Thank you everyone for attending uh with Mesa City Council meeting here in September 8th, 2025. Uh for roll call, our vice mayor Summers and Council Member Hered are participating by Zoom. Otherwise, all council members are present. Um we'll begin I want to begin uh before we start for September 11th, 2001. As mo most of you remember, you should all remember with a moment of silence for those who died during that tragic event. Can we do that for just a few seconds? Thank you. A moment of silence. Thank you. First, we'll begin with a pledge of allegiance and then followed by an invocation by Elder Matthew Riggs from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, we'll start uh with the pledge. Please join me. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Ple please stand for the invocation. Ellie Riggs. >> Before I say a prayer, let me just uh tell you how much I appreciate anybody who serves on the city. And I know that you make yourselves vulnerable. Appreciate your service. My father served as a councilman, vice mayor. My grandfather, my great-grandfather was a blacksmith at Main Street and Country Club. Uh we we love Mesa. Let us pray. Our Father in heaven, we're so very grateful unto thee for this free land in which we live. We're grateful for the opportunities and the liberties that we enjoy. As this council and and as Mayor Freeman leads this council tonight, we pray for him and for them that they will have thy spirit to guide and direct their feelings, their their expressions. Please bless them with civility, kindness, and strength of character to do those things that are according to thy will, setting aside their own personal thoughts, but always seeking to do the will that's the best for the people of Mesa. We're grateful for their service. We pray that will bless them for their service and bless their families, for the time that they spend away from their families and the service of others. Please watch over and bless and protect their families. Please help them to lead with empathy and love and kindness. We pray that thy spirit will bless them in their leadership. That they will have a spirit of cooperation and camaraderie and to avoid the spirit of contention. We're grateful unto thee for this this land in which we live and pray for all those who are in any political office who are seeking to do thy will. We pray for those in harm's way, for our first responders, and for our military. Please watch over them and bless them and their families. These things we pray for in the name of thy beloved son, Jesus Christ. Amen. >> Thanks. This evening, we'll have uh Mr. Christopher come forward and read our consent agenda. For the record, Mr. Christopher, 4 A, 5 A, 7B, and 7 C are off the consent. Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council members. These are the items on the consent agenda. All items listed with an asterisk will be considered as a group by the city council and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion unless a council member or citizen request, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item. Item two, approval of minutes of previous meetings as written. Item 3 A, act on liquor license application for Shop Quick, 323 North Gilbert Road. Item 3 B, act on liquor license application for Cali Tacos, 2757 East Main Street. Item 3 C, act on liquor license application for One Pot Fusion, 502 South Dobson Road. Item 3 D, act on liquor license application for GJ Liquors, 753 West Broadway. Item 3 E, act on liquor license application for Pit Sakata, 6210 East Mckelops. Item 4 A has been removed from the consent agenda. Item 4 B, approving dollar limit increase of the term contract for custodial services for city facility zone 7 for the facilities management department. Item 4 C approving 10-month use for cooperative term contract with renewal options for transmission repair services for the fleet services department. Item 5 A has been removed from the consent agenda. Item 5B approving resolution to enter into contracts with qualified electric power suppliers for electric power products and associated energy for contract not to exceed 18 months. Item 5 C, approving resolution for zoning case 25-529 for property located east of the northeast corner of Ellsworth and Germaine roads for an industrial park. Item 5D, approving resolution to acquire additional natural gas pipeline transmission capacity directly with Transwestern Pipeline Company or through the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative. Item 6A, approving resolution declaring the documents filed to the city clerk titled chapter 14 employment opportunity district to be a public record and providing for the availability of the documents for public use and inspection with the city clerk. Item 6B, introduction of ordinance for proposed amendments to chapters 14 and 86 of title 11 of the Mesa City Code. The amendments include repealing and replacing chapter 14 employment opportunity district and modifying section 11-86-1 purpose and accountability. Item 7A, introduction of ordinance for proposed amendments to chapter 36 and title of title 11 of the Mesa city code pertaining to legal non-conforming uses, lots, parcels, structures, and sites and legal procedurally conforming uses and structures. Items 7B and 7 C have both been removed from the consent agenda. Mayor, council members, these are the items in the consent agenda. >> Thank you, Mr. Christopher. Do I have a motion to approve? Thank you, Miss Bilsbury. Thank you, Miss Duff. Please cast your vote. >> I >> Thank you, Miss Heredia. Vice Mayor. >> I >> Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Great. Thank you. Next, we'll move over back to 4A. Get over here. 4A is a four-year term contract for weight water and wastewater treatment chemicals for the water resources department. I have one person to speak, Alec Francic. Alex, you want to come forward? Thank you. Say what? Okay. Thank you, mayor, council members. Good evening. It's been a while. Nice to see everybody back again. I urge the before I begin um I'm not against this. I'm just going to make an appeal for an amendment to this. I urge the city to amend this agreement and to remove the fluoride from our public water supply specifically the hydrofluoro psilic acid that's been added since 1999. Hydrofluorocyic acid is a corrosive and toxic byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production commonly used in water treatment to release fluoride ions. However, it meets criteria for hazardous waste due to its toxicity, reactivity, and corrosiveness. Emerging science and ethical consideration demand we reconsider adding such a hazardous chemical to our drinking water. Recent studies show a higher fluoride exposure is linked to lower IQ in children. The national te toxology programs 2025 review found moderate confidence in this association at levels above 1.7 mg per liter based on global epidemiology. A JAMAMA pediatrics made analysis of 74 studies confirmed inverse dose response relationships with even small increases potentially costing children IQ points. While our levels are around.7 milligs per liter, uncertainty at lower exposures warrants caution especially when alternatives like fluoridated toothpaste exists without forcing it on anyone. Hence the wording on toothpaste with fluoride. If swallowed in excess, contact poison control immediately. Harvard research highlights potential potential neurotoxicity and concerns about thyroid disruption and penal gland calcification. Nations like Germany and Sweden have banned water fluidation, proving excellent dental health is possible without it. My family has a water filtration system that's not cheap to specifically help remove fluoride and other toxins. I know people in this audience who also have installed expensive water filtration systems specifically to try and remove the fluoride from the water. This debate is heating up nationwide. States like Utah and Florida have enacted statewide bans on adding fluoride to public water supplies. Cities and counties are following suit, including Miami date county in Florida, DeForest in Wisconsin, uh Abalene in Texas, Yorktown, and Summers in New York, and Bisby right here in Arizona. Health Secretary RFK Jr. has called for re-evaluation, stating fluoride should not be in our water and linking it to risks like IQ loss. Mesa, we can lead to promoting choice and safety. I know I'm running out of time. Last sentence here, removing hydrofluorocyic acid respects the individual rights, reduces potential harm and saves costs on chemicals while encouraging personal dental care. Please amend this agreement to exclude the hydrofluorocyic acid. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alex. I know in the past I've done some research on this and I believe this was a voter approved uh referendum that fluoride was supposed to be added to our water. Can you provide any insight, Mr. Smith? >> Yeah, I'd have to look at it again, Mayor. I I don't want to talk off the cuff. Um I haven't looked at that for a long time. Um, and also even if it was approved by the voters once, I I'd have to look at it as to whether that would limit council's ability to um do any changes in the future. >> Yeah. So, for tonight's discussion, we'll probably move forward with uh with this uh motion to approve it, but you brought up a good point. Let us research into it for next time. So, with that, that's the only comment I have. Is there a motion, Mr. Adams? Uh just just to tag on to those those comments, I recall this debate has heated up and cooled down since at least the 80s and probably before that. Um I'm just wondering if we're going to review this and Mr. Smith doesn't have in front of him the historical. Could we consider postponing this item until we can take a few take a few additional looks at it? Okay. Uh Mr. Smith. >> Yeah, you obviously you can continue it. I don't know the need for this and maybe you want to hear from the water department their need to sort of enter into this contract for you know other purposes. >> I'm not an expert here. I'm just saying it seems like there's a a question of fact here that maybe we want to explore a little further. But >> why don't we bring up Mr. Hassert. Chris come on up and explain uh our fluoride our city water. >> Sure. Good evening Mayor Council. Chris Hasser, water resources director. So, you're correct. It was in the early 2000s that the voters approved adding fluoride to water. So, it's been that the case for 20 to 25 years. Um, hydro fluorocyic acid, it is it's very low pH. It's a pH of about one. So, it's highly acidic. Um, at our all our water treatment plants, we add that compound to fluoridate to a level of about 7 ppm. So, I mean, there's great compelling arguments on on both sides. Um, the American Dental Association. They'll advocate for for Floridaating water, but then there's also compelling arguments um against it. Um, the only reason we flidate is because it was voter approved about 23 years ago. So, it's really as simple as that. >> Mr. Adams, did that answer your question? Yes, I I appreciate that historical I and I would assume a voter approved measure cannot be overturned by council vote. Is that true? >> So, mayor and council, I'd like to look at that. Um, you know, the give it give it give me a chance to research it and if council's inclined to continue this, I'll I can look into that further. >> I'd request that if no one else is of the same mind, then so be it. Well, I would like to know from Chris what the timing is on when you need this approved by. >> Um, well, we have we have a stock of the chemical. When we run out, we would just we would have to stop fluidating the water. So, we would we would not be complying with uh the voter approved mandate. So, it doesn't change the safety of the water or the uh doesn't change it's an aesthetic addition. Fluid dating is aesthetic. So, um the water still complies with the safe drinking water act. doesn't change the safety of the water. It's just we're not adding that aesthetic feature of fluoridating. >> Okay. Council, do you have a problem for continuance? >> I mean, I don't know what how long of a process we're talking about here. Are we talking about months or weeks? Like, if if this is voter mandated, then we should vote to approve it and then continue to research it and look into it because we don't want to run out of the chemicals if this was something that our voters wanted 23 years ago. And we haven't done anything to change that. Well, mayor, you can always do it that you can sort of do it either way. You could approve it and we can bring it back to a study session. We can look at the issue and then you can um and if it's possible for council to overturn it, then we can look on putting that on the agenda and then you can stop it. Or you could continue this for a month. We'll come back in a month and um and provide you with a response on whether your ability to um potentially change um what was voted on. And um whether we've run out of it in that month or not, we'll have to wait and see. Um but obviously it's not intentional that we're we're trying to not flirtate the water in compliance with that um vote, but rather looking at the issue. So, mayor and council, I could find out uh tomorrow morning just how long that compound will last, when we'll run out of it if that would help. >> Okay. >> I don't know if it's one week or if it's six weeks. >> Well, you're asking for a four-year uh supply of chemicals. That's what the request for the current one >> the ability to continue repurch. >> Yeah. >> Well, we wouldn't buy we wouldn't buy four years worth um on one single purchase. It just gives us four years to continue to to re refresh that supply as we run out. >> So, we could do a continuence and then bring it back to the next council meeting. >> Yeah, may we can do that. And since it's it's a contract, we don't have to continue to date specific. If you just do a motion to continue, we'll just bring it back to the next council meeting. >> Do but we don't know. We don't know what your supply, you know, we don't know how important it is to continue. I think we should continue per the voter mandate, you know, through the vote and and so do you have supply to continue and until I don't know if we do continuance how long this is going to take. >> Uh, mayor council, I'll confirm that tomorrow morning. I would suspect it's a matter it's weeks. We have at least weeks. um we wouldn't cut it this close. So, it's probably even more than weeks. It's probably um getting into months in terms of the supply that we have on hand >> and lead times and supply chain. >> Correct. You would have you would have time to come back next council meeting and and consider it again. >> Okay. >> And and mayor, I I would suggest that as well. Why don't Why don't we continue this until the next council meeting? we can we can hopefully find the information out during that time um per the city attorney's uh comments. And then um if for some reason though Chris goes back and he finds out that there was a more immediate need to comply with existing law, we could certainly call a special counsel meeting or take, you know, quicker action if need be. But I I find it hard to believe that they would be cutting it this close on on that supply. So we >> the point of a continuence is to have the discussion, right? But to make a decision would take much longer if we wanted to open it up whether is to a voter whether it is to our own research and evaluation. So we're talking this isn't going to be decided in a week. Mayor and and council member Duff, I I don't disagree with you on that point, but if it gives the council more comfort that they have that knowledge before they take action on this, then we could certainly try to understand the parameters of of what your limitations are under existing voter approved law. >> It does not. >> Everyone, can we can we hold your applause while we have a discussion, please? I think that'd be very respectful. just appreciate that >> applause in this >> you could do jazz hands or something like that but just just help us out here. Okay, appreciate it. >> Um >> Mr. Heredia, do you have any comments? Followed by the vice mayor, then I'll switch over to >> Mr. Heredia. If not, I'll move over to the vice mayor. Mr. Summers. >> Thank you, Mayor. No, my I think the concerns have been well founded with respect to ensuring that we have the right supply and that we follow the law as it is. So if we are certain that there's a adequate supply for the next few months to follow the laws as uh the voters had intended back in 2000. I I'd be comfortable with a continuence. Um either way I think it's going to be an issue that uh ends up revisited. >> Okay. Very good. Mayor Mayor, if I may, there's another consideration um that you should be aware of. I think you are, but in case you're not. >> So, the water surface water that's treated and supplied to this part of the city, it comes from the Val Vista water treatment plant. Uh we co-own that with the city of Phoenix. City of Phoenix manages and operates that plant. They also fluidate. So, the city of Phoenix at all of their water treatment plants, they also fidate. So water in this part of town, even if we decide not to fluidate at our treatment plants, would continue to be flidated by the city of Phoenix. >> Good point. So the flidation happens at the Signal B plant, >> Signal B, Brown Road, and then the Val Vista plant which is operated by Phoenix. All three plants flidate. >> Okay. Does somebody else have a comment? Well, I was just going to say given that information as well as that we have a mandate, um I think Jen's point is well taken that we maybe satisfy the mandate and this is going to be a bigger issue than what we're going to resolve tonight or even probably in a week. It's raised. We should look into it for sure. Um but I don't know that we should do anything different than what we're doing um in order to follow what we're supposed to be doing under the mandate and as far as it it mixing anyway. Those are my thoughts on it. >> Okay, Mr. Butler, any final com? Um, who's speaking? M. Vice Mayor >> or Heridia? >> No, this is Council Member Heridia. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Hey, sorry I couldn't uh get off on mute, but I you know, given that information, I I I'm okay in having the vote uh and and then we can have a discussion afterwards. Uh especially with the information Mr. Hastur uh uh mentioned right now as far as uh having you know being being uh ensuring that we have uh equal um uh equal treatments as far as fluoride throughout our city and ensuring the mandate is is protected there as far as moving forward and then having that discussion after. I I agree with council member Heredia to continue business as usual and and then come back and review it and have the discussion so we can continue. I don't think this is going you have to be able to continue your work at some point and otherwise we're going to have be up against a deadline. Um and I don't know I would like to continue as usual look about it at it and then if we wanted to reverse it and then we just cancel those contracts going forward if that's the case we need to look at it holistically that's going to be take time I think we need to continue business as usual so not to have the disruption in your plans >> very good I'll I'll enter is there anything else vice mayor council member Heredia Mr. Adams. >> Well, it seems like a complicated issue with the uh jointly operated plant, the city of Phoenix. Um I think it's a topic worthy of u our attention at some point in time in the near future. So, um, and I'm I'm hesitant to without knowledge of specifically what that particular vote covered to attempt to override the will of the people at that time. But I think that it's u it's something that we should agenda in the near future and open up a discussion with respect to fluidation. Yes or no? and u have that discussion uh of of its of its own accord. Oh, thank you. I'll entertain a motion. Motion to approve, >> Miss Bilsbury. Second by Miss Duff. Cast your vote, >> Mr. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ready. Mr. Summers. >> Two eyes. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next, we'll move over to item 5A. 5A is approving authorizing the city manager into a ground lease and development agreement option to purchase agreement and three-phase specific development agreements and real estate sales agreements between the city Mesa and RN1 real estate. >> Okay, thank you. Uh we have some individuals speak. Uh, next we'll hear from Alex Francic. Alex, you want to come forward? >> I'm gonna skip this one. >> Pardon? >> Can I skip this one? >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Davis, uh, speak and then Terry Modesca followed. So, Terry, you're on deck. Thank you, Carrie. >> Good evening, honorable mayor and city council. My name is Carrie Davis and I'm here to speak about item 5A in opposition to the culde-sac project. As the former mayor for the city of San Bernardino, I'm well aware of how the potential of over building multifamily units can impact the city. I believe that the agreement does not provide enough minimum required parking spaces. I believe that the city has in this agreement a agreement to refund or to pay for $10 million worth of infrastructure improvement. I believe that the potential negative impact on local businesses is something that should be should be considered with the additional commercial infrastructure that would be provided in these agreements. There's also a lack of grocery stores in this area and I don't believe that this project would be supported u adequately with the the lack of grocery stores in this area. And so for those reasons, I oppose the culde-sac and would consider that the city take this back to the drawing stage and consider another alternative for the 25 acres. In conclusion, I'd also like to just make comment and thank the mayor for coming to the Mesa Republican Women's lunchon today and also indicate that there were over 130 people that are in favor of section 287G. I know that's not an item on this, but I thought it's worthy of at least reporting that to the city council. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Davis. Uh, Alex, I forgot to mention you are opposed to this uh 5A. Uh, next uh Terry. >> And after Terry, we'll hear from uh Armando Hernandez. >> Great. Good evening, Mayor and Council members. My name is Terry Medexa, and I'm the president and executive director of the Downtown Mesa Association. Culdeac represents a rare and timely opportunity to keep downtown Mesa's momentum moving forward. Projects of this scale do not come often and the fact that Culac has proposed for a 25 acre site that has sat vacant for decades makes it truly transformational for downtown. This project will bring 1,000 new residential units, putting more people in our downtown every day. And that's what we hear from our businesses. Our businesses want more people in downtown. They want residents. Residents become the locals that support their businesses. So, I think this project is very important for downtown's future. And I think these residents will not only support Culisax retail, they will also strengthen businesses located throughout downtown. And just as important, this project will help enliven and catalyze nearby investments like the Delta Hotel, the convention center, the amphitheater, and ASU's expanding presence in downtown. We've seen Culdeac Tempe succeed with a nationally recognized people centered design that prioritizes walkability and community. Bringing that proven model here will elevate Mesa as a place to live, visit, and invest. Culdeac is defining opportunity for downtown Mesa. I respectfully urge your support and look forward to working with the city, the Culdeac team, and our business community to ensure its success. Thank you. >> Thank you, Terry. Armando, >> you didn't bring hamburgers for everybody. >> No, no burgers today. >> Hi everyone. So I have a unique kind of u take on this. Um as both I have three businesses here in the downtown area. Tacos Chiwas, Espeditu, and Mainburgers. Um, I also happen to have a restaurant in the current culde-sac in Tempe. Um, and obviously I have had a good experience. I'm here for them. Um, I think that when you take a bold approach into anything and add something to an area that's already kind of feeling like it's thriving, I think it can only help. Um, more people just, you know, this summer for for small businesses even in the downtown was rough. It it it wasn't an easy summer. Um, a lot of the things that happen in a downtown that would allow for businesses to keep growing is to have a a decent summer across. Uh, with the current climate that we have here, with it dying as much as it does in the summer, it it's it makes it really difficult for it to flourish. Um, so I do think that having more um people down here just living and and kind of part of a community where um communication is very clear, where it's, you know, where I've had nothing but just good experience in getting to know people and understanding kind of the the ethos of of this as as a community. Um, I got to travel quite a bit in in other areas and I know that the um notion of of parking always kind of comes up, but the more I've been around uh neighborhoods that have where they they emphasize structures around people and not the cars, the happier it seems that the community is around it. Um, so yeah, I I'm for it. I think that it could be like anything else. Just cuz we don't have a grocery store down here doesn't mean that we can't have one. Um but you also have to have the bodies for it to kind of function. Uh a lot of the reasons uh from what I've understood cuz I'm always trying to urge people to come down here and open things up. It's like they want to see more happening for them to kind of invest and take that and it's um you know it takes just every single thing that we can add I think adds to that and to the notion of where we're at and where we want to go in the future. Um, that's all I have to say. >> Thank you, Armon. Thanks for your investment in downtown Mesa. >> Uh, Mr. Sprag, Tim Sprag. >> I think that's all I have. Mr. Mayor, members of council, my name is Tim Sprag. I'm a person that said five plus years ago that Mesa was next. I will tell you that Mesa is now. Uh we have invested in downtown Mesa because we think it's the future. Having culde-sac as a part of downtown will connect the north to the core to where ASU has seen a new home where we've seen the opportunity for the town to flourish. As Armando just said, grocery stores want to see houses. They want to see rooftops before they come. This is a great opportunity for us to create rooftops. I urge you to vote in favor of this and to continue uh your effort to help the future of this city. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tim. Maybe we can talk. Is Mr. McVey here? Tim, I mean Jeff, are you hiding back there? Can you come forward and talk about this project, the first phase and then the subsequent two? So, it's a three-phase project and how it's going to interact with the historic district as well as our downtown Mesa. >> Certainly, mayor. Um Jeff McVey, manager of urban transformation. Um, happy to be here this evening. Culdeac is a intended to be a three-phase project. Importantly, the first phase is a 140 unit forale town home project. Um, I think we've mentioned this a couple times, but the last time we've had a forale town home project or forale um multifamily or attached single family development in downtown 1986. So, it's been about 40 years since we've had this type of an investment. The second phase is a 225 unit minimum 225 unit um multifamily or additional um forale town home units. It could also have a component that includes a student housing um project that could be with ASU. Now that is very preliminary in discussion. So that that's we've reserved the ability to do so but that's not expected as of today. And then the third phase would be the most intense phase and it' be about 610 units and those would be generally your your your standard um for rent market rate apartments. In total we're looking at minimum of 800 parking spaces to cover the thousand units that are in to um expected with the project. Um I think there was some discussion about the note the reinvestment that the city would be making. Um as part of each phase there is a an agreement. The agreements would include the city reimbursing for a portion of public infrastructure. Uh so that means that we would essentially be paying back for infrastructure that the city would own after it's completed as well as a requirement the city reinvest a a component of the land sale purchase price into new infrastructure offsite that would support pedestrian and bicycle um activity that feeds not only the entire downtown but also supports the connection of culde-sac to light rail and and those modes of transportation that helps it make make a car light development more viable. Thank you, Jeff. So, there's some flexibility built into each phase. We know what the first phase is going to be, but as you talked about the second and third phase, there's flexibility whether it becomes a for sale product or multifamily rent type. >> Correct. Mayor and council, we we wanted the second phase to have that ability because if if phase one is very successful, if the town homes are are very popular, there wouldn't be a reason to not want to continue to do more forale town homes. that is a product that is middle density housing is very um uh you know very desirable just across the city but also helps with attainability um and it also um helps provide density in a way that that is still in an ownership model and and and that is a good mix for us to have in our downtown. >> Okay, good. Um one of the reasons I'm supporting this is because we have an underperforming asset and I've said this for years of our light rail. our light rail is really underperforming. People are not using our light rail as often as they should. So this I know we may be underparked in some areas. However, we find a small segment of our population that does wish to use the light rail or other modes of transportation. Is that going to happen overall? I can't I can't say yes. But what I can say is by bringing additional density to our downtown area, I'm hoping that in the future that our light rail gets utilized much better and stronger. So with that, I'll entertain council uh comments. First, let's start with the vice mayor or council member Heredia, who I can't see. I can see the rest of you. Uh vice mayor, do you have any comments? >> Uh thank you, mayor. I I do. Uh, I'm going to support this as well. This this project uh and this site has been really an eyes sore in our downtown for a very long time. And unfortunately, it was some bad decisions made over 20 years ago um to try to do some other type of development that really wasn't going to work. And so, as you noted, mayor, this has been an underperforming asset. What we really need is a private partner that can come in here and make the investment in the area to grow it, and as has been noted, uh, add more people to our downtown area, to patronize the businesses that are there. I'm away right now, uh, helping my son move. We got a new job and we're here in Redmond, uh, Washington. And it's interesting to see the development that's going on in this downtown area with rooftops that are over retail, uh, new houses that are going up in condominiums. I would love to see more condominiums in Arizona. Unfortunately, some laws are getting in the way of that. But it it really is interesting to see how much activity happens between the trails. Uh he's 10 minutes from downtown, 10 minutes from work. Uh able to to to bike or walk or any type of multimodal. And I think downtown Mesa is a place to make something like that happen successfully. If this project tried to happen in my district, I I I would oppose it because there's there's no way that it could be successful. Which is why just a few weeks ago, I opposed a project because they wanted to shrink garages. The the area over in East Mesa is very, very different in that it's car centric, but downtown has access to to other means. And we certainly could use more people in the restaurants and utilizing the facil the facilities that are down there and growing the economy because a strong downtown is important to a city even for folks in my district. So because of its location, the unique partnership, the fact that uh this private developer has a track record of success, access to multimodal transportation, I think this is a good project in the right location. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Heria, >> just that I supported this project, you know, the quality uh just to add to Mr. Summer's uh comments, the quality of this development is is something that we we're looking for in more of in in Mesa, right? So, uh you know, adding town homes that that's a great addition and added value to to what has been brought uh as far as ideas over the past several years now. and and I think um to have this type of development happen in the vacant land that we've had for so many years in downtown will uh I think add to the momentum that we have in downtown. So I support this project. >> Thank you, Mr. Ridia. Let's go with Mr. Adams next. He he was before you. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, this was one of the first proposals that I looked at as a freshman council member and I I'll be honest, I was I was a bit apprehensive, but I took up the invitation to take a tour of Culdeac's the developers project in Tempee and I was impressed and I was also impressed with the Culdeac team. Um, these are business people. They know what they're doing. Um, I I did some research and continued to receive positive information about their business acumen and their development abilities. But what's really what really turned it for me is the fact that there's 140 for sale units here. I'm a strong proponent for for sale as opposed to for rent. And that's that's that's gotten me on different sides of the fence from time to time. But in this particular case, I've lived here all my life except for the first five years. I can't remember a time when that was not vacant dirt. I'm sure there was, but I'm I'm getting up in the years and I cannot remember a time when that was not vacant dirt. And if it was so marketable that the free market would see an opportunity to develop that, somebody would have by now. Nobody has. And Culac came along and worked with the city team. And yes, there are some concessions here, but nobody's come up with a better idea. Folks don't like it, but all ears for an alternative that would work. And it's been at I don't know what is it 20 30 years I don't know somebody does but at least 20 >> if not longer. I don't remember in this town when there was anything there other than vacant dirt. So um I agree with the vice mayor. I think in other parts of the city no not so much. But here no one has proposed anything better and these are for sale. And Mr. McVey indicated that I'm assuming if the developer finds success with the first 140, they probably won't be able to wait to pour concrete on the next 140 or whatever it is for sale. When people buy, they're invested. That creates neighborhood much more so than than rentals. So, um, it it's it's not the kind of project that's normally up my alley, but in this particular case, because of where it is, how it's structured, what it offers, and what it will do, as the mayor mentioned, to we we've made investments downtown here, and whether we agree with them or not, we have them, and it it is, I think, appropriate to consider how can we make the most of what we've already done. and I I I think Culdeac fits that bill. So, I'm I'm very supportive of the project. Thank you, Mayor. >> Thank you, Miss Goforth. >> I would just echo some of those same points. Um Culdeac has built a great community in Tempe, but they've come over to Mesa and worked with us to design a great community for Mesa. It's not going to look the same as Tempe because Mesa is different than Tempe. Uh again, the we said it was important for us to us that we have for sale products down here and that's what they're they're providing to us. We also said it's important to um integrate and um and and benefit the surrounding communities because they've been there a long time. They're also doing that. They're creating open space on that parcel that is going to be open to the public. So, it's not just going to it's not going to be closed off and only used by those people those residents on um that site, but it's open to the surrounding residents, which which is a great benefit to our downtown. As the mayor said, we have a light rail that needs more ridership and we need people living in downtown and uh that want to take the light rail. And so parking is important, but this is a this is a unique project that's going to encourage people to take other modes of transportation as was stated, walking, biking, and using the light rail. And I think the beauty of our downtown is that we have different and unique and creative developments down here. They don't all look the same. And so this one um satisfies uh certain elements that we're looking for and others satisfy different elements. This one happens to be car uh and and checks the boxes for encouraging people to take other modes. So I'm for this project. I I I think Culac has listened to Mesa, has listened to us and designed a a great community and has been open and flexible