Thank you and welcome to our Mesa City Council meeting, August 18th, 2025.

All our council members are present.

Mr.

Adams is participating by Zoom.

We're gonna start by an invocation by Pastor Michael Haydn from the La Mesa Ministries, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pastor, if you come forward and lead us in prayer, and then I'll stand for both.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the honor of uh being here.

And uh let us pray.

Uh God, you are gracious and patient, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.

And uh I pray that uh you bring your presence in your heart here in this place.

Thank you for my brothers and sisters that you've raised up to these positions of leadership.

I pray that uh you empower them to use their gifts and abilities uh to strengthen and to do what's best for uh your people here in Mesa.

And uh to that end, I pray that you lead them, you guide them, you guard them and protect them and their uh families as uh they make good, wise decisions for for us here in Mesa.

And all this we ask in the mighty and precious name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

Amen.

Thank you, Pat.

Join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which of nation hundred hours with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, everyone.

Our first item is the consent agenda.

Mr.

Christopher, if you'll come forward, and items uh 9A and B have been removed.

I'm sure you have that.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

These are the items on the consent agenda.

All items listed with an asterisk will be considered as a group by the city council and will be enacted with one motion.

There'll be no separate discussion unless a council member order season request, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item.

Item two, approval of minutes of previous meetings is written.

Item three A, acting on liquor license application for Main Market, 6262 East Main Street.

Item 3B, acting on liquor license application for Mountain Mike's Pizza, 849 North Dobson Road.

Item 4A, approving contract for Broadway Road Improvements, Phase 1, Mesa Drive to Staple Drive, construction manager at risk, guaranteed maximum price one of one.

This project is funded in part by 2023 bonds and the flood control district of Maricopa County funds.

Item 4B, approving contract for 2nd Avenue Union Pacific Railroad Sewer Rehabilitation, design bid build contract.

Item 4C, approving three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for traffic signal controllers and video detection for the transportation department.

Item 4D, approving three-year term contract with two-year renewal options for helicopter airframe parts and repair services for the Mesa Police Department.

Item 4E, approving use of a cooperative contract with the purchase of one body scanner for the Mesa Police Department.

This purchase is funded through opioid settlement funds.

Item 4F, approving use of a cooperative contract for the purchase of a camera system for the Mesa Police Department with Mesa Parks.

Item 4G, approving use of a one-year term cooperative contract with renewal options for the purchase of office furniture and related services for the business services department.

Item 4H, approving contract to purchase 78 time terminals by various city departments as requested by the Office of Enterprise Resource Planning Management Department.

Item 4I, approving tenure contract for data center co-location services for the Department of Innovation and Technology.

Item 5A, approving resolution to enter into a development agreement with CBDG Mesa for development of a commercial center generally located at the northeast corner of Ellsworth Road and Railroad.

Item 5B, approving resolution extinguishing a portion of bright of way easement located on the west side of 6550 South Mountain Road to allow for expansion of existing facility.

Item 6A, approving resolution declaring Mesa City Code Title VIII, Health Sanitation and Environment, Chapter 4.

Sanitary Sewer Regulations to be a public record.

Item 6B, introduction of ordinance repealing Mesa City Code, Title VIII, Chapter 4 in its entirety, and adopting a new replacement, Mesa City Code Title Eight, Chapter 4, titled Sanitary Sewer Regulations.

Item 7A, approving resolution declaring proposed titles and schedules of terms, rates, fees, charges for the natural gas utility transportation gas service schedule to be a public record.

Item 7B, introduction of ordinance, adopting titles and schedules of terms, rates, fees, charges for natural gas utility transportation gas service schedule.

And item 8A, introduction of ordinance for zoning case 25-265 for approximately four acres located north of the northwest corner of Broadway Road and South 90th Street.

Rezone to modify an existing planned area development overlay for a 29-unit multiple residence development.

Mayor and Council members, these are the items on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Mr.

Christopher.

Miss Mosley, are there any other blue cards to remove anything off the consent agenda?

Uh not on the consent agenda.

Okay, thank you.

I'll entertain a motion to approve.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor, second by Mr.

Radia.

Please cast your vote.

Vote aye.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams votes aye.

Motion passes unanimously.

Okay.

Moving on on items 9A and B are to conduct a public hearing, take action on a resolution and ordinance on the proposed Beverly Apartments development.

The resolution is for a minor general plan amendment, and the ordinance is to rezone the property and site plan approval for the development.

I declare the public hearing open.

Uh Mayor, I have a few more for a 9A and 9B.

