Thank you everyone for being here tonight. We're going to have our Mesa City Council meeting for June 2nd, 2025. And after our regular council meeting, we'll have a special council meeting. All of our counselors present, all our council members are present. We appreciate that. We're going to begin with a uh invocation by Minister Jeremy Gills with the Church of Christ followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Pastor, if you'll come forward and please stand. Let us pray. Gracious sovereign and sacred savior God, we come before you uh with humility and gratitude, seeking your wisdom for the work at hand to be a blessing to the people of this city and beyond. Tonight we ask that you bless this council with unity, with clarity, and with courage to lead with humility, compassion, and integrity. Let every decision that they make uplift our community and honor the commitments that were made to serve the people and do it in an excellent way. Guide their hearts, steady their minds, and grant strength to them to do what is right, even when it's not easy. We ask you all these things in your holy name. Amen. Thank you, sir. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. Well, thank you everyone. I don't know why you're all here, but uh we're going to find out here in just a few minutes. Uh tonight's the beginning of our new city manager. Last week, we celebrated how far Mr. Brady brought our community over the last 19 plus years. And but tonight, we begin working with our new city manager, Scott Butler, and continuing to elevate Mace even higher. We will do the swearing in and then Mr. Butler afterwards, if you'll say a few words. So if you'll join me at the microphone. Uh understand the mayor gets to do this. So mean by privilege Rebecca. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, please your right hand and repeat after me. I, Scott Butler, do solemnly swear I, Scott Butler, do solemnly do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona. that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic. and and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that I will faithfully and impartially And that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of city manager discharge the duties of the office of city manager of the city of Mesa, Arizona. of the city of Mesa, Arizona. according to the best of my ability. So help me God. according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Congratulations. [Applause] All right. And then you guys can have a seat. And then council, if you'll join us for another picture. I know. We need Chris Brady here to organize. Yeah. See, Chris has a job when he gets back from Mexico. He's perfect. And then one mayor. Yeah. Don't you love that still? Okay. Great. Thanks. [Applause] [Music] Well, good evening everyone. Good good evening mayor, council members, friends, and community members. Before I offer a few words, I just of course want to thank um start a few folks. Starting, of course, with my family. My wife Rebecca, my daughter Caroline, my daughter Charlotte, and my son Owen. My in-laws are here, Ron and Sandy Hexel. I I couldn't do this without their support and their encouragement. And so, I'm so appreciative uh that they are uh they put up with me and deal with all the crazy hours and late night phone calls and early morning texts that come along with this. So, so thank you so much for your love and support. Um, I also want to thank all of my friends and family and uh neighbors, former colleagues, former mayors, uh, former council members, and yes, a former city manager uh, for joining me tonight. I I really appreciate you all being here to share this opportunity, this moment with me. So, this is truly an incredible honor um, that you've given me to tr trusting in me to serve as Mesa's city manager. I'm deeply humbled to follow in Chris Brady's footsteps and work alongside you in this new capacity. When I started here 21 years ago as a council assistant, I never imagined that I would be sitting in this chair tonight. Mesa has been good to me and I've had the privilege of witness witnessing the city's remarkable transformation firsthand. Now I'm excited to help write Mesa's next chapter. We face tremendous opportunities and important challenges. MESAs and an inflection point. I share your mission. I share your mission of addressing our budget challenges with the same fiscal discipline that families use at home in your mandate that we must live within our means while continuing to innovate and deliver the exceptional customer service that our residents expect and deserve. I'm committ I'm committed to utilizing our talent and ingenuity to help our departments find smarter ways to serve our community. will eliminate redundancies, streamline processes, and maximize every dollar spent for the most significant impact. As for economic development, we must outwork and out hustle our competition to attract the highwage jobs and skilled career opportunities that council has prioritized for years. We'll look for opportunities in advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology. will be selective, focusing on employers, uh, excuse me, on employers who create future oriented careers to attract and keep our best and brightest here in Mesa. Public safety will remain our hallmark priority. I share your commitment to investing in our police and fire departments and maintaining our status as one of America's safest big cities. And we'll also keep investing in our employees because they can't deliver world-class services without a highly trained and devoted workforce. One principle will guide everything that we do. Delivering value for our residents. We'll strive to provide the best municipal services, ensure the water is clean, that the natural gas is safe. Well, we'll we'll maintain um our streets and our trash will be picked up on time. Frankly, we'll know we're doing our jobs if Mesa residents don't have to think about it. The partnership between the council and its city manager has served Mesa exceptionally well, and I'm committed to strengthening that. The city council sets the vision, and together with our incredible staff, we turn that vision into a reality. Thank you for this opportunity. I couldn't be more excited to work with all of you as we build on Mesa's bright future. Thank you, mayor. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. those who wish to leave, you can be excused. But uh this is a humbling experience for uh Mr. Butler and also the city of Mesa. So we appreciate that. With that, we'll move forward to our consent agenda. And currently, Miss Mosley, I have, if this is correct, 8A, 9 A, and B off the consent. That's correct, Mayor. Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Christopher, the mic is yours. Good evening, mayor and council members. These are the items on the consent agenda. All items listed with an asterisk will be considered as a group by the city council and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion unless a council member orders citizen request in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item. Item three, approval of minutes of previous meetings is written. Item 4 A, act on liquor license application for the Duchess, 3929 East Main Street. Item 4 B, act on liquor license application for the VIG, 1744 South Vista Drive. Item 4 C, act on liquor license application for Zola Cultural Kitchen, 6209 East Main Street. Item 4 D, act on liquor license application for the Rosetta Room, 104 East 1st Avenue. Item 4 E, act on liquor license application for State Police Station, 357 North Style Drive. Item 4 F, act on liquor license application for OL's Mexican Cafe at 2336 East Baseline Road. Item 5A, approving dollar limit increase to the term contract for bird control and removal services for the facilities management and Mesa police departments. Item 6A, approving resolution to enter into a ground lease and option to purchase premises, parking license agreement, purchase and sales agreements and other necessary transaction documents between the city of Mesa and Soul Trust Maine for completion of a development project at 233 East Main Street on city-owned property. Item 6B, approving resolution to designate the chief fiscal officer with the authority to submit the city's 2025 2026 fiscal year expenditure limitation report to the Arizona Auditor General on behalf of the city council as required by state statute. Item 6 C, approving resolution to disperse opioid settlement funds for activities approved by city council to nonprofit organizations and execute agreements necessary for such dispersements. Item 6D, approving resolution adopting a pension funding policy and accepting the employer share of assets and liabilities under the public safety personnel retirement system as required by state statute. Item 6E, approving resolution to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Mesa Gateway Airport Authority to provide reimbursement for three years of aircraft rescue and firefighting services provided by the Mesa Fire and Medical Department beginning July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2028. Item 7 A, approving ordinance for annexation case 24-1031 for annexing property at the northwest corner of Elliot Road and Haw Road. Item 7B, approving ordinance amending title 5, chapter 13, section two of the Mesa City Code to provide that the solid waste residential development fee is as set forth in the schedule of fees and charges. And item 7 C, approving ordinance with proposed amendments to chapters 34 and 87 of title 11 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to manufactured home parks and subdivisions and recreational vehicle parks and subdivisions. Mayor and council members, these are the items on the consent agenda. Thank you, Kevin. We have a motion by Miss Duff and a second by Miss Spillsbury. Please cast your vote. passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Next, we'll hear item 8A. Uh that's zoning case 2400708. And currently, I have several blue cards and uh presentation. Mr. Balmer. Thank you, Mr. Brady. Miss Brady. Adios. Thank you, mayor uh council. This is case Z24708 known as Park North. There are a few requests as part of this zoning case. There is a resone request. The current zoning on the property is limited commercial with a planned area development overlay LCP AAD. The request is to reszone the property to LC with a new P A tailored to this specific development. They're also asking for a council use permit and site plan review. And the request is for the development of 120 unit multiple residence development. The subject property is cross-hatched on the map. We're on the north side of of Guadalupe um east of Power Road adjacent to uh the the current Chris Brady Park. Here's a street view looking north from Guadalupe into the park in the background. This case was reviewed under the Mesa 2040 general plan. Per that 20 240 general plan, the character area for this this property is neighborhood with a suburban sub. Evan, if I could just for a second, the presentation is not up. I think we need to get the presentation up for everyone. If it could help us, that would be great. We we have the presentation on our monitors, but are they showing? Okay. Are we good now? We're good. Okay. Yes. Good to go. Thank you. Want to start over? Uh well, picking up with the general plan. So, this was reviewed under the Mesa 2040 uh general plan. The character area is neighborhood with a suburban place type. Uh while this character area is primarily a single residence, it does allow for multiple residents and commercial uses along arterial frontages and at at major intersections. As I mentioned, the zoning is LC uh P AD and they are asking that P A uh to modify some specific development standards related to this project. Uh multiple residents is is actually a permitted use in the LC zoning district provided you meet three criteria. That first criteria is that at least 60% of the gross floor area of the entire development is reserved for commercial. In scenarios where you have multi-story buildings, there's also a requirement that 65% of that ground floor be reserved for commercial uses and that the density does not exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. Um, applicants that that don't meet this criteria, the avenue to deviate from that is through a council use permit. This specific request for a council use permit is to reduce that that commercial percentage down to zero. The density is less than 25 dwelling units per acre. Here you can see the site plan. There's a total of four buildings, two with 36 units, two with 24 units, and an approximate 4,000 square foot clubhouse. Um, access to the site is from a a bridge across the Maricopa County Flood District channel on Guadalupe. I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a second. They're also proposing emergency egress to the west of the site through that commercial development. There's also a pedestrian gate at that location to allow um residents access from the apartments to the the commercial. Uh there are 252 parking spaces required. There are 252 parking spaces provided. Item 8b on your agenda is a development agreement for this site. There that there are four five primary points with that development agreement. Two of those you can see on the site here. The first is that the applicant construct the bridge that that goes over the flood channel across Guadalupe Road. The installation and the maintenance of that would be the responsibility of the developer. That's outlined in the development agreement. The second thing that you can see on this site plan is this pedestrian connection here on the north side that connects to existing infrastructure um in the park that would be installed by the developer. There would be a warranty period of a year associated with that. After that, the maintenance would revert to the park. As I mentioned, the planned area development is to deviate from a number of development standards. I won't get into all of these. I'm happy to answer questions if if council has any. Uh, one thing I would note is that the majority of these deviations are related to the building and landscape setbacks in the LC district. Those setbacks are measured to buildings and parking areas. So the actual apartment buildings themselves meet the setbacks required in the LC district. The deviations that you see on on the right side of this screen are related to the parking areas and the the parking canopies. Here you can see the landscape plan proposed for the site. I would mention two other things about the development agreement on the landscape plan. Uh first, the trees on the north side of the site here would be installed on city property. the that's the the park property. Those trees would be installed in the irrigation to support those trees installed by the developer um with a again with a one-year warranty period after that maintenance would revert to the park. The next thing I wanted to point out is Guadalupe here is is actually uh a Maricopa County flood district uh property. They've reached an agreement with the flood district to be able to landscape to install the landscaping and irrigation on Guadalupe Road. Um, which is technically offsite, but that is also covered in the development agreement. Well, it is here. You can see an aerial of the site. When council considers a council use permit for residential uses in commercial districts, there are two sets of criteria uh that we look at. Again, these are all outlined in your staff report. I'm I'm happy to answer any questions that council might have. The first se is for from section 113131. That's specific to the residential use in the commercial district. The second set of criteria are from section 1170-6 of the zoning ordinance and those are kind of standard council use permit criteria. Um again, they're outlined in your staff report, but if council has any questions, I'm happy to answer those. There's been extensive citizen participation as part of this this application. The applicant uh completed all the standard notification which is mailouts to 1,000 ft um registered neighborhoods and HOAs. They also held two neighborhood meetings in March and uh November of last year. We received at least 43 emails in opposition, two emails in support. We've been up updating the citizen participation report. the one that has been uploaded to your agenda is is the most recent with with all of those interactions outlined. With that, staff does find that it complies with the Mesa 2040 general plan as well as section 69 and 22 of the zoning ordinance and the criteria for a council use permit. