uh well thank you and welcome to the mesa city council meeting for march the 7th of 2022 i'll note for the record that all of our council is present because we have council members pillsbury with us via zoom we will begin our meeting this afternoon or this evening rather with a moment of silence followed by the pledge of allegiance so i'd invite everyone to stand for a moment of silence which i think is particularly appropriate given the war in ukraine and our thoughts and prayers are with that part of the world and with those who i know we're all offering thoughts and prayers for a peaceful resolution of that uh horrible conflict following the moment of silence we'll have the pledge of allegiance so please stand and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance thank you please join me in the pledge of allegiance i pledge states of allegiance and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all you tonight we have one proclamation that we'd like to uh to give under the awards and recognitions agenda i'm proud to proclaim this month march 2022 as women's history month in mesa arizona this month is a celebration of women's contributions to history culture and society i do want to say that we have a remarkable group of women working here at the city of mesa at every level from deputy city managers to department directors and engineers to police officers firefighters electricians and gas inspectors women play a huge role in operating our city and i'd like to recognize them all for doing such a great job now i'd like to hand this part of the presentation over to vice mayor jen duff thank you very much i am receiving a proclamation that the mayor has signed um in recognition of the women's history month to celebrate women's contributions to his history culture and society um so the month of march is women's history month thank you for turning on my mic and even today centuries later and inspired by those who came before them women are still showing us what's possible and fighting to make our world a safer healthier more equitable and just place for all and on behalf of all the women in mesa and i accept this proclamation and please join me in celebrating throughout the month thank you um why don't we uh and i and i'll know for the record that the councilwoman spillsberry has a big smile on her face as well so thanks sorry you weren't here to enjoy this with us julie uh why don't we assemble at the microphone for a photograph just so we can put this up on social media and uh honor this day the way that we should kind of symmetrical here aren't we okay we're looking at kevin i guess you get to go home and frame that all right thank you the next item on our agenda is the consent agenda we invite mr kevin christopher forward to read the consent agenda good evening mayor and council members he's the items on the consent agenda all items listed with an asterisk will be considered as a group of 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 consider it as a separate item item two approval of minutes of previous meetings is written item 3a act on liquor license application for flancer's 1902 north higley road item 3b act on liquor license application for red mountain bar and grill 2015 north power road item 4a act on a one-year term contract for skylogic systems services and support for the parks recreation and community facilities department item 4b act on dollar limit increase to the term contract for emergency environmental remediation and restoration services for the parks recreation and community facilities department item 4c icon 3-year term contract with two years of renewal options for ammunition and related products for the mesa police department item 4-d act on the use of a cooperative contract for a two-year term contract with four years for new options for vector manhole cockroach treatment services for the water resources department item 5a act on resolution vacating a portion of a 24-foot water sewer easement at 9240 east cadence parkway to accommodate construction of a burger king item 5b icon resolution approving and authorizing the city manager to accept grant funds from the arizona attorney general's office to be used by the police department's mesa family advocacy center item 5c act on resolution regarding zln21-00850 for property located west of stapley drive on the north side of baseline road site plan review to allow for an industrial development item 5d act on resolution regarding zon21-01 for property located south of southern avenue on the west side of omaha school road site plan modification to allow for a restaurant of the drive-through item 6a introduction of ordnance amending title 4 chapter 10 section 10 the mesa swimming pool and spa code relating to clarification of pool owner responsibilities item 6b introduction of ordinance amending title 4 chapter 2 section 1 of the adopted international building code relating to buildings and structures occupied by more than 10 persons and aligning the building and fire protection code in chapter 9. item 6c introduction of ordnance amending title 4 chapter 1 sections 3 and 4 requiring permits for solar panel installation that are greater than 10 000 square feet and systems not installed by a licensed contractor item 6d introduction of ordnance amending title 4 chapter 5 section 4 of the plumbing code amending the requirements for drinking fountains to small businesses with less than 50 occupants item 6e introduction of ordinance meant title 4 chapter nine section b of the adopted international energy code relating to random testing of air duct systems for production homes item 6f introduction of ordinance regarding xeon 21-00593 for property generally located west of the 202 red mountain freeway on the north side of university drive rezoned with planned area development overlay to allow for a small lot single residence development item 6g introduction of ordinance regarding zon21-00620 for property located on the pecos road and east of saseman road rezoned with a planned area development overlay inside planner view to allow for an industrial development item 6h introduction of ordinance regarding xeon 21-00644 for property generally located north of germain road on the east side of ellsworth road rezone and site plan review to allow for an industrial park item 7a introduction of ordinance we're running anx 21-00649 and annexing property located on the williamsfield road on the west side of mountain road item 7b introduction of ordinance regarding zoon 21-00651 for property located on the williamson road on the west side of mountain road rezoned to allow for single residents small lot development item eight a act on ordinance regarding zeon 21-0-1-133 for property located south of warner road and west of the haws road alignment rezoned the planned area development overlay inside planner view to accommodate an industrial development item eight b act on an ordinance regarding zeon 21-0930 for property located north of the 202 santan freeway on the west side of the haws road alignment freezone with