Okay.

All right.

Uh before I get those, uh Miss Spy, Linda Spy, will you come forward and share your comments with us, please?

Miss Spy, you have three minutes, please.

Thank you, everybody, for listening to me.

My name is Linda Spy.

I live at 1019 West 2nd Street.

We're here to discuss discuss the COPA project.

Um I'm hoping my friend who came in late that's been leading this charge gets his card in so he can speak.

At any rate, this is really an awesome project.

We're going to be helping people.

We like the project.

Unfortunately, we don't like the density.

Once again, too many people in one place.

We're only looking for relief on density.

That's all.

34 is too many, or 36 or whatever they have planned.

Again, it's very matter of fact, it's even the same as what they're doing right across the street, which we're all standing against.

So we're just we have had a lot of talk with Curly and whoever they are.

My husband's really worked with them.

They've, you know, done a lot of work with these guys, and they've been really cooperative, unlike someone else that we know.

At any rate, we like the project, we just don't like the density.

That's the biggest argument.

They have talked about being responsible for their residence.

They've talked about no cars.

It's a great idea, but in the meanwhile, the density is just too much.

I did he get his card in?

Okay, because the guy who's leading this march for me is in the back.

At any rate, that's all we're talking about.

These guys, whoever they are, they've been great.

They have dealt with my husband, they've taken all of our stuff into consideration, and they're still trying to get some stuff taken care of.

Very cooperative company, but the density is killing us.

Three stories in the middle of a neighborhood.

I know it's a developing area, but please, it's just three stories in the middle of a neighborhood is not good.

Thank you for your time.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Ms.

Spy.

Uh, next is on item uh items 9A and B.

Uh Nachita, please.

I can't pronounce your last name.

Um cheetah, are you here?

She wishes not to speak.

And she opposes the project.

Okay, sorry about that.

Uh, I have Jennifer Sandstrom.

Jennifer here, she wishes to speak.

You're you're welcome to come forward, Jennifer.

Good evening, Jennifer.

I'm Jennifer Sandstrom.

I'm at 222 North Beverly.

Could you speak more in the microphone?

I'm at 222 North Beverly.

And I've been in the neighborhood for 35 years.

And uh it's a really lovely neighborhood.

Uh I understand there aren't supposed to be any cars.

Uh any uh the residences are just residents or per people with no cars.

Is that true?

The residents won't be driving automobiles.

I understand they will.

Okay.

That's a problem.

Uh the neighborhood's been very safe as far as I uh but I've but I've had several vandalism attempts lately on my house on my home.

And uh the proximity to light rail is very concerning.

I would wish that the city would consider blocking off Beverley between Main Street and 2nd Street.

There's a way to black it off with a uh gate, and uh it's continually being been uh turned down that option has been turned down for reasons and reasons, but uh for the safety of the people, it would be nice.

You could develop a cul de sac and run it through one of the the one sixth the uh the development that's planned right now.

Direct traffic through there have a way to go from Beverly to uh Alma School, and that would uh greatly alleviate almost all of our concerns if that could happen.

And uh other than that, I have a plan for a little project called Homeless World, and it would be a three-story bank of uh residences like they have in Singapore, the open air.

There's no front and no back, but it's like uh uh uh egg carton with the air going through, and when they save up a little money or they save up a little something, they could put a uh uh wall in the front along the back, uh, and then they could have uh like an amusement park on the alma school side of it, and people could go there and and uh buy sandwiches and uh listen to the homeless, play the guitars and and do lively tricks, and then that could be like a little amusement area, and the city could make money off of it, and the homeless could make money, and they could figure out a way to get themselves into another residence.

Now, sometime I would like to propose that and hope the city approves of that too, because we are have the city just approves everything these days.

Thank you for your comments.

Your time's up.

Would you like to finalize anything?

Uh finalize anything?

Yes.

Uh please, please put the stipulations in to run a street or a drive from Beverly to Alma School.

That can be done with the with the properties that are there right now, that can be done, and that would greatly eliminate just about any opposition that you would have to these things, and the feeling that we are being run over by the city in the in the worship of higher density.

Thank you.

You belt uh Evelyn Hermain.

Uh she is opposed but does not wish to speak.

Uh Madison Reynolds, if you'll come forward, you have three minutes, Madison.

Good evening, Mesa uh Mesa City Council.

My name is Madison Reynolds, and I live at 239 North Beverly.

I imagine most of you here have children or grandchildren, or at the very least, you've cared for children at some point.

