welcome again to the Mesa city council meeting for November the 20th all of our council is present we will begin this meeting with an invocation offered by Susan Weidner with the Spiritual Assembly of the bahis of Mesa followed by the pledge of allegiance that will be led by Boy Scout Troops 3301 and 301 so please stand for the invocation and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance oh thou kind Lord these are thy servants who have gathered in this meeting have turned unto thy kingdom and are in need of thy bestowal and blessing oh thou God manifest and make evident the signs of thy Oneness which have been deposited in all the realities of Life reveal and unfold the virtues which thou Hast made latent and concealed in these human realities oh God we are as plants and thy Bounty is as the rain refresh and cause these plants to grow through thy bestow we are thy servants free us from the feeds of material existence we are ignorant make us wise we are dead make us alive we are material endow us with Spirit we are deprived make us the Intimates of thy Mysteries we are needy enrich and bless us from thy boundless treasury oh God resuscitate us give us sight give us hearing familiarize us with the mysteries of life so that the secrets of thy kingdom may become revealed to us in this world of existence and we may confess thy Oneness every bestow emanates from thee every benediction is thine Thou Art Mighty Thou Art powerful Thou Art the giver and thou art the ever bounous thank you Scouts please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance 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 thank you thank you for getting this off to a great start for our meeting next item on our agenda for this meeting is the consent agenda and we'd invite Mr Kevin Christopher forward at this time to read the consent agenda 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 in 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 minutes of previous meetings is written items 3A through 3D pertain to acting on liquor license applications for downtown time wines and wine Fair events to be held December 4th January 88th February 5th and March 4th at Mesa Spirit RV Resort 3020 East Main Street item 3E act on liquor license application for beer babes family one day event January 13th at Riverview Park 2202 West Rio solato Parkway item 3F act on liquor license application for dasm 3512 East Southern Avenue item 3G act on liquor license application for Roy M taii 1823 South Greenfield Road item 3 H act on liquor license application for pizzaa 16 210 East melbs Road item 4A approving contract for Police Department headquarters building renovation preconstruction services and construction manager at risk this project is funded by 2022 Public Safety bonds and Public Safety sales tax item 4B approving contract for gansel Road High Press gas line installation pre-construction services and construction manager at risk item 4 C approving contract for water transfer pump station number two upgrades construction manager at risk guaranteed maximum price number three item four approving Central Mesa reuse pipeline construction manager at risk guaranteed maximum price number five item 4E approving Cooperative use contract for four refu truck rentals for the Solid Waste Department item 4f approving Cooperative contract use for the purchase of furniture shelving and equipment for the M Mesa Police evidence facility item 4G approving Cooperative contract use for the purchase of pepper ball launcher equipment and supplies for the Mesa Police Department this purchase is funded by Senate Bill 1720 Arizona State Treasurer item 4H approving dollar limit increase to the term contract for original equipment manufacturer heavy duty truck parts and repairs for the fleet services and Mesa fire medical departments item 4 I approving dollar limit increase for the term contract for light duty and police vehicle maintenance and repair services for the Fleet Services Department item Four J approving three-year term contract with two years of renewal options for traffic signal equipment painting services for the transportation department item 4K approving one-year term contract of excess Workers Compensation Insurance and workers Compensation self- Insurance shity Bond item 5A approving resolution to enter into a subgrant award agreement with DPS to accept Grant funds from the victims of crime act victim assistance grant program which will be used for personnel expenses at the police department's family Advocacy Center item 5B approving resolution to enter into a third amendment to the intergovernmental agreement of the City of Tempe to increase temp's contribution to the regional water use it wisely media campaign item 5c approving resolution to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the city of Poria for receiving an ad administering funds that support the regional Water usit Wisely media campaign item 5D approving resolution for for zoning case 22-12 for Mesa Azure Hotel expansion located east of Mesa Drive and south of Main Street site plan reviews toop for expansion of existing Hotel item 6A introduction of ordinance amending the mesa city code regarding cost sharing related to water and sewer line Improvement requirments within Title 9 chapter 6 section 4 and chapter 8 section 3 item 6B introduction of ordinance for Zone