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. The planning and zoning board also recommended approval with conditions by a vote of four to zero. And as for a real quick summary on the development agreement, there are the the primary points that I mentioned. Uh one is is the installation of the landscaping in irrigation along Guadalupe. Um the installation of the landscaping and that pedestrian connection uh to the park to the north. Uh build that that pedestrian pathway from the property into Monway, excuse me, Monterey Park, the maintenance of the bridge. And there's also a disclaimer in the lease that all leases would need to sign acknowledging that they're adjacent to a park with pickle ball and lights and that there could be noise and and other um disturbances from that. Uh with that, I am happy to answer any questions council might have. Council questions. Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mayor. May as well start. Uh Mr. Balner, I do have a number of questions for you. I'm looking at submittal document part one that is with the uh okay the deal. I'm on page five and I have a couple questions for you under zoning history. Um it states commercial office uses would require a minimum of three access points. Is that true? Uh, mayor, council member Adams, I don't have that specific document in front of me, but there would be different um access requirements for commercial as opposed to residential. Um, there is one primary egress, ingress and egress, that's the bridge across Guadalupe. There is that secondary access to the southwest corner of the site. How how is that access on the southwest corner? Is that a cross access easement? Is that an emergency deal or That is correct. So, it's emergency um egress, ingress and egress. So, fire trucks that that sort of thing. It's not an entry for residents use. Okay. Well, I think I think it's somewhat pivotal here if if if does does staff normally review these submittal documents for accuracy or are they just accepted and part of the deal? Oh, no. Mayor, Council Member Adams, yes, we we spend a a great amount of time reviewing all those. Well, I I'll read this to you. commercial office uses would require a minimum of three access points and therefore not allow the release of the north access easement on the adjacent commercial parcel thereby hindering their ability to implement their approved redevelopment plans. So I I guess my question is if another use were considered would we need to have three minimum of three access points? Uh, Mayor, Council Member Adams. So, we reviewed the request based on what was submitted to us, which was a multiple residence development. We worked with fire and transportation and everybody to make sure that what they're proposing on the site plan is is adequate for that. If the event that this were to be commercial development in the future, um, we would absolutely look at that under commercial standards. Um, but depending on the use and the traffic, there would be different requirements for that. So, so taking no position. Okay, that's that's fine. [Music] Um, on page six, it says, "It is important to note that the city's own economic development department agrees that commercial office uses are not viable on the site for the reasons stated above." Do we do we know any more about that? Is that mayor? Council member Adams, uh, economic development reviews these applications as they come in. Um the applicant might be better to speak about the challenges with commercial at the site. What I would say is that this site was zoned for commercial development uh many years ago. Commercial development has yet to materialize. Um I I think not being an economic development access is it would be an issue. I think the the school located across the street might further limit the ability of of certain types of restaurants and things to go into that that development. So, I can't speak for economic development, but they review all these applications as as part of the review process. Okay. Thank you. And just just a couple of other quick questions. Um, what by right could be built there today? Uh, thank you, Mayor, Council Member Adams. So, so great question. It's LC allows for basically your whole pallet of commercial uses. That's just general retail. It's offices, medical office, um, restaurants, the whole gamut of uses. As I mentioned previously, it actually also allows for multiple residents provided that it's part of a mixeduse development and that those commercial uh ratios are maintained on the site. So then by right if those commercial uses came into play then we would have to reconsider the number of access points based on that previous item. That is correct. Okay. Thank you Mr. Balmer. Anyone else? Vice Mayor. No, Miss Go forth. Hi, Evan. Thank you. Yeah. I'd like to ask you, and I apologize I didn't ask about this downstairs. I forgot about our uh balanced housing plan. Are you are you good with that? Um yeah, I can answer some questions. Mary might be able to um in as well. Pursuant to the balanced housing pan, our our projected needs, annual needs are about 2,000 units annually. Correct. I think I'm looking at it. Mayor, council member Go forth, I believe that. Okay. And that breaks down to about 1,359 single family and 806 multif family, I believe. I I believe that is correct. Yes. Okay. Do you know how many multif family units we have approved? So to you to date uh uh mayor uh council member go forth to date to today date I don't have that number what we have is we're uh recording these quarterly so as of March of this year we've approved 537 of the 806 multif family units that the b balance housing plan identifies as of March you said as of March the end of March that's correct okay um and that's the first quarter of the year. That's correct. And we're more than halfway. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Hearing no one else, then um would the applicant like to come forward? Okay. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council members. My name is Chris Webb with Rose Law Group, um 7144 East Stson Drive, Sweet 300 in Scottsdale. Um, I appreciate Evan's presentation and um, I just wanted to quickly say how much we appreciate, um, how good your staff's been to work with over the past year or so as we've been working on this project. Um, I'm really excited to be here tonight to talk about this really cool project called Park North. Um, here with me tonight are Rob and Mike Stefen. They're the developers of the project. And um just for some background, Rob and Mike are both homegrown Mesa guys. They went to Dobson High School. They're Mesa residents and business owners. And um they love the city and they're really excited to do a really cool project here. Um this project is going to be a joint venture between their two companies, Excolo Development and Porter Kyle. Both of them have a great track record u of developing high-end multif family projects here in the valley. And um so when when Rob and Mike approached us about this project last year, we were really excited about it. It's it's a great story. This homegrown Mesa development team doing a really cool project here in the city um at what we think is just the perfect location for it. So we're really excited to be here tonight to talk to you about it. Um I guess I should check. Is this showing up here? Okay, making sure. Um, just to give you the context for the site location, I know Evan covered this a little bit, but um, the project site sits at the intersection of two sixlane arterial streets, Power Road and Guadalupe Road. It's wrapped by the city's, I've got it, Monterey Park on here, Christopher Brady Park. Um, it's also right next door to a redeveloping commercial corner, the Quick Trip. Um, it's it's really exactly where you want a multif family site like this to be. Um, and and what a great lifestyle this would create to live right on a city park. Um, it's one of the things that makes us so excited to bring this forward. Another unique feature is that the site is actually set back from Guadalupe Road by the flood control district canal. Um, Evan touched on this, but I but I want to talk quickly about um the zoning history. Um, so site was annexed into the city back in 1983 and it was granted R17 residential zoning. In 2010, it was reszoned to limited commercial with a PAD overlay for a commercial and medical office project that was never developed. Um, important to note here that um, the site's existing zoning, the existing LC zoning not only allows commercial and office, but it also allows multif family residential uses. Those are already allowed. That is a use that's already allowed on the site up to 25 units to the acre. So, Park North is really implementing a use that's already been permitted on the site for the past 15 years since 2010. Um, I want to talk a little bit about our project team's evaluation process for the best use for this site because a lot went into that. Um, this has been talked about already. Um, council member Adams um, talked about this. So, one of the things is this site, um, has some access constraints. Um, the 2010 PAD that was approved for the commercial office project that never materialized had contemplated three points of access getting across the canal three times. Now, at the time, they hadn't worked those details out, but that's what they contemplated. Um, and so, you know, those didn't materialize. They needed those access points. It's one of the many reasons why I think that project didn't go forward. So access is a is an issue. Um we've fortunately secured one crossing over the flood control district canal and that that is sufficient for this project um with our with our emergency access uh to the west. The other thing that we're faced with on this project is there's a bunch of recorded deed restrictions against the property that pro that prohibit a lot of commercial and retail type uses. So, just as an example, um the deed restrictions prohibit any auto related uses of any kind. So, that's off the table. Uh prohibits things like nursing homes. Can't do that. Um one of the one of the ideas that I've heard floated around for this property is, you know, some kind of a a food truck park or something like that. Well, there's deed restrictions in there that we believe would prohibit that. Um so, there's there's there's a lot of challenges um with the site in that regard. Another thing is it's right across the street from Highland Junior High School and because of the proximity, alcohol sales would be restricted and that's going to prevent the majority of restaurants from being able to locate there. We also found um and I'll I'll point you to the map here on the screen, there's actually a massive overupp of both existing and zoned commercial retail in the area. The sites represented by this red dot and all these vacant commercial areas are here in green. And this was confirmed by uh a market study that was done by Elliot D. Pollock. Um it was a commercial market analysis that um was prepared. We submitted that to the city that was reviewed reviewed by your economic development department. So what we found out um is that this simply isn't a viable commercial or retail site. Um, the owners of the property have been in and out of escrow many, many times with would be commercial developers on this project, and it never materializes for all of the reasons that we've talked about here. It is just simply not a viable commercial site. I want to talk real quickly about some of the key findings from the Elliot Pollock study, this commercial market analysis that was done because I think this is important. First one, and these are direct quotes from the study, the location of the subject site is not considered competitive for retail development. Expected retail demand over the next 40 years can nearly be entirely accommodated within the current vacant retail space in the market area. So all the retail commercial demand for the next 40 years can be accommodated in what you already have zoned and ready for commercial. And lastly, there over 10 times the amount of available retail space than expected local resident demand through buildout of the primary market area. So really the bottom line here is that the market area doesn't need new commercial retail. what it needs are new residents to support the existing commercial and retail and the commercial and retail that's already been zoned. So that led us to start looking at multif family as a use for this site which as I previously noted um is already allowed by the existing zoning and we just think this site is really perfect for it and I want to talk about the reasons why. So, first of all, the site's located at the intersection of two sixlane arterial streets, Power and Guadalupe. It's surrounded by the city park, adjacent to the commercial corners, and then of course buffered again by the two arterial streets. Um, the flood control district canal creates an 80oot setback from Guadalupe Road. And then we also have a huge separation from all the existing residential in the area. The closest home is 500 feet away on the other side of Guadalupe Road and all of the homes in Superstition Springs are at least 900 ft away. Those are very large separation numbers. The other thing that we that we realized um is that multif family creates far less traffic than the commercial or office uses that were previously contemplated for the property. And then finally, we just thought that, you know, being able to to to live right on the city park, have pedestrian access to it, access pedestrian access to the the commercial corner that's going to redevelop just creates an awesome lifestyle. So, let me give you a quick overview of some of the details of Park North. It's 120 total luxury apartment units. Um, we're at a density of 23 and a half units to the acre, which is less than the 25 that's allowed on the site today. Uh, we'll have a mix of 1, two, and threebedroom options. We've got