← Back to meetings

Meeting phoenix-pdf-2025-07-02 complete

2025-07-02 · Formal Meeting

Items: 108

Formal Meeting

View on Agenda Online ↗

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

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





ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: July 2, 2025
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:

Design Review Committee

The Planning Commission recommends the following for appointment:

Abraham James
Mr. James replaces Ryan Boyd as the Planning Commission representative for a term
to expire July 2, 2027.

Human Relations Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Sonya Harper
Ms. Harper is the Director of Human Services at the Pilgrim Rest Foundation, Inc. and a
resident of District 3. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2028.

Human Services Commission

I recommend the following for reappointment as Chair:

Cecilia Maes
Dr. Maes will serve a second term as Chair to expire June 30, 2026.

I recommend the following for reappointment as Vice Chair:

Petra Falcon
Ms. Falcon will serve a second term as Vice Chair to expire June 30, 2026.

Mayor's Commission on Disability Issues



I recommend the following for appointment:

Melanie Audet
Ms. Audet is the Manager of Transition Programs at the Foundation for Blind Children
and resident of District 3. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire July 2, 2028.

Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board

I recommend the following for reappointment:

Ron Price
Mr. Price will serve a second term to expire July 2, 2029.

I recommend the following for appointment:

Cynthia Aragon
Ms. Aragon is the Senior Vice President of External Affairs and Policy at Raza
Development Fund. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire July 2, 2029.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Waterwalk Phoenix - District 1

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License 343818.

Summary

Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine

Location
1905 W. Pinnacle Peak Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 HGT/WVR
Council District: 1

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 6, 2025.

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

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



Arizona.

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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am committed to operating responsibly within the community, maintaining a safe
environment for patrons, and contributing to the local economy by adhering to all rules
and regulations related to alcohol licensing.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The alcohol license is for a corporate lodging building which will allow for individuals
to stay in rooms for varius time amounts, depending on work, school, or other life
events.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Waterwalk Phoenix -Data
Attachment B - Waterwalk Phoenix - Map

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





Liquor License Data: WATERWALK PHOENIX
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Wholesaler 4 1 1

Bar 6 2 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 0

Liquor Store 9 1 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1

Hotel 11 3 1

Restaurant 12 2 1

Craft Distiller 18 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 41.64 34.81

Violent Crimes 12.31 2.81 2.01

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 43 2

Total Violations 73 4




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6123001 2199 54 6 5

6147001 287 86 29 31

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: WATERWALK PHOENIX
1905 W PINNACLE PEAK RD




Date: 12/16/2024




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Casey Jones Grill - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347123.

Summary

Applicant
Anita McFarland, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

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

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 5, 2025.

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

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




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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have 40+ years of experience in the restaurant industry. I have held several liquor
licenses in another state and have managed them all responsibly. I am an attorney
licensed in three states, including in Arizona. I have the business acumen and
experience to ensure that Casey Jones Grill will continue to be a treasured
neighborhood restaurant.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Casey Jones Grill has been at this location for decades and is part of the
neighborhood and community. As the new owner, I will retain the same staff, menu,
and traditions that have made this restaurant a favorite, but will bring some fresh new
energy to ensure the continuation of this business. I am a civic minded, experienced
businessperson.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Casey Jones Grill - Data
Attachment B - Casey Jones Grill - Map

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





Liquor License Data: CASEY JONES GRILL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 3 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1

Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 1
Restaurant 12 14 8


Crime Data

I Description

Property Crimes
Average *

64.2
1 Mile Average **

127.76
1/2 Mile Average***

117.51

Violent Crimes 12.31 25.39 27.49
I
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within½ mile radius



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels wNiolations 40 74

Total Violations 67 139
I




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1033032 1423 526 48 249

1033041 2061 216 78 671
1033042 1200 27 48 284
1033051 1555 265 37 486

1033052 2177 371 29 554
6195001 1237 357 18 69
6195002 2117 605 14 19
6195003 2528 759 86 475
6196021 1901 596 29 269
Average 1601 393 60 177







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Chipotle Mexican Grill #5344 - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346840.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2975 W. Dove Valley Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 M-R
Council District: 2

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
is currently under construction with plans to open in October 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 7, 2025.

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.

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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant has been a responsible licensee in Arizona since the issuance of its first
license in 1999, and is committed to upholding the highest business standards for
product quality, customer service, community engagement and maintaining
compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the techniques
of legal and responsible management and/or service.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Chipotle Mexican Grill is a quick-serve Mexican eatery enjoyed by area residents,
visitors and workers. In addition to freshly-prepared tacos and burritos, Chipotle would
like to offer its guests beer and margaritas as an incident to their meal. Alcohol sales,
which are limited to bottled beer and margaritas, account for only 2-3%; however, it is
considered an integral part of the restaurant's concept.”

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 A - Chipotle Mexican Grill #5344 - Data
Attachment B - Chipotle Mexican Grill #5344 - Map

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





Liquor License Data: CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL #5344
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 1 1

Restaurant 12 2 2



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 13.13 8.59

Violent Crimes 12.31 2.3 2.54
*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 40 0

Total Violations 67 0



Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6113002 0 0 0 0

6113003 2126 302 98 169

6113004 1767 465 33 51

6113005 2501 532 70 0

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL #5344
2975 W DOVE VALLEY RD




Date: 5/15/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Dillingers Bar & Grill - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346772.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
15615 N. Cave Creek Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location requires a
Use Permit to allow outdoor dining and outdoor alcohol consumption.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 8, 2025.

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






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

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:
“Considering the owners experience and years in bar and restaurant hospitality, she is
quite knowledgeable when it comes to liquor laws and operations. She will be
personally on site site during the hours of operation.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We would like the ability to serve our 21 and over patrons an adult beverage with their
meal to compliment the dining experience, if they choose to have one.”

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

Attachments
Attachment A - Dillingers Bar & Grill - Data
Attachment B - Dillingers Bar & Grill - Map

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





Liquor License Data: DILLINGERS BAR & GRILL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 3 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0

Liquor Store 9 3 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 6

Restaurant 12 10 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 114.41 147.13

Violent Crimes 12.31 23 33.97

*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 39 80

Total Violations 67 131




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1033051 1555 265 37 486

1033052 2177 371 29 554

1033061 1843 117 39 722

1033062 2351 283 67 609

1035011 1291 406 38 220

1036061 561 316 17 168

1036063 2120 707 33 63

1036071 1147 284 27 123

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: DILLINGERS BAR & GRILL
15615 N CAVE CREEK




Date: 5/19/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Rodizio Grill - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 340592.

Summary

Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
7000 E. Mayo Boulevard, Bldg. 24
Zoning Classification: PUD PCD
Council District: 2

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 11, 2025.

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



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.

Melting Pot (Series 12)
19420 N. 59th Avenue, Bldg. B, Glendale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Melting Pot (Series 12)
3626 E. Ray Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 2
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The owners are confident in their ability to responsibly manage and operate a
business with a liquor license, supported by a track record of reliability and
qualifications. Their experience, requirements make me a suitable candidate for
holding a liquor license in the city of Phoenix.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The issuance of the liquor license is deemed necessary for public convenience and is
in the best interest of the community. This decision is grounded in careful consideration
of factors that contribute to the overall well-being of our community, fostering
responsible and regulated access to alcoholic beverages.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Rodizio Grill - Data
Attachment B - Rodizio Grill - Map



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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Taco Cinco - District 3

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347594.

Summary

Applicant
Pedro Huichapa, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
777 E. Thunderbird Road, Ste. 100
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 3

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business is
currently being remodeled with plans to open in August 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 14, 2025.

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






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

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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have completed the required training in order to serve alchohol in a responsible
manner. I have a strong track record of being a law abiding citizen and have no alcohol
related violaitons. I have a strong financial reputation with a very strong FICO. I will
demonstrate strong judgment and operate a professional business. I will commit to
maintaining a safe and responsible environment for all my patrons”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“By allowing the sale of alcohol at my establishment, community and neighborhood
engagement will be promoted. It will provide a safe environment for adults to enjoy
leisure activities and enhance social gatherings. My establishment will serve only
patrons that are of age to enjoy alcohol beverages through strict age verification
practices. And through the sale of alcohol in my establishment, the taxes generated by
the revenue of such sales will be reinvested into the community.”

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

Attachments
Attachment A - Taco Cinco - Data
Attachment B - Taco Cinco - Map

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


Liquor License Data: TACO CINCO
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 1 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 4

Restaurant 12 5 5


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 28.92 63.16

Violent Crimes 12.31 2.33 6.05

*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 40 25

Total Violations 67 44




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1036053 1043 458 15 11

1036073 791 303 6 17

1036113 2548 917 41 0

1036142 1057 405 17 44

1036151 1090 289 32 199

1037012 2137 631 104 200

1037023 1541 224 69 93

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: TACO CINCO
777 E THUNDERBIRD RD




Date: 6/23/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Taste of Thai Restaurant - District 3

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347578.

Summary

Applicant
Artichar Reynolds, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
1510 E. Bell Road, Ste. A100
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 15, 2025.

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



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.

Taste of Thai (Series 12)
3738 E. Indian School Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: None
Liquor license violations: None

Taste of Thai (Series 12)
4855 E. Warner Road, Ste. 16, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 55
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have successfully operated multiple Thai restaurants in Arizona for several years. I
have a strong track record of compliance with local, state, and health regulation.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The license will support local economic growth by attracting more guests and
increasing employment opportunities. It will allow us to meet customer demand for
wine and specialty drinks that enhance the dining experience.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Taste of Thai Restaurant - Data
Attachment B - Taste of Thai Restaurant - Map






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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Spa - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 348706.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 11 - Hotel

Location
401 W. Clarendon Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is August 2, 2025.

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

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



Arizona.

Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards 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:
“Located in the heart of Midtown Phoenix, the Clarendon Hotel & Spa has been a
popular, iconic hotel for over thirty years. Applicant would like to continue to offer
alcoholic beverages to its guests 21 and over as an incident to their stay or visit."

Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the posting process.

Attachments
Attachment A - Clarendon Hotel & Spa - Data
Attachment B - Clarendon Hotel & Spa - Map

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





Liquor License Data: CLARENDON HOTEL & SPA
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 12 3

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 0

Liquor Store 9 6 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 12 3

Hotel 11 3 2

Restaurant 12 40 11


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 212.07 356.36

Violent Crimes 12.31 37.26 51.48
*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 39 75

Total Violations 67 117




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1089011 543 118 143 21

1104001 1980 477 45 133

1104002 1160 48 110 336

1105011 1135 187 125 191

1105012 2159 81 138 448

1105013 486 47 63 125

1105021 1745 119 126 482

1105022 2166 436 185 339

1171001 1768 158 74 235

1171002 1261 250 104 101

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: CLARENDON HOTEL & SPA
401 W CLARENDON AVE




Date: 6/9/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Glenrosa Beer and Wine - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347712.

Summary

Applicant
Majdi Awawda, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store with Sampling Privileges

Location
4319 N. 27th Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 18, 2025.

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






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

Public Opinion
One valid letter protesting the issuance of this license has been received and is on file
in the Office of the City Clerk. This letter is from a neighboring business. They believe
there is a high concentration of liquor establishments in the neighborhood already.
They also feel that adding another liquor license will negatively impact the area which
has ongoing challenges related to criminal activity.

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have owned and operated multiple businesses in Arizona over the years. I currently
operat three tobacco oriented retail stores. I have always abided by the laws of the
state of Arizona while operating the business. I have never received any ticket for
sales of tobacco products to a minor at any of my businesses. I am also scheduled to
take the Title 4 management liquor training class. I will strictly adhere to any rules and
laws regarding the operation of my proposed business.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The operation of a convenience store at this location will greatly benefit the
community by offering multiple products (i.e. food, liquor, household item, etc) at one
location. This neighborhood is a lower income area and not everybody has access to
personal vehicles to travel to big chain stores. We will provide necessities to the local
community that can easily be accessed on foot. We will grow with the community and
be responsive to their needs on a day to day basis.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff gave careful consideration to the protest letter received, however after reviewing
the application in its entirety, staff is recommending approval of this application. Staff
also notes that 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 A - Glenrosa Beer and Wine - Data
Attachment B - Glenrosa Beer and Wine - Map

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





Liquor License Data: GLENROSA BEER AND WINE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 2 0

Bar 6 5 0

Liquor Store 9 6 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 17 7

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 6 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 246.23 344.26

Violent Crimes 12.31 87.95 145.75
*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 40 106

Total Violations 67 202




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1090011 2026 156 94 827

1090012 3304 0 235 959

1090022 1779 47 64 421

1090031 2215 79 45 436

1090032 2025 61 57 598

1090033 1038 8 61 152

1090034 1053 30 24 453

1091012 1585 278 17 108

1091022 3960 742 30 904

1169001 2763 372 39 622

1170002 3121 431 53 676

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: GLENROSA BEER AND WINE
4319 N 27TH AVE




Date: 5/21/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Woodpecker - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 348082.

Summary

Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3110 N. Central Avenue
Zoning Classification: WU T6 - HWR MT
Council District: 4

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 July 27, 2025.

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
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.

Gadzooks Enchiladas and Soup (Series 12)
3150 E. Ray Road, Ste. 144, Gilbert
Calls for police service: N/A - Not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Gadzooks Enchiladas & Soup (Series 12)
4031 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 5
Liquor license violations: None

Gadzooks Enchiladas and Soup (Series 12)
3313 N. 7th Street, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 6
Liquor license violations: None

The Green Woodpecker (Series 7)
3110 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 81
Liquor license violations: None

Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The owners of the Green Woodpecker own and have owned many restaurants with
liquor licenses over the years. They have owned this location since 2022 and have
been very successful. They are quite familiar with the industry and knowledgeable in
liquor laws. The employees are also Title 4 trained in liquor laws and responsible liquor
store.”



The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The Green Woodpecker has been open at this location since Park Center Mall was
newly renovated in 2022 and have become a part of the future of Park Center Mall.
The Green Woodpecker has become a great place for our neighbors and people all
around the valley to visit. It is a neighborhood favorite.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the posting process.

Attachments
Attachment A - The Green Woodpecker - Data
Attachment B - The Green Woodpecker - Map

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





Liquor License Data: THE GREEN WOODPECKER
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 9 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3

Liquor Store 9 5 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4

Hotel 11 2 1

Restaurant 12 39 21

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 186.38 225.79

Violent Crimes 12.31 35.96 42.56
*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 39 48

Total Violations 67 67




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1105011 1135 187 125 191

1105012 2159 81 138 448

1105013 486 47 63 125

1105021 1745 119 126 482

1105022 2166 436 185 339

1118001 962 221 108 264

1118003 1247 510 88 26

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: THE GREEN WOODPECKER
3110 N CENTRAL AVE




Date: 6/16/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - St. Joseph Maronite Catholic Church - District 6

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

Summary

Applicant
Wissam Akiki

Location
5406 E. Virginia Avenue
Council District: 6

Function
Cultural Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
November 7, 2025 - 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 300 attendees
November 8, 2025 - 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. / 400 attendees
November 9, 2025 - 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Gladly - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346629.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2201 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 CEPCSP, C-2 HR SP CEPCSP
Council District: 6

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 12, 2025.

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

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

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

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



applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“All employees will be Title 4 trained, ID's of all customers who order alcohol will be
checked, liquor license and applicable warning signs will be posted, entrance and exits
will display signage to ensure alcohol stays within designated areas and the Minnow
staff will maintain comprehensive records and a liquor manual containing information
required by the Department of Liquor.”

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.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Arco AMPM - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 348216.

Summary

Applicant
Felicity Heron, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
1201 E. Northern Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. 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 July 20, 2025.

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.

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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor licence because I
have studied and familiarized myself with the Arizona liquor laws and intend to uphold
them. I believe that laws are put in place for the safety of the public. I will uphold the
liquor laws because I care about people and our community. I also have been certified
basic and management training certification.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I will serve the best interest of the public with the issuance of this liquor license
because I will make sure that my staff and employees follow all Arizona liquor laws to
ensure that the public safety and well being are always top priority.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Arco AMPM - Data
Attachment B - Arco AMPM - Map

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





Liquor License Data: ARCO AMPM
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 5 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 3

Restaurant 12 9 4

Club 14 2 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 83.09 107.53

Violent Crimes 12.31 10.16 15.81

*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 40 64

Total Violations 67 114




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1051023 1091 589 89 49

1052001 784 328 38 39

1052002 1993 584 57 82

1052004 1823 437 112 36

1063001 1881 242 59 253

1063002 1402 408 51 22

1063003 714 213 54 61

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: ARCO AMPM
1201 E NORTHERN AVE




Date: 6/23/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Mister Pio - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347798.

Summary

Applicant
Justin Nasralla, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4502 E. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 20, 2025.

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

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




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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I will be a hands on operating owner. I will ensure that all staff handling alcohol will be
Title 4 certified.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We offer Peruvian rotisserie chicken, specializing in chicken and french fries. By
offering alcohol with our meals the community can enjoy the cultural experience in
trying Peru's nation spirit.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Mister Pio - Data
Attachment B - Mister Pio - Map

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





Liquor License Data: MISTER PIO
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 4 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0

Liquor Store 9 5 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 3

Restaurant 12 16 6

Club 14 1 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 151.99 249.46

Violent Crimes 12.31 21.01 25.9
*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 40 27

Total Violations 67 41




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1110003 1062 353 53 0

1110004 975 299 41 0

1110005 568 200 20 0

1111002 1624 238 51 112

1111003 1715 586 49 30

1112012 1588 186 39 236

1113001 1455 236 32 22

1113002 990 338 35 9

1113004 1299 309 24 99

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: MISTER PIO
4502 E THOMAS RD




Date: 6/12/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Neutral Ground - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346614.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4602 E. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
has plans to open in August 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 8, 2025.

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






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

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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards 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:
“Located in the Arcadia Osborn area, Neutral Ground is a food-focused concept that
includes curated, seasonal items to be shared in a design-driven elegant space.
Applicant would like to offer alcoholic beverages to guests 21 + as as an incident to the
delicious dishes.”

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 A - Neutral Ground - Data
Attachment B - Neutral Ground - Map

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





Liquor License Data: NEUTRAL GROUND
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 4 1

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 3

Restaurant 12 15 4

Club 14 1 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 147.77 254.45

Violent Crimes 12.31 20.24 27.07
*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 40 38

Total Violations 67 62




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1110003 1062 353 53 0

1110004 975 299 41 0

1110005 568 200 20 0

1111002 1624 238 51 112

1111003 1715 586 49 30

1112012 1588 186 39 236

1113001 1455 236 32 22

1113002 990 338 35 9

1113004 1299 309 24 99

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: NEUTRAL GROUND
4602 E THOMAS RD




Date: 5/15/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Swizzle Inn - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347580.

Summary

Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
5835 N. 16th Street, Ste. A
Zoning Classification: C-2
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 July 18, 2025.

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.




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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The owners are confident in their ability to responsibly manage and operate a
business with a liquor license, supported by a track record of reliability and
qualifications. Their experience, commitment to compliance, and understanding of
regulatory requirements make me a suitable candidate for holding a liquor license in
the city of Phoenix.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The issuance of the liquor license is deemed necessary for public convenience and is
in the best interest of the community. This decision is grounded in careful consideration
of factors that contribute to the overall well-being of our community, fostering
responsible and regulated access to alcoholic beverages.”

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 A - Swizzle Inn - Data
Attachment B - Swizzle Inn - Map

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





Liquor License Data: SWIZZLE INN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 3 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 4

Liquor Store 9 2 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 6 1

Restaurant 12 20 11


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 104.93 89.06

Violent Crimes 12.31 11.67 12.31

*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 40 66

Total Violations 67 111




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1064001 1204 364 37 191

1064002 2049 500 78 118

1065021 1389 297 86 109

1065023 920 246 55 90

1076021 1302 519 41 25

1076022 1529 218 57 118

1077001 944 318 18 30

1077002 592 198 24 17

1077003 985 194 120 42

1077005 171 42 15 0

1077006 620 213 19 21

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: SWIZZLE INN
5835 N 16TH ST




Date: 6/10/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Chilaquiles By Irma, LLC - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347122.

Summary

Applicant
Irma Lopez, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
1803 W. Van Buren Street
Zoning Classification: C-3 CMO
Council District: 7

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 7, 2025.

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

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




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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I possess a comprehensive understanding of local laws and regulations, regarding
alcohol sale. My experience in the hospitality industry has equipped me with the skills
to ensure a safe and responsible environment for customer. I am committed to
promoting responsible drinking and have undergone training in alcohol awareness
management.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It will enhance local business opportunities,create jobs, and provide a safe
environment for social gatherings. By allowing responsible establishments to serve
alcohl, we can promote responsible consumption and contribute to the vibrancy of the
community, Additionally, this can to increased revenue for the local economy and help
support community events and initiatives.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Chilaquiles By Irma, LLC - Data
Attachment B - Chilaquiles By Irma, LLC - Map

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





Liquor License Data: CHILAQUILES BY IRMA LLC
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Wholesaler 4 6 1

Bar 6 5 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 3 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 10 4

Restaurant 12 7 1

Club 14 1 0



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 151.32 139.7

Violent Crimes 12.31 58.01 57.32

*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 40 102

Total Violations 67 173




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1129003 1168 99 40 80

1129004 1279 82 91 706

1143011 911 80 49 374

1143021 1376 93 37 279

1144021 786 103 26 173

1144022 1118 166 45 393

1168004 691 133 32 333

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: CHILAQUILES BY IRMA LLC
1803 W VAN BUREN ST




Date: 6/11/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Matilda's - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346865.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
822 N. 6th Avenue
Zoning Classification: DTC-Roosevelt South HP
Council District: 7

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 7, 2025.

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

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




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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards to maintain compliance
with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the techniques of legal and
responsible alcohol sales an service.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The owner of the popular First Place Coffee food truck is opening a new brick and
mortar location known as Matilda's. Matlinda's will serve a variety of delicious
sandwiches, salads,pastas and more in a casual, neighborhood setting. Applicant
would like to offer alcoholic beverages to guests 21+ as an incident to the menu dishes
offered."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment A - Matilda's - Data
Attachment B - Matilda's - Map

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





Liquor License Data: MATILDA'S
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 6 2

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 6 2

Bar 6 45 9

Beer and Wine Bar 7 15 3

Liquor Store 9 6 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 15 5

Hotel 11 6 0

Restaurant 12 106 25

Club 14 1 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 271.47 251.38

Violent Crimes 12.31 72.79 54.35
*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 39 100

Total Violations 67 142




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1129001 1399 521 53 62

1129002 671 102 83 94

1129003 1168 99 40 80

1130001 2898 331 199 515

1130002 1364 179 221 139

1131001 1929 146 155 743

1131002 2026 50 492 845

1131003 2654 2 355 297

1141001 2605 227 111 276

1143011 911 80 49 374

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: MATILDA'S
822 N 6TH AVE




Date: 5/19/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Tipsy Scoop - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347746.

Summary

Applicant
Tamika Wooten, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
355 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 102
Zoning Classification: DTC-Business Core
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
is currently under construction with plans to open in August 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 22, 2025.

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

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



Arizona.

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:
“As a judge and attorney in the Valley, I am committed to upholding the highest
standards to maintain compliance with applicable laws. Managers & staff are or will be
trained in the techniques of recognizing signs and symptoms of impairment.
Additionally, each employee will be required to card all customers who are attempting
to purchase alcohol infused treats!”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tipsy Scoop solves the downtown dilemma that people over 21 face after attending a
concert or sporting event, when they are not quite read to end the night, but they are
looking for something to do besides sit in a smoky bar. Likewise parents, with their
children, don't have to take their kids home after a game, concert or symphony, they
can continue the night by getting a non-alcohol infused ice cream treat or sundae for
their kids, while still having a decadent adult treat for themselves. We are located
directly across from Central Station”

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 A - Tipsy Scoop - Data
Attachment B - Tipsy Scoop - Map

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



Liquor License Data: TIPSY SCOOP
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 0

Microbrewery 3 5 1

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 7 4

Bar 6 49 36

Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 8

Liquor Store 9 5 4

Beer and Wine Store 10 12 4

Hotel 11 7 6

Restaurant 12 108 62

Club 14 2 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 267.35 428.66

Violent Crimes 12.31 70.22 88.74

*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 40 30

Total Violations 67 50




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1130001 2898 331 199 515

1131001 1929 146 155 743

1131002 2026 50 492 845

1131003 2654 2 355 297

1132022 1347 118 99 594

1140003 1025 304 49 114

1141001 2605 227 111 276

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: TIPSY SCOOP
355 N CENTRAL AVE




Date: 6/25/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 349182.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
110 N. Central Avenue
Zoning Classification: DTC-Business Core
Council District: 7

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is August 3, 2025.

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

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



Arizona.

Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The owner has worked in the restaurant industry for several years. He will continue to
abide by Title 4 liquor laws and ensure staff is also trained.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Zen Thai offers a few Asian fusion dishes as well as alcoholic beverages. Zen Thai
would like to continue to serve delicious meals and refreshing drinks to the community
and making everyone happy while there.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.

Attachments
Attachment A - Zen Thai Cafe - Data
Attachment B - Zen Thai Cafe - Map

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





Liquor License Data: ZEN THAI CAFE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 1

Microbrewery 3 5 1

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 7 4

Bar 6 49 32

Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 5

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 15 3

Hotel 11 7 7

Restaurant 12 106 52

Club 14 3 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 250.29 359.76

Violent Crimes 12.31 69.9 85.66

*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 39 18

Total Violations 67 33




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1129002 671 102 83 94

1129003 1168 99 40 80

1131001 1929 146 155 743

1131002 2026 50 492 845

1131003 2654 2 355 297

1141001 2605 227 111 276

1142001 938 210 81 167

1143011 911 80 49 374

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: ZEN THAI CAFE
110 N CENTRAL AVE




Date: 6/9/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Blanco Tacos & Tequila/Olive & Ivy/Modern Burger - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347236.

Summary

Applicant
Jonathan Argentine, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3800 E. Sky Harbor Boulevard, N2 F38
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 5, 2025.

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

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.

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

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



applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been working with HMSHost Corporation for over thirty-eight (38) years. For
seventeen (17)years, I was in supervisory/management positions, and for the last
twelve (12) years, I have been Director of Operations.”


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.





Liquor License Data: BLANCO TACOS & TEQUILA/OLIVE
& IVY/MODERN BURGER
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 4 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0

Conveyance 8 9 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1

Restaurant 12 21 13

Club 14 6 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 65.15 105.83

Violent Crimes 12.31 3.6 4.35
*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 40 1

Total Violations 67 1


Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1138006 0 0 1 0

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: BLANCO TACOS & TEQUILA/OLIVE & IVY/MODERN BURGER
3800 E SKY HARBOR BLVD




Date: 6/13/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Guy Fieri's Phoenix Kitchen and Bar T4 - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 339272.

Summary

Applicant
Jonathan Argentine, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3300 E. Sky Harbor Boulevard, T4S-F2
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 6, 2025.

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.




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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
"I have been working with HMSHost Corporation for over thirty-seven (37) years. For
seventeen (17) years, I was in a supervisory/management positions, and for the last
twelve (12) years, I have been Director of Operations.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Guy Fieri's is a celebrity chef with international reach. The restaurant liquor license
will ensure that airport traveles have a variety of menu options and the ability to
purchase spirits, beer and wine to accompany their Guy Fieri created food menu
items.”

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 A - Guy Fieri's Phoenix Kitchen and Bar T4 - Data
Attachment B - Guy Fieri's Phoenix Kitchen and Bar T4 - Map

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





Liquor License Data: GUY FIERIS PHOENIX KITCHEN AND
BAR T4
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 3 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Conveyance 8 10 6

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1

Restaurant 12 22 8

Club 14 6 5


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 60 102.33

Violent Crimes 12.31 2.65 1.91
*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 40 1

Total Violations 67 1


Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1138006 0 0 1 0

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: GUY FIERIS PHOENIX KITCHEN AND BAR T4
3300 E SKY HARBOR BLVD




Date: 6/10/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Plush Kitchen and Lounge - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 346489.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
711 S. Central Avenue
Zoning Classification: DTC - Commercial Corridor
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location requires a
Variance to allow outdoor dining and a Use Permit to allow outdoor alcohol service.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 13, 2025.

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 applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.

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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We plan on implementing mandatory liquor law training for all employees, manuel ID
checks for anyone ordering alcohol and continous staff training to ensure all laws and
regulations are followed.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We would like the ability to serve our 21 and over patrons an adult beverage with their
meal if they choose to have one.”

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

Attachments
Attachment A - Plush Kitchen and Lounge - Data
Attachment B - Plush Kitchen and Lounge - Map

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





Liquor License Data: PLUSH KITCHEN AND LOUNGE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 1

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 4 0

Bar 6 34 13

Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 2

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 12 4

Hotel 11 7 4

Restaurant 12 56 18

Club 14 2 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 194.21 195.32

Violent Crimes 12.31 63.5 40.44

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 40 55

Total Violations 67 80




Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1140002 0 0 18 0

1141001 2605 227 111 276

1142001 938 210 81 167

1149001 2258 98 57 1188

1149002 610 103 12 96

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: PLUSH KITCHEN AND LOUNGE
711 S CENTRAL AVE




Date: 5/20/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - San Tan Spirit House T4 - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 339269.

Summary

Applicant
Jonathan Argentine, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3300 E. Sky Harbor Boulevard, T4S-F4
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 5, 2025.

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.




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

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

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been working with HMSHost Corporation for over thrity-seven (37) years. For
seventeen (17) years, I was in supervisory/management positions, and for the last
twelve (12) years, I have been Director of Operations.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“SanTan Brewing Company is a local Arizona favorite. The restaurant liqour license will
ensure that airport travelers have a variety of menu options and the ability to purchase
food, spirits, beer and wine at the same establishment while waiting for their planes.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting that 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 A - San Tan Spirit House T4 - Data
Attachment B - San Tan Spirit House T4 - Map

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





Liquor License Data: SAN TAN SPIRIT HOUSE T4
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 3 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Conveyance 8 10 6

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1

Restaurant 12 22 8

Club 14 6 5


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 60 102.33

Violent Crimes 12.31 2.65 1.91
*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 40 1

Total Violations 67 1


Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1138006 0 0 1 0

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: SAN TAN SPIRIT HOUSE T4
3300 E SKY HARBOR BLVD




Date: 5/15/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - T- Bird Tavern - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 345642.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
13802 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 2

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales with a Series 12 - Restaurant, liquor
license and does not have an interim permit. This location requires a Site Plan
Amendment and Variance to allow a bar and a Use Permit to allow outdoor dining and
outdoor alcohol consumption.

The 60-day limit for processing this application was June 30, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.

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




Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
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
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.

T-Bird Tavern (Series 12)
13802 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 101, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 38
Liquor license violations: In August 2025, a fine of $750.00 was paid for the licensee
ceasing to operate as a restaurant, storing liquor on unlicensed premise, violation of
restaurant requirements, and change in business name.

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:
“Kelley has been in the restaurant industry for many years and has operated T Bird
Tavern successfully. Will continue to keep training up to date.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“T-Bird Tavern is a neighborhood restaurant and bar offering a great place to enjoy
good, drinks and watching a game.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval. Staff also notes that 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 A - T-Bird Tavern - Data
Attachment B - T-Bird Tavern - Map



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





Liquor License Data: T-BIRD TAVERN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 3

Restaurant 12 22 7


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 16.18 24.73

Violent Crimes 12.31 1.08 1.59

*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 40 12

Total Violations 67 18


Census 2020 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2020 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1032071 1242 389 51 23

1032072 973 325 34 69

1032201 765 385 46 26

1032202 979 336 176 45

2168161 2299 576 378 112

Average 1601 393 60 177




Liquor License Map: T-BIRD TAVERN
13802 N SCOTTSDALE RD




Date: 6/24/2025




Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - The Grow Room - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 336282.

Summary

Applicant
Matthew Davidson, Agent

License Type
Series 14 - Club

Location
1827-1829 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a club. This location was not previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business is
currently being remodeled with plans to open in August 2025.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 5, 2025.

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

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

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

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,



grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Previous experience in both hospitality and Finance Industry. Extensive history in
compliance and regulatory matters. Ten years experience in the heavily regulated
cannabis industry handling state reporting and compliance.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Our nonprofit is focused on the education of the community and removal of societal
stigma. Having this space and license encourages a free discussion in the community
with our member and interestd parties to make advances in this forum.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Police Department
recommendation for disapproval. The Police Department disapproval is based on
concerns with the applicant's qualifications for a club license and the proposed use of
marijuana at the location. The applicant has not demonstrated the capability,
qualifications, and reliability to hold and control a liquor license.

Attachments
Attachment - The Grow Room - Police Recommendation

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Chelsea's Kitchen - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347039.

Summary

Applicant
Jonathan Argentine, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3800 E. Sky Harbor Boulevard, T4 F12B
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application was June 29, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.

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

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

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

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,



grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been working with HMSHost corporation for over thirty-eight (38) years. For
seventeen (17) years, I was in supervisory/management positions, and for the last
twelve (12) years, I have been Director of Operations.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - La Grande Orange Marketplace - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 347039.

Summary

Applicant
Jonathan Argentine, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3800 E. Sky Harbor Boulevard, S2 F46
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 8

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application was June 29, 2025. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.

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

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

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

Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,



grammar, and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability, and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been working with HMSHost Corporation for over thirty-eight (38) years. For
seventeen (17) years, I was in supervisory/management positions, and for the last
twelve (12) years, I have been Director of Operations.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Arizona Brightspots, Inc.

For $25,000 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or about August 4,
2025, for a term of one year to assist Arizona Brightspots, Inc. with operating costs,
staffing, and licensing for the Community and Economic Development Department
(CEDD). Through this sponsorship, CEDD aims to grow and cultivate more startup
companies by encouraging their move to, and the retention of their headquarters
within, the City. Arizona Brightspots' mission is to align Arizona's most innovative
startup companies with the resources they need to accelerate entrepreneurial growth
while inspiring generosity and collaboration.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
PetSmart Home Office LLC

For $81,350 in payment authority to purchase K-9 Food and Accessories for Fiscal
Year 2025-26 for the Police Department. The Police Department currently has 37 K-9s
in multiple bureaus, and each K-9 resides with their assigned handler while not on-
duty. Handlers are responsible for purchasing food and accessories, including but not
limited to beds, toys, collars, leashes, bowls and kennels. These purchases are made
at PetSmart locations across the greater Phoenix metropolitan area since the K-9
handlers live throughout the Phoenix metro area.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Tovrea Carraro Society

For $45,000 in payment authority to procure groundskeeping/landscaping
maintenance services for the Office of Arts and Culture. Per the existing Operating
Agreement between the City of Phoenix and Tovrea Carraro Society, the Office of Arts
and Culture is required to provide these services for the Tovrea Castle facility every
fiscal year.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
United States Conference of Mayors

For $51,630 in payment authority for FY 2025-26 annual membership dues for the City
of Phoenix. The United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) is the official non-
partisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. Mayors contribute to
the development of national urban policy by serving on one or more of the
conference's standing committees. USCM develops policy positions adopted by the
nation's mayors that are distributed to the President of the United States and
Congress. Task Forces are also assembled to examine and act on issues like civic
innovations, exports, hunger and homelessness. This membership ensures that
Phoenix's interests are being represented by the USCM.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Grate Solutions Company, Inc.; Neenah Foundry Company

For $216,000 in payment authority for a new contract, to be entered on or about July 2,
2025, for a term of five years for storm drain catch basin grates and frames for the
Street Transportation Department. The Street Maintenance Division is responsible for
maintaining the City's roadways, including flooded streets, clogged storm drains, and
wash maintenance. Replacement storm drain grates and frames are needed to repair
various storm sewer inlets throughout the City due to damage and/or wear and tear.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Oliver Industries, LLC

For $693,370 in additional payment authority for Agreement 161524, Change Order 2
(AH10010002-1) for US Vets Miscellaneous Repairs and Improvements Design-Bid-
Build project for the Housing Department. This Change Order is for additional
miscellaneous project upgrades and infrastructure work to include demolition, concrete
replacement, plumbing, showers, drywall, and flooring. This work was not included as
part of the original bid. This project uses American Rescue Plan Act funding.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Abdin v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $265,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Abdin v. City of
Phoenix, CV2024-023703, 23-0309-001, 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 September 17, 2023.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Arizmendi Andrade v. CIty of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $75,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Arizmendi Andrade v.
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a payment to ATI Restoration for
work performed on a water main break claim involving the Water Services Department
that occurred on January 5, 2024.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Arizmendi Andrade v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $330,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Arizmendi Andrade v.
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a water main break
claim involving the Water Services Department that occurred on July 6, 2023.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Bateman v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $210,150 in settlement of claim(s) in Bateman v. City of
Phoenix, 24-0144-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City
Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a property damage claim arising as a result of
a water main break involving the Water Services Department on August 3, 2024.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Brower v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $32,211.97 in settlement of claim(s) in Brower v. City of
Phoenix, 23-1092-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix City
Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a property damage claim from a water main
break involving the Water Services Department on January 23, 2023.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Brown v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $90,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Brown v. City of
Phoenix, CV2024-024275, 23-0841-001, for the Finance Department pursuant to
Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a traffic accident claim involving
the Police Department that occurred on September 26, 2023.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Paul Davis Restoration v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $316,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Paul Davis Restoration
v. City of Phoenix, 24-1007-001, GL, for the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix
City Code Chapter 42. This is a payment for work performed as a result of a water
main break involving the Water Services Department that occurred on May 29, 2025.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Nyiranteko v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $150,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Nyiranteko v. City of
Phoenix, CV2024-000092, 23-0040-002, GL, for the Finance Department pursuant to
Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim involving the Street
Transportation Department that occurred on January 8, 2023.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Settlement of Claim(s) Salvation Army v. City of Phoenix

To make payment of up to $177,817 in settlement of claim(s) in Salvation Army v. City
of Phoenix, 24-0094-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department pursuant to Phoenix
City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim arising out of a water main break
involving the Water Services Department that occurred on June 29, 2024.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing on Adoption of Property Tax Levy for 2025-26 Fiscal Year -
Citywide

Request the City Council hold a public hearing prior to the adoption of a property tax
levy for the City of Phoenix for 2025-26.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The proposed 2025-26 property tax levy reflects actions taken by the Council on the
budget at the May 21, 2025 Formal meeting, at the June 4, 2025 Formal meeting to
adopt the tentative 2025-26 budget, and at the June 18, 2025 Formal meeting to adopt
the final 2025-26 budget. At the June 18, 2025 Formal meeting, a public hearing on the
proposed primary property tax levy was held in accordance with A.R.S. Sections 42-
17104.B and 42-17107.A.6.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of Property Tax Levy for 2025-26 Fiscal Year (Ordinance S-52140) -
Citywide

An ordinance levying separate amounts to be raised for primary and secondary
property tax levies upon each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of the assessed valuation
of the property subject to taxation within the City of Phoenix for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2026. Phoenix City Charter Chapter XVIII, Section 7, requires Council to
adopt an ordinance levying the property tax no later than the last regularly scheduled
meeting in July.

Summary
The proposed property tax adoption ordinance (Attachment A) is consistent with the
requirements of A.R.S. Title 42, Chapter 17, and establishes primary and secondary
tax levies within the limits determined by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Sections
42-17051, 42-17107, and 35-458.

The ordinance provides for: a primary property tax rate resulting in a levy of
$224,967,827 (a General Fund revenue source) equating to a rate of $1.2658 per
$100 of assessed valuation, including $0.08 for maintenance of parks and playgrounds
and $0.2658 for the operation and maintenance of libraries; and an estimated
secondary property tax levy of $144,688,188 (used only for debt service) equating to a
rate of $0.8141 per $100 of assessed valuation. The total rate of $2.0799 is
unchanged from the total 2024-25 rate of $2.0799.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The proposed 2025-26 property tax levy reflects actions taken by the Council on the
budget at the May 21, 2025 Formal meeting, at the June 4, 2025 Formal meeting to
adopt the tentative 2025-26 budget, and at the June 18, 2025 Formal meeting to adopt
the final 2025-26 budget. At the June 18, 2025 Formal meeting, a public hearing on the
proposed primary property tax levy was held in accordance with A.R.S. Sections 42-
17104.B and 42-17107.A.6.

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


ATTACHMENT A

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


ORDINANCE S-#####


AN ORDINANCE LEVYING SEPARATE AMOUNTS TO BE
RAISED FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX
LEVIES UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00)
OF THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT
TO TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026.


______________


WHEREAS, by the provisions of the City Charter an ordinance levying

taxes for the fiscal year 2025-26 is required to be finally adopted not later than the last

regular Council meeting in July of said fiscal year, which date complies with State law

requirements; and

WHEREAS, the County of Maricopa is now the tax assessing and

collecting authority for the City of Phoenix, the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a

certified copy of this tax levy ordinance to the Assessor and the Board of Supervisors of

Maricopa County, Arizona as required by law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF PHOENIX as follows:

SECTION 1. There is hereby levied on each ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS

($100.00) of the limited assessed value of all property, real, personal and possessory

interest, within the corporate limits of the City of Phoenix, except such property as may



-1- Ordinance S-#####
be by law exempt from taxation, a primary property tax rate equating to $1.2658 which

is sufficient to generate a primary property levy of TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY

FOUR MILLION, NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTY SEVEN THOUSAND, EIGHT

HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($224,967,827), an amount within the

maximum allowable primary tax levy under the Arizona Constitution. The primary tax

levy is allocated into the following amounts or rates for each of the following purposes:

(a) For the purpose of providing funds for the GENERAL MUNICIPAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES of the City, in accordance with Chapter XVIII -

Section 8 of the City Charter, a tax rate of $1.00 per ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS

($100.00) of limited assessed valuation of all taxable real, personal and possessory

interest property in the City of Phoenix, which includes $0.08 per ONE HUNDRED

DOLLARS ($100.00) of such limited assessed valuation for the purpose of providing

funds for the OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, in

accordance with Chapter XXIII - Section 2 - Subsection 2 of the City Charter.

(b) For the purpose of providing funds for the OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE OF LIBRARIES, in accordance with Chapter XVIII - Section 11 of the

City Charter, a tax rate of $0.2658 per ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) of limited

assessed valuation of all taxable real, personal and possessory interest property in the


SECTION 2. In addition to the property tax levy for primary purposes set

in Section 1 above, there is hereby levied on each ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS

($100.00) of the limited assessed value of all property, real, personal and possessory

interest, within the corporate limits of the City of Phoenix, except such property as may



-2- Ordinance S-#####
by law be exempt from taxation, a secondary tax rate of $0.8141 for secondary

purposes for paying principal of and interest on or redemption charges on general

obligation bonds of the City of Phoenix.

SECTION 3. The primary property tax rate as calculated in Section 1 and

the secondary tax rate as calculated in Section 2 shall equal a combined tax rate of

$2.0799.

SECTION 4. Failure by the County officials of Maricopa County, Arizona

to properly return the delinquent list, any irregularity in assessments or omissions in the

same, or any irregularity in any proceedings shall not invalidate such proceedings or

invalidate any title conveyed by a tax deed; failure or neglect of any officer or officers to

timely perform any of the duties assigned to him or to them shall not invalidate any

proceedings or any deed or sale pursuant thereto; the questioned validity of

assessment or levy of taxes or of the judgment of sale by which collection of the same

may be enforced shall not affect the lien of the City upon such property for the

delinquent taxes unpaid thereon; overcharge as to part of the taxes or of costs shall not

invalidate any proceedings for the collection of taxes or the foreclosure of the lien

therefore or a sale of the property under such foreclosures; and all acts of officers de

facto shall be valid as if performed by officers de jure.




-3- Ordinance S-#####
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix on this 2nd day of July, 2025.



_________________________________________

MAYOR




ATTEST:


City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


Acting City Attorney

REVIEWED BY:


City Manager




-4- Ordinance S-#####
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
2025-26 LEGAL LIMIT
PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR PRIMARY PURPOSES
A.R.S. § 42-17051, Subsection A

1. Maximum allowable levy for the prior year $ 217,597,043

2. The above figure increased by two percent (2%) 221,948,984

3. Current Assessed Value of last year’s property 17,401,171,959

4. A. “3” divided by 100 174,011,720

B. Maximum Allowable Tax Rate equals - “2” divided by “4A”
($221,948,984 ÷ $174,011,720) 1.2755


5. Estimated Current Assessed Value 17,772 ,778,261

6. A. Current Assessed Value divided by 100 177,727,783

B. Levy equals - “4B” multiplied by “6A” 226,691,787
($1.2755 X $177,727,783)

Estimated over collections of the 2024-25 primary
property tax levy will reduce this estimate as follows:

7. A. Estimated over collections of 2024-25 primary levy -0-

B. Maximum Allowable Levy Limit for 2025-26 $ 226,691,787

8. Adjusted Allowable Levy Limit and Tax Rate:

A. Allowable Levy Limit for 2025-26 $ 226,691,787
B. Accepted Torts -0-
C. Adjusted Allowable Levy Limit $ 226,691,787
D. Adjusted Allowable Tax Rate - “8C” divided by “6A”
($226,691,787 ÷ $177,727,783) 1.2755

2025-26 Primary Levy $ 224,967,827
2025-26 Primary Tax Rate 1.2658




-5- Ordinance S-#####



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance G-7241 to include Proposed Revisions to
Phoenix City Code Chapter 18, Article XI, Section 18-413(A) Related to the
Requirement to Post Heat Safety Plans (Ordinance G-7402) - Citywide

This item requests an amendment to Ordinance G-7241 to include proposed revisions
to Phoenix City Code (PCC) Chapter 18, Article XI, Section 18-413(A) to clarify
language for contractor requirements related to the posting of heat safety plans.
Summary
On March 26, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance G-7241, which added
language to PCC Chapter 18, Article XI requiring City contractors whose employees
and contract workers perform work in an outdoor environment to develop and comply
with heat safety plans as outlined in the ordinance to mitigate and prevent heat-related
illnesses and injuries in the workplace. The ordinance requires any entity that is party
to a City contract, City lease, or City license to develop and keep on file a compliant
written heat safety plan. Contractors are also required to post their written heat safety
plan “where it is accessible to employees.”
Recent visits by City officials to work sites revealed that although several City
contractors whose employees and contract workers perform work in an outdoor
environment do have written heat safety plans, the plans are not typically posted in
areas where employees can quickly identify and have access to them, such as on
bulletin boards in employee break rooms. This proposed amendment to PCC Section
18-413(A) would require an applicable contractor's heat safety plan to be posted in
English and Spanish on a bulletin board in the break room accessible to employees,
similar to federally required employment law notifications. If a contractor does not have
a break room, the heat safety plans must be physically placed in a conspicuous
location in the workplace where notices to employees are customarily posted. All heat
safety plans must also include a contact number of the contractor that all employees
and contract workers can call if they need to inquire or report on any heat safety
issues.
This change was discussed by the Contract Workers Heat Safety Ordinance Advisory


Committee, which unanimously recommended approval of the change. The Committee
includes the following members and staff:
· Chad Arruda (representing contractors)

· Sydney Hawkins (representing contractors)

· Cecilia Ortiz, Worker (representing workers)

· Sergio Rodriguez Lopez (representing community at-large)

· Dr. Siyuan Song (representing community at-large)

· Maxwell Ulin, Unite Here (representing workers)
Staff:
· Mario Paniagua, Deputy City Manager

· David Matthews, Deputy City Manager

· Deryck R. Lavelle, Chief Assistant City Attorney

· David Hondula, Director of the Heat Response and Mitigation Office

· Adriana Phillips, Assistant Finance Director

· Ashley Lee, Deputy Human Resources Director


Phoenix contractors have been notified of the proposed change to the ordinance,
which if adopted by Council will be effective 30 days from approval. A draft of the
proposed amended Ordinance is attached as Attachment A.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Contract Workers Heat Safety Ordinance Advisory Committee unanimously
recommends approval of this item.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the City
Manager's Office.





ATTACHMENT A


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

ORDINANCE G-XXXX


AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE G-7241 TO
INCLUDE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO PHOENIX CITY
CODE CHAPTER 18, ARTICLE XI, SECTION 18-413(A)
RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENT TO POST HEAT
SAFETY PLANS.

_______________




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

follows:

SECTION 1. That Chapter 18, Article XI, Section 18-413(A) is hereby




T
amended and revised to clarify language for contractor requirements related to the

posting of heat safety plans as follows:

ARTICLE XI.
CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MITIGATION OF HEAT-RELATED
ILLNESSES AND INJURIES IN THE WORKPLACE.




R
Sec. 18-413. Requirements of contractors.
*****

*****




D
A. Required Contract Language. The following clause is required to appear in all
contracts between the City and contractor and contract between the contractor and its
subcontractors, sublicenses, and sublicensees and sublessees:

Any contractor whose employees and contract workers perform work in an outdoor
environment under this contract must keep on file a written heat safety plan. The City may
request a copy of this plan and documentation of all heat safety and mitigation efforts
currently implemented to prevent heat-related illnesses and injuries in the workplace. The
plan must also be posted IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH ON A BULLETIN BOARD IN A
BREAK ROOM where it is accessible to employees. IF A CONTRACTOR DOES NOT
HAVE A BREAK ROOM, THE HEAT SAFETY PLAN MUST BE PHYSICALLY PLACED
IN A CONSPICUOUS LOCATION IN THE WORKPLACE WHERE NOTICES TO


1 Ordinance G-XXXX
EMPLOYEES ARE CUSTOMARILY POSTED. THE HEAT SAFETY PLAN MUST ALSO
INCLUDE A CONTACT NUMBER OF THE CONTRACTOR THAT ALL EMPLOYEES
AND CONTRACT WORKERS CAN CALL IF THEY NEED TO INQUIRE OR REPORT
ANY HEAT SAFETY ISSUES. At a minimum, the heat safety and mitigation plan and
documentation required under this provision shall include each of the following as it
relates to heat safety and mitigation:

1. Availability of sanitized cool drinking water free of charge at locations that are
accessible to all employees and contract workers.

2. Ability to take regular and necessary breaks as needed and additional breaks
for hydration.

3. Access to shaded areas and/or air conditioning.




AF
4. Access to air conditioning in vehicles with enclosed cabs. all such vehicles must
contain functioning air conditioning by no later than May 1, 2025.

5. Effective acclimatization practices to promote the physiological adaptations of
employees or contract workers newly assigned or reassigned to work in an outside
environment.




T
6. Conduct training and make it available and understandable to all employees and
contract workers on heat illness and injury that focuses on the environmental and
personal risk factors, prevention, how to recognize and report signs and symptoms
of heat illness and injury, how to administer appropriate first aid measures and how
to report heat illness and injury to emergency medical personnel.




R The contractor further agrees that this clause will be incorporated in all
subcontracts with subcontractors, sublicensees or sublessees who may perform
labor or services in connection with this contract. Additionally, the contractor
agrees to require all subcontractors, sublicensees or sublessees to include this
clause in all contracts with any third party who is contracted to perform labor or



D services in connection with this contract. It is the obligation of the contractor to
ensure compliance by its subcontractors.

B. Documentation.
In addition to the documents required in subsection a, upon request contractors
shall provide additional documentation verifying that mitigation efforts to protect
against heat-related illness or injury in the workplace are being utilized.

C. Monitoring.
The department primarily responsible for managing any contract covered by this
article shall monitor compliance with the provisions of this article.


2 Ordinance G-XXXX
*****

*****

*****

SECTION 2. That other than the amendments and revisions provided in

Section 1 above, all language in Ordinance G-7241 shall remain in full force and effect.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of July,

2025.




AF
_______________________________
MAYOR

_______________________________
Date


ATTEST:



T
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




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


By:_________________________



D Deryck R. Lavelle
Chief Assistant City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:


____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager

DRL:efl:(LF25-1495):7-2-25:_________




3 Ordinance G-XXXX




Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Proposed Schroeder Annexation - Authorization to File - District 1

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to file with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office a blank petition for a proposed annexation. This
annexation was requested by Kimberly Schroeder with Kaeko, Inc. for the purpose of
receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed annexation conforms to current City
policies and complies with Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-471 regarding
annexation.

Summary
Signatures on the proposed annexation petition shall not be obtained for a waiting
period of 30 days after filing the blank petition with the Maricopa County Recorder.
Additionally, a Public Hearing will be scheduled within this 30-day waiting period,
permitting the City Council to gather community input regarding the annexation
proposal. Formal adoption of this proposed annexation will be considered at a later
date.

Location
The proposed annexation area includes Parcel 210-07-017, located in the vicinity of
15th Avenue and Happy Valley Road (Attachment A). The annexation area is
approximately 5.201 acres (0.00813 square miles) and the population estimate is zero
individuals.
Council District: 1

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





ATTACHMENT A







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance of Easements for Drainage Purposes (Ordinance S-52149) - Districts
2, 5 & 6

Request for the City Council to accept easements for drainage purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal descriptions are recorded via separate
recording instrument.

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

Easement (a)
MCR: 20250295218
Applicant and Grantor: Dove Valley 29th Avenue Project LLC; its successor and
assigns
Date: May 22, 2025
Purpose: Temporary Drainage
Location: 2825 W. Dove Valley Road
Expires: The term of the Easement shall commence upon Grantee's occupancy of the
easement area and shall automatically terminate at the recordation of the permanent
drainage easement. Each lot is being developed separately through separate
submittals. The owner/developer of each lot is to dedicate a permanent drainage
easement for public flows onsite storage. The drainage easement is to be shown on
the site plan and grading plan for each lot.
APN: 204-11-004B
File: FN 250019
Council District: 2

Easement (b)
MCR: 20250295217
Applicant and Grantor: 24 SAC, LLC; its successor and assigns
Date: May 22, 2025
Purpose: Temporary Drainage
Location: South of southeast corner of N. 29th Avenue and W. Dove Valley Road



Expires: The term of the Easement shall commence upon Grantee's occupancy of the
easement area and shall automatically terminate at the recordation of the permanent
drainage easement. Each lot is being developed separately through separate
submittals. The owner/developer of each lot is to dedicate a permanent drainage
easement for the storage of the public flows onsite. The drainage easement is to be
shown on the site plan and grading plan for each lot.
APN: 204-11-004C
File: FN 250024
Council District: 2

Easement (c)
MCR: 20250294341
Applicant and Grantor: West 99th Holdings LLC; its successor and assigns
Date: May 22, 2025
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 3955 N. 99th Avenue
APN: 102-26-886
File: FN 250013
Council District: 5

Easement (d)
MCR: 20250290867
Applicant and Grantor: Host Camelback I LLC; its successor and assigns
Date: May 21, 2025
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 5943 E. Elsie Avenue
APN: 172-12-068A
File: FN 250022
Council District: 6

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of an Easement for Sidewalk Purposes (Ordinance S
-52150) - District 3

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate an easement for sidewalk
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal descriptions are recorded via
separate recording instrument.

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)
MCR: 20250294347
Applicant and Grantor: 13839 N. 12th St LLC; its successor and assigns
Date: May 22, 2025
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 13839 N. 12th Street
APN: 214-47-005G
File: 250033
Council District: 3

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Dedication of Right-of-Way for Roadway Purposes Across a Portion of City-
owned Property located at 7600 N. 27th Avenue, the Helen Drake Senior Center
(Ordinance S-52175) - District 5

Request that the City Council dedicate to public use right-of-way for roadway purposes
across a portion of City-owned property for the Helen Drake Senior Center's
development of affordable multi-family housing for seniors; further ordering the
ordinance recorded.

Summary
The right-of-way for roadway dedication is a required stipulation by the Planning and
Development Department, Project 05-205, DEDI 250048, for the Helen Drake Senior
Center's development of affordable multi-family housing units for seniors. The right-of-
way is situated along the west side of 27th Avenue, 343.02 feet south of Belmont
Avenue. It is comprised of 3,105.12 square feet and is more fully described in the legal
description to be recorded with the ordinance.

Location
7600 N. 27th Avenue, within Maricopa County Assessor's parcel number 151-12-135.
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City
Managers Alan Stephenson and Gina Montes and the Street Transportation, Planning
and Development, Housing and Finance departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance S-51925 for Acquisition of Real Property for the Hohokam
Drainage Package 2 Project Located South of Dobbins Road and East of 20th
Street (Ordinance S-52167) - District 8

Request the City Council to amend Ordinance S-51925 for authorization to acquire
additional real property and related property interests required for the Hohokam
Drainage Package 2 Project, located south of Dobbins Road and east of 20th Street.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item.

Summary
An additional parcel was identified that is necessary to accommodate project
construction. The Hohokam Drainage Program is a comprehensive storm water
management initiative by the City of Phoenix to mitigate flooding risks and enhance
storm water infrastructure. This Program involves the design and construction of
multiple storm drain systems, detention basins, and high-capacity inlets across various
sites identified in the Hohokam Area Drainage Master Plan Study within the City. All
other conditions and stipulations previously stated in the above referenced ordinance
will remain the same.

The additional parcel affected by this project and included in this request is identified
by Maricopa County Assessor's parcel number (APN) 301-36-085 located at 2005 E.
Euclid Avenue.

Financial Impact
Funding is available from the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program Budget, using General Obligation Bonds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Ordinance S-51925 was adopted May 21, 2025.

Location
2005 E. Euclid Avenue
Council District: 8




Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Audio Visual Equipment and Services (COOP-25-0755) Contract - Request for
Award (Ordinance S-52174) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Bluum USA, Inc.; Commercial Computer Services, Inc. dba CCS Presentation
Systems; and IES Communications, LLC to provide Audio Visual (AV) Equipment and
Services for citywide use. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed
$18,000,000.

Summary
The purpose of this Audio Visual Equipment and Services cooperative agreement is to
provide a broad range of audio and video equipment and professional engineer
services to citywide departments. This contract supports AV equipment and services
for Emergency Operation Center, 911 operations, PHXTV, City Council Assembly
Rooms, and Council Chambers. The contract supports AV equipment purchases and
replacement and provides direct engineering support and services, such as analysis,
design, and configuration of existing systems, software, and hardware. Examples of
equipment that are purchased on this contract are wireless headphones for Fire and
Police communication, sound system components, microphones and video equipment,
and broadcast servers to address the loss of closed captioning capability. Ancillary
services that may be offered in conjunction with implementation or extension of a
product include design, installation, training, maintenance, and integration.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
based on an approved Determination Memo citing Special Circumstance Alternative
Competition. The State of Arizona Solicitation No. BPM006242 (Audio & Visual
Commercial and Professional Broadcast Grade Equipment, Services, and Rental) was
awarded through a competitive process consistent with the City’s procurement
requirements as outlined in Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43.

The requested AV materials and services are essential to supporting citywide
operations. These cooperative contracts enable departments to procure specialized or
custom AV products along with related services such as design, installation, and



ongoing maintenance. By leveraging this cooperative agreement, the City will benefit
from national government pricing and volume discounts.

Contract Term
The terms of the contracts will begin on or about August 11, 2025, for a five-year term
with a one-year option to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $18,000,000. Funding is available in the
various departments' operating budgets.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Cloud Solutions CTR046098 - Amendment (Ordinance S-52147) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow
additional expenditures under Contract 151147 with Carahsoft Technology Corp. for
the purchase of cloud-based information technology solutions for Citywide
departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $2,290,000.

Summary
This contract continues to provide cloud-based and information technology solutions,
including Software as a Service (SaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), and
Platform as a Service (PaaS). The additional funds will allow additional City
departments to purchase a full range of cloud-based and information technology
solution services offered by Carahsoft Technology Corp.

The cloud subscriptions and/or professional services include, but are not limited to, the
following per department:

Aviation:
· Snowflake - a data repository platform providing unified data strategy across teams
and fully managed infrastructure with simplicity, scale, and ease of use. Centralizing
data allows the user to make data driven decisions for continuous improvements in
business practices as it would be readily accessible in the form of various reports
and analytics.

Human Services, in support of various departments:
· Qualtrics - a survey tool used for research purposes, which helps the City to
regularly survey residents in the community related to health needs and health
behaviors, supporting departments with health-related outcome evaluations.

Community and Economic Development:
· Professional services to migrate Microsoft Dynamics from an on-premise platform to
use the modern Microsoft Dynamics cloud-based solution. The cloud-based solution
integrates various business operations, which will result in operational efficiencies
and allow the department to move from an outdated application to a current, more


stable and mobile, cloud-based solution. It also provides advanced data analytics
and scalability to adjust to the department's growing needs.

Planning and Development:
· Multiple services/solutions in support of the ShapePHX Project, providing improved
data quality and a better performing, fully supported and secure business
application, which provides an opportunity to scale, streamline processes, and
quickly adapt to changes.

Police:
· MakeNote - a performance management application that streamlines and simplifies
the supervisory note process, enabling contemporaneous field-based note creation
and instant notification to the employee for review and receipt acknowledgement.
· Public Portal - a centralized complaint and case management system, which
provides process efficiencies, automated updates, case tracking, and reporting
capabilities.
· Peregrine - a real-time decision and operations management platform for law
enforcement used to connect current and future Records Management Systems.

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

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $2,290,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $16,872,453. Funds are available in various departments'
budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council Previously reviewed this request:
· Planning, Zoning, Plan Review, and Permitting Application - Contract 151147
(Ordinance S-46102) on October 16, 2019;
· Planning, Zoning, Plan Review, and Permitting Application - Contract 151147
(Ordinance S-50001) on June 28, 2023

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Small Package Delivery Services Contract RFP GGS-25-0475 - Request for
Award (Ordinance S-52158) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
contract with B.U.B. Transport LLC dba Global Services of Arizona to provide small
package delivery services for citywide departments. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract
will not exceed $330,000.

Summary
This contract will provide domestic small package delivery services for citywide
departments on an as-needed basis.

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

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal procurement was processed in accordance with City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a proposal deemed responsive and responsible. An evaluation
committee of City staff evaluated the offer based on the following criteria with a
maximum possible point total of 1000 points:

· Method of Approach (0-350 points)
· Capacity (0-250 points)
· Experience and Expertise (0-200 points)
· Pricing Proposal (0-200 points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor:

B.U.B. Transport LLC dba Global Services of Arizona, 800 points




Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 15, 2025, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $330,000. Funding is available in the
various departments' operating budgets.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Outside Counsel Legal Services Contract - O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Ordinance S
-52173) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
contract with O’Melveny & Myers LLP to provide outside counsel services to the City
for an initial one-year term, with a one-year option to extend, at the City Attorney's
discretion. Additionally, request the City Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City
Code § 42-18 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to O’Melveny & Myers
LLP's dispute arbitration provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code § 42-18. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $200,000 for the two
-year term.

Summary
This contract will provide legal services to the City related to water policy issues. The
City Code authorizes the City Attorney to enter into agreements to provide legal
services for the City. Upon approval of this request by the City Council, the City
Attorney will enter into an agreement with this firm.

Contract Term
The term of this contract may begin any time on or after July 1, 2025, and expire on
June 30, 2027.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $200,000 for the term. Funding is
available in the Law Department.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Tohono O'odham Nation Tribal 2025 Gaming Grants (Ordinance S-52146) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to apply,
accept, and if awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $1,435,918.24 in new
funding from the Tohono O'odham Nation under the 2025 funding cycle. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse funds as directed by the Tohono O'odham Nation in connection with these
grants.

Summary
If awarded, these monies would be applied, as directed by the Tohono O'odham
Nation, towards the following:

City Applications
· Human Services Department: $50,000 for the Bridge to Success Workforce Pilot
program, which will support low-income individuals and families transitioning from
public assistance to full-time employment by providing short-term financial
assistance that mitigates the negative financial impact of the 'benefits cliff', thereby
improving job retention, long-term economic stability, and reducing reliance on
public benefits.
· Office of Sustainability: $130,000 for the Energy Access Plan, which will fund the
creation of a full-time temporary staff position whose role prioritizes the execution of
the Energy Access Plan and fund the implementation of the actions.
· Phoenix Fire Department: $49,956 for the Trauma Bleeding Control Program, which
will procure 24 advanced multi-casualty cabinets and 200 individuals refill kits.
These kits will be strategically placed in high-traffic public facilities, including
Phoenix City Hall, the Phoenix Convention Center, libraries, and courts, ensuring
widespread availability and rapid access, in the event of a mass trauma event.
· Phoenix Fire Department: $15,000 for the Peer Fitness Trainer Certification
Program, which will fund certification of ten members through the nationally
recognized IAFF/IAFC Peer Fitness Trainer program and complementary nutrition
certification training. This will empower Fire Peer Fitness Trainers to deliver safe,
effective fitness programs and support long-term wellness and injury recovery
across the Fire Department.


· Phoenix Fire Department: $44,254.50 for the Unmanned Aircraft System, which will
fund the acquisition of a secure, high-performance small, unmanned aircraft system
platform with integrated operations management software to enhance situational
awareness and responder safety during emergency incidents.
· Phoenix Police Department: $25,200 for Fingerprint Scanners, which will enable
real-time identification based on biometric technology. These devices will allow
officers to accurately identify violent criminals within minutes in the field rather than
transporting them to a precinct for identification purposes.
· Planning and Development Department: $50,000 for the Rio Reimagined
Community Connection, which will study and identify corridors that will reconnect
residents, students, visitors, and others to the Rio Salado (Salt River) in Phoenix.
· Public Defender's Office $59,500 for the Empowering Change Project, which will
enhance the City of Phoenix Veterans Court Treatment Program for Homeless
Veterans.
· Public Works Department: $30,697.24 for the Food Waste Pilot Program, which will
introduce a Zero-Waste education curriculum and waste sorting system focused on
helping to reduce food waste, lower transportation-related emissions, and
strengthen resiliency education across a selected Phoenix-based school district.
Through the pilot, students and staff will gain a deeper understanding of how to
establish food security, mechanisms for resource conservation, and the
environmental impact of food waste, including its diversion practices, the program
supports extending landfill lifespan and establishing a community that is
sustainability driven.
· Public Works Department: $162,950 for the Lithium-Ion Battery Collection and
Education program, which will educate the public of the dangers with improper
disposal of lithium-ion batteries and enable pathways for more recycling, reuse and
proper disposal.

Non-Profit Applications
· Arizona Center for Nature Conservation dba Phoenix Zoo: $35,350 for the Wildlife &
Water: Monitoring Mammal Communities in Relationship to Water Availability in the
Atascosa Complex, which will support a wildlife and water study of the mammal
ecology using wildlife cameras and environmental DNA.
· Arizona Educational Foundation: $20,000 for the Strengthen the Arizona Public
Education System, which will expand its A+ School of Excellence Award program,
Principals Leadership Academy of Arizona, Arizona State Spelling Bee program,
teachSTEM program, and Arizona Teacher of the Year Awards across public
schools in Maricopa County. It will provide more educators with leadership training
and professional development, increase student access to literacy and STEM
enrichment programs, and recognize outstanding public schools and teachers.


· Arizona Forward: $15,000 for the Emerging Sustainability Leaders Program, which
is statewide and benefits mid-level professionals throughout the state, especially in
Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff communities. Businesses from all over the state can
nominate emerging sustainability leaders to participate in the educational program.
· Arizona Humanities: $25,000 for the Brian Young Book Tour & Creative Writing
Workshops, which will bring a book tour and creative writing workshops to ten
locations led by Navajo young adult author Brian Young. The program promotes
Indigenous youth literacy and provides the opportunity to explore their own stories
with a published Navajo author.
· Arizona Sustainability Alliance: $165,562 for the Rooted Communities: Supporting
Increased Shade Canopy Alongside Affordable Housing Developments and
Neighborhoods Improved Projects, which will work with the City of Phoenix Housing
Department to plant drought-tolerant trees in selected locations to increase shade
canopy for residents, as well as provide educational workshops and monitor trees to
ensure their health.
· Chrysalis Veterans Services, Inc.: $100,000 for the Ensuring Economic
Development Success for Veterans Returning to the Workforce program, which will
fund a job readiness program.
· Creighton Community Foundation: $31,837.50 for the Heritage Wetlands Space,
Collaborative Accessible Arizona Wetlands Education, which will support the
creation of an outdoor, community resource, which will foster community
connection, enhance environmental education, and promote sustainable practices.
· Desert Foothills Library Association: $7,500 for the Book Buds Intergenerational
Book Club, which will increase youth/senior reading enjoyment and minutes read.
· Downtown Phoenix Inc.: $25,000 for the Community Resource Hub, which will help
build a healthier, safer, and more connected downtown. It serves as the focal point
to deliver community programs and help reduce the level of homelessness in the
area.
· Duet: Partners in Health & Aging: $20,000 for the Essential Services to Keep
Homebound Seniors Healthy and Housed, which will help improve the physical and
emotional health, wellbeing, and safety of older adults and help those who are
especially vulnerable avoid becoming homelessness.
· Gabriel's Angels: $10,000 for the Pet Therapy Program, which will ensure that
children receive critical assistance in developing reading skills that ensure success
in school but also develop core strengths needed to develop socially.
· Heard Museum: $10,000 for Youth & Family Programming, which will enhance the
Heard Museum's Youth and Family programming, connecting young people with
Native culture and ensuring that future generations continue to value and
appreciate this vital aspect of Arizona's tribal heritage.
· Human Services Campus, Inc. dba Keys to Change: $100,000 for Critical Client


Services, which will support a comprehensive range of programs tailored to meet
the evolving needs of individuals experiencing homelessness in the greater Phoenix
metropolitan area. The approach centers on collaboration, both with partner
organizations on the Key Campus and throughout the broader community, providing
targeted solutions that address each person's unique barriers to housing.
· Justa Center: $40,000 for the Path to Housing program, which will support a
customized support to Justa Center members as they strive to secure stable
housing, untapped income sources such as Social Security and disability benefits,
and health care coverage.
· MIKID Mentally Ill Kids in Distress: $25,000 for the Children's Behavioral Health,
which will grow access to children's behavioral health care for families that lack
insurance coverage and improve the quality of behavioral health care by providing
food and engaging activities for the kids.
· Phoenix Indian Center, Inc.: $55,000 for Bridging the Gaps for Indigenous Cultural
Connection and Direct Assistance, which will fund language and cultural
programming and direct assistance for community members.
· Phoenix Rescue Mission: $20,000 for the Five Star Quality First Childcare Center,
which will support the center and program, including Pre-K curriculum, program
staff and kindergarten readiness.
· Rosie's House: A Music Academy for Children: $5,000 for the Free After School
Music and Leadership Program for Under-Resourced Youth, which will support after
school music education and leadership opportunities for 700 under served students.
· Sonoran University of Health Sciences: $25,000 for the Community Health
Program, which will support community clinics through direct-care operational
support.
· St. Joseph the Worker: $25,000 for the Workforce Development Program, which
provides pathways to self-sufficiency for disadvantaged populations, with
employment as the foundation. The program is essential in preventing
homelessness by helping clients overcome the diverse of barriers they face on the
path to employment.
· United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arizona: $43,111 for the Inclusive Basketball for
Adults with Disabilities, which will provide sun sails (shade structures) over an
existing basketball court and help create a first of its kind inclusive basketball
program specifically tailored to providing engaging health care opportunities for
adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
· United Services Organizations, Inc.: $15,000 for the USO Arizona Military Youth
Programs, which will support military youth educational programs in Arizona, such
as Preschool Power Hours and back to school resources fairs to give local military
youth all the educational resources, tools, and supplies needed to be successful in
local schools.



The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns, and counties for
government services that benefit the general public, including public safety, mitigation
of impacts, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The Tohono
O'odham Nation will notify the City, by grant-in-aid agreement, of the Tribal Council's
decision, if it desires to convey to the City or local nonprofits a portion of its annual 12
percent local revenue-sharing contribution.

Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City and no general-purpose funds are required.
Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of those
funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
18, 2025) - Authorization to Amend Contract 160325 with Human Services
Campus, Inc. dba Keys to Change to Increase Authority and Extend Term
(Ordinance S-52022) - District 7

Request authorization for the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to amend
Contract 160325 with Human Services Campus, Inc. dba Keys to Change to extend
contract term through June 30, 2026, and add funding up to $1,500,000 for Key
Campus operations in Fiscal Year 2025-26. The revised total contract value will not
exceed $3,250,000. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item for the contract life. Funds are available from the Office of
Homeless Solutions and within the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation.

Summary
Keys to Change provides essential services and homeless program operations for
unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness. Services are provided 365 days
per year, 7 days per week, and 24 hours per day, including holidays. Directly and
through its 16 partners on the Key Campus, Keys to Change provides shelter, food,
navigation, case management, access postal services, workforce development, and
housing, among other services. Keys to Change recognizes the urgent need for
providing essential services to individuals experiencing homelessness and is
committed to providing services aligned with the City of Phoenix’s Strategies to
Address Homelessness Plan. The agency’s programs include services for the
homeless that serve thousands each day and provide general assistance for
individuals in need.

The funding will be used to support the Key Campus operations and to comply with
zoning stipulations for the site.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will be extended through June 30, 2026.

Financial Impact
The new total value of this contract shall not exceed $3,250,000.





Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council reviewed and approved the following:
· Contract 160325 with Ordinance S-50614 on February 21, 2024.
· An increase in funding with Ordinance S-51710 on March 5, 2025.

Location
220 S. 12th Avenue
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of
Homeless Solutions.





OFFICE OF HOMELESS SOLUTIONS



To: Gina Montes Date: June 25, 2025
Deputy City Manager

'l,{jV\_
II

From: Rachel Milne
Office of Homeless Solutions Director

Subject: REQUEST TO REVISE ITEM 58 ON THE JULY 2, 2025, CITY COUNCIL
FORMAL MEETING AGENDA - AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND CONTRACT
160325 WITH HUMAN SERVICES CAMPUS, INC. OBA KEYS TO CHANGE TO
INCREASE AUTHORITY AND EXTEND TERM (ORDINANCE S-52022)


58 Authorization to Amend
The Office of Homeless Solutions requests a revision to Item_,
Contract 160325 with Human Services Campus, Inc. dba Keys to Change to Increase
Authority and Extend Term (Ordinance S-52022). This item was continued from the June 4
and June 18 City Council Formal Meeting Agendas. Requesting retroactive approval of this
item to increase payment authority and extend term effective July 1, 2025.



Approved: ��
Gina Montes Date
Deputy City Manager







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 18, 2025) - Valley Youth Theatre - Architectural
Services - AR00000026 (General Obligation Bond) (Ordinance S-52059) - District

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an agreement with DLR Group Inc. to provide Architectural Services that include
programming, study, site assessment design, and possible construction administration
and observation services for the Valley Youth Theatre General Obligation Bond
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 $1,000,000.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's 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 design a new facility as a permanent home for the
Valley Youth Theatre. The facility will include an Americans with Disabilities Act
compliant 300-seat feature theatre, plus a 99-seat studio theatre for smaller
productions. Also included are office and meeting space, restrooms,
rehearsal/workshop space, dance studios, galleries, and space for set, costumes, prop
shops, and storage.

DLR Group Inc. services shall include, but not be limited to the following: coordinate
with the City and Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) during design; submit and
retrieve all required documents to and from various agencies; coordinate all permits



and approvals from the federal, state, county, and local utility authorities; develop
preliminary plans and renderings to present concepts and verify course of project;
prepare and reconcile cost models and preliminary timelines for the project; develop
project program to meet requirements of the City of Phoenix and Valley Youth Theatre;
prepare necessary exhibits and make presentation to stakeholders; participate in City
coordinated public information, public relation services, and community outreach;
develop studies to lead the recommended solutions during the decision-making
process; address stakeholder and CMAR design/constructability review comments
from milestone reviews; prepare construction cost estimates for each design phase
milestone; review recommendations regarding cost models/GMPs provided by the
CMAR contractor; perform value engineering; identify private and public utility
easements; conduct geotechnical engineering and investigations of project site;
investigate and design utilities and infrastructure for project development (including but
not limited to water, sewer, and storm water); coordinate with CMAR in developing
design documents; coordinate and submit design packages to CMAR to bid to
subcontractors; design and prepare project plans and specifications for construction;
work with City and stakeholders for space planning and layout requirements; work with
stakeholders from various agencies as required; perform other services as required to
support successful completion of the work and the City's and Valley Youth Theatre
interests; and provide possible construction administration and observation 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, the City may not publicly release information on proposals received or
the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. A total of 11 firms submitted
proposals and are listed in Attachment A.

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 DLR Group Inc. will not exceed $1,000,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Arts and Culture Capital Improvement Program budget
utilizing General Obligation Bond funds. The Budget and Research Department will
separately review and approve funding availability prior to execution of any


amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered
agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.

Location
Valley Youth Theatre
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
David Mathews, the Arts and Culture Department and the City Engineer.





ATTACHMENT A


Selected Firm
Rank 1: DLR Group, Inc.


Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Holly Street, LLC
Rank 3: Multi Studio, Inc.
Rank 4: Jones Studio, Inc.
Rank 5: M. Arthur Gensler Jr. Associates, Inc.
Rank 6: Architekton, Inc.
Rank 7: RSP Architects, Ltd.
Rank 8: Richard Kennedy Architects, LLC
Rank 9: Rakkhaus, LLC
Rank 10: Wilson & Company, Inc., Engineers and Architects
Rank 11: SuoLL, LLC







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Intergovernmental Agreement with Maricopa County
and Authorization to Enter into Funding Agreement with the Phoenix Community
Development and Investment Corporation for the Senior Bridge Affordable
Housing Project (Ordinance S-52177) - District 8 & Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to amend an
intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Maricopa County (Contract 162319) to modify
Senior Bridge affordable housing project eligibility criteria and unit make-up. Further,
request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to accept
funding in an amount up to $3,015,746 from the Phoenix Community Development and
Investment Corporation (PCDIC) and enter into related funding agreement to support
the Senior Bridge affordable housing project. Additionally, request to modify prior
Council authorization for Senior Bridge Project to reflect changes in the Senior Bridge
affordable housing project scope, funding sources, and developer. Further request to
authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to take all actions
necessary or appropriate to implement and administer the Senior Bridge Project.

Finally, request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to these items.

Summary
American Rescue Plan funding (“HOME funding”) towards the Senior Bridge Project
on December 4, 2024 via Ordinance S-51498.

As originally authorized via Ordinance S-51553, the City of Phoenix entered into a
related IGA with Maricopa County on or about December 18, 2024. Whereby, the
County awarded American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to the City to provide shelter
and transitional housing for individuals experiencing homelessness in the City as well
as up to $6 million in ARPA funding to be awarded to Steel & Spark, LLC to support the
Senior Bridge Project.

On March 26, 2025, via Ordinance S-51736, the City Council authorized modification
of the Maricopa County IGA to reflect changes in Senior Bridge Project scope and
associated modifications to the Senior Bridge Project development agreement,



including changing the developer to a Steel & Spark, LLC affiliate, Senior Bridge, LLC.

Following the March 26, 2025 Council action, the City determined not to use HOME
funding for the Senior Bridge Project and PCDIC was identified as an alternative
funding source. In addition, further revisions were identified to Senior Bridge Project
unit make-up, eligibility criteria, potential corporate form of the developer, as well as
the term of related security instruments in the course of negotiations.

Thus, the current request would allow modifications to the IGA and related Senior
Bridge Project development agreement authority. Specifically:
· The current desired project would allow up to 54 affordable housing units to be
developed within ARPA's State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund guidelines for
affordable housing.
· HOME Funding will be replaced with funding provided by PCDIC in an amount not
to exceed $3,015,746.
· The developer of the Senior Bridge Project and party to the development
agreement and related instruments may be replaced with an affiliate of Senior
Bridge, LLC as necessary or desirable to facilitate the project.
· The term of security instruments related to the development agreement will be 20
years.

Contract Term
The term of the IGA will remain unchanged.

The term of the funding agreement with PCDIC will be for a period of three years,
beginning on or about July 3, 2025.

The term of the affordable housing development agreement with Senior Bridge, LLC or
affiliate will begin or on about July 3, 2025 for a term of up to one year, with an option
to extend through December 31, 2026 at the discretion of the City Manager or
designee; provided associated security instruments shall have a term of at least 20
years from project occupancy.

Financial Impact
The amount of funding provided via the IGA with Maricopa County to the Senior Bridge
Project remains unchanged at up to $6 million. Funding in an amount of $3,015,746
will be provided by PCDIC. There is no impact to the General Fund, as funding is
provided by Maricopa County and PCDIC.





Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Council previously reviewed and approved the following:
· On December 4, 2024, the City Council authorized up to $3,015,746 in HOME
Funding for the Senior Bridge project with Ordinance S-51498.
· On December 18, 2024, via Ordinance S-51553, the City Council approved the
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Maricopa County and related projects,
including the award of up to an additional $6 million in funding from the IGA for the
Senior Bridge to Steel & Spark, LLC.
· On March 26, 2025, the City Council authorized changes to the Senior Bridge
Project scope and substitution of Senior Bridge, LLC as developer with Ordinance S
-51736.
· These prior actions are superseded to the extent inconsistent with this item.

Location
Senior Bridge, 2853 E. Van Buren Street
Council Districts: 8 and Citywide

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Office of
Homeless Solutions.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Community Arts Grants (Ordinance S-52166) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute all
necessary agreements between the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture (POAC) and
approved applicants for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Community Arts Grant Program
in an aggregate amount of $1,675,346. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The annual Community Arts Grants Program invests in nonprofit art and cultural
organizations and groups to strengthen the community's access to cultural
programming. Applications were due on March 23, 2025. Out of the 166 applications
received, 142 were eligible for review by community panels of laypersons, artists, arts
professionals, and educators to ensure a thorough and unbiased review.

Through the agency's equity strategy, POAC ensures outreach to all areas of the City
and targeted applicants from all disciplines, budget sizes, underrepresented
populations, and City Council districts. There was a 17 percent increase in applications
from FY 2025-26.

The Community Arts Grants Program Grant Categories:
General Support Grants (GSG) provide core operating support to arts and cultural
organizations of all sizes that have a primary mission to create, produce, or provide
arts and cultural programming to enhance the quality of lives for Phoenix residents. All
GSG applicants are required to have a prior year income of at least $5,000 and
complete a full application to be reviewed by a grants panel.

GSG Goals
1. Support arts and cultural opportunities among residents of all ages through
education, outreach programs, and opportunities for personal artistic expression
and participation.
2. Encourage broad-based, community-wide participation in arts and cultural activities
resulting from diverse programming accessible to all residents.
3. Sustain a community of responsibly governed and managed, financially sound
organizations, and assist organizations that have reached a critical stage in artistic



or institutional development by encouraging the identification of internal needs
critical to the organization's sustainability or growth.

Project Support Grants (PSG) promote and encourage the breadth of arts and
cultural programming in the community by supporting large and small projects
throughout the City of Phoenix. The program supports guest artist fees/expenses,
production fees, and marketing expenses for arts and culture projects that engage
Phoenix residents, including but not limited to art workshops, pop-up performances,
and collaborations with artists. All PSG applicants must complete a full application to
be reviewed by a grants panel.

PSG Goals
1. Support arts and cultural projects across the City of Phoenix, especially artistic
collaborations with full representation from all people at the intersection of all
diversities and backgrounds.
2. Fund projects that support the artistic and cultural work of young people or projects
that introduce youth to arts and culture in the City of Phoenix.
3. Invest in projects that support and celebrate individual artists impacting the
community.

The Rental Support Program (RSP) provides facility rental support to those cultural
organizations that help revitalize the Phoenix downtown corridor through their
presentations at the Herberger Theater Center, Orpheum Theatre, and Phoenix
Symphony Hall. Arts and Culture administers RSP in partnership with the Phoenix
Convention Center, which funds the program. Only organizations that have
successfully applied and been awarded a GSG or PSG application may be considered
for this program. These funds are awarded through an additional application process
and reviewed by the Phoenix Convention Center.

Fiscal Year 2025 Recommendations and Allocations
The Community Arts Grants Program has a total budget of $1,675,346, comprised of
funds from the City’s general fund and support from the Phoenix Convention Center.
GSG and PSG funding allocations totaling $1,381,346 are requested for 135 grants to
135 applicants (Attachment A). Of the remaining funds, $69,000 will be used toward
discretionary grants to artists and arts and culture organizations to present
programming in under-invested areas in the City to ensure greater equitable
geographic distributions of grant funding and $225,000 for the Rental Support
Program.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission reviewed and approved the FY 2025-26


Community Arts Grants Program allocation recommendations at its meeting on June
17, 2025.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager David Mathews and the Office of Arts
and Culture.