case 23545 for property located west of alvista drive and south of univers excuse me north of University Drive major sight plan modification and amending conditions of approval for zoning Cas 16-33 and special use permit to allow for a restaurant with the drive-thru item 6 C introduction of ordinance for zoning case 23495 for property generally located north of University Drive and west of Power Road reson with planned area development overlay and site plan review to allow for a multiple residence development item 6D introduction of ordinance for zoning case 23-16 for property located north of Southern Avenue and west of Meridian Road a rezone with planned area development overlay inside planner view to allow for a multiple residence development item 6E introduction of ordinance from zoning case 23677 for property generally located east of krisman Road and south of Southern Avenue major site plan modification and amending conditions of approval for zoning case 7-7 to allow for a medical office item 6f introduction of ordinance was zoning case 23-5 1 for property generally located west of Power Road and south of Southern Avenue major site plan modification and amending the conditions of approval for zoning case 9943 to allow for expansion of an existing Walmart items 7A through 7n involve resolutions and ordinances for various utility schedules of terms rates fees charges and schedules of rules and regulations item 7A approving a resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules for electric utility services to be a public record item 7B introduction of ordinance for electric utility services item 7 C approving resolution to cing proposed titles and schedules for natural gas utility services to be a public record item 7D introduction of ordinance for natural gas utility services item 7e approving resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules for water utility services to be a public record item 7f introduction of ordinance for Water Utility Services item 7g approving resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules for Wastewater Utility Services to be a public record item 7h introduction of ordinance for Wastewater Utility Services item 7 I approving resolution to claing proposed titles and schedules for solid waste Utility Services to be a public record item 7j introduction ordinance for solid waste Utility Services item 7K approving resolution to cing proposed terms rates fees charges for utility service fees to be a public record item 7l introduction of ordinance modifying terms rates fees charges for utility service fees item 7 m approving resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules of rules and regulations for electric utility services to be a public record item 7n introduction of ordinance adopting and repealing schedules of rules and regulations for electric utility services item 8A has been removed from the consent agenda item 8B approving ordinance for zoning case 22- 1311 for property generally located west of Higley Road and south of mcps road rezone with a bonus intensity Zone overlay and site planner view to allow for Industrial Development item 8 C has been removed from the consent agenda item 8D approving ordinance for zoning case 23548 for property located north of posos Road and East of Ellsworth Road modification of an existing planned area development overlay a major site plan modification and amending conditions of approval for zoning case 20 22- 268 to allow for Industrial Development item 8e approving annexation case 22738 annexing property located on the south side of Main Street West of krisman Road item 8f approving ordinance for zoning case 22-10 38 for property located south of Main Street and West of chisman road rezone with plan area development overlay and site plan review to allow for multiple residence development items 9A and 9B are a rezoning and development agreement for the development known as Business Depot Suites which involves land generally located west of Greenfield Road on the north side of Southern Avenue item 9A approving resolution to enter into a development agreement with 10 Mountain Investments for the primary purpose of prohibiting and restricting certain land uses and item 9B approving zoning case 22- 610 reson with plan area development and bonus intensity zon and site plan review to allow for commercial development item 10A approving Subdivision plat Canon Beach industrial condo for property located south of Warner Road on the east side of Power Road item 10B approving Subdivision plat Mesa Gateway 202 for property generally located west of Ellsworth Road and south of Warner Road mayor and council members these are the items on the consent agenda thank you Mr Christopher uh do we have any request to speak on an item on the consent agenda no mayor we do not all right thank you Miss Mosley uh we have a motion made by vice mayor Heredia seconded by council member spillsbury for approval of the consent agenda please vote thank you that passes unanimously uh next there is an item of a recognition and announcements that we'd like to uh acknowledge uh the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Rocky Mountain Southwest chapter is dedicated to Excellence in television by honoring exceptional work through the prestigious Emmy Award award I think we've all heard of the Emmy Awards the chapter recognizes