## Facts

- Phoenix’s zoning for a 14.48-acre parcel on Central Avenue allowed intermediate commercial high-rise use but reflected a 250-foot height limitation.
- Phoenix had formally adopted two planning documents in 1979: the Phoenix Concept Plan 2000 and the Interim 1985 Plan, intended to guide land-use decisions.
- The Adams Group sought a zoning amendment to permit construction exceeding the 250-foot limitation; the Planning Commission recommended denial.
- After two public hearings, the Phoenix City Council approved the amendment, authorizing a 500-foot tower.
- Evidence before the Council indicated the 500-foot single-tower proposal would provide more open space than two 250-foot towers that could be built under existing zoning.
- Randolph J. Haines, a nearby property owner, sued challenging (1) whether Phoenix had adopted qualifying “general” and/or “specific” plans under Arizona’s Urban Environment Management Act and (2) whether the rezoning was inconsistent with those plans under A.R.S. § 9-462.01(E).
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the City and the developer, upholding the rezoning, and also found Phoenix had adopted a qualifying general or specific plan.
- Haines appealed the rezoning ruling; the City and developer cross-appealed the plan-adoption finding.

## Issues

1. Whether Phoenix’s Concept Plan 2000 and Interim 1985 Plan constituted adopted “general” and/or “specific” plans under Arizona’s Urban Environment Management Act.
2. Whether the rezoning/height waiver was “consistent with” the adopted plans as required by A.R.S. § 9-462.01(E).

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment upholding the rezoning/height waiver.
- The court affirmed the finding that Phoenix had adopted qualifying general and specific plans.
- The court held the plans qualified under the Act despite alleged incompleteness in statutory elements.
- The court held the rezoning was consistent with the plans because it was in basic harmony with their overall policies, including objectives favoring open space and corridor development.
- The court treated the Council’s zoning decision as legislative and deferred where the consistency determination was reasonably supported.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal planning documents may qualify as statutory “general” and “specific” plans if formally adopted and functioning as land-use guidance, even if they do not contain every enumerated statutory element.
- Under A.R.S. § 9-462.01(E), plan consistency does not require exact textual or numerical conformity; a zoning action satisfies the statute if it is in basic harmony with the plan’s overall purposes and policies.
- Zoning amendments are legislative acts presumed valid; courts will not substitute their judgment for the municipal body’s where the decision is reasonably supported and at least debatably consistent with the plan.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Phoenix’s approval of a 500-foot height amendment, concluding the city’s adopted planning documents qualified under the Urban Environment Management Act and that the rezoning satisfied the statutory consistency requirement because it remained in basic harmony with the plans’ broader objectives.


Haines v. City of Phoenix, 151 Ariz. 286, 727 P.2d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986)