When I step out of my front door with my kids to walk or ride bikes, every single car on Beverly is a danger.

There's no such thing as a safe moving car.

When it comes to children, disabled neighbors or our elderly, every car, every additional car is a risk.

Right now on the property, there are currently only 12 units.

COPA wants to triple that.

36 units, triple what's currently there.

Tripling the meet the number of units could mean tripling the cars and the traffic and the danger to the neighborhood and the children.

As neighbors, we asked for compromise.

We petitioned for 24 units, still double the current what they're currently what's currently on the property.

COPA rejected that.

We asked COPA to invest in our safety.

If they're going to be part of the community, invest in our community.

We asked them to pay for a traffic impact study.

Get us concrete evidence that this isn't gonna endanger our families.

They refuse that.

At their own meeting, COPA admitted they cannot control the number of cars their tenants will own.

They said they hope there won't be too many cars.

But hope is not protection.

Hope will not keep our children safe.

That's why tonight we are asking you, the city council to stand with us.

Require COPA to pay the full traffic impact study before any approval.

Show us proof, not guesses or estimates.

No one in this room has concrete evidence that the traffic isn't gonna be increased dangerously.

Reduce the number of units to 24.

Still double, but not crazy triple digits or tripling the impact.

Or guarantee, find a way to guarantee that the limit at least only one vehicle per tenant.

Without this traffic will overwhelm our neighborhood.

So again, please protect our children, protect our elderly, protect our disabled neighbors, protect our community.

We are not asking for special treatment.

We're asking for safety, fairness, and respect for the neighborhood we've built.

I am sure they're gonna probably come up.

You might even ask Ryan Hudson to come up.

They came up in the planning and zoning meeting, and they're gonna try to minimize my remarks.

But I just asking for the city council to stand with us.

If they want to be a part of the neighborhood, then invest in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madison.

That's all the speakers we have this evening on this topic.

Uh, would the applicant like to come forward and speak in their behalf?

And then uh we'll have uh if I hear nothing else, and we'll have council comments.

Thank you, Mayor and Council for your record.

My name is Taylor Earl with the law firm of Earl and Curly.

Our address is 3101 North Central Avenue in Phoenix.

Appreciate the opportunity to speak, and as is mentioned, sort of out of the gate, we did do quite a bit of work uh with the neighborhood, and and of course we can't uh accommodate all of the requests, but we did our best to accommodate the requests that we could.

Um, I do want to sort of reference to the traffic analysis.

It's true that as we applied, because our unit count is so low as an absolute number, uh 36, there was no requirement for us to produce a traffic study because hello it is.

That being said, after the planning commission, we decided to to do one.

Um, and so that recently came in.

Um, before I share with you a little bit of what those numbers are, I will just note a couple of things about the project that were alluded to, but they go to the overall traffic generation.

So I think it's relevant.

The first is that this is indeed a workforce housing project.

So these would be uh residents with 50 between 50 and per 60 percent AMI of the area median income.

So these are individuals who it's it's certainly workforce, they're just not a market rate project.

So that goes to the traffic generation numbers that that come out of a project like this.

And not only is it 36, but you also have that as uh as well.

Um, what does that look like?

Um this is the the numbers that come from terms of what is 50, what is 60, you can see this chart.

This is produced by the state, um, and it indicates if you have a family of three, for example, the 50% AMI would be uh an income cap of $50,500.

So these are individuals that are working, um, but not necessarily those who have high, high amounts of expendable income and multiple vehicles.

Um so the reason this site works so well is because of the proximity to the light rail, and this is what makes this project even different, even on top of that.

And so there are places where you know it might be difficult to have mass transit.

We like this site because of its close, close proximity to the light rail system, giving people an easy chance to walk down to the light rail and utilize it.

So we also have an emphasis on rent first as part of this project.

We frankly want people to focus on their rent and not on car payments, right?

So we want them to be able to pay their rent, and part of the education that's provided the tenants is to emphasize being rent first.

Um, and then also we have you know, bicycle repair, we're emphasizing the bike bike use, and then the site's very walkable.

Um, this is our site in relationship to heavy area areas of employment where people can go, and so this light rail doesn't just go anywhere, it goes to mass areas of employment where we expect people uh to be able to find opportunities.

So, with that, those sort of uh elements that reduce the uh amount of trips.

Let me just zoom in in a couple of elements here.

So on the top line where you see it say mark apartments, that is the project that was existing on the site.

Um, and then that we there were 12 units, we're going to 36.