planned area development overlay and site planner view to allow for an industrial development item 9a act on an ordinance regarding anx 21-00802 annexing property located south of thomas road and east of alves to drive item 9b accident ordnance regarding xeon 21-0-797 for property located south of thomas road on the east and west sides of alvista drive re-zone and planned area development overlay to allow for a mixed-use development an item 10-a has been removed from the consent agenda mayor and council members these are the items in the consent agenda thank you mr christopher ms mosley do we have other than 10a which was noted any other request to speak on an item on the consent agenda no request mayor all right thank you uh i'll note that a motion has been made by mr luna seconded by mr thompson for approval of the consent agenda please cast your vote ms spillsberry how do you vote yes thank you yes thank you all right uh consent agenda passes unanimously we'll now move then to agenda item 10a this is to take action on a subdivision flat this is eastmark development units five and six uh within the 3600 to 4200 blocks of south everton terrace east side and within the 3 900 to 4300 blocks of south signal blue butte road west side located west of signal butte road and south of elliott road i know that we there have been some requests to speak on this item from the public ms mosley do we have anyone on the i know we have some requests some statements that have been forwarded to you to be read is that correct correct we have received 91 comments in opposition 31 that request to be heard from me um to you and we have two callers on the line that would like to speak okay well rather than make the callers wait on the line why don't we go ahead and hear from them now and then i'll ask you to read the comments that have been sent in okay do we have travis miller on the line oh yes we do all right can you hear me yes mr miller is this trump this is he mr miller uh please identify yourself and then go ahead you have three minutes yep this is travis miller um i am actually a resident that is located adjacent to the roadway and i know that nana apia during the study session indicated that no one was um but i personally am located adjacent to both binary and rubidium where those roads are going to go in i also represent 683 residents from eastmark that all signed a petition as opposed to this for context now in addition to which nana also mentioned that park joule no longer connects well that was because residents pointed out that the planning department had approved a road through a parkway and through a public easement that's just an indication of the kind of work and the lack of diligence that have happened in relation to this planning and also why that word might not be something you should trust so much i'd point out that k-sub 22-0058 is illegal the three proposed districts streets mesquite binary rubidium have not been added to the eastmark community plan they're not in du56 and they're not included in the du56 transportation plan each and every one of those amendments would have had to be made before the subdivision would be allowed under law the reason for that is that each one of those would also require public comment so while it might be true what nana said that public comment is not required for the subdivision all of those precursor planning and zoning cases should have been heard in advance which is what makes this an illegal and unconstitutional effort in addition to which it is truly unsafe to direct semi-truck traffic along a two-lane road that is going to run right next to a disc golf course in places where small children are intended to go out and play that small easement is about 200 feet from my house from my property i can see where the road is from my bedroom children were intended to go and play out there and be able to walk to the safeway now we're going to have a two-lane road that weaves in and out for some reason just to direct traffic to signal butte it's unconscionable there's no reason to divert that traffic that way in fact the acom traffic study that was conducted on du56 indicated that these roads were not necessary you can go back and look at it for yourself they said there was no need for these district streets moreover indiecas the development project the only one that's been approved so far the only one that's even being considered has said the only access road they need is through mesquite up to everton terrace this road makes no sense yet what's going to happen is the developer is going to build it they're going to come back to this council and ask for millions of dollars of csd funds this council is supposed to be a fiduciary of our money we entrusted that to you that responsibility and now you're going to put a dangerous unnecessary illegal road right adjacent to our homes when there's 120 acres of vacant land directly east of it there could have been any other path chosen any other path could have been token to get that road out to signal b there is no reason whatsoever that it had to run along all of the homes and all of the parks that are getting put in for kids this is illegal this is unsafe it is unnecessary and shame on the mesa planning department for approving it thank you mr miller do we have another speaker on the phone yes we have monica miller thank you ms miller are you there yes can you hear me yes please proceed this application should be denied because the application has not satisfied the legal requirements succinctly the land use group for each parcel has not been identified in the application or the plat as required for the subdivision plat pursuant to section 6 of the eastmark community plan because the approved dup allowed the developer to apply multiple potential land use groups to each portion of the land and the subdivision process pursuant to the e-smart community plan requires a developer to select a specific single land use group that will be applied to each plat a public hearing is required this step in the process reduces the allowable uses to the land pursuant to ars 9462.04 a public hearing is required when governing land uses are reduced as an adjacent landowner i strongly object to the newly proposed district streets that are not represented in the dup the city manager stated in the study session that the traffic will not be directed towards the residential community this is simply not true the newly proposed roadways do in fact route the traffic away from the arterial roads and towards the residential communities the original transportation plan was determined to be safe and sufficient to support all traffic within eastmark when completely built out we know this because the acom study concluded as much by contrast the developer did not even provide a written statement regarding a justification for or a need for these new roads in the application furthermore for the community plan it was the obligation of the developer at the development unit planning stage to ensure future development would not overburden the