Goodyear Planning Commission rejects 284-unit Hudson Commons rezoning, cites General Plan misalignment

Goodyear Planning Commission Rejects Hudson Commons High-Density Rezoning as "Wedged In" Despite Staff Recommendation and Developer's Traffic-Reduction Argument

The Goodyear Planning Commission declined to recommend approval of Leon Capital Group's controversial Hudson Commons MF24 rezoning on September 14, 2023, voting 0-1 (motion failed) after two hours of testimony that pitted the developer's national track record and traffic analysis against residents' concerns about density, schools, and neighborhood character. The project—284 apartments in three 3-story and one 4-story building on an 11-acre commercial parcel at Estrella Parkway and Van Buren—will still advance to City Council on September 25, but without the commission's endorsement, a rare and notable outcome when staff has recommended approval with stipulations.

Key Speeches

"I looked at our general plan, and it specifically says multi-family high density is focused on the I-10 Corridor, the I-303 Corridor, and City Center. This seems outside that. It also feels like in the last two years I've been doing this, the only things we've seen pretty much are the multi-family extremely dense units. I like to see more of that [diversity] and this might be a site that would work for Condominiums because it is an infill site. But I feel like it's being wedged in here." — Commissioner Sambito

"There's a lot of information on that slide, but we all know that COVID poured gasoline on e-commerce. There's been advances in technology that have allowed e-commerce to take place. So then the question is: okay, well, if not Commerce and not commercial, then why housing? And the answer is: there is a significant housing crisis and housing shortage across the Spectrum and across all income levels. Supply does affect demand, and it does affect affordability." — Brennan Ray, Ray Law Firm, on behalf of Leon Capital Group

"My only concern is having a three-four story building behind my house where I'm going to lose my privacy and it's going to get overcrowded. We move here to the schools—the schools here have an average of 19 to 20 kids. Over there in Los Angeles it's like 34 to 36 kids. So as you can see, the reason why I moved here is because of those. Knowing that it was commercial, I was aware of it. But knowing that they're going to build this, it kind of saddens me." — Sheila Chirinos, Hudson Commons resident

Timeline

• Application filed: May 2022 (16 months prior to hearing, per Brennan Ray).
• Neighborhood meeting: July 19, 2023; ~20 residents attended; zero in favor.
• Staff presentation: Steve Garcia (Principal Planner) outlined 11-acre rezone from C2 General Commercial to MF24 Multi-Family, 284 units, three deviations: height (50 ft vs. 40 ft allowed), density (25 units/acre vs. 24 allowed), and landscape buffer reduction (12 ft vs. 20 ft required under Hudson Commons PD). Staff recommended 19 stipulations; no major opposition from Luke Air Force Base or school districts.
• Public comment: Eight speakers, all against; zero in favor. Speakers: Jonathan Shurig, Domino Praski, Robert Trimble, Sam Rosenberg, Honduras Damian, Sheila Chirinos, and two cards indicating no desire to speak.
• Commission discussion: Commissioners Sambito and Booth voiced concerns about General Plan alignment, over-density, traffic, and appropriateness of infill on a peripheral commercial site. Commissioner Hegates questioned occupancy rates and traffic mitigation. Brennan Ray rebutted with commercial-viability analysis and 725 percent traffic reduction (commercial vs. apartment comparison).
• Vote: Motion to recommend approval failed 0-1. Project returns to City Council September 25, 2023 at 5:00 p.m.

Opposition

Eight speakers against the rezoning:

1. Jonathan Shurig (Hudson Commons resident): Argued that developer's own comments at neighborhood meeting—that he lives in a neighborhood with multi-family overlooking his property and "doesn't like it"—undermined the proposal. Residents purchased expecting commercial, which promised jobs and local entertainment (restaurants, outdoor seating, bars). Density and privacy concerns for families with children; advocated for condos instead.

2. Domino Praski (Hudson Commons resident): Cited 725 percent traffic increase projection. Warned of bottlenecking at proposed traffic light at Hudson Way/Estrella intersection; 825 additional people (conservative 3 per apartment estimate) would congest area. Already dangerous and compacted; residents forced to make U-turns at church to reach freeway. Impact on entire vicinity: Hudson Commons, Farmhouse of Estrella, Avia, Centerra Crossing, Villages of Sentara.