So, what we did is sort of run a comparison of what was there versus what we're adding on top of it, and the net differences is showing you what that looks like.

So 86 uh trips per day is what the increase would be on the site.

And if you take that over to the 22-hour day that our traffic study analyzed it over, you'd be looking at about one extra car every 20 minutes or so.

So the amount of impact is extremely low throughout the day, given how few units that we have.

If you look at the AM peak and the PM peak, which is where you know a lot of us feel the pressure of traffic, um, so they look at that.

Um, that comes out to be about one extra car every five minutes during the AM peak, right?

So an additional 12 trips.

Uh and then if you go to the PM peak, you're looking at uh seven, which comes out to be about one extra car every eight meaning uh minutes during that PM peak time.

So overall, the traffic on this is very little.

Uh Madison did mention sort of tripling, but it's important, it's relevant to determine triple is going from 12 to 36.

You're still only at 36.

And we do understand there's concerns with the project across the street.

I can't speak to that.

That's not before the council.

We simply have our project.

We think this is the right project at the right location, that the traffic would be uh very minimal.

Um, and I know that there's some ideas about traffic calming in the neighborhood.

We're certainly fine with that.

Um, I don't think the warrants have been triggered, but if if that's something that will make the comfort uh neighbors more comfortable, um that's certainly something that the council could entertain.

Um but as to our amount of units, it's very low, and our traffic impact is very minor.

Okay, thank you.

Council, any questions for the applicant?

Ms.

Duff, do you have any questions?

I don't I don't have any right now.

Oh, sorry.

Is there currently any traffic calming on the street?

Um Mayor, um councilman, I do not believe that there are any devices on the street today.

Okay.

But I mean, there's other things that can be done besides like closing off Beverly, which doesn't seem like that's an option.

There's other things like speed bumps or islands or I don't know, whatever the different calming methods would be.

That is correct.

There are other options available than than to turn it into a cold de sac.

Okay.

Ms.

GoFord.

So with this development, there's 44 spaces.

Correct.

So and there are these are two, three bedroom there'll be multiple people in each unit.

Yeah, potentially.

So again, we we would we have the ability in our plan is to in the lease limit per unit to have one space assigned per unit.

So the 36 units, but so it allows for some guest spaces on top of that.

We expect a lot of people again, given the nature of the workforce housing nature of this and the proximity to the light rail.

This works for you as a tenant if you want to use the light rail bike to the light rail.

So no, this isn't something where we expect every single person to have a car or much less to have multiple cars.

So, how did you do your set?

What did you base your study on?

How many vehicles in it?

I just didn't get it.

Yeah, so we we based it off of the um ITE codes that look at national averages based off of this type of housing where you have workforce housing and the national averages of the amount of trips that are generated based off of that type of um that type of occupancy.

So that's what it's based on national numbers rather than us just coming up.

He has the floor.

So what happens if there's more than 44 cars?

Where does that over where do those people go?

Where do they park?

Yeah, so it's a good question.

So this would be if if you came in and you um again, keep in mind that if you have more than one car, you're in your lease, you wouldn't have that opportunity, right?

But that's not did you say is that what you're doing?

That is our intention, yeah, to have to limit one per unit.

One car per unit.

Okay.

And when you'd have an assigned space, right?

One one per unit would be your sort of you have that limit.

So again, if for some reason you had two, this would probably not be a great place for you.

And and we're okay with that because we know there's not a lot of need for this.

And so if that tenant says, hey, that doesn't work for me because you know, me and this other individual we have two cars, okay.

Well, this is probably not a good place for you.

Thank you.

Question there.

Uh go ahead, Mr.

Adams.

I actually actually a few and a comment or two.

Um if we could focus for a minute on the uh the traffic study that uh you've presented.

Um you mentioned something about over a 22-hour period, I assume out of a 24-hour day.

So is that taking the uh projected number of trips divided by 22 is where you come up with the uh one extra car every 20 minutes?

That is correct.

Yep, it's the 86 additional trips on a daily basis.

So, however, you can run that math over 22 hours, which is what our traffic engineer did, um, or if you were to collapse it over uh a shorter period of time, you're still looking at a point where it would be even hard to detect that you had uh additional trips on the road, whether it's 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, how many hours you divide that by.

Uh again, not something where you're saying, wow, like they moved in and everything's really changed in the neighborhood, it'd be a very minor increase.

Well, that doesn't really take into account though, uh heavier times of use, for example, when people are leaving for work and when they're returning, does it?

So, Councilman, so that is what the AM peak and the PM peak look at.

