Tempe Development Review Commission Hearing on General Plan 2050 – June 28, 2023

On June 28, 2023, the Tempe Development Review Commission (DRC) held an introductory public hearing on the proposed "Tempe Tomorrow" General Plan 2050, which updates the city's comprehensive plan with 26 elements, including a proposed new climate change and extreme heat element, and 17 maps. The meeting was the first of two hearings; the DRC took no vote and will make a recommendation at a second hearing on July 25, 2023. State law requires a new general plan within 10 years of the May 20, 2014 voter ratification of General Plan 2040, with a ratification election scheduled for March 12, 2024.

Consent Calendar

• Approved Development Review Commission study session and regular meeting minutes from April 11, 2023; motion carried 7-0.
• Approved study session and regular meeting minutes from May 9, 2023; motion passed 4-0, with Commissioners DeDominico, Cassano, and Lloyd abstaining.

Public Comments & Testimony

• David Sokolowski (via Zoom) voiced concerns about density and housing affordability, calling for housing adequacy and resident participation in housing decisions.
• Carol Stewart, a Tempe resident, said water scarcity should be the top priority, criticized the lack of rent control and large rent increases, and challenged the $70,000 median income figure, arguing the actual average income is lower.
• Janelyn Grenizo, a neighborhood co-chair and 2050 Commission member, said she voted against advancing the draft because there was no paper copy; she praised staff's responsiveness on land-use changes but expressed concerns about neighborhood density and character, and asked for more community education before the final vote.
• Robert Moore, a Community Working Group member, noted the group's 9-6 vote to advance the draft and urged continued outreach, especially to marginalized groups.
• Phil Amarosi, who represented the DRC on the Technical Advisory Group, supported staff's work but asked to reduce density in the Rent Gentili neighborhood, opposed the removal of mixed-use zoning along Southern and Baseline, called for stronger sustainability language using "adopt" and "implement" rather than "encourage," and suggested extending the regional park from Hardy to Priest.
• Shannon Dutton, a resident north of Tempe Town Lake, requested cultural resource area designation for her neighborhood, objected to 45 dwelling units per acre next to single-family homes, and cited a traffic study showing 1,500 cars on Fillmore Street.
• Jack Ketchum supported mixed-use and higher density, arguing it reduces car traffic and supports transit; he opposed the rollback of mixed-use designations.
• Sean Swisher, of the Tempe Sustainability and Resilience Commission and TAG, read a letter stating the plan lacks specific sustainability commitments, opposed density and mixed-use rollbacks for undermining climate goals, and called for higher density in areas such as Danelle Plaza, Broadway/Dorsey/Price, and Rio Salado/Priest, plus a density bonus program.
• Ann Till, a 2050 Commission member and Alameda Meadows neighborhood chair, said she voted no to proceeding based on land-use controversy; she appreciated the density reductions on Broadway/Southern, worried about distressed homes in Alameda, and recommended a resident committee to oversee implementation.
• An unnamed speaker (listed as "Mr. Darcy" in the transcript) asked to keep densities at 25 dwelling units per acre and to create a mixed-use designation at 25 units; he argued that 45-65 units per acre encourage demolition of smaller older apartments.
• Karen Gittless, from the Maple Ash neighborhood, expressed support for staff revisions, particularly cultural resource areas and the historic preservation chapter; she was pleased Mill/University blocks returned to CRA status and asked to reduce Danelle Plaza density to 25 units per acre.
• Steve Amalot, a retired city arborist, called for more trees and sufficient tree maintenance as the city grows.
• Nolan Williams, a Community Working Group member, supported the original draft, opposed CRA expansion, described CRAs as "income exclusivity areas," and requested the CRA be removed from his Daly Park neighborhood.
• Sam Thiel opposed CRA expansion, saying it freezes 2003 densities for 20 years and prevents needed housing for families and students.
• Mike Treacy praised the plan but was disappointed by negative opposition; he asked how the plan addresses homelessness and noted his daughter, a preschool teacher, earns far less than $70,000 and lives with roommates.
• Christina Wirtz asked the plan to consider how building-material costs and safety affect housing affordability.
• Stephen Gurner, president of Tempe Bicycle Action Group and a business owner, supported the cycling and active transportation sections, criticized the loss of mixed-use corridors, and noted MAG projects 71,000 new residents; he said more housing density lowers taxes and improves services.
• Andrew Miller, a company CTO, said his employees want to live in Tempe but cannot, citing long commutes; he was disappointed that housing options were removed.
• Roberta Miller, Brentwood Cavalier Neighborhood Association chair, read a statement opposing high density at Danelle Plaza, urging a human-scale community center instead and accusing city leadership of favoring developers.
• The chair of the Sustainability and Resiliency Commission (unnamed) opposed removing six mixed-use locations, saying it conflicts with the city's affordability, 20-minute city, and sustainability values; he recommended expanding alternative transportation, exploring crowdfunded affordable housing, and holding a public design charrette.
• Berkeley, a property owner on South Maple, opposed the cultural resource area designation on the Gage Addition blocks at Mill and University, saying 70% of property owners are non-owner occupants and the designation limits urban-core development.
• Aphrodon McLaughlin opposed higher density, predicting more traffic, infrastructure strain, taxes, and police demands; he also opposed street diets and bump-outs and suggested community fruit and nut trees.
• Martin Lynch raised concerns about homelessness and the lack of understanding of its causes, as well as crime and financial instability; he called for preserving families and lowering property taxes.
• Liam Huggins, a lifelong Tempe resident, supported sustainability and bike infrastructure, backed density and redevelopment, said CRA locks in outdated zoning, and wanted more development in South Tempe.
• An older resident warned about water scarcity, questioned 100-year water supply assurances, and shared experiences of community projects being blocked.
• Jason Noor, a third-generation Tempe resident, said he cannot afford a home and may leave the city; he supported multifamily and mixed-use housing and urged the commission to reject the rollback amendments.
• An electronics industry representative argued density attracts professionals and supports economic productivity, cited San Jose as a warning against lateral growth, and defended the U.S. dollar's status as a reserve currency.
• Pamela Beal, a 49-year resident, supported mixed-use development but wanted family-sized, affordable units rather than luxury resort-style complexes, such as housing above grocery stores.

