Tempe approves 310-unit Market Station apartments with design modifications, $125,000 affordable housing contribution
TEMPE, ARIZONA — December 7, 2020

Tempe approves 310-unit Market Station apartments with design modifications, $125,000 affordable housing contribution

City Council approved controversial 310-unit Tempe Market Station development with design modifications after heated public opposition regarding affordable housing and Smith Industrial Hub guideline compliance, while also holding annexation hearing on contested Caroline Lane residential project.

City Council Approves Tempe Market Station Apartment Tower Amid Design-Guideline Backlash; Promises Uniform Standards for Future Hub Projects

Tempe City Council voted 6–1 on December 3, 2020, to approve the 310-unit Tempe Market Station mixed-use residential development at the Rio Salado Parkway gateway to the Smith Industrial Innovation Hub, but only after incorporating last-minute design modifications and amid blistering public testimony that the project violates the very planning standards the city had adopted just two months earlier. The approval comes with three stipulations addressing blonde brick facade, blade signage, and masonry metal screening—concessions negotiated by Councilmember Arredondo Savage to improve the building's industrial aesthetic—and a pledge from Trammell Crow (the project's majority developer, working with High Street Residential) to donate $125,000 to the city's newly established affordable-housing fund, a contribution the mayor clarified cannot factor into the zoning decision under Arizona law.

Key Speeches

"I was originally seeking a general plan amendment but you guys were kind enough to take care of that for us recently. This site is ideal for this increased density…it's very appropriate that you would put high-density residential to take advantage of the city's commitment to that type of infrastructure." — Wendy Riddell, attorney, Barry Riddell LLC / Trammell Crow

"I oppose the proposal and strongly hope the council will not approve it. I am concerned about tempe's affordable housing crisis but also as someone trying to encourage community and trust between neighbors and between residents and city leaders I am very concerned about the issue of integrity that this has brought up." — Ronnie Sue Lee, resident and co-chair, Allegra Neighborhood Association

"I do believe that we have to really spend some additional time working on getting much more specific and finite design requirements. I think that we have to be very careful when we're talking to residents about what a building should look like…that we're actually able to deliver on that vision." — Mayor Corey D Woods

"This project cannot set a precedent for the area. The project does not at all reflect the vision of the smith innovation hub. I hope any future project should not be evaluated by what has been approved with this tempe market station." — Deborah Zajac, resident

"I am a no vote tonight." — Councilmember Arlene Chin, noting the project's departure from guidelines on workforce housing, pocket parks, sustainable materials, and art

Timeline

Applicant presentation: Wendy Riddell outlined Trammell Crow's five-story, 310-unit project on 4.6 acres of currently vacant land at the northeast corner of Smith and Rio Salado Parkway, immediately south of Tempe Marketplace. She emphasized consistency with the October 2020 Smith Industrial Innovation Hub design guidelines (which call for high-density residential, 65 dwelling units per acre, up to 90 feet in height) and the general plan amendment approving the site for high-density residential. Riddell presented renderings showing the building's primary frontage along Rio Salado, amenities (dog park, pool, spa, fitness center, courtyards, bike storage), and argued the project would serve 400+ jobs coming to the area through employers like Freedom Financial and Benchmarking Electronics. She then announced three design concessions negotiated with Councilmember Arredondo Savage: replacement of stucco with blonde brick (modified Stipulation 11), addition of a blade sign on the Rio Salado elevation (new Stipulation 24), and masonry metal screening with vegetation and pedestrian gates on patio areas (new Stipulation 25).

Staff recommendation: Not explicitly stated in transcript; Riddell's presentation and council discussion suggest staff had initially recommended approval.

Public comment: Approximately 40 speakers over roughly two hours. Live speakers included Deborah Zajac (resident, 3+ minutes), Ronnie Sue Lee (Allegra Neighborhood Association co-chair, strong opposition to integrity and guideline violations), Victor Arenal (resident, criticized market-rate pricing at $1,500–$1,800/month for studios and one-bedrooms as unaffordable for service workers), and Mark Davis (nearby commercial property owner, strong support citing density benefits and retail revitalization). Madam Clerk then read 30+ written comment cards into the record.