transportation plan simply the proposed roads are unnecessary and only harm the residents who made purchasing decisions based upon the approved land use plan the transportation plan as originally designed mitigated the impact of the adjacent commercial area by directing commercial traffic directly onto elliott and signal view it is not sensible to build new roads that direct heavy commercial traffic from the commercial corridor in the direction and along residential neighborhoods where there is a park council should mitigate the impact of the commercial industrial corridor by denying this application and requiring the original plan even more the subdivision regulations provides counsel with the justification to protect the residences from unnecessary harm of the nuisance and hazard of high volume commercial traffic thank you thank you ms miller ms mosley do we have anyone else on the line to speak uh no mayor we do it okay will you then uh read the comments that have been submitted sure okay first we have a comment from bree zaptowski it says we are still missing over 41 acres of promised parkland an elementary school and a library here in eastmark there is no reason for us homeowners to pay for roads for businesses and warehouses other than government greed give us the 106 acres of park that we were promised no more warehouses within the eastmark borders all commercial development should be only entering from elliott to from everton terrace park jewel chrisman or any other residential streets do better for your residents city of mesa then i have one from jeffrey high turt i oppose adding mesquite road as an access point to everton terrace everton terrace is a residential access road with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour a pedestrian crossing and is used as a school bus drop off point it is not appropriate for industrial traffic it is also my understanding that an audit has shown east markets do additional parking space or i'm sorry park space and that this is some of the last available land this is from jordan karen when i moved my home my family into eastmark and invested in this community the approved zoning and transportation plan did not include the unnecessary road behind my home the developer has neglected to take proper steps to propose this major change they have failed to provide proper notification they haven't conducted traffic or noise studies to determine the impact on the community running semi trucks through neighborhood parks is not the vision that eastmark promises residents we were promised shopping dining parks and community amenities i am aware that eastmark borders the elliott road technology corridor this corridor was not designed to bleed through the eastmark community the land zone for this corridor's use was placed on the outer edge of the community to allow for already constructed major roads such as elliott ellsworth and signal butte to service then the necessary traffic for these commercial developments it is unnecessary in an abuse of millions of cfd dollars to build this road through a community that does not need it creating a semi-truck shipping lane through community parks is not only unsafe but negligent the disc golf course is running adjacent to the proposed road how many kids will chase after wayward thrown disc right into this road what parent will feel uncomfortable letting their kids play in a park adjacent to a semi truck shipping lien the developer is already deficient of multiple acres of city and community parks they need to be concentrating their efforts and use of cfd dollars which is an assessment tax paid by property owners to build safe parks that residents will enjoy this is from linda rand the proposed plot is illegal no one received notice regarding the zoning case additionally this proposal would require an amendment to already approved zoning the development unit plan the dup is supposed to provide a transportation plan that includes all of the roads and intersections for the development unit these roadways are not included in the approved plan applications are required to have a project summary that describes traffic generation there is no description of the traffic generation and furthermore no project summary has been made publicly available the traffic generation is important if more than 300 trips are likely to occur at any given hour a traffic study will be required the institute of traffic engineers finds that for warehouses there is typically one employee for every 535 square feet considering that the proposed indie cap project that will be along mesquite road has a proposed 1 million six hundred thirty eight thousand six hundred square feet of warehouse space this single project along the road network will likely have an associate of three thousand employees in pointing this out to the traffic engineer he did confer that a traffic impact study would necessarily or would likely be necessary without this we as a community don't know if the added roadways will be safe for the intended uses these proposed roads are unnecessary the master planned master transportation plan which was studied and found to meet the needs of eastmark transportation at build out provides the technology corridor and commercial areas with direct access to elliott and signal butte directly it is nonsensible to add roads that will direct traffic in the direction of and along residential neighborhoods this harms the residents and creates an unnecessary nuisance furthermore the roads in eastmark are funded by the residents of eastmark through our special taxes or cfd why will we have to pay for roads that are not necessary and not only provide a nuisance to us additionally the subdivision plat process as defined in the e-smart community plan requires the specific land use groups for each plot lot to be identified the applicant has not provided which lugs will be applied to the undeveloped land to the north and east of our neighborhood will the remainder of the disc golf course be developed as it is currently zoned a neighborhood park what type of use is being planned to the east of our neighborhood considering that there is an auditor's finding that the residents of eastmark are entitled to an additional 41 acres of park land this is the last remaining land in eastmark to be subdivided this is our moment to take a stand and get what we paid for elizabeth atkins writes i oppose the city planned mesquite road off of everton terrace in eastmark everton terrace is a heavily traveled thoroughfare from railroad to elliot for eastmark residents and was not intended to be a road for industrial traffic matthew child says the section of everton terrace where it is proposed to have mesquite road exit onto is not a wide enough section to handle semi traffic it is also immediately at the top of a rise in the road where traffic traveling north might lose sight of any vehicles pulling out onto everton from the proposed mesquite road it is potential a potential traffic hazard the increased traffic truck traffic is not the only issue here this