Tempe delays First and Farmer 200-unit project second reading, shelves medical center parking variance
Regular council meeting featuring controversial First and Farmer mixed-use development first hearing with neighborhood opposition over density, approval of Apache Rock Apartments and South Pier tax incentive, and postponement of Generations Medical Center parking variance due to property dispute litigation.
Tempe Council Defers Generations Medical Parking amid Property Dispute; First and Farmer Residential Faces Density Backlash at First Hearing
Tempe City Council's December 9, 2021 regular meeting produced a split outcome on three major land-use items: approval of Apache Rock Apartments with aesthetic dissent, postponement of the troubled Generations Medical Center parking variance due to unresolved litigation over lot boundaries, and completion of the first reading for the hotly contested First and Farmer mixed-use residential project that would bring 200 units to a neighborhood buffer zone at densities well above the current zoning.
The meeting, running past 10 p.m., crystallized three colliding pressures on Tempe's development pipeline: the demand for housing and transit-oriented infill, the city's prior commitments to neighborhood protection through "step-down" density transitions, and the legal entanglement that can paralyze even straightforward zoning changes when property title and lot boundaries are in dispute.
First and Farmer Mixed-Use Development: First Hearing on Controversial Density Conversion
The headline item was the developer presentation on First and Farmer, a proposed seven-story residential conversion of an office project approved in 2019. Sender Associates, through attorney and principal Daren Gordon and developer Sam Gordon, presented the transformation from 4-story office (440 people, 387 cars, 1,836 vehicle trips) to 7-story residential (250 people, 141 cars, 620 vehicle trips). The project includes 200 dwelling units, 20 affordable units at 60% AMI, and 1,036 square feet of retail.
The applicant emphasized traffic reduction as a core public benefit.
"The approved office building versus what we're proposing today as a residential project. The intensity of the project the feel of the project went down considerably. From an office building that would support 400 people to a residential project that has around 250 people. From 387 cars to 141 cars. From 1836 total vehicle trips to 620 total vehicle trips as a residential project." — Daren Gordon, Sender Associates
Architect John Cane and landscape designer Nate Kirby walked through sustainable features: bioswales for stormwater filtration, solar-ready roofing, desert-adapted plantings, vertical green facades, and street-level retail activation. The design preserves the original massing and height approved for the office use.
However, the project requires a General Plan amendment (from 15 DU/AC to 65+ DU/AC), a zoning change from General Industrial to MU-4 (TOD), a Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay, reduced setbacks, increased height (77 feet total, five and a half feet shorter than the office parapet), reduced parking minimums, and a small general plan letter (GPL) subsidy for the 20 affordable units.
Neighborhood Opposition and Broken Agreement
The Riverside neighborhood association, which abuts the site to the west, initially engaged in good faith. Developer Gordon stated the team held six in-person meetings with neighborhood president Philip Yeats and conducted 30 phone calls since May 2021. A written agreement was drafted laying out traffic-calming, parking permits for residents, restricted construction traffic, low-income affordability covenants (25–30 years), and sustainability commitments.
"We ended up with this agreement last night that laid out all these things that Daren mentioned. We came away last night feeling like we were in agreement on all the high-level terms. And they wanted a lawyer to review it which was totally fine. And we woke up this morning and heard a complete 180 than what we heard last night which was the third or fourth time that happened in working with the neighborhood. I'm frustrated, I'm disappointed that we don't have their support for the project. But it's not for lack of trying." — Sam Gordon, Sender Associates
The neighborhood withdrew support on the grounds that the agreement lacked legal teeth and should involve the city as a binding party. In public comment, Meral Darcy (speaking for herself and her husband Janet) objected to the density increase, stating:
"They're asking this project, this project they're asking the city council and also the support of the neighborhood in a general plan amendment which will increase the density which wasn't even heard of and now it's important. And not only do they need a general plan amendment, but they also need a rezoning from general industrial, also and change it to residential which will be mixed-use. Then they want a preliminary area development, PAD and they – it just keeps going on and on." — Meral Darcy, Tempe resident
Philip Yeats submitted a letter (read into the record by the city clerk) stating that while the association was initially excited about the commercial office project, the shift to residential with 200 units at 65 DU/AC was unacceptable. The letter raised concerns about:
- Legally binding city involvement in neighborhood agreements
- Request for $100,000 in city-approved traffic improvements
- Acknowledgment that parking and traffic violations are anticipated
- Opposition to up-zoning in an established residential buffer zone
A summary of Yeats's unattended comments noted he held a neighborhood meeting where "100% of the residents in attendance were opposed."
