. The program can help Phoenix to expand the
applicant field for water-related work and help to ensure a resilient water work force for
years to come. WSD projects a water savings of 5,720 acre-feet of water (or greater)
because of only three years of the program's operation. The cumulative lifetime water
savings is estimated to be as high as 29,000 acre-feet in twenty years.

The grant programs would be phased in over the grant period (FY 2024-25 to FY 2025
-26) with operation beginning as soon as possible. There is no deadline to use the
awards, but the project timeline will last three years.


Page 131


The EPA Water Workforce Development grant submittal opportunity was Nov.17, 2023.

Due to the timing of the deadline put forth by EPA, WSD submitted an application prior
to obtaining City Council approval. If City Council does not approve this retroactive
request, the application will be withdrawn by WSD.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the project is approximately $6.8 million. The maximum
EPA award is $6.8 million for the application's relevant program category. There is no
required local match.

There is potential for additional funding from upcoming Bureau of Reclamation and
Water Infrastructure Finance Authority grant opportunities for conservation-related
work.

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




Page 132



Report

Final Plat - Seasons at Baker Farms - PLAT 220020 - Northwest Corner of
McDowell Road and 79th Avenue

Plat: 220020
Project: 21-977
Name of Plat: Seasons at Baker Farms
Owner: Wiley Baker Farms Limited Partnership
Engineer: Richard G. Alcocer, RLS
Request: A 178-Lot Detached Single Family Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 29, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

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

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

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




Page 133



Report

Final Plat - Replat of Phoenix Central Station - PLAT 220102 - Northwest Corner
of Central Avenue and Van Buren Street

Plat: 220102
Project: 19-2846
Name of Plat: Replat of Phoenix Central Station
Owner: City of Phoenix
Engineer: Jason P. Graham, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 28, 2023
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 northwest corner of Central Avenue and Van Buren Street
Council District: 7

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




Page 134



Report

Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-23--Z-8-22
-1 - Approximately 760 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of I-17 and Circle
Mountain Road (Ordinance G-7219)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Nov. 15, 2023.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-23--Z-8-22-1
Existing Zoning: R-2 and R-3
Acreage: 40.04

Owner: Circle Mountain Holdings, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Hannah Bleam, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC

Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding Planned Residential Development option.
2. Request to modify Stipulation 2 regarding minimum building setback.
3. Request to modify Stipulation 4.b regarding drought tolerant vegetation.
4. Request to add Stipulation 4.c regarding drought tolerant vegetation.
5. Request to delete Stipulation 11.a regarding secured bicycle parking.
6. Request to modify Stipulation 11.b regarding guest bicycle spaces.
7. Request to delete Stipulation 11.c regarding bicycle repair station.
8. Request to modify Stipulation 12.b regarding north-south pedestrian connection.
9. Request to modify Stipulation 12.c regarding the number of pedestrian connections.
10. Request to modify Stipulation 13 regarding indoor noise levels.
11. Request to modify Stipulation 14 regarding the development of noise mitigation
walls.
12. Request to modify Stipulation 15 regarding noise wall setbacks.
13. Request to modify Stipulation 16 regarding perimeter wall materials.
14. Request to modify Stipulation 20 regarding view walls and fencing along property
lines.
15. Request to modify Stipulation 22 regarding Electric Vehicle Capable infrastructure.
16. Request to modify Stipulation 23.b regarding drought tolerant vegetation ground


Page 135

cover in landscaped areas between the back of curb and sidewalk.
17. Request to add Stipulation 23.c regarding native vegetation ground cover for
landscaped areas between back of curb and sidewalk.
18. Request to modify Stipulation 24 regarding construction of detached sidewalks.
19. Request to modify Stipulation 24.b regarding drought tolerant vegetation ground
coverage in landscaped areas along detached sidewalks.
20. Request to add Stipulation 24.c regarding native vegetation ground coverage in
landscaped areas along detached sidewalks.
21. Request to modify Stipulation 25 regarding right-of-way dedications and street
improvements.
22. Request to delete Stipulation 27 regarding a 30-foot right-of-way dedication along
the southern boundary of the project.
23. Request to modify Stipulation 28.b regarding drought tolerant vegetation ground
coverage in landscaped areas in right-of-way.
24. Request to add Stipulation 28.c regarding native vegetation ground coverage in
landscaped areas in right-of-way.
25. Request to delete Stipulation 29 regarding enhanced pedestrian connections.
26. Request to delete Stipulation 37 regarding capping and abandonment of existing
wells.
27. Request to delete Stipulation 38 regarding a petition to the Street Transportation
Department to eliminate required street light infrastructure.
28. Request to delete Stipulation 39 regarding primary construction access.
29. Request to delete Stipulation 40 regarding roadway damage repair.
30. Request to delete Stipulation 41 regarding disclosure language in future leases for
a portion of Jenny Lin Road.
31. Request to delete Stipulation 42 regarding Phase 1 to be in general conformance
with the site plan date stamped May 4, 2023.
32. Request to delete Stipulation 43 regarding Phase 1 to be in general conformance
with the elevations and design elements date stamped May 4, 2023.
33. Request to delete Stipulation 44 regarding the maximum dwelling units for Phase
1.
34. Request to modify Stipulation 45 regarding Phase 2 to be in general conformance
with the site plan.
35. Request to modify Stipulation 46 regarding Phase 2 to be in general conformance
with the elevations.
36. Request to modify Stipulation 47 regarding the number of lots for Phase 2.
37. Request to delete Stipulation 48 regarding conceptual site plans and elevations for
Phase 3.
38. Request to delete Stipulation 49 regarding surface parking lot landscaped areas for
Phase 3.



Page 136

VPC Action: The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 14,
2023, and recommended approval with modifications, by a vote of 6-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer took the case under advisement. The case
was taken out of advisement on Dec. 20, 2023, and recommended denial as filed,
approval with modifications and additional stipulations.

Location
Approximately 760 feet north of the northeast corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 44421 North Black Canyon Highway

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




Page 137
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-8-22-1 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-7140.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately

760 feet north of the northeast corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road in a portion of

Section 3, Township 6 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in

Attachment “A”, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

Overall Site

1. Each phase of the development shall utilize the Planned Residential
Development (PRD) option.

2. A minimum building setback of 58 100 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, except for the northern most 1,077 feet, which shall have a
minimum building setback of 55 feet, as approved or modified by the Planning
and Development Department.

3. A minimum landscaped setback of 30 feet shall be provided along the west
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. All perimeter setbacks adjacent to public streets shall be planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Page 138
a. Minimum 50% 2-inch caliper and 50% 3-inch caliper large canopy drought
tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings
with a staggered row of trees for every 20 feet of setback.

b. LANDSCAPE AREAS USING Ddrought tolerant shrubs and vegetative
groundcovers to achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground
coverage at maturity.

c. LANDSCAPE AREAS USING SALVAGED NATIVE DESERT SHRUBS,
ACCENTS, AND VEGETATIVE GROUNDCOVERS SHALL ACHIEVE A
MINIMUM OF 50 PERCENT LIVE VEGETATIVE GROUND COVERAGE
AT MATURITY.

5. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

6. All pedestrian pathways and trails, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a
structure, landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide
minimum 75% shade, calculated at summer solstice at noon as shown on a
shading study, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments, that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. The primary entry/exit drives into the residential developments shall incorporate
enhanced landscaping on both sides within minimum 250-square-foot landscape
areas and shall incorporate a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape median, planted
with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

10. Traffic calming measures shall be provided at all site entries and exits to slow
down vehicular speeds as they approach sidewalks and trails, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

11. Each phase of tThe development shall provide bicycle infrastructure as
described below, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided for units without garages at a
rate of 0.25 spaces per multifamily residential dwelling unit, up to a
maximum of 50 spaces.

a. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per



Page 139
b. multifamily residential and single-family residential dwelling unit, up to a
maximum of 50 spaces, LOCATED IN COMMON OPEN SPACE AND
AMENITY AREAS. Guest bicycle parking for single-family residential shall
be located in open space and amenity areas. Bicycle parking spaces shall
be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near the
community center and/or clubhouse and open space areas and installed
per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in
Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

c. A bicycle repair station ("fix it station") shall be provided and maintained on
site within an amenity area or near a primary site entrance. The bicycle
repair station ("fix it station") shall be provided in an area of high visibility
and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The
repair station shall include, but not be limited to standard repair tools
affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the
station or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and
wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.

12. A Water Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Trails and Pedestrian
Circulation Master Plan for the overall development, per the requirements of the
Planned Community District (PCD), Section 636 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, shall be provided and updated with each phase of development to
include the following elements, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

a. A 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along
the west side of the site adjacent to the I-17 frontage road and a minimum
10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within the
easement, in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development department.

b. A north-south pedestrian connection shall be provided THROUGH THE
CENTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE AN ULTIMATE
CONNECTION FROM CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD TO JENNY LIN ROAD,
AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT. to connect all phases of the development, including the
area between Project II and Project 111.

c. ONE Four pedestrian connections shall be provided from the site leading to
the adjacent trails directly east or west of the site.

d. Pedestrian access shall be provided to future development to the east for
each phase of development.

13. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER SHALL
INCLUDE WITH THE BUILDING PLANS SUBMITTED FOR PHOENIX
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION COE COMPLIANCE REVIEW CERTIFICATION
BY AN ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT DEMONSTRATING THE AVERAGE The



Page 140
indoor noise levels of residential units shall not exceed a decibel day night- level
(DNL) of 45 decibels, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. A sealed and signed analysis by an engineer licensed in Arizona
with a proficiency in residential sound mitigation or noise control shall be
included with the building plans submitted for Phoenix Building Construction
Code compliance review to the Planning and Development Department. The
engineer shall note in the analysis that the building design is capable of
achieving the required Noise Level Reduction.

14. Noise mitigation walls shall be provided along the west perimeter of the site. The
wall height shall be A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OR AS determined through a noise
analysis prepared by a registered professional engineer. The wall shall be
constructed of minimum 8-inch-thick concrete masonry units (CMU) or of cast-
in-place concrete and contain no openings unless they are above the minimum
height required for adequate noise mitigation or for drainage, Noise walls shall
be constructed to wrap around corner lots and areas near intersections. Wrap
around walls, upon turning a corner, shall continue for at least 120 feet
(approximately two lot widths), as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

15. Perimeter walls, noise walls, and other walls ADJACENT TO PERIMETER
STREETS shall vary by a minimum of four feet every 400 lineal feet to visually
reflect a meandering or staggered setback, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

16. Perimeter walls, including the noise wall, ALONG THE WEST, NORTH AND
EAST PERIMETER, shall incorporate stone veneer, stonework, or integral color
CMU block, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

17. Interior walls and privacy fencing, excluding walls located between lots, shall
use materials and colors that blend with the natural desert environment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

18. A minimum of 15% of each phase shall be retained as open space, including
washes and hillside areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

19. Each phase of the development shall contain a minimum of four shaded active
(recreation amenities, such as a tot lot, picnic areas, seating features, garden
amenities, or similar amenities, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

20. A combination of view walls/fencing and partial view walls/fencing WITH A
MINIMUM 2-FOOT VIEW FENCE, shall be incorporated along property lines
adjacent to dedicated public or private open space areas, natural and/or
improved drainageways or recreational areas, EXCEPT ADJACENT TO A
PERIMETER STREET, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.




Page 141
21. Drainage channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting through
color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

22. A minimum of 502% of the required parking spaces, including garages, shall
include Electric Vehicle (EV) CAPABLE Installed infrastructure and 5% of the
required parking spaces shall include EV Capable infrastructure, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

23. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces, including garages, shall
include Electric Vehicle (EV) Installed infrastructure and 5% of the required
parking spaces shall include EV Capable infrastructure, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. LANDSCAPE AREAS USING Ddrought tolerant shrubs, accents, and
vegetative groundcovers to achieve a minimum of 75% live vegetative
ground coverage at maturity. LIVE COVERAGE TO HAVE A MAXIMUM
MATURE HEIGHT OF TWO FEET WITHIN SIGHT VISIBILILTY
TRIANGLES.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

24. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks, or wider to meet Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) minimum standards, and minimum 5-
foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk, or
wider to meet MCDOT minimum standards shall be constructed along the south
side of Jenny Lin Road, the east side of the I-17 frontage road, and the north
side of Circle Mountain Road, planted to the following standards. The developer
shall record a landscaping maintenance agreement with the Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requiring the landowner and/or property
management to maintain the installed landscaping within MCDOT right-of-way to
the following planting standards, as approved by MCDOT and the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. LANDSCAPE AREAS USING Ddrought tolerant shrubs, accents, and
vegetative groundcovers SHALL to achieve a minimum of 75% live
vegetative ground coverage at maturity. LIVE COVERAGE TO HAVE A
MAXIMUM MATURE HEIGHT OF TWO FEET WITHIN SIGHT VISIBILTY
TRIANGLES.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the MCDOT and the



Page 142
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

25. All right-of-way dedications and street improvements for Circle Mountain Road,
the I-17 frontage road, and Jenny Lin Road shall comply with Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) requirements, as approved by MCDOT.
Where possible the County Rural Residential Cross Section shall be utilized for
Jenny Lin Road.

26. A minimum 65-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated, and the east half of the I-
17 frontage road shall be constructed per the Maricopa County Department of
Transportation (MCDOT) Rural Minor Arterial cross section, as required and
approved by MCDOT.

27. A minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
north side of the minor collector street along the southern boundary of Project Ill.
The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector Cross Section F and
include a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 8-
foot-wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk,
planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve
a minimum of 75% live vegetative ground coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the MCDOT and the
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

27. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
28. full width of the minor collector street along the northern boundary of THE
PROJECT Project II. The improvements shall be consistent with Minor Collector
Cross Section F and include minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks
separated by minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strips located between the back of
curb and sidewalk, planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought tolerant shade
trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. LANDSCAPE AREAS USING Ddrought tolerant shrubs, accents, and
vegetative groundcovers SHALL to achieve a minimum of 75% live
vegetative ground coverage at maturity. LIVE COVERAGE TO HAVE A
MAXIMUM MATURE HEIGHT OF TWO FEET WITHIN SIGHT
VISIBILILTY TRIANGLES.




Page 143
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the MCDOT and the
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.

28. Enhanced pedestrian connections shall be designed and constructed at all
29. public street crossing locations to interconnect the pedestrian trails throughout
the entirety of the site, as approved by the Street Transportation Department
and the Planning and Development Department.

29. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
30. with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department and MCDOT (where applicable). All improvements
shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards

30. A Red Border Letter shall be submitted to the Arizona Department of
31. Transportation (ADOT) for this development.

31. The developer shall record documents that disclose to prospective purchasers
32. and renters of property within the development the existence of noise from the I-
17 Freeway. The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to recordation.

32. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall
33. conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

33. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase I
34. data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall
conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

34. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
35. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

35. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
36. 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.

36. Prior to the construction of any residences, all existing wells within the
37. development shall be capped and abandoned, as required by the Arizona
Department of Water Resources (ADWR).

37. ALL STREET, SITE AND BUILDING LIGHTING SHALL BE DARK SKY
38. COMPLIANT, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT



Page 144
DEPARTMENT AND THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. The
development shall petition the Street Transportation Department to eliminate the
requirement for street light infrastructure for the development where possible in
an effort to protect dark skies.

39. Primary construction access shall be from Circle Mountain Road, or the frontage
road, and ancillary construction activity and access may occur on Jenny Lin
Road during parts of Project Ill, as approved by the City of Phoenix Planning and
Development Department.

40. The developer shall promptly repair any roadway damage that may occur on
Jenny Lin Road during construction.

41. The developer shall include disclosure language in future leases requiring all
residents of Project Ill to acknowledge that a portion of Jenny Lin Road is private
property, and no trespass is permitted.

Phase 1 (R-3 Zoned Area)

42. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped May 4, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

43. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the following elements, as
modified by these stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Spanish Colonial architectural style.

b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions.

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage doors.

d. Covered front porches.

e. Window and door treatment.

f. Decorative doors.

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels and
terracotta gable vent tubes.

44. Phase 1 of the development shall be limited to a maximum of 288 dwelling units.

Phase 2 (R-2 Zoned Area)

45. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped NOVEMBER 17, 2023 April 13, 2023, as modified by these stipulations



Page 145
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

46. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 August 29, 2022, with specific regard to the
following elements, as modified by these stipulations and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Variety of architectural styles.

b. Windows and glass doors with muntins and mullions.

c. Decorative lighting fixtures at building entrances/exits and by garage doors.

d. Covered front porches and covered rear patios.

e. Garage, window and door treatment.

f. Decorative doors.

g. Architectural embellishments including, but not limited to, corbels,
terracotta gable vent tubes, and window shutters.

h. Gable end treatment with varied materials and colors.

i. Breaking of massing and with varied materials and colors.

47. Phase 2 of tThe development shall be limited to a maximum of 239 172 lots.

Phase 3 (R-3A Zoned Area)

48. Conceptual site plans and elevations for Phase 3 shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process for
stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval with specific regard
to the inclusion of the below elements. This is a legislative review for conceptual
purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements will be
determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development
Department.

a. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as, but not limited to, textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses,
window fenestration, shadowboxes, and canopies.

b. Building and wall colors shall be muted and blend with, rather than
contrast, with the surrounding desert environment. Accent colors may be
appropriate but used judiciously and with restraint.

c. An architectural theme shall convey a sense of continuity through all
phases.




Page 146
49. A minimum of 10% of surface parking lot areas, exclusive of perimeter
landscape setbacks, shall be landscaped. The surface parking lot areas shall be
landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees and shall be dispersed throughout the parking area to achieve a minimum
25% shade at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.



SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-7140 this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-7140 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 January,

2024.




________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:



Page 147
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (1 Page)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 148
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-23--Z-8-22-1


The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:

A PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST, GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;

COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3, BEING
MARKED BY A GLO BRASS CAP WITH SECTIONAL MARKINGS FROM WHICH
POINT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3, BEING MARKED BY A
GLO BRASS CAP WITH SECTIONAL MARKINGS BEARS AS A BASIS OF
BEARING, NORTH 00 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 38 SECONDS EAST, 2654.67 FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 3, NORTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST, 2648.37 FEET
TO THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION;

THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 126.94 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 08
MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, 1,787.69 FEET;

THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE, NORTH 89 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 10
SECONDS WEST, 1,089.67 FEET TO A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO
THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25,028.70 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH
BEARS SOUTH 88 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST;

THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
01 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 28 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 753.33 FEET
TO A NON-TANGENT LINE;

THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, 375.39 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST, 192.16 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 04 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 15 SECONDS EAST, 178.98 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST, 194.03 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 75 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 39 SECONDS EAST, 61.55 FEET;




Page 149
THENCE NORTH 80 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST, 97.92 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 56 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, 144.15 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 70 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST, 177.82 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 70 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST, 8.62 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 81 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST, 57.44 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 59 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST, 136.89 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 67 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST, 88.16 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 85 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST, 108.48 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PORTION OF LAND CONTAINING 1,705,522 SQUARE FEET, OR 39.1534
ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS,
RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAYS OF RECORD OR OTHERWISE.

THIS DESCRIPTION SHOWN HEREON IS NOT TO BE USED TO VIOLATE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE STATE, COUNTY AND/OR MUNICIPALITY,
OR ANY OTHER LAND DIVISION RESTRICTIONS.




Page 150
Page 151



Report

***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
OCT. 4, NOV. 1, DEC. 6, 2023 AND JAN. 3, 2024) - Amend City Code - Ordinance
Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-27-23-1 - Southwest Corner of 19th Avenue
and Quail Avenue (Ordinance G-7172)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
IND. PK. DVAO (Industrial Park, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District) to C-3 DVAO
(General Commercial, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District) to allow electric vehicle
sales and repair.

Summary
Current Zoning: IND. PK. DVAO
Proposed Zoning: C-3 DVAO
Acreage: 7.91 acres
Proposal: Electric vehicle sales and repair.

Owner/Applicant: Aztec 19th Ave., LLC
Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug. 10,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with deleted
stipulations, by a vote of 11-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Sept. 7, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 6-0.

Location
Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Quail Avenue
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 21030 and 21040 N. 19th Ave. and 1929 W. Quail Ave.

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

Page 152
EXHIBIT A
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 ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-27-23-1) FROM IND. PK. DVAO (INDUSTRIAL
PARK, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO C-3
DVAO (GENERAL COMMERCIAL, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT
OVERLAY DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 7.91-acre property located at the southwest

corner of 19th Avenue and Quail Avenue in a portion of Section 24, Township 4 North,

Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from

“IND.PK. DVAO” (Industrial Park, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District) to “C-3 DVAO”

(General Commercial, Deer Valley Airport Overlay 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 153
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped May 4, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations and approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

2. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle
(EV) Installed infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. All nonresidential uses over 5,000 square feet floor area shall provide one
bicycle parking space per 25 vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 25
spaces. Bicycle parking shall be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic
racks located near the front office and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

5. Existing streetscape beginning at back of curb shall be replenished with the
approved landscaping and ground cover along 19th Avenue and Quail Avenue,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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
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.




Page 154
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 4th day of October,

2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 155
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-27-23-1


Within a portion of Section 24, Township 4 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described
as follows:

PARCEL 1:
LOT 31, AZTEC BUSINESS PARK, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN BOOK 310 OF
MAPS, PAGE 48 AND CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION RECORDED IN
RECORDING NO. 87-384338 THROUGH 87-384341, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.

EXCEPT THE WEST 229 FEET.

PARCEL 2:

LOT 32, AZTEC BUSINESS PARK, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN BOOK 310 OF
MAPS, PAGE 48 AND CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION RECORDED IN
RECORDING NO. 87-384338 THROUGH 87-384341, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.




Page 156
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



To: Alan Stephenson Date: October 31, 2023
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua Bednare��
Planning and DevJ/opment Director

Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 70 ON THE NOVEMBER 1, 2023, FORMAL AGENDA­
Z-27-23-1 - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AVENUE AND QUAIL AVENUE
(ORDINANCE G-7172)

Item 70, rezoning application Z-27-23-1 is a request to rezone 7.91 acres located at the
southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Quail Avenue from IND.PK. DVAO (Industrial Park,
Deer Valley Airport Overlay District)) to C-3 DVAO (General Commercial, Deer Valley Airport
Overlay District) to allow electric vehicle sales and repairs.

Staff has received correspondence from the applicant requesting a continuance to address
concerns by adjacent property owners.

Staff recommends continuing this item to the December 6, 2023, City Council Formal
meeting.




Approved: �--
fiJanstephenso
Deputy City Manager




Attachment:
Exhibit A - Applicant's request for continuance




Page 160
Page 161
Page 162
Page 163
Page 164
Page 165



Report

Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Planning Hearing Officer Application
PHO-1-23--Z-SP-5-21-7 - Approximately 100 Feet West of the Northwest Corner of
59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road (Ordinance G-7220)

Request to hold a public hearing and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to
consider the Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Nov. 15, 2023.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-23--Z-SP-5-21-7
Existing Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 11.83

Owner: Aamerco Real Estate Company
Applicant/Representative: EPS Group, Inc.

Proposal:
1. Modification to Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with building elevations
date stamped Nov. 16, 2021.
2. Deletion of Stipulation 5 regarding perimeter walls.
3. Modification to Stipulation 6 regarding parking lot landscaping.
4. Deletion of Stipulation 7.a regarding shading of pedestrian walkways.
5. Deletion of Stipulation 8.a regarding location of pedestrian thoroughfares.
6. Modification to Stipulation 9.b regarding the location of a bicycle repair station.
7. Modification to Stipulation 12 regarding location of sidewalks along Lower Buckeye
Road.

VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear the
request on Oct. 17, 2023, but did not have a quorum.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard the request on Nov. 15, 2023, and
recommended approval, with a modification.

Location
Approximately 100 feet west of the northwest corner of 59th Avenue and Lower
Buckeye Road


Page 166

Council District: 7
Parcel Address: N/A

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




Page 167
Attachment A
Ordinance – PHO-1-23—Z-SP-5-21-7

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-SP-5-21-7 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-6935.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately

100 feet west of the northwest corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road in a

portion of Section 18, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more

specifically in Attachment “A”, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

1. The self-service storage warehouse portion of the development shall be in
general conformance with the building elevations date stamped SEPTEMBER
8, 2023 November 16, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Other building
elevations shall be developed with a common architectural theme to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department:

a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials
and textural changes that exhibit quality and durability to provide a
decorative and aesthetic treatment.

b. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, and/or overhang canopies.


Page 168
c. A minimum of two building materials listed in the Estrella Village Core Plan
shall be utilized in all building elevations.

2. The development shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program landscape palette and landscaping standards along
arterial streets in the Estrella Village, except as noted herein, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

3. Project entry drives along Lower Buckeye Road shall incorporate enhanced
landscaping on both sides planted with a variety of at least three plant
materials. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 125-square feet, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. Project entry drives along Lower Buckeye Road shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or similar alternative material,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. Where perimeter walls are adjacent to the Loop 202 freeway drainage channel,
these shall be limited to open view wrought iron fencing or similar material, or a
combination of 4-feet solid masonry topped by wrought iron open view fencing
or similar material, unless required otherwise by the Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. All uncovered CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE surface parking lot areas shall be
6. landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper size large canopy drought tolerant
shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and
achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning and
Development Department.

6. The following pedestrian shade standards shall be met as described below and
7. as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:

a. Pedestrian walkways connecting the commercial buildings to adjacent
public sidewalks shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using large
canopy drought tolerant shade trees at maturity and/or architectural shade.

b. The bus stop along Lower Buckeye Road shall be shaded to a minimum of
50 percent.

7. A system of pedestrian thoroughfares shall be provided as described below and
8. as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:

a. Connections to/between via the most direct route:

(1) All building entrances.

(2) Adjacent public sidewalks.




Page 169
(3) The bus stop along Lower Buckeye Road.

b. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicu!ar path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts with parking and drive aisle
surfaces. Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.

8. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure, as described below
9. and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near the building entrance of each
enclosed commercial building and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of
Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle
Master Plan.

b. One bicycle repair station ("fix it station") shall be provided and maintained
within close proximity to Lower Buckeye Road or the C Store building as
depicted in the site plan date stamped SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 July 12,
2021. The bicycle repair station ("fix it station") shall be provided in an area
of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where
applicable. The repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed to
the station; a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the
ground; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin
freely while making adjustments to the bike.

9. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE)
10. along the north side of Lower Buckeye Road and construct a minimum 10-foot
wide multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement, in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail indicated in Section 429 and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where conflicts or restrictions exist, the
developer shall work with the Site Planning section on an alternate design
through the technical appeal process.

10 The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct one bus stop pad along
11. westbound Lower Buckeye Road west of 59th Avenue. The bus stop pad shall
be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a
minimum depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the
intersection according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.

11 All sidewalks along Lower Buckeye Road shall be ATTACHED AND A
12. MINIMUM OF 5 FEET IN WIDTH detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section
of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as
approved by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and/or the
Planning and Development Department.




Page 170
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees to provide a minimum.7.5 percent shade.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum height of 24 inches
and achieve 75 percent live coverage.

c. The landscape palette and planting standards, unless otherwise provided
herein, shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street Landscaping
Program requirements for arterial streets.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

12 All sidewalks along 59th Avenue shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width and
13. detached with a minimum 10-foot wide landscape area located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and/or the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees to provide a minimum 75 percent shade.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum height of 24 inches
and achieve 75 percent live coverage.

c. The landscape palette and planting standards, unless otherwise provided
herein, shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street Landscaping
Program requirements for arterial streets.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

13 All proposed driveways along Lower Buckeye Road shall require the approval
14. of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Planning and
Development Department.

14 The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
15. 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.

15 If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall
16. conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.




Page 171
16 If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase
17. I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall
conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

17 In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
18. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

18 Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
19. 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 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6935 this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6935 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 January,

2024.




________________________________
MAYOR




Page 172
ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (2 Pages)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 173
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-23--Z-SP-5-21-7

THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (E½SE¼) OF SECTION 18,
TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, LYING BETWEEN THE EXISTING WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 59TH AVENUE
AND THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:

LINE DESCRIPTION:

COMMENCING AT A 2005 3 INCH MARICOPA COUNTY BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE "LS 31610"
MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 18, BEING SOUTH 00°04'18" EAST
2637.50 FEET FROM A 2 INCH 2005 MARICOPA COUNTY ALUMINUM CAP IN HANDHOLE "LS
31610" MARKING THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 18;

THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 18, NORTH 00°04'18" WEST 33.81 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE SOUTH 89°55'42" WEST 33.00 FEET TO THE JUNCTURE OF THE EXISTING NORTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD WITH THE EXISTING WESTERLY RIGHT OF
WAY LINE OF 59TH AVENUE;

THENCE ALONG SAID EXISTING NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD
NORTH 88°40'28" WEST 100.03 FEET;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH
00°04'18" WEST 33.51 FEET;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH
88°40'28" WEST 103.90 FEET;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH
76°00'25" WEST 118.56 FEET;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH
88°40'28" WEST 169.49 FEET TO THE EXISTING EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE
ROUTE 202L (SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY);

THENCE ALONG SAID EXISTING EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROUTE 202L NORTH
16°00'43" EAST 399.68 FEET;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH
17°01'23" EAST 500.10 FEET;

THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH
17°16'47" EAST 399.69 FEET;




Page 174
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EXISTING EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE NORTH
17°44'31" EAST 292.19 FEET TO THE EXISTING WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID 59TH
AVENUE;

THENCE NORTH 89°55'42" EAST 55.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF ENDING ON SAID EAST LINE
OF SECTION 18, BEING SOUTH 00°04'18" EAST 1010.54 FEET FROM SAID EAST QUARTER
CORNER OF SECTION 18.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE SOUTH 83.00 FEET OF THE EAST 83.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER (SE¼) OF SAID SECTION 18;

ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE¼) OF SAID
SECTION 18 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT A 2005 3 INCH MARICOPA COUNTY BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE STAMPED
"LS 31610" MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 18, FROM WHICH A 3
INCH CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE MARKING THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 18 BEARS NORTH 88°40'28" WEST 2693.67 FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18,
NORTH 88°40'28" WEST 83.02 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 00°04'18" WEST 33.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ON THE NORTH
LINE OF THE SOUTH 33 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18;

THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 33 FEET NORTH 88°40'28" WEST 50.01
FEET;

THENCE NORTH 00°04'18" WEST 150.04 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 88°40'28" EAST 100.03 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 00°04'18" EAST 100.03 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 83 FEET OF
SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER;

THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 83 FEET, NORTH 88°40'28" WEST 50.01
FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 83 FEET OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER;

THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 00°04'18" EAST 50.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.