warehouse project will also bring with it the added traffic of roughly two thousand three thousand employees that will be employed there a traffic impact study is absolutely required for a project of this magnitude so close to a residential area greg sudrath says this is not how this land was supposed to be used where is our additional great park land where is our library this is about greed this is no other way to put it there is no money in it for the developers to do what they promised they would do so do what makes them money any council person that approves of this must be looked at very critically to make sure that they are serving the best interest of those that voted for them or are they serving the best institution of their own pocketbooks linda cordero says the manner in which this has been and is being pushed through for approval just speaks to how this is not in the best interest of the homeowners nearby that pay a hefty fee for the roads around this area commercial vehicles have no place on everton terrace commercial vehicles have no place on a small road near homes and common areas paid for by homeowners this was not in the development plan when i agreed to buy my home and pay the cfd fees this provides zero benefit to the homeowners actually it comes at a cost of over 40 acres of missing park space where is our park space facebook already took a huge portion of our land which could have been our 40 acres of park and the play portion of the developer's promise of a live work and play community i drive to queen creek and gilbert to spend my tax dollars because mesa has failed the local residents when approving data centers and warehouses typically by sliding it by just as you are trying to do here people are busy and you know most won't follow what's being approved and many that do take issue just don't have time to show up to dispute something our elected leaders should be on our side but they have made it clear they are not it is a rare occurrence for any council members to vote no on anything i strongly a i'm sorry this is casey pearce i strongly oppose any roads being constructed that will route commercial traffic through the neighborhood of eastmark we pay extensive taxes through the cfd to create a safe and beautiful community and commercial traffic would create a dangerous and unpleasant environment for our families we were promised a safe environment for our families with restaurants and entertainment nearby including parks what we are actually receiving is living in the midst of warehouses with commercial vehicles driving through our streets it feels as if the city of mesa considers us a revenue source but cares little for how livable our area is since we're on the outskirts of town i guess they're willing to sacrifice the few to fund the many please require commercial traffic to be routed directly to elliott and signal butte without connecting to our community streets and please ensure that the developer provides all of the park areas promised we agreed to pay the end the extra taxes in order to create the community vision sold to us by dmb we are meeting our end of the bargain it's time the developer in the city does the same jeremy mcvay says these proposed commercial roads will have a negative impact and safety concerns to the residents of eastmark we strongly oppose sarah wheeler to be promised one thing when purchasing a home in a subdivision that is still under development and then have that what was promised taken away from you honestly leave such a bad taste in your mouth it feels wrong to be told this will be a park to only later be told oh never mind this is going to be a warehouse space where big semis will be going in and out all the time it's dishonesty give us the park space we were promised there are so many families here that need room to play [Applause] brian banach the proposed subdivision plot that includes the addition of new roads is illegal unnecessary and a potential safety risk to the families of eastmark notice was never sent regarding this zoning case there is also no project summary that includes a description of the traffic generation the roadways being proposed are not part of the original approved plan demonstrating yet again another instance where the residents of eastmarks are being ignored developments around our community continue to go against what was originally promised see the new areas of housing that were originally slated for commercial use continued taxes tactics will bet with resistance and possible litigation alexander chauvette the proposed plot is illegal no one received notice regarding the stoning case additionally this proposal would require an amendment to the already approved zoning the dup is supposed to provide a transportation plan that includes all of the roads and intersections for the development unit these roadways are not included in the approved plan the subdivision plat process as defined in the eastmark community plan requires the specific land use groups for each plot lot to be identified the applicant has not provided which lugs will be applied to the undeveloped land to the north and the east of our neighborhood while the remainder of the disc golf course be developed as it currently is owned as a neighborhood park what type of use is being planned to the east of our neighborhood considering that there is an auditor's finding that the residents of eastmark are entitled to an additional 41 acres of park land and this is the last remaining land in eastmark to be subdivided this is our moment to take a stand and get what we paid for kelly devlin says there has been no traffic study conducted for this proposed road with the current plan of the indicate project coming in i am very concerned about the amount of traffic that would be in these roads i worry about the safety of our neighborhood as well as noise nuisance lisa coonan the proposed road should be a traffic nightmare for the eastmark community everton terrace should not have any connecting commercial roads or driveways anatasha ibsen says not only am i concerned about the loss of parkland promised to eastmark but more importantly i'm concerned about the safety of its residents eastmark roadways are already narrow to begin with and residents are often seen out walking throughout the neighborhood even on larger roadways if adequate access is provided to the warehouses from ellsworth and or elliott there's no reason to direct any of the warehouse traffic through the neighborhood the added traffic especially of large semi trucks would add unnecessary risks to pedestrians and drivers the warehouse traffic has no business coming to the neighborhood just as the neighborhood traffic has no business getting in their way either christie culberson says we receive no notice that a road is being planned behind our home and the zoning when we purchased our home did not represent a road to be developed city of mesa seems to be trying to get away with some shady activities this is a long one scott bittner good evening council members roads created in