(CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 13, 2024) - For Approval or Correction, the
Minutes of the Formal Meeting on March 20, 2024

Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of March 20, 2024, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.

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

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








Report

For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on April 17, 2024

Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of April 17, 2024, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.

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

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








Report

For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Formal Meeting on May 1, 2024

Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of May 1, 2024, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.

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

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








Report

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

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





ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: November 20, 2024
From: Mayor Kate Gallego

Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES

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

Camelback East Village Planning Committee

Councilman Kevin Robinson recommends the following for appointment:

Suzanne Siegel
Ms. Siegel is a Principal at Unique Spaces Inc. and a resident of District 6. She replaces
Tom O’Malley for a term to expire November 19, 2026.

Councilman Kevin Robinson recommends the following for reappointment:

Adiba Jurayeva
Ms. Jurayeva will serve her second term to expire November 19, 2025.

Kathryn Langmade
Ms. Langmade will serve her first full term to expire November 19, 2025.

Caitlin Noel
Ms. Noel will serve her first full term to expire November 19, 2026.

Barry Paceley
Mr. Paceley will serve his seventh term to expire November 19, 2026.

Daniel Sharaby
Mr. Sharaby will serve his sixth term to expire November 19, 2026.




Deer Valley Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Ann O’Brien recommends the following for appointment:

Paul Clark
Mr. Clark is the President at Trident Land Companies and a resident of District 1. He
fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2026.

Judicial Selection Advisory Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Frances Sjoberg
Ms. Sjoberg is a Principal Attorney at the Navajo Nation Department of Justice. She fills
a vacancy representing the Arizona State Bar Association for a term to expire
November 20, 2027.

North Mountain Village Planning Committee

Vice Mayor Debra Stark recommends the following for appointment:

Matthew Knapp
Mr. Knapp is the Director of Marketing and Communications at ArchSol and a resident
of District 3. He fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2026.







Report

Liquor License - Harkins Theatres - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 307420.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
7000 E. Mayo Boulevard, Bldg. 17
Zoning Classification: PUD PCD
Council District: 2

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location is currently
licensed for liquor sales with a Series 6 - Bar, liquor license and does not have an
interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 1, 2024.

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






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

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is an experienced licensee and 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:
“Harkins Theatres is expanding food menu items, and would like to continue to offer
guests 21 and over alcoholic beverages as an incident to these menu items and their
theater experience.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment - Harkins Theatres - Data
Attachment - Harkins Theatres - Map

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





Liquor License Data: HARKINS THEATRES
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 5 4

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 2 2

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 23 19


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 19.47 60.08

Violent Crimes 12.31 1.48 3.92

*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 74 2



Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

2168442 1681 50 43 4

2168452 694 23 38 8

6152001 1993 8 29 12

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: HARKINS THEATRES

7000 E MAYO BLVD




Ü
Date: 10/3/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles


City Clerk Department



Report

Liquor License - Nonos Taco Shop - District 2

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 309889.

Summary

Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4015 E. Bell Road, Ste. 124
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 November 23, 2024.

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

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




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 Juana L Canales Munoz was an owner at Maskadores Taco Shop at this same
location. I also worked at my families liquor establishments in the past. I have never
violated the liquor laws. I removed myself from the previous ownership as I had too
many responsibilities at the time raising my child who is now an adult. I am looking
forward to owning and operating this business with my father (part owner of the
restaurant). I may in the future apply for a Use Permit to include the outdoor patio. No
one is allowed there now.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is a well known Taco Shop to the community. Many customers enjoy consuming
an alcoholic beverage with their food. The primary purpose of the establishment is a
restaurant. Typically customers consume their food and beverage and leave within
less than 60 minutes. We have received both AZ basic and management liquor law
training and have trained our staff to be knowledgable in AZ liquor laws so they
recognize intoxicated customers or invalid identification.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment - Nonos Taco Shop - Data
Attachment - Nonos Taco Shop - Map

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





Liquor License Data: NONOS TACO SHOP
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 2 0

Liquor Store 9 5 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 1

Restaurant 12 9 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 63.32 60.72

Violent Crimes 12.31 8.59 13.8

*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 13

Total Violations 74 24




Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1032151 1421 86 0 2

1032152 1418 91 18 4

1033031 1578 87 10 14

1033032 1103 78 9 18

6196001 2094 72 11 3

6198001 1043 95 8 2

6198002 1789 5 13 9

6198003 1556 82 0 5

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: NONOS TACO SHOP

4015 E BELL RD




Ü
Date: 9/24/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles


City Clerk Department



Report

Liquor License - Rico Arizona - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 306476.

Summary

Applicant
Joan Clancy, Agent

License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler

Location
3507 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 500
Zoning Classification: C-2 TOD-1
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 25, 2024.

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:
“We are applying for a Series 4 wholesaler license to store alcohol for distribution from
our office. With 40 years of entrepreneurial experience across various industries,
including real estate and investments, my partner, Joan Dominique Clancy, has a
background in wholesaling beauty products and more. We hold licenses in banking,
real estate brokerage, and mortgages, which reflects our thorough understanding of
the regulations required to maintain this license. Our focus is on building safety, as we
have owned and managed the property for over 30 years. Additionally, we possess the
financial stability necessary to sustain operations through our successful business
ventures over the years.”

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.

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








Report

Liquor License - Vayal's Indian Kitchen - District 4

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 307463.

Summary

Applicant
Anita Sridharan, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
507 W. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 4

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 alcohol sales.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 30, 2024.

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






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

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:
“With proper license I can be responsible in serving the alcohol to the customers by
following proper rules.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I am the person for responsible to the public while serving the alcohol.”

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 - Vayal's Indian Kitchen - Data
Attachment - Vayal's Indian Kitchen - Map

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





Liquor License Data: VAYAL'S INDIAN KITCHEN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 2 0

Bar 6 5 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 2

Liquor Store 9 4 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 10 2

Hotel 11 2 1

Restaurant 12 28 19

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 159.5 134.39

Violent Crimes 12.31 26.59 29.93

*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 56

Total Violations 74 87




Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1104002 778 35 16 12

1105013 824 16 17 40

1105022 1216 28 19 23

1118001 742 44 28 5

1118002 1030 67 9 17

1118003 996 65 15 4

1119001 678 96 8 4

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: VAYAL'S INDIAN KITCHEN

507 W THOMAS RD




Ü
Date: 10/7/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles


City Clerk Department 34



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Casa Academy - District 5

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

Summary

Applicant
Tacey Cundy

Location
8047 N. 35th Avenue
Council District: 5

Function
Community Event

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
February 28, 2025 - 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 250 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Liquor License - R T O'Sullivans - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 309602.

Summary

Applicant
Timothy O'Sullivan, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

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

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 November 24, 2024.

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

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



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.

R T O'Sullivans (Series 6)
6646 E. Superstition Springs Boulevard, Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

R T O'Sullivans (Series 6)
7919 E. Thomas Road, Ste. 102, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“My wife and I opened our first restaurant and pub in 1993. We have owned and
operated many locations since then. We are successful business operators and are
conscience of response alcohol services. Our employees are trained in liquor laws to
make sure all laws are followed. R T O'Sullivan's will be a great addition to our
neighborhood. We currently have locations in Mesa and Scottsdale.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The O'Sullivans continue their proud Irish family tradition of providing the warmest
hospitality to all who visit their restaurant locations. R T O'Sullivan's will be a
neighborhood favorite offering many family recipes on their menu. With great food and
great service we are soon to be the neighborhood gathering place.”

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 - R T O'Sullivans - Data
Attachment - R T O'Sullivans - Map

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





Liquor License Data: R T O SULLIVANS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 1 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 0

Restaurant 12 12 3

Club 14 2 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 63.05 79.83

Violent Crimes 12.31 6.92 7.32
*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 43 37

Total Violations 74 51




Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1051022 1655 87 8 3

1051023 1135 72 23 12

1051024 525 49 14 10

1063001 867 51 40 17

1063002 1099 67 24 17

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: R T O SULLIVANS

7575 N 16TH ST




Ü
Date: 9/26/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles


City Clerk Department



Report

Liquor License - The Lakes Golf Course - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 303187.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar

Location
13431 S. 44th Street
Zoning Classification: RE-35, C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a beer and
wine bar. This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an
interim permit. This location requires the appropriate building permits and an
Administrative Temporary Use Permit to allow a beer and wine bar.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 25, 2024.

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





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

Duke at Rancho El Dorado (Series 6)
42660 W. Rancho El Dorado Parkway, Maricopa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is an experienced licensee 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:
“The Lakes Golf Course, a popular course in the Phoenix community, has re-opened
its scenically beautiful 18-hole golf course and club house. Applicant would like to offer
alcoholic beverage to guests 21 and over.”

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 - The Lakes Golf Course - Data
Attachment - The Lakes Golf Course - Map




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





Liquor License Data: THE LAKES GOLF COURSE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 3 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 7 3

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 21 7

Club 14 1 1



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 79.83 108.38

Violent Crimes 12.31 8.04 15.71

*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 7

Total Violations 74 7




Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1167081 1516 88 0 2

1167082 1243 52 3 17

1167111 758 80 4 15

1167112 1154 28 15 11

1167171 1769 0 25 11

1167172 1663 40 18 17

1167181 2685 40 10 9

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: THE LAKES GOLF COURSE
13431 S 44TH ST




Web Map




Ü
Date:11/11/2024
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Liquor License - The Vault - District 6

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 307439.

Summary

Applicant
Mark Tarbell, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3200 E. Camelback Road, Level 0
Zoning Classification: C-O
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 location
requires a Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages. This business is
currently being remodeled with plans to open in December 2024.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 30, 2024.

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





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

Tarbell's (Series 12)
3213 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1
Liquor license violations: None

Tavern & Wine Store (Series 6)
3205 & 3209 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 5
Liquor license violations: None

Wine Store (Series 10 with Sampling Privileges)
3209 E. Camelback 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:
“I have held several liquor licenses in Phoenix for 30 years, without incident,including:
Tarbell's - #12071531, Tavern & Wine Store - #06070233, Wine Store - #10076433,
Wine Store Sampling - #105076433.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“My businesses present high-end environments with community and social value to
patrons of an affluent and educated demographic.”




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 - The Vault - Data
Attachment - The Vault - Map

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





Liquor License Data: THE VAULT
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 5 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1

Hotel 11 2 0

Restaurant 12 29 7


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 67.27 74.84

Violent Crimes 12.31 5.38 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 43 18

Total Violations 74 26




Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1051033 1364 100 22 0

1078001 542 96 53 2

1078002 1477 63 28 5

1083011 1100 89 14 0

1083012 1221 72 5 1

1083013 982 75 18 1

1084004 1641 65 7 19

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: THE VAULT

3200 E CAMELBACK RD




Ü
Date: 10/8/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles


City Clerk Department 53



Report

Liquor License - Crybaby - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 306722.

Summary

Applicant
Thomas Aguilera, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
818 N. 1st Street
Zoning Classification: DTC - Evans Churchill West
Council District: 7

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This
location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This location requires a Use Permit to allow a bar. This business is currently
being remodeled with plans to open in December 2024.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 29, 2024.

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





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

Samsara (Series 12)
905 N. 4th Street, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 5
Liquor license violations: In May 2024, a fine of $1,000 was paid for failing to have
proper knowledge of liquor laws and rules and failing to make premises or records
available for inspection.

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 assisting the public with their liquor licensing needs in Arizona for 20+
years.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bars, microbreweries, distilleries, hotels, resorts, golf
courses, special events, convenience / liquor / grocery stores & gas stations) similar to
this proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper."

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 - Crybaby - Data
Attachment - Crybaby - Map

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





Liquor License Data: CRYBABY
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 0

Microbrewery 3 4 1

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 7 6

Bar 6 48 16

Beer and Wine Bar 7 15 7

Liquor Store 9 6 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 15 3

Hotel 11 7 2

Restaurant 12 119 57

Club 14 2 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 262.71 384.07

Violent Crimes 12.31 57.59 78.87

*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 57

Total Violations 74 90




Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1130001 1218 23 16 11

1130002 873 29 21 38

1131001 1015 7 8 28

1131002 1242 3 7 33

1132021 731 33 20 74

1132022 1257 47 29 55

1132031 1473 30 20 57

1141001 2299 16 37 44

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: CRYBABY

818 N 1ST ST




Ü
Date: 10/2/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles


City Clerk Department 59



Report

Liquor License - Estaca 1992 LLC - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 308112.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Anderson, Agent

License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler

Location
5302 W. Buckeye Road, Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. 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 November 30, 2024.

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:
“Since May 2011 I have been involved in the alc. bev. business in Arizona selling
products, distribution and management. Those twelve years have provided the
foundation for having my own company to distribute and sell tequila to retailers in
Arizona. There will be no sales to consumers. All product will be delivered to the
retailers place of business.”

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.

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








Report

Liquor License - Green Light Distributors - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 306208.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler

Location
5302 W. Buckeye Road, Ste. 100
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 7

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is November 29, 2024.

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
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.

Green Light Distributors (Series 4)
431 N. 47th Avenue, Phoenix



Calls for police service: 8
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is an experienced licensee and is committed to upholding the highest
standards for alcohol sales and service and is committed to uphold all laws and
regulations.”

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.

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








Report

Liquor License - Le Taco Bar - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 310158.

Summary

Applicant
Jared Repinski, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
521 W. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: DTC - McDowell Corridor
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 November 30, 2024.

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

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




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 representing liquor licensed establishments in Arizona for over 15 years.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bars, microbreweries, hotels, resorts, golf courses,
special events, convenience/ liquor/grocery stores & gas stations) similar to this
proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment - Le Taco Bar - Data
Attachment - Le Taco Bar - Map

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





Liquor License Data: LE TACO BAR
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 3 1

Wholesaler 4 2 0

Government 5 5 1

Bar 6 21 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 10 4

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3

Restaurant 12 71 15

Club 14 2 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 189.72 151.8

Violent Crimes 12.31 38.05 20.48

*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 43 60

Total Violations 74 82




Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1118002 1030 67 9 17

1118004 671 62 6 6

1119002 899 68 5 9

1129001 1670 70 4 19

1129002 815 37 22 24

1130001 1218 23 16 11

1130002 873 29 21 38

1131001 1015 7 8 28

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: LE TACO BAR
521 W MCDOWELL RD




Ü
Date:11/11/2024
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi

City Clerk Department



Report

Liquor License - Neighborhood Market - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 311172.

Summary

Applicant
Neenos Korkes, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
2101 W. Adams Street
Zoning Classification: C-1 CMOD
Council District: 7

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 may currently operate with
an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 3, 2024.

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






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

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 assured to uphold the laws and regulations about beer and wine license. I have
never been involved in any criminal activity, no record of getting in trouble with law and
authorities.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This store will provide a safe and secure place for the neighborhood to buy alcohol.
The location will be convenient for people in neighborhood who may not have access
to transportation. Adding the long time experience of the working in convenience store
while upholding all the laws and regulations, the store will be a safe, secure and
convenience place for the customers to purchase quality beer and wine.”

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 - Neighborhood Market - Data
Attachment - Neighborhood Market - Map

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





Liquor License Data: NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 14 0

Bar 6 2 1

Liquor Store 9 2 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4

Restaurant 12 2 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 141.93 111.67

Violent Crimes 12.31 48.93 41.29

*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 43 209

Total Violations 74 414




Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1129004 1325 47 24 52

1143011 1389 22 15 57

1143021 788 20 17 66

1144011 1953 47 11 38

1144021 759 35 18 56

1144022 1301 41 20 44

1168001 1178 33 22 40

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET

2101 W ADAMS ST




Ü
Date: 10/23/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles


City Clerk Department 73



Report

Liquor License - Saint Pasta - District 7

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 309748.

Summary

Applicant
Racan Alhoch, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
100 W. Portland Street, Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: DTC - Roosevelt East
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 November 22, 2024.

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

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




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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have taken all the required management courses needed to hold a liquor license. I
have worked many years in the food and beverage industry. I have been a business
owner for 7 years. I do not have a criminal record of any kind. I am married with a child
on the way and I want the community to be safe for my family because we are also
part of it.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The community has become accustomed to a restaurant and bar being in this space.
There were two previous owners and restaurant concepts occupying this same space
that served as a meeting place for the local community. There are condos and
apartments surrounding the restaurant space that will provide additional selection for
residents to choose a place to eat and drink. Many members of the public have
expressed looking forward to having a restaurant that serves alcohol in this space
again.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Attachment - Saint Pasta - Data
Attachment - Saint Pasta - Map

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





Liquor License Data: SAINT PASTA
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 4 2

Government 5 7 3

Bar 6 45 14

Beer and Wine Bar 7 15 8

Liquor Store 9 7 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 16 3

Hotel 11 6 0

Restaurant 12 121 52

Club 14 2 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 256.63 331.21

Violent Crimes 12.31 54.98 63.05

*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 43 57

Total Violations 74 97




Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1118002 1030 67 9 17

1118004 671 62 6 6

1129001 1670 70 4 19

1129002 815 37 22 24

1130001 1218 23 16 11

1130002 873 29 21 38

1131001 1015 7 8 28

1131002 1242 3 7 33

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: SAINT PASTA

100 W PORTLAND ST




Ü
Date: 9/24/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles


City Clerk Department 78



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Downtown Phoenix, Inc. - District 8

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

Summary

Applicant
Devney Majerle

Location
113 N. 6th Street
Council District: 8

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
December 14, 2024 - Noon to 9 p.m. / 5,000 attendees
December 15, 2024 - Noon to 7 p.m. / 5,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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








Report

Liquor License - Paddock Lounge - District 8

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 309651.

Summary

Applicant
Mark Beasley, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2501 E. Magnolia Street
Zoning Classification: A-2
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 November 23, 2024.

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

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




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 a businessman who has been a principal in a law firm in San Diego, CA for
almost 20 years. I have no legal or criminal issues. The Paddock Lounge restaurants,
inside the K1 Speed businesses are located throughout the country. K1 Speed is a
safe and successful indoor entertainment business. The Paddock Lounge restaurant
employs scores of employees throughout the country. No reasons exist s which would
disqualify me from holding a liquor license.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The proposed addition of beer and wine to the concession area restaurant Paddock
Lounge will improve the environment and experience of K1 Speed clientele. This
clientele is primarily high-end corporate users. The facility provides a clean, upscale
entertaiment center as an alternate to expensive corporate retreats or motivational
presentations. The alcohol license will allow or a minor increase in tax revenue
generated. No schools or churches are located within the area which could be a
conflict."

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 - Paddock Lounge - Data
Attachment - Paddock Lounge - Map

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



Liquor License Data: PADDOCK LOUNGE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 8 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 64.2 20.99 23.46

Violent Crimes 12.31 3.6 3.29
*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 3

Total Violations 75 4


Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1138021 0 0 0 0

1152003 546 8 44 45

1153001 1600 47 16 46

1172001 823 25 17 70

Average 0 61 13 19




Liquor License Map: PADDOCK LOUNGE

2501 E MAGNOLIA ST




Ü
Date: 10/2/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles


City Clerk Department 83



Report

Arizona Department of Revenue (Ordinance S-51424)

For $1,323,270 in payment authority for the statutory fee assessed to local
governments for Fiscal Year 2024-25 for the Finance Department. The funds will be
used to recover a portion of the administrative, development, and other operating costs
incurred in implementing the State's Integrated Tax System Modernization Project,
pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 42-5041 through the passage of House
Bill 2871 in 2022.








Report

Canvass of Votes - November 2024 City Council Election and Special Vacancy
Election for Council District 7 - Citywide

Canvass of the votes for the Tuesday, November 5, 2024 City Council Election and
Special Vacancy Election for Council District 7, for the City Council to canvass the
votes and announce and declare the results of the election.

Summary
On Tuesday, November 5, 2024, the City of Phoenix held a City Council Election for
registered voters in the City of Phoenix to elect a Mayor and Council Members for
Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7 for four-year terms that begin on April 21, 2025, and for a Special
Vacancy Election in Council District 7 to elect a Council Member to fill the remainder of
a term which ends April 21, 2025. Additionally, the qualified electors of the City of
Phoenix voted on three ballot measures: Proposition 487 - Alternative Expenditure
Limitation; Proposition 488 - General Plan; and Proposition 489 - Citizens’ Commission
on Salaries for Elected City Officials. This election was conducted by Maricopa County
as part of the 2024 State General Election. There was no election for council members
in Districts 2, 4, 6 and 8 because the terms of the City Council members are
staggered.

Citizen Notification
Voters on the Active Early Voting List (AEVL) received notification of the election from
Maricopa County in May 2024, and early ballots were mailed approximately 27 days
before the election. The City mailed a Publicity Pamphlet in September, before early
ballots were mailed, to each household with an eligible registered voter. The Pamphlet
contained general information about the election, including the deadline to return early
ballots by mail, in-person voting options, and voter identification requirements. The
Pamphlet also contained a list of names of the qualified candidates for Mayor and
Council and information about the three ballot measures, including any arguments in
favor or opposed filed with the City Clerk's Office. Election information was available at
phoenix.gov/elections and maricopa.vote. Additionally, information was provided
through multiple publications, news releases, and the official Phoenix election X
account, @PHXClerk. All election information was available at phoenix.gov/elections
and provided in English and Spanish.




Concurrence
Maricopa County was responsible for the tabulation of ballots and provided election
results for the City Council races and ballot measures.

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








Report

Request for City Council to Meet in Executive Session on December 19, 2024, at
9:00 a.m. - Citywide

Request for the City Council to meet in Executive Session pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statutes, section 38-431.03.A, on December 19, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. at 304 W. Adams
Street, Phoenix, Arizona, 85003, with an online option to join the meeting.

Public Outreach
The Notice and Agenda for the Executive Session will be posted no later than 9:00
a.m. on December 18, 2024.

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








Report

Proposed 15th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Annexation (Ordinance S-51435) -
District 1

Request City Council authorization to extend and increase the corporate limits of the
of Phoenix, designated as the 15th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Annexation.
Further, request to authorize current Maricopa County zoning to continue in effect until
municipal zoning is applied to the annexed territory.

Summary
The annexation was requested by Charles Eckert, Jr. with Red Hawk Development
Corporation, 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. The City Clerk Department has received
signed petitions representing 100 percent of the assessed value and 100 percent of
the owners, excluding utilities, within the proposed annexation area.

Public Outreach
A public hearing was conducted on May 29, 2024, to allow the City Council to gather
community input regarding the annexation proposal. Notification of the public hearing
was published in the Arizona Business Gazette newspaper, and posted in at least
three conspicuous places in the territory proposed to be annexed. Also, notice by first-
class mail was sent to each property owner in the area proposed to be annexed.

Location
The proposed annexation area includes Maricopa County Assessor parcel 210-10-
028C, located at 1540 W. Happy Valley Road (Attachment A). The annexation area is
approximately 4.953 acres (0.00774 sq. mi.) 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

Proposed 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Annexation (Ordinance S-51437) -
District 1

Request City Council authorization to extend and increase the corporate limits of the
of Phoenix, designated as the 17th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Annexation.
Further, request to authorize current Maricopa County zoning to continue in effect until
municipal zoning is applied to the annexed territory.

Summary
The annexation was requested by Stanley Novak, Jr. with UA Happy Valley, LLC, 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. The City Clerk Department has received signed petitions
representing 100 percent of the assessed value and 100 percent of the owners,
excluding utilities, within the proposed annexation area.

Public Outreach
A public hearing was conducted on May 29, 2024, to allow the City Council to gather
community input regarding the annexation proposal. Notification of the public hearing
was published in the Arizona Business Gazette newspaper, and posted in at least
three conspicuous places in the territory proposed to be annexed. Also, notice by first-
class mail was sent to each property owner in the area proposed to be annexed.

Location
The proposed annexation area includes Maricopa County Assessor parcels 210-10-
013B and 210-10-005, located at 25051 N. 17th Avenue (Attachment A). The
annexation area is approximately 7.2772 acres (0.01137 sq. mi.) 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

Proposed 27th Avenue and Baseline Road Annexation (Ordinance S-51434) -
District 8

Request City Council authorization to extend and increase the corporate limits of the
of Phoenix, designated as the 27th Avenue and Baseline Road Annexation. Further,
request to authorize current Maricopa County zoning to continue in effect until
municipal zoning is applied to the annexed territory.

Summary
The annexation was requested by Tim Rasnake with Archicon Architecture & Interiors,
LC, 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. The City Clerk Department has received signed petitions
representing 100 percent of the assessed value and 100 percent of the owners,
excluding utilities, within the proposed annexation area.

Public Outreach
A public hearing was conducted on August 26, 2024, to allow the City Council to gather
community input regarding the annexation proposal. Notification of the public hearing
was published in the Arizona Business Gazette newspaper, and posted in at least
three conspicuous places in the territory proposed to be annexed. Also, notice by first-
class mail was sent to each property owner in the area proposed to be annexed.