AND EXCEPT ALL MINERALS, COAL, CARBONS, HYDROCARBONS, OIL, GAS, CHEMICAL
ELEMENTS AND COMPOUNDS, WHETHER IN SOLID, LIQUID OR GASEOUS FORM, AND ALL
STEAM AND OTHER FORMS OF THERMAL ENERGY ON, IN OR UNDER SAID LAND AS
RESERVED IN DEED RECORDED IN 2001-1105056, OFFICIAL RECORDS.




Page 175
Page 176
Attachment B




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
PHO-1-23--Z-SP-5-21-7

Date of VPC Meeting October 17, 2023
Date of Planning Hearing November 15, 2023
Officer Hearing
Request 1) Modify Stipulation Nos. 1, 6, 9.b, and 12
regarding general conformance to the building
elevations, parking lot landscaping, location of
the bicycle repair station, and location of
sidewalks on Lower Buckeye Road
2) Deletion of Stipulation Nos. 5, 7.a, and 8.a
regarding perimeter walls, pedestrian walkways,
and pedestrian thoroughfares
Location Approximately 100 feet west of the northwest corner of
59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.

Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 177
Attachment C

*REVISED

REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Mr. Byron Easton, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Teresa Garcia, Planner I, Assisting

November 15, 2023
ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO. 7
SUBJECT:

Application #: PHO-1-23--Z-SP-5-21-7
Location: Approximately 100 feet west of the northwest corner of 59th
Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road
Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 11.83
Request: 1) Modification to Stipulation 1 regarding general
conformance with building elevations date stamped
November 16, 2021.
2) Deletion of Stipulation 5 regarding perimeter walls.
3) Modification to Stipulation 6 regarding parking lot
landscaping.
4) Deletion of Stipulation 7.a regarding shading of
pedestrian walkways.
5) Deletion of Stipulation 8.a regarding location of
pedestrian thoroughfares.
6) Modification to Stipulation 9.b regarding the location of a
bicycle repair station.
7) Modification to Stipulation 12 regarding location of
sidewalks along Lower Buckeye Road.
Applicant: EPS Group, Inc.
Owner: Aamerco Real Estate Company
Representative: EPS Group, Inc.

ACTIONS:

Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer
recommended approval with a modification.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Estrella Village
Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this request on October 17, 2023,
but did not have a quorum.

DISCUSSION:

David Hughes, representative of EPS Group, Inc, gave an overview of the site
and the modifications that were requested. He stated the existing conditions on




Page 178
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 15, 2023
Application PHO-1-23—SP-5-21-7
Page 2



the site, including an existing ADOT chain link fence along the western property
line. He gave an overview of the VPC hearing, indicating there was no quorum,
but had a meeting with the VPC chair, Lisa Perez, to answer some questions she
had about the site.

Parul Butala, representative of U-Haul, stated her support for the project and was
available to answer questions regarding U-Haul’s operation.

Mr. Easton asked Mr. Hughes if he was aware of any sound wall requirements
from ADOT.

Mr. Hughes stated he is not aware of any requirements.

Mr. Easton asked if Mr. Hughes reached out to ADOT regarding the project.

Mr. Hughes stated he did reach out to ADOT and is preparing a traffic study and
the site plan for their review. He stated he discussed it with Teresa Garcia,
Planning Hearing Officer Assistant, and mentioned the materials will be provided
with the site plan application.

Mr. Easton asked if the proposed site plan meets the City of Phoenix’s current
landscape requirements.

Mr. Hughes stated the landscape on the plan was used for presentation and
would need to double check the landscaping requirements.

Mr. Easton stated there was no public correspondence for this case. He stated
there was no recommendations from the Estrella VPC due to no quorum at the
VPC hearing. He recommended approval with a modification to Stipulation 1,
modifying the general conformance date to September 8, 2023 for the new
proposed elevations. He recommended approval to Stipulations 5 and 6,
indicating that the applicant is offering to add additional landscaping to the site.
He stated modification requests to Stipulations 7.a and 8.a were withdrawn. He
recommended approval to Stipulation 9.b, indicating the applicant is going to
keep the bicycle repair station and is updating the site plan date. He
recommended approval to Stipulation 12 as written. He stated a Prop 207 waiver
was received and no additional stipulations were added.

FINDINGS:

1) The request to modify Stipulation 1 is approved with a modification. The
purpose of the original rezoning was to allow the development of
commercial self-service storage warehouse buildings on the Site. The
proposal is offering the same use and intensity on the same portion of the




Page 179
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 15, 2023
Application PHO-1-23—SP-5-21-7
Page 3



property and therefore only needs the revised elevations for the new
development to be referenced in the general conformance Stipulation.

2) The request for the deletion of Stipulation 5 is approved. The applicant
indicated that there is an existing view fence provided by ADOT adjacent
to the Loop 202 freeway drainage channel. The applicant also stated that
they will provide additional landscaping along that frontage and provided a
landscape plan showing the added buffering in lieu of additional perimeter
walls.

3) The request to modify Stipulation 6 regarding parking lot landscaping is
recommended to be approved. The Stipulation has been modified to
specify which parking areas are to be landscaped with 2-inch caliper
shade trees, excluding areas that will only be used for moving van
storage. The overall goal to achieve 25 percent of parking area shade at
maturity, will still be achieved.

4) The request for modification of Stipulation 7.a is withdrawn.

5) The request for deletion of Stipulation 8.a is withdrawn.

6) The request to modify Stipulation 9.b is approved. The Stipulation is being
updated to match the revised site plan for the new development (different
developer).

7) The request to modify Stipulation 12 is approved. Due to Lower Buckeye
Road right-of-way being under the jurisdiction of ADOT, the ultimate
design of the sidewalk and landscaping in ADOT right-of-way is solely at
their discretion. In addition, existing SRP facilities in the right-of-way would
prohibit/severely limit planting in a landscape buffer on top of those
facilities. Typically, the City of Phoenix would require the facilities to be
moved out of the right-of-way and onto private property but are unable to,
in this situation, as it’s not under the City’s jurisdiction.

STIPULATIONS:

1. The self-service storage warehouse portion of the development shall be in
general conformance with the building elevations date stamped
SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 November 16, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Other building elevations shall be developed with a common architectural
theme to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:




Page 180
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 15, 2023
Application PHO-1-23—SP-5-21-7
Page 4



a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent
materials and textural changes that exhibit quality and durability to
provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment.

b. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, and/or overhang canopies.

c. A minimum of two building materials listed in the Estrella Village Core
Plan shall be utilized in all building elevations.

2. The development shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program landscape palette and landscaping standards along
arterial streets in the Estrella Village, except as noted herein, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

3. Project entry drives along Lower Buckeye Road shall incorporate
enhanced landscaping on both sides planted with a variety of at least
three plant materials. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 125-
square feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. Project entry drives along Lower Buckeye Road shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. Where perimeter walls are adjacent to the Loop 202 freeway drainage
channel, these shall be limited to open view wrought iron fencing or similar
material, or a combination of 4-feet solid masonry topped by wrought iron
open view fencing or similar material, unless required otherwise by the
Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. All uncovered CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE surface parking lot areas
6. shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper size large canopy
drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout
the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved
by Planning and Development Department.

6. The following pedestrian shade standards shall be met as described below
7. and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department:

a. Pedestrian walkways connecting the commercial buildings to adjacent
public sidewalks shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using




Page 181
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 15, 2023
Application PHO-1-23—SP-5-21-7
Page 5



large canopy drought tolerant shade trees at maturity and/or
architectural shade.

b. The bus stop along Lower Buckeye Road shall be shaded to a
minimum of 50 percent.

7. A system of pedestrian thoroughfares shall be provided as described
8. below and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department:

a. Connections to/between via the most direct route:

(1) All building entrances.

(2) Adjacent public sidewalks.

(3) The bus stop along Lower Buckeye Road.

b. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall
be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or
other pavement treatments that visually contrasts with parking and
drive aisle surfaces. Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.

8. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure, as described
9. below and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near the building entrance of
each enclosed commercial building and installed per the requirements
of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere
to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

b. One bicycle repair station ("fix it station") shall be provided and
maintained within close proximity to Lower Buckeye Road or the C
Store building as depicted in the site plan date stamped SEPTEMBER
8, 2023 July 12, 2021. The bicycle repair station ("fix it station") shall
be provided in an area of high visibility and separated from vehicular
maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair station shall include:
standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump
affixed to the base of the station or the ground; and a bicycle repair
stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making
adjustments to the bike.




Page 182
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 15, 2023
Application PHO-1-23—SP-5-21-7
Page 6




9. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement
10. (MUTE) along the north side of Lower Buckeye Road and construct a
minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement, in
accordance with the MAG supplemental detail indicated in Section 429
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where
conflicts or restrictions exist, the developer shall work with the Site
Planning section on an alternate design through the technical appeal
process.

10 The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct one bus stop pad
11. along westbound Lower Buckeye Road west of 59th Avenue. The bus stop
pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail
P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced
from the intersection according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.

11 All sidewalks along Lower Buckeye Road shall be ATTACHED AND A
12. MINIMUM OF 5 FEET IN WIDTH detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross
Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Arizona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) and/or the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant
shade trees to provide a minimum.7.5 percent shade.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.

c. The landscape palette and planting standards, unless otherwise
provided herein, shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program requirements for arterial streets.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

12 All sidewalks along 59th Avenue shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width and
13. detached with a minimum 10-foot wide landscape area located between
the sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as
approved by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and/or the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant




Page 183
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 15, 2023
Application PHO-1-23—SP-5-21-7
Page 7



shade trees to provide a minimum 75 percent shade.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.

c. The landscape palette and planting standards, unless otherwise
provided herein, shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program requirements for arterial streets.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

13 All proposed driveways along Lower Buckeye Road shall require the
14. approval of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the
Planning and Development Department.

14 The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
15. 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.

15 If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant
16. shall conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey
report of the development area for review and approval by the City
Archeologist prior to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or
grading approval.

16 If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from
17. Phase I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary,
the applicant shall conduct Phase II archeological data recovery
excavations.

17 In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction,
18. the developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within
a 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time
for the Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

18 Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
19. 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.




Page 184
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 15, 2023
Application PHO-1-23—SP-5-21-7
Page 8




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. To request a reasonable accommodation, please contact Teleia Galaviz
at teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov or (602) 291-2559 or TTY: 7-1-1.




Page 185



Report

***ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
SEPT. 6 AND NOV. 1, 2023) - Public Hearing - Amend City Code - Ordinance
Adoption - Parking Reductions for Multifamily Developments - Z-TA-8-23-Y
(Ordinance G-7161)

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y and to
request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable housing,
passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and revise parking space,
unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate
Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements) and
Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13,
Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily,
single-family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for passenger
loading zones.

Summary
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily developments. Related definitions have been revised and/or deleted, with
new definitions provided as necessary; “passenger loading space” and “passenger
loading zone” has been added for use with the Walkable Urban code, together with
proposed development standards; and parking requirements have been reduced for
multifamily developments as detailed in the Staff Report (Attachment B).

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report (Attachment B).
VPC Info: Eleven of the 15 Village Planning Committees (VPCs) heard this item for
information only throughout June, as reflected in Attachments C and D.
VPC Action: Fourteen VPCs considered the request. Four VPCs recommended
approval, per the staff recommendation; two VPCs recommended approval, per the
staff recommendation, with modifications; and nine VPCs recommended denial, as
reflected in Attachments C and E.


Page 186

PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 1, 2023, for information
only (Attachment F).
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation (in the Staff Report) with
modifications, by a vote of 6-2, as reflected in Attachment G.

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




Page 187
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT




To: Alan Stephenson Date: January 10, 2024
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua Bednarek
Planning and Development Director

Subject: ITEM 59 ON THE JANUARY 24, 2024, FORMAL AGENDA -PUBLIC HEARING -
AMEND CITY CODE -ORDINANCE ADOPTION -PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS -Z-TA-8-23-Y (ORDINANCE G-7161)

Item 59, Z-TA-8-23-Y is a request to amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone,
special needs populations, and revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6,
Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter
7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements) and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking
Requirements); and amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the
parking requirements for multifamily, single-family attached, and affordable housing,
and add requirements for passenger loading zones.

The Village Planning Committees considered the request throughout July and August.
Four VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; two VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with modifications; and nine
VPCs recommended denial.

The Planning Commission heard this item on August 3, 2023, and recommended
approval, per the staff recommendation (in the Staff Report) with modifications, by a
vote of 6-2.

Staff provided an overview of the text amendment to the City Council Transportation
Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee on October 18, 2023. Staff also provided
the Subcommittee a summary of the feedback and recommendations received during the
public review process. In response to the feedback and recommendations staff presented
several changes to the text amendment language for the Subcommittee's consideration.
Changes included modifications to the proposed parking standards for multi-family
development citywide, an adjustment to the parking standard for properties with Walkable
Urban Code zoning and the introduction of new reduction provisions for projects serving
special needs populations.

The City Council Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee heard this
item on October 18, 2023, and recommended approval, per staff's modified
recommendation (in the Staff Report Addendum A), by a vote of 3-1.



Page 188
Page 189
Exhibit A




ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
December 22, 2023


Application No Z-TA-8-23-Y: Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone,
special needs populations and revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6,
Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter
7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements) and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking
Requirements); and amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the
parking requirements for multifamily, single-family attached, and affordable housing,
and add requirements for passenger loading zones.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y as shown in the
recommended text in Attachment A.

Background: The attached language and changes reflect input and review of
suggested language from the public hearing process. Staff have proposed revisions
based upon further direction from the Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning City
Council Subcommittee, the Planning Commission recommendation and other concerns
expressed at the Village Planning Committee meetings. Below is a summary of the
proposed revisions to the text amendment which are denoted as BOLD/UNDERLINED
text in Exhibit A dated December 22, 2023.

Proposed Changes
Following the VPC meetings and the Planning Commission recommendation, staff
proposes that the following changes be made to the proposed language for Z-TA-8-23-
Y, as follows:

A. Revise Section 202 to add a definition of “Special Needs Populations”, based
upon the existing criteria stated in Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading):

SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS: PERSONS OR HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL
NEEDS, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DISABLED AND ELDERLY, AS
DETERMINED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.

B. Revise Section 608.J to remove the proposal to provide a parking reduction for
Affordable Housing:



Page 190
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


3. PARKING REDUCTION.

A. FOR EACH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, THE REQUIRED
PARKING CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%.

B. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING
REDUCTION AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.

3. 4. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.

Revise Section 702.C to revise the proposed City-wide multi-family parking requirement
from 1.25 spaces/dwelling to 1.5 spaces/dwelling.

Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


***




Page 191
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


Dwelling Unit, Multi- Total required parking
Family
1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom
unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of
less than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms

When the required parking is reserved for residents, additional
unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3 spaces for each
efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1 or 2 bedroom unit and 1.0
space per each 3 or more bedroom unit.

Exception for unreserved parking: where minimum 18-foot driveways
are provided for individual units, .25 space per each unit.

Unreserved parking shall be distributed throughout the site.

Note: Any unreserved parking spaces required by this section may be
counted toward the total required parking count.

1.25 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT

A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
MUST REMAIN UNRESERVED.

1.5 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT

A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
MUST BE PROVIDED AS UNRESERVED SPACES.




C. Revise Section 702.D.3 to remove the proposed subsection f, regarding a
parking reduction for affordable housing, which was not recommended for
approval by Planning Commission:

f. INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 608.J)




Page 192
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


D. Revise Section 702.D.6 to revise the existing Special Needs Populations parking
reductions to introduce a new administrative approval and parking study
requirement:

6. Special needs populations. The Zoning Administrator or Board of
Adjustment may grant a use permit in accordance with the standards
and procedures of Section 307 to reduce the otherwise applicable
parking requirements for housing which serves households with
special needs, such as but not limited to the disabled and elderly,
when it can be shown there is less demand for parking or alternative
sources of transportation are available.

6. REDUCTIONS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS. FOR PERSONS
OR HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, THE REQUIRED PARKING
CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY UP TO 50% UPON APPROVAL
OF A PARKING DEMAND STUDY DEMONSTRATING THAT THE
NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED AT THE ANTICIPATED PEAK HOUR
CAN BE PARKED FULLY ON THE SITE.

a. THE PARKING DEMAND STUDY SHALL BE SEALED BY A
REGISTERED TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND SUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW
AND APPROVAL.

b. ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS LARGER THAN 50% MAY BE
GRANTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT PER SECTION 307.
THE PARKING DEMAND STUDY OUTLINED IN 706.E.6.a SHALL
BE SUBMITTED CONCURRENT WITH THE USE PERMIT
APPLICATION.

c. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING
REDUCTION AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.

E. Revise Section Table 1307.1 to increase the parking requirement for market-rate
multi-family developments zoned WU Code to respond to the Planning
Commission recommendation and to reconcile the existing WU Code Affordable
Housing parking requirements:




Page 193
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

***

0.5 0.65 0.75
A MINIMUM OF 30 50% OF THE
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY (2) PER UNIT N/A
REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.

***

Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PER UNIT 0.75 NONE REQUIRED




Page 194
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Parking Reductions for Multifamily and Affordable Housing

Proposed Language:

Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable
housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, special needs
populations and revise parking space, unreserved, as follows:

***
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.
***
Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.

FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.
***
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF OF
VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR DURING
DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE AREAS FOR
COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-TERM.




Page 195
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED IN
TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.
***
SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS: PERSONS OR HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL
NEEDS, SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DISABLED AND ELDERLY, AS
DETERMINED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
***

Section 608. Residence Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income
Housing) to read as follows:

J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.

1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.

2. Density bonus.

a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.

b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.

3. PARKING REDUCTION.



Page 196
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023



A. FOR EACH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, THE REQUIRED
PARKING CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%.

B. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING
REDUCTION AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.

3. 4. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.
***


Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.C (Parking Requirements) to read as follows:

C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


***




Page 197
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


Dwelling Unit, Multi- Total required parking
Family
1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom
unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of
less than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms

When the required parking is reserved for residents, additional
unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3 spaces for each
efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1 or 2 bedroom unit and 1.0
space per each 3 or more bedroom unit.

Exception for unreserved parking: where minimum 18-foot driveways
are provided for individual units, .25 space per each unit.

Unreserved parking shall be distributed throughout the site.

Note: Any unreserved parking spaces required by this section may be
counted toward the total required parking count.

1.25 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT

A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
MUST REMAIN UNRESERVED.

1.5 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT

A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
MUST BE PROVIDED AS UNRESERVED SPACES.




Page 198
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


Dwelling Unit, Single- 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom unit
Family Attached and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of less
than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER THE SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION PER SECTIONS 614-618.

2 SPACES PER UNIT IF NOT DEVELOPING UNDER THE SFI
OPTION. THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT
MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT. AN ADDITIONAL 0.25
UNRESERVED SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST PER
PROVIDED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOR
VISITOR PARKING.

***

Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements) to read as
follows:

***
E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.

***
3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:

a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)

b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)

***
f. INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 608.J)
***
6. Special needs populations. The Zoning Administrator or Board of
Adjustment may grant a use permit in accordance with the standards



Page 199
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


and procedures of Section 307 to reduce the otherwise applicable
parking requirements for housing which serves households with
special needs, such as but not limited to the disabled and elderly,
when it can be shown there is less demand for parking or alternative
sources of transportation are available.

6. REDUCTIONS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS. FOR PERSONS
OR HOUSEHOLDS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, THE REQUIRED PARKING
CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY UP TO 50% UPON APPROVAL
OF A PARKING DEMAND STUDY DEMONSTRATING THAT THE
NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED AT THE ANTICIPATED PEAK HOUR
CAN BE PARKED FULLY ON THE SITE.

a. THE PARKING DEMAND STUDY SHALL BE SEALED BY A
REGISTERED TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND SUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW
AND APPROVAL.

b. ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS LARGER THAN 50% MAY BE
GRANTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT PER SECTION 307.
THE PARKING DEMAND STUDY OUTLINED IN 706.E.6.a SHALL
BE SUBMITTED CONCURRENT WITH THE USE PERMIT
APPLICATION.

c. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING
REDUCTION AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.

***
9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:

a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.




Page 200
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.

(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.

(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.

***
c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):
***


Section 1307. Parking Standards
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking
requirements for multi-family, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and
add requirements for passenger loading zones to read as follows:

Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
***
Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.

***
B. Required Vehicular Parking.

1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:

a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.



Page 201
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023



b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.

c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.

d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking


T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

Residential, Single-Family per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
DETACHED

(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured in a
Residential: Single-Family direct line from the building, and 10% reduction of
Attached and Multifamily required parking if the development is greater than
1,320 feet from a light rail station. The minimum
required on-site vehicular parking is exclusively for the
patrons of the subject parcel.

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY
THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.; OTHERWISE
ATTACHED
PER SECTION 702.

0.5 0.65 0.75
A MINIMUM OF 30 50% OF THE
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY (2) PER UNIT N/A
REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.

***

Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5




Page 202
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PER UNIT 0.75 NONE REQUIRED

***


***
D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.

1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:

***
E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.

1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.

***
I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.

1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES

PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)

CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2



Page 203
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


HOSPITAL 3

HOTEL OR MOTEL 3

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)

ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)


(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.

(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE
SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT THE
FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF
OFFICE SPACE, PLUS 125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES (70,000 SF /
50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100 DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR
3 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.




2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.


A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.

(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.

(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.

(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.



Page 204
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023



(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.

(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.

(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.

(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.

DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE




Page 205
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.

(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.

(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.

(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.

(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.

(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.




Page 206
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.

(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:

(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).

(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.

(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.

C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.

(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.




Page 207
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-8-23-Y
December 22, 2023


(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.

(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.
***




Page 208
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-8-23-Y (Parking Reductions for Multifamily Developments)
Recommendation Summary

Modified Staff Proposal
Sections Existing Requirements Original Staff Recommendation Planning Commission Recommendation (TIP 10-18-23)

1.3 spaces per studio unit


1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom unit
Citywide 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit Maintain existing requirements 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
2 spaces per 3 + bedroom unit


1.0 space per unit of less than 600 square feet


Citywide Affordable No reductions for affordable housing 50% reduction of Citywide requirements No reductions for affordable housing No reductions for affordable housing

Same as Citywide, but can count abutting on-street (Same) 50% reduction of Citywide
Infill 50% reduction of Citywide requirements Approved per staff recommendation
parking spaces requirements

Same as Citywide, but 25% reduction if close to
Page 209 WU Code 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit Modified to 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit
transit station or 10% reduction if further away ([KLELW%

T3: 0.85 spaces per dwelling unit


WU Code Affordable T4: 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit 0 spaces per dwelling unit Maintain existing requirements Maintain existing requirements


T5-T6: 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit


Up to 50% admin reduction with parking
Parking reduction by use permit
Special Needs Populations not included n/a study; larger reductions possible with use
(public hearing)
permit (public hearing)

(Same) New requirement for sites zoned
Passenger Loading No passenger loading requirements New requirement for sites zoned WU Code only Approved per staff recommendation
WU Code only
Exhibit C

P: (608) 835-3900
F: (608) 835-3922
info@GormanUSA.com
www.GormanUSA.com
200 N Main Street
Oregon, WI 53575




January 3, 2024
To: City of Phoenix Mayor & Council Members
Re: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y
As one of Arizona’s largest producers of affordable housing, I wanted to thank you for considering
the parking text amendment for multi-family housing throughout the City of Phoenix. I understand
these types of ordinances can create concerns in the community, but I want to assure you that the
reductions proposed are standard for affordable housing communities that we develop across the
country. Gorman & Company is a national affordable housing builder with 23 completed
developments in Arizona and another 8 currently under construction. Parking counts for our new
construction projects in the City of Phoenix range between .51 to 1.22 spaces per unit and our
broader Arizona portfolio ranges from .51 to 2.14 with an overall average of .93 spaces per unit.
Our developments with higher parking ratios enforced by the local municipality typically sit 25-
40% empty, wasting precious land that could be producing more units and property taxes.
During the community hearing process for this legislation, Gorman & Company has heard the idea
that low income people deserve as much parking as anyone else. While we do not disagree with
that statement, it is not based in the reality of need and sounds like a typical NIMBY complaint
meant more for preventing affordable housing than true concern about the residents. We believe
that resources should be put into more housing units, not empty parking spaces. We have witnessed
on multiple occasions in communities across the country, when a variance process is used to
prevent affordable housing from being built with parking being the central “concern”.
Here is a quick example of the price impact of unnecessary surface parking spaces. The cost for
modestly priced land and construction of a surface parking space is approximately $8,000. If a
development of 100 units is required to build 1.5 spaces vs. our average .93 spaces per unit that
will cost $456,000 more or remove opportunities for amenity space and units for our residents.
Since affordable rents are fixed and cannot be adjusted higher when construction costs rise, that
simply forces more value engineering or fewer units/amenities. We know that with tight budgets
most of the affordable housing resources from the past two years are going away, so cost will
become even more of an issue in the coming years.
I appreciate the proposed reduction in spaces for affordable housing required in the infill area, as
well as with special needs populations, and for maintaining the ratios on Walkable Urban (WU)
code zoned properties. These are very beneficial for affordable developments, and I applaud your
efforts to make real change. If you pass this text amendment, we will continue to learn and study
the need for




ATLANTA CHICAGO DENVER MADISON MILWAUKEE PHOENIX PORTLAND

Page 210
parking in a broader context and hopefully continue further down the path of creating only the
amount of parking necessary. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,




Brian Swanton
President & CEO
Cc Alan Stephenson
Josh Bednarek
Tricia Gomes




Page 211
ATTACHMENT A

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


ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BY AMENDING
CHAPTER 2, SECTION 202 (DEFINITIONS) TO ADD DEFINITIONS
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PASSENGER LOADING SPACE,
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE, AND REVISE PARKING SPACE,
UNRESERVED; AMEND CHAPTER 6, SECTION 608.J (DENSITY
BONUS FOR LOW OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSING); AMEND
CHAPTER 7, SECTIONS 702.C (PARKING REQUIREMENTS) AND
SECTION 702.E (MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING
REQUIREMENTS); AND AMEND CHAPTER 13, SECTION 1307
(PARKING STANDARDS) TO MODIFY THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY, SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND ADD
REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES OF THE
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PARKING
STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.

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

follows:

SECTION 1: That Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is amended to read as

follows:

***

AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.

***


-1- Ordinance ________

Page 212
Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.

FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.

***

PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF OF
VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR DURING
DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE AREAS FOR
COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-TERM.

PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED IN
TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.

***

SECTION 2: That Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate

Income Housing), is amended to read as follows:


J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.




-2- Ordinance ________

Page 213
1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.

2. Density bonus.

a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.

b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.

3. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.


SECTION 3: That Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking

Requirements), is amended to read as follows:


***

E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.

***

3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:

a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)

-3- Ordinance ________

Page 214
b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)

***

9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:

a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.

(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.

(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.

(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.

***

c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):

***

SECTION 4: That Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Walkable Urban Code, Parking

Standards), is amended to read as follows:king Standards


-4- Ordinance ________

Page 215
Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.

***

B. Required Vehicular Parking.

1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:

a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.

b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.

c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.

d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking


T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

Residential, Single-Family per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
DETACHED

(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured in
Residential: Single-Family a direct line from the building, and 10% reduction of
Attached and Multifamily required parking if the development is greater than
1,320 feet from a light rail station. The minimum
required on-site vehicular parking is exclusively for
the patrons of the subject parcel.


-5- Ordinance ________

Page 216
T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.; OTHERWISE
FAMILY ATTACHED
PER SECTION 702.

0.65
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI- A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE
PER UNIT N/A
FAMILY (2) REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.

***

Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5

***

***

D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.

1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:

***

E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.

1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.

***



-6- Ordinance ________

Page 217
I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.

1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:


TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES

PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)

CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2

HOSPITAL 3

HOTEL OR MOTEL 3

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)

ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)


(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.

(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES
SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT
THE FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A
DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF OFFICE SPACE, PLUS
125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES
(70,000 SF / 50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100
DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR 3 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.

2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.




-7- Ordinance ________

Page 218
A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.

(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.

(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.

(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.

(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.

(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.

