Takeaway
In short, this case holds that adopted but incomplete municipal planning documents can trigger Arizona's plan-consistency requirement, and a zoning amendment survives when the record shows it is in basic harmony with the plan's overall objectives.
Phoenix adopted the Phoenix Concept Plan 2000 and the Interim 1985 Plan in 1979. The plans articulated development policies for the city and, for the relevant Central Avenue area, stated a 250-foot building-height limit. The Adams Group owned a 14.48-acre parcel on Central Avenue that was zoned for intermediate commercial high-rise development, also with a 250-foot height limit.
In 1983, Adams applied to amend the zoning ordinance to allow a 500-foot office building. Although the planning commission recommended denial, the Phoenix City Council held public hearings and approved the height amendment. Randolph Haines sued, contending that the rezoning was inconsistent with the city's planning documents and therefore violated A.R.S. § 9-462.01(E).
The trial court first granted Haines partial summary judgment, holding that Phoenix had adopted a general or specific plan. It later granted summary judgment for the City and Adams, concluding that the amendment complied with the statutory consistency requirement. Haines appealed, and the City and Adams cross-appealed the ruling that the 1979 documents qualified as plans.
Issue #1
Whether Phoenix Concept Plan 2000 and Interim 1985 Plan were adopted general or specific plans within the meaning of Arizona's Urban Environment Management Act.
Holding
Yes. The documents qualified as a general plan and, at least as to the Interim 1985 Plan, potentially as a specific plan, even though they did not yet address every statutory planning element.
Reasoning
Arizona defines a general plan as a municipal statement of land-development policies that sets objectives, principles, and standards for growth and redevelopment. Concept Plan 2000 fit that definition: it established the city's policy of organizing development around urban villages, each with a core, gradient, and periphery. The Interim 1985 Plan supplied more detailed implementation criteria for the Encanto area, and thus could also function as a specific plan implementing the broader concept plan.
The plans did not contain all nine elements that A.R.S. § 9-461.05(C) and (D) requires for a complete general plan. But that omission showed that Phoenix's planning work was incomplete; it did not erase the existence of plans that otherwise satisfied the statutory definitions. Treating any missing element as fatal would allow a city to avoid the statute indefinitely simply by omitting part of a required element.
Phoenix could not avoid the statutory consequences of its adopted planning policies merely by characterizing Concept Plan 2000 as the beginning of general-plan development. The legal question turns on the substance of the documents, not the city's label for them.
Issue #2
Whether A.R.S. § 9-462.01(E)'s requirement that zoning ordinances be consistent with adopted plans applies to an amendment of a zoning ordinance.
Holding
Yes. A zoning amendment that does not itself amend the general or specific plan must be consistent with the adopted plan.
Reasoning
The statutory requirement applies to zoning ordinances and regulations, and the court concluded that it extends to amendments as well as original zoning enactments. Limiting the requirement to the original ordinance would undermine the statute's purpose of protecting landowners and the public from arbitrary or impulsive exercises of zoning power.
Some courts have treated an amendment differently when the local government simultaneously changes its comprehensive plan. But the record here did not show that the City Council intended to amend Phoenix's planning documents when it approved the height increase. The court therefore left the simultaneous-amendment question for another case.
Issue #3
Whether the City Council's approval of a 500-foot building, despite the plans' stated 250-foot height limit, was consistent with the adopted plans under A.R.S. § 9-462.01(E).
Holding
Yes. The height amendment was in basic harmony with the plans and therefore satisfied the statutory consistency requirement.
Reasoning
Ordinarily, zoning and rezoning are legislative acts subject to highly deferential rational-basis review. But A.R.S. § 9-462.01(E) adds an independent statutory standard: consistency with the adopted plan. The court rejected both pure rational-basis review and Haines's proposed rule requiring the City Council to make written findings or justify every departure from the plan.
The appropriate inquiry was whether the evidence before the City Council could support a determination that the amendment was in basic harmony with the plan. Haines retained the burden of proving inconsistency, and the court would not substitute its planning judgment for that of the elected council.
The plans did state a 250-foot height limit, but that direction was expressed in precatory rather than mandatory language. They also promoted concentrated commercial development along the Central Avenue corridor, development of subcores in gradient areas, open space, landscaping, recreation, and usable areas for people.
The Council heard evidence that the proposed single high-rise would provide commercial benefits, open space, recreational areas, and landscaping. It also heard that Adams could instead construct two twenty-story buildings, which would leave less open space and less opportunity for recreational amenities. On that record, the Council could reasonably regard the 500-foot building as furthering other plan objectives despite its departure from the stated height preference.
Written findings would have been preferable, but they were not required. Because the reviewing court could examine the evidence that was before the Council and find basic harmony with the plans, the absence of formal findings did not invalidate the amendment.
Issue #4
Whether the height amendment constituted unlawful spot zoning.
Holding
No. Because the amendment was consistent with the city's general plan, it was not illegal spot zoning.
Reasoning
Spot zoning is not automatically invalid; its legality depends on the circumstances. A parcel-specific zoning action is not unlawful spot zoning when it accords with a general or comprehensive plan designed to promote the public welfare.
Having concluded that the amendment was in basic harmony with Phoenix's plans, the court also concluded that the City Council's action was not illegal spot zoning.