Location
The proposed annexation area includes Maricopa County Assessor parcel 105-88-982,
located west of 27th Avenue along Baseline Road (Attachment A). The annexation
area is approximately 1.89 acres (0.00295 sq. mi.) and the population estimate is zero
individuals.
Council District: 8

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



Attachment A







Report

Authorization to Apply for a Grant to Fabricate Manufactured Shade Projects
from the Innovate PHX Challenge (Ordinance S-51454) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and accept
funding and/or products and services valued at up to $70,000 from the C40 Heat,
Health and Equity Challenge Fund, to fabricate and evaluate a shade structure idea
from the Office of Innovation's hackathon events.

Summary
In 2023, the Office of Innovation launched the Innovate PHX Challenge hackathons to
partner with residents to develop solutions to the City's most pressing challenges.
More than 500 innovators from across the City participated in the first three
challenges, focusing on expanding access to chilled drinking water in public spaces,
innovations in manufactured shade and affordable housing solutions. A winning idea
from the December 2023 event, in partnership with the Office of Heat Response and
Mitigation, features a shade concept drawn from nature that includes heat-mitigating
materials and encourages airflow to optimize the cooling effects of the shade. We have
worked with a member of the winning team, a mechanical engineer, to further develop
the design with the goal of fabricating and testing the idea.

If awarded, the C40 Heat, Health and Equity Challenge Fund award of up to $70,000,
in funds and/or products and services, will support the prototyping and testing of this
idea, including community engagement and rigorous evaluations to inform
manufactured shade projects in the City. The City Treasurer is authorized to accept,
and the City Controller is authorized to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Gina Montes and the
Offices of Innovation and Heat Response and Mitigation.








Report

Acceptance of Easements for Drainage, Booster Pump Station and Access
Purposes (Ordinance S-51433) - Districts 1 & 6

Request for the City Council to accept easements for drainage, booster pump station
and access 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: 20240555739
Date: October 18, 2024
Applicant and Grantee: SLRE 75P, LLC; its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 75 E. Pinnacle Peak Road
APN: 209-01-020
File: 240079
Council District: 1

Easement (b)
MCR: 20240555740
Date: October 18, 2024
Applicant and Grantee: Host Camelback I LLC; Phoenician Residential III LLC; its
successor and assigns
Purpose: Booster Pump Station and Access
Location: 5943 N. Elsie Avenue; 5923 E. Helen Avenue
APN: 172-12-068A; 172-12-086A
File: 240025
Council District: 6






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








Report

Collection Services Contract - RFQu-24-0279 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
51431) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Ability Recovery Services, LLC, Cedars Business Services, LLC, Evergreen
Professional Recoveries Inc., FDR Alliance LLC, FirstPoint Collection Resources, Inc.,
I.C. System, Inc., Ray Klein, Inc. dba Professional Credit, RSI Enterprises, Inc., and
Valley Collection Service, LLC to provide collection services for departments citywide.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse and the City Treasurer to
collect all funds related to this item. The total value of expenditures under the contracts
will not exceed $510,000. Over a five-year term, the estimated aggregate revenue
from debts collected is $764,000 to the City.

Summary
These contracts will serve to alleviate the City's limited debt collection resources by
monitoring, reporting, and recovering outstanding debts. Debt collection accounts are
referred to contractors based on the type and age of the debt. The City's major types
of debt are General Accounts Receivable, Fire Department Emergency Transportation
Services, and Municipal Services. Typically, fees associated with debt collection are
covered through payments received by the collection agency, although occasional
billing to the department directly may occur. Overall, these debt collection contracts
provide a strategic and efficient approach for the City to manage outstanding debts,
maintain financial stability, and allocate resources effectively.

Procurement Information
RFQu-24-0279 Collection Services was processed in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL).

Ten offerors submitted statementss of qualifications and nine were deemed to be
responsive and responsible. The Procurement Officer evaluated those statement of
qualifications based on the following minimum criteria:

Experience
Method of Approach
Capacity




After review of the statement of qualifications, the Procurement Officer recommends
award to the following offerors:

· Ability Recovery Services, LLC
· Cedars Business Services, LLC
· Evergreen Professional Recoveries Inc.
· FDR Alliance LLC
· FirstPoint Collection Resources, Inc.
· I.C. System, Inc.
· Ray Klein, Inc. dba Professional Credit
· RSI Enterprises, Inc.
· Valley Collection Service, LLC

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

Financial Impact
The estimated aggregate value of revenue generated for the City over the term of the
contracts is approximately $764,000, which amounts to estimated annual revenues of
$152,800. The total value of expenditures under the contracts shall not exceed
$510,000.

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

Legal Services - Amendment of Ordinance S-49864 to Include Contract with
Lippman Recupero for Outside Counsel Legal Services (Ordinance S-51455) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Attorney, through the City Manager or his designee, to
amend Ordinance S-49864 to include the following contract to provide outside counsel
legal services to the City on an as-needed basis as determined by the City Attorney:
Lippman Recupero. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The amount of $19,000,000 was previously authorized in
Ordinance S-49864 for legal services, and no additional funds are needed.

Summary
In accordance with the authority granted by Ordinance S-49864, the City Attorney is
permitted to enter into legal services agreements with various law firms and lawyers to
provide outside counsel services on an as-needed basis as determined by the City
Attorney for Fiscal Years 2023-24 and 2024-25. The law firms and lawyers are set forth
in Attachment A to Ordinance S-49864 and may include amendments thereto. The
purpose of this Ordinance is to memorialize amendment of Attachment A to include the
following firm: Lippman Recupero. These law firms and lawyers provide outside
counsel services to the City in numerous, selected legal areas on an as-needed basis
as determined by the City Attorney.

Contract Term
In accordance with the authority granted by Ordinance S-49864, the terms of the
contracts may begin any time on or after July 1, 2023, and expire on June 30, 2025,
although current legal services for litigation continue under a Letter of Engagement
until the case is resolved.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contracts, in conjunction with the other outside counsel
legal services agreements permitted by Ordinance S-49864, will not exceed
$19,000,000. No additional funds are needed.

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


Attachment A


CITY OF PHOENIX
LAW DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION (RFQu) OUTSIDE COUNSEL LEGAL
SERVICES RFQu-LAW23-0084
AWARD RECOMMENDATION

The City of Phoenix Law Department would like to thank all participants for submitting
proposals for the above-mentioned RFQ.

The City Attorney’s Office issued a request for qualifications from lawyers, law firms and
consultants to provide outside counsel services to the City in numerous, selected legal
areas on an as-needed basis as determined by the City Attorney.

The City has selected the proposals from the following law firms to advance for
negotiation of contract terms on an as-needed basis:
Anderson & Krieger, LLP Lamb & Lerch
Andrew M. Ellis Law, PLLC Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Apperson Crump, PLC Lieff Cobraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Berke Law Firm, PLLC McKay Law
Brennan, Manna, & Diamond, LLC Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, PC
Broening, Oberg, Woods, & Wilson, PC Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
Burch & Cracchiolo, PA Nossaman, LLP
BurnsBarton, PLC O'Connor & Dyet, PC
Calderon Law Offices PLC Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC
Culp & Kelly LLP Osborn Maledon
Elardo, Bragg, Rossi, & Palumbo PC Perkins Coie
Engelman Berger, PC Peshkin & Kotalik, PC
Fisher & Phillips, LLP Pierce Coleman, PLLC
Fox Rothschild, LLP Richards & Moskowitz, PLC
Gabriel & Ashworth, PLLC Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd, LLP
Greenberg Traurig, LLP Sanders & Parks, PC
Gurstel Law Firm, PC Scharff, PC
Gust Rosenfeld, PLC Sherman & Howard, LLC
Hawkins Delafield & Wood, LLP Stinson, LLP
Herrera Arellano, LLP Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC
Holloway Odegard & Kelly, PC Suffecool Las, PLLC
Ice Miller, LLP The Cavanagh Law Firm, PA
Jackson Lewis, PC Thomas W Galvani, PC
Jackson Walker LLP Thompson Coburn, LLP
Jardine Baker Hickman & Houston, PLLC Thorpe Swer, PC
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC Udall Shumway, PLC




Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP Wieneke Law Group
Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP Wood Smith Henning & Berman, LLP
Kutak Rock LLP Wright Welker & Pauole, PLC

The following firms did not offer submittals to RFQu-LAW-23-0084 but will continue to
provide legal services on the matters started under the prior attorney list and legal services
agreements:

Ballard Spahr,
LLP Harvey Law
PLLC
Jennings, Strouss & Salmon,
PLC Squire Patton Boggs LLP
Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek, PLC

The following firms are added in accordance with LF24-0828:

Berry Riddell, LLC
Hull, Holliday & Holliday, PLC
Spencer Fane, LLP

The following firm is added in accordance with LF24-2520:

Lippman Recupero







Report

Software Services Agreement with Relativity - Amendment (Ordinance S-51456) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract
extension with Relativity ODA LLC (Relativity) for e-discovery software to assist the
City in responding to the request for documents from the Department of Justice (DOJ),
in an amount not to exceed $300,000. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
Relativity offers a cloud based e-discovery software tool. Many law firms and
government organizations use e-discovery software to organize, sort, redact, label and
categorize document production for litigation. The City has relied upon outside counsel
and vendors for this function. The DOJ investigation will require a large volume of
document sorting and native file categorizing. The City currently does not have the
capacity to process and redact this type of volume document production without
reverting all files into Adobe Acrobat, which is time consuming and not conducive to
efficient redaction, indexing or sorting.

This software will save City staff hours in production time and will also assist the City
to organize, index, redact and search documents. The Law Department has worked
with the Information Technology Services Department on a Business Investment
Request (4399), which has been approved.

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

Contract Term
The contract term is three years, starting on December 17, 2024.

Financial Impact
The new contract value will not exceed $300,000 and funds are available in the Law
Department's budget.





Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved these services with Relativity:
· Software Services Agreement - Contract 155584 (Ordinance S-48215) on
December 15, 2021.
· Software Services Agreement - Amendment (Ordinance S-50377) on December 6,
2023.

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








Report

Approval of Ordinance Amending Phoenix City Code Chapter 2 - Phoenix
Employees' Deferred Compensation Program (Ordinance G-7325) - Citywide

Request to amend Sections 2-1503 A(2) and B(4) of Phoenix City Code, Chapter 2,
Article XXXV, (Attachment A) to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to make
changes to the membership of the board to include a retiree representative.

Summary
City Code identifies the current board compensation of nine members; three
employees appointed by the City Council, two citizens from the general public who
have investment experience and no rights to the program, two management
employees, the City of Phoenix Employees' Retirement System Administrator, and the
City Manager or their designee. Proposed changes would eliminate one citizen
member and substitute a single retiree of the City who is a plan participant.

Retirees represent a significant amount of assets within the plan and under the current
membership provisions, are not represented. This change will allow representation
from the growing retiree population.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Deferred Compensation Program
Board at their meeting on October 10, 2024.

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





ATTACHMENT A

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

DRAFT

ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-1503 A AND B OF THE
PHOENIX CODE TO ELIMINATE ONE CITIZEN MEMBER AND
SUBSTITUTE A RETIRED CITY EMPLOYEE WHO IS A
CURRENT PLAN PARTICIPANT; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ANY AND ALL ACTIONS
NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE, TO CARRY OUT THE
PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCE.

__________

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

follows:

SECTION 1. Article XXXV, Phoenix City Code, Section 2-1503A is

amended mod subsection (2) and add new subsection (6) to read:


Sec 2-1503 Phoenix Employees’ Deferred Compensation Board; appointment; terms.

A. The Phoenix Employees’ Deferred Compensation Board is established to
govern the program. The Board shall consist of nine members as follows:

1. Three employees of the City appointed by the Council. One employee
shall be a non-public safety member of the Coalition of Phoenix City
Unions. One employee shall be a member of the International Association
of Firefighters Local 493. One employee shall be a member of either the
Phoenix Law Enforcement Association or the Phoenix Police Sergeants
and Lieutenants Association.

2. ONE CITIZEN Two citizens from the general public, who HAS have
investment experience and HAS have no rights in the program, directly or
indirectly, appointed by the Council.

3. Two management employees of the City appointed by the City
Manager. One management employee shall have human resources and
employment benefits experience. One management employee shall have
public sector finance and investment experience.




4. The City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement Plan Administrator.

5. The City Manager or the City Manager’s designee, who shall be the
Board’s chair.

6. A RETIRED CITY EMPLOYEE WHO IS A CURRENT PLAN
PARTICIPANT.

SECTION 2. Article XXXV, Phoenix City Code, Section 2-1503B(3) is

amended to read:


Sec 2-1503 Phoenix Employees’ Deferred Compensation Board; appointment; terms.

B. In order to ensure continuity of experience on the Phoenix Employees’
Deferred Compensation Board, the Council and City Manager shall appoint
members to the following initial terms:

3. Four years: The member of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association
or the Phoenix Police Sergeants and Lieutenants Association; one citizen
with investment experience RETIRED CITY EMPLOYEE WHO IS A
CURRENT PLAN PARTICIPANT; and, the City Manager or the City
Manager’s designee.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Phoenix this 20th day of

November 2024.




MAYOR


ATTEST:


____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




2 Ordinance G-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


BY: _________________________

_________________________

REVIEWED BY:


____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




MLW:bc:LF24-2352;11-20-24; 2464930




3 Ordinance G-



Report

Property Management Services Contract for the Affordable Housing Portfolio,
Group A - Request for Award (Ordinance S-51444) - Districts 1, 3 & 4

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
D.B. Chamberlin & Associates L.L.C. to provide property management services for the
Manor, Foothills on the Preserve, La Cascada I, La Cascada II and Sand Dollar).
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The aggregate contract value including all option years will not exceed $8.5
million. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
The City of Phoenix Housing Department, Asset Management Division, requires third-
party property management services in connection with the continued operations of
Group A consisting of five multifamily rental housing properties with 351 rental units
that are a subset of the Affordable Housing Portfolio (Portfolio) located in Phoenix,
Arizona.

Procurement Information
Request for Proposal FY25-086-1 (DRW) for Property Management Services for the
Affordable Housing Portfolio, Group A was conducted in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Four vendors submitted proposals by the deadline of August 30, 2024, and all were
deemed responsive and responsible. An evaluation panel, comprised of three City
staff, evaluated the submitted proposals. Proposals received points in the following
categories: Method of Approach (300 Points), Experience and Qualifications of Firm
and Key Personnel (450 Points), Price (150 Points), and References (100 Points). The
maximum possible score for each proposal in each group was 1,000 points. The final
scores for the proposals received are as follows:

· D.B. Chamberlin & Associates L.LC. 835 Points
· Envolve Client Services AZ LLC. 826 Points
· Dunlap & Magee Property Management Inc. 800 Points
· Consolidated Asset Management Inc. 786 Points



After reaching a consensus, the evaluation panel recommends D.B. Chamberlin &
Associates L.LC. The Housing Department concurs with the evaluation panel's
decision and recommends awarding the property management services contract to
D.B. Chamberlin & Associates L.L.C.

Contract Term
The initial five-year contract term will begin on or about December 9, 2024, and end on
December 8, 2029. The contract includes an option to extend the term up to five
additional years, which may be exercised at the discretion of the City Manager or
designee.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value, including all option years, will not exceed $8.5 million
(including applicable taxes) with an estimated annual expenditure of $850,000.
Contract costs related to staffing and management fees will be funded by the rental
revenue generated by Group A properties. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Location
Cypress Manor: 5722 N. Black Canyon Highway, District 4
Foothills on the Preserve: 1525 E. Cheryl Drive, District 3
La Cascada I: 248 E. Ruth Avenue, District 3
La Cascada II: 229 E. Ruth Avenue, District 3
Sand Dollar: 18410 N. 27th Avenue, District 1
Council Districts: 1, 3 and 4

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








Report

Authorization to Apply, Accept and Disburse U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Grant Funding (Ordinance S-51447) - District 8

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and accept
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Community
Planning and Development, Continuum of Care (CoC) Builds grant funding in an
amount not to exceed $10 million. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item for the life of
the grant.

Summary
On August 13, 2024, HUD issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity for the CoC Builds
grant program with an application deadline of November 21, 2024. HUD is providing
$175 million in competitive federal grant funding and expects to make approximately
25 awards ranging from $1 million to $10 million per project over a five-year period of
performance. The CoC Builds grant is available to local and state governments, public
housing authorities, non-profit organizations, and tribal governments and
organizations. The Maricopa Association of Governments CoC together with the City of
Phoenix and Steel and Spark are jointly applying for this grant.

The purpose of the funding is to target efforts within CoC geographic areas to address
and reduce persons experiencing homelessness by adding new units of permanent
supportive housing through new construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation through one
-time awards. Funding will be used for Senior Bridge, a Steel and Spark project that
will provide 40 units of transitional housing and 65 affordable apartments for low-
income seniors (55+). It will be the first energy independent, low-income housing
development in the country utilizing modern technology to eliminate electricity
expenses for the tenants.

Contract Term
The term of the CoC Builds grant has a five-year period of performance. The projected
start date is October 1, 2025, or after the expected issuance of awards. The expected
end date is October 1, 2030. If awarded, contract execution shall occur no later than
September 1, 2025.




Financial Impact
Funding amount up to $10 million will be provided by HUD. Funding for the required 25
percent cash and/or in-kind matching funds will be provided by Steel and Spark. There
is no impact to the General Fund.

Location
Senior Bridge, 2853 E. Van Buren Street
Council District: 8

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








Report

Partner with FUSE to Host Two Executive Fellows in Support of City Solar
Programs (Ordinance S-51451) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with FUSE to recruit two FUSE Executive Fellows to support the City of Phoenix Office
of Sustainability solar programs for one year, with the possibility to extend for an
additional year. FUSE will cover 90 percent of the Fellows' compensation cost; the City
will cover 10 percent of the cost, or up to $20,000 per year for each Fellow. The total
City cost is up to $80,000 over two years.

Summary
FUSE is a national nonprofit dedicated to increasing the capacity of local governments
to engage communities, advance equity, and work more effectively for everyone.
Founded in 2011 by a group public-, private-, and social-sector leaders, FUSE assists
communities in adapting to constantly evolving sustainability challenges. FUSE
administers an executive fellowship-based model funded through philanthropy to
accelerate community-based, renewable energy focused programs and projects.

Two City of Phoenix sustainability programs that accord with FUSE's criteria were
identified for the Executive Fellows:

-The first Fellow would help organize and promote the forthcoming Solar for All
program to Phoenix residents. The City partnered with the State of Arizona in applying
for the Solar for All grant, which was awarded $156 million through the Federal
Inflation Reduction Act. The Fellow will work with City departments, community-based
organizations, and the State of Arizona to widely market the program to Phoenix low-
and middle-income residents to ensure a significant portion of the funding flows to
Phoenix residents.

-The second Fellow would be dedicated to evaluating and advancing solar energy
development on City property. This role will require experience with solar development,
as well as strong leadership, project management, and collaboration-building skills to
work closely with local utilities, solar developers, and City departments in locations
where the issues are complex and involve multiple stakeholders.




Contract Term
The contract will begin Spring of 2025 for a one-year term with a one-year option to
extend.

Financial Impact
The Office of Sustainability has the funding to cover the City's portion of up to $80,000
for two Fellows for up to two years, using existing grant funds from the U.S.
Department of Energy that previously supported the Energize Phoenix Program. All
program funds and expenses will be covered within the existing Office of Sustainability
budget.

The City will have the option to terminate the agreement with FUSE at any time and
the City's costs will be prorated based on the amount of time each Fellow provides to
the City.

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








Report

Turf, Sod and Seed Services - IFB-25-0476 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
51443) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Evergreen Turf, Inc. and West Coast Turf, Inc. to provide turf, sod and seed products
and installation 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 contracts will not exceed $650,000.

Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department issued a solicitation seeking various turf, sod
and seed providers for sports facilities and recreation areas that includes varieties
specific to water conservation. Pricing includes products with and without installation.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Two vendors submitted responsive and responsible bids per the
posted specifications to provide the required goods and services. Following an
evaluation based on price, responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions,
and responsibility to provide the required services both vendors are being
recommended for award recommendation:

Evergreen Turf, Inc.
West Coast Turf, Inc.

Contract Term
The contracts will be for a five-year term beginning on or about January 1, 2025.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $650,000. 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

Phoenix Film and Digital Media Permit Fee (Ordinance G-7324) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Ordinance G-3871
to adjust the Phoenix Film and Digital Media Permit (FDMP) fee to a category-based
rate ranging up to $350. The proposed fee increase is anticipated to generate an
additional $8,000 in annual revenue in Fiscal Year 2025-26.

Summary
The City of Phoenix Film Office is authorized by the City Manager to issue the FDMP
to production companies to film on any public property, facility, or right-of-way
belonging to the City of Phoenix, and for the release of City claims to the products of
such activities. Since the current permitting system was instituted in July 1998, the
Phoenix Film Office has issued over 3,100 individual permits to local, domestic, or
internal production companies.

The FDMP was initially established at $50 by Ordinance G-1403 on October 8, 1974.
Subsequently, on June 28, 1995, Ordinance G-3871 amended the fee to $100. This
fee structure has remained unchanged for nearly three decades, despite significant
changes in the film industry and municipal operations during this period. Given those
reasons, a fee increase is now necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness and
sustainability of the Phoenix Film Office.

The proposed fee increase aims to align the Phoenix Film Office with current industry
standards and ensure Phoenix services remain competitive while covering some
administrative and operational costs for the office. The restructuring of the permit fees
includes the following:

· Introduction of an application fee to offset potential losses incurred when projects
do not proceed to filming after initial preparations.
· Implementation of a nominal permit fee for student productions, balancing
administrative costs and still maintaining accessibility for educational projects.
· Establishment of a rush fee for projects submitted less than three business days
before the first shoot date and a material change fee for large element changes.
· Transition from annual permits to per-project basis.



These adjustments aim to ensure the sustainability of the Phoenix Film Office services
while maintaining Phoenix's attractiveness as a filming destination. Please refer to
Attachment A for a detailed breakdown and comprehensive explanation of all
proposed charges.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On October 8, 1974, the City Council passed Ordinance G-1403 establishing the
Phoenix Film Office and setting the FDMP fee at $50.
· On June 28, 1995, the City Council passed Ordinance G-3871 amending the FDMP
fee to $100.

Public Outreach
· Posted 60-Day Notice on www.Phoenix.gov/Fees on September 18, 2024.
· Posted on www.filmphoenix.com on the Film & Digital Permit webpage on
September 18, 2024.
· Presented during the Phoenix Film Office “Friends of the Film Office” meeting on
June 27, 2024 and received support from all attendees.
· Included with the Arizona Production Association newsletter in October 2024
reaching over 1,600 local, domestic, and international subscribers.
· Included with Arizona Film and Digital Media Coalition newsletter in November 2024
reaching over 1,100 local, domestic, and international subscribers.

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





ATTACHMENT A




PROPOSED PHOENIX FILM OFFICE FEE SCHEDULE

PERMIT TYPE APPLICATION FEE FILMING PERMIT FEE RUSH FEE MATERIAL CHANGES RUSH FEE
General $50 $150 Per Calendar Month $150 $150
Student Free $40 $40 $40
Low Impact $50 $100 Per 7 Days $100 N/A

NOTE: All fees are non-refundable except in exceptional circumstances. Please call the office for more information.

Rush fees only apply when application and materials are submitted three or fewer business days prior to filming. Materials submitted
inside of 24 business day hours will not be accepted.

Material changes are considered large element changes inside of three or fewer business days. Material changes inside of 24 business
day hours will not be accommodated. This does not include date changes so long as they are not inside 24 business day hours.

DEFINITIONS

General Permit – Traditional Phoenix Film and Digital Media Permit issued when city staff (Police, Rangers, et cetera) are required or
coordination with other departments (Streets, Library, et cetera) is needed. All City Film Policies will be in effect.

Student Permit – Issued to filmmakers currently enrolled in an educational program and the insurance comes directly from the school
and a letter from the student’s Professor stating the project is approved. Should the school not provide insurance on behalf of the
student, the student will need to secure their own insurance and provide a letter from their Professor stating the project is approved by the
school




Low Impact Permit – For projects that do not require city staff or fall under the threshold of requiring a General Permit, but the Production
Company would still like to obtain a Phoenix Film and Digital Media Permit for legal reasons and/or to receive a location release. The
following locations are not coved by a Low Impact Permit and must apply for a General Permit:
• Parks
• Airports (Sky Harbor, Deer Valley, and Goodyear)
• Libraries
• Interiors of City owned properties
• City owned Golf Courses
• Obstruction or attempting to control movement along city rights-of-way (sidewalks, streets, and alleyways)
• Scenes involving weapons, prop emergency responder vehicles (police and ambulances for example), or depicting violence that
could be of concern to the public
• Filming car-to-car or on a process trailer







Report

Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Memorial Towers Project)
(Resolution 22264) - District 8

Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue
Bonds (Memorial Towers Project), Series 2024A and Subordinate Multifamily Housing
Revenue Bonds (Memorial Towers Project), Series 2024B, to be issued in one or more
tax-exempt and/or taxable, senior and/or subordinate series, in an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $34,000,000.