(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.

(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.




-8- Ordinance ________

Page 219
DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE




B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.

(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.

(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.




-9- Ordinance ________

Page 220
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.

(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.

(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.

(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.

(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:

(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).



-10- Ordinance ________

Page 221
(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.

(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.

C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.

(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.

(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.

(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.

***




-11- Ordinance ________

Page 222
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September, 2023



________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


____________________________City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager




-12- Ordinance ________

Page 223
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023

Application No Z-TA-8-23-Y: Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone,
and revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus
For Low or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking
Requirements) and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend
Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for
multifamily, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for
passenger loading zones.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y as shown in the
recommended text in Attachment A.

BACKGROUND
In 2020, City Council unanimously approved the Housing Phoenix Plan to create a
stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for residents at
all income levels and family sizes. The Plan’s primary goal is to create or preserve
50,000 homes by 2030, and increase overall supply of market, workforce, and
affordable housing to address the housing shortage in Phoenix. In order to implement
this goal, nine policy initiatives were identified. Policy Initiative 5 is “Building Innovations
and Cost Saving Practices”. These proposed changes would address concerns that
existing parking requirements are more than necessary, and contribute to the increasing
costs of development, and in turn, increasing housing costs.

PURPOSE
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to reduce parking requirements for multi-
family developments. Related definitions have been revised and/or deleted, with new
definitions provided as necessary; “passenger loading space” and “passenger loading
zone” has been added for use with the Walkable Urban code, together with proposed
development standards; and parking requirements have been reduced for multi-family
developments as further detailed below.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment primarily reduces parking requirement for multi-family
development, but in varying degrees based primarily upon location and/or if the housing
qualifies as “affordable” per definitions used by HUD and the City’s Housing
Department. It also introduces a requirement for multi-family developments zoned WU
Code for Passenger Loading Zones, to provide staging zones for rideshare, food
deliveries, and personal package deliveries.

Page 224
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


1. City-wide multi-family parking requirements:

The proposed text modifies the standard multi-family parking requirement to more
closely match parking demand identified for multi-family housing as published in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand is
identified at 1.21 spaces per dwelling unit, for low rise (up to 2-story) development
not located near rail transit, in a general urban/suburban area. The proposed City-
wide standard requirement is proposed to be 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit, with
30% of parking to remain unreserved (not assigned for a particular unit or person).

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 125 spaces, of which 38 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 150 spaces*, of which 50 must be unreserved.

*For 1- or 2-bedroom apartments. 1.3 required for studio and 2 spaces for 3-
bedroom, but outside of DTC these are not provided in great numbers

2. City-wide affordable housing parking reduction:

The proposed text modifies an existing provision in the zoning ordinance which
provides a density bonus for affordable housing, to add a parking reduction for
affordable housing. The reduction is proposed to be 50%, or 0.625 spaces per
dwelling unit. This is supported by the demand identified for affordable housing as
published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand is identified at 0.53
spaces per dwelling unit, for affordable (income-limited) developments in a dense
multi-use urban area.

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 63 spaces, of which 19 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 150 spaces*, of which 50 must be unreserved.

*For 1- or 2-bedroom apartments. 1.3 required for studio and 2 spaces for 3-
bedroom, but outside of DTC these are not provided in great numbers

3. Infill Development District (IDD) parking reductions:

The same reduction proposed for City-wide affordable housing is also proposed for
multi-family development within the Infill Development District (IDD). The reduction is
proposed to be 50%, or 0.625 spaces per dwelling unit. This is supported by the
demand identified for affordable housing as published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition,
2019. The demand is identified at 0.58 spaces per dwelling unit, for low-rise
developments in a dense multi-use urban area located within ½ mile of rail transit.

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 63 spaces, of which 19 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 150 spaces*, of which 50 must be unreserved.

*only reduction currently available is to be able to count adjacent on-street parking.



Page 225
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


Non-Residential Reduction
A smaller reduction of 20% is also proposed for non-residential development, since
the reduction was written in such a way to remove the existing “reduction” of
allowing on-street parking spaces to count toward parking requirements. The on-
street parking has conflicted with some proposed bike lanes. This proposed 20%
reduction should meet or exceed the typical amount of on-street parking which could
be counted toward on-site parking requirements.

4. Walkable Urban (WU) Code parking requirements:

The proposed text modifies the existing standard multi-family housing parking
requirements to more closely match parking demand identified for dense multi-family
housing as published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand is identified
at 0.71 spaces per dwelling unit, for mid-rise (3-10 story) developments in a dense
multi-use urban area, within ½ mile of rail transit. The proposed multi-family parking
requirement for development zoned WU Code is proposed to change from a 25%
reduction from City-wide standards, to 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit, with 30% of
parking to remain unreserved (not assigned for a particular unit or person).

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 50 spaces, of which 15 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 113 spaces*, of which 38 must be unreserved.

*For 1- or 2-bedroom apartments. 1.3 required for studio and 2 spaces for 3-
bedroom, but outside of DTC these are not provided in great numbers.

5. Walkable Urban (WU) Code affordable housing parking requirements:

The proposed text modifies the existing affordable multi-family housing parking
requirements to more closely match parking demand identified for dense affordable
multi-family housing as published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand
is identified at 0.53 spaces per dwelling unit, for affordable (income-limited)
developments in a dense multi-use urban area. The proposed affordable multi-family
housing parking requirement for development zoned WU Code is proposed to
change from a 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit to 0 spaces (no minimum required).

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 0 spaces.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 50 spaces, with no unreserved requirement.

6. Passenger Loading Zones within WU Code:

This text amendment also proposes a new requirement for passenger loading
spaces/zones, which are pull-out areas for short-term waiting for rideshare vehicles,
meal delivery vehicles, and package delivery vehicles (but not commercial docks or
loading areas). Such services are frequently used by persons living in denser
central urban environments to supplement transit and bicycle transportation. Such
areas should be located on-site but may be located off-street if they do not reduce
required landscaping and pedestrian amenities, and if approved by Street
Page 226
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


Transportation. The proposed rates are adapted from standards adopted by the
Town of Eloy, AZ and Chandler, AZ, with development standards provided in
accordance with federal requirements:

PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)

CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2

HOSPITAL 3

HOTEL OR MOTEL 3

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES (1)



Conclusion:
The proposed changes to parking requirements, generally to reduce parking minimums
for transit-oriented, multi-family, and affordable development, is supported by demand
studies in the ITE Parking Generation Manual. The requirement for passenger loading
zones in WU Code is to support the use of ancillary transportation services often used
by persons utilizing transit or bicycle as a primary means of transportation.

Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in
Attachment A.


Writer
C. DePerro
6/30/2023

Attachments
A. Proposed Language




Page 227
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023



EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Parking Reductions for Multifamily and Affordable Housing

Proposed Language:

Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable
housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and revise parking
space, unreserved, as follows:

***
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.
***
Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.

FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.
***
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF OF
VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR DURING
DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE AREAS FOR
COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-TERM.



Page 228
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED IN
TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.
***

Section 608. Residence Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income
Housing) to read as follows:

J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.

1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.

2. Density bonus.

a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.

b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.

3. PARKING REDUCTION.

A. FOR EACH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, THE REQUIRED
PARKING CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%.




Page 229
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


B. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING REDUCTION
AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAS
BEEN GRANTED.

3. 4. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.


Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.C (Parking Requirements) to read as follows:

C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


***




Page 230
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


Dwelling Unit, Multi- Total required parking
Family
1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom
unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of
less than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms

When the required parking is reserved for residents, additional
unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3 spaces for each
efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1 or 2 bedroom unit and 1.0
space per each 3 or more bedroom unit.

Exception for unreserved parking: where minimum 18-foot driveways
are provided for individual units, .25 space per each unit.

Unreserved parking shall be distributed throughout the site.

Note: Any unreserved parking spaces required by this section may be
counted toward the total required parking count.

1.25 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT

A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
MUST REMAIN UNRESERVED.

Dwelling Unit, Single- 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom unit
Family Attached and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of less
than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER THE SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION PER SECTIONS 614-618

2 SPACES PER UNIT IF NOT DEVELOPING UNDER THE SFI
OPTION. THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT
MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT. AN ADDITIONAL 0.25
UNRESERVED SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST PER
PROVIDED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOR
VISITOR PARKING.

***

Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements) to read as
follows:


Page 231
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


***
E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.

***
3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:

a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)

b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)

***
F. INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 608.J)

***
9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:

a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.

(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.

(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.

(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.


Page 232
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


***
c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):
***


Section 1307. Parking Standards
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking
requirements for multi-family, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and
add requirements for passenger loading zones to read as follows:

Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
***
Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.

***
B. Required Vehicular Parking.

1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:

a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.

b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.

c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.

d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking




Page 233
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

Residential, Single-Family per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
DETACHED

(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured in a
Residential: Single-Family direct line from the building, and 10% reduction of
Attached and Multifamily required parking if the development is greater than
1,320 feet from a light rail station. The minimum
required on-site vehicular parking is exclusively for the
patrons of the subject parcel.

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY
THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.; OTHERWISE
ATTACHED
PER SECTION 702.

0.5
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY (2) PER UNIT N/A
REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.

***

Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PER UNIT 0.75 NONE REQUIRED

***


***
D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.

1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:

***

Page 234
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.

1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.

***
I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.

1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES

PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)

CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2

HOSPITAL 3

HOTEL OR MOTEL 3

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)

ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)


(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.

(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE
SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT THE
FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF
OFFICE SPACE, PLUS 125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES (70,000 SF /
50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100 DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR
3 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.




2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.

Page 235
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023



A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.

(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.

(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.

(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.

(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.

(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.

(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.

(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.




Page 236
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE




B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.

(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.

(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.




Page 237
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.

(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.

(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.

(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.

(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:

(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).



Page 238
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.

(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.

C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.

(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.

(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.

(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.
***




Page 239
ATTACHMENT C
Z-TA-8-23: Parking Reductions
Village Planning Committee Summary Results

Information Only Recommendation
Village Recommendations Vote
Date Date
Paradise Valley 6/5/2023 7/10/23 No Quorum N/A
Encanto 6/5/2023 7/10/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 12-1
Laveen 6/12/2023 7/10/23 Denial 8-0
Central City 6/12/2023 7/10/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 10-4
Camelback East 6/6/2023 7/11/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 14-1
Desert View 6/6/2023 7/11/23 Denial 9-0
Rio Vista 6/13/2023 7/11/23 Denial 3-2
South Mountain 6/13/2023 7/11/23 Denial 11-0
Maryvale 6/14/2023 7/12/23 Denial 7-2-1
Deer Valley 6/8/2023 7/13/23 Denial 5-4
North Gateway 6/8/2023 7/13/23 Denial 6-0
Estrella 6/20/2023 7/18/23 Denial 8-1
Approval, per the staff recommendation
with direction that staff and the city
North Mountain 6/21/2023 7/19/23 council to explore additional methods to 12-1-1
help with the production of affordable
housing
Ahwatukee Foothills 6/26/2023 7/24/23 Denial 6-2
Alhambra 6/27/2023 7/25/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 9-6




Page 240
ATTACHMENT D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting June 5, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a
typical multifamily development with a lot of parking. Mr. Zambrano shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano displayed an
example for each type of multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would
be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement
proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for
the text amendment.

Mr. Soronson asked if there are parking reductions proposed adjacent to transit. Mr.
Zambrano responded that transit would be covered under the Infill Development District
and the Walkable Urban Code.
Chair Popovic asked what the current parking requirement is for multifamily. Mr.
Zambrano displayed the current requirement verbatim from the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

Roy Wise asked about the intent of this text amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded
that current parking requirements are resulting in overparking. Mr. Wise stated that he
believes the text amendment is trying to force more people to use transit.

Ms. Balderrama asked how the proposed parking requirement was calculated. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the Traffic Services Division conducted a study that showed
the actual parking demand is less than what the current parking requirements are. Mr.
Zambrano added that part of the intent behind the text amendment is trying to
encourage more transit use and acknowledging that not everyone may own a private
vehicle and may rely on other modes of transportation.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 241
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Ms. Sepic asked if the proposed parking ratio would apply to four-bedroom units as
well. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the previous requirement was
two parking spaces per three or more-bedroom unit.

Chair Popovic asked where the distance to a light rail station in the Walkable Urban
Code is measured from. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is measured from the lot line.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 242
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 5, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 243
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Request Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Rouse left during this item bringing quorum to eight.

Staff Presentation:

Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna noted that the proposed text amendment would allow for a reduction in
parking for multifamily and affordable multifamily citywide. Ms. Sanchez Luna
summarized other parking reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna presented examples of the
proposed parking reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by noting
the proposed hearing dates for the text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if ADA parking would still be required. Ms. Gomes confirmed.
Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked prompted this text amendment. Ms. Gomes noted that the
text amendment has been in response to legislative and affordability movements. Ms.
Gomes noted that the city analyzed affordability and that is why there were standards
for infill development, the walkable urban code, and city wide. Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted
that it would allow for more units because of the reduction in parking. Ms. Gomes noted
that residents in affordable housing have less vehicles and that more units would drive
down rental costs. Ms. Gomes noted that these would be minimum parking standards.
Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted that Phoenix doesn’t have an efficient public transportation
system to support the parking reduction. Mr. Nasser-Taylor added that existing
multifamily developments do not have enough parking. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if a
study was conducted before presenting the new parking ratios. Ms. Gomes stated that
the city utilized ITE data that focuses on traffic counts in order to create the proposal.
Ms. Perrera asked what year the data was collected. Ms. Gomes stated that that
information could be provided at a later date.

Ms. Perrera noted that the parking reduction made sense in infill development if
amenities are in a walkable distance. Ms. Perrera noted that a citywide reduction was

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 244
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 2

not feasible. Ms. Perrera added that Laveen did not have sufficient public transit. Ms.
Perrera noted that there should be a reduction in commercial parking rather than
multifamily parking. Ms. Perrera added that she had concerns on data utilized.

Ms. Rouse voiced her agreement and stated that parking would spill onto the street.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin agreed that the city doesn’t have the public transit infrastructure to
support the reduction. Ms. Rubio-Raffin noted that the City of Tempe has an efficient
public transit system. Ms. Rubio-Raffin added that the reduction could reduce the
number of cars.

Ms. Jensen stated that more public transportation infrastructure would be required
before a reduction could occur. Ms. Jensen asked how much overflow parking occurs in
walkable urban code areas. Ms. Gomes noted that the department has been working to
gather the data.

Mr. Chiarelli noted that apartments could start charging for parking which would affect
housing affordability. Mr. Chiarelli asked what would make a housing project affordable.
Mr. Chiarelli added that people that live in affordable housing still have vehicles.

Francisco Barraza noted that a reduction in vehicles per household would not be
attainable. Mr. Barraza stated that downtown development discourages parking, but
other parts of the city cannot accommodate the reduction. Mr. Barraza added that the
proposed text amendment would benefit developers rather than individuals.

Chair Abegg stated that she hasn’t seen a decrease in vehicles with less parking
availability. Chair Abegg asked if existing projects could revise their site plan to reduce
the parking. Chair Abegg asked about the outreach and noted that in-person meetings
are less accessible for the community.

Vice Chair Hurd noted that she has seen multifamily projects with excessive parking
but would discourage filling empty parking lots with more housing. Vice Chair Hurd
noted that the data utilized needed to be evaluated. Chair Abegg noted that the
reduction made sense in some overlay areas but not the entire city.

Ms. Gomes noted that staff has heard similar comments from northern villages. Ms.
Gomes noted that if the text amendment is adopted, all current developments could
utilize the parking reduction. Ms. Gomes noted that existing projects would have to be
evaluated on a case by case basis. Ms. Gomes noted that information only items for
text amendment allow the community to voice their initial concerns prior to
recommendation. Ms. Gomes added that the information is available online and
recommended the committee to promote any input. Chair Abegg noted that the in-
person meetings are not accessible to the entire community. Ms. Gomes stated that the
text amendments have been a respond to City Council requests and legislative
movements. Chair Abegg reiterated that a virtual meeting would increase community
input and accessibility. Ms. Gomes stated that not all facilities have the technical

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 245
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 3

capabilities to host hybrid meetings.

Mr. Chiarelli noted that South Mountain has not have quorum in several months. Mr.
Chiarelli added that this prevents community input. Mr. Chiarelli asked what the city has
done to ensure an active committee. Chair Abegg encouraged Committee Member
Chiarelli to contact the City Council. Ms. Gomes voiced her agreement and confirmed
that the City Council is addressing the issue.

Public Comment:

Mr. Hertel stated that ADA parking spaces will be utilized by non-ADA vehicles. Mr.
Hertel added that an efficient public transportation system is required prior to a parking
reduction. Mr. Hertel asked for the purpose behind the text amendment and if any data
was collected to support the reduction in Laveen. Mr. Hertel added that this would result
in modifications to existing approved site plans. Mr. Hertel voiced his opposition to the
text amendment.

Committee Discussion:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 246
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

Committee Member Sherman stated that the pick-up/drop-off areas should be
encouraged to be on-street to reduce the number of driveways.

Committee Member Olivas expressed concern about the proposal, citing an example
of an affordable housing development with a low parking requirement where there is an
issue with cars parking on the street.

Committee Member Dana Johnson asked for clarification regarding the on-street
parking allowance in the infill district and expressed concern about the proposal from
an equity perspective. Mr. Grande provided clarification that on-street parking would
no longer count toward parking requirements in the infill district.

Committee Member Uss stated that parking is a barrier to providing affordable
housing and that this proposal would open up more parcels for affordable housing
development.

Committee Member Martinez agreed with the example raised by Ms. Olivas, noting
that traffic situation around the development is problematic due to the reduced parking
requirements.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 247
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 2


Committee Member Gaughan stated that it is important to get families into housing
units and that providing parking makes the units more expensive.

Committee Member Martinez noted that low-income people still own cars. Ms. Uss
replied that the vehicle ownership rate is lower for low-income people.

Vice Chair O’Grady stated that it would be helpful to tour affordable developments
with minimal parking, such as the Native American Connections buildings.

Committee Member Rachel Frazier Johnson asked that staff provide examples of
affordable developments with lower parking requirements for the next meeting.

Chair Gonzales asked for clarification on how the proposal would affect the Downtown
Code. Mr. Grande clarified that it would not change any requirements of the Downtown
Code.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked about maximum parking requirements. Mr.
Grande replied that there were only parking maximums in the Downtown Code, and
this proposal would not change that.

Committee Member Olivas asked about congestion on narrow streets with street
parking. Mr. Grande replied that the Street Transportation Department reviews any on-
street parking to verify the street width is sufficient to handle the parked cars and the
flow of traffic.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 248
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 6, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing

VPC DISCUSSION:

No member of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking, the scope, requirements and adjustments for multifamily development.
Mr. Roanhorse discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal and the
comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development, Walkable
Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the changes
that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for streetscapes. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed the time frame for review for the at Villages, Planning
Commission and City Council.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE:

Ms. Schmieder asked about the text amendment as a method of clarifying information
and parking reduction is a significant change and why this being considered as a text
amendment. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the text amendment is a method that allow
the City to adjust an existing requirement. Ms. Schmieder stated that changing the
parking requirements has big implications for neighborhoods and new development. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that a text amendment is changes to
the text of the requirement.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.

STAFF RESPONSE:

None.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 249
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 250
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 6, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

Committee Member Hankins asked about the impetus behind this proposal. Mr.
Grande replied that there was interest from the city and stakeholders in reducing
barriers to providing housing.

Vice Chair Lagrave asked if the proposal makes the assumption that people residing
in affordable housing have lower vehicle usage. Mr. Grande replied that he didn’t have
any studies available on the question but will try to provide more information at the next
meeting.

Committee Member Santoro asked if there were studies done that show apartment
buildings with vacant parking spaces. Mr. Grande replied that he would follow up with
more information at the next meeting.

Chair Bowser stated that multifamily housing has different users than single-family,
which could impact the need for parking, adding that he would like to see a requirement
for proximity to transit as part of the proposal.

Committee Member Kollar stated that parking in many apartment complexes can be
very difficult and that he’d like to see studies showing the feasibility of the proposal.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 251
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 6, 2023
Page 2


Committee Member Younger asked if this amendment would only affect new
construction. Mr. Grande replied that it was for new construction.

Committee Member Israel asked about the AMI levels included in the definition of
affordable housing. Mr. Grande replied that there will be more information by the next
meeting when there is proposed text.

Committee Member Reynolds stated that low-income families may have multiple
people working and needing parking spaces, which could be an issue.

Committee Member Nowell stated that the proposal could increase demand on
commercial parking lots nearby, potentially leading to issues in the future.

Committee Member Younger asked what the purpose of the proposal was. Mr.
Grande replied that it would eliminate a barrier to providing additional housing.

Chair Bowser stated that there is a general need to reduce parking requirements
across the city because the city is generally overparked, adding that he would like to
see some studies to show the need for this specific proposal.

Committee Member Kollar stated that the 1.25 spaces per unit for multifamily housing
seems low.

Committee Member Israel asked for clarification on the proposed citywide
requirements for multifamily housing compared to proposed requirements related to
transit-oriented areas in the central part of Phoenix. Mr. Grande provided clarification.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 252
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a
typical multifamily development with a lot of parking. Mr. Zambrano shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano displayed an
example for each type of multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would
be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement
proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for
the text amendment.

Mr. Virgil stated that developers will try to fit more homes in a development by
removing parking spaces. Mr. Virgil stated that there is never enough parking for
visitors. Mr. Virgil stated that the City wants to push people out of their cars.

Mr. Sommacampagna asked about removing on-street parking in the Infill
Development District. Mr. Zambrano responded that the Street Transportation
Department has had issues with adding bike lanes in certain areas because
developments are counting the on-street parking towards their minimum required
parking spaces.

Mr. Virgil stated that the City does not want people to own cars.

Mr. Zambrano stated that part of the intent of the text amendment is trying to support
multi-modal transportation.

Chair Lawrence stated that this would be a great idea if everything was within walking
distance of the light rail.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 253
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Mr. Virgil stated that he would rather have too much parking than not enough. Mr. Virgil
asked if handicap parking would be reduced as well. Mr. Zambrano responded that
ADA parking requirements would still be the same. Mr. Virgil asked if the ideas for the
text amendments are coming from California. Mr. Zambrano responded that they are
trying to address a number of issues, including the housing shortage and affordability.

Vice Chair Perreira asked Mr. Zambrano could share his opinion on the text
amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that based on information he has heard, the
current Phoenix Zoning Ordinance parking requirement requires more parking than
what the actual market demand is for parking.

Mr. Virgil reiterated that he would rather have more parking than not enough.

Chair Lawrence stated that he would have to disagree with the parking requirement
supplying more than the actual parking demand. Chair Lawrence asked if Mr. Zambrano
has ever lived in apartment complex in Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded he has lived
in apartment complex only in Tempe. Chair Lawrence asked if there was plenty of
parking when coming home at 9:00 PM. Mr. Zambrano responded that he had a
reserved parking space. Chair Lawrence stated that when the parking ratio is 0.5
spaces per dwelling unit, there are not enough reserved spaces for each unit. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the 0.5 spaces per unit ratio is only for the Walkable Urban
Code, which is typically along the light rail corridor. Chair Lawrence stated that he is
okay with the proposal along the light rail, but that other apartment complexes he has
been to have had parking issues. Chair Lawrence added that he has never driven into
an apartment complex before that has had many empty parking spots or an empty
space nearby the unit, which is under the current parking requirements.

Mr. Virgil stated that there is an apartment complex on Union Hills Drive and 35th
Avenue where off-street parking is impossible to find in the complex and people park in
the street, noting that their parking is under the current requirements.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 254
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 13, 2023
Location Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Committee member Ashley Hare left during the previous item, thus losing quorum.




Page 255
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting June 14, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.



VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 256
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting June 8, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 257
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 8, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a
typical multifamily development with a lot of parking. Mr. Zambrano shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano displayed an
example for each type of multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would
be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement
proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for
the text amendment.

Discussion:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 258
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 20, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:

Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna noted that the proposed text amendment would allow for a reduction in
parking for multifamily and affordable multifamily citywide. Ms. Sanchez Luna summarized
other parking reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna presented examples of the proposed parking
reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by noting the proposed
hearing dates for the text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Mr. Sanou and Ms. Wallace voiced their disagreement.

Chair Perez stated that the text amendment came from movement at the legislative level.
Chair Perez voiced her disagreement on the proposed text amendment and provided an
example on 67th Avenue and Broadway Road that would be able to reduce parking with
the proposed text amendment. Chair Perez noted that all current projects could revise
their site plan to reduce the number of parking.

Angelica Terrazas voiced her disagreement and stated that the reduction in parking
would make living in the city inconvenient, negatively effecting the population.

Chair Perez stated that Estella did not have the infrastructure nor amenities to support the
reduction. Chair Perez added that the reduction could work in certain areas of the city, but
not the entire city nor Estrella.

Dan Rush stated multifamily development did not have enough parking. Chair Perez
stated that if parking is unavailable, it could allow for alternative forms of transportation.

Ms. Wallace stated that Estrella did not have the public transportation infrastructure or
street infrastructure to support the reduction. Ms. Wallace stated that the population
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 259
needed vehicles and parking spaces. Ms. Wallace reiterated her disagreement and
opposition to the text amendment. Chair Perez noted that families have numerous
vehicles that overcrowd garages and driveways. Ms. Wallace stated that parking garages
could help reduce on street parking and overcrowded driveways.

Ms. Terrazas stated that single-family residences don’t always have families that require
one vehicle. Ms. Terrazas noted that numerous people share one house, requiring
additional vehicles. Ms. Terrazas voiced her disagreement and added that the reduction
was unpractical.

Ms. Wallace noted that a reduction in parking is only feasible to certain social groups who
can afford the reduction.

Chair Perez asked staff about the input that they have received in the northern villages.
Ms. Escolar noted that they have heard similar concerns and were opposed to the text
amendment.

Ms. Terrazas asked for information regarding commercial parking reduction. Ms. Terrazas
noted that a reduction in commercial parking would also have negative effects on the
village. Ms. Escolar stated that the proposed text amendment would not reduce
commercial parking.

Public Comment:

Ms. Groff stated that the proposed text amendment does not affect the parking maximum.
Ms. Groff stated that the idea would be to allow the market demand to determine the
number of parking. Ms. Groff noted that this could lead to shared parking between
developments and parking adjusted to the market.

Committee Discussion:

Ms. Wallace stated that the reduction would allow for zero parking. Mrs. Sanchez Luna
responded that the zero required parking would only be in the Walkable Urban Code and
affordable housing projects.

Ms. Groff added that the lack of parking could reduce rental rates. Mr. Sanou disagreed.

Chair Perez noted that there could be additional revenue if there were rented parking
garages. Ms. Wallace stated that the parking garages should be free in certain areas.

Ms. Wallace voiced her opposition for the proposed text amendment.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 260
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Request Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. Klimek shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a typical
multifamily development with a lot of parking. He shared the current and proposed
parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable multifamily
development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development District,
market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and affordable
multifamily development in the WU Code. He displayed an example for each type of
multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units, and
shared what the difference in the parking requirement would be. He then discussed
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code
and concluded with the timeline for the text amendment.

COMMITTEE MEMBER QUESTIONS

Committee Members Adams, Alauria, O’Hara and Vice Chair Fogelson expressed
concern over the proposed parking reduction.

Committee Members O’Hara asked if 1.25 spaces per unit is a standard that comes
from a national study or if it focuses on cities such as Phoenix. Mr. Klimek responded
that the ITE study is national and shows 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban development
and 1.2 spaces per unit for urban development. He added that the proposal also
equates to 1 space per resident dwelling plus 0.25 guest spaces.

Committee Member Molfetta stated that the zoning district prescribes the number of
dwelling units permitted on a site so less parking means more units can be constructed.

Committee Member Freeman stated that this provides greater flexibility, that the
parking supply should be specific to the context, and that the current standard is high.
He asked if this will limit the amount of parking that can be provided. Mr. Klimek
responded that this reduces the number of spaces that are required but does not limit
the amount of parking that can be provided.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 261
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 21, 2023
Page 2

Committee Members O’Hara asked Chair Jaramillo how the proposal was received by
the Planning Commission. Chair Jaramillo responded that the proposal was well
received, will support affordable housing, and he then cited cul-de-sac in Tempe as an
example of an innovative community that would not be permitted in Phoenix.

Committee Members O’Hara stated that cul-de-sac is at a good location with plenty of
students, good access to transit and ASU, and a responsible owner. He expressed
concern that not all owners are responsible, and this could be used to create less
desirable housing products. Committee Members Krentz stated he was involved in
the cul-de-sac project and that half the residents are not affiliated with ASU.

Committee Member Sommacampagna asked if the parking reductions in the Infill
Development District would be allowed by-right and if there were any parking reductions
permitted in the area that require a use permit. Mr. Klimek responded that the parking
reductions are by-right in the Infill Development Area and responded that he wasn’t sure
about the use permit areas.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 262
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 26, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION:

Meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

Meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 263
ATTACHMENT D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 27, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Adams asked how the parking reductions were determined. Mr.
Rogers stated that he was not aware of how the reductions were determined, but he
would provide the staff report.

Committee Member Keyser stated that surveys have shown that people want mass
transit, but he expects innovation in autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, or smart car
technology to impact how people interact with cars. Committee Member Keyser stated
that Phoenix could become walkable someday, but the City needs to implements linear
cores. Committee Member Keyser stated that he is shy on this text amendment until we
know the future automobile market trends.