Attachment A
FY26 Community Arts Grants
Allocations of all Categories

Program FY26 Applications FY26 Awards FY24 Recommended Allocations
Project Support Grants 60 55 $ 232,202.50
General Support Grants 82 80 $ 1,149,143.50
Rental Support TBD TBD $ 225,000.00
Discretionary TBD TBD $ 69,000.00
TOTAL 142 135 $ 1,675,346.00

Project Support Grant Allocations
Applicant Council District Project Type Allocation
A PERMANENT VOICE 8 Festivals $ 3,780.00
A3F INCORPORATED 4 Festivals $ 1,600.00
Academy of Asian Art Foundation 2 Arts Instruction $ 4,250.00
AFRI-SOUL EDUCATION CENTER 8 Festivals $ 4,500.00
Arizona Commission of wrestling 4 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,500.00
Arizona Cultural Diversities 8 Festivals $ 4,000.00
ARIZONA MATSURI 5 Festivals $ 4,750.00
AT THE OUTLET INC 4 Festivals $ 4,500.00
AZLand Fund 8 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
Black Artists Festival Phoenix 6 Arts Instruction $ 4,500.00
BLACK GIRL BROWN GIRL COLLECTIVE INC 8 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,750.00
Blatmosphere Studios LLC 2 Festivals $ 4,000.00
Blending the Moves 1 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA INC 5 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,750.00
COMO ART FOUNDATION 7 Arts Instruction $ 4,250.00
CONVERGENCE BALLET COMPANY 6 Exhibitions/Performances $ 2,975.00
CORONADO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED 4 Festivals $ 3,577.50
COWTOWN SKATE 6 Arts Instruction $ 4,000.00
CULTURAL ARTS COALITION CELEBRATING GLOBAL CONNECTIONS 7 Arts Instruction $ 4,750.00
DETOUR COMPANY THEATER INC 6 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
Driftwood Quintet, LLP 8 Exhibitions/Performances $ 5,000.00
Encanto School 4 Arts Instruction $ 4,750.00
Enparoxismo 8 Festivals $ 4,000.00
Estómago de Oro 8 Arts Instruction $ 4,750.00
FRIENDLY HOUSE INC 8 Arts Instruction $ 4,250.00
Furious Styles Crew 8 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
GENESIS PROGRAM INC 8 Arts Instruction $ 4,250.00
Girls Rock! Phoenix 4 Arts Instruction $ 5,000.00
Hatcher Road Business Alliance (theHUB) 3 Festivals $ 2,500.00
Indo American Cultural Connect 6 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,000.00
LATINA DANCE PROJECT 7 Festivals $ 4,750.00
Little Chef Klezmer Band 8 Festivals $ 5,000.00
MADISON DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION 4 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
Maurice C. Cash Elementary School 8 Arts Instruction $ 4,000.00
MOVEMENT SOURCE INC 6 Arts Instruction $ 4,750.00
Museum of Arizona Artists (MOAZA) 7 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
NVAA Dance Boosters 3 Arts Instruction $ 4,750.00
Oh My Ears 8 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,000.00
Perry Park Neighborhood Association 8 Arts Instruction $ 4,000.00
PHOENIX DESERT CENTER 8 Arts Instruction $ 5,000.00
PHOENIX PIONEER BAND 7 Arts Instruction $ 1,020.00
PHOENIX PRIDE INCORPORATED 8 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
PHOENIX REVITALIZATION CORPORATION 8 Festivals $ 4,500.00
PHOENIX TRADITIONAL MUSIC AND DANCE INC 3 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
Pueblo Grande Museum Auxilliary 8 Festivals $ 4,750.00
Sarabo Cultural Events 8 Festivals $ 4,750.00
Silambam Phoenix 3 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
Silvestre S Herrera School 8 Arts Instruction $ 4,250.00
ST PATRICKS DAY PARADE COMMITTEE AND IRISH SOCIETY OF ARIZONA INC 7 Festivals $ 4,750.00
The Baumer String Quartet 4 Exhibitions/Performances $ 4,250.00
THE FACTS OF LIFE GROUP HOME INC 7 Arts Instruction $ 4,000.00
The Pachanga Collective 8 Arts Instruction $ 5,000.00
The Sacred G's Ltd 6 Festivals $ 4,000.00
Tranze Danza Contemporanea 8 Arts Instruction $ 4,500.00
YOUNG SOUNDS OF ARIZONA INC 4 Arts Instruction $ 4,000.00

TOTAL $ 232,203
1 6/13/2025 216
General Support Grant Allocations

Applicant Council District Budget Size Allocation
ACT ONE 4 344K - <736K $ 12,350.00
ADVOCATES FOR LATINO ARTS & CULTURE CONSORTIUM INC 7 49K - <130K $ 8,250.00
AHWATUKEE CHILDRENS THEATRE INC 6 131K - <343K $ 7,250.00
ALMOST FAMOUS THEATRE COMPANY FOUNDATION 4 49K - <130K $ 6,000.00
ALWUN HOUSE FOUNDATION 8 49K - <130K $ 8,500.00
ARIZONA CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION 6 2.7M + $ 20,000.00
ARIZONA HUMANITIES COUNCIL 7 737K - <2.6M $ 16,050.00
ARIZONA JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY 7 344K - <736K $ 13,900.00
ARIZONA MASTERWORKS CHORALE INC 6 22K - <$48K $ 7,350.00
ARIZONA OPERA COMPANY 4 2.7M + $ 35,500.00
ARIZONA SCIENCE CENTER 8 2.7M + $ 29,250.00
Balkan Community Culture and Heritage Organization 3 22K - <$48K $ 7,550.00
BALLET ARIZONA 8 2.7M + $ 29,250.00
Black River Life Media 6 131K - <343K $ 12,000.00
BLACK THEATRE TROUPE INC 8 344K - <736K $ 15,350.00
Cahokia 8 131K - <343K $ 11,750.00
CALA ALLIANCE 4 344K - <736K $ 14,850.00
CENTRAL ARTS ALLIANCE 7 737K - <2.6M $ 14,000.00
CHILDRENS MUSEUM OF PHOENIX 8 2.7M + $ 22,750.00
CHILDSPLAY INC 7 737K - <2.6M $ 16,450.00
CIHUAPACTLI COLLECTIVE 8 737K - <2.6M $ 10,000.00
CULTURAL COALITION INC 7 344K - <736K $ 14,500.00
DESERT BOTANICAL GARDEN 6 2.7M + $ 35,500.00
DESERT OVERTURE LIVE CULTURAL ENTERTAINMENT 3 49K - <130K $ 8,000.00
Downtown Chamber Series 7 49K - <130K $ 9,250.00
FEXAM CULTURAL CENTER 4 $4K - <$21K $ 5,256.00
FREE ARTS FOR ABUSED CHILDREN OF ARIZONA 4 737K - <2.6M $ 18,100.00
GRAND CANYON MENS CHORALE 4 131K - <343K $ 10,750.00
Grassrootz Bookstore 8 49K - <130K $ 8,250.00
GREAT ARIZONA PUPPET THEATER INC 7 344K - <736K $ 14,150.00
GREY BOX COLLECTIVE FOUNDATION 7 22K - <$48K $ 6,000.00
Harmony Project Phoenix 7 131K - <343K $ 10,250.00
HEARD MUSEUM 4 2.7M + $ 43,250.00
HERITAGE SQUARE FOUNDATION 8 344K - <736K $ 12,000.00
IRISH CULTURAL AND LEARNING FOUNDATION 7 737K - <2.6M $ 13,000.00
JAPANESE FRIENDSHIP GARDEN OF PHOENIX INC 7 737K - <2.6M $ 16,850.00
JAZZ IN ARIZONA INC 7 737K - <2.6M $ 14,750.00
LIGHTS CAMERA DISCOVER 6 131K - <343K $ 10,500.00
MUSICA NOVA INC 2 49K - <130K $ 8,250.00
MUSICAL INSTRUMENT MUSEUM 2 2.7M + $ 32,000.00
MUSICAL THEATRE OF ANTHEM INC 1 344K - <736K $ 13,400.00
NORTH VALLEY CHORALE 3 49K - <130K $ 7,250.00
NORTH VALLEY SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA INC 2 49K - <130K $ 7,500.00
NUEBOX 4 49K - <130K $ 9,750.00
ORPHEUS MALE CHORUS OF PHOENIX 6 131K - <343K $ 8,000.00
Palabras Bilingual Bookstore 7 131K - <343K $ 10,500.00
PHOENIX ART MUSEUM 4 2.7M + $ 40,500.00
PHOENIX BOYS CHOIR ASSOCIATION 6 737K - <2.6M $ 15,900.00
PHOENIX CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY 6 344K - <736K $ 12,700.00
PHOENIX CHILDRENS CHORUS INC 7 737K - <2.6M $ 16,300.00
PHOENIX CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC 4 737K - <2.6M $ 17,850.00
PHOENIX FILM FOUNDATION 2 344K - <736K $ 11,000.00
Phoenix Girls Chorus 6 $4K - <$21K $ 5,750.00
PHOENIX INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY ART 6 $4K - <$21K $ 6,000.00
PHOENIX PERFORMING ARTS CENTER INC 7 2.7M + $ 26,500.00
Phoenix Symphony 7 2.7M + $ 37,750.00
PHOENIX SYMPHONY GUILD 4 737K - <2.6M $ 15,750.00
PHOENIX THEATRE INC 4 2.7M + $ 35,500.00
PHOENIX WOMENS CHORUS 3 22K - <$48K $ 7,750.00
PHONETIC SPIT 7 49K - <130K $ 8,500.00
PLAYBACK ARIZONA 4 22K - <$48K $ 7,100.00
PROMUSICA ARIZONA CHORALE & ORCHESTRA 1 131K - <343K $ 7,000.00
RISING YOUTH THEATRE 7 131K - <343K $ 11,000.00
ROSIES HOUSE A MUSIC ACADEMY FOR CHILDREN INC 8 2.7M + $ 46,000.00
SCHOOL OF HIPHOP PHX 1 $4K - <$21K $ 6,987.50
SHEMER ART CENTER AND MUSEUM ASSOCIATION INC SACAMA 6 344K - <736K $ 12,700.00
SKYES THE LIMIT FOUNDATION INC 8 22K - <$48K $ 8,100.00
2 6/13/2025
SOUNDS ACADEMY 4 344K - <736K $ 15,700.00
SPOTLIGHT YOUTH THEATRE 1 131K - <343K $ 9,000.00
Teatro Meshico 5 $4K - <$21K $ 5,500.00
THE PHOENIX CHORALE 7 344K - <736K $ 13,050.00
THE SAGRADO 7 131K - <343K $ 13,000.00
Third Space Dance Project (501)c3 8 22K - <$48K $ 7,450.00
TRUNK SPACE ARTS INC 4 22K - <$48K $ 7,650.00
VALLEY YOUTH THEATRE 7 737K - <2.6M $ 16,700.00
VOICES OF THE DESERT 7 22K - <$48K $ 7,850.00
Wasted Ink Zine Distro 7 49K - <130K $ 8,750.00
XICO INC 7 737K - <2.6M $ 7,000.00
YES AND PRODUCTIONS 3 22K - <$48K $ 7,000.00
YOUNG ARTS ARIZONA LTD 4 49K - <130K $ 8,500.00

TOTAL $ 1,149,143.50




3 6/13/2025 218



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Aquatic Rescue, Training Supplies and Equipment Contract - PKS-IFB-25-0743 -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-52152) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
contracts with Water Safety Products Inc. and Adolph Kiefer & Associates, LLC to
purchase Aquatic Rescue, Training Supplies and Equipment for the Parks and
Recreation Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed $360,000.

Summary
These contracts are for the purchase of aquatic equipment and supplies for Parks and
Recreation Department aquatics facilities. The contracts will provide City pools with
equipment and supplies necessary to certify lifeguards and operate the City's swim
lessons program. Historically, the City has hired up to 650 certified lifeguards to
operate swimming pools annually and approximately 18,000 residents participate in
swim lessons and recreational teams.

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

Two vendors submitted bids 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 vendors:

Selected Bidders
Adolph Kiefer & Associates, LLC
Water Safety Products Inc.

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about July 1, 2025, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts' value will not exceed $360,000.




Funding is available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with Alhambra Elementary School District for a
Phoenix Afterschool Center Site (Ordinance S-52161) - District 4

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute an
agreement with the Alhambra Elementary School District to provide the Phoenix
Afterschool Center (PAC) Program. Further, request to grant an exception pursuant to
Phoenix City Code Section 42-18 authorizing indemnification or assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise would be prohibited for the agreement. There is no financial
impact associated with this item.

Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department's PAC program is an affordable after-school
recreation and enrichment program for youth 6 to 13. PAC has historically served
approximately 1,400 youth daily at more than 30 school sites throughout the City. PAC
provides a fun, supportive, and educational atmosphere during the crucial after-school
hours. PAC's programming includes organized physical activity: Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts and Math (Steam) educational enrichment, and homework
assistance.

The Department partners with school districts to offer the PAC program directly to the
school sites throughout the City. The PAC program serves at least one school in the
following 12 school districts: Balsz, Cartwright, Creighton, Osborn, Paradise Valley,
Riverside, Roosevelt, Tempe, Tolleson, Union, Washington, and Wilson. Additionally,
there are two charter school PAC sites located at Arizona State University Preparatory
Academy and Amerischools Academy. The Alhambra Elementary School District has
been on the PAC wait list. This agreement will allow the PAC program to be offered at
schools in the Alhambra Elementary School District, beginning with Madrid
Neighborhood School, and additional schools within the district as funding permits.
Approximately 99 percent of students who attend Madrid Neighborhood School qualify
for free and/or reduced lunch.

To facilitate the PAC program, the Department requires each school district or charter
school to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) or Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA). The school district's IGA will include their site, responsibilities for
each party, and program information.




Contract Term
The term for the agreement will be for four years with an expiration of July 2029 to
align with other PAC IGA's in place currently.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact associated with this item.

Location
Madrid Neighborhood School, 3736 W. Osborn Road
Council District: 4

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Toro Equipment Maintenance and Repair Services Contract - PKS-RFQ-25-0760 -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-52168) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
contract with Simpson Norton Corporation to provide Toro equipment maintenance and
repair services for the Parks and Recreation Department. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the
contract will not exceed $220,000.

Summary
This contract will provide the Parks and Recreation Department with labor, materials,
and supplies to maintain and repair Toro equipment to ensure the safe and efficient
operation of equipment used at various City park locations. These services are vital for
the repair, recondition, and maintenance of equipment such as mid-size mowers, gang
mowers, reel mowers, utility vehicles, sand pros, aerators, turf sweepers, and various
other equipment critical to the department's operations. The required equipment
covers a broad range of models.

Procurement Information
A Request for Quote 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:

Selected Bidder
Simpson Norton Corporation

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 1, 2025, for a three-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $220,000.




Funding is available in the Parks and Recreation Department's Operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Horizon on Villa Project)
(Resolution 22318) - District 8

Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue
Bonds (Horizon on Villa Project), to be issued in one or more tax-exempt and/or
taxable series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $35,000,000.

Summary
Request City Council adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of
the proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Phoenix, Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue up to
$35,000,000 of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Horizon on Villa Project) in
one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable series (the “Bonds”) for use by Horizon on
Villa, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company (collectively with its assignees and
designees, the “Borrower”), to finance, and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a portion
of the costs of:

a. Acquiring, constructing, developing, rehabilitating, improving, equipping, and/or
operating a multifamily residential rental housing project (including improvements
and facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto) expected to be comprised
of approximately 109 units of housing (all or a portion of which will be set aside for
occupancy by low- to moderate-income tenants) and other improvements to be
situated on approximately 5.78 acres of land to be leased to the Borrower by the
City located in Phoenix, Arizona (collectively, the “Facility”); and
b. Funding any required reserve funds, paying capitalized interest on the Bonds, if
any, and paying certain costs and expenses incurred in connection with the
issuance of such Bonds (collectively, the “Project”).

Project, for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Bonds at its meeting held
on June 18, 2025.




Location
The Facility is located at or near 500 N. 20th Street, Phoenix, AZ.
Council District: 8

With the exception of certain housing bonds, the Phoenix IDA can finance projects
located anywhere in Arizona. In addition, the Phoenix IDA may issue bonds to finance
projects outside of Arizona, if the out-of-state project provides a benefit within the
State.

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





ATTACHMENT A

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

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN OF FINANCING
AND ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $35,000,000
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ONE OR MORE TAX-EXEMPT
AND/OR TAXABLE SERIES OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE BONDS (HORIZON ON VILLA PROJECT) OF
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA

_______________

WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,




AF
Arizona (the “Authority”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of

the State of Arizona (the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix,

Arizona (the “City”); and




T
WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section

35-701 et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Authority to issue revenue bonds

for the purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans

to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or operation



R
of a “project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the Authority (the

“Authority Board”) finds such loans to further advance the interests of the Authority or the

public interest, and to refund outstanding obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance


D
the costs of a “project” when the Authority Board finds that the refinancing is in the public

interest; and

WHEREAS, Horizon on Villa, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company (the

“Borrower”), has requested that the Authority issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of

assisting the Borrower to finance and/or refinance, as applicable, all or a portion of the

cost of: (a) the acquisition, construction, development, rehabilitation, improvement,



4928-6791-6359.1

equipping and/or operating of a multifamily residential rental housing project (including

improvements and facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto) expected to be

comprised of approximately 109 units of housing (all or a portion of which will be set aside

for occupancy by low- to moderate-income tenants) and other improvements to be

situated on approximately 5.78 acres of land to be leased to the Borrower by the City and

generally located at or near 500 N 20th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85006, (b) funding any

required reserve funds, (c) paying capitalized interest on the below-defined Bonds, if any,




AF
and (d) paying costs and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of such

Bonds (collectively, the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Authority, by Resolution 2025-[__], adopted by the




T
Authority Board at a meeting duly called and held on June 18, 2025, granted final approval

of the issuance and sale of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Horizon on Villa

Project), in one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable series (the “Bonds”), from time to time

pursuant to a plan of financing, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed




R
$35,000,000, the proceeds of which will be used to finance the Project; and

WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of

the Authority under which the Bonds are to be issued require the approval of the Council



D
of the City; and

WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as

amended (the “Code”), requires that an “applicable elected representative” (as that term

is defined in the Code) approve the issuance of the tax-exempt portion of the Bonds and

the plan of financing for the Project following a public hearing, which public hearing was

held by the Authority on June 6, 2025; and



2 Resolution No. ______
4928-6791-6359.1
WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the

proceeds of the Bonds has been presented to the Council of the City; and

WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by

the Council of the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act and of the “applicable

elected representative” as defined in Section 147(f) of the Code with respect to the Bonds.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:




AF
SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Authority under which the Bonds are

to be issued are hereby approved.

SECTION 2. The issuance of the Bonds and the plan of financing for the




T
Project are hereby approved for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code.

SECTION 3. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby

given. The provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the

extent of their applicability to matters contained herein.




R
D
3 Resolution No. ______
4928-6791-6359.1
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this

2nd day of July, 2025.




MAYOR


ATTEST:


City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

AF
REVIEWED BY:

T Acting City Attorney




City Manager




R
D
4 Resolution No. ______
4928-6791-6359.1



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4 AND 18, 2025) - NVLS (LEARN) Database
Subscription Services - RFA 18-011 - Amendment (Ordinance S-52035) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute an
amendment to Contract 150498 with Vigilant Solutions, LLC for an entity change to
Motorola Solutions, Inc. 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-45846.

Summary
This contract will provide the Phoenix Police Department with automatic license plate
reader equipment and subscription services to the National Vehicle Location Service
(NVLS) database. The service also includes the Law Enforcement Archival and
Reporting Network (LEARN) database, an online analytic platform that allows license
plate data and images to be aggregated and analyzed for law enforcement. LEARN
provides agencies with a way to manage vehicle hotlists, query historical license plate
reader data, and use advanced analytics for enhanced investigations. LEARN is a
hosted solution that allows data sharing and interoperability with other law
enforcement agencies nationwide. Together, NVLS-LEARN subscriptions service helps
the department to reduce auto thefts and related crime involving vehicles, increase
auto theft vehicle recovery rates, and increase investigative leads to reduce auto thefts
and vehicles used in gateway crimes (i.e robbery, burglary of residence).

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

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 18, 2029.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $2,427,000, and no additional
funds are needed.






Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· National Vehicle Location Service Database - Contract 150498 Ordinance S-45846
on June 26, 2019.
· National Vehicle Location Service Database - Contract 150498 Ordinance S-46372
on February 19, 2020.
· National Vehicle Location Service Database - Contract 150498 Ordinance S-50944
on May 29, 2024.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Provide Fire Protection Services to Laveen Fire District (Ordinance S-52142) -
Out of City

Request authorization for the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter
into an agreement for the provision of fire protection services to the Laveen Fire
District. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all funds related
to this item.

Summary
The purpose of this agreement is for the Phoenix Fire Department (PFD) to provide fire
protection services to the Laveen Fire District. Under the agreement, PFD will continue
to provide fire protection and suppression services, basic life support (BLS) and
advanced life support (ALS) emergency medical services, ambulance transportation
services, and fire, medical, and ambulance dispatch services.

Contract Term
The agreement will be for five years from the date executed; at which time it may be
renewed for an additional period of five years, or remain in effect until terminated by
formal act of the Parties.

Financial Impact
Laveen Fire District will reimburse the City of Phoenix for all services performed.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Agreement with the State of Arizona Department of Administration for the 9-1-1
Program (Ordinance S-52157) - Citywide

Request authorization for the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to
authorize the Phoenix Fire Department to retroactively apply for, accept, and enter into
an agreement with the State of Arizona Department of Administration Office of Grants
and Federal Resources to receive a 9-1-1 grant not to exceed $1,013,637. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Arizona Department of Administration requires 9-1-1 planning at a local level as
referenced in the State of Arizona Administrative Code, Title 2, Chapter 1, Article 4
Emergency Telecommunications Services Revolving Fund. The State of Arizona Office
of Grants and Federal Resources' Arizona 9-1-1 Program Office has announced the
availability of funds for the Program to be distributed during Fiscal Year 2025-26.
Funding will be available for multiple grants and allocated to each System
Administrator Agency to pay, on behalf of the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP),
9-1-1 system costs and approved projects that support the goals of the Arizona 9-1-1
Program.

The System Administrator Agency for the Maricopa Region is the Phoenix Fire
Department. The City of Phoenix is the contracting agent of ongoing operations of the
9-1-1 system. This authority is given through signed resolutions by Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) member agencies. These agreements act as the
governing documents for the oversight of the 9-1-1 system design, implementation,
and management in the MAG Region.

The 9-1-1 Grant funding would be used to support:
· 9-1-1 networking, telecom and Internet Protocol infrastructure.
· 9-1-1 related hardware, software and maintenance equipment.
· Continue to fund current staff of the Regional 9-1-1 Services Section.

Contract Term
The Grant Period of Performance is projected to begin on or around July 1, 2025, and


end June 30, 2026.

Financial Impact
There is no cost to the City of Phoenix. All equipment, services, and personnel-related
costs are reimbursed by the State of Arizona.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Apply for and Accept Federal Fiscal Year 2024 Fire Prevention and
Safety Grant Program Funds (Ordinance S-52163) - Citywide

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee,
to apply for, and accept, if awarded, up to $12,546.50 from the Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2024 Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grant Program to fund a 3D-360
degree camera system for fire investigators. Further request authorization for the City
Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item. If not approved, the Grant would be turned down.

Summary
The FP&S Program, administered through the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), is intended to help the nation's fire service by providing vital funds to
local fire departments across the country. The primary goal of the program is to fund
projects that are designed to reach high-risk target groups and mitigate the incidence
of death and injuries caused by fire and fire-related deaths by assisting fire prevention
programs and supporting firefighter health and safety research and development.

The objective of the FFY 2024 FP&S Grant Program is for grantees to carry out fire
prevention education and training, fire code enforcement, fire/arson investigation,
firefighter safety and health programming, prevention efforts, and research and
development.

This project will provide funding for a 3D-360 camera system to support fire
investigations. This advanced technology will allow fire investigators to digitally capture
and reconstruct fire scenes as highly accurate, immersive 3D models. The total cost
for this project is $12,546.50, with a City match of around five percent.

Since 2008, the Fire Department has received more than $275,000 from the FP&S
Grant Program. In previous years, these awards have been used to fund fire
investigator respirators, high rise floor warden training, tablets and printers for fire
inspectors, and smoke detectors for community outreach.

Procurement Information
The Fire Department will administer the Grant in accordance with Administrative



Regulation 3.10.

Contract Term
The two-year Grant Period of Performance is projected to begin September 30, 2025,
and end September 29, 2027.

Financial Impact
The Grant is anticipated to have up to a five percent required cost match; funds are
available in the Fire Department's Operating budget.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Apply for and Accept 2024 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) Grant (Ordinance S-52164) - Citywide

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee,
to apply for, and accept, if awarded, up to $12,095,017 from the Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2024 Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant
Program. If awarded, request to create new firefighter positions. Further request
authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. If not approved, the Grant, if awarded, would be turned
down.

Summary
SAFER Grants are designed to bolster fire safety by ensuring that fire departments
maintain staffing levels that meet or exceed industry standards, crucial for continuous,
24/7 operational readiness. This application requests $12,095,017 for the hiring of 32
firefighters to address attrition from retirements and resignations. The expansion in
personnel is projected to significantly extend our service area and sharpen our
emergency response capabilities. The Grant covers salaries and benefits for these
positions over three years. If awarded, the Fire Department requests to create 32 new
firefighter 56-hour (Job code 61010) positions.

Contract Term
The Grant Period of Performance is three years and is estimated to begin on or around
March 2026. The program end date is on or around February 2029.

Financial Impact
If awarded, the City of Phoenix Fire Department will receive up to $7,458,594 in grant
funding for 32 firefighter positions. The first and second years of the grant require a 25
percent cost share from the Fire Department's funds, while the third year requires a 65
percent cost share. The total projected impact on the Fire Department's budget over
the three-year Grant Performance Period is approximately $5,635,253. This estimate
does not include potential increases for specialized firefighter certifications that may be
obtained in the three-year grant period.





Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The grant application period opened on May 23, 2025, and closes on July 3, 2025.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Accept a Donation of $75,000 in EMS Equipment and Software from
United Phoenix Firefighters Association Inc. (Ordinance S-52165) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to accept up
to $75,000 in equipment and software from United Phoenix Firefighters Association
Inc. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept and the City
Controller to disburse this donation. If not approved, the donation would be declined.

Summary
In partnership with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona Foundation for Community and
Health Advancement, the United Phoenix Firefighters Association Inc. will donate
$75,000 in equipment and software upgrades to bolster the Phoenix Fire Department’s
(PFD) heat-relief initiatives and refine its ice-water immersion treatment protocols. The
donation includes:

· Up to 45 cardiac monitors with integrated, continuous temperature-monitoring
hardware and upgraded software; one for each PFD rescue ambulance, enabling
real-time tracking of patient vitals during heat emergencies.
· Up to 120 heavy-duty coolers, to be placed on fire apparatus such as engines,
ladders, ladder tenders, heavy rescues, and MR units, allowing crews to transport
larger ice volumes and maintain optimal ice integrity at incident scenes.

This request adheres to the Fire Department’s charitable donations process.

Contract Term
There is no term connected to this donation.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact on the City.

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







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Tactical Equipment, Technology, and Related Products for Law Enforcement
Outfitting - COOP 25-0554 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-52141) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
contract with Proforce Marketing, Inc. dba Proforce Law Enforcement to provide
tactical equipment, technology, and related products for the Police Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $3,200,000.

Summary
This contract will provide tactical equipment, technology, and other related products for
the Police Department. The items include firearms, firearm replacement parts,
ammunition, duty gear (belts, buckles, handcuff cases, and night vision goggles), and
other equipment/accessories utilized by police in carrying out assigned tasks. These
items are initially issued to personnel upon completion of the Police Academy. These
items are also issued for the replacement of aged, worn, lost, and broken
gear/equipment, as needed. The Police Department must be able to provide properly
functioning and fitting professional equipment and gear for officers to utilize in carrying
out their daily responsibilities.

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. Purchasing Cooperative of America
Contract RFP-OD-402-24 was awarded through a competitive process consistent with
the City's procurement processes, as set forth in the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43.
The use of this cooperative contract will provide the City with competitive pricing for
these products.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about July 2, 2025, and continue through March 5, 2026,
with four one-year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $3,200,000. Funding is available in the



Police Department's operating budget.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Peer Recovery Support Specialist Staffing - RFP 22-073 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-52143) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow
additional expenditures under Contract 155932 with EMPACT Suicide Prevention
Center for the purchase of peer recovery support specialist staffing services for the
Police Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $604,312.

Summary
This contract provides the Police Department with behavioral health resources.
Allowing the Police Department to contract with EMPACT Suicide Prevention Center
enables it to adopt Tempe's first-responder-led diversion program. The Police
Department collaborates with EMPACT Suicide Prevention Center to reduce overdose
fatalities and the overall impact of substance abuse. In addition to these services,
EMPACT Suicide Prevention Center provides key training and resources to assist
community members in dealing with mental health, substance abuse, and suicide.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on March 30, 2027.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $604,312 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $23,604,312. Funds are available in the Police Department’s
budget through the Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Site-
based Program (COSSAP) Grant.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Peer Recovery Support Specialist Staffing, Contract 155932 (Ordinance S-48325)
on February 16, 2022.

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






Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with State of Arizona Attorney General's Office in
Support of Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce (Ordinance S-52169) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to allow the
Police Department to enter into an agreement to accept funding from the State of
Arizona Attorney General's Office in support of the Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Force and to grant an exception to the requirements of Phoenix City Code (PCC)
Section 42-18(A) per PCC Section 42-20(B). The funding for this request will not
exceed $2,700,000. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and
for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children (AZICAC) Task Force is partnered with
multiple agencies statewide that includes investigators from city, county, state, and
federal agencies. Since 2006, Arizona law enforcement detectives and special agents
have conducted several investigations resulting in the incarceration of hundreds of
offenders. In addition, the AZICAC Task Force has provided training presentations to
children, parents, and community groups to educate them on how to protect children
from internet crimes. The goal of the task force is to identify, investigate, and prosecute
individuals who exploit children. The agreement will support the task force by providing
funding for personnel, technology, equipment, and supplies.

Contract Term
The contract period is from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2028.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required; cost to the City is in-kind resources only.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Current Agreement and Ordinance with Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission for FY 2025 Full-Service Forensic Crime Laboratory Grant
Program (Ordinance S-52170) - Citywide

Request authorization for the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to amend
Ordinance S-50871 and the current agreement with the Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission for the 2025 Full-Service Forensic Crime Laboratory Grant Program.
Authorization of the amendment will extend the agreement period by 24 months. No
additional funds are being requested. Further request authorization for the City
Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item.

Summary
In May 2024, the Police Department was awarded the FY 2025 Full-Service Forensic
Crime Laboratory Grant in the amount of $540,000. The award period was from July 1,
2024 through June 30, 2025. The agreement funds the purchase of overtime, related
fringe benefits, travel expenses, training costs, supplies, and equipment for laboratory
staff to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the crime laboratory. The Police
Department recently requested an extension on the grant to expend the remaining
funds. Authorization of this amendment will extend the agreement period end date to
June 30, 2027. No additional funds are being requested.

Contract Term
This amendment will extend the contract period end date to June 30, 2027.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required. Cost to the City is in-kind resources only.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Current Agreement and Ordinance with the Bureau of
Justice Assistance for FY 2021 Smart Policing Initiative Grant (Ordinance S-
52171) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to amend
Ordinance S-47902 and the current agreement with the Bureau of Justice Assistance
for the FY 2021 Smart Policing Initiative Grant. Authorization of the amendment will
extend the agreement to September 30, 2027. No additional funding is being
requested. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
In August 2021, the Police Department was awarded the FY 2021 Smart Policing
Initiative Grant in the amount of $500,000 to implement a project to advance the state
of policing to improve investigations, officer and civilian safety, and training and
policies in response to resistance. The agreement funds the purchase of software and
equipment and provides funding to conduct project oversight. The Police Department
recently requested an extension to expend the remaining funds. Authorization of this
amendment will extend the agreement period end date to September 30, 2027. No
additional funding is being requested.

Contract Term
This amendment will extend the contract period end date to September 30, 2027.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Amend Current Agreement and Ordinance for the Hickey Family
Foundation Grant (Ordinance S-52172) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to amend
Ordinance S-49694 and the current agreement with the Hickey Family Foundation.
Authorization of this amendment will extend the agreement to December 31, 2025. No
additional funds are being requested. Further request authorization for the City
Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
In March 2022, the Police Department was awarded a grant from the Hickey Family
Foundation to support the Department's Human Exploitation and Trafficking (H.E.A.T)
Unit's mission to combat human trafficking by focusing on commercial sexual
exploitation of children and domestic minor sex trafficking. The agreement funds
operational and investigative expenses, training, and equipment that directly impact
the unit's ability to efficiently and effectively investigate the various forms of human
trafficking allowing for positive impact to the human trafficking victims throughout the
State of Arizona. The Police Department recently requested an extension on the grant
award to expend the remaining funds. Authorization of this amendment will extend the
agreement period end date to December 31, 2025. No additional funds are being
requested.

Contract Term
This amendment will extend the contract period end date to December 31, 2025.

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4 AND 18, 2025) - Photo Enforcement Cameras -
COOP 25-0615 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-51964) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
contract with American Traffic Solutions, Inc. dba Verra Mobility to provide Photo
Enforcement Camera Services for the Street Transportation Department's Traffic
Safety Photo Enforcement Program. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed
$12,000,000.

Summary
This contract provides the services associated with Mobile Speed Photo Radar
Vehicles, Portable Speed Photo Radar Units, and Intersection Enforcement Camera
Systems to enhance public safety by addressing red light and speed limit violations,
thereby reducing traffic collisions, injuries, and property damage. The Program will
focus on high-collision areas, school zones, and locations identified through traffic
data.

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 City of Scottsdale awarded
contract RFP032023-075 using a competitive process consistent with the City's
procurement processes, as set forth in the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43. Use of the
cooperative agreement allows the City of Phoenix to streamline the procurement
process to ensure pricing is equal to or better than the Contractor's most favorable
pricing while complying with competitive procurement requirements.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about June 15, 2025, and continue through March 31,
2026, with four one-year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $12,000,000 for the aggregate contract
term. Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's operating budget.




Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 3 North Concourse 2
Processor Improvements - Construction Manager at Risk Services - AV13000004
(Ordinance S-52144) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Hensel Phelps Construction Co. to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction and Construction Services for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport Terminal 3 North Concourse 2 Processor Improvements 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
$125 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to improve the Terminal Processor and Baggage
Handling System (BHS) at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 3. This
project consists of modifications to the passenger check-in process, improvements to
BHS operations, and providing additional passenger security screening checkpoint
(SSCP) capacity.

Hensel Phelps Construction Co. will begin in an agency support role for Construction
Manager At Risk Preconstruction Services. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. will
assume the risk of delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price
agreement.

Hensel Phelps Construction Co.’s Preconstruction Services include, but are not limited
to: provide pre-construction services team to deliver a complete project; perform all
preconstruction services for design phase to assure conformance with requirements;
investigate and evaluate existing conditions and project constraints; protect the City’s
sensitivity to quality, safety, and environmental factors; assist the design team with
efforts to identify private and public utility easements; validate LEED goals and
incorporate the Aviation department's sustainability initiatives; collaborate with the
owner and design team during the design phase to validate and synchronize the
scope, budget, and schedule to meet project requirements; provide detailed cost
estimating, validate milestone deliverables, and reconcile with 3rd party construction



cost estimates for each design phase milestone; provide project planning, scheduling,
and assist in the permitting processes; provide construction phasing and scheduling
that will minimize interruption to City operations; initiate procurement of long-lead
items; identify Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) proposal package strategy and
present alternate strategies to optimize sequence of construction; attend all project
and team meetings as necessary to maintain the project objectives; prepare all reports
for distribution to executives and stakeholders; perform design/constructability review
of design documents at milestone review period; perform value engineering / cost
reduction efforts to optimize project budget; and participating with the City in a process
to establish a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goal for the project.

Hensel Phelps Construction Co.’s initial Construction Services will include preparation
of a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal provided under the agreement. Hensel
Phelps Construction Co. will be responsible for construction means and methods
related to the project and fulfilling the SBE program requirements. Hensel Phelps
Construction Co. will be required to solicit bids from prequalified subcontractors and to
perform the work using the City’s subcontractor selection process. Hensel Phelps
Construction Co. may also compete to self-perform limited amounts of work.

Hensel Phelps Construction Co.’s additional Construction Services include: construct
the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 3 North Concourse 2 Processor
Improvements project; bond and insure the construction; provide quality controls and
maintain site safety personnel from preconstruction through project closeout; notify the
City of any unsafe conditions observed at the construction site; obtain required As-Built
documentation to establish existing conditions; conduct field surveys/inspections and
prepare reports to ensure compliance with the project plans and specifications;
coordinate with various City of Phoenix departments, other agencies, and utility
companies to meet all project requirements; prepare time-scaled logic construction
schedule, and update throughout project duration; participate in Operational
Readiness Activation and Transition meetings and provide any supporting
documentation, as required; perform reviews and provide input on LEED and
sustainability evaluation criteria relative to City standards and Aviation Department
goals; provide itemized cost detail as required in support of proposed potential change
notifications and change orders; provide coordination and resources to achieve
Transportation Security Administration acceptance/approval for BHS Site Acceptance
Testing, Pre-Integrated Site Acceptance Testing, Test Readiness Review, Integrated
Site Acceptance Test, and all other BHS testing or commissioning by all agencies,
departments, designers, and consultants; prepare and submit punch list and record
documents for design team review/approval; prepare closeout submittal log with
metrics; participate in the 11 ½ month warranty inspection; maintain all project records
in electronic format; and provide construction services team to deliver 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 (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. Seven firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:

Selected Firm
· Rank 1: Hensel Phelps Construction Co.

Additional Proposers
· Rank 2: Hunt Construction Group, Inc. dba AECOM Hunt
· Rank 3: Hoffman Construction Company of Arizona
· Rank 4: The Weitz Company, LLC
· Rank 5: Chasse Building Team, Inc.
· Rank 6: Sundt Construction, Inc.
· Rank 7: Austin Commercial, LP

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 Hensel Phelps Construction Co. will not exceed $125 million,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

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 Professional Services Agreement 162467 (Ordinance S-
51627) on February 5, 2025.




Location
3400 E. Sky Harbor Boulevard
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Mario Paniagua, the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Facilities and Services Tonto Lot
Campus Phase I - Construction Manager at Risk Services - AV16000037
(Ordinance S-52148) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Sundt Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction
and Construction Services for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Facilities
and Services Tonto Lot Campus Phase I project. Further request to authorize
execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved
expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $20.5 million.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to develop a new consolidated campus for the Facilities
and Services Division at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The main Facilities
and Services building campus is in the site area for the future West Terminal building.
This new multi-building campus is proposed as a phased development to relocate all
operational functions of Facilities and Services Division onto a consolidated campus
site. The first phase includes the construction of the initial building facility to
accommodate both permanent and temporary functions and comprehensive master
planning for the entire new campus site.

Sundt Construction, Inc. will begin in an agency support role for Construction Manager
at Risk Preconstruction Services. Sundt Construction, Inc. will assume the risk of
delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price agreement.

Sundt Construction, Inc.’s Preconstruction Services include, but are not limited to:
provide preconstruction services team to deliver a complete project; perform all
preconstruction services for design phase to assure conformance with requirements;
investigate and evaluate existing conditions and project constraints; protect the City’s
sensitivity to quality, safety, and environmental factors; assist the design team with
efforts to identify private and public utility easements; validate LEED goals and
incorporate the Aviation Department's sustainability initiatives; collaborate with the
owner and design team during the design phase to validate and synchronize the
scope, budget, and schedule to meet project requirements; provide detailed cost



estimating, validate milestone deliverables, and reconcile with third party construction
cost estimates for each design phase milestone; provide project planning, scheduling,
and assist in the permitting processes; provide construction phasing and scheduling
that will minimize interruption to City operations; initiate procurement of long-lead
items; identify Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) proposal package strategy and
present alternate strategies to optimize sequence of construction; attend all project
and team meetings as necessary to maintain the project objectives; prepare all reports
for distribution to executives and stakeholders; perform design/constructability review
of design documents at milestone review period; perform value engineering / cost
reduction efforts to optimize project budget; and participate with the City in a process
to establish a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goal for the project.

Sundt Construction, Inc.’s initial Construction Services will include preparation of a
Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal provided under the agreement. Sundt
Construction, Inc. will be responsible for construction means and methods related to
the project and fulfilling the SBE program requirements. Sundt Construction, Inc. will
be required to solicit bids from prequalified subcontractors and to perform the work
using the City’s subcontractor selection process. Sundt Construction, Inc. may also
compete to self-perform limited amounts of work.

Sundt Construction, Inc.’s additional Construction Services include construct the
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Facilities and Services Tonto Lot Campus
Phase I project; bond and insure the construction; provide quality controls and
maintain site safety personnel from preconstruction through project closeout; notify the
City of any unsafe conditions observed at the construction site; obtain required As-Built
documentation to establish existing conditions; conduct field surveys/inspections and
prepare reports to ensure compliance with the project plans and specifications;
coordinate with various City of Phoenix departments, other agencies, and utility
companies to meet all project requirements; prepare time-scaled logic construction
schedule, and update throughout project duration; participate in Operational
Readiness Activation and Transition meetings and provide any supporting
documentation, as required; perform reviews and provide input on LEED and
sustainability evaluation criteria relative to City standards and Aviation Department
goals; provide itemized cost detail as required in support of proposed potential change
notifications and change orders; prepare and submit punch list and record documents
for design team review/approval; prepare closeout submittal log with metrics;
participate in the 11.5 month warranty inspection; maintain all project records in
electronic format; and provide construction services team to deliver 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 (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. There were 12 firms that
submitted proposals, which are listed in Attachment A.

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 Sundt Construction, Inc. will not exceed $20.5 million,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

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 Professional Services Agreement 162466 (Ordinance S-
51625) on February 5, 2025.

Location
2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Mario Paniagua, the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.





ATTACHMENT A


Selected Firm
Rank 1: Sundt Construction Co.


Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Willmeng Construction, Inc.
Rank 3: Okland Construction, Inc.
Rank 4: Chasse Building Team, Inc.
Rank 5: Hunt Construction Group, Inc. dba AECOM Hunt
Rank 6: FCI Constructors, Inc.
Rank 7: Kitchell Contractors, Inc. of Arizona
Rank 8: M. A. Mortenson Company
Rank 9: Brycon Corporation
Rank 10: Sun Eagle Corporation
Rank 11: Austin Commercial, LP
Rank 12: GCON, Inc.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Citywide Asbestos and Lead Abatement Job Order Contracting Services -
JOC241 (Ordinance S-52138) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
separate master agreements with five contractors listed below to provide Citywide
Asbestos and Lead Abatement Job Order Contracting Services for the City. 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 $30 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 Citywide Asbestos and Lead Abatement JOC Services that include
abatement, transport and disposal, documentation, "put back" of materials, and other
environmental services as requested. Additionally, the JOC contractors will be
responsible for fulfilling Small Business Enterprise program requirements.

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. Nine firms submitted proposals



and are listed below:

Selected Firms
· Rank 1: ATI Restoration, LLC
· Rank 2: Sagebrush Restoration, LLC
· Rank 3: Spray Systems of Arizona, Inc.
· Rank 4: Southwest Hazard Control, Inc.
· Rank 5: East Valley Disaster Services, Inc.

Additional Proposers
· Rank 6: Kary Environmental Services, Inc.
· Rank 7: Native Environmental, LLC
· Rank 8: Kowalski Construction, Inc.
· Rank 9: Circadian Enterprises Incorporated dba American Abatement

Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $6 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 $6
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services
will not exceed $30 million.

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute job order
agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $1 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 Citywide Capital Improvement Program and/or Operating
budgets. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve funding
availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson and the City Engineer.




Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Works Department Solid Waste Support On-Call Services for Fiscal Years
2025-26 to 2029-30 (Ordinance S-52139) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
separate agreements with the six consultants listed below to provide Solid Waste
Support On-Call Services for the Public Works Department for Fiscal Years 2025-26 to
2029-30. 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 cost for all
services will not exceed $4.8 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's 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 consultants will be responsible for providing various on-call support services that
include, but are not limited to: solid waste landfills, transfer stations, groundwater
monitoring, survey services, studies, plan review, special inspections, programming,
and the development of plans, specifications, and cost estimates.

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. Ten firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:




Selected Firms
Rank 1: Geologic Associates, Inc.
Rank 2: Brown and Caldwell, Inc.
Rank 3: S3 Arizona LLC
Rank 4: Tetra Tech BAS, Inc.
Rank 5: Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Rank 6: AMTECH Associates, LLC

Additional Proposers
Rank 7: WSP USA Inc.
Rank 8: Alta Survey, LLC dba Alta E&I
Rank 9: Atlas Technical Consultants LLC
Rank 10: Burgess & Niple, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreements is up to five years, or up to $1.8 million for Geologic
Associates, Inc. and up to $600,000 each for the remaining firms, whichever occurs
first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the
term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the on-call consultants, including all subconsultant
and reimbursable costs will not exceed:
· Geologic Associates, Inc.: $1.8 million
· Brown and Caldwell, Inc.: $600,000
· S3 Arizona LLC: $600,000
· Tetra Tech BAS, Inc.: $600,000
· Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.: $600,000
· AMTECH Associates, LLC: $600,000

The total fee for all services will not exceed $4.8 million.

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




Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Mario Paniagua, the Public Works Department and the City Engineer.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Construction Contracts Required During City Council Summer Recess
(Ordinance S-52176) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter up to four contracts in
support of certain critical construction projects during the City Council summer recess
that cannot wait until the City Council's return in the fall. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse any and all funds related to this item. Each of the four
contracts authorized herein along with the named contracting party, the term and
amount of the contract will be separately ratified by City Council at a future date.

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 related projects. Such utility services
include, but are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication,
cable television, railroads and other modes of transportation.

Summary
The Office of the City Engineer has identified the following items as urgent, critical, and
requiring contract services for projects that have very time sensitive construction
deadlines. The procurements related to these projects are scheduled to complete
selection in late June and July 2025, which will not allow contract awards to occur prior
to Council's summer recess. The specific reasons for the urgency of each item are set
forth in more detail below.

· Item 1: HS99990005 - Motel Conversion to Senior Affordable Housing Design-Bid-
Build Services. The lowest, responsible, responsive bid will be awarded. Funding is
available through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Contract services for this
item are urgent because construction projects that use ARPA funds need to
maintain a strict timeline in order to use all ARPA funds before they expire. Council



District 5

· Item 2: PT22137001 FTA - Phase I Electric Battery Charging Stations and
Temporary Hydrogen Fueling Stations for Buses Design-Bid-Build Services. The
lowest, responsible, responsive bid will be awarded. Contract services for this item
are urgent because construction of the electrical battery charging and temporary
hydrogen fueling facilities must be completed prior to taking delivery of the buses
which have already been ordered. Council District 7

· Item 3: ND30080040 - Burton Barr College Depot Design-Bid-Build Services. The
lowest, responsible, responsive bid will be awarded. Contract services for this item
are urgent due to volatility in market prices and resulting price escalation for design-
bid-build services. Council District 7

· Item 4: ST87600132 - Western Canalscape: 4th Avenue to 24th Street Design-Bid-
Build. The lowest, responsible, responsive bid will be awarded. Contract services
for this item are urgent due to a deadline to meeting a funding match from the Salt
River Project. Council Districts 7 and 8

Procurement Information
The City Engineer recommends entering into contracts by the City Manager during the
summer recess to the firms who provide the best value to the City based on
qualifications and price proposals submitted by the firms in response to the City's
request for bids and proposals for the projects listed above.

Contract Term
Contract terms will vary depending on the scope of services for each project. 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
Capital Improvement Program or Operating budget funding may be utilized. 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 Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City
Managers Gina Montes, Alan Stephenson and Mario Paniagua, the Office of Homeless
Solutions, the Neighborhood Services, Public Transit and Street Transportation
departments and the City Engineer.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Water Transmission Mains Engineering On-Call Services (Ordinance S-52151) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
separate agreements with the three consultants listed in Attachment A to provide
Engineering On-Call Services for the Water Services Department's Water
Transmission Mains Program. 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 $6 million.

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

Summary
The on-call consultants will be responsible for providing On-Call Water Transmission
Mains Engineering Services that include, but are not limited to: water transmission
main design services, provision of construction documents and specifications, utility
corridor studies, identification of all utility locations both vertically and horizontally in
conflict with the proposed transmission main alignment, construction administration
and inspection services, and daily interaction with contractors to clarify job
requirements.

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, including the scoring results, until an agreement is awarded. Eleven firms
submitted proposals and are listed in Attachment A.

Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to two years, or up to $2 million, whichever occurs
first. The work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for each of the on-call consultants will not exceed $2 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $6 million.

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

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer, the City Engineer and the Water Services Department.





ATTACHMENT A


Selected Firms
Rank 1: Black & Veatch Corporation
Rank 2: Entellus, Inc.
Rank 3: Dibble & Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 4: Wilson Engineers, LLC
Rank 5: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Rank 6: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Rank 7: Consor North America, Inc.
Rank 8: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Rank 9: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Rank 10: Olsson
Rank 11: Strand Associates, Inc.
Rank 12: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Rank 13: Engineering Alliance, Inc.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Water Main Replacement Area Bounded By: Mountain View Road to Peoria
Avenue and 19th Avenue to 15th Avenue - Design-Bid-Build Services -
WS85509031 WIFA (Ordinance S-52136) - District 3

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to accept FPS
Civil, LLC as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter into an
agreement with FPS Civil, LLC for Design-Bid-Build Services for the Water Main
Replacement Area Bounded By Mountain View Road to Peoria Avenue and 19th
Avenue to 15th Avenue Project. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $11.7
million, including any change orders.

Summary
The purpose of this Project is to install approximately 29,000 linear feet (LF) of water
main.

FPS Civil, LLC’s services include, but are not limited to: construction of water main
installation of approximately 29,000 LF of Main (500 LF of 4-inch main, 20,700 LF of 6-
inch main, 2,600 LF of 8-inch main, and 5,200 LF of 12-inch main), 45 fire hydrants, 20
cut and plugs, and 520 services.

The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Eight bids were received on April 2,
2025 and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in demonstrating
responsiveness to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program requirements.

The Opinion of Probable Cost and the lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:

Opinion of Probable Cost: $8,126,925.00

FPS Civil, LLC: $11,423,796.87
Talis Construction Corporation: $11,612,325.00
Degan Construction, LLC: $12,166,967.00



TF Contracting Services: $12,503,040.00
Achen-Gardner Construction, LLC: $13,351,666.00
Hunter Construction Co.: $13,495,465.20
Loenbro Industrial, LLC dba Revolution Industrial, LLC: $13,508,141.74
Sellers & Sons Inc.: $17,400,377.50

Although the bid exceeds the Opinion of Probable Cost by more than 10 percent, it has
been determined the bid represents a fair and reasonable price for that required work
scope. Additionally, the bid award amount is within the total budget for this Project.

The reason for the variance from the Opinion of Probable Cost to the lowest,
responsive, responsible bid is that the project was put on hold, and when the project
was permitted and bid, changing market conditions and inflation were not captured to a
sufficient degree. Between the mentioned reasons and contractor availability, the
growing threat of tariffs, and market volatility, the Opinion of Probable Cost fell short of
the apparent lowest bidder.

Due to volatile material costs and increased labor prices in the construction industry, a
$276,203 contingency is being requested to allow for project uncertainties. The initial
agreement will be executed at the bid amount of $11,423,796.87. Use of the $276,203
contingency above the amount will not be allowed without the prior written approval of
the Water Services Department Director and the City Engineer.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 450 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for FPS Civil, LLC will not exceed $11.7 million, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

This project will utilize federal funds and is subject to the requirements of 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 33, 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation DBE program. Funding is available in the Water
Services Department's Capital Improvement Program. The Budget and Research
Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to execution of
any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered
agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.



Location
Mountain View Road to Peoria Avenue and 19th Avenue to 15th Avenue
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Water Main Replacement Area Bounded by Mountain View Road to Peoria
Avenue and 19th Avenue to 15th Avenue - Construction Administration and
Inspection Services - WS85509031 WIFA (Ordinance S-52137) - District 3

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an agreement with Sunrise Engineering, LLC to provide construction administration
and inspection services for the Water Main Replacement Area Bounded by Mountain
View Road to Peoria Avenue and 19th Avenue to 15th Avenue 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 $779,840.

Summary
The purpose of this Project is to provide construction administration and inspection for
the installation of approximately 29,000 linear feet (LF) of water main, 45 fire hydrants,
20 cut and plugs, and 520 services.

Sunrise Engineering's services include, but are not limited to the following: administer
the construction schedule, review of submittals including shop drawings, test results
and operation and maintenance documentation, issue interpretations and clarifications,
certify contractor progress payments, substantial completion and final inspection,
minor changes, change order requests and change orders, material testing, record
drawings and project documents, approval of certification of completion, field
administration, on-site inspection and review of the work completion, project
specification update and lesson learns presentation, warranty, storm water permit for
construction activity, and update Computerized Maintenance Management System.

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: Sunrise Engineering, LLC

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Entellus, Inc.
Rank 3: Wilson Engineers, LLC
Rank 4: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Rank 5: Tristar Engineering and Management, 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 Sunrise Engineering, LLC will not exceed $779,840, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

This project will utilize federal funds and is subject to the requirements of 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 33, 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, and the U.S.
Department of Transportation Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. Funding is
available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program. The
Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve funding
availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.

Location
General Location: Mountain View Road to Peoria Avenue and 19th Avenue to 15th
Avenue
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Water Main Replacement Orangewood Avenue to Northern Avenue and 12th
Street to 16th Street - Engineering Services - WS85509037 (Ordinance S-52153) -
District 6

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an agreement with Entellus, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include design,
and possible construction administration and inspection services for the Water Main
Replacement Orangewood to Northern Avenues and 12th to 16th Streets Project.
Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary
within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for services will not
exceed $1,960,000.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's 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 provide design and possible construction
administration and inspection services for the installation of approximately 23,005
linear feet (LF) of main line (60 LF of 4" main, 11,979 LF of 6" main, 5,238 LF of 8"
main, and 5,728 LF of 12" main), 22 fire hydrants (FH), 36 cut and plugs, and 218
service lines (105 Parcel).

Entellus, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: data collection and field survey
work; preparation of base maps and initial design; utility coordination; preparation of
special provisions; and active coordination and communication with Construction
Manager at Risk and the City's staff for all related activities.




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: Entellus, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Rank 3: Consor North America, Inc.
Rank 4: Ardurra Group, Inc.
Rank 5: Burgess & Niple, 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 Entellus, Inc. will not exceed $1,960,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

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

Location
Orangewood to Northern avenues and 12th to 16th streets.
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer, the City Engineer and Water Services Department.





Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Water Main Replacement Orangewood Avenue to Northern Avenue and 12th
Street to 16th Street - Construction Manager at Risk Services - WS85509037
(Ordinance S-52154) - District 6

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an agreement with B & F Contracting, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction and Construction Services for the Water Main Replacement
Orangewood to Northern Avenues and 12th to 16th Streets 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 $9,415,000.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to evaluate and replace aging water mains within the city
of Phoenix. The primary focus of the program is currently water mains in alleys and
easements which have historically had high break rates and are difficult to repair. Work
for this project will include installation of new 6-inch to 12-inch water mains, multiple
cut and plugs, and installation or relocation of fire hydrants. Coordination with the
City's staff and plumbing contractors regarding relocation of water services may also
be required.

B & F Contracting, Inc. will begin in an agency support role for Construction Manager
at Risk Preconstruction Services. B & F Contracting, Inc. will assume the risk of
delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price Agreement.

B & F Contracting, Inc.'s Preconstruction Services include, but are not limited to:
providing detailed cost estimating and knowledge of market place conditions, assisting
in the permitting process, advising the City on choosing green building materials,
providing long-lead procurement studies and initiating procurement of long-lead items,
and participating with the City in a process to establish a Small Business Enterprise
(SBE) goal for the project.

B & F Contracting, Inc.'s initial Construction Services will include preparation of a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) proposal provided under the agreement. B&F
Contracting, Inc. will be responsible for construction means and methods related to the



project and fulfilling the SBE program requirements. B & F Contracting, Inc. will be
required to solicit bids from prequalified subcontractors and to perform the work using
the City’s subcontractor selection process. B & F Contracting, Inc. may also compete
to self-perform limited amounts of work.

B & F Contracting Inc.’s additional Construction Services include the following: arrange
for procurement of materials and equipment, bid, award, and manage all construction
related contracts while meeting the City's bid requirements including the local and SBE
participation goal, prepare a GMP proposal that meets the approval of the City, and
address all federal, state and local permitting requirements.

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. Seven firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: B & F Contracting, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Hunter Contracting Co.
Rank 3: TFC Contracting Services
Rank 4: Talis Construction Corporation
Rank 5: Haydon Companies, LLC
Rank 6: Kinkaid Civil Construction
Rank 7: Pulice Construction, Inc.
Rank 8: NPL Construction Co., dba TPL Construction Co.

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 B & F Contracting, Inc. will not exceed $9,415,000 including
all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program


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

Location
Orangewood to Northern avenues and 12th to 16th streets.
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer, the City Engineer and Water Services Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Water Main Replacement Pressure Zone 5E - Construction Manager at Risk
Services - WS85509123 (Ordinance S-52155) - District 2

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an agreement with B & F Contracting, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction and Construction Services for the Water Main Replacement Pressure
Zone 5E 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 $21,532,500.

Summary
The purpose of this Project is to evaluate and replace aging water mains within the
and easements that have historically had high break rates and are difficult to repair.
Work for this project will include installation of new 6-inch to 12-inch water mains,
multiple cut and plugs, and installation or relocation of fire hydrants. Coordination with
the City's staff and plumbing contractors regarding relocation of water services may
also be required.

B & F Contracting, Inc. will begin in an agency support role for Construction Manager
at Risk Preconstruction Services. B & F Contracting, Inc. will assume the risk of
delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price agreement.

B & F Contracting, Inc.'s Preconstruction Services include, but are not limited to:
providing detailed cost estimating and knowledge of market place conditions; assisting
in the permitting process; advising the City on choosing green building materials;
providing long-lead procurement studies and initiating procurement of long-lead items;
and participating with the City in a process to establish a Small Business Enterprise
(SBE) Goal for the Project.

B & F Contracting, Inc.'s initial construction services will include preparation of a
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Proposal provided under the agreement. B&F
Contracting, Inc. will be responsible for construction means and methods related to the
Project and fulfilling the SBE program requirements. B & F Contracting, Inc. will be



required to solicit bids from pre-qualified subcontractors and to perform the work using
the City’s subcontractor selection process. B & F Contracting, Inc. may also compete
to self-perform limited amounts of work.

B & F Contracting Inc.’s additional Construction Services include the following: arrange
for procurement of materials and equipment; bid, award, and manage all construction-
related contracts while meeting the City's bid requirements, including the local and
SBE participation goal; prepare a GMP proposal that meets the approval of the City;
and address all federal, state and local permitting requirements.

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: B & F Contracting, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Hunter Contracting Co.
Rank 3: Talis Construction Corporation
Rank 4: Haydon Companies, LLC
Rank 5: NPL Construction Co. dba TPL Construction Co.

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 B & F Contracting, Inc. will not exceed $21,532,500, including
all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

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



Location
Area Bounded By: 52nd Street to 69th Place and St. John Road to Paradise Lane
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer, the City Engineer and the Water Services Department.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Street, Pathway, and Wall Pack Lighting Installation - 2-Step Job Order
Contracting Services - JOC234 (Ordinance S-52156) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
separate master agreements with the two contractors listed below to provide Street,
Pathway, and Wall Pack Lighting Installation 2-Step Job Order Contracting Services for
the Street Transportation 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 $10 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's 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 Street, Pathway, and Wall Pack Lighting Installation 2-Step Services
for: installation of streetlights, pathway lights, and wall pack lighting; installations of
foundations for streetlights, power service pedestals, underground conduit, and
junction boxes; directional boring across streets; open trench conduit work; concrete
and asphalt removal and repair; coordination with City archeological requirements
when applicable; landscape restoration; and survey. Additionally, the JOC contractors
will be responsible for fulfilling requirements of the Small Business Enterprise
Program.





Procurement Information
The selections were made using a two-step qualifications and price-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: Utility Construction Company, Inc.
Rank 2: Power Tech Contracting, LLC

Additional submitters who were deemed non-responsive
Station Power Construction 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 all services
will not exceed $5 million.

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's 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 Street Transportation Department’s Capital Improvement
Program Budget. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve
funding availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.





Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Citywide General Construction - Job Order Contract Services Amendment
4108JOC209 (Ordinance S-52159) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to execute an
amendment to Master Agreement 156750 with Caliente Construction, Inc. to authorize
execution of a Job Order Agreement in an amount not to exceed $4 million for the
Herberger Theater Theatrical Improvements Project and to execute an amendment to
Master Agreement 156754 with Okland Construction Company, Inc. to authorize
execution of a Job Order Agreement in an amount not to exceed $5 million for the
Symphony Hall Theatrical Improvements Project. Further request to authorize
execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. Each Job Order Agreement amount will not
change its respective Master Agreement's Council approved not-to-exceed amount.

Summary
The purpose of the Herberger Theater Theatrical Improvements Project is to update
the Herberger Theater by replacing theatrical lighting equipment and the audio system
and by installing an assistive listening system.

The purpose of the Symphony Hall Theatrical Improvements Project is to improve the
acoustical and audio visual experience for both patrons and performers at Symphony
Hall.

These amendments are necessary because use of job order contract construction
services allows the City to address timeline requirements and specialized aspects of
each project. This amendment will provide additional funds to the individual project
agreements.

Contract Term
There is no impact to the original Master Agreement term. 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 Master Agreements for General Construction Job Order Contract Services
were approved for an amount not to exceed $15 million each, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs. An amendment increased the Master
Agreements by an additional $20 million each, 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 Phoenix Convention Center
Department's Capital Improvement Program Budget. The Budget and Research
Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to the
execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all
rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The City Council approved General Construction Job Order Contract Services
Master Agreements 156750 and 156754 (Ordinance S-48850) on July 1, 2022.
· The City Council approved General Construction Job Order Contract Services
Master Agreement 156750 and 156754 Amendments (Ordinance S-50515) on
January 24, 2024.

Location
Herberger Theater - 222 E. Monroe Street
Symphony Hall - 75 N. Second Street
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
John Chan, the Phoenix Convention Center Department and the City Engineer.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***ITEM CORRECTED (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Authorization to Enter into
Development Agreement with Forestar (USA) Real Estate Group Inc. (Ordinance
S-52160) - District 2

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into a
Development Agreement with Forestar (USA) Real Estate Group Inc. for modification
of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal bridge and possible construction of two new
pedestrian bridges along Cave Creek Road to satisfy the stipulation of zoning case Z-6
-22 to provide regional traffic mitigation improvements identified in the Stone Butte
Traffic Impact Study. The accepted Traffic Impact Study further stipulates the need to
mitigate traffic and address increased vehicular demand by widening the bridge at the
Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal.

Summary
The Stone Butte residential development is an approximately 416 acre development
located west of Cave Creek Road and south of Jomax Road. In connection with
development of the property, the Developer is required to design the modification of
the Central Arizona Project (“CAP”) bridge, including the associated roadway and utility
improvements, located at or in the vicinity of Cave Creek Road and Lone Cactus Drive.
Following approval of the design plans, the Developer will provide a financial
contribution for construction of related traffic mitigation measures as Developer’s
obligation to contribute to regional traffic mitigation improvements related to traffic
impacts from the development of the Property, pursuant to Stipulation 24 of Phoenix
City Ordinance G-7006.

This Development Agreement obligates Forestar (USA) Real Estate Group Inc. to
design and seek approval from the City and CAP for modification to the CAP bridge,
including the associated roadway and utility improvements, located on Cave Creek
Road north of Lone Cactus Drive. The Developer is also required to provide a
contribution, estimated at $6.15M, to share in the cost of construction.




Upon approval, the Street Transportation Department agrees to future construction of
the infrastructure needed to mitigate the traffic impacts associated with the
development.

Location
On Cave Creek Road, North of Lone Cactus Drive
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Motel Conversion to Senior Affordable Housing - Professional Services -
HS99990005 (ARPA) (Ordinance S-52162) - District 5

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
an agreement with Pfocus, LLC to provide Owner's Representative Professional
Services that include project management and construction administration and
inspection (CA&I) services for the Motel Conversion to Senior Affordable Housing
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 $137,633.00.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's 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 convert an existing hotel property into 126 units of
affordable housing for individuals exiting homelessness. The conversion is part of a
larger complex development that will include services for seniors and a City of Phoenix
Workforce Development and Training Center.

Pfocus, LLC's services include, but are not limited to: attending weekly Owner-
Architect-Owner meetings; participating in weekly site visits; reviewing project
schedule and providing analysis of actual work performed to include projections for
completion of key milestones; advising and tracking Requests for Information, Change
Order Requests, and potential impacts to the project budget and schedule during
construction; reviewing pay applications; participating in project close-out activities;



and engaging with City departments and other stakeholders as required to ensure
project progress and advancement of goals of the Office of Homeless Solutions.

Procurement Information
Pfocus, LLC was chosen for this project using a Direct Select Process set forth in
Section 34-103 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Direct Select Process will reduce
the time to procure professional services as opposed to an advertised selection
process.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is two 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 Pfocus, LLC will not exceed $137,633.00, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

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

Public Outreach
Public outreach will be completed as required.

Location
8130 N. Black Canyon Highway
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Inger Erickson, Deputy City Manager
Gina Montes, the Human Services Department and the City Engineer.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Low/Medium Voltage Electrical Equipment Testing, Calibration, and Repair
Services Supplemental Contract - IFB-2425-WWT-699 Request for Award
(Ordinance S-52145) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to enter into
contracts with ABM Electrical Power Services, LLC, C3 AcquisitionCo, LLC dba
PowerX, and LND Technical Services LLC to provide low/medium voltage electrical
equipment testing, calibration, and repair services for the Aviation, Public Works, and
Water Services departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contracts will not exceed
$3,450,000.

Summary
This contract will allow the departments to provide electrical preventative maintenance
and testing services to ensure all electrical equipment is operational and within
industry and manufacturer tolerances and that equipment is installed and functioning in
the system in the manner intended. These services reduce life and property hazards
that can result from failure or malfunction of electrical equipment.

Solicitation IFB-2425-WWT-678 for Low/Medium Voltage Electrical Equipment Testing,
Calibration, and Repair Services received no bids for Group 2 in the Fee Schedule,
which are required for select electrical operations. IFB-2425-WWT-699 serves as a
supplemental solicitation to establish available contracts for Group 2 services.

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

Four vendors submitted bids 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 vendors:

Selected Bidders
C3 AcquisitionCo, LLC dba PowerX: $855
LND Technical Services LLC: $1,040



ABM Electrical Power Services, LLC: $1,335

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about July 1, 2025, and end concurrent with the initial
awarded contracts on April 30, 2030, with no options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts' value will not exceed $3,450,000.

Funding is available in the Aviation, Public Works, and Water Services Departments'
Operating budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Mario Paniagua
and the Public Works, Aviation and Water Services departments.








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 230021 - Southwest Corner of East
Almeria Road and North 15th Street (Resolution 22317) - District 4

Abandonment: 230021
Project: 00-2661
Applicant: Jordan Greenman
Request: To abandon the L-shaped alley connecting North 15th Street and East
Almeria Road of the parcel 172-20-013A.
Date of Hearing: June 8, 2025

Location
Generally located at the southwest corner of East Almeria Road and North 15th Street.
Council District: 4

Financial Impact
Pursuant to Phoenix City Code Article 5, Section 31-64(e), the City acknowledges the
public benefit received by the generation of additional revenue from the private tax
rolls and by the elimination of third-party general liability claims against the City,
maintenance expenses, and undesirable traffic patterns, and also by the replatting of
the area with alternate roadways and new development, to be sufficient and
appropriate consideration in this matter.

A fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of $23,200.

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








Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Modification of Stipulation Request for Ratification of May 21, 2025, Planning
Hearing Officer Action - PHO-1-25--Z-131-04-1 - Southwest Corner of Pyramid
Peak Parkway and Northern Lights Way - District 1

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on May 21, 2025. This ratification
requires formal action only.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-131-04-1
Existing Zoning: S-1 SP (Approved R1-8)
Acreage: 15.8 acres

Owner: Pyramid Peak GM South, LLC, c/o Camelot Homes, Ryan Benscoter
Applicant/Representative: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.

Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance to the site plan date
stamped May 9, 2005.
2. Request to modify Stipulation 4 regarding dedications and improvements for
Pyramid Peak Parkway.

VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee chose not to hear this
request.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer took the case under advisement. On May
29, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and
recommended approval with a modification.

Location
Southwest corner of Pyramid Peak Parkway and Northern Lights Way
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: N/A





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





Attachment A - Stipulations – PHO-1-25—Z-131-04-1

Location: Southwest corner of Pyramid Peak Parkway and Northern Lights
Way

STIPULATIONS:

1. That Phase II shall vest and the Special Permit shall be removed upon
submittal to the Planning Department of documentation that mining and
landfill operations have ceased.

2. That THE development shall be in general conformance to the site plan
date stamped MAY 28, 2025 May 9, 2005 with specific regard to the
density, lot size and open space, as approved or modified by the




AF
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND Development Services Department.

3. That Phase I of the development shall include lots 1 through 35 and shall
include dedication of the private street connection to north Pyramid Peak
Parkways as shown on the plan. Construction of the private street



4.

T
connection and dedication of right-of-way to north Pyramid Peak Parkway
are not required under Phase I.

That Phase II shall consist of the remainder of the lots (exclusive of Phase
I) and shall include dedication and improvements for north Pyramid Peak
Parkway for the full length of the property or as approved by the
Development Services Department. The private street connection to north
Pyramid Peak Parkway shall be constructed with Phase II.



R
5. That Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record
documents that disclose to purchasers of the property within the
development(s) the existence (or prior existence) and operational
characteristics of the landfill and any environmental impact of the landfill
and existence and any operational characteristics of the Glendale Water


D
6.



7.
Treatment Plant. The form and content of such documents shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

That Right-of-way totaling 65 feet as measured from the centerline shall
be dedicated for the west half of Pyramid Peak Parkway per stipulation 3,
as approved or modified by the Development Services Department.

That The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved
by the Development Services Department per stipulations 3 and 4. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.




8. That The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project
Information Form for the MAG Transportation Improvement Program to the
Street Transportation Department. This form is a requirement of the EPA
to meet clean air quality requirements.




AF
T
R
D



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Modification of Stipulation Request for Ratification of May 21, 2025, Planning
Hearing Officer Action - PHO-17-25-1 - Southeast corner of I-17 and Pinnacle
Peak Road - District 1

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on May 21, 2025. This ratification
requires formal action only.

Summary
Application: PHO-17-25-1
Existing Zoning: A-1 M-R DVAO
Acreage: 7.72 acres

Owner: OneAZ Credit Union
Applicant: Camille Rabany, ADM Group Inc.
Representative: Jenifer Weskalnies, ADM Group, Inc.

Proposal:
1. Modify a Comprehensive Sign Plan for more than 2 signs on a building over 56 feet
in height.

VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee opted not to hear this
request.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended denial of the request.

Location
Southeast corner of I-17 and Pinnacle Peak Road
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 2355 W. Pinnacle Peak Road

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






Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-3-25--Z-8-22
-1 - Southeast Corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Road (Ordinance G-7400) - District 1

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's 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 May 21, 2025.

Summary
Application: PHO-3-25--Z-8-22-1
Existing Zoning: R-3A
Acreage: 18.37 acres

Owner: Circle Mountain Holdings, LLC
Applicant: Hannah Bleam, Withey Morris Baugh P.L.C.
Representative: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris Baugh P.L.C.

Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding Planned Residential Development option.
2. Request to modify Stipulation 6 regarding shading along pedestrian pathways and
trails.
3. Request to modify Stipulation 11 regarding bicycle infrastructure.
4. Request to modify Stipulation 12.c regarding the number of pedestrian connections.
5. Request to modify Stipulation 13 regarding indoor noise levels.
6. Request to modify Stipulation 14 regarding the development of noise mitigation
walls.
7. Request to modify Stipulation 15 regarding noise wall setbacks.
8. Request to modify Stipulation 16 regarding perimeter wall materials.
9. Request to modify Stipulation 19 regarding active recreation amenities.
10. Request to modify Stipulation 23 regarding detached sidewalks and landscape
strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk.
11. Request to modify Stipulation 24 regarding construction of detached sidewalks.
12. Request to modify Stipulation 25 regarding street improvements.
13. Request to delete Stipulation 27 regarding a 30-foot right-of-way dedication along
the southern boundary of the project.
14. Request to delete Stipulation 28 regarding a minimum right-of-way.



15. Request to delete Stipulation 38 regarding a petition to the Street Transportation
Department to eliminate required street light infrastructure.
16. Request to delete Stipulation 42 regarding Phase 1 to be in general conformance
with the site plan date stamped May 4, 2023.
17. Request to delete Stipulation 43 regarding Phase 1 to be in general conformance
with the elevations and design elements date stamped August 29, 2022.
18. Request to delete Stipulation 44 regarding the maximum dwelling units for Phase
1.
19. Request to delete Stipulation 45 regarding Phase 2 to be in general conformance
with the site plan.
20. Request to delete Stipulation 46 regarding Phase 2 to be in general conformance
with the elevations.
21. Request to delete Stipulation 47 regarding the number of lots for Phase 2.
22. Request to modify Stipulation 48 regarding the review of the conceptual site plans
and elevations for Phase 3.
23. Request to modify Stipulation 49 regarding the landscaping of surface parking lots.

VPC Action: The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request on April 8,
2025, and recommended approval with modifications and additional stipulations by
vote of 3-1.
PHO Action: On April 16, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer continued this request to
the May 21, 2025 hearing. On May 21, 2025, the Planning Hearing Officer
recommended approval with modifications and additional stipulations.

Location
Southeast corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Road
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 45777 N. Black Canyon Highway

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





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 to the site located at the

southeast corner of I-17 and Jenny Lin Road in a portion of the northwest quarter of

Section 3, Township 6 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

A and depicted in Exhibit B, 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 100 feet hall 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 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.

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. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a
minimum of 75% 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 THE MULTI-USE trails, NORTH-SOUTH
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION, including AND PUBLIC sidewalks, shall be
shaded by a structure, landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two
to provide A minimum OF 75%, AND ALL OTHER PEDESTRIAN
WALKWAYS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE SHADED A
MINIMUM OF 53% shade, calculated at summer solstice at noon as shown
on a shading study, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. SHADE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY STRUCTURES OR BY
MINIMUM 2-INCH CALIPER, SINGLE-TRUNK, LARGE CANOPY,
DROUGHT-TOLERANT, SHADE TREES, OR A COMBINATION
THEREOF.

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 The 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.

b. Guest bicycle parking shall be provided at a minimum of 0.05
spaces per multifamily residential and single-family residential
dwelling unit, up to a maximum of 50 spaces. 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 a 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 trial (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 PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE north-south pedestrian connection
shall be provided to connect all phases of the development,
including the area between Project II and Project III. TO PROVIDE
AN ULTIMATE CONNECTION FROM CIRCLE MOUNTAIN ROAD
TO JENNY LIN ROAD AND SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION
1304.H OF THE PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE.


c. 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 or development.

13. The PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER
SHALL INCLUDE WITH THE BUILDING PLANS SUBMITTED FOR
PHOENIX BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODE COMPLIANCE
REVIEW CERTIFICATION BY AN ACCOUSTICAL CONSULTANT
DEMONSTRATING THE AVERAGE 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 AN ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT. 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 AND
NORTH 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 shall
be incorporated along property lines adjacent to dedicated public or
private open space areas, natural and/or improved drainageways or
recreational areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

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 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.

23. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks and minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk ALONG
PUBLIC STREETS within the development shall be constructed and
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 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. 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.

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 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 III. 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.

28. A minimum of 60 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed
for the full width of the minor collector street along the northern
boundary of 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. 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. Enhanced pedestrian connections shall be designed and constructed at
29. all 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.

28. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
30. 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 and
MCDOT (where applicable). All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

29. A Red Border Letter shall be submitted to the Arizona Department of
31. Transportation (ADOT) for this development.

30. The developer shall record documents that disclose to prospective
32. purchasers 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.

31. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant
33. 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.

32. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from
34. 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.


33. In the event archeological materials are encountered during
35. construction, 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.

34. Prior to preliminary site approval, the landowner shall execute
36. 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.

35. 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).

36. The development shall petition the Street Transportation Department to
38. eliminate the requirement for street light infrastructure for the
development where possible in an effort to protect dark skies. ALL
STREET, SITE, AND BUILDING LIGHTING SHALL BE DARK SKY
COMPLIANT, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

37. Primary construction access shall be from Circle Mountain Road, or the
39. frontage road, and ancillary construction activity and access may occur
on Jenny Lin Road during parts of Project III, as approved by the City of
Phoenix Planning and Development Department.

38. The developer shall promptly repair any roadway damage that may
40. occur on Jenny Lin Road during construction.

39. The developer shall include disclosure language in future leases
41. requiring all residents of Project III 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 developer 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 April 13, 2023, as modified by these stipulations and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

46. 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. 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 the development shall be limited to a maximum of 172 lots.


Phase 3 (R-3A Zoned Area)

40. Conceptual site plans and elevations for Phase 3 shall be reviewed and
48. 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. THE
DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 27, 2025, WITH
SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE INCLUSION OF THE BELOW
ELEMENTS, AS MODIFIED BY THESE STIPULATIONS AND AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

a. A MINIMUM OF ONE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE SITE LEADING TO THE
ADJACENT TRAILS EAST OR WEST OF THE SITE.

b. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST.

c. A MINIMUM OF ONE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION SHALL BE
PROVIDED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH-SOUTH
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION.

d. THE WASH ALONG THE SOUTH PERIMETER OF THE
DEVELOPMENT SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED.

e. A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTH
PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE SETBACK AREA.

41. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE
WITH THE ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 27, 2025,
WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS, AS
MODIFIED BY THESE STIPULATIONS AND AS APPROVED BY 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.

42. A minimum of 10% of surface parking lot areas, exclusive of perimeter
49. 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.

43. A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THE SURFACE PARKING AREAS SHALL BE
SHADED, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT. SHADE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY STRUCTURES OR
BY MINIMUM 2-INCH CALIPER, LARGE CANOPY, DROUGHT-
TOLERANT, SHADE TREES, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF.

44. THE DEVELOPER SHALL NOTIFY THE FOLLOWING
INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS BY MAIL A MINIMUM OF 15 CALENDAR
DAYS PRIOR TO ANY PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW
MEETING/S. THE NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE DATE, TIME, AND
LOCATION OF THE MEETING.

a. FRIENDS OF DAISY MOUNTAIN TRAILS, 39506 N DAISY
MOUNTAIN DR. #122-505, ANTHEM, AZ 85086.

b. DAVE WILSON, DAISY MOUNTAIN FIRE AND MEDICAL
DEPARTMENT, 41018 DAISY MOUNTAIN DRIVE, ANTHEM, AZ



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 2nd day of July, 2025.



________________________________
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 (2 Pages)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-3-25--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:

PROJECT 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER 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 NORTHWEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 3, BEING MARKED
BY A GLO CAP WITH SECTIONAL MARKINGS FROM WHICH THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 3, BEING MARKED BY A GLO CAP WITH SECTIONAL MARKINGS BEARS SOUTH
00 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST, 2,638.76 FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3,
NORTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST, 2,008.27 FEET POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE CONTINUNG ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 33
SECONDS EAST, 631.32 FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, SOUTH 00 DEGREES
07 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, 962.87 FEET;

THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 15 SECONDS
WEST, 32.52 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, 100.00 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, 12.19 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, 50.00 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, 28.63 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 76 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST, 95.48 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 231.50
FEET;

THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 34 DEGREES 35 MINUTES
46 SECONDS, AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 139.78 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST, 269.47 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 58 DEGREES 21 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST, 45.17 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 85 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST, 279.62 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 04 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, 8.79 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST, 754.66 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 06 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, 592.89 FEET TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING.

SAID PORTION OF LAND CONTAINING 844,490 SQUARE FEET, OR 19.3868 ACRES, MORE




OR LESS, AND BEING SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND/OR RIGHTS-
OFWAYS
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.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-20-24-1 -
Approximately 40 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of 39th Avenue and
Cactus Road (Ordinance G-7398) - District 1

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-O (Residential Office -- Restricted Commercial) to C-1(Neighborhood Retail) to allow
commercial use (office and restaurant).

Summary
Current Zoning: R-O
Proposed Zoning: C-1
Acreage: 1.19 acres
Proposal: Commercial use (office and restaurant)

Owner: Odden Properties, L.L.C. c/o Paul Johnson
Applicant: Michael Scarbrough, 3k1 Consulting Services, L.L.C.
Representative: David Cisiewski, Law Office of David Cisiewski, PLLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on
February 19, 2025, and recommended denial, by a vote of 12-1-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on March 6, 2025, and
recommended a continuance to the April 3, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing, by a
vote of 7-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on April 3, 2025, and
recommended a continuance to the June 5, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing, by a
vote of 8-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated June 5, 2025 with additional
stipulations, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Approximately 40 feet south of the southwest corner of 39th Avenue and Cactus Road
Council District: 1



Parcel Address: 3919 W. Cactus Road

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





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-20-24-1) FROM R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE –
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) TO C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD
RETAIL).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.19-acre site located approximately 40 feet

south of the southwest corner of 39th Avenue and Cactus Road in a portion of Section

22, Township 3 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is

hereby changed from “R-O” (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial) to “C-1”

(Neighborhood Retail).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,




violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The building elevations shall be in general conformance with the building
elevation date stamped June 4, 2025, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for each building
through Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near the building entrance 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.

3. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided on the site. The station
shall include but not be limited to: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a
tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and
wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

4. A minimum of 1 of the provided bicycle parking spaces for each building shall
include standard electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Ready.

6. 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.

7. All pedestrian pathways, including internal walkways and public sidewalks
adjacent to the site, shall be shaded by a structure or landscaping, or a
combination of the two to achieve a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

8. A minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
south side of Cactus Road.

9. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
provided along the south side of Cactus Road, 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. Shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of 75% live
coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

10. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 5-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
provided along the west side of 39th Avenue, 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. Shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to achieve a minimum of 75% live
coverage.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

11. All existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way shall be
undergrounded, adjacent to the development. The developer shall coordinate
with the affected utility companies for their review and permitting.

12. Unused driveways shall be replaced with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets
shall be replaced. All off-site improvements shall be upgraded to be in
compliance with current ADA guidelines.

13. 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.

14. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.

15. Natural turf shall only be utilized for required retention areas (bottom of basin,




and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization) and functional turf
areas located on properties for uses such as parks, schools, and residential
common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

16. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.

17. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum 2-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a
combination thereof.

18. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.

19. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the City of Phoenix Businesses
Water Efficiency Program for a minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

20. 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.

21. Prior to final 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.

22. Site lighting shall be provided at building entrances/exits and in the parking and
refuse areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
on-site lighting shall be shielded to prevent direct visibility of the light source
from residential properties to the south.

23. Video surveillance shall be maintained to monitor activities in and around the
store to discourage vagrancy and unlawful activities.

24. An “authority to arrest” agreement shall be completed and maintained by the
property owner. The agreement shall be signed and delivered to the Phoenix
Police Department.




25. “No trespassing” signs shall be posted per Phoenix City Code on the exterior of
the building in both English and Spanish.

26. The drive through, subject to use permit approval, shall be limited to one lane,
with the entrance, exit, and circulation as depicted on the site plan date
stamped August 29, 2024.

27. The hours of operation for the drive through, subject to use permit approval,
shall be limited to no later than 10:00 p.m.


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 2nd day of July, 2025.




________________________________
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)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-20-24-1

That portion of Tract A, FAIRWOOD UNIT FIVE, a Subdivision of part of the Northwest
¼ of Section 22, Township 3 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River base and
Meridian, Maricopa County Arizona, as recorded in Book 175 of Maps, Page 28,
records of Maricopa County, Arizona more particularly described as follows;

COMMENCING at the Northwest corner of said Tract A;

Thence North 89 Degrees 59 Minutes 00 Seconds East along the North line of said
Tract A a distance of 167.73 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

Thence continuing North 89 Degrees 59 Minutes 00 Seconds East along said North line
a distance of 105.82 feet to the Northwest corner of that certain parcel described in
Instrument 2014-0121697, records of said county;

Thence South 00 Degrees 37 Minutes 48 Seconds West along the West line of said
certain parcel a distance of 40.00 feet to the Southwest corner of said certain parcel;

Thence North 89 Degrees 59 Minutes 00 Seconds East along the South line of said
certain parcel a distance of 60.00 feet to the Southeast corner of said certain parcel;

Thence South 00 Degrees 37 Minutes 48 Seconds West along the East line of said
Tract A a distance of 220.02 feet to the Southeast corner of said Tract A;

Thence South 89 Degrees 59 Minutes 00 Seconds West along the South line of said
Tract A a distance of 162.88 feet;

Thence North 00 Degrees 01 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 260.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.

The above described parcel contains 0.93 acres (40,332 sq. ft.)







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-25--Z-89-
22-2 - Approximately 140 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 34th Street and
Tierra Buena Lane (Ordinance G-7401) - District 2

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on May 21, 2025. This ratification
requires formal action only.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-89-22-2
Existing Zoning: R1-6
Acreage: 3.92 acres

Owner: Chuck Kennedy, Land N. 34th Street, LLC
Applicant / Representative: Shelby Duplessis, Diversified Future

Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 10 regarding a minimum 5-foot-wide detached
sidewalk and a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip.

VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee reviewed the request on
May 5, 2025, and recommended approval by a vote of 11-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a modification.

Location
Approximately 140 feet north of the northeast corner of 34th Street and Tierra Buena
Lane
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 15875 N. 34th St.

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



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-89-22-2
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ORDINANCE G-7106.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable to the site located at

approximately 140 feet north of the northeast corner of 34th Street and Tierra Buena

Lane in a portion of Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 3 East, as described more

specifically in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, are hereby modified to read as set

forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped February 22, 2023, with specific regard to the open space
provided, as modified by the following stipulations and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

2. The maximum building height shall be 1-story and 16 feet, measured to the
peak of the roof.

3. Improved open space areas shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping at
maturity, or a combination of the two to provide minimum 75% shade, as
shown on a shading study, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.




4. Landscape areas within retention areas and open space areas shall be
planted with shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers to provide a
minimum of 75% live coverage at maturity, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

5. A minimum of two shaded active recreation amenities, such as a tot lot,
picnic area, seating feature, garden amenity, or similar amenity, shall be
provided within the open space area, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

6. A minimum of five bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near improved open space areas
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.

7. The perimeter landscape setback adjacent to the public street shall be
planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

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.

b. Shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to provide a minimum of
75% live coverage at maturity.

8. The Developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk
and a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip between the back of curb and
sidewalk along the east side of 34th Street, planted to the following
standards and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant, large canopy, single-trunk
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 coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with
a pedestrian environment.

9. The developer shall dedicate a sidewalk easement for any streetscape area
(detached sidewalk and landscape strip) that falls outside of dedicated
right-of-way along the east side of 34th Street, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.




10. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk
and a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip between the back of curb and
sidewalk for internal public and/or private sidewalks within the development,
including along the perimeter of Tract B and Tract C, EXCEPT FRONTING
LOTS 1-20, as depicted on the site plan stamped MAY 21, 2025 December
20, 2022, planted to the following standards and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant, large canopy, single-trunk
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 coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with
a pedestrian environment.

11. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved
by the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall
comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

12. A Red Border Letter shall be submitted to the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) for this development.

13. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Deer Valley Airport (DVT) to future owners
or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall
be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

14. In the even 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.

15. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute
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-7106, this portion of the rezoning is now




subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-7106 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 2nd day of July, 2025.



