Maricopa County board denies BNSF land-use change for proposed logistics park after hours of testimony

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 5 denied a major comprehensive plan amendment for 840 acres of BNSF-owned land near Grand Avenue and US 60, voting 5–0 to keep the property’s current single-family rural designation.

Tom Ellsworth, Maricopa County director of planning and development, told the board the application is “for a major comprehensive plan amendment on approximately 840 acres” to change the White Tanks–Grand Avenue area plan map from single-family rural to mixed use employment. He warned that the amendment “is more than that” and raised infrastructure, transportation, water and public safety questions that had been discussed in the 2023 area plan update under the assumption the property would be annexed into the city of Surprise.

BNSF’s attorney, Susan Demet of Gammage & Burnham, described the broader Logistics Park Phoenix project as a $3,200,000,000 private investment on 4,321 acres and asked the board for a continuance so the comprehensive-plan amendment could be considered alongside a rezoning and a multi-agency transportation proposal. Demet said the applicant is coordinating with ADOT, the Maricopa Association of Governments, Maricopa County Department of Transportation and the city of Surprise and requested time for those transportation agreements to be finalized.

Maricopa County Department of Transportation director Jesse Gutierrez told supervisors the local road network is already stressed. He said traffic along Grand Avenue and the Loop 303 reaches "level of service F" during peak hours and that planned improvements in Prop 479 (an interchange slated for construction in 2033 and additional work in 2041) would not fully mitigate projected traffic. Gutierrez said there is an estimated funding shortfall of more than $1 billion for all needed improvements to handle long‑term traffic growth.

Supervisors and staff questioned whether BNSF’s traffic estimates included construction-related trips and pressed for clear commitments on water, wastewater, emergency services and binding intergovernmental agreements. Ellsworth told the board the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval (6–0), but he emphasized that the county’s policy for urban‑scale employment development assumes municipal coordination for urban services.

Dozens of residents from the Whitman area and the Sun City communities spoke in opposition during the public comment period. Speakers cited traffic, emergency-response times, groundwater and water-rights concerns, noise and light pollution, proximity to schools, and potential impacts to rural character and property values. Laura Deaver of Whitman said, “Please vote no on this continuance and the CPA,” and described repeated continuances and limited applicant outreach to the community. Construction‑trade and labor representatives spoke in favor, saying the project would create local jobs.

After deliberation, Supervisor Debbie Lesko moved to deny CPA2024006, citing unresolved infrastructure and intergovernmental coordination and arguing the county’s comprehensive-plan policies were not yet met for an urban employment designation in unincorporated land. Vice Chair Brophy McGee seconded and requested roll-call explanations. Chairman Bill Galvin and each supervisor stated their positions in turn. The motion passed by a 5–0 vote. Chairman Galvin announced: “By a vote of 5 to 0, the motion is passed.”

The vote denies the map change for the 840‑acre portion; it does not approve or deny any rezoning application. County staff and the applicant may pursue alternative paths, including renewed coordination with the city of Surprise or a future county application that addresses the outstanding infrastructure commitments.

What happened next: the board recessed briefly and then continued with other routine statutory and consent items, including sheriff and library matters.

Why this matters: The board’s decision preserves the existing single‑family rural land-use designation pending written, binding solutions for water, wastewater, transportation, and public safety. The denial also highlights the county’s insistence on infrastructure commitments and intergovernmental coordination before allowing urban‑scale employment development in unincorporated areas.

Sources: Maricopa County planning staff presentation and area-plan background; applicant presentation by Susan Demet; testimony of MCDOT director Jesse Gutierrez; public comment record; board roll‑call and vote.