Todd Green, another resident, spoke in support, noting that the vocal opposition came from only five to six households, while the broader Riverside neighborhood (4,200+ residents) was largely silent. He argued for density near transit and employment centers rather than sprawl:
"Let's go up and not out. Let's save the desert for the jeeps and live here in the city." — Todd Green, Tempe resident
Council Debate: Density and Neighborhood Promises
Councilmember Arredondo-Savage articulated the central tension. She acknowledged the building's architectural beauty and sustainability but could not endorse the proposal:
"The first is density. We talked about density. I know there was some reference to hire about density and height. Those two don't really go together. Density and height. Density is about occupancy. Before this is about a 25-dwelling unit per acre. We had thought we were going to get somewhere in between. We thought it was going to be about 130. And this is big. This is – We talk about 65-dwelling units per acre. Back in the day and I don't remember what year. We had a project going there and one thing we talked about was protecting our neighborhoods. And the way to protect our neighborhoods is to have the step down and buffer be zone between the urban core which is more than 65-dwelling units per acre. That is the urban core. Yours is 130. So we're putting the urban core density in the buffer zone. Is that something I promised to the residents that we would commit to? That we continue to protect our neighborhoods and so for me, it's really hard to get there for me. I made this promise a long time ago." — Councilmember Arredondo-Savage
She also raised concerns about parking and transit incentives:
"I know this is under park I laugh because I know councilmember Kuby loves this and it's great. It's totally fine. It's the way of the future. What I didn't see, how are you going to encourage people to get out of their cars. Are you going to offer metro passes. Is there incentive to encourage rideshare. I didn't see anything in the development to say yeah. We're committed to that and these are the things we give our residents. Technically if I look right. You have 250 bedrooms and 141 parking spaces. So if there's guests that come and want to visit where are they going to park?" — Councilmember Arredondo-Savage
Councilmember Kuby expressed enthusiasm for the building's aesthetics and sustainable features, including affordable housing scattered throughout at the same quality as market-rate units:
"It's the most beautiful project I've seen since being on council. I love the aspects I need to be able to see is gplet. We don't have it yet before us. I don't want to commit tonight. I want to see that to be – that defined and enumerated." — Councilmember Kuby
Vice Mayor Randy Keating praised the conversion and street activation:
"I believe switching this project to multi family was a smart move given the beam's presence across the street. The only thing I have. I know I mentioned to you is trying to see what the results of the gplet would be and analysis from staff and Lavon about that. That's my only real question at this point." — Randy Keating
First Hearing Closure and January 13 Return
No vote was taken. Council requested that the applicant provide written stipulations at the second hearing (January 13, 2022), including the low-income housing affordability period, traffic-calming, parking permitting, and construction traffic restrictions. Councilmember Kuby noted the DRC voted 6–1 for approval. Corey D Woods asked staff and the applicant to provide additional analysis on public benefit and the history of similar street-realignment deals before the second reading.
Apache Rock Apartments: TOD Infill Approved 5–1 Despite Aesthetic Concerns
The council approved Apache Rock Apartments, a 75-unit transit-oriented development adding 23 units to a previously approved 52-unit project at 1935 East Apache Boulevard, less than 200 feet from the light-rail station.
The applicant (Huellmantel & Affiliates) presented the project as an infill completion of a stalled development. The additional 23 units fit within the existing building footprint, requiring only one additional story on Building B. The DRC recommended approval unanimously on October 26, 2021.
Notably, neighborhood leader Phil Amarosi expressed support for the project. The applicant committed to a 20% voluntary contribution (approximately $13,000) to the city's "Hometown for All" workforce housing initiative, though the final amount was still being negotiated with staff.
Vote and Dissent
The motion to approve was made by Councilmember Arredondo-Savage and seconded by Doreen Garlid.