________________________________
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 (2 Pages)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)


EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-25—Z-89-22-2


The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

That part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest
Quarter of Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River
Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCING at the Northwest Corner of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter
of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, being the Southwest Corner
of the
Villa Addante Subdivision shown on the Final Plat, recorded in Book 301 of Maps,
Page 3,
Maricopa County Records, found, marked with a Brass Cap flush with the pavement;

Thence South 89 degrees 36 minutes 03 seconds East South 89 degrees 14 minutes
seconds East (Record), along the Northerly line of said North Half of the Southwest
Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, being the Southerly line
of said
Villa Addante Subdivision, a distance of 275.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;

Thence continuing South 89 degrees 36 minutes 03 seconds East South 89 degrees
14 minutes
35 seconds East (Record) along said line, a distance of 385.43 feet to the Northeast
Corner of
said North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of
Section 1, being a Northwesterly Corner of the Bella Terra Subdivision shown on the
Final Plat,
recorded in Book 200 of Maps, Page 12, Maricopa County Records;

Thence South 00 degrees 40 minutes 46 seconds East South 00 degrees 28 minutes
seconds East (Record), departing said Northerly line and along the East line of said
North Half
of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 1, also
being the Westerly line of said Bella Terra Subdivision, a distance of 327.05 feet to the


Southeast Corner of said North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Corner
of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 1, being a Northwesterly Corner of said Bella Terra
Subdivision;

Thence North 89 degrees 40 minutes 41 seconds West North 89 degrees 27 minutes
seconds West (Record), along the South line of said North Half of the Southwest
Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1, also being the Northerly line
of said
Bella Terra Subdivision, a distance of 635.44 feet to a point on a line which is parallel
with and
25 feet Easterly, as measured at right angles, from the West line of said North Half of
the
Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1,
being a
Northwesterly Corner of said Bella Terra Subdivision;

Thence North 00 degrees 40 minutes 34 seconds West, along said parallel line, a
distance of
160.02 feet to a point on a line which is parallel with an 160 feet Northerly, as
measured at right
angles, from said South line of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter of Section 01 and Northerly line of said Terra Bella
Subdivision;

Thence South 89 degrees 40 minutes 41 seconds East, along said parallel line, a
distance of
246.85 feet;

Thence North 00 degrees 23 minutes 57 seconds East, departing said parallel line, a
distance of 167.51 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 214-35-011C 2-6







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-123-23-3 (31st
Street & Winchcomb Drive PUD) - Northwest Corner of 31st Street and
Winchcomb Drive (Ordinance G-7399) - District 3

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-14 (One-Family Residence) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow single-
family residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R1-14
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 2.55 acres
Proposal: Single-family residential

Owner: Lumarpi LLC c/o Maria Pilar Perez Alvarez
Applicant: David Bruner, Circle Road Ventures LLC
Representative: J. Carlson, Espiritu Loci Incorporated

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this
item on October 7, 2024 for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard this item on June
2, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with
modifications, by a vote of 14-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Northwest corner of 31st Street and Winchcomb Drive
Council District: 3
Parcel Address: 3024 E. Winchcomb Drive





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





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-123-23-3) FROM R1-14 (ONE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.55-acre property located at the northwest

corner of 31st Street and Winchcomb Drive in a portion of Section 11, Township 3

North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed

from “R1-14” (One-Family Residence) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:



1. An updated Development Narrative for the 31st Street & Winchcomb Drive
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted
to the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be
consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped April 15, 2025, as
modified by the following stipulations:

a. Front Cover: Revise the submittal date information to add the following:

b. Front Cover: Replace “4th Submittal” with “Hearing Draft” and update
the date to April 15, 2025.

c. Page 11, Development Standards Table, Auto Court Drive: Replace
“Auto Court Drive” with “Street Standards (internal)”.

d. Page 11, Development Standards, PUD Parking Standards: Replace
“should” with “shall”.

e. Page 12, Development Standards, Landscape Standards Table,
Rear/Side Yard Landscape of Individual Lots: Replace “; live coverage
area is limited to the minimum interior building setbacks area of each lot
and excludes hardscape, pool, space, and turf areas” with “, planted
within a 5-foot-wide landscape area along the side and rear property
lines of each individual lot”.

f. Page 13, Development Standards, Fences/Walls: Delete “when
mitigating noise from a school or neighboring property, particularly”.

g. Page 16, Design Guidelines, Modified Design Guidelines: Delete the
following design guidelines: A.II.C.7.10.

h. Pages 14 – 17, Design Guidelines, Modified Design Guidelines and
Elevated Design Guidelines: Delete “A.” before the section number for
each section header of modified and elevated Section 507 Tab A design
guidelines.

i. Page 17, Design Guidelines, Additional Design Guidelines: Add the
following after the first sentence: “The design review guidelines indicated
with the markers (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be applied and
enforced in the same manner as indicated in Section 507. Items not
indicated with an (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be treated as (R).”

j. Page 21, Sustainability, Practices Enforceable By the City: Add the
green stormwater infrastructure and water consumption measures (#10
– 16 of Additional Design Guidelines section) to the summary list of
enforceable sustainability measures of the PUD.



k. Page 48, Exhibits, Building Setbacks: Revise the setback labels for the
east property line of Lot 3 and west property line of Lot 6 to differentiate
the interior front and interior side setback.

2. A minimum of 25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the north side of
Winchcomb Drive, adjacent to the development, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

3. A curved radius street connection between 31st Street and Winchcomb Drive
shall be dedicated and constructed, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

4. The developer shall coordinate with the owner of the adjacent parcel to the
east (APN 214-55-972) to dedicate sufficient right-of-way to accommodate the
curved radius street connection at 31st Street and Winchcomb Drive, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

5. Unused driveways shall be replaced with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets
shall be replaced and all off-site improvements shall be upgraded to be in
compliance with current ADA guidelines.

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 archeological 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 Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.

8. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.




PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of July, 2025.




________________________________
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)




EXHIBIT A

Z-123-23-3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION

Located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 3 East, Gila
and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona. Described as follows:

Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of said Section 11;

Thence South 00°12'31" East, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance
of 1,344.96 feet;

Thence departing said East line, South 89°11'11" West, a distance of 661.80 feet;

Thence North 00°16'36" West, a distance of 335.79 feet to the Point of Beginning;

Thence South 89°08'20" West, a distance of 331.14 feet;

Thence North 00°14'47" West, a distance of 335.98 feet;

Thence North 89°10'22" East, a distance of 330.94 feet;

Thence South 00°16'52" East, a distance of 335.79 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 111,184.69 square feet or 2.55 acres, more or less.







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Modification of Stipulation Request for Ratification of May 21, 2025, Planning
Hearing Officer Action - PHO-1-25--Z-63-06-7 - Approximately 315 Feet West of
the Northwest Corner of 35th Avenue and Grant Street - District 7

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on May 21, 2025. This ratification
requires formal action only.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-25--Z-63-06-7
Existing Zoning: R-3 (Approved A-1)
Acreage: 1.46 acres

Owner: Saul Trevizo
Applicant: Brent A. Powers Esq., Faith Law
Representative: D. Alexander Baker Esq., Faith Law

Proposal:
1. Request to delete Stipulation 2B regarding undulation of the wall along Grant Street.
2. Request to modify Stipulation 3 regarding the landscape setback along Grant Street.
3. Request to modify Stipulation 5 regarding the right-of-way dedication for the north
half of Grant Street.
4. Request to modify Stipulation 7 regarding the completion timeframe for all
improvements.

VPC Action: The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard the request on May 20,
2025, and recommended approval by a vote of 4-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended denial as filed, approval with
modifications.

Location
Approximately 315 feet west of the northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Grant Street
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 3538 W. Grant St.




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





Attachment A - Stipulations – PHO-1-25—Z-63-06-7

Location: Approximately 315 feet west of the northwest corner of 35th
Avenue and Grant Street

STIPULATIONS:

1. That Only emergency vehicle access shall be allowed from Grant Street.

WALL ELEVATIONS

2. That The wall shall be constructed on all 4 sides of the site except for an
area on the north side where the property is adjacent to 3533 and 3539
West Lincoln Street and where the emergency vehicle access gate is




AF
located along Grant Street. The wall and gate shall at a minimum meet the
requirements below as approved or modified by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

A. That The wall shall be decorative in design, smooth stucco and/or
split face block.

B.


B.
C.

C.
T
Undulation of the wall along Grant Street shall be provided every 45
feet.

That The wall height shall be a minimum of 8 feet.


That A solid gate shall be provided, along Grant Street, (for



R D. emergency vehicle access only) that eliminates any view of the site
interior.

LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

3. That A 25-foot landscape setback shall be provided along Grant Street


D
4.
and shall include 3 to 4 inch caliper trees spaced a distance of 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

That the landscape materials provided within the Grant Street landscape
setback area shall be from the guidance provided in the Estrella Village
Arterial Street Landscape Program as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

STREET IMPROVEMENTS

5. That right-of-way totaling 25 feet shall be dedicated for the north half of




Grant Street as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

6. That the developer shall construct all streets adjacent to the development
with sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other incidentals
as per plans approved by the city. All improvements shall comply with all
ADA standards.

PHO ACTION

7. That All improvements, as addressed in these above stipulations, shall be
completed within 18 months of City Council approval. Evidence that shows
completion of all improvements shall be submitted to the Planning Hearing
Officer for Administrative Review to ensure compliance.

8.



AF
That Prior to site plan approval that both applicant and landowner SHALL
execute a waiver of claims under proposition 207 in a form approved by
the City Attorney’s Office. Said waiver shall be recorded by the city and
placed in the application file for record.




T
R
D



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Modification of Stipulation Request for Ratification of May 21, 2025, Planning
Hearing Officer Action - PHO-4-25--Z-29-94-6(8) - Approximately 970 Feet South
of the Southeast Corner of 44th Street and Thomas Road - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to approve
Planning Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council
on matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on May 21, 2025. This ratification
requires formal action only.

Summary
Application: PHO-4-25--Z-29-94-6(8)
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 1.82 acres

Owner: Gen2 Arizona Properties, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Michael Scarbrough, LTH Development Group, LLC

Proposal:
1. Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan date
stamped January 11, 1994 and elevations and exhibits dated January 12, 1994.

VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard the request on
May 6, 2025, and recommended approval by a vote of 15-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a modification.

Location
Approximately 970 feet south of the southeast corner of 44th Street and Thomas Road
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 2601 N. 44th Street

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




ATTACHMENT A
Stipulations – PHO-4-25—Z-29-94-6(8)

Location: Approximately 970 feet south of the southeast corner of 44th
Street and Thomas Road

STIPULATIONS:

1. That The development SHALL be in general conformance WITH to the site
plan AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED MARCH 28, 2025 AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. (dated January
11, 1994) [or with the modifications to Anchor D as shown in the site plan
dated September 7, 2001], together with the elevations and exhibits (dated


2.


AF
1/12/94) as may be modified by the following stipulations.

That Development of the site SHALL be in accordance with the
Development Agreement (Ordinance S-21748 amending Ordinance S-
21068, dated 11-93) between Opus Southwest Corporation and the City of
Phoenix.

3.




4.
T
That Particular attention shall be given during the Design Review process
to provide building elevations that are consistent in design and materials
around the entire center and that the linear nature of the design be
minimized through the use of architectural embellishments, building
offsets, shade structures and pedestrian plazas.

That The site plan be modified as approved by the Development Services


R Department to reflect the following changes:

a. Building offsets for the major users shall be consistent with the site
plan dated January 11, 1994;




D b.




c.
Pad Sites three (3) and four (4) may be modified to create a unified
pad development such as through the use of depressed parking and
pedestrian plazas. A major gateway statement shall be provided at
the Thomas Road and 44th Street intersection with views to the
interior of the development;

That Access to the exception parcel at the southwest corner of the
site SHALL be considered at the time of site plan approval.

5. That The right-of-way dedications and off-site improvements shall be
consistent with the Development Agreement (as identified in Stipulation
No.2).




6. That A single driveway access SHALL be permitted on 46th Street south
of Shops “B” as approved by the Development Services Department, and
no vehicular access between the library site and the retail center. Left turn
access from the site onto Oak Street shall be prohibited.




AF
T
R
D



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-NM-1-
25-3 - Southwest Corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue (Resolution 22319) -
District 3

Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if
approved. Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on 12.37
acres from Industrial and Commercial to Mixed Use. This is a companion case to Z-7-
25-3 and should be heard first, followed by Z-7-25-3.

Summary
Application: GPA-NM-1-25-3
Current Designation: Industrial (5.16 acres) and Commercial ( 7.21 acres)
Proposed Designation: Mixed Use
Acreage: 12.37 acres
Proposed Use: To align with the Transit Oriented Communities Strategic Policy
Framework

Owner: City of Phoenix, Public Transit Department
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: Jeff Stapleton, City of Phoenix, Community and Economic
Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on May
21, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 14-
0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the North Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue
Council District: 3
Parcel Address: 1905, 1935, 1945, 1957, 1961 W. Dunlap Avenue




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





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



RESOLUTION


A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2025
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-NM-1-25-3,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.

____________


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as

follows:

SECTION 1. The 2025 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by

Resolution 22191, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-NM-1-25-3. The 12.37 acres

of property is located at the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue and

is designated as Mixed Use.

SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the 2025 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as

shown below:




PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of July 2025.



MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




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


-2- Resolution

By:___________________________
___________________________



REVIEWED BY:


______________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




-3- Resolution


ATTACHMENT B




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
May 12, 2025

Application: GPA-NM-1-25-3

Owner: City of Phoenix, Public Transit Department

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission

Representative: Jeff Stapleton, City of Phoenix, Community and
Economic Development Department

Location: Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap
Avenue

Acreage: 12.37 acres

Current Plan Designation: Industrial (5.16 acres)
Commercial (7.21 acres)

Requested Plan Designation: Mixed Use (12.37 acres)

Reason for Requested Change: To align with the Transit Oriented Communities
Strategic Policy Framework

North Mountain Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date: May 21, 2025

Staff Recommendation: Approval

FINDINGS:

1) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation will maximize a mix of
uses adjacent to a light rail station.

2) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation is consistent with City’s
19North Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan.




Staff Analysis
GPA-NM-1-25-3


3) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation is compatible with
surrounding designations and will complement and diversify the area’s land use
mix.

BACKGROUND

The subject site is located at the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue.
The eastern end of the site consists of a Park and Ride lot that serves the 19th Avenue
and Dunlap Light Rail Station. The western end of the site consists of a commercial
building and associated parking. The companion rezoning case, Z-7-25-3, is a request
to rezone from 2.44 acres of C-1 (Neighborhood Retail), 9.90 acres of C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial), and 0.03 acres of C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to
WU Code T5:5 (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5) to allow for mixed use multifamily
residential. The existing Special Permit is for an auto leasing rental facility.

This request proposes a minor amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to allow
mixed use development. The proposal will modify the land use map designation from
7.21 acres of Commercial and 5.16 acres of Industrial to 12.37 acres of Mixed Use.

SURROUNDING LAND USES

NORTH
North of the subject site, across Dunlap Avenue, is a convenience store zoned C-2
(Intermediate Commerical) as well as a mobile home park zoned C-2 (Intermediate
Commerical) and R-2 SP (Multifamily Residence District, Special Permit). The General
Plan Land Use Map designation for this area includes Commerical and Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre.

SOUTH
South of the subject site is multifamily residential zoned R-4A (Multifamily Residence-
General). The General Plan Land Use Map designation for this area includes Industrial
and Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre.

EAST
East of the subject site, across 19th Avenue, is a retail shoping center zoned PSC
(Planned Shopping Center District). The General Plan Land Use Map designation for
this property is Commercial.

WEST
West of the subject site is a school zoned IND PK (Industrial Park). The General Plan
Land Use Map designation for this property is Industrial.




Staff Analysis
GPA-NM-1-25-3




Existing and Proposed General Land Use Designation Maps
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department




Staff Analysis
GPA-NM-1-25-3


RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; CORES, ENTERS AND
CORRIDORS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Promote development in compact
cores, centers and corridors that are connected by roads and transit, and
are designed to encourage walking and bicycling.

The subject site is adjacent to two arterial streets, the 19th Avenue and Dunlap
Avenue Light Rail Station and a bus stop, which provides convenient access to
the larger community. Further, as stipulated in the companion rezoning case, Z-
7-25-3, there will be bicycle infrastructure to help facilitate multimodal
transportation.

• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a
mix of housing types and densities where appropriate within each village
that support a broad range of lifestyles.

The request facilitates additional housing opportunities in the Village that will help
alleviate the housing crisis and is appropriately located adjacent to a light rail
station.

• BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

As stipulated in the companion rezoning case Z-7-25-3, and as required by WU
Code zoning, the proposal will shade public and private walkways, the surface
parking area, and provide enhanced planting standards.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of GPA-NM-1-25-3. The proposed land use map
designation facilitates the future redevelopment of City-owned property located in
immediate proximity to a light rail station.

Writer
Robert Kuhfuss
May 12, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)



GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-NM-1-25-3 ACRES: 12.37 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: North Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3
APPLICANT: City of Phoenix
EXISTING:
Commercial ( 7.21 +/- Acres)
Industrial ( 5.16 +/- Acres)




19TH AVE
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
DUNLAP AVE
Residential 15+ du/ac
Commercial
Industrial
Mixed Use

22ND AVE




PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use ( 12.37 +/- Acres)




19TH AVE
Proposed Change Area
Mixed Use

DUNLAP AVE




22ND AVE



GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-NM-1-25-3 ACRES: 12.37 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: North Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3
APPLICANT: City of Phoenix
EXISTING:
Commercial ( 7.21 +/- Acres)
Industrial ( 5.16 +/- Acres)




19TH AVE
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac DUNLAP AVE
Residential 15+ du/ac
Commercial
Industrial


22ND AVE
Mixed Use




PROPOSED CHANGE:
Mixed Use ( 12.37 +/- Acres)




19TH AVE
Proposed Change Area
Mixed Use

DUNLAP AVE




22ND AVE



ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-NM-1-25-3

Date of VPC Meeting May 21, 2025
Request From Industrial and Commercial
Request To Mixed Use
Proposal Mixed-use, multifamily residential
Location Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 14-0



VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 4 (GPA-NM-1-25-3) and Item No. 5 (Z-7-25-3) are companion cases and
were heard together.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, presented both proposals, providing land use and zoning
information on the site and surrounding area, its proximity to the Primary and
Secondary Village Cores, and proximity to the light rail station. Mr. Kuhfuss
summarized the various policy plans applicable to the site. Mr. Kuhfuss summarized
public input received to date, reviewed each of the recommended stipulations, and
provided an overview of staff’s findings and recommendations.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Jeff Stapleton, Community and Economic Development staff, provided an additional
presentation. Mr. Stapleton stated that Mr. Kuhfuss had provided a good overview of
the project. Mr. Stapleton stated that the city had acquired the site in preparation for
the Northwest Light Rail Phase I. Mr. Stapleton stated that the existing park-and-ride
is at about 10% utilization and that the existing strip retail center is mostly vacant. Mr.
Stapleton stated that the existing zoning will allow multifamily residential uses, and
explained that because the site is underutilized, their preference is to rezone the site
in a manner that is consistent with the plans and policies previously noted. Mr.
Stapleton stated that the City Council authorized staff to begin the redevelopment
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 363
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-NM-1-25-3

process in 2023. Mr. Stapleton referenced the vision as expressed in the 19North
Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan, which encourages mixed-use
development, enhancing the pedestrian realm, rights-of-way through the use of the
Walkable Urban Code. Mr. Stapleton reiterated the Housing Phoenix Plan, which
advocates increasing housing opportunities of all types including affordable,
workforce, and market. Mr. Stapleton stated that a key element of the Housing
Phoenix Plan is to incorporate HUD housing opportunities on city-owned properties.
Mr. Stapleton referenced the Metro District Oriented Communities Policy Plan and
stated that while the official boundaries of that plan are west of the site, the plan was
used for guidance as to how the site might look. Mr. Stapleton reiterated the
stipulation requiring the activation of the frontage and referenced a rendering of the
site showing Plaza19 relative to a multi-story mixed-use building with retail on the
ground floor. Mr. Stapleton referenced two massing studies that illustrated what the
site might look like, emphasizing the relationship of the light rail station to the front of
the site, with parking towards the rear of the site. Mr. Stapleton stated that the intent is
to rezone to the Walkable urban Code so that bidders can simply design to that code
and not be concerned whether the site is zoned C-1 or C-2. Mr. Stapleton stated that
if the proposed zoning is approved, the site will be much more conducive to mixed-
use development. Mr. Stapleton reiterated the maximum building height and the
incentive to increase that height by providing 30% Affordable Housing. Mr. Stapleton
stated that initially, they were seeking a maximum height of 56 feet but are amenable
to the provision for 30% Affordable Housing incentive. Mr. Stapleton stated that
having an Industrial land use designation next to light rail is not preferable and
reiterated the request for the change in land use designation as requested in the
proposed General Plan Amendment. Mr. Stapleton stated that they held a
neighborhood outreach meeting on April 8, 2025 at the Cholla Library, which was well
attended. Mr. Stapleton stated they were scheduled for the Planning Commission on
June 5, 2025 and City Council on July 2, 2025. Mr. Stapleton stated they received a
number of questions as there is not a specific project. Mr. Stapleton stated that the
Request for Proposal will likely be issued in 2026 or 2027 and explained the Request
for Proposal process. Mr. Stapleton stated that they will engage the various
community groups and the Village Planning Committee, explaining to those groups
the minimum qualifications, and the desired project, prior to going to a City Council
subcommittee.

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo stated that in all the time that he has served
on the Village Planning Committee and Planning Commission, he has never seen a
group ask for input on a project like this and asked for clarification. Mr. Stapleton
stated they utilize this process in the Central City and Encanto Villages. Mr. Stapleton
stated that they typically get a number of questions relating the project vision and
reiterated their intent for a residential use with neighborhood retail and reiterated the
requirement for not less than 5,000 square feet of retail. Mr. Stapleton stated that the
Park-and Ride will be right-sized based on current demand and Valley Metro’s
recommendation. Mr. Stapleton stated they expect to retain about 10% of its current
capacity.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 364
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-NM-1-25-3

Committee Member Patrick Edwards asked about the number of parking spaces
currently on the site. Mr. Stapleton stated there were currently 417 spaces. Mr.
Stapleton stated that should the terms of the RFP be approved by the City Council,
the RFP will be prepared and issued, which will lead to development proposals being
submitted by various developers. Mr. Stapleton stated that each proposal will be
evaluated and scored by an evaluation panel, which will lead to the selection of the
winning proposer. Mr. Stapleton stated that business terms would then be negotiated,
followed by additional community input and City Council Subcommittee evaluation
and approval. Mr. Stapleton stated that the City Council would make the final decision
to move forward and a Development Agreement would be executed, which would
include provisions that implement the various stipulations of approval. Mr. Stapleton
stated that construction plans would be submitted and permits issued, which would
lead to construction activities on the site, with completion to occur sometime between
2029 or 2030.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews asked why Transect 5:5 was chosen rather than
Transect 5:6, since Transect 5:6 would allow more height, density, and affordability.
Mr. Stapleton stated that it was about achieving balance with all of the city’s policy
plans, the existing development in the area, the site’s adjacency to light rail, and
determining what is the appropriate intensity. Mr. Stapleton stated that outside of
downtown, most of the requests that he is familiar with utilize Transect 5:5 as that
transect adheres to a plan that has received community support as opposed to a
transect that would allow 80 to 100 feet in height.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna asked why the number of parking
spaces associated with the park-and-ride was not fixed at this time. Mr. Stapleton
stated that they will seek input from Valley Metro who will determine the number of
parking spaces needed, which will then be reflected in the RFP.

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo asked if the project would include mixed
income as well as mixed-use. Mr. Stapleton stated that was the case. Committee
Member Jaramillo asked for additional information stating that the stipulations only
address affordability as a bonus incentive and asked if there could be a stipulation
that required mixed income. Mr. Stapleton stated that he would expect that a firm goal
would be established through the RFP process that would establish the minimum
number of affordable and workforce units, as well as a maximum number of market
rate units. Committee Member Jaramillo asked for additional confirmation that the
RFP process would establish required percentages regarding affordability beyond the
bonus incentive contained in the stipulations. Mr. Stapleton stated that would be the
case and that they would come back to the Committee at a later date to demonstrate
that had been achieved.

Vice Chair Matthews asked how many dwelling units they expected to generate. Mr.
Stapleton stated that they estimate approximately 300 units if constructed to a height
of 48 feet; more if higher.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 365
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-NM-1-25-3


Committee Member Steve Pamperin asked for clarification regarding the
percentage of covered parking and the number of EV parking spaces. Mr. Stapleton
stated that the intent was to set the initial benchmark as was the case with setting the
minimum amount of retail at 5,000 square feet. Mr. Stapleton stated that since the city
owns the site, the city can require more if the conditions warrant and that setting the
minimum number of EV spaces at 5% makes it easier for the developer to scale up.
Mr. Stapleton stated that it is possible that a parking structure could be proposed and
that he has seen where the developer placed the ground floor retail towards the street
with structured parking behind, which makes it easier to build above.

Mr. Stapleton stated that the proposal is supported by the Metro District Community
Collaboration, which is the business and property owner association to the west of the
site. Mr. Stapleton also stated they have been working with Quik Trip to obtain a letter
of support.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Vice Chair Matthews stated that he was excited to see this project come in and was
happy to see something other than another gas station. Vice Chair Matthews stated
that since the city owns the site, the city should be more aggressive in trying to
achieve more affordable units, Vice Chair Matthews stated that 10% of 300 units is
only 30 units as opposed to the project being allowed to achieve a height of 56 feet
with all being affordable housing but also expressed concerns with the market being
able to support that type of development. Vice Chair Matthews also expressed
concerns over development agreements, stating they can be challenging. Vice Chair
Matthews stated there was an opportunity to enhance Plaza19 and the retention area
in response to CPTED, and that the city should encourage integration of the front of
the building with the light rail.

Committee Member Jaramillo stated that he would like the Village Planning
Committee to be a part of the RFP process in order to ensure that the number of
affordable units is appropriate as opposed to the matter being left up to potential
bonuses.

Committee Member Elizabeth Pérez-Pawloski asked if the Committee can amend
the stipulation regarding the amount of affordable housing units. Mr. Kuhfuss stated
that the Committee could amend that or any stipulation and reminded the Committee
that the numbers contained in that stipulation were the result of conversations
between the city’s Planning, Housing, and Community and Economic Development
Departments. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski asked how a change to a
stipulation could be achieved. Mr. Kuhfuss explained that whoever makes the motion
could include in that motion a proposed change to the applicable stipulations, which
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 366
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-NM-1-25-3

would then be included in the second and ultimate vote. Committee Member
Pamperin asked what the stipulation was regarding affordability for the Metrocenter
project. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not have that information committed to
memory. Mr. Stapleton stated that he was the city’s project manager for The
Metropolitan and that there are no stipulations or affordability benchmarks except for
one circumstance where the developer applied for the Government Property Lease
Excise Tax program which involved an in-lieu payment to the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund but that was when the developer was looking at providing 3,000 units and
has since pivoted away from that goal. Committee Member Jaramillo stated that
Concord Wilshire is working in good faith towards providing affordable housing at
Metrocenter but there were no stipulations that require them to do so. Committee
Member Jaramillo stated that now is a good opportunity to add stipulations regarding
affordability. Chair Stephanie Fogelson expressed concerns regarding the red tape
at the state level when it comes to affordable housing. Vice Chair Matthews stated
that the tax credit process is available but there is no requirement to do so. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that typically if a project were to be 100% affordable housing, the
project could pencil out, but at a lesser amount, incentives are needed to achieve
economies of scale. Vice Chair Matthews asked Mr. Stapleton if he, as the applicant,
would be opposed to the Committee stipulating to 20% affordable housing, and how
the Committee could be involved in the RFP process. Mr. Stapleton stated that
outside of Arizona, where there is an exclusionary zoning regime, the benchmark is
typically 20%. Mr. Stapleton further stated that they could come back to the Village
with the terms of the RFP as well as the site plan. Committee Member Jaramillo
stated that his preference would be to participate in the RFP process rather than
attach an arbitrary number. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski stated there was an
opportunity to make a statement rather than accept a minimal deal. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that this site is not the only park-and-ride site that will be
redeveloped, and that this development could set the tone for future projects. Vice
Chair Matthews stated that he would like to be aggressive when possible and that this
site literally includes a light rail station making this a prime opportunity. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that he is considerate of the city not pushing itself out of the market
but is also willing to let the site remain vacant until the right project comes along. Vice
Chair Matthews referenced a project at the northwest corner of 7th Avenue and
McDowell Road where more could have been achieved. Vice Chair Matthews
reiterated that building something now for the sake of doing so could result in a
missed opportunity. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he did not want to be part of the
Development Agreement process but would like to set the expectations. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that as a city-owned site, it is conceivable that the site could develop
at 50% or 100% affordable housing but needed to know what that threshold is.
Committee Member Pamperin stated that the area should include a mix of housing
opportunities.

Vice Chair Matthews asked Mr. Stapleton if he would be amenable to a stipulation
requiring a minimum of 20% affordable housing. Mr. Stapleton stated that would be
acceptable. Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that she is reticent to go
against staff’s recommendation and asked what the appropriate percentage is. Mr.
Stapleton stated that 20% would be consistent with other states that have an
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 367
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-NM-1-25-3

exclusionary zoning regime and that financing a larger percentage becomes more
difficult. Mr. Stapleton stated that 20% also leaves the door open for a mixed income
development.

MOTION:
Vice Chair Joshua Matthews motioned to recommend approval of GPA-NM-1-25-3
per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo seconded the
motion.

VOTE:
14-0, motion to recommend approval of GPA-NM-1-25-3 per the staff
recommendation passes with Committee Members Alauria, Barraza, Carmona,
Edwards, Garbarino, Harris, Hepperle, Jaramillo, Larson, Pamperin, Pérez-Pawloski,
Sommacampagna, Matthews, and Fogelson in favor and none opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 368
ATTACHMENT D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 5, 2025

ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO.: 3
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-NM-1-25-3 (Companion Case Z-7-25-3)
Request: Minor General Plan Amendment to align with the Transit Oriented
Communities Strategic Policy Framework
From: Commercial and Industrial
To: Mixed use
Acreage: 12.37
Location: Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Owner: City of Phoenix, Public Transit Department
Representative: Jeff Stapleton, City of Phoenix, Community and Economic Development
Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
North Mountain 5/21/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 14-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the North Mountain Village Planning
Committee recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve GPA-NM-1-25-3, per the
North Mountain Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Matthews
Second: Hu
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation will maximize a mix of
uses adjacent to a light rail station.

2. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation is consistent with City’s
19North Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan.

3. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation is compatible with
surrounding designations and will complement and diversify the area’s land use
mix.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
ATTACHMENT E




ATTACHMENT F

From: DARLENE GEORGE
To: Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: 19Th Ave & Dunlap Zoning case # GPA-NM-1-25-3 and Z-7-25
Date: Friday, March 28, 2025 6:40:36 AM




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.

Report Suspicious   ‌


Hello Mr. Kuhfuss,
Per my understanding there is a 12.55-acre site that is going to be rezoned allowing for
143 residential units. We have an above average density of apartments in this area and
this specific property is already heavily populated.

My wishes are to not have any more houses or apartments developed in this area. It is
too congested already.



Thank-you for seriously considering my opinions,

Darlene George
602-881-1124




From: Jeff Stapleton
To: Barbara Hettinger
Cc: Kathleen T Consador; Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: RE: Proposed New Land Use at 19th Avenue and Dunlap
Date: Thursday, April 3, 2025 2:12:50 PM
Attachments: Aerial_Parcel_Map.pdf
image001.png



Hello Ms. Hettinger,

Thank you for contacting our office. The City-owned Park & Ride and adjacent shopping center
at 19th Ave. & Dunlap (Site) are being considered for future redevelopment (map attached). One
key detail concerning this zoning case [Z-7-25 | GPA-NM-1-25-3] is that there is no proposed
project associated with this case. Should the application be approved, there will not be any
imminent construction activity at the site. Any future project will be the subject of a competitive
request for proposals (RFP) process. The requirements for the RFP and a contract award will
result from future actions of the City Council. The timing of an RFP release is not known at this
time, but will likely not occur any sooner than 2026.

The Site’s existing zoning allows for future redevelopment to C-1 and C-2 standards allowing for
a variety of commercial uses, or it can be redeveloped with a multi-family residential use, which
is permitted under existing C-1 and C-2 zoning. The proposed zoning district, Walkable Urban
Code is typically used along Light Rail to allow for mixed-use development with reduced
setbacks. This specific case results from the 19 North Transit Oriented Development Policy
Plan approved by the City Council in 2021 (link). The goal of the case is to allow respondents to
the future RFP to submit proposed project designs that improve the streetscape with
landscaping, pedestrian and bike amenities and mixed-use development at the site. A vision for
the area is noted on Page 54-57 of the plan. Not noted in the plan is that some share of parking
stalls at the Site to support the Park & Ride will be retained at the site. The exact amount of
stalls is not known at this time, but likely would be somewhere between 10%-25% of the
existing parking stalls.

A requirement of the rezoning case is to document any correspondence received from those in
support, opposed, or interested in the case. I will add your inquiry and my response to the file. I
am also more than happy to answer any further questions. Feel free to call or e-mail me.

___________________________________________________________

Jeff Stapleton
Program Manager
Community and Economic Development
200 West Washington Street, 20th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: 602-534-3162
Cell: 520-270-1675
jeff.stapleton@phoenix.gov


InvestInPhoenix.com




From: Barbara Hettinger
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:00 PM
To: Jeff Stapleton
Subject: Proposed New Land Use at 19th Avenue and Dunlap

Dear Mr. Stapleton, I write to request information regarding the land at 19th Avenue and Northern secured by the city for the light rail and its contemplated use for multi-family dwellings. As you are aware, this whole area is highly compressed
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious   ‌

Dear Mr. Stapleton,
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd




I write to request information regarding the land at 19th Avenue and Northern secured
by the city for the light rail and its contemplated use for multi-family dwellings. As you
are aware, this whole area is highly compressed with Section 8 housing and other
multi-family dwellings and their attending services. As you are also likely aware, higher
density housing is associated with significantly higher crime. As much as you have
decision-making responsibilities, please ensure that our area is protected from already
highly dense population spaces with many very high-need residents. It is time to
spread out high-density family dwellings to other areas that have not yet filled that
need.

I look forward to receiving more information from your office.

With respect and gratitude,

Barbara Egbert Hettinger




Aerial Map




Dunlap Ave




19th Ave




Parcel Map







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-7-25-3 -
Southwest Corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue (Ordinance G-7404) -
District 3

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-7-25-3
and rezone the site from C-1 (Neighborhood Retail), C-2 (Intermediate Commercial),
and C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to WU Code T5:5 (Walkable
Urban Code, Transect 5:5) to allow mixed use, multifamily residential. This is a
companion case and must be heard following case GPA-NM-1-25-3.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-1 (2.44 acres), C-2 (9.90 acres), and C-2 SP (0.03 acres)
Proposed Zoning: WU Code T5:5
Acreage: 12.37 acres
Proposal: Mixed Use, Multifamily Residential

Owner: City of Phoenix, Public Transit Department
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: Jeff Stapleton, City of Phoenix, Community and Economic
Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on May
21, 2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with an
additional stipulation, by a vote of 14-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated June 4, 2025, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue
Council District: 3
Parcel Address: 1905, 1935, 1945, 1957, and 1961 W. Dunlap Avenue






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





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-7-25-3) FROM C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD
RETAIL), C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL), AND C-2 SP
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, SPECIAL PERMIT) TO WU
CODE T5:5 (WALKABLE URBAN CODE, TRANSECT 5:5).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 12.37-acre site located on the southwest

corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue in a portion of Section 36, Township 3 North,

Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from

2.44 acres of “C-1” (Neighborhood Retail), 9.90 acres of “C-2” (Intermediate

Commercial), and 0.03-acres of “C-2 SP” (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to

“WU Code T5:5” (Walkable Urban Code, Transect T5:5).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”




SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The site plan and elevations shall be presented for review and comment to the
North Mountain Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan
approval.

2. The frontage adjacent to Plaza19 and the light rail station shall be treated as a
Primary Frontage in accordance with Section 1303.A.6 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

3. The northern edge of the site, along the light rail station and Plaza19, shall be
treated as street frontage and building setbacks/build-to dimensions shall be
measured from the back of any easements (public utilities, public pedestrian
access, maintenance, etc.), as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. Development adjacent to the northeast corner of the site (Plaza19 and light rail
station) shall contain a vertical mix of land uses such as residential and non-
residential uses, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. A
minimum of 5,000 square feet of non-residential uses shall be provided and
shall not include lobby, exercise, reception areas or other similar uses intended
for exclusive use by residents.

5. The maximum building height shall not exceed 48 feet, except that the
maximum building height may be increased to 56 feet, subject to a minimum of
30% of the dwelling units are provided as Affordable Housing, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department and Housing Department.

6. The following bicycle infrastructure shall be provided, and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided
at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit spaces near entrances of
buildings and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.




c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained in an area of high visibility, in close proximity to the Light
Rail station, and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where
applicable. The repair station shall include, but not be limited to:

i. Standard repair tools affixed to the station;

ii. A tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the
ground;

iii. A bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin
freely while making adjustments to the bike.

d. Standard electrical receptacles shall be installed for a minimum of 10
percent of the required bicycle parking spaces for electric bicycle
charging capabilities.

7. A minimum of 5% EV Installed infrastructure shall be provided for the required
number of residential vehicle parking spaces, whether surface or structured, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

8. If public parking is provided, a minimum of 5% of the parking provided shall be
EV Installed.

9. The bus pad on southbound 19th Avenue south of Dunlap Avenue shall be
retained, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. A vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted to the Street
Transportation Department and the Planning and Development Department for
approval before applying for preliminary site plan review. The circulation plan
shall incorporate the Community Vision Themes, Urban Principles and
Strategies established in the 19 North Transit Oriented Development Plan and
demonstrate the following:

a. Routes for vehicles and pedestrians shall be designed to ensure
seamless and safe movement for pedestrians, with pedestrian safety and
accessibility taking priority.

b. A shaded, pedestrian-only paseo, providing public access and a direct
connection from the adjacent land uses through the site to the transit
facility, key internal destinations, and common open spaces.

c. Designated areas for vehicle loading, pick-up, and drop-off.

d. Proposed measures to mitigate potential conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians, both within and adjacent to the site.




e. Bicycle parking and fix-it station/s focused primarily adjacent to the public
right-of-way to promote multi-modal transportation in conjunction with
secure internal bike parking facilities for residents, employees, and
guests.

11. Vehicular access points shall be restricted to a maximum of one on 19th
Avenue and a maximum of two on Dunlap Avenue.

12. A minimum 14-foot-wide vehicular access easement shall be provided for future
shared access onto Dunlap Road along the western property line to access
properties to the south and west.

13. The existing sidewalk along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a minimum 6-
foot-wide sidewalk and a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape area between back
of curb and sidewalk and shaded to a minimum of 75% tree shade coverage.

14. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to comply current ADA guidelines.

15. 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.

16. Natural turf shall only be utilized for required retention areas (at the bottom of
the basin, and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization), and
functional turf areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

17. A minimum of 25% of any surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum two-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a
combination thereof.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Phoenix Water Efficiency




Checkup Program for a minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record. This stipulation shall not be applicable if the property
is owned by the City of Phoenix.


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 2nd day of July, 2025.




________________________________
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)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-7-25-3

That portion of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 3 North,
Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona,
described as follows:

Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter
of Section 36;

Thence along the Westerly line of the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 36,
South 00 degrees 20 minutes 07 seconds West, 40.00 feet to the True Point of
Beginning;

Thence continuing along the Westerly line of the East half of the Northeast quarter of
Section 36, South 00 degrees 20 minutes 07 seconds West, 152.00 feet;

Thence leaving said Westerly line North 89 degrees 34 minutes 12 seconds East,
224.00 feet;

Thence North 00 degrees 20 minutes 07 seconds East, 152.00 feet to a point on the
Southerly right of way of Dunlap Avenue;

Thence along the Southerly right of way line of Dunlap Avenue South 89 degrees 34
minutes 12 seconds West, 224.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

And a parcel of land consisting of the property described in the Warranty Deed recorded
in Document No. 2014-0648430, and Lots 1 and 2 as shown on the final plat for
REGIONAL DUNLAP/19TH PARK AND RIDE according to the plat of record in the
office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, in Book 1268 of Maps at
page 45;

EXCEPT the right of way conveyed in Document No. 1986-0550275 and accepted by
the above recordings in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona.




ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-7-25-3
May , 2025


North Mountain Village Planning May 21, 2025
Committee Meeting Date:

Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 5, 2025
Request From: C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) (2.44 acres)
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) (9.90 acres)
C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special
Permit) (0.03 acres)
Request To: WU Code T5:5 (Walkable Urban Code,
Transect 5:5) (12.37 acres)
Proposal: Mixed Use, Multifamily Residential
Location: Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and
Dunlap Avenue
Owner: City of Phoenix, Public Transit Department
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: Jeff Stapleton, City of Phoenix, Community
and Economic Development Department
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity

Current: Commercial (7.21 acres)
and Industrial (5.16 acres)
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Pending (GPA-NM-1-25-3): Mixed Use


43 to 58-foot
19th Avenue Major Arterial
west half-street
Street Map Classification
40 to 67-foot
Dunlap Avenue Major Arterial
south half-street




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; CORES, CENTERS, AND
CORRIDORS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate land uses with the greatest height
and most intense uses within village cores, centers and corridors based on
village character, land use needs, and transportation system capacity.

The proposal will facilitate the creation of housing opportunities adjacent to a light rail
station (19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue) and within one-half mile of the North
Mountain Village Core, which will support light rail ridership.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Development should include convenient bicycle parking.

The proposal, as stipulated, includes bicycle facilities to encourage bicycling and
transit use to leverage its proximity to the nearby light rail station. Features include
secure bicycle parking for residents, convenient racks for guests, and a bicycle repair
station.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

The proposal, as stipulated and as required by WU Code zoning, will provide shade
along the public sidewalk, surface parking areas, and along a pedestrian paseo,
which will improve pedestrian comfort within close proximity to light rail.



Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives

TOD Strategic Policy Framework: Background Item No. 4.
19North Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan: Background Item No. 5.
North Mountain Redevelopment Area Plan: Background Item No. 6.
Community Safety Plan (CSP) Areas: Background Item No. 8.
Shade Phoenix Plan: Background Item No. 9.
Complete Streets Guidelines: Background Item No. 10.
Housing Phoenix Plan: Background Item No. 11.
Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 12.




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




Climate Action Plan: Background Item No. 13.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan: Background Item No. 14.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background Item No. 15.
Conservation Measures for New Development: Background Item No. 16.
Monarch Butterfly Pledge: Background Item No. 17.


Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
Park and Ride and Lot /
C-1 and C-2
On Site Light Rail Station
Commercial uses C-2 and C-2 SP
Convenience store and
North (across Dunlap Avenue) C-2 and R-2 SP
mobile home park
West School IND PK
South Multifamily residential R4-A
East (across 19th Avenue) Retail Center PSC

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 2.44 acres of C-1 (Neighborhood Retail), 9.90 acres of C-
2 (Intermediate Commercial), and 0.03 acres of C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial,
Special Permit) located at the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap
Avenue to 12.37 acres of WU Code T5:5 (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5) to
allow mixed use, multifamily residential. The existing Special Permit is for an auto
leasing rental facility.

The site is designated as a Neighborhood Center Place Type as identified in the
Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework and
includes a light rail station (Dunlap / 19th Avenue). The site is also approximately
one-half mile east of the North Mountain Village Core.

The eastern end of the subject site is currently serving as the park-and-ride lot for
the Dunlap / 19th Avenue light rail station, while the west end of the site includes a
commercial retail center. The entire site is owned by the City of Phoenix, and with
the extension of the light rail to the Thelda Williams Transit Center, is considered




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




for Proposal that will enable the site to be redeveloped in accordance with the WU
Code T5:5 zoning District and supporting stipulations.


SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. To the north of the site, across Dunlap Avenue, is a gas station and convenience
store, zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial). To the west of the gas
station/convenience store is a mobile home park, which is zoned both C-2
(Intermediate Commercial) and R-2 SP (Multifamily Residence District, Special
Permit). To the west of the subject site is a school zoned IND PK (Industrial Park).
To the south of the site is multifamily residential zoned R-4A (Multifamily
Residence General). To the east of the site, across 19th Avenue, is a retail
shopping center, zoned PSC (Planned Shopping Center District).




Aerial Imagery; Source: Phoenix Planning and Development Department




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
3. The General Plan Land Use Map depicts the eastern end of the subject site as
Commercial while the western end of the site is designated as Industrial. These
designations are not consistent with the proposed zoning of the site. A companion
General Plan Amendment (GPA-NM-1-25-3), if approved, will change the land use
designation of the subject site to Mixed Use, which will support the proposed WU
Code T5:5 zoning.

The area to the north has a land use designation of Commercial and Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre. The area to the west of site has a land use designation
of Industrial. The designations south of the subject site are Industrial and
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre. East of the subject site, across 19th
Avenue, has a Commercial land use designation.




General Plan Land Use Map; Source: Planning and Development Department


The subject site is also located approximately one-half mile east of the North
Mountain Village Core. Since the 1980s, the village cores have been envisioned as
the areas of greatest intensity. This concept remains central to the Connected
Oasis vision contained in the 2025 Phoenix General Plan.




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




Secondary
Primary Core
Core


Light Rail




Site


General Plan Land Use Map; Source: Planning and Development Department

4. Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework:
The Transit Oriented Development Strategic
General Plan. The framework identifies planning typologies to describe urban
environments. The subject site includes a light rail station and is designated as a
Neighborhood Center. The Neighborhood Center Place Type provides policy
support for two to four-story buildings with allowances for up to five stories when
certain incentive criteria are met. Stipulation No. 5 provides for a maximum allowed
height of 48 feet without the incentive and 56 feet with the incentive, making the
scale of the proposed zoning district consistent with this Place Type. The
Neighborhood Center Place Type also calls for a balance of commercial and
residential to create a neighborhood-scale retail destination; therefore, staff
recommends Stipulation No. 4, which requires a vertical mix of land uses and not
less than 5,000 square feet of non-residential use.




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




Site




Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework, Place Type Map Excerpt; Source:
Planning and Development Department

5. 19North Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan:
The subject site is located within 19North TOD Planning Area. The policy plan for
the 19North TOD District provides a blueprint for fully achieving the transformative
potential of light rail in a sustainable manner. Changes advocated in the plan can
lower transportation costs for residents, create new business opportunities,
encourage active, healthy lifestyles, ensure Phoenix increases its competitive
advantage in the global marketplace, and improve prosperity by growing the
economy in locations with existing infrastructure and public services.

The 19North TOD District Plan anticipates walkable neighborhoods with active
frontages and small block sizes. The WU Code requires active frontages along the
street; however, the area along Dunlap, developed with the light rail station, may
not technically be considered a street, rather it may be a separate property and in
that case the WU Code frontage standards would not be required. Staff, therefore,
recommends Stipulations No. 2 and 3, which will require the frontage adjacent to
the light rail station be treated as a Primary Frontage and that the northern edge of



Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




the site be treated as a street frontage, with any build-to or setback lines being
measured from the back of any access easements located between the north side
of the future building and the light rail station.

The site is also within the 19th and Dunlap Priority Area, which calls for the
redevelopment of the areas immediately adjacent to the light rail station. The
proposed rezone and its resulting redevelopment of the site implements the
19North TOD District Plan in this regard.

6. North Mountain Redevelopment Area Plan:
The North Mountain Redevelopment Area, adopted in 2013, examined the general
vicinity of the subject site. The study calls for a myriad of efforts to advance
economic development and quality of life in the area including recommendations in
support of the redevelopment of Metrocenter Mall, the expansion of high-capacity
transit, and the creation of alternative transportation infrastructure. The proposal for
WU Code zoning will support walkability and renewed economic vitality on an
otherwise underutilized site.




Study Boundary for the North Mountain Redevelopment; Source: Planning and Development
Department




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




PROPOSAL
7. Development Plans
Development plans have not been prepared as this time. Once the subject
rezoning is approved, the City of Phoenix will release a Request for Proposal

Per recommended Stipulation No. 1, once a successful candidate has been
selected, and the preliminary site plan and elevations have been created, the
preliminary plans will be presented to the North Mountain Village Planning
Committee for review and comment prior to the approval of said plans.

It is anticipated that the proposed development will include the following elements:

Pedestrian paseo between the north building façade and light rail station,
extending to west end of the site along Dunlap Avenue;
Shaded sidewalks along 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue;
Vertical mixed use for development along the light rail and Plaza19;
Maximum height of 48 feet with an additional height bonus if affordable housing
is provided at a certain level;
Two access points to the site from Dunlap Avenue and one from 19th Avenue;
Access easement from Dunlap Avenue serving the apartment complex to the
south;
Retention of the existing bus stop on 19th Avenue, and the existing transit
station on Dunlap Avenue.

STUDIES AND POLICIES
8. Community Safety Plan (CSP) Areas:
In 2022, the City Council approved two pilot projects to address community safety
through a multidepartment, collaborative manner leveraging technology as well as
community-based resources. The Neighborhood Services, Police, Street
Transportation, and Parks and Recreation departments, along with the Office of

together to improve the safety and quality of life along 19th Avenue, 27th Avenue,
Hatcher Road, and the I-17 freeway. To support these efforts, the Planning and
Development Department promotes Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) principles to enhance neighborhood safety in these Community
Safety Plan areas. As stipulated and as required by the Walkable Urban Code, the
proposal will provide a detached sidewalk on 19th Avenue (Stipulation No. 13),
street frontages and activation adjacent to the light rail station and Plaza19
(Stipulations No. 2 through 4), and a shaded paseo.




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




9. Shade Phoenix Plan:
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix Plan.
The Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage throughout the City
to improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can address the urban heat
island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran vegetation, and prevent health
complications related to prolonged exposure to heat. The Shade Phoenix Plan
provides numerous strategies to increase shade including expanding and
maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree code enforcement, and developing
shade stipulations in rezoning cases. These items are addressed through WU
Code standards and in Stipulations No. 10.b, 13, and 17.

10. Complete Streets Guidelines:
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The Walkable Urban Code contains
design standards to implement the vision of the 19North TOD Policy Plan which is


11. Housing Phoenix Plan:
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing
with the vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased
housing option
population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000
new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a
primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposal for multifamily
residential
by 2030 and supports the plan s goals for affordable housing (Stipulation No. 5).

12. Zero Waste PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero-
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria.

13. Climate Action Plan:
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation, reduce
urban heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces.

This goal is addressed in Stipulation No. 18, which requires a minimum of two GI
techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in this development.

14. Transportation Electrification Action Plan:
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation Electrification
Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of transportation is
both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for better air quality, a
reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle operating and
maintenance costs. Businesses, governments, and the public are signaling strong
future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many automobile manufacturers
have declared plans for a transition to fully electric offerings within the coming
decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to prepare the City for a future filled
with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-mobility equity, and outlines a
roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the EV infrastructure needs of 280,000
EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the Plan to accelerate public adoption of
electric vehicles through workplace, business, and multifamily charging
infrastructure recommends a standard stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV
charging infrastructure.

This is addressed in Stipulation No. 6.d, which requires electric receptacles for the
charging of electric bicycles, and Stipulation No. 7, which requires five percent of



15. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan:
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
As stipulated, the development will provide bicycle parking per the requirements of
Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, which would require all non-
residential uses to provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space per 25 vehicle
parking spaces, with a maximum of 25 spaces. Stipulation No. 6.a requires that all




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




bicycle parking serving multifamily residential be within a secure area, while the
number of bicycle parking spaces for residential guest parking is addressed in
Stipulation No. 6.b. In addition, Stipulations 6.c and 10.e require a bicycle fix-it
station.

16. Conservation Measures for New Development: In June 2023, the Phoenix City
Council adopted the Conservation Measures for New Development policy as part
of a resolution addressing the future water consumption of new development
(Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses the future water consumption of new


Measures for New Development policy includes direction to develop standards for
consideration as stipulations for all rezoning cases that will address best practices
related to water usage in nine specific categories. This is addressed in Stipulations
No. 16 through 19, which includes the following:

Natural turf to only be utilized in required retention areas (at the bottom of
the basin, and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization) and
functional turf areas;

Minimum 25% shade for surface parking areas;

Minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements;

Participation in the Phoenix Water Efficiency Checkup Program.

17. Monarch Butterfly Pledge:
In April 2021, Mayor Kate Gallego signed the National Wildlife Federation's Mayor's
Monarch Pledge. This pledge commits the city to take action to support the
monarch butterfly population. In the United States, loss of milkweed habitat is a
major factor in the decline of the monarchs. Arizona has at least 29 species of
milkweed native to the state. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of many flowers,
but they breed only where milkweeds are found. To support the monarch butterfly
population, Stipulation No. 20 addresses the planting of milkweed shrubs, or other
native nectar plant species, on the subject site.

COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE
18. As of the writing of this report, staff has received two letters of opposition to the
request. Those in opposition cited compatibility, crime, and congestion.




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
19. The Public Transit Department requires that the existing bus pad located on
southbound 19th Avenue adjacent to the site be retained. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 9.

20. The Street Transportation Department requires that a vehicular and pedestrian
circulation plan be submitted prior to preliminary site plan review. This circulation
plan must incorporate certain aspects of the 19North Transit Oriented
Development Plan while demonstrating pedestrian safety, shade, vehicle loading,
pick-up, and drip-off, the minimization of potential conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians, and bicycle infrastructure. In addition, the Street Transportation
Department requires that vehicular access to the site be limited to two access
points on Dunlap Avenue and one access point on 19th Avenue, in addition to
requiring an access easement along the western property line. The Street
Transportation Department also requires a six-foot wide detached sidewalk with
ten-foot landscape area and a minimum of 75% shade for 19th Avenue. In addition,
street improvements will follow specified standards and will include the
replacement of broken or unserviceable concrete and paving. These are
addressed in Stipulations No. 10 through 15.

OTHER
21. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive; however, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33 feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 21.

22. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to
require the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 22.

23. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other
formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments
may be required.




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




Findings

1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Mixed Use as outlined in the companion General Plan Amendment
case (GPA-NM-1-25-6).

2. The proposal is consistent with the Neighborhood Place Type contained in the
Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework.

3. The proposed zoning will facilitate the redevelopment of an underutilized site
adjacent to the Dunlap / 19th Avenue light rail station.

Stipulations

1. The site plan and elevations shall be presented for review and comment to the
North Mountain Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval.

2. The frontage adjacent to Plaza19 and the light rail station shall be treated as a
Primary Frontage in accordance with Section 1303.A.6 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

3. The northern edge of the site, along the light rail station and Plaza19, shall be
treated as street frontage and building setbacks/build-to dimensions shall be
measured from the back of any easements (public utilities, public pedestrian
access, maintenance, etc.), as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. Development adjacent to the northeast corner of the site (Plaza19 and light rail
station) shall contain a vertical mix of land uses such as residential and non-
residential uses, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. A
minimum of 5,000 square feet of non-residential uses shall be provided and shall
not include lobby, exercise, reception areas or other similar uses intended for
exclusive use by residents.

5. The maximum building height shall not exceed 48 feet, except that the maximum
building height may be increased to 56 feet, subject to a minimum of 30% of the
dwelling units are provided as Affordable Housing, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department and Housing Department.

6. The following bicycle infrastructure shall be provided, and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at a
minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit spaces near entrances of buildings and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

c.
an area of high visibility, in close proximity to the Light Rail station, and
separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair
station shall include, but not be limited to:

i. Standard repair tools affixed to the station;

ii. A tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground;

iii. A bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely
while making adjustments to the bike.

d. Standard electrical receptacles shall be installed for a minimum of 10
percent of the required bicycle parking spaces for electric bicycle charging
capabilities.

7. A minimum of 5% EV Installed infrastructure shall be provided for the required
number of residential vehicle parking spaces, whether surface or structured, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

8. If public parking is provided, a minimum of 5% of the parking provided shall be EV
Installed.

9. The bus pad on southbound 19th Avenue south of Dunlap Avenue shall be
retained, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. A vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted to the Street
Transportation Department and the Planning and Development Department for
approval before applying for preliminary site plan review. The circulation plan shall
incorporate the Community Vision Themes, Urban Principles and Strategies
established in the 19 North Transit Oriented Development Plan and demonstrate
the following:




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




a. Routes for vehicles and pedestrians shall be designed to ensure seamless
and safe movement for pedestrians, with pedestrian safety and accessibility
taking priority.

b. A shaded, pedestrian-only paseo, providing public access and a direct
connection from the adjacent land uses through the site to the transit facility,
key internal destinations, and common open spaces.

c. Designated areas for vehicle loading, pick-up, and drop-off.

d. Proposed measures to mitigate potential conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians, both within and adjacent to the site.

e. Bicycle parking and fix-it station/s focused primarily adjacent to the public
right-of-way to promote multi-modal transportation in conjunction with secure
internal bike parking facilities for residents, employees, and guests.

11. Vehicular access points shall be restricted to a maximum of one on 19th Avenue
and a maximum of two on Dunlap Avenue.

12. A minimum 14-foot-wide vehicular access easement shall be provided for future
shared access onto Dunlap Road along the western property line to access
properties to the south and west.

13. The existing sidewalk along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a minimum 6-
foot-wide sidewalk and a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape area between back of
curb and sidewalk and shaded to a minimum of 75% tree shade coverage.

14. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to comply current ADA guidelines.

15. 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.

16. Natural turf shall only be utilized for required retention areas (at the bottom of the
basin, and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization), and functional
turf areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




17. A minimum of 25% of any surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by structures
or by minimum two-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a combination
thereof.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for stormwater
management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is not
limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc., per
the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development
Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Phoenix Water Efficiency
Checkup Program for a minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record. This stipulation shall not be applicable if the property is
owned by the City of Phoenix.




Staff Report: Z-7-25-3
May , 2025




Writer
Robert Kuhfuss
May 2, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Community Correspondence (5 pages)




From: DARLENE GEORGE
To: Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: 19Th Ave & Dunlap Zoning case # GPA-NM-1-25-3 and Z-7-25
Date: Friday, March 28, 2025 6:40:36 AM




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.

Report Suspicious



Hello Mr. Kuhfuss,
Per my understanding there is a 12.55-acre site that is going to be rezoned allowing for
143 residential units. We have an above average density of apartments in this area and
this specific property is already heavily populated.

My wishes are to not have any more houses or apartments developed in this area. It is
too congested already.



Thank-you for seriously considering my opinions,

Darlene George
602-881-1124




From: Jeff Stapleton
To: Barbara Hettinger
Cc: Kathleen T Consador; Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: RE: Proposed New Land Use at 19th Avenue and Dunlap
Date: Thursday, April 3, 2025 2:12:50 PM
Attachments: Aerial_Parcel_Map.pdf
image001.png



Hello Ms. Hettinger,

Thank you for contacting our office. The City-owned Park & Ride and adjacent shopping center
at 19th Ave. & Dunlap (Site) are being considered for future redevelopment (map attached). One
key detail concerning this zoning case [Z-7-25 | GPA-NM-1-25-3] is that there is no proposed
project associated with this case. Should the application be approved, there will not be any
imminent construction activity at the site. Any future project will be the subject of a competitive
request for proposals (RFP) process. The requirements for the RFP and a contract award will
result from future actions of the City Council. The timing of an RFP release is not known at this
time, but will likely not occur any sooner than 2026.

The Site’s existing zoning allows for future redevelopment to C-1 and C-2 standards allowing for
a variety of commercial uses, or it can be redeveloped with a multi-family residential use, which
is permitted under existing C-1 and C-2 zoning. The proposed zoning district, Walkable Urban
Code is typically used along Light Rail to allow for mixed-use development with reduced
setbacks. This specific case results from the 19 North Transit Oriented Development Policy
Plan approved by the City Council in 2021 (link). The goal of the case is to allow respondents to
the future RFP to submit proposed project designs that improve the streetscape with
landscaping, pedestrian and bike amenities and mixed-use development at the site. A vision for
the area is noted on Page 54-57 of the plan. Not noted in the plan is that some share of parking
stalls at the Site to support the Park & Ride will be retained at the site. The exact amount of
stalls is not known at this time, but likely would be somewhere between 10%-25% of the
existing parking stalls.

A requirement of the rezoning case is to document any correspondence received from those in
support, opposed, or interested in the case. I will add your inquiry and my response to the file. I
am also more than happy to answer any further questions. Feel free to call or e-mail me.

___________________________________________________________

Jeff Stapleton
Program Manager
Community and Economic Development
200 West Washington Street, 20th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: 602-534-3162
Cell: 520-270-1675
jeff.stapleton@phoenix.gov


InvestInPhoenix.com




From: Barbara Hettinger
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:00 PM
To: Jeff Stapleton
Subject: Proposed New Land Use at 19th Avenue and Dunlap
Dea r Mr. S tapleto n, I wri te to request in fo rmation regar din g th e land at 19th Aven ue and N orthe rn se cure d by the city fo r the light rail a nd its c on template d u se fo r mu lti-family dwellin gs. As you are aw are, th is w ho le area is high ly c omp ressed
ZjQcm QRYF pfptBan nerS tart




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious

ZjQcm QRYF pfptBan nerE nd




Dear Mr. Stapleton,

I write to request information regarding the land at 19th Avenue and Northern secured
by the city for the light rail and its contemplated use for multi-family dwellings. As you
are aware, this whole area is highly compressed with Section 8 housing and other
multi-family dwellings and their attending services. As you are also likely aware, higher
density housing is associated with significantly higher crime. As much as you have
decision-making responsibilities, please ensure that our area is protected from already
highly dense population spaces with many very high-need residents. It is time to
spread out high-density family dwellings to other areas that have not yet filled that
need.

I look forward to receiving more information from your office.

With respect and gratitude,

Barbara Egbert Hettinger




19th Ave
Parcel Map




ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3

Date of VPC Meeting May 21, 2025
Request From C-1, C-2, and C-2 SP
Request To WU Code T5:5
Proposal Mixed-use, multifamily residential
Location Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with an
additional stipulation
VPC Vote 14-0



VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 4 (GPA-NM-1-25-3) and Item No. 5 (Z-7-25-3) are companion cases and
were heard together.

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, presented both proposals, providing land use and zoning
information on the site and surrounding area, its proximity to the Primary and
Secondary Village Cores, and proximity to the light rail station. Mr. Kuhfuss
summarized the various policy plans applicable to the site. Mr. Kuhfuss summarized
public input received to date, reviewed each of the recommended stipulations, and
provided an overview of staff’s findings and recommendations.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Jeff Stapleton, Community and Economic Development staff, provided an additional
presentation. Mr. Stapleton stated that Mr. Kuhfuss had provided a good overview of
the project. Mr. Stapleton stated that the city had acquired the site in preparation for
the Northwest Light Rail Phase I. Mr. Stapleton stated that the existing park-and-ride
is at about 10% utilization and that the existing strip retail center is mostly vacant. Mr.
Stapleton stated that the existing zoning will allow multifamily residential uses, and
explained that because the site is underutilized, their preference is to rezone the site
in a manner that is consistent with the plans and policies previously noted. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 411
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3

Stapleton stated that the City Council authorized staff to begin the redevelopment
process in 2023. Mr. Stapleton referenced the vision as expressed in the 19North
Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan, which encourages mixed-use
development, enhancing the pedestrian realm, rights-of-way through the use of the
Walkable Urban Code. Mr. Stapleton reiterated the Housing Phoenix Plan, which
advocates increasing housing opportunities of all types including affordable,
workforce, and market. Mr. Stapleton stated that a key element of the Housing
Phoenix Plan is to incorporate HUD housing opportunities on city-owned properties.
Mr. Stapleton referenced the Metro District Oriented Communities Policy Plan and
stated that while the official boundaries of that plan are west of the site, the plan was
used for guidance as to how the site might look. Mr. Stapleton reiterated the
stipulation requiring the activation of the frontage and referenced a rendering of the
site showing Plaza19 relative to a multi-story mixed-use building with retail on the
ground floor. Mr. Stapleton referenced two massing studies that illustrated what the
site might look like, emphasizing the relationship of the light rail station to the front of
the site, with parking towards the rear of the site. Mr. Stapleton stated that the intent is
to rezone to the Walkable urban Code so that bidders can simply design to that code
and not be concerned whether the site is zoned C-1 or C-2. Mr. Stapleton stated that
if the proposed zoning is approved, the site will be much more conducive to mixed-
use development. Mr. Stapleton reiterated the maximum building height and the
incentive to increase that height by providing 30% Affordable Housing. Mr. Stapleton
stated that initially, they were seeking a maximum height of 56 feet but are amenable
to the provision for 30% Affordable Housing incentive. Mr. Stapleton stated that
having an Industrial land use designation next to light rail is not preferable and
reiterated the request for the change in land use designation as requested in the
proposed General Plan Amendment. Mr. Stapleton stated that they held a
neighborhood outreach meeting on April 8, 2025 at the Cholla Library, which was well
attended. Mr. Stapleton stated they were scheduled for the Planning Commission on
June 5, 2025 and City Council on July 2, 2025. Mr. Stapleton stated they received a
number of questions as there is not a specific project. Mr. Stapleton stated that the
Request for Proposal will likely be issued in 2026 or 2027 and explained the Request
for Proposal process. Mr. Stapleton stated that they will engage the various
community groups and the Village Planning Committee, explaining to those groups
the minimum qualifications, and the desired project, prior to going to a City Council
subcommittee.

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo stated that in all the time that he has served
on the Village Planning Committee and Planning Commission, he has never seen a
group ask for input on a project like this and asked for clarification. Mr. Stapleton
stated they utilize this process in the Central City and Encanto Villages. Mr. Stapleton
stated that they typically get a number of questions relating the project vision and
reiterated their intent for a residential use with neighborhood retail and reiterated the
requirement for not less than 5,000 square feet of retail. Mr. Stapleton stated that the
Park-and Ride will be right-sized based on current demand and Valley Metro’s
recommendation. Mr. Stapleton stated they expect to retain about 10% of its current
capacity.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 412
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3

Committee Member Patrick Edwards asked about the number of parking spaces
currently on the site. Mr. Stapleton stated there were currently 417 spaces. Mr.
Stapleton stated that should the terms of the RFP be approved by the City Council,
the RFP will be prepared and issued, which will lead to development proposals being
submitted by various developers. Mr. Stapleton stated that each proposal will be
evaluated and scored by an evaluation panel, which will lead to the selection of the
winning proposer. Mr. Stapleton stated that business terms would then be negotiated,
followed by additional community input and City Council Subcommittee evaluation
and approval. Mr. Stapleton stated that the City Council would make the final decision
to move forward and a Development Agreement would be executed, which would
include provisions that implement the various stipulations of approval. Mr. Stapleton
stated that construction plans would be submitted and permits issued, which would
lead to construction activities on the site, with completion to occur sometime between
2029 or 2030.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews asked why Transect 5:5 was chosen rather than
Transect 5:6, since Transect 5:6 would allow more height, density, and affordability.
Mr. Stapleton stated that it was about achieving balance with all of the city’s policy
plans, the existing development in the area, the site’s adjacency to light rail, and
determining what is the appropriate intensity. Mr. Stapleton stated that outside of
downtown, most of the requests that he is familiar with utilize Transect 5:5 as that
transect adheres to a plan that has received community support as opposed to a
transect that would allow 80 to 100 feet in height.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna asked why the number of parking
spaces associated with the park-and-ride was not fixed at this time. Mr. Stapleton
stated that they will seek input from Valley Metro who will determine the number of
parking spaces needed, which will then be reflected in the RFP.

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo asked if the project would include mixed
income as well as mixed-use. Mr. Stapleton stated that was the case. Committee
Member Jaramillo asked for additional information stating that the stipulations only
address affordability as a bonus incentive and asked if there could be a stipulation
that required mixed income. Mr. Stapleton stated that he would expect that a firm goal
would be established through the RFP process that would establish the minimum
number of affordable and workforce units, as well as a maximum number of market
rate units. Committee Member Jaramillo asked for additional confirmation that the
RFP process would establish required percentages regarding affordability beyond the
bonus incentive contained in the stipulations. Mr. Stapleton stated that would be the
case and that they would come back to the Committee at a later date to demonstrate
that had been achieved.

Vice Chair Matthews asked how many dwelling units they expected to generate. Mr.
Stapleton stated that they estimate approximately 300 units if constructed to a height
of 48 feet; more if higher.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 413
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3


Committee Member Steve Pamperin asked for clarification regarding the
percentage of covered parking and the number of EV parking spaces. Mr. Stapleton
stated that the intent was to set the initial benchmark as was the case with setting the
minimum amount of retail at 5,000 square feet. Mr. Stapleton stated that since the city
owns the site, the city can require more if the conditions warrant and that setting the
minimum number of EV spaces at 5% makes it easier for the developer to scale up.
Mr. Stapleton stated that it is possible that a parking structure could be proposed and
that he has seen where the developer placed the ground floor retail towards the street
with structured parking behind, which makes it easier to build above.

Mr. Stapleton stated that the proposal is supported by the Metro District Community
Collaboration, which is the business and property owner association to the west of the
site. Mr. Stapleton also stated they have been working with Quik Trip to obtain a letter
of support.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Vice Chair Matthews stated that he was excited to see this project come in and was
happy to see something other than another gas station. Vice Chair Matthews stated
that since the city owns the site, the city should be more aggressive in trying to
achieve more affordable units, Vice Chair Matthews stated that 10% of 300 units is
only 30 units as opposed to the project being allowed to achieve a height of 56 feet
with all being affordable housing but also expressed concerns with the market being
able to support that type of development. Vice Chair Matthews also expressed
concerns over development agreements, stating they can be challenging. Vice Chair
Matthews stated there was an opportunity to enhance Plaza19 and the retention area
in response to CPTED, and that the city should encourage integration of the front of
the building with the light rail.

Committee Member Jaramillo stated that he would like the Village Planning
Committee to be a part of the RFP process in order to ensure that the number of
affordable units is appropriate as opposed to the matter being left up to potential
bonuses.

Committee Member Elizabeth Pérez-Pawloski asked if the Committee can amend
the stipulation regarding the amount of affordable housing units. Mr. Kuhfuss stated
that the Committee could amend that or any stipulation and reminded the Committee
that the numbers contained in that stipulation were the result of conversations
between the city’s Planning, Housing, and Community and Economic Development
Departments. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski asked how a change to a
stipulation could be achieved. Mr. Kuhfuss explained that whoever makes the motion
could include in that motion a proposed change to the applicable stipulations, which
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 414
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3

would then be included in the second and ultimate vote. Committee Member
Pamperin asked what the stipulation was regarding affordability for the Metrocenter
project. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not have that information committed to
memory. Mr. Stapleton stated that he was the city’s project manager for The
Metropolitan and that there are no stipulations or affordability benchmarks except for
one circumstance where the developer applied for the Government Property Lease
Excise Tax program which involved an in-lieu payment to the Affordable Housing
Trust Fund but that was when the developer was looking at providing 3,000 units and
has since pivoted away from that goal. Committee Member Jaramillo stated that
Concord Wilshire is working in good faith towards providing affordable housing at
Metrocenter but there were no stipulations that require them to do so. Committee
Member Jaramillo stated that now is a good opportunity to add stipulations regarding
affordability. Chair Stephanie Fogelson expressed concerns regarding the red tape
at the state level when it comes to affordable housing. Vice Chair Matthews stated
that the tax credit process is available but there is no requirement to do so. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that typically if a project were to be 100% affordable housing, the
project could pencil out, but at a lesser amount, incentives are needed to achieve
economies of scale. Vice Chair Matthews asked Mr. Stapleton if he, as the applicant,
would be opposed to the Committee stipulating to 20% affordable housing, and how
the Committee could be involved in the RFP process. Mr. Stapleton stated that
outside of Arizona, where there is an exclusionary zoning regime, the benchmark is
typically 20%. Mr. Stapleton further stated that they could come back to the Village
with the terms of the RFP as well as the site plan. Committee Member Jaramillo
stated that his preference would be to participate in the RFP process rather than
attach an arbitrary number. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski stated there was an
opportunity to make a statement rather than accept a minimal deal. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that this site is not the only park-and-ride site that will be
redeveloped, and that this development could set the tone for future projects. Vice
Chair Matthews stated that he would like to be aggressive when possible and that this
site literally includes a light rail station making this a prime opportunity. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that he is considerate of the city not pushing itself out of the market
but is also willing to let the site remain vacant until the right project comes along. Vice
Chair Matthews referenced a project at the northwest corner of 7th Avenue and
McDowell Road where more could have been achieved. Vice Chair Matthews
reiterated that building something now for the sake of doing so could result in a
missed opportunity. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he did not want to be part of the
Development Agreement process but would like to set the expectations. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that as a city-owned site, it is conceivable that the site could develop
at 50% or 100% affordable housing but needed to know what that threshold is.
Committee Member Pamperin stated that the area should include a mix of housing
opportunities.

Vice Chair Matthews asked Mr. Stapleton if he would be amenable to a stipulation
requiring a minimum of 20% affordable housing. Mr. Stapleton stated that would be
acceptable. Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that she is reticent to go
against staff’s recommendation and asked what the appropriate percentage is. Mr.
Stapleton stated that 20% would be consistent with other states that have an
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 415
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3

exclusionary zoning regime and that financing a larger percentage becomes more
difficult. Mr. Stapleton stated that 20% also leaves the door open for a mixed income
development.

MOTION:
Vice Chair Joshua Matthews motioned to recommend approval of Z-7-25-5 per the
staff recommendation, with an additional stipulation requiring not less than 20%
affordable housing. Committee Member Steve Pamperin seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo offered a friendly amendment to require the
VPC to participate in the RFP process at the appropriate time. Vice Chair Matthews
stated that he was not comfortable with that amendment since it is not clear what that
process would look like and that the language of that stipulation may not be
enforceable. Committee Member Jaramillo clarified that the VPC’s participation would
occur prior to the RFP being issued and the developer being involved in the process.
Vice Chair Matthews stated that he would prefer that the Committee provide direction
to engage the VPC in the RFP process. Committee Member Patrick Edwards asked
if there was a precedent. Mr. Stapleton stated there is no requirement in the city code
but that the Community and Economic Development Department considers it to be
best practice to present the terms of the RFP to the VPC and community groups. Mr.
Stapleton stated that it would be likely that they would be back before the Committee
within the next 18 months. Vice Chair Matthews stated that based on this discussion,
he would let his original motion stand.

VOTE:
14-0, motion to recommend approval of Z-7-25-3 per the staff recommendation with
an additional stipulation passes with Committee Members Alauria, Barraza, Carmona,
Edwards, Garbarino, Harris, Hepperle, Jaramillo, Larson, Pamperin, Pérez-Pawloski,
Sommacampagna, Matthews, and Fogelson in favor and none opposed.

VPC RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS

1. The site plan and elevations shall be presented for review and comment to the
North Mountain Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan
approval.

2. The frontage adjacent to Plaza19 and the light rail station shall be treated as a
Primary Frontage in accordance with Section 1303.A.6 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

3. The northern edge of the site, along the light rail station and Plaza19, shall be
treated as street frontage and building setbacks/build-to dimensions shall be
measured from the back of any easements (public utilities, public pedestrian
access, maintenance, etc.), as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 416
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3


4. Development adjacent to the northeast corner of the site (Plaza19 and light rail
station) shall contain a vertical mix of land uses such as residential and non-
residential uses, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. A
minimum of 5,000 square feet of non-residential uses shall be provided and
shall not include lobby, exercise, reception areas or other similar uses intended
for exclusive use by residents.

5. A MINIMUM OF 20% OF THE DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

56. The maximum building height shall not exceed 48 feet, except that the maximum
building height may be increased to 56 feet, subject to a minimum of 30% of the
dwelling units are provided as Affordable Housing, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department and Housing Department.

67. The following bicycle infrastructure shall be provided, and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at a
minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit spaces near entrances of buildings and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained in
an area of high visibility, in close proximity to the Light Rail station, and
separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The
repair station shall include, but not be limited to:

i. Standard repair tools affixed to the station;

ii. A tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the
ground;

iii. A bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely
while making adjustments to the bike.

d. Standard electrical receptacles shall be installed for a minimum of 10
percent of the required bicycle parking spaces for electric bicycle
charging capabilities.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 417
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3

78. A minimum of 5% EV Installed infrastructure shall be provided for the required
number of residential vehicle parking spaces, whether surface or structured, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

89. If public parking is provided, a minimum of 5% of the parking provided shall be
EV Installed.

910. The bus pad on southbound 19th Avenue south of Dunlap Avenue shall be
retained, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

1011. A vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted to the Street
Transportation Department and the Planning and Development Department for
approval before applying for preliminary site plan review. The circulation plan
shall incorporate the Community Vision Themes, Urban Principles and
Strategies established in the 19 North Transit Oriented Development Plan and
demonstrate the following:

a. Routes for vehicles and pedestrians shall be designed to ensure seamless
and safe movement for pedestrians, with pedestrian safety and accessibility
taking priority.

b. A shaded, pedestrian-only paseo, providing public access and a direct
connection from the adjacent land uses through the site to the transit facility,
key internal destinations, and common open spaces.

c. Designated areas for vehicle loading, pick-up, and drop-off.

d. Proposed measures to mitigate potential conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians, both within and adjacent to the site.

e. Bicycle parking and fix-it station/s focused primarily adjacent to the public
right-of-way to promote multi-modal transportation in conjunction with
secure internal bike parking facilities for residents, employees, and guests.

1112. Vehicular access points shall be restricted to a maximum of one on 19th
Avenue and a maximum of two on Dunlap Avenue.

1213. A minimum 14-foot-wide vehicular access easement shall be provided for future
shared access onto Dunlap Road along the western property line to access
properties to the south and west.

1314. The existing sidewalk along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a minimum 6-
foot-wide sidewalk and a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape area between back
of curb and sidewalk and shaded to a minimum of 75% tree shade coverage.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 418
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3

1415. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and
upgrade all off-site improvements to comply current ADA guidelines.

1516. 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.

1617. Natural turf shall only be utilized for required retention areas (at the bottom of
the basin, and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization), and
functional turf areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

1718. A minimum of 25% of any surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by
structures or by minimum two-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a
combination thereof.

1819. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

1920. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Phoenix Water Efficiency
Checkup Program for a minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

2021. 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.

2122. 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.

2223. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record. This stipulation shall not be applicable if the property
is owned by the City of Phoenix.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 419
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-7-25-3

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Stipulation No. 5, regarding a minimum of 20% of the units be
provided as affordable housing, be deleted. Arizona Revised Statutes 9-461.16 prohibits
the creation of a requirement that has the effect of establishing the sale or lease price of
a housing unit as a condition of approval. It does not prohibit implementing an incentive
or density bonus for the purposes of supplying moderate or lower cost housing, which is
already addressed in Stipulation No. 6.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 420
ATTACHMENT D




To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: June 4, 2025

From: Racelle Escolar, AICP
Principal Planner

Subject: ITEM NO. 6 (Z-7-25-3) – SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AVENUE
AND DUNLAP AVENUE

Rezoning Case No. Z-7-25-3 is a request to rezone a 12.37-acre site located at the
southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue from C-1 (Neighborhood Retail),
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), and C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit)
to WU Code T5:5 (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5) to allow mixed use, multifamily
residential.

The North Mountain Village Planning Committee (VPC) heard this request on May 21,
2025, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation. The additional stipulation, Stipulation No. 5, requires the proposed
development to provide a minimum of 20 percent of the units as affordable housing.
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 5 be deleted. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 9-
461.16 prohibits the creation of a requirement that has the effect of establishing the sale
or lease price of a housing unit as a condition of approval. The A.R.S. does not prohibit
implementing an incentive or density bonus for the purpose of supplying moderate or
lower cost housing, which is already addressed in the stipulations.

Staff recommends approval, per the modified stipulations in bold font below:

1. The site plan and elevations shall be presented for review and comment to
the North Mountain Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan
approval.

2. The frontage adjacent to Plaza19 and the light rail station shall be treated as
a Primary Frontage in accordance with Section 1303.A.6 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.

3. The northern edge of the site, along the light rail station and Plaza19, shall be
treated as street frontage and building setbacks/build-to dimensions shall be
measured from the back of any easements (public utilities, public pedestrian
access, maintenance, etc.), as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. Development adjacent to the northeast corner of the site (Plaza19 and light
rail station) shall contain a vertical mix of land uses such as residential and
non-residential uses, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. A minimum of 5,000 square feet of non-residential uses shall be
Z-7-25-3
Planning Commission Backup Memo
June 4, 2025

provided and shall not include lobby, exercise, reception areas or other
similar uses intended for exclusive use by residents.

5. A MINIMUM OF 20% OF THE DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

5. 6. The maximum building height shall not exceed 48 feet, except that the
5. maximum building height may be increased to 56 feet, subject to a minimum
of 30% of the dwelling units are provided as Affordable Housing, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department and Housing Department.

6. 7. The following bicycle infrastructure shall be provided, and as approved
6. by the Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided
at a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit spaces near entrances of
buildings and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained in an area of high visibility, in close proximity to the Light
Rail station, and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where
applicable. The repair station shall include, but not be limited to:

i. Standard repair tools affixed to the station;

ii. A tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the
ground;

iii. A bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin
freely while making adjustments to the bike.

d. Standard electrical receptacles shall be installed for a minimum of 10
percent of the required bicycle parking spaces for electric bicycle
charging capabilities.

7. 8. A minimum of 5% EV Installed infrastructure shall be provided for the
7. required number of residential vehicle parking spaces, whether surface or
structured, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:

8. 9. If public parking is provided, a minimum of 5% of the parking provided shall
8. be EV Installed.

Z-7-25-3
Planning Commission Backup Memo
June 4, 2025

9. The bus pad on southbound 19th Avenue south of Dunlap Avenue shall be
10. retained, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9.

10. A vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted to the Street
11. Transportation Department and the Planning and Development Department
10. for approval before applying for preliminary site plan review. The circulation
plan shall incorporate the Community Vision Themes, Urban Principles and
Strategies established in the 19 North Transit Oriented Development Plan
and demonstrate the following:

a. Routes for vehicles and pedestrians shall be designed to ensure
seamless and safe movement for pedestrians, with pedestrian safety and
accessibility taking priority.

b. A shaded, pedestrian-only paseo, providing public access and a direct
connection from the adjacent land uses through the site to the transit
facility, key internal destinations, and common open spaces.

c. Designated areas for vehicle loading, pick-up, and drop-off.

d. Proposed measures to mitigate potential conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians, both within and adjacent to the site.

e. Bicycle parking and fix-it station/s focused primarily adjacent to the public
right-of-way to promote multi-modal transportation in conjunction with
secure internal bike parking facilities for residents, employees, and
guests.

11. Vehicular access points shall be restricted to a maximum of one on 19th
12. Avenue and a maximum of two on Dunlap Avenue.
11.

12. A minimum 14-foot-wide vehicular access easement shall be provided for
13. future shared access onto Dunlap Road along the western property line to
12. access properties to the south and west.

13. The existing sidewalk along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a minimum
14. 6-foot-wide sidewalk and a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape area between
13. back of curb and sidewalk and shaded to a minimum of 75% tree shade
coverage.

14. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any
15. broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets
14. and upgrade all off-site improvements to comply current ADA guidelines.



Z-7-25-3
Planning Commission Backup Memo
June 4, 2025

15. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with
16. paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
15. landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning
and Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

16. Natural turf shall only be utilized for required retention areas (at the bottom of
17. the basin, and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization), and
16. functional turf areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

17. A minimum of 25% of any surface parking areas shall be shaded, as
18. approved by the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be
17. achieved by structures or by minimum two-inch caliper, drought tolerant,
shade trees, or a combination thereof.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
19. stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by
18. the Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments.
This includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative
Stormwater Management.

19. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that
20. demonstrates a commitment to participate in the Phoenix Water Efficiency
19. Checkup Program for a minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

20. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native
21. nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved
20. by the Planning and Development Department.

21. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction,
22. the developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a
21. 33-foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time
for the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

22. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
23. 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
22. County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the
rezoning application file for record. This stipulation shall not be applicable if
the property is owned by the City of Phoenix.




ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 5, 2025

ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 3
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-7-25-3 (Companion Case GPA-NM-1-25-3)
From: C-1, C-2, and C-2 SP
To: Walkable Urban Code T5:5
Acreage: 12.37
Location: Southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue
Proposal: Mixed use, multifamily residential
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Owner: City of Phoenix, Public Transit Department
Representative: Jeff Stapleton, City of Phoenix, Community and Economic Development
Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated June 4, 2025.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
North Mountain 5/21/2025 Approval, per the staff recommendation, with an additional
stipulation. Vote: 14-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated June 4, 2025.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve Z-7-25-3, per the staff
memo dated June 4, 2025.

Maker: Matthews
Second: Jaramillo
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No

Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation
of Mixed Use as outlined in the companion General Plan Amendment case (GPA-NM-1-
25-6).

2. The proposal is consistent with the Neighborhood Place Type contained in the Transit
Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework.

3. The proposed zoning will facilitate the redevelopment of an underutilized site adjacent to
the Dunlap / 19th Avenue light rail station.




Stipulations:

1. The site plan and elevations shall be presented for review and comment to the
North Mountain Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval.

2. The frontage adjacent to Plaza19 and the light rail station shall be treated as a
Primary Frontage in accordance with Section 1303.A.6 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

3. The northern edge of the site, along the light rail station and Plaza19, shall be
treated as street frontage and building setbacks/build-to dimensions shall be
measured from the back of any easements (public utilities, public pedestrian access,
maintenance, etc.), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. Development adjacent to the northeast corner of the site (Plaza19 and light rail
station) shall contain a vertical mix of land uses such as residential and non-
residential uses, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. A
minimum of 5,000 square feet of non-residential uses shall be provided and shall not
include lobby, exercise, reception areas or other similar uses intended for exclusive
use by residents.

5. A MINIMUM OF 20% OF THE DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

5. 6. The maximum building height shall not exceed 48 feet, except that the maximum
5. building height may be increased to 56 feet, subject to a minimum of 30% of the
dwelling units are provided as Affordable Housing, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department and Housing Department.

6. 7. The following bicycle infrastructure shall be provided, and as approved by the
6. Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at a
minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit spaces near entrances of buildings and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained in an
area of high visibility, in close proximity to the Light Rail station, and
separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair
station shall include, but not be limited to:

i. Standard repair tools affixed to the station;

ii. A tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground;

iii. A bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely
while making adjustments to the bike.


d. Standard electrical receptacles shall be installed for a minimum of 10 percent
of the required bicycle parking spaces for electric bicycle charging
capabilities.

7. 8. A minimum of 5% EV Installed infrastructure shall be provided for the required
7. number of residential vehicle parking spaces, whether surface or structured, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

8. 9. If public parking is provided, a minimum of 5% of the parking provided shall be EV
8. Installed.

9. The bus pad on southbound 19th Avenue south of Dunlap Avenue shall be retained,
10. as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9.

10. A vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan shall be submitted to the Street
11. Transportation Department and the Planning and Development Department for
10. approval before applying for preliminary site plan review. The circulation plan shall
incorporate the Community Vision Themes, Urban Principles and Strategies
established in the 19 North Transit Oriented Development Plan and demonstrate the
following:

a. Routes for vehicles and pedestrians shall be designed to ensure seamless and
safe movement for pedestrians, with pedestrian safety and accessibility taking
priority.

b. A shaded, pedestrian-only paseo, providing public access and a direct
connection from the adjacent land uses through the site to the transit facility,
key internal destinations, and common open spaces.

c. Designated areas for vehicle loading, pick-up, and drop-off.

d. Proposed measures to mitigate potential conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians, both within and adjacent to the site.

e. Bicycle parking and fix-it station/s focused primarily adjacent to the public right-
of-way to promote multi-modal transportation in conjunction with secure internal
bike parking facilities for residents, employees, and guests.

11. Vehicular access points shall be restricted to a maximum of one on 19th Avenue
12. and a maximum of two on Dunlap Avenue.
11.

12. A minimum 14-foot-wide vehicular access easement shall be provided for future
13. shared access onto Dunlap Road along the western property line to access
12. properties to the south and west.

13. The existing sidewalk along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a minimum 6-foot-
14. wide sidewalk and a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape area between back of curb
13. and sidewalk and shaded to a minimum of 75% tree shade coverage.




14. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any broken
15. or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, and curb ramps on all streets and upgrade all
14. off-site improvements to comply current ADA guidelines.

15. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving,
16. curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and
15. other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

16. Natural turf shall only be utilized for required retention areas (at the bottom of the
17. basin, and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization), and functional
16. turf areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

17. A minimum of 25% of any surface parking areas shall be shaded, as approved by
18. the Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by structures
17. or by minimum two-inch caliper, drought tolerant, shade trees, or a combination
thereof.

18. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for stormwater
19. management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the Planning and
18. Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is not
limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc., per
the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development
Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

19. Prior to final site plan approval, documentation shall be provided that demonstrates
20. a commitment to participate in the Phoenix Water Efficiency Checkup Program for a
19. minimum of 10 years, or as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

20. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs shall be a milkweed or other native nectar
21. species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by the
20. Planning and Development Department.

21. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
22. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
21. radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

22. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
23. waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
22. Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record. This stipulation shall not be applicable if the property is owned by the

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




ATTACHMENT F







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-4-25-1 -
Approximately 330 Feet South of the Southeast Corner of 33rd Avenue and
Dynamite Road (Ordinance G-7403) - District 1

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-4-25-1
and rezone the site from S-1 (Farm or Ranch Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family
Residence District) to allow single-family residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: R1-10
Acreage: 10.07 acres
Proposal: Single-family residential

Owner: 2PHDS LLC c/o Andrei Polukhtin
Applicant/Representative: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this
item on May 20, 2025 for recommendation; however, there was no quorum.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on June 5, 2025, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by opposition on June 12,
2025. A public hearing is required.

Location
Approximately 330 feet south of the southeast corner of 33rd Avenue and Dynamite
Road
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 28011 N. 33rd Avenue

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


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-4-25-1) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R1-10 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 10.07-acre site located approximately 330

feet south of the southeast corner of 33rd Avenue and Dynamite Boulevard in a portion

of Section 35, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in

Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to “R1-10”

(Single-Family Residence District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,




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 limited to 30 lots.

2. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

3. All buildings within the development shall be limited to 1-story not to exceed 20
feet in height.

4. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on both sides of all streets within the subdivision, including the
east side of 33rd Avenue, planted to the following standards, and 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 to
provide a minimum of 75% shade.

b. A mixture of drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative
groundcovers, with a maximum mature height of two feet, evenly
distributed throughout the landscape area to achieve a minimum of 50%
live coverage.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

5. Dedicate and construct a minimum 30 feet of right-of-way for the east side of
33rd Avenue.

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. 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.




8. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.

9. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

10. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized throughout the
subdivision including the front, side, and rear yards of individual residential lots.
This restriction shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision.

11. Natural turf shall not be utilized on individual single-family lots (including the
side and rear yards). This restriction shall be included in the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions for the subdivision.

12. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

13. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.

14. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.

15. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Deer Valley Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.

16. 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.




17. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.


SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the

decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of July, 2025.




________________________________
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)




EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-4-25-1

THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA
AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;

EXCEPT THE WEST 30.00 FEET THEREOF.




ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025

Deer Valley Village Planning Committee May 20, 2025
Meeting Date:

Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 5, 2025
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence)
(10.07 acres)
Request To: R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District)
(10.07 acres)
Proposed Use: Single-family residential
Location: Approximately 330 feet south of the
southeast corner of 33rd Avenue and
Dynamite Boulevard
Owner: 2PHDS, LLC, c/o Andrei Polukhtin
Applicant/Representative: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo P.A.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Street Map Classification 33rd Avenue Local 30-foot east half street
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: New development and
expansion or redevelopment of existing development in or near residential areas
should be compatible with existing uses and consistent with adopted plans.

The requested R1-10 zoning district is compatible with existing residential developments
and zoning districts in the area and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new development or
redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




General Plan Conformity
neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent
negative impact(s) on the residential properties.

The proposal, as stipulated, is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
residential area by providing density and height limitations.

BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

The proposal, as stipulated, will be required to provide shade along the sidewalks within
the community and along the adjacent public street. This will help to provide shade for
pedestrians in and around the community and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by
covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the vicinity.



Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives

Shade Phoenix Plan: See Background Item No. 6.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles: See Background Item No. 7.

Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 8.

Housing Phoenix Plan: See Background Item No. 9.

Monarch Butterfly Pledge: Background Item No. 10.

Conservation Measures for New Development: Background Item No. 11.

Phoenix Climate Action Plan: Background Item No. 12.



Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant S-1
North Single-family residential S-1




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




South Single-family residential S-1
Single-family residential and
East vacant (proposed single- S-1, R1-10
family residential)
West Single-family residential S-1

R1-10 – Single-Family Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the proposed
Standards R1-10 Requirements
site plan
Gross Acreage - 10.07 acres
Maximum Number of Units 35; 45 with bonus 30 units (Met)
Maximum Density 3.5; 4.5 with bonus 2.98 dwelling units per acre (Met)
Minimum Lot Width 45 feet 66 to 80 feet (Met)
Minimum Lot Depth None, except 110 feet 140 feet (Met)
adjacent to freeway or
arterial
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet 1 story and 20 feet (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 percent, plus an Not specified
additional 10 percent for
ADU and/or attached
shade structures
Minimum Parking 2 spaces per dwelling Not specified
unit
60 spaces required
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS
Perimeter Streets 15 feet (in addition to 15 feet (Met)
(33rd Avenue) landscape setback)
Perimeter Property Lines Rear Rear
(Side and Rear) 1-story building: 15 feet 1-story building: 15 feet (Met)
2-story building: 20 feet
Side Side
1-story building: 10 feet 1-story building: 10 feet (Met)
2-story building: 15 feet
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Common landscaped 15 feet average, 10 feet 15 feet (Met)
setback adjacent to minimum
perimeter streets




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




R1-10 – Single-Family Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the proposed
Standards R1-10 Requirements
site plan
Minimum Common Area 5 percent of gross site 7.1 percent (Met)
area

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 10.07 acres located approximately 330 feet south of the
southwest corner of 33rd Avenue and Dynamite Boulevard from S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) for single-family residential.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
2. The subject site and the surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west
are designated as Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre on the General Plan
Land Use Map. The proposed R1-10 zoning district is consistent with the General
Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.




General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development Department




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
3. To the north, south, west and east are single-family residences zoned S-1. To the
east is a vacant lot proposed for single-family residential zoned R1-10.




Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and Development Department

PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The proposal is for a 30-lot single-family residential community. The conceptual site
plan, attached as an exhibit, depicts two east/west streets and one north/south
street. The northernmost east/west street will extend through the adjacent property
to the east, which will be developed at the same time as the subject site. Lots within
the subject site will range from 66 to 88 feet in width. The site will also be buffered
along the 33rd Avenue frontage and the eastern edge of the site by landscaping of
not less than 15 feet in width. An open space area will be located in the southeast
corner of the property, also serving as a drainage basin. Staff recommends




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




Stipulation No. 1, to limit the site to a maximum of 30 lots, to ensure the site
develops as proposed and to remain compatible with the surrounding area.




Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Grading & Drainage Engineers, Inc.

5. Elevations
The applicant intially provided a set of elevation drawings that were generally typical
of single-family detached development in the area. The applicant has since chosen
to work within a more contemporary elevation palette and has not developed a set
of elevations for inclusion with this report. Staff recommends Stipulation Nos. 2 and
3 to ensure that the elevations contain enhanced design features, and that the
maximum height of the buildings be no more that one story, 20 feet, to be
compatible with the surrounding area.

STUDIES AND POLICIES
6. Shade Phoenix Plan
In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Shade Phoenix Plan. The
Shade Phoenix Plan prioritizes increasing shade coverage throughout the City to
improve health and quality of life. Investing in shade can address the urban heat
island effect, clean the air, preserve Sonoran vegetation, and prevent health



Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




complications related to prolonged exposure to heat. The Shade Phoenix Plan
provides numerous strategies to increase shade including expanding and
maintaining existing shade, strengthening tree code enforcement, and developing
shade stipulations in rezoning cases. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 4, which
requires shaded detached sidewalks within the development and along 33rd
Avenue.

7. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. As stipulated, the proposed
development would enhance the streetscape for pedestrians by providing detached
sidewalks along 33rd Avenue and within the development. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 4.

8. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. The City of Phoenix offers
recycling services for single-family residential properties.

9. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with
a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing
options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid
population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000
new housing units, according to the Housing Phoenix Plan. Current shortages of
housing supply relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are
increasing. The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or
creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety of housing types
that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in
a more sustainable fashion.

10. Monarch Butterfly Pledge
In April 2021, Mayor Kate Gallego signed the National Wildlife Federation's Mayor's
Monarch Pledge. This pledge commits the city to take action to support the monarch
butterfly population. In the United States, loss of milkweed habitat is a major factor
in the decline of the monarchs. Arizona has at least 29 species of milkweed native
to the state. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of many flowers, but they breed only




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




where milkweeds are found. To support the monarch butterfly population, Stipulation
No. 7 addresses the planting of milkweed shrubs, or other native nectar plant
species, on the subject site.

11. Conservation Measures for New Development
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses the
future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s Five Core
Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to “Build the Sustainable Desert
City”. The Conservation Measures for New Development policy includes direction to
develop standards for consideration as stipulations for all rezoning cases that will
address best practices related to water usage in nine specific categories. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8 through 14.

12. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation, reduce urban
heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces. Recommended
Stipulation No. 12 require at least two green stormwater infrastructure elements.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. As of the writing of this report, staff received four letters in opposition to this request.
The letters cited issues with the proposed density, traffic, and impacts to property
values in the area.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Street Transportation Department requires the developer to provide detached
sidewalks along 33rd Avenue and construct streets within and adjacent to the
development, including compliance with ADA accessibility standards. These
comments are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4 through 6.




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




15. The Aviation Department requires that the property owner record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence,
and operational characteristics of Deer Valley Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 15.

OTHER
16. The site has not been identified as being archeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City
of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 16.

17. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution in
Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required by
the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to require
the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 17.

18. The developer shall provide a hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of offsite storm water
flows, when present, at the time of preliminary site plan submittal for verification of
required infrastructure in regard to lot space and density.

19. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.

Findings

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation and
with surrounding zoning districts.

2. The proposal, as stipulated, is appropriate at this location and is consistent with the
scale and character of the surrounding area.

3. The proposal will increase the housing supply and the diversity of housing types
available in the area consistent with the Housing Phoenix Plan and the Phoenix
General Plan.




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




Stipulations

1. The development shall be limited to 30 lots.

2. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

3. All buildings within the development shall be limited to 1-story not to exceed 20
feet in height.

4. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on both sides of all streets within the subdivision, including the
east side of 33rd Avenue, planted to the following standards, and 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 to
provide a minimum of 75% shade.

b. A mixture of drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative
groundcovers, with a maximum mature height of two feet, evenly
distributed throughout the landscape area to achieve a minimum of 50%
live coverage.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

5. Dedicate and construct a minimum 30 feet of right-of-way for the east side of
33rd Avenue.

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.




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




7. 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.

8. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.

9. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

10. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized throughout the
subdivision including the front, side, and rear yards of individual residential lots.
This restriction shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision.

11. Natural turf shall not be utilized on individual single-family lots (including the
side and rear yards). This restriction shall be included in the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions for the subdivision.

12. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.

13. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.

14. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.

15. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Deer Valley Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to




Staff Report: Z-4-25-1
May 12, 2025




the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.

16. 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.

17. 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.

Writer
Robert Kuhfuss
May 12, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped January 9, 2025
Community Correspondence (5 pages)




E R-3A
AV
LN
AR
NO ROBERTA DR PCD *
SI
K
M
CA
Z-109-97
ROBERTA DR

LUCIA DR
DR
IA R-3A
32ND LN 30TH DR
UC LUCIA DR
L
R1-6 * PCD *
R1-10 * S-1
34TH Z-23-97
Z-23-97 Z-109-97
R1-8*
AVE RL 33R T
IST
AT SILVER SAGE LN Z-23-97 31S SILVER SAGE LN
TV DD
SER LN

33RD L
DE R
SILVER SAGE LN

N
DYNAMITE BLVD R-3A *
Z-42-20
RED FOX RD §
¨
¦

VE
30TH A
R1-10 *

31ST AVE 29TH AVE
Z-16-22 R1-6*
Z-25-97

VE
R-3A*
30TH A Z-51-20

36TH AVE
BLUE SKY DR


33RD AVE 30TH LN
S-1
OBERLIN WAY 35TH AVE ANX 149 OBERLIN WAY R-3*
Z-9-99
Z-SP-59-96
Z-45-18




MCARTHUR RD


R1-8 *
RE-35 * 30TH LN Z-53-20
Z-147-05 STRAIGHT ARROW LN




¯ Miles
JOMAX RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
Z-4-25-1
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
DEER VALLEY VILLAGE UNION HILLS DR
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 BELL RD
GREENWAY RD 51ST AVE
43RD AVE
35TH AVE
I - 17
19TH AVE
7TH AVE
7TH ST
16TH ST

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
FROM: S-1 ( 10.07 ac.)
DATE:
3/26/2025
APPLICATION NO: Z-4-25-1 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
R1-10 ( 10.07 ac.)
10.07 Acres QS 50-21 P-6
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 10 N/A
R1-10 35 45
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 450
S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-4-25.aprx
E R-3A
AV
LN
AR
NO ROBERTA DR PCD *
SI
K
M
CA
Z-109-97
ROBERTA DR

LUCIA DR
DR
IA R-3A
32ND LN 30TH DR
UC LUCIA DR
L
R1-6 * PCD *
R1-10 * S-1
34TH Z-23-97
Z-23-97 Z-109-97
R1-8*
AVE RL 33R T
IST
AT SILVER SAGE LN Z-23-97 31S SILVER SAGE LN
TV DD
SER LN

33RD L
DE R
SILVER SAGE LN

N
DYNAMITE BLVD R-3A *
Z-42-20
RED FOX RD §
¨
¦

VE
30TH A
R1-10 *

31ST AVE 29TH AVE
Z-16-22 R1-6*
Z-25-97

VE
R-3A*
30TH A Z-51-20

36TH AVE
BLUE SKY DR


33RD AVE 30TH LN
S-1
OBERLIN WAY 35TH AVE ANX 149 OBERLIN WAY R-3*
Z-9-99
Z-SP-59-96
Z-45-18




MCARTHUR RD


R1-8 *
RE-35 * 30TH LN Z-53-20
Z-147-05 STRAIGHT ARROW LN




¯ Miles
JOMAX RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
Z-4-25-1
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
DEER VALLEY VILLAGE UNION HILLS DR
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 BELL RD
GREENWAY RD 51ST AVE
43RD AVE
35TH AVE
I - 17
19TH AVE
7TH AVE
7TH ST
16TH ST

REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
FROM: S-1 ( 10.07 ac.)
DATE:
3/26/2025
APPLICATION NO: Z-4-25-1 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
R1-10 ( 10.07 ac.)
10.07 Acres QS 50-21 P-6
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 10 N/A
R1-10 35 45
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 451
S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2025\Z-4-25.aprx
S




REZONING SITE PLAN FOR
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SUNSET RIDGE 2
APN 205-02-005A SITE
THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH,
RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE     PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA; REZONE TWO S-1 PARCELS TO R1-10;
EXCEPT THE WEST 30.00 FEET THEREOF. CREATE 30 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION;
 ALL HOMES TO BE SINGLE STORY;
APN 205-02-001A THIS IS PHASE 2 OF SUNSET RIDGE TO THE EAST.
THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
S

OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST OWNER / DEVELOPER
QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, MORNING VISTA HOMES LLC
RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE 14301 N 87TH ST, STE 204
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
ANDREI POLUKHTIN
MORNINGVISTAHOMES@GMAIL.COM VICINITY MAP
315.729.3279
S



30'
R/W
GRADING & DRAINAGE 6612 WEST GOLD MOUNTAIN PASS, PHOENIX AZ 85083

APN 205-02-031G APN 205-02-031H APN 205-02-031F
APN 205-02-003A APN 205-02-017C APN 205-02-017B APN 205-02-017A UNSUBDIVIDED UNSUBDIVIDED UNSUBDIVIDED
UNSUBDIVIDED UNSUBDIVIDED UNSUBDIVIDED UNSUBDIVIDED S-1 ZONING S-1 ZONING S-1 ZONING
S-1 ZONING S-1 ZONING S-1 ZONING S-1 ZONING info@gdengineers.com
N89°39'27"E 631.57'

15' BSL

30'
R/W
15' BSL
623-581-3371
165.75'
APN 205-02-015G
TRACT A
UNSUBDIVIDED 0A
ENGINEERS, INC
1 2 3 4 5 6 140.82' 7 8 140.77' 9 -02
-02 OT 8
S-1 ZONING 140.96'
5A 205 GE, L
-00 APN T RID NING 5' SIDEWALK
-02 ED 10' BSL SE ZO
205 ID
AVENUE
30' R/W APN SUBDIV ING SUN R1-10
30' R/W 8' UN
S -1 ZONsq. ft.
PUE ,52 res 25' R/W 8' PUE 8' PUE 25' R/W
5' S/W
N00°40'15"W
209 .81 ac
33' B/C TO B/C
10' BSL
70' 68' 68' 68' 68' 70.5'
15'
APN 205-02-015E
UNSUBDIVIDED N89°38'15"E PUBLIC
PUBLIC N89°38'15"E 660.94'
S-1 ZONING 631.60' STREET
STREET 31.60'


75' 75' 80' 15' l)
25' 80' 75' (Ci vi
AVENUE
31ST er
S
10' BSL 
NO -1
.
5' S/W nal E
8' PUE fessio n  ed 11
5' S/W
0B S
10' BSL Si gn
N A, U.S.A.
8' PUE 25' R/W -02 ACT C 25' R/W RT
25' R/W 165.75' -02
 1-24
te
Pro I FICATE gine
25' R/W ZO
205 E, TR CE Da I
APN RIDG NING d AR
EXPIRES 6/30/2025
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Regist
SET 0 ZO ere
140.73' SUN R1-1
W

APN 205-02-015F
UNSUBDIVIDED
20.5'
141.09'
S-1 ZONING 16' F/C
N00°40'15"W


TRACT B TRACT E 30'
R/W
PUBLIC
APN 205-02-010B APN 205-02-010A
01A STREET
02-0 D UNSUBDIVIDED UNSUBDIVIDED
S00°41'19"E
205- E
APN UBDIVID S-1 ZONING S-1 ZONING
G
UNS ZONIN ft.
S-1 . 10' BSL FEMA FIRM
35 5 sq s
PROJECT DATA
209, acre TRACT F
PER MAP 04013C1260M, DATED 9/18/2020,
33RD 140.58' 4.81
THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN FLOOD ZONE X. APNS: 205-02-005A AND -001A
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
140.58' 140.58' PROPOSED ZONING: R1-10
10' BSL DRAINAGE STATEMENT TOTAL NET AREA: 418,882 SF = 9.62 ACRES
NO OFF-SITE FLOWS EFFECT THIS LOT. TOTAL GROSS AREA: 438,808 SF = 10.07 ACRES
LOT IS NOT WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN OR SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD
N00°38'11"W

8' AREA PER FEMA. DENSITY CALCULATIONS
APN 205-02-027 PUE
25' R/W 8' PUE 5' S/W
RETENTION PROVIDED FOR 100-YEAR, 2-HOUR STORM
33' B/C TO B/C
UNSUBDIVIDED 10' BSL
R1-10 ZONING ALLOWS 3.5 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE;
S-1 ZONING EXTREME STORM OUTFALLS THE SITE AT THE SOUTHWEST (30 LOTS / 10.07 GROSS ACRES = 2.98 DU/ACRE)
66' 66' 66' 66' 72.3' 15'
20' 71.5' CORNER OF TRACT C AT AN ELEVATION OF 1492.0±
APN 205-02-010D
LOT COVERAGE
RETENTION CALCULATIONS 50% MAX (PRIMARY STRUCTURE)
PUBLIC UNSUBDIVIDED
STREET S-1 ZONING RETENTION CALCULATED FOR THE NET LOT AREA OF 418,882 SF. + 10% FOR ADU AND SHADE STRUCTURES
THE ON-SITE RUNOFF GENERATED FROM A 100-YR 2-HR STORM
EVENT EQUALS:
OPEN SPACE (TRACT D)
20' 70' 66' 66' 66' 66' 66' 211.28'
BBQ
331.16' 5% MIN. REQUIRED: (0.05)(418,882) = 20,944 SF
10' BSL C(P/12)A, WHERE P (2.56") IS FROM NOAA ATLAS 14
1493 7.1% PROVIDED: (29,730 / 418,882)
SUNSET RIDGE 2
GAZEBO AND C = 0.65 BASED ON R1-10 ZONING
5' S/W 1491
1490 ALL RUNOFF DRAINS INTO TRACT C / RETENTION BASIN. BUILDING SETBACKS
REZONING SITE PLAN FOR

25' R/W 8' PUE PERIMETER
10' BSL TRACT D VOLUME REQUIRED = (P/12)CA = (2.56/12)(0.65)(418,882 SF) FRONT: 10'
30 29 28 27 26 25 COMMON AREA REAR: 15' (ALL SINGLE STORY)
A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT


140.89' RETENTION BASIN = 58,085 CF REQUIRED STREET SIDE: 30' TOTAL

141.47'
S BASIN B1 (HWE =1493.0): V = (1/2)(16,027 SF + 24,089 SF )(3.0')
TRACT C
= 60,174 CF PROVIDED INTERIOR
30' R/W FRONT: 10'
8' DRY-UP WITH PERCOLATION AND DRYWELLS 11/11/24
REAR: BY BUILDING CODE
PUE
15' BSL STREET SIDE: 10'
1493 TYPICAL INTERNAL STREET SECTION SIDES: BY BUILDING CODE
LOOKING WEST JOB NO.
P/L C/L P/L
25' 25' 8'
APN 205-02-011A
APN 205-02-028C
8' R/W R/W PUE 1.5' S/W
23-1974
UNSUBDIVIDED PUE 33'
UNSUBDIVIDED 5' 5' 5' 5' EASEMENT
S-1 ZONING APN 205-02-029E APN 205-02-029D APN 205-02-029C 2% 2%
S-1 ZONING
UNSUBDIVIDED UNSUBDIVIDED UNSUBDIVIDED
S-1 ZONING S-1 ZONING S-1 ZONING SHEET
LANDSCAPE 16'
FOC 5' CONCRETE
4" ROLL SIDEWALK
3" A/C ON 6"ABC
CURB (1.5% SLOPE)
LOCAL STREET
8" W
8" S KIVA: 24-1191 SDEV: 2400390
9' 9' PAPP: 2405043 Q.S.: 50-21   
ZONING CASE:




From: Sean Ceschia
To: Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: Case # Z-4-25 - Rezoning on 33rd Ave to R1-10
Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 11:55:15 AM




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.

Report Suspicious     ‌


We Strongly oppose to rezoning these lots, it will increase traffic in our area which
streets are barley allow to one car through. It will create more noise, pollution and more
important it will lower our property values dramatically. We like to keep the are S1\R43.

Other general issue, we are experiencing water shortage and droughts and building more
homes does not help us! Are we all soon going to drink our piss!

Sean Ceschia




From: Curt Arthur
To: Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: Rezoning case # Z-4-25
Date: Friday, April 11, 2025 7:57:52 AM




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.

Report Suspicious     ‌


I believe that this property is a five acre parcel. Current zoning allows only four single family
homes to be built on such properly. We are not opposed to progress if in accordance with in
place zoning,but to allow multiple smaller lots is totally unacceptable. Our area was rather
unique when most of us built here and we expect it to remain as such, not a mixture of acre +
and tight residential properties. Please come out and see for yourself what we have, and don't
allow a hungry developer to ruin our final dreams. Thank you for your consideration. Curtis
Arthur. 27526 n. 33rd. Ave. 623-703-9742.




From: dustin h
To: Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: Case number Z-4_25
Date: Sunday, April 13, 2025 5:54:25 PM




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.

Report Suspicious     ‌


Hello Robert

My name is Dustin Hamilton, my address is 3115 W Oberlin Way. I live pretty close to
the area that is in question for rezoning.

I am opposed to rezoning this area.

We have recently lost a rezoning to a developer in the area of 31st Avenue and
Pinnacle Vista. The city granted rezoning to 53 small homes in that corner lot.
Now we have another developer trying to cram more houses into our area. This has
caused a significant increase to the amount of traffic in our general area and another
30 homes will just add to what was once a quiet area.

Oberlin Way between 31st Ave and 33rd Ave is pretty much a one lane road. the high
school students and drop off parents have found a way to circumvent the traffic jam at
the Sandra Day Oconner by coming down the frontage road, and going through our
neighborhood to get to 33rd Ave. This then takes them the back way to the high
school, and they don't have to wait in the long morning lines. I can tell you that many
people do not stop at the stop sign on Oberlin Way and 31st Ave and will travel 50 -
60 miles an hour down Oberlin to 33rd, turn right and head to high school. It can be
dangerous on Oberlin in the morning.

Mixed in with speeding and reckless driving is pedestrian traffic and sometimes
equestrian riders. All of this happens every morning because of the school traffic.
Now, this builder is proposing to build 30 more homes. This will result in about 60-75
more vehicles driving in this area. This will further increase the hazardous conditions
that take place on Oberlin Way. People trying to haul ass to school, people walking
their dogs on the street, horseback riders, and now a bunch more people trying to get
out to the frontage road and get to work. All taking place on a one lane street.

If the city insists allowing this builder to flood our area with this much more traffic,
Oberlin Way will have to be addressed. Not only Oberlin Way, but 33rd Ave also. It is
the same conditions on 33rd Ave between Dynamite Rd and Pinnacle Vista. Small
tight road with high-speed traffic, 33rd Ave gets speeding traffic all day long from the
resident who live North of Dynamite.


In my opinion, the only way to add this many more cars and congestion is to widen
Oberlin Way between 31st and 33rd Ave, also widen 33rd Ave between Dynamite
and Pinnacle Vista. The builder at the corner of Pinnacle Vista and 31st Ave widened
the road, installed sidewalks and upgraded the infrastructure under the street. This
did help with the congestion and made it safer.

The infrastructure under these roads has got to be 50-60 years old and in need of
upgrading. It doesn't make sense to pave over all the old infrastructure. I know for
sure the sewer is out of date, and I would have questions about it handling that much
more waste from 30 more homes. The builder would have to bring these 2 streets and
all the infrastructure under the streets up to usable conditions.

Also, I would question the water volume capacity to provide acceptable water usage
to 30 more homes.

These are real issues that affect all of us that have been living in this area for a long
time. Larger homes are usually built on these S1 zoning sites, and we pay a premium
in property taxes for the luxury of a large lot. These builders always want to build a
bunch of smaller homes in an area that is clearly defined by larger lots. As a resident,
who has fought many of these, I believe that the existing residents are left to just deal
with effects of something like taking over our area. The builder suffers no
consequences and walks away with a bag full of money. I also feel like the cities
position is like, great more tax revenue. When in reality almost the same revenues
can be achieved by building larger homes on larger lots. I would be more agreeable if
the builder were to reduce the amount of house they are proposing to build

The builder also starts out by introducing themselves through their attorney. I feel like
this is an intimidation tactic done by the builder to persuade us existing residents not
to stand up to them. I have shared my views in this matter with my attorney, and we
are prepared to file suit against this builder for creating hazardous conditions, if this is
approved, without addressing the road issues.

I will be attending the meeting and look forward to hearing what other residents have
to say

Thanks


Dustin Hamilton 602 973 0999 phxd31@yahoo.com




From: Diane Rohrer
To: Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: Rezoning case: Z-4-25
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2025 9:58:38 AM




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.

Report Suspicious     ‌


Good morning Mr. Kuhfuss.

I would like to provide my thoughts and input on the rezoning case listed above.

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed subdivision of land in our community,
which would allow for the development of smaller lots and an increase in housing density.

While I understand the need for thoughtful growth and housing availability, I have serious
concerns about the potential impacts of this particular development. Subdividing lots to allow
for more housing may strain existing infrastructure, increase traffic congestion, and change the
character of our neighborhood, which many of us value for its open space, quiet, and natural
environment. This neighborhood has already had a huge influx of new homes added and it has
not fared well. The traffic has increased exponentially already; people speed through the
streets with little thought to the children that live around here and ride their bikes through the
neighborhoods. The additional traffic trying to get kids to school (both the K-8 and the high
school) has been terrible and oftentimes results in accidents. (You can probably even check
that statement. There are accidents down by the high school or by 35th Ave and Happy Valley
all the time. There was an accident just today on Pocono Way on the way to the high school.

Additionally, increasing housing density without comprehensive planning can place added
pressure on public services like schools, emergency services, and utilities. I believe growth
should be managed in a way that preserves the quality of life for current residents while still
accommodating future needs.

I urge you to consider the long-term consequences of this subdivision and to support a more
balanced approach that respects the integrity of our existing community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Diane Rohrer




ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-4-25-1


Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposal Single-family residential
Location Approximately 330 feet south of the southeast corner
of 33rd Avenue and Dynamite Boulevard
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 458
ATTACHMENT D

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 5, 2025

ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-4-25-1
From: S-1
To: R1-10
Acreage: 10.07
Location: Approximately 330 feet south of the southeast corner of 33rd Avenue and
Dynamite Boulevard
Proposal: Single-family residential
Applicant: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
Owner: 2PHDS, LLC, c/o Andrei Polukhtin
Representative: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Deer Valley 5/20/2025 No quorum.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation.

Motion Discussion:

Chairperson Busching asked staff if it was typical for Deer Valley to not have a quorum.

Ms. Racelle Escolar responded that while she did not have the figures on the frequency with
which they have quorum, it does happen occasionally that the committee does not have
quorum.

Commissioner Read asked staff a question regarding the concerns of the public as they relate
to street improvements along Oberlin Way, whether there were any plans by the city to improve
the street.

Ms. Escolar responded that it did appear that the street was not yet built out. As part of this
project, the applicant would improve the right-of-way directly in front of the property and then
likely taper the improvements north towards Dynamite Road and south towards Oberlin Way.

Commissioner Gorraiz asked for clarification that the street improvements required of this
project would only be required along 33rd Avenue, and not along either Dynamite Road or
Oberlin Way.

Ms. Escolar responded that it was nor required as part of the rezoning.




Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to approve Z-4-25-1, per the staff
recommendation.


Maker: Gorraiz
Second: Matthews
Vote: 8-1 (Chairperson Busching)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation and with
surrounding zoning districts.

2. The proposal, as stipulated, is appropriate at this location and is consistent with the
scale and character of the surrounding area.

3. The proposal will increase the housing supply and the diversity of housing types
available in the area consistent with the Housing Phoenix Plan and the Phoenix
General Plan.

Stipulations:

1. The development shall be limited to 30 lots.

2. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and textural
changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored textured
concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. All buildings within the development shall be limited to 1-story not to exceed 20 feet in
height.

4. Minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalks separated by minimum 5-foot-wide landscape
strips located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be constructed on both sides
of all streets within the subdivision, including the east side of 33rd Avenue, planted to
the following standards, and 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 to provide a
minimum of 75% shade.

b. A mixture of drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers,
with a maximum mature height of two feet, evenly distributed throughout the
landscape area to achieve a minimum of 50% live coverage.

Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a pedestrian
environment.



5. Dedicate and construct a minimum 30 feet of right-of-way for the east side of 33rd
Avenue.

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. 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.

8. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that demonstrates
participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense certification
program, or an equivalent program, as approved by the Planning and Development and
Water Services departments.

9. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted that
demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to certificate of
occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-Water-
Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized throughout the subdivision including
the front, side, and rear yards of individual residential lots. This restriction shall be
included in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the subdivision.

11. Natural turf shall not be utilized on individual single-family lots (including the side and
rear yards). This restriction shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions for the subdivision.

12. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for stormwater
management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is not limited
to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater
Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development Details for
Alternative Stormwater Management.

13. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency Program
shall be incorporated into the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the
subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.

14. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square feet in
size.

15. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of Deer Valley Airport to future owners or tenants of the property. The
form and content of such documents shall be according to the templates and
instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

16. 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.

17. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application file
for record.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




ATTACHMENT E

From: Melissa Miller
To: Robert H Kuhfuss
Cc: voteannobrien@gmail.com
Subject: Case No. Z-4-25
Date: Sunday, May 18, 2025 6:38:56 PM




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.

Report Suspicious     ‌


To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Melissa Miller. I live at 3004 W. White Feather Lane in Norterra Pointe. I feel like
it is so redundant to ask us for another development. In 2018: Z86-17 on Pinnacle Vista and
31st Avenue, we voted AGAINST the new neighborhood that was planned (I wrote a letter for
that meeting as well). The Planning Commission agreed with us and said that they couldn't
build. Then, a couple years later, they built it anyway. (!)

There are SO MANY apartments going in on the east side of I-17, this HAS to be enough for
the growth that is expected. There is also the 303 Expansion Project which should bring
plenty of homes. I really don't think that 20 more homes are going to make a difference. It is
all about money and greed.

Plus, MANY students on the East side of I-17 open enroll into Sandra Day O'Connor. Those
people all drive though our neighborhood to get to school so that they can avoid the Happy
Valley traffic. The only roads we have to use back here are the frontage road (which already
had traffic increased due to the 2 new neighborhoods at Dixileta and the I-17), which people
treat like the freeway, Pinnacle Vista and 33rd Avenue.

There are many reasons why residents do not want this:

1) Property Values
2) Increased Traffic: Already out of control
3) Impact on schools and other local resources
4) Changes to the neighborhood's asthetic
5) HORSE PROPERTY: Many people who live here own horses who are scared by cars.

A list of all the housing developments near us New Home Developments Near Me - Bing Maps
[bing.com]



Bing Maps [bing.com]
Map multiple locations, get transit/walking/driving directions,
view live traffic conditions, plan trips, view satellite, aerial and
street side imagery. Do more with Bing Maps.

www.bing.com [bing.com]




This is plenty! I just feel like in a world where everyone's basically lying to us (government,
doctors, etc.), please don't go forward without our consent (again).

Melissa Miller
602.762.5991




From: Connor Delaney
To: Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: Rezoning: CASE No. Z-4-25
Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 7:16:41 PM




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.

Report Suspicious     ‌


Hello Robert, I hope this email finds you well.
I have been informed of the recent rezoning issue for Sunset Ridge and feel strongly about the
matter.
As of right now, this community is seeing an overwhelming influx of people as multiple
locations have been turned into housing developments or apartments. Many other places in
Northern Phoenix are experiencing the same issues and contentions.
The main concern I have for the project is the fact that this practice is unstable. Producing
more homes in a bottleneck location such as Sunset Ridge is going to produce many more
problems that we have already faced with other new housing developments. With only 2 ways
in and out of this entire section of Northern Phoenix (Pocono Way and the 1-17), it can not
hold more people without producing underlying issues.
Another problem with the production of this new housing development is the already plentiful
market. As mentioned in the opposition website, hundreds of homes are up for sale in this
area. So, realistically, more homes is not going to be the solution to any issues. Producing
more overpriced homes in an already unrealistic market is problematic for people beyond this
community and stretches into entirely new subject.
I hope you can take my account on the Sunset Ridge issue and oppose the movement with this
community. Thank you.
- Connor




From: Michael Costa
To: Robert H Kuhfuss
Subject: Rezoning of Case# Z-4-25-1
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 9:02:16 AM




CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.

Report Suspicious     ‌


June 2, 2025


Dear Mr. Kuhfuss.

I am writing to express my objection to the rezoning of Case# Z-4-25-1 as currently written. I
would accept this if the rezoning called for only 10 houses, not 30. I believe this might be R35
zoning. Anything more than that is just contractor greed.

Your "findings" are flawed. Have you physically been to this lot? The surrounding area does
not consist of similar zoning. Sure, if you go out far enough you can always find zoning that is
similar. The surrounding and adjacent zoning is S1/R43.

The R6, R8, and R10 zoning you are calling consistent is on the outskirts of the overall area.
What is being proposed is R8 zoning in the middle of the area in question.

I don't travel through that area often which is why I have never seen a rezoning sign posted.
And when I do travel in that direction it is always at night. I only learned of this recently when
signs were placed along Dynamite Blvd. When I first moved into the neighborhood (north of
Dynamite Blvd) many years ago and was driving along 33rd Ave after it connected to 35th
Ave I commented to my wife at how dark and narrow the street was.

Many people and children walk their dogs, ride their bikes, and horses along this stretch of
road. Much of this happens after dark when the sun is not blazing down. My wife and I felt the
street needed to be widened but knew that would not happen until somone got run over by a
car and killed. I have almost hit someone twice. Now is your chance.

The primary way people will travel into that rezoning location will be to exit Dixileta, come
south down the frontage road, turn west onto Dynamite, and then south on to this very dark,
narrow 33rd Ave road.

Again, rezoning to R35 (10 lots) is acceptable and 33rd Ave MUST be widened with sidewalk
and bike lane to accommodate safe passage for pedestrians and commuters.

As far as city planning goes, I'm sure you are aware of the 19,000+ homes to be built in the 10
square miles just north of the CAP canal and South of AZ-303. There is also another proposed
massive community to be built just north of that as well. You don't need 30 houses jammed in


the middle of this unique desert sanctuary to fulfill the needs of the growing city. This only
"fills" the pocket of a greedy builder. In fact, only having 10 homes built on this proposed area
is exactly what should be done here. It is consistent with and preserves the existing landscape,
as well as current homeowner property and land values.

Anything more is contractor greed and should not upset the current ecosystem and livelihood
of those who chose to build their homes in this rare, unique area within the city limits. There is
plenty of land further north to build the favela style neighborhoods to meet growing city
needs. This location is NOT the place for what is being proposed. Serious reconsideration
MUST happen. The lawyers are getting paid regardless of outcome. This is your chance to do
what's right. How would you view this if your home and family lived there?

Please respond so I know this was received and read.

Thank you
Dr. Michael Costa




ATTACHMENT F







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 18, 2025) - Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption
- General Plan Amendment GPA-2-25-Y - Data Centers (Resolution 22316) -
Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following
item to consider the Planning Commission recommendation and the related
resolution if approved. This request is to amend the General Plan to incorporate
policy guidance on data centers. This is a companion case to Z-TA-2-25-Y and
should be heard first, followed by Z-TA-2-25-Y.

Summary
Application: GPA-2-25-Y
1. The proposal will act as the policy guidance for data centers which supports the
Zoning Ordinance text amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y for regulations related to data
centers.
2. The proposal will guide data center development away from cores, centers, and
corridors, where mixed-use, walkable communities are envisioned and will guide
data centers to blend with the surrounding environment while limiting negative
impacts to existing communities.
3. The proposal is consistent with and relates to other adopted policies in the
General Plan, such as the Blueprint for a More Connected Phoenix, including
Cores, Centers, and Corridors, Village Cores, Employment Corridors, and Tech
Corridors; Create a Network of Vibrant Cores, Centers, and Corridors; and Build
the Most Sustainable Desert City, including Water Sensitive Planning, Green
Building, Energy Infrastructure, and Community Shade.

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of GPA-2-25-Y (Attachment B).
VPC Action: Fourteen Village Planning Committees considered the request. Seven
VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; three VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; two VPCs
recommended denial; two VPCs recommended denial, with direction and one VPC


did not have quorum, as reflected in Attachment C.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5, 2025 and
recommended approval, per the memo from the Planning and Development
Department Deputy Director dated June 5, 2025, by a vote of 9-0.

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





ATTACHMENT A

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




RESOLUTION _____

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL




AF
PLAN TO INCORPORATE DESIGN AND LOCATION CRITERIA FOR
DATA CENTERS, APPLICATION GPA-2-25-Y.
____________


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as follows:




T
SECTION 1. That the General Plan be amended to incorporate design and location criteria

for data centers as follows:

DATA CENTERS

WITH CONTINUAL ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY, SUCH AS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND THE



R
DIGITAL “CLOUD”, THERE HAS BEEN A GROWING DEMAND TO CONSTRUCT DATA CENTERS IN ORDER TO
SUPPORT THE DIGITAL WORLD. DATA CENTERS HOUSE A LARGE COLLECTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL
EQUIPMENT DESIGNED TO STORE, PROCESS, AND MANAGE VAST AMOUNTS OF DIGITAL INFORMATION.
ALTHOUGH DATA CENTERS ARE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY THAT MANY
COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS NOW RELY ON, THEY ALSO COME WITH POTENTIAL CHALLENGES,



D
INCLUDING A LOSS OF LAND FOR JOBS AND HOUSING, NOISE POLLUTION, SIGNIFICANT ENERGY DEMAND,
INACTIVE FRONTAGES ALONG PUBLIC STREETS, AND CONFLICTS WITH THE CITY’S APPROACH OF
MAXIMIZING TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS WITH WALKABLE COMMUNITIES. MEASURES SHOULD BE
TAKEN TO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT ARE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND TO ADDRESS THE
NOISE, ENERGY, AND DESIGN ISSUES THAT THEY COME WITH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------




LOCATION CRITERIA POLICY

1. LOCATE AWAY FROM IDENTIFIED CORES, CENTERS, AND CORRIDORS WHERE HIGHER-
INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED FOR MIXED-USE, WALKABLE COMMUNITIES.
2. LOCATE IN IDENTIFIED REDEVELOPMENT AREAS WHERE INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED.

DESIGN POLICY

1. PROVIDE ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACKS WITH A GREATER DENSITY OF TREES AND
SHRUBS.
2. PROVIDE DETACHED SIDEWALKS WITH PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES AND SHADE.
3. PROVIDE ART IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.




AF
4. UTILIZE DARK SKY LIGHTING.
5. MINIMIZE NOISE POLLUTION TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL THROUGH USE OF LARGE
SETBACKS, STRUCTURAL SCREENING ELEMENTS, ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATED
STRUCTURES, AND/OR LANDSCAPING.
6. PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITH
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT INCLUDES A VARIATION IN COLORS,




T
MATERIALS, ARTICULATION, FENESTRATION, AND BREAKING OF MASSING, RATHER
THAN A CONCRETE BOX THAT HAS A NEGATIVE VISUAL APPEARANCE TO THE
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY POLICY

1. PROVIDE AN AGREEMENT FROM THE LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY TO ENSURE THAT THERE
IS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY IN THE POWER GRID TO SUPPLY THE DATA CENTER WITH ITS


R REQUIRED ENERGY DEMAND.
2. ENCOURAGE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF DATA CENTER BUILDINGS.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of




D
July 2025.




ATTEST:
MAYOR




City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:



Acting City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:


_______________________ City Manager
PL:amt:____v1 (CM __) (Item _) 4/7/21




AF
T
R
D
ATTACHMENT B




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
May 1, 2025

Application: GPA-2-25-Y

Applicant: City of Phoenix Planning Commission

Representative: City of Phoenix Planning and Development
Department

Location: Citywide

Request: Minor General Plan Amendment to develop policy
guidance on data centers

Planning Commission June 5, 2025
Hearing Date:

Staff Recommendation: Approval

FINDINGS:

1) The proposal will act as the policy guidance for data centers which supports the
Zoning Ordinance text amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y for regulations related to data
centers.

2) The proposal will guide data center development away from cores, centers, and
corridors, where mixed-use, walkable communities are envisioned and will guide
data centers to blend with the surrounding environment while limiting negative
impacts to existing communities.

3) The proposal is consistent with and relates to other adopted policies in the
General Plan, such as the Blueprint for a More Connected Phoenix, including
Cores, Centers, and Corridors, Village Cores, Employment Corridors, and Tech
Corridors; Create a Network of Vibrant Cores, Centers, and Corridors; and Build
the Most Sustainable Desert City, including Water Sensitive Planning, Green
Building, Energy Infrastructure, and Community Shade.




Staff Analysis
GPA-2-25-Y
Page 2

BACKGROUND

In 2024, the Mayor and City Council directed City staff to create new policy guidance
and zoning regulations related to data centers, in response to the increased frequency
and development of these types of facilities. Data centers house a large collection of
technological equipment designed to store, process, and manage vast amounts of
digital information. One major concern with data centers is that their energy demand is
expected to increase significantly, in large part due to Artificial Intelligence. Another
major concern is the scale at which these types of facilities are built and how they can
negatively affect the surrounding community they are built in. This General Plan
Amendment would add a section in the 2025 General Plan to provide policy guidance
for data centers addressing the major concerns they pose to the community and to the
city.

Staff researched other cities in the nation that have adopted ordinances related to data
centers for best practices and looked at ways Phoenix could enhance those ordinances.
Text Amendment Case No. Z-TA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
add a definition for data centers, clarify which zoning districts they are permitted in, and
add performance standards, development standards, and design guidelines specific to
data centers. This General Plan Amendment would act as the adopted policy guidance
for the Text Amendment, and future rezoning requests where data centers are
proposed.

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

CREATE A NETWORK OF VIBRANT CORES, CENTERS AND CORRIDORS

• TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES.

Data centers are very large in scale and do not provide the type of scale and mix
of uses desired for transit-oriented communities. The proposal will guide data
centers to be located away from high-capacity transit stations, where mixed-use,
walkable communities are envisioned for transit-oriented communities. This will
protect transit-oriented communities from this type of large-scale development
that is incompatible with the vision for transit-oriented communities.

BUILD THE MOST SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY

• GREEN BUILDING; GOAL: Establish Phoenix as a leader in green and
sustainable building through the use of green-sustainable building
techniques in private and public development.

The proposal will adopt energy and sustainability policy specifically for data
centers, encourage that they are designed utilizing green construction codes to
maximize energy efficiency.



Staff Analysis
GPA-2-25-Y
Page 3


CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of GPA-2-25-Y. The proposed General Plan policy
language will act as the adopted policy guidance for data center development. The
companion text amendment case, Z-TA-2-25-Y, will build on this policy guidance and
create zoning regulations related to data centers.

Writer
Adrian Zambrano
May 1, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibit
A. Proposed Language (2 pages)




Staff Analysis
GPA-2-25-Y
Page 4

Exhibit A

Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:


DATA CENTERS
WITH CONTINUAL ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY, SUCH AS ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND THE DIGITAL “CLOUD”, THERE HAS BEEN A GROWING
DEMAND TO CONSTRUCT DATA CENTERS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE DIGITAL
WORLD. DATA CENTERS HOUSE A LARGE COLLECTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL
EQUIPMENT DESIGNED TO STORE, PROCESS, AND MANAGE VAST AMOUNTS
OF DIGITAL INFORMATION. ALTHOUGH DATA CENTERS ARE INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY THAT MANY COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
NOW RELY ON, THEY ALSO COME WITH POTENTIAL CHALLENGES, INCLUDING
A LOSS OF LAND FOR JOBS AND HOUSING, NOISE POLLUTION, SIGNIFICANT
ENERGY DEMAND, INACTIVE FRONTAGES ALONG PUBLIC STREETS, AND
CONFLICTS WITH THE CITY’S APPROACH OF MAXIMIZING TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENTS WITH WALKABLE COMMUNITIES. MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN
TO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT ARE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND
TO ADDRESS THE NOISE, ENERGY, AND DESIGN ISSUES THAT THEY COME
WITH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION CRITERIA POLICY DESIGN POLICY
1. LOCATE AWAY FROM 1. PROVIDE ENHANCED
IDENTIFIED CORES, LANDSCAPE SETBACKS WITH
CENTERS, AND CORRIDORS A GREATER DENSITY OF
WHERE HIGHER-INTENSITY TREES AND SHRUBS.
DEVELOPMENT IS 2. PROVIDE DETACHED
ENCOURAGED FOR MIXED- SIDEWALKS WITH
USE, WALKABLE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES AND
COMMUNITIES. SHADE.
2. LOCATE IN IDENTIFIED 3. PROVIDE ART IN PRIVATE
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS DEVELOPMENT.
WHERE INFRASTRUCTURE 4. UTILIZE DARK SKY LIGHTING.
INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED. 5. MINIMIZE NOISE POLLUTION
TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL
THROUGH USE OF LARGE
SETBACKS, STRUCTURAL
SCREENING ELEMENTS,
ARCHITECTURALLY



Staff Analysis
GPA-2-25-Y
Page 5

INTEGRATED STRUCTURES, ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY
AND/OR LANDSCAPING. POLICY
6. PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST
1. PROVIDE A WILL-SERVE
TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
LETTER FROM THE LOCAL
AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY WITH
UTILITY COMPANY TO
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL
ENSURE THAT THERE IS
DESIGN THAT INCLUDES A
SUFFICIENT CAPACITY IN THE
VARIATION IN COLORS,
POWER GRID TO SUPPLY THE
MATERIALS, ARTICULATION,
DATA CENTER WITH ITS
FENESTRATION, AND
REQUIRED ENERGY DEMAND.
BREAKING OF MASSING,
2. ENCOURAGE USE OF THE
RATHER THAN A CONCRETE
PHOENIX GREEN
BOX THAT HAS A NEGATIVE
CONSTRUCTION CODE TO
VISUAL APPEARANCE TO THE
MAXIMIZE ENERGY
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
EFFICIENCY OF DATA CENTER
BUILDINGS.




ATTACHMENT C
GPA-2-25-Y: Amendment to the General Plan to incorporate
design and location criteria for data centers
Village Planning Committee Summary Results

Recommendation
Village Recommendation Vote
Date
Ahwatukee
5/19/25 Denial 10-0
Foothills
Alhambra 5/20/25 Approval 11-0
Denial with direction to:
• Revise the noise
requirement to an
objective decibel level to
be verified by the City.
• Allow for an additional 90-
day review period to
include a review of
Camelback
6/3/25 ordinances from other 17-0
East
municipalities, including
Chandler.
• Add separation
requirements for data
centers from other data
centers and from
residential uses.

Central City 5/12/25 Approval 6-3-1

Deer Valley 5/20/25 No quorum -
Approval, with direction to
ensure the General Plan policies
Desert View 6/3/25 8-3
align with the directed
modifications of Z-TA-2-25-Y
Encanto 6/2/25 Denial 9-4-1

Estrella 5/20/25 Approval 3-1

Laveen 5/12/25 Approval 13-0
Approval, with direction to
amend the language to include
Maryvale 5/14/25 13-0
sustainable energy, solar
sources and reclaimed water
North
5/8/25 Approval 8-0
Gateway
North
5/21/25 Approval 8-4-1
Mountain

Attachment C – Page 1 of 2 482
Paradise
6/2/25 Approval 12-2
Valley
Denial, with direction to allow
Rio Vista 5/13/25 3-2
more time for stakeholder input
Approval, with direction:
• Provide buffering from
schools
• Encourage recycling of
water
9-7
• 60 days for public
comment
• Distance requirement
from Rio Salado Habitat
South Restoration area
5/13/25
Mountain

• Will serve letter required
by the time of Certificate
of Occupancy
• Projects in the permitting
process and phased
plans be allowed to
construct governed by the
current zoning regulations




Attachment C – Page 2 of 2 483
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 19, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 10-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, one in support, and one
in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers, further
providing information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Chair Gasparro asked for clarification on the noise requirement, noting that in areas
with higher ambient decibel levels, a 5% increase could be significant. Mr. Grande
replied that the proposed language is taking into account existing ambient levels. Vice
Chair Mager suggested redefining the noise requirement based on decibels.

Committee Member Fisher stated concerns about Phoenix becoming a location with
many data centers in the future, noting some issues, including that they can pull
power off the grid by having first right to power. Mr. Grande noted that the text
amendment would add additional regulations for data centers, including a requirement
for a Special Permit, which does not exist today.

Committee Member Slobodzian stated there are concerns with water usage for data
centers.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 484
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


Vice Chair Mager commented that it appears the motivation is to allow the City to
have more control over approving data centers. Committee Member Fisher stated a
concern with the number of zoning districts would permit data centers. Mr. Grande
clarified that this proposal would add a Special Permit requirement where it doesn’t
exist today, and suggested that the Committee could approve with direction for any
items of concern, including the inclusion of C-2 and C-3 zoning districts in the list.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Cepand Alizadeh with the Arizona Technology Council spoke in favor of the
proposal, but noting several concerns: a lack of clarity regarding the 5% requirement
for decibel level measurements and how emergencies are handled and that the 2-
year will serve letter from utility companies is not feasible.

Chair Gasparro stated a concern about asking for a 10-year will serve letter
requirement. Committee Member Fisher noted that it appears that the facilities
would be stating they don’t have the power to serve them.

Committee Member Fisher asked about the appeal of locating data centers in the
that these could be redevelopments. Mr. Fisher noted that in any case, they are
massive buildings. Committee Member Barua noted that they do not have a good
understanding of the number of employees that are typically at a data center. Mr.
Alizadeh commented that the tech industry is booming in Phoenix and companies
want to be here.

Henry Hardy with Rose Law Group spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
he had never seen a text amendment move this quickly through the process, that
there should be a 90-day extension in the process, that the will serve letter will result
in no more data centers locating in Phoenix, and that there are Proposition 207 issues
with the proposal.

Chair Gasparro asked if Mr. Hardy had clients that resulted in him attending this
meeting. Mr. Hardy replied that data center stakeholders have been involved. Chair
Gasparro asked for clarification on the will serve letter request. Mr. Hardy stated that
the request is for 10 years, noting that many developments are phased.

Mr. Fisher asked who is pushing this item. Mr. Hardy said he did not know.

Committee Member Blackman asked if they wanted the will serve letter requirement
removed, noting concerns about possible blackouts. Mr. Hardy replied that they want
the requirement to align with industry standards and that the will serve letters allow
the utility companies to plan for the future to ensure sufficient capacity. Ms.
Blackman followed up with a question about whether the data centers will need to
pay for the infrastructure. Mr. Hardy replied that they would.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 485
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


Committee Member Slobodzian asked what changes would be looked at if more
time is given for review. Mr. Hardy replied that they would like to review the will serve
letter requirement and issues around existing rights.

Committee Member Jain asked if data centers currently participate in demand
response. Mr. Hardy replied that he is not sure, but they do have comprehensive
independent generation systems.

Committee Member Fisher stated he was nervous about extending the timeframe
for will serve letters, adding it is not clear where all the power will come from, and
data centers do not provide a lot of jobs.

Committee Member Barua added that utility companies give discounts to data
centers.

Chair Gasparro asked if staff can look into any comments received from utility
companies.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Fisher suggested voting for a continuance in order to slow the
process down, noting that the Committee doesn’t have time to get answers to their
questions.

Chair Gasparro noted that voting for a continuance may not slow it down, as the
Planning Commission could still move it forward, and it could result in losing the
opportunity to put the Committee’s concerns on record.

Vice Chair Mager suggested the Committee put their concerns into a formal motion,
noting a possibility of approval with direction to staff. Committee Members discussed
the various options for motions. Mr. Fisher suggested a motion for denial, noting the
following items:
• Decibel clarification to industry standards;
• Confusion about ramifications of will serve letter requirement; and
• The speed of the process and not including stakeholders.

Mr. Grande noted that the Committee’s concerns would be written in the minutes for
review by the Planning Commission if the Committee recommends denial.

Committee Member Slobodzian stated that the most effective motion would be for
denial.

MOTION (GPA-2-25-Y)
Alyson Slobodzian made a motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y. Prakshal
Jain seconded the motion.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 486
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


VOTE (GPA-2-25-Y)
10-0; motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y passed; Committee Members
Barua, Blackman, Fisher, Golden, Jain, Maloney, Ostendorp, Slobodzian, Mager, and
Gasparro in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 487
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 11-0

VPC DISCUSSION

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak in opposition to these items.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the Data Center General Plan
Amendment noting the development background, review process, and the rationale
behind the proposed amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the proposed text
amendment is a companion to the General Plan Amendment and is intended to support
the regulatory framework for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City Council
had initiated creation of new policy guidance in response to the growing number of
requests for data center facilities, which possess unique characteristics not currently
addressed. Mr. Roanhorse expressed the importance of the General Plan Amendment
due to land use considerations, the need for adaptation to existing developments, and
the importance of connecting these facilities to infrastructure. Mr. Roanhorse noted that
one of the primary reasons for the amendment is that data centers are not directly
addressed in either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and previous
developments have been permitted through informal interpretations. Mr. Roanhorse
discussed the key elements of the amendment, including location criteria, design
policies, and sustainability measures. Mr. Roanhorse reviewed site placement criteria,
highlighting core areas and centers as not preferred locations, and noted various
suitability factors. Mr. Roanhorse discussed required setbacks, the integration of art
features, dark sky compliance, noise mitigation, and architectural design standards. Mr.
Roanhorse noted the energy demands associated with data centers and the importance
of incorporating energy efficiency measures. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the amendment
would offer additional detail regarding definitions, guidelines, and performance
standards.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025



QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jim DeGraffenreid asked if Data Centers would require additional
water use and if water was mainly used for cooling. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
water is a concern, however it is addressed within the sustainability component of the
text amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated based on information provided data centers
recycle water and take measures to prevent increasing water use.

Committee Member David Krietor asked if Data Centers could be developed in
existing buildings as an adaptive reuse and that it appears that there might not be many
places for Data Centers in the Alhambra Village. Mr. Roanhorse responded that it is
less likely that a data center would be developed on an existing site however in the past
there are data centers that have been established in existing buildings but typically their
sizes are limited.

Committee Member Alexander Malkoon commented the increase of Data Centers
reflects the growth of technology like artificial intelligence and the facilities house
substantial servers and equipment. Committee Member Malkoon commented that the
Text Amendment responds to the needs but asked if what is presented is appropriate to
the level of development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the preparation of the text
amendment included interaction with stakeholders and an analysis of existing data
centers and the direction of current technology development in other cities that have
widely developed data center facilities.

Committee Member DeGraffenreid commented that he is supportive of Data Centers
and the Text Amendment but does have concern that water and energy issues will not
be addressed. Mr. Roanhorse responded that water use is a concern and the text
amendment does provide sustainability details as part of the proposal.

Vice Chair Melisa Camp asked if there will be sufficient requirements in response to
mitigate increased heat temperatures. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the operation of
a data center does generate internal heat which has cooling and other mechanical
systems to maintain the temperature for the development and factors on the site such
as shading, landscaping and other features would contribute to external heat reduction
and mitigation. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the proposed design guidelines, which include
setback requirements, perimeter landscaping, and specific landscape coverage
standards. Mr. Roanhorse discussed enhancements to architectural elements, including
building frontages with the integration of art, color, texture, and orientation, along with
requirements for pedestrian amenities and sidewalks. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the
proposed timeline for both the General Plan and Text Amendments and indicated that
both items would proceed to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council
by June 2025.

Committee Member Alexander Malkoon asked the time frame for access to utility

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 489
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


service for a Data Center. Mr. Roanhorse responded that it would depend on the timing
and application of the data center submittal. Mr. Roanhorse noted that as part of the
process the applicant would have to provide the will serve letter.

Committee Member Jim DeGraffienried asked if energy use for a Data Center will
increase over the years. Mr. Roanhorse responded that typically data centers would
have sufficient energy provided as part of the utility grid they are in. Mr. Roanhorse
noted that the utilities have provided information regarding energy use for proposed
data centers.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Samantha DeMoss, representing Rose Law Group, introduced herself and stated that
Data Centers are an expanding use and reflect an important economic sector for the
Phoenix area. Ms. DeMoss stated that addressing Data Centers is very important and
will have long-term implications for growth and development. Ms. DeMoss stated there
are concerns with the current General Plan Amendment specifically that with process
review and timing and the design criteria. Ms. DeMoss stated that additional review time
would be necessary to review and address many of the incomplete details in the
General Plan Amendment as presented. Ms. DeMoss said that additional review time
would allow more stakeholder review and input. Ms. DeMoss stated that the committee
consider a 90-day period be granted to allow for more time for a thorough review and
comment.

Cepand Alizadeh, representing the Arizona Technology Council, introduced himself
and shared a personal experience to illustrate the importance of access to electronic
medical information and the critical role of Data Centers. Mr. Alizadeh explained that he
works with an organization that provides information and supports a variety of
technology industries, emphasizing its alignment with economic development efforts.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that correspondence outlining the Arizona Technology Council’s
position on the proposed text amendment had been submitted to the Mayor's Office and
members of the City Council. Mr. Alizadeh stated that data centers are an essential
component of the modern economy, noting that several facilities are either under
consideration or already under construction in different areas of the city, with more
expected in the near future. Mr. Alizadeh also pointed out that data centers vary in size
and capacity, both in terms of the volume of information housed and the operations
conducted within the facilities. Mr. Alizadeh stated that he works with a range of
businesses and organizations that develop services, maintain technology systems, and
ensure that critical information remains readily available. Mr. Alizadeh said on behalf of
the Arizona Technology Council, he expressed concerns about the proposed text
amendment, specifically regarding the process timeline and the requirements for sound
abatement. Mr. Alizadeh stated that additional time is needed to allow for a
comprehensive review and to provide informed feedback on the proposed amendment.
Mr. Alizadeh further noted that the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 490
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


appropriate sound control measures that would be consistent with the functional and
operational needs of data centers.

DISCUSSION

Vice Chair Camp asked if there has been consultation with utility companies regarding
the development of data centers. Ms. DeMoss responded that there has been some
discussion with the utility companies, however, like many other details this proposed
amendment is moving quickly and more discussion and review would be beneficial to all
parties.

Committee Member John Owens asked if there was information on existing data
centers and their locations. Committee Member Owens commented that typically data
centers and more similar uses would be aligned with freeway corridors and what would
be the best approach to have balanced locations to accommodate connection to the
infrastructure grid. Ms. DeMoss responded that there are many potential locations for
data centers but locating them in the appropriate place would consider many factors
and they are evaluating such options but more time to review the proposed General
Plan Amendment would be a good starting point to ensure all details are addressed
appropriately.

Committee Member John Owens asked what other cities in the area are developing
data centers and what issues have been presented with them. Mr. Alizadeh responded
that most adjacent cities have data centers including Tempe and Chandler. Mr. Alizadeh
stated that the city of Chandler has been responsive and on the forefront of data center
development and has ordinance and policies to accommodate them.

Committee Member Malkoon asked how the City of Chandler responded to the issue
of noise abatement with data centers in their jurisdiction. Mr. Alizadeh responded that
the City of Chandler has information in their ordinance for noise mitigation for data
centers and it is more appropriately suited to the current type of designs that are being
developed.

Committee Member Malkoon commented that he had experience in the development
of call centers and was familiar with the scope of large-scale development. Committee
Member Malkoon asked if back up power generators will be included in data centers
and how much sound is expected. Mr. Alizadeh responded that yes data centers do
include backup generators and currently they are powered by diesel fuel so there would
be some sound associated with the current data centers, but physical measures would
dramatically reduce any loud noises associated with data centers.

Committee Member Owens commented that data centers are part of the future growth
for the city and the economy and asked what measures are being taken to bring more
data centers to the area. Mr. Alizadeh responded that yes data centers are a growing
industry, and Phoenix is an ideal location for this growing industry. Mr. Alizadeh stated

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 491
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


that having a responsive ordinance and policies is necessary to accommodate data
centers and provide jobs and tax revenue for the local economies.

Committee Member Carlos Velasco commented that the Alhambra Village is land
locked however it is important to promote economic opportunities, create jobs and
promote tax benefits. Committee Member Velasco asked what type of jobs come with
data centers and is there a higher pay scale. Mr. Alizadeh responded that jobs
associated with data centers are high paying and will promote economic development.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that in addition to jobs being provided data centers will also
contribute to local economies by the services and supporting needs from local
businesses in the area.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Alexander Malkoon made a motion to recommend approval of
GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member David Krietor
seconded the motion.

VOTE
11-0, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee Members DeGraffenreid, Ender, Gamiño Guerrero, Krietor,
Malkoon, Owens, Smith, Vallo, Velasco, Camp and Sanchez in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comment.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 492
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
Date of VPC Meeting May 12, 2025
Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
Request
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 6-3-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 6 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 7 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak in opposition on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers. Mr. Rogers
provided information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked what happens if a facility leases data
services. Samuel Rogers, staff, stated that if a facility is proposing to lease data
services it would not be allowed and explained the definition of a data center.

Committee Member Faith Burton stated that dead office towers are leasing their
space for data centers and asked if the proposal would impact those uses. Mr. Rogers
stated that staff is working through what will have grandfathered rights. Committee
Member Burton explained that there are many dead office towers with excess power
capacity that will likely never be used due to modern office uses not requiring high
energy loads.

Vice Chair Darlene Martinez asked if there is a reason data centers are not allowed to
lease their data services. Mr. Rogers explained that the intent is to prevent the primary



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y

use of data centers from being external data hosting and to discourage expansion
solely to accommodate off-site users.

Committee Member Burton explained that many data centers lease services to
businesses without office space.

Chair Cyndy Gaughan asked if staff is working through the issue of existing
conditions. Mr. Rogers confirmed Chair Gaughan’s inquiry.

Committee Member Zach Burns asked what prevents a facility from leasing out data
services. Mr. Rogers explained that a facility must meet all the requirements in the
definition of a data center to be considered a data center. Chair Gaughan stated that
enforcement would be the challenge.

Committee Member Janey Pearl Starks asked why shade was not included in the
General Plan Amendment’s design policy slide. Mr. Rogers explained that data
centers would need to go through the Special Permit process and be subject to
rezoning stipulations, which could address those design elements.

Committee Member Ian O’Grady asked if there are other uses that require a Will
Serve Letter. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not aware of any other uses requiring a Will
Serve Letter.

Committee Member Ali Nervis asked whether the perception is that data centers are
inherently negative. Mr. Rogers stated that public outreach has revealed concerns
about data centers, explained that data centers are currently allowed in zoning districts
which allow offices, without any performance or design standards, and reiterated that
data centers use significant amounts of energy.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked whether there has been an increase in
data centers within the Central City Village. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not aware of
the number of data centers in the Central City Village and explained that there has
been an increase in data centers over time within the City.

Chair Gaughan stated that there is land around the airport that could be suitable for
data centers and noted that data centers are currently somewhat unregulated.

Committee Member Nate Sonoskey asked for confirmation that data centers can
currently be built anywhere office uses are allowed and asked about what requirements
currently apply to data centers. Mr. Rogers confirmed that data centers can currently
be built wherever office uses are allowed and explained that an informal interpretation
from 20 years ago considered data centers analogous to office uses. Mr. Rogers stated
that data center demands have significantly changed and stated that data centers are
not currently subject to any data center specific performance or design standards.
Committee Member Sonoskey asked how many data centers have been built in office

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 494
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y

zones. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not have data on the number of data centers in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked whether the City is considering allowing data
centers by right in industrial areas and stated that it is common to allow data centers in
industrial zones. Mr. Rogers stated that most cities in the Phoenix metro area do not
have specific regulations for data centers.

Chair Gaughan stated that data centers are not sustainable job creators.

Committee Member Nervis asked whether there are any requirements regarding
energy efficiency. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not knowledgeable about energy
efficiency requirements.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked if the proposal would go into effect immediately,
asked whether the City has received any pushback from large companies, and stated
that many companies have already acquired land for data centers.

Mr. Rogers explained that the proposal would be subject to a 30-day appeal period
and stated that some developers have expressed concerns.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson stated that there are data centers everywhere
but people do not know they are present because they do not look like data centers.

Committee Member Burton stated that many developments do not have other
options, explained that data centers can give a development a second life, and
explained concerns about how overreaching the proposal is.

Mr. Rogers stated that the goal of the proposal is not to eliminate data centers but to
establish a formalized review process.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked about the timeline. Mr. Rogers
described the timeline for upcoming public hearings.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Henry Hardy introduced himself, explained that he works for Rose Law Group, stated
that he represents data center stakeholders, and explained that the stakeholders were
made aware of the text amendment only two weeks prior. Mr. Hardy stated that the
amendment is moving too quickly, requested a recommendation for continuation,
acknowledged there are positive elements in the proposal, and stated some
components would make data centers unfeasible. Mr. Hardy explained that data
centers can provide 80 to 150 high-paying jobs and are essential to the region’s
technology infrastructure, expressed concern that the proposal creates uncertainty
around property rights and may result in Proposition 207 litigation, stated that requiring
a Will Serve Letter is inconsistent with current utility processes and will hinder projects,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 495
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y

and emphasized the limited time between village planning committee reviews and City
Council hearings.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked what specific concerns the stakeholders
have. Mr. Hardy described concerns with the Will Serve Letter, Proposition 207
implications, and existing properties planning future expansions. Mr. Hardy stated that
there are long lead times on data center developments.

Vice Chair Martinez asked if data center users are conducting outreach. Mr. Hardy
stated that outreach is being conducted through agents such as himself and reiterated
that the current timeline is short.

Committee Member O’Grady asked how much power a typical data center requires.
Mr. Hardy explained that power needs vary, stated that it is often impossible to obtain
a utility commitment for under ten years, stated the Will Serve Letter requirement is
impractical, and stated that while data centers may not employ large numbers of
people, they still provide employment. Mr. Hardy clarified that the stakeholders are not
opposed to the text amendment itself but believe additional time for discussion is
necessary.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Rogers stated that the City’s Law Department has not raised any concerns
regarding Proposition 207 and stated that he could not speak to wet utility
requirements.

Committee Member Starks noted that the proposal is on an expedited timeline and
asked how long a standard text amendment process typically takes. Mr. Rogers
explained that text amendments are usually processed over a longer period, but staff
was directed to bring the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment to City
Council prior to the summer break. Mr. Rogers stated that past text amendments were
typically presented for information only and for recommendation the following month at
each of the three hearing bodies. Committee Member Starks asked for confirmation
that the hearing schedule is limited to two months. Mr. Rogers confirmed Committee
Member Starks’ inquiry.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked whether other village planning committees had
already reviewed the item. Mr. Rogers stated that one village heard the item the
previous week and explained that he was unaware of the outcome due to staff
absences. Mr. Hardy stated that he attended the previous village meeting and noted
that both items were recommended for approval.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked for clarification on the difference between the
General Plan Amendment and the Text Amendment. Mr. Rogers explained that the
General Plan Amendment sets policy direction, while the Text Amendment defines the
ordinance requirements.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 496
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


Committee Member Nervis asked why the City Council wants to consider the items
before the summer break. Mr. Rogers stated that he was unaware of any specific
reason for the timeline, explained that his department was instructed to complete the
process before the summer break, and stated that a delay would postpone the items
until September.

Committee Member Sonoskey expressed concern that extending the process would
cause significant confusion and delay due to heavy investment in data center land
acquisition. Committee Member Sonoskey stated that the General Plan Amendment is
only a partial step, stated that policy is needed, and stated that the Text Amendment
contains substantive requirements, but it has not been sufficiently discussed.
Committee Member Sonoskey questioned how utility providers such as APS and SRP
view the Will Serve Letter requirement. Mr. Rogers stated that APS and SRP
participated in the stakeholder meetings.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

Motion #1:
Committee Member Rachel Frazier Johnson made a motion to recommend approval
of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation, with direction that 60 days be provided
for public comment. Vice Chair Darelene Martinez seconded the motion.

Vote #1:
3-6-1, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation,
with direction that 60 days be provided for public comment fails with Committee
Members Frazier Johnson, Martinez, and Gaughan in favor, Committee Members
Burns, Burton, Nervis, Sonoskey, Starks, and Vargas opposed, and Committee
Member O’Grady abstained.

Motion #2:
Committee Member Janey Pearl Starks made a motion to recommend approval of
GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Ali Nervis seconded
the motion.

Vote #2:
6-3-1, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation,
passes with Committee Members Burns, Frazier Johnson, Nervis, Starks, Vargas, and
Martinez in favor, Committee Members Burton, Sonoskey, and Gaughan opposed, and
Committee Member O’Grady. abstained.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson explained that she supports the motion but
believes there should be more time for public comment.

Vice Chair Martinez echoed Committee Member Frazier Johnson’s comments.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 497
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 498
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting June 3, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Denial with direction
VPC Vote 17-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, both in opposition. One
member of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers, further
providing information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Eichelkraut asked if the text made a distinction between different
types of data centers, noting that data centers becoming AI data centers in the future
could be an issue. Mr. Grande replied that the text did not make a distinction.

Committee Member Swart asked if City staff is able to measure decibel levels. Mr.
Grande replied that there are some parts of the code that have decibel limits, and the
Neighborhood Services Department needs to enforce those requirements.

Committee Member Schmieder stated that the noise limit should simply be a flat
decibel limit, rather than a percentage.

Committee Member Augusta asked for clarification on how the location criteria policy
would be enforced. Mr. Grande replied that each data center will be required to go

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


through the Special Permit process, where staff and the Committee can review the
request in relation to the location criteria in the policy.

Committee Member Whitesell stated that it would be better if City staff conducted the
noise readings, rather than the applicant, and that C-2 and C-3 are not appropriate for
data centers, which should be limited to industrial districts. Chair Fischbach noted that
Proposition 207 could have been a concern when drafting the language.

Committee Member Todd asked for clarification that if this text is approved, every data
center will be a rezoning case. Mr. Grande replied that they would be. Mr. Todd added
that data centers in C-2 is concerning and that the landscaping requirements seem too
extreme. Chair Fischbach noted that the plants would be drought-tolerant, which
alleviates some water usage concerns.

Committee Member Schmieder asked for clarification on the landscaping requirement
and if it would be consistent with the environment in industrial districts. Mr. Grande
replied with background about industrial zoning landscaping requirements.

Committee Member Eichelkraut asked if there is a requirement for separation
between data centers. Mr. Grande replied that there is not.

Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification that the requirement is for a
Special Permit, not a Use Permit. Mr. Grande replied that the text is clear that it is a
Special Permit requirement.

Committee Member Eichelkraut stated a concern about the future with energy
consumption of data centers that will evolve over time.

Vice Chair Paceley provided background regarding the requirements with utility
companies, noting that data centers would be responsible for the required infrastructure
and have to sign favorable agreements with utility companies.

Chair Fischbach stated that the primary issue with developing data centers is the need
for power, noting that their development can be positive in some ways while highlighting
a challenge presented with power supply at a data center on 40th Street.

Committee Member Schmieder asked if APS and SRP will be able to handle the
growth into the future. Vice Chair Paceley replied that the utilities are planning far into
the future to meet future demand.

Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification on the will serve letter. Vice
Chair Paceley provided clarification.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Melissa Rhodes introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that
this proposal does not incorporate the stricter standards found in the data center

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 500
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


ordinances of other municipalities, such as Chandler, adding that the development of
data centers in commercial districts will be detrimental to neighborhoods and that we
don’t have the energy for data centers.

Samantha DeMoss with Rose Law Group, introduced herself and spoke in opposition
to the proposal, noting that this process is moving too fast for a code change like this,
that it doesn’t address grandfathering, and that as written, this is a moratorium on data
centers, requesting a denial and a 90-day continuance.

Chair Fischbach asked for an example scenario related to the grandfathering issue.
Ms. DeMoss stated that someone could have purchased property with CP/GCP zoning
under the assumption that they could develop a data center but that this text
amendment would remove that right, especially considering the will serve letter
requirement.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Chair Fischbach stated that based on the discussion so far, one option would be to
recommend approval with direction to City staff.

MOTION 1:
Committee Member Schmieder made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-
Y, per the staff recommendation, with direction to City staff to:
• Revise the noise requirement to an objective decibel level to be verified by the
City.
• Allow for an additional 90-day review period.

Committee Member Whitesell seconded the motion.

Committee Member Eichelkraut requested a friendly amendment to add the following
to the list: Review Chandler’s requirements and the lessons learned. Committee
Members Schmieder and Whitesell accepted the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Sharaby asked why they would approve it, considering the
concerns, suggest they recommend denial instead.

Committee Members Schmieder and Whitesell withdrew the motion.

MOTION 2:
Committee Member Sharaby made a motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y with
direction to City staff to:
• Revise the noise requirement to an objective decibel level to be verified by the
City.
• Allow for an additional 90-day review period to include a review of ordinances
from other municipalities, including Chandler.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 501
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
GPA-2-25-Y


Committee Member Whitesell seconded the motion and requested a friendly
amendment to add the following to the list: Add separation requirements for data
centers from other data centers and from residential uses. Committee Member
Sharaby accepted the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Eichelkraut noted that the Planning Commission does take the
comments of the Committee into consideration.

Chair Fischbach stated a concern that this motion could send the wrong message
about the Committee’s view on data center regulations.

Committee Member Beckerleg Thraen stated a hope that the additional review
doesn’t delay the process too long, and she is voting yes.

Committee Member Eichelkraut stated agreement with Ms. Beckerleg Thraen’s
comments and voted yes.

Committee Member Noel voted yes, adding that we need to do something about data
centers, but we need to take the time to get it right.

Committee Member Schmieder voted yes, adding that progress should be over
perfection, that we are moving in the right direction, but the vote is to ensure that due
diligence is done.

Committee Member Sharaby stated that the proposal is too broad without enough time
to research and consider other cities, and he is voting yes.

Chair Fischbach stated that he fully supports what the City is trying to do, and he is
voting yes with a hope that this vote doesn’t get interpreted as supporting data centers.

VOTE 2:
17-0; motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y with direction passed; Committee
Members Abbott, Augusta, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut, Garcia, Langmade,
McClelland, Noel, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd, Whitesell, Williams,
Paceley, and Fischbach in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 502
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting June 3, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Vote 8-3


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

Committee Member Michelle Santoro declared a conflict of interest and recused herself
from this item, bringing the quorum to 11 members.

Three members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided background on GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25-Y. Mr.
Zambrano discussed concerns with data centers that the General Plan Amendment and
Text Amendment are trying to address. Mr. Zambrano explained the policy guidance for
data centers that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the three main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano shared the
proposed Zoning Ordinance definition for a data center. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the proposed design guidelines and their purpose. Mr. Zambrano shared the zoning
districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special Permit and other
performance standards, and noted that Special Permits go through the same public
hearing process as rezoning cases. Mr. Zambrano stated that a noise study would be
required if the data center is within a certain distance from residential. Mr. Zambrano
shared the upcoming public hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends
approval per the language in Exhibit A of the staff reports.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Rick Nowell asked why a large data center would be considered
within a small commercially-zoned shopping center. Mr. Zambrano responded that
there would have to be a large enough area that is commercially zoned in order for the

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 503
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

data center to fit. Mr. Zambrano added that a rezoning may be required in some cases
to one of the zoning districts that a data center would be permitted in.

Chair Steven Bowser asked if there are any other zoning districts, other than those
already listed, that a Special Permit would not be required. Mr. Zambrano responded
that data centers would only be permitted within the C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2
zoning districts, subject to a Special Permit, and they would not be permitted in any
other zoning districts. Chair Bowser asked if a data center would be permitted in a
heavy industrial district. Mr. Zambrano responded that A-1 is the light industrial district
and A-2 is the heavy industrial district, and a Special Permit would still be required.

Committee Member David Kollar asked which zoning districts data centers are
currently located in. Mr. Zambrano responded that data centers have previously been
permitted through an informal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and were
determined to be analogous to an office use, so any zoning district that permitted an
office use is where they have been permitted. Mr. Zambrano stated that the commercial,
commerce park, and industrial districts all permit office use. Mr. Zambrano added that
some data centers have gone through the PUD (Planned Unit Development) process to
permit them.

Vice Chair Louis Lagrave asked what the typical size is of a data center. Mr.
Zambrano responded that they are typically very large in scale and could cover many
acres of land. Mr. Zambrano added that they typically are not small-scale. Vice Chair
Lagrave asked for clarification that it most likely would not be able to fit within a mostly
vacant shopping center. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Committee Member Kollar stated that some vacant high-rises have been retrofitted for
data centers. Committee Member Kollar stated that a large amount of space is needed
for a successful data center development. Committee Member Kollar added that data
centers are very particular with mechanical, electrical and water needs. Vice Chair
Lagrave asked if the space in this example would be less than 10 percent of the floor
area of the entire development. Committee Member Kollar responded that unless it is
for a specific user that has their own data needs, a data center is typically a giant empty
warehouse with a lot of racks that need to be cooled. Mr. Kollar reiterated that a lot of
square footage is needed. Mr. Kollar stated that a majority of the space is taken up by
data infrastructure and a small remainder of the space is used for office space. Vice
Chair Lagrave asked if the noise is continuously generated 24/7. Committee Member
Kollar responded that data centers generate noise from rooftop mechanical equipment
and there may be some light humming from the racks and servers in the interior.
Committee Member Kollar added that the massive air handlers that support cooling of
the equipment also generate noise.

Committee Member Reginald Younger asked about data center water usage. Mr.
Zambrano responded that some data centers may use water cooling to help cool their
data infrastructure.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 504
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Nowell expressed concerns with allowing a five percent increase
in the ambient noise level in residential areas. Committee Member Nowell asked why
the Text Amendment would allow an increase in the ambient noise level. Mr. Zambrano
responded that this language was based off of what other municipalities have done that
have adopted a data center ordinance. Committee Member Nowell suggested that
Phoenix take the lead and say that the ambient noise level cannot be exceeded.

Committee Member Kollar asked if there is a decibel range that is considered an
ambient noise level. Mr. Zambrano responded that the noise study would determine
what the ambient noise level is, which would be conducted by an acoustical engineer.
Committee Member Kollar stated that an acceptable decibel range would make more
sense.

Committee Member Jason Israel stated that noise levels inside data centers typically
range from 80 to 90 dBa (A-weighted decibels) and peak levels can reach up to 96 dBa.
Committee Member Israel concurred with clarifying the ambient noise level requirement.
Mr. Zambrano responded that the ambient noise level would be the baseline noise
level before a data center is built in the area. Mr. Zambrano added that the ambient
noise level can vary based on the surrounding context of a site and a specific decibel
number would not cover the entire city, since noise level can vary from one part of the
city to another.

Committee Member Barbara Reynolds stated that smaller data centers can operate in
buildings from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet and larger facilities require up to 300 acres.
Committee Member Reynolds agreed with not allowing data centers in commercial
areas.

Committee Member Richard Carlucci expressed concerns with the noise study
requirement, noting that developers could go to the nearest street during the busiest
time of the day and measure the noise levels from there to get the highest ambient
noise level. Committee Member Carlucci stated that the noise study needs more
objective standards. Committee Member Carlucci asked why a Special Permit is
needed. Mr. Zambrano responded that the Special Permit requirement would allow
community input, which would not happen if a data center was allowed by-right in a
zoning district. Committee Member Carlucci stated that data center developers that
invest a lot of money into a site deserve some certainty. Mr. Zambrano responded that
part of the Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommendation is determining whether a
Special Permit is appropriate for all zoning districts or not and if data centers should be
permitted in the listed zoning districts or not, or if there are additional zoning districts
they should be permitted in.

Chair Bowser stated that a Special Permit is different from a Use Permit. Chair Bowser
clarified that a Use Permit is typically for a use such as a drive-through and a Special
Permit is similar to a rezoning case. Chair Bowser stated that data centers are used on
a daily basis without knowing it. Chair Bowser added that Phoenix is an area that does
not have natural disasters like other parts of the country and thus, Phoenix is a prime
area to build data centers. Chair Bowser stated that there should be more incentives to

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 505
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

encourage data centers in old industrial areas and old retail areas that need to be
redeveloped.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if the will-serve letter would require a confirmation
of energy from the utility company within two years. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively. Committee Member Carlucci asked why the will-serve letter would be
required. Mr. Zambrano responded that the purpose was to ensure that there is not a
significant strain on the power grid due to data centers, which require a significant
amount of energy. Committee Member Carlucci asked if the City is concerned that the
utility company will mismanage their resources, make commitments they cannot meet,
and put the power grid in danger. Mr. Zambrano responded that generally, energy
usage is one of the major concerns of data centers, and it is not just a City concern. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the City wants to ensure there is sufficient energy supply for data
centers. Mr. Zambrano added that if the VPC does not agree with the two-year
timeframe, then part of the VPC recommendation could be to modify it.

Committee Member Kollar asked if the proposed definition for a data center was
defined by the City or by another source. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City looked
at other municipalities and how they defined a data center. Mr. Zambrano stated that
the definition was intended to be simplified. Committee Member Kollar expressed
concerns with the second part of the proposed definition for data centers, noting that
some accessory data center uses may exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area. Mr.
Zambrano shared and explained the proposed definition again. Mr. Kollar asked if a
software company would be considered a data services company if they have servers
and racks that exceed 10 percent of their gross floor area. Mr. Zambrano responded
that based on the proposed definition, if they exceeded the 10 percent threshold, then
they would be considered a primary data center use. Mr. Kollar expressed concerns
with software and technology companies, since they have robust servers and racks for
the nature of their business, which may exceed 10 percent of their gross floor area. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the 10 percent threshold came from another municipality and
how they defined a data center as an accessory use. Mr. Zambrano added that this
could be another modification that could be a part of the VPC recommendation.

Chair Bowser asked if 50 percent of the gross floor area is more common. Committee
Member Kollar responded that it is not uncommon. Committee Member Kollar stated
that there are a lot of technology companies in the area that would probably need more
than 10 percent of their gross floor area in order to not be considered a data center.
Committee Member Kollar added that some may be able to fit in a closet, but
companies’ floor areas are shrinking as more people are teleworking, which also
increases server needs.

Mr. Zambrano stated that there is an established Zoning Ordinance definition for gross
floor area and noted that it would cover the floor area of each floor of a multi-story
building.

Committee Member Gary Kirkilas asked if the first part of the proposed definition
would cover companies with facilities that are not primarily used for data services.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 506
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Kollar responded that it would depend on how data services is
defined. Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification on encouraging energy
efficiency.

Mr. Zambrano responded that data centers would be encouraged to utilize the Phoenix
Green Construction Code in order to maximize their energy efficiency, since data
centers have such high energy demand. Mr. Zambrano added that maximizing energy
efficiency would reduce their energy demand.

Committee Member Carlucci stated that the architectural requirements would add
more areas for energy to leak out rather than a flat façade that could better retain
energy. Mr. Zambrano responded that the surrounding community to a data center
would not want to see a large, monolithic, concrete box right next to their community.
Mr. Zambrano stated that the architectural requirements address the negative visual
impact that data centers could have on the surrounding community.

Vice Chair Lagrave expressed concerns with the 10 percent threshold in the definition.

Committee Member Younger expressed concerns with energy efficiency not being a
requirement. Committee Member Younger asked if energy efficiency could be changed
to a standard requirement. Mr. Zambrano responded that encouraging energy
efficiency is from the General Plan Amendment, which would be the policy guidance.
Mr. Zambrano added that if data centers are required to obtain a Special Permit, then
City staff would look at the adopted policy guidance during that process and try to
ensure the development is being consistent with adopted policy. Mr. Zambrano added
that the VPC recommendation could include modifying this to a requirement.