four three-story buildings at a max height of 38 ft. The project includes resort style amenities, a community pool, clubhouse, dog park, all the things that you'd expect in a luxury uh multif family development. And then we're also going to have pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent city park, the commercial corner, and the schools. Kind of checks all of the boxes. The other thing I want to highlight is that we're providing all of the parking that the city requires. Um seen a lot of multif family projects come through in a lot of jurisdictions. They all ask for parking deviations almost every time. We're not asking for any. We're providing all the required parking. So, in order to do a multif family project on this site, we do need a council use permit as Evan uh mentioned and let me explain why. So, um again, the the existing zoning already allows the multif family use up to 25 units to the acre, but it requires a percentage of the floor area to be commercial and retail unless modified by a council use permit. So, our council use permit proposes to eliminate that requirement. It doesn't prohibit future commercial or retail. it just removes it as a requirement. Additionally, there's a requirement for council use permits that you provide a good neighbor policy document. So, we've provided that. We've prepared that. It also includes um that document also includes a a disclosure and acknowledgement that every person who leases a unit in this in this property will have to sign that makes them aware of the adjacency to the city park and everything that goes along with that, the lights, the noise, the pickle ball courts, the the thud from that. um they they will acknowledge that and um it actually has um restrictions in there that prevents them from complaining to the city about it because they know it's there. Um the other part of the application that Evan mentioned is we um we need to amend the existing PD. So let me explain why we need to do that. So the only reason we're amending the existing PA is to modify certain development standards. So why do we need to do that? Well, the main reason is because the adjacent city park, as you can see here on the graphic, actually has single family residential zoning. And the city code doesn't distinguish that it's a park and not a bunch of homes that are there. And so because it's a city park, the typical larger setbacks and landscape yards that are built into the code and required when you're next to single family residential zoning, they're not necessary to buffer a park. The the park is a buffer. It's a huge buffer. And so the bulk of the deviations that we've requested are simply to to modify those standards so that we're not providing you know forced to provide these huge landscape buffers against a huge landscape buffer which is the park. The other reason for the deviations is the adjacency of the flood control district canal. um the flood control district canal and the access easement that they have there limits what we can do with the walls and the landscaping on that side of the site. And so um we have some modifications in here for those standards as well. But at the end of the day, those deviations are offset by the superior design of the project. So I want to touch on that quickly. Um, first of all, our building design exceeds the use of decorative building materials like brick, siding, windows, and metal by approximately 20%. We're also screening utility panels, using internalized rain down spouts. We're also exceeding your private open space standards. Your private open space standards are how big your patios and balconies are, and we exceed those requirements in every case. Depending on the unit type, we exceed it by up to 83%. We're also exceeding your outdoor living area standards and that's the combination of your private open space plus your common area open space and we exceed that in all cases and depending on the unit type we exceed it by up to 208%. Those are big numbers. So we're we're we're really exceeding your standards in that regard. Um this is a rendering here of our project entry just to continue to illustrate some of the superior design elements. Um, we've added a decorative artist mural on the side of the building that you'll see as you come into the entry. Um, and I think it's important to note that your design review board was very complimentary of our building design. Um, didn't really make have us make any changes. Um, I want to talk about some of the superior design elements of the site itself. So, we have a high degree of pedestrian connectivity, connections to the city park through the north boundary and then over to the commercial corner. um to the west. We're also going to be installing new trees um on the north side of the property on the city park. Um and you know, that was that was something that was done at a suggestion of the parks department. We originally had those on our side, but they're on the the city park side now, and that's covered under the development agreement. We're also going to provide a whole bunch of new EV charging stations throughout the project. This one I think is is really important. We're going to be landscaping almost an acre of land in front of the canal between the canal and Guadalupe road on the flood control district side of the property. Um this is as you probably all know doesn't look good right now. Um it's not on our property but that is one of the things that we're doing to provide a superior design project is we'll be landscaping all of that. We've got an agreement with the flood control district to do that and we'll be maintaining it. the city will not have to maintain that. Um, one of the other cool things is we're doing rainwater harvesting um for all the irrigation that lines the the perimeter of the project adjacent to the parking lots. Um, we'll use that to to irrigate that landscaping in order to conserve water. Um, this is just a quick rendering of the community pool, another one. Um and again this the design review board was very complimementaryary of all the stuff that we've designed here. Okay. Um I want to talk about neighbor outreach um because we've done a lot of this. So let me talk first about the initial neighborhood outreach that we did here. Um on this map you can see the extents of the larger Superstition Springs community. The gold star represents where our project is at. I think it's important to note we're not trying to drop this project in the middle of Superstition Springs. It is at the very southwest corner of Superstition Springs. So, um we held two neighborhood meetings as Evan mentioned. Um residents were invited to that via letters. Um their HOA was notified. I know um the information was disseminated that way as well as on the Superstition Springs Facebook page. So, it was pretty uh the net was cast pretty wide. For reference, um there are approximately 1300 homes in the Superstition Springs community. At the first neighborhood meeting, we had 32 people there, which is about 2% of the total homes. At the second meeting, we had 15 neighbors, which is about 1%. I realize not everybody in Superstition Springs was aware of the meetings, fully aware of that, but just to give you some context. And so, we heard two main concerns at those meetings. um traffic concerns and then concerns about the impact of the project on the local schools. So, I want to talk about traffic first. So, the the overwhelming majority of the traffic concerns seem to be related to Highland Junior High School across the street and the drop off and pickup times and the chaos that goes along with that. Um, I I think we all know that's a that's an issue at every school in the valley. For some reason over the years, we all stop having our kids ride the bus or walking and we all drive them to and from school. And a lot of people do that. Um, I I know exactly what this looks like. Um, my youngest son goes to uh the sister school of this, which is Greenfield Junior High, that also sits at the intersection of two arterial streets, Greenfield and Elliot, and then Gilbert High School is right down the street. It is the exact same scenario. And I understand this concern from our neighbors. I when I pick up my son and drop him off at school, it's chaotic. Um, mostly because parents don't follow the rules that are laid out there. But the interesting thing about it is is other than that, other than those two 30 minute periods in the morning and the afternoon, it's fine. The traffic's fine. So going back to this site, Guadalupe Road is a sixlane arterial road. So is power. But we front on Guadalupe. So let's talk about that. The capacity of Guadalupe Road is 40,000 cars a day. That is the design capacity. Right now there's only about 12,000 cars a day on it. And that's from the city's data. So Guadalupe is way under capacity right now. It's operating at about 25% of its design capacity. And other than school drop off and pickup, and I've done it. I've driven down it during rush hour. There's nobody on it. There's just not a lot of traffic on it. other than school pickup and drop off. Um I want to point out too um that's interesting is Park North actually doesn't even generate enough traffic to meet your threshold to submit a traffic study. But we did one anyway because we knew our neighbors were concerned about it. It was important to them. So we did one and we submitted it. And what we found um is that Park North actually generates or will generate 48 to 71% less traffic than the the commercial and office project that was previously approved on the site. So generally speaking compared to commercial and office it generates 48 to 71% less traffic. If we were to develop the site with multif family and then retail per the 60% floor area ratio, we still generate 50 to 75% less traffic. So if the main concern is traffic and we want to minimize traffic with the development of the site, Park North is the best option. Um I want to talk about the school concern as well. Um this is Gilbert School District. So we've met with the district. They welcome all the new students from Park North. We are not going to generate very many students. Um the school district is losing students and they project to continue to do so based on a study that they conducted a couple of years ago. Um they've confirmed that all of the schools have capacity for our kids. And because of the concern with traffic from the neighbors, we actually went and met with the principal of Highland Junior High. um then he has no concerns with the project and we actually talked about working together in the future to try to help the pickup drop off scenario to try to mitigate those impacts. So we've tried to do our our due diligence there and and um address these concerns. Um in addition to the two neighborhood meetings that we did and I want to I want to make sure and hit this because I think it's important. Um we did a lot of followup. So, um, like I said, Rob and Mike are are Mesa residents. They live in the community, and so we wanted to try to talk to as many of our our neighbors individually as we could. Oftentimes, those group neighborhood meeting scenarios, you know, people are reluctant to to say things in front of a group. So, we wanted to talk individually. So, we actually made direct follow-up phone calls to everybody who came to the meeting and left us their phone number. Obviously, not everybody left us their phone number, but the ones that did, we called them. And that actually resulted in some emails of support to the city. Obviously, we didn't convince everybody, no question about it. We also did a neighborhood walking campaign. Um, we visited approximately a 100 homes in the Superstition Springs community. Not everybody would talk to us, of course. Um, but we did get to talk to about 45 different homeowners who would answer the door and would actually talk to us. And interestingly, 20% of those homeowners actually signed a petition of support for the project. Uh, and I I think that's included in your in your packet there. And the majority of the ones that we talked to were just indifferent about it. They didn't care. They basically said, "Yeah, whatever. It's fine." They weren't they weren't concerned about it. Just didn't want to sign a petition, which I understand. So, there is support in the neighborhood. I understand that there is opposition and concern as well, but there is support for the project in the neighborhood as well. So, I'm going to start wrapping up here. Um, how is this project in conformance with the existing zoning and our neighborhood general plan designation? So, first off, and Evan touched on this, multif family is actually a primary use in the neighborhood suburban subtype. Commercial is a secondary use. So, the multif family use is actually more compatible. The project will create a mixeduse area with the commercial corner to the west that's going to be redeveloped. It's located at the intersection of two major arterial streets. which is exactly where the general plan contemplates these types of projects. And again, the existing zoning already allows the multif family use and has for the last 15 years. Park North also helps elevate Mesa. It expands housing options by creating new and diverse housing for city residents. It enhances the parks by uh including improvements to the park, new trees, pedestrian connectivity, and it also creates a really cool opportunity to live on the city park. It strengthens public safety. It develops a long vacant lot. Vacant lots have a a history of problems. This will get rid of that. Um, it's designed, it's been designed in coordination with the city to maximize public safety and it supports businesses. It'll help the redevelopment of the adjacent commercial corner and it's going to bring new residents to support existing businesses. Again, it's an ideal site for a multif family use. It's the intersection of two major arterials surrounded by the park and the commercial corners. were set back from the road by the canal and huge separation from all existing residential. Again, 500 feet to the nearest home across Guadalupe and 900 ft to the nearest home in Superstition Springs. It really is the best buffered multif family site in the entire city. This came up in the planning and zoning commission hearing. I think your staff confirmed that. I I haven't seen one that's buffered this well in all the ones that I've done. And again, in terms of neighborhood combatibility, we're kind of at the the very corner here. Um, the intersection, the arterials surrounded by the park, and there is a lot of support for it in the community. So, lastly, the request is consistent with the city's elevate besa theme and the general plan. That's been confirmed by staff. The use is a primary use per the general plan, and it's permitted by the existing zoning. The request satisfies the review and approval criteria for a council use permit which has been confirmed by your staff. It satisfies the P A criteria which has been confirmed by your staff. Same for the site plan confirmed by your staff. Um it will generate far less traffic than if developed per the existing LC zoning standards which we think addresses the neighbor's primary concern. Planning division staff recommends approval. Design review board is very complimentary. It was supported by the