to the design um perhaps changing. We're not set in stone on phases two and three. So, I I'm in support of of this project. Thanks, Mayor. >> Miss Mills Bear, >> I don't know that there is much more I could add. Everyone's kind of hit those points, but I do want to just say that I really appreciated Culac inviting all of us out to go see the one in Tempe. I think all of us took advantage of that and it was incredible. It's so unique. It's very different than any other property you've been on. And if you haven't been over there, go go grab dinner over there or go to some of the stores they have. Um it's really unique and I think we are actually super lucky that they want to come to Mesa. Um, I think that with a lot of the um, exciting things that are in our future, looking at that area with the convention center and the Serin House and ASU and all of the all the different things that come together, um, I think it can just really add to this area and find that connectivity that we've kind of been missing and really provide a unique and um, an incredible opportunity for people to live and work right there. um near downtown. So I I'm also in support of it. >> Thank you, Miss Duff. I'm sure you'd like to say something. >> Of course. Of course. I'm so excited to have Culin here and I I see tonight as a mark of celebration, assuming that we are all in favor of being able to go forward with this project that within downtown, the businesses, and you've heard a couple of the stakeholders tonight. so excited. This is a place that downtown, the residents, the businesses, we want. We feel it adds such synergy and and life, more life and to our downtown. It'll be another catalyst that we have that really will get downtown going to that next level. Um, going back, you know, thinking about how we came to what was going to be site 17. This goes back to 2018 when we started community outreach and we hired a consultant and we asked our community, what would you like to see in this property? And there's extensive month after month. I don't know how long that lasted, at least 6 months, maybe longer. And then um it we made an attempt to go forward with another developer and um they did extensive outreach again. It was um we found out it wasn't um a de developer we we wanted to go forward with it. They weren't going to work work out in the agreement. There was some hiccups. So we didn't. And so we went out to the market again and said this is our community plan. This is what they want to see. This is the kind of elements in this 20 25 acres we want to see in housing and commercial and what this looks like and what kind of property do we want it to be. And the community said we want a place that we feel like we're part of that is public that is not a a separate entity. We wanted to feel connected to downtown. We want something very special that is iconic that we can really hang our hat on. That's what we need up here. And yes, we need a a small grosser. It's always been on the list since day one. And getting more people to live here, we can get a grosser. So, um, this is satisfying the call of our community and especially those in downtown as far as what they would like to see in this property. And I'm so thrilled to have Culac be a partner with us in there. They're nationally, internationally acclaimed and the project that they did in Tempe. You can't it's hard to not run across a a publication or a radio interview or something about what they've been able to achieve. It's a lifestyle that people are selecting and wanting to move towards in urban areas. When I talk to young people, um I have um friends who complain their kid does not want to get a driver's license. They don't want to drive. They want someone to drive them or find some kind of alternative mode. They don't want to have driving to be their future. I've talked to young people who have told me that they came to Phoenix and they wanted to be part of the urban lifestyle here and jobs and stuff and they felt that we didn't have adequate transportation. They were committed to not having a car and they moved back to other areas. Portland in particular in a particular conversation. We have the capacity. If we want downtown to be successful, we need the density here and we don't need thousands of cars in our downtown. We need thousands of people. Now, we will accommodate the cars for those people who are here in vertical and and in visiting here, but the people who are living downtown, we don't want to take a car within the square mile. we and to go outside. There's car sharing, there's transit. The future is expected to be autonomous vehicles where you might have an autonomous vehicle and it might take you to work and be working for you by doing drives that like parking spaces itself are going to be something in the past. I've heard developers in and large urban in the northeast talking about even getting away from if they build parking garages is going to be one that'll be comper converted to living spaces eventually because they see that people will there will be cars and driving around but there have a stationary place for them to sit is not part of the future. We have 140 square miles in in in Mesa. We have all kinds of lifestyles from agricultural to gated beautiful gated communities to all kinds of different communities. Just allow this one square mile. Just allow downtown to be a downtown where a lot of people live and choose to live in a different way. It may not be the way that you live. That's fine. We have so much to offer in Mesa, but we need to have this offering, too. 30% of our population doesn't drive whether they choose not to or they can't maybe because of their age. And I for one being a senior, I guess I should call myself. But yeah, my future I don't want to I I don't want driving. I want to find alternative modes. And I plan at some point to be a resident in Culac. That is my future and the a future of a lot of people I've talked to. There all are so many alternative ways to getting around cities now and the future is holding that. So of course I'm in support of this. Um I'm very very excited about this project. I think it's the catalyst for Mesa really putting a stake into for the future. We're not building for 50 years ago. We're not building for even now. We're building for what our kids and what we need as an aging population. Um there's we need all those alternatives. We need to be a relevant contemporary city. Phoenix. People view Phoenix area as carentric and strip malls. Yeah, we have that, but we're so much more. And this needs to be a part of the plan as well. Um, I think I think so many other things have been said and I'll go on on and on because I'm so excited and um I think we should take a vote. >> All right. I have one question for the city attorney. Uh, Mr. Smith, if the developer does not meet the contractual obligations based on the phases, what what happens just so the group knows that they're under tight constraints, >> right? And so the idea is is that it's a lease which the lease is really a vehicle for the sale and if they don't meet certain if they don't meet certain conditions precedence requirements they can't close on the the sale of the the first phase. And similarly they if they don't meet continue to meet the obligations they won't be able to close on the second phase and the third phase. And so the idea is is part of the phasing is also to create deadlines accountability and that we don't sell all the property sort of right out of the gate and um um and not be able to sort of keep the property if they don't perform on the on the initial phases. >> Okay. And I think it's important to point out that there are timelines for this development. >> Okay. Great. I think pretty much everybody's cast their vote, but I'll entertain a motion. Motion by Miss Duff, second by Miss Spillsberry. Please cast your vote, >> vice. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ready. >> I >> Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. [Applause] We'll move over to 7B has been taken off the consent agenda. 7B is uh 4062 East Main 7 plus or minus acres uh multifamily residence to RM4. And I have one person to speak, Mary Maiden. Mary, would you come forward, please? Thank you. >> Good evening, mayor, council members. Um, my name is Mary Maybell. I live off of Brown and Rucker Road. I'm opposed to this. I'm becoming really alarmed at all the threestory apartments I see being built all over East Mesa. This being one of them. This is for 137 apartments, of which 42 are twotory and 95 are threetory. Apparently, the only access is Main Street. And was a traffic study done? I realize probably it's not a problem now, but they keep on narrowing Main Street up and down, and it could be a potential problem down the road for people wanting to exit that. I read that prior zoning allowed for 80 units to be built, but now the number is 137 that's being allowed. The gentleman who spoke here three weeks ago raised the concern of Mesa becoming oversaturated with an over supply of rental apartments and I strongly second that concern. I actually called the Ascend Apartments on record and the 202 and spoke to the person there. They said the occupancy rate there was just a little over 50%. So it's not like there's a line out the door waiting to rent those apartments. If you do see the need for more apartments, which is questionable, people are much less concerned with a two-story instead of a three-story, which is an eyesore to East Mesa residents who love the airy view of the mountains feel that they enjoy. Current stats I found showed that in Mesa, 60% of housing units are owner occupied and approximately 40% are residents are renters. If you keep authorizing more and more of these high, very high density apartments going in, that stat is going to get to a 50/50 ratio pretty soon and eventually renters are going to be surpassing owner occupied numbers. Lest you forget, homeowners live in their homes for years and contribute to stable familyoriented communities. Renters stay about one or two years and are generally transient. Please think about this before you rubber stamp more and more threestory highdensity apartments going in everywhere. Just because Besa 20 240 general plan says you can do it, it doesn't mean you should do it. Please vote no. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mary. So this uh Thank you for the jazz hands. That's awesome. So 7B and 7 C are for introduction only. So that means we'll be hearing it back on September 22nd. So just so you know, it's for introduction and then if we want to have the same conversation on September 22nd, Mary will be here. Okay. >> All right. With that, >> Mayor Freeman, could I just make one clarification me over here? >> Oh, okay. >> Sorry. If I could just make one clarification. This is they've actually submitted a plat with this application. So these would be for home ownership, not as apartments. So, I just wanted to make that clarification as council is considering this next. >> Okay. So, this is going to be platted for sale price. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Great. >> All right. >> Miss Billings. >> Well, I'm just wondering then. So, if we have any comments or questions, you'd like us to wait till we bring it back. >> Uh, you can do it tonight or on the 22nd. >> Do you have any questions for staff? >> No, she had a question. I had >> I had a question, Mary, about the RM4. It's already existing RM4. Is that correct? Put you on the spot. >> That No, that's okay. Council member, go forth. The current zoning is RM4. That's correct. On um and there is a P A on it also. So, there's some modifications that need to be had with that. >> So, the current zoning is RM4, which allows the density of 30 dwelling units per acre. >> That is correct. >> And the proposal is for a density of 19. That's >> correct. 6 dwelling units an acre. So, so the reasoning is is for the P A. >> Okay. Attached single family ownership. >> That's correct. They they have submitted a preliminary plat with this application. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mary. I haven't looked at the site. Are these attached units like three or four in a row and then a space and home? >> Mayor Freeman, they are attached units. So, they're townhouse type units. Some are two stories, some are threetory. >> Okay. All right. Missville, >> I can wait. Okay, great. Uh, I'll entertain a motion to move this forward if you'd like. Motion by Miss Spillsbury, second by Miss Duff. Please cast your vote. Mr. Readia >> I. >> Thank you. >> I. >> Thank you, Vice Mayor. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to item 7 C, which is zoning case 25-0000304, uh, Price Manor 2, uh, 6 and a half acres located, uh, north of Center Street on North Center Street, north of McKelps. I don't know if I like the on east mckelps and north center it's north of mckelps but anyway reszone from single residence 9 from a planned area p a overlay with that to a 41 lot single resident development it is for introduction we have some speakers on this first I'd like to move over patiently to some our speaker online that would be Kimberly van Riper Kimberly are you on the phone >> yes please hi Thank you so much uh council members. Um while I'm in favor of the development general on this parcel, uh I am opposed at this point. Uh one for the increased density, it's higher than most of the nearby homes and I do believe R six is more appropriate than cutting the lot size in half, especially with it abuing the Lehigh heritage neighborhood boundary and around 500 ft from the Lehi sub area boundary. Uh it's only 600 feet from a boarding stable. Now that said, Mr. Lake did agree to include disclosures for proximity to a high livestock use area and is has a single family home design which is very appreciated. Uh, one of the issues I have with this is the outreach and citizen participation was not completed accurately by the applicant. uh when compared to a recording of the public meeting that we have, the citizen participation report should have been amended to include the discussed issues such as livestock concerns, rail fences that were discussed, speed and traffic discussions that took place. This uh the disclosures of livestock activity wasn't included in the report either, and concerns with the Lehigh Center Street intersections, which is a major thorfair for ecoin traffic access to the river. In addition, no mailed notices were sent to any Lehi board members and email communications of concerns were not included in the report. Because of this, the opportunity to see community concerns addressed was simply not possible. What should have been a constructive process left Lehi literally without a voice and left many serious concerns omitted from reports and records. When we talked uh when we talk about Mesa and the amazing unique neighborhoods, we had definitely fit that bill and the required process is intended to give voices to the community as well as to inform the city of issues they may not be aware of. This did not happen. It left us with zero confidence in the public participation process as planning and zoning board did not even discuss the public participation aspect when called to question. Ideally, the applicant would be asked to re-engage public participation appropriately before continuing. My hope is that at a minimum, the applicant is required to correct the public participation report to accurately reflect the community concerns and that planning and zoning board is reminded of the importance of community participation process as a vital uh component to outreach and informing so that future planning and zoning cases will include outreach as intended. Thank you. Thank you, Kim. Uh, next we'll hear from uh Kim Warden. Kim, if you'll come forward, followed by Marilyn Crosby. >> Welcome, Kim. >> Hey. Um, I'm old enough to know what was on the corner. There was houses. the city took them away and I knew people live there. So that's what was there. I'm glad you are getting what you want with the culde-sac for all the people should be there. But we're in Lehi where there's not big group of people and they started out with bigger lots the um planners and they've made it smaller and we just need to keep them at a larger lot. I'm okay with the building, but just keep the lots bigger like they said they were going to and not the smaller lots. >> That's it. >> Thank you, Kim. >> Thanks. >> All right, Marilyn. >> You're welcome. >> Uh after Marilyn, Annette Williams. Annette, you're on deck. Thank you. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council members. It's uh nice to be with you. Thank you for giving me a little bit of time. Um I echo Kim's comments about the density of the of the lot. Um it would be nice if uh the first Kim um if the report were corrected as she indicated. Um I think it's difficult to articulate the expression that someone is supporting a project when support was based on fear of the unknown. So, those that were articulating support at that public meeting were actually articulating that they feared that a a multi-level apartment complex would end there if they end up there if they did not say yes to this. That um they were frustrated with the blight because of the irresponsibility of the existing seller of the property and that they didn't like the fact that they were doing basic maintenance on the property. Those are the reasons for support that were articulated in that meeting. The other um motions of opposition in there were um I would say passionate and diverse and uh but the the sentiment generally was that it was too dense of a project for the area. Not that it should never be developed that there was no disagreement with that that the project you know that a project should happen there that would be more congruent to the neighborhoods on both sides. um you know something similar to Lehigh Shadows that it abuts to would make sense. Something that's R9 like what it's currently zoned for would make sense, but that was just too dense. Um so I hope that the continued conversation can happen and that we can find something that that does blend a bit better and I just support uh you know doing something but we just don't support this. So I thank you for your time. >> Thank you Marilyn. Uh Annette Williams. Annette, >> I prefer not to talk. >> Gotcha. You prefer So Annette supports the project and she does not wish to speak. Correct. >> I don't support. >> Pardon? >> I don't support. >> You don't support. It says you do on here. >> I'll change it for you. >> All right. You're welcome. >> With that, uh, I'll start with a council discussion on the Price Manor 2. or we can move it forward with a motion for introduction and then have the discussion on September 22nd. >> I would like to hear more about the citizen participation, but if we're