Committee Member Solorio stated that parking minimums have been eliminated
across the country in cities like Buffalo, Seattle, and Portland and in the City of Mesa’s
downtown form-based code. Committee Member Solorio explained that parking will be
determined by the financier based on the product type, so luxury apartments will still
provide parking and developments that serve specialty populations such as veterans,


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 264
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


the elderly, or individuals with severe mental illnesses will be able to provide less
parking and thus more units.

Committee Member Fitzgerald encouraged everyone to read the text amendments
very carefully and stated that there is no outreach to the people in neighborhoods.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

John Hathaway stated that there is a law of unintended consequences that is always
present and stated that the increase in luxury apartments being built in Phoenix has
caused the City to be ranked number one in the county for increasing housing rates at
32 percent. Mr. Hathaway stated that he understands the need for affordable housing,
but there will be consequences and explained that places like Portland, Southern
California, or Manhattan are not the same as Phoenix because car ownership is much
higher in Phoenix.

Jackie Rich stated that she would like to see the research that supports the parking
reduction and stated that the proposed text amendment would reduce parking
requirements for luxury units to what is currently required for a studio unit. Ms. Rich
stated that luxury unit residents will likely want amenities like electric vehicle charging
rather than fewer parking spaces and explained people will not walk because the City of
Phoenix is seeing around 100 days with temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit and
because Phoenix is ranked number six in most pedestrian fatalities. Ms. Rich stated that
while some residents in affordable housing developments may not drive, some
residents may have a medical condition that make it difficult to walk and those residents
need easily accessible parking and explained more public transit needs to be available
before this text amendments moves forward.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 265
ATTACHMENT E




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y



Date of VPC Meeting August 7, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation, with modifications
VPC Vote 14-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano discussed the purpose of the parking reductions text amendment and
potential benefits. Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and then
shared the current and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-
wide, affordable multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill
Development District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code, and affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano noted
that the proposed parking ratio for multifamily development City-wide was based on an
average of multifamily parking demand of 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban
development and 1.2 spaces per unit for urban development, per the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, which has decades-worth of data based on
studies done in cities throughout the nation where cars were counted and resulted in
these parking ratios based on the actual parking demand. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code.
Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for the text amendment, VPC results,
Planning Commission results, and stated that staff recommends approval as listed in
the staff report.

Questions from the Committee:
Ms. Sepic asked how the City defines affordable housing, noting that the term is often
used politically. Mr. Zambrano responded that development would only qualify as
affordable housing after being vetted through the various programs and meeting the
criteria to be able to qualify as an affordable housing project. Mr. Zambrano added that
the City would not accept a development as affordable housing just because the
developer calls it affordable, and that it would need to go through the programs
necessary to qualify it as an affordable housing project.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 266
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Chair Popovic stated that he works for the largest affordable housing developer in the
country and the seventh largest market-rate housing developer in the country. Chair
Popovic stated that parking is the most prohibitive, restrictive and costly element in
housing development. Chair Popovic noted that the costs spent on building parking
cannot be recuperated and it limits affordable housing developers on bringing their
projects to fruition. Chair Popovic stated that his firm recently put in a bid for a Request
for Proposals (RFP) in Tempe for affordable housing, which required over 435 parking
spaces, costing over $15 million to build two parking structures, or $35,000 per parking
stall, and the project died. Chair Popovic emphasized that parking increases costs for
housing development and makes housing less affordable by requiring more parking.

Mr. Goodhue asked where people would park their cars. Chair Popovic responded
that not many people living in true affordable housing projects own cars and the current
parking requirements do not meet the actual parking demand of affordable housing.

Ms. Sepic stated that she is a multifamily operator and thinks it would be wrong to not
reduce the parking requirements. Ms. Sepic stated that one of her clients that is building
a high-rise building in Downtown Phoenix is still building in parking, despite having
minimal parking requirements because it is located right along the light rail. Ms. Sepic
added that based on her experience of operating Class C apartment buildings, most of
the residents in the studio and one-bedroom units did not own vehicles. Ms. Sepic
stated that most of the two-bedroom units had at least one vehicle and the three- and
four-bedroom units that had anywhere from eight to 10 people living in it typically had
two vehicles. Ms. Sepic noted that an average of about one-fourth of parking was
unused for apartment complexes she operated. Ms. Sepic stated that she does believe
there is room to adjust the parking ratios and that she does not believe they should be
kept as high as they currently are.

Mr. Goodhue stated that he moved in 1990 from Seattle into an apartment nearby his
current home and stayed there for a few months, and there was no one parking on the
street. Mr. Goodhue noted that these parking ratios were based on what was required
back in the 1980s and now the streets are covered with cars and are coming into the
adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Goodhue added that the City of Seattle requires no
parking adjacent to their light rail and someone he knew opened up a business next to a
brand-new apartment complex that had cars parked along the alley that were blocking
the loading bay for the business. Mr. Goodhue agreed that parking ratios should be
looked at to make sure they are realistic but disagreed with reducing the parking ratios
to an extreme.

Chair Popovic agreed that the parking ratios should not be reduced to an extreme,
noting that the parking ratios still do need to be reduced. Chair Popovic reiterated that
many of the parking spaces for his affordable housing developments are unused. Chair
Popovic shared the criteria in order to get the credits for affordable housing.

Mr. Goodhue agreed that parking for affordable housing should be reduced to meet
their demand but expressed concerns with reducing parking for market-rate housing.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 267
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Chair Popovic reiterated the cost of building parking structures. Vice Chair Anita
Mortensen asked if the parking spaces are used once the building is built. Chair
Popovic responded that it depends, but most residents in market-rate studio and one-
bedroom units do not use cars.

Ms. Sepic added that she knows two people her age that do not have a driver’s license.

Chair Popovic agreed, noting that this lowers the parking ratio. Chair Popovic stated
that the younger generation does not want cars.

Mr. Wise stated that he has lived in Arizona for a long time, and it is car-centric.

Ms. Sepic stated that rideshare is another way to get around.

Chair Popovic disagreed that Phoenix is car-centric, noting that it is changing.

Ms. Sepic agreed. Ms. Sepic stated that she is okay with the passenger loading zone
requirement as proposed. Ms. Sepic added that she believes there should be a
reduction to the parking ratios, but not to the extent as proposed. Ms. Sepic
recommended there be 0.5 parking spaces required for each studio unit or one-
bedroom unit, 1.25 parking spaces required for each two-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces
required for each three- or more bedroom unit. Ms. Sepic recommended that the
average parking ratio for market-rate housing be 1.75 spaces per unit.

Mr. Soronson asked for clarification that Ms. Sepic recommends the proposed 1.25
parking spaces per unit ratio is increased to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. Ms. Sepic
responded affirmatively. Mr. Soronson asked why Ms. Sepic would recommend
increasing the parking ratio to 1.75 when she just stated that she believes the parking
ratios should be reduced.

Chair Popovic agreed, noting that the current parking ratio is 1.5 parking spaces per
unit for one- and two-bedroom units.

Ms. Sepic stated that she believes the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces
per unit for market-rate housing needs to be increased. Mr. Soronson asked again why
Ms. Sepic believes it should be increased when she had just stated that she believes
the parking ratios need to be decreased. Ms. Sepic responded that 1.25 parking spaces
per unit is still too low for market-rate housing.

Chair Popovic disagreed, noting that 1.75 parking spaces per unit is too high and is
above the current requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per unit for one- and two-bedroom
units.

Mr. Soronson concurred.

Ms. Sepic asked if the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit was the
average of the current requirement. Mr. Zambrano responded that the parking ratio of

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 268
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

1.25 parking spaces per unit is the average of actual parking demands per the ITE
Manual.

Mr. Goodhue stated that there was a similar discussion of parking reductions for a
project within the Kierland Commons area which proposed 1.45 parking spaces per unit,
noting that the parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit is even lower than what was
approved in Kierland Commons. Mr. Goodhue recommended the parking ratio match
what was approved in Kierland Commons.

Chair Popovic disagreed, noting that he believes the parking reduction for that project
should have been more. Chair Popovic stated that from a developer’s perspective, 1.25
parking spaces per unit is more than reasonable.

Ms. Sepic noted that 1.45 parking spaces per unit is a higher ratio than 1.25 parking
spaces per unit.

Mr. Soronson agreed, noting that Ms. Sepic had previously stated that she
recommended a parking ratio of 1.75 parking spaces per unit.

Chair Popovic concurred, noting that it would result in even more parking.

Ms. Sepic recommended that the parking ratios for affordable housing be lower than
market-rate housing. Ms. Sepic noted that the current requirement for a studio unit is
1.3 parking spaces per unit, and most people that live in studio units do not even have a
car.

Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if Ms. Sepic wanted to keep the parking ratios
broken out based on the number of units. Ms. Sepic responded affirmatively.

Mr. Goodhue asked if Ms. Sepic’s proposed parking ratios are based on traffic
engineering studies. Ms. Sepic responded that it is based on her experience of
operating multiple apartment complexes that had studio, one-, two, three-, and four-
bedroom units. Ms. Sepic reiterated that residents in studio and one-bedroom units did
not have a car.

Chair Popovic agreed, noting that it is a trend that is being seen more often.

Ms. Hall asked if the proposed parking ratio was prepared by traffic engineers. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it came from the ITE Manual.

Chair Popovic stated that he agreed with the proposed parking ratios per staff
recommendation.

Ms. Hall stated that most multifamily projects in the Kierland Commons area opt for
PUD zoning so they can reduce their parking requirements, noting that there is a way to
get around it now rather than changing the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 269
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Abram Bowman asked if the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit
would simplify the process for developers rather than having the parking ratios broken
out by unit. Chair Popovic responded that some projects have more studios than one-
bedroom units and other projects do not have any studios and have all one- and two-
bedroom units. Chair Popovic stated that the parking ratios do need to be broken out by
unit.

Ms. Sepic concurred. Ms. Sepic added that more three- and four-bedroom units are
needed for families, but they are more expensive to build. Ms. Sepic noted that Arizona
is top five in refugee resettlement and most refugee families have a lot of children. Ms.
Sepic reiterated that the type of housing product needed is three- and four-bedroom
units. Ms. Sepic stated that the information of the parking ratios should have been put in
a graph to better understand the proposal.

Chair Popovic agreed, noting that there are some individuals that may not fully
understand what the parking ratios translate to.

Ms. Sepic concurred, noting that the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per
unit for any type of unit and a 50% reduction of that for affordable housing was
confusing.

Mr. Wise asked if the Committee’s recommended modifications would get to the City
Council if the Planning Commission has already recommended approval of this text
amendment with their own modifications. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting
that the City Council members and Mayor would review the results and meeting minutes
of the VPCs and the Planning Commission and would make their own decision based
on that information collectively.

Ms. Sepic stated that if there was a generic parking ratio and an apartment complex
was built with all three-bedroom units, 1.25 parking spaces per unit would not be
enough parking.

Daniel Mazza asked if the developer would just build more parking in that scenario.
Chair Popovic responded that they would not build more than required because of the
cost associated with it.

Mr. Soronson asked if it costs $35,000 per parking stall for surface parking or
structured parking. Chair Popovic responded that surface parking costs $30,000 per
parking stall and $35,000 per parking stall for structured parking. Chair Popovic added
that the cost could go up to $60,000 per parking stall for underground parking on the
first level and goes up from there the further underground it goes. Chair Popovic stated
that almost a third of real estate development costs are related to parking.

Mr. Wise expressed concerns with there being no parking left after the parking
reductions, assuming people will still drive as much as they are now. Chair Popovic
stated that from the data his firm is getting, the trend is to not own a car. Mr. Wise
asked if someone could rent an apartment unit without a parking space. Chair Popovic

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 270
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

responded affirmatively. Mr. Wise asked what someone would do if they owned a car,
and the apartment complex did not have a dedicated parking space for them. Chair
Popovic responded that they would go somewhere else that did have parking available
for them.

Mr. Soronson stated that there is a project being built with no parking in the City of
Tempe along the light rail.

Mr. Goodhue stated that the City Council would probably focus on the Planning
Commission’s recommendation versus this Committee’s recommendation. Mr.
Zambrano responded that this information may be helpful to the City Council, since the
Plan that was adopted.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Ms. Sepic motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.

Modifications listed for clarity:
• Market-Rate Housing City-wide
o 1 parking space per studio unit
o 1.5 parking spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit
o 2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit
• Affordable Housing City-wide
o 0.5 parking spaces per studio unit
o 1 parking space per 1- or 2-bedroom unit
o 2 parking spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
14-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation with
modifications passes with Committee members Bowman, Bustamante, DeMoss,
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Petersen, Schmidt, Sepic, Soronson, Ward, Wise, Mortensen,
and Popovic in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 271
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-1

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

1 member of the public registered in support, wishing to speak.
1 member of the public registered in opposition wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking city wide for residential developments with inclusion of minimum
requirements. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal
and the comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development,
Walkable Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the
changes that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for
streetscapes. Mr. Roanhorse discussed affordable housing at the applicability for
parking and demand adjustments that will be made. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the time
frame for review for the at Villages, Planning Commission and City Council.

Mr. DePerro stated that the development of the text amendment was based on many
years of trying to address parking for multifamily development with a nominal city-wide
reduction and reductions for affordable and infill housing and the biggest reduction for
the Walkable Urban Code. Mr. DePerro noted that the staggered approach for parking
was possible. Mr. DePerro explained parking information was obtained from the Institute
of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual to determine parking demands and to make it
meaningful and applicable to the city.


QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jewett asked if the parking demand we are seeing now is
accurate or is there a margin for adjustment. Mr. DePerro responded that certain
adjustments were made where the calculated demand was 1.23 spaces which was
rounded up to 1.25 spaces to provide a measure of simplification.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 272
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Vice Chair Rodriguez asked what is expected in the future for single family or
commercial developments and will parking requirements decrease overall. Mr. DePerro
responded that there has been a focus on multifamily development and this is unlikely
to change but for now Council is looking to reduce parking requirements Citywide.

Mr. Procaccini asked has there been any consideration for requiring parking
maximums. Mr. DePerro responded that this exists in the Downtown Code but was not
consider for this text amendment because there are different expectations downtown
and there are no plans currently, but it may be applicable for the WU Code in the future.
Mr. Proaccinni asked about the applicability for infill areas. Mr. DePerro responded it
might be possible but it would depend if an infill area were rezoned to WU Code.

Chair Wagner asked about the applicability of 0 parking within the WU Code. Mr.
DePerro responded that the City has invested funds on light rail and other transit
methods and these are encouraged with reducing parking. Mr. DePerro mentioned that
there is a difference between caps and minimums and it is ideal to have some flexibility.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cory Kincaid introduced himself and mentioned his volunteer work with Perfect
Phoenix and has been involved with parking issues. Mr. Kincaid expressed concern and
has spoken with developers and understands the frustration with parking around the
city. Mr. Kincaid noted the economics of parking and expressed support for the parking
reduction text amendment.

Neal Haddad with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix introduced himself
and expressed concerns with the parking reduction. Mr. Haddad stated in some areas
of the city you need access to an automobile and you cannot impose reductions for the
entire city. Mr. Haddad noted that in some villages the distance to stores is far and an
automobile is necessary. Mr. Haddad stated that reducing parking to 0 does not make
sense. Mr. Haddad stated that there is also an issue with providing outreach and getting
information to the public and that the Village Planning Committees was not the best
method. Mr. Haddad expressed that the text amendment was not presented in some
Villages because there was no quorum so the information did not reach the public. Mr.
Haddad stated that the proposed parking reduction will create a big problem all over the
city.

Committee Member Kleinman commented that there are various meeting coordinated
by the city and asked what type of outreach is expected to get more people involved.
Mr. Haddad responded that the Planning and Development should include outreach to
registered neighborhood groups through NSD to get information directly to the public.
Mr. Haddad stated he works with a neighborhood group to disseminate information and
noted that many meetings are not well attended and there has to be a way to get people
involved.

STAFF RESPONSE

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 273
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Mr. Roanhorse responded that there are many issues that have been discussed and
that the City has taken great steps to provide information and has received and
extensive volume of comments and these will be reviewed and considered.

Mr. DePerro noted there is an additional action regarding short term rentals that is not
zoning related, the City Code is being amended to adopt the strictest regulations that
the state will allow for licensing, and this may impact short term rentals and there is
much more happening.

Mr. Cardenas asked for clarification on state requirements and taxation for short term
rentals. Mr. DePerro stated this text amendment is zoning entitlement to allow an ADU
on your property and talks about accessory uses. Mr. Cardenas asked if there is only
one chance for review and will there be an opportunity to make changes in the future if
there are unintended consequences. Mr. DePerro responded from the meeting tonight
the recommendations will be reviewed and the amendment will go to the Planning
Commission for further review and discussion and finally to the City Council for action.

MOTION:

Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y
per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Paul Benjamin seconded the
motion.

DISCUSSION:

Committee Member George noted a situation in Encanto Palmcroft where a developer
wanted to develop vacant lot with reduced parking. Ms. George stated if the
development did occur it would have been detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhoods and there was extensive opposition. Ms. George expressed her concern
and stated her opposition for the proposed text amendment.

Committee Member G. G. George made a substitute motion to deny Z-TA-8-23-Y.

Chair Wagner asked for a second to the substitute motion and no second motion was
received and Chair Wagner stated the substitute motion failed. Chair Wagner stated the
original motion for approval would be considered and asked the Committee for
discussion and no discussion was noted.

VOTE:
12-1; motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee Members Benjamin, Cardenas, Doescher, Jewett, Kleinman, Mahrle, Picos,
Procaccini, Searles, Tedhams, Vice Chair Rodriguez and Chair Wagner in support; with
Committee Member George opposed.

Chair Wagner stated that the text amendment does not work for all of Phoenix but does
work for Encanto Village and supports the proposal.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 274
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 275
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Request Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:

Tricia Gomes, acting Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department,
provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment to reduce parking
requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms. Gomes described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

Questions from the Committee:

Rebecca Perrera asked if any research was done to determine the proposed parking
ratio. Ms. Gomes stated that staff utilized ITE data. Ms. Perrera asked if it was for the
entire country or were there categories. Ms. Gomes noted that there are three
subcategories to evaluate the data. Ms. Perrera stated that Laveen needed parking and
that there is not enough infrastructure to support the reduction. Ms. Perrera stated that
she would like to see a reduction in commercial uses rather than residential. Ms.
Perrera added that the proposed text amendment seems to treat people in affordable
housing differently from other individuals.

Carlos Ortega asked how the parking reduction would benefit Laveen as it continues to
grow. Ms. Gomes noted that the text amendment would apply city-wide and would
make housing more affordable by reducing some requirements. Ms. Gomes added that
the proposed changes are minimums and that some developments provide more than
the required.

JoAnne Jensen stated that the proposed text amendment would treat individuals in
affordable housing differently from market rate housing. Ms. Gomes asked for
clarification. Ms. Jensen noted that the parking rate should be the same for affordable
housing and market rate housing. Ms. Jensen stated that she would not support the text
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 276
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 2

amendment.

Francisco Barraza stated that the city has a large footprint and instead of having
sufficient public transit or density, it continues to grow outward. Mr. Barraza stated that
Laveen doesn’t have enough public transit infrastructure to support the text amendment.
Ms. Gomes added that affordable housing developments are typically located along
transit options. Ms. Gomes noted that developers would look at the surrounding
amenities.

Public Comment:

Dan Penton asked for clarification on-street parking and bike lanes. Phil Hertel agreed.
Ms. Gomes stated that developers could utilize on-street parking as part of their
required parking; however, current initiatives have promoted bicycle lanes. Ms. Gomes
explained that the bicycle lanes replace on-street parking. Ms. Gomes added that the
proposed reduction would remove the need for on-street parking by providing a
reduction for on-site parking. Mr. Penton stated that there should be a reduction in
vehicle lanes to provide bike lanes. Mr. Penton added that developers should provide
additional bicycle parking since there is a reduction in auto parking. Mr. Penton added
that the LCRD supports the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter and that
the reductions should be a village-by-village basis. Mr. Penton stated that public transit
needed to be provided before a reduction was approved.

Phil Hertel asked if ADA parking spaces are considered reserved or unreserved. Ms.
Gomes noted that ADA parking spaces are reserved. Mr. Hertel noted that
enforcement would be an issue and Laveen doesn’t have the public transit infrastructure
to support the reduction. Mr. Hertel noted a multifamily development on 35th Avenue
and Southern Road and asked if individuals from the development parked in the
commercial uses, who would enforce the parking situation. Ms. Gomes stated that the
proposed development is probably not affordable and would be at the 1.25 parking
requirement. Ms. Gomes noted that the commercial development can enforce who
parks in their parking lot.

Jack Purvis asked if the reduction would apply to existing or proposed developments.
Ms. Gomes stated that it would be existing and new developments.

Committee Discussion:

Mr. Ortega asked the committee if they would support a standard parking reduction
regardless of affordable or market rate. Patrick Nasser-Taylor stated that this would
negatively impact individuals living in all multifamily developments.

Mr. Penton stated that the LCRD supports the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater
Phoenix letter regarding the parking reduction and that there is a need for pedestrian-
only zones.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 277
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 3

Mr. Hertel stated that the committee could vote to recommend denial.

Motion:
Carlos Ortega motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Jennifer Rouse
seconded the motion.

Ms. Perrera asked staff to provide their input on the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater
Phoenix recommendation. Ms. Gomes stated the City’s recommendation would be
approval, but the committee could still recommend a different parking ratio. Ms. Gomes
noted that the passenger loading zones are meant for drop off services such as food or
getting an Uber. Ms. Gomes noted that commercial loading areas are away from the
street and that the passenger loading zones are not meant for commercial loading.

Vote:
8-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members
Barraza, Chiarelli, Jensen, Nasser-Taylor, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, and Hurd in favor.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 278
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 10-4

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Gaughan stated that this proposal could create more resistance
to affordable housing from neighbors concerned about traffic.

Committee Member Sherman stated that the streets belong to the public, anyone can
park there, and streets can be safer with cars parked on the street.

Committee Member Dana Johnson stated that he doesn’t support the reductions for
affordable housing because he doesn’t want to assume residents of affordable housing
don’t own cars, noting that vehicle ownership is still the way people are living in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Uss stated that there are statistics from different organizations
that show lower vehicle ownership rates for low-income people, further noting that
parking requirements historically have been racially discriminatory.

Committee Member Olivas stated that parking is an issue in projects that have used
reduced parking requirements, leading to people parking a long way from their units


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 279
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 2


and streets becoming parking lots.

Committee Member Starks asked for clarification on the amount of affordable housing
that needs to be provided to use the lower rate. Mr. Grande replied that the reduced
requirement would only apply to the affordable units.

Chair Gonzales stated that it can be challenging to get funding for projects with
parking requirements that are lower than what’s standard. Mr. Grande stated that he
would discuss the issue with staff internally.

Committee Member Greenman asked whether the city explored the idea of removing
permit requirements for on-street parking for historic neighborhoods. Mr. Grande
replied that he wasn’t aware of any conversations about that option.

Committee Member Martinez stated that she doesn’t see a difference in vehicle
ownership between affordable housing and market rate housing.

Committee Member Greenman asked whether these new requirements would apply
to existing apartments or only new developments. Mr. Grande replied that if a
developer were to add new units to a site and go through a new site plan review
process, the proposed requirements would apply to the whole site.

Committee Member Sonoskey stated that developers should have more tools
available to make this feasible and that more parking could be provided on-street if the
city allowed head-in parking.

Committee Member Sherman asked about the Downtown Code. Mr. Grande replied
that this proposal would not affect Downtown Code and that there is already a bonus
points system for reducing parking downtown.

Committee Member Olivas expressed concern about the process used to approve the
text amendment.

Committee Member Uss asked if the city is planning any further transportation studies
related to this proposal. Mr. Grande replied that individual projects typically do traffic
analysis and provide necessary improvements.

Committee Member Gaughan asked about whether parking is reviewed for individual
development projects. Mr. Grande stated that the focus is on traffic generated for each
use.

Committee Member Panetta asked if there are many variances looking for parking
reductions and if this is approved, will there be more units constructed. Mr. Grande
discussed the requirements of variances and noted that there are projects that don’t
reach their maximum potential due to an inability to provide enough parking.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 280
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 3



Committee Member Sonoskey stated that changing the size of required parking stalls
would also allow more room for parking in garages, which would reduce the amount of
garage space developers need to build.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

MOTION
Eva Olivas made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. There was no
second; therefore, the motion failed.

MOTION
Jeff Sherman made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff
recommendation. Ash Uss seconded the motion for approval.

VOTE
10-4, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation
passed, with Committee Members Burns, Burton, Gaughan, Greenman, Panetta,
Sherman, Sonoskey, Starks, Uss, and Gonzales in favor; Committee Members
Johnson, Lockhart, Martinez, and Olivas opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 281
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 14-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

1 member of the public registered to speak on this item in opposition.

Chris DePerro, staff, provided a presentation on the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking city wide for residential developments with inclusion of minimum
requirements. Mr. DePerro discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal
and the comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development,
Walkable Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. DePerro displayed the
changes that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for
streetscapes. Mr. DePerro provided information on the Institute for Traffic Engineers
(ITE) Parking Manual to determine suitable parking demands. Mr. DePerro discussed
affordable housing at the applicability for parking and demand adjustments that will be
made. Mr. DePerro discussed the time frame for review for the at Villages, Planning
Commission and City Council.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Neal Haddad thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and stated he wanted
to high light some of the points in the letter provided to the Committee. Mr. Haddad
stated that some developers have had to deal with parking constraints, but the one size
fits all is not an appropriate action for a City as large as Phoenix. Mr. Haddad stated that
parking spaces calculations for multifamily development should only be based on
proximity to public transportation options not on rental rates or affordable rates. Mr.
Haddad noted the text amendment might be appropriate for the downtown area but is


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 282
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

not acceptable to areas outside the downtown areas and that visibility triangles should
be maintained and part of the parking requirements.

STAFF RESPONSE:

Mr. DePerro responded that visibility triangles are required under City Code, and they
are mentioned in the zoning ordinance when they are not covered by intersections.
Nothing regarding visibility triangles has been changed.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

None.

MOTION

Committee member Dawn Augusta motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y
per the staff recommendation. Committee member Kitty Langmade seconded the
motion.

VOTE:

14-1; motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg Thraen, Czerwinski,
Eichelkraut, Grace, Langmade, Miller, O’Malley, Paceley, Wilenchik and Swart in favor
and Committee member Schmieder in opposition.

Mr. Paceley stated the corridor center, high density, light rail are areas where we focus,
and this could be perceived as negative but does support this amendment and votes
yes.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

Staff have no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 283
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 9-0



VPC DISCUSSION:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Nowell asked about the criteria for units to be considered
affordable. Mr. Grande responded with the definition of affordable housing in the
proposed text.

Vice Chair Lagrave expressed concern that funding for transit projects could run out at
some point. Mr. Grande responded by highlighting the Transportation 2050 plan, which
provides a funding source for transit projects for many years into the future.

Committee Member Israel asked about the applicability to single-family attached
housing. Mr. Grande replied that the changes would apply to single-family attached
developments.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked if ADA accessible parking spaces would be
required for developments with no parking. Mr. Grande replied that it wouldn’t because
it is based on the number of spaces provided. Chair Bowser noted that the
requirement is one accessible space per 25 parking spaces.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 284
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 11, 2023
Page 2



PUBLIC COMMENTS
Larry Whitesell introduced himself and noted that the NCGP recommends denial of
the text amendment, noting that parking studies are not relevant to Phoenix where
transit is lacking. However, he reviewed several recommended modifications if the
proposal is approved.

Jackie Rich introduced herself and spoke about the lack of transit options in Phoenix,
highlighting the amount of time it would take to travel to the VPC meeting by transit.

STAFF RESPONSE
Mr. Grande stated that residential developments require loading zones, separate from
passenger drop off and pick up, further noting that the text amendment is targeting
transit-rich sections of the city for the largest reductions, acknowledging that transit
options are limited in many areas of the city.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

MOTION
Committee Member Rick Nowell made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-
Y. Committee Member Rick Powell seconded the motion for denial.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that Phoenix is not a walkable city, and he has concerns
about where cars are going to park without enough off-street parking.

Committee Member Powell stated that the text amendment was being rushed and
that the city should focus on WU Code and TOD areas for parking reductions, adding
that reductions for affordable housing don’t make sense.

Committee Member Israel stated that affordable housing has financing issues and
that he would be in favor of affordable housing parking reductions.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that there is no correlation between affordable housing and
a reduced need for parking.

VOTE
9-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed; Committee Members Barto,
Israel, Kirkilas, Nowell, Powell, Reynolds, Santoro, Lagrave, and Bowser in favor.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 285
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 3-2

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and then shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano noted that the
proposed parking ratio for multifamily development City-wide was based on an average
of multifamily parking demand of 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban development and
1.2 spaces per unit for urban development, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Manual, which has data based on studies done in cities throughout the nation
where cars were counted and resulted in these parking ratios based on the actual
parking demand. Mr. Zambrano displayed an example for each type of multifamily
development of a 100-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units, and shared what
the difference in the parking requirement would be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code.
Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for the text amendment and stated that staff
recommends approval as listed in the staff report.

Questions from the Committee:
Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that the current requirement is a minimum of 1.5
parking spaces per unit for 1- to 2-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces per unit for 3- or
more bedroom units. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Lawrence asked if
the proposed parking ratio is for any number of bedrooms. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively.