Opposition themes: (1) Project deviates from Smith Innovation Hub guidelines by eliminating live/work units, workforce housing, pocket parks, sustainable materials, and art features; (2) $125,000 affordable-housing contribution is inadequate given Trammell Crow's $1.5+ billion corporate assets; (3) 11th-hour design negotiations undermine public trust and planning integrity; (4) market-rate housing at $1,500+ per unit price point does not serve teachers, police, healthcare workers, or retail/hospitality employees who actually work in the area; (5) approval sets dangerous precedent for future projects to ignore guidelines; (6) process replicates NIMBY and anti-housing tactics by wealthy organizations (e.g., Livable California, funded by Koch-linked groups); (7) no community benefit beyond a tax-roll addition; (8) existing urban-core apartments already sit partially vacant, some converted to short-term rentals (Airbnb/Sonder).

Support themes: (1) Area needs density and population to fill vacant retail and office space and revitalize the Smith hub; (2) project is on the "urban edge" portion of the hub (Rio Salado frontage), which explicitly calls for higher density and height; (3) future streetcar and light-rail transit justify transit-oriented housing; (4) market-rate housing serves workforce migration into Tempe and reduces sprawl; (5) developer has shown flexibility and willingness to negotiate design improvements; (6) organized opposition (Tempe Neighborhoods Together, Protect Caroline) echoes NIMBY blocking tactics that created the housing shortage in San Francisco.

Council discussion:

Councilmember Arredondo Savage opened by praising Riddell and Trammell Crow for listening to her concerns and incorporating design changes. She stated: "I definitely agree with deb zajac from the first hearing to the second hearing…I am grateful for that…I will tell you i will be supporting this project tonight." She then pivoted to framing the approval as an opportunity to develop uniform design principles across all innovation hubs, noting the city had cut short a work-study session to discuss funding for a consultant to draft those standards.

Randy Keating thanked Riddell, emphasized his commitment to developing uniform design standards for innovation hubs and zoning overlays (via a professional consultant and work-study session in early August 2021), and affirmed the city's responsibility to incorporate neighborhood needs at the outset. He also praised John Kristoff's public comment as "eloquent and well laid out."

Jennifer Adams noted the influx of new companies (Freedom Financial, Benchmarking Electronics) and the need to keep their employees living and working in Tempe, pledging to develop a formula for future projects that incorporates neighborhood needs.

Councilmember Arlene Chin dissented sharply, issuing a detailed critique:

"The market station and the smith industrial innovation hub there they may be physically linked because this is supposedly going to be now the gateway project for the smith industrial innovation hub so they're physically linked but they're conceptually contradictory….You mentioned project elements that you are consistent with the smith industrial innovation hub…but you're very selective with those elements…The developer does not plan to provide live work units townhomes loft type units green space pocket parks linear parks….art at intersections is going to be a grab-and-go market food truck areas collaborative office incubator spaces this doesn't seem to be this aesthetic creative vision of an industrial look a funky look cool buildings more creative elements….I am a no vote tonight."

Councilmember Garland walked the neighborhood, observed traffic congestion on Caroline Lane (unrelated to this project), and spoke with nearby business owners who expressed enthusiasm for residential density and foot traffic to fill vacant storefronts. She supported approval.