going to just vote again to do introduction, I'm fine waiting again. >> Mary, why don't you discuss the citizen participation community concern that was brought up? >> Uh, thank you, Mayor Freeman and councel. So, the owner or the the applicant did have a citizen participation meeting and the applicant is here actually if you want some of the details because again they're the ones who do the the summary of that meeting. At that meeting there were some comments that were brought up that at least from a staff perspective seem to be um reflected in the citizen participation report that they prepared at the planning and zoning board. A lot of the same comments were brought up. So, I just want to say that the planning and zoning board did consider the comments that were made by the public at that hearing related to the citizen participation plan and they in making the recommendation and I don't want to speak for them but they must have believed that the the the comments were addressed. So, they did have that meeting there were some concerns raised. there were some things that they agreed um on a on a private property basis to do with the applicant as it relates to the DG trail on center and and some other things that again that the applicant can speak to if you want. So they did follow the code in terms of what the requirements are for that citizen participation plan and we do think that it accur accurately reflects what was said at that meeting. We did have a staff person there and she did confirm that it was generally accurate the the report. >> Very good. Thank you, council. Uh do you want to hear from the applicant, Mr. Adams? >> I I think that would be constructive. Um just if I may, mayor, just a couple of uh comments that Mr. Lake may want to also address when he uh gets the mic. Um I am um As I sit here tonight, I'm not supportive of the project. However, um there is ongoing dialogue, I think, in good faith on on all sides of this issue. Um, I understand um what Mary just commented with respect to the citizen participation report, but sometimes what we what we think falls within all of the uh all of the the checks and and and boxes isn't um the folks who were there may not feel like they were heard and it doesn't sound to me like they were, but um or at least they don't feel like they were. It's um it's an interesting project. It is um it's a nice product. Um we we had a conversation this morning. I said it's a nice product. I just have a problem with where it is proposed to be. So um I I would say that um we have some time here between its introduction and the final decision. I I'm always hopeful that we can that reasonable people can find a way to Yes. that everybody feels like they've won a little bit of what's important to them. I don't know which which way this will go, but uh that's those are my comments at this time. And Mayor, with your permission, I'd yield to Mr. Mr. Lake. >> Mr. Lake, the time is yours. You have three minutes. >> Thank you. I I'm not sure you're yielding to me, but I'm sure happy to take time. Uh Sean Lake, 1744 South Al Vista, Mesa, Arizona, here on behalf of Mr. Sweeney Brighton Homes who is looking to develop this rectangular infill left piece of property uh for four middle housing homes. Uh as you recall about a year and a half ago we did Price Matter 1 which is another long rectangular couple April strip just directly south of here um for for sale single family homes and he's permitted and he's out there developing that site now. And so these two pieces kind of sit in a very unique area. You have a mobile home park directly to the south that's zoned for 30 units to the acre that could go in and when that mobile home redevelop mobile home park redevelops, you're going to have multif family by right on the east side of this property. You don't have Lehi. You have areas that were developed adjacent to Lehi with some uh transition density type housing with Lehi shadows as well as some uh mobile home subdivisions to our east. Then to the north of it, you have the A dot retention basin. And so, and then on the other side, to the west, you have the new city soccer field park and center. And for those that have spent time on center, center is a is a busier truck traffic type route. Um, but this area is not in Lehi. It's just outside of Lehi. We did have a neighborhood meeting. We did have different groups of people, both people in supporting and people that were con uh opposed to the project. Um, I'll be honest with you, we did a tried to do a fair job of representing both parties because you got people who were opposed telling us what the people who were supportive said and then you got the people supportive trying to say what the people opposed said and they're not going to mesh all the time. And so we tried to do an accurate reading with our citizen participation. Are we were we perfect? No. Did we try to incorporate some things? Yes, we do have a a horse trail along Center Street. do we do have rail fencing? We're looking at uh seeing what we can do right now with the city to accommodate traffic. Uh so I don't want to go into everything, but we have listened. We continue to listen and quite honestly if they want to invite me over to their home or they want to come to my home because we live pretty close to each other. We're happy to have further discussions about this in the next two weeks. We want to maintain that dialogue. We want to have discussions. We may not agree on anything but on everything, but if there are things that we can agree on, we're open and willing to work on that in the next couple of weeks. So, I would make that offer out. Um, and I'll give them my number as I walk out the door. They already have my number, but uh that's all I have to say for now and look forward to uh a full presentation in a couple of weeks. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Lake. Miss Filsbury, >> I just was wondering what the density is on Price Manor one. >> Those lots are about uh I don't know the density number. It's more dense than what we are. >> Oh, it's more dense. >> Yes, we're actually larger lots than we did at price matter one >> and those have not been built yet. They're just >> they're under con they're the site work is being done now. >> Okay. >> We had some trouble in permitting and and getting through but we're >> less dense than that. >> It's less dense than that project >> and the plan is to share the amenities between the two properties. >> The the goal is to have Mr. Sweeney Brighton Homes developed both projects that way. Instead of having a an HOA with 61 lots and this is an HOA with six 41 lots, you would have an HOA with 102 lots. And then you it's nice to have the same builder develop both have the same CCNRs, the same HOA fee, and then you can spread those costs over more people. So, we have an opportunity to try to do something now and and and make it more sustainable. And the claim that they that the project became more dense than was originally promised. What what's the history there? >> This property was originally zoned RS9 9,000 foot lots in 2005. >> Okay. So 20 years ago. >> 20 years ago. They graded the property. They put in a road and they've stopped. And that property owner property owners over time um they've never been able to make a pencil. And so I agree. It would have been great in 2005. It just didn't pencil and it doesn't pencil now. >> Uh and I can talk more about that uh in a couple of weeks. >> Council, thank you, Mr. Lake. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to move this forward for introduction. Is there a motion to do that? Thank you, Miss Duff. Thank you, Miss Bilsbury. Please cast your vote. >> Mr. Ready? I >> I >> thank you. A motion passes unanimously. Thank you for your vote. Next is item eight from citizens present. We allow three speakers. Uh three minutes to speak because of the topics of the speakers raised are not on our agenda and those that uh we may or may not respond to the speaker. But for those who are watching on channel 11, you should know that many times the conclusion of the meeting, the council member or staff member will get with you and look at your information further. Um, I have uh I've took the liberty. I have four blue cards. Yes, I'm breaking my own rules. Uh, Alex Francic, Alex, you're up first if you wish to speak. And then uh Mary Maybino, you're next on deck. Alex. >> Thank you, mayor, council members. Uh just since it's uh kind of my time regarding the fluoride, that was Proposition 400 passed uh November 2nd, 1999. It allowed the city to put fluoride. It didn't mandate the city to put fluoride in the water. Just for clarification when you looked at that. >> Great. So, the reason why I'm here, I'm a proud immigrant and US citizen, grateful to call Mesa home in one of the safest, largest cities in our nation. I commend the city for its steadfast commitment to that 287G program, which strengthens our community safety. I also extend my heartfelt thank you to our peace officers who undertake the challenging and dangerous work of keeping us safe. I have family in law enforcements enforcement and I've been on ride alongs and I see what the peace officers have to deal with. Once again, thank you. I'm deeply troubled by those particularly non-Mesa residents who urge our council to end 287g and allow criminals to remain in our community. As an immigrant who followed the legal path to citizenship, I