achievements throughout the region that serves Arizona California Nevada New Mexico and Utah this year uh we are very excited that our own channel 11 team was recognized and received an Emmy Award for the city of Ma's 2023 state of the city um in the category of special event coverage lived or edited so we'd again like to a lot of the the the great Channel 11 broadcasts including these meetings you don't see the folks behind the scenes that actually make these broadcasts happen but we want to uh kind of take an exception tonight and and put a spotlight on the people that are that bring these these great broadcasts to you so here to tell us more about this the Emy award is Deputy communications director Glenn Stevens Glenn thank you mayor and Council um this is a very difficult award to win this is our second nomination in 10 years of trying to get this award and um it's been the fact that we got this is nothing more than a testament to what an amazing Channel 11 staff we have uh the fact that we're able to put on an event like the mayor state of the city produce all of the content of ourselves um it's it's it's amazing and I don't know that many other cities in the country have the kind of talent that we have in Mesa so this is a testament to every single person on our staff the hard work that they put into it um we started working on this year state of the city in June and it's one of the biggest Productions we do all year long and between developing the content producing the content shooting editing telling the stories it it takes an a massive amount of work and this year's was my personal favorite in terms of the content that we produced and and it was also the one that probably took the most years off my life so I tell everybody if I was going to win one it would this was the one I would have picked it for so I just want to congratulate our entire staff that was able to pull this whole thing together and represent the city of Mason such an outstanding way well thank you Glenn if if you did lose any years you can just get in the DeLorean and go back go back and get them back move the clock back a little bit but thank you I think we're all very proud of the the state of the city broadcast and the amazing job that you and your team do Council let's go out front and take a photo up with our Channel 11 friends and uh congratulate them for welld deserved honor oh I did autot okay thank [Applause] you thank you [Applause] so all right thank you the first item off of our consent consent agenda is uh agenda item 8A this is to discuss receive comment and take action on an ordinance uh amending the mesa city code to establish a speed limit of 45 miles hour on williamsfield Road between krisman Road and the East City Limits and a speed limit of 40 m hour on Williams Field Road between Ellsworth and kisman um the we have any comments Miss Duff I move to remove this from the consent agenda we reviewed this a few weeks ago at a council study session and I'm still in the opinion of supporting a 40 miles per hour as recommended by the transportation Advisory Board um the reason is the segment between Mountain Road and Meridian Road is 35 mil an hour and then on the west side of Ellsworth um on on williamsfield road is also 35 miles hour and then we have that curvature area which is 40 changing this section to 45 doesn't make sense for a number of reasons I would like to continue to see it at 40 miles per hour this is a perfect example of how we need to marry our land use with our roads we have um residential on the north side proposed residential on the south side and in that context of being a community and a neighborhood we need to provide roads that are welcoming to all forms of Mobility walking and biking your golf cart whatever that is to create Community having something at 45 miles per hour a stretch at 45 miles per hour is speeding the road and not welcoming to to uh any user especially when you consider about halfway through that stretch there's going to be a light so let's say you're going 35 you go up to 45 then there's a light and then you slow down you speed up and then by the way around the curve is going to be 40 and then as you go further west is going to be 35 consistency and safety and in cons um consistency as far as the speed limit consistency as far as the land use um and the road use being used together uh that's why I think 40 miles per hour um there was an argument from that no matter what you put on the road you know people are going to travel at the perceived speed of safety and but there I have a strong opinion that when you narrow Lanes or out a bike lane and trees sidewalks W there's ways to control that that just by adopting a standard throughout our city of one way of doing our roads and then people just traveling at will I think is is irresponsible we have to design roads according to the use to make it safe for all users therefore I support um the transportation advisory board's unanimous decision to keep it at a 40 miles per hour and so I vote no on this item 8 a thank you thank you council member Duff I I should have noticed that we do have a few cards to speak from the from the public and so um Miss Duff if you'd like to make any additional comments but let's hear from these folks and then I apologize if I invited you to speak too soon uh Michelle macrosi welcome Michelle what thank you