Mayor Corey D Woods, the final council speaker, emphasized resident engagement and the importance of delivering on promised design and planning visions. He outlined the "urban edge" designation on the Rio Salado frontage (which calls for increased density and height) and explained this project's appropriateness for that specific section. He also committed to developing more specific design guidelines and praised Arredondo Savage's design input. He concluded: "I will be uh in support of this project um one thing i wanted to ask uh vice mayor keating uh just to see if we could get this on the record if people might withdraw their emotions but i wanted to see if someone would make a motion frankly with the modification of stipulation 11…"

Vote: Randy Keating withdrew an earlier motion and moved approval with the modified Stipulation 11 and two additional stipulations (24 and 25). Jennifer Adams seconded. Roll-call vote: Navarro (aye), Cubie (no), Garland (aye), Randy Keating (yes), Arredondo Savage (aye), Jennifer Adams (aye), Corey D Woods (aye). Final: 6–1, with Councilmember Arlene Chin voting no.

After the vote, Riddell announced (via Corey D Woods clarification that voluntary contributions would not be discussed in the voting context): Trammell Crow would donate $125,000 to the city's affordable-housing fund.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: Approximately 20–22 live speakers (Zajac, Lee, Arenal, and ~20 written cards read into record); organized groups included residents of the Allegra Neighborhood Association and participants in Tempe Neighborhoods Together / Protect Caroline.

Main concerns:

  1. Design guideline deviation: Project eliminates live/work units, workforce housing, pocket parks, linear parks, sustainable building materials, and art features promised in the October 2020 Smith Industrial Innovation Hub guidelines; staff had been tasked with creating design vision but developer gained approval to deviate.

  2. Inadequate affordable-housing compensation: $125,000 contribution is "pocket change" for Trammell Crow (corporate assets exceed $1.5 billion); insufficient to offset loss of mandatory workforce-housing units and green space.

  3. Market-rate pricing unaffordable to service workers: Units priced at $1,500–$1,800/month for studios and one-bedrooms, far exceeding median Tempe income (~$50k/year); cannot house teachers, police, healthcare workers, retail/hospitality staff, or ASU students who rely on full-time work.

  4. 11th-hour negotiation undermines planning integrity: Design concessions announced just before final vote; residents had no opportunity to evaluate modifications before second reading; pattern of developer pressure ("threats" to withdraw offer if not approved immediately) suggests city negotiates from position of weakness, not strength.

  5. Precedent and process concerns: Approval without full guideline adherence signals to future developers that guidelines are advisory, not binding; city spent years gathering resident input only to ignore it; council members who claimed commitment to affordable housing and sustainability during 2020 elections now approving market-rate luxury project.

  6. No community benefit: Project adds tax revenue but provides no public amenity, green space, or mixed-income housing; revitalization argument circular (need density to fill storefronts, but density alone does not guarantee tenant occupancy or affordability).

  7. Parking and traffic: Reduced parking requirement (below minimum) with no guarantee of transit modal shift; area already congested.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups:

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Approximately 3–4 live speakers (Mark Davis, John Kristoff) plus supportive council members and staff.

Main arguments:

  1. Urban-edge zoning justifies density: Rio Salado frontage is explicitly designated "urban edge" in Smith Industrial Innovation Hub guidelines, which calls for increased density, height, and commercial/residential integration; project is appropriate for this section even if internal hub areas require different standards.

  2. Transit-oriented development: Future streetcar and light-rail connectivity along Rio Salado support transit-oriented housing; residents can bike or use transit to reach employment and retail, reducing car trips and sprawl.

  3. Employment demand: 400+ new jobs coming to area (Freedom Financial, Benchmarking Electronics, Rio 2100, ASU Novus Innovation Corridor) require workforce housing; market-rate units will attract and retain professionals who can afford to live in Tempe, keeping tax revenue and spending local.

  4. Retail revitalization: Area suffers from vacant storefronts and office space; density and population are necessary (but not sufficient) to energize retail and commercial sectors; existing property owners (Mark Davis, Boyer Company, Vestar/Tempe Marketplace) support project.

  5. NIMBY opposition is coordinated blocking tactic: John Kristoff's comment cited organizational parallels to Livable California and other groups that use contradictory arguments (oppose density but also oppose insufficient parking; oppose height but also oppose low per-capita carbon) to block all housing; tactic has created housing scarcity and $4,000/month rents in San Francisco.