eastmark should be for the benefit of eastmark residents not commercial developers the creation of east mesquite street south binary and east rubidium avenue are the sole purpose of routing for the sole purpose of routing semi trucks to and from the proposed indycat mesa industrial park i urge you to please review the eastmark master transportation plan updated march 2021 everton terrace was designed as a two-way two-lane district street the proposed connection between south everton terrace and east mesquite street will have semi trucks entering and exiting warehouses on the same road where buses pick up our children despite the brookfield residential formerly dmb mesa proving grounds llc tells you that connection is not at a location where everton terrace is a four traffic lane four traffic lanes wide it is at a location where there is a single southbound lane and mere feet from where the single northbound lane splits into two northbound lanes the master transportation plan also points out that an exception was made to move eastmark parkway further to the east to make room for project huckleberry also known as meta which would knowingly increase traffic on everton terrace please refer to section 3.4 of the eastmark master transportation plan where it states some shift in volume from the realigned eastmark parkway onto everton terrace and ellsworth road is expected to occur according to the permit application for indica mesa industrial park there are 2 318 parking spots proposed with 1 790 parking spots being required so you already know traffic is being increased on everton terrace because of the metaverse data mine and now you want to add 2 000 commuter vehicles and who knows how many semi trucks to everton terrace which was designed as a small street for bikes pedestrians and residential access i do understand that development units 5 and 6 are for mixed industrial non-residential development we all knew this when we bought homes in eastmark however we were sold on the plans for a tight-knit community with high-tech manufacturing employment opportunities not warehouses and commercial trucking please refer to section b 0.2 of the du6 north dup which states the jobs generated in employment core of du6 will not only support families in the community but by keeping the knowledge workers and their families in the community the jobs will support additional jobs in areas such as banking groceries clothing and dry cleaning pet care lawn and home care home repair and maintenance fitness and health entertainment and dining these additional uses will not only support the employees within du-6 but also enriched the lives of the families living the neighborhoods nearby now tell me if these new roads and the 5 million square feet of warehouses they will feed sounds like it will enrich the lives of families living in the neighborhoods nearby this is not what i envisioned nor was what the residents of eastmark were sold when we moved to the so-called technology corridor of mesa christina zimmerman says traffic in and out of industrial areas needs to stay out of the neighborhoods as we pay for the roads and our increased taxes and it is highly unsafe around our kids plus our roads are very narrow to begin with all traffic for industrial complex around eastmark should stick to signal butte elliott road and ellsworth we all need the park acreage we agreed to jason culberson when i purchased my home the approved zoning dep and the transportation plan for du5 and 6 did not represent that a road would be developed behind my home these changes harm me and i was not provided notification that these changes were being considered it makes no sense to direct commercial traffic semi trucks in the direction of an adjacent to the residential community as opposed to directly onto arterial roads such as elliott and signal butte as was originally planned furthermore the applicant was not has not provided any information pertaining to traffic generation and as a result the need for traffic studies undetermined steve castillo when we chose our lot on the north side of relativity avenue we were shown a pdf plan of citrus trees and a water garden on the north side of the north wall i would like the planning committee to make good on that plan or one similar and do not add a major road near that area either thank you for your attention in this matter and i have nine cards that were submitted on a different platform that were redirected to us sierra caron says i am aware that eastmark borders the elliott road technology quarter corridor this corridor was not designed to bleed through the eastmark community the land zone for the corridor's use was placed on the outer edge of the community to allow for already constructed major roads such as elliott ellsworth and sigma butte to service the necessary traffic for these commercial developments it is unnecessary and an abuse of millions of cfd dollars to build this road through a community that does not need it luca karen says creating a semi-truck shipping lane through community parks is not only unsafe but negligent the disc golf course is running adjacent to the proposed road how many kids will chase after wayward disk right into this road what parent will feel comfortable letting their kids play in the park adjacent to a semi truck shipping lane the developer is already deficient of multiple acres of city and community parks they need to be concentrating their efforts and use cfd dollars which is an assessment tax paid by the homeowners to build safe parks and resident that the residents will enjoy brandon barron says noise and light studies would be needed along with great sound barrier walls that the project goes through sophia morrison says i did not purchase my home to have more traffic behind my house and make it an unsafe area for my family cheris middleton says my understanding is the traffic studies required for this agenda item please make it available to the public or explain why it is not done with the legal reason it's not required i would like to know how these changes will affect traffic in my community if these roads are put in how do you plan on providing the 41 acres of park that is missing for an audit that was part of the development plan sarah rogers says we are homeowners nice mark the developers have continually and usurped the legal process and tried to change zoning's roads infrastructure of our neighborhood and the plotted land without proper notice yet again they are proposing a plat for approval without following the legally required procedure the proposed road infrastructure is unnecessary will bring commercial traffic to our residential area and was not represented in the dup in addition we were entitled 41 more acres of parkland and this land is the last remaining eastmark land to be subdivided please stand for us eva hansen says we do not receive we did not receive notice for this change we don't want to pay for this road that will be a nuisance to us we will promise more parks stop lying to us and cedric rogers says please protect