3. Robert Trimble (Hudson Commons resident, mortgage broker, landlord, 47 years in Goodyear, prior California land developer): "Way too dense on 11 acres." Objected to variances for density and height. Noted existing apartment complexes nearby (Pebble Creek, Australian Commons, rental projects behind Marketplace). "We're putting too much density in this confined area." Skeptical of affordability claims.

4. Sam Rosenberg (Bella Rosa resident, across street from Safeway/commercial parcel): Moved from Australian Commons apartment complex due to poor experience (noise, quality of life). Wife is high school teacher at Agua Fria; class sizes jumped from 21 average last year to 34 this year. Eight to nine apartment complexes under construction or recently completed between Bullard and Cerebell, east to west, I-10 to Yuma north to south, in two-year period. "I probably would be looking to sell my home in Goodyear." Prefers gas station to apartments.

5. Honduras Damian (Hudson Commons resident): Raised traffic bottlenecking concern: residents leaving home and work in morning will be stuck behind people exiting apartment complex at signalized intersection, backing up into Hudson Commons. Property value devaluation—competition from multiple apartment complexes forces condominium landlords to lower rents, contradicting "luxury apartment" claim. "Betrayal of rezoning"—residents told commercial, not multi-family; feels like a "backstab." No community benefit articulated by developer.

6. Sheila Chirinos (Hudson Commons resident, moved from Los Angeles two months prior): Moved for schools and suburban character. Schools here average 19–20 students; Los Angeles was 34–36. Loss of privacy from 3-4 story building behind house; concern about overcrowding. Originally thought commercial would provide job opportunities for teenage son.

7-8. Two additional speaker cards (Ray Lane Rosales, Jose Rosales, Anna Gonzalez, Andres, Brian King, Andrea Keith, Mario L, Nora A, Zadie Jackson) did not wish to speak but submitted cards in opposition.

Main concerns (consolidated):

1. Over-density and wedged infill: 25 units/acre (exceeds 24 allowed); four-story building at 50 ft (10 ft above standard 40 ft) on narrow, peripheral site between commercial and new single-family homes.
2. General Plan misalignment: 2035 General Plan (presented during same meeting) explicitly designates high-density multi-family for I-10, I-303, and City Center corridors, not peripheral infill.
3. Traffic impact: 725 percent peak-hour increase claimed by developer's own traffic study; bottlenecking at Hudson Way/Estrella intersection despite planned July 2024 signalization.
4. School capacity: Agua Fria High School teacher reported class sizes doubled from 21 to 34 students; eight to nine apartment complexes already built or under construction in two-mile radius.
5. Property value devaluation: Existing rental competition forcing condominium owners to lower rates; no diversity in housing types or economic benefit.
6. Breach of expectations: Residents told commercial zoning when purchasing; rezoning to multi-family felt like deception.
7. Lack of community benefit: No retail, entertainment, jobs, or local attractions proposed; residents prefer commercial (restaurants, bar, gas station) or alternative housing types (condos) over apartments.

Most compelling argument: Commissioner Sambito's reference to the General Plan's explicit language concentrating high-density housing in three corridors, combined with testimony that residents purchased homes based on commercial zoning promises, reframed the debate from abstract "supply and demand" to policy-compliance and neighborhood trust.

Organized groups: None formally; opposition was organic and resident-led, with multiple speakers from Hudson Commons and adjacent communities.

Support

No speakers in favor. Staff and developer (Brennan Ray) presented arguments, but no residents or community advocates testified for approval.

Developer's key arguments:

1. Commercial nonviability: Within 2-mile radius, nearly all major box retailers and services already exist. E-commerce and COVID have devastated brick-and-mortar retail; hotel developer interest in original plan dissolved when COVID hit. 19 acres (and 11-acre rezone parcel) insufficient for sustainable commercial anchor.

2. Housing supply and affordability crisis: Harvard 2020 housing report showed 48 percent increase in renters earning $75,000+ choosing resort-style apartment living over homeownership. Valley-wide housing shortage (140,000–240,000 unit deficit, depending on source) across all income levels. Leon Capital's portfolio includes 15,000+ units nationwide, award-winning communities.