Ms. Stockham added that the staff that wrote the proposed text amendment not only
looked at the ITE Manual, which is a mega study of cities throughout the nation over
several decades, but also conducted a study of City of Phoenix projects in terms of the
actual amount of parking most projects provide, and parking variances requested.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 286
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Chair Lawrence stated that Phoenix is like no other city in the country. Chair Lawrence
asked for clarification that the multifamily affordable housing example with the parking
reduction would have 100 units with only 63 parking spaces and 19 unreserved spaces,
noting that it is less than the number of units and that there would be no parking spaces
for visitors if everyone in the apartment complex owned a vehicle. Mr. Zambrano
responded that the parking ratio is a minimum standard, and that developers could still
provide more parking than the minimum based on the demand of their clientele. Chair
Lawrence responded that developers would not provide more than the minimum
parking required because they would not have to provide it and they do not want to
provide it. Mr. Zambrano responded that developers would know what their clientele
parking demand is and will know what they will need to provide in order to have a
successful project, which may be more than the minimum requirement.

Ms. Stockham added that she looked at a recent project that the Rio Vista VPC
approved near the I-17 freeway and Jenny Lin Road, which had provided 25 percent
more parking spaces that the minimum required.

Chair Lawrence agreed that people would not be inclined to rent at a certain apartment
complex if they are not able to park their car there.

Mr. Virgil stated that the parking reduction text amendment would negatively impact
apartment rentals as a result.

Mr. Holton asked what the typical dimensions are for a parking space. Mr. Zambrano
responded that they are typically about eight feet wide and 19 feet long.

Mr. Virgil asked if the text amendment would change the minimum parking dimensions.
Mr. Zambrano responded that it would not change those requirements, noting that
parking dimensions are existing requirements in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Zambrano added that the text amendment is only changing the minimum number of
parking spaces required. Mr. Virgil stated that everyone that lives in the Rio Vista
Village has a car, and that most households have two individuals that work in order to
afford living there, so each household will typically have two cars. Mr. Virgil added that
there is not any affordable housing in the Rio Vista Village. Mr. Zambrano responded
that the idea of including affordable housing in the parking reduction text amendment
was to encourage more affordable housing. Mr. Virgil responded that people would be
overcrowded in an apartment complex with not enough parking. Mr. Zambrano
responded that the idea behind the inclusion of affordable housing is that parking
spaces take up a lot of land which makes projects more expensive because of all the
land needing to be dedicated to parking. Mr. Virgil responded that it would make more
sense in Downtown Phoenix since there is not a lot of room to build there, but it will not
work in the Rio Vista Village.

Chair Lawrence added that there are parking garages in Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Virgil
agreed, adding that there is a lack of public transit in their area.
Chair Lawrence added that people are not walking a few blocks in the extreme heat
during Phoenix’s summer to go somewhere.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 287
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Mr. Virgil stated that projects in Downtown Phoenix may need the extra space to build
projects, but in the Rio Vista Village they do not, and people will need the extra parking
in the Rio Vista Village. Mr. Virgil was unclear why the proposed parking reduction was
City-wide.

Chair Lawrence added that he does not know anyone that lives in Phoenix that does
not own a vehicle since there are other regional and recreational destinations that
require a car to travel to them.

Ms. Stockham stated that she has two employees that do not have cars. Chair
Lawrence asked if they lived in Downtown Phoenix. Ms. Stockham responded that one
employee lives east of Downtown Phoenix and the other lives by Margaret T. Hance
Park. Chair Lawrence asked if Ms. Stockham would agree that reduced parking is
unusual for Arizona. Ms. Stockham responded that there are students that do not have
cars and there is a trend of younger adults that do not want to own cars. Chair
Lawrence stated that he would question the number of students without cars since
Arizona State University (ASU) has a zoo of parking. Ms. Stockham responded that
some students do not have cars because they live in Downtown Phoenix and that is
where their classes are. Chair Lawrence disagreed with a 50 percent reduction for
parking, noting that it would be less than one parking space per home.

Mr. Zambrano stated that the 50 percent parking reduction would not really impact the
Rio Vista Village, because it is specific for the Walkable Urban (WU) Code which is
typically adjacent to the light rail. Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that the parking
ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit would be the parking ratio that would apply to their
village. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it would apply only for
multifamily residential development, and not for single-family homes. Chair Lawrence
asked for clarification that the difference for their village would be 1.5 parking spaces
per unit for 1- and 2-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces per unit for 3- or more
bedroom units versus 1.25 parking spaces per unit for any number of bedroom units.
Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Lawrence stated that it would be
challenging since their village has no other places to park, such as parking garages,
and they do not have street parking. Chair Lawrence added that his HOA does not even
allow street parking and if he has friends that come over, all the cars have to be jammed
into his driveway, or parked on his RV side, which then results in a letter from the HOA
for parking in a landscape area. Chair Lawrence added that his children used to live in
an apartment complex and when visiting them, he could never find a parking space.
Chair Lawrence stated that his son would have to park three blocks away because of
the lack of parking spaces.

Ms. Stockham reiterated that the proposed parking ratios are a minimum and that the
developer that came to the Rio Vista VPC a few months ago knew the area they were
building in and provided 100 more parking spaces than the minimum required. Ms.
Stockham reiterated that more than the minimum number of parking spaces could be
provided, based on the area and the type of people a developer is serving. Ms.
Stockham stated that she had also looked at an affordable housing project and a project
next to the light rail within the Central City Village, which still provided between eight

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 288
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

percent to 12 percent more parking than the minimum required. Chair Lawrence asked
what the reason is for reducing the parking minimums so much. Ms. Stockham
responded that this text amendment stems from the Housing Phoenix Plan, and that the
construction. Ms. Stockham reiterated that parking is extremely expensive and that
most of the time, a developer is burdened by so much parking requirement, that the first
part of the design in a project is for parking. Ms. Stockham added that parking really
limits development based on how much parking needs to be provided.

Mr. Virgil stated that the residential building would become larger in place of the
removed parking spaces.

Chair Lawrence stated that a developer could also buy a smaller lot, which would cost
less money, and they would be able to get more units on smaller lots, and that it is
being set up to appear as if it costs less.

Mr. Scharboneau asked what the process would be if there is a developer that wants
an exception to the minimum parking requirement. Ms. Stockham responded that one
option would be a shared parking model, such as being located next to a parking
garage, or one could apply for a variance to reduce the required parking and would
have to prove that the lot has a hardship.

Chair Lawrence stated that if a developer chooses to provide less parking, they will
have a hard time selling or leasing units when people find out they would not have a
parking space. Chair Lawrence stated that it would hinder developers on the
performance of their projects if they do not make good decisions.

Ms. Stockham added that most projects are funded with construction loans, and banks
are usually conservative in the amount of money they will lend to developers and would
likely not lend money to a developer that would want to build multifamily residential with
less parking in an area that required more parking.

Mr. Holton asked what had been said regarding projects in the Rio Vista Village. Ms.
Stockham responded that she was providing an example of a developer that was
building a project within their village. Mr. Holton stated that people are coming to
Phoenix for the space because they are tired of being in small spaces.

Chair Lawrence asked if the text amendment language was reviewed by the Law
Department. Ms. Stockham responded affirmatively.

Mr. Virgil recommended looking at the City of Las Vegas because they have a similar
type of development as Phoenix. Mr. Virgil asked if the City looked at parking for the
City of Las Vegas. Ms. Stockham was not sure if Las Vegas was looked at.

Chair Lawrence stated that Phoenix’s environment is pretty brutal to walk in. Chair
Lawrence added that he believes a majority of people in Arizona have a vehicle. Chair
Lawrence stated that he is in the construction industry, and each one of their workers

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 289
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

living within an affordable housing project would need a vehicle to get to a job site
where construction is happening, which is not within walking distance.

Mr. Zambrano reiterated that the parking ratios came from the ITE Manual, which
comes from professional traffic engineers that did a study of the actual parking demand.

Mr. Holton asked if handicap parking is incorporated in the text amendment. Mr.
Zambrano responded that handicap parking requirements are existing standards that
would remain and are not being changed. Mr. Holton asked about the handicap parking
ratios. Mr. Zambrano responded that he is unsure of the exact parking ratios, but he
believes it is based on the number of dwelling units.

Chair Lawrence stated that handicap parking would not be affected by this text
amendment since it is federally regulated.

Mr. Holton stated that the overall message is a parking reduction, so all parking would
be reduced.

Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that this text amendment is separate from
handicap parking requirements. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Mr. Scharboneau asked if it was ever considered to focus on specific areas, such as
Downtown Phoenix, rather than City-wide. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are
some existing parking reductions, such as allowing on-street parking to be counted
towards the minimum required parking within the Infill Development District, and parking
reductions within the WU Code, based on proximity to the light rail, or based on being
located in Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano added that there are separate parts to the
text amendment, including multifamily City-wide, affordable multifamily City-wide, the
Infill Development District, and the Walkable Urban Code.

Chair Lawrence stated that the part of the text amendment that would affect the Rio
Vista Village would be the multifamily parking reduction City-wide. Chair Lawrence
asked for clarification that the Infill Development District does not come up to the Rio
Vista Village. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Ms. Stockham added that the Committee could vote to approve parts of the text
amendment, such as the Infill Development District and the Walkable Urban Code, if
they are okay with those parts of the text amendment but not okay with the other City-
wide parts of the text amendment.

Mr. Virgil asked what the other VPC recommendations were. Ms. Stockham
responded that the Central City VPC and Encanto VPC recommended approval and the
Laveen VPC recommended denial.

Chair Lawrence stated that the City Council will look at the VPC recommendations and
will make the ultimate decision.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 290
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Mr. Holton stated that the VPC should let the City Council see what they are standing
for.

Mr. Sommacampagna asked about the boundary of the Infill Development District. Mr.
Zambrano responded that anything within the boundary allows single-family attached
(SFA) development by-right, whereas anything outside of the boundary within the grey
area on the map allows single-family attached development subject to obtaining a use
permit. Mr. Sommacampagna asked if a development is outside of the boundary within
the grey area on the map, they would be able to obtain a use permit for SFA as well as
have a 50 percent reduction in parking. Mr. Zambrano responded that they would not
be able to get that parking reduction since that would be single-family development, and
the proposed parking reductions are for multifamily development. Mr.
Sommacampagna asked if townhomes such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, if
condo platted, would not be allowed a parking reduction. Mr. Zambrano responded that
a triplex and above would be considered multifamily. Mr. Sommacampagna asked for
clarification that the proposed parking reductions do not affect SFA development.

Ms. Stockham responded that as she understands it, the text amendment would only
allow the 50 percent parking reduction for multifamily development within the Infill
Development District. Ms. Stockham added that the main intent of the map is to indicate
if SFA development is allowed by-right or subject to a use permit, in addition to some
other items related to development.

Mr. Holton asked what by-right meant. Mr. Zambrano responded that it means it is
allowed without having to go through a special process to allow it. Mr. Holton stated
that he wished to make a motion, noting that the parking reduction is not appropriate for
the Rio Vista Village.

Mr. Virgil stated that Mr. Holton could recommend stipulations with his motion.

Mr. Zambrano stated that text amendments do not have stipulations, but they can be
approved with direction, or that portions of the text amendment could be approved.

Chair Lawrence added that Mr. Holton could also make a motion to deny the entire text
amendment.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Mr. Holton motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Mr. Virgil seconded the
motion.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 291
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
3-2; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee members
Holton, Virgil, and Lawrence in favor and Committee members Scharboneau and
Sommacampagna opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 292
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Location Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 11-0



VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Mr. Rogers
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Coleman asked how the new multifamily and affordable housing
parking requirements are more simple than the previous requirements. Mr. Rogers
stated that while the proposed parking requirements are more nuanced and
individualized for different uses and locations throughout the City, the new language is a
simple ratio rather than a formula with multiple variables. Committee Member Coleman
asked if a five-bedroom unit would have the same parking requirement as a unit with
less bedrooms. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the new parking calculation is based on the
number of units not the number of bedrooms within units.

Chair Daniels stated that a 300-unit multifamily example had been provided during the
info only item during the June meeting and asked if that slide was in the presentation.
Mr. Rogers stated that the slide deck had been updated to use 100-unit multifamily
examples.

Committee Member Viera stated that she is concerned about how the proposal will
impact the underserved population, stated she would like to pause this discussion until
a mobility plan is presented, and stated that the parking reductions assumes that public
transportation is working for everyone.




Page 293
Committee Member Shepard stated that people can’t live in Phoenix without a car,
stated that the proposal will cause problems, and stated that the proposal will benefit
developers not the general public.

Chair Daniels stated that she had spoken to five developers who stated that they are
not asking for a parking requirement reduction and that they provide more parking than
required on multifamily developments because limited parking can cause safety and
economic issues. Chair Daniels explained that she used to be a regional manager for
apartment complexes and explained she had asked for the 300-unit multifamily example
because apartments have 300-units on average. Chair Daniels stated that the federal
standard occupancy is two people per bedroom and explained that a 300-unit apartment
complex with a mix of studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units
typically has 1,200 occupants. Chair Daniels explained that if half of the 1,200
occupants drive the proposal would not provide one parking space for everyone that
drives. Chair Daniels stated that if the 300-unit apartment complex located at 19th
Avenue and Southern had been built under the proposed parking reduction, the
residents of the adjacent subdivision that had opposed the development would now
have residents of the multifamily development parking within their subdivision due to a
lack of available parking in the multifamily development. Chair Daniels stated she
charged $25 a month for covered parking when she managed apartments in 1998 and
explained that with the decrease in required parking she expects parking to run $100-
$150 a month due to the small quantity of parking spaces. Chair Daniels explained that,
per the Arizona Landlord Tenant Act, property management companies are required to
provide safety for the residents and stated the parking reduction will cause dangerous
situations for women who must park outside of their apartment community and walk
from their cars to their apartments during the night. Chair Daniels stated that the
proposal is social and economic racism because it affects the underserved and stated
that the Arizona House bill that had included parking reductions for multifamily had
failed. Chair Daniels stated that she supports parking reductions for commercial uses,
but reducing multifamily parking requirements destroys people’s safety and forces
people pay extra to park within their apartment communities.

Committee Member Shepard asked where people with electric cars will park.

Committee Member Coleman stated that parking reductions within the downtown area
already exist and stated he does not know how the parking reduction will work in places
other than downtown. Chair Daniels stated that the South Central TOD Community
Plan identifies areas where the Walkable Urban Code is supported in South Mountain.
Committee Member Viera stated that a mobility plan is still needed.

Chair Daniels stated that parking has already been lost due to the light rail and bike
lanes and now the parking reduction will eliminate even more of the already limited
parking. Chair Daniels refuted a letter that stated an uncovered parking space costs a
developer $10,000 and a covered parking space $35,000 to $55,000 and explained the
actual cost is $2,000 to $2,500 for an uncovered parking space and $10,000 for a




Page 294
covered parking space. Chair Daniels explained that apartments will charge what they
can, stated that rents do not go down, and explained apartment rates are based on
rates in the surrounding area.

Committee Member Alvarez stated that the parking reductions should not be citywide,
but rather only areas near transit. Chair Daniels added she spent three hours a day on
the bus and had to walk home in the dark when she took transit for three weeks due to
issues with her vehicle. Committee Member Alvarez added that a 10 minute drive can
be a 60 minute transit ride.

Committee Member Viera stated that this proposal is creating more disparity and
mentioned that she and Committee Member Hare needed to leave earlier but this issue
is too important to leave without a vote. Chair Daniels reminded members of the
committee that meetings are until nine o’clock. Committee Member Hare stated she
cannot keep paying a babysitter so she can attend a volunteer job. Chair Daniels
reiterated that if quorum is lost a vote cannot be taken.

Committee Member Fatima Muhammad Roque stated that the parking reduction will
increase danger for people who will have to walk, especially people of color.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cory Kincaid stated that one own experience should not be projected on others and
explained that 40% of Maricopa County residents do not have a car. Mr. Kincaid stated
that he had met with five builders over the last month and when the land cost is
incorporated into the calculation, structured parking costs more than $50,000 per stall.
Mr. Kincaid explained that one studio apartment is equivalent in cost to five structured
parking spaces and stated that the question is not how much rents will go down, but
rather how much will rents go up. Mr. Kincaid reiterated that the proposal is for parking
minimums not maximum and stated that developers will build what they need as a
development with no parking cannot get financed. Mr. Kincaid added that a lot of jobs
allow individuals to work remotely.

Committee Member Greathouse asked what the demographic are considered
residents in regard to the 40% figure of those who do not own a car. Mr. Kincaid stated
that the 40% was for the entirety of Maricopa County.

Committee Member Shepard stated that everyone subsidizes the light rail and the bus
system whether people use it or not.

Chair Daniels stated that while some people are working remotely, not everyone has
the luxury to work remotely, and the underserved population will be negatively impacted
by the text amendment. Chair Daniels agreed that parking garage spaces are more
expensive and stated that the committee has been pushing to get a text amendment to
allow the Walkable Urban Code, which includes existing parking reductions, to be




Page 295
utilized in the South Central TOD Community Plan area, so she is surprised the citywide
parking reduction text amendment has been brought to the committee first.

Mr. Valencia explained that the text amendment to the Baseline Area Overlay District to
allow for the Walkable Urban Code to be utilized will be maximized by the parking
reduction text amendment and stated it is unfortunate the parking reduction came first,
but he believed the parking reduction text amendment was also initiated first.

Chair Daniels stated she would like to have the Walkable Urban Code allowed in the
South Central TOD area and in the meantime commercial parking should be reduced.
Chair Daniels added that she thought this proposal would cause a fair housing
discrimination lawsuit to be brought against the City.

Committee Member Jackson asked if the purpose of the parking reduction was to
allow more units to be built. Ms. Gomes summarized the proposal, stated that
affordable developments will not be able to get funding unless the project is near transit
and in close to employment, spoke about the Infill Development District’s transit
availability, and spoke about the transit investment in locations where the Walkable
Urban Code is allowed. Ms. Gomes reiterated that the proposal is for parking
minimums, not maximum and explained that the organizations that provide funding will
require different parking ratios depending on who is being served. Ms. Gomes explained
that the parking reductions are based on ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) data,
summarized how data is collected, and explained that the proposed citywide parking
ratio requires more parking spaces than the ITE data would suggest Chair Daniels
stated that in her time working with apartment complexes she has never seen a
multifamily parking lot not full in the evening. Ms. Gomes reiterated that the ITE data are
nighttime counts.

Committee Member Coleman asked if many variances had been requested to reduce
parking requirements. Ms. Gomes stated that variances can be pursued to reduce
parking requirements, but that adds time and costs more money.

Chair Daniels stated that a slum lord will build the minimum amount of parking to take
advantage of the underserved communities and stated that people do not have the time
use light rail as much as people expected.

Committee Member Greathouse stated that Mr. Kincaid made a great point that the
parking reduction is for the minimum number of required parking spaces, not the
maximum and stated that providing less parking will save a lot of money. Chair Daniels
stated that the money saved will not translate into greater affordability of units.

Committee Member Viera stated that this is a food desert and walking a mile in 117-
degree weather to get groceries will not be sustainable.

Chair Daniels reiterated that Arizona Senate Bill 1117, which included ADUs and a
parking reduction, had failed.




Page 296
Committee Member Jackson asked why the parking reduction is proposed. Ms.
Gomes stated that the parking reduction drives down the cost to provide housing.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Shepard made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y.
Committee Member Viera seconded the motion.

VOTE
11-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members
Alvarez, Coleman, F. Daniels, Hare, Jackson, Roque, Shepard, Smith, Viera,
Greathouse, and T. Daniels in favor and Committee Members and opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




Page 297
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z- TA-8-23-Y



Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 7-2-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee member Saundra Cole left the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to
10 members.

Staff Presentation:

Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric showed a
comparison of current and proposed requirements as part of the text amendment for
Citywide multifamily, affordable housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable
Urban Code projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required
passenger loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc.

Questions from Committee:

Sandra Oviedo asked about commercial parking. Sarah Stockham, staff, replied that
the only proposed changes were for multifamily projects.

Sandra Oviedo asked about the ADU’s. Ms. Stockham mentioned the parking
requirement reductions only applied to multifamily residential.

Melissa Acevedo asked why the text amendment was being proposed. Ms. Stockham
said this was part of the City Council directive to find ways to address the housing
shortages.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 298
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Public Comments:

Larry Whitesell with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix spoke on their
position for the text amendment and identified items they found as problems with the
amendment. Mr. Whitesell said Phoenix is unique and is very spread out and a plan to
reduce parking for a city which does not have reliable public transportation will have
problems. Mr. Whitesell had suggestions for improvements to the proposed text
amendment. Mr. Whitesell expressed that it should not be based on the price of the
units but only should be based on proximity to public transportation. Mr. Whitesell also
believed the size of the unit should not be based on the parking calculations. Mr.
Whitesell felt that 1.5 parking spaces is the standard calculation for a one or two
bedroom and felt the infill development district should not be given a parking reduction
but a density bonus. Mr. Whitesell stated the Walkable Urban Code parking requirement
should never be zero and there always should be some parking. Mr. Whitesell said this
does not accommodate ADA and people living in the Walkable Urban Code areas who
have guests. Mr. Whitesell asked the committee to deny the text amendment entirely or
amend per the recommendations he provided.

Jackie Rich said she agreed with Mr. Whitesell and gave an example of how long it
would take to get to the community center by bicycle or bus versus by car.

Staff Response:

Sarah Stockham, staff, stated this is a reduction in the minimum requirements but
would not mean a developer cannot provide more parking. Ms. Stockham added that
affordable housing is based on HUD and to qualify applicants would need to be verified
by the Housing Department.

Motion:

Chris Demarest made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Ken Dubose
seconded the motion.

Vote:
7-2-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed, with Committee Members
Acevedo, Battle, Demarest, DuBose, Fostino, Valenzuela, Chair Derie in favor;
Committee Members Barba and Norgaard opposed, and Committee Member Oviedo
abstained.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 299
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y



Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 5-4

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, and one member of the
public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

VPC DISCUSSION:

STAFF PRESENTATION

Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric shared a
comparison for current requirements and the proposed changes for citywide multifamily,
affordable multifamily housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable Urban Code
projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required passenger
loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Trilese DiLeo asked what “affordable” units meant in the proposal.

Matteo Moric said the Housing Department would verify if a project was providing
affordable units.

Al Field wanted to know if the information applied to only affordable housing units.

Matteo Moric said it would be for multifamily housing citywide.

Trilese DiLeo said there would be a reduction of parking in the affordable units.

Matteo Moric said the WU code properties were mostly along light rail and transit
corridors.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 300
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Ricardo Romero said always what comes up the zoning projects is traffic or parking
concerns. Mr. Romero said it’s a changing world we live in.

Matteo Moric said the City looked at the requirements per the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) and the city would require more parking than what that prescribes.

James Sutphen explained the City of Phoenix was over 500 square miles and
wondered about areas like Metro Center and its impacts.

Gregory Freeman provided clarification that the text amendment would not allow
development to lower their parking below the minimum requirement and developers
could provide more, as there would be no caps.

Matteo Moric confirmed this was correct.

Trilese DiLeo said the developer would not be providing less than their required
parking but would still look at market conditions to potentially provide more than what is
required.

Al Field said this was another effort to create a 15 minute city. Mr. Field expressed that
developers reduce the size of the parking and the number of parking spaces and felt
this was an instance of the government’s desire to move you into public transit.

Ozzie Virgil agreed with Al Field and was concerned the size of parking cannot even
open the door of a vehicle. Mr. Virgil noted there was a parking problem at 35th Avenue
and Union Hills where residents have a second vehicle and only one designated for it.
Mr. Virgil indicated there were problems with on street parking. Mr. Virgil also expressed
concerns that developers do what will make more money and would build more units
with less parking. Mr. Virgil felt it was okay for downtown where there is more public
transit. Mr. Virgil felt once you let this reduction happen you will not get it back.

Trilese DiLeo said she used to be the President of the HOA for the complex Ozzie
Virgil was speaking of. Ms. DiLeo said it has ample parking but did not have driveways
on the houses that were built. Ms. DiLeo added one thing developers want is to put
more units on the property and this would be a more creative method to cut cost. Ms.
DiLeo added that when you create a supply and demand problem you would have
communities like LA and New York. If not like those communities she felt we would
need to do something different.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Sandy Grunow said she was co-chair of a neighborhood association. Ms. Grunow
referenced a 2nd part of concerns for this text amendment. Ms. Grunow mentioned one
size fits all is not appropriate for a city of 517 square miles and felt it should not be
based on rental rates. Ms. Grunow noted that it might be appropriate for Downtown
Code, Walkable Urban Code or transit-oriented districts but not city wide. Ms. Grunow
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 301
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


identified a concern with visibility triangles and expressed that base parking
requirements should not be reduced lower than 1.5 spaces per unit. And Ms. Grunow
stated she wanted infill development be given 10% density bonus vs. a parking
reduction.

Jackie Rich stated some parts of the city are harder to get to than others and by driving
it took 30 minutes to get to the meeting and that included a coffee stop. Ms. Rich added
it would take two hours and it would have required being outside for at least one hour.
Ms. Rich said the proposed text amendment assumes people can park on the street
and that will not cause any problems. Ms. Rich added that the text amendment
assumes fewer people need handicap parking and it would similarly reduce the number
of handicap spaces, and it assumes lower income people need fewer cars than medium
or higher end.

Sarah Stockham said the visibility triangles were regulated by the City Code and that
would not be changed.


MOTION:
Trilese DiLeo motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per staff
recommendation. Gregory Freeman seconded the motion.

VOTE:
4 – 5, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y failed with Committee Members
DiLeo, Freeman, Hoffman, and Kenney in favor. Field, Herber, Romero, Sutphen and
Virgil opposed.

Al Field tagged onto what Jackie Rich said about waiting out in the heat. Mr. Field
added the police department is overwhelmed by policing the bus stops. Mr. Field felt
with the text amendment the city was trying to force people to eliminate cars and force
public transportation on them was not a good idea.

Ricardo Romero believed the city is not prepared for this change in the transportation
system.

Trilese DiLeo said there are people who do not have vehicles, and have an option to
buy a vehicle and this option will provide greater flexibility to a developer. Ms. DiLeo
said its more needed in an affordable housing unit versus a luxury apartment. Ms. DiLeo
felt this would take people off the streets and have a snow ball effect and this is a small
piece of it. Ms. DiLeo added that most zoning cases come with concerns of traffic and
she said she did not understand why people were concerned with less cars.

Susan Herber spoke against the motion. Ms. Herber felt this was idealistic and not
practical except for the affordable housing aspect.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 302
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Ozzie Virgil felt the reduction in parking would work in some areas and not others,
there’s no real fix-all and believed will realistically people would have to drive out here.
Mr. Virgil could not believe it took like three hours to get to the airport on public transit
from his area.

Gregory Freeman noted the parking reduction would not work for all. Mr. Freeman said
there is a development in Tempe called the Cul-de-Sac which does not have parking
and includes not only younger but older residents without cars. Mr. Freeman said he
wanted the city to have the option.

Trilese DiLeo said it would be important to vote on a denial in order to get a
recommendation.


MOTION
Ozzie Virgil motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. James Sutphen seconded
the motion.

VOTE
5-4, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee Members
Field, Herber, Romero, Sutphen, and Virgil in favor. Committee Members DiLeo,
Freeman, Hoffman, and Kenney opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:


None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 303
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 6-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Christopher DePerro, staff, shared the parking reductions proposed, noting that the
parking ratios were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual,
which contains about three decades worth of actual parking counts for multifamily
across North America. Mr. DePerro displayed an example of market-rate and affordable
multifamily development City-wide of a 100-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom
units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would be, noting that
the requirement is a minimum and not a maximum. Mr. DePerro mentioned that many
multifamily projects find out they are a few parking spaces short after going through Site
Planning and accounting for open space, retention, and other required items that take
up space on a site, and it would have been easier to get through the process if the
parking requirement was a little bit less. Mr. DePerro added that affordable housing has
either State or federal money and must qualify through all sorts of programs,
commitments, covenants and other items. Mr. DePerro stated that there is a lot of
vetting that goes on for affordable housing developments in order for them to qualify as
an affordable housing development, such as proximity to light rail, and the parking
reduction would be handled as the affordable housing program prescribes. Mr. DePerro
then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites
zoned WU Code. Mr. DePerro concluded with the timeline for the text amendment.

Questions from Committee:
None.

Public Comments:
Jack Leonard, member with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP),
architect, and former member of the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
(VPC) and Encanto VPC, stated that he does not think this text amendment was

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 304
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

thought out well enough. Mr. Leonard stated that he believes the existing parking
requirements are realistic. Mr. Leonard stated that the proposed parking reductions are
a drastic change. Mr. Leonard noted that there is about a half a mile between his home
and the nearest bus stop near 16th Street and Northern Avenue, and his office is at
16th Street and Thomas Road, but it is too hot during the summer to make that half mile
trip to the bus stop. Mr. Leonard stated that Phoenix is car-dependent and that there are
certain areas in the City where parking can be reduced, but not the majority of the City.
Mr. Leonard added that there are too many holes in the text amendment and would
leave neighbors of multifamily developments suffering because of all the vehicles that
will be parked in their neighborhood. Mr. Leonard stated that this text amendment
should not be getting rushed through and it should be looked at more thoroughly.