our community the developers of eastmark have continually overstepped their legal boundaries to infringe their desires on our neighborhood as a homeowner we have a right to be heard our community is not in agreement with the proposed plan we were not notified we are entitled to 45 acres of park land and this plot is the last of the land that the developers have left to fulfill their promise in addition roads constructed for semi and commercial traffic have no place in our residential community nor were they represented in the dub or transportation plan that is the last one okay thank you um i know we we discussed this briefly in our meeting downstairs uh just kind of setting the stage for for this discussion uh nana did you mind commenting on there were a couple of questions i think that came out there that uh that i think it'd be good for you to comment on and then perhaps also traffic but i i think we uh there seems to be consensus around the idea that everton terrace is not appropriate for commercial traffic north particularly north of the green belt uh and and the disc golf course uh can you address oh and then the other comment that i heard uh relative to the city of mesa is multiple references to the to a library uh can you comment on uh on one number number one is that it's a city providing a library for east market number two uh the appropriateness of everton terrace south of the green belt being used for commercial traffic mayor cancer once uh some of the planning and irj is here to also help answer most of the traffic crowd questions so one of the things i had was whether basically the process has gone through the legal requirements basically it comes down to the master transportation plan and i want to make it very clear to all the eastmark residents and everybody hearing this is you have to read the whole documents together you cannot just cherry pick and read sections so there is very specific about the requirements for the trans master transportation plan in the development plan in the development plan there is a specific requirement that says that modifications to the transportation plan can be made administratively by cd staff and the premise behind that is once you get specific development that's what determines the trip generation and basically the trip distribution and so the muscle transportation plan generally becomes your by action document and when you get a specific the city engineer reviews it to make sure that it's generically in compliance with the overarching plan itself however when those specific development comes the civil engineer is authorized to basically require updates and amendments so that's really within the framework of what can be reviewed administratively and then number two also it's about the location of this road that we're talking about if you look at the development unit plan it was anticipated throughout the discussion and the project narrative in the development plan that there is likely to be a road that goes through that even the green space there is a cross-section and specific language that talks about specific things that will be developed within the green space and road network is one of those that are planned or envisaged to be developed within the green space area and also even as of last year there was an update to the transportation plan that laid out specific road connecting to signal build this at that time there was not a specific development or plot that had come in so this plot basically conforms to that transportation plan update that was approved back in 2021 in terms of the comments about the great park there are so areas in the development that has not been developed and the city is holding the developer responsible for making sure that they meet a requirement of the great park which has specific amenities um including you know various recreational amenities and all that so we are so holding the developer responsible for meeting the requirement of the the great park and in terms of the trade trip distribution i think our jcs the city engineering department and transportation review the routes and the trip distribution to make sure that basically it meets the intent and the requirement and the intensity of what is allowed to go through the community but i'll let audrey answer that question mayor mayor members of the council of eric guderian our deputy director for traffic engineering here with me as well he and another staff member reviewed the update to the master transportation plan and are generally satisfied with its results they had a couple of minor comments but nothing that would change the substance of the road layout so there was one statement made that i will address everton terrace as you're going from south to north transitions from two lanes to four lanes so the point at which mesquite road will intersect with everton terrorists if the plan is approved is the point in which it transitions to four lanes so you know it doesn't mean no one could go down everton terrace you know into the residential area but it's it's not convenient we actually like the proposed connection out to signal butte because for traffic that's looking to leave this you know non-residential area and head south it gives them a way to do so otherwise they would have to take everything everton terrace down to point 22 if they look to go out to signal butte so we actually see this as a positive rather than negative that there are connections both to elliott uh from everton terrace as well as the east west street that would connect to signal buta in the east okay thank you uh council the discussion on this item or comments mr thompson well i've got a couple and then also i just realized um the the designer for this is one of my clients so i'm going to have to abstain from voting um unfortunately um council members if you're going to conflict off you should for the voice there's no comments [Music] and that's just to avoid the appearance of a possible conflict okay right yeah if you have a con conflict you can't comment in addition to speaking okay and and i think just for the record it's to avoid an appearance of a conflict because of who did the plat not because of actually east markets the company that did the plan okay all right thank you mr freeman so non i heard a lot of discussion in what was read by holly about that lack of communication the residents didn't have notice of this upcoming changes and the roadways can you comment on that or do you have any information on that um mayor councilmember freeman so the plot we go back to the requirements of the plot the plot basically is going to the standard requirement where the plot is put before council the for subdivision plus there's no requirement for residents within 750 feet i think is a requirement for notifying residents and also sending new super publications that is not a requirement of apply secondly they're talking about amendment to the development unit plan and amendment to the community plan this is not an amendment to the community plan or amendment to the development