for your service on the transportation Advisory Board uh you have three minutes all righty I'll try to be fast um as you mentioned I've been serving on the transportation Advisory Board as a chair for about a year and a half um when your study session director zeter um mentioned that this was the first time in seven years that the transportation Advisory Board had not agreed with staff that should give us pause what was it about their proposal that that none of us could support well I'm hoping to share a little bit more light on that to be clear we were fine with 40 m hour on section one we were not fine with 45 miles an hour on section two it just didn't make sense to us um especially like you had said the we realized the next session going east is 35 miles an hour so 40 45 and then transitioning down to 35 just didn't make sense especially when we're talking about what a mile on a quarter um so we just thought it' be confusing to drivers um and then less and so that was all we heard we recommended 40% or 40 m hour and that was fine that's the last we heard until May 16 and that was back in May 16th when we made that decision to my knowledge um nobody on our board heard anything more about it until a former board member emailed the vice chair and myself with the video link from your study session in that study session it was also noted that the current speed limit of 45 most cars are going 50 to 55 as you mentioned um our feeling on that is that um that's another reason to switch it down to 40 and people will go people we know we people want to speed about 10 miles up the speed Li but most of us don't go over that because the find's pretty high um also Chris Brady in that session mentioned the concern with traffic congestion um that somehow implying that 45 miles hour would have improved that um you know I asked what was the difference if on that space of time or space of distance you had two cars traveling at one at 40 and one at 45 miles mil an hour what's the difference in time saving how much faster does Mr 45 get there before Mr 40 is less than 10 seconds finally our biggest concern however was the safety of bicycle um riders with a posted feed of 45 miles an hour and so as was noted in the study session I know several of you had our concerns as well we can't remove the bicycle Lanes we've talked about that not at a time when when we have so much pressure to provide alternative mes of transportation and um and and we need more bike lanes and so plus you've got Legacy Sport Park right down the street in two miles it's realistic to expect families get on their bikes and ride over there so at the end of the day we felt strongly that keeping the speed limit to 40 m an hour and so both sections one and two it just made more sense it's a little safer for bicycle Riders um it's less confusing to drivers and it makes a more consistent and smoother transition um to the 35 mph and I don't know how much more well I'm out of town so I hope you'll consider our proposal thank you thank you Michelle uh Mike James welcome Mike you have three minutes thank you uh my name is Mike James 922 East 6 Place M Arizona also a member of the transportation Advisory Board um the main reason I wanted to come and speak tonight is you know we heard tonight um how great our staff is and they really are um but I think staff missed the mark a little bit in communicating all the concerns that we heard and discussed at our tab meeting when it came to study session and the staff report so you know we heard some compelling points um that really caused our entire board to vote as we did with keeping the speed limit 40 for both sections um the first was really an observation for someone who lived and drove in the area a lot identifying extensive extensive speeding on signal but in the area um a lot of concerns with noise um safety concerns um you know just dangerous situation with speeding and racing in the area secondly we heard concerns about when development was going to happen you know when are the street lights going to come in for some of these turns um and you know a slower speed would be safer for you know until those lights and the full Street segment got built out thirdly was the issue that um council member Duff mentioned you know the transition of different speed um limits you know when you're changing from 35 to 45 to 40 to 35 um was confusing so that was an issue that also really caused us say Hey you know let's keep this consistent at 40 the third thing was really interesting was a question to the officer at our meeting um he was really asked is this something that's enforceable you know going to 40 and he you know he he kind of nodded yes and he said something I think was very interesting he said for most drivers um 5 mph holds significance in terms of their traffic Behavior so while yes there are some people that are going to exceed the speeds and they're already doing that for a lot of people it is going to make it safer for those wanting to ride their bike and walk Etc um just other issues I think they've been mentioned already you know with the Legacy Sports Park the the desire to have a safe walking and biking connection was brought up um and then also you know the 45 mph really is not comfortable with that cyclist on the street um the last point that I would just kind of make and it comes up a lot um at our tab when we're