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
$34,000,000 of (i) its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Memorial Towers Project),
in one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable senior series (the “Senior Bonds”) and (ii) its
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Memorial Towers Project), in one or more tax-
exempt and/or taxable subordinate series (the “Subordinate Bonds” and collectively
with the Senior Bonds, the “Revenue Bonds”) for use by Memorial Towers (TC2)
Senior Housing Limited Partnership, an Arizona limited partnership (collectively with its
assignees and designees, the “Borrower”), to finance, and/or refinance, as applicable,
all or a portion of the costs of:
a. The acquisition, rehabilitation, construction, development, improvement, equipping
and/or operating of a multifamily residential rental housing community expected to
be comprised of approximately 153 units in Phoenix, Arizona, and;
b. Funding any required reserve funds, paying capitalized interest on the Revenue
Bonds, if any, and paying certain costs and expenses incurred in connection with
the issuance of the Revenue Bonds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Revenue Bonds at its
meeting held on October 28, 2024.





Location
The Project is located at or near 1405 S. 7th Avenue in Phoenix, AZ.
Council District: 8

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





Attachment A

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

RESOLUTION _____

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAN OF FINANCING
AND ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $34,000,000
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ONE OR MORE TAX-EXEMPT
AND/OR TAXABLE, SENIOR AND/OR SUBORDINATE
SERIES OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS
(MEMORIAL TOWERS PROJECT) OF THE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,
ARIZONA

_______________

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

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

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

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

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

interest; and

WHEREAS, Memorial Towers (TC2) Senior Housing Limited Partnership,

an Arizona limited partnership (the “Borrower”), has requested that the Authority issue its



4889-6154-6732.2
revenue bonds for the purpose of assisting the Borrower to finance and/or refinance, as

applicable, all or a portion of the costs of: (a) the acquisition, rehabilitation, construction,

development, improvement, equipping and/or operating of a multifamily residential rental

housing community known as “Memorial Towers” (including improvements and facilities

functionally related and subordinate thereto) expected to be comprised of approximately

153 units (all or a portion of which will be set aside for occupancy by low- to moderate-

income senior tenants (age-restricted)) situated on approximately 3.022 acres and

generally located at 1405 S. 7th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, (b) funding any

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

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

Bonds (collectively, the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Authority, by Resolution 2024-18, duly adopted by the

Authority Board at a lawful meeting called and held on October 28, 2024 granted approval

of the issuance and sale of (i) its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Memorial Towers

Project), in one or more tax-exempt and/or taxable senior series (the “Senior Bonds”) and

(ii) its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Memorial Towers Project), in one or more tax-

exempt and/or taxable subordinate series (the “Subordinate Bonds” and collectively with

the Senior Bonds, the “Bonds”), from time to time pursuant to a plan of financing, in an

aggregate principal amount not to exceed $34,000,000, 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

of the City; and

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


2 Resolution No. ______
4889-6154-6732.2

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 finance for the Project following a public hearing, which public hearing was

held by the Authority on October 29, 2024; and

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:

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 finance for the

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.




3 Resolution No. ______
4889-6154-6732.2
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this

20th day of November, 2024.




MAYOR


ATTEST:


City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


Acting City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:


City Manager




4 Resolution No. ______
4889-6154-6732.2



Report

Accept Supplemental Funding for FY 2023 FEMA Urban Search & Rescue
Response System Readiness Cooperative Agreement Award (Ordinance S-
51439) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively accept and
disburse Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Urban Search &
Rescue (US&R) Response System Readiness supplemental funds awarded for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2023 totaling $145,372. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer
to accept and the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA provide support and funding for the
maintenance and readiness of the US&R Response System. This funding ensures the
ongoing development and maintenance of the national US&R capability. As the
sponsoring agency for Arizona Task Force One (AZ-TF1), the Phoenix Fire
Department receives annual cooperative agreement awards to support the team’s
readiness. These funds are used to maintain AZ-TF1’s operational capacity, ensuring
they are properly trained, equipped, and prepared to respond to emergencies as part
of the national US&R network.

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

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

Financial Impact
The Fire Department will receive supplemental funding from FEMA for the FY 2023
US&R Response System Readiness Cooperative Agreement, not to exceed $145,372.





Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved this action:
· Enter Into 2023 Readiness Cooperative Agreement with FEMA, November 1, 2023
(Ordinance S-50310).

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








Report

Agreement with United HealthCare Services, Inc. for Immunization Funding to
Support the Phoenix Fire Department Baby Shots Vaccination Program
(Ordinance S-51453) - Citywide

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
agreement with United HealthCare Services, Inc. to retroactively accept $90,000 for
the Phoenix Fire Department Baby Shots Vaccination Program. Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds
related to this item.

Summary
The Phoenix Fire Department (PFD) Baby Shots Vaccination Program provides free
vaccinations to children who are eligible under the federally funded Vaccine for
Children's Program, which provides vaccines at no cost to children who might not
otherwise be vaccinated because of an inability to pay. United HealthCare Services,
Inc. would like to provide funding to PFD to support the Baby Shots program with the
following activities:
· Seven vaccination sites in the greater Phoenix area providing immunization clinics
once a month or more frequently if requested;
· Additional immunization clinics if requested;
· Support for program logistics and support staff; and
· Supplies and materials for the clinics.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement will be for a three-year period beginning on or about
October 1, 2024.

Financial Impact
The Fire Department will receive funding from United HealthCare Services, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $90,000.

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






Report

Intergovernmental Agreement with Maricopa County Special Health Care District
dba Valleywise Health for Electronic Health Records System Access (Ordinance
S-51452) - Citywide

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
agreement with Maricopa County Special Health Care District dba Valleywise Health
for the Phoenix Fire Department to access the Valleywise Health Electronic Health
Records (EHR) system.

Summary
This intergovernmental agreement will allow the Phoenix Fire Department (PFD) to
access the Valleywise Health EHR system in order to facilitate the payment for
emergency transportation provided to Valleywise Health patients. Due to staffing
shortages at Valleywise Health and the volume of records requests initiated by PFD,
Valleywise Health has asked that PFD be granted access to the EHR system. By
entering into this agreement, PFD Emergency Transportation Services will be able to
access data needed to complete the billing for transportation of Valleywise Health
patients in a timely manner without utilizing Valleywise Health’s administrative
resources.

Contract Term
The agreement will be for two years from the date executed with an automatic one-
year renewal.

Financial Impact
This proposed agreement does not have a cost component.

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








Report

Donation of a 2025 GMC Sierra Truck (Ordinance S-51450) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept the donation of a
2025 GMC Sierra truck from the United States Department of Energy, Office of
Radiological Security, valued at $63,395, to become property of the City of Phoenix
operated by the Phoenix Police Department Tactical Support Bureau, Bomb Squad.
Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this
donation. If not approved, the donation will be declined.

Summary
The United States Department of Energy's Office of Radiological Security has donated
and authorized ownership transfer of a 2025 GMC Sierra truck to be operated by the
Acceptance of the vehicle will be used to tow the Aquila RSAR trailer, Model S box
trailer (Ordinance S-48932), which supports the training and operational needs of the
Department by carrying training aids used in simulating the response to incidents
involving industrial or medical radiological systems in the Valley.

The vehicle was initially purchased by the United States Department of Energy, Office
of Radiological Security through federal funding sources.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact. The United States Department of Energy's Office of
Radiological Security will donate the truck valued at $63,395.

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








Report

Designated Aviation Channeling Services Contract - AVN RFP 19-026 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-51429) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 151331 (Contract) with Telos Corporation to extend the term of the Contract.
No additional funds are needed. Further request to authorize the City Manager, or his
designee, to continue using Ordinance S-46161.

Summary
The Contract currently provides Designated Aviation Channeling (DAC) services,
which manages background check processing, fingerprint-based criminal history
record checks, security threat assessments (STA), and vetting services that notify the
Aviation Department's (Aviation) Security Badging Office of changes in badge holder
history. The DAC Contract allows for the transmission of data to the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) for STA background checks. Aviation uses an existing
Identity Management System (IDMS) that is integrated with DAC to manage the
security processes and programs.

In early 2024, Aviation entered into a new contract to upgrade the existing IDMS
software to a substantially newer version. This software upgrade effort is occurring in
parallel with the implementation of a new IDMS system from a different contractor.
Both projects are complex and require the DAC for ongoing implementation and
testing. The relocation of the Security Badging Office to Terminal 3 is also scheduled to
be completed at the end of 2024. Transitioning the DAC during these projects would
cause disruptions to badging services and pose risks to airport operations.

Aviation requests an extension of the current DAC Contract for up to one year or until
a new contract is in place, whichever occurs first, to allow for the replacement of the
existing IDMS system in a controlled environment that would allow for a seamless
transition. Aviation will conduct a competitive procurement for new DAC services
without interrupting operations.

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




Contract Term
Upon approval the term of the Contract will be extended up to December 31, 2025.

Financial Impact
The value of the Contract will be up to $900,000 and no additional funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved:
• Designated Aviation Channeling Services Contract 151331 (Ordinance S-46161) on
November 20, 2019.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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








Report

Wide-Body Passenger Boarding Ramp - IFB 23-017 - Amendment (Ordinance S-
51430) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 157638 (Contract) with Aviramp Limited (Aviramp) for the purchase of various
additional types of passenger boarding ramps and equipment for the Aviation
Department (Aviation). The amendment will extend the Contract's term by three years.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures over the extended term will be up to $550,000.

Summary
Aviation is increasing the number of gates at Terminal 3 to include remote aircraft
boarding operations due to the swift growth of passengers at Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport (PHX). The gate expansion project will require busing passengers
onto the airfield and using boarding ramps to enplane customers at remote locations
when necessary. The extension to the Contract's term will allow Aviation to purchase
various types of additional passenger boarding ramps and equipment offered by
Aviramp to ensure that PHX can meet the ever-growing demands of the traveling
public and accessibility goals.

Contract Term
The Contract's term will be extended three years through January 3, 2028 for a total
five-year term.

Financial Impact
The $550,000 in additional funds increases the total value of the Contract up to
$950,000 over the five-year term of the Contract. Funds are available in the Aviation’s
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Wide-Body Passenger Boarding Ramp - Contract 157638 (Ordinance S-49291) on
January 4, 2023.





Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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








Report

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport North Infield Paving and Drainage
Improvements - Engineering Services - AV08000091 (Ordinance S-51440) -
District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with TRACE Consulting, LLC to provide engineering services that include design and
possible construction administration and inspection for the Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport North Infield Paving and Drainage 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
$3.6 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include:
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 section 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 section 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to improve all infields on the north side of Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport (Airport) between Runway 8-26 and Taxiways B and C.
The improvements include removing existing asphalt, upgrading utility vaults,
regrading the infields for better drainage, and repaving with new asphalt to improve
surface quality and control foreign object debris. This project is anticipated to be a
multi-phase, multi-year project. Phases will depend on available grant funding.

TRACE Consulting, LLC's services include: coordinating with all stakeholders and
Construction Manager at Risk; providing for environmental requirements and
archeological requirement and utility conflicts; providing mechanical, architectural, civil,



geotechnical, structural, and modifications; providing mechanical, architectural, civil,
geotechnical, structural, and survey project-related services; providing compatibility
with the Airport’s future planning; updating drainage plans and electrical plans;
providing cost estimates and package the project to be constructed in different phases
per grant allocations; providing all required documentation for submittal to local, state,
and federal entities, and for Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) grant compliance; completing the Engineer’s Design and
Construction Report required for grants; providing Construction Administration and
Inspection Services to assure quality assurance, testing, and certifications according to
AIP and ADOT compliance and requirements; reviewing, preparing, or approving, as
required, contractor shop drawings, submittals, and pay requests; scheduling,
conducting, and documenting meetings with client and funding agencies; verifying
compliance with contract documents; preparing daily inspection reports and detail
construction progress; issuing letters of substantial completion; reviewing contractor’s
record drawings and preparing final record drawings; conducting pre-final and final
inspection; conducting warranty inspections; and other services as needed for a
complete project.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (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. Three firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: TRACE Consulting, LLC

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Rank 3: Stantec Consulting Services, 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 TRACE Consulting, LLC will not exceed $3.6 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.



Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Aviation Department anticipates grant funding for a portion of the project.
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
2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Inger Erickson,
the Aviation Department and the City Engineer.








Report

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 4 Concessions Lease
Extension (Ordinance S-51449) - District 8

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate and execute
amendments to extend the terms of leases with Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport Terminal 4 food, beverage, and retail concessionaires that are set to expire
between 2026 and 2030, and other amendments consistent with this item.

Summary
The Aviation Department will be implementing Terminal 4 modernization projects that
exceed $400 million over the next five years. These projects are needed to maintain
the terminal building systems and passenger experience in Terminal 4, which is now
more than 35 years old. Implementing these projects will require concessionaires to
adjust their business operations during the construction period. Additionally, plans for
the development of the new west terminal will result in a significant reallocation of
airlines across the three terminals, impacting the ability for concessionaires to
accurately forecast demand, develop a business plan, and amortize capital
investments. A negotiated lease extension will assist these concession businesses in
managing the construction impacts and will provide an opportunity for concession
companies to re-concept some stores with new local concepts and brands or refresh
existing storefronts without long-term disruption of services to passengers.

The concession contracts eligible for the negotiated lease extension will be food and
beverage contracts set to expire in June 2026, and retail contracts set to expire in
December 2029 and November 2030. The proposed lease extensions will include an
eight-year extension of the lease term with no options to extend. The key business
terms to be negotiated include:

· Rent based on percentage rent of gross sales, determined by store category and
store location
· Capital reinvestment plan
· Small business partner opportunities
· Brand re-concept and store refresh plans

As part of the negotiations, new provisions will be included in the lease agreements to


require supporting Aviation Department workplace initiatives, such as childcare
programs, partnering on customer experience programs, participating in annual
financial and operational performance reviews, participating in the Aviation
Department's sustainability program and Green Business Partner programs, and
contributing to a new airport marketing program that will support promotion of
concessions offerings. In addition, the amendments will contain other terms and
conditions deemed necessary or appropriate by the City or the Aviation Director for
airport operations and the passenger experience.

The concessions leases that will be amended by this action are leases: 131410,
133475, 143718, 143719, 144047, 144322, 144323, 144324, 145872, 145873,
145977, 146077, 146458, 146459, and a lease approved by the City Council on June
26, 2024, that is pending full execution with Casa Unlimited for a Terminal 4 Lobby
food and beverage concept.

Contract Term
The proposed extension to the lease term will be eight years with no options to extend
the term. The lease extensions are anticipated to commence on or about July 2026 for
the food and beverage contracts, and on or about either January 2030 or December
2030 for the retail contracts.

Financial Impact
The negotiated percentage rent will commence with the beginning of the extended
lease term. Extending the terms eight years for these Terminal 4 food and beverage,
and/or retail concession contracts will result in no additional cost to the airport.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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








Report

Bus Stop and Transit Cleaning Services - RFP PTD21-001 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-51448) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 155469 with Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. (GPC) to continue enhanced
services related to bus stop and transit center cleaning services. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No additional
funds are needed; request to continue using Ordinances S-49377 and S-48053.

Summary
The Public Transit Department has a five-year contract with GPC to provide routine
cleaning services at the City of Phoenix’s 15 transit facilities, including park-and-rides
and transit centers, and approximately 4,100 bus stops citywide. GPC also provides
additional services, as needed, for special events and minor bus stop repairs.

In recent years, the City has experienced a significant increase in the amount of refuse
and items left at bus stops, requiring GPC to expand their efforts and frequency of
cleanings at several locations. In January 2023, the City Council approved an
amendment to address the need for additional cleaning services at bus stops and
other transit facilities on a temporary basis through January 2025. After staff's
evaluation of those efforts, this amendment will continue the cleaning services and
trash removal at enhanced levels through the life of the contract.

Contract Term
The term of this contract, including this amendment, is through December 31, 2026.

Financial Impact
No additional funds are requested, as funds added via the previous amendment will be
utilized for the continuation of enhanced cleaning services.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved a temporary amendment to Contract 155469
with GPC on January 25, 2023 (Ordinance S-49377).
The City Council previously approved Contract 155469 with GPC on October 27, 2021
(Ordinance S-48053).




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








Report

Custodial Services Contract - 25-FMD-007 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
51427) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
ABM Industry Groups, LLC to provide Custodial Services for the Public Works
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 $16,290,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the cleanliness of all City-
owned facilities in the downtown area and the satellite facilities. These facilities require
daily custodial services including cleaning of the restrooms, public areas, conference
rooms, floors, and other areas of the buildings. Ancillary services will be conducted on
an as-needed basis including carpet cleaning, floor waxing, and top scrubbing.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. Eleven vendors submitted proposals deemed
responsive to posted specifications and responsible to provide the required services.
Following an evaluation based on the criteria outlined in the RFP, the evaluation
committee and procurement officer recommend an award to highest scoring vendor as
shown below:

ABM Industry Groups, LLC

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about January 1, 2025, for a three-year term with two one
-year options to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $16,290,000.

Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.






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








Report

Security Systems Design, Installation and Maintenance - Amendment (Ordinance
S-51426) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 140041 with Iris Group Holdings, LLC dba Everon, LLC, to provide additional
funding for Security Systems Design, Installation and Maintenance. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures included in the amendment will not exceed $4,000,000.

Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to provide additional payment authority that is
critical for continuous maintenance and repair services of the City's legacy Access
Control Systems (ACS) and existing Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS). Under the
former company name MSE Corporate Security dba ADT, LLC, Everon, LLC has been
working on the City's security infrastructure since 2014. The ACS is at end of life,
hardware and software is no longer supported by the manufacturer, and replacement
parts are not available. Everon, LLC has critical and unique knowledge of the City's
systems and has the experience and ability to continue the maintenance and repair
until the Security and Access Control project is completed.

The contractor is responsible for reactive, maintenance, troubleshooting and repairs on
the Security and Access Control systems sites, IDS, intercom systems, and closed-
circuit television (surveillance) systems. The contractor will also be responsible for
installing, servicing, repairing and inspecting all low voltage systems in the newly
acquired 100 West building.

Contract Term
The contract expiration date is January 31, 2025 and has one year option year
remaining.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the contract was for an expenditure not-to-exceed
$15,000,000. The additional funds approved by previous City Council action increased
the not-to-exceed amount to $27,360,000. This amendment will increase the
authorization for the contract by an additional $4,000,000, for a new amount not-to-



exceed $31,360,000. Funding for this amendment is available in the Public Works
Department Operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved Security Systems Design, Installation and
Maintenance Contract 140041 (Ordinance S-41386) on December 17, 2014. The City
Council approved additional funding for Contract 140041 (Ordinance S-46010) on
September 18, 2019 and (Ordinance S-49096) on October 26, 2022.

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








Report

Portland Cement (Bulk) - IFB 21-056 - Amendment (Ordinance S-51425) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 154430 with Phoenix Cement Company DBA Southwest
Materials Group for the purchase of Portland Cement (Bulk) for Street Transportation
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $220,000.

Summary
This contract will provide the Street Transportation Department with Portland Cement
(Bulk) for a variety of projects that require building, repairing, and maintaining concrete
infrastructure throughout the City of Phoenix. This concrete infrastructure includes
curbing, sidewalks, aprons, driveways, valley gutters, wheelchair ramps, storm drain
inlets, catch basins, and various other infrastructure through special or emergency
project requests.

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

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $220,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $445,000. Funds are available in the Street Transportation
Department’s budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Portland Cement (Bulk) - Contract 154430 (Ordinance S-47556) on May 19, 2021.

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








Report

Amendment to Pavement Management Software Contract (Ordinance S-51428) -
Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 151298 with Deighton Associates Limited to extend the contract term and add
additional funds. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $505,000. This request
also includes continuing to use the funds previously approved under Ordinance S-
46012.

Summary
The Street Transportation Department requires an increase to the existing contract to
make upgrades to the software and data storage used for the Pavement Management
System. The dTIMS software, developed and maintained by Deighton Associates
Limited (Deighton), is a configurable asset management program currently used to
manage the City's pavement assets. It provides objective pavement condition index
data and recommendations which forms the basis of the Pavement Maintenance
Program.

Deighton has provided software and service for the program for over 10 years.
Deighton provides software maintenance and technical user support services. The
current iteration of dTIMS integrates business analytics into the software interface,
database storage and analysis on internet-based platform housed and maintained by
the vendor. This enables enterprise level of service capable of seamlessly integrating
other assets and providing access for up to five users remotely. Deighton will take on
additional responsibility of hosting the data on its servers, assume database storage,
security and backup responsibilities, software upgrades and enhancements.

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

Procurement Information
The original contract was procured in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Normal competition was waived as a result of Determination Memo 24-193 citing the
unusual nature of the goods or services as Deighton Associates Limited is the creator



of the dTIMS software, which is the core component of the City's Pavement
Management System.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through November 30, 2029.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $505,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $1,250,639. Funds are available in the Street Transportation
Department’s budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved:
· Pavement Management Software Contract 151298 (Ordinance S-46012) on
September 18, 2019; and
· Pavement Management Software Contract 151298 Amendment (Ordinance S-
47140) on December 2, 2020.

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








Report

Citywide Demolition Job Order Contracting Services - JOC236 (Ordinance S-
51436) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with four contractors listed below to provide Citywide Demolition Job
Order Contracting Services. 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 fee for 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 Demolition Services for demolition of City-owned structures
and improvements, including associated backfill and grading; demolition of privately-
owned buildings through City enforcement actions; and abandonment or removal of
septic systems, drywells, water wells, monitoring wells, and other sub-grade features.
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. Five firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firms
Rank 1: B.C.S. Enterprises, Inc.
Rank 2: Builders Guild, Inc.
Rank 3: Breinholt Contracting Co., Inc.
Rank 4: OCM LLC

Additional Proposer
Rank 5: Andrus Properties, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $7.5 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 $7.5
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 $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 Citywide Department 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 Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the City Engineer.








Report

Telecommunications Network Construction License Agreement with Flying Bull
Internet, LLC (dba Novos Fiber) (Ordinance S-51445) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a nonexclusive
revocable license with Flying Bull Internet, LLC (dba Novos Fiber) to construct, install,
operate, maintain, and use the public highways in the City of Phoenix to provide fiber-
optic facilities in, under, over, and across public rights-of-way in the City, subject to the
terms and conditions contained in the license and Phoenix City Code. Further request
that the Licensee sign the License within 60 days of Council action, or this
authorization will expire.

Summary
Flying Bull Internet, LLC (dba Novos Fiber) desires to install facilities in City of Phoenix
rights-of-way to provide fiber-optic based services to the public. The License will
contain appropriate insurance and indemnification provisions, require a performance
bond and security fund, provide for terms of transfer and revocation, and provide for
compensation for the commercial use of public rights-of-way while permitting the City
to manage the right-of-way.

Contract Term
The License term begins on the date the City Clerk signs the License and expires after
180 days unless automatically renewed for an additional 180-day term as provided by
law.

Financial Impact
There is no cost to the City of Phoenix. Per Phoenix City Code, Licensee will pay an
annual fee based on a percentage of gross revenues.

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








Report

Transportation Funding through Maricopa Association of Governments in
Federal Fiscal Years 2026, 2027 and 2028, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Funding (Ordinance S-51441) - Citywide

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for,
accept and if awarded, enter into agreements for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2026-28
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding. Further request an exemption
from the indemnification prohibition set forth in the Phoenix City Code Section 42-18
for a governmental entity pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section 42-20. Additionally
request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. If awarded, the City’s estimated local match will not exceed
5.7 percent or $852,178, and the federal award would not exceed $14,098,317 if all
available federal funds were awarded to Phoenix.

Summary
On September 16, 2024, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) announced
a regional call for projects for CMAQ particulate matter (PM)-10/PM 2.5 Paving
Unpaved Roads. MAG is soliciting PM-10 Paving Unpaved Road Projects including
alley paving applications specifically for FFY 2026-28. There is $14,950,495 in CMAQ
funding available through this call for projects. The deadline for grant submittals was
October 17, 2024. The City submitted three alley paving applications under this call,
one for each FFY 2026-28. If awarded all three applications, the combined applications
would provide funding for up to 111 miles of alleys citywide over three years covering
94.3 percent of the project cost.