Neal Haddad, member with NCGP, concurred that this text amendment is a drastic
change. Mr. Haddad stated that six VPCs that have met so far have all denied this text
amendment and they would ask the North Gateway VPC to do the same. Mr. Haddad
concurred that this text amendment has not been thought out, and that parking
reductions would be appropriate in the downtown area and urban core and corridor
areas, but not City-wide. Mr. Haddad added that he does not believe it would be unfair
for the City to reach out to certain neighborhood organizations, noting that people likely
do not believe it is unfair that the members of the North Gateway VPC were appointed
to the Committee. Mr. Haddad stated that people are appointed to many committees
throughout the City, and that they are appointed because of their knowledge and
because the elected officials know the committee members and know their community.
Mr. Haddad added that citizens could have been appointed to a stakeholder group for
this text amendment, noting that it was mentioned before that the City Council did reach
out to certain stakeholders for their opinions and input. Mr. Haddad asked that the
Committee deny this text amendment.

Staff Response to Public Comment:
None.

Discussion:
Chair Julie Read stated that the North Gateway VPC primarily deals with multifamily
development, and that she is not supportive of this text amendment. Chair Read stated
that if minimum parking spaces are reduced for multifamily, it would be detrimental to
their area, because they do not have any mass transit and are not getting any mass
transit anytime soon. Chair Read recommended that this text amendment be denied.

Jeff Johnson stated that he looked at the top zip codes for Phoenix that have the most
cars and found that they are in the North Gateway Village. Mr. Johnson stated that
Phoenix is tied for fourth for the top cities with the most cars. Mr. Johnson mentioned
that a possible solution would be for developers to construct parking garages so there is
less parking spread out over an area. Mr. Johnson stated that he is against this
proposal.

Shannon Simon stated that she was curious why the text amendment was not written
more like the WU Code to reflect the areas where it would be more appropriate to have

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 305
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

parking reductions. Ms. Simon stated that people need to have a car in the North
Gateway Village and that she cannot support this text amendment.

Mr. DePerro stated that the direction came from the City Council to look at a nominal
reduction City-wide and to tier the rest down based on areas they are located in.

MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Vice Chair Michelle Ricart motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Mr.
Johnson seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
6-0; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee members
French, Johnson, Krieger, Simon, Ricart and Read in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 306
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
REVISED

Date of VPC Meeting July 18, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial

VPC Vote 8-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Four members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms.
Gomes described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily
development and affordable multifamily development and further described the
proposed parking requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable
Urban Code.

Questions from the Committee:

None.

Public Comment:

Dan Kcocke stated that Arizona State University had conducted a study that concluded
that 10 percent of the entire city is utilized by parking. Mr. Kcocke noted that asphalt has
contributed to the urban heat island effect within the city. Mr. Kcocke noted that the
excessive parking requirements lead to higher construction costs for all development. Mr.
Kcocke added that the current parking requirements impact the developer, renters, and
the city. Mr. Kcocke stated that the hundred of miles of road construction led to higher
costs to individuals and parking does not contribute to property taxes. Mr. Kcocke noted
that renters are not represented in the committee and the parking reduction would be one
piece of the large issue regarding infrastructure and housing affordability. Mr. Kcocke

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 307
stated that parking minimums were introduced in the development 70 years ago and
added that the city has drastically changed since then. Mr. Kcocke concluded his comment
by supporting the text amendment.

Jack Leonard stated that Phoenix is a vehicle driven society. Mr. Leonard noted that bus
ridership has declined and that the hot weather does not help promote public
transportation. Mr. Leonard added that flip developers do not care about affordability and
will reduce their parking. Mr. Leonard noted that the current parking requirements are not
complicated, and the different categories allow for reasonable parking. Mr. Leonard stated
that the reduction in parking and an increase in density would not help alleviate sprawling.
Mr. Leonard added that people renting in affordable housing developments still need
parking. Mr. Leonard voiced his disagreement for the text amendment.

Neal Haddad voiced his agreement with Jack Leonard. Mr. Haddad added that Phoenix
does not have the public transit capacity to support the reduction. Mr. Haddad noted that
public transportation times are not efficient. Mr. Haddad stated that the reduction of
parking would help increase housing affordability.

Leezah Sun noted that there have been some city and state initiatives to increase public
infrastructure. Ms. Sun noted that in a high-density area, a reduction of parking could be
beneficial. Mr. Kcocke noted that affordable housing needs to have high tax credits and
that is achieved by being adjacent to public transit. Mr. Kcocke noted that car maintenance
can negatively affect renters. Mr. Kcocke added that the reduction of parking can lead to
more amenities being accessible.

Committee Discussion:

Chair Lisa Perez noted that there is only one affordable housing project in the Estrella
Village. Chair Perez noted that there are no restaurants, amenities, bus shelters, or other
forms of public transit in Estrella. Chair Perez stated that the blanket text amendment does
not apply to all villages. Chair Perez added that a lot of items have not been considered to
support the text amendment.

Parris Wallace stated that affordable housing developments should not be treated
differently when compared to market rate developments. Ms. Wallace voiced her support
for the text amendment. Ms. Wallace noted that a reduction in parking could lead to more
open space and amenities. Ms. Wallace added that she supports more amenities and
affordable rental rates in exchange for less parking.

Renee Dominguez stated that multiple children require more vehicles. Ms. Dominguez
noted that some families do not let children walk in Estrella. Ms. Wallace added that her
children walk in the neighborhood and if a family has one vehicle, then everyone would
walk. Ms. Dominguez noted that the village doesn’t have the amenities.

Dan Rush voiced his opposition to the text amendment. Mr. Rush stated that it was
counterintuitive to suggest more housing in exchange for parking when most
developments do not have enough parking.

Jennifer Ayala noted that she has lived in an affordable housing development and
employment opportunities were not in close proximity to the development. Ms. Ayala

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 308
added that limiting parking would not help neighborhoods. Ms. Ayala stated that affordable
housing developments did not have enough parking.

Ms. Wallace stated that the text amendment would not eliminate parking. Ms. Wallace
added that the text amendment would make a difference for the future.

Kristine Morris stated that she was opposed to the text amendment. Ms. Morris added
that it places environmental and social issues on the less fortunate.

Motion:
Dan Rush made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Bill Barquin seconded
the motion.

Vote:
8-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members Ayala,
Barquin, Dominguez, Morris, Rush, Sanou, Serrette, and Perez in favor and Committee
Members Wallace in opposition.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 309
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 19, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with direction
VPC Vote 12-1-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

Four members of the public submitted speaker cards with all wishing to speak. Two
indicated they are in favor, one opposed, and one in favor and opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Klimek, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code. He presented the staff
recommendation to approve the proposed text amendment.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Committee Member Larson asked for clarification regarding the guest and resident
parking calculation. Mr. Klimek tried to clarify.

Committee Member Veidmark expressed concern over the prospect of an apartment
complex with no parking.

Committee Member Matthews asked staff to confirm that a housing development
without parking would be permitted today if an applicant sought a planned unit
development. Mr. Klimek confirmed.

Committee Member O’Connor asked how the mixed-use reduction in the WU Code
would be applied if this text amendment were approved. Mr. Klimek responded that
the text amendment applies only to multifamily uses and that, in a mixed-use


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 310
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 2


development with commercial and multifamily, a blend of commercial and multifamily
parking standards would be used to calculate the requirement. He added that he is not
certain how the by-right reduction in WU Code mixed-use projects would interplay with
this proposed amendment.

Committee Member Gore asked how parking deters investment in affordable housing
and how the change would support housing construction. Mr. Klimek responded that
parking is expensive to construct and occupies much of the total site area which
thereby reduces the number of units that can be constructed on the site. By reducing
costs and increasing available land area, more units may become viable.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Ms. Sandy Grunow expressed concern that this reduction is inappropriate city-wide
because there is limited public transit, that the proposed text amendment may impact
visibility triangles at intersections which is a safety issue, and that it is unfair to base
parking requirements on resident incomes. She added that developers will not provide
more parking than required by code.

Ms. Jackie Rich expressed that parking reductions happen all the time and this text
amendment is therefore not necessary, that there is not adequate transit, and that
many individuals who reside in apartments will not give up their cars. She added that
on street parking therefore infringes upon a pedestrian’s ability to safely walk in an area
without sidewalks and the proposed reduction for affordable housing feel punitive. She
acknowledged that some reduction may be appropriate but stated that the requirement
should never be allowed to “go to zero.” She added that she would like more
neighborhood engagement for text amendments and that the proposed text
amendment would allow for developments to provide no ADA parking.

Ms. Nicole Rodriguez expressed support for the amendment, noted that it doesn’t go
far enough, and explained that both parking requirements and auto-oriented
development patterns are costly to renters and builders. The parking requirements
make housing less affordable and the also contribute to the urban heat island effect.
She concluded by stating that the requirements were arbitrary when originally
developed.

Mr. Dan Klocke introduced himself as an affordable housing developer and expressed
his support for the amendment. He cited an ASU study which found that approximately
50 square miles of the city is paved which contributes to the urban heat island effect.
Regarding the impact on affordability, he shared a hypothetical example to
demonstrate how requiring additional parking beyond that which will be used adds cost
to the developer and consumes land area which, together, can make an affordable
housing project infeasible. He explained that many affordable housing projects are
operating on negative profit margins and therefore require multiple financial sources to
make the project work financially. He added that the additional land area required to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 311
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 3


provide parking adds to the overall infrastructure cost and long-term maintenance
burden which is the responsibility of the City of Phoenix. He concluded by stating that
the VPC just voted 14-0 to allow Accessory Dwelling Units without any additional
parking.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Klimek thanked the audience for their comments. The proposed amendment
includes minimums, rather than maximum, parking requirements which allows a
developer to provide more parking than required if they desire; he added that he has
seen developers provide more parking than the minimum for projects where they
believe it will improve the marketability of their products. The proposed amendment is
based on empirical data that is used broadly throughout the field of land use and
transportation planning.

There is no way for staff to significantly reduce parking requirements administratively.
Only two procedural pathways exist to reduce parking: 1) to propose a planned unit
development with custom development standards and commit to the full 6 – 9 month
rezoning process; and 2) to request a variance from the zoning ordinance through a
public hearing process but he cautioned that this process requires that a Zoning
Adjustment Hearing Officer determines there is a hardship related to the physical
characteristics of the lot, and he noted this is uncommon for parking requests.

Regarding ADA parking requirements, he added that this proposed text amendment
does not override ADA which is a federal law and that ADA compliant parking spaces
will continue to be required.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

Committee Member Matthews clarified that ADA requires a portion of all facilities
provided to be accessible so a development that provides no parking would not be
required to provide accessible spaces; however, if some parking is provided then a
share of that would need to comply with ADA. Mr. Klimek agreed and apologized for
the mistake.

Committee Member Matthews stated that he is in support of the request and that
these are parking minimums, not maximums, so developers are free to provide more
parking than required. He stated that most developers will not build projects with zero
parking and that the possibility is being overblown. This will allow a greater variety of
housing options such as more affordable units or car-free options that are currently
restricted by existing parking requirements.

Committee Member Gore stated that 9 percent of the population being car-free is
insignificant and should not drive the proposed text amendment which allows
developments without any parking. He added that it would be helpful if the city could
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 312
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 4


forecast the impact of this amendment.


Committee Member O’Connor stated that he is not supportive of the request because
Phoenix is not a walkable city and there are other programs, such as GPLETS, to
support affordable housing construction.

Committee Member Perez stated that she is torn but expressed concern that reducing
parking requirements would only have a limited impact on the housing crisis. She
added that a different housing requirement for low-income populations feels punitive.

Committee Member Krentz stated that this text amendment would provide the
opportunity to develop housing with fewer costs and design constraints mandated by
the city. He added that the development community will respond to actual forecasted
parking demands because it only makes business sense to develop something that will
be marketable. At present, staff does not have flexibility to allow for innovation by the
free market.

Committee Member O’Hara stated that he left the Information Only presentation in
June as a “no” but reconsidered the proposal through the lens of Member Krentz and
he indicated that he is now closer to a “yes.” He stated that the market will respond to
demand based on the context of a site.

Committee Member Matthews stated that 10 percent of households not having
access to a car is not insignificant and that providing 10 percent of all developments as
an affordable would far exceed the present construction pattern. The margins for
affordable development are slim and often negative so any reduced cost or increased
yield will have a direct and positive impact on affordable housing production. He stated
that he lives in Moon Valley and frequently uses transit to get downtown and back; he
cautioned his colleagues from assuming everyone is the same as them in their
transportation preferences and socioeconomic needs. Committee Member Gore
agreed that 9% is not trivial but stated that the city should also be building
transportation infrastructure such as transit and bike lanes.

Committee Member Veidmark asked why staff is proposing that no parking be
provided for affordable housing. Mr. Klimek responded that it is in response to many
conversations with affordable housing developers regarding the narrow margins and
empirical data showing that affordable housing generates a lower demand for parking
than other types of housing. He added that the proposed amendment is intended to
provide flexibility by removing a mandate but noted that these are minimum
requirements rather than maximums.

Committee Member Sommacampagna stated that the presentation did not touch on
rideshare which is increasingly augmenting public transportation and reducing the need
for private automobiles. As an infill developer focused on missing middle housing, he
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 313
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 5


noted that parking is a costly burden and that GPLETs are not viable due to their
complexity and cost. He expressed support for the proposal to promote more small-
scale housing production which benefits most from parking reductions.

Committee Member Alauria noted the amendment makes sense but expressed
concern that the proposal is not based on Phoenix data.

Committee Member Gore stated that just because there are not many pedestrian /
transit commuters in Moon Valley it does not mean that they have the right amount of
surface parking. He asked Member Krentz if there is a significant likelihood of 300-unit
complexes providing zero parking and, conversely if it is more likely that small project
would provide no parking if allowed. Committee Member Krentz agreed.

Chair Jaramillo shared that zero parking is being treated like the gold standard of
what developers will ultimately provide but noted that this will be a minority of total
projects. Affordable housing requires subsidies, and most will still provide some parking
in response to the forecasted needs of the tenants. In 2022, only 16 LIHTC were
issued in Arizona which is too little to meet demand; by reducing cost and space
burdens, more affordable housing projects will become viable. He concluded by stating
that this is not the solution to the housing crisis but is a part of a solution.

MOTION:

Committee Member O’Hara moved to approve the request per the staff
recommendation. Committee Member Matthews seconded the motion.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT:

Committee Member Perez proposed a friendly amendment to “direct staff and the city
council to explore additional methods to help with the production of affordable housing.

Committee Member O’Hara and Committee Member Matthews both agreed to the
friendly amendment. The motion was revised to include the friendly amendment.

DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Alauria stated that people will continue to use cars but that she
wants to remove excessive parking.

Committee Member Matthews stated that this is a simple risk versus reward scenario
and that the risk that both overblown and acceptable. The risk is that the city will see a
problematic number of zero parking affordable housing complexes is unlikely but would
mean that an abundance of much needed affordable housing projects are being
constructed.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 314
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 6


Committee Member O’Hara and Committee Member Perez thanked Member Krentz
for the developer’s perspective.

VOTE: 12-1-1, motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation with the
direction provided by Committee Member O’Hara, passes with Committee Members,
Gore, Krentz, Larson, Matthews, McBride, Molfetta, O’Hara, Perez, Sommacampagna,
Veidmark, Whitney, and Chair Jaramillo in favor; O’Connor in opposition; and Alauria in
abstention.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 315
ATTACHMENT E




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 24, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 6-2


VPC DISCUSSION:
5 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in support.
2 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric shared a
comparison for current requirements and the proposed changes for citywide
multifamily, affordable multifamily housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable
Urban Code projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required
passenger loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc.

Questions from Committee:
Vice Chair Fisher asked what data were being used to determine that people living in
low income housing do not have cars. Mr. Moric said that there was no cap on
parking but there was a minimum requirement, and developers could provide at least
the minimum but more if they felt the market demand required it.

Toni Broberg asked why the city was doing this by reducing the number of parking
spaces.

Vice Chair Fisher felt this text amendment was more about density than cost
savings, and that we’d be building more rooftops. Mr. Fisher felt we are not building
enough than is necessary. Mr. Moric said the Zoning Ordinance would still require
development standards for items such as density, lot coverage, setbacks, etc.

Mr. Clifford Mager shared he had no confidence that developers would exceed
minimum requirements if they could monetize more units.

Chair Gasparro said there is a desire to have sufficient parking as a developer.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 316
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Mike Maloney noted there were rules in place which were developed over time. Mr.
Maloney asked where these new numbers are coming from. Mr. Moric said it was
determined from the ITE manual and developments in Phoenix.

Ms. Broberg asked if staff researched other cities that have implemented parking
reductions.

Elena Pritchette shared her experience that more and more cities in her travels are
using alternative parking solutions such as automated garages.

Vice Chair Fisher referenced Proposition 400, stating he did not believe legislature
would increase public transit to compensate for the reduction in the parking
requirement.

Mr. Mager asked about if the new rules would apply to the development that was
already permitted.

Mr. Fisher asked on clarity if the reduction would be citywide. Mr. Moric said the 1.25
spaces per unit would apply to citywide. Mr. Fisher said many places in the city were
not designed for street overflow in parking.

Public Comments:
Mr. Dan Klocke said he had been working in affordable housing for many years, and
45% of Phoenicians are renters. Mr. Klocke noted that 8.4% or 47,000 households of
Phoenix do not have cars, about 35% own one car, and almost half have one car or
less. Mr. Klocke shared that the average one bedroom rental in Phoenix is $1300,
and this would chip away at some of the issues we face with affordability. Mr. Klocke
shared that 10% of the city is paved, and shared an example of an affordable housing
project, and with this proposal, would save almost $500,000 in costs, which would
also help develop smaller pieces of land for affordable housing.

Mr. Larry Whitesell stated he would like the committee to reject the proposal, but if
they felt inclined to recommend approval the parking rate should be increased to 1.5
spaces and should be based on affordability.

Mr. Neal Haddad said he was with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
and stated there are two types of developers: those who buy, build and hold and
those who flip properties. Mr. Haddad added that Phoenix is 517 square miles and is
unique, so parking standards for other cities should not apply to Phoenix.

Mr. Ryan Boyd from the Urban Phoenix Project shared that this text amendment
comes down to cost, there are those who do not have a choice on using a car or not,
and that this would provide flexibility for new housing developments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 317
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Ms. Nicole Rodriguez said she was in support of the text amendment, she came to
Phoenix 20 years ago without a car and shared her experience with having limited
vehicles for her family and using public transportation.

Ms. Abbey Tomich said she is unable to afford a vehicle and rides her bike instead
during which time she sees all the extra parking spaces in apartments.

Mr. Derek Tomich said he rides his bike everywhere and he sees parking lots that
are always empty which he felt was a waste of space and the parking surface
increases the urban heating effect, and there is no thing such as free parking. Mr.
Tomich added this would not add to cars on the street or increase street parking and
there would almost never be zero parking even if the requirement was zero parking.

Mr. Mager requested for clarification if the excess parking he observed was for
commercial or residential development. Mr. Tomich stated his observations were
regarding residential.

Vice Chair Fisher asked Mr. Tomich if he could, would he buy a car. Mr. Tomich
stated ideally he would not buy a car and felt if more people used public transit, the
public transit system would get improved.

Staff Response:
None.

Discussion:
Vice Chair Fisher asked Dan Klocke if we have an affordable housing problem in
Phoenix because we have too many cars or because affordable housing does not
stay affordable. Mr. Klocke said we have massive affordable housing problem and
we make decisions based on our smaller communities, and said this would chip away
at the problem.

Vice Chair Fisher said he was having a hard time accepting that the affordable
housing issue is a parking problem.

Ms. Broberg stated her concern the reduction of parking would add to the congestion
on the streets which she further clarified as parking on the streets.

Ms. Broberg asked Chair Gasparro if the developer would reinvest any cost savings
from not providing additional parking spaces. Chair Gasparro replied that with a
reduction in parking requirements a smaller site could be developed, and this not only
benefits the developer but also the City.

Mr. Mager asked if $5000 in cost savings from a parking reduction moved the needle.
Chair Gasparro replied yes, those saving impact a project.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 318
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Suzanne Sharer said there already is a shortage on parking and developers would
be the only ones benefiting and it is a backhanded way to force people to give up their
cars. Ms. Sharer said to pay for extra parking in their complexes would be a burden
on families.

Vice Chair Fisher felt it was a coupon for the developer, it is an incentive for more
developer profit, and he could be supportive of this for affordable housing projects.

Ms. Broberg said it is going to incentivize people to live in different places based on
what they value if they want additional parking and asked if this was part of the grand
scheme of Housing Phoenix Plan.

Chair Gasparro mentioned this is just part of the solution for a bigger plan.

Mr. Mager felt there was a lack of empirical data.

Motion:
Vice Chair Darin Fisher motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Suzanne
Sharer seconded the motion.

Vote:
6-2, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed, with Committee Members
Mager, Maloney, Meier, Pritchette, Sharer, Fisher in favor; and Broberg and Gasparro
in opposition.

Motion No. 2 (Advisory)
Vice Chair Fisher made a second motion to provide direction to the Planning
Commission and City Council that while he rejects the proposal as a whole, there are
elements of the proposal he supports.

Vice Chair Fisher motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y with
modifications to remove the parking reduction for market-rate multifamily residential
citywide, and approve the reduction for affordable housing projects, and sites within
the Infill Development District and the Walkable Urban Code. Toni Broberg
seconded the motion.

Vote No. 2 (Advisory)
6-2, advisory motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-y with modifications
passes with committee members Broberg, Maloney, Meier, Sharer, Fisher and
Gasparro in support; and Mager and Pritchette opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 319
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 25, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-6


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Eight members of the public register to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Shultz discussed the urbanization of Phoenix and stated that the
text amendment makes sense in areas that have urbanized.

Committee Member Williams clarified that the reduction is for parking minimums not
maximums and provides more flexibility. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the proposal is to
reduce parking minimums not maximums and discussed how lenders require a
minimum number of parking spaces for different types of developments.

Committee Member Harris asked how the required number of ADA parking spaces is
affected by the parking reduction. Mr. Rogers stated that the number of required ADA
parking spaces is based on the number of regular spaces provided.

Committee Camp stated that the reduction will help with the urban heat island effect,
help promote walkability, and help with transit-oriented development.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 320
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


Committee Member Malkoon asked if a minimum number of ADA parking spaces will
be provided if there is no regular parking provided. Ms. Stockham stated that if no
parking is provided ADA spaces will not be required, but most projects will not provide
no parking.

Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated concerns about the low-income parking
reduction being discriminatory.

Committee Member Smith stated that a car is needed for low-income individuals’
economic mobility, stated it is unlikely that low-income people will use food delivery
services, and stated that the proposal does not consider the people.

Committee Member Solorio explained that the text amendment allows flexibility to
projects that serve specialty populations, discussed how lower parking minimums had
enabled developments to be built in other jurisdictions, and explained the text
amendment would eliminate the need for low-income developments to pursue parking
variances.

Committee Member Adams stated that City is removing a restrictive number, spoke
about dealing with ratios on her own professional projects, and stated that the parking
reduction would allow the number of parking spaces to be determined on a case-by-
case basis.

Committee Member Mulgado stated multifamily parking lots are full and most
households living in multifamily developments have multiple cars.

Committee Member Fitzgerald discussed walking in extreme heat, discussed a low-
income development that got variances for reduced parking and now rents parking at a
nearby church, and stated that developers wont pay for parking if they do not have too.

Committee Member Malkoon stated that the proposal will be good for developer
profits, spoke about his son who does not drive, spoke about his experience riding the
light rail where he spoke to woman who had a 2.5 hour commute to and from work, and
asked where visitors will park.

Committee Member Solorio stated that banks will not loan money to projects that do
not provide any parking.

Committee Member Harris asked for clarification about where parking requirements
are proposed to be reduced to 0 parking spaces per unit. Committee Member Solorio
stated that parking requirements are proposed to be 0 parking spaces per unit in the
WU Code and for affordable housing. Mr. Rogers clarified that affordable unit parking
requirements are proposed to be reduced 50% citywide.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 321
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


Committee Member Malkoon stated concerns about those struggling being taken
advantage of. Committee Member Solorio that 25% of parking spaces are always
open on projects he has worked on.

Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated that there are likely too many parking
spaces, but the minimum should not be zero. Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated
that he does not trust banks and builders to build parking, stated that cars can be
necessary to commute to well-paying jobs, and stated it is not that hard for
developments that serve special communities to get a variance.

Committee Member Keyser discussed other cities that have been successful with
parking reductions, spoke about rising rents, spoke about the need for personal vehicles
for those that are disabled, and spoke about the need for a parking study.

Committee Member Malkoon asked why luxury developments are not built for
affordable units, stated more money for affordable units is needed, and stated there
needs to be more public-government partnerships.

Committee Member Solorio stated that low-income developments have a fixed budget
and revenue, explained that less parking means more amenities, and spoke about a
failed variance.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Sterling Sourk stated that potential residents will not move into a complex if there is no
parking and clarified the difference between parking minimums and maximums.

Abby Tomich explained that she rides her bike everyday because she cannot afford a
vehicle, explained that her mother rides the light rail to work everyday, stated that
excess parking is being valued over more affordable housing, and stated the text
amendment does not go far enough.

Derek Tomich explained that he rides his bike everywhere, explained that everywhere
he goes he see empty parking lots that contribute to the urban heat island effect, stated
10% of Phoenix is parking lots, explained that parking is subsidized by the prices of
goods and services, and reiterated that zero spaces required wont equate to zero
spaces provided.

Nicole Rodriguez stated she is in support of the text amendment, discussed parking
and heat, stated that the text amendment is the first step towards parking requirements
that will match demand, stated the text amendment will facilitate infill developments,
explained that parking can cost between $35,000 to $80,000 per stall, and explained the
origins of parking requirements. Ms. Rodriguez explained that she came to Phoenix
without a vehicle and her family now has one vehicle due to the medical costs from
taking care of others.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 322
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


Wes Ballu stated that there is too much parking in Phoenix, stated that the proposal will
allow for flexibility, and stated this is the first step to making the City more walkable.

Dan Clocky stated that affordable housing is tax credit housing, stated that 87 parking
spaces costs well over half a million, and stated that budgets are capped so more
parking means less units.

Jackie Rich recounted a story told at the Estrella VPC were an individual who was
utilizing affordable housing was grateful parking was provided at her apartment
complex, explained reducing parking will not reduce the number of cars people own,
and added that the future of light rail depends on state legislature.

Neil Haddad stated that questionable people that buy, build, and flip developments are
why parking minimums are a thing, stated that Phoenix does not compare to other
cities, discussed the urban heat island effect and buildings, stated Phoenix is a car city,
explained that the state will not allow sales tax to be used for transit, and stated he
would like to see the studies the parking reductions are based on.

Chair Bryck confirmed that he had received the NCGP letter on July 14.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DUSCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Camp motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per staff
recommendation. Committee Member Shultz seconded the motion.

VOTE
9-6, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per staff recommendation passes
with Committee Members Adams, Camp, Ender, Harris, Sanchez, Shultz, Solorio,
Williams, and Bryck in favor and Committee Members DeGraffenreid, Fitzgerald,
Keyser, Malkoon, Mulgado, and Smith opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 323
ATTACHMENT F

Phoenix, Arizona

June 1, 2023

The meeting of the Phoenix Planning Commission was called to order by Acting
Chairman Emilio Gaynor at 6:06 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 200 West Jefferson
Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Commissioners present participated in the meeting both in-
person and virtually from a remote location.

Present: Commissioner Emilio Gaynor, (Acting Chairman)
Commissioner Ryan A. Boyd, (Acting Vice-Chairman)
Commissioner Marcia Busching (Virtual)
Commissioner Pete Gorraiz
Commissioner Gabriel Jaramillo (Virtual)
Commissioner Lachele Mangum
Commissioner Lisa Perez
Commissioner Shannon Simon

Absent: Commissioner Nico Howard, Chairman

Also
Present: Ms. Racelle Escolar, Planner Principal
Ms. Tricia Gomes, Deputy Director, PDD
Mr. Greg Harmon, Planner I
Ms. Vikki Cipolla-Murillo, Secretary III/Council Reporter


At the request of Acting Chairman Emilio Gaynor, Ms. Racelle Escolar, Staff Liaison,
read the hybrid meeting introduction. She welcomed everyone to the Planning
Commission Hearing and stated that all attendees who were participating virtually and
requested to speak would remain muted until called on to speak. Speakers experiencing
audio issues were asked to switch their audio connection to have WebEx call them. She
stated that all individuals speaking virtually at the meeting tonight had contacted staff
within the required timeframe prior to the start of the meeting. Those who did not
contact staff, wishing to speak, were asked to contact her after the meeting to discuss
the next steps and future opportunities to speak regarding any items on the agenda.
She provided her contact information, via phone at 602-534-2864 and email at
racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov, which was also listed on the bottom of the public meeting
notice for the meeting. She asked those attending the meeting from the Council
Chambers to complete a speaker card and provide it to one of the staff members.

***

Acting Chairman Gaynor asked Acting Vice-Chair Boyd to read the opening remarks.

***

Acting Chairman Gaynor asked the audience to follow the General Rules of Order for
the meeting:

Page 324
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023

16. INFORMATION ONLY: Z-TA-8-23-Y: Presentation and discussion regarding a
request to amend Chapters 2, 6, 7, and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing.

Ms. Racelle Escolar stated that Item No. 16 is an information presentation
regarding Z-TA-8-23-Y, a request to amend Chapters 2, 6, 7, and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and
affordable housing.