  6. Developer flexibility and good-faith negotiation: Riddell and Trammell Crow responded to council input (especially Arredondo Savage's design concerns) and made substantial changes late in the process; blonde brick, blade signage, and masonry screening improve industrial aesthetic; demonstrates willingness to work collaboratively.

  7. Precedent for future hub development: Project establishes that Smith hub can support residential; future phases can build on design lessons learned and incorporate more guidelines as standards are finalized.

Most compelling arguments:

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Outcome & Next Steps

Decision: Approved with three modified/added stipulations. Trammell Crow pledged a $125,000 donation to the city's affordable-housing fund (a voluntary contribution not factored into the zoning vote per Corey D Woods ruling).

Conditions:

Next steps:

  1. Project proceeds to development and construction phase
  2. City Council to commission a professional consultant to draft uniform design standards and guidelines for all innovation hubs and zoning overlays; funding and work-study session planned for early August 2021 (placeholder noted; council agreed to informal check-in at retreat)
  3. City staff to work with Corey D Woods to define corner signage (city-controlled gateway signage to Smith hub entry)

Administrative: Corey D Woods clarified that any voluntary contributions cannot be legally considered as part of the zoning approval under Arizona Revised Statutes; such contributions are noted separately and pledged after the vote.

Controversies & Context

Design Guidelines Deviation: The Smith Industrial Innovation Hub guidelines, adopted by City Council in October 2020 after extensive community and expert input (including technical assistance from the Urban Land Institute of Arizona), explicitly recommended live/work units, workforce housing, pocket parks, linear parks, sustainable building materials, and public art. The guidelines also emphasized an "aesthetic creative vision of an industrial look, funky look, cool buildings, more creative elements" befitting the hub's character.

Tempe Market Station, as originally presented and as modified only in the final hours before the second reading, omits all of these features. Instead, it proposes a conventional five-story apartment tower with market-rate units and interior amenities. The project was approved despite these departures, with city staff and council members acknowledging that the guidelines were "not requirements but guidance."

11th-Hour Negotiation and Process Integrity: Councilmember Arredondo Savage spearheaded design concessions (blonde brick, blade sign, masonry screening) in recent discussions with Riddell, and these modifications were unveiled during the public-hearing portion of the council meeting. Residents and Arlene Chin criticized the timing, arguing that the public had no opportunity to evaluate or comment on the changes before the final vote. Corey D Woods acknowledged the concern and committed to developing more specific design guidelines to prevent future projects from operating under vague standards.

Deborah Zajac's comment framed the pattern explicitly: "11th hour negotiation versus strong guidelines will this be direction to the city manager and department heads to instruct they have to be firm about the guidelines you have proposed for more than seven years i have been confused of how staff could recommend for approval projects that were so outside of the guidelines that were set by the city."

Affordable Housing Crisis and Volunteer Contributions: The project was presented as a centerpiece of the city's nascent "Hometown for All" affordable-housing initiative, launched by Corey D Woods in 2020. However, the project itself contains zero affordable or workforce units. The $125,000 contribution, while praised by Corey D Woods as "generous," represents approximately 0.01% of the project's estimated $70–80 million total development value (based on typical multifamily construction costs and market rents). Public commenters repeatedly noted that similar contributions from other developers had yielded few or no actual affordable units.

Zajac and others questioned whether the contribution would be earmarked for property acquisition (as the housing trust fund was originally intended) or for rental assistance (a different use case) and expressed concern that diversionary contributions masked the city's failure to mandate affordability within projects themselves.

State Preemption and City Discretion: Corey D Woods explicitly stated that voluntary contributions to affordable-housing funds cannot be legally factored into zoning decisions under Arizona law. However, he and other council members framed the contribution as a goodwill gesture reflecting Trammell Crow's commitment to the city's affordability goals. This legal boundary meant council members could not negotiate a quid pro quo (more units or more contribution in exchange for fewer design concessions), separating the zoning vote from the charitable pledge.

Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns: While not the focus of discussion on this item, Arlene Chin and others flagged reduced parking and questioned whether transit modal shift could be achieved. Randy Keating and other supporters cited the future streetcar and light-rail connections as sufficient justification, but no detailed transit ridership or parking-demand study was presented in the transcript.

Community Trust and Precedent: Multiple residents (Zajac, Lee, others) invoked the council's prior commitments to sustainability, affordability, and quality-of-life standards during the 2020 election cycle and during the Smith hub visioning process. They argued that approving a project that deviates from guidelines undermines trust and signals to future developers that negotiated concessions can override public planning. Randy Keating and Corey D Woods responded by committing to uniform design standards by August 2021, but this promise was prospective and offered no remedy for Market Station itself.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Caroline Lane Annexation (Item 6C2): City Council voted 6–1 to annex 3.75 acres at 1230 West Caroline Lane from unincorporated Maricopa County into Tempe. The decision defers the more contentious rezoning and development questions to a future case. Residents (Anne-Marie Murray, Chris Mitchell, and 140+ petition signers) opposed annexation citing single-access-point traffic hazards: Caroline Lane is a narrow two-lane road serving the gated Tempe Village community (120 homes) and other properties, with access only onto Priest Drive or ending in a cul-de-sac. Tempe's traffic-engineering department had previously limited Tempe Village to 120 homes (not the originally proposed 140–160) due to Caroline Lane capacity constraints. The applicant's attorney, Brennan Ray, stated the annexation is a procedural step only and that a separate rezoning case (with neighborhood meetings and public hearings in mid-2021) will follow if the property is to be developed. Councilmember Cubie requested that city staff reach out to residents to clarify the process and address traffic concerns; city staff committed to extensive neighborhood outreach during the future rezoning phase. Vote: Navarro (no), Cubie (yes), Garland (aye), Randy Keating (yes), Arredondo Savage (aye), Jennifer Adams (aye), Corey D Woods (aye). Final: 6–1, with Councilmember Navarro voting no.

Priest Drive–Grove Parkway Roundabout (Item 6C3): Approved unanimously 7–0 to dedicate city-owned land for public right-of-way and authorize the city engineer to execute dedication and related documents. No public comment; routine infrastructure item.

Council Rules Amendment—Reversion to Committee Structure (Item 5A5): Approved unanimously 7–0. Councilmember Cubie requested that the council revisit the new committee structure at the August 2021 retreat to evaluate effectiveness, without formal re-litigation or revote; Corey D Woods and other council members agreed to an informal "check-in" as part of the regular retreat agenda, with no sunset clause or mandatory reconsideration. This reverses a shift away from standing committees that had occurred during interim council leadership.

Small Business Grant Program (Item 4B): Jill Bushbacher (Economic Development) presented results of the $1.13 million program approved in August 2020 and administered by the Arizona Community Foundation. Awarded 159 applicants ~$6,800 average per grant (total ~$1.094 million); 43% of awards to women- and minority-owned businesses. Additional $175,000 transferred from other programs to continue funding; city manager noted the transfer could be done administratively without separate council vote. No council opposition.

COVID-19 Facility Closures: City Manager announced effective Monday (December 7, 2020), gyms and fitness centers at Kiwanis, North Tempe, Escalante, and West Side community centers would close; sports tournaments halted. Libraries, playgrounds, tennis facilities remain open with safety protocols. Testing Tuesdays program launches December 8 at Cahill Senior Center (free saliva testing, 8 a.m.–noon and 1 p.m.–5 p.m.).

Homeland for All Initiative: Corey D Woods emphasized the city's affordable-housing commitment and pledged to develop policy-level solutions (beyond one-off project contributions) with council support. He highlighted leadership from Randy Keating and others; Councilmember Arredondo Savage expressed gratitude for the collaborative, six-member council support for the initiative, which will be rolled out to the full council on January 14, 2021.