Public Comments:
Benjamin Graff, with Quarles & Brady, LLP, introduced himself as a representative of
American Express, opposed to this item. Mr. Graff displayed the existing American
Express campus at the southeast corner of Mayo Boulevard and 56th Street, noting that
the site is zoned CP/BP (Commerce Park District, Business Park Option). Mr. Graff
noted that data centers were previously permitted in the CP/BP zoning district by right.
Mr. Graff stated that American Express leased the land from the Arizona State Land
Department with the intention of building two companion data centers in the vacant land
to the north of the existing campus. Mr. Graff stated that these data centers would not
be leased out and would support the American Express operations. Mr. Graff stated that
the 10 percent threshold in the proposed definition would be exceeded by the proposed
data centers, and the CP/BP zoning district would not permit data centers in the current
draft ordinance. Mr. Graff added that Text Amendments typically take a year to go
through the process and stakeholders like American Express are contacted and brought
into stakeholder meetings. Mr. Graff stated that there has been no outreach that he is
aware of to American Express. Mr. Graff requested that the Text Amendment be slowed
down. Mr. Graff recommended that the 10 percent threshold in the proposed definition
be removed and that the CP/BP zoning district be added to the zoning districts that
permit data centers. Mr. Graff added that American Express has final site plan approval
for Phase II of the American Express campus, which includes their first data center. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 507
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Graff stated that if it becomes a legal non-conforming use overnight, it would create
many issues with lenders and financing that previously had other assurances.

Ty Utton, representative with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a representative
of a broad coalition of data centers, opposed to this item. Mr. Utton echoed Mr. Graff
regarding the Text Amendment schedule. Mr. Utton stated that it was not an inclusive
process and was not the delivered approach typically seen from the City of Phoenix. Mr.
Utton expressed concerns with Proposition 207. Mr. Utton requested that the Text
Amendment be delayed.

Cepand Alizadeh, representative with the Arizona Technology Council (AZTC),
introduced himself as a stakeholder opposed to this item. Mr. Alizadeh shared a story
about a car accident, noting that his medical records were readily available to the
hospital because of a data center. Mr. Alizadeh stated that AZTC is a coalition of over
750 tech companies across Arizona, including numerous data center partners. Mr.
Alizadeh expressed concerns with the fast schedule for the Text Amendment. Mr.
Alizadeh stated that the City of Chandler took 20 months, and the City of Surprise took
24 months, to come up with a data center ordinance. Mr. Alizadeh stated that the will-
serve letter would not be possible, noting that data centers take years to develop. Mr.
Alizadeh expressed concerns with the noise study, noting that there is no mention of
measuring the noise in decibels. Mr. Alizadeh stated that the Text Amendment is
missing key language and stakeholders have not had any time to provide input. Mr.
Alizadeh requested that the Text Amendment be slowed down and noted that other
VPCs at the meetings he has attended have all denied it.

Staff Response:
Mr. Zambrano responded that projects with preliminary site plan approval before the
Text Amendment is adopted and goes into effect would still be able to develop and
would be considered a legal non-conforming use. Mr. Zambrano added that if they
wanted to expand in the future, then that is when the new zoning regulations would
apply. Mr. Zambrano stated that Proposition 207 concerns are a concern of the City
Council and should not be a concern at the VPC level. Mr. Zambrano stated that the
VPC recommendation could modify the 10 percent threshold of the proposed definition
as well as the noise study requirement. Mr. Zambrano added that the Mayor and City
Council requested that these items be before them to vote on before their summer
recess, which is why the schedule is rushed.

Discussion:
Committee Member Joseph Barto asked if the schedule is a normal timeframe or if it
is a faster schedule. Mr. Zambrano responded that the public hearing schedule is a bit
more rushed, noting that the VPC, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings are
usually a month apart, resulting in at least a three-month public hearing schedule. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the public hearing schedule for these items is scheduled at about
a month and a half, so it is a faster timeline in that sense. Mr. Zambrano added that it
has been in the works since the beginning of the year and there have been three
stakeholder meetings. Mr. Zambrano stated that City staff is actively working with
stakeholders to get their input.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 508
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Committee Member Carlucci stated that although data centers are not a large source
of traditional jobs, they are a large source of construction jobs. Committee Member
Carlucci expressed concerns with major employers not coming to Phoenix if data
centers do not get built because of this Text Amendment. Committee Member Carlucci
added that data centers are critical national security infrastructure and are critical to
helping win the race for Artificial Intelligence (AI). Committee Member Carlucci stated
that the Text Amendment seems more like a ban on data centers. Committee Member
Carlucci stated that data centers need to be built faster and bigger. Committee Member
Carlucci stated that energy concerns should be addressed by the power companies on
how they can scale up energy production. Committee Member Carlucci expressed
opposition for these items.

Chair Bowser stated that he believes there are appropriate areas for data centers,
such as a large commerce park area, and a Special Permit requirement seems like an
overreach for those areas. Chair Bowser added that old retail areas may be more
appropriate for a Special Permit requirement due to proximity to residential.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked what the stakeholder input has been so far. Mr.
Zambrano responded that he has not been involved in the stakeholder meetings, so he
cannot say what has been discussed in those meetings. Mr. Zambrano reiterated that
the Mayor and City Council requested these items to be before them to vote on before
their summer recess, which is why City staff is moving forward with the current
schedule.

Committee Member Kollar asked if stakeholder comments were considered and
incorporated into the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that there was one
stakeholder meeting at the time the staff report was written. Mr. Zambrano added that
City staff may make some modifications to the draft ordinance language for the
Planning Commission and the City Council meetings, based on feedback heard from
the stakeholder meetings and the VPC meetings. Committee Member Kollar stated that
it seems pre-mature to vote on the Text Amendment if it is going to be amended.
Committee Member Kollar expressed concerns with stakeholder input not being
incorporated into the Text Amendment. Committee Member Kollar stated that the
current draft ordinance seems over-prohibitive. Mr. Zambrano responded that these are
all factors that the VPC can consider, and this is part of the discussion. Mr. Zambrano
stated that the main question is whether the VPC agrees with the current draft
ordinance or not, and if not, which parts does the VPC not agree with and how can
those parts be modified. Mr. Zambrano added that this information will be used for
further discussions with the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Text Amendment seems incomplete. Vice Chair
Lagrave stated that the issues he sees are the 10 percent threshold of the proposed
definition, the exclusion of the CP/BP zoning district, the noise study requirements, and
proximity to residential. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that these issues need to be
addressed. Vice Chair Lagrave asked which type of motion would be more likely to be
heard. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are a few different options, including

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 509
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

recommending denial with direction, with the direction to take another look at the items
of concern. Mr. Zambrano added that the VPC could recommend approval, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications, and recommend certain modifications to the text
amendment.

Committee Member Reynolds recommended adding the will-serve letter requirement
to the list of concerns.

Committee Member Israel asked for clarification if the calculation for the 10 percent
threshold of the accessory data centers for the American Express site would include the
gross floor area of all on-site buildings of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, based on the
proposed definition. Mr. Zambrano responded that if the data centers are solely serving
the enterprise functions of American Express, then the gross floor area would include all
buildings on the campus, including the existing American Express buildings. Committee
Member Israel asked for clarification if the proposed definition would not allow data
services to be leased to third parties. Mr. Zambrano clarified that this part of the
definition intends to clarify that a data center would be considered an accessory use
only if it is used for the on-site enterprise and is not leased to other entities.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if there are other zoning districts that could be
added in addition to the CP/BP zoning district, such as industrial districts. Chair
Bowser responded that the A-1 and A-2 industrial zoning districts are already listed.
Committee Member Carlucci stated that part of the recommendation should include
removing the Special Permit requirement.

Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the recommendation would include removing the
Special Permit requirement for only the industrial zoning districts or for all the zoning
districts. Committee Member Carlucci suggested that the Special Permit requirement
be removed from all the zoning districts.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Special Permit requirement should be retained for
the commercial zoning districts.

Mr. Zambrano repeated that the VPC wanted to add data centers as a permitted use in
the CP/BP zoning district and that the VPC wanted to allow more time for stakeholder
input. Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the VPC wanted to increase the 10 percent
threshold in the proposed definition. Vice Chair Lagrave responded that it should be
removed. Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the VPC wants to increase the number
of years for the will-serve letter requirement or remove it altogether. Vice Chair Lagrave
responded that it should be removed. Vice Chair Lagrave added that the Special Permit
should remain required for the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts but should not be required
for the CP/BP, CP/GCP, A-1 or A-2 zoning districts.

Committee Member Nowell stated that the ambient noise level should not be
exceeded. Vice Chair Lagrave responded that the noise level must be measured in
decibels. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he was okay with leaving the five percent
allowance to exceed the ambient noise level.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 510
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification that the Special Permit requirement
would be recommended to be kept near residential areas. Vice Chair Lagrave
responded affirmatively, noting that it would kept for the commercial zoning districts.

Committee Member Nowell asked why the ambient noise level should be increased by
five percent for data centers in commercial zoning districts near residential areas. Vice
Chair Lagrave responded that the noise level could be addressed at the time that the
data center developer goes through the Special Permit process.

MOTION – GPA-2-25-Y:
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y, per the
staff recommendation, with direction to ensure that the General Plan policies align with
the directed modifications of the companion case Z-TA-2-25-Y. Committee Member
Kirkilas seconded the motion.

VOTE – GPA-2-25-Y:
8-3; the motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
with direction passes with Committee Members Barto, Birchby, Israel, Kirkilas, Kollar,
Nowell, Lagrave and Bowser in favor and Committee Members Carlucci, Reynolds, and
Younger opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 511
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 512
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting June 2, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 9-4-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on these items in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the Data Center General Plan
Amendment noting the development background, review process, and the rationale
behind the proposed amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the proposed text
amendment is a companion to the General Plan Amendment and is intended to support
the regulatory framework for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City Council
had initiated creation of new policy guidance in response to the growing number of
requests for data center facilities, which possess unique characteristics not currently
addressed. Mr. Roanhorse expressed the importance of the General Plan Amendment
due to land use considerations, the need for adaptation to existing developments, and
the importance of connecting these facilities to infrastructure. Mr. Roanhorse noted that
one of the primary reasons for the amendment is that data centers are not directly
addressed in either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and previous
developments have been permitted through informal interpretations. Mr. Roanhorse
discussed the key elements of the amendment, including location criteria, design
policies, and sustainability measures. Mr. Roanhorse reviewed site placement criteria,
highlighting core areas and centers as not preferred locations, and noted various




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

suitability factors. Mr. Roanhorse discussed required setbacks, the integration of art
features, dark sky compliance, noise mitigation, and architectural design standards. Mr.
Roanhorse noted the energy demands associated with data centers and the importance
of incorporating energy efficiency measures. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the amendment
would offer additional detail regarding definitions, guidelines, and performance
standards.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member Opal Wagner asked if an assessment was done regarding data
centers and if there were potential sites within the Encanto Village and how large of a
footprint data centers would require. John Roanhorse, staff, responded that there were
not many suitable sites available for a large data center and made an initial review and
noted that most of the areas within Encanto Village are already developed. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that the scale and magnitude of many proposed data centers would
likely not be feasible due to structural limitations but also because of existing
development and the Encanto Village probably would not be an ideal location for such
facilities.

Committee Member Robert Warnicke stated there were two main concerns with the
presented text amendment. Committee Member Warnicke stated first, is a perceived
contradiction in the criteria for data center locations and noted that while the guidelines
discourage placement within or adjacent to identified cores centers and corridors, they
simultaneously encourage data centers in redevelopment areas where infrastructure
investment is needed. Committee Member Warnicke stated that, in his experience,
developers often promote zoning changes by emphasizing the infrastructure
improvements their projects will bring and there is concern that this approach has been
made in other villages and might create confusion or loopholes in applying the criteria
consistently. Committee Member Warnicke said his second concern was more technical
and related to the definition of a data center and noted a portion of the definition states
a data center as a facility primarily used for data services but includes a carve-out
stating the facility is not used to lease data services to third parties. Committee Member
Warnicke stated there is confusion over the purpose of that clause and asked why it
was included. Committee Member Warnicke stated that such a carve-out might allow
companies to build facilities for their own use while leasing excess capacity to others,
potentially bypassing the intended regulatory framework. Committee Member Warnicke
said the carve-out as is much like the tail wagging the dog and warned that it could be
exploited, allowing data centers to be built anywhere as a private use. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the city is currently focused on regulating developments that are already
in progress and while also considering future plans. Mr. Roanhorse stated the city has
met with stakeholders and has presented the text amendment information at the Village
Planning Committees to get feedback and promote consistency.




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Robert Warnicke echoed his concern and stated that the
business model whether the data services are leased out or used internally should not
affect how a facility is regulated. Committee Member Warnicke stated that the impact on
the city and surrounding areas would be the same regardless of the business structure
and stated there should be more analysis of this issue.

Committee Member Rick Mahrle commented on a point of clarification regarding the
carve-out and stated that the text language is not used to lease data services to third
parties and should be read as excluding facilities that are solely serving their own
enterprises. Committee Member Mahrle stated an example of a law firm that operates a
large computer storage system occupying less than 10 percent of its gross floor area.
Committee Member Mahrle noted that as long as that system is not used to lease
services externally and solely supports the business itself it should not be classified as a
data center. Committee Member Mahrle stated that this was his interpretation noting
Committee Member Warnicke’s concern and clarified that the purpose of the clause is
to distinguish private enterprise systems from commercial data centers.

Committee Member Mark Cardenas stated that he agreed with the concerns
previously stated and noted that major corporations such as Amazon, Google, and
Microsoft already operate data centers and infrastructure within the Phoenix area.
Committee Member Cardenas said that when individuals use services like Microsoft
Outlook, Cortana, or cloud storage, they are essentially leasing storage space from
these companies and that he personally purchases additional storage to save family
vacation photos and said that this kind of licensing arrangement is common. Committee
Member Cardenas said there is a concern that under the current definition, if companies
like Amazon or Google choose to build new data centers in Phoenix, they could avoid
regulation simply by stating that they are not leasing the space but in reality, they are
selling licenses to the public. Committee Member Cardenas emphasized that Phoenix’s
1.6 million residents purchase data licenses from these companies every day, and that
the language in the proposed text amendment excluding facilities that do not lease data
services is problematic. Committee Member Cardenas stated that this exception creates
a loophole that undermines the intent of the regulation. Mr. Roanhorse noted that from
the city’s perspective, the distinction lies in how data is managed and licensed and
noted that individual consumers are not directly investing in or operating data
infrastructure but are instead purchasing licenses or subscriptions. Mr. Roanhorse
stated that data is often transferred between entities, and that the bulk of such
information is typically owned and managed by larger corporations, not individual users.
Committee Member Cardenas replied that this understanding was not entirely accurate
and as a business owner operating an LLC, that purchases increased email storage or
data capacity, he is not buying hardware or servers directly he is licensing space in a
data center. Committee Member Cardenas stated the definition excludes leased




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

services and his business would technically be unable to continue purchasing additional
data storage from companies like Microsoft and this interpretation could restrict the
ability of local businesses to operate effectively and questioned whether the current
language adequately reflects the real-world use of data center services. Mr. Joshua
Bednarek, Planning and Development Department Director, responded by stating that
Committee Member Cardenas’s explanation was essentially correct and aligned with
the intent behind the current definition and that the language was designed to prevent
large organizations that operate internal data systems from being classified as
commercial data centers. Mr. Bednarek stated that as long as an entity demonstrates
that its data center is used exclusively for internal operations, it would not be considered
a regulated data center under the proposed definition and further explained, the
definition was to provide flexibility for larger employers with legitimate internal data
needs, without unintentionally subjecting them to data center regulations.

Committee Member Sabrina Perez asked about the location criteria policy and stated
that her organization works extensively with data centers and expressed concern with
the language that states data centers are discouraged within and adjacent to identified
cores centers and corridors. Committee Member Perez stated that, in her experience
data centers are often located adjacent to housing and financial centers and, over time,
they begin to create their own core areas and economic corridors. Committee Member
Perez stated that the intent seems counterintuitive that the policy would discourage data
centers from being near such areas given that the growth and presence of data centers
can actively contribute to the formation of vibrant economic hubs. Committee Member
Perez stated that rather than being out of place, data centers often become integral to
the development of their surroundings, supporting an ecosystem of businesses and
services. Committee Member Perez stated the policy language that encourages data
centers in identified redevelopment areas and noted that many of these locations
already contain existing space and are positioned to support ancillary services and
suggested the language may be misaligned with how these areas are practically
developing. Committee Member Perez stated there is a technical concern about utility
infrastructure and data centers often build their own substations on site for power
generation and that the Department of Energy (DOE) has invested in small modular
reactors (SMRs) that can be integrated into such developments. Committee Member
Perez stated that utility will-serve letters are increasingly irrelevant in these cases
because data centers are largely self-sustaining in terms of power needs. Mr.
Bednarek responded stating that the proposal involves two components: a general plan
amendment and a text amendment where the general plan amendment includes
location criteria that are meant to guide decision-making, while the text amendment
introduces specific zoning tools to regulate data centers such as the requirement of a
special permit, similar to what is currently required for self-storage facilities.

Mr. Bednarek stated the general plan language is not absolute and is intended to serve
as a policy foundation and framework to help committees and staff evaluate whether a



Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

proposed data center aligns with the city’s long-term goals. Mr. Bednarek stated that a
location example of Thomas Road and Central Avenue, a designated core area where
residents and city leaders have expressed a desire for amenities like restaurants and
gathering places and if there were to propose a data center in that area, the location
criteria would serve as a signal to pause and consider whether the proposed use is
appropriate.

Mr. Bednarek stated that while the criteria provide guidance, a special permit process
allows for case-by-case evaluation, which includes input from staff, the committee, and
ultimately the City Council and reiterated that the intent of the proposed changes is to
ensure that data centers are subject to thoughtful planning and design standards, and
that such policies are reflected both in the general plan and the zoning ordinance.

Committee Member Tom Doescher stated a concern about the low energy rates being
promoted by the Arizona Corporation Commission and noted that the Commission has
opened public comment on this issue, and emphasized that the more data centers are
developed, the more electricity and energy they will consume. Committee Member
Doescher said that the Commission does not want consumers to bear the financial
burden of these increased energy demands and asked how the city plans to address
potential issues related to the size and location of smaller modular reactors (SMRs),
especially when these reactors are situated adjacent to existing buildings. Mr.
Bednarek responded, stating that the purpose of the general plan amendment and the
accompanying text amendment is to better the position the city in response to the
growing needs of the data center industry and emphasized that the city wants to ensure
that the location of new data centers is subject to discussion and evaluation, much like
other land uses. Mr. Bednarek stated that presently no such discussion takes place
before a data center is developed, not with this committee, not with neighboring
residents, and not with the City Council. Mr. Bednarek said the proposed amendments
would establish a regulatory framework that enables those conversations to occur. Mr.
Bednarek further explained that, under this proposed process, both large and small data
center proposals would be evaluated to determine whether they are appropriate for a
given location and that evaluation would include considerations such as energy
demand, infrastructure capacity, and community impacts that are not currently part of
the review process.

Committee Member Mahrle commented that the committee's concerns should not be
interpreted as opposition to data centers and stated the need for careful and thoughtful
regulation, especially in response to concerns raised about the clarity of the definition
language in the proposed text amendment. Committee Member Mahrle suggested that
the Planning Commission should revisit the definition to ensure it accurately captures
the intended meaning and scope. Committee Member Mahrle commented that the issue
of infrastructure improvements, referencing the general plan's encouragement of data
centers in redevelopment areas and stated he is supportive of the idea of placing data
centers in locations where infrastructure upgrades are needed, with the understanding




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

that developers would contribute financially by constructing required improvements such
as half-streets, traffic signals, and road upgrades. Committee Mahrle stated that this is a
sound concept, and he wants to ensure it is clearly reflected in the final policy language.

Committee Member Cardenas commented on an earlier point made by Mr. Bednarek
and expressed his support for the creation of general policies governing the location
and design of data centers. Committee Member Cardenas stated a concern about the
accelerated timeline of the current process. Committee Member Cardenas said that with
the Preserve Historic Plan and this data center amendment it is moving faster than any
other text amendment he has seen. Committee Member Cardenas asked why the
process is being rushed, pointing out that the amendment is scheduled to go through all
Village Planning Committees in June 2025, Historic Preservation Commission in July,
Planning Commission in August, Subcommittee review in September, and City Council
vote in October. Committee Member Cardenas stated that if the city intends for the
policy to have a long-term impact, the current speed of adoption does not appear
appropriate. Mr. Bednarek responded that he understood the concerns expressed by
the committee regarding the sense of urgency behind the amendment. Mr. Bednarek
stated that currently, the City does not have any policy framework in place to guide or
regulate data centers. Mr. Bednarek said this absence of a well-developed framework
like the city already has for historic preservation, noting that the lack of a similar
structure for data centers is problematic given the sheer volume of space and capital
investment involved.

Mr. Bednarek stated that the proposed text amendment is not a prohibition on data
centers, just as current zoning policies do not prohibit self-storage facilities instead, it is
about establishing a process for reviewing such developments that allows community
members to participate meaningfully. Mr. Bednarek stated that the goal is to determine
whether a framework is needed, and if so, to ensure that future data center proposals
are subject to public input and formal review. Mr. Bednarek stated that there are two key
questions: Do we need a policy framework, and should the community have a role in
evaluating future proposals?

Committee Member Cardenas commented that when the issue of regulating data
centers had surfaced months ago, he shared that he had texted city staff about the
matter as early as February and was told they would be notified when the draft was
ready. Committee Member Cardenas stated that now the draft is available, he
expressed concern that the process appears rushed, particularly in comparison to
previous planning efforts and cited a prior presentation in which a four-month review
period was provided, allowing for feedback and adjustments before finalizing this
proposal in contrast appears to be on an accelerated timeline, raising concerns about
potential unintended consequences and insufficient public engagement. Mr. Cardenas
stated there were issues when pushing the amendment through quickly could lead to
blowback from companies like TSMC, which are closely tied to the semiconductor and
data storage sectors. Committee Member Cardenas stated that as a resident in the fifth-




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

largest city in the country, he emphasized that his concerns were not trivial and
requested that the City pump the brakes and slow the timeline, expressing doubt that a
Planning Commission hearing scheduled just two days away would allow for proper
consideration of the issues raised. Committee Member Cardenas stated concern
regarding the reliability of will-serve letters, which utilities are expected to provide as
evidence that they can meet future energy needs. Committee Member Cardenas stated
that the time frames for service projections may exceed four years, and such letters
could be invalid if no action occurs for several years. Mr. Bednarek responded by
acknowledging the concerns related to the current wording of the will-serve letter
requirement, stating that staff was prepared to propose modifications to that section and
noted that all other Village Planning Committees had already offered recommendations
on the draft amendment, and that there was a strong sense of urgency from the City
Council to adopt a framework sooner rather than later. Mr. Bednarek encouraged
committee members to submit specific suggestions regarding any language they felt
needed revision, particularly if they had concerns beyond the will-serve language. Mr.
Bednarek emphasized that all feedback would be considered during Planning
Commission and City Council deliberations.

Committee Member Procaccini asked about energy usage and asked whether there
had been any analysis related to promoting energy infrastructure improvements and
green building standards. Committee Member Procaccini inquired if the city was
considering standards such as requiring lighter colored roofs or limiting the amount of
power used. Mr. Bednarek responded that those types of considerations could certainly
be addressed as part of a Special Permit request, should the proposed text amendment
be adopted. Mr. Bednarek stated that, currently, the city does not have the opportunity
to evaluate such design and infrastructure elements. Mr. Bednarek stated that if the
proposed framework is approved, special permit applications could include
requirements related to energy efficiency and sustainability, such as solar installations
and design standards. Mr. Bednarek noted that some provisions in the draft already
address issues like shading within project streets but emphasized that the special
permit process would allow for case-by-case refinement of requirements through
conversations between applicants, planning staff, and the community.

Committee Member Perez asked about the intention of the will-serve letter and if there
could be language requiring it to be reviewed annually based on available utility
resources and acknowledged that this might result in additional paperwork, but stated
that given the long development timelines for data centers, there should be an annual
reassessment to ensure that commitments made in the letter remain valid. Committee
Member Perez asked how the city would hold developers accountable if they were
leasing their space to third parties. Mr. Bednarek responded that the concern about
third-party leasing was valid and said that the intent of the will-serve letter requirement
is to ensure the city has a clear understanding of future energy demand and is not
allowing data centers to consume limited energy capacity, thereby displacing other
community-serving uses like housing, restaurants, or recreational facilities. Mr.




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Bednarek stated that the proposed language is being refined, and the goal is to prevent
large parcels of land from sitting idle for years while awaiting energy infrastructure
buildout. Mr. Bednarek stated that third-party leasing is not explicitly addressed in the
current draft but is being discussed and that enforcement would occur through NSD
(Neighborhood Services Department) if a facility violated its zoning approval. Mr.
Bednarek said if a campus-based user such as a hospital or major employer proposed a
data facility for internal operations, the city would verify the use during the permitting
process and if the purpose changed later, it could trigger a zoning ordinance violation.

Committee Member Perez commented that, with over 20 years of experience as an
engineer and significant involvement in data center projects, she believes the general
public lacks the technical understanding to adequately evaluate the implications of such
a text amendment. Committee Member Perez stated that many residents and
committee members may not have the necessary background to assess these facilities,
and that relying on a few informed stakeholders places an unfair burden on the public.
Committee Member Perez stated the process as overly aggressive, noting that not
everyone has recently gained familiarity with the industry the way some committee
members or their clients have.

Committee Member Cardenas expressed appreciation for Mr. Bednarek’s repeated
acknowledgment that the language is still being refined and that he understands staff
have constraints and must sell proposals up the chain of command but emphasized that
the lack of clarity on certain provisions particularly around third-party leasing remains
troubling. Committee Member Cardenas stated that there is no current process outlined
for situations where a company like Amazon builds a data center and later leases space
to small businesses or third-party operators. Committee Member Cardenas stated that
the definition section of the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address or
distinguish these scenarios and said this as a critical oversight, noting that the ambiguity
could lead to unintended consequences if the city fails to differentiate between internal-
use data centers and commercial or leased data facilities. Mr. Bednarek responded by
stating that the intention of the language is to address owner-operated facilities, such as
Amazon using a data center solely for its own internal operations the facility is still
considered a data center under the proposed language. Mr. Bednarek commented that
leasing scenarios where a facility is marketed to third-party users are not clearly
addressed in the draft and stated that refining the language to provide clarity on these
distinctions is under active consideration, and that additional comments and
suggestions from the committee would be welcomed during the Planning Commission
and City Council review phases.

Committee Member Cardenas stated that the current definitions and structure of the
proposed amendment do not capture the complexity of how data centers may be used
and noted that projects such as Microsoft’s facility or others where land was donated or
where terms were negotiated could fall into gray areas not currently addressed.




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Cardenas stated he disagreed with Mr. Bednarek’s interpretation
and urged further revisions to ensure transparent and enforceable definitions.

Committee Member Warnicke commented that there was uncertainty in a comment
made earlier and that may have been a misunderstanding and with the previous
discussion the issue has more clarity but there should be some adjustments to the
definition.

Committee Member Mahrle asked for clarification on the data center definition and
asked for help understanding a hypothetical scenario where a company such as Infinix
were to build a facility and use the entire building to house servers, would that qualify as
a data center even if the space was dedicated to internal use only. Committee Member
Mahrle asked if a hospital could have extensive computer systems in place to support
its medical operations and if the data and server space remained under 10 percent of
the gross floor area of the hospital’s onsite buildings, would this be classified as a data
center under the proposed definition. Committee Member Mahrle expressed that this
exemption appeared to be based on usage and proportion of floor area, unless the
hospital began leasing the data capacity to third-party entities, which would then
reclassify it as a data center.

Committee Member Cardenas asked how many hospitals currently exceed that 10
percent threshold and whether some of them might already be marketing or using their
facilities in ways that could bring them under this definition. Committee Member
Cardenas stated that this gray area could lead to confusion about when an otherwise
exempt facility becomes subject to the proposed regulations. Mr. Bednarek responded
that the intent of the definition is to allow institutions like hospitals or universities to
manage their own internal data operations without triggering the full regulatory
framework. Mr. Bednarek stated that as long as the use remains internal and under the
10 percent gross floor area threshold, such facilities would not be considered data
centers under the ordinance, however, if they began leasing server space to third
parties, they would then fall within the scope of the data center designation. Mr.
Bednarek said that this flexibility was intended to accommodate facilities that have
legitimate internal data needs, such as hospitals, while ensuring that purpose-built
commercial data centers are subject to community oversight through the proposed
special permit process.

Committee Member Cardenas asked for confirmation that any facility with server or
data operations occupying more than 10 percent of the gross floor area regardless of
intended use would be defined as a data center under the text amendment. Mr.
Bednarek responded that this was correct.

Committee Member Perez commented that Google has started doing tenant
improvements and this may suggest they may not own their buildings on their own land
and may be leasing space for a data center. Committee Member Perez asked if this



Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

situation has been considered and what would the response be. Mr. Bednarek
responded this would be treated just like the adoption any new ordinance if you were in
the middle of a building permit and, those are the things that we're going to have to sort
out on a case-by-case basis with every property owner depending on where they are at
in the process. Mr. Bednarek stated in the new framework for data centers is
appropriate and it is the simplest process, but some adjustments will be made, and staff
will work through it properly.


PUBLIC COMMENT:

Cepand Alizadeh, representing the Arizona Technology Council, introduced himself
and shared a personal experience to illustrate the importance of access to electronic
medical information and the critical role of Data Centers. Mr. Alizadeh explained that he
works with an organization that provides information and supports a variety of
technology industries, emphasizing its alignment with economic development efforts.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that correspondence outlining the Arizona Technology Council’s
position on the proposed text amendment had been submitted to the Mayor's Office and
members of the City Council. Mr. Alizadeh stated that data centers are an essential
component of the modern economy, noting that several facilities are either under
consideration or already under construction in different areas of the city, with more
expected in the near future. Mr. Alizadeh also pointed out that data centers vary in size
and capacity, both in terms of the volume of information housed and the operations
conducted within the facilities. Mr. Alizadeh stated that he works with a range of
businesses and organizations that develop services, maintain technology systems, and
ensure that critical information remains readily available. Mr. Alizadeh said on behalf of
the Arizona Technology Council, he expressed concerns about the proposed text
amendment, specifically regarding the process timeline and the requirements for sound
abatement. Mr. Alizadeh stated that additional time is needed to allow for a
comprehensive review and to provide informed feedback on the proposed amendment.
Mr. Alizadeh further noted that the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address
appropriate sound control measures that would be consistent with the functional and
operational needs of data centers.

Samantha DeMoss, representing Rose Law Group, introduced herself and stated that
Data Centers are an expanding use and reflect an important economic sector for the
Phoenix area. Ms. DeMoss stated that addressing Data Centers is very important and
will have long-term implications for growth and development. Ms. DeMoss stated there
are concerns with the current General Plan Amendment specifically that with process
review and timing and the design criteria. Ms. DeMoss stated that additional review time
would be necessary to review and address many of the incomplete details in the
General Plan Amendment as presented. Ms. DeMoss said that additional review time
would allow more stakeholder review and input. Ms. DeMoss stated that the committee




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

consider a 90-day period be granted to allow for more time for a thorough review and
comment.

STAFF RESPONSE:

Mr. Bednarek responded that industry participation in the stakeholder discussion has
been included in the current language regarding sound levels and is within 5 percent so
that could be adjusted to the ambient levels in the area if it were next to a neighborhood
that they can extend to another location Mr. Bednarek stated that if there's a desire by
the committee to insert a specific decibel level right now the idea was that for sound
they are required to hire an engineer to do a study that shows the level next to the
adjacent property and what will be done to maintain appropriate sound levels.

Mr. Bednarek responded that the review process has moved quickly and noted there is
a sense of urgency from the Mayor and Council and many of the policy issues have
been discussed. Mr. Bednarek stated that currently data centers are not addressed in
the zoning ordinance, and this is a great concern.


FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION 1:
Committee Member Robert Warnicke made a motion to recommend approval of
GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Rick Mahrle
seconded the motion.

Committee Member Kleinman asked what the results were from other Village
Planning Committees regarding data centers. Mr. Bednarek responded that there has
been a split with up to five committees in opposition and some approvals with direction.

Committee Member Perez asked if there was information on the committees that voted
for denial, did any have any active plans for data centers. Mr. Bednarek responded a
few are in progress but any new policy and framework will not prohibit data centers from
moving forward.

Committee Member Cardenas commented that there is a stakeholder process and
other actions such as the adoption of marijuana facilities had an extensive public
engagement and with data centers there are many issues and more discussion is
needed.

Committee Member Warnicke commented that he was concerned with data centers
being allowed in C-2 and C-3 zoning areas and this may have an impact in the Encanto
Village. Committee Member Warnicke stated he was less concerned with the sound
mitigation which would be addressed in a special permit or variance action. Mr.




Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Bednarek responded that the General Plan Amendment, which is land use criteria, and
a special permit will still be required.

Committee Member George asked if motion were to be approved would there be
guidance attached to clarify the committee’s position. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
the committee may add comments or provide direction for the vote.

Committee Member Wagner commented that with the information presented and the
discussion more work needs to be done on data centers. Committee Wagner stated that
with audible level they are logarithmic not linear and a small increment can mean
massive change so specific units should be addressed.

VOTE 1:
5-9, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation does
not pass with Committee Members George, Mahrle, Proccaccini, Tedhams and
Mathews in favor with Cardenas, Doescher, Garcia, Kleinman, Perez, Picos, Schiller,
Wagner and Warnicke in opposition.

MOTION 2:
Committee Member Robert Warnicke made a motion to deny GPA-2-25-Y.
Committee Member Mark Cardenas seconded the motion.

VOTE: 2
9-4-1; motioned to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y passes with Committee Members
Cardenas, Doescher, Garcia, Kleinman, Perez, Picos, Schiller, Wagner, Warnicke in
favor and Mahrle, Procaccini, Tedhams and Matthews in opposition with George
abstaining.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and locatio
criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 3-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, stated that the proposed general plan amendment and text
amendment were to add a definition for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance and
implement performance standards and location criteria. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the general plan amendment would discourage data centers from being located in
centers, cores, and corridors. Ms. Sanchez Luna provided the proposed data center
definition and noted that the text amendment would require a Special Permit for data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the proposed
design improvements and noting that staff recommends approval of both the general
plan amendment and text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Parris Wallace noted that the majority of her questions were answered. Chair
Wallace asked if anyone has discussed the increase in internet infrastructure because
communities could benefit from the added infrastructure. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that
that was not something that has been discussed in detail with internal staff. Chair Wallace
asked for more information regarding traffic. Ms. Sanches Luna added that this would not
produce the same levels of traffic as a multifamily project but that commercial and semi-
trailer traffic would be present.

Romona Burris asked if there were any data centers in the area. Ms. Sanchez Luna
stated that she will have to follow up with that information.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 525
Chair Wallace asked if the text amendment would apply to new and stand-alone data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed that the text amendment would apply to new data
centers and reiterated that this would not apply to collage campuses like Grand Canyon
University.

Ms. Burris asked if they there were data centers for general operations such as artificial
intelligence. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Burris asked for more information
regarding sustainability measures. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that they will be required to
obtain a letter from the utility company and that the general plan amendment would help
implement sustainability measures. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that other Village Planning
Committees have made motions with direction if they wished to approve the text
amendment and general plan amendment and still provide more direction. Ms. Burris
stated that she would like to ensure that water conservation is added.

Public Comment:

Jon Gillespie stated that he was a land use attorney that represented numerous data
center companies and emphasized that this industry is important for the City. Mr. Gillespie
noted that the City is an attractive place for data centers because of the lack of natural
disasters, available land, and low cost. Mr. Gillespie added that electric companies are
aware of the higher demand for power but have ensured that the cost would not increase
for residents. Mr. Gillespie noted that data centers are an important economic driver and
that they should be involved in the text amendment process. Mr. Gillespie added that data
centers have been decreasing the amount of water needed to keep an adequate climate.
Mr. Gillespie supported the idea of researching ways to implement more water
conservation. Mr. Gillespie stated that the required “will serve letter” would rush
development and possibly discouraging other companies from building in Phoenix. Mr.
Gillespie requested the text amendment and general plan be denied with a
recommendation of a 90 day extension to evaluate all the concerns from the committee
and industry owners. Mr. Gillespie added that there are concerns with Proposition 207
since the text amendment would require additional zoning requirements that have not
been previously established.

Committee Discussion/Motion/Vote:

Ms. Burris stated that the west side of the City is approximately 5 degrees hotter and
asked how the data centers would be mitigating heat. Mr. Gillespie stated that he was
unaware of any data centers in the Estrella Village. Mr. Gillespie stated that there has not
been significant research that demonstrates that data centers contribute to the heat island
effect. Ms. Burris asked for clarification on the motion that Mr. Gillespie would like to see.
Mr. Gillespie stated that he would like the text amendment and general plan amendment
to be denied with a 90 day extension so that they can have time to involve industry
stakeholders, gather data and address concerns regarding heat. Ms. Burris asked for
more information on why the data center industry was opposed to the text amendment.
Mr. Gillespie stated that one major concern was the “will serve” letter because it would
require site plan approval and certificate of occupancy to be completed within two years
which is an unreasonable condition. Mr. Gillespie added that he did not want the text
amendment to discourage data center companies from building in Phoenix and investing
in the community. Ms. Burris asked why the City wanted to implement restrictions on data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that a lot of available land for job opportunities and

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 526
housing has been lost to data center development, and that the development does not
create a walkable pedestrian environment.

Chase Hales, with the Planning and Development Department, stated that by allowing a
Special Permit, then only a data center would be allowed on site unless otherwise stated.
Mr. Hales noted that the “will serve” letter would ensure development rather than allowing
companies to sit on vacant properties and not built.

Mr. Thrower asked for more information regarding the lack of jobs associated with data
centers. Mr. Gillespie stated that larger data centers only employ approximately 80 to 100
on site technicians of high paying jobs. Mr. Gillespie noted that someone from Mesa could
come to the Phoenix data center and work on site. Mr. Gillespie encouraged the free
market of being able to develop data centers where they were permitted. Mr. Gillespie
cited the importance of technology and artificial intelligence. Mr. Gillespie clarified that his
intent is for the text amendment to be denied allowing for a 90 day extension.

Renee Dominguez asked for the average square footage of a data center that employs
80 to 100 people. Mr. Gillespie state that it ranged from 5 acres to 60 acres and from 500
square feet to 500,000 square feet. Mr. Gillespie provided an example along the Loop 202
Freeway. Mr. Gillespie emphasized that his intent was to extend the text amendment to
allow for more stakeholder involvement and for staff to study the economic and job impact.
Mr. Gillespie stated that the zoning districts where data centers are located do not allow
for residential use.

Chair Wallace stated that C-2 and C-3 do allow for multifamily housing. Ms. Sanchez
Luna confirmed. Chair Wallace noted that housing was a key priority. Mr. Gillespie
stated that C-2 and C-3 are not the target sites for data centers. Mr. Gillespie realized that
housing conservation is important.

Mr. Gillespie noted that his request was a denial to allow more stakeholder engagement
and to address issues with water resources and housing and the economic and job
industry. Mr. Gillespie added that the extension would also allow for clarification regarding
Proposition 207.

Chair Wallace clarified that her biggest issue is housing and that she did not want to lose
available C-2 and C-3 land to data centers. Ms. Burris asked what incentives the data
center industry provides since they would be taking land that was intendent for housing.
Ms. Burris asked if the data center industry had some sort of program to help first-time
home buyers. Mr. Gillespie stated that he was aware of the concern regarding losing
available land but that data centers provide high paying wages and produce millions of
dollars that are invested in the community. Mr. Gillespie agreed that C-2 and C-3 should
be preserved for housing but that this would affect areas that already have CP/GCP, A-1
and A-2 zoning which are areas that are already primarily industrial.

Motion 1:
Renee Dominguez made a motion to approve GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation.
Chair Parris Wallace seconded.

Ms. Burris asked for more information on what a yes vote would mean and what a no vote
would mean. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified the intent and proposed changes in the general
plan amendment and text amendment. Ms. Burris asked for clarification and asked if
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 527
approving it would limit data centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the text amendment
would limit where they could be placed and allow for a Special Permit. Ms. Burris
suggested an extension of 90 days so that the necessary data could be gathered and
presented to the committee. Ms. Sanchez Luan clarified that a yes vote would mean that
she supported the initiatives to limit data center development.

Vote 1:
2-2, Motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y did not pass with Committee Members
Dominguez and Wallace in favor and Committee Members Burris and Thrower in
opposition.

Chair Wallace stated that she would like to explain her vote. Chair Wallace stated that C-
2 and C-3 properties would be able to service the community and that she would prefer
businesses that generated jobs in the community rather than outside resources. Chair
Wallace noted that these decisions will affect all children in the future and stated that the
text amendment was forward thinking.

Ms. Burris noted that individuals with high paying jobs could find houses they could afford
in the City. Ms. Burris stated that she supported incentives to help first-time homeowners
purchase a house and keep individuals in their community. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified
that any sort of incentive to assist first-time home buyers would not be enforceable by the
Planning and Development Department. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the intent of these
amendments was in relation to land use policy and development standards.

Mr. Thrower stated that the text amendment was too broad. Mr. Thrower noted that a
Special Permit made sense in C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP, but that he did not want to limit any
potential business investments in A-1 and A-2. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that an
alternative motion could be to recommend approval with the modification that a Special
Permit be required in C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP.

Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that the previous motion did not pass.

Motion 2:
Chair Parris Wallace made a motion to approve GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Renee Domingez seconded.

Vote 2:
3-1, Motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y passed with Committee Members
Dominguez, Thrower, and Wallace in favor and Committee Members Burris in opposition.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 528
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 12, 2025
Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
Request
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 13-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) were heard together.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, stated that the proposed general plan amendment and text
amendment were to add a definition for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance and
implement performance standards and location criteria. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the general plan amendment would discourage data centers from being located in
centers, cores, and corridors. Ms. Sanchez Luna provided the proposed data center
definition and noted that the text amendment would require a special permit for data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the proposed
design improvements and noting that staff recommends approval of both the general
plan amendment and text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Stephanie Hurd stated that Amazon had recently purchased a large piece of
land within the South Mountain Tech Corridor, severely limiting employment
opportunities. Chair Hurd noted that property owners were encouraged to not sell their
land to data centers but after SRP’s announcement regarding the South Mountain
Transmission Project, data center companies are pushing to purchase land. Chair Hurd
voiced her disappointment in losing land that was meant for employment opportunities.
Chair Hurd added that this request would protect Laveen and the City of Phoenix. Chair
Hurd asked staff to explain what would happen with properties that have been recently
rezoned to allow C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP uses. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that that
question has been presented to staff and that there has been discussion internally, but
that the determination would be made by the Law Department and Mayor and Council.
Chair Hurd noted that several data center representatives have been present at VPC
meetings.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 529
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 2

Rebecca Perrera asked if the performance standards regarding sustainability would
also address water. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that data
centers utilize a lot of water. Ms. Perrera noted that these data centers should be
finding solutions to recycle water and utilize their water to maintain landscaping areas.
Ms. Perrera suggested adding more provisions on water conservation.

Juanita Darby stated that her husband works in the data center industry. Ms. Darby
noted that her husband and her were opposed to the proposed Amazon data center.
Ms. Darby added that data centers use a lot of energy and that in other cities they are
unable to generate any additional power. Ms. Darby stated that they should voice their
concerns to protect Laveen and the City of Phoenix. Ms. Darby was opposed to data
centers in the area.

Kristi McCann asked if the Gila Foothills PUD was identified as a Center or a Corridor,
would it discourage data centers from being developed in the area. Chair Hurd noted
that the text amendment would help prevent data centers in the Gila Foothills PUD area.
Ms. Sanchez Luna added that from a policy standpoint, if the General Plan does not
support data centers in a Center, then staff would not be supportive of a proposed data
center.

Patrick Nasser-Taylor noted that he did not like the word “discourage” presented in the
presentation. Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that since the employment corridor was along
the Loop 202, would this prevent any future data centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
it would be discouraged and that a Special Permit would be required. Mr. Nasser-
Taylor asked if the amendments could have changes in the language. Ms. Sanchez
Luna stated that similar to previous text amendments, the committee could vote to
approve the amendment but add to the recommendation in the form of direction.

Mixen Rubio-Raffin was aware of the high-water usage and noted that new technology
like artificial intelligence have increased the demand for data centers. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
added that in terms of technology and policy, policy seems to be a few steps behind
technology. Ms. Rubio-Raffin advocated for a water efficiency plan to be added to the
text amendment.

Michael Doromal noted that data centers utilize a lot of power. Mr. Doromal suggested
data centers be required to self-generate a portion of their required power so they don’t
put a strain on the community.

Chair Hurd asked Committee Member Darby if she had any information on energy
conservation. Ms. Darby asked her husband, Brian Darby, for clarification. Brian Darby
stated that so much energy is required that the development can’t generate all of it’s
power through solar panels. Mr. Doromal noted that he was requesting a portion of it to
be generated. Mr. Darby added that other projects have implemented alternative forms
but that the data center requires constant power. Mr. Doromal added that the data
center will be part of the community and should contribute. Mr. Doromal wanted a
percentage of self-generating power.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 530
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 3


Carlos Ortega wanted to vote on the item. Mr. Ortega stated that data centers also
benefit schools via impact fees.

Linda Abegg voiced her appreciation for the Mayor and Council regarding getting the
text amendment approved quickly. Ms. Abegg stated that she will support the case
moving forward. Ms. Abegg noted that she was aware of a subcommittee being
implemented for this text amendment. Ms. Abegg added that she expected the
language to be reviewed by the Law Department to ensure enforceability.

Ms. Perrera stated that Committee Member Ortega’s comment was incorrect. Ms.
Perrera stated that data centers receive a lot of tax breaks.

Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that he was concerned on how this would affect Laveen. Mr.
Nasser-Taylor noted that the Gila Foothills PUD allows C-2 uses and asked how this
would affect the allowed uses. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that that was being discussed
with the Law Department but that any future properties would need to be rezoned to
obtain a Special Permit. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if this would mean that the case
would be presented to the Village for recommendation. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed.
Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the text amendment would prevent data centers to be
allowed by right in C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2.

Ms. Abegg stated that the Council Members were the ones that initiated the request
which she would assume meant that they are opposed to data centers being built
anywhere.

JoAnne Jensen agreed with Committee Member Abegg and Rubio-Raffin. Ms. Jensen
noted that the Gila Foothills PUD area was designated as a Major Urban Center. Ms.
Jensen suggested implanting language regarding water. Ms. Jensen also had concerns
with the noise requirements and added that there should be no noise permitted on
weekends, holidays, and at night. Ms. Jensen voiced her appreciation for Mayor and
Council.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin suggested limiting the data center height to two stories and ensuring
that some sort of art feature is implemented. Chair Hurd noted that the art and
architectural embellishments were already part of the text amendment.

Public Comment:

Tom Galvin noted that there were numerous concerns regarding the text amendment.
Mr. Galvin stated that data centers have contributed millions of dollars to the City of
Phoenix. Mr. Galvin added that data centers require million of dollars of investments.
Mr. Galvin stated that the cases were being rushed and that he was requesting a
minimum 60-day continuance. Mr. Galvin stated that there could be issues with
Proposition 207 and that no text amendment has been going through the process so
quickly. Ms. Abegg stated that when the data center company bought land, they did not

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 531
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 4

present nor contact members of the committee. Ms. Abegg said it was unusual for
representatives to request a continuation when they never bothered to speak to the
community or the committee. Mr. Galvin asked if the committee supported the lack of
interaction from stakeholders. Chair Hurd noted that this was the public comment
portion of the hearing.

Anirudh Krishna voiced his concerns regarding water usage and that he agreed with
all the comments provided by the committee.

Committee Discussion/Motion/Vote:

Ms. Abegg suggested adding language regarding energy and water conservation.

Vice Chair Jensen suggested more noise standards.

Mr. Ortega suggested larger impact fees.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin suggested limiting the square footage of land. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
added that there needed to be more than two stories. Ms. Abegg voiced her concerns
regarding enforceability. Ms. Abegg recommended special attention and minimizing
square footage.

Motion:
Linda Abegg motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Carlos Ortega seconded the motion.

Vote:
13-0, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y passed with Committee Members
Abegg, Darby, Doromal, McCann, Nasser-Taylor, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, Rubio-Raffin,
Serrette, Barraza, Jensen, and Hurd in favor.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 532
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 14, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers

VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Vote 13-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Member Chris Demarest left during this item bringing quorum to 13.

Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, shared information on how the Village Planning Committee
can stay involved with the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment
throughout the entire process. Mr. Moric explained how comments will be
forwarded onto Planning Commission on June 5th and City Council on June 18th
prior to the City Council break.

Mr. Moric stated the Mayor and City Council in December of 2024 requested staff
to create policy guidance and zoning regulations for data centers. Mr. Moric
explained how the City was working under previous informal interpretations
completed about 20 years ago. Mr. Moric stated the location criteria is to be for
the General Plan item and the areas in which they would be encouraged and
discouraged. Mr. Moric reminded the Committee that usually when development
comes in it is already required to provide infrastructure such as sidewalks,
shading, bus stops, etc.

Mr. Moric identified design guidelines being proposed for these facilities. Mr.
Moric added the design guidelines of the architecture which are typically required
in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Moric stated the zoning districts by which these
facilities were proposed to require a Special Permit.

Questions from the Committee/Public Comments
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 533
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Chris Demarest said he was familiar with the data center on 40th Street and
McDowell Road.

Ken DuBose thought these data centers were needed because of all the new
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology.

Al DePascal said they need lots of water.

Saundra Cole asked if they could request solar on the buildings. Mr. Moric said
yes and that the end decision will be made by City Council, but at the same time it
could inform City Council of what the VPC would like to see at these new
facilities.

Meli Acevedo emphasized the importance of water. Mr. Moric said he was not
sure how these facilities actually operate and if they need to be close to the end
user or if they could be far away from the community of users.

Chair Barba said that after the presentation perhaps the guest speaker could
provide additional information.

Ms. Cole asked how many jobs would be provided. Mr. Moric said that the data
center facilities he knew of were not big employment generators, but said the
guest speaker could probably clarify this.

Public Comment
John Gillespie, a land use attorney from the Rose Law Group, said they
represent a large stakeholder group of the data center industry. Mr. Gillespie said
there is a great economic impact to the community and it provides many high
paying jobs with 80 to 150 onsite jobs with an average pay of $97,000 per year.
Mr. Gillespie said they need a good regulatory process in place. Mr. Gillespie said
they were concerned with the timeline for the text amendment changes and it was
a little fast with limited stakeholder engagement. Mr. Gillespie asked for 60 more
days to allow the industry to interact with city staff and leaders to iron out the
kinks. Mr. Gillespie said many sites had a vested right to build data centers. Mr.
Gillespie added that projects in the pipeline should not be stopped and should be
able to continue. Mr. Gillespie also identified a concern with the “will serve” letter
which is a commitment from a public utility company that power will be for a
minimum timeframe. Mr. Gillespie noted the desire for the timeline to be extended
or taken away so they can work with utilities. Mr. Gillespie said without provisions
the City could expose themselves to Proposition 207 waiver of claims. Mr.
Gillespie felt more direction should be given to staff and respectfully urged more
time to work out the kinks.

Chair Barba asked on average how much space is needed for a data center. Mr.
Gillespie responded that some projects are on 10-acre sites and others on 50 to
60 acres. Chair Barba asked what size site Mr. Gillespie based the average 80 to

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 534
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


100 jobs on. Mr. Gillespie responded on the 50-to-60-acre site. Chair Barba
asked about job training for the data center jobs. Mr. Gillespie said that here in
Phoenix it currently has people with the right schooling and education to support
the technology.

Chair Barba felt the VPC responsibility was to be good stewards not only to
provide a good place to live and work. Chair Barba asked if there was a
commitment from Mr. Gillespie’s clients to support educational assistance for
these sorts of jobs. Mr. Gillespie was not sure about the commitment of his
clients to these types of jobs, but he recognized it as a good question and noted
he would investigate it more with his clients and would like to follow-up on it.

Mr. DuBose said we were always lagging behind and with the growth of AI and
emphasized the need for data centers and that AI was the next largest growth in
any community. Mr. DuBose shared frustration of how the rail system is 25 years
behind when it was voted 30 to 40 years ago. Mr. DuBose expressed the
importance of knowing the issues of how much water would be used and how
much energy is needed. Mr. DuBose recognized the need to come together with a
smart plan but also expressed fear of falling behind.

Mr. Gillespie said that the data center industry wants to be on the front edge of
AI and it sees Phoenix as an attractive area since it does not have natural
disasters, it has a low regulatory environment and a good climate. Mr. Gillespie
added it has the right people to support the industry. Mr. Gillespie expressed
concern about creating a roadblock to this industry. Mr. Gillespie noted the
technology has advanced to not be a high water user but rather a high energy
power electricity user.

Mr. DuBose noted he would like to see Maryvale have an IT program for their
high school kids.

Mr. Gillespie mentioned companies like Google and Apple want to invest in
Arizona, but data centers is a nationwide industry. Mr. Gillespie was not certain of
who the top Arizona companies are with interest here but knew there was a
nationwide interest.

Ms. Acevedo reminded the VPC of the many deaths in Maricopa County due to
extreme heat. Ms. Acevedo has concerns with energy and housing shortages.
Ms. Acevedo said too often we put profit over people. Ms. Acevedo asked about
water.

Mr. Gillespie said the amount of water needed has gone down and they could
potentially use grey water. Mr. Gillespie noted heat as a real issue facing Arizona.
Mr. Gillespie said he was not aware of heat increasing due to the data center. Mr.
Gillespie admitted heat was an issue, but did not believe the off-put of a data
center was any different than heavy industrial type of uses. Mr. Gillespie did not

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 535
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


know if more heat would be generated from A-1 and A-2 type of uses. Mr.
Gillespie added they were not asking for data centers to be built in any other area
than currently allowed and added that it was a commercial and industrial use and
that’s where it should be.

Ms. Acevedo expressed concern about providing energy for computers versus
people.

Mr. Gillespie said the number one priority of SRP and APS power companies is
they need solar and their number one priority is to protect consistent customers.

Chair Barba asked about increases of prices to the surrounding communities on
utilities. Mr. Gillespie said that there are no reports of that.

Chair Barba expressed concerns that consumers have to offset the costs. Mr.
Gillespie said that the text amendment would require proof they could get
electricity.

Mr. Gillespie said data centers want to locate near good infrastructure.

Chair Barba asked about noise associated with these facilities. Mr. Gillespie felt
the noise study of no more than 5 percent increase should resolve this issue.

Vice Chair Derie brought to the Committee’s attention the topic of Motorola
coming to Arizona in 1950’s and 60’s and now data centers are the next leap in
technology and reminded the VPC of the large nuclear power plant nearby. Vice
Chair Derie wanted all forms of energy sources to be considered and utilized.

Mr. Gillespie said the Arizona State Government has a pro-technology stance
and favorable regulatory environment for data centers. Mr. Gillespie said at the
municipality level is where control is desired.

Vice Chair Derie said communities jumped on the idea of light rail and all of a
sudden the State says we don’t like light rail and had hoped light rail would be in
Maryvale already.

Mr. Gillespie said the industry itself is driving the demand and said it’s a different
animal than the light rail.

Ms. Cole asked what the backers were if they were mainly American and she
asked if there are international ones.

Warren Norgaard stated the main question is not if they want data centers but if
they are proposed what the specific language is for their guidance. Mr. Norgaard
expressed concerns with data centers running on methane gas generators which
are causing people to get ill.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 536
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Mr. Gillespie said they should let the developers show they have an alternative
source of energy or for there to be a creative solution.

Victoria Stahl asked about projects to be grandfathered in, without following the
guidelines. Mr. Gillespie said there are more than 5 to 10 projects that are
currently in the process. Mr. Gillespie said there could be more but needless to
say these are millions of dollars to purchase land, design buildings and sites. Mr.
Gillespie said grandfathering language allows projects to continue and felt there
was a need for 60 more days of stakeholder engagement.

Al DePascal asked why Mr. Gillespie wants a 60-day delay. Mr. Gillespie said
this text amendment is going faster than other text amendments.

Mr. Gillespie explained the second phase of existing sites and facilities may have
to come through a special permit. Mr. Gillespie expressed concern over a 207
waiver of claims since sites for data centers may have been purchased and
invested in. Mr. Gillespie said many data centers are in the queue to complete
these facilities and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the land to
develop these sites and this could lead to a battle with the City with a 207 waiver
issue. Mr. Gillespie said these facilities would still have to go through the
permitting process. To modify a building limits the number of changes permitted
or otherwise it would have to follow today’s codes.

Mr. Moric asked if Mr. Gillespie knew why the stakeholder group did not include
Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) requiring the special permits. Mr. Gillespie
wanted some districts not to go through special permit processes such as A-1 or
A-2. Mr. Gillespie said that it might make sense to include the PUD’s in the text
amendment.

Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Motion, Discussion, and Vote.

MOTION 1:
Warren Norgaard motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Vice Chair Gene Derie seconded the motion.

Meli Acevedo recommended to include language in the motion for sustainable
energy, solar sources and reclaimed water.

MOTION 2:
Vice Chair Derie motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation with direction to include sustainable energy, solar sources and
reclaimed water. Victoria Stahl seconded the motion.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 537
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


VOTE
13-0, Motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y with direction passed, with
Committee Members Acevedo, Alonzo, Cole, DePascal, DuBose, Galaviz,
Jimenez, Norgaard, Ramirez, Stahl, Weber, Derie and Barba in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 538
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting May 8, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25-Y. Mr.
Zambrano discussed concerns with data centers that the General Plan Amendment and
Text Amendment are trying to address. Mr. Zambrano explained the policy guidance for
data centers that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the three main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano shared the
proposed Zoning Ordinance definition for a data center. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the proposed design guidelines and their purpose. Mr. Zambrano shared the zoning
districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special Permit and other
performance standards, and noted that Special Permits go through the same public
hearing process as rezoning cases. Mr. Zambrano stated that a noise study would be
required if the data center is within a certain distance from residential. Mr. Zambrano
shared the upcoming public hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends
approval per the language in Exhibit A of the staff report.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Kylie Kennelly asked if there are any successful cases where
data centers have been integrated into communities. Mr. Zambrano responded that
some of the design guidelines were inspired by the Evans Churchill APS substation in
Downtown Phoenix, which is hidden behind an enhanced design interface with murals
and art installations.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 539
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Vice Chair Michelle Ricart stated that data centers should be separated from each
other. Vice Chair Ricart asked for clarification that data centers usually do not employ
many people and do not bring many jobs to an area. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively.

Public Comments:
Henry Hardy, with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a stakeholder opposed to
this item. Mr. Hardy stated that stakeholders were only made aware of this about a
week and a half ago. Mr. Hardy stated that the public hearing process would be about
a month and a half, which they believe is extremely abbreviated. Mr. Hardy requested
a continuance or delay in the process for more stakeholder input. Mr. Hardy stated that
their primary concern is with existing data centers and data centers that are currently
being developed. Mr. Hardy asked that those data centers be grandfathered-in under
the existing code. Mr. Hardy expressed concerns with Proposition 207 for diminution in
property value. Mr. Hardy noted that each data center is billions of dollars of
development being brought into the City of Phoenix and tens of millions of dollars
coming back to the City in the form of tax revenue. Mr. Hardy added that data centers
are an essential element of tech infrastructure and are essential for Phoenix to remain
a competitive employment hub and tech hub. Mr. Hardy reiterated that they just want
more time to talk about the proposal with staff and with stakeholders.

Staff Response:
Mr. Zambrano responded that Proposition 207 concerns are a City Council concern
and should not be a concern at the Village Planning Committee level. Mr. Zambrano
added that existing data centers would be considered legal non-conforming and would
be “grandfathered-in”, but if they want to expand in the future, then that is when the
new regulations would apply.

Discussion:
Committee Member Scott McGill asked if there are any data centers that are coming
into North Phoenix or the North Gateway Village at this time. Mr. Hardy responded that
he is not aware of any. Mr. Hardy stated that there has been an increased demand for
them, and the industry is getting ready to build more to meet that demand. Committee
Member McGill asked for clarification that data centers are not generators of job
growth. Mr. Hardy responded that data centers are typically not major employers and
could have between five to 20 employees within the data center. Mr. Hardy expressed
concerns with the will-serve letter from the power company, noting that it is not
consistent with industry standards and would make development not feasible. Mr.
Hardy stated that a 10-year timeframe for the will-serve letter would be better since
data centers are typically phased and their energy demand would be related to when
each phase is built. Mr. Hardy asked for more time to work through these details with
staff and stakeholders. Committee Member McGill asked how long of a continuance
Mr. Hardy is asking for. Mr. Hardy responded that there is no specific timeline, but staff
and stakeholders could discuss it over the summer.

Vice Chair Ricart stated that fire departments are concerned with data centers as well
due to their massive size, complex floor plans, and the type of equipment and batteries
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 540
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

within them. Vice Chair Ricart stated that she agrees with the Special Permit
requirement because the community needs to be able to have an input on data centers
before they are approved. Vice Chair Ricart stated that self-service storage facilities
also require a Special Permit and noted that it is good for the surrounding community
to know that a data center is being proposed nearby their community. Vice Chair Ricart
stated that she likes the location criteria and design policy proposed.

Committee Member Thomas Salow asked for clarification if the turnaround time for
the public hearing process is typical or expedited. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is
expedited by about a month, noting that the Mayor and City Council has directed staff
to get these two items to the City Council before their summer recess, which is why
staff is moving forward with the proposed schedule. Mr. Zambrano stated that rezoning
cases typically have at least a three-month public hearing process with the Village
Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council hearings a month apart.
Mr. Zambrano added that he was not involved in the stakeholder meetings but believes
there have been one or two meetings so far.

Vice Chair Ricart added that there are 14 other Village Planning Committee hearings
that are coming up.

Committee Member Kennelly asked what the difference is between the General Plan
Amendment and the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that the General
Plan Amendment would amend the 2025 General Plan, which is the policy guidance,
and the Text Amendment would amend the Zoning Ordinance to create zoning
regulations for data centers.

Committee Member Andrea Crouch asked if the design guidelines for data centers
are intended to blend the data center into the surrounding area, similar to how some
cellphone towers look like trees. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the
design guidelines are trying to discourage massive, monolithic buildings and are trying
to soften the design.

Vice Chair Ricart asked if tattoo parlors also require a Special Permit. Mr. Zambrano
responded that they require a Use Permit, which goes through a different process. Mr.
Zambrano stated that Special Permits are heard by the Village Planning Committee
and go through the rezoning process. Vice Chair Ricart reminded Committee members
that they could abstain from the vote.

MOTION – GPA-2-25-Y:
Committee Member Andrea Crouch motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-
Y, per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Aaron Stein seconded the
motion.

VOTE – GPA-2-25-Y:
8-0; the motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Crouch, Kennelly, Li, Manion, McGill, Salow, Stein,
and Ricart in favor.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 541
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 542
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 21, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-4-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 6 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Item No. 7 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation regarding both proposals, reviewing
the background, concerns, proposed policy changes, proposed regulatory changes,
and the staff recommendations. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that both items were scheduled
for Planning Commission on June 5, 2025 and City Council on June 18, 2025.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jason Barraza asked if staff had consulted with the industry
regarding the proposed changes. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that it was his understanding
that staff consulted with the industry, but did not know the number of groups that were
contacted. Committee Member Barraza asked if will-serve letters were commonly
used in the City of Phoenix or if it was novel to data centers. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that
he did not specifically know the extent to which the City of Phoenix requires will-serve
letters but was aware of other jurisdictions that routinely require will-serve letters.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle stated that data centers are generally quiet and
that servers do not care about looking out a window. Committee Member Hepperle
stated that employees working in a data center would not necessarily care about the
distance to a transit center. Committee Member Hepperle stated that the ability to
serve could be compared to a water service provider. Committee Member Hepperle
stated that he did not see a reason to pause the General Plan Amendment.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 543
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews asked if there were any Proposition 207 concerns and
if there were any zoning districts today that allow data centers that would not be
allowed if the Zoning Text Amendment were to be approved. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that
the City’s Legal Department has evaluated the risk associated with Proposition 207
and has determined there is minimal risk. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the zoning
ordinance was silent on data centers and that data centers were currently being
allowed as a result of an informal interpretation of the zoning ordinance.

Committee Member Steve Pamperin asked what the results were from the other
villages. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that one village did not have quorum and that some
villages were supportive while others were apprehensive.

Committee Massimo Sommacampagna asked about the 5% over ambient noise
provision. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that a noise study would be required prior to
preliminary site plan approval and that the noise study would require that ambient
noise levels would be taken at the site, presumably over a period of time, to obtain an
average. Mr. Kuhfuss stated the data center would then be allowed to operate at a
level that is 5% above the measured ambient level.

Committee Member Steve Pamperin stated that Arizona Public Service was in the
process of seeking approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission to allow a rate
increase to offset the cost of the energy and infrastructure needed to support data
centers, and that the General Plan Amendment should include language that places
more cost burden on the data centers as opposed to the costs being absorbed by the
homeowners. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the issue ties back to the reason for the will-
serve letter and that if the electrical provider does not have the capacity or
infrastructure available to serve the facility, the provider would not issue a will-serve
letter. Committee Member Pamperin expressed concerns that residents would be
required to pay for the infrastructure needed to support data centers when the data
center operators should be responsible for any infrastructure improvements needed to
support the facility. Committee Member Pamperin reiterated that residents should not
have to pay for the infrastructure needed to support data centers. Mr. Kuhfuss stated
that it appeared there were two issues being discussed: one being a rate increase
being considered by the Arizona Corporation Commission versus a city requirement
that the developer make those investments. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the discussion
should not necessarily mix the city’s proposed General Plan Amendment with Arizona
Corporation Commission’s policy. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that if there was some additional
policy that could be included in the General Plan Amendment, the Committee could
consider those changes.

Committee Massimo Sommacampagna asked if there was language that would
encourage adaptive reuse. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not recall specific
language in the proposed Zoning Text Amendment regarding adaptive reuse but there
was existing language in the zoning code that might apply.

Chair Stephanie Fogelson stated that she has been part of the Village Planning
Committee for approximately four to five years and has never received a phone call
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 544
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

from the Mayor’s Office expressing an opinion regarding the Mayor’s position on a
proposed case and asked if that was common practice. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he
did not know the Council’s common practice, but understands there is some urgency
regarding the matter, which has led to the June 18th City Council date. Chair
Fogelson asked what the urgency was. Mr. Kuhfuss referenced a slide containing six
bullet points that expressed the rationale for the proposed General Plan Amendment
and Zoning Text Amendment. Chair Fogelson stated that many of those issues
seemed to be based on opinion rather than data and wanted to know where the
urgency is coming from. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not know specifically.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle asked if the art installations would be internal to
the building or visible to the public. Mr. Kuhfuss stated they would be visible to the
public.

Committee Member Jason Barraza stated that his understanding is that nothing like
this currently exists in the city and that data centers pretty much have free reign
currently. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he would not classify it as “free reign” and
reiterated the existence of the informal interpretation of the code. Committee Member
Barraza asked if there were any existing data centers in the city that would not be in
compliance if the proposed Zoning Text Amendment were to be approved. Mr.
Kuhfuss stated that he did not have the answer to that question.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna asked about the timing of the
hearing schedule. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the timing of the matter was handed to us.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cepand Alizadah stated that he is the Government Relations Specialist with the
Arizona Technology Council. Mr. Alizadah stated that he was present during the
Alhambra Village Planning Committee meeting the previous night and had also
attended the Ahwatukee Village Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Alizadah stated
anecdotally that he had emergency surgery a month prior as a result of a car accident
in a remote area and that all of his medical data was readily available to the medical
staff as it had been saved to a data center, which gave the healthcare team access to
his allergies and other health conditions. Mr. Alizadah stated that the Arizona
Technology Council is a trade association that represents 750 technology companies
of all sizes. Mr. Alizadah stated that the future of technology is Artificial Intelligence
and that AI’s backbone is data centers. Mr. Alizadah stated that data centers are job
creators, not only in manufacturing, but during operation, ranging from 10 to 15
employees for a small facility to as many as 50 employees for a large facility and
generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. Mr. Alizadah stated that data
centers generate tax revenue and pay permit fees. Mr. Alizadah stated that the City of
Chandler passed a data center ordinance in February of 2022, which has been well
received by the data center community, and that he wished to speak on two specific
aspects of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Alizadah stated that audio
engineers do not measure sound levels as percentages but use an A-Weighted
decibel threshold and asked the Committee to replace the language relating to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 545
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

percentages with language referencing an A-Weighted decibel threshold, and to
include period measurement specifications. Mr. Alizadah also expressed concerns
over the requirement for a utility will-serve letter stating that a will-serve letter is
common, but the two-year item frame is too short as data centers require several
years of planning. Mr. Alizadah stated that a ten-year time frame is more appropriate.
Mr. Alizadah stated that the Ahwatukee Village Planning Committee did not vote in
favor of the General Plan Amendment or Zoning Text Amendment citing concerns
over the noise measurement standards and a desire for more stakeholder
engagement.

Samantha DeMoss, with Rose Law Group, asked for either a denial of the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment or a 90-day continuance. Ms.
DeMoss stated that the current General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text
Amendment is moving through the process too quickly for such a complex use with no
stakeholder input, or Village input prior to the public hearing process. Ms. DeMoss
stated that the proposed language of the Zoning Text Amendment would effectively
constitute a ban on data centers. Ms. DeMoss also expressed concerns over the
requirement for a will-serve letter stating that Arizona Public Service currently has an
eight- to twelve-year back up on major projects and that a two-year window would
make data centers impossible to achieve. Ms. DeMoss expressed concerns over
Proposition 207 with respect to data centers that are already being sought out. Ms.
DeMoss stated there is a lot of conversation around job creation and that data centers
create jobs both directly and indirectly. Ms. DeMoss stated that for every direct job
there are six related but indirect jobs and that there are currently 200,000 jobs within
the City of Phoenix that are affiliated with data centers. Ms. DeMoss also stated that
data centers create tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue. Ms. DeMoss reiterated
that the currently proposed language would make data centers infeasible and
requested the Committee deny the request with a 90-day continuance to allow a
redraft following appropriate stakeholder input. Committee Member
Sommacampagna asked for additional clarification regarding will-serve letters. Ms.
DeMoss stated that the utility company issues a letter stating that they will provide
services in a specified amount of time based on capacity. Ms. DeMoss stated that
utility companies are ramping up production and data centers will need to wait their
turn but that will not happen within two years, which makes financial feasibility
improbable. Ms. DeMoss stated that co-location also becomes difficult as only 10%
may be shared. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski asked who is responsible for
obtaining a will-serve letter. Ms. DeMoss stated that it was the developer’s
responsibility, and that it is probable that a facility may be constructed in more than
one phase which may require multiple will-serve letters and should be addressed in
the proposed language. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski stated that it was her
recollection that data centers were allowed with a Special Permit. Ms. DeMoss stated
that data centers do not currently require a Special Permit but rely on an informal
interpretation. Ms. DeMoss stated that the proposed language came out too fast and
there would be Proposition 207 implications if approved as proposed. Committee
Member Pamperin asked about water and whether data centers would be
considered high water users. Ms. DeMoss stated that was the case but that water
consumption associated with data centers has decreased over the years.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 546
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that a Proposition 207 Waiver is an
option that the city could offer to a developer seeking to build a data center.
Committee Member Garbarino stated that she has read Chandler’s ordinance
regarding data centers and finds the language to be very similar to that being
proposed.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that the issue with Proposition 207 is that a
change to the zoning ordinance could render a potential site ineligible for a data
center and if that site was already under contract, the property owner could claim
diminution of value. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he had been contacted by a
zoning attorney who stated that he did not object to the idea of enacting new
language but that the currently proposed language was being rushed. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that it was his understanding that the stakeholder input process had
been run concurrently with the Village Planning Committee hearing process as
opposed to it being a linear process. Vice Chair Matthews stated that typically, a
proposed Text Amendment would go to the stakeholder and neighborhood meetings,
then incorporate changes to the proposed language prior to it coming before the
Village Planning Committee. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he supported what the
city is trying to accomplish but expressed concerns that it was being rushed through
the process. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he did not understand why a three-
month delay was not possible. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he was leaning
towards denial.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna stated that he agreed with the
Vice Chair and that the city can do a better job.

Chair Stephanie Fogelson reiterated that this was the first time that she had been
contacted by a city official regarding a proposal and stated that she did not appreciate
the unwelcome influence.

Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that she generally prefers to support
staff but, in this instance, waiting another three months to allow additional discussion
seems more appropriate.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews emphasized that he in no way was being critical of
staff as they are responding to directions from the Mayor and City Council. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that he does question the intent of the elected officials. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that in his capacity as a Planning Commissioner, the Planning
Commission is often presented with an urgent matter that needs to be addressed,
including changes in state law that must be implemented within a certain time frame
to avoid consequences. Vice Chair Matthews stated that without a compelling
explanation, there is no reason not to delay action for three months to allow time for
more discussions with the stakeholders.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 547
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Fred Hepperle stated that he was supportive of the proposed
General Plan Amendment but was not supportive of the proposed Zoning Text
Amendment.

Committee Member Elizabeth Pérez-Pawloski stated that if a developer wants to
build in the city, they should expect to meet certain requirements but also stated that
the will-serve letter component was too quick.

Committee Member Jason Barraza stated that he was supportive of the language of
the Zoning Text Amendment as currently written with respect to noise levels but had
concerns with requiring a will-serve letter from the power company in that his
understanding is that the state legislature was considering a bill that would allow data
centers to internalize their own power production in which case a will-serve letter
would be unnecessary. Committee Member Barraza stated there were also
discussions regarding nuclear power and its potential effect on data center locations
and expressed concerns with rushing forward just to get something on the books
when that may not be appropriate at this time given that information is evolving.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that the noise level methodology implies that if
the ambient noise level was 10 decibels, then a specified percent increase would
bring the noise level up to a certain higher level; however, that noise level may not be
disruptive since we live in an environment that operates about 40 to 70 decibels. Vice
Chair Matthews stated that working with industry standards up to a certain level could
be an acceptable option. Vice Chair Matthews stated that it could be worked out, but
more time was needed.

MOTION:
Committee Elizabeth Pérez-Pawloski motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-
25-Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Fred Hepperle seconded
the motion.

VOTE:
8-4-1, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee Members Garbarino, Harris, Hepperle, Jaramillo, Larson,
Pamperin, Pérez-Pawloski, Sommacampagna in favor; with Committee Members
Alauria, Barraza, Matthews, and Fogelson opposed; and Committee Member
Edwards in abstention.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 548
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting June 2, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-2


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation

Matteo Moric, staff, provided an overview related to the data center agenda items. Mr.
Moric explained that the general plan amendment and text amendment would be heard
together, however, each would require its own vote. Mr. Moric noted the Mayor and
Council provided direction to staff in December of 2024 to work on the policies for data
centers. Mr. Moric explained “the why” for why the data center policy is necessary. Mr.
Moric mentioned the policy for the general plan amendment would focus on three key
areas, including: location criteria policy, design policy, and energy and sustainability
policy. Mr. Moric stated the location criteria policy was to identify areas to discourage
and encourage data centers while the design policy focused on design elements to
incorporate within the site and facilities, and the energy and sustainability policy was to
ensure capacity and efficiency.

Mr. Moric noted the main components of the proposed text amendment to include a
provision for a definition, specific design guidelines and special permit requirements and
performance standards.

Mr. Moric concluded by laying out the staff recommendations.

Questions from Committee



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 549
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Regina Schmidt was concerned there were energy requirements but no water
requirements.

Marc Soronson said he was specifically concerned about land use placement when the
Arizona Republic building in Downtown Phoenix was converted into a technology center
which led to an immense decrease in employment relative to the previous user.

Diane Petersen also expressed concerns with the water supply and asked if staff
reviewed the water issue. Mr. Moric said that when new facilities come in they would
need to go through the Water Services Department and ensure there was an assured
water supply.

Ms. Petersen expressed additional concern with the rushing of the policy and text
amendment through the process. Mr. Moric indicated the Council is seeking direction
and if the Committee sees fit to do so they should add a concern regarding the water
issue.

Patrice Marcolla wanted to understand the stakeholders involved in establishing these
amendments and questioned the “will serve” letter. Ms. Marcolla believed it was an
unknown item of understanding with APS and SRP, and thought there was more time
needed prior to making a decision.

Anna Sepic was concerned with the high power and water usage of data centers. Ms.
Sepic indicated not being in favor of C-1 and C-2 zoning, as that is typically where you
would see retail centers and shops and those properties are high community-traffic
areas. Ms. Sepic felt these sites should be located in heavy industrial areas such as
where A-2 zoning can be found. Ms. Sepic felt locating these sites where there was
already existing higher manufacturing and energy support was appropriate.

Public Comments
Ty Utton with Rose Law Group indicated he represented a broad coalition of data
center developers and land use attorneys. Mr. Utton noted they were just recently
notified about these data center policies and this was an unusually fast for a text
amendment especially as it is one of the most capital intense land uses out there. Mr.
Utton requests a recommendation of denial so it can be sent back to staff and have
more stakeholder engagement. Mr. Utton explained the stakeholder engagement was
three meetings with five people at the first meeting and one hundred people at the last
meeting. Mr. Utton said there needed to be more engagement and voiced concerns
about the fairness and legal exposure to the City and added concern about the
language not including a grandfather clause for landowners and developers as many
companies have already invested millions of dollars into the planning of these facilities
and the purchasing of land. Mr. Utton felt this could be a regulatory taking of property
rights. Mr. Utton also does not like the vague provision of “will serve” letter, and feels
the stakeholders investing in this need to be engaged. Mr. Utton emphasized the
proposal leaves significant risks for the City and wants the utility language to be
clarified. Mr. Utton concluded that he did not want the City to stop the Ordinance

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 550
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


change but just to get it right. Mr. Utton wanted the proposal to be denied or delayed so
they could work together. Mr Utton provided a response to the water question, that all
the data center projects he had been working on do not use water as data centers used
to because of the newer technology and most of the cooling was done by electric
power. Mr. Utton noted that some of the data centers still use a lot of water.

Ms. Sepic asked how much energy was being used and thought data centers should
have a green energy component.

Ms. Marcolla reminded the Committee of the previous case for an 8-lot subdivision and
said it was going through the development process for 2 ½ years and believed the short
turnaround time for the data center text amendment is a concern. Ms. Marcolla believed
with the limited information that it was not clear where data centers shall be placed
within the community.

Ms. Sepic initially felt the item needed to be postponed and there needed to be further
clarification and input. Additionally, Ms. Sepic said there should be heat mapping to
determine where these data centers should be strategically placed.

Ms. Petersen wanted to better understand what the difference would be between a
denial and a postponement and how it would affect the outcome of these policies. Ms.
Petersen did not want to see it postponed then come up in another 45 days or deny with
a caveat that certain components be done before it gets brought back to the Committee.
Mr. Moric said it would be at the discretion of the Committee, but the recommendation
would still get moved forward to the Planning Commission and City Council since there
are 15 Villages it goes through.

Robert Goodhue reiterated that it goes to 15 different Village Planning Committees and
the Committee could act or deny the proposal, but it would still get forwarded on for
action to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Goodhue reminded the
Committee of their role as an advisory body and the VPC’s decision would help the
future decision makers get a pulse of the community. Mr. Goodhue said there are no
adequate requirements for data centers and there are a lot coming in and would hate for
there to be black outs because of all the electricity being used up. Mr. Goodhue
emphasized his feeling that this was coming in front of the Committee since it is an
important issue.

Marc Soronson reminded the VPC that they were an advisory group and he wanted to
better understand why it was being fast tracked and said he would be reluctant to deny
this proposal and would support the staff recommendation as written.

Roy Wise felt a denial would be better as it would set a stronger message to the
Planning Commission and City Council.

Robert Gubser was afraid there was not enough input in the process. Mr. Moric
reminded the Committee that the City was working under the old interpretation from 20

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 551
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


years ago and said that he heard there were at least 5 to 10 data center cases coming
in now and said the City is trying to play catchup.

Chair Mortensen asked if there is a motion to postpone the item. Anna Sepic stated it
would not make sense to allow data centers on the C-1 and C-2 zoned properties and
had concerns of them going too close to residential areas. Ms. Sepic added that she
thought it would make the most sense to locate data centers in A-2 and maybe in A-1
zoned areas.

MOTION 1:
Ms. Sepic motioned to recommend denial or postponement of Z-TA-2-25-Y. Roy Wise
seconded the motion.

Committee Discussion:
Ms. Sepic asked to see the list of districts where a special permit would be required and
explained that the C-2 and C-3 districts allow any type of retail uses and C-3 zoning
allows for heavy material storage but materials are not supposed to be stored outside in
these districts. Ms. Sepic reiterated that she does not want data centers near residential
areas and felt these data centers would be better suited in heavy industrial areas where
there are more intense energy users. Ms. Sepic favored the denial of any C-2 and C-3
areas and wanted to limit them to A-1 and A-2 areas.

Robert Goodhue asked if Ms. Sepic thought it should be eliminated in the C-2, C-3 and
CP/GCP zoned areas. Ms. Sepic thought this was the best and believed they should
only be allowed in A-1 and A-2 zoned areas. Mr. Goodhue then said the motion would
need to be amended.

Ms. Sepic said she wanted to amend her motion to only allow data centers in A-1 and
A-2 zoned areas.

Mr. Utton said there were good points but he said that it would not be allowed by right
in C-2 and C-3 zoned areas but the proposal required a special permit. Mr. Utton noted
a lot of companies such American Express have data centers to support their campus.

Ms. Sepic said it’s hard to find A-1 or A-2 sites over ten acres and it should be limited
and thought they would be allowed if a PUD was crafted. Ms. Sepic felt if the likes of
Google would develop a campus they would not pick A-1 or A-2 as a mandatory box
and most likely go to create a PUD.

Ms. Petersen said it brings up a point for grandfathering such as an American Express.
Mr. Utton said grandfathering is an issue of concern.

Ms. Marcolla noted this type of data center use does not drive a lot of traffic and usually
requires larger lots.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 552
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Ms. Sepic said additional use permits are not the same process as rezoning and would
not protect the community. Ms. Sepic said lots of communities do not like data centers
as they do not generate many jobs and they put a constraint on the grid system. Ms.
Sepic added they push land prices up but are not a great benefit. Ms. Sepic voiced her
support for approval within the A-1 and A-2 zoned areas only. Ms. Sepic repeated the
motion that she requests an amendment only to allow them within A-1 and A-2 and
wanted to remove them from the C-2, C-3 and CP districts.

Mr. Moric indicated the general plan item is usually heard first.

Ms. Sepic asked where data centers were allowed on the General Plan.

Ms. Sepic withdrew her earlier motion, and Roy Wise withdrew the second.

MOTION 2
Patrice Marcolla motioned to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y. Roy Wise seconded
the motion.

Committee Discussion:
Ms. Marcolla felt the language in the staff report is too vague.

Rob Gubser raised the comment on the General Plan Amendment to the Committee
that it sets the goals and policies and is vital to set the framework.

Daniel Mazza felt he did not know how someone could vote against the General Plan
Amendment.

Ms. Sepic said to deny the GPA language as it stands and thought maybe to just deny
because the language was too vague and a second came from Roy Wise.

Mr. Mazza asked if it would be a denial with comments.

Mr. Moric said direction could be provided.

Chair Mortensen repeated that the motion was too vague.

Ms. Sepic felt these data centers would conflict with areas like Metro Center and
redevelopment areas. Ms. Sepic thought Metro Center was a PUD.

Rob Gubser said the general plan sets goals and directions to give staff the directive to
create the text amendment and the policy would be implemented with a text
amendment.


MOTION 3


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 553
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y


Daniel Mazza motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Robert Goodhue seconded the motion.

Mr. Gubser would have preferred to have staff who wrote the policies to better address
questions and with the background.

Amber Sommer said the General Plan would add policies and felt it should be more
stringent with details added to the policy.

Ms. Marcolla asked if approving this would give staff the ability to locate where the data
centers should go, and she felt they were not ready for that.

Ms. Sepic then asked if staff would then investigate what sites data centers should go
on. Mr. Moric reiterated that the general plan was the framework or vision and general
policy for the locations and then the teeth of the ordinance would be with the text
amendment. Ms. Sepic indicated concern with so much area of the City being zoned C-
2, C-3, CP, A-1 and A-2. Ms. Sepic said she would not be in favor of locating these data
centers in the cores, light rail corridors, and within the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. Ms.
Sepic did not feel the General Plan language or text amendment made sense.

Roy Wise said that the General Plan was nothing more than an umbrella.

Larisa Balderrama expressed concern with data centers stating it is like we are in the
wild west as was with the sober living facilities years ago and wanted the General Plan
Amendment approved with parameters.

MOTION 4
Daniel Mazza motioned to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Robert Goodhue seconded the motion.

Vote
12-2; motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee Members Balderrama, Franks, Goodhue, Gubser, Hamra,
Marcolla, Mazza, Petersen, Schmidt, Soronson, Wise, and Mortensen in favor; and
Committee Members Sepic and Sommer in opposition.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 554
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2025
Request Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
location criteria for data centers
VPC Recommendation Denial, with direction
VPC Vote 3-2


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
John Roanhorse, staff, provided an overview of GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-25-Y. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed why the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment are
needed. Mr. Roanhorse summarized and explained the policy guidance for data centers
that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Roanhorse then discussed the three
main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Roanhorse shared the proposed Zoning
Ordinance definition for a data center and proposed design guidelines. Mr. Roanhorse
shared the zoning districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special
Permit and other performance standards. Mr. Roanhorse shared the upcoming public
hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends approval per the language in Exhibit
A of the Staff Report.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Ozzie Virgil stated that these cases are going through the
process very quickly and asked what they are needed for. Mr. Roanhorse responded
that data centers are used for storage and processing of digital data, such as photos
saved in the digital cloud.

Vice Chair Scott Lawrence stated that municipalities did not have to worry about data
centers because they did not exist 20 to 30 years ago, so they are trying to find a way to
make them more aesthetically pleasing and to fit into the community.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 555
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Chair Dino Cotton stated that there are some existing data centers around and more
are being built.

Vice Chair Lawrence asked why it would matter if data services are leased to third
parties or not. Mr. Roanhorse responded that existing data centers would likely be
retrofitted.

Committee Member Virgil asked how many data centers will be built. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that it is unknown, and the market is open for data centers to be built at a
number of different locations.

Chair Cotton stated that Tricia Gomes, Deputy Director with the Planning and
Development Department, reached out to him to discuss the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Text Amendment.

Committee Member Virgil expressed concerns with the rushed public hearing
schedule.

Chair Cotton asked Mr. Roanhorse to clarify the water usage of data centers. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that he is not too familiar with how a data center functions, but they
likely use a large amount of water for cooling.

Committee Member Eileen Baden stated that this topic came up during the Maricopa
County Comprehensive Plan Framework 2040 conference and members of the public
were concerned with increased water usage. Committee Member Baden added that the
Maricopa County Planning and Development Director said that they could add into the
Comprehensive Plan that they will work more closely with cities and towns when these
big projects come in. Committee Member Baden asked if there would need to be some
coordination with Maricopa County if the project is over a certain size. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that there would not be. Mr. Roanhorse stated that for all rezoning cases,
utilities are looked at to ensure there is access and capacity for water, wastewater, and
electricity. Committee Member Baden expressed concerns with affecting the power grid
due to the increased energy demand created from data centers. Committee Member
Baden recommended increasing the sidewalk width to eight feet so emergency
response vehicles could use the sidewalk path in the event of an emergency.
Committee Member Baden added that language could be added that improvements for
data centers may be needed off-site due to the larger impact they could have on the
surrounding community. Mr. Roanhorse responded that those comments can be
included in the recommendation and added that capacity is always looked at for any
development before it is approved.