3. Traffic reduction vs. commercial: Developer's traffic study showed 600 percent daily traffic increase under C2 commercial; 380 percent increase during AM peak; 725 percent during PM peak. Apartments would generate far less traffic than original commercial plan.

4. Design quality and compatibility: Leon Capital made conscious changes post-neighborhood meeting: reduced four-story from planned location to three-story elsewhere; lost 11 units (295 to 284) to preserve 150-foot setback from single-family homes as if building four-story. Internalized amenities (dog park, pool, clubhouse) away from residential. 20-foot landscape buffer (reduced from 30-foot requirement under Hudson Commons PD, but justified as appropriate for residential proximity vs. original commercial truck/loading expectation). 19 stipulations in staff recommendation include enhanced architecture (stone, color variation, full-cutoff lighting, pedestrian connections).

5. Occupancy rates: Current Goodyear apartment occupancy 93–94 percent; developer expects new projects to achieve similar range despite area saturation.

Project Details

• Case number: Not explicitly stated in transcript; referenced as "Hudson Commons MF24" and "rezone on Estrella and Van Buren."
• Applicant / developer: Leon Capital Group (national multi-family developer; 15,000+ units in portfolio, various stages of build/under-construction/under-development; award-winning communities).
• Attorney: Brennan Ray, Ray Law Firm, 1850 North Central.
• Location / address: Southwest corner of Estrella Parkway and Van Buren, Goodyear, Arizona. Part of larger Hudson Commons Planned Area Development (2016, ~102 acres, PD 2016).
• APN: Not stated in transcript.
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: C2 General Commercial → MF24 Multi-Family.
• Density / units / square footage: 11 acres; 284 residential units (mix of 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom); 25 dwelling units per acre (vs. 24 allowed by MF24; variance of 1 unit/acre requested). Original proposal 295 units; reduced to 284 post-neighborhood meeting feedback.
• Height / building configuration: Three 3-story buildings (~40 ft); one 4-story building (~50 ft, vs. 40 ft standard in MF24; 10 ft variance). Four-story building located at Van Buren/Estrella intersection; stepped down to three-story as site transitions west toward single-family residential.
• Buffers / setbacks: 150-foot minimum setback from single-family residential (north and west). 12-foot landscape buffer adjacent to single-family (reduction from 20-foot Hudson Commons PD requirement, justified by change from commercial to residential context). Staff stipulated 30 feet on center with 50 percent live coverage.
• Amenities: Clubhouse with rooftop deck, recreational open space, dog park, leasing area, pool. Internalized to reduce noise/light spillover to adjacent residential.
• Design standards: Multi-material base (stone), color variation, relief, enhanced architecture per stipulation. Parking canopies full-cutoff (no light trespass westward). Zone 2 lighting (full cutoff). Landscape 20 percent of site, 50 percent live coverage.
• Changes from original proposal: Originally proposed 295 units and four-story building closer to intersection; post-neighborhood meeting (July 19) reduced to 284 units and moved/stepped four-story building further from intersection to preserve 150-foot setback, losing 11 units in the process.

Vote Breakdown

• Final on Hudson Commons MF24 Rezoning Recommendation: 0-1 (motion to recommend approval failed).
• Voting commissioners present: Sambito (President), Booth, Wang, Hegates, Vice Chairman Clymer, absent Chairman Kish (excused).
• No commissioners voted yes. Motion failed for lack of a second or affirmative vote; transcript does not name individual votes by commissioner (only Sambito and Booth clearly articulated no/concern).
• Outcome: No recommendation forwarded to City Council; project advances to City Council hearing September 25, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. without commission endorsement.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Goodyear Planning Commission declined to recommend approval of the Hudson Commons MF24 rezoning, despite staff's recommendation with 19 stipulations. The motion to recommend failed 0-1 (no second or affirmative vote recorded). Under Arizona law and Goodyear process, the project is not blocked; it will proceed to City Council on September 25, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. for a final public hearing and vote. City Council has independent authority to approve, deny, or modify the rezoning, independent of the commission's stance. No conditions or continuances were imposed. Staff anticipated City Council would make a final decision the same evening.