unit plan this is an update to the master transportation plan which is planned and built into the whole community planning the eastmark development unit plan because it's anticipated that when a child development come that's when you're going to know basically the specific trip generation the specific use that is going to go into the specific location so you read all the documents it specifically lays out that updates to the transportation plan will be reviewed by the city transportation engineer it kept repeating that unlike the major or minor amendment which basically says that the planning director is on discretion through certain criteria will determine whether a maintenance of the land use requires a measure of mine or maintenance now how many plants have we approved out here over the years do you have any idea there is a lot um i just this is not this happen this is a pretty frequent occurrence out here so well across the city but in a new development so over many years how many would you estimate leslie do you have idea i would say i i don't guess but i can say the master transportation plan this is the fourth one okay since 2014 we've approved updates to the master transportation plan four times it's all been administrative over the years and typically the plot will come to us now that the developer is working with a specific property owner and they've determined the configuration of that site and how it's going to access transportation utility so that's why it doesn't come at the very beginning there's still a lot of work that gets done so now we have a potential cell of property so the developer is coming to us with a specific plan so this is left to be done administratively at the end of the process where council has already approved all the other planning documents this is the remaining part and this is certainly this area since it's the last part has seen a lot of changes but eastmark in general i can tell you has seen a lot of changes right i mean this area used to be a resort with two hotels and golf courses that's what that's what i'm looking for that didn't happen and i think our commitment is the concern about the cut through traffic from the um trucks we share that concern we will evaluate and cons and evaluate how this connects to everton to ensure that that doesn't become a nuisance in the neighborhood our intention is either through signage or how we configure the roads to really make sure that is intended to go north on everton up to elliot or coming out to signal which was already in the plan that connection to signal view was already there so that's the plan that we will make sure you know staff is committed to making sure to mitigate against any idea of a trap truck trying to go from everton down into a two-lane street and through a neighborhood that doesn't make any sense to us we would not support that we will try to do what we can through signage and other efforts to try to make sure that is an intent we don't believe that's anybody's intention is to go it doesn't make sense it just doesn't work and i i don't think we approved that with this idea i think we approved it with the idea we needed another access out of this area for these trucks it can't be just one connection to signal view it has if signal view got blocked off for some reason there has to be another point of access for these property owners and so that's why you see where that's lined up so i have one additional question there so none there's a what is the buffer distance of the buffer between uh the eastmark development i have a plat here on page five there's the current development residential development and then there's a green build i think you called it there was some mapping on that and then i guess that's where the different widths what's the most were you looking for the narrowest portion of that i didn't see a measurement on it it's mayo council actually councilman freeman just in a way answer your question the community plan that shows a green space it specifically says that this is gener general location and it will vary over time as a child development comes in it's really stated if you look at a footnotes he said this is generically depicted but i think my recollection was 75 feet in the document but it was very specific that it's just generically located at that location okay that's all the questions i have thanks thank you mr luna now i have a question is there a time constraint does this have to be approved now to give residents an opportunity to weigh in they feel like they've been this not had the opportunities to weigh in and discuss this i know that the developer whoever wants to to get this now is there an uh is there is there an urgency to get this done now did we wait two weeks or mayor councilmember uh luna a couple of things my understanding is really urgent because there are users or the people waiting to sign contracts to proceed with developing the property but i also want to tell the council this is a plot this is a final plot which is not a final site plan development this is basically allowing people to purchase a property they're still going to have to do a final site plan which will show what use is specifically going to go into that location typically planning is just to show the marketing of the boundaries of the site for future development to happen on the site so if you look at a smart community plan it's got a criteria for cyphon either it goes to the planning and zoning board or is approved administrative or even with the administrative approval of this site plan is required to notify people within 750 feet and also post a sign as well if it goes to the planet and zoning board is required to be notified people within the surrounding areas as well so this is really not approving a specific use it's basically creating the boundary of laws within the potential development area okay other comments council and mayor and council i can add a few things um you could always you can continue the case you could do that but as not on if i could follow up on what dr opie said is that it is this is an administrative act of council council sometimes acts as a legislative body when it's approving the zoning case in those cases there's other requirements and this is not this is not a rezoning case this is not a zoning case this is a plot this is an administrative function which council decides whether or not the process was followed and basically if it complies with the city ordinances i realized the number of the people that called in and the number of people that commented have a dispute as to whether or not it complies with the process but you've heard dr appiah explain why it does comply with the process and i'll say it's not just his opinion he holds many hats he's the director of dsd but he's also the planning director and the zoning administrator and those two ladder positions he is the official person that interprets the code for the zoning ordinance so his interpretation is the official statement as to how we interpret the code that's not unique to