"Maybe it's just because we had a presentation of apartment complex that was so beautiful. It's rare I also look at development and say, that is ugly. I feel it's ugly and an eyesore. Typically I wouldn't notice just the beige and blue doesn't impress me. I feel it's transit oriented development it wasn't an ideal place inner transit oriented – we see none of the context of that neighborhood. So I won't be supporting the project tonight." — Jennifer Adams countered:
"I know we always talk about the step down approach. That's what I'm seeing on this slide that's what is going on with it. If Phil Amarosi is good with this. It's in his backyard, I'm good with it. I appreciate you're working with Phil. He's the neighborhood leader in that area. And I'm a huge believer in empowering neighborhoods in decision-making process. I will be supporting this project this evening." — Corey D Woods echoed Adams's support, emphasizing Amarosi's long tenure (20+ years) as neighborhood association chair and the importance of completing a partially constructed project:
"I also say, I think just, once again, conversations about housing affordability. I'm obviously a huge champion of affordable housing. My big thing is to ensure all our exhibits, I've had – Our neighborhoods, whether it be Papago, North Tempe, Riverside or other neighborhoods loyalty the city. They talked about a mix of housing. They want elements of affordable housing, workforce housing. Know neighborhood says I want all mark rate and luxury. And no neighborhood says all affordable." — Corey D Woods
Final tally: 5–1, with Kuby voting no.
South Pier Tempe Tax Incentive: $1.8 Billion Project Approved 6–0
The council approved a Retail Development Tax Incentive Agreement with South Pier Tempe Holdings LLC for a master-planned mixed-use project at 1190 East Vista del Lago Drive. The $1.8 billion project over 12.43 acres spans 15 years and includes a city transaction tax rebate of up to $1.5 million over five years (50% of unrestricted transaction privilege tax). The developer projects $4 million in annual primary direct revenues to the city once completed—more than twice the incentive being offered.
The applicant certified that the project would not have proceeded without the tax rebate. Staff found the financial analysis supporting the incentive met the city's statutory requirements.
The council voted 6–0 to approve (Navarro absent).
Generations Medical Center Parking Variance: Deferred Pending Legal Review of Lot Boundary Dispute
The most legally fraught item was the Generations Medical Center parking variance at 6301 South McClintock Drive. The applicant (through Gammage & Burnham, PLC) sought to reduce parking from a code-required 198 spaces to the existing 158 spaces (held for 15+ years) by increasing landscaping via a Planned Area Development overlay.
The Core Dispute
The complexity stems from conflicting property plats. In 2003, the city council approved a plat that horizontally split the original larger lot, creating a "dog leg" portion. In 2005, a second plat was recorded that differs from the 2003 version and established the current boundaries recorded with Maricopa County.
The adjacent Tempe Mosque community claims shared ownership of the "back lot" portion (described in 2003 council proceedings and subsequent disputes). The mosque argues that if the parking variance is approved as currently framed, the city is implicitly endorsing a lot-line adjustment that favors Generations Medical and excludes the mosque's interests—without a formal lot-line adjustment application, which would require the mosque's consent as a co-owner.