city's economic development department. unanimous recommendation of approval from the planning and zoning board and it is the most well-buffered multif family site in the city. I know that was long. Thank you for indulging me. Um really appreciate uh you considering this and we hope to have your support tonight. I'm happy to answer any questions. I know we have neighbors here that want to speak. If it's helpful, I'd be happy to get back up afterwards and and respond. So, thank you. Right. Thank you, Mr. Web. What we'll do is we'll listen to uh those who filled out some blue cards and then invite you back up. Yes, sir. Okay. With that, council, we'll move forward with the blue cards. Currently, I have a caller online. Let's do Bonnie Hickman first. If Miss Hickman is on. Miss Hickman, are you online? Miss Hickman, make sure you're not on mute or anything. The time is yours. Again, okay, we'll see if she comes back. We'll move over to the physical blue cards and if Mi Miss Hickman uh gets a hold of you, then we'll put her back on. Uh so first we'll hear from Angela uh Angel Levine. Angel if you're here. I'm here but I didn't need to speak any further than just a strong opposition. Okay. Thank you. It does say that. Um Jeff Levine, do you wish to speak? Okay. It doesn't have you check mark here. So your wife did a great job. Um let's see. Uh, Donna Thompson. Donna, here. Come on up, Donna. You have three minutes. Miss Thompson. It says it right here. Okay, cool. I am Donna Thompson. Um, 7140 East Monty Avenue in Superstition Springs. Um, I am more comfortable behind the camera or attending an event rather than speaking at one. However, this is an important one for me. So, if I pass out, you know, all will be fine. Um, we've lived in the community for 24 years. We've used the park and watched it expansion over time and have seen it turn into an incredible destination, not just for our community, but for people from all over the valley. The proposed project is not in line with what I believe to be the fullest potential of the area. Frankly, it doesn't fit at all. In addition, the multiple concessions the developer has been granted are concerning. The land should be used for something that would complement the park itself and be a revenue generator for Mesa. As I understand, the current zoning of light commercial would allow that. A 60/40 split of residential to commercial is what is required from what I understand. In that regard, there would be some revenue generated for Mesa. As it stands, there is no revenue from rental tax. Therefore, nothing to benefit the city with this propos with this proposal. However, I believe this park is a regional draw with its multiple ball fields and would truly benefit from more rentable romadas and even pickle ball courts, both of which would generate some revenue. I am in a unique position to appreciate and understand what you all do and the volunteer committees, what they undertake, the work that the staff does, and the work that you, the mayor and council undertake. You could say that I've learned quite a lot through osmosis as my husband is a formal council person. In that regard, I did hear a conversation between he and Rob in which um bringing a Dutch Brothers was mentioned for that piece of land um as well as the residential. In my mind, I don't think this was a legitimate client. If um if it was, why haven't we seen plans for that light commercial as a possibility? I may be cynical, but I've seen one too many bait and switch presentations from developers as I watch these meetings on channel 11, and Kevin, you know, frequently made fun of me for that. Um, that one may have generated more interest from the community and far less opposition as that is partially what the land is zoned for. I don't believe we would have been able to oppose that. In closing, I believe that this parcel should be used for something that would benefit Mesa residents and not another developer looking to squeeze a project into a small space. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Thompson. Next, Cheryl Kirby. She wishes not to speak. So, Cheryl, for your documentation there, Andrew Clayton. Andrew, are you here? Yes, ma'am. And then on deck is April Leer. No Andrew you're up. We're playing baseball. She's on deck after you. Sorry, I was originally British. I played cricket. That's the problem. Uh, mayor, council members, uh, my name is Andrew Clayton. I'm a resident of 7458 East Lobo Avenue um in the Superstition Springs and also a uh soccer and track coach at the nearby Highland Junior High School. The owner and uh his developers held two community meetings last year for our input. No one spoke in favor of this complex. The first proposal submitted included 88 town homes. After the community meeting, the number of multif family homes actually increased to 120. They don't understand or care that this increase exacerbates our concern of traffic and safety for our children and the intersection as a whole. They do not care that these buildings are going to be too high, too squashed together with an unsafe bridge across from the chaos of bus and car exits turning dangery and that it is just in the wrong location. They're only interested in the bottom line. And that is why they need to ask for so many exceptions to the zoning guidelines and ask for the council use permit. Rental properties do not allow families to gain ownership of our great community. Rental properties also do not generate taxes for the city of Mesa for revenue. A primary concern is that this is an extremely dangerous intersection. This includes a fatality around uh two years ago. As recently as February 19th, a Highland student was taken away on a stretcher. Uh also in the last couple weeks school, there was additional two accidents just in front of of um that area on Guadalupe. uh traffic increases, ongoing traffic accidents we see involving children walking to and from our schools is a huge concern for our community. However, we were told that Guadalupe Empower only sees 12,000 cars per day and with uh five to six lanes, it can accommodate 40,000. It felt like we were being told the traffic shouldn't be an issue, but it is. The traffic expert at the uh PNZ meeting stated the intersection power and Guadalupe had a sim number of accents to the nearby intersections with five to six lanes. Uh I think somewhere around 23 accidents in 2023 was the stat that they used. I'd like to point out that with two to three times fewer cars in these same heavy flow intersections like Higgley and Baseline, this intersection had the same amount of accidents, that means that this intersection is two to three times more likely to have a car or pedestrian accident than other nearby traffic uh heavy traffic intersections in the area. an overpop populated development with an unsafe bridge directly across from where all the buses exit Highland uh junior high only complicates things. City of Mesa employees stated that the PNZ meeting that school drop off and pickup traffic only exits at the traffic light uh further east from the bus exit. Uh perhaps that gentleman was not aware uh of the um uh the additional uh 75 to 150 cars that use the bus exit driveway that is located to the uh slightly to the west of the school uh where the GPS community building is located. My own daughter has been on a bus um that's had to slam on brakes. Um I drove through a traffic accident that occurred there um like I said a few weeks ago. My wife as well has been cut off. Essentially, it's a dangerous area and we're worried about our children's safety. Thank you, Andrew. Thank you, ma'am. Thank council members. [Applause] April followed by Tim Leer. Hello, mayor, council members. My name is April Lesher. I live at 7558 East Lobo Avenue in Superstition Springs community. I have lived there for 10 years. I am here today to share my concerns over the proposed development of the Park North Apartments. In an earlier proposal, this same developer asked to build 88 town homes, which was denied by the city. Now that the city of Mesa has completed its pickle ball, courts, baseball fields, and library construction at Brady Park, the developer wants to add 120 units. They want to put a premium price on the maximum number of units to profit off our tax dollars. I am 100% for affordable housing, but this isn't that. A two-bedroom rental is twice my home mortgage payment. Exolo is advertising and labeling it as luxury apartments with a clubhouse. I'm in favor of suburban development and there are other properties uh available such as Elliot and Sausman that would better suit the neighborhood. Every building in that surrounding area, if you noticed from the picture, is singlestory, including Highland Junior High, Canyon Valley, and the community ed buildings. Those are all singlestory. This would be multiple levels, and it would also hinder the it would be an eyesore, and it would hinder the beautiful park view from Guadalupe Road. I am thankful for the city of Mesa's response to our need for increased traffic safety. They're now putting up a speed detection camera. They're in the process of doing that. So, they recognize this is a dangerous road. Um, there is good reason for this new awareness and we've we've seen accidents. Um, but with Park North wanting to build across the street, this creates greater risk for our teenagers with their adolescent brains riding their they're just happy to be out of school, right? So, they're just riding their scooters and their bicycles and they don't pay attention and now they're going to have to navigate traffic coming from the other side of the street. My own son was hit by a teenager driving a car while he was on his bike. Imagine being a parent and seeing a crumpled bike or a child laying in the street bleeding with a scooter next to him cuz I drove past that. The traffic doesn't show the teenagers going and leaving HJHS and at Canyon Valley um which is right behind Highland Jr. It also doesn't take into consideration the roughly 1,000 new drivers and then also permitted drivers getting highlet high schools. 3,200 students roughly a thousand of them are getting their permits or driving and it's just a mile down Guadalupe. I am also a realist and I know the property owner and that small strip of land would like to make a return on their investment. I am certified in grant writing and have written many grants for nonprofits and be willing to write grants for the city to raise funds so that the city of Mesa can purchase it the property at a reasonable price. Thank you. Thank you, [Applause] April Tim coming and followed by Aaron Clayton. Sorry I didn't get you with your husband, but this will work out better. Okay, Tim. Hi, Mayor and City Council. My name is Tim Lester. I'm at 7558 East Lobo Avenue. Um I uh I read through the documents this afternoon uh that were submitted to the design review. Um and they're pretty boring. They're long to get through. Um but but what I noticed as I was looking through this is that many times the owner of the property um acknowledged that this was a small parcel. Um and in doing so was asking for many deviations to be made in order to um be able to develop on the land what they wanted to develop. And what I noticed as they were justifying this and and doing these deviations, it all came back to they just simply don't have enough property to build the amount of units that they want on there um because of the cost. I mean, they even mentioned the cost of the covert to put across to get across there. And so we we see what happens is they're asking for deviations from the city, many of which they just acknowledged earlier eventually are going to be have to be maintained by the city. the the trees, the things that are going to be off their property are now going to be maintained by us. Um, the community instead of them and and all of this is so that they can cram more units on a small piece of property that they from the very get-go have acknowledged that is small property and is not something that should be able to house that. Um, the other thing that I find ironic, um, is that they have a good neighbor document. And in the good neighbor document, it is going to be required to be signed by every resident that they can't go file a complaint or anything because of the noise because they know how loud that park is. Um, you get all those softball fields going, you get all of the pickle balls going and it is loud. Um, for me, I look at it and I think, are we really being good neighbors if we're requiring people to sign a document just to get into the property to say, "Hey, we won't complain about the noise and the lights that we know are right behind you." Um, many people are going to move into it, not even know how bad it really is. They're going to get there, they're going to realize how bad it is, and then we're going to hand them the document and say, "Hey, you remember you said you'd be a good neighbor, but we're not going to be a good neighbor. We let this happen." And then the last is just looking at the affordable housing. The cost of this project alone, the way that it has grown in size says that it is a lot of money. You look at the pictures, it's a lot of money. That means that we are not going to have affordable housing. I think when we look at apartments, when we look at those things, those things are are needed, absolutely, but they need to be affordable. And the amount of money that this property is going to take to develop in the way that it needs to be developed is going to simply be too costly for us to provide that as a city. And I don't think that's what we want as a city to be known for. Um, and and this is something that I believe the developer is going to make their money and then all of the community is going to be the one that's going to pay the price in the end. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. Thank you, Erin. Hi, my name is Aaron Clayton, 7458 East Lobo Avenue. I've been a resident for almost 10 years. I've been to all the community meetings and the PNZ meeting um and I'm here to represent our entire community um against this project. It does not fit the character of our neighborhood. Um according to the project narrative uh for the council use permit, it said the proposed project will not be interest or detrimental to the adjacent or surrounding properties in the area of the proposed project or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city. But I feel very strongly that that is not the case. this development will be detrimental to our community and to the welfare of the city. Uh the parcel of land was one for limited commercial. We've talked about that. Um that type of development would bring our community together for shopping, gathering, and it would generate that revenue to the city. Um Park North misses the mark in every aspect. It has zero commercial development, which is why they have to ask for the council use permit. their design has ignored not only the zoding ordinances but so many of the design guidelines that the city council approved a few years ago to ensure quality development in Mesa there are a number of deviations from this that they felt were necessary and justified because of superior design um but I don't think an artist mural or electronic charging stations or dog um stations justify ignoring the standards that keep our neighborhoods compliant with the good neighbor policy. Um, for example, trees. We're talking about the north um wall. They're going to put them in and maintain them for a year. Then we have to maintain them. I just don't feel that that's a cost that brings value to the city. Um, setbacks are important. They're supposed to be 75 ft. There's 65 along. Distances between buildings are supposed to be 30 ft. This design has 25 ft in between each building to maximize the space and squash as many units as possible. Uh, buildings are supposed to be 30 ft high. They want to be 38, which is a 27% increase uh from the current MCO. Again, they're squishing everything together to maximize the number of units and their profits. Um because they their design refuses to follow the current zoning. Um they have to ask for this permit. They did talk about 252 additional cars for the 120 units, but I feel this is underestimation. Doesn't it consider friends and family visiting? Um, and they quoted, "Excolo and property manager will monitor and control the parking situation and will adjust as needed to maintain adequate on-site parking and ensure it's not impactful to the joining commercial corner or city park? Well, considering our good neighbor policy, who exactly will be monitoring the state today? Who uh will security be monitoring? Will local police be ticketing, towing cars that inevitably flow into the park parking lot? How do they plan to monitor and control? And how will it be enforced? They can't simply tear down one of their buildings to accommodate the need for more parking. So, not sure how they would adjust as needed. I 100% afford affordable uh support affordable housing, but in areas where it makes sense for our families. These lux luxury apartments will not be affordable to the average middle-class family. I'm a teacher. My husband's a manager, and I don't think that we'd be able to afford to rent this place. Um it's not the right location for this. Um so, I closing. if this were your neighborhood, please um just consider what it's like for us. We've talked about a lot of different things and we just ask for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Uh to follow up the caller online. Did she ever She is back online and we will try to unmute her one more time. Okay. Yes. Miss Hickman, are you able to hear me? Yes. Are you are you are you able to hear me? We are. Oh, thank you. Hello. Um my name is Bonnie Hickman. I reside at 7238 East Naido Avenue. Um and um yes, I am so grateful several of the council members um actually brought up some situations that I wanted to to make sure that were being investigated. Um first of all, the whole good neighbor thing. Um the first meeting that the organization had was pretty well announced. Um and they said that there was alerts done for the second meeting. Um I got my my uh letter stating that the second meeting was going to happen postmarked after they held the meeting. Um, and I was at that meeting and I guarantee you I left my phone number and he said that they called every single person that was at the meetings and I never received a phone call from them. Um, but as far as what I am um most concerned about is the traffic situation. Um, I am also according to two of the the council members reluctant to just accept information without verifying. I know that um our um city traffic engineer Ryan Hudson has gone on record and it's online that um he's assuring us that um they're going to look at the traffic situation, but then we heard earlier in the meeting that it's not a priority. And my concern is that I've been at that intersection when there's been an accident that happens right in the middle of the intersection. And if it happens right in the middle, they have to call all three jurisdictions. They have to call Gilbert PD. sketch called Mesopia Nancy call the county to figure out who's got the jurisdiction. I am curious to know Rose Law says that they did the traffic study. I would like to know who did the traffic study and where did they get their information? Did they pull information from Gilbert Mesa and the county on those accidents? Um because I was at the meeting when um there's a professional engineer named Paula Paul Basha who is an ASU faculty member. So I mean I know he knows his stuff. Um but he spoke and he was you know just gushing about this project and how we had plenty of room for it. It was not a problem and yet I found his bio on road laws like law site and you know talking about that and I'm just curious I mean how did this happen? Who did this investigation? And I mean in 2019 I'm I'm sorry to say I mean um Mr. Dasha was um was involved in some conflict of interest situations and ended up switching positions. So, I'm concerned about that. Um I also know that the city had approached the owner of the property there that's kind of a ghetto now on the corner um and tried to purchase it in order to add it to the park and the owner flat out refused. And I think even if we had given him a price that was equivalent to what he's being given by these people, he doesn't want it for some reason. um three access points. There's no way they're going to get those because as it is right now, people are zooming through the QT parking lot to get back to the park. I don't know if you realize that QT is now an entrance into the park. Um and as far as they're going to plant the trees the first year, great. Um except then we get to pay for them when they're, you know, 40 feet tall and that's when they're expensive. Miss, so I'm just really concerned. I kind of Yes, sir. I kind of think that bait and switch is what's going on and I just really appreciate the time to speak with you and I'm sorry about the delay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, with that Thank you, Bonnie. Uh we do have a petition of nine individuals that are not supporting the project. Pardon it says they do not oppose. Okay. They do not. Is that correct? Do we have more blue cards for this? I I have collected three cards that are just they are opposed to the item and do not wish to speak. So I was just going to call their names on record. Okay. Uh Stacy Shepard, Ellen Fort, and Elizabeth Pratt. I filled out a blue card for item 8A. We haven't got to citizens present yet. So, it's okay. It's It's coming. So, with that, uh, council, are there any questions uh, so far, or should we hear back Mr. Adams? Did you have something? Okay. Mr. Summers, do you want to call back the applicant? Does the applicant want to come up and clarify anything? Mr. Web, you want to come back and then I'll get a state condense your remarks. Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mayor Councel. Um, I guess just to to speak to a a couple of points. Um, yeah, the mayor, the the petition that you have on your desk um was was signed by neighbors who indicated that they had no opposition to the project. Okay. Um, thank you. I guess just to touch on a couple of things. Um, I I understand that that some of our neighbors hope for this site to be commercial. Um, I think the property owner has hoped for this site to be commercial for 15 years. It's just many have tried and all have failed. It is just a bad bad commercial site. So, while that may be a desire, it's just not realistic. It is not a a viable site. Um, and so I wanted to just I guess I I don't want to rehash all the reasons why, but but I can if necessary. Um, there seems to be some concern about the trees being put on the park side of the north property line. To clarify that, that came up during a discussion um with city staff um and the parks department about that. Um, it was actually a suggestion that the city made. If if there is concern with that, we can definitely put them back on our side of the property line. That's that's fine. We if if that's something that's desired, we're happy to do that. Um, what else? Um, just in terms of just in terms of the the P A deviations. So, as you all know and your staff knows, the reason Pads exist is primarily for some modifications to the standards. The P A that's on the site today already has a bunch of modifications to the standards. Um, we're not really doing anything other than trying to level the playing field for us because the code is holding us to a standard that assumes there are existing homes right against our property line because the park is zoned residential, right? But it's there are no homes there. It's a park. It's just zoned single family. And so all we're doing is reducing those landscape yards and those types of setbacks so that we're not being penalized for being against a park that's zoned single family residential when it's not residential. So wanted to clarify that. Um what else? Um I I apologize if anybody got missed in follow-up phone calls. We did try to reach everybody. There were people who didn't answer. We didn't connect with everybody. Um I don't know if Miss Hickman was one of those people. Um but we did try. Um yeah, I think those are the main things. Um, you know, as far as as far as the disclosure, the last thing I'll say, as far as the disclosure in the, um, good neighbor policy document, um, that was in response to a concern that the city had that perhaps, um, some of these residents might complain because they were close to the lights or noise of the park. So, we came up with the idea that, well, even though before they sign a lease, they can see what's there. they can hear it, they can see it. We'll have them sign a disclosure that acknowledges, hey, I know this is there and I'm not going to complain about it. So, it was just to address a concern that the city had. Um, and we've done that in other projects and it seems to work pretty effectively. So, I'll stop there. I'm happy to answer any questions that that you have or I can sit back down and you can discuss. Mr. Web will invite you back up. Yes, sir. As needed. Miss Filsbury, you have question. I don't I have a few questions, but I'm not exactly sure who the best person is to answer them. So, ask the questions and then we'll Okay. Um, does anyone know what the occupancy rate is of other multif family housing properties around there? That's probably hearing some different things on that one. Uh, council member, mayor, council member Spilsbury, I think the information that we have on vacancy rates for multif family in Mesa is about 9% right now. Um, and that's based on some information we received from urban transformation and and they they do some tracking of that, but in terms of this specific area, I don't know if it drills down into that specific of an area. That would be a citywide number. That's correct. Do you know the closer to the area. Um, mayor, uh, Council Member Spillsbury, just to just to supplement that, um, I think that figure is is across all multif family citywide for class A, which is what this is going to be. It's actually lower. It's more in the 5 to 7% range. So, I just wanted to add that, but no information on like the closest properties around there, which I know go into Gilbert as well. So, Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, mayor, council member Spbury. The the question is if we know like what the vacancy rate for the ones like right next to us. Yeah, if it's okay. This is uh this is Mike Stefen. Hi, Mayor Council. Mike Stefen with Porter Kyle out of Scottsdale. Um the vacancy for class A communities around there is considered stabilized. So the communities that have leased up recently, which would give you an idea of the demand for new class A multif family, has been very strong. So we do a very deep market survey to kind of determine the desire for more multif family in an area and this area has an exceptionally high if if you look at uh the vast amount of the huge amount of multif family that was approved up by the mall and you looked at its underlying lease up rates it was very strong. So there's a lot of demand fortunately superstition mall. Yeah. Superstition mall the in the old Kmart area. Oh right. Yeah. and um and so there's a lot of demand for highquality multif family in this area which is excellent for to support the commercial. Okay. Um another question I guess maybe to the balanced housing plan. So if I mean at what point are we at too many rental units that we're approving? Like I I don't know it seems like we're more than halfway at the first quarter. Like is there with with um we all know there's a housing shortage in Arizona. We've done a really good job in in Mesa, I think, of approving housing where it makes sense. Um, I think we've done our fair share, but I know we, you know, we need more housing. I just don't know at what point on a when we're looking at a balanced housing plan, at one point in the year do we say, "Okay, we're good. We're not going to approve anything else." Or is that not the way this works? Uh, Mayor, Council Member Spielsbury, I think it's important to realize that the tracking information that we're giving you is about entitlement. So, it's planning approvals, not necessarily the units that are built. So, not every unit that's approved will be built. What the balance housing plan is looking at is the number of units that we're going to put online for people to be able to move. And that's really what that that 8 806 number is. That's just a clear just a clarification that correct previous number wasn't was not everything. So, the new number In terms of the entitlements, it that's correct. That number was through March of this year because we're tracking these quarterly. Again, those are planning entitlements, not necessarily constructed units. So, and then I'll let Nana, if you could clarify the number, please, Nana. Okay. So, the balance housing plan requires the city of Mesa to have 806 units. That's the demand. That's how much we need. It's most likely that we are going to approve or get entitlement more than the 806. Not all the number that we approve will come online or get constructed. But also bear in mind there are previous entitlement that were also approved the previous years that may come online. So what we look at is to make sure that there is not over entitlement in codes to make sure that we are having the balance of housing at the end of the year. What we look into is to see how many certificate of occupancy that has been approved. But in terms of in terms of legislative decision, the reason why we have the balance housing is to really inform the council. As of today, we have about 890 of multif family and if you exceed and approve more units, eventually we may have over supply. So, it's kind of a balancing act between the council to keep you informed. But we wouldn't really know how many units come online for two or three years after we approve it. That's that's the hard part. That's the hard and we've all seen lots of developments go under because of you know financing or whatever. That's correct. And also there's been so many other um projects that have been entitled that have not been built. So we we have a number of them that is still hanging out that hasn't been built as well. I mean, I know I have the concern that we approved too many units. Um, but I also don't know how we would possibly figure that out if we're having to wait two or three years for these to come through. Mayor Council, so one key part of the balance