discussing these types of issues is an opportunity to look for some new standards and we're we're working with staff and we're excited you know as the transportation master plan and the general plan come along that there's an opportunity to look for some new standards for arterials where we want to have um safe walking and biking so um we look forward to continue working with staff thank you thank you Mike uh David winstanley mayor councilmen councilwomen thank you for letting me speak I am also on the transportation Advisory Board I won't repeat the things that councilwoman Duff said and and the other two have said I had the same concerns about changes in speed limit uh I do ride that road on my bicycle well actually I used to I don't anymore it's not safe uh currently there's no bike lane and the trucks go 50 m an hour it is really crazy but one of the other reasons that I brought up in the tab meeting is right next to it and at the intersection is kisman road which is one mile straight as an arrow one intersection to the West three intersection sorry one intersections to the east three intersections to the West 35 M hour how is that different than Williams Field if krisman can be 35 why can't williamsfield be 40 there there's a standard difference here that didn't make sense to me um and I I tried to understand it but I couldn't get a an explanation that I understood and it might be my fault for not understanding traffic standards but that that's the kind of thing um I did do a survey of a few folks and and many people who don't understand think if we slow it down to 40 m an hour that we will uh have less ability to get throughput I think the difference between 45 and 40 is quite small as um as our leader U Michelle talked about you know a few seconds and it's not going to change the throughput that much especially with the other uh speed limit on on the two ends so um with that i' I'd like to ask your consideration for that one other thing I'd like to suggest is are there options for putting in the median there are long stretches with no intersection can we put things in the median because visuals will slow people down or other ideas on roads like that where we're trying to keep the speed limit as a natural way that that drivers work thank you for your time thank you uh we also have Ryan wnc welcome Ryan you have three minutes thank you mayor thank you Council um my name is Ryan wak I'm Masa resident at 1301 West 9th Street and so I am a former tab member who was before the uh was presented to on this item uh back in May I've since not uh I'm not on the tab anymore I've done my two terms on the tab and you know over that time I saw a relationship build between Tab and staff and it was something that I really found quite cherished and because I understand that good Community engagement isn't a one-off process a one decision by a decision it's really a relationship that should be built and so that was really the heart of what was disheartening to me when I saw the council session or the study session in October because staff went on for about 6 minutes as to their technical reasons why they were coming down with their recommendation and they provided 35 seconds and three bullet points to Tab and I felt like that wasn't quite parody of the type of recommendations no to be clear staff definitely deserves their own recommendations they are on staff totally I just think that there was a Mist uh of parity there and somebody who's been in those shoes of having to be staffed in another city and present uh two different viewpoints it was always imperative to me to make sure that those viewpoints were on par with one another and so this kind of seems silly right this 40 m an hour or 45 miles hour is such a small difference but I really think that this was just a message that tab was trying to provide uh to staff to sort of nudge them in the right direction and understanding that there is a fhwa clear guidelines as to what is a safe bike lane that's allowed for just a simple stripe and what really does require additional protection so that everybody is accommodated in a complete Street matter and complete streets are not something new to the city's planning goals right it goes back to the original uh or the the previous Transportation plan that's currently on the books even while we update one today so uh a lot of good things that should be sort of mindful about that and staff was very clear as to their their goals to be consistent through the region and I think that's actually a misstep so there's good technical reasons to be consistent but there's also good economic or social reasons to be inconsistent provide variety of of Street types throughout a community and I think that this is an opport opportunity to see this this connector between community and a it has a nearby park and it's got an interchange at US 24 so there's going to be a lot of people moving through that but it doesn't have to be a hostile movement right so what can it can do to that surrounding neighborhood that's going to have all this traffic that comes through an interchange but how do you calm it down so it's not a detriment to the community that suffice all right thank you Mr wnac uh council member Duff any you'd like to add to your prior comments before we move on to other comments no I just want to thank everybody it's nice surprise to see so