Financial Impact
The local match participation would not exceed 5.7 percent of the CMAQ available
funding or $852,178, if all funds were awarded to Phoenix. If awarded, funding will be
available in the Street Transportation Department’s Capital Improvement Program
budget.

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






Report

Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Department of Transportation to
Share Infrastructure and Execute Integrated Corridor Management Projects
(Ordinance S-51446) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Master
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Arizona Department of Transportation to
share infrastructure and enter into integrated corridor management project addendums
as necessary. Further request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to
Phoenix City Code Section 42-20 to authorize indemnification and assumption of
liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code Section 42
-18.

Summary
The shared infrastructure will be for the state highway systems within the City of
Phoenix region. Project addendums under this IGA will detail specific processes for the
coordination and communication of freeway and arterial system operations when a
freeway closure necessitates diverting freeway traffic onto Phoenix arterial streets. The
projects can also be used to share infrastructure such as conduit and fiber. If shared,
the project will specify in detail what is being shared, who has primary responsibility,
and how it will be maintained.

The current IGA expires on June 15, 2025.

Contract Term
The term of this IGA is 10 years, commencing on June 16, 2025, and expiring on June
15, 2035.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact for the City of Phoenix.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action






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








Report

Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Phoenix and the City of
Tolleson for Water Services Amendment (Ordinance S-51432) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Intergovernmental Agreement 153415 between the City of Phoenix and the City of
Tolleson, to modify the administration of the rate change.

Summary
The Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Tolleson and the City of
Phoenix, agrees that Phoenix would divert, treat and transport Tolleson's Salt River
Project entitlement water allocation, and supply water to Tolleson in the event of
emergency conditions where the entitlement water is not available.

The amendment will allow Phoenix to change the wholesale water rate every two
years. If Phoenix chooses not to recalculate the wholesale water rate, the most recent
calculated rate would remain the same, and be valid for another two years.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending December 1, 2030.

Financial Impact
The financial terms remain unchanged.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed and approved this Agreement on October 7,
2020 (Ordinance S-46980).

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








Report

Sports Lighting, Scoreboard, and Area Lighting Repair and Maintenance - PKS-
IFB-24-0407 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-51438) - Citywide

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Hawkeye Electric Inc., and Commercial Comm and Electric Inc., to provide Sports
Lighting, Scoreboard, and Area Lighting Repair and Maintenance 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 $4,400,000.

Summary
The contracts will provide essential repair and maintenance services at City parks,
mountain preserves, and golf courses throughout the Parks and Recreation
Department. The services include both periodic scheduled maintenance visits and as-
needed repair services for all sports lighting, area lighting, and scoreboard systems
across all City parks and recreational facilities. The contracts are critical to ensuring
that all lighting and scoreboard systems throughout the department remain operational
at all times, preventing interruptions and maintaining standard operating conditions.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. Four vendor offers were received and were deemed
responsive and responsible to the posted specifications for the required goods and
services. Following an evaluation based on price, the Procurement Officer
recommends award to the following vendors:

Selected Bidders:
· Hawkeye Electric Inc.
· Commercial Comm and Electric Inc.

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





Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $4,400,000. Funding is available
in the Parks and Recreation Department budget.

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








Report

Water Testing and Reporting Contract - PKS-RFQ-24-0446 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-51442) - Out of City

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Utz Water Consulting LLC, to provide Water Testing and Reporting 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 $175,000.

Summary
This contract will provide water testing and reporting services for the water distribution
system at the Parks and Recreation Department's Camp Colley location. Water testing
is required per Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), per state
regulations for the operation of a camp. This contract will provide periodic water
collection and testing services and report analytical results to ADEQ to ensure the
safety of drinking water quality at this site.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10, to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL). One
submittal was received and deemed responsive and responsible. The Parks and
Recreation Department evaluated the offer and recommends award to the following
vendor:

• Utz Water Consulting LLC

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

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $175,000.

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

Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 220071 - Northeast Corner of 7th Street
and Minnezona Avenue (Resolution 22263) - District 4

Abandonment: 220071
Project: 19-4244
Applicant: Thomas Owens
Request: To abandon the 16-foot wide alley that starts at Minnezona Avenue and runs
approximately 109-feet until it terminates before the Grand Canal.
Date of Hearing: March 9, 2023

Location
Generally located at the northeast corner of 7th Street and Minnezona Avenue
Council District: 4

Financial Impact
A fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of $13,241.

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








Report

(CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 13, 2024) - Public Hearing - Amend City Code -
Ordinance Adoption - Accessory Dwelling Units - Z-TA-2-24-Y (Ordinance G-
7317) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-2-24-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
new definitions and revise existing definitions regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and
related residential terms; amend Chapter 6, Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District-Ranch
or Farm Residence) and Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District-Ranch or Farm
Commercial) to comply with HB 2720; amend Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43
District-One-Family Residence), Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District-One-
Family Residence), and Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District-One-Family
Residence) to comply with HB 2720 and increase permitted lot coverage; amend
Section 608 (Residential Districts) to comply with HB 2720; amend Section 609 (RE-35
Single-Family Residence District) to increase permitted lot coverage; amend Chapter
7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to comply with HB 2720; amend Section 703.B
(Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family Development) to differentiate the
addition of ADUs from multi-family developments; and amend Section 706 (Accessory
Uses and Structures) to clarify wordings and comply with HB 2720.

Summary
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) new and revised
definitions; 2) revision of existing City of Phoenix ADU regulations to comply with HB
2720, and 3) revision of lot coverage permissions for certain districts in order to comply
with HB 2720 as detailed in the Staff Report (Attachment B).

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-2-24-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report (Attachment B).
PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, for
information only.




PC Action: The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this item on November 7,
2024.

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 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);
CHAPTER 6, SECTION 603 (SUBURBAN S-1 DISTRICT—RANCH
OR FARM RESIDENCE), SECTION 604 (SUBURBAN S-2
DISTRICT—RANCH OR FARM COMMERCIAL), SECTION 605
(RESIDENTIAL ESTATE RE-43 DISTRICT—ONE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE), SECTION 606 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE RE-24
DISTRICT—ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE), SECTION 607
(RESIDENTIAL R1-14 DISTRICT—ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE),
SECTION 608 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS), SECTION 609 (RE-35
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT); CHAPTER 7, SECTION
701.A.3 (PROJECTIONS), SECTION 703.B (LANDSCAPING AND
OPEN AREAS IN MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT), AND
SECTION 706 (ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES), TO
MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS.



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

follows:

SECTION 1: That Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is amended to add new

definitions and revise existing as follows:

***

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A dwelling unit, as defined in this section, subordinate to
the primary dwelling unit and situated on the same lot and used for a residential


1 Ordinance G

accessory use. ADUs, where permitted, do not count towards calculations of gross
density.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, ATTACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED
HAVING A COMMON WALL AND ATTACHED FOUNDATIONS WITH THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT. AN ADU CONNECTED TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IN ANY
OTHER MANNER SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN ATTACHED ADU.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, DETACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED
WITH NO CONNECTION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, EXCEPT AS MAY BE
EXPLICITLY PERMITTED WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. A DETACHED ADU
MAY INCLUDE AN INTEGRATED GARAGE, CARPORT, OR PORCH. TWO ADUS
ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER, BUT NOT TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SHALL
EACH BE CONSIDERED AS A DETACHED ADU.

***

Multi-Family/Multiple-Family: A lot or parcel where two or more dwelling units are
provided, not including a permitted accessory dwelling unitS.

***


SECTION 2: That Chapter 6, Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or

Farm Residence), is amended to read as follows:

***

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS, and

c. For each additional 10 acres provided above the minimum lot size,
one additional accessory dwelling unit for use by on-site laborers may
be provided.

d. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, ONE ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT (ADU) MAY BE PERMITTED ONLY WHEN AT
LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.


2 Ordinance G

***

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements.

1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than one acre.

2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.

b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.

***


SECTION 3: That Chapter 6, Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or

Farm Commercial), is amended to read as follows:

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements.

1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than three acres.

2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.

b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

3 Ordinance G

6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.

***


SECTION 4: That Chapter 6, Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43 District—

One-Family Residence), is amended to read as follows:

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-43 prior to September 13,
1981.

The RE-43, One-Family Residence DISTRICT, is a district of single-family homes
designed to maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a
minimum area of 43,560 square feet, and with not more than one dwelling unit and
customary accessory buildings upon one lot.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.

***

5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development
Department, and subject to the following conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.




4 Ordinance G

b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the
sales offices and/or model homes.

c. The time limit allowed in Section 605.A.5.b for an additional 36
months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination
date set forth in Section 605.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 605.A.5.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever occurs first.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the model home complex shall,
subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307, be able to be used as off-site models after sale of 75
percent of the lots in the subdivision; provided, that the model home
complex is within four hundred feet of an arterial or collector street
and that the use as off-site models shall not exceed, in combination
with the use as on-site models, a total of 72 months.

e. For the purposes of Sections 605.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to Planning and Development Department.

f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

(1) One trailer per subdivision;

(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home
or within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);

(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;

(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 605.C.1.

g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be
permitted subject to the above standards and the following standards:

(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development
or two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model
homes.



5 Ordinance G

(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet
of an arterial or collector street.

(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.

(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.

If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 43,560 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 43,560 square feet of lot area,
nor to have a width of less than 165 feet, nor to have a lot depth of less than
175 feet.

2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by
an existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet,
provided, however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred
feet, which lots have established [front yards, then the minimum front yard
shall be that established] by a line joining the nearest front corner of the
main building on one lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on
the other lot. Nothing in this section shall require that a front yard be more
than fifty feet in depth nor to permit a front yard of less than forty feet in
depth. On a lot that is not within one hundred feet of a lot with an
established front yard, the front yard shall be not less than forty feet.

In a tract development, construction of which is substantially
contemporaneous, the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the
builder providing he follow an approved plot plan of the tract development
and providing the front yards of all lots be not less than forty feet.

3. There shall be two side yards each having a width of thirty feet.




6 Ordinance G

4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than forty feet, which
depth may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 165 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 175 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 40 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 20 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
Section 701.a.3.a (1)(b), are not permitted.

***




7 Ordinance G

SECTION 5: That Chapter 6, Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District—

One-Family Residence), is amended to read as follows:

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-24 prior to September 13,
1981.

The RE-24, One Family Residence District, is a district of single-family homes designed to
maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a minimum area of
24,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and customary accessory
buildings upon one lot.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.

***

5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development
Department, and subject to the following conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.

b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the
sales offices and/or model homes.

c. The time limit allowed in Section 606.A.5.b for an additional 36
months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.




8 Ordinance G

d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination
date set forth in Section 606.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 606.A.5.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever occurs first.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the model home complex shall,
subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307, be able to be used as off-site models after sale of 75
percent of the lots in the subdivision; provided, that the model home
complex is within four hundred feet of an arterial or collector street
and that the use as off-site models shall not exceed, in combination
with the use as on-site models, a total of 72 months.

e. For the purposes of Sections 606.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to Planning and Development Department.

f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

(1) One trailer per subdivision;

(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home
or within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);

(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;

(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 606.A.1.

g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be
permitted subject to the above standards and the following standards:

(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development
or two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model
homes.

(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet
of an arterial or collector street.

(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Street
Transportation Department.



9 Ordinance G

(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.

(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.

If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 24,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 24,000 thousand square feet of
lot area nor to have a width of less than 130 feet nor a lot depth of less than
120 feet.

2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by
an existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet,
provided, however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred
feet, which lots have established front yards, then the minimum front yard
shall be that established by a line joining the nearest front corner of the main
building on one lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on the
other lot. Nothing in this section shall require that a front yard be more than
forty feet in depth nor to permit a front yard of less than feet thirty in depth.
On a lot that is not within one hundred feet of a lot with an established front
yard, the front yard shall be not less than thirty feet.

In a tract development, construction of which is substantially
contemporaneous, the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the
builder providing he follows an approved lot plan of the tract development
and providing the front yards of all lots be not less than thirty feet.

3. There shall be two side yards which shall have the following minimum
widths:

a. Fifteen feet on the street side of a corner lot.

b. Ten feet on an interior side yard.




10 Ordinance G

4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than thirty feet, which
depth may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley or from what would be the centerline of a full sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 24,000
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 130 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
section 701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.

***


11 Ordinance G

SECTION 6: That Chapter 6, Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-

Family Residence), is amended to read as follows:

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned R1-14 prior to September 13,
1981.

The R1-14, One-Family Resident RESIDENCE District, is a district of single-family homes
designed to maintain, protect, and preserve a character of development on lots with
minimum area of 14,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and
customary accessory building upon one lot. Dwelling groups shall also be allowed in the
districts on certain lots of excessive size, then developed consistent with the character of
adjacent residential uses in the district.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.


1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 14,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 14,000 thousand square feet of
lot area nor to have a width of less than 110 feet nor a lot depth of less than
120 feet.

2. Front yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

3. Side yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

4. Rear yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 14,000
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 110 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.




12 Ordinance G

b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
section 701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.

***

SECTION 7: That Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residential Districts), is amended to

read as follows:

***
E. Land Use Conditions.

1. Single-Family Detached Dwelling Unit. Each single-family lot is permitted
one single-family detached primary dwelling unit and no additional dwelling
units, unless otherwise permitted elsewhere in this section.

2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).




13 Ordinance G

a. Each single-family detached lot is permitted one accessory dwelling
unit in addition to the primary dwelling unit, except that lots having a
duplex or triplex may not have an ADU.
WHEN A LOT HAS NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED PRIMARY DWELLING, TWO ADUS ARE PERMITTED
IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. A THIRD ADU
MAY BE PERMITTED WHEN AT LEAST ONE OF THE ADUS
QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THE NET LOT SIZE
IS A MINIMUM 43,560 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, LOTS HAVING
A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS, OR
ANY MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT PERMITTED
ANY ADUS.

b. An ADU is subject to the development regulations of Section 706.A.

***


SECTION 8: That Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

***

TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

*** *** *** ***

Lot coverage 25%, except if all 30%, PLUS AN 30%, PLUS AN
structures are less ADDITIONAL 10% ADDITIONAL 10%
than 20' and 1 story FOR AN ADU FOR AN ADU AND/OR
in height then a AND/OR ATTACHED SHADE
maximum of 30 ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
40% lot coverage is SHADE TOTAL: 40%
allowed. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 40%

*** *** *** ***

***

14 Ordinance G

SECTION 9: That Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections), is amended to read

as follows: Bulk Regulations

***
A. Lots.

***

3. Projections.

a. The following provisions apply to development in Sections 604
through 607 and Section 619 and in the subdivision option of
Sections 609 through 618:

***

(2) Closed Projections.

***

(d) The main building (which may include an attached ADU)
may project into the required rear OR SIDE yard,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: when no portion of
the projection exceeds 15 feet in height; the projection
is no closer to the rear property line than three feet, and
the projection is no closer to a side property line than
allowed by the district; unless a use permit is obtained
in accordance with the provisions of Section 307.

(i) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE THAN FIVE FEET;

(ii) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN THREE FEET; AND

(iii) THE PROJECTION DOES NOT EXCEED 15
FEET IN HEIGHT, UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT
IS PERMITTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 307.

***




15 Ordinance G

SECTION 10: That Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In

Multiple-Family Development), is amended to read as follows:

***

B. 2. Landscaping and open space areas shall be provided as follows at the time
of initial development and shall be maintained in a living condition on any lot
subject to residential district standards with four FIVE or more dwelling units.

***


SECTION 11: That Chapter 7, Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures), is

amended to read as follows:


A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)

1. In zoning districts where accessory dwelling units are a permitted use, one
ADU is permitted per lot when a single-family detached primary dwelling unit
is also provided, unless otherwise permitted by the zoning district. THIS
SECTION APPLIES TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WHEN A LOT
HAVING NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT IS
PERMITTED ONE OR MORE ADUS PER THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT.

2. An ADU is not permitted on a lot with a single-family attached dwelling unit,
a duplex, triplex, or multifamily dwelling units, unless otherwise permitted by
the zoning district. AN ADU MAY BE EITHER ATTACHED TO OR
DETACHED FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

a. A MAXIMUM OF ONE ATTACHED ADU MAY BE PROVIDED PER
LOT.

b. A MAXIMUM OF ONE DETACHED ADU MAY BE CONNECTED TO
THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT BY A PORCH, DECK, COVERED
PATIO, CARPORT, BREEZEWAY, OR SIMILAR.

3. An ADUS may be either attached to or detached from the primary dwelling
unit, ARE subject to the following design guidelines:




16 Ordinance G

a. An attached ADU shall be integrated into the design of the primary
dwelling unit so that it appears to be part of one single family home,
rather than a duplex. This guideline does not prohibit the provision of
separate entry features. (P)

b. A detached ADU, when visible from adjacent streets, shall be
constructed with similar and/or complementary materials, design, and
color(s) as the primary dwelling unit, SHOULD HAVE A
RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE IN NATURE AND DESIGN, or as may
be approved by Historic Preservation for HP zoned or designated
properties. (P)

Rationale: ADUs are intended be subordinate to the primary single-family
home and should visually appear as such. An ADU which looks like a
second duplex unit, or a second detached primary dwelling unit, does not
meet this intent. MATERIALS MORE COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES SHOULD BE AVOIDED. HOWEVER,
THESE DESIGN GUIDELINES DO NOT REQUIRE THAT AN ADU
MATCHES THE EXTERIOR DESIGN, ROOF PITCH, OR FINISHING
MATERIALS OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

4. A detached ADU may be located within the required rear yard, IS subject to
the following:

a. A DETACHED ADU MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED
REAR OR SIDE YARD(S), AND/OR WITHIN A REQUIRED ON-LOT
PERIMETER SETBACK WHICH IS NOT ALSO THE FRONT YARD.

a. b. Setbacks.

(1) Minimum ten FIVE feet from a street side property line.

(2) Minimum three feet from an interior SIDE OR REAR property
line.

(3) No setback is required adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

(4) FRONT SETBACKS APPLY AS STATED FOR THE
ZONING DISTRICT.

b. c. PERMITTED Height. Maximum 15 feet unless use permit approval
for a greater height is obtained per Section 307.




17 Ordinance G

(1) WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE
YARDS: MAXIMUM 15 FEET, UNLESS USE PERMIT
APPROVAL FOR A GREATER HEIGHT IS OBTAINED PER
SECTION 307.

(2) WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY REQUIRED YARD:
THE SAME HEIGHT AS PERMITTED FOR THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT.

5. A detached ADU not located within the required rear yard and compliant
with the same setbacks required for the primary dwelling unit is subject to
the same height regulations as the primary dwelling unit.

6. 5. WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT
SETBACK, Aa detached ADU may not be located between the primary
dwelling unit and the front property line unless use permit approval is
obtained per Section 307.

7. 6. An attached ADU shall comply with same height regulations and setbacks
(including permitted projections per Section 701.A.3) required for the
primary dwelling unit.

8. 7. AnY ADU shall comply with the lot coverage requirements applicable to the
property.

9. 8. AnY ADU shall not have a gross floor area which exceeds 75% of the gross
floor area of the primary dwelling unit, and:

a. For lots up to 10,000 square feet in net area: 1,000 square feet.

b. For lots over 10,000 square feet in net area: the lesser of 3,000
square feet or 10% of the net lot area.

For the purposes of these calculations, any garage, ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURE, or attached carport constructed as part of a detached ADU
shall NOT count toward the gross floor area of the ADU. Any attached
shade structures shall count towards lot coverage, but not gross floor area.

10. Notwithstanding any other provision, using the ADU for an activity requiring
a permit under Chapter 10, Article XVI of the City Code is prohibited.

B. Single-Family Residential Accessory Structures. The following regulations
apply to accessory structures which are not accessory dwelling units, and located
on lots having only single-family residential uses:


18 Ordinance G

1. Accessory structures are not permitted within the required front yard.
Accessory structures located behind the required front setback but between
the primary dwelling unit and the front property line are not permitted unless
use permit approval is obtained per Section 307.

2. SETBACKS.

a. MINIMUM THREE FEET FROM A SIDE OR REAR PROPERTY
LINE.

b. NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A FULLY
DEDICATED ALLEY, UNLESS NEEDED FOR REQUIRED
VEHICULAR MANUEVERING.

2. 3. Permitted Heights.

a. WHEN LOCATED WITHIN A REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE YARD, A
Mmaximum height of eight feet IS PERMITTED when located within
ten LESS THAN FIVE feet of FROM a street side property line, AND
A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF or 15 feet IS PERMITTED when located
FIVE FEET OR MORE FROM A STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE
elsewhere within the required rear or side yard.

b. Heights in excess of 15 feet, when not located within ten FIVE feet of
OR MORE FROM a street side property line, may be approved
through a use permit obtained per Section 307.

c. An accessory structure not located within the required rear or side
yard and compliant with the same setbacks required for the primary
dwelling unit is subject to the same height regulations as the primary
dwelling unit.

3. Setbacks. Accessory structures shall maintain a minimum setback of three
feet adjacent to a rear or side property line, except that no setback is
required adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

***




19 Ordinance G

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 13th day of November,

2024.




________________________________

MAYOR



ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




20 Ordinance G

ATTACHMENT B




`
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024

Application No. Z-TA-2-24-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to add new definitions and revise existing definitions regarding
Accessory Dwelling Units and related residential terms; amend Chapter 6, Section 603
(Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence) and Section 604 (Suburban S-2
District—Ranch or Farm Commercial) to comply with HB 2720; amend Section 605
(Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family Residence), Section 606 (Residential
Estate RE-24 District—One-Family Residence), and Section 607 (Residential R1-14
District—One-Family Residence) to comply with HB 2720 and increase permitted lot
coverage; amend Section 608 (Residential Districts) to comply with HB 2720; amend
Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to increase permitted lot
coverage; amend Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to comply with HB 2720;
amend Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family Development)
to differentiate the addition of ADUs from multi-family developments; and amend
Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures) to clarify wordings and comply with HB
2720.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-2-24-Y as shown in the
proposed text in Exhibit A.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This text amendment is a response to House Bill 2720, approved by the Fifty-Sixth
Legislature, Second Session (2024) which modified the Arizona Revised Statutes to
require municipalities to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on single-family lots.
The City of Phoenix currently complies with some of the provisions of HB 2720, but not
all of them. This text amendment will bring City of Phoenix zoning regulations in
compliance with the new State regulations regarding ADUs.

HB 2720 includes a clause which prohibits cities from regulating ADUs in any manner if
regulations compliant with the bill are not adopted and effective by January 1, 2025.




Staff Report: Z-TA-2-24
September 30, 2024
Page 2

PROPOSAL
Staff recommend changes to existing sections of the zoning ordinance to comply with all
provisions of HB 2720. Staff also recommend increasing the permitted lot coverage in
certain zoning districts, since the new State regulations require a minimum of two ADUs
be permitted per lot with a single-family home.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) new and revised
definitions; 2) revision of existing City of Phoenix ADU regulations to comply with HB
2720, and 3) revision of lot coverage permissions for certain districts in order to comply
with HB 2720.

1. New and Revised Definitions

HB 2720 requires that the City allow a minimum of one attached and one detached
Accessory Dwelling Unit per lot with a single-family home. Definitions for the
following have been added:

• Accessory Dwelling Unit, Attached
• Accessory Dwelling Unit, Detached

The definition of “Accessory Dwelling Unit” has also been revised slightly to comply
with HB 2720.

2. Revision of Existing ADU Development Standards

The following regulations have been revised to comply with the requirements of HB
2720, as follows:

• The number of ADUs permitted is being increased from one to two ADUs per
lot having a single-family home.
• A third ADU is also permitted per lot when the minimum lot size is one acre,
and at least one of the ADUs is considered “Affordable Housing” (requiring a
deed or other restrictions on the property).
• Design review of ADUs no longer require that an ADU match the exterior
design, roof pitch or finishing materials of the single-family dwelling.
• Setbacks for both attached and detached ADUs have been reduced to 5 feet
where adjacent to a side property line.

Short-Term Rentals in ADUs

This text amendment proposes to remove the current City prohibition of using an
ADU as a Short-Term Rental (STR). Arizona Revised Statutes §9-500.39.B
provides a limited list of items related to STRs which municipalities are permitted to
regulate, and prohibiting use of an ADU as an STR is not included. Perhaps more



Staff Report: Z-TA-2-24
September 30, 2024
Page 3

importantly, HB 2720 includes a new item specifically regarding how a municipality
may require an owner to reside on the property if more than one ADU on a property
is licensed for use as an STR. This provision will be addressed separately as part of
the licensing requirements outlined in City Code, Chapter 10, Article XVI – Short
Term Vacation Rental to comply with HB 2720.