Committee Member Virgil expressed concerns with what was being stored in data
centers.

Chair Cotton clarified that the Village Planning Committee is reviewing the land use
and design, not what is inside of the data center.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 556
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Mr. Roanhorse clarified the elements that the design guidelines would affect.

Committee Member Will Holton asked if there is a maximum square footage
requirement for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse responded that there is not. Mr.
Roanhorse clarified that the main concern is how data centers can best fit into a
location. Committee Member Holton expressed concerns with building height.
Committee Member Holton asked if data centers have backup generators. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that the three data centers he is aware of do.

Committee Member Baden recommended increasing the sidewalk width required
around data center sites to eight or 10 feet.

Chair Cotton expressed concerns with widening the sidewalks due to the urban heat
island effect.

Vice Chair Lawrence agreed with the design guidelines, noting that they make an
unattractive building that a developer could get away with more community-friendly.
Vice Chair Lawrence stated that it would be more important where the data center
building is placed on a site rather than how tall it is.

Committee Member Holton stated that it would be seen regardless due to the height.

Chair Cotton stated that a comment could be added that the Committee does not want
data centers to be tall.

Committee Member Baden stated that a difference of two feet in the sidewalk width
would likely not make a difference in the urban heat island effect. Committee Member
Baden expressed concerns with accessibility and connectivity.

Public Comments:
Henry Hardy, with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a representative of
stakeholders in the industry, opposed to the proposal. Mr. Hardy stated that they were
made aware of this proposal about two weeks ago. Mr. Hardy stated that the public
hearing process is a very quick turnaround time. Mr. Hardy added that the Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Text Amendment public hearing process was about a seven-month
process. Mr. Hardy stated that they would like more time to go through the details of this
proposal. Mr. Hardy stated that the data center stakeholders are fine with the
architectural and landscape standards and understand that data centers should fit
properly into a community. Mr. Hardy explained that there are elements of the proposal
that do not align with investment and do not address how existing investments for data
centers would be affected. Mr. Hardy expressed concerns with Proposition 207 for
diminution of property values. Mr. Hardy asked for a continuance to allow more time
over the summer for everyone to understand the impacts. Mr. Hardy stated that
although data centers do not employ as many employees as other major employers,
each data center could employ between 80 to 150 people and are high-paying jobs with
median incomes of $95,000 annually. Mr. Hardy added that recent studies said indirect
employment in this industry in Phoenix is around 80,000 employees and direct
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 557
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

employment is about 20,000 employees. Mr. Hardy stated that the will-serve letter
requirement is not consistent with how data centers are developed. Mr. Hardy stated
that other business leaders and investors are watching this amendment and see it as
anti-enterprise legislation. Mr. Hardy stated that they understand that data centers
should better the community and should not be forced upon a community. Mr. Hardy
clarified that they need more engagement.

Staff Response:
None.

Discussion:
Committee Member Holton asked how data centers specifically benefit the
community. Committee Member Holton asked how long the amendment has been in the
works. Mr. Hardy responded that they were notified of the amendment about two weeks
ago. Committee Member Holton asked how many major cities are doing a similar
amendment. Mr. Hardy responded that he was not sure. Mr. Hardy stated that nationally
there is a lot of discussion around data centers and some cities are trying to attract
them. Committee Member Holton asked how data centers are benefiting the community.
Mr. Hardy responded that data centers are multi-billion-dollar investments that each
return tens of millions of dollars to the City in tax revenue. Committee Member Holton
asked what data centers do. Mr. Hardy responded that data centers handle everything
from the GPS system in a car to the data storage where people work. Mr. Hardy stated
that every time a file is saved to the computer or to the phone, it is saved somewhere in
the cloud, which is stored and processed by data centers. Mr. Hardy stated that the
future is data centers.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that the City seems to be contradicting of wanting to be a
tech center by wanting investment from the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Company (TSMC) but not wanting investment from data centers.

Committee Member Holton stated that he could understand how TSMC could make
something that he would actually use versus a data center.

Mr. Hardy stated that TSMC is making chips that go into data centers. Mr. Hardy stated
that it is the future of the economy nationally and globally. Mr. Hardy asked the
Committee to express concerns that the timeline is too fast and to come back with a
better proposal.

Chair Cotton asked for clarification if the data center industry is wanting more time to
go through the design guidelines and make them less restrictive. Mr. Hardy responded
that the design guidelines are not an issue. Mr. Hardy stated that their issues are
Proposition 207, that the text does not say anything about existing data centers and
how the text amendment would affect them, and the text does not say anything about
proposed data centers currently in the development review process and how the text
amendment could affect their existing investments. Mr. Hardy added that the will-serve
letter from the power company to be able to serve the power of the data center in two
years is another major concern. Mr. Hardy stated that a data center cannot get a
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 558
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

commitment for power within two years, and it is probably more around 10 years. Mr.
Hardy added that the power company would ask if the data center has a permit from the
local municipality before providing a will-serve letter. Chair Cotton stated that it seems
the City is trying to rush the text amendment to avoid legal input.

Committee Member Virgil stated that he feels like he does not have enough
information to vote on this item, such as what the height is.

Vice Chair Lawrence concurred.

Mr. Hardy stated that this is the fastest they have seen a text amendment go through
the public hearing process.

Committee Member Holton asked where data centers are being proposed within the
Rio Vista Village.

Committee Member Baden stated that they would be allowed anywhere where that is
zoned for them.

Chair Cotton stated that he does not believe the Village Planning Committee asking for
a continuance would have any impact, since it is still scheduled to be heard by the
Planning Commission and the City Council on their scheduled dates.

Mr. Hardy stated that they want that concern to be passed along to the Planning
Commission and City Council.

Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City has a narrow timeframe to approve or deny a
request due to the State Legislature, and a continuance is typically reserved for the City
Council.

Committee Member Holton stated that he does not understand how the proposal
would impact pending permits.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that if all the Village Planning Committees vote against it,
then the City Council may negotiate a longer term for this proposal.

Committee Member Baden stated that she believes the City is trying to minimize the
impacts that data centers have. Committee Member Baden stated that she is generally
supportive of a majority of the proposal. Committee Member Baden stated that she
understands there are a few elements that may need some more discussion and more
review.

Committee Member Cotton concurred and stated that he is supportive of the design
guidelines and would vote to approve the design guidelines.

Committee Member Baden added that the Fire Department should have sufficient time
to review this proposal because they are supportive of perimeter paths around new
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 559
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

developments, which help with accessibility and connectivity. Committee Member
Baden requested that the sidewalk requirement be widened so emergency vehicles
could use them in the event of an emergency. Committee Member Baden added that
language should be added to state that data centers may require off-site improvements
for fire safety of very large data centers.

MOTION – GPA-2-25-Y:
Vice Chair Lawrence motioned to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y, with direction to
allow more time for stakeholder input. Committee Member Holton seconded the
motion.

VOTE – GPA-2-25-Y:
3-2; the motion to recommend denial of GPA-2-25-Y with direction passed with
Committee members Holton, Virgil and Lawrence in favor and Committee members
Baden and Cotton opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 560
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2025
Amend the General Plan to incorporate design and
Request
location criteria for data centers
Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Recommendation
VPC Vote 9-7


Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, one in support, and one that
did not indicate support or opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and energy
and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers. Mr. Rogers provided
information about further about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and performance
standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked if they could add a requirement to not allow
Data Centers within one mile of the Rio Salado Restoration Area. Mr. Rogers stated that
the requirement could be recommended as a part of the motion.

Committee Member Gene Holmerud explained that Iceland is a popular location for
data centers, stated that places like Iceland make more sense because data centers
produce so much heat, and stated he was surprised there is a demand for data centers in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Trent Marchuk explained that the lack of natural disasters in the
Phoenix area make it an attractive place to locate data centers and asked about the
definition of high-capacity transit. Mr. Rogers explained that high-capacity transit options
are the light rail and bus rapid transit. Committee Member Marchuk asked about existing
data centers. Mr. Rogers stated that existing data centers would be grandfathered and
explained staff is still looking into other items such as phased developments.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 561
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025


Committee Member Petra Falcon asked for staff to display the slide showing the public
hearing dates. Mr. Rogers displayed the slide.

Committee Member Tamala Daniels asked how health hazards are being addressed
and explained that data centers contribute to noise pollution, air pollution, respiratory
illnesses, heat emissions, traffic congestion, and security risks. Mr. Rogers explained
that data centers will be required to go through the Special Permit process and the
Village Planning Committees will have the opportunity to analyze if a site is appropriate.
Mr. Rogers explained a Will Serve letter will be required to ensure data centers are not
over burdening the electric grid, stated that a noise study will be required, stated that data
centers will not be allowed to exceed five percent of the area’s ambient noise, explained
that some data centers have been in the news because of pollution generated from
natural gas fueled fans, and stated that he expects the data centers in Phoenix to get
their power from the electric grid.

Committee Member Mark Beehler echoed Committee Member T. Daniels’ concerns,
stated the cases that the Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommends for denial are
not always ultimately denied by the City Council, stated that he foresees data centers as
something that will be dumped on South Phoenix, and echoed Committee Member
Brownell’s concerns about data centers near the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration area.
Mr. Rogers explained that General Plan Amendment includes guidance to not allow data
centers near corridors and explained that the Rio Salado area is one of the potential
corridors that will be designated as a part of the General Plan implementation.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked about rezoning requirements. Mr. Rogers
explained that a Special Permit would be needed to allow a data center.

Committee Member Ralph Thompson II asked about the number of data centers in
South Phoenix and asked how many jobs data centers generate. Mr. Rogers stated that
he does not have data on the number of data centers in South Phoenix and explained
that at the Central City Village Planning Committee an attorney had stated that data
centers create 80 to 150 jobs. Chair Arthur Greathouse III stated that a further
breakdown of the jobs would be needed to understand the job creation.

Committee Member George Brooks stated that the issues of data centers will continue
to increase, asked if this is something we can spend more time on, described
environmental concerns, and stated that data centers have loud air conditioning units and
heat pumps that will make areas hotter. Committee Member Brooks stated he does not
want data centers to be dumped on South Phoenix, stated that savvy attorneys will argue
for permitting data centers, and stated that more time should be spent on the topic.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

Committee Member Lee Coleman asked for confirmation that data centers can
currently go into any office location. Mr. Rogers explained that data centers are currently
allowed anywhere an office use is allowed.

Committee Member Fred Daniels asked if there are any data centers that are currently
in the pipeline. Mr. Rogers explained he is not aware of any data centers currently in the
pipeline in South Mountain, but he is aware of others around the City.

Chair Greathouse asked about a buffer between data centers and residential and stated
that there is a data center on 40th Street and McDowell Road that is right next to
residential. Committee Member Marcia Busching stated that there is a 150-foot buffer
required from residential. Chair Greathouse stated that 150 feet is not very far.

Committee Member Busching stated that landscape setbacks are required, but walls
are not addressed, stated that there is not a definition of live coverage, stated that water
consumption is not addressed, explained that the buildings have architecture
requirements indicating that the building will likely be able to be seen from the street, and
stated that she likes the idea of a distance requirement from the Rio Salado Habitat
Restoration area.

Mr. Rogers stated that live coverage is often a stipulation on rezoning cases, explained
that live coverage means the area that is covered in trees and shrubs, stated that walls
greater than three feet are not allowed in landscape setbacks, and explained that
additional architecture concerns can be addressed through stipulations during the Special
Permit process.

Committee Member Edward Aldama asked for confirmation that data centers are
currently allowed anywhere an office is and asked if the text amendment will create a
formalized process for the data centers. Mr. Rogers confirmed the General Plan
Amendment and Text Amendment requests will create a formalized process to permit
data centers and mitigate their impacts.

Committee Member Marchuk explained that he had visited a data center for work,
explained that the site he visited had a water treatment facility on site that processed grey
water, and stated that using grey water would be something that would be interesting to
investigate. Mr. Rogers explained that the city has high water user requirements that
require a certain percent of water be recycled.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about the location policy that encourages data
centers in identified redevelopment areas where infrastructure investments are needed
and asked about identified redevelopment areas within South Mountain. Mr. Rogers
explained there is the Target Area B Redevelopment Area in South Mountain, stated
much of it is along proposed and existing corridors, and explained that areas with needed




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

infrastructure investments are generally areas on the periphery of the city that need roads
and utilities.

Committee Member Brownell described some of the challenges of South Mountain and
explained attorneys will argue for data centers. Mr. Rogers explained that this is putting
in a process to regulate data centers rather than the status quo that lets data centers
come in wherever an office use is allowed.

Committee Member Brownell asked about live coverage and asked about the height
limitations. Mr. Rogers explained live coverage is provided through shrubs and tree
coverage and stated that building heights will be regulated through the underlying zoning
district. Committee Member Brownell stated that he would rather have a human scale
wall closer to the sidewalk than a large wall further from the sidewalk.

Committee Member T. Daniels asked if data centers can be restricted to only be
allowed on industrially and commercially zoned parcels. Mr. Rogers explained that the
proposal only allows for data centers to be allowed on industrially and commercially
zoned properties.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jon Gillespie introduced himself, explained that he is from Rose Law Group, described
tax revenue generated from data centers, stated he is concerned about the timeline of
the process, stated he would like at least 60 more days for public comment, stated that
there has been a lot of investment by data center users, discussed grandfathering of
developments, expressed concerns about phased developments, explained potential
Proposition 207 litigation, and explained the Will Serve Letter requirement is unfeasible.

Ron Norse explained that he is a building inspector, stated that he is a former City of
Phoenix inspector, offered a tour of a data center, and stated that he has been inspecting
microchip factories for the last 5 years.

Kay Shepard asked if data centers are the same thing as chip makers. Mr. Rogers
stated that it is his understanding that they are different.

Gene Holmerud described different sound decibel levels and stated he wants to know
more about the sound regulations.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Rogers explained that the City’s Law Department has determined there will not be
any Proposition 207 issues, stated that the City is still working on what projects will be
grandfathered in, and explained that the Central City Village Planning Committee had
asked for more time.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025


Committee Member Marchuk asked about phased data center developments. Mr.
Rogers explained that his team is still working through questions about what projects will
be grandfathered in.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked about how the other villages have voted. Mr.
Rogers summarized the results of the other villages that have heard the items.

Vice Chair Emma Viera stated that she appreciates that we are putting regulations on
data centers and stated that she would like to see distance requirements for schools and
residential. Mr. Rogers stated that there is a distance requirement from residential areas
but not from schools. Vice Chair Viera stated that 150 feet is not enough and stated that
a distance requirement from schools should be added.

Committee Member Brownell stated support for a distance requirement from schools,
stated that there are high asthma rates in Arizona schools, and explained data centers
will make it worse.

Mark Beehler stated that determining specific distance requirements is out of the Village
Planning Committee’s scope and stated that he agrees that distance from schools should
be added.

Committee Member Busching stated that she would like any motion on the General
Plan amendment to include direction to encourage recycling of water.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about the motion and providing direction versus
requiring modifications. Mr. Rogers explained that other committees have made motions
with direction.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

Motion:
Committee Member Lee Coleman made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-
25-Y with direction to not allow data centers within one mile of the Rio Salado Habitat
Restoration Area, that data centers only be allowed on sites with C-3 zoning or more
intense, require a minimum of 60 days for public comment, and that the Will Serve Letter
be required by the Certificate of Occupancy. Committee Member Shepard seconded
the motion.

Vice Chair Emma Viera introduced a friendly amendment to require a distance
requirement from schools. Committee Member Coleman explained that there is not
much C-3 or higher zoning that is near schools and accepted the friendly amendment.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

Chair Greathouse asked if it matters what directions are recommended in the General
Plan Amendment versus the Text Amendment. Mr. Rogers explained that the General
Plan is the policy guidance, and the Text Amendment is the actual regulations.

Committee Member Trent Marchuk asked if the General Plan Amendment or Text
Amendment needs to be heard first. Mr. Rogers explained that the General Plan
Amendment needs to be heard first.

Committee Member Busching introduced a friendly amendment to require recycling of
water. Committee Member Lee Coleman accepted the friendly amendment

Committee Member Marchuk asked about requiring the Will Serve Letter by the
Certificate of Occupancy. Committee Member Coleman explained that a development
will not be able to get a Certificate of Occupancy until they get a Will Serve Letter.

Committee Member Beehler stated requiring the Will Serve Letter by the Certificate of
Occupancy is too late in the process. Committee Member Brownell stated the Will
Serve Letter will be one of the first things the developer will get. Chair Greathouse
stated that requiring a Will Serve Letter after the land acquisition is completed in
unrealistic. Mr. Rogers clarified that in the current proposal a Will Serve Letter will be
required by Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Committee Member Brownell asked if there is any way to require that the Will Serve
Letter include a percent of the power that has to come from renewable energy sources.
Mr. Rogers explained that he cannot speak to utility companies’ processes and what
they require in the Will Serve Letter. Mr. Rogers stated that data centers use a lot of
energy and explained that he does not know if it is feasible to get a large portion of a data
center’s required energy from renewable resources.

Committee Member Marchuk asked if direction should be added to look at the
grandfather language.

Committee Member Tamala Daniels asked how the other villages voted. Mr. Rogers
explained how the other villages voted. Committee Member T. Daniels asked about
adding additional architectural and setback requirements. Mr. Rogers stated that the
General Plan Amendment already includes policy direction regarding increased setbacks
and architectural requirements.

Committee Member Marchuk requested an amendment that allows projects in the
permitting process and phased plans be allowed to construct governed by the current
zoning regulations. Committee Member Coleman accepted the friendly amendment.

Vote:
9-7, motion to recommend approval of GPA-2-25-Y with direction to not allow data




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

centers within one mile of the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Area, that data centers only
be allowed on sites with C-3 zoning or more intense, require a minimum of 60 days for
public comment, that the Will Serve Letter be required by the Certificate of Occupancy,
encourage the recycling of water, require a buffer distance from schools, and that
projects in the permitting process and phased plans be allowed to construct governed by
the current zoning regulations passed with Committee Members Aldama, Beehler,
Coleman, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, Jackson, Shepard, Viera, and Greathouse in favor and
Committee Members Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Falcon, Holmerud, Marchuk, and
Thompson opposed.

Committee Member Busching stated that she disagrees with the Will Serve Letter not
being required until the Certificate of Occupancy, that projects in the process should be
allowed to develop under the current zoning regulations, and that the public comment
period should be extended.

Committee Member Brooks stated that when decisions are rushed mistakes can be
made.

Committee Member Holmerud echoed Committee Member Brooks’ comments.

Committee Member Marchuk explained that he believed the language could be refined.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




ATTACHMENT D




To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: June 5, 2025


From: Tricia Gomes
Planning and Development Deputy Director

Subject: BACK UP TO ITEM NO. 2 – GPA-2-25-Y – DATA CENTERS GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT


General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the General Plan to
incorporate design and location criteria for data centers.

The Village Planning Committees considered the request throughout May and beginning
of June. Seven VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; three VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; two VPCs
recommended denial; two VPCs recommended denial, with direction; and one VPC did not
have quorum.

Three stakeholder meetings were held with individuals representing a wide range of
interests in data center development such as land use attorneys, real estate and
construction professionals, data center operators, and utility companies.

The language in this proposed general plan amendment has been modified to address
some of the primary concerns as recommended by the Village Planning Committees and
shared at the stakeholder meetings including the following concerns: obtaining a will-
service letter and removing the Phoenix Green Construction Code reference. These
modifications will also ensure the General Plan policies align with the modifications in
Z-TA-2-25-Y.

Staff recommends approval, per the modified language in bold font below:




GPA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 5, 2025
Page 2



DATA CENTERS

WITH CONTINUAL ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY, SUCH AS ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND THE DIGITAL “CLOUD”, THERE HAS BEEN A GROWING
DEMAND TO CONSTRUCT DATA CENTERS IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE
DIGITAL WORLD. DATA CENTERS HOUSE A LARGE COLLECTION OF
TECHNOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT DESIGNED TO STORE, PROCESS, AND
MANAGE VAST AMOUNTS OF DIGITAL INFORMATION. ALTHOUGH DATA
CENTERS ARE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY THAT
MANY COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS NOW RELY ON, THEY ALSO COME
WITH POTENTIAL CHALLENGES, INCLUDING A LOSS OF LAND FOR JOBS AND
HOUSING, NOISE POLLUTION, SIGNIFICANT ENERGY DEMAND, INACTIVE
FRONTAGES ALONG PUBLIC STREETS, AND CONFLICTS WITH THE CITY’S
APPROACH OF MAXIMIZING TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS WITH
WALKABLE COMMUNITIES. MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN TO IDENTIFY
AREAS THAT ARE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND TO
ADDRESS THE NOISE, ENERGY, AND DESIGN ISSUES THAT THEY COME WITH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOCATION CRITERIA POLICY

1. LOCATE AWAY FROM IDENTIFIED CORES, CENTERS, AND CORRIDORS
WHERE HIGHER-INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED FOR
MIXED-USE, WALKABLE COMMUNITIES.
2. LOCATE IN IDENTIFIED REDEVELOPMENT AREAS WHERE
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED.

DESIGN POLICY

1. PROVIDE ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACKS WITH A GREATER
DENSITY OF TREES AND SHRUBS.
2. PROVIDE DETACHED SIDEWALKS WITH PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES AND
SHADE.
3. PROVIDE ART IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.
4. UTILIZE DARK SKY LIGHTING.
5. MINIMIZE NOISE POLLUTION TO NEARBY RESIDENTIAL THROUGH USE
OF LARGE SETBACKS, STRUCTURAL SCREENING ELEMENTS,
ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATED STRUCTURES, AND/OR
LANDSCAPING.
6. PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND RIGHTS-
OF-WAY WITH ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THAT INCLUDES A
VARIATION IN COLORS, MATERIALS, ARTICULATION, FENESTRATION,
AND BREAKING OF MASSING, RATHER THAN A CONCRETE BOX THAT
HAS A NEGATIVE VISUAL APPEARANCE TO THE SURROUNDING
COMMUNITY.



GPA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 5, 2025
Page 3



ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY POLICY

1. PROVIDE AN WILL-SERVE LETTER AGREEMENT FROM THE LOCAL
UTILITY COMPANY TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY
IN THE POWER GRID TO SUPPLY THE DATA CENTER WITH ITS
REQUIRED ENERGY DEMAND.
2. ENCOURAGE USE OF THE PHOENIX GREEN CONSTRUCTION CODE TO
MAXIMIZE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF DATA CENTER BUILDINGS.




ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 5, 2025

ITEM NO: 2
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-2-25-Y (Companion Case Z-TA-2-25-Y)
Location: Citywide
Request: Amendment to the General Plan to incorporate design and location criteria
for data centers.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 5/19/2025 Denial. Vote: 10-0.
Alhambra 5/20/2025 Approval. Vote: 11-0.
Camelback East 6/3/2025 Denial with direction. Vote: 17-0.
Central City 5/12/2025 Approval. Vote: 6-3-1.
Deer Valley 5/20/2025 No quorum.
Desert View 6/3/2025 Approval with direction. Vote: 8-3.
Encanto 6/2/2025 Denial. Vote: 9-4-1.
Estrella 5/20/2025 Approval 3-1.
Laveen 5/12/2025 Approval. Vote: 13-0.
Maryvale 5/14/2025 Approval, with direction. Vote: 13-0.
North Gateway 5/8/2025 Approval. Vote: 8-0.
North Mountain 5/21/2025 Approval. Vote: 8-4-1.
Paradise Valley: 6/2/2025 Approval. Vote: 12-2.
Rio Vista 5/13/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 5/13/2025 Approval, with direction. Vote: 9-7.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated June 5, 2025.

Motion Discussion: N/A.

Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve GPA-2-25-Y, per the staff
memo dated June 5, 2025.

Maker: Matthews
Second: Jaramillo
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None.
Opposition Present: Yes.

Findings:

1. The proposal will act as the policy guidance for data centers which supports the Zoning
Ordinance text amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y for regulations related to data centers.


2. The proposal will guide data center development away from cores, centers, and
corridors, where mixed-use, walkable communities are envisioned and will guide data
centers to blend with the surrounding environment while limiting negative impacts to
existing communities.

3. The proposal is consistent with and relates to other adopted policies in the General
Plan, such as the Blueprint for a More Connected Phoenix, including Cores, Centers,
and Corridors, Village Cores, Employment Corridors, and Tech Corridors; Create a
Network of Vibrant Cores, Centers, and Corridors; and Build the Most Sustainable
Desert City, including Water Sensitive Planning, Green Building, Energy Infrastructure,
and Community Shade.


This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




ATTACHMENT F




Correspondence for GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-
25-Y are available on the staff report website
under Z-TA-2-25-Y:


https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/dep
artments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html




PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



To: Alan Stephenson Date: June 11, 2025
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua Bednare�
Planning and DeJ1iopment Director

Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 151 ON THE JUNE 18, 2025, FORMAL AGENDA -
PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION ADOPTION - GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT - DATA CENTERS - GPA-2-25-Y (RESOLUTION 22316) -
CITYWIDE
Item 151, General Plan Amendment No. GPA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the General
Plan to incorporate design and location criteria for data centers.

Staff recommends continuing this item to the July 2, 2025, City Council Formal meeting to
evaluate comments and suggestions received.




Approved:
AdiSJ#iiL
Deputy City Manager







Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 18, 2025) - Public Hearing - Amend City Code -
Ordinance Adoption - Data Centers - Z-TA-2-25-Y (Ordinance G-7396) -
Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y and
to request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation
which amends the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions)
to add a definition for data centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design Review Guidelines, Specialized
Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards for data centers; and
amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data
centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial),
CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial), and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance standards. This
is a companion case to GPA-2-25-Y and should be heard following GPA-2-25-Y.

Summary
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to create a regulatory framework for
data centers where no City Council approved framework currently exists. Data
centers are not defined nor are they explicitly listed as a permitted use in the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance; therefore were addressed via informal interpretation
based upon land use characteristics of early smaller scale data center type uses.
This text amendment will create a new definition for “data center”; create design
guidelines such as setback requirements and screening design standards for
equipment enclosures and accessory public utility buildings and facilities, such as
electrical substations; and create enhanced landscaping, architectural, and
streetscape standards to soften the design of data centers so they can better blend
into the surrounding environment they are built in; and develop location criteria and
performance standards for data centers. This includes spacing from high-capacity
transit; noise standards to reduce the impact of data centers when located within a
certain distance from residential; and allow data centers only in the following zoning
districts: C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2 with a Special Permit.





Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report (Attachment B).
VPC Action: Fourteen Village Planning Committees have considered the request.
Two VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; three VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; one VPC
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification; one
VPC recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification
and direction; three VPCs recommended denial; four VPCs recommended denial,
with direction; and one VPC did not have quorum, as reflected in Attachment C.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5, 2025 and
recommended approval, per the memo from the Planning and Development
Department Deputy Director dated June 4, 2025, by a vote of 9-0.

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





ATTACHMENT A




PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT




To: Alan Stephenson Date: June 26 2025
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua Bednare�G
Planning and Development Director

Subject: ITEM 108 ON THE JULY 2, 2025, FORMAL AGENDA - PUBLIC HEARING -
AMEND CITY CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION - DATA CENTERS - Z-TA-2-25-
y (ORDINANCE G-7396) - CITYWIDE

Item 108, is a request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-2-25-Y
to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a
definition for data centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I1.D (Guidelines for
Design Review, City-Wide Design Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers; and amend Chapter 6, Section 647
(Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the C-2 (Intermediate
Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General Commerce
Park), A-1 (Light Industrial), and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with a Special Permit and
performance standards.

Fourteen Village Planning Committees have considered the request. Two VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; three VPCs recommended
approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; one VPC recommended approval,
per the staff recommendation, with a modification; one VPC recommended approval, per
the staff recommendation, with a modification and direction; three VPCs recommended
denial; four VPCs recommended denial, with direction; and one VPC did not have quorum.

The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5, 2025, and recommended approval, per
the memo from the Planning and Development Department Deputy Director dated June 4,
2025, by a vote of 9-0.

The proposed regulatory framework in Z-TA-2-25 responds to the challenges data centers
pose to the health and safety of Phoenix residents. The regulatory framework is also
consistent with City Council adopted policy and initiatives regarding access to healthy food,
health care services and heat response. Staff have compiled an overview of the health and
safety risks data centers present along with the City Council policy and initiative intersections
in a report. The report is attached to this memo as Exhibit A.

Exhibit B attached to this memo is a copy of the proposed text amendment language as
approved by the Planning Commission.




1 Exhibit A




HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS:
DATA CENTERS
Report prepared by the City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department




www.vanarsdelltd.com 585


This report provides additional information regarding GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25. The report
outlines health and safety concerns implicated by the evolution of data centers from small
5,800 square-foot office-like buildings to 48-foot-tall industrial buildings on one hundred
plus acre parcels with unprecedented energy demands and on-site power generation. The
report was compiled with input from the Office of Environmental Programs and the Fire,
Community and Economic Development and Information Technology departments.
Growth of Phoenix, and of “Data Centers”
Phoenix continues to be one of the fastest growing cities in the country. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, Phoenix added more than 16,000 residents to its population between July
1, 2023, and July 2024 putting it in the top ten of growth for cities in the country. i
Phoenix has seen tremendous amounts of investment with this growth in a variety of
industries and sectors, including data centers. Based on a review of available data there are
more than a dozen existing data centers within Phoenix’s boundaries and there are six data
centers in the development review process, with the Planning and Development Department
as of the writing of this memo.
As noted in the staff report for Z-TA-2-25-Y, Phoenix does not define nor explicitly address
data centers in the Phoenix General Plan and the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Historically, city
staff considered some data centers as analogous to a general office, or to a
telecommunications facility or “telecom hotel.” Some of these comparisons were
documented by way of informal interpretations in an administrative process by city staff.
However, the concept of a “data center” has changed dramatically over the years, and
today’s data centers bear little resemblance to those that were built twenty, ten, or even five
years ago.
The activities carried out within today’s data centers have also shifted greatly in the last few
years; as described below, an AI data center is a fundamentally different land use when
compared to a traditional office or to the old concept of a “telecom hotel,” and it features
unique equipment and energy use patterns that create unique threats to public health and
safety beyond the borders of the data center property. ii
Data Centers: Change in Scale, Intensity + Health and Safety Impacts
Many of the data centers in Phoenix have been built within the last decade. Within that time
frame, they have increased dramatically in scale. iii Fifteen or twenty years ago, a “data
center” might fill a few thousand feet of an existing office building, without requiring
significant modifications to that building. But one of the more recent data centers built near
40th Street and McDowell Road is more than 80 acres in size and requires the development
of a new electrical substation. This change in the scale and intense use of electrical power
has necessitated a new definition of “data center” to differentiate it from uses which can no
longer be considered analogous and has created the need for new zoning standards that
account for the impact this use has on surrounding properties. Given their size, energy
demands, and potential desire for onsite energy generation, today’s data centers are not
analogous to office uses or telecommunication facilities.

Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers



Related to their intense operations, recent incidents across the United States and the world
have highlighted the health and safety challenges data centers pose to residents including,
but not limited to, strains on energy and water resources, threats to the electrical grids
existing users rely upon, increased emissions created by heavy energy consumption, noise,
heat, and strain on public safety resources. In addition, data centers pose unique risks to
first responders due to their size, sensitivity, and high concentration of batteries and
electrical equipment.
Data Center Energy Demand: Significant Risks to the Electrical Grid
Projections provided by the electricity utility providers Arizona Public Service (APS) and Salt
River Project (SRP) show that energy demand in the industrial sector of their service areas is
anticipated to be more than 90% for data center development (Figure 1). As Phoenix and the
region continue to grow, ensuring that there are sufficient energy resources to support a
reliable electrical grid, especially during the hot summer months, is one of the greatest
challenges facing utility companies and municipalities.




Figure 1: Projected Industrial Energy Demand

In a 2024 updated report by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, funded by the
Department of Energy at the request of Congress, entitled United States Data Center Energy
Usage Report (2016), historical data center electrical consumption was reviewed back to
2014, and future demand was projected out to 2028. Of note, the report found that by 2018
data centers would account for 1.9% of all electricity consumption in the United States. The
report found that electrical consumption grew at an accelerated rate, with annual growth at
7% from 2014 to 2018, increasing to 18% between 2018 and 2023 and projected to further
increase 13%-27% between 2023 and 2028. That translates into data centers consuming
6.7% to 12% of all the electricity in the United States. ivv

Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers



The projected growth in Data Centers represents an unprecedented surge in demand for
electricity. The Department of Energy has predicted that data center electricity use will
double or triple by 2028 vi. According to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), Data
Center electricity use has increased 67% over the last year and that figure does not include
the 170-175 megawatts of product under construction as of the end of 2024. vii For context,
according to the ACC, 100 megawatts are enough to power several thousand homes in a day,
and Arizona data centers rank 4th in the nation for electricity they consume when compared
with data centers in other cities. viii
APS recently indicated that it expects its peak load to jump 40% by 2031 (5 years from now).
In late 2024, an APS official explained that the utility “has about 10 GW in pending
interconnection requests from data centers, but the utility cannot commit to serving them
because it would put existing customers at risk of having poor reliability.” ixx
APS provided an update on these figures in response to GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25, and as of
the date of this report it “is planning to serve 3.3GWs of power to new data center projects.
In addition, we have a queue of requests from data centers for approximately 15GWs xi. As
APS suggests in its update, the scope of pending data center projects calls for “early-stage
coordination with City departments – such as Planning and Development, Water Services,
and Economic Development” to understand the demand these projects will have on the grid
and “to ensure that new growth proceeds in a manner that is both technically viable and
aligned with broader infrastructure capabilities.” Meanwhile, SRP is currently reviewing
requests for over 17 GW of load from approximately 60 pending data center projects xii.
The ACC recently opened a new matter to study the likely impacts of data centers on existing
utility customers. In opening the matter, its Chairman explained: “Our utilities are currently
having a challenging time meeting the generational challenges of existing customers. We
need to explore potential solutions for developing behind-the-meter solutions to meet large
customer needs and growth that don't jeopardize the integrity of our grid.” xiii xiv
Data Center Demands on Available Land
This elevated demand for energy coincides with a corresponding increase in demand for
land for data centers. If data centers are treated like regular offices, properties zoned for
commercial, commerce park and industrial land uses can be developed into data centers
with very few restrictions. Commercial, commerce park and industrially zoned land equate
to approximately 20% of Phoenix’s land area (108 square miles / 530 square miles). Of these
108 square miles, only 3% of it (17 square miles) is vacant and ready for development such
as employment, health care, grocery stores or services.
As a fast-growing city, Phoenix has increasing needs for a diversity of jobs, health related
services and access to healthy food. Continued unfettered build-out of data centers within
Phoenix hinders the private sector market’s ability to provide these resources to city
residents.




Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers



Health and Heat in Phoenix (Importance of Grid Stability to the Health and Safety of
Existing Residents and Land Users)
In response to increases in summertime temperatures and the number of days Phoenix
experiences temperatures more than 110 degrees; the City of Phoenix established the Office
of Heat Response and Mitigation in 2021. The Office coordinates programs and policies to
help lower urban temperatures and protect public health. It also tracks trends, collects data,
and collaborates with other governments and organizations to share ideas and solutions for
dealing with heat including the development of the Phoenix Heat Response Plan.
The 2025 Heat Response Plan documents the increased heat challenges and public health
risks Phoenix is attempting to address including:
• The 2024 Heat Season in Phoenix set many records with respect to the severity and
duration of extreme heat conditions. The most notable records from 2024 included
new all-time highs for the number of days with temperatures reaching 110°F (70) and
the number of nights with temperatures failing to drop below 90°F (39).
• The 2024 season also set a record for the number of consecutive days with
temperatures reaching at least 100°F (113). Average high and low temperatures for
June, September, and October all set historical records; average low temperatures in
August were also record-setting.
• Heat-related deaths have increased considerably in Maricopa County since 2014.
Particularly large year-over-year increases were evident from 2015 to 2016 (+83%),
2019 to 2020 (+62%), and 2021 to 2022 (+25%). Another large increase is evident from
2022 to 2023, with an increase of more than 47% to the record high of 625 cases in
Maricopa County that was recorded that year.

Within this context of a growing desert city attempting to respond to the health challenges
that heat poses for its residents, the added strain that an influx of data centers will place on
the energy grid warrants a more strategic approach regarding where they are developed and
what steps should be taken to mitigate their impact on existing users.
Phoenix is not unique in grappling with energy demand challenges posed by data centers,
but a stable electric grid is especially important here because it powers air conditioning,
which is essential to human life for much of the year and which places its own heavy burden
on the grid. The risk to Phoenix and all cities is highlighted by research done by the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the federal regulator for grid reliability. The
NERC founded a taskforce to study electrical grid disruptions caused by data centers and
crypto miners. The NERC released a report in December of 2024 that found that the risk of
power outages will only grow as new data centers come online. Nearly all the United States
will face higher risks of energy shortfalls over the next 5 to 10 years, according to the report xv.
The data center threat to grid stability and to existing power users is not simply a matter of
total demand. In addition to their unparalleled energy appetite, data centers further stress
the grid with inconsistent flow patterns and short bursts of high usage. xvi This phenomenon
is especially pronounced with data centers that support AI, which produce unpredictable

Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers



energy spikes and which “are being built faster than grid upgrades can keep up.” xvii These
spikes can lead to immediate grid failures, but they can also cause “bad harmonics” that
degrade the lifespan of connected electrical equipment including home appliances, can
lead to sparks and home fires, and can eventually lead to grid blackouts as effects
compound and escalate. xviii These effects have been observed in other jurisdictions,
including Loudoun County, Virginia, where bad harmonic readings have been reported to
reach four times the national average. xix These are direct negative impacts on existing users
of all types, so expectations of large-scale intermittent power use must be identified and
addressed on the front end in order to mitigate major adverse consequences on public
health and safety.

Onsite Power Generation and Emissions
One of the data center industry’s responses to the power demand their facilities are placing
on the electrical grid is to try to go it alone by establishing onsite power generation
independent of the grid. This response has been seen in Arizona, where utilities, utility
regulators, and the state legislature have all publicly called for “on-site” or “behind-the-
meter” generation to help ease the impact data centers have on our electric grid. ACC
Chairman Thompson recently stated that “we need to explore potential solutions for
developing behind-the-meter solutions to meet large customer needs and growth that don't
jeopardize the integrity of our grid.”


The utilization of onsite power generation poses numerous challenges including potentially
unregulated and independent power generation without state or federal oversight;
establishing power generating plants in neighborhoods, with all the related impacts to
residents; environmental impacts from air and water emissions, depending how the energy
is generated; the unknown impacts to an existing electrical grid in the event onsite power
generation fails and data centers revert to their backup power all at once. As an example,
power companies in Virginia had to scramble during the summer of 2024 when 60 of the
area’s 200 data centers out of Washington D.C. came off the grid and started using backup
power all at once, nearly setting off a series of rolling blackouts. xx

In 2024, the company xAI opened a data center in southwest Memphis, Tennessee. The
facility had negotiated an agreement with the public utility, Memphis Light, Gas and Water,
to draw 150 megawatts of power from the local grid. This was the amount the utility had
determined it could safely provide without affecting the availability and reliability of power
for existing users – but it was not enough to fully power the data center, which has applied
for an additional 150 megawatts. While its request for additional grid power was pending, xAI
is reported to have installed 35 gas-powered generators on its property. These generators
ignited significant concern and opposition from the surrounding community and from
environmental and health advocacy groups, which cited to the potential human health and
air-quality consequences of what a local lawmaker described as a “gas plant in the middle
of a neighborhood.” xxi


Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers



This experience highlights the need to understand where a data center will receive its power.
A data center that produces its own power – either permanently or while a local utility is
ramping up its generating capacity – presents different health and safety considerations than
a data center that gets all its power from a public utility, and large-scale on-site power
production may not be compatible with existing residential or other uses. Even when a data
center can be fully powered by the local utility, it may need a new substation or the
installation of new high-capacity transmission lines, and the impact of such infrastructure
on existing nearby uses should be understood.
The power source for backup and onsite power generation of many data centers is a diesel
generator. xxii As noted by the Washington Department of Ecology in analyzing data centers’
use of diesel power generation:
• Diesel exhaust is a toxic air pollutant, containing fine particles that can cause health
problems for people who are exposed frequently and at high enough levels. These
tiny particles are too small to be filtered out of the air by the nose and upper
respiratory system. The particles go deep into the lungs, where they can cause
damage and chemical changes.
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is another toxic air pollutant that can cause breathing
problems even when you're exposed for a short time, from 30 minutes to 24 hours.
Nitrogen dioxide can make breathing harder for people who already have lung
problems, such as asthma. It also adds to acid rain and smog xxiii.
Nuclear energy has been identified as a dedicated power source for data centers xxiv.
Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta are investing in nuclear power to provide power for
their data center needs. These may include “small modular reactors” which are small, cost-
effective sources when compared to the traditionally large (and very expensive) nuclear
power plants most people are familiar with xxv. The Georgetown Environmental Law Review
Online (February 27, 2025) reports that the Virginia legislature adopted a statutory scheme
to incentivize nuclear power to meet growing energy needs of artificial intelligence (AI) from
a zero-carbon, climate friendly, renewable source. xxvi
Onsite nuclear power generation has gained enough support in Arizona that a bill to support
it was approved by the state legislature in its current session. HB 2774, which received
support from all three of the State’s largest electric utilities but was ultimately vetoed by the
Governor, encouraged “small modular nuclear reactors” to “collocate” with data centers by
exempting collocated reactors from the requirement to obtain an environmental
compatibility certificate. The specter of small, loosely regulated nuclear power plants
popping up everywhere to meet the accelerating demand for energy is further proof that the
location of a new data center must be carefully considered, and this consideration must
account for the data center’s expected power sources. As state authorities encourage data
centers to include major power generation facilities, it becomes increasingly important to
carefully consider the locations of such data centers.




Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers



Data Center Water Usage
While much of the attention regarding the resource demands of data centers has focused on
electricity, water resources are an area that still must be factored into their evaluation. Data
center water usage has improved in recent years due to changes in the cooling methodology
used, but recent studies suggest that water savings come at the cost of increased electricity
use and point to the industry continuing to need larger amounts of water xxvii. For desert cities
and water providers like Phoenix, the ability to properly evaluate and regulate data center
water usage is paramount for the City’s survival.
Data Centers and Fire Safety
Data centers represent a new and challenging service area for firefighters. According to the
International Association of Fire Fighters the growing presence of data centers requires
specialized training, lots of planning and close cooperation with on-site security and
engineering teams at these new sites xxviii.
The City of Phoenix Fire Department has noted the following challenges with data centers:
• Fires in data centers can produce vast quantities of dense, corrosive smoke, which
contains known carcinogens. Visibility may become nearly impossible, and when
combined with unfamiliar building configurations, the prospect of disorientation is
clear. Often, even a small fire isolated by the building's fire protection systems is a
high-risk and long-duration incident for responding firefighters.
• Two physical hazards in large data centers, which are generally not present to the
same intensity as other occupancies, are large lithium-ion batteries and electrical
power.
• Lithium-ion batteries contain volatile electrolytes that can release flammable gases
when exposed to high temperatures or physical damage.
• If a battery generates more heat than it can dissipate for any reason, it can lead to
rapid and uncontrolled heat releases, resulting in a fire (thermal runaway). In many
instances, fire sprinkler systems prevent fire spread, but cannot extinguish.
• Accidental battery overcharging can lead to fires.
• Batteries can be ejected from their casing during a fire, potentially spreading the fire
or causing secondary ignitions.
• Burning batteries release toxic chemicals into the air.
• Due to the large amounts of energy required, electrical distribution and fires involving
electrical components are another possibility. Firefighters must be familiar with the
power disconnect procedures and the vast electrical hazards of large data centers.
• Fire incidents in large data centers can necessitate using large volumes of water to
bring the fire under control, and contaminated runoff is an additional concern. This
runoff may contaminate surrounding soil and could get into the city’s storm drain
system and impact land miles away from the actual location.
• Fires involving lithium-ion batteries also release toxic heavy metal particulates,
requiring specialized decontamination of firefighter personal protective equipment.


Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers





Advanced review of proposed data centers would provide an opportunity for the Phoenix Fire
Department to provide critical insight into the proposed location, design and operation of
future data centers. That review will include an assessment of existing resources available
to serve the proposed data center location. Fire resources are not evenly distributed
throughout the City, and in some cases the City may need to invest in new infrastructure,
equipment, or resources to ensure its ability to serve new data center developments, or to
serve new data center developments without leaving existing users unprotected. This
analysis will be especially important when large data centers replace farmland, or other
much lower intensity uses (and such replacements have become increasingly common).
The Phoenix Fire Department works with other emergent technologies to address fire safety
concerns and to ensure safety for building occupants, the surrounding public, and
responding fire crews. As a contribution to this report, the Department wrote that it “is fully
committed to understanding new technologies and the associated evolution of our fire
protection efforts (i.e., fire suppression, prevention, and public education). We are a
recognized industry leader in this space and a couple examples include lithium-ion batteries
and energy storage systems, large warehouses, semiconductors, photovoltaics, electric,
hybrid vehicles, etc..” The Department shared several examples of its specialized
preparation for fires caused by other specialized land uses; those examples were consulted
for this report, and several can be accessed in the references section.

Fire Department review will also ensure compliance with the Phoenix Fire Code and industry
best practices and will allow the Fire Department to learn about and prepare for the specific
energy generation and storage equipment that will be present in a new data center. Energy
storage technologies continue to rapidly evolve, and that makes this level of review critical
to ensure that fire crews have equipment or techniques required based on the design and
chemistry of such equipment. Without the opportunity to prepare for these new risks, the
chance of a fire ignited by batteries or other electrical equipment spreading beyond a data
center’s walls to harm those on nearby properties will be greatly increased.


Data Center Security and Public Safety
According to a recent analysis by the Information Technology Department, data centers are
high-value investments and sometimes high-value targets, which may attract threats from
foreign actors who seek to disrupt data centers for espionage or sabotage, or to access them
for sabotage, disruption, or to exfiltrate valuable information. Considering the size and cost
of today’s data centers, the high profile of many data center owners, and the vast quantities
of data stored within a single data center, this risk assessment should not come as a
surprise. The sophistication and frequency of these attacks, including from foreign
locations, has increased. As more data centers come online in the region, a complex
challenge emerges that requires federal partnerships, strict resource management, and
increased regional costs in cyber resilience and protection to ensure community safety and
sustainability. Phoenix has already seen significant incidents targeting major industrial

Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers



facilities, and future data centers storing highly valuable commercial information, or
information related to national defense and security, may face even greater risks. The
location of this kind of sensitive data center should be carefully considered to protect
existing users and to ensure that adequate public safety resources are available in the
relevant area.
Access to Healthcare Services
As one of the largest and fastest growing cities in the country the City of Phoenix has made
providing residents with access to life-saving health care services one of its highest
priorities. To that end, the City recently partnered with Arizona State University and the
Arizona Board of Regents to establish a new medical school in downtown Phoenix to be
opened in 2028.
While there is excitement about the new medical school and the progress it will position
Phoenix and the state to make, there are active areas of need in the health care sector in
Phoenix. Some areas in Phoenix are considered a Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA).
A HPSA is a geographic area, population, or facility that has a substantial shortage of
primary, dental, or mental health care providers designated by the Health Resources &
Services Administration. For example, in Phoenix’s Laveen Village, there are 12 HPSA areas
and in the South Mountain Village there are 24 HPSA areas. In addition, the Laveen and South
Mountain villages do not have a Level 1 Trauma Center as defined by the Arizona Department
of Health Services. Laveen and South Mountain are home to some of the largest areas where
data centers could concentrate, preventing other development that could serve the
surrounding community. Without an updated zoning framework, it will be nearly impossible
to ensure that there will be any available land for a hospital or other medical services in these
villages.
Access to Healthy Food
The Laveen and South Mountain villages also highlight challenges Phoenix faces in ensuring
its residents have access to healthy food. In 2020 the Phoenix City Council adopted the 2025
Food Action Plan to establish goals, policies and strategies to achieve a robust and healthy
food system for Phoenix residents.
The Food Action Plan analyzes the challenges Phoenix faces in achieving its envisioned food
system. According to the report, there are 55 food deserts in Maricopa County, and there are
43 food deserts in Phoenix that amount to nearly half of Phoenix’s populated area. The Plan
identifies the South Mountain, Laveen and Maryvale villages in Phoenix as areas most
impacted by food deserts.
Like the challenges in ensuring there is enough land area to provide the necessary health
services to residents, Phoenix has a decreasing amount of available land for grocery stores.
Preserving opportunities for access to healthy food, especially in areas that have been
identified as food deserts, is critical for protecting the health of Phoenix residents. Allowing
data centers to uncontrollably fill in and concentrate in these areas would run counter to the
Phoenix’s Food Action Plan and frustrate plans to address food deserts.

Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers



Data Center Noise Pollution
One common detrimental health and safety consequence of data centers, which has been
discussed during the public hearing process for Z-TA-2-25, has been noise. While there has
been some debate regarding the minimum standards and methodology the city should
employ, there has been little pushback on the notion that data centers do generate
significant noise with significant impacts to neighboring properties.
Data centers contribute to noise pollution due to the equipment inside making noise as it
operates. xxix Noise around areas of data centers can reach up to 92 dB(A) for sites with
greater densities of equipment, and up to 96 dB(A) inside. xxx The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) threshold for requiring hearing protection is 85
dB(A) over an eight-hour period. As a result, people working in data centers and people
residing in neighborhoods around them may be impacted by noise pollution.
Constant humming and buzzing noises in nearby neighborhoods may have adverse health
impacts including headache, stress, and sleep disturbance xxxi. Poor quality sleep and stress
can also contribute to cognitive impairment and cardiovascular risks.
With more information regarding noise generated by data centers becoming available,
providing a regulatory framework that ensures that they are not located near residents will
help protect the health and well-being of Phoenix residents.
Regulatory Framework: Not a Ban
The City does not have any plan or desire to enact a ban on data centers, and many data
center projects may be warmly welcomed. However, a Special Permit requirement, like the
requirement applicable to a self-storage warehouse in the city’s commercial zoning districts,
would be a vehicle to help contain or mitigate the health and safety impact data centers have
on nearby users. The Phoenix City Council has approved dozens of Special Permits for self-
storage and car dealerships in the last 10 years and may well approve a similar number of
new data centers once health and safety challenges have been adequately addressed.
The Special Permit Process: Response to Years of Council-Adopted Policy + A
Collaborative Framework for the Future
The policy and regulatory framework proposed in GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25 position Phoenix
to employ a holistic approach to the development of today’s “data centers,” which bear so
little resemblance to the land uses that once used that same name. This new policy and
regulatory framework are focused on protecting public health and safety from threats that
easily cross the boundaries of a data center property, including fire, power disruption, and
heat, noise, air, and wastewater pollution, and they respond to several existing City Council
adopted policies including the Food Action Plan and Phoenix Heat Response Plan. The
Special Permit process provides opportunities for city staff to evaluate proposed data center
facilities and ensure that the location, design, site and operational features take into
consideration the health and safety needs of the community. The requirements for
agreements with electric utility providers will help the City understand the level of on-site


Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers



generation, high-voltage transmission, or other infrastructure that is being approved, and to
evaluate the likely impact of such infrastructure on the health and safety of existing nearby
users.
The Special Permit process will also allow the City to assess the adequacy of public safety
resources near the data center, to assess the likely impact of the data center’s operation on
those resources, and to determine whether additional resources will need to be developed
or deployed. The Special Permit provides an opportunity for landowners, data center
developers, city staff, neighbors and the Phoenix City Council to collaborate and ensure that
new investments in data centers are strategically located within the city limits, and serve the
best interests of the City, neighbors, and the data center developer.


i https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/vintage-2024-popest.html
ii https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2025/03/26/how-ai-data-centers-are-reshaping-americas-electric-

grid/
iii See Report by the International Energy Administration (https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/40a4db21-

2225-42f0-8a07-addcc2ea86b3/EnergyandAI.pdf): “Data centres – at least at the scale seen today – are
relatively new actors in the energy system at the global level, and data collection and reporting on their
electricity consumption remain limited.”
iv https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32d6m0d1#page=50
v https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/data-center-energy-needs-are-upending-power-grids-and-threatening-the-

climate (see section “Data Centers as a Paradigm Shift in the Electricity Sector)
vi https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-releases-new-report-evaluating-increase-electricity-demand-data-

centers
vii https://ktar.com/arizona-business/acc-protect-payers-energy/5693869/
viii https://ktar.com/arizona-business/acc-protect-payers-energy/5693869/
ix https://www.utilitydive.com/news/data-center-grid-reliability-residential-cost-aps-load-growth/732480/
x ACC Chairman Kevin Thompson recently noted “it took Arizona Public Service about a century to build a grid

that meets the 8,400 megawatts demand it has now,” and that the utility will have to “double or triple their
current grid capacity in a very short time to meet anticipated demand.” (https://ktar.com/arizona-
business/acc-protect-payers-energy/5693869/)
xi APS Letter dated June 25, 2025 (attachment A)
xii SRP Letter dated June June 26, 2025 (Attachment B)
xiii ACC Chairman Kevin Thompson, April 10, 2025 statement upon opening “In the Matter of the Commission’s

Inquiry and Review of the Existing Rate Classifications and other Potential Issues relating to Data Centers”
(Docket No. E-00000A-25-0069).
xiv This closely tracks a recent statement by Virginia State Corporation Chair Jehmal Hudson, who has been

quoted stating: “When it comes to adding transmission and generation capacity, we’re trying to make a
determination: how can we fulfill those needs to data centers, but also keep the lights on in the
commonwealth?” (https://www.utilitydive.com/news/data-center-grid-reliability-residential-cost-aps-load-
growth/732480/)
xv https://www.reuters.com/technology/big-techs-data-center-boom-poses-new-risk-us-grid-operators-2025-03-

19/#:~:text=%22What%20it%20tells%20us%20is,U.S.%20Federal%20Energy%20Regulatory%20Commission.
xvi https://www.rcrwireless.com/20250417/fundamentals/ai-infra-energy-spikes
xvii https://carboncredits.com/ais-energy-hunger-is-straining-americas-power-grids-and-your-home-appliances/;

the impacts of AI are so significant that one researcher describes AI as “a big hammer” on the grid
(https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/ai-data-centers-causing-distortions-in-us-power-grid-
bloomberg/)
xviiihttps://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/ai-data-centers-causing-distortions-in-us-power-grid-

bloomberg/; and https://carboncredits.com/ais-energy-hunger-is-straining-americas-power-grids-and-your-
home-appliances/


Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers




xix https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/ai-data-centers-causing-distortions-in-us-power-grid-

bloomberg/
xx https://www.reuters.com/technology/big-techs-data-center-boom-poses-new-risk-us-grid-operators-2025-03-

19/
xxi https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/05/19/climate/xai-musk-memphis-turbines-pollution
xxii https://www.microgridknowledge.com/distributed-energy/article/11427459/why-do-data-center-operators-

choose-diesel-backup-over-cleaner-microgrids
xxiii https://ecology.wa.gov/air-climate/air-quality/data-

centers#:~:text=Air%20pollution%20from%20data%20centers,can%20be%20built%20or%20expanded.
xxiv

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=63304#:~:text=Although%20historically%20costly%20to%2
0build,us%20about%20data%20center%20demand?
xxv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58zHJL1dKtw
xxvi Going Nuclear: Virginia’s Answer to the Intensive Energy Needs of Artificial Intelligence Data Center,

Georgetown Environmental Law Review Online, February 27, 2025, Sarah Bosworth.
xxvii https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-ai-impacts-data-centers-water-data/; see also

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922000428?fr=RR-
2&ref=pdf_download&rr=94fff2af6fb1341c (describing the “trade-off between water and energy consumption” in
data center design, by analyzing two Phoenix data centers served by SRP and identifying unique challenges
presented by our “hot-dry climate.”
xxviii https://www.iaff.org/news/data-centers-are-booming-and-fire-fighters-must-adapt-to-new-challenges/
xxix https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/sustainability/why-data-centers-are-loud-and-how-to-quiet-them-

down
xxx https://www.sensear.com/blog/data-centers-arent-loud-right
xxxi https://www.techtarget.com/searchdatacenter/tip/Understanding-the-impact-of-data-center-noise-pollution




Fire Department References:

• Data-Driven Fire Operations - Firefighting - Fire Engineering
• Lithium-Ion Batteries, Fire Investigations, and Keeping Pace with Emerging Technologies -
BESS
• The Impact of Solar Energy on Firefighting
• FPRF_FireFitherSafety.pdf
• EVTrainingEmergencyResponders.pdf


Attachment A: Letter from APS dated June 25, 2025
Attachment B: Letter from SRP dated June 26, 2025




Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers





Attachment A: June 25, 205 letter from APS




Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers





Attachment B: June 26, 205 letter from SRP




Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers

EXHIBIT B
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 A
DEFINITION FOR DATA CENTERS; AMENDING CHAPTER 5, SECTION 507 TAB
A.II.D (GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN REVIEW, CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW
GUIDELINES, SPECIALIZED USES) TO MODIFY THE SECTION TITLE AND ADD
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DATA CENTERS; AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6,
SECTION 647 (SPECIAL PERMIT USES), SECTION 647.A.2 TO ADD DATA
CENTERS WITHIN THE C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL), C-3 (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL), CP/GCP (COMMERCE PARK/GENERAL COMMERCE PARK), A-1
(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL), AND A-2 (INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS, WITH A
SPECIAL PERMIT AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

WHEREAS, the City of Phoenix (the “City”) is in the top 10 of fastest growing cities in the
country, adding over 16,000 residents between July 1, 2023, and July 1, 2024; and

WHEREAS, while managing this population growth, the City is seeing ever-increasing
interest in data centers; and

WHEREAS, today’s data centers are typically very large and intense uses, with some
data centers being more than 90 acres in size and often require a new electrical
substation or other significant new infrastructure; and

WHEREAS, the activities carried out within today’s data centers have also shifted greatly
in the last few years; and AI data centers are fundamentally different land uses when
compared to an office or the outdated concept of a “telecom hotel.” Today’s data centers,
and AI data centers in particular, feature unique equipment and energy use patterns that
create unique threats to public health and safety beyond the borders of their properties;
and

WHEREAS, the proliferation of data centers within certain areas of the City may result in
adverse impacts on local neighborhoods and other existing uses; and

WHEREAS, there is convincing documented evidence that data centers pose risks to
public health, and safety, including, but not limited to, potential negative impacts to the
availability and reliability of power for neighboring properties because of significant, and



1 Ordinance G-
sometimes erratic, data center power consumption, potential air quality degradation and
adverse noise impacts from onsite power generation, increased fire danger and response
challenges, and potential adverse effects from typical operational noise, all of which
extend beyond the boundaries of a data center property; and

WHEREAS, because of the potential public health and safety impacts, land use
considerations for data centers require individualized analysis; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to avoid outright bans on data centers in most zoning
districts and prefers to utilize the special permit process to ensure data centers comply
with reasonable land use standards designed to address public health and safety
concerns and to minimize negative secondary effects to the neighborhoods, businesses
and residents around data centers, while still providing for opportunities for data centers
at various locations within the City; and

WHEREAS, when evaluating the negative secondary effects of data centers, the City is
permitted to consider the impacts on health and safety that have been experienced in
other urban areas; and

WHEREAS, the City has compiled substantial data from other urban areas relating to
negative secondary effects of data centers on surrounding neighborhoods, along with the
findings and research previously conducted by its staff and consultants, in a report entitled
“Health and Safety Impacts: Data Centers 2025” (the “Health and Safety Report”), which
has been provided to and reviewed by the City Council, and is the primary impetus for its
adoption of this ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined this ordinance is necessary to address the
health and safety challenges associated with data centers, including (i) risks to the public
health and safety in the communities in which they are located, (ii) unique firefighting
challenges, (iii) adverse environmental impacts to air, land, and water, (iv) extensive
water usage, (v) noise pollution, (vi) significant energy demand, (vii) land use challenges,
including a loss of land for jobs and housing, inactive frontages along public streets, and
(viii) conflicts with the City’s approach of maximizing transportation investments with
walkable communities.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX, as follows:

SECTION 1: Purpose.

It is the purpose of this ordinance to (i) provide a process to review, monitor, and regulate
data centers to ensure that the negative secondary effects of data centers do not
adversely impact the health and safety of the residents of the City, and (ii) establish
reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent and mitigate such adverse impacts
(existing and potential) to residents, neighborhoods, and the City as a whole. This




2 Ordinance G-
ordinance is not intended to ban data centers in most zoning districts, nor is it intended
to discourage location of data centers in the City of Phoenix.

The special permit regulatory framework employs a holistic approach to data center
development and provides opportunities for City staff to evaluate the health and safety
needs of the community and to ensure that the health and safety consequences
associated with the location, design, site and operational features are taken into
consideration. In addition to the traditional site-related considerations, the City has
determined it is necessary to require evidence of agreements with electric utility providers
to ensure the local community will not be negatively impacted or imperiled by demands
on the power infrastructure created by the data center, or by on-site power generating
facilities that are incompatible with the health and safety of the existing residents. The
special permit provides an opportunity for landowners, data center developers, City staff,
neighbors and the Phoenix City Council to collaborate and ensure that new investments
in data centers are strategically located in appropriate areas of the City and serve the
best interests of the City, the neighbors, and the data center developer.

SECTION 2: Findings.

Studies, news articles, research articles, industry publications, relevant data, input from
experts and consultants, and the review of the operations and impact of data center sites
in other locations including, but not limited to, Phoenix, Mesa, Los Angeles, Memphis,
Houston, Lincoln, Nebraska, Boston, Ogden, Utah, Seattle, Virginia, and overseas
locations including South Korea, Belgium, Indonesia, Strasbourg, Milan, Belfast, and
Madrid were gathered and reviewed. The results have been summarized, with links to
the source data, in the Health and Safety Report. Upon review of the Health and Safety
Report, and the source materials as deemed necessary, the City Council make the
following findings:

1. Increase in Size, Scale, Number and Power Usage. Phoenix is a desirable location
for data centers due to its favorable climate. Within the last decade, data centers have
increased dramatically in scale, becoming intense users of land and local resources.
This change in the scale and intense use of electrical power has necessitated a new
definition of “data center” to differentiate it from uses that can no longer be considered
analogous and has created the need for new zoning standards that account for the
impacts data centers have on surrounding properties. Related to their intense
operations, recent incidents across the United States and the world have highlighted
the health and safety challenges data centers pose to residents including, but not
limited to, strains on energy and water resources, threats to the electrical grids existing
users rely upon, increased emissions created by heavy energy consumption, noise,
heat, and on-site generating facilities and strain on public safety resources. In addition,
data centers pose unique risks to first responders due to their size, sensitivity, and
high concentration of batteries and electrical equipment.

a) Significant Power consumption. Arizona Public Service (“APS”) and Salt River
Project (“SRP”) anticipate that more than 90% of the energy demand in the



3 Ordinance G-
industrial sector of their service areas is related to data center development. The
projected growth in data centers represents an unprecedented surge in demand
for electricity. The Department of Energy has predicted that data center electricity
use will double or triple by 2028. The special permit process, and in particular the
requirement for the City Council to fully understand how power will be provided to
meet the data center needs, is designed to ensure that the data center is proposed
for a location with appropriate infrastructure, that an appropriate plan has been
developed to construct that infrastructure, and that gap-bridging on-site
infrastructure will not endanger existing nearby users.

b) Potential to Destabilize Local Power Grid. As Phoenix and the region continue to
grow, ensuring that there are sufficient energy resources to support a reliable
electrical grid, especially during the hot summer months, is one of the greatest
challenges facing utility companies and municipalities. The risk to Phoenix is
highlighted by research done by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(“NERC”), the federal regulator for grid reliability. The NERC founded a taskforce
to study electrical grid disruptions caused by data centers and crypto miners. The
NERC released a report in December of 2024 that found that the risk of power
outages will only grow as new data centers come online. Nearly all the United
States will face higher risks of energy shortfalls over the next 5 to 10 years,
according to the report. Understanding a data center’s power usage, needs, and
plans for providing that power, is an essential part of the special permit process,
which is necessary to ensure that the introduction of a data center to an area does
not imperil critical power reliability for nearby residents and businesses.

The data center threat to grid stability and to existing power users is not simply a
matter of total demand. In addition to their unparalleled energy appetite, data
centers further stress the grid with inconsistent flow patterns and short bursts of
high usage. These consequences are especially pronounced with data centers that
support AI, which produce unpredictable energy spikes. These spikes can lead to
immediate grid failures, but they can also cause “bad harmonics” that degrade the
lifespan of connected electrical equipment including home appliances, can lead to
sparks and home fires, and can eventually lead to grid blackouts as effects
compound and escalate. These effects have been observed in many places,
including Loudoun County, Virginia, where bad harmonic readings have been
reported to reach four times the average rate. These are direct negative impacts
on existing users of all types, so expectations of large-scale intermittent power use
should be addressed on the front end to mitigate major consequences on public
health and safety.

c) Onsite Power Generation. SRP and APS are anticipating unprecedented
additional demand for power related to data centers. APS expects its peak load
to jump 40% by 2031. APS officials have recently explained that the utility has
more pending interconnection requests from data centers than it can fulfill without
putting existing customers at risk of having poor reliability, and recent proceedings
before the Arizona Corporation Commission have revealed support for developing



4 Ordinance G-
“behind the meter solutions” for data center power. The lack of power from the
electrical grid will place additional pressure on data centers to produce their power
on-site. During the 2025 legislative session, the Arizona legislature approved HB
2774 (vetoed by the Governor but supported by the State’s three largest utilities),
which incentivized small nuclear reactors that collocate with large industrial users
by eliminating the requirements for collocated reactors to receive environmental
compatibility certificates. As detailed in the Health and Safety Report, in Memphis,
Tennessee, a large data center utilized 35 gas-powered generators for on-site
power generation in response to a lack of available power from the local power
company. HB 2774 and the examples from other jurisdictions highlight the need
for the City Council to ensure that the methods of power generation are closely
evaluated (through the special permit process) to ensure the health and safety of
neighboring residents and businesses are not adversely impacted.

2. Limited available land employment generators; health care; and grocery stores. Of the
land zoned commercial, commerce park and industrially zoned, only 3% of it is vacant
and ready for development such as employment, health care, grocery stores or
services. Phoenix has increasing needs for a diversity of jobs, health related services
and access to healthy food. Continued unfettered build-out of data centers within the
City hinder the private sector market’s ability to provide these resources to Phoenix
residents Phoenix has Health Professional Shortage Areas (“HPSA”), which are
geographic areas that have a substantial shortage of primary, dental, or mental health
care providers and food deserts. In Phoenix’s Laveen Village there are 12 HPSA
areas and in the South Mountain Village there are 24 HPSA areas.

There are food deserts in Phoenix. The City of Phoenix has adopted a 2025 Food
Action Plan which analyzes the challenges residents face in achieving a healthy and
robust food system. Data centers contribute to the decreasing amount of land area
available to provide the necessary health services to residents, including grocery
stores. Preserving and opportunities for access to healthy food, especially in areas
that have been identified as food deserts, is critical in protecting the health of Phoenix
residents. The special permit process allows the City Council to evaluate the impact
of a proposed data center on health services for an area.

3. Water usage. While Data center water usage has improved in recent years due to
changes in the cooling methodology used, these technologies tend to require larger
amounts of power and recent studies point to the industry continuing to need larger
amounts of water. Additionally, for desert cities and water providers like Phoenix, the
ability to properly evaluate and regulate data center water usage is paramount for the
City’s survival.

4. Fire Safety. Data centers represent a new and challenging service area for
firefighters. According to the International Association of Fire Fighters the growing
presence of data centers requires specialized training, considerable planning, and
close cooperation with on-site security and engineering teams at these new sites. As
detailed in the Public Safety Report, data centers have components that are typically



5 Ordinance G-
not present at the same scale and intensity in other occupancies of a similar size. The
proposed special permit process for data centers will provide an opportunity for the
Phoenix Fire Department to provide critical insight into the proposed location, design
and operation of future data centers. That review will include an assessment of
existing resources available to serve the proposed data center location. Fire resources
are not evenly distributed throughout the City, and in some cases the City may need
to invest in new infrastructure, equipment, or resources to ensure its ability to serve
new data center developments, or to serve new data center developments without
leaving existing residents and businesses unprotected. This analysis will be especially
important when large data centers replace farmland or other much lower intensity
uses.

Fire Department review will also ensure compliance with the Phoenix Fire Code and
industry best practices, and will allow the Fire Department to learn about and prepare
for the specific energy generation and storage equipment that will be present on-site.
Energy storage technologies continue to rapidly evolve, and that makes this level of
review critical to ensure that fire crews have equipment or techniques required based
on the design and chemistry of such equipment. Without advance knowledge, the
chance of a fire sparked by large batteries or other electrical equipment spreading
beyond a data center’s walls to harm those on nearby property will be greatly
increased.

5. Noise. Noise around areas of data centers can reach up to 92 dB(A) for sites with
greater densities of equipment, and up to 96 dB(A) inside. The National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) threshold for requiring hearing protection is
85 dB(A) over an eight-hour period. These constant humming and buzzing noises
may have adverse health impacts in nearby neighborhoods including headache,
stress, and sleep disturbance. Poor quality sleep and stress can also contribute to
cognitive impairment and cardiovascular risks. The special permit process will allow
the City to evaluate potential noise impacts to the surrounding areas to ensure that
neighboring residents and businesses are not negatively impacted by unreasonable
noise from the introduction of a data center to the area.

6. Holistic Review of Health and Safety. In addition to the key concerns enumerated
here, other jurisdictions have experienced other health and safety challenges
including heat, noise, air, and stormwater pollution. Furthermore, as the quantity,
value, and sensitivity of the data stored in today’s data centers continues to increase,
these facilities become increasingly sensitive and generate security issues that can
affect nearby users and the sufficiency of public safety resources. Given the rapid
pace of evolution in data center size, equipment, power usage, and activities, a holistic
review of new data center projects is required to ensure that they are located and
designed with consideration for the many well-documented, and therefore predictable,
consequences to the health and safety of existing residents and land users.

SECTION 3: The Code of the City of Phoenix, Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions)
to hereby amended to add a definition for “Data Centers” to read as follows:



6 Ordinance G-
***
Section 202. Definitions.

***

DATA CENTER: A FACILITY USED PRIMARILY FOR DATA SERVICES, INCLUDING
THE STORAGE, PROCESSING, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL
DATA. A FACILITY SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A DATA CENTER WHEN IT DOES
NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ALL ON-SITE BUILDINGS; IS
USED TO SERVE THE ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONS OF THE ON-SITE PROPERTY
OWNER; AND IS NOT USED TO LEASE DATA SERVICES TO THIRD PARTIES.

***


SECTION 4: The Code of the City of Phoenix, Chapter 5, Section 507, Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses), is
hereby amended to modify the section title and add design standards for data centers, and
to read as follows:
Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for design review.

***

II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines indicate
specific standards of implementation and are categorized as Requirements (R),
Presumptions (P), or Considerations (C). INDICATED WITH THE MARKERS (R),
(R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE APPLIED AND ENFORCED IN THE SAME
MANNER AS INDICATED IN SECTION 507. ITEMS NOT INDICATED WITH AN
(R), (R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE TREATED AS (R).

***

D. Specialized Uses.

***

5. DATA CENTERS.




7 Ordinance G-
5.1. SETBACKS. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS
AND GENERATORS, SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF
150 FEET FROM ABUTTING RIGHT-OF-WAY OR
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY; IN ADDITION TO
THE FOLLOWING: (R*)

5.1.1. THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A BUILDING THAT IS VISUALLY INTEGRATED WITH
THE DESIGN OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT;
OR

5.1.2 THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL HAVING
VARIATIONS IN COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS,
TEXTURES, AND/OR AN ART INSTALLATION SUCH
AS A MURAL.

RATIONALE: GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE
ENCLOSED AND SET BACK TO PROVIDE VISUAL
SCREENING AND REDUCE NOISE LEVELS.

5.2. LANDSCAPE SETBACK. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT WIDE
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE
PROVIDED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

5.2.1. TWO STAGGERED ROWS OF LARGE CANOPY
SHADE TREES PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR
IN EQUIVALENT GROUPING SHALL BE PROVIDED,
AS APPROVED BY THE PDD LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT. (T)

5.2.2 FIVE 5-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AT A MINIMUM. (T)

5.2.3 GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO
SUPPLEMENT THE TREES AND SHRUBS SO THAT
A MINIMUM 75% LIVE COVERAGE IS ATTAINED. (T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACK
WITH A DENSE NUMBER OF TREES AND SHRUBS HELPS
TO MITIGATE NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS.




8 Ordinance G-
5.3. ARCHITECTURE.

5.3.1. BUILDING FACADES THAT EXCEED 100 FEET
SHOULD CONTAIN ARCHITECTURAL
EMBELLISHMENTS AND DETAILING SUCH AS
TEXTURAL CHANGES, PILASTERS, OFFSETS,
RECESSES, WINDOW FENESTRATION
(INCLUDING FAUX WINDOWS), SHADOW BOXES,
AND OVERHEAD/CANOPIES. (P)

5.3.2. ALL SIDES OF A BUILDING/STRUCTURE SHOULD
PROVIDE AN ENHANCED DESIGN INCLUDING A
VARIATION IN COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS,
TEXTURES, HEIGHT, WINDOWS (INCLUDING FAUX
WINDOWS), ARTICULATION, AND/OR ART
INSTALLATIONS. (P)

5.3.3. EACH MAIN ENTRANCE SHOULD INCLUDE A
FEATURE THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE
REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING FACADE BY A
CHANGE IN BUILDING MATERIAL, PATTERN,
TEXTURE, COLOR, AND/OR ACCENT MATERIAL,
AND THAT PROJECTS OR IS RECESSED FROM
THE ADJOINING BUILDING PLANE. (P)

5.3.4. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE SOLAR CONSEQUENCES OF
BUILDING HEIGHT, BULK, AND AREA. (C)

RATIONALE: DATA CENTER BUILDINGS SHOULD
INCLUDE ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
FEATURES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST,
TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF THE BUILDING/STRUCTURE
AND TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED DESIGN INTERFACE
WHERE VISIBLE FROM A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.

5.4. STREETSCAPE. FOR EACH STREET FRONTAGE, A
MINIMUM 6-FOOT-WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK
SEPARATED FROM THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 8-FOOT-
WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:



9 Ordinance G-
5.4.1. SINGLE-TRUNK, LARGE CANOPY SHADE TREES,
PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR IN
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, SHALL BE PROVIDED
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SIDEWALK AND PROVIDE
A MINIMUM OF 75% SHADE. (T)

5.4.2 A MIXTURE OF SHRUBS, ACCENTS, AND
VEGETATIVE GROUNDCOVERS WITH A MAXIMUM
MATURE HEIGHT OF TWO FEET SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE LANDSCAPE
AREAS TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 75% LIVE
COVERAGE. (T)

5.4.3 ALL NEW OR RELOCATED ELECTRIC LINES 12 KV
AND SMALLER, COMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE
TELEVISION AND ALL ON PREMISE WIRING SHALL
BE PLACED UNDERGROUND IN ALL
DEVELOPMENTS WHERE VISIBLE FROM STREETS
OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES, UNLESS
OTHERWISE APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL
APPEAL. (T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED STREETSCAPE HELPS TO
SOFTEN THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
LARGER NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.

5.5. SHADE.

5.5.1. ALL ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS SHOULD
BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF 75% BY A STRUCTURE,
LANDSCAPING, OR A COMBINATION OF THE
TWO. (P)

5.5.2 DEDICATED MULTI-USE TRAILS ADJACENT TO
THE SITE SHOULD BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF 50%
AT TREE MATURITY. (P)

RATIONALE: ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN COMFORT
SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN
DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

***




10 Ordinance G-
SECTION 5: The Code of the City of Phoenix, Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special
Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 is hereby amended to add data centers within the C-2
(Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with
performance standards to read as follows:


Section 647. Special Permit Uses.

***

A. Permitted uses. There shall be permitted, in addition to the uses enumerated in the
several use districts, certain additional uses subject to the requirements of this
section.
***

2. A special permit may be granted by the Council upon recommendation of the
Commission to establish the following uses in the use districts named:

***

KK. DATA CENTERS IN THE C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 AND A-2 ZONING
DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

(1) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 2,640
FEET FROM AN APPROVED HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
STATION.

(2) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL NOT BE
GRANTED FOR A DATA CENTER UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT
A LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY PROVIDES A
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT AFFIRMS ITS
CAPACITY AND COMMITMENT TO SERVE THE ENERGY
DEMAND FOR THE PROPOSED DATA CENTER. THE
AGREEMENT FROM THE UTILITY COMPANY SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO PDD CONCURRENT WITH THE
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

(3) THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY WHEN THE SITE IS
LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT:




11 Ordinance G-
(a) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A DATA
CENTER SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS IT HAS
BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DATA CENTER,
INCLUDING ALL ON-SITE MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, WILL NOT EXCEED
THE EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL FOR THE
SITE BY MORE THAN 5% OR A SPECIFIC NOISE
STANDARD MAY BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION
OF AN APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT.

(b) TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIOR
SUBSECTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A
NOISE STUDY TO PDD PRIOR TO OR
CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN. THE NOISE STUDY SHALL BE PERFORMED
BY A THIRD-PARTY ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER TO
DOCUMENT BASELINE NOISE LEVELS IN THE
AREA OF THE PROPOSED DATA CENTER,
INCLUDING NOISE LEVELS MEASURED AT THE
PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PROPOSED DATA
CENTER PROPERTY.

(c) UPON APPROVAL OF THE NOISE STUDY, THE
METHODS PROPOSED TO MITIGATE NOISE SHALL
BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF FINAL SITE
PLAN APPROVAL. A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY SHALL NOT BE ISSUED IF THE
AMBIENT NOISE EXCEEDS THE PRIOR EXISTING
NOISE LEVEL BY MORE THAN 5%.




12 Ordinance G-
(4) THESE REGULATIONS AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
SET FORTH IN SECTION 507 TAB A.II.D.5., DATA
CENTERS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO DATA CENTERS
WHICH HAVE RECEIVED FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL;
OR A DATA CENTER USE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED
AS A PERMITTED USE OR SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED IN
A COUNCIL ADOPTED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
NARRATIVE PRIOR TO [THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ORDINANCE]. OTHERWISE, THE DEVELOPMENT IS
SUBJECT TO THESE REGULATIONS AND ALL
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN
SECTION 507 TAB A, INCLUDING THOSE FOR SECTION
II.D.5, DATA CENTERS.

***


PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of July, 2025.


________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


____________________________City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager




13 Ordinance G-
ATTACHMENT B




`
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025

Application No. Z-TA-2-25-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers; amend Chapter 5, Section
507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design Review Guidelines,
Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards for data centers;
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data
centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP
(Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial), and A-2 (Industrial)
zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance standards

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y as shown in the
proposed text in Exhibit A.

BACKGROUND
In 2024, the Mayor and City Council directed City staff to create new policy guidance
and zoning regulations related to data centers, in response to the increased frequency
and development of these types of facilities. Data centers house a large collection of
technological equipment designed to store, process, and manage vast amounts of
digital information. One major concern with data centers is that their energy demand is
expected to increase significantly, in large part due to Artificial Intelligence. Another
major concern is the scale at which these types of facilities are built and how they can
negatively affect the surrounding community they are built in. The companion general
plan amendment, GPA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the 2025 General Plan to add a
section to provide policy guidance for data centers addressing the major concerns they
pose to the community and to the city.

Staff researched other cities in the nation that have adopted ordinances related to data
centers for best practices and looked at ways Phoenix could enhance those ordinances.




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 2

PURPOSE
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to create a regulatory framework for data
centers. Data centers are not defined nor are they explicitly listed as a permitted use in
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance; therefore were addressed via informal interpretation.
This text amendment will create a new definition for “data center”; create design
guidelines such as setback requirements and screening design standards for equipment
enclosures and accessory public utility buildings and facilities, such as electrical
substations; and create enhanced landscaping, architectural, and streetscape standards
to soften the design of data centers so they can better blend into the surrounding
environment they are built in; and develop location criteria and performance standards
for data centers. This includes spacing from high-capacity transit; noise standards to
reduce the impact of data centers when located within a certain distance from
residential; and allow data centers only the following zoning districts: C-2, C-3, CP/GCP,
A-1 and A-2 with a Special Permit.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: Definitions, Data
Center-Specific Design Guidelines, and special permit requirements and performance
standards:

1. Definitions:
The Zoning Ordinance currently does not have a definition for the term “data center”.
The proposed definition states generally what a data center is and when it may be
considered as an accessory use to a non-residential use, if it occupies no more than
10 percent of the building footprint, is used to serve the enterprise functions of the
on-site property owner, is not used to lease data storage and processing services to
third parties and is not housed in a separate stand-alone structure on the site.

2. Data Center-Specific Design Guidelines:
The proposed regulations for data centers were based and built upon established
practices in other municipalities. Equipment enclosures would need to be setback a
minimum of 150 feet from abutting rights-of-way and residentially zoned properties,
and screened by a decorative solid wall or building. Mechanical equipment, such as
an electrical substation, would also need to meet similar setbacks and decorative
screening requirements. Since data centers are very large in scale, enhanced
streetscape, landscape setback and planting standards will help to soften the edges
of data center sites and will beautify the edges of the site that interacts with the
surrounding community. Enhanced architectural design guidelines, such as variation
in colors, materials, patterns, textures, height, window fenestration, and articulation,
and standards for art in private development, will help to avoid large, monotonous,
undifferentiated surfaces and avoid large, monolithic buildings, and instead will
provide an enhanced design interface with a visual interest for the surrounding
community.




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 3

3. Special Permit Requirements and Performance Standards:
The Zoning Ordinance currently does not have development regulations for data
centers. The proposed text amendment would allow data centers in the C-2, C-3,
CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2 zoning districts with a Special Permit. The performance
standards for data centers include a half a mile spacing from approved high-capacity
transit, noise study and noise mitigation requirements for data centers located within
300 feet of a residential zoned district and a will-server letter from the utility company
that it can serve the energy demand within two years.

Conclusion:
This text amendment will create a process for data centers to be proposed and
evaluated through a public hearing process. The text amendment will provide standards
to address major concerns that data centers cause. By adding a definition for the term
“data center”, clarifying the districts in which they are permitted, and adding standards
for data centers to follow, Phoenix will be leading in ensuring that data centers blend
with the surrounding environment while limiting negative impacts to existing
communities.

Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in Exhibit
A.


Writer
Adrian Zambrano
May 1, 2025

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibit
A. Proposed Language




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 4

Exhibit A

Staff Proposed Language That May Be Modified During the Public Hearing Process is
as follows:
Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers.

Section 202. Definitions.

***

DATA CENTER: A FACILITY USED PRIMARILY FOR DATA SERVICES, INCLUDING
THE STORAGE, PROCESSING, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL
DATA. A FACILITY SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A DATA CENTER WHEN IT DOES
NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ALL ON-SITE BUILDINGS; IS
USED TO SERVE THE ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONS OF THE ON-SITE PROPERTY
OWNER; AND IS NOT USED TO LEASE DATA SERVICES TO THIRD PARTIES.

***

Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide
Design Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add
design standards for data centers, and to read as follows:

Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for design review.

***

II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines
indicate specific standards of implementation and are categorized as Requirements
(R), Presumptions (P), or Considerations (C). INDICATED WITH THE MARKERS
(R), (R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE APPLIED AND ENFORCED IN THE SAME
MANNER AS INDICATED IN SECTION 507. ITEMS NOT INDICATED WITH AN
(R), (R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE TREATED AS (R).

***

D. Specialized Uses.

***

5. DATA CENTERS.




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 5

5.1. SETBACKS. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRICAL
TRANSFORMERS AND GENERATORS, SHALL BE SET
BACK A MINIMUM OF 150 FEET FROM ABUTTING RIGHT-
OF-WAY OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY; IN
ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING: (R*)

5.1.1. THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A BUILDING THAT IS VISUALLY INTEGRATED
WITH THE DESIGN OF THE OVERALL
DEVELOPMENT; OR

5.1.2 THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL HAVING
VARIATIONS IN COLORS, MATERIALS,
PATTERNS, TEXTURES, AND/OR AN ART
INSTALLATION SUCH AS A MURAL.

RATIONALE: GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE
ENCLOSED AND SET BACK TO PROVIDE VISUAL
SCREENING AND REDUCE NOISE LEVELS.

5.2. LANDSCAPE SETBACK. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT WIDE
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE
PROVIDED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. TWO STAGGERED ROWS OF LARGE CANOPY
SHADE TREES PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR
IN EQUIVALENT GROUPING SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. (T)

5.4.2 FIVE 5-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AT A MINIMUM. (T)

5.4.3 GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO
SUPPLEMENT THE TREES AND SHRUBS SO THAT
A MINIMUM 75% LIVE COVERAGE IS ATTAINED.
(T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACK
WITH A DENSE NUMBER OF TREES AND SHRUBS
HELPS TO MITIGATE NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS.

5.3. ARCHITECTURE.




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 6


5.3.1. BUILDING FACADES THAT EXCEED 100 FEET
SHOULD CONTAIN ARCHITECTURAL
EMBELLISHMENTS AND DETAILING SUCH AS
TEXTURAL CHANGES, PILASTERS, OFFSETS,
RECESSES, WINDOW FENESTRATION
(INCLUDING FAUX WINDOWS), SHADOW BOXES,
AND OVERHEAD/CANOPIES. (P)

5.3.2. ALL SIDES OF A BUILDING/STRUCTURE SHOULD
PROVIDE AN ENHANCED DESIGN INCLUDING A
VARIATION IN COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS,
TEXTURES, HEIGHT, WINDOWS (INCLUDING
FAUX WINDOWS), ARTICULATION, AND/OR ART
INSTALLATIONS. (P)

5.3.3. EACH MAIN ENTRANCE SHOULD INCLUDE A
FEATURE THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE
REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING FACADE BY A
CHANGE IN BUILDING MATERIAL, PATTERN,
TEXTURE, COLOR, AND/OR ACCENT MATERIAL,
AND THAT PROJECTS OR IS RECESSED FROM
THE ADJOINING BUILDING PLANE. (P)

5.3.4. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE SOLAR CONSEQUENCES OF
BUILDING HEIGHT, BULK, AND AREA. (C)

RATIONALE: DATA CENTER BUILDINGS SHOULD
INCLUDE ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
FEATURES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST,
TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF THE
BUILDING/STRUCTURE AND TO PROVIDE AN
ENHANCED DESIGN INTERFACE WHERE VISIBLE FROM
A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PROPERTY.