many of you attend and uh thank you for your comments thank you Miss go forth yeah I also want to say thank you for the tab members for coming today and also for your service on Tab it's uh valuable to us thank you I I do have just a few comments and I'm reiterating what most people have said but I did want to make sure that I said um I I think our transportation Network should be safe for all users and that our bike way planning process and policies might need to be re reevaluated more emphasis needs to be placed on the design user and the roadway context taking into account the surrounding land use as others have said this is residential to the north and to the South with also a small commercial portion that's plan for the corner um as well as applying our uh goals and objectives of our our General plan this is this character area designation from the general plan for this portion of williamsfield is mixed use community and in the general plan that should include residential neighborhoods that contain a variety of housing types and densities and include Park schools and Village centers or Urban cores that are located with a convenient walking or bicycling distance from all homes we're missing an opportunity I think in this this one um particular area to serve a greater number of people uh as proposed we serve the the least number of users the ones who are highly confident when riding in high stress areas when we're talking about the bike Lanes um and as Mr wak mentioned according to the 2019 Bikeway selection guide as proposed by the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration with the volume of traffic and the speeds of this road the proposed bike lane is not safe for any user so for this reason I I agree with council member deff and I would also agree with tab's recommendation for 40 miles per hour all right thank you Mr Summers mic so I want to thank everybody for coming out Dave Dave and I actually live about a mile apart so I don't I don't ride my bike uh up and down the street like like he does he's far more fit apparently than I am uh but we live in the East Mark Community together and so let me give you a little bit of history about that because I think that ties in here I I think this discussion what we're having right now would have happened whether this road between 4045 we're in district one or District Five or District Four doesn't matter it's really digging into an issue of as was stated how do we want to build our roads for for better safety for drivers better safety for Walkers cyclists any way that you use the street and it's interesting that this gets brought up because when we de developed East Mar it was very much about building streets for users of all types so when you look at kisman Road it's a little narrower it has a protected meting in the middle of it it's only a couple Lanes both Direction so we wanted to slow it down think about Everton Terrace it's only one lane in both directions with curves that go through to slow traffic down to allow the residents to get in and out to be safer for those who are walking safer for those who are biking very intentional design with how we put that street together and our work is not done there are other streets that are connected communities in southeast Mesa it's going to go on for more than a decade some of those streets are going to come up soon there's there's requests for improvements to kisman to the north side for example right and how do we build those streets to slow down the traffic because does it really need to be a six Lane Highway for Williams Field Road it's it is a bit interesting right so the the slower portion of it where it's 40 m an hour in front of the soccer fields well that was done because of the curvature and it does seem to be a little bit confusing to have 45 in the middle but even though there's only a small portion of commercial that's planned for kisman when you go farther out to signal but there's a larger commercial development that's going to occur there and as you get past that road to the east why is it so slow to 35 well it dead ends into panal County into someone's driveway I'm pretty sure right looking at the maps it's very very slow that's why it's much slower there but it's the tie between the commercial area at signal but all the way to that freeway that's the stretch that we're looking at as being 45 it actually matches what's happening up at Ray Road Ray Road cuts through the eastart community at 45 miles an hour I would argue that street is probably a better candidate for another look on how we designed streets because it has a high school on it has commercial on it it has a neighborhood pool on it right and it doesn't have the major commercial nor does it have access to the state route 24 freeway so if we were going to slow a street down maybe Ray roads the one we look at over williamsfield which is more of a connection to the to the 24 ultimately though it's it's this is a really difficult challenge because on one hand I get emails all the time about people going too fast on Ray Road on williamsfield on Elliot and on the other hand I I did an unofficial poll I admit but I asked people in the community in Eastmark I posted it to the social media page I said we're looking at increasing the speed what's your desire and by an 8:1 margin 45 miles an hour was what people wanted it's 426 to 