Ms. Tricia Gomes, the Deputy Director, presented this item.

Ms. Gomes stated that Z-TA-8-23-Y encompasses parking reductions for
affordable and multifamily housing, including parking reductions for multifamily
developments (City-wide), reductions for affordable housing (City-wide),
reductions for Infill Development District (IDD), and reductions for Walkable
Urban (WU) Code.

Ms. Gomes stated that currently multifamily parking requirements (City-wide) are
based on the number of bedrooms. The current requirement is 1.3 spaces per
efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit; and 2 spaces per 3- or
more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless of
number of bedrooms. When the required parking is reserved for residents,
additional unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3 spaces for each
efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1- or 2-bedroom unit; and 1.0 space per
each 3- or more bedroom unit. It is somewhat long and complex. Staff is trying to
reduce City-wide multifamily parking down to 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit,
regardless of number of bedrooms. Of those spaces, a minimum 30% must
remain “unreserved”, and would not be assigned to any one unit. Anyone could
park there, whether they are a guest or another person living in the development.
She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units:

x Current Requirements: 450 total spaces @ 1.5 per dwelling units,
150 unreserved (part of total) @ 0.5 per dwelling unit.
x Proposed Requirements: 375 total spaces @ 1.25 per dwelling unit
113 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required.

Ms. Gomes stated that currently there is no differentiation for affordable
multifamily housing (City-wide). It would be the same parking counts that were
just discussed, per the number of bedrooms in that unit, proposing the same 1.25
calculation. Plus, for affordable housing, there is a 50% reduction, in addition.
She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, all qualifying as “affordable housing”:

x Current Requirements: (same as City-wide) 450 total spaces @ 1.5 per
dwelling unit and 150 unreserved (part of total @ 0.5 dwelling units.
x Proposed Requirements: (50% reduction) 188 total spaces @ 1.25 per
dwelling unit x 50% and 57 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required.

Page 325
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023


Ms. Gomes stated, within the Infill Development District (IDD), currently you can
only get a parking reduction for multifamily if you are counting on-street parking.
That is for the distance of your project adjacent to the right-of-way. If there is 100
feet of frontage on your property, divide that by 22 feet due to parallel parking,
and that is how many spaces you can count and how many can be reduced for
on-street parking.

For the proposed requirement within the Infill Development District, there is a
50% reduction off that 1.25 parking calculation. This area typically falls along or
near the transit areas, as well. She provided an example for a 300-unit
multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units. It is the same as the
affordable housing.

x Proposed Requirements: 188 spaces, @ 1.25 per dwelling unit x 50%

Ms. Gomes stated, for the Walkable Urban Code, the current requirement in the
Zoning Ordinance is 0.5 for market-rate housing per dwelling unit. You get an
additional 25% reduction when you are within a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) of
the light-rail station, or you get 10% if you are greater than a quarter of a mile
(1,320 feet) from the light-rail station.

The current multifamily parking requirement is with the 25 and 10 %. Staff is
proposing a 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit parking requirement for those located
within the Walkable Urban Code. Of those spaces, a minimum 30% must remain
“unreserved”, and not assigned to a particular unit or the leasing office. She
provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-
bedroom units.

x Current Requirements: 338 total spaces @ the 1.5 % for a 1- to 2-
bedroom vs. proposed text amendment
x Proposed Requirements: 150 total spaces @ 0.5 per dwelling unit
45 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required

Ms. Gomes stated that for affordable housing, Walkable Urban Code does have
provisions for affordable in the different transects. They are proposing ‘no parking
required within those transects’, for affordable housing within the Walkable Urban
Code. T3 is the only exception because it is very similar to a single-family
development. Multifamily is not allowed in that transect. She provided an
example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom
units, all affordable. There are no parking requirements.

x Current Requirements: (T5 transect example)150 total spaces @ 0.5 per
dwelling units and 0 unreserved (part of total) @ none required
x Proposed Requirements: (T5 transect example) 0 total spaces @ none
required and 0 unreserved (part of total) @ none required



Page 326
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023

Ms. Gomes stated, in response to that and understanding that passenger loading
zone requirements have been proposed in the Walkable Urban Code, people are
going to be coming to their homes and developments in a variety of different
ways, whether it is light-rail, ride-share, taxis, etc. The City wants to provide and
ensure that there is an area for that drop-off and pick-up for pedestrians
happening on the site.

Ms. Gomes stated that passenger loading zones are a new requirement for sites
zoned WU Code only. They provide designated area(s) for ride-share, pick-
up/drop-off, and personal delivery services (package delivery; meal delivery).
Loading zones are encouraged to locate on site but may be located on the street
when approved by the Street Transportation Department. This is difficult because
there must be room in the right-of-way, depending on the type of street. They are
looking for it to be provided onsite. Accessibility requirements apply per Federal
ADA regulations. The proposal is one passenger loading zone per 50 dwelling
units; so, depending on the number of units, there will be a larger space for a
larger passenger loading zone. Ms. Gomes displayed an example of what that
would look like. The minimum requirement is 23 feet for a parallel parking space
to be able to pull in and backing out of the space. Lastly, she provided upcoming
meeting dates:

x Planning Commission (information): June 2023
x Villages (information): June 2023
x Villages (action): July 2023
x Planning Commission (action): August 2023
x City Council Hearing: September 2023

Acting Chairman Gaynor asked if there were questions.

Commissioner Busching stated that there is a new movement going on to reduce
parking spaces. She asked where the numbers came from and if there were
comparisons done with other cities. She also asked if other cities have
experiences with these numbers. She wanted some background and history
behind the thinking of the numbers.

Ms. Gomes responded that staff derived at the 1.25 number in working with the
Traffic Department and looking at ITE data on suburban and urban developments
for a multifamily.

Commissioner Busching stated that she does not know what ITE is, and she
does not know where all the other parking reductions are, other than the 1.25.

Ms. Gomes responded that staff derived the 1.25 number from the initial review
with Traffic Department staff while looking at their manuel for typical demands for
parking, for these types of developments. Staff’s focus was to reduce the parking
to one space per unit. The 0.25 is for visitors and leasing. That is how they
derived the 1.25. They looked at demand and what they were trying to achieve,
regarding the number of parking spaces per unit.

Page 327
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023


Ms. Gomes stated that the 50%, reduction within their Infill Development District
today is an allowance that the developer can do. It is a 50% reduction, but it is
only counting those spaces on-street. The Street Transportation Department is
hearing a lot of push-back from communities to have on-street parking, which is
resulting in no longer providing the space for bike lanes or creating conflicts for
bike lanes. They looked at that. It is really to achieve two goals within the City: 1)
to provide the bike lanes, and 2) to offset the parking reduction onsite for
properties. By taking away or modifying those parking reductions for on-street, to
allow for those bike lanes, it is providing that parking reduction onsite. That is
where the 50% comes from.

Ms. Gomes stated that for affordable to zero, Walkable Urban Code, already had
a significant parking reduction. They were directed by City Council to look at
eliminating those parking requirements for affordable, because staff is trying to
focus on the items that are creating additional costs and challenges for affordable
developments.

Commissioner Busching thanked Ms. Gomes and said the information was very
helpful.

Acting Vice-Chairman Boyd stated that he was quite excited to hear this. ITE
stands for Institute of Transportation Engineers. He said it is not just the hippie
bike people, these are the full-on professional, do-all-the-fun traffic, people. He
wanted to add two important points of context. Firstly, these are the minimums.
Developers can and likely will still go above those minimums, as we see in
almost every project. This is just them not being penalized from a legal
perspective, if you wanted to try to do something like a cul-de-sac in Tempe, zero
parking for the units there. There are a few shared parking spots on their
development. It would not be possible in Phoenix without some creative zoning.
Secondly, there are, in fact, neighbors to the north. Prescott has one of these.
Work-force housing has a different parking ratio that is lower than their normal
parking ratio. Flagstaff has an incentive program for their affordable housing that
includes the reduction of parking. These are not new concepts. They are in
Arizona and have been in play before. He was excited to hear how this is going
to go through. It will be interesting to see how this debate proceeds.

Commissioner Perez asked if this goes through the process and gets approved
in September, if there would be a mad rush of all the cases that have been
approved, asking for variances to reduce their parking. Right now, they would all
be stipulated to certain parking spaces. She asked how that would work.

Ms. Gomes responded, if there are current stipulation requirements, whether it is
in a rezoning case or other like that, they would still have to adhere to those
requirements. If they got parking variances, there is a potential that the parking
variance is mute, because the Ordinance could require less. Those were the two
scenarios she could think of, now.


Page 328
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023

Commissioner Perez stated that they had required in the staff narrative that if it is
reduced, it would just automatically get reduced with it. She asked if she was
understanding correctly. She gave the example of building a multifamily with 200
required parking spaces. Under the new requirements, it would be less,
theoretically. She asked if she would be stuck with the 200, or if it would be
automatically less, or if she would have to get a variance to make it less.

Ms. Gomes respond that if this text amendment were to pass in September and
go to Council in October, it would be effective. So, anyone developing, could
utilize those requirements.

Acting Chairman Gaynor reminded the commissioners that this presentation was
only informational at this time. There were no further questions.

No action was necessary.

***




Page 329
ATTACHMENT G


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 3, 2023

ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-TA-8-23-Y (Parking Reductions for Affordable Housing)
Proposal: Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for
affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone,
and revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J
(Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7,
Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements) and Section 702.E (Modifications
to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking
Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily, single-
family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for
passenger loading zones of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to modify
parking standards for affordable housing developments.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Attachment A of
the Staff Report.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 6/26/2023 Information only. Canceled (no quorum).
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/24/2023 Denial. Vote: 6-2.
Alhambra 6/27/2023 Information only.
Alhambra 7/25/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-6.
Camelback East 6/6/2023 Information only.
Camelback East 7/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 14-1.
Central City 6/12/2023 Information only.
Central City 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 10-4.
Deer Valley 6/8/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Deer Valley 7/13/2023 Denial. Vote: 5-4.
Desert View 6/6/2023 Information only.
Desert View 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-0.
Encanto 6/5/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Encanto 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 12-1.
Estrella 6/20/2023 Information only.
Estrella 7/18/2023 Denial. Vote: 8-1.
Laveen 6/12/2023 Information only.
Laveen 7/10/2023 Denial. Vote: 8-0.
Maryvale 6/14/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Maryvale 7/12/2023 Denial. Vote: 7-2-1.
North Gateway 6/8/2023 Information only.
North Gateway 7/13/2023 Denial. Vote: 6-0.




Page 330
North Mountain 6/21/2023 Information only.
North Mountain 7/19/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction.
Vote: 12-1-1.
Paradise Valley 6/5/2023 Information only.
Paradise Valley 7/10/2023 No quorum.
Paradise Valley 8/7/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications.
Vote: 14-0.
Rio Vista 6/13/2023 Information only.
Rio Vista 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 6/13/2023 Information only.
South Mountain 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 11-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation with
modifications.

Motion Discussion:

Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications to adjust the citywide components to apply to
Alhambra, North Mountain, Encanto, Central City, and Camelback East villages, and
with the adjustment of the WU Code amount up to 0.65 (spaces per dwelling unit).

There was no second on the motion, therefore the motion failed.

There was discussion about the motion and potentially other motions.

Commissioner Busching made a MOTION that the item be sent back to staff for further
work with the notion that it would be brought back before the Planning Commission.

There was some discussion about what direction to provide, however there was no
second on the motion.

Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications regarding the following sections as listed in the Staff
Report:

x Section 1 (City wide multifamily parking requirements): Change from 1.25 spaces
per dwelling unit to 1.50 spaces per dwelling unit.
x Section 2 (City wide affordable housing parking reduction): Delete proposed
changes.
x Section 3 (Infill Development District parking reduction): Approve as proposed.
x Section 4 (Walkable Urban Code parking requirements): Change from 0.50
spaces per dwelling unit to 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit.
x Section 5 (Walkable Urban Code affordable housing parking requirements):
Delete proposed changes.
x Section 6 (Passenger loading zones within Walkable Urban Code): Approve as
proposed.

Commissioner Simon stated that she supported the motion except for the change to
Section No. 1.




Page 331
Commissioner Perez agreed.

Commissioner Simon offered a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to eliminate changes to
Section No. 1.

Mr. Christopher DePerro (staff) asked for clarification from Commissioner Simon. He
asked if she was proposing to leave the existing Citywide requirement as is.

Commissioner Simon responded, yes.

Commissioner Busching stated that although she was reluctant to agree, because she
supports staffs’ desire to simplify this city wide parking requirements in order to move
this forward, she would accept Commissioner Simon’s amendment.

Commissioner Gaynor SECONDED the amended motion.

There was discussion and clarifications made about the motion on the floor.

Commissioner Jaramillo explained that he did not agree with removing any flexibility for
affordable housing.

Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y, per
the staff recommendation, with modifications regarding the following sections as listed in
the Staff Report:

x Section 1 (City wide multifamily parking requirements): Delete proposed
changes.
x Section 2 (City wide affordable housing parking reduction): Delete proposed
changes.
x Section 3 (Infill Development District parking reduction): Approve as proposed.
x Section 4 (Walkable Urban Code parking requirements): Change from 0.50
spaces per dwelling unit to 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit.
x Section 5 (Walkable Urban Code affordable housing parking requirements):
Delete proposed changes.
x Section 6 (Passenger loading zones within Walkable Urban Code): Approve as
proposed.

Maker: Busching
Second: Vice Chairman Gaynor
Vote: 6-2 (Boyd and Jaramillo)
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes

Proposed Language (Planning Commission recommendation is highlighted for clarity):

Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable
housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and revise parking
space, unreserved, as follows:




Page 332
***

AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.

***

Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.

FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.

***

PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF
OF VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR
DURING DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE
AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-
TERM.

PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED
IN TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income
Housing) to read as follows:




Page 333
J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.

1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.

2. Density bonus.

a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.

b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.

3. PARKING REDUCTION.

A. FOR EACH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, THE REQUIRED
PARKING CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%.

B. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING
REDUCTION AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.

3. 4. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.

***




Page 334
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.C (Parking Requirements) to read as follows:

C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.

Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


***

Dwelling Unit, Multi- Total required parking
Family
1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2
bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit,
1.0 space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless
of number of bedrooms

When the required parking is reserved for residents,
additional unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3
spaces for each efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1 or
2 bedroom unit and 1.0 space per each 3 or more bedroom
unit.

Exception for unreserved parking: where minimum 18-foot
driveways are provided for individual units, .25 space per
each unit.

Unreserved parking shall be distributed throughout the site.

Note: Any unreserved parking spaces required by this
section may be counted toward the total required parking
count.

1.25 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT

A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES MUST REMAIN UNRESERVED.




Page 335
Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


Dwelling Unit, Single- 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2
Family Attached bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0
space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless of number
of bedrooms
PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER THE
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION PER
SECTIONS 614-618.
2 SPACES PER UNIT IF NOT DEVELOPING UNDER THE SFI
OPTION. THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING
UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT. AN
ADDITIONAL 0.25 UNRESERVED SPACE PER DWELLING
UNIT MUST PER PROVIDED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT FOR VISITOR PARKING.

***

Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements) to read as
follows:

E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.

***

3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:

a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)

b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)

***

F. INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 608.J)

***

9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:




Page 336
a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.

(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.

(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.

(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.

***

c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):

***

Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking
requirements for multi-family, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and
add requirements for passenger loading zones to read as follows:

Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE

***

Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.

***
B. Required Vehicular Parking.

1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:




Page 337
a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.

b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.

c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.

d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking

T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

Residential, Single- per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
Family DETACHED

(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured
Residential: Single-
in a direct line from the building, and 10%
Family Attached and
reduction of required parking if the development is
Multifamily
greater than 1,320 feet from a light rail station.
The minimum required on-site vehicular parking is
exclusively for the patrons of the subject parcel.

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.;
FAMILY ATTACHED
OTHERWISE PER SECTION 702.

0.5 0.65
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI- A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE
PER UNIT N/A
FAMILY (2) REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.

***

Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5

AFFORDABLE PER UNIT 0.75 NONE REQUIRED
HOUSING




Page 338
T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

***

***

D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.

1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:

***

E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.

1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.

***

I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.

1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)
CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2
HOSPITAL 3
HOTEL OR MOTEL 3
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)




Page 339
ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)

(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.

(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE
SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT THE
FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF
OFFICE SPACE, PLUS 125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES (70,000 SF /
50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100 DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR
3 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.


2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.

A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.

(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.

(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.

(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.

(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.

(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.

(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.




Page 340
(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.

DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE




B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.

(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.

(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.




Page 341
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.

(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.

(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.

(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.

(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:

(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).

(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.




Page 342
(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.

C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.

(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.

(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.

(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.

***




This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Angie Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 343
ATTACHMENT H


July 6, 2023


I am in full support of Z-TA-8-23-Y as it reflects the true parking need for multi-family
housing versus the current zoning ordinance and supports City Council’s desire to
increase the amount of housing options and homes for our fellow Phoenicians. Too
often we do not think of multifamily development as a place where we would live, but
the reality is almost every one of us were renters at one point in our life. Furthermore, if
we as a community want to provide places for our children to live that are more
reasonably priced, we cannot continue to make it so costly and difficult to build
apartments. These restrictions have led to the enormous rent increases we have
experienced. As a parent with a daughter in an out of town masters program looking to
possibly become a teacher, affordability of housing will guide her decision on whether to
return to Phoenix or not. By reducing the required number of parking spaces, we will
need smaller parcels of land to build the needed housing and reduce the overall cost of
the project. Fewer parking spaces means less asphalt and heat island impact. More
building and less parking increases property tax revenues to maintain our city. Smaller
parking lots means shorter distances between places, reducing traffic and improving
walkability.
I applaud the willingness to make these modifications and immediately look to the next
step. All of the changes being suggested are critical. However, while it is wonderful to
reduce parking requirements on multi-family land, the fact remains there is little to no
land available which is actually zoned to build multi family housing and every re-zoning
case typically takes 9 months, increases costs and ultimately sets us back from
reaching our housing goals. This lack of opportunity drives correctly zoned land prices
higher and higher off setting the great steps hopefully being taken at this meeting to
build more housing. With that in mind I would implore this body in a future step to
consider allowing commercially zoned land along arterials and collectors throughout our
city, especially those with bus or light rail transit, to allow by right T:4:3 zoning and T:5:5
zoning in appropriate places, which will then actually give us land to build housing on.
Thank you for your consideration of this case and I hope for continued progress in the
future.


Dan Klocke
Phoenician




Page 344
July 19, 2023

200 W. Washington Street, 11th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003


RE: Neighborhood Leaders Support Amendments to Reduce Parking Restrictions

Dear Mayor Kate Gallego and Phoenix City Council:

On behalf of myself and the Carnation Association of Neighbors, I am writing in support of proposed Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y and request that you vote yes to approve this amendment to
reduce the mandatory minimum parking requirements for multifamily, single-family, and affordable housing.
The Carnation Neighborhood is located in the Melrose area of Phoenix between the Light Rail and 7th Avenue
on the east and west and between Indian School and the Grand Canal on the north and south. Our
neighborhood is a diverse mix of single family and multifamily homes. Many people have moved to our
neighborhood in recent years because it is adjacent to major public transit stops, including the Light Rail,
and walking distance to the wonderful businesses in the Melrose District. Just in the past decade, I have seen
many people eschewing car use in favor of walking, biking, taking public transit or rideshares. This
phenomenon will continue, especially if our City builds the infrastructure to support it. I am writing in support
of the proposed text amendment because it will continue to make our community more bikeable and
walkable, it reflects the reality that our residents have more transit options and will help reduce the cost of
building housing in this City.

The historical and empirical evidence has made it clear that minimum parking requirements, especially
around public transit nodes, have led to empty, unused parking lots that make our City less walkable,
bikeable, and livable. Residents in the Carnation Neighborhood and all around our City are looking for
policies that will encourage walkability and make it safe and easy for all of our families to walk and bike in
our neighborhoods. The proposed Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y is a very reasonable step in the right
direction, and I encourage you to vote yes on the proposed text amendment as proposed. Thank you for your
work to make housing more affordable and this City more walkable and transit friendly.


Sincerely,



Ed Hermes
President, Carnation Neighborhood Association
Carnationassociationaz@gmail.com
https://www.carnationassociationaz.com/
480-452-2062




Page 345
1603 Orrington Avenue Suite 450  Evanston, Illinois 60201  Phone 847.562.9400  Fax 847.562.9401  www. brinshore.com




July 31, 2023

Phoenix City Council and
Phoenix Planning Commission

Re: Support of Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y
Phoenix Scholar House, 2945 N. 18th Pl, Phoenix, AZ
Affordable Housing in Phoenix

To Whom it May Concern,

As developer of the Phoenix Scholar House, a proposed 56-unit mixed-income, multifamily community in
Phoenix, we write in support of Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y for right-sizing parking mandates.

The Phoenix Scholar House has been thoughtfully designed to include 56 rental units that will serve
families making from 30% to 60% of the Area Median Income. While working closely with the City’s
Planning professionals, along with our local non-profit partner Save the Family, we will combine education
and housing to lift families into self-sufficiency and permanently from public assistance.

Because affordable housing has long been a stated as a priority of the City of Phoenix Concept Plan, we
support this Text Amendment’s objective to refresh the outdated zoning codes, which, in effect, will
continually price community members out of their neighborhoods and their city.

 Right-sizing parking mandates have become popular across the country. The May-June YouGov
poll of Arizona voters found that 60% of Maricopa County residents support reducing parking
mandates, so long as at least one parking space is provided per home.

Please vote YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking rations with the needs and budgets of
everyday, hardworking residents of Phoenix.

Should you have any questions, or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at
(513) 603-0074 or by email at scottp@brinshore.com.

Respectfully submitted,


Scott Puffer
Senior Vice President
Brinshore Development, L.L.C.




Page 346
Page 347
Racelle Escolar

From: Krista Shepherd
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:53 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Krista.Shepherd@multi.studio
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17


To whom it may concern:

I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would positively allow for:
 incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
 multi‐generational housing
 property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
 aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reductions): This would positively allow for:

 greater utilization of transit systems
 allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
 promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
 supports development of affordable housing
 aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
 aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Thank you.
Krista
Resident of District 6, Business location is District 7, Member of the 2025 Plan Phoenix Leadership Committee

Krista Shepherd AIA, LEED AP, NCARB
Principal




o 602.650.7630 c 602.708.4588
Krista.Shepherd@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 348
Racelle Escolar

From: Kelly Hatch
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:05 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17


To whom it may concern:

I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would positively allow for:
 incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
 multi‐generational housing
 property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
 aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reductions): This would positively allow for:

 greater utilization of transit systems
 allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
 promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
 supports development of affordable housing
 aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
 aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.


Kelly Hatch

Kelly Hatch NCIDQ
Senior Associate




o 602.650.7635 c 425.218.5383
Kelly.Hatch@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 349
Racelle Escolar

From: Mike Anglin
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:11 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Aug 3, 2023 - Planning Commission - SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17

Importance: High



To whom it may concern:

I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADU’s):
This would positively allow for:
• incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
• multi-generational housing
• property owner wealth-building through rental opportunities
• aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z-TA-8-23-Y (Parking reductions):
This would positively allow for:
• greater utilization of transit systems
• greater density to be built on small infill lots
• promoting development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requirements that cannot
reasonably fit on site
• supporting development of affordable housing
• alignment with the Walkable Urban Code
• alignment with transit-oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Thank you.
Mike
Resident of District 5 and employee of business located in District 7


Mike Anglin RA, LEED AP
Senior Associate
he/him



o 602.650.7614 c 520.664.4625
Mike.Anglin@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 350
Racelle Escolar

From: Melissa Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:29 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17


To whom it may concern:

I am wri ng to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would posi vely allow for:
 incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
 multi‐generational housing
 property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
 aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reduc ons): This would posi vely allow for:

 greater utilization of transit systems
 allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
 promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
 supports development of affordable housing
 aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
 aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Thank you.
Melissa
Resident of District 6, Business loca on is District 7


Melissa Alexander NCIDQ, IIDA
Principal




o 602.650.7627 c 602.748.5505
Melissa.Alexander@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 351
RCVD 8/2/2023

7250 N. 16th Street, Suite 302 | Phoenix, AZ 85020
1-866-389-5649 | Fax: 602-256-2928 | TTY: 1-877-434-7598
aarp.org/az | azaarp@aarp.org | twitter: @AZ_AARP
facebook.com/aarparizona




AARP Arizona on City of Phoenix Text Amendments Z-TA-5-23-y and
Z-TA-8-23-Y

AARP Arizona, on behalf of its almost 900,000 Arizona members is excited to support
both text amendments as they will reduce and remove barriers to creating more housing
that is affordable to all Phoenicians.

TA-5-23:

The City of Phoenix is in desperate need of more units that are affordable. As one of the
largest cities in the nation, and growing, we must work to address these concerns. As
our economy and population have grown, so too have the prices of rent. While we
welcome the growth and prosperity to our city, we must ensure that city residents have
access to stable housing. We’ve watched our population of unhoused grow dramatically
over the last few years, especially amongst the 50+. In our heat, housing is a matter of
life and death.

Accessible Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as Casitas or Mother-in-Law Suites, are
a great way to combat the over 150,000-unit shortage we have in the city. We also have
evidence that these units, if allowed, will go to those most in need of them. A 2018 study
in Vancouver found that 32% of the residents of ADUs had income that was less than
80% of the regional median income, and 16% had income that was less than half of the
regional median income.

The average Social Security check in Arizona is roughly $1,550 per month, whereas the
average rent in Phoenix is closer to $2,100 per month. People who moved to Arizona in
years past are now being priced out leading to some of the difficulties we are currently
seeing.

From another perspective, ADUs can also allow for older adults, who need care by
family but can’t afford living in a long-term care facility, to have a home to age in place.
There are an estimated 800,000 unpaid family caregivers in Arizona and having more
options to those needing care to be near those providing helps everyone.

TA-8-23:

Regarding the parking requirement changes, AARP policy actually recommends no on-
site parking requirements. Parking requirements create additional barriers to ADU




Page 352
creation because there is additional land needed and present additional costs. For
instance, depending on the type of parking being built it can range between $2,500 and
$15,000.

Interestingly, we do not require more parking for every additional bedroom created in a
home, thus, AARP believes that ADUs should be treated similarly.

According to a recent AARP Arizona survey, 80% of respondents put increasing rent as
one of the top concerns they had which could prevent them from aging in place. In the
same survey, 90% of respondents said that Elected Leaders should make affordable
housing a priority.

We are seeing everyone including stakeholders, elected officials, and residents all
agree that housing is a major concern. These proposed changes would be a step in the
right direction to allow Phoenix to grow without leaving people, especially older adults
behind.



Sincerely,

Dana Marie Kennedy, MSW

State Director, AARP Arizona




Page 353
August 2, 2023



Re: ADU and Parking Reform Items Before Your Commission

To Whom It May Concern:

As a Phoenix resident, father of two children, and someone who works in the development and
construction industry, I urge the Phoenix Planning Commission to support text amendments
Z-TA-5-23-Y (legalizing casitas) and Z-TA-8-23-Y (right-sizing parking mandates).

Our zoning code must keep pace with the needs of society. These needs are not static. Indeed, they
are dynamic and always changing. If our zoning code is meant to serve our community and protect
its best interests, then it too must remain dynamic and open to change. Because affordability
metrics, long permitting times, and housing production numbers clearly indicate that the status quo
is not keeping up. This reality demands action.

I am proud to see our city step up to the plate and show leadership by taking a serious look at
zoning reform. Both text amendments before you are critical.

Backyard units give people options, especially for multi-generational families or those who need
more space but cannot move due to an existing job or today’s much higher interest rates. These
same units were once legal in some of our most beloved historic neighborhoods–just take a look
around Coronado, for example. It is time we re-legalize what was once a common sense way to
gently grow and incrementally expand a family’s use of their hard-won property.

PLEASE VOTE YES on Z-TA-5-23-Y to legalize casitas!

Relaxed parking minimums are equally valuable. There is a long and proven literature covering the
many ways high parking ratios negatively impact our communities, but that’s not even the most
important point. Simply put, these requirements driven significant cost, and those costs transfer all
the way down to the monthly rent paid by everyday people. Reducing parking ratios is not a
giveaway to well capitalized developers. Instead, it is a leg up to our neighbors, many of whom rent
either out of necessity or by choice. We need to do everything we can to encourage efficient use of
infill land while reducing the cost to construct infill housing.

PLEASE VOTE YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking ratios with today’s needs!

Thank you,
Lucas Lindsey




www.urbnist.com | 2839 E Yucca
PageSt.
354Phoenix, AZ 85028 | @urbnist
Racelle Escolar

From: Lorenzo Perez
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 10:37 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: Joshua Bednarek
Subject: FW: Planning Commission - Discussion on Reduced Parking Minimums (Multifamily Development
Projects)


Dear Planning Commission,

I’m submitting this email to acknowledge and support the efforts undertaken by the Planning and Development
Department to proactively evaluate and propose reducing required Parking Minimums for Multifamily Residential
Development projects in the City of Phoenix.

It’s no secret that we as a nation are significantly underhoused, especially with affordable and attainable housing. Travel
the state or country and witness the impact in large amounts of under and unsheltered individuals. Several factors
contribute to this reality, some of which are dated development policies that don’t keep up with the times, fail to
consider different contexts in the built environment nor account for evolving market demand conditions. It’s
encouraging to see Phoenix take proactive measures to find solutions to help facilitate new approaches to encouraging
the development of more diverse cost efficient housing. Time is money for developers and having policies in place that
reduce or eliminate the need to pursue time and cost intensive parking reduction variances helps get projects to market
faster at less cost. This is fundamental for establishing affordability as development costs ultimately get passed onto the
user/consumer. City governments are in the unique position to lead efforts such as this to streamline and simplify the
development process.