5.4. STREETSCAPE. FOR EACH STREET FRONTAGE, A
MINIMUM 6-FOOT-WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK
SEPARATED FROM THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 8-FOOT-
WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 7

5.4.1. SINGLE-TRUNK, LARGE CANOPY SHADE TREES,
PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR IN
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, SHALL BE PROVIDED
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SIDEWALK AND
PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 75% SHADE. (T)

5.4.2 A MIXTURE OF SHRUBS, ACCENTS, AND
VEGETATIVE GROUNDCOVERS WITH A MAXIMUM
MATURE HEIGHT OF TWO FEET SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE LANDSCAPE
AREAS TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 75% LIVE
COVERAGE. (T)

5.4.3 ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES WITHIN THE
RIGHTS-OF-WAY ABUTTING THE DEVELOPMENT
SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND, UNLESS
OTHERWISE APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL
APPEAL. (T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED STREETSCAPE HELPS TO
SOFTEN THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
LARGER NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.

5.5. SHADE.

5.5.1. ALL ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS SHOULD
BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF 75% BY A
STRUCTURE, LANDSCAPING, OR A
COMBINATION OF THE TWO. (P)

5.5.2 DEDICATED MULTI-USE TRAILS ADJACENT TO
THE SITE SHOULD BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF
50% AT TREE MATURITY. (P)

RATIONALE: ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN COMFORT
SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN
DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

***




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 8

Amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data
centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial),
CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance standards to read as follows:

Section 647. Special Permit Uses.

***

A. Permitted uses. There shall be permitted, in addition to the uses enumerated in
the several use districts, certain additional uses subject to the requirements of this
section.

***

2. A special permit may be granted by the Council upon recommendation of
the Commission to establish the following uses in the use districts named:

***

KK. DATA CENTERS IN THE C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 AND A-2 ZONING
DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

(1) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 2,640
FEET FROM AN APPROVED HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
STATION.

(2) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL NOT BE
GRANTED FOR A DATA CENTER UNTIL SUCH TIME
THAT A LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY CONFIRMS IN
WRITING WITH A “WILL-SERVE” LETTER THAT IT CAN
SERVE THE ENERGY DEMAND WITHIN TWO YEARS
FOR THE PROPOSED DATA CENTER. THE LETTER
FROM THE UTILITY COMPANY SHALL BE SUBMITTED
TO PDD CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN.

(3) THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY WHEN THE SITE IS
LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT:




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 1, 2025
Page 9

(a) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A DATA
CENTER SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS IT
HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DATA
CENTER, INCLUDING ALL ON-SITE MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, WILL NOT EXCEED
THE EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL FOR THE
SITE BY MORE THAN 5%. (T)

(b) TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIOR
SUBSECTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A
NOISE STUDY TO PDD PRIOR TO OR
CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN. THE NOISE STUDY SHALL BE
PERFORMED BY A THIRD-PARTY ACOUSTICAL
ENGINEER TO DOCUMENT BASELINE NOISE
LEVELS IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED DATA
CENTER, INCLUDING NOISE LEVELS MEASURED
AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEAREST
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER PROPERTY.

(c) UPON APPROVAL OF THE NOISE STUDY, THE
METHODS PROPOSED TO MITIGATE NOISE
SHALL BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF
FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. A FINAL
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL NOT BE
ISSUED IF THE AMBIENT NOISE EXCEEDS THE
PRIOR EXISTING NOISE LEVEL BY MORE THAN
5%.

(4) THE DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE
DESIGN GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN SECTION 507 TAB
A, INCLUDING THOSE FOR SECTION II.D.5, DATA
CENTERS.

***




ATTACHMENT C
Z-TA-2-25-Y: Text Amendment to address data centers
Village Planning Committee Summary Results

Recommendation
Village Recommendation Vote
Date
Ahwatukee
5/19/25 Denial 10-0
Foothills
Alhambra 5/20/25 Denial 11-0
Denial with direction to:
• Revise the noise
requirement to an
objective decibel level to
be verified by the City.
• Allow for an additional 90-
day review period to
Camelback include a review of
6/3/25 ordinances from other 17-0
East
municipalities, including
Chandler.
• Add separation
requirements for data
centers from other data
centers and from
residential uses.
Approval, with direction:
• Allow a minimum of 60 days
for public comment
• Remove the special permit
Central City 5/12/25 requirement for A-1, A-2, or 8-1-1
CP/GCP
• Remove the "will serve letter"
requirement

Deer Valley 5/20/25 No quorum -
Denial, with direction:
• Allow more time for
stakeholder input
• Remove the provision in
the proposed definition
for a facility that is not
Desert View 6/3/25 11-0
considered a data center
to not exceed 10% of the
gross floor area of all on-
site buildings
• Clarify the noise study
requirements and ensure

Attachment C – Page 1 of 3
the noise is measured in
decibels
• Remove the will-serve
letter requirement
• Add data centers as a
permitted use in the
CP/BP zoning district
• Only require a Special
Permit in the C-2 and C-3
commercial zoning
districts

Encanto 6/2/25 Denial 13-0-1
Approval, with the modification
that a Special Permit will be
required for C-2, C-3, and
Estrella 5/20/25 CP/GCP but not A-1 and A-2; 4-0
and with direction regarding
water conservation and heat
mitigation implementation
Approval, with direction
regarding water and power
Laveen 5/12/25 conservation, square footage 13-0
limitations, noise mitigation, and
increased impact fees

Maryvale 5/14/25 Approval 13-0
North
5/8/25 Approval 8-0
Gateway
Denial, with direction to
North reengage with the stakeholder
5/21/25 community and bring the matter 12-0-1
Mountain
back to the VPC in 90 days
Approval, with the modification
Paradise to only allow data centers within 8-5-1
6/2/25 the A-1 and A-2 zoning districts
Valley
with a Special Permit.
Denial, with direction to allow
Rio Vista 5/13/25 more time for stakeholder input 3-2

Approval, with direction:
• No data centers be
allowed within 1.5 miles
of the Rio Salado
South
5/13/25 Restoration area 14-1-1
Mountain
• 5.1 be modified to include
setback requirements
from the mechanical
equipment and the
Attachment C – Page 2 of 3
building from residential
zoned property and
schools
• Include provision that
encourages recycling of
water and usage of
recycled water on site




Attachment C – Page 3 of 3
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 19, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data
centers and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special
Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers
within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3
(General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial)
and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 10-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, one in support, and one
in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers, further
providing information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Chair Gasparro asked for clarification on the noise requirement, noting that in areas
with higher ambient decibel levels, a 5% increase could be significant. Mr. Grande


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 625
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


replied that the proposed language is taking into account existing ambient levels. Vice
Chair Mager suggested redefining the noise requirement based on decibels.

Committee Member Fisher stated concerns about Phoenix becoming a location with
many data centers in the future, noting some issues, including that they can pull
power off the grid by having first right to power. Mr. Grande noted that the text
amendment would add additional regulations for data centers, including a requirement
for a Special Permit, which does not exist today.

Committee Member Slobodzian stated there are concerns with water usage for data
centers.

Vice Chair Mager commented that it appears the motivation is to allow the City to
have more control over approving data centers. Committee Member Fisher stated a
concern with the number of zoning districts would permit data centers. Mr. Grande
clarified that this proposal would add a Special Permit requirement where it doesn’t
exist today, and suggested that the Committee could approve with direction for any
items of concern, including the inclusion of C-2 and C-3 zoning districts in the list.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Cepand Alizadeh with the Arizona Technology Council spoke in favor of the
proposal, but noting several concerns: a lack of clarity regarding the 5% requirement
for decibel level measurements and how emergencies are handled and that the 2-
year will serve letter from utility companies is not feasible.

Chair Gasparro stated a concern about asking for a 10-year will serve letter
requirement. Committee Member Fisher noted that it appears that the facilities
would be stating they don’t have the power to serve them.

Committee Member Fisher asked about the appeal of locating data centers in the
that these could be redevelopments. Mr. Fisher noted that in any case, they are
massive buildings. Committee Member Barua noted that they do not have a good
understanding of the number of employees that are typically at a data center. Mr.
Alizadeh commented that the tech industry is booming in Phoenix and companies
want to be here.

Henry Hardy with Rose Law Group spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
he had never seen a text amendment move this quickly through the process, that
there should be a 90-day extension in the process, that the will serve letter will result
in no more data centers locating in Phoenix, and that there are Proposition 207 issues
with the proposal.

Chair Gasparro asked if Mr. Hardy had clients that resulted in him attending this
meeting. Mr. Hardy replied that data center stakeholders have been involved. Chair


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 626
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Gasparro asked for clarification on the will serve letter request. Mr. Hardy stated that
the request is for 10 years, noting that many developments are phased.

Mr. Fisher asked who is pushing this item. Mr. Hardy said he did not know.

Committee Member Blackman asked if they wanted the will serve letter requirement
removed, noting concerns about possible blackouts. Mr. Hardy replied that they want
the requirement to align with industry standards and that the will serve letters allow
the utility companies to plan for the future to ensure sufficient capacity. Ms.
Blackman followed up with a question about whether the data centers will need to
pay for the infrastructure. Mr. Hardy replied that they would.

Committee Member Slobodzian asked what changes would be looked at if more
time is given for review. Mr. Hardy replied that they would like to review the will serve
letter requirement and issues around existing rights.

Committee Member Jain asked if data centers currently participate in demand
response. Mr. Hardy replied that he is not sure, but they do have comprehensive
independent generation systems.

Committee Member Fisher stated he was nervous about extending the timeframe
for will serve letters, adding it is not clear where all the power will come from, and
data centers do not provide a lot of jobs.

Committee Member Barua added that utility companies give discounts to data
centers.

Chair Gasparro asked if staff can look into any comments received from utility
companies.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Fisher suggested voting for a continuance in order to slow the
process down, noting that the Committee doesn’t have time to get answers to their
questions.

Chair Gasparro noted that voting for a continuance may not slow it down, as the
Planning Commission could still move it forward, and it could result in losing the
opportunity to put the Committee’s concerns on record.

Vice Chair Mager suggested the Committee put their concerns into a formal motion,
noting a possibility of approval with direction to staff. Committee Members discussed
the various options for motions. Mr. Fisher suggested a motion for denial, noting the
following items:
• Decibel clarification to industry standards;
• Confusion about ramifications of will serve letter requirement; and
• The speed of the process and not including stakeholders.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 627
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - May 19, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y



Mr. Grande noted that the Committee’s concerns would be written in the minutes for
review by the Planning Commission if the Committee recommends denial.

Committee Member Slobodzian stated that the most effective motion would be for
denial.

MOTION (Z-TA-2-25-Y)
Alyson Slobodzian made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y. Prakshal
Jain seconded the motion.

VOTE (Z-TA-2-25-Y)
10-0; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y passed; Committee Members
Barua, Blackman, Fisher, Golden, Jain, Maloney, Ostendorp, Slobodzian, Mager, and
Gasparro in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 628
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 11-0

VPC DISCUSSION

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak in opposition to these items.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the Data Center General Plan
Amendment noting the development background, review process, and the rationale
behind the proposed amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the proposed text
amendment is a companion to the General Plan Amendment and is intended to support
the regulatory framework for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City Council
had initiated creation of new policy guidance in response to the growing number of
requests for data center facilities, which possess unique characteristics not currently
addressed. Mr. Roanhorse expressed the importance of the General Plan Amendment
due to land use considerations, the need for adaptation to existing developments, and
the importance of connecting these facilities to infrastructure. Mr. Roanhorse noted that
one of the primary reasons for the amendment is that data centers are not directly
addressed in either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and previous


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


developments have been permitted through informal interpretations. Mr. Roanhorse
discussed the key elements of the amendment, including location criteria, design
policies, and sustainability measures. Mr. Roanhorse reviewed site placement criteria,
highlighting core areas and centers as not preferred locations, and noted various
suitability factors. Mr. Roanhorse discussed required setbacks, the integration of art
features, dark sky compliance, noise mitigation, and architectural design standards. Mr.
Roanhorse noted the energy demands associated with data centers and the importance
of incorporating energy efficiency measures. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the amendment
would offer additional detail regarding definitions, guidelines, and performance
standards.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jim DeGraffenreid asked if Data Centers would require additional
water use and if water was mainly used for cooling. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
water is a concern, however it is addressed within the sustainability component of the
text amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated based on information provided data centers
recycle water and take measures to prevent increasing water use.

Committee Member David Krietor asked if Data Centers could be developed in
existing buildings as an adaptive reuse and that it appears that there might not be many
places for Data Centers in the Alhambra Village. Mr. Roanhorse responded that it is
less likely that a data center would be developed on an existing site however in the past
there are data centers that have been established in existing buildings but typically their
sizes are limited.

Committee Member Alexander Malkoon commented the increase of Data Centers
reflects the growth of technology like artificial intelligence and the facilities house
substantial servers and equipment. Committee Member Malkoon commented that the
Text Amendment responds to the needs but asked if what is presented is appropriate to
the level of development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the preparation of the text
amendment included interaction with stakeholders and an analysis of existing data
centers and the direction of current technology development in other cities that have
widely developed data center facilities.

Committee Member DeGraffenreid commented that he is supportive of Data Centers
and the Text Amendment but does have concern that water and energy issues will not
be addressed. Mr. Roanhorse responded that water use is a concern and the text
amendment does provide sustainability details as part of the proposal.

Vice Chair Melisa Camp asked if there will be sufficient requirements in response to
mitigate increased heat temperatures. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the operation of
a data center does generate internal heat which has cooling and other mechanical
systems to maintain the temperature for the development and factors on the site such
as shading, landscaping and other features would contribute to external heat reduction

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 630
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


and mitigation. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the proposed design guidelines, which include
setback requirements, perimeter landscaping, and specific landscape coverage
standards. Mr. Roanhorse discussed enhancements to architectural elements, including
building frontages with the integration of art, color, texture, and orientation, along with
requirements for pedestrian amenities and sidewalks. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the
proposed timeline for both the General Plan and Text Amendments and indicated that
both items would proceed to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council
by June 2025.

Committee Member Alexander Malkoon asked the time frame for access to utility
service for a Data Center. Mr. Roanhorse responded that it would depend on the timing
and application of the data center submittal. Mr. Roanhorse noted that as part of the
process the applicant would have to provide the will serve letter.

Committee Member Jim DeGraffienried asked if energy use for a Data Center will
increase over the years. Mr. Roanhorse responded that typically data centers would
have sufficient energy provided as part of the utility grid they are in. Mr. Roanhorse
noted that the utilities have provided information regarding energy use for proposed
data centers.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Samantha DeMoss, representing Rose Law Group, introduced herself and stated that
Data Centers are an expanding use and reflect an important economic sector for the
Phoenix area. Ms. DeMoss stated that addressing Data Centers is very important and
will have long-term implications for growth and development. Ms. DeMoss stated there
are concerns with the current General Plan Amendment specifically that with process
review and timing and the design criteria. Ms. DeMoss stated that additional review time
would be necessary to review and address many of the incomplete details in the
General Plan Amendment as presented. Ms. DeMoss said that additional review time
would allow more stakeholder review and input. Ms. DeMoss stated that the committee
consider a 90-day period be granted to allow for more time for a thorough review and
comment.

Cepand Alizadeh, representing the Arizona Technology Council, introduced himself
and shared a personal experience to illustrate the importance of access to electronic
medical information and the critical role of Data Centers. Mr. Alizadeh explained that he
works with an organization that provides information and supports a variety of
technology industries, emphasizing its alignment with economic development efforts.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that correspondence outlining the Arizona Technology Council’s
position on the proposed text amendment had been submitted to the Mayor's Office and
members of the City Council. Mr. Alizadeh stated that data centers are an essential
component of the modern economy, noting that several facilities are either under
consideration or already under construction in different areas of the city, with more
expected in the near future. Mr. Alizadeh also pointed out that data centers vary in size

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 631
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


and capacity, both in terms of the volume of information housed and the operations
conducted within the facilities. Mr. Alizadeh stated that he works with a range of
businesses and organizations that develop services, maintain technology systems, and
ensure that critical information remains readily available. Mr. Alizadeh said on behalf of
the Arizona Technology Council, he expressed concerns about the proposed text
amendment, specifically regarding the process timeline and the requirements for sound
abatement. Mr. Alizadeh stated that additional time is needed to allow for a
comprehensive review and to provide informed feedback on the proposed amendment.
Mr. Alizadeh further noted that the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address
appropriate sound control measures that would be consistent with the functional and
operational needs of data centers.

DISCUSSION

Vice Chair Camp asked if there has been consultation with utility companies regarding
the development of data centers. Ms. DeMoss responded that there has been some
discussion with the utility companies, however, like many other details, this proposed
amendment is moving quickly and more discussion and review would be beneficial to all
parties.

Committee Member John Owens asked if there was information on existing data
centers and their locations. Committee Member Owens commented that typically data
centers and more similar uses would be aligned with freeway corridors and what would
be the best approach to have balanced locations to accommodate connection to the
infrastructure grid. Ms. DeMoss responded that there are many potential locations for
data centers but locating them in the appropriate place would consider many factors
and they are evaluating such options but more time to review the proposed General
Plan Amendment would be a good starting point to ensure all details are addressed
appropriately.

Committee Member John Owens asked what other cities in the area are developing
data centers and what issues have been presented with them. Mr. Alizadeh responded
that most adjacent cities have data centers including Tempe and Chandler. Mr. Alizadeh
stated that the city of Chandler has been responsive and on the forefront of data center
development and has ordinance and policies to accommodate them.

Committee Member Malkoon asked how the City of Chandler responded to the issue
of noise abatement with data centers in their jurisdiction. Mr. Alizadeh responded that
the City of Chandler has information in their ordinance for noise mitigation for data
centers and it is more appropriately suited to the current type of designs that are being
developed.

Committee Member Malkoon commented that he had experience in the development
of call centers and was familiar with the scope of large-scale development. Committee
Member Malkoon asked if back up power generators will be included in data centers

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 632
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 20, 2025


and how much sound is expected. Mr. Alizadeh responded that yes data centers do
include backup generators and currently they are powered by diesel fuel so there would
be some sound associated with the current data centers, but physical measures would
dramatically reduce any loud noises associated with data centers.

Committee Member Owens commented that data centers are part of the future growth
for the city and the economy and asked what measures are being taken to bring more
data centers to the area. Mr. Alizadeh responded that yes data centers are a growing
industry, and Phoenix is an ideal location for this growing industry. Mr. Alizadeh stated
that having a responsive ordinance and policies is necessary to accommodate data
centers and provide jobs and tax revenue for the local economies.

Committee Member Carlos Velasco commented that the Alhambra Village is land
locked however it is important to promote economic opportunities, create jobs and
promote tax benefits. Committee Member Velasco asked what type of jobs come with
data centers and is there a higher pay scale. Mr. Alizadeh responded that jobs
associated with data centers are high paying and will promote economic development.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that in addition to jobs being provided data centers will also
contribute to local economies by the services and supporting needs from local
businesses in the area.


FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Alexander Malkoon motioned to recommend the denial of Z-TA-
2-25-Y. Member Keith Ender seconded the motion.

VOTE
11-0, motion to deny Z-TA-2-25-Y passed with Committee Members DeGraffenreid,
Ender, Gamiño Guerrero, Krietor, Malkoon, Owens, Smith, Vallo, Velasco, Camp and
Sanchez in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comment.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 633
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
Date of VPC Meeting May 12, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data
centers and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special
Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers
within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3
(General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial)
and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with
direction
VPC Vote 8-1-1

Item Nos. 6 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 7 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak in opposition on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers. Mr. Rogers
provided information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked what happens if a facility leases data
services. Samuel Rogers, staff, stated that if a facility is proposing to lease data
services it would not be allowed and explained the definition of a data center.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Faith Burton stated that dead office towers are leasing their
space for data centers and asked if the proposal would impact those uses. Mr. Rogers
stated that staff is working through what will have grandfathered rights. Committee
Member Burton explained that there are many dead office towers with excess power
capacity that will likely never be used due to modern office uses not requiring high
energy loads.

Vice Chair Darlene Martinez asked if there is a reason data centers are not allowed to
lease their data services. Mr. Rogers explained that the intent is to prevent the primary
use of data centers from being external data hosting and to discourage expansion
solely to accommodate off-site users.

Committee Member Burton explained that many data centers lease services to
businesses without office space.

Chair Cyndy Gaughan asked if staff is working through the issue of existing
conditions. Mr. Rogers confirmed Chair Gaughan’s inquiry.

Committee Member Zach Burns asked what prevents a facility from leasing out data
services. Mr. Rogers explained that a facility must meet all the requirements in the
definition of a data center to be considered a data center. Chair Gaughan stated that
enforcement would be the challenge.

Committee Member Janey Pearl Starks asked why shade was not included in the
General Plan Amendment’s design policy slide. Mr. Rogers explained that data
centers would need to go through the Special Permit process and be subject to
rezoning stipulations, which could address those design elements.

Committee Member Ian O’Grady asked if there are other uses that require a Will
Serve Letter. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not aware of any other uses requiring a Will
Serve Letter.

Committee Member Ali Nervis asked whether the perception is that data centers are
inherently negative. Mr. Rogers stated that public outreach has revealed concerns
about data centers, explained that data centers are currently allowed in zoning districts
which allow offices, without any performance or design standards, and reiterated that
data centers use significant amounts of energy.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked whether there has been an increase in
data centers within the Central City Village. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not aware of
the number of data centers in the Central City Village and explained that there has
been an increase in data centers over time within the City.

Chair Gaughan stated that there is land around the airport that could be suitable for
data centers and noted that data centers are currently somewhat unregulated.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 635
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Nate Sonoskey asked for confirmation that data centers can
currently be built anywhere office uses are allowed and asked about what requirements
currently apply to data centers. Mr. Rogers confirmed that data centers can currently
be built wherever office uses are allowed and explained that an informal interpretation
from 20 years ago considered data centers analogous to office uses. Mr. Rogers stated
that data center demands have significantly changed and stated that data centers are
not currently subject to any data center specific performance or design standards.
Committee Member Sonoskey asked how many data centers have been built in office
zones. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not have data on the number of data centers in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked whether the City is considering allowing data
centers by right in industrial areas and stated that it is common to allow data centers in
industrial zones. Mr. Rogers stated that most cities in the Phoenix metro area do not
have specific regulations for data centers.

Chair Gaughan stated that data centers are not sustainable job creators.

Committee Member Nervis asked whether there are any requirements regarding
energy efficiency. Mr. Rogers stated that he is not knowledgeable about energy
efficiency requirements.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked if the proposal would go into effect immediately,
asked whether the City has received any pushback from large companies, and stated
that many companies have already acquired land for data centers.

Mr. Rogers explained that the proposal would be subject to a 30-day appeal period
and stated that some developers have expressed concerns.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson stated that there are data centers everywhere
but people do not know they are present because they do not look like data centers.

Committee Member Burton stated that many developments do not have other
options, explained that data centers can give a development a second life, and
explained concerns about how overreaching the proposal is.

Mr. Rogers stated that the goal of the proposal is not to eliminate data centers but to
establish a formalized review process.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked about the timeline. Mr. Rogers
described the timeline for upcoming public hearings.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Henry Hardy introduced himself, explained that he works for Rose Law Group, stated
that he represents data center stakeholders, and explained that the stakeholders were
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 636
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

made aware of the text amendment only two weeks prior. Mr. Hardy stated that the
amendment is moving too quickly, requested a recommendation for continuation,
acknowledged there are positive elements in the proposal, and stated some
components would make data centers unfeasible. Mr. Hardy explained that data
centers can provide 80 to 150 high-paying jobs and are essential to the region’s
technology infrastructure, expressed concern that the proposal creates uncertainty
around property rights and may result in Proposition 207 litigation, stated that requiring
a Will Serve Letter is inconsistent with current utility processes and will hinder projects,
and emphasized the limited time between village planning committee reviews and City
Council hearings.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked what specific concerns the stakeholders
have. Mr. Hardy described concerns with the Will Serve Letter, Proposition 207
implications, and existing properties planning future expansions. Mr. Hardy stated that
there are long lead times on data center developments.

Vice Chair Martinez asked if data center users are conducting outreach. Mr. Hardy
stated that outreach is being conducted through agents such as himself and reiterated
that the current timeline is short.

Committee Member O’Grady asked how much power a typical data center requires.
Mr. Hardy explained that power needs vary, stated that it is often impossible to obtain
a utility commitment for under ten years, stated the Will Serve Letter requirement is
impractical, and stated that while data centers may not employ large numbers of
people, they still provide employment. Mr. Hardy clarified that the stakeholders are not
opposed to the text amendment itself but believe additional time for discussion is
necessary.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Rogers stated that the City’s Law Department has not raised any concerns
regarding Proposition 207 and stated that he could not speak to wet utility
requirements.

Committee Member Starks noted that the proposal is on an expedited timeline and
asked how long a standard text amendment process typically takes. Mr. Rogers
explained that text amendments are usually processed over a longer period, but staff
was directed to bring the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment to City
Council prior to the summer break. Mr. Rogers stated that past text amendments were
typically presented for information only and for recommendation the following month at
each of the three hearing bodies. Committee Member Starks asked for confirmation
that the hearing schedule is limited to two months. Mr. Rogers confirmed Committee
Member Starks’ inquiry.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked whether other village planning committees had
already reviewed the item. Mr. Rogers stated that one village heard the item the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 637
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

previous week and explained that he was unaware of the outcome due to staff
absences. Mr. Hardy stated that he attended the previous village meeting and noted
that both items were recommended for approval.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked for clarification on the difference between the
General Plan Amendment and the Text Amendment. Mr. Rogers explained that the
General Plan Amendment sets policy direction, while the Text Amendment defines the
ordinance requirements.

Committee Member Nervis asked why the City Council wants to consider the items
before the summer break. Mr. Rogers stated that he was unaware of any specific
reason for the timeline, explained that his department was instructed to complete the
process before the summer break, and stated that a delay would postpone the items
until September.

Committee Member Sonoskey expressed concern that extending the process would
cause significant confusion and delay due to heavy investment in data center land
acquisition. Committee Member Sonoskey stated that the General Plan Amendment is
only a partial step, stated that policy is needed, and stated that the Text Amendment
contains substantive requirements, but it has not been sufficiently discussed.
Committee Member Sonoskey questioned how utility providers such as APS and SRP
view the Will Serve Letter requirement. Mr. Rogers stated that APS and SRP
participated in the stakeholder meetings.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

Motion #1:
Committee Member Ali Nervis made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-
Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Janey Pearl Starks seconded
the motion.

Vote #1:
4-5-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation.
fails with Committee Members Burns, Nervis, Starks, and Vargas in favor, Committee
Members Burton, Frazier Johnson, Sonoskey, Martinez, and Gaughan opposed, and
Committee Member O’Grady. abstained.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson explained that she believes there should be
more time for public comment.

Committee Member Burton suggested allowing data centers on industrially zoned
properties by right and expressed concerns with the definition of data center.

Committee Member Burns stated that the Committee is not happy with the timeframe.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 638
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Sonoskey explained that he could see data centers being
allowed on industrially zoned properties and stated that the Will Serve Letter is a very
hard ask.

Committee Member O’Grady explained that he does not know if a utility company will
give a Will Serve Letter without a permit being issued. Committee Member Burns
stated that APS will typically not review a project until a permit is issued.

Committee Member Burton explained that she understands the timeline but stated
that data centers are a huge component of economy.

Committee Member Starks stated that she wonders why the City would do this and
stated that the City knows the power that is about to come against the Text
Amendment.

Committee Member O’Grady explained that Phoenix is the second largest market for
data centers behind Virginia and stated that development is occurring quickly.

Vice Chair Martinez explained that a Special Permit is difficult to get.

Committee Member O’Grady asked about the landscape setback for industrially
zoned properties. Mr. Rogers explained that the proposed 30-foot landscape setback
is consistent with industrial zoning district requirements and clarified that the Special
Permit process is the same process as the rezoning process.

Committee Member O’Grady stated that he could motion to continue. Mr. Rogers
explained that the item is already scheduled for Planning Commission and City
Council.

Motion #2:
Vice Chair Darelene Martinez made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y
per the staff recommendation, with direction to allow 60-days for public comment.
Chair Cyndy Gaughan seconded the motion.

Vote #2:
2-7-1, made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation, with direction to allow 60-days for public comment fails with
Committee Members Martinez and Gaughan in favor, Committee Members Burns,
Burton, Frazier Johnson, Nervis, Sonoskey, Starks, and Vargas opposed, and
Committee Member O’Grady. abstained.

Committee Member Sonoskey stated that the proposal needs more time and stated
that it looks like the City is moving forward.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 639
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Mr. Hardy stated that whether the Text Amendment is recommended to be approved
or denied, the most important thing is the Committee express their concerns with the
proposal.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson stated that the Committee wants City Council to
know the Village Planning Committee’s concerns. Committee Member O’Grady
explained that staff will draft meeting minutes that will include the Village Planning
Committee’s concerns. Mr. Rogers confirmed that he will draft a recommendation form
that will be available for the Planning Commission and City Council

Committee Member Burton suggested a motion to deny with direction to narrow the
scope and requirements.

Mr. Rogers summarized the concerns that have been discussed.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson asked how the Committee can express
concerns that the proposal will eliminate Phoenix in the data center market. Mr.
Rogers encouraged the committee members to provide comments when they vote on
the item.

Motion #3:
Committee Member Ali Nervis made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-
Y per the staff recommendation, with direction to allow a minimum of 60-days for public
comment, allow data centers by right in A-1, A-2, and CP/GCP with performance
standards, and remove the requirement for the Will Serve Letter. Vice Chair Martinez
seconded the motion.

Vote #3:
8-1-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation,
with direction to allow a minimum of 60-days for public comment, allow data centers by
right in A-1, A-2, and CP/GCP with performance standards, and remove the
requirement for the Will Serve Letter passed with Committee Members Burns, Frazier
Johnson, Nervis, Sonoskey, Starks, Vargas, Martinez, and Gaughan in favor,
Committee Member Burton opposed, and Committee Member O’Grady. abstained.

Committee Member Frazier Johnson explained she would like to figure out a way
that the proposal can work for businesses and the community and stated she does not
want to be in a situation where the City of Phoenix is not in the game for data centers.

Committee Member Sonoskey explained that the definition and requirements should
be further refined during the recommended additional public comment period.

Committee Member Vargas stated that it does not feel like there has been a real
stakeholder meeting and stated that he believes the State will take up this issue in the
next year.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 640
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
May 12, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Vice Chair Martinez echoed Committee Member Vargas’ comments.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 641
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting June 3, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards
VPC Recommendation Denial with direction
VPC Vote 17-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, both in opposition. One
member of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and
energy and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers, further
providing information about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and
performance standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Eichelkraut asked if the text made a distinction between different
types of data centers, noting that data centers becoming AI data centers in the future
could be an issue. Mr. Grande replied that the text did not make a distinction.

Committee Member Swart asked if City staff is able to measure decibel levels. Mr.
Grande replied that there are some parts of the code that have decibel limits, and the
Neighborhood Services Department needs to enforce those requirements.

Committee Member Schmieder stated that the noise limit should simply be a flat
decibel limit, rather than a percentage.

Committee Member Augusta asked for clarification on how the location criteria policy
would be enforced. Mr. Grande replied that each data center will be required to go
through the Special Permit process, where staff and the Committee can review the
request in relation to the location criteria in the policy.

Committee Member Whitesell stated that it would be better if City staff conducted the
noise readings, rather than the applicant, and that C-2 and C-3 are not appropriate for
data centers, which should be limited to industrial districts. Chair Fischbach noted that
Proposition 207 could have been a concern when drafting the language.

Committee Member Todd asked for clarification that if this text is approved, every data
center will be a rezoning case. Mr. Grande replied that they would be. Mr. Todd added
that data centers in C-2 is concerning and that the landscaping requirements seem too
extreme. Chair Fischbach noted that the plants would be drought-tolerant, which
alleviates some water usage concerns.

Committee Member Schmieder asked for clarification on the landscaping requirement
and if it would be consistent with the environment in industrial districts. Mr. Grande
replied with background about industrial zoning landscaping requirements.

Committee Member Eichelkraut asked if there is a requirement for separation
between data centers. Mr. Grande replied that there is not.

Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification that the requirement is for a
Special Permit, not a Use Permit. Mr. Grande replied that the text is clear that it is a
Special Permit requirement.

Committee Member Eichelkraut stated a concern about the future with energy
consumption of data centers that will evolve over time.

Vice Chair Paceley provided background regarding the requirements with utility
companies, noting that data centers would be responsible for the required infrastructure
and have to sign favorable agreements with utility companies.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 643
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Chair Fischbach stated that the primary issue with developing data centers is the need
for power, noting that their development can be positive in some ways while highlighting
a challenge presented with power supply at a data center on 40th Street.

Committee Member Schmieder asked if APS and SRP will be able to handle the
growth into the future. Vice Chair Paceley replied that the utilities are planning far into
the future to meet future demand.

Committee Member Whitesell asked for clarification on the will serve letter. Vice
Chair Paceley provided clarification.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Melissa Rhodes introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that
this proposal does not incorporate the stricter standards found in the data center
ordinances of other municipalities, such as Chandler, adding that the development of
data centers in commercial districts will be detrimental to neighborhoods and that we
don’t have the energy for data centers.

Samantha DeMoss with Rose Law Group, introduced herself and spoke in opposition
to the proposal, noting that this process is moving too fast for a code change like this,
that it doesn’t address grandfathering, and that as written, this is a moratorium on data
centers, requesting a denial and a 90-day continuance.

Chair Fischbach asked for an example scenario related to the grandfathering issue.
Ms. DeMoss stated that someone could have purchased property with CP/GCP zoning
under the assumption that they could develop a data center but that this text
amendment would remove that right, especially considering the will serve letter
requirement.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Chair Fischbach stated that based on the discussion so far, one option would be to
recommend approval with direction to City staff.

MOTION:
Committee Member Schmieder made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y
with direction to City staff to:
• Revise the noise requirement to an objective decibel level to be verified by the
City.
• Allow for an additional 90-day review period to include a review of ordinances
from other municipalities, including Chandler.
• Add separation requirements for data centers from other data centers and from
residential uses.

Committee Member Noel seconded the motion.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 644
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary - June 3, 2025
Z-TA-2-25-Y


VOTE:
17-0; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y with direction passed; Committee
Members Abbott, Augusta, Beckerleg Thraen, Eichelkraut, Garcia, Langmade,
McClelland, Noel, Schmieder, Sharaby, Siegel, Swart, Todd, Whitesell, Williams,
Paceley, and Fischbach in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 645
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting June 3, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial, with direction
VPC Vote 11-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

Committee Member Michelle Santoro declared a conflict of interest and recused herself
from this item, bringing the quorum to 11 members.

Three members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided background on GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25-Y. Mr.
Zambrano discussed concerns with data centers that the General Plan Amendment and
Text Amendment are trying to address. Mr. Zambrano explained the policy guidance for
data centers that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the three main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano shared the
proposed Zoning Ordinance definition for a data center. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the proposed design guidelines and their purpose. Mr. Zambrano shared the zoning

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 646
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special Permit and other
performance standards, and noted that Special Permits go through the same public
hearing process as rezoning cases. Mr. Zambrano stated that a noise study would be
required if the data center is within a certain distance from residential. Mr. Zambrano
shared the upcoming public hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends
approval per the language in Exhibit A of the staff reports.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Rick Nowell asked why a large data center would be considered
within a small commercially-zoned shopping center. Mr. Zambrano responded that
there would have to be a large enough area that is commercially zoned in order for the
data center to fit. Mr. Zambrano added that a rezoning may be required in some cases
to one of the zoning districts that a data center would be permitted in.

Chair Steven Bowser asked if there are any other zoning districts, other than those
already listed, that a Special Permit would not be required. Mr. Zambrano responded
that data centers would only be permitted within the C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2
zoning districts, subject to a Special Permit, and they would not be permitted in any
other zoning districts. Chair Bowser asked if a data center would be permitted in a
heavy industrial district. Mr. Zambrano responded that A-1 is the light industrial district
and A-2 is the heavy industrial district, and a Special Permit would still be required.

Committee Member David Kollar asked which zoning districts data centers are
currently located in. Mr. Zambrano responded that data centers have previously been
permitted through an informal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and were
determined to be analogous to an office use, so any zoning district that permitted an
office use is where they have been permitted. Mr. Zambrano stated that the commercial,
commerce park, and industrial districts all permit office use. Mr. Zambrano added that
some data centers have gone through the PUD (Planned Unit Development) process to
permit them.

Vice Chair Louis Lagrave asked what the typical size is of a data center. Mr.
Zambrano responded that they are typically very large in scale and could cover many
acres of land. Mr. Zambrano added that they typically are not small-scale. Vice Chair
Lagrave asked for clarification that it most likely would not be able to fit within a mostly
vacant shopping center. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Committee Member Kollar stated that some vacant high-rises have been retrofitted for
data centers. Committee Member Kollar stated that a large amount of space is needed
for a successful data center development. Committee Member Kollar added that data
centers are very particular with mechanical, electrical and water needs. Vice Chair
Lagrave asked if the space in this example would be less than 10 percent of the floor
area of the entire development. Committee Member Kollar responded that unless it is
for a specific user that has their own data needs, a data center is typically a giant empty
warehouse with a lot of racks that need to be cooled. Mr. Kollar reiterated that a lot of
square footage is needed. Mr. Kollar stated that a majority of the space is taken up by
data infrastructure and a small remainder of the space is used for office space. Vice

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 647
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Chair Lagrave asked if the noise is continuously generated 24/7. Committee Member
Kollar responded that data centers generate noise from rooftop mechanical equipment
and there may be some light humming from the racks and servers in the interior.
Committee Member Kollar added that the massive air handlers that support cooling of
the equipment also generate noise.

Committee Member Reginald Younger asked about data center water usage. Mr.
Zambrano responded that some data centers may use water cooling to help cool their
data infrastructure.

Committee Member Nowell expressed concerns with allowing a five percent increase
in the ambient noise level in residential areas. Committee Member Nowell asked why
the Text Amendment would allow an increase in the ambient noise level. Mr. Zambrano
responded that this language was based off of what other municipalities have done that
have adopted a data center ordinance. Committee Member Nowell suggested that
Phoenix take the lead and say that the ambient noise level cannot be exceeded.

Committee Member Kollar asked if there is a decibel range that is considered an
ambient noise level. Mr. Zambrano responded that the noise study would determine
what the ambient noise level is, which would be conducted by an acoustical engineer.
Committee Member Kollar stated that an acceptable decibel range would make more
sense.

Committee Member Jason Israel stated that noise levels inside data centers typically
range from 80 to 90 dBa (A-weighted decibels) and peak levels can reach up to 96 dBa.
Committee Member Israel concurred with clarifying the ambient noise level requirement.
Mr. Zambrano responded that the ambient noise level would be the baseline noise
level before a data center is built in the area. Mr. Zambrano added that the ambient
noise level can vary based on the surrounding context of a site and a specific decibel
number would not cover the entire city, since noise level can vary from one part of the
city to another.

Committee Member Barbara Reynolds stated that smaller data centers can operate in
buildings from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet and larger facilities require up to 300 acres.
Committee Member Reynolds agreed with not allowing data centers in commercial
areas.

Committee Member Richard Carlucci expressed concerns with the noise study
requirement, noting that developers could go to the nearest street during the busiest
time of the day and measure the noise levels from there to get the highest ambient
noise level. Committee Member Carlucci stated that the noise study needs more
objective standards. Committee Member Carlucci asked why a Special Permit is
needed. Mr. Zambrano responded that the Special Permit requirement would allow
community input, which would not happen if a data center was allowed by-right in a
zoning district. Committee Member Carlucci stated that data center developers that
invest a lot of money into a site deserve some certainty. Mr. Zambrano responded that
part of the Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommendation is determining whether a

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 648
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Special Permit is appropriate for all zoning districts or not and if data centers should be
permitted in the listed zoning districts or not, or if there are additional zoning districts
they should be permitted in.

Chair Bowser stated that a Special Permit is different from a Use Permit. Chair Bowser
clarified that a Use Permit is typically for a use such as a drive-through and a Special
Permit is similar to a rezoning case. Chair Bowser stated that data centers are used on
a daily basis without knowing it. Chair Bowser added that Phoenix is an area that does
not have natural disasters like other parts of the country and thus, Phoenix is a prime
area to build data centers. Chair Bowser stated that there should be more incentives to
encourage data centers in old industrial areas and old retail areas that need to be
redeveloped.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if the will-serve letter would require a confirmation
of energy from the utility company within two years. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively. Committee Member Carlucci asked why the will-serve letter would be
required. Mr. Zambrano responded that the purpose was to ensure that there is not a
significant strain on the power grid due to data centers, which require a significant
amount of energy. Committee Member Carlucci asked if the City is concerned that the
utility company will mismanage their resources, make commitments they cannot meet,
and put the power grid in danger. Mr. Zambrano responded that generally, energy
usage is one of the major concerns of data centers, and it is not just a City concern. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the City wants to ensure there is sufficient energy supply for data
centers. Mr. Zambrano added that if the VPC does not agree with the two-year
timeframe, then part of the VPC recommendation could be to modify it.

Committee Member Kollar asked if the proposed definition for a data center was
defined by the City or by another source. Mr. Zambrano responded that the City looked
at other municipalities and how they defined a data center. Mr. Zambrano stated that
the definition was intended to be simplified. Committee Member Kollar expressed
concerns with the second part of the proposed definition for data centers, noting that
some accessory data center uses may exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area. Mr.
Zambrano shared and explained the proposed definition again. Mr. Kollar asked if a
software company would be considered a data services company if they have servers
and racks that exceed 10 percent of their gross floor area. Mr. Zambrano responded
that based on the proposed definition, if they exceeded the 10 percent threshold, then
they would be considered a primary data center use. Mr. Kollar expressed concerns
with software and technology companies, since they have robust servers and racks for
the nature of their business, which may exceed 10 percent of their gross floor area. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the 10 percent threshold came from another municipality and
how they defined a data center as an accessory use. Mr. Zambrano added that this
could be another modification that could be a part of the VPC recommendation.

Chair Bowser asked if 50 percent of the gross floor area is more common. Committee
Member Kollar responded that it is not uncommon. Committee Member Kollar stated
that there are a lot of technology companies in the area that would probably need more
than 10 percent of their gross floor area in order to not be considered a data center.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 649
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Committee Member Kollar added that some may be able to fit in a closet, but
companies’ floor areas are shrinking as more people are teleworking, which also
increases server needs.

Mr. Zambrano stated that there is an established Zoning Ordinance definition for gross
floor area and noted that it would cover the floor area of each floor of a multi-story
building.

Committee Member Gary Kirkilas asked if the first part of the proposed definition
would cover companies with facilities that are not primarily used for data services.
Committee Member Kollar responded that it would depend on how data services is
defined. Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification on encouraging energy
efficiency.

Mr. Zambrano responded that data centers would be encouraged to utilize the Phoenix
Green Construction Code in order to maximize their energy efficiency, since data
centers have such high energy demand. Mr. Zambrano added that maximizing energy
efficiency would reduce their energy demand.

Committee Member Carlucci stated that the architectural requirements would add
more areas for energy to leak out rather than a flat façade that could better retain
energy. Mr. Zambrano responded that the surrounding community to a data center
would not want to see a large, monolithic, concrete box right next to their community.
Mr. Zambrano stated that the architectural requirements address the negative visual
impact that data centers could have on the surrounding community.

Vice Chair Lagrave expressed concerns with the 10 percent threshold in the definition.

Committee Member Younger expressed concerns with energy efficiency not being a
requirement. Committee Member Younger asked if energy efficiency could be changed
to a standard requirement. Mr. Zambrano responded that encouraging energy
efficiency is from the General Plan Amendment, which would be the policy guidance.
Mr. Zambrano added that if data centers are required to obtain a Special Permit, then
City staff would look at the adopted policy guidance during that process and try to
ensure the development is being consistent with adopted policy. Mr. Zambrano added
that the VPC recommendation could include modifying this to a requirement.

Public Comments:
Benjamin Graff, with Quarles & Brady, LLP, introduced himself as a representative of
American Express, opposed to this item. Mr. Graff displayed the existing American
Express campus at the southeast corner of Mayo Boulevard and 56th Street, noting that
the site is zoned CP/BP (Commerce Park District, Business Park Option). Mr. Graff
noted that data centers were previously permitted in the CP/BP zoning district by right.
Mr. Graff stated that American Express leased the land from the Arizona State Land
Department with the intention of building two companion data centers in the vacant land
to the north of the existing campus. Mr. Graff stated that these data centers would not
be leased out and would support the American Express operations. Mr. Graff stated that

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 650
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

the 10 percent threshold in the proposed definition would be exceeded by the proposed
data centers, and the CP/BP zoning district would not permit data centers in the current
draft ordinance. Mr. Graff added that Text Amendments typically take a year to go
through the process and stakeholders like American Express are contacted and brought
into stakeholder meetings. Mr. Graff stated that there has been no outreach that he is
aware of to American Express. Mr. Graff requested that the Text Amendment be slowed
down. Mr. Graff recommended that the 10 percent threshold in the proposed definition
be removed and that the CP/BP zoning district be added to the zoning districts that
permit data centers. Mr. Graff added that American Express has final site plan approval
for Phase II of the American Express campus, which includes their first data center. Mr.
Graff stated that if it becomes a legal non-conforming use overnight, it would create
many issues with lenders and financing that previously had other assurances.

Ty Utton, representative with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a representative
of a broad coalition of data centers, opposed to this item. Mr. Utton echoed Mr. Graff
regarding the Text Amendment schedule. Mr. Utton stated that it was not an inclusive
process and was not the delivered approach typically seen from the City of Phoenix. Mr.
Utton expressed concerns with Proposition 207. Mr. Utton requested that the Text
Amendment be delayed.

Cepand Alizadeh, representative with the Arizona Technology Council (AZTC),
introduced himself as a stakeholder opposed to this item. Mr. Alizadeh shared a story
about a car accident, noting that his medical records were readily available to the
hospital because of a data center. Mr. Alizadeh stated that AZTC is a coalition of over
750 tech companies across Arizona, including numerous data center partners. Mr.
Alizadeh expressed concerns with the fast schedule for the Text Amendment. Mr.
Alizadeh stated that the City of Chandler took 20 months, and the City of Surprise took
24 months, to come up with a data center ordinance. Mr. Alizadeh stated that the will-
serve letter would not be possible, noting that data centers take years to develop. Mr.
Alizadeh expressed concerns with the noise study, noting that there is no mention of
measuring the noise in decibels. Mr. Alizadeh stated that the Text Amendment is
missing key language and stakeholders have not had any time to provide input. Mr.
Alizadeh requested that the Text Amendment be slowed down and noted that other
VPCs at the meetings he has attended have all denied it.

Staff Response:
Mr. Zambrano responded that projects with preliminary site plan approval before the
Text Amendment is adopted and goes into effect would still be able to develop and
would be considered a legal non-conforming use. Mr. Zambrano added that if they
wanted to expand in the future, then that is when the new zoning regulations would
apply. Mr. Zambrano stated that Proposition 207 concerns are a concern of the City
Council and should not be a concern at the VPC level. Mr. Zambrano stated that the
VPC recommendation could modify the 10 percent threshold of the proposed definition
as well as the noise study requirement. Mr. Zambrano added that the Mayor and City
Council requested that these items be before them to vote on before their summer
recess, which is why the schedule is rushed.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 651
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Discussion:
Committee Member Joseph Barto asked if the schedule is a normal timeframe or if it
is a faster schedule. Mr. Zambrano responded that the public hearing schedule is a bit
more rushed, noting that the VPC, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings are
usually a month apart, resulting in at least a three-month public hearing schedule. Mr.
Zambrano stated that the public hearing schedule for these items is scheduled at about
a month and a half, so it is a faster timeline in that sense. Mr. Zambrano added that it
has been in the works since the beginning of the year and there have been three
stakeholder meetings. Mr. Zambrano stated that City staff is actively working with
stakeholders to get their input.

Committee Member Carlucci stated that although data centers are not a large source
of traditional jobs, they are a large source of construction jobs. Committee Member
Carlucci expressed concerns with major employers not coming to Phoenix if data
centers do not get built because of this Text Amendment. Committee Member Carlucci
added that data centers are critical national security infrastructure and are critical to
helping win the race for Artificial Intelligence (AI). Committee Member Carlucci stated
that the Text Amendment seems more like a ban on data centers. Committee Member
Carlucci stated that data centers need to be built faster and bigger. Committee Member
Carlucci stated that energy concerns should be addressed by the power companies on
how they can scale up energy production. Committee Member Carlucci expressed
opposition for these items.

Chair Bowser stated that he believes there are appropriate areas for data centers,
such as a large commerce park area, and a Special Permit requirement seems like an
overreach for those areas. Chair Bowser added that old retail areas may be more
appropriate for a Special Permit requirement due to proximity to residential.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked what the stakeholder input has been so far. Mr.
Zambrano responded that he has not been involved in the stakeholder meetings, so he
cannot say what has been discussed in those meetings. Mr. Zambrano reiterated that
the Mayor and City Council requested these items to be before them to vote on before
their summer recess, which is why City staff is moving forward with the current
schedule.

Committee Member Kollar asked if stakeholder comments were considered and
incorporated into the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that there was one
stakeholder meeting at the time the staff report was written. Mr. Zambrano added that
City staff may make some modifications to the draft ordinance language for the
Planning Commission and the City Council meetings, based on feedback heard from
the stakeholder meetings and the VPC meetings. Committee Member Kollar stated that
it seems pre-mature to vote on the Text Amendment if it is going to be amended.
Committee Member Kollar expressed concerns with stakeholder input not being
incorporated into the Text Amendment. Committee Member Kollar stated that the
current draft ordinance seems over-prohibitive. Mr. Zambrano responded that these are
all factors that the VPC can consider, and this is part of the discussion. Mr. Zambrano
stated that the main question is whether the VPC agrees with the current draft

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 652
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

ordinance or not, and if not, which parts does the VPC not agree with and how can
those parts be modified. Mr. Zambrano added that this information will be used for
further discussions with the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Text Amendment seems incomplete. Vice Chair
Lagrave stated that the issues he sees are the 10 percent threshold of the proposed
definition, the exclusion of the CP/BP zoning district, the noise study requirements, and
proximity to residential. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that these issues need to be
addressed. Vice Chair Lagrave asked which type of motion would be more likely to be
heard. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are a few different options, including
recommending denial with direction, with the direction to take another look at the items
of concern. Mr. Zambrano added that the VPC could recommend approval, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications, and recommend certain modifications to the text
amendment.

Committee Member Reynolds recommended adding the will-serve letter requirement
to the list of concerns.

Committee Member Israel asked for clarification if the calculation for the 10 percent
threshold of the accessory data centers for the American Express site would include the
gross floor area of all on-site buildings of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, based on the
proposed definition. Mr. Zambrano responded that if the data centers are solely serving
the enterprise functions of American Express, then the gross floor area would include all
buildings on the campus, including the existing American Express buildings. Committee
Member Israel asked for clarification if the proposed definition would not allow data
services to be leased to third parties. Mr. Zambrano clarified that this part of the
definition intends to clarify that a data center would be considered an accessory use
only if it is used for the on-site enterprise and is not leased to other entities.

Committee Member Carlucci asked if there are other zoning districts that could be
added in addition to the CP/BP zoning district, such as industrial districts. Chair
Bowser responded that the A-1 and A-2 industrial zoning districts are already listed.
Committee Member Carlucci stated that part of the recommendation should include
removing the Special Permit requirement.

Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the recommendation would include removing the
Special Permit requirement for only the industrial zoning districts or for all the zoning
districts. Committee Member Carlucci suggested that the Special Permit requirement
be removed from all the zoning districts.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Special Permit requirement should be retained for
the commercial zoning districts.

Mr. Zambrano repeated that the VPC wanted to add data centers as a permitted use in
the CP/BP zoning district and that the VPC wanted to allow more time for stakeholder
input. Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the VPC wanted to increase the 10 percent
threshold in the proposed definition. Vice Chair Lagrave responded that it should be

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 653
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

removed. Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if the VPC wants to increase the number
of years for the will-serve letter requirement or remove it altogether. Vice Chair Lagrave
responded that it should be removed. Vice Chair Lagrave added that the Special Permit
should remain required for the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts but should not be required
for the CP/BP, CP/GCP, A-1 or A-2 zoning districts.

Committee Member Nowell stated that the ambient noise level should not be
exceeded. Vice Chair Lagrave responded that the noise level must be measured in
decibels. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he was okay with leaving the five percent
allowance to exceed the ambient noise level.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification that the Special Permit requirement
would be recommended to be kept near residential areas. Vice Chair Lagrave
responded affirmatively, noting that it would kept for the commercial zoning districts.

Committee Member Nowell asked why the ambient noise level should be increased by
five percent for data centers in commercial zoning districts near residential areas. Vice
Chair Lagrave responded that the noise level could be addressed at the time that the
data center developer goes through the Special Permit process.

MOTION – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend denial, with direction to allow more
time for stakeholder input, to remove the threshold for 10 percent of the gross floor area
of all on-site buildings in the proposed definition, to clarify the noise study requirements
and ensure that noise is measured in decibels, to remove the will-serve letter
requirement, to add data centers as a permitted use in the CP/BP zoning district, and to
only require a Special Permit for the C-2 and C-3 commercial zoning districts.
Committee Member Carlucci seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
11-0; the motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y with direction passes with
Committee Members Barto, Birchby, Carlucci, Israel, Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Reynolds,
Younger, Lagrave and Bowser in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 654
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation No quorum
VPC Vote No quorum

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 655
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting June 2, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the C-
2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 13-0-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 5 (Z-TA-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on these items in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the Data Center General Plan
Amendment noting the development background, review process, and the rationale
behind the proposed amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the proposed text
amendment is a companion to the General Plan Amendment and is intended to support
the regulatory framework for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City Council
had initiated creation of new policy guidance in response to the growing number of
requests for data center facilities, which possess unique characteristics not currently
addressed. Mr. Roanhorse expressed the importance of the General Plan Amendment
due to land use considerations, the need for adaptation to existing developments, and
the importance of connecting these facilities to infrastructure. Mr. Roanhorse noted that
one of the primary reasons for the amendment is that data centers are not directly
addressed in either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance and previous
developments have been permitted through informal interpretations. Mr. Roanhorse
discussed the key elements of the amendment, including location criteria, design
policies, and sustainability measures. Mr. Roanhorse reviewed site placement criteria,

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 656
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

highlighting core areas and centers as not preferred locations, and noted various
suitability factors. Mr. Roanhorse discussed required setbacks, the integration of art
features, dark sky compliance, noise mitigation, and architectural design standards. Mr.
Roanhorse noted the energy demands associated with data centers and the importance
of incorporating energy efficiency measures. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the amendment
would offer additional detail regarding definitions, guidelines, and performance
standards.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:
Committee Member Opal Wagner asked if an assessment was done regarding data
centers and if there were potential sites within the Encanto Village and how large of a
footprint data centers would require. John Roanhorse, staff, responded that there were
not many suitable sites available for a large data center and made an initial review and
noted that most of the areas within Encanto Village are already developed. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that the scale and magnitude of many proposed data centers would
likely not be feasible due to structural limitations but also because of existing
development and the Encanto Village probably would not be an ideal location for such
facilities.
Committee Member Robert Warnicke stated there were two main concerns with the
presented text amendment. Committee Member Warnicke stated first, is a perceived
contradiction in the criteria for data center locations and noted that while the guidelines
discourage placement within or adjacent to identified cores centers and corridors, they
simultaneously encourage data centers in redevelopment areas where infrastructure
investment is needed. Committee Member Warnicke stated that, in his experience,
developers often promote zoning changes by emphasizing the infrastructure
improvements their projects will bring and there is concern that this approach has been
made in other villages and might create confusion or loopholes in applying the criteria
consistently. Committee Member Warnicke said his second concern was more technical
and related to the definition of a data center and noted a portion of the definition states
a data center as a facility primarily used for data services but includes a carve-out
stating the facility is not used to lease data services to third parties. Committee Member
Warnicke stated there is confusion over the purpose of that clause and asked why it
was included. Committee Member Warnicke stated that such a carve-out might allow
companies to build facilities for their own use while leasing excess capacity to others,
potentially bypassing the intended regulatory framework. Committee Member Warnicke
said the carve-out as is much like the tail wagging the dog and warned that it could be
exploited, allowing data centers to be built anywhere as a private use. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the city is currently focused on regulating developments that are already
in progress and while also considering future plans. Mr. Roanhorse stated the city has
met with stakeholders and has presented the text amendment information at the Village
Planning Committees to get feedback and promote consistency.
Committee Member Robert Warnicke echoed his concern and stated that the
business model whether the data services are leased out or used internally should not
affect how a facility is regulated. Committee Member Warnicke stated that the impact on


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 657
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

the city and surrounding areas would be the same regardless of the business structure
and stated there should be more analysis of this issue.
Committee Member Rick Mahrle commented on a point of clarification regarding the
carve-out and stated that the text language is not used to lease data services to third
parties and should be read as excluding facilities that are solely serving their own
enterprises. Committee Member Mahrle stated an example of a law firm that operates a
large computer storage system occupying less than 10 percent of its gross floor area.
Committee Member Mahrle noted that as long as that system is not used to lease
services externally and solely supports the business itself it should not be classified as a
data center. Committee Member Mahrle stated that this was his interpretation noting
Committee Member Warnicke’s concern and clarified that the purpose of the clause is
to distinguish private enterprise systems from commercial data centers.

Committee Member Mark Cardenas stated that he agreed with the concerns
previously stated and noted that major corporations such as Amazon, Google, and
Microsoft already operate data centers and infrastructure within the Phoenix area.
Committee Member Cardenas said that when individuals use services like Microsoft
Outlook, Cortana, or cloud storage, they are essentially leasing storage space from
these companies and that he personally purchases additional storage to save family
vacation photos and said that this kind of licensing arrangement is common. Committee
Member Cardenas said there is a concern that under the current definition, if companies
like Amazon or Google choose to build new data centers in Phoenix, they could avoid
regulation simply by stating that they are not leasing the space but in reality, they are
selling licenses to the public. Committee Member Cardenas emphasized that Phoenix’s
1.6 million residents purchase data licenses from these companies every day, and that
the language in the proposed text amendment excluding facilities that do not lease data
services is problematic. Committee Member Cardenas stated that this exception creates
a loophole that undermines the intent of the regulation. Mr. Roanhorse noted that from
the city’s perspective, the distinction lies in how data is managed and licensed and
noted that individual consumers are not directly investing in or operating data
infrastructure but are instead purchasing licenses or subscriptions. Mr. Roanhorse
stated that data is often transferred between entities, and that the bulk of such
information is typically owned and managed by larger corporations, not individual users.
Committee Member Cardenas replied that this understanding was not entirely accurate
and as a business owner operating an LLC, that purchases increased email storage or
data capacity, he is not buying hardware or servers directly he is licensing space in a
data center. Committee Member Cardenas stated the definition excludes leased
services and his business would technically be unable to continue purchasing additional
data storage from companies like Microsoft and this interpretation could restrict the
ability of local businesses to operate effectively, and questioned whether the current
language adequately reflects the real-world use of data center services. Mr. Joshua
Bednarek, Planning and Development Department Director, responded by stating that
Committee Member Cardenas’s explanation was essentially correct and aligned with
the intent behind the current definition and that the language was designed to prevent
large organizations that operate internal data systems from being classified as
commercial data centers. Mr. Bednarek stated that as long as an entity demonstrates
that its data center is used exclusively for internal operations, it would not be considered
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 658
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

a regulated data center under the proposed definition and further explained, the
definition was to provide flexibility for larger employers with legitimate internal data
needs, without unintentionally subjecting them to data center regulations.

Committee Member Sabrina Perez asked about the location criteria policy and stated
that her organization works extensively with data centers and expressed concern with
the language that states data centers are discouraged within and adjacent to identified
cores centers and corridors. Committee Member Perez stated that, in her experience
data centers are often located adjacent to housing and financial centers and, over time,
they begin to create their own core areas and economic corridors. Committee Member
Perez stated that the intent seems counterintuitive that the policy would discourage data
centers from being near such areas given that the growth and presence of data centers
can actively contribute to the formation of vibrant economic hubs. Committee Member
Perez stated that rather than being out of place, data centers often become integral to
the development of their surroundings, supporting an ecosystem of businesses and
services. Committee Member Perez stated the policy language that encourages data
centers in identified redevelopment areas and noted that many of these locations
already contain existing space and are positioned to support ancillary services and
suggested the language may be misaligned with how these areas are practically
developing. Committee Member Perez stated there is a technical concern about utility
infrastructure and data centers often build their own substations on site for power
generation and that the Department of Energy (DOE) has invested in small modular
reactors (SMRs) that can be integrated into such developments. Committee Member
Perez stated that utility will-serve letters are increasingly irrelevant in these cases
because data centers are largely self-sustaining in terms of power needs. Mr.
Bednarek responded stating that the proposal involves two components: a general plan
amendment and a text amendment where the general plan amendment includes
location criteria that are meant to guide decision-making, while the text amendment
introduces specific zoning tools to regulate data centers such as the requirement of a
special permit, similar to what is currently required for self-storage facilities. Mr.
Bednarek stated the general plan language is not absolute and is intended to serve as a
policy foundation and framework to help committees and staff evaluate whether a
proposed data center aligns with the city’s long-term goals. Mr. Bednarek stated that a
location example of Thomas Road and Central Avenue, a designated core area where
residents and city leaders have expressed a desire for amenities like restaurants and
gathering places and if there were to propose a data center in that area, the location
criteria would serve as a signal to pause and consider whether the proposed use is
appropriate.
Mr. Bednarek stated that while the criteria provide guidance, a special permit process
allows for case-by-case evaluation, which includes input from staff, the committee, and
ultimately the City Council and reiterated that the intent of the proposed changes is to
ensure that data centers are subject to thoughtful planning and design standards, and
that such policies are reflected both in the general plan and the zoning ordinance.
Committee Member Tom Doescher stated a concern about the low energy rates being
promoted by the Arizona Corporation Commission and noted that the Commission has

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 659
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

opened public comment on this issue, and emphasized that the more data centers are
developed, the more electricity and energy they will consume. Committee Member
Doescher said that the Commission does not want consumers to bear the financial
burden of these increased energy demands and asked how the city plans to address
potential issues related to the size and location of smaller modular reactors (SMRs),
especially when these reactors are situated adjacent to existing buildings. Mr.
Bednarek responded, stating that the purpose of the general plan amendment and the
accompanying text amendment is to better the position the city in response to the
growing needs of the data center industry and emphasized that the city wants to ensure
that the location of new data centers is subject to discussion and evaluation, much like
other land uses. Mr. Bednarek stated that presently no such discussion takes place
before a data center is developed, not with this committee, not with neighboring
residents, and not with the City Council. Mr. Bednarek said the proposed amendments
would establish a regulatory framework that enables those conversations to occur. Mr.
Bednarek further explained that, under this proposed process, both large and small data
center proposals would be evaluated to determine whether they are appropriate for a
given location and that evaluation would include considerations such as energy
demand, infrastructure capacity, and community impacts that are not currently part of
the review process.
Committee Member Mahrle commented that the committee's concerns should not be
interpreted as opposition to data centers and stated the need for careful and thoughtful
regulation, especially in response to concerns raised about the clarity of the definition
language in the proposed text amendment. Committee Member Mahrle suggested that
the Planning Commission should revisit the definition to ensure it accurately captures
the intended meaning and scope. Committee Member Mahrle commented that the issue
of infrastructure improvements, referencing the general plan's encouragement of data
centers in redevelopment areas and stated he is supportive of the idea of placing data
centers in locations where infrastructure upgrades are needed, with the understanding
that developers would contribute financially by constructing required improvements such
as half-streets, traffic signals, and road upgrades. Committee Mahrle stated that this is a
sound concept, and he wants to ensure it is clearly reflected in the final policy language.
Committee Member Cardenas commented on an earlier point made by Mr. Bednarek
and expressed his support for the creation of general policies governing the location
and design of data centers. Committee Member Cardenas stated a concern about the
accelerated timeline of the current process. Committee Member Cardenas said that with
the Preserve Historic Plan and this data center amendment it is moving faster than any
other text amendment he has seen. Committee Member Cardenas asked why the
process is being rushed, pointing out that the amendment is scheduled to go through all
Village Planning Committees in June 2025, Historic Preservation Commission in July,
Planning Commission in August, Subcommittee review in September, and City Council
vote in October. Committee Member Cardenas stated that if the city intends for the
policy to have a long-term impact, the current speed of adoption does not appear
appropriate. Mr. Bednarek responded that he understood the concerns expressed by
the committee regarding the sense of urgency behind the amendment. Mr. Bednarek
stated that currently, the City does not have any policy framework in place to guide or

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 660
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

regulate data centers. Mr. Bednarek said this absence of a well-developed framework
like the city already has for historic preservation, noting that the lack of a similar
structure for data centers is problematic given the sheer volume of space and capital
investment involved.
Mr. Bednarek stated that the proposed text amendment is not a prohibition on data
centers, just as current zoning policies do not prohibit self-storage facilities instead, it is
about establishing a process for reviewing such developments that allows community
members to participate meaningfully. Mr. Bednarek stated that the goal is to determine
whether a framework is needed, and if so, to ensure that future data center proposals
are subject to public input and formal review. Mr. Bednarek stated that there are two key
questions: Do we need a policy framework, and should the community have a role in
evaluating future proposals?
Committee Member Cardenas commented that when the issue of regulating data
centers had surfaced months ago, he shared that he had texted city staff about the
matter as early as February and was told they would be notified when the draft was
ready. Committee Member Cardenas stated that now the draft is available, he
expressed concern that the process appears rushed, particularly in comparison to
previous planning efforts and cited a prior presentation in which a four-month review
period was provided, allowing for feedback and adjustments before finalizing this
proposal in contrast appears to be on an accelerated timeline, raising concerns about
potential unintended consequences and insufficient public engagement. Mr. Cardenas
stated there were issues when pushing the amendment through quickly could lead to
blowback from companies like TSMC, which are closely tied to the semiconductor and
data storage sectors. Committee Member Cardenas stated that as a resident in the fifth-
largest city in the country, he emphasized that his concerns were not trivial and
requested that the City pump the brakes and slow the timeline, expressing doubt that a
Planning Commission hearing scheduled just two days away would allow for proper
consideration of the issues raised. Committee Member Cardenas stated concern
regarding the reliability of will-serve letters, which utilities are expected to provide as
evidence that they can meet future energy needs. Committee Member Cardenas stated
that the time frames for service projections may exceed four years, and such letters
could be invalid if no action occurs for several years. Mr. Bednarek responded by
acknowledging the concerns related to the current wording of the will-serve letter
requirement, stating that staff was prepared to propose modifications to that section and
noted that all other Village Planning Committees had already offered recommendations
on the draft amendment, and that there was a strong sense of urgency from the City
Council to adopt a framework sooner rather than later. Mr. Bednarek encouraged
committee members to submit specific suggestions regarding any language they felt
needed revision, particularly if they had concerns beyond the will-serve language. Mr.
Bednarek emphasized that all feedback would be considered during Planning
Commission and City Council deliberations.
Committee Member Procaccini asked about energy usage and asked whether there
had been any analysis related to promoting energy infrastructure improvements and
green building standards. Committee Member Procaccini inquired if the city was
considering standards such as requiring lighter colored roofs or limiting the amount of
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 661
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

power used. Mr. Bednarek responded that those types of considerations could certainly
be addressed as part of a Special Permit request, should the proposed text amendment
be adopted. Mr. Bednarek stated that, currently, the city does not have the opportunity
to evaluate such design and infrastructure elements. Mr. Bednarek stated that if the
proposed framework is approved, special permit applications could include
requirements related to energy efficiency and sustainability, such as solar installations
and design standards. Mr. Bednarek noted that some provisions in the draft already
address issues like shading within project streets but emphasized that the special
permit process would allow for case-by-case refinement of requirements through
conversations between applicants, planning staff, and the community.
Committee Member Perez asked about the intention of the will-serve letter and if there
could be language requiring it to be reviewed annually based on available utility
resources and acknowledged that this might result in additional paperwork, but stated
that given the long development timelines for data centers, there should be an annual
reassessment to ensure that commitments made in the letter remain valid. Committee
Member Perez asked how the city would hold developers accountable if they were
leasing their space to third parties. Mr. Bednarek responded that the concern about
third-party leasing was valid and said that the intent of the will-serve letter requirement
is to ensure the city has a clear understanding of future energy demand and is not
allowing data centers to consume limited energy capacity, thereby displacing other
community-serving uses like housing, restaurants, or recreational facilities. Mr.
Bednarek stated that the proposed language is being refined, and the goal is to prevent
large parcels of land from sitting idle for years while awaiting energy infrastructure
buildout. Mr. Bednarek stated that third-party leasing is not explicitly addressed in the
current draft but is being discussed and that enforcement would occur through NSD
(Neighborhood Services Department) if a facility violated its zoning approval. Mr.
Bednarek said if a campus-based user such as a hospital or major employer proposed a
data facility for internal operations, the city would verify the use during the permitting
process and if the purpose changed later, it could trigger a zoning ordinance violation.
Committee Member Perez commented that, with over 20 years of experience as an
engineer and significant involvement in data center projects, she believes the general
public lacks the technical understanding to adequately evaluate the implications of such
a text amendment. Committee Member Perez stated that many residents and
committee members may not have the necessary background to assess these facilities,
and that relying on a few informed stakeholders places an unfair burden on the public.
Committee Member Perez stated the process as overly aggressive, noting that not
everyone has recently gained familiarity with the industry the way some committee
members or their clients have.
Committee Member Cardenas expressed appreciation for Mr. Bednarek’s repeated
acknowledgment that the language is still being refined and that he understands staff
have constraints and must sell proposals up the chain of command but emphasized that
the lack of clarity on certain provisions particularly around third-party leasing remains
troubling. Committee Member Cardenas stated that there is no current process outlined
for situations where a company like Amazon builds a data center and later leases space
to small businesses or third-party operators. Committee Member Cardenas stated that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 662
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

the definition section of the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address or
distinguish these scenarios and said this as a critical oversight, noting that the ambiguity
could lead to unintended consequences if the city fails to differentiate between internal-
use data centers and commercial or leased data facilities. Mr. Bednarek responded by
stating that the intention of the language is to address owner-operated facilities, such as
Amazon using a data center solely for its own internal operations the facility is still
considered a data center under the proposed language. Mr. Bednarek commented that
leasing scenarios where a facility is marketed to third-party users are not clearly
addressed in the draft and stated that refining the language to provide clarity on these
distinctions is under active consideration, and that additional comments and
suggestions from the committee would be welcomed during the Planning Commission
and City Council review phases.
Committee Member Cardenas stated that the current definitions and structure of the
proposed amendment do not capture the complexity of how data centers may be used
and noted that projects such as Microsoft’s facility or others where land was donated or
where terms were negotiated could fall into gray areas not currently addressed.
Committee Member Cardenas stated he disagreed with Mr. Bednarek’s interpretation
and urged further revisions to ensure transparent and enforceable definitions.
Committee Member Warnicke commented that there was uncertainty in a comment
made earlier and that may have been a misunderstanding and with the previous
discussion the issue has more clarity but there should be some adjustments to the
definition.
Committee Member Mahrle asked for clarification on the data center definition and
asked for help understanding a hypothetical scenario where a company such as Infinix
were to build a facility and use the entire building to house servers, would that qualify as
a data center even if the space was dedicated to internal use only. Committee Member
Mahrle asked if a hospital could have extensive computer systems in place to support
its medical operations and if the data and server space remained under 10 percent of
the gross floor area of the hospital’s onsite buildings, would this be classified as a data
center under the proposed definition. Committee Member Mahrle expressed that this
exemption appeared to be based on usage and proportion of floor area, unless the
hospital began leasing the data capacity to third-party entities, which would then
reclassify it as a data center.
Committee Member Cardenas asked how many hospitals currently exceed that 10
percent threshold and whether some of them might already be marketing or using their
facilities in ways that could bring them under this definition. Committee Member
Cardenas stated that this gray area could lead to confusion about when an otherwise
exempt facility becomes subject to the proposed regulations. Mr. Bednarek responded
that the intent of the definition is to allow institutions like hospitals or universities to
manage their own internal data operations without triggering the full regulatory
framework. Mr. Bednarek stated that as long as the use remains internal and under the
10 percent gross floor area threshold, such facilities would not be considered data
centers under the ordinance, however, if they began leasing server space to third
parties, they would then fall within the scope of the data center designation. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 663
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Bednarek said that this flexibility was intended to accommodate facilities that have
legitimate internal data needs, such as hospitals, while ensuring that purpose-built
commercial data centers are subject to community oversight through the proposed
special permit process.
Committee Member Cardenas asked for confirmation that any facility with server or
data operations occupying more than 10 percent of the gross floor area regardless of
intended use would be defined as a data center under the text amendment. Mr.
Bednarek responded that this was correct.
Committee Member Perez commented that Google has started doing tenant
improvements and this may suggest they may not own their buildings on their own land
and may be leasing space for a data center. Committee Member Perez asked if this
situation has been considered and what would the response be. Mr. Bednarek
responded this would be treated just like the adoption any new ordinance if you were in
the middle of a building permit and, those are the things that we're going to have to sort
out on a case-by-case basis with every property owner depending on where they are at
in the process. Mr. Bednarek stated in the new framework for data centers is
appropriate and it is the simplest process, but some adjustments will be made, and staff
will work through it properly.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cepand Alizadeh, representing the Arizona Technology Council, introduced himself
and shared a personal experience to illustrate the importance of access to electronic
medical information and the critical role of Data Centers. Mr. Alizadeh explained that he
works with an organization that provides information and supports a variety of
technology industries, emphasizing its alignment with economic development efforts.
Mr. Alizadeh stated that correspondence outlining the Arizona Technology Council’s
position on the proposed text amendment had been submitted to the Mayor's Office and
members of the City Council. Mr. Alizadeh stated that data centers are an essential
component of the modern economy, noting that several facilities are either under
consideration or already under construction in different areas of the city, with more
expected in the near future. Mr. Alizadeh also pointed out that data centers vary in size
and capacity, both in terms of the volume of information housed and the operations
conducted within the facilities. Mr. Alizadeh stated that he works with a range of
businesses and organizations that develop services, maintain technology systems, and
ensure that critical information remains readily available. Mr. Alizadeh said on behalf of
the Arizona Technology Council, he expressed concerns about the proposed text
amendment, specifically regarding the process timeline and the requirements for sound
abatement. Mr. Alizadeh stated that additional time is needed to allow for a
comprehensive review and to provide informed feedback on the proposed amendment.
Mr. Alizadeh further noted that the draft text amendment does not sufficiently address
appropriate sound control measures that would be consistent with the functional and
operational needs of data centers.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 664
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Samantha DeMoss, representing Rose Law Group, introduced herself and stated that
Data Centers are an expanding use and reflect an important economic sector for the
Phoenix area. Ms. DeMoss stated that addressing Data Centers is very important and
will have long-term implications for growth and development. Ms. DeMoss stated there
are concerns with the current General Plan Amendment specifically that with process
review and timing and the design criteria. Ms. DeMoss stated that additional review time
would be necessary to review and address many of the incomplete details in the
General Plan Amendment as presented. Ms. DeMoss said that additional review time
would allow more stakeholder review and input. Ms. DeMoss stated that the committee
consider a 90-day period be granted to allow for more time for a thorough review and
comment.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Bednarek responded that industry participation in the stakeholder discussion has
been included in the current language regarding sound levels and is within 5 percent so
that could be adjusted to the ambient levels in the area if it were next to a neighborhood
that they can extend to another location Mr. Bednarek stated that if there's a desire by
the committee to insert a specific decibel level right now the idea was that for sound
they are required to hire an engineer to do a study that shows the level next to the
adjacent property and what will be done to maintain appropriate sound levels.

Mr. Bednarek responded that the review process has moved quickly and noted there is
a sense of urgency from the Mayor and Council and many of the policy issues have
been discussed. Mr. Bednarek stated that currently data centers are not addressed in
the zoning ordinance, and this is a great concern.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

Committee Member Kleinman asked what the results were from other Village
Planning Committees regarding data centers. Mr. Bednarek responded that there has
been a split with up to five committees in opposition and some approvals with direction.

Committee Member Perez asked if there was information on the committees that voted
for denial, did any have any active plans for data centers. Mr. Bednarek responded a
few are in progress but any new policy and framework will not prohibit data centers from
moving forward.

Committee Member Cardenas commented that there is a stakeholder process and
other actions such as the adoption of marijuana facilities had an extensive public
engagement and with data centers there are many issues and more discussion is
needed.

Committee Member Warnicke commented that he was concerned with data centers
being allowed in C-2 and C-3 zoning areas and this may have an impact in the Encanto
Village. Committee Member Warnicke stated he was less concerned with the sound
mitigation which would be addressed in a special permit or variance action. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 665
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Bednarek responded that the General Plan Amendment, which is land use criteria, and
a special permit will still be required.

Committee Member George asked if motion were to be approved would there be
guidance attached to clarify the committee’s position. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
the committee may add comments or provide direction for the vote.

Committee Member Wagner commented that with the information presented and the
discussion more work needs to be done on data centers. Committee Wagner stated that
with audible level they are logarithmic not linear and a small increment can mean
massive change so specific units should be addressed.

VOTE
13-0-1, motion to deny Z-TA-2-25-Y passes with Committee Members Cardenas,
Doescher, Garcia, Kleinman, Mahrle, Perez, Picos, Procaccini, Schiller, Tedhams,
Wagner, Warnicke and Matthews with George abstaining.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 666
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 20, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section
202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers; amen
Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design
Review, City-Wide Design Review Guidelines, Specialized
Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards
for data centers and amend Chapter 6, Section 647
(Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data center
within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2 (Industria
zoning districts, with performance standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, with a modification and direction
VPC Vote 4-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, stated that the proposed general plan amendment and text
amendment were to add a definition for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance and
implement performance standards and location criteria. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the general plan amendment would discourage data centers from being located in
centers, cores, and corridors. Ms. Sanchez Luna provided the proposed data center
definition and noted that the text amendment would require a Special Permit for data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the proposed
design improvements and noting that staff recommends approval of both the general
plan amendment and text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Parris Wallace noted that the majority of her questions were answered. Chair
Wallace asked if anyone has discussed the increase in internet infrastructure because
communities could benefit from the added infrastructure. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 667
that was not something that has been discussed in detail with internal staff. Chair Wallace
asked for more information regarding traffic. Ms. Sanches Luna added that this would not
produce the same levels of traffic as a multifamily project but that commercial and semi-
trailer traffic would be present.

Romona Burris asked if there were any data centers in the area. Ms. Sanchez Luna
stated that she will have to follow up with that information.

Chair Wallace asked if the text amendment would apply to new and stand-alone data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed that the text amendment would apply to new data
centers and reiterated that this would not apply to collage campuses like Grand Canyon
University.

Ms. Burris asked if they there were data centers for general operations such as artificial
intelligence. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Burris asked for more information
regarding sustainability measures. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that they will be required to
obtain a letter from the utility company and that the general plan amendment would help
implement sustainability measures. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that other Village Planning
Committees have made motions with direction if they wished to approve the text
amendment and general plan amendment and still provide more direction. Ms. Burris
stated that she would like to ensure that water conservation is added.

Public Comment:

Jon Gillespie stated that he was a land use attorney that represented numerous data
center companies and emphasized that this industry is important for the City. Mr. Gillespie
noted that the City is an attractive place for data centers because of the lack of natural
disasters, available land, and low cost. Mr. Gillespie added that electric companies are
aware of the higher demand for power but have ensured that the cost would not increase
for residents. Mr. Gillespie noted that data centers are an important economic driver and
that they should be involved in the text amendment process. Mr. Gillespie added that data
centers have been decreasing the amount of water needed to keep an adequate climate.
Mr. Gillespie supported the idea of researching ways to implement more water
conservation. Mr. Gillespie stated that the required “will serve letter” would rush
development and possibly discouraging other companies from building in Phoenix. Mr.
Gillespie requested the text amendment and general plan be denied with a
recommendation of a 90 day extension to evaluate all the concerns from the committee
and industry owners. Mr. Gillespie added that there are concerns with Proposition 207
since the text amendment would require additional zoning requirements that have not
been previously established.

Committee Discussion/Motion/Vote:

Ms. Burris stated that the west side of the City is approximately 5 degrees hotter and
asked how the data centers would be mitigating heat. Mr. Gillespie stated that he was
unaware of any data centers in the Estrella Village. Mr. Gillespie stated that there has not
been significant research that demonstrates that data centers contribute to the heat island
effect. Ms. Burris asked for clarification on the motion that Mr. Gillespie would like to see.
Mr. Gillespie stated that he would like the text amendment and general plan amendment
to be denied with a 90 day extension so that they can have time to involve industry
stakeholders, gather data and address concerns regarding heat. Ms. Burris asked for
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 668
more information on why the data center industry was opposed to the text amendment.
Mr. Gillespie stated that one major concern was the “will serve” letter because it would
require site plan approval and certificate of occupancy to be completed within two years
which is an unreasonable condition. Mr. Gillespie added that he did not want the text
amendment to discourage data center companies from building in Phoenix and investing
in the community. Ms. Burris asked why the City wanted to implement restrictions on data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that a lot of available land for job opportunities and
housing has been lost to data center development, and that the development does not
create a walkable pedestrian environment.

Chase Hales, with the Planning and Development Department, stated that by allowing a
Special Permit, then only a data center would be allowed on site unless otherwise stated.
Mr. Hales noted that the “will serve” letter would ensure development rather than allowing
companies to sit on vacant properties and not built.

Mr. Thrower asked for more information regarding the lack of jobs associated with data
centers. Mr. Gillespie stated that larger data centers only employ approximately 80 to 100
on site technicians of high paying jobs. Mr. Gillespie noted that someone from Mesa could
come to the Phoenix data center and work on site. Mr. Gillespie encouraged the free
market of being able to develop data centers where they were permitted. Mr. Gillespie
cited the importance of technology and artificial intelligence. Mr. Gillespie clarified that his
intent is for the text amendment to be denied allowing for a 90 day extension.

Renee Dominguez asked for the average square footage of a data center that employs
80 to 100 people. Mr. Gillespie state that it ranged from 5 acres to 60 acres and from 500
square feet to 500,000 square feet. Mr. Gillespie provided an example along the Loop 202
Freeway. Mr. Gillespie emphasized that his intent was to extend the text amendment to
allow for more stakeholder involvement and for staff to study the economic and job impact.
Mr. Gillespie stated that the zoning districts where data centers are located do not allow
for residential use.

Chair Wallace stated that C-2 and C-3 do allow for multifamily housing. Ms. Sanchez
Luna confirmed. Chair Wallace noted that housing was a key priority. Mr. Gillespie
stated that C-2 and C-3 are not the target sites for data centers. Mr. Gillespie realized that
housing conservation is important.

Mr. Gillespie noted that his request was a denial to allow more stakeholder engagement
and to address issues with water resources and housing and the economic and job
industry. Mr. Gillespie added that the extension would also allow for clarification regarding
Proposition 207.

Chair Wallace clarified that her biggest issue is housing and that she did not want to lose
available C-2 and C-3 land to data centers. Ms. Burris asked what incentives the data
center industry provides since they would be taking land that was intendent for housing.
Ms. Burris asked if the data center industry had some sort of program to help first-time
home buyers. Mr. Gillespie stated that he was aware of the concern regarding losing
available land but that data centers provide high paying wages and produce millions of
dollars that are invested in the community. Mr. Gillespie agreed that C-2 and C-3 should
be preserved for housing but that this would affect areas that already have CP/GCP, A-1
and A-2 zoning which are areas that are primarily industrial.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 669
Ms. Burris asked for more information on what a yes vote would mean and what a no vote
would mean. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified the intent and proposed changes in the general
plan amendment and text amendment. Ms. Burris asked for clarification and asked if
approving it would limit data centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the text amendment
would limit where they could be placed and allow for a special permit. Ms. Burris
suggested an extension of 90 days so that the necessary data could be gathered and
presented to the committee. Ms. Sanchez Luan clarified that a yes vote would mean that
she supported the initiatives to limit data center development.

Chair Wallace stated that she would like to explain her vote. Chair Wallace stated that C-
2 and C-3 properties would be able to service the community and that she would prefer
businesses that generated jobs in the community rather than outside resources. Chair
Wallace noted that these decisions will affect all children in the future and stated that the
text amendment was forward thinking.

Ms. Burris noted that individuals with high paying jobs could find houses they could afford
in the City. Ms. Burris stated that she supported incentives to help first-time homeowners
purchase a house and keep individuals in their community. Ms. Sanchez Luna clarified
that any sort of incentive to assist first-time home buyers would not be enforceable by the
Planning and Development Department. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that the intent of these
amendments was in relation to land use policy and development standards.

Mr. Thrower stated that the text amendment was too broad. Mr. Thrower noted that a
special permit made sense in C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP, but that he did not want to limit any
potential business investments in A-1 and A-2. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that an
alternative motion could be to recommend approval with the modification that a special
permit be required in C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP.

Motion:
Chair Parris Wallace recommended to approve Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation with a modification that would require a Special Permit for C-2, C-3, and
CP/GCP but not A-1 and A-2 and with direction to include a water conservation plan and
heat mitigation implementation. Dustin Thrower seconded.

Vote:
4-0, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y, per the staff recommendation with a
modification and direction passed with Committee Members Burris, Dominguez, Thrower,
and Wallace in favor.


Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 670
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 12, 2025
Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
Request
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the C-
2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Vote 13-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Item No. 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) were heard together.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, stated that the proposed general plan amendment and text
amendment were to add a definition for data centers in the Zoning Ordinance and
implement performance standards and location criteria. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
the general plan amendment would discourage data centers from being located in
centers, cores, and corridors. Ms. Sanchez Luna provided the proposed data center
definition and noted that the text amendment would require a special permit for data
centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by summarizing the proposed
design improvements and noting that staff recommends approval of both the general
plan amendment and text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Stephanie Hurd stated that Amazon had recently purchased a large piece of
land within the South Mountain Tech Corridor, severely limiting employment
opportunities. Chair Hurd noted that property owners were encouraged to not sell their
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 671
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 2

land to data centers but after SRP’s announcement regarding the South Mountain
Transmission Project, data center companies are pushing to purchase land. Chair Hurd
voiced her disappointment in losing land that was meant for employment opportunities.
Chair Hurd added that this request would protect Laveen and the City of Phoenix. Chair
Hurd asked staff to explain what would happen with properties that have been recently
rezoned to allow C-2, C-3, and CP/GCP uses. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that that
question has been presented to staff and that there has been discussion internally, but
that the determination would be made by the Law Department and Mayor and Council.
Chair Hurd noted that several data center representatives have been present at VPC
meetings.