49 handful of letters today didn't change that so I'm going to support what my residents has asked for is the for the 45 miles an hour but I'm looking forward to in the future with this Council and with the community what do we want roads to look like how do we want to design them so with mayor um my motion is for 45 looks like we have a motion already I don't see uh now you can make a motion oh okay Mr Mo Mr Summers has made the motion additional discussion all right Miss bilsbury I don't have a lot to add except thank you for coming and participating um I'm going to go back with my comments um that I made previously just in my district I didn't drive every single street but I'm pretty sure almost every single one is a 45 miles per hour currently through my entire District um so I do think that it probably needs to be a future conversation that we have so I also would support our staff's recommendation to keep that straight part of it to be 45 I think they didn't we say that the um average speed people are going right now is 55 was that what I remember 50 to 55 okay 50 55 so I support the 45 all right thank you any other any other discussion is there a second to Mr Summer's motion thank you so we have a a motion and a second from Council Me by Council memb Summers and spillsbury for approval of agenda item 8A please vote uh passes 43 with Mr Freeman council member Freeman Duff and go forth voting no next item on our agenda is agenda it item 8 C this is taking action on an ordinance uh regarding hos Cross Village hos Crossing Village one phase 2 this is to rezone 17.4 acres plus or minus uh to allow um for additional modifications to the development standards and to include a single residence development M known as Village one phase 2 Mr Summers thank you mayor I did ask for this uh item to be removed from the consent agenda um once again I'm going to speak to a little bit of history in this community I was part of the general planning um that happened 10 years ago as well as uh one of the drivers for the creation of the Gateway uh strategic development plan both those plans when you look at them neither one one of them suggested uh residential in this area what's called inside the loop which is the area between Power Road and the loop 202 what it envisioned is that in appropriate residential project would be a mixed use development of buildings of 40 dwelling units per acre per net acre so that would be more of a low to midrise type of development and again that was on page 26 again on page 50 it was lowrise multif family 40 dwelling units an acre vertically integrated mixed use development of families that live above commercial properties that are in concert with the noise Contours of the airport something if you wanted to visualize this think of something that looks you know like tempy Town Lake without the lake it may be a little shorter right that was the vision that was created the the problem that that I'm having is that this is something very much of a Suburban nature 6 to 12 dueling units per acre and so I I can't I having been part of that planning having seen that the vision that we created more than a decade ago I can't sign my my name to this and I know that plans change and I I know that this body went through a lot of work in considering what uh what was going to be built here but in creating the the vision for Mesa for creating the Mesa Gateway strategic development plan that was a vision that we all bought into residents land owners business owners and to see it shift like this quite frankly has created some uncom comfortable conflicts where industrial is coming up against Residential single family residential development on both sides of the freeway and seeing this development going and knowing the other development that's around it we're going to see more of that Industrial Development coming into conflict with single family residential and to tie into the theme that we just had we're talking about how to make safer roads when you put semi-rs in conflict with small vehicles or bicycles or motorcycles or pedestrians who are walking nothing good comes from that so U I will not be in support of U of this project thank you mayor all right thank you Mr Summers any other discussion on this agenda item is there a motion for approval I can someone just briefly explain what we're I'm looking through the presentation but not exactly sure so I think um Council sumers alluded to it I help Mary back me up so I think the reference of the studies that the council was referring to happened probably a decade ago um back in 2020 about 2020 I want to say it was right before the pandemic is what I remember when the city council re um re-reviewed this entire area we called the inter Loop study as part of it it was part of a long discussion and negotiations with the the the property owners in there the the Dairy Farmers and the development um Community we came together and over the course of several months conducted the inter Loop study and we took into account the studies had done before but we also looked at again reviewing the Contours of the airport and what would be the right mix of types of development in this area um and then that study came out um after several months in public discussion uh with the community the community especially on the North End uh was not tremendously in support of a lot of industrial