A spokesperson for the mosque community, identified as serving a community of 400 families and 1,000+ members, explained the issue:
"This lot here. It's fine. We'll go to court. Ask court whether they are the owner or not. The question for council the reason I came here today is that you are considering this as a portion of the this lot with this lot that means you're splitting this lot and adding here. You're doing lot one adjustment on my lot here. But I didn't apply for it. I'm not applicant on this pad. If you have any questions." — Mosque community representative
City staff member Ryan (Deputy Director, Community Development) acknowledged the complicated history:
"There's a reference to a couple recorded plats. Approval of the plat that occurred in 2003 which basically split a larger lot of generation medical center into horizontal split. Without what as this described as the dog leg portion of the lot. There was a second plat that came two years later in 2005. That introduced the formation of what exists today for the Maricopa County recorders office. This is the site in question identified as ownership of Moon Shadow Properties issue willing C and requesting to put it over the current 2005 subdivision plat. I believe the opposing parties have concerns about the validity of title agreements. Reos. Covenants and restrictions and private legal matters. All we have on record now today in the current condition is the 2005 plat that exists since that time." — Ryan, City of Tempe Planning staff
Council Hesitation and Motion to Postpone
Councilmember Kuby raised the critical concern:
"I have a question for our city attorney. Would a decision tonight strengthen the legal case one or the other parties? Or are they completely separate by making a decision about the pack parking is that stating that plat s as filed if there's a concern about it being improperly filed?" — Councilmember Kuby
City Attorney offered to provide legal analysis in executive session if the council wished to recess. However, Councilmember Arredondo-Savage moved to postpone the item to the next regular council meeting, stating:
"I know this is very complicated. I know you and I have had many conversations and we want to have a good resolution. The mosque has been fabulous partners we want to thank you for everything you do for the community. I'm a little confused in regards to where we are and what we are trying to accomplish in the long term. I want to make sure that we're all on the same page going for the same goal. I'm not really positive that's what I'm hearing here tonight. I am not opposed to postponing this item to gather more information to make sure we're all on the same page. I want to understand, too, and maybe would be good to get legal advice before we come together, again, to really understand what is happening in litigation, how this may impact litigation if not if it's something we want to postpone and wait for. I'm happy to make the – to postpone it." — Councilmember Arredondo-Jennifer Adams seconded. The council voted unanimously to postpone pending further legal review and negotiation.
The mosque community stated that solutions exist but require involvement of a third party (Generations Medical's previous owner or lender, not currently at the table), and that approving the PAD as framed would result in loss of 26 parking spaces on the back lot and create further encumbrance.
Verde Opportunity Tempe Street Realignment: First Reading Deferred for Public Benefit Analysis
The council took public comment and held a first reading on Verde Opportunity Tempe LLC's request to realign First Street at the southeast corner of First and Rio Salado Parkway in connection with a development agreement. The applicant would convey city-owned property; the city would realign First Street to accommodate the development.
Councilmember Arredondo-Savage questioned the public benefit:
"I am very concerned in regards to what the public benefit is. I feel like this benefit is 100% for the development. So I'm confused about that. I would like to know if we're setting a new precedent or have there been other types of deals or exchanges where an agreement look similar to this. I don't remember that in my experience. I would like to see that. I am that if we are gifting of the land that it shouldn't be just for the development. That the gifting of the land should be for a public benefit. I need to be convinced that there's a public benefit outside of what is happening here within this development." — Councilmember Arredondo-Doreen Garlid asked for historical precedent and confirmation that the street realignment was in the city's original development agreement and Capital Improvement Plan.
Corey D Woods directed staff and the city attorney to gather comparative deal analysis and clarify the public benefit before the second reading (set for January 13, 2022). Staff committed to providing findings of fact and documentation of any historical similar transactions.
Other Notable Items
Homeless Solutions Supplemental Funding (6A2): Council approved 6–0 the early implementation of FY 2022/23 homeless solutions, allocating funds for six new full-time positions (including a Tempe Works Coordinator) from the General Fund contingency. Randy Keating, noting this was his first time pulling a consent item in five years, praised the regional "Pathways to Home" plan, approved unanimously by all Valley cities, committing $133 million over 10 years to permanently house homeless individuals.
"The reality. I think Crowing talked about this. The people on the streets suffering and many of which coming in the cold weather months and warm months. These people don't care about our fiscal year. They need support and resources now. I appreciate the council stepping up and providing the funding for the resources and positions necessary to help the most vulnerable people in our community become permanently housed and get back on track to leaving a successful life." — Councilmember Kuby
Papago/North Tempe Character Area Plan (7A1): Approved 6–0 without debate.
Consent Agenda (3B1–3B12): Approved 5–0 (Randy Keating and Navarro absent).
Employee Honors: Corey D Woods and council members congratulated Arlene Chin on recognition as one of Arizona's "40 Under 40" by the Arizona Capital Times. Arlene Chin, who served as council aide, was praised for outstanding service and advancement to the Financial Services Department. Randy Keating humorously noted Arlene Chin continued texting updates even while on vacation.