firmly believe immigration must be done lawfully. The 287G program targets only those who break our laws. It's simple. If you're undocumented and wish to avoid ICE or potential deportation, don't commit crimes in Mesa. Mesa's unique partnership with ICE deters criminal activity by undocumented individuals. Knowing arrest could lead to deportation, potential offenders may take their crimes elsewhere, like Tempe or Phoenix. This program makes Mesa safer, and it's a direct benefit to all of us, including our peace officers. The law-abiding citizens of Mesa, who far outnumber the few voices calling for the 287g removal, strongly support its continuation. This program is a proven deterrent to crime and a vital tool for protecting our families and community. Thank you for your unwavering commitment to keep 287G in place and prioritizing the safety of Mesa citizens. I urge you to stay the course. Thank you, city council. >> Thank you, Alex. Uh, Mary, Mary, you're uh followed by Scott. Is it Granger? Scott. >> Anyway, Scott Granger, >> you're next. Thank you, Mary. >> Okay. Um, I'm here to urge the city of Mesa to uphold law and order by keeping intact the 287g agreement with ICE and to cooperate fully with ICE and all matters relating to the routine duties of police officers. We the people want criminal aliens who are accountable for US removal to be IDed and removed. Mesa is promoted as being very safe for families and children, which is dependent on Mesa police utilizing all tool tools at their disposal. In 2009, when Mesa signed this agreement, it really didn't receive much public notice. Now, in 2025, after millions of undocumented aliens have crossed our border illegally, most people acknowledge we have a major problem in our country. These open borders of the prior Biden administration have produced child trafficking drugs murder rape and various other crimes, including white collar crimes across the country. Unfortunately, sanctuary cities and states have sprung up in places such as California Oregon Washington and Illinois, and we've all seen those consequences. Does it make sense to eliminate a tool Mesa currently enjoys? If you all recall, in 2024, Proposition 314 passed by almost a twothirds margin. Now, now it's a state crime besides being a federal crime to enter Arizona from another country if that person does not cross through a legal port of entry. So, if you enter illegally, it's a crime and can be punishable by a prison sentence or the illegal can agree to go back to his country of origin. So, let's keep the tools the city of Mesa has. And as far as people saying our residents are afraid and fearful, if you are here legally, you have nothing to fear. I I support the 287g program. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. And next, we'll hear from Scott. >> I guess some of you forgot the admonition of the jazz hands. We're watching you. [Music] >> Mayor and Council, uh, my name, my name is Scott Granger. I'm a husband, business, excuse me, business owner, precinct captain, and LD10. As I understand it, 287G is a memorandum of agreement between the city of Mesa and the Immigration Customs Enforcement, ICE, under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The mayor, the memorandum requires that the Mesa Police Department notify ICE when MPD has in custody illegal aliens, one or more. The direction is clear and concise. It also relieves the city of Mesa from the costs and trouble associated with retaining such person or persons. It places the illegal alien in a position where he belongs on his way out of the United States of America. Changing this requirement by removing this specific direction by changing the memorandum clouds what is to be done with an illegal alien. It will leave the decision to someone other than the council. Then what happens? You don't know. And it would also appear as though the council does not care what happens. Does not care what happens to the constituents in the city of Mesa. Well, as you may have noticed from the national news lately, the problem does not go away, but fers and gets far worse. The eventual result endangers your constituents. Everyone here Mesa Police Department officers and federal officers relaxing or negating the memorandum is a step down a very slippery slope into conditions such as we have all seen in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and many other cities. Your constituents don't want to go there. It's time to declare. It's time to show your constituents that you that you know what is important for the city of Mesa and maintain the rule of law. Maintain the memorandum. Be strong and know that we your constituents believe in the rule of law. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next, we'll hear from Maryanne. Thank you for the jazz hands. Marian, >> thank you, Marin Council. I appreciate the time. I speak from a unique perspective because I've personally been affected by illegal alien crime. My son was a Mesa police sergeant, Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, killed on May 12th of 2014. The illegal who killed my son, had the 287g program been present up in Colorado when he committed a bunch of crimes and he would have been deported from the country, he would not have ended up here killing my son. My son could still be alive today. Um, I am the founder of Angel Moms and Angel Families. We have worked uh with a couple of administrations. We work across the country. I have been unfortunately the person who's been in contact with over a 100,000 victims of illegal alien crime. And the majority of those people have had their loved ones killed by somebody who has committed a crime illegally here in our country and been released back out into the communities. So the fallacies and the untruth that people come up here and talk about who support getting rid of the program, this is a safety net that we have. Our Mesa Police Department is not out on witch hunts searching for people. It's as they pass through our jail system, when they're arrested, when they've committed a crime, they will be asked what their immigration status is. And if they are here illegally, then Mesa Police cooperates with ICE to remove them from our communities. We could not ask for a better safety net over our community. And I don't want to see Mesa go down the path of sanctuary cities. I've gone to DC. I've testified many times about sanctuary policies and the dangers that this presents to people. They need to allow American citizens to sue the very people who put these policies into place because that's allowing illegal criminals back out into our system who end up killing an innocent American. So, I don't want to see that happen to Mesa and thank you for standing strong on this. I back up the Mesa Police Department and what they're doing and that they've adopted this program because it is what makes Mesa safer. They're the only police department in the state of Arizona who practices the 287G program and I applaud them. Thank you. >> Thank you, Maryanne. >> It's nice time to have a cough. Thank you. Um, Miss Mosley, do you have any uh blue cards or additional requests to speak? >> I h I have several blue cards of some that did wish to speak, others did not wish to speak that they all want to be on record. >> Would you share those with us? >> Absolutely. I have Jan McDaniel with the had wanted to speak on homelessness tonight. And the rest of these are all regarding the 287G. In opposition of that, I have Ryan Jerah Bersh. And I will just apologize now if I mispronounced any of these names. Jillian Ryan, Marissa, April Joy, Elizabeth Holmes, Betsy Soderquist, Ed Dwina Vogen, and Shelley Gordon. And then the remaining names are in support of the agreement. Joanne Robbins, Brian Eckley, Amy Eckley, Elaine Klesman, Jeff Klesman, Jan Kger, Rick Schwabbeck, Jenny Hollstrom, Mark Robbins, Linda Patrick Hayes, Wendell Allison, Charles Henry, David Smith, Dorian Taylor, Mark Kimble, Kevin Medma, Matt Greer, Neil Johnston Rouse II, Lawrence Moody, Linda Wallace, Barbara Hyatt, Donald Hyatt, Dan Blackburn, William Boon, Susette Coggins, Michelle Masters, Lynn Spear, Dean Johansson, Claire Read Reading, James Reading, uh, Connie Wer, sorry, there it was in the email. Mary Lou Stur, Vonce Anne Lewis, Suzanne Wickline, Robin Kleinman, Barbara Johnson, Phyllis Rogers, Greg Oswalt, Rachel Alman, Don Hansen, Mary Anne Mendoza, Lorie King, Lisa Pena, Mark Lavender, Susan Ellsworth, Tara Rowland, Spencer Rowland, Walter von Campen, Nancy Wigden, John Wigton, Thomas Quillin, Sher Quillin, Rustin Pierce, Julie Crane, Julie Sessions, Rick Obly, Steven Ooa, Jennifer Ericson, Dana Medimma, Heather Scantleberry, Robert Scantleberry, Elizabeth Perkins, I believe, Larry Perkins, Deborah Devald, Martin Devold, Patty Patterson, Melody Wetstone, Gary Wetstone, Amber Gilbert, Scott Granger, Maria Granger, David Smith, Terry Hathcock, Carrie Davis, Anne Brandy Re, I should know this, Brand Nich, Lisa Pierce, Julie Ryan, and Meg Rubino. That is all of them. Thank you everyone for attending and your advocacy. We really appreciate you being part of our city and our residents. And um thank you for taking the time out and traveling to your city hall. With that, council entertain a motion to adjurnn. Make a motion. >> Thank you, Miss Spillsberry. Miss Duff, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Vice Mayor. Okay. >> Mr. Ready? >> I. >> Thank you. We're journed.