Avondale City Council Regular Meeting and Public Hearing – October 15, 2025

The Avondale City Council met on October 15, 2025, for a regular meeting that included a consent agenda, an unscheduled public appearance regarding a prior police‑involved shooting, and a public hearing on an appeal of a conditional use permit (CUP) denial for a self‑storage facility. The council acted in a quasi‑judicial capacity on the appeal and voted 7‑0 to reverse the Planning Commission’s denial, approving the CUP subject to five conditions.

Consent Calendar

• The consent agenda was adopted by voice vote with no items removed and no opposition, passing unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Larnell Farmer (speaking as a former police officer and President of the West Valley NAACP) addressed the council about the February 2023 police‑involved shooting of Amarian Hope. He stated that after reviewing police reports, internal investigations, and the county attorney’s determination that the shooting was justified, he found the justification unsupported. He requested that the city reopen the investigation, possibly through another agency.

Public Hearing – Appeal of Conditional Use Permit (PL 23‑0303) – Extra Space Storage

• The council heard an appeal from applicant Adam Baugh (representing Guardian/Extra Space Storage) of the Planning Commission’s denial of a CUP for a two‑story, climate‑controlled self‑storage facility at the southwest corner of Indian School Road and Osborne Road (2.28 acres, zoned C‑2 under Palm Valley Planned Area Development). The same CUP had been approved by the council in 2021 but expired because construction could not commence within two years. The applicant argued that the five legal criteria for a CUP were met and that the proposal was identical to the previously approved project.
• Staff (Senior Planner Sandra Freund) presented the project and recommended approval with five conditions (compliance with approved plans, two‑year commencement, prohibition of hazardous materials, no on‑site sales, and a requirement to extinguish interior lighting by 8 p.m.).
• Public comments were heavily opposed. Written statements and in‑person speakers (including Timothy LaSota on behalf of the Dysart Ranch HOA; Andrea Sandoval; Benjamin Grassi; Jennifer Deeds of the Dysart Ranch Community Coalition; Eric Blocker; Greg Deeds; and several other residents) raised concerns about:
  • Traffic safety and congestion on Osborne Road
  • Flood risk and stormwater runoff (citing FEMA data)
  • Negative impacts on property values
  • Crime, vagrancy, and homeless activity (citing police call records from a similar facility in Gilbert)
  • Oversaturation of storage facilities in the area (16–18 within five miles)
  • Inadequate public noticing (newspaper ad missing, sign illegible)
  • Misleading statements by the applicant regarding safety and operations
• Applicant’s rebuttal addressed each concern, asserting that the facility meets all code requirements, that traffic generation is minimal (160 daily trips, 8 peak‑hour trips), that flood risks are unfounded, and that the public comments were not supported by evidence. He also noted that city staff had verified the plans and that the five legal criteria for a CUP were satisfied.

Discussion Items

• Council deliberation focused on the quasi‑judicial role – the decision must be based solely on the record before the Planning Commission, not on new evidence or community preference. Councilmember White noted that she was part of the 2021 approval and that the same five criteria apply. Councilmember Solario asked about other permitted uses under C‑2 zoning and confirmed that a storage facility is allowed with a CUP; other uses (e.g., gas station, child care) also require a CUP.
• Councilmember White asked Chief Espinoza about crime trends; the chief reported overall decreases in crime in Avondale but could not immediately recall recent calls at similar facilities.
• Council briefly recessed into executive session for legal advice on the matter.
• Upon return, the council discussed the criteria and the applicant’s compliance.

Key Outcomes

• Motion (by Vice Mayor, seconded by Councilmember White) to reverse the Planning Commission’s denial because the applicant has met all required findings under Chapter 28 of the city code.
• Vote: 7‑0 to reverse the denial, thereby granting the conditional use permit subject to the five conditions recommended by staff.
• Direction: The council directed the City Attorney to prepare written findings setting forth the basis for the reversal.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned via voice vote, also 7‑0.