Log in

Development

Maricopa County supervisors derail BNSF comprehensive plan changes

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors rejected a plan Wednesday for a change in land designations for a BNSF Railway facility north of Surprise in a move opponents celebrated.

Supervisors unanimously voted to nix the BNSF Intermodal Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change designated land north of Grand Avenue between 211th and 235th avenues from single-family rural to mixed-use employment.

Almost 60 people attended the Nov. 5 meeting in person and online. About half signed up among a freight line of signatures to speak publicly against BNSF setting up a 4,300-acre train depot that would include an intermodal terminal, logistics park and distribution hub. Four labor union members who spoke to support the BNSF project for its potential job opportunities were among the attendees.

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor
Development

Maricopa County supervisors derail BNSF comprehensive plan changes

Posted

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors rejected a plan Wednesday for a change in land designations for a BNSF Railway facility north of Surprise in a move opponents celebrated.

Supervisors unanimously voted to nix the BNSF Intermodal Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change designated land north of Grand Avenue between 211th and 235th avenues from single-family rural to mixed-use employment.

Almost 60 people attended the Nov. 5 meeting in person and online. About half signed up among a freight line of signatures to speak publicly against BNSF setting up a 4,300-acre train depot that would include an intermodal terminal, logistics park and distribution hub. Four labor union members who spoke to support the BNSF project for its potential job opportunities were among the attendees.

Attorney Susan Demmitt, of Gammage & Burnham who represents BNSF, attempted to request another continuance on the train company’s behalf and presented reasons for further delay.

Attorney Tim La Sota, representing project opponent Kirby Anderson, a Wittmann resident who initiated incorporating the town to avoid future problems with corporations planning projects in the rural area, described the case as hard for residents, staff and supervisors, “leaving everyone in limbo.”

La Sota contends the ongoing case has caused property values to plummet, leaving officials in “sort of at the center of this” as train representatives “always say they’re going to so something and they never do it.”

The case originally was scheduled to be heard Dec. 11, 2024. BNSF representatives requested a continuance to March 26, to allow them to continue working with local stakeholders, and for this comprehensive plan amendment case to be heard with the BNSF zoning case. The train company used the same rationale in requesting and eventually receiving continuances that were pushed to Aug. 20 and finally to Nov. 5.

“By granting a continuance, the board is showing support for the public process and support for a solution-oriented approach for its development,” Demmitt said.

The train company is scheduled to meet with transportation agencies on Nov. 13 as part of efforts to solve an already existing problem, get closure to a lengthy process, and discuss the possible framework for a transportation proposal, Demmitt said.

District 4 Supervisor Debbie Lesko, who represents the northwest Valley where the project would be located, questioned Demmitt on the logic behind BNSF scheduling a meeting with transportation representatives after having the Nov. 5 hearing set for months.

“This was just scheduled last week? We continued this in August, right?” Lesko asked.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin pointed out BNSF had nearly a year to address concerns such as infrastructure needs that “have not yet been fully addressed and answered.”

“A year ago, this case was brought before the county Planning and Zoning Commission, and yet we still hear about potential future meetings with ADOT,” he said.

Galvin said while he supports the project’s economic impact and recognizes BNSF’s plans for a railway logistics hub to bring jobs and benefits to the region, he could not support the change.

“I believe economic vitality depends on a shared commitment between taxpayers and business to strengthen and expand the community infrastructure needed for growth. Without the necessary infrastructure in place, I cannot support a land-use designation change at this time,” said Galvin.

When pushed by supervisors as to why the railway went through the county instead of continuing to work with the city of Surprise, Demmitt said the issue was to avoid complicated water issues with the city.

Galvin and fellow board members later agreed the best option is for BNSF to resume talks with the city of Surprise.

“The most logical option is to re-engage with the city of Surprise.

And this is not a game of hot potato and we’re throwing it back to the city of Surprise, but rather for recognition that BNSF originally identified the city of Surprise as the best partner,” Galvin said.
While Galvin voted no, he left the door open if BNSF could solve infrastructure issues with the project.

“BNSF said today they only switched to the county from Surprise because of an issue with the water. They had no supporting evidence today for infrastructure,” he said. “My vote today does not mean no forever, but it means no for now. There’s not enough supporting evidence.”

Lesko echoed that there needed to be coordination between BNSF and Surprise, where the city council in late October approved a resolution saying they were against the project.

“Advancing a large-scale employment land-use designation in unincorporated Maricopa County without city coordination or service agreements in place risks fragmented growth and duplicative service efforts,” said Lesko.

Board of Supervisors Vice Chair Kate Brophy McGee encouraged BNSF to improve relations with the communities and governmental municipalities they partner with to quell conflicts surrounding where the project is supposed to go.

“I would also respectfully point out that BNSF communication has been lackluster to non-existent for months, if not years. I raised the alarm to my connections there months ago. My comments went unheeded. I ask BNSF to go back to the table affirmatively,” Brophy McGee said.

Residents in the area, stretching from near Wittmann to the Sun Cities and Surprise, consistently cited concerns about pollution, traffic and public safety in their attempt to block the project. Many people who spoke at the meeting wore stickers with BNSF crossed out on in the middle of a circle saying to vote ‘No.’

“People have expressed themselves very professionally on this. It’s time, I think, for us to come to a realization that we are dealing with an issue of a moral high ground here. Not only will the citizens of Wittmann be impacted immediately if this goes forward, but really it has a larger scope and scale with respect to the rest of the Valley of the Sun,” said Sun City West resident Bud Meador, who has an online forum about BNSF and its impact on communities.

Meador commended supervisors for what they accomplished as he encouraged them to “do the right thing and do the right thing right.”

The vote does not spell the end of BNSF plans. However, it will require BNSF to do more work to align with the policies set forth in the county’s comprehensive plan for the area.

The White Tank Grand Avenue Comprehensive Plan governs development and growth in the area and was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2023. At the time, BNSF was discussing with the city of Surprise a plan to annex the land it intends to build on, which would provide needed services to support a railway logistics hub for the transportation, storage, and distribution of goods throughout the Southwest, but annexation into Surprise did not occur.

Instead, BNSF requested a mixed-use employment designation within unincorporated county land, but without service agreements in place, according to a press release.

Share with others


Have an opinion on this story? Click here to send a letter to our editors.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here