Controversies & Context

General Plan Alignment Crisis: The timing of the Hudson Commons hearing coincided with staff's presentation of Goodyear's 2035 General Plan update, which Commissioner Sambito explicitly cited during deliberation. The plan's vision statement emphasizes quality of life, diversity, and inclusion; its six fundamental strategies include "livable and connected," "inclusive and diverse," and "healthy and sustained." Critically, the plan designates high-density multi-family housing specifically for three corridors: I-10, I-303, and City Center. Hudson Commons lies outside all three, on a peripheral infill site sandwiched between commercial and new single-family residences. Sambito stated: "It also focuses on it very specifically [saying] multi-family high density is great, we the citizens want it along the 10, along the 303 extension, and at the city center." The misalignment between the developer's proposal and the community's just-articulated General Plan became the commission's primary objection.

Neighborhood Trust and Rezoning Betrayal: Multiple residents testified that they purchased homes in Hudson Commons or adjacent communities (Bella Rosa, Farmhouse of Estrella, others) under the understanding that the 11-acre commercial parcel would remain zoned for commercial uses (light retail, restaurants, offices, potentially a hotel, as originally planned in the 2016 Hudson Commons PD). The rezoning request felt like a "backstab" (Honduras Damian) and "betrayal" (same resident) because the developer and city appeared to be changing the rules mid-stream. Honduras Damian articulated this most sharply: "We bought there because we were told it was going to be commercial… we will not have picked that spot specifically… if anything I would rather a church, you know as a moral, you know positivity to this world that we kind of feel like we need." Residents argued that the city's General Plan update, presented the same evening, espoused community input and responsiveness, yet the rezoning seemed to override those stated preferences.

Over-Density on Infill: Commissioner Sambito and others characterized the proposal as "over-built for the site." The developer is requesting 25 units per acre (one unit above the 24 allowed by MF24 zoning), a height variance (50 ft vs. 40 ft standard), and a buffer variance (12 ft vs. 20 ft). Sambito noted that while Leon Capital made improvements post-neighborhood meeting (reducing units by 11 to preserve 150-foot setbacks), the developer was still "asking for exception to go even higher" and "asking for more than you're even proposing." This cumulative-variance concern, combined with the site's "narrow wedge" configuration (Booth's description), suggested to the commission that if the site could not support the project without multiple variances, perhaps it was not the right site for this density level.

Housing Diversity vs. Density: Commissioners and residents noted a lack of housing-type diversity in recent Goodyear development. Sambito observed that the city had approved "pretty much multi-family extremely dense units" in recent years, with "maybe one or two" condominiums. Residents and commissioners advocated for townhomes, condominiums, or three-story buildings without four-story towers. Resident Jonathan Shurig suggested "Small condos" as an alternative—denser than single-family but lower-rise than the proposed 4-story, with clearer ownership and reduced privacy concerns. This debate invoked the General Plan's goal for "diverse types of housing" and "ownership opportunities," which rent-only apartments do not provide.

Traffic and Infrastructure Capacity: The 725 percent peak-hour traffic increase figure (generated by the developer's own traffic study comparing the underlying C2 commercial use to the proposed apartments) became a lightning rod. While Brennan Ray argued this demonstrated apartments' reduced traffic impact compared to commercial, residents inverted the framing: 725 percent is still 725 percent, and the area's single signalized intersection (Hudson Way/Estrella, to be signalized by July 2024) and constrained road network could not absorb that volume. Honduras Damian and others warned that the new traffic light would itself become a bottleneck, trapping Hudson Commons residents behind outbound apartment traffic during morning peak hours. Commissioner Hegates asked about occupancy rates and traffic impacts of the seven other apartment complexes under construction or recently completed nearby, a question staff could not answer.

School Overcrowding: Sam Rosenberg, a high school teacher at Agua Fria High School, testified that her class sizes had doubled from 21 students (last year) to 34 students (current year). She attributed this partly to the area's rapid apartment-complex construction. With eight to nine apartment complexes already built or under construction in a two-mile radius, adding 284 more residential units (and potentially 825 more people, at three per apartment) seemed unsustainable. Sheila Chirinos emphasized that her family moved to Goodyear because of the school system's small class sizes (19–20 students vs. 34–36 in Los Angeles), making school capacity a primary concern for future residential expansion.