mesa in fact that's common in most cities in fact it's also embedded within the state statute so council could continue the case to have you know more outreach to the citizens that certainly could occur but the same decision will come back in two weeks so whether or not it complies with the code and you've heard from the the planning director and zoning administer and director of dsd dr albia that it does and so you know you'll still be you'll still be in the same position and so but that's not to say that sometimes outreach isn't uh worthwhile just as outreach so i'm not trying to diminish it okay thank you any other comments um i'll i'll make a few uh this is a uh this is a wonderful part of our community this is the the elliott road tech corridor this is signal butte and elliott where we're we're so proud of the multi-billion dollar world-class businesses facebook and apple and many others there are building building multi-billion dollar facilities uh along uh elliott road and and signal viewed and and we're very proud of this we've invested a lot of money in this and and this is where a lot of high quality jobs are coming uh on the other hand we're also very proud of the quality of life at eastmark and so what needs to happen here is we need to protect that quality of life we need to have an appropriate buffer and appropriate protection for the residential from this uh this very world-class uh industrial uh development that's going on on the elliott road tech corridor so and and i think a lot of the things that i heard from the community today are everyone agrees on everton terrace is absolutely not appropriate for commercial traffic south of the green build no one no one that i've heard talk about this is arguing otherwise and i've also heard people say please route the commercial traffic north to elliot or east to signal butte that i think is that's the point of of this plan is to do exactly that and to prevent and discourage and have traffic calming devices in place so that these big trucks we don't want these big trucks going on the two-lane road down into a down everton terrace and that green belt that is the disc golf course that's not going anywhere and uh eastmark is not being relieved of any of the requirements that they have related to the great park and the city of mesa is building a library adjacent to the uh uh clubhouse at the for eastmark so there no one is is uh again i i think we're all saying the same thing uh and in fact the way that we can protect these residential developments south of the greenbelt and south of the the disc golf golf course is to to give some ingress and egress for these heavy industrial users to get north elliott and to get east to signal butte and so that's the purpose of these roads um so i i understand people's anxiety and then the thought that there might be commercial traffic directed into into a residential neighborhood that is exactly the mission of what we're trying to accomplish here and what we're trying to prevent so i think this is actually a an example of good city planning versus what people think it might be so for those reasons i'm in favor of again and this is an administrative act this is not a zoning case this is not us exercising discretion this is just us understanding that the appropriate process was followed as these heavy industrial commercial industrial users come in along elliott road as mr dr appiah indicated earlier there there will be site plans and there will be multiple bites at the apple and everyone in eastmark can come in and say well can we have a right turn only lane here or can we have you know no no commercial truck signs on these streets and all of those things uh city staff is suggesting them at this point so it's not the city staff won't be arguing against them they'll be suggesting and encouraging all of those protections for the residential neighborhoods so i'll get off my soapbox but uh i understand oh i'm sorry uh miss spillsberry thank you would you like to share something with us just just really quick between my really loud uh neighbors at my airbnb and the subway outside i'm sorry if i missed this i'm in new york um so we will have an opportunity to vote on a future site plan is that what i'm hearing mayo councilmember feels very the site plan will not come to city council it will go to either planning and zoning board or it will be reviewed by the planning director so there is if it's a major cyclone it goes to pnz and if it's mine or however each of the process still requires people within 750 feet to be notified and the signs should be posted on the property as well and we've been also communicating with the esma group to make sure they basically inform the community through various avenues that they have okay it does um i get frustrated when i see things come up like this where the neighborhood is thinking one thing when in reality that's not what the city is doing or planning and so i i just would encourage you know better communication and more thorough communication or however however we can get that word out better i i always think that that's going to be a good idea in these cases but thank you all right thank you any other comments i see that mr freeman's made a motion seconded by mr luna for approval please cast your votes uh mr thompson i noted that you voted did you intend to do that okay i guess when it when it flips miss spillsbury how do you vote i'll vote yes thank you oh i'm sorry we're waiting for the electronic tally to show itself all right thank you passes with six eyes and mr thompson abstaining due to a conflict uh next item on our agenda here is item 12 items from i'm sorry it's item we do have items not on the consent agenda uh items 11a through 11c are to conduct a public hearing and take action on the minor general plan amendment and rezoning related to the tyler ranch development to allow for residential development the property is located within the 3 700 to 3 800 blocks of north valves to drive and north of the 202 red mountain freeway on the east side of val vista drive i declare the public hearing open ms mosley do you have any requests to speak from the public on this item no mayor no request thank you do any council members wish to address this item all right uh ms spielsberg you don't wish to address this item do you okay thank you i therefore uh declare the public hearing closed if there's no objection from counsel we'll take one motion for the approval of items 11b and 11c the minor general plan amendment and the rezoning is there a motion to that effect i'll see that mr thompson's made a motion seconded by mr freeman please cast your vote ms spielsberg how do you vote yes thank you that motion passes unanimously thank you uh the next item on our agenda is uh items from citizens president ms mostly do we have any requests to speak on this item no request mayor thank you that concludes the agenda for this meeting is there a motion to adjourn thank you mr luna seconded by mr thompson all in favor please say aye hi thank you we are adjourned [Music] you