They look at the busiest hour in the morning and the busiest hour in the evening, because as I mentioned, that is when people expect to feel more of the traffic pressures.

And so, traffic studies regularly look at that busiest hour in the morning, busiest hour in the evening.

And so that's why you see in the AM peak, the expectation is there'd be an additional 12 trips during that hour.

Okay, understood.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Um I believe during the study session last Thursday, I had asked for some examples of other projects that COPA may have carried out of a similar nature.

Um, and I realized that was short notice.

Uh, did you have an opportunity to uh look into that or are there none, or what was the well what did that uh how did my question get answered?

Yes, so we did do some research and tried to provide that to your office today.

Uh may not have reached to you, but I do have the developer here, representative from the developer who can speak more to prior projects, a little bit more experience than I have speaking to projects that rather than this one.

But yes, they have experience and be happy to speak to it uh at the council's pleasure.

Well, I don't know that I want to burden the rest of my council colleagues with that right now.

I was hoping to have had the opportunity to review the uh the data, so we'll just move on from that.

Um, obviously um we're focusing on this project tonight, not any others in the area, but I don't think we can uh this is not a question, that's a comment.

I don't think we can consider anything in its own little bubble because there are other proposals in the area that uh uh we're aware of.

Um I think my uh just my my comments overall.

Um I think this is a well-intentioned project.

I think it uh it has a number of positives to it.

The primary concern I have with it, as uh others have expressed, is the density issue.

I think that um three stories is a bit much out of character for the area.

Um I'm sure there are reasons why it's been proposed that way, but uh that that's just my opinion.

I think it's a bit much.

I wouldn't want a three-story building down the street from uh my neighborhood, which is uh single and an occasional two-story home.

So I I'm not sure that it really fits with the character of the area that well.

Um a difficult decision.

And uh I realize that's a very difficult area to try to uh to fit something in the pencils.

Um I think the parking makes sense if you're presenting it as a transit-oriented or project that uh fits more uh more specifically into uh folks that we would hope would use the light rail.

So uh there's there's uh good and bad on on both sides of the uh the issue here.

So anyway, thank you, Mayor.

Those are my comments.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor, I didn't give the full presentation out of uh sort of respect for the council, but I'm happy to talk to that point if if the council would like.

Sure.

Okay.

So originally on the site, this is a little bit of the history of this site uh that again has said multifamily for a long time.

This is from the 1960s.

Uh and what's ultimately happened with the building is simply beyond its useful life.

And that is the reason we're coming to do what we believe to be an upgrade for the neighborhood versus the project that's there right now, including uh that project that's not been had any occupancy for some time.

But one of the things that came up in our neighborhood meeting was to try and look at the neighborhood and also look at um some of the history here.

So you'll see within our design the the railing design that's on the the building today um is something that we have proposed into the project.

Um, in addition to that, we also looked at neighborhood elements, neighborhood architectural elements, and did our best to incorporate those into the design.

And as we went through the design review board, there were uh promptly the least amount of comments I've received from the design review board on a project and compliments on the way that this had been had been done.

Um and so again, we tried to take elements from the neighborhood and try to incorporate them into some of the material changes on the building as well.

Um, and so there was also a question about uh the third story nature.

Um let me walk you through when we talk about um impact and projects.

One of the things that often comes up is related to views.

So I want to walk you through a little bit of what we did.

So, first of all, we had baked in an 80-foot setback to that northern property line to create a buffer condition.

We also then put in trees along that property line.

Again, subject to we have their utility line that we expect to be able to move and put those trees in there.

Originally, we actually had started with a four-story building and had 40 units.

And so our unit count did come down in addition to bringing the building down.

This was prior to even us reaching out to the neighborhood.

These were things that we we did prior to that point.

So revised elevations brought the height down and also brought the unit count down.

Additionally, we did some early outreach in addition to our two neighborhood meetings.

Now we set up also set up a website too.

Now here's the drone study that we did in order to establish because a lot of times when people look at infill, we're looking at views and we want to understand what that impact will be.

So we did a drone study, which we put onto our website.

What we did is we took the drone and we flew it up to the average height person standing on the top floor, and then we flew it across that plane so that you would see out what those views would be.

And what's interesting about it, if you look at just that relatively small sort of orange tree there, it doesn't take much tree in order to block the view because we are so far back.

So because of that distance, because we are not at four stories only three, you don't need to have a 30-foot tall tree in order to provide adequate screening.

You can see there with just a fairly modest tree in growth that there's provide good adequate screening of those of those windows that are on the first floor.