Commercial Viability and E-Commerce: Brennan Ray's presentation on commercial nonviability was detailed and data-driven but did not sway the commission. He showed that within a 2-mile radius, virtually all major retailers and services already exist (Walmart, Home Depot, Target, gas stations, fast food, etc.), and that e-commerce and COVID had devastated traditional brick-and-mortar retail. His slide noted that the original Hudson Commons PD had planned a hotel and inline shops on the site, but those had not materialized. Nevertheless, residents and commissioners countered that commercial alternatives (smaller, locally-owned restaurants, bars, entertainment, a gas station, a coffee shop) were still desirable and would provide community benefits and local jobs. Resident Jonathan Shurig argued: "an attraction brings people to an area more and if we continue to build up and we continue to bring in more industrial there is an economic value there however it's not bringing in that enjoyment for the residents."

State Preemption and Local Control: No explicit state preemption arguments were raised, but the tension between developer rights (bring a viable project) and community preferences (preserve commercial use, protect school capacity, maintain neighborhood character) underlay the debate. City staff did recommend approval with 19 stipulations, suggesting staff's view that the project, with conditions, would be acceptable. The commission's rejection despite staff recommendation signals that commissioners felt the conditions did not adequately address the fundamental misalignment with the General Plan and community values.

Duration

• This item (Hudson Commons MF24): Approximately 90–120 minutes (applicant presentation, staff presentation, neighborhood opposition and support summary, public comment ~8 speakers at 2–3 minutes each, commission discussion, failed vote motion).
• Total meeting: Not explicitly stated; meeting included 11 agenda items plus general plan presentation, citizen comment period, and communications. Estimated 3.5–4 hours based on transcript length and number of items.

Other Notable Items

Goodyear 2035 General Plan Update Presentation: Matt (Planning Staff) presented comprehensive update to city's general plan with new vision statement, six fundamental strategies (livable/connected, inclusive/diverse, healthy/sustained, resilient/safe, prosperous/innovative, responsive/accessible), and integration of state-required elements. 60-day review period (June 1 – July 31) closed with only 25 online comments, 70 residents at three public meetings, 25 at mobile meeting, 7 government-agency responses, and 3 stakeholder comments. High satisfaction; no major revisions needed. Moving forward to October 18 Planning Commission review (no decision) and October 25 public hearing (recommendation sought) ahead of November 13 City Council adoption and May 21, 2024 voter ratification.

Four Other Approvals (All Unanimous):

1. Citrus and McDowell Light Industrial Rezoning: 47.35-acre rezone from C2/AG to I1 with pad overlay permitting electric vehicle charging station (79 stalls proposed), convenience store, gas station, and car wash in business park format. Presented by Christian Williams. Approved unanimously, recommended to City Council for September 25.

2. Cerebral and MC85 Light Industrial Rezoning: 28.6-acre rezone from preliminary pad (Riverside Park PD) to I1 with pad overlay allowing 70-ft height if 500+ ft from residential. Developer has immediate spec-building user. Presented by Christian Williams. Approved unanimously, recommended to City Council.

3. Business Park District (BPD) Zoning Ordinance Amendment: New commercial zoning district creating campus-like environment with internalized loading docks, 5 percent visible open space, 40-ft buffer to residential, 56-ft height limit, mixed commercial/employment uses. Initiated by staff; work with outside counsel. Approved unanimously, recommended to City Council for September 25.

4. Freeway Sound Attenuation Standard Amendment: Increase maximum exterior noise level from 64 to 67 decibels to align with ADOT standard; three decibels considered imperceptible to human ear. Presented by Steve Garcia. Approved unanimously, recommended to City Council.

5. Larkin Park Convenience Store and Fuel Complex (Use Permit): 48,500 sq ft convenience store, dual fuel canopies (automotive/diesel), propane sales, air-filling station at industrial site. Single nearby residential farmhouse. Presented by Dave Williams; applicant Frank Goodin (Essentia Architecture). Recommended for approval to City Council.

All other items passed with no significant opposition and minimal discussion.