housing plan was to look at whenever we are converting commercial zoning into residential is for us to see whether we have a shortage of residential. In that case, we can allocate more of commercial land for residential. So, that's one key part that you have to consider when you're making some of these um decisions. Miss Bilsbury. Well, she's not done yet. I do have a couple more questions, but if there if someone else has questions about this particular topic. No, I I just wanted to respond to that comment because I think you asked a very good question about the the vacancy rate. What I would caution is we don't know that. The the answer we got from the applicant was well it's pretty good but there's not a number there. If you look at the most recent uh Phoenix multi- family market report dated of April 2025 the uh vacancy rate in the market the entire market not not just this part of Mesa but everywhere is is up to 11.7%. With rents dropping by 2.1%. Right. So to to give answer, I don't want to base a decision on soft opinion. I would rather base it on facts and how this case applies to our zoning code. I guess where I'm coming from, we all we all know nimiism is a real thing. We know this and um we on this particular property um there are not neighborhoods right next to this development. So, I'm trying to make, you know, a a decision based on whether this is a good place for this or not. And I think we've addressed a lot of the concerns that the neighborhood has. Um, I I think this is a really good project. I don't want to put too many units out there. Alicia was or Council Member Goforth was just showing me a graph on here that shows the building permits that were issued. There's over 2,000 that were issued in 2023. Well, we you talked non about entitlements versus actually what actually gets built. And in the balanced housing plan in 2023, 2,239 building permits were issued for multif family. So, that kind of gives you an idea of at least the most recent numbers that we have. And that's that's the year before was 1,94. Year before that was 2269. and and when we did a balanced housing plan, I would summarize by saying Mesa and itself did not have a supply issue. We had an affordability issue. So when you hear people complain and it's not right now if you want to rent either multif family or want to buy a house in me and you have the money, you will find either to buy or a place to rent. And so some of these numbers the 806 for multif family and I think it was one two something for single family it was really based on population growth but overall we had affordability issue not supply issue in terms of housing. Nana, does is it appropriate to ever expect staff or the PNZ board or, you know, any of these pe any people who see these before we do as a council to be aware of that and caution against that or are we just going to keep getting project after project and have to figure it out at some point? Um, so I know one of the things the planning division does is they do report this on a quarterly basis to the planning and zoning board. So they are very much aware of the data and entitlement and we do provide that also occasionally an update to the city manager's office. One of the things that we've been planning to do is to also courtly provide that to the city council. So you are aware we doing it on a quarterly basis because it takes a little bit of time to really get all the entitlements on board. That's why we really don't want to do it on a monthly basis. So that's one of the things that we can be providing to the city council on a quarterly basis. Okay. And I I guess I I don't know if you this is if this question is for you, but um it's it's very apparent that at least the neighbors who are here and who have sent in comments don't want apartments on this property, but I don't know what other options there are. Like what's the likelihood or feasibility that this becomes an extension of the park, which it sounds like that's what everyone wants. Like what it doesn't sound like commercial makes sense there. I don't think they want to keep it an empty lot. I just I'm trying to kind of wrap my brain around like what else does this become? So, I don't know who wants to answer that. Well, mayor, council member, um maybe I'll I'll try to talk to the point about the desire to see this become a park. Um, as as I believe you're aware, the city's had conversations going back nearly 12 years with the different owners of the property um on that opportunity to expand Brady Park into uh that area. And there's been a big gap between um what our appraisals for that property versus what the what they deem to be the market rate of that property. And I I think that gap still remains today um in in that. So, I it certainly would be challenging um based on our prior practices of how we normally go back and and acquire um property at at um appraised value or near appraised value to to bring to bring that online and expand the property. Anyone else? Add on to the comment about our balance housing plan. Um, and Nana kind of touched upon it, but price point is very critical in this conversation. It's not total numbers and when you look at market rate, we're doing just fine. Where we're lacking is on the low end and the high end. And that's where we don't have enough units. So, I just want to say don't to lump all housing together and say we're good. We really have to look deeper into the price points. And is this considered Is this considered high-end? I mean, I know they're calling it luxury, but what is is it categorized as high-end with It's based on the rent, and I'm not aware. According I'm sorry, Mayor uh Council Member Spillsbury, according to the applicant, this is considered a higherend residential development. So, l luxury, I don't know if that's the right word, but definitely a higher end. But the market's going to dictate that what rents are going to bring in. Vice Mayor, that's correct. Mr. Adams. Let's go to Mr. Adams then that you Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think my first couple of questions will be for Mr. Webb, please. Uh, thank you for your presentation earlier. Um, I think I heard somewhere in there that u the statement that something about the corner and I'm not talking about the quick trip. Uh, I haven't heard any mention so far. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I haven't heard any mention for that now failed corner where there's there's a shuttered convenience store and a car wash and what haven't heard anybody mention that. So, I have some questions about that. I think your your presentation said that redevelopment of that corner is waiting on this project. Um, so I have I have a question about what what does that mean and why is that? Um, and also we've talked about a good neighbor policy. Does that policy apply to that project or is that uh only for relations with the park and the other residential areas? Uh, let me see if there's any I'll try to compact this so you can answer all together. [Music] Um, how does your how does your proposed project either help or hinder that apparently failed corner, not the quick trip? So, I' I'd like to know more about that. Why is it waiting on your project? Um, Mayor, uh, Council Member Adams, appreciate the questions. Um, I guess at the at the simplest level, how does how does the Park North project help the commercial corner? Um, bringing new residents to the area that can literally walk out their door and be at that commercial corner in 30 seconds brings a whole bunch of of patrons to that business. My understanding is that they're going to be redeveloping it with a with a soda shop and a and a corn dog uh shop, which are very popular things these days, especially the soda shops. So, you know, Park North will bring a whole bunch of residents sitting right there that can walk next door and and support their business. Um, so that's that's one way. Um, and then as far as the good neighbor policy document goes, yeah, the good neighbor policy document is not intended to be unique to any particular group of of neighbors, just, you know, addressing how how you would uh generally be a good neighbor. And so, um, you know, again, um, you know, we've got landscaping buffers over on that side. Um, we've got our pedestrian connection so that we can have our residents support their business. Um, so in that way, I think we're very much supporting it. Um, uh, I think you asked also uh about the idea of why they're why they're waiting. Um so uh again I'm not involved in that particular project but my understanding is that um they have a a site plan um that conflicts with one of the access easements that the Park North owner has on that site. Um there's a um an arrangement that the two owners um had made uh to to uh release that or relocate it so it didn't interfere. But it can't be finalized until the park or park north owners know if they if this project can go forward or not. Um if if it can go forward then they know that they don't need that other access easement because the multif family can function with just the the bridge across the canal and the emergency access. But if if the Park North project isn't approved and can't go forward, then you know, you don't know what your access scenario is going to look like cuz you don't know what's going to end up being developed. I I don't know if that answers your question, but it it gets closer to it. Would you would you characterize the negotiations with regard to that cross access easement to be consistent with good faith and fair dealing? I'm not personally involved in those negotiations. Um, but I I assume so. I do it. Yeah. I'm I'm not involved in those negotiations personally, but um I assume so. Thank you. Yes, sir. That's it, mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Um, to go a few minutes back in this conversation. I appreciate what you said about on deck cuz I thought it was a firefighter term that we use, but apparently it's in a baseball. So, in appreciation of that, let me back clean up and provide uh some context here um in my own assessment of the zoning case. Um to start, I my heart is very close to this neighborhood. I moved to Mesa 30 years ago and it was into Superstition Springs and what attracted my wife and I there were the design and the amenities. It it was while not walkable perhaps it was really an early iteration of a mixeduse community well planned with uh parks. You had residential areas. You have apartments that are there that are also mixed in with water features and pathways uh which is closer to the commercial center that's up on Superstition Springs Boulevard that we all go to that don't have a lot of drive-throughs. By the way, Julie, they had with great sit down restaurants and amenities and office space and a mall if you remember what those were. Right. It it it really was a place where you could live, work, play, and learn with the the schools that are even integrated in this community. So when we look at a new project whether it's in the center of it or on the very edge of it I think it needs to live up to that standard of how does this fit into the placemaking that was envisioned that 30 years ago the I have concerns on this and and and I've gone through this and Mr. web. It's good to see you again. Haven't seen you in a while. And as you usually do, you provide a a compelling narrative uh with some good exhibits uh to make the case. But I have a different opinion strongly on your interpretation of our zoning code and how this fits in. I think this proposal fails to meet the intent, the standards, and the purpose of our zoning code. The development agreement, as has been stated, puts some long-term costs on the city for private benefit. And this proposed development does not fulfill the council's strategic vision for placemaking that I discussed. And for these reasons, I don't support this project. So, let me start with zoning. This project is located in an area that is zone limited commercial which is intended for retail entertainment serviceoriented uses that serve the surrounding communities. This proposal however is 100% residential and while some residential use may be permitted in Yelc district it must be secondary not the primary use as you stated the secondary to the commercial activity and that is why we have minimum commercial floor space area requirements. What the application requests is not a minor adjustment to those requirements. It is effectively asking us to eliminate them altogether. That's not consistent with the intent of the LC district. I would expect an application for a reasonzoning to residential for this proposal. Instead, the proposal requests a council use permit to essentially function as a reszone to a residential zoning district. This approach raises serious questions about whether this use aligns with our community strategy and zoning goals. In looking at the resoning with the PAD request, there are significant compatibility concerns. According to the site plan, the proposed building will face the canal to the south with a reduced setback to zero feet. Residents will have views of a six-foot tall chain link fence, an emergency access lane, a busy sixlane arterial road, and a junior high school school across the street. The application also proposes to maintain the chain link fence instead of providing a wall or other suitable screening that would mitigate visual and noise impacts from the roadway. Speaking of noise, there's another concern. And this property borders Christopher J. Brady Park. Everybody stop abbreviating that. This Christopher J. Brady Park is directly adjacent to the pickleball courts and near four lighted baseball fields used for tournaments. This is an active park with regional amenities and represents a significant investment by our taxpayers. The proposed solution to the noise concerns, as we have heard, is that residents will be required to sign a lease agreement that wave their right to complain about noise. Know that these types of provisions are not effective and do not address this problem. We've seen this in airport overflight zones. You sign the paper saying there's an overflight zone. We still get complaints. This further shows the incompatibility with surrounding uses. It also raises concerns about the overall quality of life for future residents. Adjacent land uses do not support the claim that this is part of a well integrated mixeduse development. The site is adjacent to a currently vacant gas station and car wash. Sidewalks connect the site to a sixlane road and an emergency access easement, not destinations that support walkability or mixeduse living. The proposal on the table for the soda shop also places the drive-thru lanes for both the car wash and the soda shop between the apartments and that use. There's a proposed pedestrian connection to Christopher J. Brady Park. And while that's a potential benefit for residents, the associated sidewalk will be built by the developer and then transferred to the city for maintenance. A sidewalk is not intended for general public use as it leads to lock gates. So, in effect, the city inherits long-term maintenance costs for a feature that solely benefits the development. Landscaping is handled similarly due to the density of the proposal and the setbacks. The application seeks to plant