3. Increase of Lot Coverage Permissions in the RE-43, RE-24, R1-14, and RE-35
Zoning Districts

In the City’s first amendment to allow ADUs in 2023 (Z-TA-5-23-Y), certain districts
did not have lot coverage increases provided, since those districts had historically
been allowed “guesthouses”. However, with the new requirement to allow two ADUs
per lot (and possibly three), the lot coverage maximums in the RE-43, RE-24, R1-14,
and RE-35 districts have been proposed to be increased by 10%. The one-story
height limitation for all buildings on the lot, required to achieve increased lot
coverage, remains in place. The revised lot coverage permissions are as follows:

• RE-43 lot coverage increases from 20%/30% if all structures one-story, to
20%/40% if all structures are one-story.
• RE-24 lot coverage increases from 25%/30% if all structures one-story, to
25%/40% if all structures are one-story.
• R1-14 lot coverage increases from 25%/30% if all structures one-story, to
25%/40% if all structures are one-story.
• RE-35 (Subdivision Option) lot coverage increases from 25%/30% if all
structures one-story, to 25%/40% if all are structures one-story.

CONCLUSION
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, provided in Exhibit A, will bring the
City into compliance with the requirements of HB 2720.

Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in Exhibit
A.


Writer
C. DePerro
September 30, 2024

Exhibit

A. Proposed Language




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
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 new definitions and revise
existing definitions regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and related residential
terms.

***

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A dwelling unit, as defined in this section, subordinate to
the primary dwelling unit and situated on the same lot and used for a residential
accessory use. ADUs, where permitted, do not count towards calculations of gross
density.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, ATTACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED
HAVING A COMMON WALL AND ATTACHED FOUNDATIONS WITH THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT. AN ADU CONNECTED TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IN ANY
OTHER MANNER SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN ATTACHED ADU.

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, DETACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED
WITH NO CONNECTION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, EXCEPT AS MAY BE
EXPLICITLY PERMITTED WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. A DETACHED ADU
MAY INCLUDE AN INTEGRATED GARAGE, CARPORT, OR PORCH. TWO ADUS
ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER, BUT NOT TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SHALL
EACH BE CONSIDERED AS A DETACHED ADU.

***

Multi-Family/Multiple-Family: A lot or parcel where two or more dwelling units are
provided, not including a permitted accessory dwelling unitS.

***
Section 603. Suburban S-1 District— Ranch or Farm Residence.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence)
to read as follows:

Section 603. Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence.

***
A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 5

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS, and

c. For each additional 10 acres provided above the minimum lot size,
one additional accessory dwelling unit for use by on-site laborers may
be provided.

d. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, ONE ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT (ADU) MAY BE PERMITTED ONLY WHEN AT
LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

***

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements.

1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than one acre.

2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.

b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.

***
Section 604. Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial)
to read as follows:

Section 604. Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements.

1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than three acres.



Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 6


2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.

b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.

***
Section 605. Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family Residence.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family
Residence) to read as follows:

Section 605. Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family Residence.

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-43 prior to September 13,
1981.

The RE-43, One-Family Residence DISTRICT, is a district of single-family homes
designed to maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a
minimum area of 43,560 square feet, and with not more than one dwelling unit and
customary accessory buildings upon one lot.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 7

***

5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development
Department, and subject to the following conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.

b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the
sales offices and/or model homes.

c. The time limit allowed in Section 605.A.5.b for an additional 36
months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination
date set forth in Section 605.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 605.A.5.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever occurs first.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the model home complex shall,
subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307, be able to be used as off-site models after sale of 75
percent of the lots in the subdivision; provided, that the model home
complex is within four hundred feet of an arterial or collector street
and that the use as off-site models shall not exceed, in combination
with the use as on-site models, a total of 72 months.

e. For the purposes of Sections 605.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to Planning and Development Department.

f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

(1) One trailer per subdivision;

(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home
or within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 8

(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;

(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 605.C.1.

g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be
permitted subject to the above standards and the following standards:

(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development
or two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model
homes.

(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet
of an arterial or collector street.

(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.

(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.

If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 43,560 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 43,560 square feet of lot area,
nor to have a width of less than 165 feet, nor to have a lot depth of less than
175 feet.

2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by
an existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet,
provided, however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred
feet, which lots have established [front yards, then the minimum front yard
shall be that established] by a line joining the nearest front corner of the
main building on one lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on
the other lot. Nothing in this section shall require that a front yard be more
than fifty feet in depth nor to permit a front yard of less than forty feet in



Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 9

depth. On a lot that is not within one hundred feet of a lot with an
established front yard, the front yard shall be not less than forty feet.

In a tract development, construction of which is substantially
contemporaneous, the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the
builder providing he follow an approved plot plan of the tract development
and providing the front yards of all lots be not less than forty feet.

3. There shall be two side yards each having a width of thirty feet.

4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than forty feet, which
depth may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 165 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 175 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 40 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 20 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 10

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
Section 701.a.3.a (1)(b), are not permitted.

***

Section 606. Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family Residence
Amend Chapter 6, Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family
Residence) to read as follows:

Section 606. Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family Residence.

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-24 prior to September 13,
1981.

The RE-24, One Family Residence District, is a district of single-family homes designed to
maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a minimum area of
24,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and customary accessory
buildings upon one lot.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:

a. One primary dwelling unit.

b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.

c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.

***

5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development
Department, and subject to the following conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 11

b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the
sales offices and/or model homes.

c. The time limit allowed in Section 606.A.5.b for an additional 36
months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination
date set forth in Section 606.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 606.A.5.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever occurs first.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the model home complex shall,
subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307, be able to be used as off-site models after sale of 75
percent of the lots in the subdivision; provided, that the model home
complex is within four hundred feet of an arterial or collector street
and that the use as off-site models shall not exceed, in combination
with the use as on-site models, a total of 72 months.

e. For the purposes of Sections 606.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to Planning and Development Department.

f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:

(1) One trailer per subdivision;

(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home
or within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);

(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;

(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 606.A.1.

g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be
permitted subject to the above standards and the following standards:

(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development
or two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model
homes.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 12

(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet
of an arterial or collector street.

(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Street
Transportation Department.

(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.

(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.

If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 24,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 24,000 thousand square feet of
lot area nor to have a width of less than 130 feet nor a lot depth of less than
120 feet.

2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by
an existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet,
provided, however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred
feet, which lots have established front yards, then the minimum front yard
shall be that established by a line joining the nearest front corner of the main
building on one lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on the
other lot. Nothing in this section shall require that a front yard be more than
forty feet in depth nor to permit a front yard of less than feet thirty in depth.
On a lot that is not within one hundred feet of a lot with an established front
yard, the front yard shall be not less than thirty feet.

In a tract development, construction of which is substantially
contemporaneous, the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the
builder providing he follows an approved lot plan of the tract development
and providing the front yards of all lots be not less than thirty feet.

3. There shall be two side yards which shall have the following minimum
widths:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 13

a. Fifteen feet on the street side of a corner lot.

b. Ten feet on an interior side yard.

4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than thirty feet, which
depth may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley or from what would be the centerline of a full sixteen-foot or
wider rear alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 24,000
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 130 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 14

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
section 701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.

***
Section 607. Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence)
to read as follows:

Section 607. Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence.

The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned R1-14 prior to September 13,
1981.

The R1-14, One-Family Resident RESIDENCE District, is a district of single-family homes
designed to maintain, protect, and preserve a character of development on lots with
minimum area of 14,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and
customary accessory building upon one lot. Dwelling groups shall also be allowed in the
districts on certain lots of excessive size, then developed consistent with the character of
adjacent residential uses in the district.

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the
following yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.

***
1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 14,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 14,000 thousand square feet of
lot area nor to have a width of less than 110 feet nor a lot depth of less than
120 feet.

2. Front yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

3. Side yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

4. Rear yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.

1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 14,000
SQUARE FEET.

2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 110 FEET.

3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 15

4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:

a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.

b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT
THAT ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.

5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20
feet and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage
is allowed.

6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet,
and no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.

7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall
be provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.

8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of
section 701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.

***

Section 608. Residential Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residential Districts) to read as follows:

Section 608. Residential Districts.

***
E. Land Use Conditions.

1. Single-Family Detached Dwelling Unit. Each single-family lot is permitted
one single-family detached primary dwelling unit and no additional dwelling
units, unless otherwise permitted elsewhere in this section.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 16


2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).

a. Each single-family detached lot is permitted one accessory dwelling
unit in addition to the primary dwelling unit, except that lots having a
duplex or triplex may not have an ADU.
WHEN A LOT HAS NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED PRIMARY DWELLING, TWO ADUS ARE PERMITTED
IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. A THIRD ADU
MAY BE PERMITTED WHEN AT LEAST ONE OF THE ADUS
QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THE NET LOT SIZE
IS A MINIMUM 43,560 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, LOTS HAVING
A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS, OR
ANY MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT PERMITTED
ANY ADUS.

b. An ADU is subject to the development regulations of Section 706.A.

***

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 17

TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Options

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

*** *** *** ***

Lot coverage 25%, except if all 30%, PLUS AN 30%, PLUS AN
structures are less ADDITIONAL 10% ADDITIONAL 10%
than 20' and 1 story FOR AN ADU FOR AN ADU AND/OR
in height then a AND/OR ATTACHED SHADE
maximum of 30 ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
40% lot coverage is SHADE TOTAL: 40%
allowed. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 40%


*** *** *** ***

***
Section 701. Bulk Regulations
Amend Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to read as follows:

***
A. Lots.

***

3. Projections.

a. The following provisions apply to development in Sections 604
through 607 and Section 619 and in the subdivision option of
Sections 609 through 618:

***

(2) Closed Projections.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 18

(d) The main building (which may include an attached ADU)
may project into the required rear OR SIDE yard,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: when no portion of
the projection exceeds 15 feet in height; the projection
is no closer to the rear property line than three feet, and
the projection is no closer to a side property line than
allowed by the district; unless a use permit is obtained
in accordance with the provisions of Section 307.

(i) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE THAN FIVE FEET;

(ii) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN THREE FEET; AND

(iii) THE PROJECTION DOES NOT EXCEED 15
FEET IN HEIGHT, UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT
IS PERMITTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 307.

***
Section 703.B Bulk Regulations (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development)
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development) to read as follows:
***
B. 2. Landscaping and open space areas shall be provided as follows at the time
of initial development and shall be maintained in a living condition on any lot
subject to residential district standards with four FIVE or more dwelling units.

***
Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures) to revise language
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units, as follows:

Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.

A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 19

1. In zoning districts where accessory dwelling units are a permitted use, one
ADU is permitted per lot when a single-family detached primary dwelling unit
is also provided, unless otherwise permitted by the zoning district. THIS
SECTION APPLIES TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WHEN A LOT
HAVING NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT IS
PERMITTED ONE OR MORE ADUS PER THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT.

2. An ADU is not permitted on a lot with a single-family attached dwelling unit,
a duplex, triplex, or multifamily dwelling units, unless otherwise permitted by
the zoning district. AN ADU MAY BE EITHER ATTACHED TO OR
DETACHED FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

a. A MAXIMUM OF ONE ATTACHED ADU MAY BE PROVIDED PER
LOT.

b. A MAXIMUM OF ONE DETACHED ADU MAY BE CONNECTED TO
THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT BY A PORCH, DECK, COVERED
PATIO, CARPORT, BREEZEWAY, OR SIMILAR.

3. An ADUS may be either attached to or detached from the primary dwelling
unit, ARE subject to the following design guidelines:

a. An attached ADU shall be integrated into the design of the primary
dwelling unit so that it appears to be part of one single family home,
rather than a duplex. This guideline does not prohibit the provision of
separate entry features. (P)

b. A detached ADU, when visible from adjacent streets, shall be
constructed with similar and/or complementary materials, design, and
color(s) as the primary dwelling unit, SHOULD HAVE A
RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE IN NATURE AND DESIGN, or as may
be approved by Historic Preservation for HP zoned or designated
properties. (P)

Rationale: ADUs are intended be subordinate to the primary single-family
home and should visually appear as such. An ADU which looks like a
second duplex unit, or a second detached primary dwelling unit, does not
meet this intent. MATERIALS MORE COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES SHOULD BE AVOIDED. HOWEVER,
THESE DESIGN GUIDELINES DO NOT REQUIRE THAT AN ADU
MATCHES THE EXTERIOR DESIGN, ROOF PITCH, OR FINISHING
MATERIALS OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 20

4. A detached ADU may be located within the required rear yard, IS subject to
the following:

a. A DETACHED ADU MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED
REAR OR SIDE YARD(S), AND/OR WITHIN A REQUIRED ON-LOT
PERIMETER SETBACK WHICH IS NOT ALSO THE FRONT YARD.

a. b. Setbacks.

(1) Minimum ten FIVE feet from a street side property line.

(2) Minimum three feet from an interior SIDE OR REAR property
line.

(3) No setback is required adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

(4) FRONT SETBACKS APPLY AS STATED FOR THE
ZONING DISTRICT.

b. c. PERMITTED Height. Maximum 15 feet unless use permit approval
for a greater height is obtained per Section 307.

(1) WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE
YARDS: MAXIMUM 15 FEET, UNLESS USE PERMIT
APPROVAL FOR A GREATER HEIGHT IS OBTAINED PER
SECTION 307.

(2) WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY REQUIRED YARD:
THE SAME HEIGHT AS PERMITTED FOR THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT.

5. A detached ADU not located within the required rear yard and compliant
with the same setbacks required for the primary dwelling unit is subject to
the same height regulations as the primary dwelling unit.

6. 5. WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT
SETBACK, Aa detached ADU may not be located between the primary
dwelling unit and the front property line unless use permit approval is
obtained per Section 307.

7. 6. An attached ADU shall comply with same height regulations and setbacks
(including permitted projections per Section 701.A.3) required for the
primary dwelling unit.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 21

8. 7. AnY ADU shall comply with the lot coverage requirements applicable to the
property.

9. 8. AnY ADU shall not have a gross floor area which exceeds 75% of the gross
floor area of the primary dwelling unit, and:

a. For lots up to 10,000 square feet in net area: 1,000 square feet.

b. For lots over 10,000 square feet in net area: the lesser of 3,000
square feet or 10% of the net lot area.

For the purposes of these calculations, any garage, ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURE, or attached carport constructed as part of a detached ADU
shall NOT count toward the gross floor area of the ADU. Any attached
shade structures shall count towards lot coverage, but not gross floor area.

10. Notwithstanding any other provision, using the ADU for an activity requiring
a permit under Chapter 10, Article XVI of the City Code is prohibited.

B. Single-Family Residential Accessory Structures. The following regulations
apply to accessory structures which are not accessory dwelling units, and located
on lots having only single-family residential uses:

1. Accessory structures are not permitted within the required front yard.
Accessory structures located behind the required front setback but between
the primary dwelling unit and the front property line are not permitted unless
use permit approval is obtained per Section 307.

2. SETBACKS.

a. MINIMUM THREE FEET FROM A SIDE OR REAR PROPERTY
LINE.

b. NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A FULLY
DEDICATED ALLEY, UNLESS NEEDED FOR REQUIRED
VEHICULAR MANUEVERING.

2. 3. Permitted Heights.

a. WHEN LOCATED WITHIN A REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE YARD, A
Mmaximum height of eight feet IS PERMITTED when located within
ten LESS THAN FIVE feet of FROM a street side property line, AND
A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF or 15 feet IS PERMITTED WHEN
LOCATED FIVE FEET OR MORE FROM A STREET SIDE
PROPERTY LINE. elsewhere within the required rear or side yard.



Exhibit A: Z-TA-2-24-Y
September 30, 2024
Page 22


b. Heights in excess of 15 feet, when not located within ten FIVE feet of
OR MORE FROM a street side property line, may be approved
through a use permit obtained per Section 307.

c. An accessory structure not located within the required rear or side
yard and compliant with the same setbacks required for the primary
dwelling unit is subject to the same height regulations as the primary
dwelling unit.

3. Setbacks. Accessory structures shall maintain a minimum setback of three
feet adjacent to a rear or side property line, except that no setback is
required adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

***







Report

(CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 13, 2024) - Public Hearing - Amend Phoenix
City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Chapter 10, Article XVI - Short-Term
Vacation Rental (Ordinance G-7323) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the City Code
sections 10-197 and 10-204 to Chapter 10, Article XVI related to Short-Term
Vacation Rentals to incorporate Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 9-500.39
requirements for obtaining a Short-Term Rental (STR) Permit.

Summary
In 2016, the Arizona Legislature removed the ability of local jurisdictions to regulate
short-term rental units and required that the use be treated the same as any long-
term residential use of a property. Due to significant negative impacts based upon
the experience of residents living around these short-term rental uses, the Arizona
Legislature enacted A.R.S. 9-500.39 authorizing municipalities to create provisions
for registrations of short-term vacation rentals. The City of Phoenix adopted Short-
Term Vacation Rental Ordinance (G-6653) to implement the requirement for STR
owners, or designees, to register each STR rental property with the City of Phoenix,
so that responsible party contact information was available if there were problems
resulting from a particular short-term rental unit.

In 2022, the Arizona Legislature approved Senate Bill 1168 (SB1168) amending
A.R.S. 9-500.39, which authorized cities and towns to create a very limited
permit/license process to help gather better data regarding short-term rentals with
minimal modifications to the ability to regulate these types of uses. The City of
Phoenix adopted an amendment to the Short-Term Vacation Rental Ordinance (G-
7156) to implement the requirement for STR owners, or designees, to apply for a
STR permit and meet specific operating requirements prior to the issuance of a
permit as a condition for operating a short-term rental property.

In 2024, the Arizona Legislature approved House Bill 2720 (HB2720) amending
A.R.S. 9-500.39, which authorized cities and towns to require the owner of a
property where an accessory dwelling unit is used as an short term rental to reside
on the property but only if the accessory dwelling unit was built after September 14,


2024, and either the owner did not previously have the right to build an accessory
dwelling unit on their property or the three-year A.R.S. 12-1134 statute of limitations
has passed.

Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the City Code sections
10-197 and 10-204 to Chapter 10, Article XVI related to Short-Term Vacation
Rentals to incorporate Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 9-500.39(B)(9)
requirements for obtaining a STR Permit.

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 CODE OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE XVI -- SHORT-
TERM VACATION RENTAL.


____________


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

SECTION 1: That Chapter 10, Article XVI -- Short-Term Vacation Rental is

amended to read as follows:

***

Sec. 10-197. Short-term rental permit applications; content

A. Each applicant for a short-term rental permit shall submit, as applicable, the following:

1. The physical address of the residential property proposed to be used as a
short-term rental.

2. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the owner for
which the short-term rental registration certificate is to be issued.

3. The name, address, telephone number, and email address of the owner’s
designee.

4. The name, address, 24-hour telephone number, and email address of the
individual who will serve as the emergency point of contact.

5. Proof of valid transaction privilege tax license.

6. Evidence of liability insurance appropriate to cover the short-term rental in the
aggregate of at least $500,000.00 or evidence that each short-term rental


1 Ordinance G- 230
transaction will be provided through a platform that provides equal or greater
primary liability insurance coverage for the short-term rental.

7. Evidence that the short-term rental is registered with the Maricopa County
Assessor’s Office in accordance with Section 33-1902, Arizona Revised Statutes.

8. A signed agreement to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and
ordinances, including paying all fees and fines imposed by the City.

9. If the applicant is an individual, proof of lawful presence in the United States.

10. A written description or map showing the locations of the smoke detector,
carbon monoxide detector, fire extinguisher, and other required safety equipment.

11. IF THE APPLICATION IS FOR OPERATION OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL
IN AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) ON A PROPERTY WHERE MORE
THAN ONE ADU EXISTS, A SIGNED ATTESTATION THAT THE PROPERTY
OWNER WILL RESIDE ON THE PROPERTY WHEN MORE THAN ONE ADU IS
BEING OPERATED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

11. 12. Any other information as the Planning and Development Department may
require to verify information provided by the applicant.

B. An SEPARATE application must be filed for each DWELLING UNIT ON A single-
family property, each dwelling unit in a one-to-four family house, and each individual
unit in a multi-family property such as a condominium or cooperative.


***

Sec. 10-204. Short-term rental; prohibited uses.

A. Renting, or offering for rent, a short-term rental for the following uses is prohibited:

1. A nonresidential use;

2. Holding a special event that requires a permit or license pursuant to a City or
Town ordinance or State law or rule;

3. Operating a retail business, restaurant, banquet hall, or similar use;

4. Knowingly housing registered sex offenders, or allowing registered sex
offenders to occupy the short-term rental;

5. Operating or maintaining a sober living home;

6. Selling liquor, illegal drugs, or pornography;

7. Operating nude or topless dancing;



2 Ordinance G- 231
8. Obscenity;

9. Adult-oriented business;

10. An event center; OR

11. Use or occupying any portion of an accessory dwelling unit; or

12 11. Any other use prohibited by Section 9-500.39, Arizona Revised Statutes.
***


SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2025.


PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 13th day of November,

2024.


________________________________
MAYOR

________________________________
Date
ATTEST:


____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:__________________________

__________________________

REVIEWED BY:


_____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




3 Ordinance G- 232



Report

(CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 13, 2024) - Public Hearing - Amend City
Code - Ordinance Adoption - Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) ARM
Overlay District - Z-TA-3-24-Y (Ordinance G-7318) - Citywide

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-3-24-Y and
to request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation
which amends the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions)
to revise and clarify definitions regarding affordable housing and related items;
replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District - High-Rise and High
Density District) and establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multi-family (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
Two (TOD-2)) to clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the provision of the
TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts. This is a companion case to Z-136-24-Y and
should be heard first, followed by Z-136-24-Y.

Summary
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) new and
revised definitions; 2) creation of a new Section 632, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-
Family (ARM) Overlay District, and 3) revision of the overlapping TOD-1 and TOD-2
Overlay District requirements so as not to conflict with the new regulations as
detailed in the Staff Report (Attachment B).

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the
revised Staff Report (Attachment B).
VPC Info: Eight Village Planning Committees heard this item for information only
throughout September, as reflected in Attachment C.
VPC Action: Eight Village Planning Committees considered the request. Four VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; One VPC recommended
approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction; One VPC recommended
denial and Two VPCs did not have quorum, as reflected in Attachment C.


PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, for
information only.
PC Action: The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this item on November
7, 2024.

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 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
REVISE AND CLARIFY DEFINITIONS REGARDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RELATED ITEMS; REPLACE
CHAPTER 6, SECTION 632 (HIGH-RISE H-R1 DISTRICT – HIGH-
RISE AND HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT) AND ESTABLISH A NEW
ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY
DISTRICT; AND AMEND SECTION 662 (INTERIM TRANSIT-
ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE (TOD-1)) AND
SECTION 663 (TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY
DISTRICT TWO (TOD-2)) TO CLARIFY HOW THE NEW SECTION
632 INTERACTS WITH THE PROVISION OF THE TOD-1 AND
TOD-2 OVERLAY DISTRICTS.


BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as follows:

SECTION 1: That Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is amended to revise

existing definitions and add new definitions, as follows:

***
ECONOMICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE: COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE
BUILDING(S) ON A SITE THAT ARE IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR OR HAVE A FIFTY
PERCENT VACANCY IN THE TOTAL LEASABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.
***
Affordable Housing, AFFORDABLE: Residential or mixed-use development providing
HUD or other assisted low-income housing, as verified by the Phoenix Housing
Department; typically includes dwelling unit(s) committed for a minimum term through
covenants or restrictions to households with incomes at 80 percent or less of the area
median income, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the City.


1 Ordinance 236
HOUSING, WORKFORCE: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING, AS
VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES OF AT LEAST 80 PERCENT
AND UP TO 120 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

***


SECTION 2: That Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise

and High Density District), is amended to strike everything and replace with the

following text:

SECTION 632. ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT

A. PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS OVERLAY IS TO ESTABLISH ZONING
REGULATIONS WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10, AS
FOLLOWS:

1. PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE NON-
RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS.

2. ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT ON EXISTING
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ALSO PROVIDED WITHIN THIS SECTION.

B. APPLICABILITY. THIS OVERLAY APPLIES TO ALL LAND WITHIN THE
ADOPTED TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES (TOC), PER THE MAP
PROVIDED BELOW, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

1. NOT APPLICABLE TO ANY PROPERTY WITH HISTORIC DESIGNATION,
AS FOLLOWS:

a. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED HP OR HP-L.




2 Ordinance 237
b. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC ON THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

2. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN EITHER THE
GATEWAY TOC OR THE 50TH STREET STATION AREA.

3. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE PER
CHAPTER 12.

4. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED WALKABLE URBAN CODE
PER CHAPTER 13.




3 Ordinance 238
4 Ordinance 239
C. CONFLICTS.

1. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, SPECIFIC PLAN,
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, OR SIMILAR REGULATORY PLAN ADOPTED
BY COUNCIL, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLY
ONLY WHEN THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER ADOPTED
REGULATORY PLANS.

2. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS (SECTIONS 662 AND
663, RESPECTIVELY), THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS DO NOT
APPLY WHEN CHAPTER 13 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE
UTILIZED FOR A DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
632.H.2.b.

D. VARIANCES. A PROVISION OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT MAY BE MODIFIED
THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS DISCUSSED IN SECTION 307, BUT
ONLY WHEN THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT CAUSE NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.

E. PERMITTED USES. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND
AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICTS EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED BY THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

F. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS
APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
OVERLAY DISTRICT:

1. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PER SECTION 507 IS REQUIRED.

a. THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL EXPLICITLY STATE WHICH, IF
ANY, OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT ARE TO
BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT.

2. ADEQUATE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR THE ENTIRE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED, AS DETERMINED
BY THE WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE
CODES IS REQUIRED.



5 Ordinance 240
4. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE
MUST BE ECONOMICALLY OR FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE, AS
DEMONSTRATED TO AND APPROVED BY PDD.

5. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT (APPROVED TOGETHER ON ONE SITE PLAN), AND
THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT IS AT
LEAST ONE NET ACRE BUT DOES NOT EXCEED 20 NET ACRES.

G. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE FOLLOWING
REGULATIONS MAY BE APPLIED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE
OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITHIN
THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION
F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. AUTOMOBILE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

2. SETBACKS SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

a. IF THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS
GREATER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE
PROPOSED USE MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE EXISTING
SETBACK SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS PERMITTED BY
RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

b. IF THE PROPOSED USE HAS SPACING OR SEPARATION
REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING,
THOSE PROVISIONS STILL APPLY.

3. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

a. IF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS LESS
THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE PROPOSED USE
MAY BE PROVIDED AT ANY HEIGHT WITHIN THE EXISTING
BUILDING SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS A USE
PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT.



6 Ordinance 241
b. ANY NEW BUILDINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT
PROVISIONS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

H. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY
AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN
ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE SHALL HAVE AN UNDERLYING
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-5 (SECTION 618), R-4A (SECTION 619),
C-1 (SECTION 622), C-2 (SECTION 623), OR C-3 (SECTION 624).

2. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ONLY ONE OF
THE FOLLOWING (a OR b):

a. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, OR

b. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 13, WALKABLE
URBAN CODE, TRANSECT T5:5, WITH THE FOLLOWING
MODIFICATIONS:

(1) DENSITY IS NOT RESTRICTED.

(2) HEIGHT IS RESTRICTED TO FIVE STORIES AND 56 FEET
IN HEIGHT, EXCEPT THAT FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED
WITHIN 100 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING
DISTRICT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE
RESTRICTED TO TWO STORIES AND 30 FEET.

(3) A MINIMUM OF TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED SHALL BE AFFORDABLE
AND/OR WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR A MINIMUM TERM
OF TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL OCCUPATION OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE
CITY’S HOUSING DEPARTMENT.




7 Ordinance 242
3. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES) SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS STATED IN THIS SECTION, IN ADDITION TO ALL NON-
RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SUCH USES
WITHIN THE T5:5 TRANSECT. HOWEVER, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
ARE ONLY PERMITTED IN MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE
UNDERLYING ZONING ALSO PERMITS THE PROPOSED NON-
RESIDENTIAL USES.

I. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—OTHER. A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
NOT SUBJECT TO EITHER SUBSECTION G OR SUBSECTION H ABOVE MUST
COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE
UNDERLYING ZONING FOR THE SITE.

***


SECTION 3: That Chapter 6, Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning

Overlay District One (TOD-1)), is amended to read as follows:


***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-1) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***
C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-1 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:




8 Ordinance 243
1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS
OF TOD-1 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL
APPLY TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***


SECTION 4: That Chapter 6, Section 663 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning

Overlay District Two (TOD-2)), is amended to read as follows:


***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-2) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***
C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-2 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS OF
TOD-2 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL APPLY
TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***




9 Ordinance 244
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 13th day of November, 2024.



________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




10 Ordinance 245
ATTACHMENT B




*REVISED
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-3-24-Y *and Z-136-24-Y
September 24, 2024

Application Nos. Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions regarding affordable
housing and related items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District –
High-Rise and High Density District) and establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multi-
family (ARM) Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
Two (TOD-2)) to clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the provision of the
TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts; and to establish the boundary of the Adaptive
Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay District.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the language
in Exhibit A, and Z-136-24-Y be approved as shown in Exhibit B.

BACKGROUND
This text amendment is a response to House Bill 2297, approved by the Fifty-Sixth
Legislature, Second Session (2024) which modified the Arizona Revised Statutes to
require municipalities to allow 1) adaptive reuse of existing, “economically and
functionally obsolete” commercial buildings by non-residential uses by right, and 2)
multi-family conversion of existing commercial sites by right. Both permissions are
required in “not more than 10% of the total existing commercial, office or mixed use
buildings within the municipality.” However, in order to qualify for these by-right
permissions, a minimum of 10% of the dwelling units provided must be set aside for
low-income (“Affordable”) or moderate-income (“Workforce”) housing for a minimum of
20 years after initial occupation, in addition to meeting other criteria outlined in the bill.

The requirements of HB 2297 require that zoning and other regulations be updated to
comply no later than January 1, 2025.

PURPOSE
In terms of non-residential adaptive reuse, the City of Phoenix has an existing robust
program, and few changes are required. The City also has existing permissions for
conversions of commercially zoned properties to multi-family developments, and



Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 2

generally it is the development standards (setbacks, height, density, etc.) which require
revisions due to HB 2297. In particular, the bill requires greater height and dwelling unit
density than currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.

PROPOSAL
Staff recommends an overlay district over the Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC)
area, with exceptions for Downtown Code and WU Code zoned properties, which
already have existing permissions for greater height and density. The TOC area was
chosen because it had been identified by prior studies as the area where such height
and development density should be encouraged. The Gateway TOC and 50th Street
Station Areas have been exempted since the bill does not permit inclusion of areas in
close proximity to a commercial airport. A map of the Transit-Oriented Communities is
provided below.




DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The proposed text amendment includes three main components: 1) new and revised
definitions; 2) creation of a new Section 632, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM)




Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 3

Overlay District, and 3) revision of the overlapping TOD-1 and TOD-2 Overlay District
requirements so as not to conflict with the new regulations.

1. New and Revised Definitions

HB 2297 requires that any multi-family development which develops under the
provisions of the bill provide a minimum of 10% of the dwelling units provided as
low- or moderate-income housing. The City of Phoenix typically uses different
terms: “Affordable Housing” as low-income housing, which is for residents earning
up to 80% of the area median income; and “Workforce Housing”, which is for
residents earning from 80% to 120% of the area median income. These definitions
are proposed to be added to the Zoning Ordinance, although “Affordable Housing” is
already existing and is slightly revised for consistency.

HB 2297 also includes a requirement that an existing commercial building be
“economically and functionally obsolete” in order to qualify for the provisions
regarding adaptive reuse. The bill provides the definition, which in turn is proposed
to be added to the Zoning Ordinance.


2. Creation of a new Section 632, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-family (ARM) Overlay
District

The existing Section 632, High-Rise H-R1 District – High-Rise and High Density
District, applied only to the area long-since rezoned as Downtown Code (Chapter 12
of the Zoning Ordinance) and now is an archaic section of the Zoning Ordinance.
This text amendment proposes to remove it and use its place in the Zoning
Ordinance for the new ARM Overlay District.

HB 2297 requires that the City designate “not more than 10% of the total existing
commercial, office, or mixed use buildings within the municipality” for adaptive reuse
and/or multi-family conversion, by right (i.e. no public hearings). However, there are
eligibility criteria provided in the bill, which in turn are provided in the standards of
Section 632.

Objective Standards
A municipality must require the following objective standards, but no more, to qualify
for the by-right permissions of HB 2297:
• An administrative site plan review process.
• Determination of adequate public water and sewer to serve the site.
• Compliance with all applicable building construction and fire codes.
• Determination that any existing on-site building is “economically and
functionally obsolete”.
• A minimum parcel size of one acre, and a maximum size of 20 acres.




Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 4

• Requirement that a minimum of 10% of the provided dwelling units are either
low- and/or moderate-income housing (affordable and/or workforce housing).

Height and Density
In addition to the Objective Standards, by-right multi-family development has
requirements regarding permitted height and density:

• Height may not exceed (but also not be less than) five stories, except where
within 100 feet of single-family zoned properties, where the height may be
limited to two stories.
• Density shall be equal to the highest allowable density within one mile of the
building to be redeveloped.

Exemptions
HB 2297 also includes exemptions for properties adjacent to an FAA-licensed
airport, and properties designated as historic. Section 632 is written to exempt HP
and HP-L designated properties, and does not include the TOC areas directly to the
north and adjacent to Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.

Implementation within Transit-Oriented Communities
The new Section 632 includes the objective standards, height and density
requirements, and exemptions as stated in HB 2297. The height and density
provision will be discussed in more detail, as it is these provisions which led staff to
suggest an overlay over the City’s designated Transit-Oriented Communities.

The height requirement of HB 2297—five stories—is permitted within the Walkable
Urban Code, starting with the T5:5 transect. Therefore, staff have proposed that
development qualifying for use of the ARM overlay be permitted to developed in
accordance with Chapter 13 (WU Code), T5:5 development standards.

The density requirement of HB 2297 is quite permissive, especially since adjacent
portions of Downtown and properties zoned Walkable Urban Code have unrestricted
(unlimited) density. Since that could lead to properties within a one-mile radius of a
site developed under the provisions of HB 2297 also being allowed unlimited
density, staff propose to allow unlimited density by right for projects subject to these
regulations, but only in areas already identified for unrestricted density and future
conversion to Walkable Urban Code—the Transit-Oriented Communities.

Permitted Uses
The ARM Overlay District does not add or prohibit any additional uses; it simply
allows multi-family development and adaptive reuse to develop with more density
and intensity, by right, within districts which already permit it. The proposed ARM
Overlay District would not remove the underlying zoning classifications; rather, it
would “overlay” the underlying zoning districts. A property currently zoned “C-2 HRI”
would become “C-2 HRI ARMOD” if approved as proposed.



Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 5


As an example, C-2 already permits multi-family development, but only to a
maximum height of four stories, and with a maximum density of approximately 15
dwelling units per acre. A property located within the ARM Overlay District could
choose to develop up to 5 stories, with no density limitations, but with the overlay
requirement of 10% affordable and/or workforce housing, in addition to the other
objective standards for applicability, such as lot size. However, the overlay is
proposed to be permissive: a developer could still choose to develop per the
existing zoning requirements, but with none of the additional height or density
provisions of the ARM Overlay District.

Qualifying Buildings/Sites
As stated earlier, HB 2297 requires that the City allow by-right adaptive reuse and/or
multi-family development on “not more than 10% of the total existing commercial,
office, or mixed use buildings within the municipality.” Staff have proposed an area
appropriate for such development, but also with a high concentration of these types
of uses and buildings. While the proposed area of the ARM Overlay District
comprises 6.1% of the City’s total land area, it includes more than 20% of the
properties within the City zoned R-5, C-1, C-2, and C-3, which are the primary
districts where commercial, office, and mixed use buildings are permitted. The
provisions for adaptive reuse may also be applied on additional properties zoned for
office park and light industrial uses (Commerce Park, A-1, and A-2) within the ARM
Overlay District.

3. TOD-1 and TOD-2 Overlay District and other conflicts with ARM Overlay
District requirements.

The Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1) and the Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2) are existing overlay districts
applied along the Valley Metro Light Rail corridor and will overlap with much of the
area proposed for the ARM Overlay District. Staff propose that for projects
developing under the provisions of the ARM Overlay District—use of Chapter 13,
Walkable Urban Code standards—would not also be subject to the development
standards of TOD-1 or TOD-2. This is consistent with properties rezoned to
Walkable Urban Code, which have the TOD overlay removed when rezoning to WU
Code.

The ARM Overlay District development standards would not override any other
existing special planning areas having adopted regulatory plans, such as
neighborhood plans, Specific Plans, or other overlay districts. Rather, the ARM
Overlay District provisions can be applied when they do not conflict with any other
regulatory standards of such special planning areas.




Staff Report: Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y (ARM Overlay District)
September 24, 2024
Page 6

*ASSOCIATED REZONING CASE Z-136-24-Y
Case Z-136-24-Y has been created to officially establish the zoning boundary of the
proposed ARM Overlay District over the Transit Oriented Communities, with the
exceptions as described above. The map of the proposed boundary is attached as
Exhibit B.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay District, comprising a
large portion of the City’s Transit-Oriented Communities, is the most appropriate location
for the by-right adaptive reuse and multi-family redevelopment entitlements required by
HB 2297, not only because of the proximity to mass transit and prior studies leading to
the designation of the TOC, but also because the area encompasses a large portion of
the City’s existing commercial, office, and mixed use buildings.

Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the language in Exhibit A, and Z-136-
24-Y be approved as shown in Exhibit B.


Writer
C. DePerro
September 24, 2024

Exhibits

A. Proposed Language
B. Sketch Map / Proposed Boundary




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 7

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 and/or modify definitions as
follows:
***
ECONOMICALLY AND FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE: COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE
BUILDING(S) ON A SITE THAT ARE IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR OR HAVE A FIFTY
PERCENT VACANCY IN THE TOTAL LEASABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.
***
Affordable Housing, AFFORDABLE: Residential or mixed-use development providing
HUD or other assisted low-income housing, as verified by the Phoenix Housing
Department; typically includes dwelling unit(s) committed for a minimum term through
covenants or restrictions to households with incomes at 80 percent or less of the area
median income, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the City.

HOUSING, WORKFORCE: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING, AS
VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES OF AT LEAST 80 PERCENT
AND UP TO 120 PERCENT OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 8

Section 632. High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High Density District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District—High-Rise and High
Density District) to strike everything, and replace with the following text:

SECTION 632. ADAPTIVE REUSE AND MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT

A. PURPOSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS OVERLAY IS TO ESTABLISH ZONING
REGULATIONS WHICH ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10, AS
FOLLOWS:

1. PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE NON-
RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS.

2. ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT ON EXISTING
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS ALSO PROVIDED WITHIN THIS SECTION.

B. APPLICABILITY. THIS OVERLAY APPLIES TO ALL LAND WITHIN THE
ADOPTED TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES, PER THE MAP PROVIDED
BELOW, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:

1. NOT APPLICABLE TO ANY PROPERTY WITH HISTORIC DESIGNATION,
AS FOLLOWS:

a. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED HP OR HP-L.

b. PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS HISTORIC ON THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES.

2. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN EITHER THE
GATEWAY TOC OR THE 50TH STREET STATION AREA.

3. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE PER
CHAPTER 12.

4. NOT APPLICABLE TO PROPERTIES ZONED WALKABLE URBAN CODE
PER CHAPTER 13.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 9




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 10

C. CONFLICTS.

1. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, SPECIFIC PLAN,
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, OR SIMILAR REGULATORY PLAN ADOPTED
BY COUNCIL, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLY
ONLY WHEN THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER ADOPTED
REGULATORY PLANS.

2. IF A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT IS ALSO
SUBJECT TO THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS (SECTIONS 662 AND
663, RESPECTIVELY), THE TOD-1 OR TOD-2 OVERLAYS DO NOT
APPLY WHEN CHAPTER 13 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE
UTILIZED FOR A DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
632.H.2.b.

D. VARIANCES. A PROVISION OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT MAY BE MODIFIED
THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS DISCUSSED IN SECTION 307, BUT
ONLY WHEN THE VARIANCE REQUEST DOES NOT CAUSE NON-
COMPLIANCE WITH A.R.S. §9-462.10.

E. PERMITTED USES. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND
AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICTS EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED BY THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT.

F. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS
APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
OVERLAY DISTRICT:

1. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PER SECTION 507 IS REQUIRED.

a. THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL EXPLICITLY STATE WHICH, IF
ANY, OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT ARE TO
BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT.

2. ADEQUATE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE FOR THE ENTIRE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED, AS DETERMINED
BY THE WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 11

3. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FIRE
CODES IS REQUIRED.

4. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE
MUST BE ECONOMICALLY OR FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE, AS
DEMONSTRATED TO AND APPROVED BY PDD.

5. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT (APPROVED TOGETHER ON ONE SITE PLAN), AND
THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT IS AT
LEAST ONE NET ACRE BUT DOES NOT EXCEED 20 NET ACRES.

G. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—ADAPTIVE REUSE. THE FOLLOWING
REGULATIONS MAY BE APPLIED TO NON-RESIDENTIAL ADAPTIVE REUSE
OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, OR MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITHIN
THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION
F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. AUTOMOBILE PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

2. SETBACKS SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:

a. IF THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS
GREATER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE
PROPOSED USE MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE EXISTING
SETBACK SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS PERMITTED BY
RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING.

b. IF THE PROPOSED USE HAS SPACING OR SEPARATION
REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING,
THOSE PROVISIONS STILL APPLY.

3. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE AS REQUIRED BY THE
UNDERLYING ZONING, WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 12

a. IF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED USE IS LESS
THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE PROPOSED USE
MAY BE PROVIDED AT ANY HEIGHT WITHIN THE EXISTING
BUILDING SO LONG AS THE PROPOSED USE IS A USE
PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT.

b. ANY NEW BUILDINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT
PROVISIONS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

H. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT. THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY
AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHEN
ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION F, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE SHALL HAVE AN UNDERLYING
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-5 (SECTION 618), R-4A (SECTION 619),
C-1 (SECTION 622), C-2 (SECTION 623), OR C-3 (SECTION 624).

2. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ONLY ONE OF
THE FOLLOWING (a OR b):

a. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT, OR

b. ALL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTI-
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 13, WALKABLE
URBAN CODE, TRANSECT T5:5, WITH THE FOLLOWING
MODIFICATIONS:

(1) DENSITY IS NOT RESTRICTED.

(2) HEIGHT IS RESTRICTED TO FIVE STORIES AND 56 FEET
IN HEIGHT, EXCEPT THAT FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED
WITHIN 100 FEET OF A SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING
DISTRICT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE
RESTRICTED TO TWO STORIES AND 30 FEET.




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 13

(3) A MINIMUM OF TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED SHALL BE AFFORDABLE
AND/OR WORKFORCE HOUSING FOR A MINIMUM TERM
OF TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE INITIAL OCCUPATION OF
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE
CITY’S HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

3. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES) SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS STATED IN THIS SECTION, IN ADDITION TO ALL NON-
RESIDENTIAL USE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SUCH USES
WITHIN THE T5:5 TRANSECT. HOWEVER, NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
ARE ONLY PERMITTED IN MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE
UNDERLYING ZONING ALSO PERMITS THE PROPOSED NON-
RESIDENTIAL USES.

I. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS—OTHER. A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
NOT SUBJECT TO EITHER SUBSECTION G OR SUBSECTION H ABOVE MUST
COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE
UNDERLYING ZONING FOR THE SITE.

***

Section 662. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1).
Amend Chapter 6, Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One
(TOD-1)) to amend as follows:

Section 662. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1).

***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-1) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 14

C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-1 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:

1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS
OF TOD-1 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL
APPLY TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***

Section 663. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-2).
Amend Chapter 6, Section 663 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
Two (TOD-2)) to amend as follows:

Section 663. Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2).

***
B. Applicability. The City of Phoenix’ Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District
(TOD-2) shall apply to lands delineated on the City’s Official Supplementary Zoning
Map 1086 as adopted on November 19, 2003, AS AMENDED. All land uses and
development including, but not limited to buildings, drives, parking areas,
landscaping, streets, alleys, greenways, and pedestrian/bicycle ways designated to
be within this district, shall be located and developed in accordance with the
following provisions:

***
C. Inconsistencies of Underlying Districts. In the event that the underlying zoning
district standards, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with these
overlay Zoning Ordinance standards or any other provisions herein, the standards
of the TOD-2 shall apply., WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION:




Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 24, 2024
Page 15

1. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 632, ADAPTIVE REUSE AND
MULTI-FAMILY (ARM) OVERLAY DISTRICT, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
TOD-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS
CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 13. HOWEVER, ALL USE REGULATIONS
OF TOD-2 (BOTH PERMISSIONS AND PROHIBITIONS) SHALL STILL
APPLY TO SUCH PROPERTIES.

***




7TH S T

TATUM BLV D
SHEA BLVD

HATCHER RD

E
NORTHERN AV

w
GLENDALE AVE v




43RD AVE
LI N OLN DR
w
v
60 C
BETHANY HOME RD


35TH AVE 27TH AVE
MISSOURI AVE

95TH AVE
12TH ST
CAMELBACK RD

83RD AVE INDIAN SCHOOL RD 16TH ST

32ND ST
91ST AVE 15TH AVE
w
v
GR
AN
D
OSBORN RD
THOMAS RD
AV
E 40TH ST


§
¨
¦ 24TH ST 44TH ST 52ND ST
1ST AVE
w
v

VAN BUREN ST


75TH AVE 67TH AVE
59TH AVE
BUCKEYE RD §
¨
¦
SKY H ARBOR BLVD


81ST AVE
MOHAVE ST


107TH AVE 99TH AVE 51ST AVE
LOWER BUCKEYE RD SITY DR

63RD AVE
UN
v
w
19TH AVE
IVE 143
BROADWAY RD R


48TH ST
SOUTHERN AVE

BASELINE RD

DOBBINS RD


¯ Miles Z-136-24
0 1.25 2.5 5

VILLAGE: Various
COUNCIL DISTRICT: Various




REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: City of Phoenix Planning Commission
FROM: Various Zoning Districts
DATE:
9/25/2024
APPLICATION NO: Z-136-24 REVISION DATES:

GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP TO: Various Underlying Zoning Districts with the
QUARTER SEC. NO.
D8, F3-F9, G3-9,H7-H8, Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family Overlay District
20373.69 Acres Various I7, J6-J7, K6-K7

MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION




* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 261
S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2024\Z-136-24\Z-136-24.aprx
ATTACHMENT C
Z-TA-3-24-Y: Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District
Village Planning Committee Summary Results


Village Information Recommendation Recommendations Vote
Only Date Date
Alhambra 8/27/24 10/22/24 Approval, per the staff 11-2
recommendation
Camelback 9/10/24 10/1/24 Approval, per the staff 16-0
East recommendation
Central 9/9/24 10/21/24 Approval, per the staff 10-0
City recommendation
Encanto 9/9/24 10/7/24 Denial 8-4-1
Estrella 9/17/24 10/15/24 No quorum n/a
Maryvale 9/11/24 10/9/24 No quorum n/a
North 9/18/24 10/16/24 Approval, per the staff 13-0
Mountain recommendation
South 9/10/24 10/8/24 Approval, per the staff 12-0
Mountain recommendation, with
direction




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting August 27, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation on the text amendment Z-TA-3-24
regarding the new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District. Mr. Rogers
explained that the text amendment is in response to HB 2297 which requires that
municipalities provide administrative permissions for adaptive reuse of existing
commercial structures and the conversation of commercial properties to multifamily
uses on up to 10 percent of commercial properties. Mr. Rogers explained that the City
of Phoenix is creating the ARM Overlay District which will facilitate adaptive reuse and
multifamily development, explained that the allowed height and intensity for multifamily
developments within the overlay would be equivalent to the Walkable Urban Code T5:5
district, and explained that the overlay will be located within the designated Transit
Oriented Communities (TOC).

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
August 27, 2024


Committee Member Keith Ender asked who bears the financial responsibility for the
affordable housing. Mr. Rogers explained that developers are required to provide 10%
of the total number of units built as affordable housing. Mr. Rogers explained that
developers bear the costs, but these costs could potentially be passed on to renters.

Committee Member Martin Shultz asked about the purpose of the proposed
amendments from Mr. Rogers' perspective. Mr. Rogers explained that the text
amendment addresses two key components: adaptive reuse and multifamily housing.
Mr. Rogers emphasized that these changes are in response to state law, which allows
for higher density and height by right, while also requiring affordable housing provisions.
Mr. Rogers expressed confidence in how the City responded to the state bill and
acknowledged that the proposed amendments might be more contentious in some
Transit-Oriented Communities than in others.

Committee Member Shultz expressed interest in receiving more information over time
regarding the need for affordable housing. Committee Member Shultz explained that
significant investments have been made in Transit-Oriented Communities and related
infrastructure improvements, and explained that it makes sense for the City to capitalize
on these investments. Committee Member Shultz requested additional information on
transit-oriented development (TOD), infill, and the City's plans for developing specific
areas.

Committee Member Pamela Fitzgerald expressed frustration, stating that she wishes
the state would allow cities more autonomy to manage their own affairs.