manufacturing types of development they were more interested in um lower density residential which we had to be careful with because again it was still approximate to an airport so we try to balance that idea of having a higher density residential is typically what you want to Clos to an airport just cuz most of your activities are inside versus a more Suburban look where there's a lot of outdoor experience and I think this was kind of that compromise into that area so I want to say Mary that the proposal that's here that and the reason it was supported by staff and by Planning and Zoning is this is consistent with the most recent study that was approved by Council Is 2020 accurate or 2019 I think so mayor U Mr Brady the inter Loop study was done in 2018 oh but then it was the hos Crossing General plan amendment that came after that in 2019 that actually um was the plan that put the RSL 2.5 as the primary zoning district and single family residential was listed as a primary use in the general plan for this area so it is consistent with the general plan from the Haw Crossing General plan Amendment from 2019 I just mention I think it's good to mention this because all of this was in negotiation all of this inter 3,000 or th000 Acres the largest annexation the city has ever done at one time this was the balance in that conversation of trying to allow for this entire area to have a balance of different development types while at the same time acknowledging the impact of being approximate to an airport and the noise impacts that it has but also trying to balance out with more jobs but Oly at that time residential continues to be a priority also and balancing what the community wanted the community the existing neighborhood to the north was very much interested in um not having industrial manufacturing AB budding up to them they wanted some transition to residential and so I do remember I was watching Council meetings back then before I was on Council so I remember the hosc crossing vote and I remember being asked about it while I was running um in my campaign but so just to clarify then that the council approved the general plan Amendment back then and now we're approving a specific proposal for the site is that what it's happening uh mayor council member spillsbury yes um so the general plan Amendment would laid out what the general plan and the zoning District district designations would be on this site and the project is following that General plan designation and the zoning designation the the the hos Crossing General plan Amendment that's correct thank you so I have a quick question so so what what you're asking what you're proposing council member Summers though is not on the table anymore right you're you you are advocating for higher density residential than this is even than what's in the amendment now this would not have been my recommendation for Amendment you know I I could maybe add some my my recollection of the hos Crossing zoning case and that was a very very significant zoning case as Mr Brady indicated it was uh rezoning there was multiple property owners uh over a th Acres of property uh it was uh influenced by changes in the noise Contours around the airport uh for many years there was a an Unwritten or really written rule that no residential development was allowed south of the power line and we again when it came time to Zone thousands of Acres we we were asked to re assess that and whether or not that was a good rule or not um there had been changes in technology related to uh airplane noise and so the the noise Contours of years previous had been redrawn there was also land use uh arguments being made as to whether or not it it was good city planning to literally have a th000 Acres of no residential development um the determination was that was not good City Planning that really no place in the country where you'll where you'll see something like that and so to kind of relitigate that zoning case from from several years ago that was the decision that was made uh I supported it at the time and and as we're seeing that part of Mesa build out I I I feel like we have made the right decision so for those reasons uh I will be supporting uh this ordinance any additional discussion do we have a motion the panel should be set for some does anybody try to make a motion there we go council member spillsbury has made a motion seconded by council member Freeman please vote thank you passes uh 6 to1 with council members Summers voting no next item on our agenda is agenda item 12 I'm sorry 11a 11 11a is the public hearing for annexation case 23-40 for approximately 4.5 Acres located west of Ellsworth Road on the north side of Southern Avenue I declare the public hearing open Miss Mosley do we have any requests to speak from the public on this item no request mayor thank you do any council members wish to address this item all right thank you I declare the public hearing closed there is no action for this item at this meeting this Annex ation will come back to the council l a future council meeting for Action next item on our agenda is items from citizens present Miss Mosley do we have any requests to speak on this agenda item no request mayor thank you that concludes our agenda for this meeting is there a motion to adjourn thank you Mr Summers all in favor please say I I thank you we are adjourned [Music]