the required landscaping as we have heard again on city property. Once again, the city takes on the cost of watering, irrigation repairs, and plant replacement in the future. These are future public expenses that result from design choices made solely to increase the unit cost and profit margin. Another concern is screening. Instead of providing a proper wall to buffer the development from the arterial roadway as we would otherwise require, the proposal is to plant shrubs. But the land identified for those shrubs belongs to the Maricopa County Flood Control District. It is not part of the property. There is no guarantee that these shrubs will ever be installed. And even if they are, they will not provide meaningful screening. So now I want to respond to the justification for the PAD. The code requires that PADs offer equivalent or superior development compared to what would otherwise be permitted. Here's what the application cites to justify that PAD request. Shrubs will be planted that or may never be planted that would not provide adequate screening. Common space amenities that are now standard in most new developments. Slightly more outdoor space than the minimum, which is easy to achieve. And this all residential project, pedestrian connections to non-commercial, underutilized or vacant sites, and trees planted on city property, which amounts to the city taking on more maintenance costs. None of these factors provide compelling justification that this development is either equivalent or superior to what is required under the zoning code. So again on the cup there are two there were two different reviews in the cup and several criteria that are not met for both. Under the first review none of the factors were met. So factor A stated the use is found to be in compliance with the general plans, sub area plans and other recognized development plans or policies and will be compatible with the surrounding uses. This development is not compatible with the surrounding uses. It is isolated, not connected to meaningful commercial activity and not part of a true mixeduse environment. Factor B is a finding that the plan of operation has been submitted which includes but is not limited to acceptable evidence of compliance with all zoning, building and fire and life safety regulations. Here again without a P A this project does not comply with zoning and therefore this criteria is not met. Factor C, a finding that the good neighbor policy and narrative form has been submitted, which includes but is not limited to descriptions of acceptable measures to ensure ongoing compatibility with adjacent uses, including measures to asssure that commercial activity will remain as a viable activity on this site. This is not met either. The project includes zero commercial space and once it's built there is no path to restore commercial activity on the site. No one will demolish all or part of 120 units to add retail. It is simply no longer viable for commu commercial use. Factor D, evidence that acceptable documentation is present, demonstrating that the building or site proposed for the use is in or we brought into substantial conformance with all current city development standards, including but not limited to landscaping, parking, screen walls, signage, and design guidelines. Again, not achievable unless the PD is approved, which underscores that the site didn't meet the current standards. Factor E. The overall project conforms to the intent and character of the zoning district and is part of a well-integrated mixeduse project. The intent of the LC district is for commercial activity such as grocery stores, restaurants, retail. We all know that this project includes none of those things. Does not support walkability or an integration with the adjacent uses. and those adjacent uses will be drive related. The second CUP review has the same deficiencies and also fails to meet factors A and E because the project is not consistent with the LC district's purpose and factor C because without commercial activity, the city receives no transaction privilege tax revenue and especially revivalent point now given the shortfall from the rent loss of rental tax. Finally, with respite respect to the site plan modification request for all the reasons stated regarding the P A and the CUP, the site plan also falls short. It cannot be approved under our zoning code without granting the generous exceptions that are being requested. And for these reasons, I cannot support this project, and we will not be voting in favor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Well, Chris, uh, Mr. web. I'll just give you a few minutes to reply. Would you like to reply? Mayor, uh, council members, thank you. Um, I, you know, I, first off, I I understand the points that Vice Mayor Summers makes. Um, I appreciate his viewpoints and and opinions on all of those things. So, um I what the only thing I I guess what I would say is that um you know in terms of whether or not the application meets the approval criteria, you know, from our standpoint it does. Your staff believes that it does. Um I know they've reviewed it in detail. Um you know, we obviously all don't agree on that and that's fine. Um but but we think that it does. Um and and and they think that it does. Um I you know I don't want to take up a ton of time speaking to all the points. I mean I I understand all your Right. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. So um you know I I understand the desire and hope that this would someday be commercial, but it's been tried many many times in the last 15 years and always failed for all the reasons I've already cited. It's not going to be a commercial corner. It's just not viable. Um, and so, you know, we think this is an appropriate use here. We think it makes sense. Um, we think we've done a really good job with the design. I kind of walk through all of those elements. Um, it's a class A class A property. Um, I think as as council member Duff indicated, that's a spot where there might be some shortfall in the city is high-end class A. So, we're going to fulfill that need. um and just generally think it's a really great project. We think there's support for it in the community. We know there's some opposition. We understand that, but I think the overwhelming majority of people are fine with it based on the the one-on-one conversations we've had with people, and that's been a lot of people. Um it that's not to dismiss the concerns that are there. I understand their concerns. I understand why they have concerns. Um so that's it. I'll stop talking. Um and if anybody has any other questions, I'm happy to try to answer them. Well, thank you, Mr. Web. We'll have you sit down and uh Miss Hosley Mosley, is there any other speakers on this topic? Uh, mayor, we have no other cards for this item. Any council members with wish to address? Yes. Yeah. I think the elephant in the room is like if this was any other project that were looking for apartments like it would not receive this level of scrutiny and push back. I truly believe and I know the residents are very disappointed this isn't an extension of the park. But the reality is that option is not available. So we're left residential or commercial with the current commercial market in this area like it pointed out in the presentation it take 40 years to fulfill that based on the current standards and the only thing that's going to really shift that is to get more people in the area to support it. Um if and I I don't think commercial is a great option just because of the saturation number one. Number two is only going to create more traffic. It is not um satisfactory. And as far as it being mixed use, the corner is supplying retail which is not the greatest performing retail because there isn't the people to support it. Um, so I think it is serving the highest and best use at this point. A park is not an option. Commercial is saturated and only going to create more traffic and more congestion. Um, 50 to 70% more than um residential. So I I believe this satisfies a housing market that is needed in that area so that we can support more commercial which is the revenue tax basis that we need in the city. You cannot have revenue tax bases without people. So um there has to be that balance and right now there's an excess of um commercial. What happens often in master planned areas when everything is built at once, the mall and the houses and everything like that, everything is built in a very short amount of time and it ages in the same amount of time. So we are at a point that a much of this real estate here, especially in the commercial use, has aged all at the same time. And it's going to take a lot of redevelopment, a lot of um activation to uh spur this area. Superstition Springs is an area we want the placemaking, but we have to have activity. We have to have redevelopment. It's not going to be a place by rejecting development. Um so it's the people and then the places. Um you can't commercial will not come without people. So I am support of the project. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Duff. Any other council members wish to speak? Just one point from somebody who moved in there 30 years ago. The reason the commercial has failed on the corner is it literally is two gas stations next to each other. And 30 years ago when that was approved by staff, everyone in the neighborhood said one of these two is going to fail. And it failed. So just a little context for for something. Also, I don't want to base a decision too about a comment saying, "Hey, this is widely supported in the community because nobody wanted to come forward to say that." If they're not willing to do that, then they don't exist, right? So maybe it is, but they didn't show up. With that said, if there's no other comments from council, I'll declare. Yes. Please go for it. Um I am not opposed to residential in this area, especially near a park. I think it's advantageous to live near a park and as you pointed out, it is allowed by right. Residential is, but 100% residential does not conform to the intent and character of the zoning district and is definitely not a well integrated mixuse project. And additionally, it doesn't advance the goals and objectives and is not consistent with the balance the policies of the balance housing plan. Um, and when we say higher income, we're talking 150 to 200% of AMI. Um, I think we're we're almost out of the rental market at that point. So, for those reasons, I I oppose the project. Thank you, council. There's no other comments. Uh, I'll declare the public hearing closed and then I'm going to take two separate motions for these two items. We'll begin with item A, which is I'm sorry. I'm sorry, mayor. Can I if I can I say one thing? Well, I'm not part of the public hearing. State attorney says No, mayor. Not unless you unless you ask for it. He's not entitled to He's had more than an opportunity to speak. It's a request. It's a request. It's not a comment. It's a request. You can you can allow him to speak, but he is not entitled to speak. I have no objection. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor Council. Um, I appreciate all of your comments and the discussion. Um, it's it's clear that, um, several of you have some concerns still with the project. Um, I think that, you know, we can probably spend some time addressing those, maybe making some changes to the project that might address some of those comments. um this has been uh you know a case that we haven't discussed in any of the study sessions. So this is kind of the first time we've we've had the opportunity to discuss this as a group. So um what I would like to request if um if you're willing is that we continue the case, give us a little more time to address some of these specific concerns that you've brought up and see if we can come back to you um with some solutions to some of those things. Thank you for your comments. Mr. Smith, what do you say? Ju just a thought is when you normally continue a case on a zoning case, it's too date specific, but any change to this of that nature is probably going to be a site plan review. So, we're going to be reintroducing. So, what I would suggest is if the council's interested in doing this is not continuing this case, but rather um they they can come back in the future and we can bring this before council in the future, but we're not continued to a date specific. It's just for a future date. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Web. Mayor, I just to echo that, I would concur with that. I've had conversations with the neighborhood and met with them and told them if this isn't approved, we have to have a conversation with the property owner about what fits this community. How is this integrate well with the community? And that still stands depending on how this goes. But I would agree to have a motion move forward. I I would just like to publicly express my um dis satisfaction in how this has gone down because we have not had an opportunity to discuss this until tonight. Um I was told we'll do it next time. We'll do it next time. We'll do it on Monday. Um we could have done this on Thursday. You guys could have been there. We could have had a discussion. I feel like maybe there was a reason why we pushed it all to the end. So, I would support a continuence, but maybe that's Anyways, I I don't think it's fair to the developers to do it this way. It's difficult to I would support continuence as well. I would support a continuence as well. I'm a little cloudy on whether we need to pick a date or we're just going to continue it. I think I wouldn't I'd recommend not picking a date because the change is going to be significant enough that it's going to require reintroduction. um it might be so significant we might recommend it ultimately go back to P&Z. We'll have to wait and see. And so there can just be a motion for continuence uh for no date specific. Well, I would be support of that and maybe it's one of those things where people need to sit down and reason together and uh work something out if it's possible. Thank you, Mr. Smith. So, are we going to make a motion to approve or deny the case tonight? It sounds to me you want to just make a motion. Like I said, motion to continue. No date specific. There's a first and a second to that. Mayor so moved. Okay, I have a second. Second. Okay, Miss Spillsbury a second. So, we have a motion to continue this case until further. Are we officially or just We can we can make a motion over the dis correct for continuation. It just popped up on it. Okay. So we have a motion for Miss Spillsberry, second from Miss Go forth. All in favor for continuation vote. Okay, continuation passes. Thank you. All right, moving forward then. What about U 8B? Mayor, you don't need to address that by its very nature. We'll we'll bring that back. I don't need a separate motion to continue that. We'll bring that back. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your patience, everyone. We're going to move over to items 9A and 9B are to conduct a public hearing and take action on the proposed 5-year capital improvement program for fiscal year ending 2026 to 2030. I declare the public hearing open. Miss Mosley, do you have any further requests to speak on item 9A or B? Uh, mayor, I only I only have the cards that I have given you already. Okay. Our first uh speaker on 9A is Alex Bransic. Will you come forward? And you're also speaking on 9B. Good evening. Uh Alex Ryan, Chief District Five. Thank you, Mayor, Council Members. Before voting on the proposed 5-year utility rate increase plan, I urge you to hold a detailed discussion outlining the comprehensive strategy. Several council members have indicated that rate adjustments could be revisited in December. However, this seems very unlikely once bonds are approved and the debt service obligations are fixed. Additionally, I request a thorough explanation of the 19 million allocated for natural gas growth projects that do not benefit Mesa or its residents. Please clarify whether Mesa residents will be subject to the 30% search charge for this non-Mesa infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you, Alex. Um, Brian, do you want to come address that for us on the utility gas revenue? We did speak about that, Alex, in our study session earlier about four days ago. So, yes, Mayor, Council Member Brian Ritchell, um, director of office of management and budget, the gas utility, um, that serves both Mesa residents, but also it serves a big portion of down near the Santan Valley, which we call magma. And that, uh, gas, uh, the $19 million that the resident is referring to is for the growth of the magma area. So they would be um help paying for that debt to service those that growing community down there. Okay. Thank you. With that um item is also to prove 9B, our 5-year capital improvement resolution. Uh Alex, you want to speak on 9B, please? I'm back. Thank you, mayor, council members. I urge you to vote no on agenda 9B. Agenda item 9B. I request that this item be returned to staff with instructions to separate general obligation bonds, utility bonds, and the gas utility revenue pledge. Approving this item as presented will commit to a utility rate increase of 7.23%. 23% this year, an accumulative increase of over 44% over the next 5 years, and that's to service the debt. That totals 55% over the next 6 years, including last year's increase. Please vote no on this item to allow for further review and separation of these components. Thank you. Thank you, Alex. council if there's uh any other comments from council at all. No, but does staff want to address we addressed that also downstairs. You want to give them the summary of what the uh answers to the questions were, please? Thanks, Brian. So, yes, mayor, council, the uh the bonds are already separated. Uh it is the debt service is part of the forecast and with the schedule that was presented um with the budget is um a forecast. We will re revisiting be revisiting that in November December time frame and it is uh just a plan. So the adjustments are not set in stone. Um they are not approved in the outer years. they can be adjusted as the um as the forecast um gets adjusted also. So with that the in the CIP those are already separated out into specific categories um that energy um is only for the electric gas is for gas, water is for water. So those are already separated out and they are already uh those debt services included in the forecast. And just for larger umbrella, the CIP includes both general obligation bonds. Those are the bonds that voters have approved and that's attached to a secondary property tax and the utility revenue bonds which are paid for out of utility revenues. Correct. Yes, mayor, vice mayor, that is correct. So, the general obligation bonds, those are um have already been voted on by the uh by the voters and approved and so we only issue when needed. Um that is paid for by the secondary property tax. I believe there was a presentation at the council study session last week about the secondary primary property tax that is specifically for that debt service. It is not used for any of the utility uh debt service. The utility debt service is strictly paid for by the uh rates themselves. Okay? And then the items that are in this 5-year CIP doesn't guarantee they get built. This is a decision that will be made by this council in cooperation with our new city manager moving forward and how we balance those debt obligations and and uh capital projects. Correct, mayor, vice mayor. That is correct. This is just a five-year plan being approved by council tonight. Uh this is reviewed every year and as plans they do change depending on priority of council and the city. Uh for instance, if we looked at last year's plan compared to this year, it would be different. And so the only thing that is being adopted tonight is fiscal year 2526 which is already part of the budget of the outer fiscal years. It's just being approved as a plan per the charter that the charter says the city must uh approve a 5-year CIP plan. Yeah, thank you for the clarification. I think unfortunately when you put these documents out sometimes people think you're going to just start spending that money and drop that debt right on your laps and and rest assured that is not the plan moving forward. These will all be scrutinized uh in the future to make sure that what is put out there is absolutely necessary at least in my opinion. Thank you. Thank you if I stay right there. Brian, uh Mr. Adams, did you have some questions? Oh, yes. Thank you. Um, I think I asked this question in a similar fashion a few study sessions ago. And I think what I ask is, is it safe to assume that utility rate increases are not necessarily baked into this budget we're considering tonight? And my understanding is they're not. So, Mayor, Council Member Adams, the rates that are approved that were approved last December that came into effect uh February 1, I believe it was February 1, those rates will continue and they take they are a majority part of this budget coming up in 2526. So the rates that the uh council if they for sure uh approve in this coming up December those would be on the back half of this fiscal year. So more the most of this fiscal year of 2526 would just be the rates that have already been approved. The coming up rate adjustments those are part of the forecast. So they're majority part of the forecast. As we take a look, we review the forecast on a quarterly basis internally and then present it to council and any adjustments that are made, that forecast would be adjusted and some of those rate adjustments could be adjusted also. So those are decisions we'll make down the road. Then um last question and I just want to make sure that I'm I'm reading this correctly and this might be a question for Mr. Kennington. Um, so what I'm seeing here is roughly 78% of the total capital improvement program amount out at the 5-year mark are either general obligation bonds or utility obligations. Do I have that number right? So, Mayor, Council Member Adams, that is correct. A majority of, if I'm remembering correctly, a majority of the CIP 5-year plan are either revenue obligation through the utility or general obligation um for the general governmental um projects. It was I believe about 1.3 um billion of that of the total 1.7. So yes, about 77% of that is bond related or revenue obligation related. Thank you. And those those general obligation bonds are those that are approved by the voters and have been approved by the voters. Mayor, council member Adams, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. I no further questions. Chris, Miss I was just going to make a comment about the the um bakedin nature of the rate adjustment. I it it is a little confusing because for those that know our fiscal year goes July to the end of June. Our rate adjustments become effective January 1 through December 31st. So it makes it a little bit different. So if you want to say they're baked in, they were already baked in essentially for the majority of this new 2526 budget last year effective January 1. I don't know if that's helping or confusing more people, but February 1st. February. February 1st. February 1st. Feb, excuse me. Yeah. So I I think maybe that's where the confusion comes a little bit because we use two different um calendar cycles for that. But mayor, council member Go forth, that is correct. We do that. We the city previously used to have the um the utility rate discussions during the budget. However, uh a few years ago, they decided to um kind of decouple that from the budget process and move it towards the the fall. Uh a majority of that decision was because when we did rate adjustments, those adjustments usually were in July where it's a high use of electric water. Um and so for that, uh the effective date now, depending on the calendar and how it falls, it's either January, fe excuse me, January, February, sometimes March, where it's a lot less use of your water and electric and things like that. So, it's a uh not as significant as an impact to the customers than it would be in the summertime. All right, council. Any other questions? If not, I'll declare the public hearing closed. Thank you, Brian. If there's a motion to approve item 9B, the 5-year capital approve uh program resolution. We have a motion by Mr. Aedia, second by Miss Spillsbury. Cast your vote. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We're going to move over to item 10 from citizens present and we'll allow three minutes for we have three speakers here. First, we'll hear from Jessica Mueller. Jessica, if you want to come forward. Thank you. Thank you. Jessica Mueller, 1119 East 7th Street. uh grateful to have attended Mesa public schools as a kid. Uh so I'm a homeowner in district one residing within the central division of the safety and enforcement for the Mesa Police Department. I appreciate the department's recent effort to proactively share information regarding its involvement with the section 287G of the United States Immigration and Nationality Act jail enforcement model in a recent email communication. This transparent communication is building trust and it is important that res residents have a clear understanding of how this agreement functions in our city. That said, I respectfully request that the city council, city staff, and the police department commit to meeting directly with community members and organizations to discuss the memorandum of agreement between the Mesa Police Department and the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement under section 287G. This community dialogue would offer an opportunity for questions, clarification, and public input about how this program operates in practice. Additionally, I would ask that this topic be formally agendaized for discussion at a future public safety committee session. We would also like to be informed about the next meeting date for the steering committee of the 287G program. So, this community has a right to understand this federal and local partnership and how it operates within Mesa. We welcome any continued comp transparency and the engagement from our public safety leaders. So, thank you. Thank you very much. Alex, you want to come up, please? Alex Ronnie, District 5. Thank you, mayor, council members. I apologize that I missed those study sessions. So, but I'm glad that there were clarifications made. Uh that being said, um although I wasn't able to attend the last meeting in person, I watched it remotely and I'm grateful for the city's efforts in holding the two public engagement sessions which allowed concerned citizens like myself to voice our questions and concerns regarding the financial budget planning process. However, it does feel as though our inputs were not fully considered. I do want to extend my deepest gratitude to council member Adams from district 1. Your vote reflects a commitment to respon fiscal responsibility that I personally see and some of the others that were also in attendance at these meetings. A key concern for engaged citizens who are closely following these matters is the f fiscal stability of the city. Your vote and your explanation have demonstrated that you are close to the people and the people's priorities. But I also want to thank Vice Mayor Summers for Wow, that was very impressive this evening. uh the passion. Um I hope we get to see that passion next year when we come back to more budget discussions and congratulations to the new city manager. Welcome. Looking forward to working with you. Thank you. Thank you, Alex. Next, we'll hear from Jan McDonald. McDaniel. Jan, you have you have three minutes hearing all this. I got a lot to say. Well, you have three minutes, please. You know what? Um, I've been a victim of 14 violent crimes in Mesa. I was handcuffed yesterday by Mesa police. And um, due to my situation, I feel like my character is uh, uh, less than presentable. I did go to Mr. Hera's office three times and talked to your assistant uh Lucy and uh tried to resolve this through channels. Two weeks ago today, I was sleeping in my van due to family circumstances and I have the police report. Somebody poured uh gasoline on my van and lit it on fire and they said it's a hit by a professional arsonist. Well, before that I had 11 tires slashed. I have the paperwork and three windows shot out by a gun and I had two bullet holes in the duct tape. Now, you know what? I may not be like y'all, but I'm smart. I educate myself to the best of my ability. And after being handcuffed yesterday when I was threatened in the bathroom at QT by a black woman aggressively, you know, it's time I be a voice for myself. And Mesa police gave me two nights in a hotel room, expired bus pass tickets that had been expired Karen White for seven months since October. Now, you know, you guys may look at me like a nobody, but I've really got a lot going on. Love Mesa. Boy, do I have some great ideas for you guys from a more of a trying to get on my feet. I almost had enough money for apartment. I worked for the LDS. Dave Buer will verify my mental health capacities who is a counselor at LDS. And I want to bring it to your attention that someone like myself is being blackballed for a job. I feel there's nepotism. I I I have a lot of concerns and it's on an intellectual fact basis. You know, I'm not just a loose cannon. I investigate an issue before I make a comment. And because of who I am, I am totally homeless with no resources due to federal expenses that have been used, which is okay. But it's not when an MS13 foreign terrorist gets more news coverage than I did, which was zero, to help me in the community. And here's the paperwork there. There's a murder arsonist that was paid to light me on fire. Thank you, Jan, for your comments. Your three minutes are up and I I would like you to talk to We have one of our assistant police chiefs in the back. Thank you, sir. And so, I know that I educate myself and I I can verify what I talk about substantially. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you for hearing, Mr. Freeman. You bet. Okay. Great. Miss Mosley, is there anyone else to speak on this or I no other comments, mayor. Okay, with that, thank you. Uh just before we adjourn this uh meeting, we have a special council meeting after this and so I'll entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting. So move. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Ready. All in favor say I. I. I. Okay. Right. We're done with this uh portion. And if you believe it or not, we have another meeting.