Committee Member Shultz explained that the City does not operate in isolation and
emphasized that as the City continues to grow, there are defined roles for various levels
of government.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 264
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 22, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 11-2


VPC DISCUSSION

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
Z-TA-3-24-Y and Z-136-24-Y, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by
the Arizona Legislature, the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay
District, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily development
and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Charles Jones asked about the mile distance requirement. Mr.
Rogers explained that state law requires cities to allow 10% of their commercial areas
to develop up to five stories with densities equivalent to the highest zoning district within
one mile of the subject property. Mr. Rogers stated that the City of Phoenix applied this
by allowing sites within existing Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) to develop
according to Walkable Urban (WU) Code T5:5 standards, permitting unlimited density
and five-story buildings.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
October 22, 2024


Committee Member Martin Shultz stated that this policy originated from state law and
questioned whether cities should control zoning or if state involvement is appropriate.
Committee Member Shultz stated that the motivation behind some legislation is to
create challenges for transit-oriented development. Mr. Rogers discussed the balance
of benefits and risks in the relationship between city zoning authority and state
regulations. Committee Member Shultz explained that determining zoning jurisdiction is
complex and raised the importance of regional planning and described the politics that
opposed the Capitol Mall light rail expansion.

Committee Member Quanta Crews expressed support for how Phoenix applied the
state law through an overlay, explained she supported the law as a state legislator due
to its potential to create affordable housing, and asked about the public engagement
process. Mr. Rogers clarified that the application of the ARM Overlay will be an
administrative process that does not require public hearings, stated that the overlay will
not alter existing rezoning procedures, and reiterated that the ARM Overlay applies
within established high-intensity policy areas.

Committee Member Marshall Pimentel highlighted the benefit of affordable housing
through this process, stated that the overlay is a small but positive step, and explained
that Arizona’s prohibition on mandatory inclusionary housing presents barriers.

Committee Member David Krietor raised concerns about the proposed five-story
allowance, stated that some commercial properties in the ARM Overlay are adjacent to
single-family homes, and described previously conflicts over height within the Alhambra
Village. Mr. Rogers explained that developments within 100 feet of single-family zoning
are limited to two stories.

Committee Member Jones requested clarification on the ARM Overlay boundaries.
Mr. Rogers presented the ARM Overlay boundaries.

Committee Member Jones asked if affordable housing was mandatory for projects
utilizing the ARM Overlay and asked about funding. Mr. Rogers confirmed that
affordable housing is required for multifamily developed under the ARM Overlay, stated
that the affordable housing is funded by developers, and explained that developers
could choose to rezone if they wish to avoid providing affordable housing.

Committee Member Crews questioned the appropriate distance requirement for the
two-story height limitation near single-family zones and whether 300 feet would be more
appropriate. Committee Member Krietor described Alhambra’s support for affordable
housing, explained conflicts over height near single-family areas, and stated that
overlay may lead to potential disputes regarding height. Committee Member Jones
explained that step-downs are sometimes required and stated that determining an
optimal distance from single family to limit the height is challenging.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 266
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
October 22, 2024


Committee Member John Owens asked whether the presentation’s reference to 20%
of commercial areas being within ARM Overlay included the downtown and airport
areas. Mr. Rogers explained that he is unsure.

Committee Member Jones inquired about potential consequences if the City did not
adopt the ARM Overlay by the deadline and asked about other cities' approaches. Mr.
Rogers stated that failing to adopt the overlay could expose the City to lawsuits,
explained that other cities generally applied the state law city-wide, and stated that
Phoenix’s approach applied the overlay to existing high-intensity policy areas.

Committee Member Jones asked about potential changes to the state law. Mr.
Rogers stated he was unaware of any planned changes. Committee Member Crews
stated that she may try to potentially modify the state law to increase the distance a
property must be from single-family homes in order to allow five-story developments.

Committee Member Pimentel stated that the bill was the result of compromise
between major cities, developers, and the League of Cities and Towns. Committee
Member Crews echoed Committee Member Pimentel‘s comments and added that
significant compromise was involved in the bill’s development.

Committee Member Keyser asked about the most challenging parts of process up to
this point. Mr. Rogers noted difficulties in interpreting legislative intent and emphasized
the importance of applying the overlay selectively to protect low-intensity areas.

Committee Member Keyser stated that affordable housing materials might be less
expensive because affordable units do not require luxury amenities and may be smaller
in size.

Committee Member Dina Smith asked for clarification on the state law’s requirements.
Mr. Rogers explained that cities must allow 10% of commercial properties to build up to
five stories, with density equivalent to the highest density allowed within one mile of the
property.

Committee Member Smith asked about the rationale behind the state law and raised
concerns about the cumulative density impact, especially on schools and property
values. Mr. Rogers explained that the state aims to increase housing availability and
address the affordable housing shortage, and stated that limiting the overlay to TOC
areas is an effort to manage density impacts. Committee Member Keyser discussed
the negative consequences of sprawl, including increased infrastructure costs, pollution,
and urban heat effects, and highlighted the role of impact fees for new development.
Committee Member Smith reiterated concerns about potential over-development
impacting property values and local schools.

Committee Member Jak Keyser asked if there is a possibility that the overlay may be
amended in the future. Mr. Rogers explained that it is possible that the City may revisit

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 267
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
October 22, 2024


the ARM Overlay and explained that Proposition 207 makes it easier to grant changes
than to take them away.

Committee Member Keyser asked about the possibility of tabling the discussion. Mr.
Rogers explained that the text amendment will be heard by the City Council before the
next Alhambra VPC meeting.

Committee Member David Krietor expressed his support and stated that he would
second a motion.

Committee Member Crews thanked Committee Member Smith for her comments and
emphasized that the goal of the state law is to encourage greater density and provide
more housing options for everyone. Committee Member Crews described the urgency
of the situation, explained that the City is experiencing a significant population increase
and a housing shortage, and expressed appreciation for how the City is implementing
the state law through the overlay. Committee Member Crews explained that state laws
can change, stated that the current measures are a temporary solution, and
emphasizing the need to explore more comprehensive solutions. Committee Member
Smith cautioned that sometimes temporary solutions can become problematic.
Committee Member Crews explained that failing to act will result in more families facing
homelessness. Committee Member Smith expressed concern that new housing is too
expensive, and that young people are struggling to afford housing. Committee Member
Crews explained that unless the government steps in to subsidize housing and increase
taxes, negotiations with developers will be necessary to find workable solutions.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Jak Keyser made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-
Y per the staff recommendation. Committee Member David Krietor seconded the
motion.

VOTE
11-2, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee Members Crews, Farina, Harris, Keyser, Krietor, Owens,
Pimentel, Sanchez, Shultz, Camp, and DeGraffenreid in favor and Committee Members
Jones and Smith opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comment.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 268
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 10, 2024
Proposal Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary overview of the proposed text
amendment, which is a response to State Bill 2297, which mandates the development
of multifamily use in areas previously lacking such opportunities. Mr. Roanhorse stated
updating the Zoning Ordinance provides an opportunity to evaluate and enhance the
zoning framework, focusing on areas already suited for multifamily development. Mr.
Roanhorse expressed that the amendment encourages the redevelopment of existing
commercial properties for multifamily purposes where appropriate and not all
commercial properties are suitable for multifamily use, so a detailed analysis has been
conducted to determine suitability. Mr. Roanhorse summarized the proposed changes in
the text amendment which include definitions of affordable housing, replacing the H-R1
Zoning District with a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District, and
revisions the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts. Mr. Roanhorse stated the process will
evolve gradually and will primarily impact a specific subset of areas within the city and
the focus of the amendment is on adaptive reuse for multifamily development within
designated transit-oriented communities. Mr. Roanhorse said the proposed changes are
designed to support areas with existing infrastructure for transportation, such as transit
systems and established commercial districts. Mr. Roanhorse said the new overlay

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
Page 2

areas will affect locations within transit-oriented communities, particularly around
Central Avenue and other key transit routes. Mr. Roanhorse stated the Adaptive Reuse
Multifamily (ARM) overlay district will be applied to designated commercial districts (R-5,
C-1, C-2, and C-3) that already have adaptive reuse programs and will enable the
conversion of any nonresidential building within the designated areas into multifamily
housing. Mr. Roanhorse displayed a map of the transit-oriented area and noted the
intent of these amendments is to enhance the flexibility and effectiveness of zoning
regulations in supporting adaptive reuse and multifamily development in transit-oriented
areas that will increase in residential density while leveraging existing infrastructure and
transit options. Mr. Roanhorse stated the presentation provided is for information only
and it will come before the committee next month for action.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member Williams asked if the areas impacted by the text amendment in
Camelback East are just around the airport. Mr. Roanhorse responded noting the
areas along 50th Street and Van Buren area are exempt due to their proximity to the
airport.

Vice Chair Fischbach asked what is the definition of low-income housing and
moderate income when it comes to housing. Committee Member Eichelkraut
responded for low income it is based on federal standards, 80 percent of the area
median income (AMI) and for moderate income is approximately from 80 to 120 percent
of AMI.

Committee Member Eichelkraut asked how would mixed-use development, such as
combining retail on the lower floors with residential units above be addressed with the
proposed changes. Mr. Roanhorse responded the feasibility of mixed-use development
depends on the location and the overlays will allows some flexibility and the Planning
and Development Department is open to various approaches, but the success of mixed-
use projects will vary. Committee Member Eichelkraut stated it was disappointing the
Gateway area and 50th Street areas were excluded because these areas need more
housing. Mr. Roanhorse responded that one of the main issues was the proximity to
Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.

Committee Member Paceley asked since the proposed text amendment was driven by
changes from the State Legislature does this impact Plan Phoenix which will be on the
November ballot. Mr. Roanhorse responded that there would be no impacts because
the proposed amendments took into consideration the city’s current activities.
Committee Member Paceley stated the text amendment should be good with the city’s
residents.

Committee Member Abbott asked about the housing inventory and the deadline to
obtain this information and does the county assessor have this information. Mr.
Roanhorse responded this information is being collected and will be an ongoing
process.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 270
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
Page 3

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.

STAFF RESONSE:

NONE.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 271
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
*REVISED November 1, 2024

Date of VPC Meeting October 1, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions
regarding affordable housing and related items; replace
Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-
Rise and High Density District) and establish a new
Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District;
and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to
clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the
provision of the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 16-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary on the text amendments and noted there
were two distinct items for review and voting, following a previous discussion. Mr.
Roanhorse stated that TA-3-24-Y focuses on adaptive reuse, a critical issue for
promoting growth in underdeveloped areas and aligns with the state legislative actions
encouraging adaptive reuse, creating a streamlined process within the zoning ordinance
to facilitate such projects. Mr. Roanhorse discussed TA-136-24-Y noting the focus on
the maps to accommodate development, particularly addressing how zoning maps will
support adaptive reuse and multifamily developments. Mr. Roanhorse noted previous
presentations to the committee that detailed changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at
making multifamily and adaptive reuse developments more cohesive. Mr. Roanhorse
said one key area of concern involved allowing administrative approvals of certain
developments without public input, particularly for commercial and office mixed-use
buildings. Mr. Roanhorse stated additionally, the potential for increased height and
density in transit-oriented communities was noted as a recurring concern, but the
amendments seek to balance these factors with the existing zoning framework.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Committee Member Paceley asked about the 10 percent allocation for affordable and
workforce housing and how would requirements for development be implemented. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that during the review process applicants and developer may
access how to include various housing types. Committee Member Paceley asked if the
Village Planning Committee will see plans and be able to add stipulations for housing
and development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that for rezoning cases that come to the
Committee they may review and provide feedback and if practical include stipulations.

Committee Member Augusta asked if parking would change as a result of this
proposed text amendment considering the implications of previous parking
amendments. Mr. Roanhorse responded that proposals would still meet the required
parking based on the zoning. Mr. Cam McCutchen, staff, responded that with parking
requirements, instead of maximums the City utilized minimums to provide allowance for
a specific number of parking spaces. Mr. McCutchen stated that in some cases options
like the Walkable Urban Code allow flexibility in different transects to incentivize
measures to reduce automobile parking.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.

STAFF RESPONSE:

None.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Paceley commented the proposed text amendments are a good
idea to include access to light rail and improve multifamily development and it makes
good sense.

MOTION

Committee Member Paceley motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the
staff recommendation. Committee Member Sharaby seconded the motion.

VOTE

16-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg
Thraen, Garcia, Guevar, Jurayeva, Langmade, Paceley, Schmieder, Sharaby,
Whitesell, Williams, Fischbach and Swart in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 273
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Christopher DePerro, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by the Arizona
Legislature, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily
development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Olivas asked about the requirement for administrative approval
with no public hearings. Mr. DePerro clarified that it is based on the requirement from
state law. Ms. Olivas stated a concern about removing public hearings and the
opportunity for people to give input. Mr. DePerro stated that the allowance is targeted
to Transit Oriented Communities.

Committee Member Starks clarified that this is already state law, and the City must
designate the areas of applicability.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
September 9, 2024


PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 275
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 21, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 10-0



VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee Member Nervis joined the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to 10
members.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation about the proposed text amendment
and companion rezoning case, providing background about HB 2297, a summary of
the provisions of the proposed text, and a description of the area included in the initial
overlay boundaries.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
October 21, 2024


MOTION
Vice Chair Gaughan made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y, per the
staff recommendation. Darlene Martinez seconded the motion.

VOTE
10-0; Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y, per the staff recommendation,
passed; Committee Members Ban, Burns, Greenman, Martinez, Nervis, Olivas, Starks,
Vargas, Gaughan, and O’Grady in favor.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 277
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.


STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a summary overview of the proposed text
amendment, which is a response to State Bill 2297, which mandates the development
of multifamily use in areas previously lacking such opportunities. Mr. Roanhorse stated
updating the Zoning Ordinance provides an opportunity to evaluate and enhance the
zoning framework, focusing on areas already suited for multifamily development. Mr.
Roanhorse expressed that the amendment encourages the redevelopment of existing
commercial properties for multifamily purposes where appropriate and not all
commercial properties are suitable for multifamily use, so a detailed analysis has been
conducted to determine suitability. Mr. Roanhorse summarized the proposed changes in
the text amendment which include definitions of affordable housing, replacing the H-R1
Zoning District with a new ARM Overlay District, and revisions the TOD-1 and TOD-2
overlay districts. Mr. Roanhorse stated the process will evolve gradually and will
primarily impact a specific subset of areas within the city and the focus of the
amendment is on adaptive reuse for multifamily development within designated transit-
oriented communities. Mr. Roanhorse said the proposed changes are designed to



Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

support areas with existing infrastructure for transportation, such as transit systems and
established commercial districts. Mr. Roanhorse said the new overlay areas will affect
locations within transit-oriented communities, particularly around Central Avenue and
other key transit routes. Mr. Roanhorse stated the ARM overlay district will be applied to
designated commercial districts (R-5, C-1, C-2, and C-3) that already have adaptive
reuse programs and will enable the conversion of any nonresidential building within the
designated areas into multifamily housing. Mr. Roanhorse displayed a map of the
transit-oriented area and noted the intent of these amendments is to enhance the
flexibility and effectiveness of zoning regulations in supporting adaptive reuse and
multifamily development in transit-oriented areas that will increase in residential density
while leveraging existing infrastructure and transit options. Mr. Roanhorse said the
amendment does not supersede requirements of other overlays or planning districts and
it does not eliminate historic preservation approvals, ensuring that historic properties
and characteristics remain protected. Mr. Roanhorse stated the Encanto Village
Planning Committee will vote on this item and then it will proceed to the Planning
Commission in October then to City Council in November.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Matthew Jewett asked about the intended height and density and asked if
the proposed height may not exceed and may not be less than five stories and does this
mean there is a fixed height of exactly five stories. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the
intent of the height is to maintain a minimum of five stories but allow flexibility depending
on the zoning.
Committee Member Warnicke commented that many of the proposed changes are
influenced by the WU Code and there is a standard for three-inch caliper trees, but it
appears that the amendment will allow two-inch caliper trees. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that underlying zoning would remain applicable however, if necessary, the
committee may recommend stipulations for tree sizes if necessary. Committee Member
Warnicke suggested the text amendment should include a requirement for three-inch
caliper trees and this would incorporate the intent of the WU Code and create more
shade. Ms. Tricia Gomes, Planning and Development Department Deputy Director,
responded that the proposed change does not impact the WU Code but with the created
overlay height and density will be deferred to the allowances of the WU Code.
Committee Member Warnicke stated that the text amendment does refer specifically to
a caliper size, and this should be uniformly applied to the new overlay district.
Chair Wagner asked if there have been any inventory or analysis done on applicable
buildings in the R-5, C-2, and C-3 where the overlay district will be to see how many
possible units would be gained. Ms. Gomes responded there was not sufficient time to
conduct a full assessment within each mapped area and the targeted area would be
about 20 percent and the proposal is an opt-in overlay and if there is residential
development 10 percent has to be multifamily which allows development standard



Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

flexibility. Chair Wagner asked with this text amendment and future ones planned will
they address the missing middle housing, and this may impose a greater impact on
density in some limited areas and by estimate approximately 4,000 units have been
entitled in the Encanto Village and with this expected growth has there been an
environmental impact study conducted and can the infrastructure respond to the growth.
Chair Wagner asked about the five-story requirement but if it is within 100 feet of a
single-family development it can only be two stories and there are approved multifamily
developments in the same area does this still apply. Ms. Gomes responded that there
are several bills that will be forthcoming, and some will impact others and from the City
the approach has been holistic in responding to each one and for this amendment
middle housing is reviewed so it will fit with the current standards and what additional
requirements may come up.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION


None.




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 7, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions
regarding affordable housing and related items; replace
Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-
Rise and High Density District) and establish a new
Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District;
and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to
clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the
provision of the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-4-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

No member of the public registered to speak in this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff provided a summary on the text amendments and noted there
were two distinct items for review and voting. Mr. Roanhorse stated that TA-3-24-Y
focuses on adaptive reuse, a critical issue for promoting growth in underdeveloped
areas and aligns with the state legislative actions encouraging adaptive reuse, creating
a streamlined process within the zoning ordinance to facilitate such projects. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed TA-136-24-Y noting the focus on the maps to accommodate
development, particularly addressing how zoning maps will support adaptive reuse and
multifamily developments. Mr. Roanhorse noted previous presentations to the
committee that detailed changes to the zoning ordinance aimed at making multifamily
and adaptive reuse developments more cohesive. Mr. Roanhorse said one key area of
concern involved allowing administrative approvals of certain developments without
public input, particularly for commercial and office mixed-use buildings. Mr. Roanhorse
stated additionally, the potential for increased height and density in transit-oriented
communities was noted as a recurring concern, but the amendments seek to balance
these factors with the existing zoning framework.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 281
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Chair Wagner commented that House Bill 2297, stipulates that no more than 10
percent of eligible properties within the city can be developed for adaptive reuse. Chair
Wagner stated that the current TOC overlay seems to include over 20 percent of
commercially zoned properties, exceeding the 10 percent cap. Mr. Roanhorse
responded that the 10 percent cap does not necessarily apply to every property in the
TOC, as the city has mapped areas where adaptive reuse is appropriate. Mr.
Roanhorse stated the focus is on working within the existing zoning framework,
ensuring consistency with what is already allowed by zoning ordinance. Mr. Roanhorse
stated the amendments will streamline adaptive reuse in areas that can accommodate it
without increasing zoning entitlements, maintaining balance between development and
current zoning laws.

Chair Wagner asked how the City will track commercial properties within the overlay to
ensure compliance with the amendments. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the City is
currently gathering data on the percentage of commercial properties and their square
footage and are aware of the need to monitor this information for future development.
Mr. Roanhorse stated that in a previous presentation staff explained that exact numbers
are still being collected.

Committee Member George asked whether the committee would be notified about
specific properties or buildings eligible for development. Mr. Roanhorse responded that
the committee would be notified of any rezoning cases or changes, and that notices
would still be provided for developments that were by-right. Mr. Roanhorse stated that
notifications would go to neighborhoods and associations when significant changes or
developments were made.

Committee Member Jewett stated there was not clarity regarding height restriction and
reiterated that what he understood in the presentation, and it did not align with what he
was reading in the legislation. Committee Member Jewett stated concern about
buildings being classified as functionally obsolete and noted the potential for
manipulation by neglecting repairs or setting rent prices high enough to keep properties
vacant. Committee Member Jewett stated that properties may be left to deteriorate
intentionally and asked if there were any measures in place to prevent such
manipulation and noted the issue of neglected properties in his neighborhood. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that is a concern and will be a challenging issue and stated the
PDD (Planning and Development Department) is focused on fostering development
potential rather than driving economic disinvestment. Mr. Roanhorse said that the City
can collaborate with departments like Neighborhood Services to address repairs or
underused properties and noted that the City's Economic Development Department has
measures in place to intervene when necessary and some initiative falls on the private
development community. Mr. Roanhorse explained that the text amendment aims to
prevent intentional disinvestment and supports development in appropriate areas,
particularly near transit corridors.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 282
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Chair Wagner expressed frustration that neither the City nor the State have provided
clear answers to important questions that were brought up during the review. Chair
Wagner said that there is a growing need for accessible workforce housing and noted
the limitation of the adaptive reuse program is just 6 percent of the City's land, primarily
around 50 TOD areas. Chair Wagner stated that only 18 percent of service workers live
in the TOD areas, leaving 88 percent of service workers without affordable housing
options near transit locations. Chair Wagner said the City should expand opportunities
for adaptive reuse beyond the current limitations, noting that more affordable housing
options should be available in other areas like Desert Ridge and Camelback East,
rather than restricting it to a small percentage of land near transit areas. Chair Wagner
stated disappointment in the current approach and hoped that the City will make
adjustments by January to better address the housing needs of Phoenix's workforce.
Mr. Roanhorse responded that the overlay does promote the creation of affordable
housing by requiring that 10 percent of units be dedicated to affordable or workforce
housing. Mr. Roanhorse stated the importance of defining affordable and workforce
housing, which has been clarified in the amendment. Mr. Roanhorse stated that the
multifamily overlay and adaptive reuse provisions encourage development in areas near
transit, especially around light rail, while allowing flexibility for developers to adapt
projects to the unique characteristics of those zones. Mr. Roanhorse stated that historic
preservation remains unaffected by these changes.

Vice Chair Rodriguez said there is concern about the complexity of the proposed
changes, particularly in relation to HB 2297, noting that these types of amendments can
be difficult to understand. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that there needs for more
accessible and visual presentations, as well as clearer communication from the City to
help the public understand the details of proposed changes. Vice Chair Rodriguez
stated that staff working on proposals should make them more digestible, particularly for
community members unfamiliar with zoning language. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that
while developers are not mandated to use the adaptive reuse and multifamily overlay,
they must meet the affordability requirements if they choose to participate. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that there are challenges in responding to legislative
requirements while maintaining practical zoning interaction with the public and despite
these challenges public involvement remains crucial, as various committees and
organizations are regularly engaged in the planning and review processes.

Vice Chair Rodriguez expressed frustration with the lack of feedback opportunities
regarding the TOC presentation. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated she walks, bikes, and
uses public transit, and it feel like a dead zone with lack vibrancy around Central
Avenue. Vice Chair Rodriguez said there is a need for improvements and the
importance of providing workforce housing close to transit corridors. Vice Chair
Rodriguez said there are challenges faced by service workers and teachers who
deserve to live near where they work but currently do not have sufficient options. Mr.
Roanhorse responded the challenges in providing affordable housing and workforce
opportunities are significant and the City is in the process of expanding opportunities.

Committee Member Doescher stated concern with the current state legislation
affecting affordable housing and the pressing need for housing options near

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 283
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

employment centers, particularly for healthcare workers who often face challenges due
to irregular hours. Committee Member Doescher stated that while some developments
may be located near light rail, this approach does not address the diverse needs of all
residents, especially those with limited housing options. Committee Member Doescher
said it is frustrating that state laws that do not consider local realities, stating that these
mandates could hinder cities' ability to address their unique housing challenges and the
concern that developers might prioritize profit over affordable housing.

Committee Member Warnicke expressed concerns about certain properties within the
TOD area, stating that some should not be designated for five-story buildings.
Committee Member Warnicke said that instead of focusing solely on the light rail
corridor for affordable housing, the city should also consider properties along bus routes
and mass transit lines and this approach would help protect neighborhoods from
changes like large out-of-place buildings and create affordable housing along existing
transit routes.

Chair Wagner stated that the state legislation originally intended to apply the TOD
statewide, but the City of Phoenix chose to focus on 60 percent of its land area. Chair
Wagner said it was disappointing that the City's current approach focuses on expensive
properties along the light rail corridor may not become affordable housing. Chair
Wagner said there might be an opportunity for small developers to convert underutilized
buildings across the entire City, rather than concentrating on a limited area and there is
a need for more meaningful progress and that they have until January to reconsider
their approach.

Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that when the City initiated the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code, it was a citywide proposal. Vice Chair Rodriguez said there were concerns at the
time, including the potential for overdevelopment in areas not ready for it, which led to
opposition against it. Vice Chair Rodriguez stated there is some confusion about the
current situation, where there is now interest in focusing citywide development around
transportation, such as the light rail and asked for clarification on the approach now,
comparing it to previous concerns about the broader application of the WU Code. Mr.
Klimek responded that the WU Code was proposed citywide and that it was reviewed
by all 15 Village Planning Committees and stated that many projects have successfully
utilized the code in various areas of the city. Mr. Roanhorse responded that while the
WU Code had been applied successfully in some areas, it was not practical everywhere
and noted it has been adapted in a few projects, driving innovation in development,
particularly in mixed-use areas.

Vice Chair Rodriguez stated there is difficulty in balancing the need for flexibility in
development with protecting neighborhoods from rapid development. Vice Chair
Rodriguez said there were past concerns about certain developments, such as the
Phoenix Country Club, which raised worries about similar projects taking an easier route
for approval and there needs to be better understand with the current perspective on
expanding development citywide, especially focusing on transit corridors. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that some areas are better suited for mixed-use or dense


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 284
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

development, while others may need a more specialized approach and there are many
challenges for future development.

Committee Member Procaccini asked about the potential for expanding development
beyond the current overlay boundaries and whether there are plans or metrics guiding
future development areas. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the City is planning future
text amendments and noted that the City is trying to be more responsive in addressing
development needs, particularly around transportation hubs and with a focus on
increasing housing options, including single-family and multifamily developments. Mr.
Roanhorse referenced the Housing Phoenix Plan as a guide for future residential
growth.

PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

STAFF RESPONSE

None.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

MOTION 1 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y:

Vice Chair Rodriguez motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff
recommendation.
Committee Member Procaccini seconded the motion.

VOTE 1 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y:

3-8-2; motion to approve Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation fails with
Committee Members Procaccini, Tedhams and Rodriguez in favor; and Committee
Members Doescher, George, Jewett, Mahrle, Perez, Montaño Searles, Warnicke and
Wagner opposed; and Cardenas and Kleinman abstaining.

Chair Wagner stated the motion to recommend approval fails with three votes in favor,
eight in opposition and two abstentions.

Chair Wagner asked if there were any further motions.

Committee Member Mahrle stated he would prefer to provide a statement on his vote
so the Planning Commission would be aware of the Village Committee’s intentions. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that Committee Members may comment on their vote if that is
their preference, and it will be noted in the meeting minutes.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 285
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

MOTION 2 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y:

Committee Member Mahrle motioned to recommend denial of
Z-TA-3-24-Y.
Committee Member Kleinman seconded the motion.

Committee Member George stated that Committee has discussed the text
amendments for an hour and that their vote should count toward an action on the
motion. Chair Wagner responded that the Committee’s vote does have meaning and a
motion to deny the request is before the Committee for action.

Committee Member Doescher stated that access to TOD areas limits access to
workforce residential opportunities.

Committee Member Jewett stated there are inconsistencies in the language and there
remains to be questions about the text amendment.

Committee Member Tedhams stated that development should not be limited to the
area around the light rail and there should be broader opportunities.

Committee Member Warnicke stated that the map may place five story buildings
where they do not belong and limits access for workforce housing.

Chair Wagner stated that the action should apply to the entire City not six percent and
there are discrepancies between HB 2297 and the text amendment.

VOTE 2 FOR Z-TA-3-24-Y:

8-4-1; motioned recommend denial of Z-TA-3-24-Y passes the with Committee
Members Doescher, George, Kleinman, Mahrle, Perez, Montaño Searles, Warnicke and
Wagner in favor; and Jewett, Procaccini, Tedhams and Rodriguez in opposition; and
Cardenas abstaining.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 286
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting September 17, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2, Section
202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions regarding
affordable housing and related items; replace Chapter 6,
Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-Rise and High
Density District) and establish a new Adaptive Reuse and
Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District; and amend Section 662
(Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One
(TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1 and
TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, summarized HB2297 which was approved by the Arizona
Legislature. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added that that this would require adaptive reuse of
existing commercial structures and would be implemented for 10 percent of the City’s
existing commercial, office, or mixed-use buildings. Mrs. Sanchez Luna emphasized that
the text amendment was in response to the Housing Bill 2297. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted
several issues with the bill included having an inventory of all commercial buildings,
difficulty imposing caps and added that all commercial sites are not appropriate for this
implementation. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that the text amendment would apply to Transit
Oriented Community (TOC) areas which had numerous stakeholder input for higher
density and height and contained 20 percent of all commercial properties. Mrs. Sanchez
Luna noted that Downtown, Gateway, and 50th Street Station TOC areas would not be
applicable due to the proximity to the commercial airport. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added that
the overlay would apply to districts which already permit multifamily. Mrs. Sanchez Luna
noted that these developments would be required to provide 10 percent affordable and
workforce housing. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that this does not supersede other
requirements, doesn’t change the zoning classification, does not change permitted uses,
and does not eliminate historic preservation sites. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the
presentation by displaying the timeline for the text amendment and contact information.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 287
Estrella Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Perez asked if the Laveen Village would be hearing an information only
presentation on the text amendment. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that the text amendment
would not be presented in Laveen because there are no TOC areas in the Village. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna displayed the TOC map.

Romona Brown asked if the case is expected to go before City Council in November.
Mrs. Sanchez Luna confirmed. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that the TOC area for Estrella
was located south of the freeway and north of Van Buren Street. Mrs. Brown noted that
she lived within the TOC area. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added that it would not be applicable
to single-family zoned properties. Mrs. Brown noted the large property adjacent to Living
Spaces along the freeway. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that that site is zoned PUD and
that includes a narrative with separate development standards. Mrs. Sanchez Luna added
that this text amendment would not apply to the PUD.

Chair Perez asked for confirmation that Chris DePerro would be giving the next
presentation. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that she will have to verify. Chair Perez asked for
the timeline. Mrs. Sanchez Luna displayed the timeline. Chair Perez request that if the
committee had any questions before the hearing to reach out to Nayeli Sanchez Luna and
Chris DePerro.

Public Comments:

None.

Staff Response:

None.

Committee Discussion:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 288
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 15, 2024
Request: Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify definitions
regarding affordable housing and related items; replace
Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1 District – High-
Rise and High Density District) and establish a new
Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District;
and amend Section 662 (Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One (TOD-1)) and Section 663 (Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two (TOD-2)) and to
clarify how the new Section 632 interacts with the
provision of the TOD-1 and TOD-2 overlay districts.
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 289
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting September 11, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.



VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this request.

Staff Presentation:

Matteo Moric, staff, said the State Law, House Bill 2297, came into place because of
the need for more housing due to the housing crisis. Mr. Moric stated the House Bill
requires certain actions taken prior to January 1, 2025. These include: administrative
permissions for adaptive reuse of existing commercial structures and for conversion of
commercial properties to multi-family use, implementation on up 10% of the City’s
existing commercial, office, or mixed-use buildings. Mr. Moric explained the concerns of
the House Bill and Phoenix’s response to mitigate effects of it and try to mesh it with the
City’s efforts to manage development within City limits. Mr. Moric displayed the City’s
Transit Oriented Communities map and noted it does not include the Downtown area
and two areas adjacent to the commercial airport. Mr. Moric explained the City has an
existing Adaptive Reuse program and is mostly compliant with HB 2297. Mr. Moric
stated for the multi-family portion of the House Bill must provide a minimum of 10% of
the dwelling units as low-income (“Affordable”) and/or moderate-income(“Workforce”)
housing. Mr. Moric indicated we selected WU Code T5:5 development standards, which

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 290
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

has unlimited density (so complies with “highest density within one mile” requirement
and 56-foot height provision (so complies with 5-story height provision of the State Law)
with the exception not to exceed two stories when within 100 feet of single-family
residence district. Mr. Moric added that some properties may not be able to apply some
ARM Overlay District provisions if in conflict with HP or other overlay/regulatory plan
requirements. Mr. Moric identified the Village Planning Committees for villages included
in the ARM Overlay district and noted it would be coming back to the Village in October
for a recommendation.

Questions from Committee:

Joe Barba asked if it would apply to all vacant commercial buildings. Mr. Moric said the
overlay would apply in the Transit Oriented Community (TOC) areas, but not in the
airport area or within the Downtown.

Saundra Cole wanted to know the definition of an overlay. Mr. Moric said property
would still have its underlying zoning but an overlay in this instance would allow
additional height and density by right.

Ms. Cole questioned what is considered affordable. Mr. Moric said there are two
definitions as part of this overlay text amendment. Mr. Moric stated Affordable housing
would include not more than 80% of median income and work force housing would be
between 80 to 120% of the median income. Ms. Cole wanted to know if it was 80% of
the entire State or within Maryvale.

Chris DeMarest said lots of the lower income property include utility fees.

Chair Derie asked if the City would own the land. Mr. Moric said this would be mainly
for private property.

Ken DuBose had concerns that developers were coming in with the overlay to get more
incentives. Mr. Dubose asked about if a 55-year-old community were to come in how
the overlay would impact them. Mr. Moric responded that zoning does not cover the
age groups. Mr. DeMarest said probably if have 10% affordable housing you could do
it.

Mr. Moric said you can still apply for different standards if the overlay standards would
not work for a developer.

Chair Derie asked if a furniture warehouse in a TOD area can turn it into a multifamily
project. Mr. Moric said you would have to still meet building codes.

Mr. DePascal said south of the river wants to develop multi-level apartment complexes.
Jennifer Fostino asked if the House Bill allows industrial uses.

Mr. Moric clarified that they wanted to tailor the ARM Overlay towards the light rail
areas. Mr. Barba said if someone wanted to convert commercial into residential they

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 291
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

would need to meet all the codes and they don’t have to, it just gives them the option to
do so.

Warren Norgaard said rather than the law apply to the whole city it would only apply to
the TOC areas.

Mr. Moric said if they had more questions to forward them to him prior to the next
meeting and he provided Chris DePerro’s contact information who he said is the staff
member who is most familiar with this text amendment.

Mr. Barba asked who the main House Bill writers were as he believed they were
Maryvale State Legislators.

Mr. Norgaard asked what the difference is adding the overlay than leaving the law as
existing. Mr. Moric stated State Law was not so straight forward and there potentially
could be 5-story buildings with higher density scattered throughout the city even in
areas which they may not be suited. Mr. Moric noted this overlay would direct this type
of development in an area which may be more suitable for it.

Public Comments:

None.

Staff Response

None.

Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Committee Discussion

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 292
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y


Date of VPC Meeting October 9, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
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 293
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting September 18, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Chase Hales, staff, presented an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mr.
Hales explained that the main proposal was to create an overlay that would satisfy the
requirements of the recent legislation from the state requiring cities to allow for
adaptive reuse of commercial structures. Mr. Hales stated that the text amendment
would create the Adaptive Reuse Multifamily (ARM) Overlay District, that would apply
to the majority of the pre-existing transit-oriented community districts. Mr. Hales
presented a map that showed all the applicable areas and stated that the reasoning
behind this choice was to concentrate the majority of adaptive reuse projects in not
only places that the City was actively working to increase density, but also because
the existing built infrastructure would support the increase is density. Mr. Hales
finished by sharing the details of the criteria that projects would need to meet in order
to take advantage of the adaptive reuse provisions.

Questions from the Committee:



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 294
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

Committee Member Jaramillo asked that given that the legislation’s intent was to
create opportunities for more affordable housing, why the City was only applying the
overlay to the TOC districts. Committee Member Jaramillo continued stating that he
was afraid that if the City did not effectively implement the requested provisions, the
State would make even stronger pre-emptive laws. Chase Hales, staff, shared that
the timeline for implementation was short, so there was limited time to fully research
and craft a brand new strategy for implementation. Mr. Hales continued stating that
the proposed provisions were also in line with the plans and policies guiding density
and intensity to the light rail corridors.

Committee Member Jaramillo stated that there were already incentives such as
opportunity zones and low-income tax credits in the TOC districts and felt that the
proposal would just put more low-income housing in the same areas that were
already building low-income housing. Committee Member Jaramillo stated that the
proposal would miss the opportunity to allow other parts of the city to have the
transformational change that could bring density to where it is also needed.

Public Comments:

None.

Committee Discussion:

Committee Member Krentz stated that the state of Arizona was behind many other
states that required affordable housing to be created with new development.
Committee Member Krentz shared frustration that the overlay would only apply in the
TOC areas, as he felt that the TOC areas were becoming a catch-all for any new
concepts. Committee Member Krentz stated that he still supported the effort and said
it was a “good first step.” Committee Member Krentz shared that he understood that
wide-spread implementation might not be currently palatable but said that in the future
he hoped the overlay would be applied in other areas of the city.

Committee Member Jaramillo stated that he agreed with Mike Krentz and shared
that the State’s legislation was an opportunity for the City to incentivize affordable
housing throughout the city, not just in the TOC districts. Committee Member
Jaramillo referenced the General Plan, which includes cores throughout the city, and
stated that a direction should be made to have staff look into implementing the ARM
overlay in areas such as the cores when the Committee made its recommendation.
Chase Hales stated that there was already work being done by staff to research new
potential cores and that it would certainly be feasible to have such a work program
implemented.

Committee Member O’Hara stated that there were certainly folks who would fight
against the implementation in other parts of the city as a way to fight against diversity
in their area, which he disagreed with entirely, but that there were other perspectives
to look at housing from, one of them being services. Committee Member O’Hara
referred to the State’s action to remove rental tax, which effective reduced budget
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 295
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y – Info Only

funds for services. Committee Member O’Hara added that working as a fire fighter, he
was familiar with the strain already placed on Phoenix’s fire protection system.
Committee Member O’Hara shared that he appreciated the slow conservative
implementation of the overlay and stated that the broad implementation of the overlay
would permit the potential to have concentrations of demand for services pop up,
straining the City further.

Committee Member Jaramillo stated that he saw the State legislation as a way for
the City to argue against the potential NIMBY (not in my backyard) criticisms, as it will
be required of the City to implement the requirements somewhere.

Committee Member Matthews asked if the City Council could publicly identify next
steps when they make their action at their Formal Meeting. Mr. Hales stated he was
not sure what that would look like but said that the Committee could certainly give
direction in their recommendation.

Committee Member Barraza asked how the proposal compared to the actions other
cities were taking. Mr. Hales stated that he was not aware of actions being taken by
neighboring cities, but that Chris DePerro, the staff member who wrote the staff
report, would likely know more.

Committee Member Adams asked if there were any repercussions if the City did not
comply with the State’s mandate. Vice Chair Matthews stated that the City would
likely be open to civil lawsuits for negligence from property owners wanting to take
advantage of the State’s mandated provisions.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 296
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y


Date of VPC Meeting October 16, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 13-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Stockham, staff, provided a brief presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment Z-TA-3-24 and companion case Z-136-24-Y, sharing elements of the
legislation (HB 2297) and the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay
District, the areas of applicability, the proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions, and the
hearing schedule for the cases.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 297
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews shared his understanding of the proposal and the
timeline for compliance with state law and shared a desire to recommend approval of
the proposal and to expand the applicability to other areas, such as Village Cores, in the
future.

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo added that this is an opportunity to expand it to
other areas now.

Committee Member Arick O’Hara stated that he agreed with Committee Member
Jaramillo but not on the deadline to push this through by January. Committee Member
O’Hara stated that with a deadline to comply by January, the committee could vote no
without direction, and shared that when the committee makes a recommendation with
direction, there is a concern that the committee’s direction could not be listened to by
other hearing bodies. Committee Member O’Hara shared that he does not disagree with
the proposal but disagrees with the way it is being done and that he did not want to limit
it to an area now and expand it later.

Committee Member Mike Krentz shared that state law will be effective in January, this
proposal will serve as a template to expand it to other areas, and reminded the
committee of a previous proposal to expand the Walkable Urban Code applicability area
citywide which was met with opposition.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews stated that City Council will take action before January,
and that he would also like to add direction regarding tracking and reporting the use of
the overlay provisions back to the Village Planning Committees.

Committee Member Joshua Carmona asked if other hearing bodies take into
consideration the direction provided by Village Planning Committees.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews replied that from a Planning Commissioner perspective,
he reads the Village Planning Committee recommendations and if, for example, a
Village Planning Committee recommended denial of a case unanimously, he will take a
close look at the discussion, and that Village Planning Committee recommendations
could impact the Planning Commission recommendation.

Committee Member Gabriel Jaramillo stated he would also like to add direction to
include Village Cores, along the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line, and other major
transportation corridors.

MOTION – Z-TA-3-24-Y
Committee Member Mike Krentz motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-7
with direction that the applicability area be expanded in the future to include the Bus
Rapid Transit line, Village Cores, and other transportation corridors.

Vice Chair Joshua Matthews requested a friendly amendment to include direction that
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 298
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

the Planning and Development Department track how often the overlay provisions are
being used and report back to the Village Planning Committees. Vice Chair Matthews
also suggested that the direction go on the companion case, Z-136-24-Y, which maps
the boundaries of the overlay. Committee Member Krentz accepted the friendly
amendment and the suggestion that direction be provided on Z-136-24-Y and restated
the motion.

MOTION – Z-TA-3-24-Y
Committee Member Mike Krentz motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y
per the staff recommendation. Vice Chair Joshua Matthews seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-3-24-Y
13-0; Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation
passed; with Committee Members Alauria, Carmona, Garbarino, Jaramillo, Krentz,
Larson, McBride, Molfetta, O’Hara, Pamperin, Sommacampagna, Matthews and
Fogelson in favor.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 299
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting September 10, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
Z-TA-3-24, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by the Arizona
Legislature, the areas of applicability, the proposed allowances for multifamily
development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked about where the provisions of the bill would
apply. Mr. Rogers stated that the bill is creating an overlay zone over the existing Transit
Oriented Communities (TOC) areas and explained how the overlay makes site review
more feasible.

Chair Trent Marchuk asked for clarification on whether the text amendment would
permit T5:5 transect development standards only within the Affordable Residential
Overlay (ARM). Mr. Rogers confirmed Chair Marchuk's question.

Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III inquired about what percentage of the Area Median
Income (AMI) qualifies as affordable and workforce housing. Committee Member




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 300
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y - Info Only
September 10, 2024

Marcia Busching stated that affordable housing is considered to be 80% of AMI, while
workforce housing is at 120% of AMI.

Chair Marchuk asked whether the text amendment would apply to new builds or only to
adaptive reuse. Mr. Rogers explained that the bill has two parts regarding adaptive reuse
and multifamily developments, stated adaptive reuse must occur within an existing
building, and explained multifamily developments can be new builds.

Committee Member Greg Brownell raised concerns about practical applications and
asked if adding a second story to R1-6 property or adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) would change the process under the new provisions. Mr. Rogers stated that if the
property is not in the overlay, the provisions do not apply and explained that ADUs are
legal throughout the City of Phoenix.

Committee Member Gene Holmerud asked if the utilities in these areas could support
the additional development. Mr. Rogers explained that TOC areas are designed to
support more intense development.

Chair Marchuk asked about the differences between the ARM overlay and the TOC
map. Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM overlay excludes downtown and the areas near
the airport.

Chair Marchuk inquired if all of this would be handled administratively, and whether
there would be a reduction in rezoning cases in these areas. Mr. Rogers stated that it is
a possibility, but some developers may opt not to provide affordable housing. Committee
Member Busching added that the overlay only allows multifamily development under the
T5:5 standards, while other uses would still require going through the rezoning process.

Committee Member Brownell asked if there is a way to track how many multifamily
permits are being pulled. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not have metrics but explained
that the "My Community Map" is available online and displays where permits are being
pulled.




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y

Date of VPC Meeting October 8, 2024
Request Amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 2,
Section 202 (Definitions) to revise and clarify
definitions regarding affordable housing and related
items; replace Chapter 6, Section 632 (High-Rise H-R1
District – High-Rise and High Density District) and
establish a new Adaptive Reuse and Multifamily (ARM)
Overlay District; and amend Section 662 (Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One (TOD-1))
and Section 663 (Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two (TOD-2)) and to clarify how the new
Section 632 interacts with the provision of the TOD-1
and TOD-2 overlay districts.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with direction
VPC Vote 12-0

STAFF PRESENTATION

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
Z-TA-3-24 and Z-136-24-Y, highlighting the background of the legislation approved by
the Arizona Legislature, the proposed Adaptive Reuse and Multi-Family (ARM) Overlay
District, the areas of applicability, the overlay’s interaction with other policy plans, the
proposed allowances for multifamily development and adaptive reuse, and the timeline
for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Tamala Daniels inquired about the locations of the properties
presented as examples of sites that could be developed under the ARM Overlay. Mr.
Rogers stated that the presented example properties are not in South Mountain and
explained he does not know the exact locations.

Chair Trent Marchuk asked for clarification on conflicts with the ARM Overlay and the
Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD). Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM Overlay
allows commercial properties to develop under the Walkable Urban (WU) Code Transect
T5:5 standards and explained the T5:5 maximum setback is less that the BAOD
minimum setback. Mr. Rogers explained that work had been done on an amendment to
the BAOD in the past but had never gone to City Council for approval. Committee


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 302
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 10, 2024

Member T. Daniels asked for clarification on why the amendment to the BAOD was not
completed in the past and stated that there had been a Text Amendment (TA) to expand
the WU Code’s applicability area. Mr. Rogers explained that he was not aware of the
specific reasons why the BAOD amendment was not completed and explained that the
TA to expand the WU Code’s applicability area ended up failing.

Committee Member Marcia Busching clarified the boundaries of the BAOD, stated that
she initiated the original effort to amend the BAOD, and explained that staff had informed
her that other TAs would need to occur before the BAOD text amendment, resulting in
the effort being paused. Committee Member Busching stated it is a good idea to include
initialization of the BAOD amendment in the motion.

Committee Member T. Daniels expressed confusion and frustration that the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) plan had been worked on for two years, but the BAOD
conflicts had not been addressed, and explained that the City had tried to put forth a
separate TA to reduce parking requirements for multifamily developments, but WU
Code already addresses reduced parking requirements. Mr. Rogers explained that for
staff to continue working on the BAOD amendment, the committee would need to
include a recommendation to amend the BAOD. Mr. Rogers stated that he does not
have information regarding the order in which TAs are brought to the VPC, explained
that House Bill 2297 requires municipalities to implement new rules by the beginning of
next year, and stated the ARM Overlay brought renewed attention to the conflicts with
the BAOD.

Committee Member Greg Brownell asked for clarification on whether resolving the
conflicts between the BAOD and the WU Code would require the WU Code to
supersede the BAOD. Committee Member Busching stated that the BAOD
boundaries could be amended to end at 7th Street.

Chair Marchuk asked for clarification on what process would be triggered if the
committee recommended amending the BAOD. Mr. Rogers explained that such a
recommendation would trigger an additional Text Amendment.

Committee Member T. Daniels discussed the area within the South Central TOD
Community Plan and the BAOD and asked about the boundaries of the BAOD.
Committee Member Busching clarified the boundaries of the BAOD. Mr. Rogers
explained that the City generally supports rezonings to the WU Code only if the site is
within a TOD plan area, and clarified that sites governed by the WU Code within the
BAOD cannot functionally develop due to conflicting regulations.

Chair Marchuk inquired whether the committee would discuss the matter next month.
Mr. Rogers stated that he would need to consult with his team to determine a timeline
moving forward.




South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-24-Y
September 10, 2024

Committee Member Brownell suggested that the committee could also make a motion
to modify the ARM Overlay to address the conflicts. Mr. Rogers explained that the ARM
Overlay is not likely to change much and a modification of the BAOD would likely need
to be an amendment to the BAOD. Committee Member Brownell asked for confirmation
that, if there was an R1-6 property where a second story was being added, this process
would not be impacted. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the ARM Overlay will not change the
process of permitting on an R1-6 property.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to recommend approval of Z-
TA-3-24-Y per the staff recommendation with direction for staff to review the conflicts
between the Baseline Area Overlay District, the WU Code, and the ARM Overlay district
and that the Baseline Overlay District be modified to eliminate any conflicts. Committee
Member Emma Viera seconded the motion.

VOTE
12-0, motion to recommend approval of motion to approve Z-TA-3-24-Y per the staff
recommendation with direction for staff to review the conflicts between the Baseline
Area Overlay District, the WU Code, and the ARM Overlay district and that the Baseline
Overlay District be modified to eliminate any conflicts passed with Committee Members
Alvarez, Beehler, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Coleman, F. Daniels, T. Daniels,
Shepard, Viera, Greathouse, and Marchuk in favor.







Report