Rebecca Perrera asked if the performance standards regarding sustainability would
also address water. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Ms. Sanchez Luna added that data
centers utilize a lot of water. Ms. Perrera noted that these data centers should be
finding solutions to recycle water and utilize their water to maintain landscaping areas.
Ms. Perrera suggested adding more provisions on water conservation.

Juanita Darby stated that her husband works in the data center industry. Ms. Darby
noted that her husband and her were opposed to the proposed Amazon data center.
Ms. Darby added that data centers use a lot of energy and that in other cities they are
unable to generate any additional power. Ms. Darby stated that they should voice their
concerns to protect Laveen and the City of Phoenix. Ms. Darby was opposed to data
centers in the area.

Kristi McCann asked if the Gila Foothills PUD was identified as a Center or a Corridor,
would it discourage data centers from being developed in the area. Chair Hurd noted
that the text amendment would help prevent data centers in the Gila Foothills PUD area.
Ms. Sanchez Luna added that from a policy standpoint, if the General Plan does not
support data centers in a Center, then staff would not be supportive of a proposed data
center.

Patrick Nasser-Taylor noted that he did not like the word “discourage” presented in the
presentation. Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that since the employment corridor was along
the Loop 202, would this prevent any future data centers. Ms. Sanchez Luna noted that
it would be discouraged and that a Special Permit would be required. Mr. Nasser-
Taylor asked if the amendments could have changes in the language. Ms. Sanchez
Luna stated that similar to previous text amendments, the committee could vote to
approve the amendment but add to the recommendation in the form of direction.

Mixen Rubio-Raffin was aware of the high-water usage and noted that new technology
like artificial intelligence have increased the demand for data centers. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
added that in terms of technology and policy, policy seems to be a few steps behind
technology. Ms. Rubio-Raffin advocated for a water efficiency plan to be added to the
text amendment.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 672
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 3

Michael Doromal noted that data centers utilize a lot of power. Mr. Doromal suggested
data centers be required to self-generate a portion of their required power so they don’t
put a strain on the community.

Chair Hurd asked Committee Member Darby if she had any information on energy
conservation. Ms. Darby asked her husband, Brian Darby, for clarification. Brian Darby
stated that so much energy is required that the development can’t generate all of it’s
power through solar panels. Mr. Doromal noted that he was requesting a portion of it to
be generated. Mr. Darby added that other projects have implemented alternative forms
but that the data center requires constant power. Mr. Doromal added that the data
center will be part of the community and should contribute. Mr. Doromal wanted a
percentage of self-generating power.

Carlos Ortega wanted to vote on the item. Mr. Ortega stated that data centers also
benefit schools via impact fees.

Linda Abegg voiced her appreciation for the Mayor and Council regarding getting the
text amendment approved quickly. Ms. Abegg stated that she will support the case
moving forward. Ms. Abegg noted that she was aware of a subcommittee being
implemented for this text amendment. Ms. Abegg added that she expected the
language to be reviewed by the Law Department to ensure enforceability.

Ms. Perrera stated that Committee Member Ortega’s comment was incorrect. Ms.
Perrera stated that data centers receive a lot of tax breaks.

Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that he was concerned on how this would affect Laveen. Mr.
Nasser-Taylor noted that the Gila Foothills PUD allows C-2 uses and asked how this
would affect the allowed uses. Ms. Sanchez Luna stated that that was being discussed
with the Law Department but that any future properties would need to be rezoned to
obtain a Special Permit. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if this would mean that the case
would be presented to the Village for recommendation. Ms. Sanchez Luna confirmed.
Ms. Sanchez Luna added that the text amendment would prevent data centers to be
allowed by right in C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 and A-2.

Ms. Abegg stated that the Council Members were the ones that initiated the request
which she would assume meant that they are opposed to data centers being built
anywhere.

JoAnne Jensen agreed with Committee Member Abegg and Rubio-Raffin. Ms. Jensen
noted that the Gila Foothills PUD area was designated as a Major Urban Center. Ms.
Jensen suggested implanting language regarding water. Ms. Jensen also had concerns
with the noise requirements and added that there should be no noise permitted on
weekends, holidays, and at night. Ms. Jensen voiced her appreciation for Mayor and
Council.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin suggested limiting the data center height to two stories and ensuring

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 673
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 4

that some sort of art feature is implemented. Chair Hurd noted that the art and
architectural embellishments were already part of the text amendment.

Public Comment:

Tom Galvin noted that there were numerous concerns regarding the text amendment.
Mr. Galvin stated that data centers have contributed millions of dollars to the City of
Phoenix. Mr. Galvin added that data centers require million of dollars of investments.
Mr. Galvin stated that the cases were being rushed and that he was requesting a
minimum 60-day continuance. Mr. Galvin stated that there could be issues with
Proposition 207 and that no text amendment has been going through the process so
quickly. Ms. Abegg stated that when the data center company bought land, they did not
present nor contact members of the committee. Ms. Abegg said it was unusual for
representatives to request a continuation when they never bothered to speak to the
community or the committee. Mr. Galvin asked if the committee supported the lack of
interaction from stakeholders. Chair Hurd noted that this was the public comment
portion of the hearing.

Anirudh Krishna voiced his concerns regarding water usage and that he agreed with
all the comments provided by the committee.

Committee Discussion/Motion/Vote:

Ms. Abegg suggested adding language regarding energy and water conservation.

Vice Chair Jensen suggested more noise standards.

Mr. Ortega suggested larger impact fees.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin suggested limiting the square footage of land. Ms. Rubio-Raffin
added that there needed to be more than two stories. Ms. Abegg voiced her concerns
regarding enforceability. Ms. Abegg recommended special attention and minimizing
square footage.

Motion:
Linda Abegg motioned to recommend Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation with
direction to incorporate more water and power conservation, limit square footage,
implement noise mitigation, and increase impact fees. Jeniffer Rouse seconded the
motion.

Vote:
13-0, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y, per staff recommendation with
direction passed with Committee Members Abegg, Darby, Doromal, McCann, Nasser-
Taylor, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, Rubio-Raffin, Serrette, Barraza, Jensen, and Hurd in
favor.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 674
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 12, 2025
Page 5

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 675
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 14, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 13-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were
heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Member Chris Demarest left during this item bringing quorum to 13.

Staff Presentation
Matteo Moric, staff, shared information on how the Village Planning Committee can
stay involved with the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment throughout the
entire process. Mr. Moric explained how comments will be forwarded onto Planning
Commission on June 5th and City Council on June 18th prior to the City Council
break.

Mr. Moric stated the Mayor and City Council in December of 2024 requested staff to
create policy guidance and zoning regulations for data centers. Mr. Moric explained
how the City was working under previous informal interpretations completed about 20
years ago. Mr. Moric stated the location criteria is to be for the General Plan item and
the areas in which they would be encouraged and discouraged. Mr. Moric reminded
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 676
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


the Committee that usually when development comes in it is already required to
provide infrastructure such as sidewalks, shading, bus stops, etc.

Mr. Moric identified design guidelines being proposed for these facilities. Mr. Moric
added the design guidelines of the architecture which are typically required in the
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Moric stated the zoning districts by which these facilities were
proposed to require a Special Permit.

Questions from the Committee/Public Comments
Chris Demarest said he was familiar with the data center on 40th Street and
McDowell Road.

Ken DuBose thought these data centers were needed because of all the new
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology.

Al DePascal said they need lots of water.

Saundra Cole asked if they could request solar on the buildings. Mr. Moric said yes
and that the end decision will be made by City Council, but at the same time it could
inform City Council of what the VPC would like to see at these new facilities.

Meli Acevedo emphasized the importance of water. Mr. Moric said he was not sure
how these facilities actually operate and if they need to be close to the end user or if
they could be far away from the community of users.

Chair Barba said that after the presentation perhaps the guest speaker could provide
additional information.

Ms. Cole asked how many jobs would be provided. Mr. Moric said that the data
center facilities he knew of were not big employment generators, but said the guest
speaker could probably clarify this.

Public Comment
John Gillespie, a land use attorney from the Rose Law Group, said they represent a
large stakeholder group of the data center industry. Mr. Gillespie said there is a great
economic impact to the community and it provides many high paying jobs with 80 to
150 onsite jobs with an average pay of $97,000 per year. Mr. Gillespie said they need
a good regulatory process in place. Mr. Gillespie said they were concerned with the
timeline for the text amendment changes and it was a little fast with limited
stakeholder engagement. Mr. Gillespie asked for 60 more days to allow the industry to
interact with city staff and leaders to iron out the kinks. Mr. Gillespie said many sites
had a vested right to build data centers. Mr. Gillespie added that projects in the
pipeline should not be stopped and should be able to continue. Mr. Gillespie also
identified a concern with the “will serve” letter which is a commitment from a public
utility company that power will be for a minimum timeframe. Mr. Gillespie noted the
desire for the timeline to be extended or taken away so they can work with utilities.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 677
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Mr. Gillespie said without provisions the City could expose themselves to Proposition
207 waiver of claims. Mr. Gillespie felt more direction should be given to staff and
respectfully urged more time to work out the kinks.

Chair Barba asked on average how much space is needed for a data center. Mr.
Gillespie responded that some projects are on 10-acre sites and others on 50 to 60
acres. Chair Barba asked what size site Mr. Gillespie based the average 80 to 100
jobs on. Mr. Gillespie responded on the 50-to-60-acre site. Chair Barba asked about
job training for the data center jobs. Mr. Gillespie said that here in Phoenix it currently
has people with the right schooling and education to support the technology.

Chair Barba felt the VPC responsibility was to be good stewards not only to provide a
good place to live and work. Chair Barba asked if there was a commitment from Mr.
Gillespie’s clients to support educational assistance for these sorts of jobs. Mr.
Gillespie was not sure about the commitment of his clients to these types of jobs, but
he recognized it as a good question and noted he would investigate it more with his
clients and would like to follow-up on it.

Mr. DuBose said we were always lagging behind and with the growth of AI and
emphasized the need for data centers and that AI was the next largest growth in any
community. Mr. DuBose shared frustration of how the rail system is 25 years behind
when it was voted 30 to 40 years ago. Mr. DuBose expressed the importance of
knowing the issues of how much water would be used and how much energy is
needed. Mr. DuBose recognized the need to come together with a smart plan but also
expressed fear of falling behind.

Mr. Gillespie said that the data center industry wants to be on the front edge of AI
and it sees Phoenix as an attractive area since it does not have natural disasters, it
has a low regulatory environment and a good climate. Mr. Gillespie added it has the
right people to support the industry. Mr. Gillespie expressed concern about creating a
roadblock to this industry. Mr. Gillespie noted the technology has advanced to not be
a high water user but rather a high energy power electricity user.

Mr. DuBose noted he would like to see Maryvale have an IT program for their high
school kids.

Mr. Gillespie mentioned companies like Google and Apple want to invest in Arizona,
but data centers is a nationwide industry. Mr. Gillespie was not certain of who the top
Arizona companies are with interest here but knew there was a nationwide interest.

Ms. Acevedo reminded the VPC of the many deaths in Maricopa County due to
extreme heat. Ms. Acevedo has concerns with energy and housing shortages. Ms.
Acevedo said too often we put profit over people. Ms. Acevedo asked about water.

Mr. Gillespie said the amount of water needed has gone down and they could
potentially use grey water. Mr. Gillespie noted heat as a real issue facing Arizona. Mr.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 678
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Gillespie said he was not aware of heat increasing due to the data center. Mr.
Gillespie admitted heat was an issue, but did not believe the off-put of a data center
was any different than heavy industrial type of uses. Mr. Gillespie did not know if more
heat would be generated from A-1 and A-2 type of uses. Mr. Gillespie added they
were not asking for data centers to be built in any other area than currently allowed
and added that it was a commercial and industrial use and that’s where it should be.

Ms. Acevedo expressed concern about providing energy for computers versus
people.

Mr. Gillespie said the number one priority of SRP and APS power companies is they
need solar and their number one priority is to protect consistent customers.

Chair Barba asked about increases of prices to the surrounding communities on
utilities. Mr. Gillespie said that there are no reports of that.

Chair Barba expressed concerns that consumers have to offset the costs. Mr.
Gillespie said that the text amendment would require proof they could get electricity.

Mr. Gillespie said data centers want to locate near good infrastructure.

Chair Barba asked about noise associated with these facilities. Mr. Gillespie felt the
noise study of no more than 5 percent increase should resolve this issue.

Vice Chair Derie brought to the Committee’s attention the topic of Motorola coming to
Arizona in 1950’s and 60’s and now data centers are the next leap in technology and
reminded the VPC of the large nuclear power plant nearby. Vice Chair Derie wanted
all forms of energy sources to be considered and utilized.

Mr. Gillespie said the Arizona State Government has a pro-technology stance and
favorable regulatory environment for data centers. Mr. Gillespie said at the
municipality level is where control is desired.

Vice Chair Derie said communities jumped on the idea of light rail and all of a sudden
the State says we don’t like light rail and had hoped light rail would be in Maryvale
already.

Mr. Gillespie said the industry itself is driving the demand and said it’s a different
animal than the light rail.

Ms. Cole asked what the backers were if they were mainly American and she asked if
there are international ones.

Warren Norgaard stated the main question is not if they want data centers but if they
are proposed what the specific language is for their guidance. Mr. Norgaard


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 679
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


expressed concerns with data centers running on methane gas generators which are
causing people to get ill.

Mr. Gillespie said they should let the developers show they have an alternative
source of energy or for there to be a creative solution.

Victoria Stahl asked about projects to be grandfathered in, without following the
guidelines. Mr. Gillespie said there are more than 5 to 10 projects that are currently
in the process. Mr. Gillespie said there could be more but needless to say these are
millions of dollars to purchase land, design buildings and sites. Mr. Gillespie said
grandfathering language allows projects to continue and felt there was a need for 60
more days of stakeholder engagement.

Al DePascal asked why Mr. Gillespie wants a 60-day delay. Mr. Gillespie said this
text amendment is going faster than other text amendments.

Mr. Gillespie explained the second phase of existing sites and facilities may have to
come through a special permit. Mr. Gillespie expressed concern over a 207 waiver of
claims since sites for data centers may have been purchased and invested in. Mr.
Gillespie said many data centers are in the queue to complete these facilities and
hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the land to develop these sites and
this could lead to a battle with the City with a 207 waiver issue. Mr. Gillespie said
these facilities would still have to go through the permitting process. To modify a
building limits the number of changes permitted or otherwise it would have to follow
today’s codes.

Mr. Moric asked if Mr. Gillespie knew why the stakeholder group did not include
Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) requiring the special permits. Mr. Gillespie
wanted some districts not to go through special permit processes such as A-1 or A-2.
Mr. Gillespie said that it might make sense to include the PUD’s in the text
amendment.

Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Motion, Discussion, and Vote.

MOTION
Ken DuBose motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff
recommendation. Warren Norgaard seconded the motion.

VOTE
13-0, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passed, with Committee Members Acevedo, Alonzo, Cole, DePascal, DuBose,
Galaviz, Jimenez, Norgaard, Ramirez, Stahl, Weber, Derie and Barba in favor.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 680
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 681
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting May 8, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-25-Y. Mr.
Zambrano discussed concerns with data centers that the General Plan Amendment and
Text Amendment are trying to address. Mr. Zambrano explained the policy guidance for
data centers that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the three main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano shared the
proposed Zoning Ordinance definition for a data center. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
the proposed design guidelines and their purpose. Mr. Zambrano shared the zoning
districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special Permit and other
performance standards, and noted that Special Permits go through the same public
hearing process as rezoning cases. Mr. Zambrano stated that a noise study would be

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 682
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

required if the data center is within a certain distance from residential. Mr. Zambrano
shared the upcoming public hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends
approval per the language in Exhibit A of the staff report.

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Kylie Kennelly asked if there are any successful cases where
data centers have been integrated into communities. Mr. Zambrano responded that
some of the design guidelines were inspired by the Evans Churchill APS substation in
Downtown Phoenix, which is hidden behind an enhanced design interface with murals
and art installations.

Vice Chair Michelle Ricart stated that data centers should be separated from each
other. Vice Chair Ricart asked for clarification that data centers usually do not employ
many people and do not bring many jobs to an area. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively.

Public Comments:
Henry Hardy, with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a stakeholder opposed to
this item. Mr. Hardy stated that stakeholders were only made aware of this about a
week and a half ago. Mr. Hardy stated that the public hearing process would be about
a month and a half, which they believe is extremely abbreviated. Mr. Hardy requested
a continuance or delay in the process for more stakeholder input. Mr. Hardy stated that
their primary concern is with existing data centers and data centers that are currently
being developed. Mr. Hardy asked that those data centers be grandfathered-in under
the existing code. Mr. Hardy expressed concerns with Proposition 207 for diminution in
property value. Mr. Hardy noted that each data center is billions of dollars of
development being brought into the City of Phoenix and tens of millions of dollars
coming back to the City in the form of tax revenue. Mr. Hardy added that data centers
are an essential element of tech infrastructure and are essential for Phoenix to remain
a competitive employment hub and tech hub. Mr. Hardy reiterated that they just want
more time to talk about the proposal with staff and with stakeholders.

Staff Response:
Mr. Zambrano responded that Proposition 207 concerns are a City Council concern
and should not be a concern at the Village Planning Committee level. Mr. Zambrano
added that existing data centers would be considered legal non-conforming and would
be “grandfathered-in”, but if they want to expand in the future, then that is when the
new regulations would apply.

Discussion:
Committee Member Scott McGill asked if there are any data centers that are coming
into North Phoenix or the North Gateway Village at this time. Mr. Hardy responded that
he is not aware of any. Mr. Hardy stated that there has been an increased demand for
them, and the industry is getting ready to build more to meet that demand. Committee
Member McGill asked for clarification that data centers are not generators of job
growth. Mr. Hardy responded that data centers are typically not major employers and
could have between five to 20 employees within the data center. Mr. Hardy expressed
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 683
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

concerns with the will-serve letter from the power company, noting that it is not
consistent with industry standards and would make development not feasible. Mr.
Hardy stated that a 10-year timeframe for the will-serve letter would be better since
data centers are typically phased and their energy demand would be related to when
each phase is built. Mr. Hardy asked for more time to work through these details with
staff and stakeholders. Committee Member McGill asked how long of a continuance
Mr. Hardy is asking for. Mr. Hardy responded that there is no specific timeline, but staff
and stakeholders could discuss it over the summer.

Vice Chair Ricart stated that fire departments are concerned with data centers as well
due to their massive size, complex floor plans, and the type of equipment and batteries
within them. Vice Chair Ricart stated that she agrees with the Special Permit
requirement because the community needs to be able to have an input on data centers
before they are approved. Vice Chair Ricart stated that self-service storage facilities
also require a Special Permit and noted that it is good for the surrounding community
to know that a data center is being proposed nearby their community. Vice Chair Ricart
stated that she likes the location criteria and design policy proposed.

Committee Member Thomas Salow asked for clarification if the turnaround time for
the public hearing process is typical or expedited. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is
expedited by about a month, noting that the Mayor and City Council has directed staff
to get these two items to the City Council before their summer recess, which is why
staff is moving forward with the proposed schedule. Mr. Zambrano stated that rezoning
cases typically have at least a three-month public hearing process with the Village
Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council hearings a month apart.
Mr. Zambrano added that he was not involved in the stakeholder meetings but believes
there have been one or two meetings so far.

Vice Chair Ricart added that there are 14 other Village Planning Committee hearings
that are coming up.

Committee Member Kennelly asked what the difference is between the General Plan
Amendment and the Text Amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that the General
Plan Amendment would amend the 2025 General Plan, which is the policy guidance,
and the Text Amendment would amend the Zoning Ordinance to create zoning
regulations for data centers.

Committee Member Andrea Crouch asked if the design guidelines for data centers
are intended to blend the data center into the surrounding area, similar to how some
cellphone towers look like trees. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the
design guidelines are trying to discourage massive, monolithic buildings and are trying
to soften the design.

Vice Chair Ricart asked if tattoo parlors also require a Special Permit. Mr. Zambrano
responded that they require a Use Permit, which goes through a different process. Mr.
Zambrano stated that Special Permits are heard by the Village Planning Committee


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 684
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

and go through the rezoning process. Vice Chair Ricart reminded Committee members
that they could abstain from the vote.

MOTION – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
Committee Member Andrea Crouch motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-
Y, per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Kylie Kennelly seconded the
motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
8-0; the motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Crouch, Kennelly, Li, Manion, McGill, Salow, Stein,
and Ricart in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 685
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Date of VPC Meeting May 21, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial, with direction
VPC Vote 12-0-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item No. 6 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Item No. 7 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and
were heard together.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Robert Kuhfuss, staff, provided a presentation regarding both proposals, reviewing
the background, concerns, proposed policy changes, proposed regulatory changes,
and the staff recommendations. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that both items were scheduled
for Planning Commission on June 5, 2025 and City Council on June 18, 2025.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jason Barraza asked if staff had consulted with the industry
regarding the proposed changes. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that it was his understanding
that staff consulted with the industry, but did not know the number of groups that were
contacted. Committee Member Barraza asked if will-serve letters were commonly
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 686
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

used in the City of Phoenix or if it was novel to data centers. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that
he did not specifically know the extent to which the City of Phoenix requires will-serve
letters but was aware of other jurisdictions that routinely require will-serve letters.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle stated that data centers are generally quiet and
that servers do not care about looking out a window. Committee Member Hepperle
stated that employees working in a data center would not necessarily care about the
distance to a transit center. Committee Member Hepperle stated that the ability to
serve could be compared to a water service provider. Committee Member Hepperle
stated that he did not see a reason to pause the General Plan Amendment.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews asked if there were any Proposition 207 concerns and
if there were any zoning districts today that allow data centers that would not be
allowed if the Zoning Text Amendment were to be approved. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that
the City’s Legal Department has evaluated the risk associated with Proposition 207
and has determined there is minimal risk. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the zoning
ordinance was silent on data centers and that data centers were currently being
allowed as a result of an informal interpretation of the zoning ordinance.

Committee Member Steve Pamperin asked what the results were from the other
villages. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that one village did not have quorum and that some
villages were supportive while others were apprehensive.

Committee Massimo Sommacampagna asked about the 5% over ambient noise
provision. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that a noise study would be required prior to
preliminary site plan approval and that the noise study would require that ambient
noise levels would be taken at the site, presumably over a period of time, to obtain an
average. Mr. Kuhfuss stated the data center would then be allowed to operate at a
level that is 5% above the measured ambient level.

Committee Member Steve Pamperin stated that Arizona Public Service was in the
process of seeking approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission to allow a rate
increase to offset the cost of the energy and infrastructure needed to support data
centers, and that the General Plan Amendment should include language that places
more cost burden on the data centers as opposed to the costs being absorbed by the
homeowners. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the issue ties back to the reason for the will-
serve letter and that if the electrical provider does not have the capacity or
infrastructure available to serve the facility, the provider would not issue a will-serve
letter. Committee Member Pamperin expressed concerns that residents would be
required to pay for the infrastructure needed to support data centers when the data
center operators should be responsible for any infrastructure improvements needed to
support the facility. Committee Member Pamperin reiterated that residents should not
have to pay for the infrastructure needed to support data centers. Mr. Kuhfuss stated
that it appeared there were two issues being discussed: one being a rate increase
being considered by the Arizona Corporation Commission versus a city requirement
that the developer make those investments. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the discussion
should not necessarily mix the city’s proposed General Plan Amendment with Arizona
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 687
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Corporation Commission’s policy. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that if there was some additional
policy that could be included in the General Plan Amendment, the Committee could
consider those changes.

Committee Massimo Sommacampagna asked if there was language that would
encourage adaptive reuse. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not recall specific
language in the proposed Zoning Text Amendment regarding adaptive reuse but there
was existing language in the zoning code that might apply.

Chair Stephanie Fogelson stated that she has been part of the Village Planning
Committee for approximately four to five years and has never received a phone call
from the Mayor’s Office expressing an opinion regarding the Mayor’s position on a
proposed case and asked if that was common practice. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he
did not know the Council’s common practice, but understands there is some urgency
regarding the matter, which has led to the June 18th City Council date. Chair
Fogelson asked what the urgency was. Mr. Kuhfuss referenced a slide containing six
bullet points that expressed the rationale for the proposed General Plan Amendment
and Zoning Text Amendment. Chair Fogelson stated that many of those issues
seemed to be based on opinion rather than data and wanted to know where the
urgency is coming from. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he did not know specifically.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle asked if the art installations would be internal to
the building or visible to the public. Mr. Kuhfuss stated they would be visible to the
public.

Committee Member Jason Barraza stated that his understanding is that nothing like
this currently exists in the city and that data centers pretty much have free reign
currently. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that he would not classify it as “free reign” and
reiterated the existence of the informal interpretation of the code. Committee Member
Barraza asked if there were any existing data centers in the city that would not be in
compliance if the proposed Zoning Text Amendment were to be approved. Mr.
Kuhfuss stated that he did not have the answer to that question.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna asked about the timing of the
hearing schedule. Mr. Kuhfuss stated that the timing of the matter was handed to us.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cepand Alizadah stated that he is the Government Relations Specialist with the
Arizona Technology Council. Mr. Alizadah stated that he was present during the
Alhambra Village Planning Committee meeting the previous night and had also
attended the Ahwatukee Village Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Alizadah stated
anecdotally that he had emergency surgery a month prior as a result of a car accident
in a remote area and that all of his medical data was readily available to the medical
staff as it had been saved to a data center, which gave the healthcare team access to
his allergies and other health conditions. Mr. Alizadah stated that the Arizona
Technology Council is a trade association that represents 750 technology companies
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 688
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

of all sizes. Mr. Alizadah stated that the future of technology is Artificial Intelligence
and that AI’s backbone is data centers. Mr. Alizadah stated that data centers are job
creators, not only in manufacturing, but during operation, ranging from 10 to 15
employees for a small facility to as many as 50 employees for a large facility and
generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages. Mr. Alizadah stated that data
centers generate tax revenue and pay permit fees. Mr. Alizadah stated that the City of
Chandler passed a data center ordinance in February of 2022, which has been well
received by the data center community, and that he wished to speak on two specific
aspects of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment. Mr. Alizadah stated that audio
engineers do not measure sound levels as percentages but use an A-Weighted
decibel threshold and asked the Committee to replace the language relating to
percentages with language referencing an A-Weighted decibel threshold, and to
include period measurement specifications. Mr. Alizadah also expressed concerns
over the requirement for a utility will-serve letter stating that a will-serve letter is
common, but the two-year item frame is too short as data centers require several
years of planning. Mr. Alizadah stated that a ten-year time frame is more appropriate.
Mr. Alizadah stated that the Ahwatukee Village Planning Committee did not vote in
favor of the General Plan Amendment or Zoning Text Amendment citing concerns
over the noise measurement standards and a desire for more stakeholder
engagement.

Samantha DeMoss, with Rose Law Group, asked for either a denial of the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment or a 90-day continuance. Ms.
DeMoss stated that the current General Plan Amendment and Zoning Text
Amendment is moving through the process too quickly for such a complex use with no
stakeholder input, or Village input prior to the public hearing process. Ms. DeMoss
stated that the proposed language of the Zoning Text Amendment would effectively
constitute a ban on data centers. Ms. DeMoss also expressed concerns over the
requirement for a will-serve letter stating that Arizona Public Service currently has an
eight- to twelve-year back up on major projects and that a two-year window would
make data centers impossible to achieve. Ms. DeMoss expressed concerns over
Proposition 207 with respect to data centers that are already being sought out. Ms.
DeMoss stated there is a lot of conversation around job creation and that data centers
create jobs both directly and indirectly. Ms. DeMoss stated that for every direct job
there are six related but indirect jobs and that there are currently 200,000 jobs within
the City of Phoenix that are affiliated with data centers. Ms. DeMoss also stated that
data centers create tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue. Ms. DeMoss reiterated
that the currently proposed language would make data centers infeasible and
requested the Committee deny the request with a 90-day continuance to allow a
redraft following appropriate stakeholder input. Committee Member
Sommacampagna asked for additional clarification regarding will-serve letters. Ms.
DeMoss stated that the utility company issues a letter stating that they will provide
services in a specified amount of time based on capacity. Ms. DeMoss stated that
utility companies are ramping up production and data centers will need to wait their
turn but that will not happen within two years, which makes financial feasibility
improbable. Ms. DeMoss stated that co-location also becomes difficult as only 10%
may be shared. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski asked who is responsible for
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 689
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

obtaining a will-serve letter. Ms. DeMoss stated that it was the developer’s
responsibility, and that it is probable that a facility may be constructed in more than
one phase which may require multiple will-serve letters and should be addressed in
the proposed language. Committee Member Pérez-Pawloski stated that it was her
recollection that data centers were allowed with a Special Permit. Ms. DeMoss stated
that data centers do not currently require a Special Permit but rely on an informal
interpretation. Ms. DeMoss stated that the proposed language came out too fast and
there would be Proposition 207 implications if approved as proposed. Committee
Member Pamperin asked about water and whether data centers would be
considered high water users. Ms. DeMoss stated that was the case but that water
consumption associated with data centers has decreased over the years.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that a Proposition 207 Waiver is an
option that the city could offer to a developer seeking to build a data center.
Committee Member Garbarino stated that she has read Chandler’s ordinance
regarding data centers and finds the language to be very similar to that being
proposed.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that the issue with Proposition 207 is that a
change to the zoning ordinance could render a potential site ineligible for a data
center and if that site was already under contract, the property owner could claim
diminution of value. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he had been contacted by a
zoning attorney who stated that he did not object to the idea of enacting new
language but that the currently proposed language was being rushed. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that it was his understanding that the stakeholder input process had
been run concurrently with the Village Planning Committee hearing process as
opposed to it being a linear process. Vice Chair Matthews stated that typically, a
proposed Text Amendment would go to the stakeholder and neighborhood meetings,
then incorporate changes to the proposed language prior to it coming before the
Village Planning Committee. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he supported what the
city is trying to accomplish but expressed concerns that it was being rushed through
the process. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he did not understand why a three-
month delay was not possible. Vice Chair Matthews stated that he was leaning
towards denial.

Committee Member Massimo Sommacampagna stated that he agreed with the
Vice Chair and that the city can do a better job.

Chair Stephanie Fogelson reiterated that this was the first time that she had been
contacted by a city official regarding a proposal and stated that she did not appreciate
the unwelcome influence.

Committee Member Heather Garbarino stated that she generally prefers to support
staff but, in this instance, waiting another three months to allow additional discussion
seems more appropriate.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 690
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Vice Chair Joshua Matthews emphasized that he in no way was being critical of
staff as they are responding to directions from the Mayor and City Council. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that he does question the intent of the elected officials. Vice Chair
Matthews stated that in his capacity as a Planning Commissioner, the Planning
Commission is often presented with an urgent matter that needs to be addressed,
including changes in state law that must be implemented within a certain time frame
to avoid consequences. Vice Chair Matthews stated that without a compelling
explanation, there is no reason not to delay action for three months to allow time for
more discussions with the stakeholders.

Committee Member Fred Hepperle stated that he was supportive of the proposed
General Plan Amendment but was not supportive of the proposed Zoning Text
Amendment.

Committee Member Elizabeth Pérez-Pawloski stated that if a developer wants to
build in the city, they should expect to meet certain requirements, but also stated that
the will-serve letter component was too quick.

Committee Member Jason Barraza stated that he was supportive of the language of
the Zoning Text Amendment as currently written with respect to noise levels but had
concerns with requiring a will-serve letter from the power company in that his
understanding is that the state legislature was considering a bill that would allow data
centers to internalize their own power production in which case a will-serve letter
would be unnecessary. Committee Member Barraza stated there were also
discussions regarding nuclear power and its potential effect on data center locations
and expressed concerns with rushing forward just to get something on the books
when that may not be appropriate at this time given that information is evolving.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that the noise level methodology implies that if
the ambient noise level was 10 decibels, then a specified percent increase would
bring the noise level up to a certain higher level; however, that noise level may not be
disruptive since we live in an environment that operates about 40 to 70 decibels. Vice
Chair Matthews stated that working with industry standards up to a certain level could
be an acceptable option. Vice Chair Matthews stated that it could be worked out, but
more time was needed.

MOTION:
Vice Chair Joshua Matthews motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y, with
direction for the city to reengage with the stakeholders and return to the Committee
with revised language in 90 days. Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo seconded
the motion.

VOTE:
12-0-1, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y, with direction for the city to
reengage with the stakeholders and return to the Committee with revised language in
90 days passes with Committee Members Alauria, Barraza, Garbarino, Harris,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 691
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Hepperle, Jaramillo, Larson, Pamperin, Pérez-Pawloski, Sommacampagna,
Matthews, and Fogelson in favor; and Committee Member Edwards in abstention.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 692
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting June 2, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amen Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data center within the C-
2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial) and A-2
(Industria zoning districts, with performance standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with
modifications
VPC Vote 8-5-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Item Nos. 3 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 4 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation

Matteo Moric, staff, provided an overview related to the data center agenda items. Mr.
Moric explained that the general plan amendment and text amendment would be heard
together, however, each would require its own vote. Mr. Moric noted the Mayor and
Council provided direction to staff in December of 2024 to work on the policies for data
centers. Mr. Moric explained “the why” for why the data center policy is necessary. Mr.
Moric mentioned the policy for the general plan amendment would focus on three key
areas, including: location criteria policy, design policy, and energy and sustainability
policy. Mr. Moric stated the location criteria policy was to identify areas to discourage
and encourage data centers while the design policy focused on design elements to
incorporate within the site and facilities, and the energy and sustainability policy was to
ensure capacity and efficiency.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 693
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Mr. Moric noted the main components of the proposed text amendment to include a
provision for a definition, specific design guidelines and special permit requirements and
performance standards.

Mr. Moric concluded by laying out the staff recommendations.

Questions from Committee

Regina Schmidt was concerned there were energy requirements but no water
requirements.

Marc Soronson said he was specifically concerned about land use placement when the
Arizona Republic building in Downtown Phoenix was converted into a technology center
which led to an immense decrease in employment relative to the previous user.

Diane Petersen also expressed concerns with the water supply and asked if staff
reviewed the water issue. Mr. Moric said that when new facilities come in they would
need to go through the Water Services Department and ensure there was an assured
water supply.

Ms. Petersen expressed additional concern with the rushing of the policy and text
amendment through the process. Mr. Moric indicated the Council is seeking direction
and if the Committee sees fit to do so they should add a concern regarding the water
issue.

Patrice Marcolla wanted to understand the stakeholders involved in establishing these
amendments and questioned the “will serve” letter. Ms. Marcolla believed it was an
unknown item of understanding with APS and SRP, and thought there was more time
needed prior to making a decision.

Anna Sepic was concerned with the high power and water usage of data centers. Ms.
Sepic indicated not being in favor of C-1 and C-2 zoning, as that is typically where you
would see retail centers and shops and those properties are high community-traffic
areas. Ms. Sepic felt these sites should be located in heavy industrial areas such as
where A-2 zoning can be found. Ms. Sepic felt locating these sites where there was
already existing higher manufacturing and energy support was appropriate.

Public Comments
Ty Utton with Rose Law Group indicated he represented a broad coalition of data
center developers and land use attorneys. Mr. Utton noted they were just recently
notified about these data center policies and this was an unusually fast for a text
amendment especially as it is one of the most capital intense land uses out there. Mr.
Utton requests a recommendation of denial so it can be sent back to staff and have
more stakeholder engagement. Mr. Utton explained the stakeholder engagement was
three meetings with five people at the first meeting and one hundred people at the last
meeting. Mr. Utton said there needed to be more engagement and voiced concerns

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 694
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


about the fairness and legal exposure to the City and added concern about the
language not including a grandfather clause for landowners and developers as many
companies have already invested millions of dollars into the planning of these facilities
and the purchasing of land. Mr. Utton felt this could be a regulatory taking of property
rights. Mr. Utton also does not like the vague provision of “will serve” letter, and feels
the stakeholders investing in this need to be engaged. Mr. Utton emphasized the
proposal leaves significant risks for the City and wants the utility language to be
clarified. Mr. Utton concluded that he did not want the City to stop the Ordinance
change but just to get it right. Mr. Utton wanted the proposal to be denied or delayed so
they could work together. Mr Utton provided a response to the water question, that all
the data center projects he had been working on do not use water as data centers used
to because of the newer technology and most of the cooling was done by electric
power. Mr. Utton noted that some of the data centers still use a lot of water.

Ms. Sepic asked how much energy was being used and thought data centers should
have a green energy component.

Ms. Marcolla reminded the Committee of the previous case for an 8-lot subdivision and
said it was going through the development process for 2 ½ years and believed the short
turnaround time for the data center text amendment is a concern. Ms. Marcolla believed
with the limited information that it was not clear where data centers shall be placed
within the community.

Ms. Sepic initially felt the item needed to be postponed and there needed to be further
clarification and input. Additionally, Ms. Sepic said there should be heat mapping to
determine where these data centers should be strategically placed.

Ms. Petersen wanted to better understand what the difference would be between a
denial and a postponement and how it would affect the outcome of these policies. Ms.
Petersen did not want to see it postponed then come up in another 45 days or deny with
a caveat that certain components be done before it gets brought back to the Committee.
Mr. Moric said it would be at the discretion of the Committee, but the recommendation
would still get moved forward to the Planning Commission and City Council since there
are 15 Villages it goes through.

Robert Goodhue reiterated that it goes to 15 different Village Planning Committees and
the Committee could act or deny the proposal, but it would still get forwarded on for
action to the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Goodhue reminded the
Committee of their role as an advisory body and the VPC’s decision would help the
future decision makers get a pulse of the community. Mr. Goodhue said there are no
adequate requirements for data centers and there are a lot coming in and would hate for
there to be black outs because of all the electricity being used up. Mr. Goodhue
emphasized his feeling that this was coming in front of the Committee since it is an
important issue.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 695
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Marc Soronson reminded the VPC that they were an advisory group and he wanted to
better understand why it was being fast tracked and said he would be reluctant to deny
this proposal and would support the staff recommendation as written.

Roy Wise felt a denial would be better as it would set a stronger message to the
Planning Commission and City Council.

Robert Gubser was afraid there was not enough input in the process. Mr. Moric
reminded the Committee that the City was working under the old interpretation from 20
years ago and said that he heard there were at least 5 to 10 data center cases coming
in now and said the City is trying to play catchup.

Chair Mortensen asked if there is a motion to postpone the item. Anna Sepic stated it
would not make sense to allow data centers on the C-1 and C-2 zoned properties and
had concerns of them going too close to residential areas. Ms. Sepic added that she
thought it would make the most sense to locate data centers in A-2 and maybe in A-1
zoned areas.

MOTION 1:
Anna Sepic motioned to recommend denial or postponement of Z-TA-2-25-Y. Roy
Wise seconded the motion.

Committee Discussion:
Ms. Sepic asked to see the list of districts where a special permit would be required and
explained that the C-2 and C-3 districts allow any type of retail uses and C-3 zoning
allows for heavy material storage but materials are not supposed to be stored outside in
these districts. Ms. Sepic reiterated that she does not want data centers near residential
areas and felt these data centers would be better suited in heavy industrial areas where
there are more intense energy users. Ms. Sepic favored the denial of any C-2 and C-3
areas and wanted to limit them to A-1 and A-2 areas.

Robert Goodhue asked if Ms. Sepic thought it should be eliminated in the C-2, C-3 and
CP/GCP zoned areas. Ms. Sepic thought this was the best and believed they should
only be allowed in A-1 and A-2 zoned areas. Mr. Goodhue then said the motion would
need to be amended.

Ms. Sepic said she wanted to amend her motion to only allow data centers in A-1 and
A-2 zoned areas.

Mr. Utton said there were good points but he said that it would not be allowed by right
in C-2 and C-3 zoned areas but the proposal required a special permit. Mr. Utton noted
a lot of companies such American Express have data centers to support their campus.

Ms. Sepic said it’s hard to find A-1 or A-2 sites over ten acres and it should be limited
and thought they would be allowed if a PUD was crafted. Ms. Sepic felt if the likes of


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 696
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Google would develop a campus they would not pick A-1 or A-2 as a mandatory box
and most likely go to create a PUD.

Ms. Petersen said it brings up a point for grandfathering such as an American Express.
Mr. Utton said grandfathering is an issue of concern.

Ms. Marcolla noted this type of data center use does not drive a lot of traffic and usually
requires larger lots.

Ms. Sepic said additional use permits are not the same process as rezoning and would
not protect the community. Ms. Sepic said lots of communities do not like data centers
as they do not generate many jobs and they put a constraint on the grid system. Ms.
Sepic added they push land prices up but are not a great benefit. Ms. Sepic voiced her
support for approval within the A-1 and A-2 zoned areas only. Ms. Sepic repeated the
motion that she requests an amendment only to allow them within A-1 and A-2 and
wanted to remove them from the C-2, C-3 and CP districts.

Mr. Moric indicated the general plan item is usually heard first.

Ms. Sepic asked where data centers were allowed on the General Plan.

Ms. Sepic withdrew her earlier motion, and Roy Wise withdrew the second.

MOTION 2:
Diane Petersen motioned to deny Z-TA-2-25-Y. Anna Sepic seconded the motion.

Ms. Sepic said she was concerned by the performance standards.

Mr. Goodhue expressed confusion about making a full denial when the Committee
already approved the General Plan Amendment. Mr. Goodhue thought Ana’s earlier
recommendation was good as the Planning Commission and City Council could look at
what was approved and potentially modify it.

Ms. Sepic felt it may be approved in A-1 and A-2 with a caveat of performance
standards.

Rob Gubser said it would not make sense in the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. Mr.
Gubser said this is where he thought there should be a modification to the text
amendment recommendation.

Ms. Sepic said she only wanted to see data centers in the A-1 and A-2 zoned areas.

Ms. Petersen said to keep the motion as a denial and there was a new second by Ms.
Marcolla.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 697
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


Ms. Balarama asked if she could abstain since she felt there was not enough
information. Mr. Moric said yes, if that is what you feel comfortable with.

MOTION 3:
Diane Petersen motioned to deny Z-TA-2-25-Y. Ms. Marcolla seconded the motion.

Vote
5-8-1; Motion to recommend denial per staff recommendation fails with Committee
Members Franks, Marcolla, Petersen, Wise and Sommer in favor. Goodhue, Gubser,
Hamra, Mazza, Schmidt, Sepic, Soronson, and Mortensen in opposition. Balderrama
abstained.

Ms. Marcolla asked if the Committee was comfortable with all the other performance
standards within the proposed text amendment. Ms. Marcolla also expressed concerns
with the “will serve” letter from the utility companies.

Mr. Mazza offered a friendly amendment to modify the “will serve” letter.

Mr. Goodhue said data centers use a lot of energy.

Mr. Mazza said it was Mr. Goodhue’s motion and left the friendly amendment up to him.

Mr. Goodhue said data centers use a lot of energy and they will use more and more
and by putting it in the text amendment it will allow the discussion between the City and
the utility companies. Mr. Goodhue said that it would probably take up to two years to
build these data centers.

Ms. Marcolla was concerned that data centers have invested lots of money and that a
guarantee for electricity would be difficult.

Mr. Gubser was concerned that this text amendment was being rushed.

Mr. Mazza said that he hoped the Planning Commission and City Council would look
more into the “will serve” letter and possibly remove it.

Ms. Schmidt echoed Mr. Gubser concern of needing more time.

Ms. Sepic felt if the rezoning and site plan for an 8-lot subdivision took 2 years that she
did not want these data centers being rushed as they would have a massive impact on
the grid system. Ms. Sepic explained she does not want Phoenix to turn into California
or Texas where there is a possibility of no air conditioning in the summertime. Ms. Sepic
said utility companies may need to upgrade their grid system and does not want a
rushed process.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 698
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y


MOTION 4:
Robert Goodhue motioned to recommend the approval of the text amendment with the
modification to require the Special Permit, but to only allow it within the A-1 and A-2
Zoning Districts. Danielle Mazza seconded the motion.

Vote
8-5-1; Motion to recommend the approval of the text amendment with the modification
to require the Special Permit, but to only allow it within the A-1 and A-2 Zoning Districts,
passes with Committee Members Franks, Goodhue, Hamra, Mazza, Sepic, Soronson,
Wise, and Mortensen in favor; Gubser, Marcolla, Petersen, Schmidt, and Sommer
opposed; and Balderrama abstained.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 699
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y



Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data centers
and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit
Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Denial, with direction
VPC Vote 3-2


VPC DISCUSSION:

Agenda Item 4 (GPA-2-25-Y) and Agenda Item 5 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases
and were heard concurrently.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
John Roanhorse, staff, provided an overview of GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-25-Y. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed why the General Plan Amendment and Text Amendment are
needed. Mr. Roanhorse summarized and explained the policy guidance for data centers
that the General Plan Amendment includes. Mr. Roanhorse then discussed the three
main components of the Text Amendment. Mr. Roanhorse shared the proposed Zoning
Ordinance definition for a data center and proposed design guidelines. Mr. Roanhorse
shared the zoning districts that data centers would be permitted in, subject to a Special
Permit and other performance standards. Mr. Roanhorse shared the upcoming public
hearing schedule and stated that staff recommends approval per the language in Exhibit
A of the Staff Report.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 700
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Questions from Committee:
Committee Member Ozzie Virgil stated that these cases are going through the
process very quickly and asked what they are needed for. Mr. Roanhorse responded
that data centers are used for storage and processing of digital data, such as photos
saved in the digital cloud.

Vice Chair Scott Lawrence stated that municipalities did not have to worry about data
centers because they did not exist 20 to 30 years ago, so they are trying to find a way to
make them more aesthetically pleasing and to fit into the community.
Chair Dino Cotton stated that there are some existing data centers around and more
are being built.

Vice Chair Lawrence asked why it would matter if data services are leased to third
parties or not. Mr. Roanhorse responded that existing data centers would likely be
retrofitted.

Committee Member Virgil asked how many data centers will be built. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that it is unknown, and the market is open for data centers to be built at a
number of different locations.

Chair Cotton stated that Tricia Gomes, Deputy Director with the Planning and
Development Department, reached out to him to discuss the proposed General Plan
Amendment and Text Amendment.

Committee Member Virgil expressed concerns with the rushed public hearing
schedule.

Chair Cotton asked Mr. Roanhorse to clarify the water usage of data centers. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that he is not too familiar with how a data center functions, but they
likely use a large amount of water for cooling.

Committee Member Eileen Baden stated that this topic came up during the Maricopa
County Comprehensive Plan Framework 2040 conference and members of the public
were concerned with increased water usage. Committee Member Baden added that the
Maricopa County Planning and Development Director said that they could add into the
Comprehensive Plan that they will work more closely with cities and towns when these
big projects come in. Committee Member Baden asked if there would need to be some
coordination with Maricopa County if the project is over a certain size. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that there would not be. Mr. Roanhorse stated that for all rezoning cases,
utilities are looked at to ensure there is access and capacity for water, wastewater, and
electricity. Committee Member Baden expressed concerns with affecting the power grid
due to the increased energy demand created from data centers. Committee Member
Baden recommended increasing the sidewalk width to eight feet so emergency
response vehicles could use the sidewalk path in the event of an emergency.
Committee Member Baden added that language could be added that improvements for
data centers may be needed off-site due to the larger impact they could have on the
surrounding community. Mr. Roanhorse responded that those comments can be
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 701
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

included in the recommendation and added that capacity is always looked at for any
development before it is approved.

Committee Member Virgil expressed concerns with what was being stored in data
centers.

Chair Cotton clarified that the Village Planning Committee is reviewing the land use
and design, not what is inside of the data center.

Mr. Roanhorse clarified the elements that the design guidelines would affect.

Committee Member Will Holton asked if there is a maximum square footage
requirement for data centers. Mr. Roanhorse responded that there is not. Mr.
Roanhorse clarified that the main concern is how data centers can best fit into a
location. Committee Member Holton expressed concerns with building height.
Committee Member Holton asked if data centers have backup generators. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that the three data centers he is aware of do.

Committee Member Baden recommended increasing the sidewalk width required
around data center sites to eight or 10 feet.

Chair Cotton expressed concerns with widening the sidewalks due to the urban heat
island effect.

Vice Chair Lawrence agreed with the design guidelines, noting that they make an
unattractive building that a developer could get away with more community-friendly.
Vice Chair Lawrence stated that it would be more important where the data center
building is placed on a site rather than how tall it is.

Committee Member Holton stated that it would be seen regardless due to the height.

Chair Cotton stated that a comment could be added that the Committee does not want
data centers to be tall.

Committee Member Baden stated that a difference of two feet in the sidewalk width
would likely not make a difference in the urban heat island effect. Committee Member
Baden expressed concerns with accessibility and connectivity.

Public Comments:
Henry Hardy, with Rose Law Group, introduced himself as a representative of
stakeholders in the industry, opposed to the proposal. Mr. Hardy stated that they were
made aware of this proposal about two weeks ago. Mr. Hardy stated that the public
hearing process is a very quick turnaround time. Mr. Hardy added that the Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) Text Amendment public hearing process was about a seven-month
process. Mr. Hardy stated that they would like more time to go through the details of this
proposal. Mr. Hardy stated that the data center stakeholders are fine with the
architectural and landscape standards and understand that data centers should fit
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 702
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

properly into a community. Mr. Hardy explained that there are elements of the proposal
that do not align with investment and do not address how existing investments for data
centers would be affected. Mr. Hardy expressed concerns with Proposition 207 for
diminution of property values. Mr. Hardy asked for a continuance to allow more time
over the summer for everyone to understand the impacts. Mr. Hardy stated that
although data centers do not employ as many employees as other major employers,
each data center could employ between 80 to 150 people and are high-paying jobs with
median incomes of $95,000 annually. Mr. Hardy added that recent studies said indirect
employment in this industry in Phoenix is around 80,000 employees and direct
employment is about 20,000 employees. Mr. Hardy stated that the will-serve letter
requirement is not consistent with how data centers are developed. Mr. Hardy stated
that other business leaders and investors are watching this amendment and see it as
anti-enterprise legislation. Mr. Hardy stated that they understand that data centers
should better the community and should not be forced upon a community. Mr. Hardy
clarified that they need more engagement.

Staff Response:
None.

Discussion:
Committee Member Holton asked how data centers specifically benefit the
community. Committee Member Holton asked how long the amendment has been in the
works. Mr. Hardy responded that they were notified of the amendment about two weeks
ago. Committee Member Holton asked how many major cities are doing a similar
amendment. Mr. Hardy responded that he was not sure. Mr. Hardy stated that nationally
there is a lot of discussion around data centers and some cities are trying to attract
them. Committee Member Holton asked how data centers are benefiting the community.
Mr. Hardy responded that data centers are multi-billion-dollar investments that each
return tens of millions of dollars to the City in tax revenue. Committee Member Holton
asked what data centers do. Mr. Hardy responded that data centers handle everything
from the GPS system in a car to the data storage where people work. Mr. Hardy stated
that every time a file is saved to the computer or to the phone, it is saved somewhere in
the cloud, which is stored and processed by data centers. Mr. Hardy stated that the
future is data centers.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that the City seems to be contradicting of wanting to be a
tech center by wanting investment from the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Company (TSMC) but not wanting investment from data centers.

Committee Member Holton stated that he could understand how TSMC could make
something that he would actually use versus a data center.

Mr. Hardy stated that TSMC is making chips that go into data centers. Mr. Hardy stated
that it is the future of the economy nationally and globally. Mr. Hardy asked the
Committee to express concerns that the timeline is too fast and to come back with a
better proposal.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 703
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Chair Cotton asked for clarification if the data center industry is wanting more time to
go through the design guidelines and make them less restrictive. Mr. Hardy responded
that the design guidelines are not an issue. Mr. Hardy stated that their issues are
Proposition 207, that the text does not say anything about existing data centers and
how the text amendment would affect them, and the text does not say anything about
proposed data centers currently in the development review process and how the text
amendment could affect their existing investments. Mr. Hardy added that the will-serve
letter from the power company to be able to serve the power of the data center in two
years is another major concern. Mr. Hardy stated that a data center cannot get a
commitment for power within two years, and it is probably more around 10 years. Mr.
Hardy added that the power company would ask if the data center has a permit from the
local municipality before providing a will-serve letter. Chair Cotton stated that it seems
the City is trying to rush the text amendment to avoid legal input.

Committee Member Virgil stated that he feels like he does not have enough
information to vote on this item, such as what the height is.

Vice Chair Lawrence concurred.

Mr. Hardy stated that this is the fastest they have seen a text amendment go through
the public hearing process.

Committee Member Holton asked where data centers are being proposed within the
Rio Vista Village.

Committee Member Baden stated that they would be allowed anywhere where that is
zoned for them.

Chair Cotton stated that he does not believe the Village Planning Committee asking for
a continuance would have any impact, since it is still scheduled to be heard by the
Planning Commission and the City Council on their scheduled dates.

Mr. Hardy stated that they want that concern to be passed along to the Planning
Commission and City Council.

Mr. Roanhorse stated that the City has a narrow timeframe to approve or deny a
request due to the State Legislature, and a continuance is typically reserved for the City
Council.

Committee Member Holton stated that he does not understand how the proposal
would impact pending permits.

Vice Chair Lawrence stated that if all the Village Planning Committees vote against it,
then the City Council may negotiate a longer term for this proposal.

Committee Member Baden stated that she believes the City is trying to minimize the
impacts that data centers have. Committee Member Baden stated that she is generally
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 704
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

supportive of a majority of the proposal. Committee Member Baden stated that she
understands there are a few elements that may need some more discussion and more
review.

Committee Member Cotton concurred and stated that he is supportive of the design
guidelines and would vote to approve the design guidelines.

Committee Member Baden added that the Fire Department should have sufficient time
to review this proposal because they are supportive of perimeter paths around new
developments, which help with accessibility and connectivity. Committee Member
Baden requested that the sidewalk requirement be widened so emergency vehicles
could use them in the event of an emergency. Committee Member Baden added that
language should be added to state that data centers may require off-site improvements
for fire safety of very large data centers.

MOTION – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
Vice Chair Lawrence motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y, with direction to
allow more time for stakeholder input. Committee Member Holton seconded the
motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-2-25-Y:
3-2; the motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-2-25-Y with direction passed with
Committee members Holton, Virgil and Lawrence in favor and Committee members
Baden and Cotton opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 705
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y

Date of VPC Meeting May 13, 2025
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data
centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D
(Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the
section title and add design standards for data
centers and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special
Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers
within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3
(General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Indus-trial)
and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with performance
standards.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with
direction
VPC Vote 14-1-1

Item Nos. 5 (GPA-2-25-Y) and 6 (Z-TA-2-25-Y) are companion cases and were heard
concurrently.

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, one in support, and one that
did not indicate support or opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed General Plan
Amendment, including background and details of the location criteria, design, and energy
and sustainability policies proposed to be added for data centers. Mr. Rogers provided
information about further about the proposed Text Amendment, including a definition for
data centers, design guidelines, and a requirement for a Special Permit and performance
standards, finally noting the timeline for the proposals.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked if they could add a requirement to not allow
Data Centers within one mile of the Rio Salado Restoration Area. Mr. Rogers stated that
the requirement could be recommended as a part of the motion.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 706
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

Committee Member Gene Holmerud explained that Iceland is a popular location for
data centers, stated that places like Iceland make more sense because data centers
produce so much heat, and stated he was surprised there is a demand for data centers in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Trent Marchuk explained that the lack of natural disasters in the
Phoenix area make it an attractive place to locate data centers and asked about the
definition of high-capacity transit. Mr. Rogers explained that high-capacity transit options
are the light rail and bus rapid transit. Committee Member Marchuk asked about existing
data centers. Mr. Rogers stated that existing data centers would be grandfathered and
explained staff is still looking into other items such as phased developments.

Committee Member Petra Falcon asked for staff to display the slide showing the public
hearing dates. Mr. Rogers displayed the slide.

Committee Member Tamala Daniels asked how health hazards are being addressed
and explained that data centers contribute to noise pollution, air pollution, respiratory
illnesses, heat emissions, traffic congestion, and security risks. Mr. Rogers explained
that data centers will be required to go through the Special Permit process and the
Village Planning Committees will have the opportunity to analyze if a site is appropriate.
Mr. Rogers explained a Will Serve letter will be required to ensure data centers are not
over burdening the electric grid, stated that a noise study will be required, stated that data
centers will not be allowed to exceed five percent of the area’s ambient noise, explained
that some data centers have been in the news because of pollution generated from
natural gas fueled fans, and stated that he expects the data centers in Phoenix to get
their power from the electric grid.

Committee Member Mark Beehler echoed Committee Member T. Daniels’ concerns,
stated the cases that the Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommends for denial are
not always ultimately denied by the City Council, stated that he foresees data centers as
something that will be dumped on South Phoenix, and echoed Committee Member
Brownell’s concerns about data centers near the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration area.
Mr. Rogers explained that General Plan Amendment includes guidance to not allow data
centers near corridors and explained that the Rio Salado area is one of the potential
corridors that will be designated as a part of the General Plan implementation.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked about rezoning requirements. Mr. Rogers
explained that a Special Permit would be needed to allow a data center.

Committee Member Ralph Thompson II asked about the number of data centers in
South Phoenix and asked how many jobs data centers generate. Mr. Rogers stated that
he does not have data on the number of data centers in South Phoenix and explained
that at the Central City Village Planning Committee an attorney had stated that data




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

centers create 80 to 150 jobs. Chair Arthur Greathouse III stated that a further
breakdown of the jobs would be needed to understand the job creation.

Committee Member George Brooks stated that the issues of data centers will continue
to increase, asked if this is something we can spend more time on, described
environmental concerns, and stated that data centers have loud air conditioning units and
heat pumps that will make areas hotter. Committee Member Brooks stated he does not
want data centers to be dumped on South Phoenix, stated that savvy attorneys will argue
for permitting data centers, and stated that more time should be spent on the topic.

Committee Member Lee Coleman asked for confirmation that data centers can
currently go into any office location. Mr. Rogers explained that data centers are currently
allowed anywhere an office use is allowed.

Committee Member Fred Daniels asked if there are any data centers that are currently
in the pipeline. Mr. Rogers explained he is not aware of any data centers currently in the
pipeline in South Mountain, but he is aware of others around the City.

Chair Greathouse asked about a buffer between data centers and residential and stated
that there is a data center on 40th Street and McDowell Road that is right next to
residential. Committee Member Marcia Busching stated that there is a 150-foot buffer
required from residential. Chair Greathouse stated that 150 feet is not very far.

Committee Member Busching stated that landscape setbacks are required, but walls
are not addressed, stated that there is not a definition of live coverage, stated that water
consumption is not addressed, explained that the buildings have architecture
requirements indicating that the building will likely be able to be seen from the street, and
stated that she likes the idea of a distance requirement from the Rio Salado Habitat
Restoration area.

Mr. Rogers stated that live coverage is often a stipulation on rezoning cases, explained
that live coverage means the area that is covered in trees and shrubs, stated that walls
greater than three feet are not allowed in landscape setbacks, and explained that
additional architecture concerns can be addressed through stipulations during the Special
Permit process.

Committee Member Edward Aldama asked for confirmation that data centers are
currently allowed anywhere an office is and asked if the text amendment will create a
formalized process for the data centers. Mr. Rogers confirmed the General Plan
Amendment and Text Amendment requests will create a formalized process to permit
data centers and mitigate their impacts.

Committee Member Marchuk explained that he had visited a data center for work,
explained that the site he visited had a water treatment facility on site that processed grey




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

water, and stated that using grey water would be something that would be interesting to
investigate. Mr. Rogers explained that the city has high water user requirements that
require a certain percent of water be recycled.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about the location policy that encourages data
centers in identified redevelopment areas where infrastructure investments are needed
and asked about identified redevelopment areas within South Mountain. Mr. Rogers
explained there is the Target Area B Redevelopment Area in South Mountain, stated
much of it is along proposed and existing corridors, and explained that areas with needed
infrastructure investments are generally areas on the periphery of the city that need roads
and utilities.

Committee Member Brownell described some of the challenges of South Mountain and
explained attorneys will argue for data centers. Mr. Rogers explained that this is putting
in a process to regulate data centers rather than the status quo that lets data centers
come in wherever an office use is allowed.

Committee Member Brownell asked about live coverage and asked about the height
limitations. Mr. Rogers explained live coverage is provided through shrubs and tree
coverage and stated that building heights will be regulated through the underlying zoning
district. Committee Member Brownell stated that he would rather have a human scale
wall closer to the sidewalk than a large wall further from the sidewalk.

Committee Member T. Daniels asked if data centers can be restricted to only be
allowed on industrially and commercially zoned parcels. Mr. Rogers explained that the
proposal only allows for data centers to be allowed on industrially and commercially
zoned properties.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Jon Gillespie introduced himself, explained that he is from Rose Law Group, described
tax revenue generated from data centers, stated he is concerned about the timeline of
the process, stated he would like at least 60 more days for public comment, stated that
there has been a lot of investment by data center users, discussed grandfathering of
developments, expressed concerns about phased developments, explained potential
Proposition 207 litigation, and explained the Will Serve Letter requirement is unfeasible.

Ron Norse explained that he is a building inspector, stated that he is a former City of
Phoenix inspector, offered a tour of a data center, and stated that he has been inspecting
microchip factories for the last 5 years.

Kay Shepard asked if data centers are the same thing as chip makers. Mr. Rogers
stated that it is his understanding that they are different.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

Gene Holmerud described different sound decibel levels and stated he wants to know
more about the sound regulations.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Rogers explained that the City’s Law Department has determined there will not be
any Proposition 207 issues, stated that the City is still working on what projects will be
grandfathered in, and explained that the Central City Village Planning Committee had
asked for more time.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about phased data center developments. Mr.
Rogers explained that his team is still working through questions about what projects will
be grandfathered in.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked about how the other villages have voted. Mr.
Rogers summarized the results of the other villages that have heard the items.

Vice Chair Emma Viera stated that she appreciates that we are putting regulations on
data centers and stated that she would like to see distance requirements for schools and
residential. Mr. Rogers stated that there is a distance requirement from residential areas
but not from schools. Vice Chair Viera stated that 150 feet is not enough and stated that
a distance requirement from schools should be added.

Committee Member Brownell stated support for a distance requirement from schools,
stated that there are high asthma rates in Arizona schools, and explained data centers
will make it worse.

Mark Beehler stated that determining specific distance requirements is out of the Village
Planning Committee’s scope and stated that he agrees that distance from schools should
be added.

Committee Member Busching stated that she would like any motion on the General
Plan amendment to include direction to encourage recycling of water.

Committee Member Marchuk asked about the motion and providing direction versus
requiring modifications. Mr. Rogers explained that other committees have made motions
with direction.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

Motion:
Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-
2-25-Y with direction that no data centers be allowed within 1.5 miles of the Rio Salado
Habitat Restoration Area, that II.D.5.1 be modified to require a 150-foot setback from




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-2-25-Y
May 13, 2025

schools, and that a provision be included that encourages the recycling of water and
usage of recycled water on site. Committee Member Greg Brownell seconded the
motion.

Committee Member Beehler introduced a friendly amendment to modify II.D.5.1 to
require that the setback requirement be from a building. Committee Member Busching
stated that she accepts the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Shepard introduced a friendly amendment to only allow data
centers on properties that have A-1 or A-2 zoning. Committee Member Marchuk stated
that C-2 had been removed in the General Plan Amendment motion. Committee
Member Busching did not accept the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Marchuk stated something should be added regarding
grandfathering in projects that are already in the process or that have phased plans.
Chair Greathouse stated that his company has land that has grandfathered rights,
stated that governance will understand grandfathered rights, and stated that he expects
that projects will have to abide by the rules and regulations at the time they applied.
Committee Member Marchuk stated that there is still ambiguity and stated that providing
some direction on the matter will be beneficial. Committee Member Brownell suggested
having a five-year timeframe for projects to be constructed under the current code. Chair
Greathouse stated he does not like the idea of a five-year timeframe and stated that there
could be an event like a pandemic that causes delays. Committee Member Beehler
stated that he does not think that there should be grandfathering rights.

Committee Member Busching called the question.

Vice Chair Viera asked if Committee Member Busching would be open to adding a
requirement regarding the usage of renewable energy. Committee Member Busching
stated that the question has been called so she is not open to an amendment.

Vote:
14-1-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-2-25-Y with direction that no data centers
be allowed within 1.5 miles of the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Area, that a provision
be included that encourages the recycling of water and usage of recycled water on site,
and that II.D.5.1 be modified to require a 150-foot setback from schools and that that the
setback be measured from a building, passed with Committee Members Aldama,
Beehler, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Coleman, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, Falcon, Jackson,
Marchuk, Thompson, Viera, and Greathouse in favor, Committee Member Shepard
opposed, and Committee Member Holmerud abstained.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




ATTACHMENT D




To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: June 4, 2025


From: Tricia Gomes
Planning and Development Deputy Director

Subject: BACK UP TO ITEM NO. 3 – Z-TA-2-25-Y – DATA CENTERS TEXT
AMENDMENT


Text Amendment No. Z-TA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers; amend Chapter 5,
Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design Review
Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards for data
centers; and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add
data centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial),
CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial), and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance standards.

The Village Planning Committees considered the request throughout May and beginning
of June. Two VPCs recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; three VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; one VPC
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification; one VPC
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a modification and direction;
three VPCs recommended denial; four VPCs recommended denial, with direction; and one
VPC did not have quorum.

Three stakeholder meetings were held with individuals representing a wide range of
interests in data center development such as land use attorneys, real estate and
construction professionals, data center operators, and utility companies.

The language in this proposed text amendment has been modified to address some of the
primary concerns as recommended by the Village Planning Committees and shared at the
stakeholder meetings including the following concerns: undergrounding of large utility
lines, obtaining a will serve letter within two years, noise standards and applicability of the
new development standards and requirement to secure a Special Permit.

Staff recommends approval, per the modified language in bold font below:




Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 2


Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers.

Section 202. Definitions.

***

DATA CENTER: A FACILITY USED PRIMARILY FOR DATA SERVICES, INCLUDING
THE STORAGE, PROCESSING, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL
DATA. A FACILITY SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A DATA CENTER WHEN IT DOES
NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ALL ON-SITE BUILDINGS; IS
USED TO SERVE THE ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONS OF THE ON-SITE PROPERTY
OWNER; AND IS NOT USED TO LEASE DATA SERVICES TO THIRD PARTIES.

***


Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide
Design Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add
design standards for data centers, and to read as follows:

Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for design review.

***

II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines
indicate specific standards of implementation and are categorized as Requirements
(R), Presumptions (P), or Considerations (C). INDICATED WITH THE MARKERS
(R), (R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE APPLIED AND ENFORCED IN THE SAME
MANNER AS INDICATED IN SECTION 507. ITEMS NOT INDICATED WITH AN
(R), (R*), (P), (T), AND (C) SHALL BE TREATED AS (R).

***

D. Specialized Uses.

***

5. DATA CENTERS.

***




Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 3


5.1. SETBACKS. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRICAL
TRANSFORMERS AND GENERATORS, SHALL BE SET
BACK A MINIMUM OF 150 FEET FROM ABUTTING RIGHT-
OF-WAY OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY; IN
ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING: (R*)

5.1.1. THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A BUILDING THAT IS VISUALLY INTEGRATED
WITH THE DESIGN OF THE OVERALL
DEVELOPMENT; OR

5.1.2 THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY
A DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL HAVING
VARIATIONS IN COLORS, MATERIALS,
PATTERNS, TEXTURES, AND/OR AN ART
INSTALLATION SUCH AS A MURAL.

RATIONALE: GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE
ENCLOSED AND SET BACK TO PROVIDE VISUAL
SCREENING AND REDUCE NOISE LEVELS.

5.2. LANDSCAPE SETBACK. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT WIDE
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE
PROVIDED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. TWO STAGGERED ROWS OF LARGE CANOPY
SHADE TREES PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR
IN EQUIVALENT GROUPING SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AS APPROVED BY THE PDD
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. (T)

5.4.2 FIVE 5-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AT A MINIMUM. (T)

5.4.3 GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO
SUPPLEMENT THE TREES AND SHRUBS SO THAT
A MINIMUM 75% LIVE COVERAGE IS ATTAINED.
(T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACK
WITH A DENSE NUMBER OF TREES AND SHRUBS
HELPS TO MITIGATE NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS.

5.3. ARCHITECTURE.




Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 4


5.3.1. BUILDING FACADES THAT EXCEED 100 FEET
SHOULD CONTAIN ARCHITECTURAL
EMBELLISHMENTS AND DETAILING SUCH AS
TEXTURAL CHANGES, PILASTERS, OFFSETS,
RECESSES, WINDOW FENESTRATION
(INCLUDING FAUX WINDOWS), SHADOW BOXES,
AND OVERHEAD/CANOPIES. (P)

5.3.2. ALL SIDES OF A BUILDING/STRUCTURE SHOULD
PROVIDE AN ENHANCED DESIGN INCLUDING A
VARIATION IN COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS,
TEXTURES, HEIGHT, WINDOWS (INCLUDING
FAUX WINDOWS), ARTICULATION, AND/OR ART
INSTALLATIONS. (P)

5.3.3. EACH MAIN ENTRANCE SHOULD INCLUDE A
FEATURE THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE
REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING FACADE BY A
CHANGE IN BUILDING MATERIAL, PATTERN,
TEXTURE, COLOR, AND/OR ACCENT MATERIAL,
AND THAT PROJECTS OR IS RECESSED FROM
THE ADJOINING BUILDING PLANE. (P)

5.3.4. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE SOLAR CONSEQUENCES OF
BUILDING HEIGHT, BULK, AND AREA. (C)

RATIONALE: DATA CENTER BUILDINGS SHOULD
INCLUDE ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
FEATURES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST,
TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF THE
BUILDING/STRUCTURE AND TO PROVIDE AN
ENHANCED DESIGN INTERFACE WHERE VISIBLE FROM
A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PROPERTY.

5.4. STREETSCAPE. FOR EACH STREET FRONTAGE, A
MINIMUM 6-FOOT-WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK
SEPARATED FROM THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 8-FOOT-
WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. SINGLE-TRUNK, LARGE CANOPY SHADE TREES,
PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR IN
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, SHALL BE PROVIDED
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SIDEWALK AND
PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 75% SHADE. (T)


Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 5


5.4.2 A MIXTURE OF SHRUBS, ACCENTS, AND
VEGETATIVE GROUNDCOVERS WITH A MAXIMUM
MATURE HEIGHT OF TWO FEET SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE LANDSCAPE
AREAS TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 75% LIVE
COVERAGE. (T)

5.4.3 ALL NEW OR RELOCATED ELECTRIC LINES 12
KV AND SMALLER, COMMUNICATIONS AND
CABLE TELEVISION AND ALL ON PREMISE
WIRING SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND IN
ALL DEVELOPMENTS WHERE VISIBLE FROM
STREETS OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES EXISTING
OVERHEAD UTILITIES WITHIN THE RIGHTS-OF-
WAY ABUTTING THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
PLACED UNDERGROUND, UNLESS OTHERWISE
APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL APPEAL. (T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED STREETSCAPE HELPS TO
SOFTEN THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
LARGER NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.

5.5. SHADE.

5.5.1. ALL ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS SHOULD
BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF 75% BY A
STRUCTURE, LANDSCAPING, OR A
COMBINATION OF THE TWO. (P)

5.5.2 DEDICATED MULTI-USE TRAILS ADJACENT TO
THE SITE SHOULD BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF
50% AT TREE MATURITY. (P)

RATIONALE: ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN COMFORT
SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN
DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

***
Amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data
centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP
(Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2 (Industrial)
zoning districts, with performance standards to read as follows:

Section 647. Special Permit Uses.

***



Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 6


2. A special permit may be granted by the Council upon recommendation of
the Commission to establish the following uses in the use districts named:

***

KK. DATA CENTERS IN THE C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 AND A-2 ZONING
DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

(1) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 2,640
FEET FROM AN APPROVED HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
STATION.

(2) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL NOT BE
GRANTED FOR A DATA CENTER UNTIL SUCH TIME
THAT A LOCAL UTILITY COMPANY CONFIRMS IN
WRITING WITH A “WILL-SERVE” LETTER PROVIDES A
CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT IT CAN AFFIRMS
ITS CAPACITY AND COMMITMENT TO SERVE THE
ENERGY DEMAND WITHIN TWO YEARS FOR THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER. THE LETTER AGREEMENT
FROM THE UTILITY COMPANY SHALL BE SUBMITTED
TO PDD CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN.

(3) THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY WHEN THE SITE IS
LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT:

(a) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A DATA
CENTER SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS IT
HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DATA
CENTER, INCLUDING ALL ON-SITE MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, WILL NOT EXCEED
THE EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL FOR THE
SITE BY MORE THAN 5% OR A SPECIFIC NOISE
STANDARD MAY BE STIPULATED AS A
CONDITION OF AN APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT.




Z-TA-2-25-Y Backup Memo
June 4, 2025
Page 7


(b) TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIOR
SUBSECTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A
NOISE STUDY TO PDD PRIOR TO OR
CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE
PLAN. THE NOISE STUDY SHALL BE
PERFORMED BY A THIRD-PARTY ACOUSTICAL
ENGINEER TO DOCUMENT BASELINE NOISE
LEVELS IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED DATA
CENTER, INCLUDING NOISE LEVELS MEASURED
AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE NEAREST
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER PROPERTY.

(c) UPON APPROVAL OF THE NOISE STUDY, THE
METHODS PROPOSED TO MITIGATE NOISE
SHALL BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF
FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. A FINAL
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL NOT BE
ISSUED IF THE AMBIENT NOISE EXCEEDS THE
PRIOR EXISTING NOISE LEVEL BY MORE THAN
5%.

(4) THESE REGULATIONS AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
SET FORTH IN SECTION 507 TAB A.II.D.5., DATA
CENTERS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO DATA CENTERS
WHICH HAVE RECEIVED FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL;
OR A DATA CENTER USE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY
LISTED AS A PERMITTED USE OR SPECIFICALLY
DISCUSSED IN A COUNCIL ADOPTED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE PRIOR TO [THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE]. OTHERWISE,
THE DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO THESE
REGULATIONS AND ALL APPLICABLE DESIGN
GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN SECTION 507 TAB A,
INCLUDING THOSE FOR SECTION II.D.5, DATA
CENTERS.

***




ATTACHMENT E

REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 5, 2025

ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-TA-2-25-Y (Companion Case GPA-2-25-Y)
Location: Citywide
Proposal: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions)
to add a definition for data centers; amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab
A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design Review
Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design
standards for data centers; and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special
Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within the C-2
(Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP
(Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial), and A-2
(Industrial) zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance
standards.
Applicant: City of Phoenix Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated June 4, 2025.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 5/19/2025 Denial. Vote: 10-0.
Alhambra 5/20/2025 Denial. Vote: 11-0.
Camelback East 6/3/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote: 17-0.
Central City 5/12/2025 Approval, with direction. 8-1-1.
Deer Valley 5/20/2025 No quorum.
Desert View 6/3/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote 11-0.
Encanto 6/2/2025 Denial. Vote 13-0-1.
Estrella 5/20/2025 Approval, with direction and a modification. Vote: 4-0.
Laveen 5/12/2025 Approval, with direction. Vote: 13-0.
Maryvale 5/14/2025 Approval. Vote: 13-0.
North Gateway 5/8/2025 Approval. Vote: 8-0.
North Mountain 5/21/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote: 12-0-1.
Paradise Valley 6/2/2025 Approval, with a modification. Vote: 8-5-1.
Rio Vista 5/13/2025 Denial, with direction. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 5/13/2025 Approval, with direction. Vote: 14-1-1.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo dated June 4, 2025, with
direction.

Motion Discussion:

Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-2-25-Y, per the staff memo dated
June 4, 2025. Commissioner James seconded that motion.

Vice-Chairman Boyd proposed an AMENDED MOTION to include direction to evaluate issues
with decibel level restrictions, allowance in Commerce Park zoning, co-location of data centers

and the 10% size reduction, and grandfathered use and 207 waivers. Commissioner Gorraiz
seconded the motion to amend.

Chairperson Busching asked if they would be amenable to adding direction to also evaluate
heat mitigation and a de-minimus exception.

Vice-Chairperson Boyd and Commissioner Gorraiz agreed.

Motion details: Vice-Chairperson Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-2-25-Y per the staff
memo dated June 4, 2025, with direction to evaluate issues with decibel level restrictions,
allowance in Commerce Park zoning, co-location of data centers and the 10% size reduction,
grandfathered use and 207 waivers, heat mitigation, and a de-minimus exception.

Maker: Vice-Chairperson Boyd
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None.
Opposition Present: Yes.

Findings: This text amendment will create a process for data centers to be proposed and
evaluated through a public hearing process. The text amendment will provide standards to
address major concerns that data centers cause.

Proposed Language:

Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers.

Section 202. Definitions.

***

DATA CENTER: A FACILITY USED PRIMARILY FOR DATA SERVICES, INCLUDING THE
STORAGE, PROCESSING, MANAGEMENT, AND TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL DATA. A
FACILITY SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A DATA CENTER WHEN IT DOES NOT EXCEED
10% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ALL ON-SITE BUILDINGS; IS USED TO SERVE THE
ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONS OF THE ON-SITE PROPERTY OWNER; AND IS NOT USED TO
LEASE DATA SERVICES TO THIRD PARTIES.

***


Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.II.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards
for data centers, and to read as follows:

Section 507 Tab A. Guidelines for design review.

***




II. CITY-WIDE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. The design review guidelines indicate
specific standards of implementation and are categorized as Requirements (R),
Presumptions (P), or Considerations (C). INDICATED WITH THE MARKERS (R), (R*), (P),
(T), AND (C) SHALL BE APPLIED AND ENFORCED IN THE SAME MANNER AS
INDICATED IN SECTION 507. ITEMS NOT INDICATED WITH AN (R), (R*), (P), (T), AND
(C) SHALL BE TREATED AS (R).

***

D. Specialized Uses.

***

5. DATA CENTERS.

***
5.1. SETBACKS. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS AND
GENERATORS, SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 150
FEET FROM ABUTTING RIGHT-OF-WAY OR RESIDENTIALLY
ZONED PROPERTY; IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING: (R*)

5.1.1. THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY A
BUILDING THAT IS VISUALLY INTEGRATED WITH THE
DESIGN OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT; OR

5.1.2 THE EQUIPMENT MUST BE FULLY SCREENED BY A
DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL HAVING VARIATIONS IN
COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS, TEXTURES,
AND/OR AN ART INSTALLATION SUCH AS A MURAL.

RATIONALE: GROUND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE ENCLOSED
AND SET BACK TO PROVIDE VISUAL SCREENING AND
REDUCE NOISE LEVELS.

5.2. LANDSCAPE SETBACK. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT WIDE
PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. TWO STAGGERED ROWS OF LARGE CANOPY SHADE
TREES PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR IN
EQUIVALENT GROUPING SHALL BE PROVIDED, AS
APPROVED BY THE PDD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. (T)

5.4.2 FIVE 5-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE SHALL BE
PROVIDED, AT A MINIMUM. (T)

5.4.3 GROUNDCOVERS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO
SUPPLEMENT THE TREES AND SHRUBS SO THAT A
MINIMUM 75% LIVE COVERAGE IS ATTAINED. (T)


RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPE SETBACK WITH A
DENSE NUMBER OF TREES AND SHRUBS HELPS TO
MITIGATE NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS.

5.3. ARCHITECTURE.

5.3.1. BUILDING FACADES THAT EXCEED 100 FEET SHOULD
CONTAIN ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENTS AND
DETAILING SUCH AS TEXTURAL CHANGES,
PILASTERS, OFFSETS, RECESSES, WINDOW
FENESTRATION (INCLUDING FAUX WINDOWS),
SHADOW BOXES, AND OVERHEAD/CANOPIES. (P)

5.3.2. ALL SIDES OF A BUILDING/STRUCTURE SHOULD
PROVIDE AN ENHANCED DESIGN INCLUDING A
VARIATION IN COLORS, MATERIALS, PATTERNS,
TEXTURES, HEIGHT, WINDOWS (INCLUDING FAUX
WINDOWS), ARTICULATION, AND/OR ART
INSTALLATIONS. (P)

5.3.3. EACH MAIN ENTRANCE SHOULD INCLUDE A FEATURE
THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE REMAINDER OF
THE BUILDING FACADE BY A CHANGE IN BUILDING
MATERIAL, PATTERN, TEXTURE, COLOR, AND/OR
ACCENT MATERIAL, AND THAT PROJECTS OR IS
RECESSED FROM THE ADJOINING BUILDING PLANE.
(P)

5.3.4. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT THE SOLAR CONSEQUENCES OF BUILDING
HEIGHT, BULK, AND AREA. (C)

RATIONALE: DATA CENTER BUILDINGS SHOULD INCLUDE
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FEATURES IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST, TO BREAK UP THE MASS OF
THE BUILDING/STRUCTURE AND TO PROVIDE AN
ENHANCED DESIGN INTERFACE WHERE VISIBLE FROM A
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY.

5.4. STREETSCAPE. FOR EACH STREET FRONTAGE, A MINIMUM
6-FOOT-WIDE DETACHED SIDEWALK SEPARATED FROM
THE CURB BY A MINIMUM 8-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

5.4.1. SINGLE-TRUNK, LARGE CANOPY SHADE TREES,
PLANTED 20 FEET ON CENTER OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS, SHALL BE PROVIDED ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE SIDEWALK AND PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 75%
SHADE. (T)




5.4.2 A MIXTURE OF SHRUBS, ACCENTS, AND VEGETATIVE
GROUNDCOVERS WITH A MAXIMUM MATURE HEIGHT
OF TWO FEET SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT
THE LANDSCAPE AREAS TO ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF
75% LIVE COVERAGE. (T)

5.4.3 ALL NEW OR RELOCATED ELECTRIC LINES 12 KV AND
SMALLER, COMMUNICATIONS AND CABLE
TELEVISION AND ALL ON PREMISE WIRING SHALL BE
PLACED UNDERGROUND IN ALL DEVELOPMENTS
WHERE VISIBLE FROM STREETS OR ADJOINING
PROPERTIES EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES WITHIN
THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY ABUTTING THE DEVELOPMENT
SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND, UNLESS
OTHERWISE APPROVED THROUGH A TECHNICAL
APPEAL. (T)

RATIONALE: AN ENHANCED STREETSCAPE HELPS TO
SOFTEN THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGER
NON-RESIDENTIAL USE.

5.5. SHADE.

5.5.1. ALL ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS SHOULD BE
SHADED A MINIMUM OF 75% BY A STRUCTURE,
LANDSCAPING, OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. (P)

5.5.2 DEDICATED MULTI-USE TRAILS ADJACENT TO THE
SITE SHOULD BE SHADED A MINIMUM OF 50% AT
TREE MATURITY. (P)

RATIONALE: ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN COMFORT SHOULD
BE PRIORITIZED ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN DATA CENTER
DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

***
Amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section 647.A.2 to add data centers within
the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce
Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial) and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with
performance standards to read as follows:

Section 647. Special Permit Uses.

***

2. A special permit may be granted by the Council upon recommendation of the
Commission to establish the following uses in the use districts named:

***

KK. DATA CENTERS IN THE C-2, C-3, CP/GCP, A-1 AND A-2 ZONING
DISTRICTS, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:


(1) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 2,640
FEET FROM AN APPROVED HIGH-CAPACITY TRANSIT
STATION.

(2) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL NOT BE GRANTED
FOR A DATA CENTER UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT A LOCAL
UTILITY COMPANY CONFIRMS IN WRITING WITH A “WILL-
SERVE” LETTER PROVIDES A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT
THAT IT CAN AFFIRMS ITS CAPACITY AND COMMITMENT TO
SERVE THE ENERGY DEMAND WITHIN TWO YEARS FOR THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER. THE LETTER AGREEMENT
FROM THE UTILITY COMPANY SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO
PDD CONCURRENT WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

(3) THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY WHEN THE SITE IS LOCATED
WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT:

(a) PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A DATA
CENTER SHALL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS IT HAS
BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DATA CENTER,
INCLUDING ALL ON-SITE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
AND FACILITIES, WILL NOT EXCEED THE EXISTING
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL FOR THE SITE BY MORE THAN
5% OR A SPECIFIC NOISE STANDARD MAY BE
STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF AN APPROVED
SPECIAL PERMIT.

(b) TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIOR
SUBSECTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A
NOISE STUDY TO PDD PRIOR TO OR CONCURRENT
WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. THE NOISE
STUDY SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A THIRD-PARTY
ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER TO DOCUMENT BASELINE
NOISE LEVELS IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
DATA CENTER, INCLUDING NOISE LEVELS
MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE
NEAREST RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
PROPOSED DATA CENTER PROPERTY.

(c) UPON APPROVAL OF THE NOISE STUDY, THE
METHODS PROPOSED TO MITIGATE NOISE SHALL BE
STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL. A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
SHALL NOT BE ISSUED IF THE AMBIENT NOISE
EXCEEDS THE PRIOR EXISTING NOISE LEVEL BY
MORE THAN 5%.




(4) THESE REGULATIONS AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES SET
FORTH IN SECTION 507 TAB A.II.D.5., DATA CENTERS ARE
NOT APPLICABLE TO DATA CENTERS WHICH HAVE
RECEIVED FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL; OR A DATA CENTER
USE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED AS A PERMITTED USE
OR SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED IN A COUNCIL ADOPTED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NARRATIVE PRIOR TO [THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE]. OTHERWISE, THE
DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO THESE REGULATIONS AND
ALL APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN
SECTION 507 TAB A, INCLUDING THOSE FOR SECTION II.D.5,
DATA CENTERS.

***

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Saneeya Mir at 602-686-6461, saneeya.mir@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.




ATTACHMENT F




Correspondence for GPA-2-25-Y and Z-TA-2-
25-Y are available on the staff report website
under Z-TA-2-25-Y:


https://www.phoenix.gov/administration/dep
artments/pdd/about-us/reports-data/staff-
reports.html




PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



Alan Stephenson June 11, 2025
Deputy City Manager
To: Date:


Joshua Bednare�
Planning and Development Director
From:


CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 152 ON THE JUNE 18, 2025, FORMAL AGENDA­
PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND CITY CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION - DATA
Subject:

CENTERS - Z-TA-2-25-Y (ORDINANCE G-7396) - CITYWIDE

Item 1 52, Text Amendment No. Z-TA-2-25-Y is a request to amend the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add a definition for data centers; amend
Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A.I1.D (Guidelines for Design Review, City-Wide Design
Review Guidelines, Specialized Uses) to modify the section title and add design standards
for data centers; and amend Chapter 6, Section 647 (Special Permit Uses), Section
647.A.2 to add data centers within the C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-3 (General
Commercial), CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park), A-1 (Light Industrial),
and A-2 (Industrial) zoning districts, with a Special Permit and performance standards.

Staff recommends continuing this item to the July 2, 2025, City Council Formal meeting to
evaluate comments and suggestions received.




Approved:
Alan Stephenso
�-�
Deputy City Manager

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

108 item(s)