Discussion Items

• Staff presented an overview of the General Plan 2050 process: a 15-month community engagement effort beginning in March 2022, including a 26-member Community Working Group, a Technical Advisory Group of about 70 people representing boards and commissions and partner agencies, and numerous neighborhood and targeted meetings. The plan is roughly 388 pages and consists of seven chapters, 26 elements, and 17 maps.
• Staff highlighted changes between the May 5 draft and the June 20 revised draft: strengthened bike and public health strategies, added a downtown historic core section, updated population and employment projections from MAG data, removed the proposed "central Tempe growth area," scaled back higher density and mixed-use designations along Southern, Broadway, and Rural, expanded cultural resource area designations in several older neighborhoods, and added language on transit awareness, dog parks, sustainability, and extreme heat.
• Jacob Payne, senior planner, explained that the new combined land use and residential density map introduces categories including cultural resource, single-family, multifamily (up to 25 or 45 units per acre), mixed-use (moderate/high/urban), industrial mixed-use, and non-residential uses. He said density changes focus on transit corridors and arterial roads, and that changes since May 5 respond to community feedback.
• Staff noted that land use designations in the general plan do not change zoning; they are a long-term vision and can be amended. The plan is not a regulatory document.
• Commission questions and concerns included: clarifying the purpose and origin of cultural resource areas; the reason for density rollbacks; whether sustainability language can be made more concrete; how the plan addresses homelessness; the apparent mismatch between the projected 70,000 new residents and the plan's housing capacity; transportation improvements needed for higher density along Broadway, Southern, and Baseline; the Danelle Plaza area; and a missing fire station on exhibit page 280.
• Staff responded: cultural resource area designations originated in the 2030 General Plan as a density tool to prevent upzoning in neighborhoods with unique post-World War II subdivisions, and additional designations are being evaluated; density rollbacks followed resident feedback at numerous meetings; the general plan cannot be regulatory but language can be strengthened; MAG projects about 70,000 additional residents by 2050, and using a household size of 2.27 persons yields roughly 28,000 needed dwelling units; the area median income for the Phoenix-Mesa metro is $88,800 for a family of four, not $70,000 per person; water supply is analyzed in the 2021 Water Resources Master Plan and building permits require 100-year water supply assurances.
• Since the release of the June 20 draft, staff reported receiving about 30 comments in the prior seven days.

Key Outcomes

• No vote was taken on General Plan 2050; the introductory hearing was for public input and commission guidance.
• The DRC will hold its second hearing and vote on July 25, 2023, at 6 p.m. in City Council Chambers.
• Staff will issue a revised draft one week before the July 25 hearing, incorporating public comments and DRC direction.
• Commissioners directed staff to provide additional analysis on: Danelle Plaza, cultural resource area criteria, transportation upgrades for density along Broadway/Southern/Baseline, sustainability language options, clarification of the mixed-use 25 dwelling unit per acre designation, resolving the population projection discrepancy, and how homelessness is addressed.
• The motion to approve the April 11 minutes passed 7-0, and the motion to approve the May 9 minutes passed 4-0 with three abstentions.