As a developer, owner and operator of mixed use projects, particularly infill and adaptive reuse projects, I’m proud to
see the City of Phoenix leading this effort and taking proactive action to find workable solutions, soliciting input from
people/firms that develop projects.

As a practitioner in this space, I offer the P&D department and Planning Commission a few points to consider as they
reflect on and continue to work through this process ….

1. I encourage the commission to PRIORITIZE HOUSING PEOPLE OVER PARKING CARS. It is a community and
economic development priority that effects every citizen’s quality of life. If we don’t have an adequate supply of
diverse residential options to house all levels of the workforce, especially the most vulnerable in high value
service roles such as firemen, police officers, nurses, office clerks, teachers, retailers, service workers,
construction workers, tradesman, laborers, grocery store clerks, etc, what kind of city and local economy will we
have?
2. Consider that not all households are the same. Small household formations of 1‐2 people are one of the fastest
and largest growing market sectors in the US that cover all ages of adults. Not all residents can afford cars or
choose not to own one and instead take advantage of transit and rideshare. Developing policy that addresses
the needs of a varied and diverse housing base is critical. This study and proposal is a significant step in that
direction.
3. Having to dedicate less land for parking opens up more space to add diverse housing options and reduce
housing development cost. Increased housing supply delivered faster, at less cost, translates to more available
affordable housing options. Parking is expensive to construct, to maintain and significantly hinders the ability to
develop urban / suburban sites.




Page 355
4. Requiring less parking reduces the potential to have overparked and underutilized sites that often become
attractive nuisances for illicit activity and become costly burdens to maintain and service during operation,
negatively contributing to a property’s appeal and ongoing affordability.
5. Offering parking reduction incentives to encourage affordable housing is a good idea to attract more
affordable/attainable and attractive development.
6. Encouraging property owners to work together and develop shared parking strategies is something that should
be examined. We’ve had success with our commercial infill projects working with neighbors to use adjacent or
nearby underutilized parking assets to help provide overflow parking for our retail / dining projects. Office and
retail properties are great complimentary evening parking solutions for residential.
7. Less surface parking is a sensitive development sustainability approach to reducing heat island effect from large
exposed parking fields.
8. We are blessed in Phoenix to have large right of way streets. Consider leveraging this existing asset to provide
additional on street parking as an option for multifamily development. Owners and developers would likely
entertain paying a reasonable and proportionate fee to help contribute to the ongoing maintenance of the
streets in exchange for this option in lieu of overinvesting into parking that may or may not get used. In many
cases across the city, we have enough space to accommodate on street parking while maintaining adequate
traffic flow. Many cities across the world utilize on‐street parking as an asset to free up land for more housing.
Phoenix could benefit from this paradigm shift to help generate revenue to assist with the maintenance of
streets while simultaneously helping to incentivize more housing.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice some thoughts on this issue and for taking this important step to build a more
livable city.

Respectfully,

Lorenzo Perez
602.689.0194 Cell
lorenzo@venueprojects.com





Page 356
Page 357
Page 358
August 3rd, 2023


As community organizations led by and serving Phoenix families and community leaders,
we urge the Planning Commission at the City of Phoenix to support text amendments
Z-TA-5-23-Y (legalizing casitas) and Z-TA-8-23-Y (right-sizing parking mandates). These
proposals will help make housing more affordable and attainable across our city,
increase access to jobs and amenities, and save Phoenicians money when we
desperately need it.

Housing is a basic human need and we believe that any hard-working Phoenician should be
able to find safe, stable housing they can afford. We also recognize that our outdated
zoning codes present a huge barrier to affordable and attainable housing. Our city
policymakers have an obligation to act, to ensure no hard-working Phoenician is priced
out of their community.

The two proposals before the Planning Commission and City Council would provide modest,
but important improvements to affordability and livability in Phoenix. They will create a
pathway for our city to stay a place Phoenicians can afford to live, work, and raise families,
while maintaining the visual character and livability of our neighborhoods.


Legalize casitas to expand affordable housing options
Vote YES on Z-TA-5-23-Y to legalize casitas, vital to any affordable housing strategy.

Casitas are among the most naturally affordable forms of housing.
● A new market-rate casita rents for 75% less than a new single-family home.1
● Multiple studies have found the average casita is affordable at between 60% and
80% of area median income.

Casitas provide opportunity to people of all ages.
● Casitas enable seniors to age in place by providing ongoing rental income without
needing to move off their property.2
● Casitas enable multigenerational living on a single parcel, particularly useful for
families who want to live in multigenerational arrangements.3

Legalizing casitas is popular. A YouGov poll of Arizona voters in May-June of this year found
that 73% of Maricopa County residents support allowing owners of single-family houses
to build and rent out casitas on their property, vs. only 18% opposition.4
https://www.sightline.org/2021/08/01/we-ran-the-rent-numbers-on-portlands-7-newly-legal-home-options/
https://www.aarp.org/home-family/your-home/info-2020/accessory-dwelling-unit.html
https://accessorydwellings.org/2016/01/22/adu-multigenerational-families/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BrOgBvXl9v1q7Z_fFm-tC7uE5fV9FuTF/view?usp=sharing


Page 359
Right-size parking mandates to bring down housing costs
Vote YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking ratios with the needs and budgets of
everyday, hardworking Phoenicians.

Study after study shows parking mandates make housing more expensive.
● Multiple independent, nonpartisan analyses of parking mandates found that on-site
parking adds 15% - 17% to the cost of rent.5 6
● Another study showed that during peak periods 37% of urban residential parking
spaces are unoccupied.7

Relaxing parking mandates enables more homes to be built more quickly.
● Studies of cities that repealed parking mandates in the last ten years found that 60%
to 70% of new homes built there would not have been legal under prior mandates.8

Right-sizing parking mandates are popular. The May-June YouGov poll of Arizona voters
found that 60% of Maricopa County residents support reducing parking mandates, so
long as at least one parking space is provided per home, vs. only 22% opposition.



Phoenicians support bold action to build more affordable housing
With Phoenix facing a shortage of over 163,000 homes, the working residents of our city are
done waiting for action.9 The May-June YouGov poll of Arizona voters found that 55% of
Maricopa County residents believe “building more affordable housing” is important.

The time to act is now. Phoenix’s working families need you to vote YES on text
amendments Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y.

Signed,

Urban Phoenix Project
Arizona State Senator Anna Hernandez
Arizona State Representative Analise Ortiz
American Institute of Architects
AIA Phoenix Metro
A Permanent Voice Foundation


https://www.sightline.org/research_item/who-pays-for-parking/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2016.1205647
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattles-car-population-has-finally-peaked/
https://www.sightline.org/2023/04/13/parking-reform-legalized-most-of-the-new-homes-in-buffalo-and-seattle/
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/phoenix-draft-homeless-plan-hopes-portal-advocates-community-gallego-11478370


Page 360
Carbon Vudu LLC
Carnation Association of Neighbors
CHISPA AZ
Fuerte AZ
Merge Architectural Group
Phoenix Spokes People
RAIL CDC
SoPho Convening
Trees Matter
Unemployed Workers United





Page 361
Racelle Escolar

From: pearce@carbon-vudu.us
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:07 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: ADU Support and less parking


Yes I support the ADU program and less parking c.

Pearce | 602.430.3451 ©2023 OWNERSHIP OF SERVICE ‐‐ All reports, plans, specifica ons, computer documents, field data, notes and informa on prepared
by CARBON VUDU LLC and their consultants shall remain the property thereto. CARBON VUDU LLC shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights,
including the copyright thereto.





Page 362
Racelle Escolar

From: Dudzik Smith, Katherine
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:58 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Support for Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y


Hello,

I am writing in support of the Zoning text amendments suggested by the City of Phoenix staff to allow ADUs and
reduction of parking minimums. Both of these measures will help with the affordable housing crisis that the Phoenix
metro area is experiencing and thus help the homelessness situation. Both of these measures help with creating a
stronger community by allowing more diverse development. Please adopt these zoning text amendments.

Thank you,
Katherine

Katherine Dudzik Smith, AIA, NOMA, LEED AP, NCARB
Senior Design Architect

HDR
20 East Thomas Road, Suite 2500
Phoenix, AZ 85012
D 602.474.7812 M 480.239.6291
Katherine.DudzikSmith@hdrinc.com

hdrinc.com/follow-us [hdrinc.com]





Page 363
ATTACHMENT I
RCVD 6/27/2023




Page 364
Page 365
Page 366
Page 367
Page 368
FROM : Robert Maynard

SUBJECT : Parking space

MESSAGE : I just read where the city council will vote to reduce parking spaces for
apartments in various parts of the city. I am very much against this. Parking is an issue around
this city all the time. Look around any school and the residential neighborhoods where the
neighborhood,is inundated with students, and parents cars. Try finding a parking spot in
uptown plaza on the weekends and holidays.
Overall it is a very bad idea. It would have been a good idea if done in the 60s or early 70s but
not now.

Thank you for your public service on the council,
Robert Maynard
524 W. Why Worry Lane
Phoenix, 85021

Email : maynard198@cox.net

AREA : 602

PHONE : 9976640

ADDRESS : 524 W. Why Worry Lane

CITY : PHOENIX

STATE : AZ

ZIP : 85021

Submission ID: 53d14aade3b24416acf98b1c660f80cb

Form Submission On : 7/18/2023 12:24:07 PM

Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district3/contact-district-3
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.




Page 369
1 August 2023

Chair and Commissioners
Planning Commission
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:

Attached with this letter is a correspondence the Neighborhood Coalition (NCGP) sent to all
Village Planning Committees (VPCs) in July regarding the subject text amendments.
NCGP representatives presented on the subject at ten of the 15 VPCs.
Planning and Development submitted to you an addendum to the ADU text amendment. While
we appreciate the effort to improve the TA, the changes have yet to be aired so we wish for a
more fulsome public discussion before embracing the changes suggested.
We continue to stand by our recommendations—amending the ADU TA to improve the clarity
of its impact on historic preservation districts, special planning districts and overlays, and HOAs
and CC&Rs. We also think managing short term rentals (STRs) deserves a greater inspection.
We also believe that the proposed parking reductions to affordable and multifamily housing
projects warrant substantial amendments to be considered viable on a citywide basis. Indeed,
nine of the 15 VPCs voted to deny the reduced parking text amendment as presented to you.
Please consider the recommendations NCGP has offered you for both TAs.


Respectfully,
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix members and friends
att.




Page 370
11 July 2023

Chair and Committee Members
Desert View Village Planning Committee
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)

Chair and Committee members:

The Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix is registered with the Corporation Commission of
the State of Arizona and has continuously been a member in good standing since 1984. Our
members are from neighborhoods across the City of Phoenix.

Background
We understand that our nation is facing a housing shortage and that Arizona and Phoenix have
not been spared from this shortage. NCGP members believe it falls upon all of us to help provide
relief and a sustainable path forward.

In that spirit, members of the NCGP working group gathered to review and discuss the proposed
subject text amendments the City has anticipated to address our housing shortage.

2023 Arizona Legislative Session
This year’s session saw several housing bills make their way through the Legislature without
success. Indeed, NCGP, its members and our partners across the Valley and the state were active
in seeking ‘no’ votes from elected representatives. Ultimately, the bills were either voted down
decisively, on a bipartisan basis, or they failed to make their way to the floor of either Chamber.1


Senate bill SB1117 was denied in the Senate on a bipartisan vote, failing 20 to 9 in March. The bill was then
broken into 3 separate bills: HB1161, HB1163 and SB2536. On the final day of voting in June, SB2536 was defeated
on a bipartisan basis, 19-10. HB1161 and HB1163 failed to get a vote on the House floor, ending the bill sponsor’s
push for so-called ‘zoning reform.’




Page 371
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 2 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023

We provide this information to let VPC members know that all the text amendments coming
through committees in the last several months--and now this month—can claim origins from
the bills at the state legislature that we are intimately familiar with.
Z-TA-5-23 (Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs)
Many of us think that ADUs can have a positive impact on the housing supply in our city. Yet, we
believe that there are several elements of the proposed TA that require additional scrutiny. These
are our comments and suggestions.

I. Historic Preservation and other Special Planning/Overlay Districts:

We have great concern that the TA as presented will create confusion and contention between
this ordinance and the ordinances that govern properties of historic significance. Z-TA-5-23-Y
must state that for historic properties, Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance takes precedence over
the design review standards for ADUs. Specifically, the proposed language states:

"(c) DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED
THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS."

The phrase "so long as..." is imprecise and doesn't make it clear that ADUs in historic districts
MUST be reviewed by the HP Office. The proposed language is subject to misinterpretation that a
project may EITHER be approved by the HP Office OR incorporate the Design Guidelines of
Section 8.5 of the TA.

To make it clear that ADUs in historic districts must have HP approval, we suggest the following
language:

"Dwelling units within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Section 8.5 herein, or other ordinance or
regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation),
Article 8 shall have precedence."

We also believe the proposed TA Section 702.F.1(b) (Special Parking Standards), likewise does not
make it clear that HP approval is REQUIRED for the addition of parking to the front of a historic
property (widening of driveways and curb cuts, etc.), and the language should be strengthened.
The proposed language states:

"Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex residential uses may be
located in the required front yard. However, all parking and maneuvering areas within the
required front yard shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOTBE REQUIRED TO BE LESS
THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.”




Page 372
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 3 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


We think stronger language is needed to ensure that Historic Preservation regulation takes
precedence over the ADU ordinance by deleting, "Unless otherwise stipulated by Historic
Preservation", and adding the following sentence:

"Any and all changes to driveways, parking and maneuvering areas within a historic
district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject to review by the City of Phoenix
Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the
provisions of Section 702.F.1 herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent
with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall have
precedence."

Third, the proposed amendment Section 706.A.3.b (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)) is also
worded in such a way that makes HP approval seem optional.

The proposed language states:

"b. A DETACHED ADU, WHEN VISIBLE FROM ADJACENT STREETS, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
WITH SIMILAR AND/OR COMPLEMENTARY MATERIALS, DESIGN, AND COLOR(S) AS THE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, OR AS MAY BE APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP
ZONED OR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. (P)"

Instead of using the imprecise phrase, "or as may be approved", the language should be
strengthened as follows to make it clear HP approval is REQUIRED for historic properties:

Delete the phrase "or as may be approved by Historic Preservation..." and add the following
sentence:
“A detached ADU within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay is subject
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b herein, or
other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall take precedence."

II. Parking for ADUs

We agree that the amount of the front yard that can be allowed for parking needs to increase
from 45% to 50% for parcels that are approved for an Additional Dwelling Unit. We also know,
based on experience, that on-street parking will become more frequent.

To ensure that property owners in proximity to a property with an ADU is not inconvenienced or
that use of their property is not diminished, on-street parking should be regulated. Please note
that homes subject to Historic Preservation, Special Zoning and Overlay Districts are still subject
to whatever specific regulation(s) applies to those properties per the first consideration in this
position statement.



Page 373
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 4 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


Combining on-site and on-street parking concerns, the regulation should read:

“A minimum of 1 parking space shall be available either on-site with adherence to Section
720.F.1 as amended to 50% of the front yard, or on-street parking that must only be in
front of the subject property unless the property is a corner lot and side-street parking is
possible.”

Consideration should also be given to adding language to ensure visibility triangles are
maintained.

III. Short Term Rental

We appreciate the addition of the paragraph in the revised TA requiring a Restrictive Covenant
but do not feel it is strong enough to meet the City’s goal of increasing affordable housing supply
for permanent residents. As currently worded, the Restrictive Covenant will preclude investors
who own residential property from applying for an ADU, but it does not prevent an owner-
occupied property from renting an ADU on a short-term basis. The consequence will have a
negative impact on affordable housing for first time renters (e.g., college-aged adults), and
temporary workers (e.g., traveling nurses), among others.

The Restrictive Covenant paragraph should be revised to add the regulation that ADUs, if rented,
must be for a term of no less than thirty (30) days. The current City of Flagstaff ordinance states:

(a)The property owner, which includes title holders and contract purchasers, shall occupy
either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their principal residence, unless the
primary dwelling unit and ADU are allowed to be separately leased or rented in
accordance with subsection G of this Section.

(b)The primary dwelling unit or the ADU that is not occupied by the property owner that is
rented or leased shall be for a period of no less than 30 days.

IV. Homeowners’ Associations/ CCRs

The proposed TA does not address coordination with Homeowners’ Associations or Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions. By law, these contracts must be honored in addition to municipal
codes and ordinances. This TA should state that applicants for ADUs must comply with HOA and
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in addition to the provisions of the ordinance.

Z- TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)
We understand the desire to relieve what developers perceive as parking ‘constraints.’ We
generally believe, however, that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to parking reductions does not
reflect a thoughtful approach for a city of 517 square miles.




Page 374
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 5 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


Any reduction in the current parking space calculations for multi-family housing, in any district
and any price category, will put the burden of parking on public streets throughout the city.
Therefore, any revisions to the current ordinance need careful consideration.

We believe this TA is being rushed through the approval process without such diligence. With the
goal of working together to find suitable solutions, we make observations and propose revisions
to the current ordinance as follows:

I. Parking space calculations for multi-family developments should only be based on
proximity to currently available transportation options. They should never be based on
the rental rates of the units (I.e., luxury, affordable, market rate, low-income/subsidized).
It is discriminatory to believe that people who live in lower-priced housing do not have or
do not want personal vehicles.

II. Because of the cost of apartment rentals, more units of every size are being shared
by two or more people, oftentimes housemates rather than couples. Expecting that no
occupant will have a car, even in TODs and WU code areas, is not based on empirical data.

III. Reducing the on-site parking requirements for multi-family housing might be
appropriate for residents living in the Downtown Core, Transit Oriented and WU Code
districts, yet it is not acceptable to residents living outside of those districts.

Phoenix is the second largest city by area in the United States. Because of the lack of
convenient, reliable public transportation in every Phoenix Village outside of downtown
and within walking distance of light rail, residents depend on personal vehicles to go to
work, to the grocery, and to the entertainment venues clustered in downtown.

Those residents who do not live downtown will also need parking to continue enjoying all
that downtown has to offer. If all the street parking is taken by downtown residents,
commuting patrons will be deterred from attending events.

IV. Include a requirement that visibility triangles must be maintained.
A. Reducing on-site parking to encourage more density with potentially small front
and side setbacks could lead to encroachment on the visibility triangle that is a
necessity to ensure safety.

V. City-wide Multi-family Parking Requirement
A. The base parking space requirement should be 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
i. This simplifies the calculation instead of calculation based on size of DU
ii. Maintains the current requirement as the most frequently built size of
unit (1-2 bdrm)
iii. Averages the current requirements (1.25/efficiency; 1.5/1-2 bdrm; 2/3
bdrm)



Page 375
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 6 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023

iv. It should not be less than the current efficiency DU requirement


VI. Citywide Affordable housing Parking Reduction
A. Delete this provision because it does not consider proximity to alternative to
personal vehicle modes of transportation.

VII. Infill Development District Parking Reduction
A. Delete the calculations entirely
B. Use 10% bonus density incentive

VII. Walkable Urban (WU) Code affordable housing parking requirements
A. Required parking should never be “zero”
B. Parking for handicapped residents should always be required and maintained
C. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas
of the WU Code will not have personal vehicles
D. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas
of the WU Code will never have a guest with a personal vehicle

IX. Passenger Loading Zones within WU Code
A. Also require parking of service vehicles (e.g., repair technicians) that require
more time than the other stated examples
B. Also require parking for renter move-in/move-out vehicles that require more
time than the other stated examples

Process: Lack of neighborhood outreach
In a June 1, 2023, staff report to the City of Phoenix Planning Commission, PDD staff wrote:

Staff obtained input from various stakeholders and held four meetings to review and
request additional input on the proposed text amendment. Stakeholders included
individuals from the following organizations:
• Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona (MHCA)
• Manufactured Housing Industry of Arizona (MHIA)
• Arizona Department of Housing Board of Manufactured Housing Member
• Affordable Housing/Private Developers
• Arizona State University, Real Estate Development

While we understand that staff feels the need to reach out to industry representatives to
understand their position, so, too does staff need to reach out to citizens and neighborhoods to
understand the issues of the vast swaths of residents who will be impacted by these proposed
sweeping changes to our housing stock.

Does the City of Phoenix think that simply vetting these proposals—changes that can have a vast
impact on the existing population—should only be presented to VPCs?



Page 376
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 7 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


Clearly, some VPCs took issue with the speed and confusion of the proposals of the initial two
text amendments when they were presented. It appears six of 15 VPCs did not meet quorum on
the first go-around; yet another VPC did not meet quorum last night.

We ask: How can vast changes to the entire city be vetted by, perhaps, 150 people or less?

Next steps: Approve our recommended amendments
We have pored over these proposals to identify the gaps and looked ahead to stave off
unintended consequences. We’ve shared those with you here. Simply approving what’s been
presented in your packet would be to ignore the serious concerns we’ve presented without
rectifying those issues.

The Neighborhood Coalition looks to make these TAs the strongest and most applicable they can
be. We would be disappointed if members simply approved the proposals “as is” because we
don’t want to see this opportunity squandered for the sake of speed, with all of us missing out on
something that can truly help our city now and in the future.

Respectfully,


Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP)
Neal Haddad, President, NCGP; Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association
B. Paul Barnes, Vice President, NCGP; AZ APA Distinguished Citizen Planner; former CEVPC chair
Mary Crozier, President, North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association
Sandy Grunow, Co-Chair, Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association
Dave Jackson, President, Rancho Ventura Neighborhood Association
Jack Leonard, architect, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP; 2015 General Plan update committee;
former Camelback East and Encanto Village Planning Committees
Michael Phillips, President, Arcadia Camelback Neighborhood Association
Jackie Rich, President, Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association
Larry Whitesell, Co-Chair, The Peak Neighborhood Association




Page 377
Racelle Escolar

From: jvrich@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:46 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on Agenda Items 16 and 7 (Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y)


Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing this email to urge you to take your time in considering the proposed complex text amendments pertaining to Accessory
Dwelling Units and Reduced Parking Requirements. Do not rush into a decision before you are comfortable that what you are acting on
will not come back and bite you and the city of Phoenix at a later date.

These two text amendments will have a big impact on Phoenix and Phoenicians. They sprung from the Planning Department, were
sent to the Village Planning Committees for their recommendations (all of whom are Council appointees), now you, also Council
appointees, are considering them, and then finally, the Council will act on them. The public’s opportunity to provide input was neither
publicized or solicited. No neighborhood stakeholders were included in their development. While there were articles in the AZ
Republic about the Accessory Dwelling Unit amendment as early as July 3, the first article on the parking reduction text amendment
was on July 19, when all but 3 VPCs had already met and made recommendations. It is also worth mentioning that the agendas for the
VPCs did not identify Z-TA-8-23-Y as reducing required parking although they identified the other amendment as allowing
ADUs. Instead the agenda listed all the sections that needed to be changed so that someone looking at it would have no idea what that
text amendment was actually about.

The only members of the public who have participated in the VPC meetings are people who serve on a different VPC, work for an
industry that would benefit from these amendments, or neighbors and neighborhood groups who accidentally found out about the
amendments. I have been to five VPC meetings, each of which lasted for as long as 3.5 hours, just to be able to speak for 2 minutes
max on each text amendment. (Note, some VPCs allowed more time for members of the public to speak - just not the ones I attended.)
At the meetings I attended, I was not allowed to ask questions. Following public comments, staff often offered a rebuttal to what
members of the public said, and after that the public was ignored - no opportunity for any of us to answer questions that came up or to
respond to incorrect information. It was frustrating.

I have other concerns about the VPC meetings. The packets that were sent to the VPC members online were well in excess of 200
pages. Some packets weren’t sent out until after 3:30 pm the day of the meeting; some VPC members never received a packet; other
VPC members received packets but didn’t read them (perhaps because of lack of time or because of the length). There was a
questionable email conversation about the text amendments that all VPC members were part of and which was potentially in violation of
the Open Meeting Law that was referred to at a VPC meeting by several VPC members. Several of the VPCs did not have a quorum in
June and so learned about the text amendments for the first time in July when they were expected to vote on them.

Some of the Planning Commission members are essentially in the same position as those VPC members who had the least amount of
time to learn about the text amendments. They are hearing staff’s presentation about these complex text amendments on the same
night they are expected to vote on them. Your consideration of the text amendments will be late in the night after considering 13 other
cases. How many hundreds of pages were in your packet? The text amendments alone are a lot of information to digest in an evening.

These text amendments are too important and consequential to be rushed through and there is no compelling reason to do so. I urge
you to take your time and give these text amendments the time and attention that they deserve.

Thank you,

Jackie Rich
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association





Page 378
Racelle Escolar

From: jvrich@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:55 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on Agenda item 17: Z-TA-8-23-Y


Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing with regards to Z-TA-8-23-Y concerning reductions in parking requirements for multifamily housing.

First of all, I find it surprising that in Z-TA-5-23-Y, which would allow Accessory Dwelling Units, one covered parking space per dwelling
unit is required, while for multi-family housing according to this text amendment, it is acceptable to have .5 parking spaces per unit or
even zero.

The proposed reductions in required parking spaces may work in some parts of town where light rail is nearby, where stores and
services are nearby, and in seasons when the temperatures are moderate. However, it is difficult to imagine that residents living in
parts of the city like Laveen, Desert View, Estrella Mountain, Ahwahtukee, in neighborhoods that are miles from light rail or convenient,
reliable bus service will benefit from the proposed reduced parking requirements. Taking away required parking will not reduce vehicle
ownership. It will mean that apartment residents must park in the streets and walk to and from their cars. On street parking is less
convenient, less safe, less secure than parking in an apartment complex.

It is also difficult to imagine that living within a quarter mile of the light rail would allow people who live in affordable housing to go
entirely without cars and justify zero required parking. A quarter mile is a long way to walk in extreme heat even for young people in
good health. It would be more arduous for everyone else, particularly people who are disabled with mobility problems. There is a
reason that ADA parking spaces are the ones that are closest to entrances to stores and offices - persons with mobility issues can’t
move very far - certainly not a quarter of a mile to get on light rail.

In addition, there are very few grocery and other retail stores, doctors’ offices, and other services that are located along the light rail.
Relying on Light Rail also can limit where one can work, as some jobs require the mobile flexibility that, at this time, only a car can
provide.

It has been argued by affordable housing providers that people living in affordable housing don’t have cars and their parking lots are
half empty. That isn’t true, which you can check out by looking at street view on Google maps. Itt has been argued that developers
will provide more parking than the requirement if that is in the best interest of their prospective tenants. My experience as a neighbor
engaged in land use decisions for more than 20 years, is 9 out of 10 developers will meet the minimum requirements and not go
beyond them in order to maximize their profits. Only the rare developer cares about creating a quality development that benefits the
tenants and the neighborhood.

Thanks to the recently adopted Prop 400 that will be going on the ballot in November, there is no funding allocated to expanding the
light rail system. So in our best case scenario and Proposition 400 is passed, the light rail will not, in the foreseeable future, serve the
communities on the edge of Phoenix. If this is all the light rail there will be, do the proposed reductions in parking requirements in this
text amendment still make sense?

Thank you,

Jackie Rich
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association





Page 379
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT




To: Alan Stephenson Date: August 30, 2023
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua BednarekCx07
Planning and DevJlopment Director

Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 70 ON THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2023, FORMAL AGENDA
- PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND CITY CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION -
PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS - Z-TA-8-23-Y
(ORDINANCE G-7161)

Item70, Z-TA-8-23-Y is a request to amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and
revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low
or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements)
and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13,
Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily, single­
family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for passenger loading
zones.

The Planning and Development Department requests the text amendment be continued to
the November 1, 2023, City Council Formal meeting to allow it to be heard by the City
Council, Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee on October 18,
2023, before returning to City Council Formal.




Approved:
��nager




Page 380
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



To: Alan Stephenson Date: October 25, 2023
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua Bednare��
Planning and Deve(opment Director

Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 82 ON THE NOVEMBER 1, 2023, FORMAL AGENDA -
PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND CITY CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION - PARKING
REDUCTIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS- Z-TA-8-23-Y
(ORDINANCE G-7161)

Item 82, Z-TA-8-23-Y is a request to amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and
revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low
or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements)
and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13,
Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily, single­
family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for passenger loading
zones.

Staff provided an overview of the text amendment to the City Council Transportation
Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee on October 18, 2023. Staff also provided
the Subcommittee a summary of the feedback and recommendations received during the
public review process. In response to the feedback and recommendations staff presented
several changes to the text amendment language for the Subcommittee's consideration.
Changes included modifications to the proposed parking standards for multi-family
development citywide, an adjustment to the parking standard for properties with Walkable
Urban Code zoning and the introduction of new reduction provisions for projects serving
special needs populations.

The Subcommittee recommended approval of the proposed changes to the text amendment
by a 3-1 vote and directed staff to meet with all City Council members to the discuss the
changes prior to the text amendment returning to the City Council Formal meeting for
action. In order to provide sufficient time to engage with each of the City Councilmembers,
finalize language for the proposed text changes and meeting notice requirements, staff
requests the text amendment be continued to the January 24, 2024, City Council Formal
meeting.




Approved:




Page 381



Report