City Manager also announced the departure of long-serving Deputy City Manager and CFO Ken Jones (27 years at the city, 7.5 years in the third-floor role) and the promotion of Financial Services Director Tom Duncing to Interim Deputy City Manager.
New hires included Jessica, the Community Director of Library Services, recruited from Las Vegas and recognized for expertise in youth programming and LGBTQ+ services.
Controversies & Context
First and Farmer Density Conflict: The project represents a collision between the city's goal of transit-oriented, mixed-use infill and standing commitments to established neighborhoods. The 2019 office approval at ~4 stories, 25 DU/AC equivalent has been recast as residential at 7 stories and 65+ DU/AC in a zone previously designated as a "buffer" between the urban core and residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Arredondo-Savage's insistence that the city honor its promise of step-down density protection—a principle articulated in earlier policy—indicates future council debate will turn on whether infill and affordability goals override neighborhood transition policies.
Generations Medical Title and Litigation Risk: The parking variance reveals the danger of proceeding with zoning modifications while property ownership and lot boundaries remain in active litigation. The city's approval of a PAD that implicitly endorses one party's lot configuration could prejudice the litigation and create a precedent that zoning decisions can resolve or preempt private title disputes. By deferring, the council avoided that trap but left the medical center and applicant in legal limbo.
Neighborhood Engagement Breakdown: The First and Farmer developer conducted extensive outreach and secured neighborhood agreement in principle—only to have it withdrawn when the neighborhood demanded city-backed legal enforceability. This dynamic reflects broader frustration among neighborhood associations with developer-neighborhood agreements that lack enforcement mechanisms and carry no city obligation. The council's response (requiring stipulations to be read into the record at second hearing) attempts a middle path but does not address the underlying demand for city-sanctioned, legally binding community benefit agreements.
Duration
- First and Farmer (7B2): ~90 minutes (presentations, public comment, council discussion)
- Apache Rock Apartments (7C2): ~20 minutes
- Generations Medical Center (7C3): ~40 minutes (legal and technical questions dominated)
- Total meeting: ~3.5 hours
Vote Breakdown
| Item | Topic | Result | Vote |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3B1–3B12 | Consent Agenda | Approved | 5–0 (Randy Keating, Navarro absent) |
| 6A2 | Homeless Solutions Supplemental | Approved | 6–0 (Navarro absent) |
| 7A1 | Papago/North Tempe Character Area Plan | Approved | 6–0 (Navarro absent) |
| 7A2 | South Pier Tempe Tax Incentive | Approved | 6–0 (Navarro absent) |
| 7C2 | Apache Rock Apartments | Approved | 5–1 (Kuby no) |
| 7C3 | Generations Medical Center Parking | Postponed | Unanimous |
| 7B2 | First and Farmer (First Hearing) | First Hearing Closed | No vote; second hearing Jan. 13 |
Project Details
First and Farmer Mixed-Use Development
- Case number: Not stated in transcript
- Applicant/Developer: Sender Associates (Sam Gordon, Daren Gordon)
- Attorney: Daren Gordon
- Architect: John Cane
- Location: 206 South Farmer Avenue (also referenced as 464 South Farmer)
- Current zoning → Proposed: General Industrial (GI) + PAD overlay → MU-4 (TOD) + PAD
- General Plan: Medium Density (15 DU/AC) → High Density Urban Core (65+ DU/AC)
- Density: 65+ DU/AC (200 units on ~3 acres, ~66 DU/AC calculated)
- Units: 200 dwelling units, 20 affordable (60% AMI), 25–30 year affordability period (being finalized)
- Commercial: 1,036 sq. ft. retail/café use
- Height: 7 stories, 77 feet total (including elevator, parapet 1 foot below)
- Parking: 141 spaces (reduced from office standard; 66% fewer vehicle trips than approved office)
- Sustainability: Bioswales, solar-ready roofing, vertical green facades, desert-adapted plantings, stormwater harvesting
- Changes from 2019 office approval: Conversion from office to residential; same massing/height envelope; reduced vehicle trips and intensity; addition of affordable housing and sustainability features; reduced parking
Apache Rock Apartments
- Case number: Not stated
- Applicant: Huellmantel & Affiliates
- Location: 1935 East Apache Boulevard (less than 200 feet from light-rail station)
- Current zoning → Proposed: CSS (TOD) → MU-3 (TOD)
- Density: 33 DU/AC (within 65 DU/AC allowance for Apache Character Area)
- Units: 75 total (52 previously approved, 23 additional)
- Commercial: 2,300 sq. ft. retail (ground floor)
- Height change: Building B adds one additional story to accommodate 23 units within existing footprint
- Hometown for All contribution: ~$13,000 (20% voluntary)
- DRC recommendation: Unanimous approval (Oct. 26, 2021)
South Pier Tempe Tax Incentive Agreement
- Applicant: South Pier Tempe Holdings LLC
- Location: 1190 East Vista del Lago Drive
- Project value: $1.8 billion mixed-use over 15 years
- Site area: 12.43 acres
- Tax rebate: Up to $1.5 million (50% of unrestricted transaction privilege tax) over 5 years
- Projected annual revenues to city: $4 million (once completed; 2.67× the incentive)
- Deadline for rebate request: December 31, 2027
Generations Medical Center Parking Variance (Postponed)
- Case number: Not stated
- Applicant/Attorney: Gammage & Burnham, PLC
- Location: 6301 South McClintock Drive
- Site area: 2.796 acres (corrected from 2.4 acres listed in earlier filing)
- Medical office: 29,675 sq. ft. existing
- Current parking: 158 spaces (held 15+ years)
- Code requirement: 198 spaces
- Request: PAD overlay + development plan review to reduce parking to existing 158 and increase landscaping
- Legal complications: Conflicting plats (2003 vs. 2005 recordings); disputed ownership of "back lot" between Generations Medical (Moon Shadow Properties) and Tempe Mosque community; active litigation over title and easement rights
Outcome & Next Steps
First and Farmer: First reading completed. Second and final public hearing scheduled January 13, 2022. Council requested:
- Written stipulations (affordable housing period, traffic-calming, parking permitting, construction traffic restrictions)
- Staff analysis of historical precedent for similar development agreements
- Clarification of public benefit and GPLET terms
- Final GPLET policy and economic analysis
Apache Rock Apartments: Approved 5–1. Conditions to be incorporated into development plan and City Council action documentation.
South Pier Tempe: Approved 6–0. Agreement effective upon execution by Mayor.
Generations Medical Center: Postponed to next regular council meeting. Directed actions:
- City attorney to provide legal analysis (in executive session if needed) on litigation impact
- Staff and applicant to negotiate with mosque community on resolution
- Return with updated information and potential joint motion
Verde Opportunity/First Street Realignment: First reading only. Second reading January 13, 2022. Directed:
- Staff to research comparable city land-gift/street-realignment deals
- Clarify transportation and CIP basis for First Street realignment
- Present written public benefit findings at second reading
Key Speeches
"The intensity of the project the feel of the project went down considerably. From an office building that would support 400 people to a residential project that has around 250 people. From 387 cars to 141 cars." — Daren Gordon, Sender Associates
"We woke up this morning and heard a complete 180 than what we heard last night which was the third or fourth time that happened in working with the neighborhood. I'm frustrated, I'm disappointed that we don't have their support for the project. But it's not for lack of trying." — Sam Gordon, Sender Associates
"Back in the day and I don't remember what year. We had a project going there and one thing we talked about was protecting our neighborhoods. And the way to protect our neighborhoods is to have the step down and buffer be zone between the urban core which is more than 65-dwelling units per acre. That is the urban core. Yours is 130. So we're putting the urban core density in the buffer zone." — Councilmember Arredondo-Savage
"I would like to know if we're setting a new precedent or have there been other types of deals or exchanges where an agreement look similar to this. I don't remember that in my experience." — Councilmember Arredondo-Savage (on Verde/First Street realignment)
"I believe switching this project to multi family was a smart move given the beam's presence across the street." — Randy Keating (on First and Farmer)
"I know this is very complicated. I know you and I have had many conversations and we want to have a good resolution. The mosque has been fabulous partners we want to thank you for everything you do for the community... I am not opposed to postponing this item to gather more information to make sure we're all on the same page." — Councilmember Arredondo-Savage (on Generations Medical)