We then took the drone, we went to the south as well.

Again, you have mostly a parking lot to the south.

To the west, it goes into a project that's been proposed for multi-family, and then to the east, uh, it goes into the park.

So when we look at you know, height, um, a couple of things.

A is is the design, and I think that um there's been a lot of effort put into the design of the building.

Um, and then additionally, with the drone study, I think we've shown that there is no going to be no massive impact.

And in a project that is really past its useful life, we think we're bringing an upgrade to the neighborhood to take this building that is frankly as old and tired, and put in something that we think is really attractive into the neighborhood.

And again, because we're only looking at 36 total units near a light rail, that's where you want density.

You don't want density deep into suburban areas because that means more traffic in the suburban areas.

You want them close to the light rail.

And I think all the investments that gone in, the city really's decided this is an area where we want to see urbanization.

Um, and so we believe we're a transition by putting in a nice buffer to the north, putting in those trees and north of us will be single family homes, but we think we act as a good transition to the density that will come in south of us, close to the light rail, and then as it transitions north of us.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Any more questions from council?

Any comments?

I have quite a few comments, but go ahead because I'll be long.

Miss GoFord.

Just a quick question on you know, somebody mentioned um exiting onto Alma School.

I mean, obviously, I mean, is there any possibility of that working with that landowner or yeah?

I I I I heard that, and and I don't believe so because that would be a massive taking of that property in order to make that connection happen.

Um, and so I I don't think that's a viable um option.

Council member Goldforth.

Um, I know that was the one suggestion at a point is looking at that, and uh to the west of the prop property is Eden Village, and that does not have any drive aisles through it because it's a carless community.

There's just a few spaces for staff to work there, but there's no pathway to Alma School.

Cutting through Eden Village is not an option, it's cutting through a carless community of tiny homes.

Any other questions to my left?

I it's hard to see sometimes down so far down.

Ms.

Goforth said answer your question.

Yes, sir.

Okay, great.

Uh Ms.

Duff.

Um, I don't know if we want transportation to speak about the cul-de-sac.

Uh cul-de-sac was considered.

Is transportation here?

No.

Okay.

That was considered, but it is um it creates a lot of problems for public access on a public road.

And so, Eric, if you could just review that a little bend down.

So you can hear me.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members.

Uh, Eric Kadarian, interim transportation director.

Uh, we have looked at cul-de-sacking Beverly, it's been brought up quite a bit here in the in the past.

Um there are several issues that that come up with it that um that we as a transportation department don't recommend or uh wouldn't be in favor of cul de sacking Beverly.

Um we we also we we when we dead end a public street, we put a cul-de-sac in it, and to do that, we would have to take extra ride-of-way from the properties on on on either side of the the street, and that would eat into their front yard and and and driveways.

Um, and then we also we want people to have multiple access routes.

Um this would create a long cul-de-sac, and the only access you would have is off of Alma School, which is a right-in, right out intersection today.

Uh, there won't be full access there ever because of the light rail that that's in there.

It's just not a feasible idea to cut off a road that connects from Main Street to University.

Um, and then when you exit on Main, you only have one choice, and that's right.

Going westbound.

Can I ask Eric a question?

Ms.

Fieldsbury.

Another question for you, Eric.

So are you is our um transportation department open to um looking into some calming methods for that street?

Uh councilmember Spielsbury, our our city traffic engineer Ryan Hudson has been involved in in both of these developments.

Uh, we are open to looking at traffic calming along Beverly.

Also, separate of that, we're we're looking into doing some improvements at second and Beverly that hopefully will improve this or calming traffic through that that area.

On Beverly itself, there has been requests for a speed bump multiple times.

It wasn't granted at the time because it didn't have the volume of traffic.

You need over 500 trips a day, and um the speed factor, it didn't meet the criteria with additional developments that'll be can considered based on the figures that on the trip generation study that was done, it still wouldn't make it.

Um of course it can be requested again, and the study can be done.

If we go into other, and I I don't really want to get into the other project because we have to make decisions on a project from the merits itself.

We can't say the what ifs on things that we don't know are going to happen or not.

Um but with another project in the neighborhood, then uh there are some more aggressive measures that we've looked at doing because the traffic would increase.

At this point, uh I know we're making some some improvements on second street just because it is a pathway to school, and it is a good idea to do it.

Um I don't know with an additional 24 units, which one car each with the 36 units is almost equivalent to adding 18 units of a normal um development.

Anyway, the numbers don't match, and so I wouldn't want to commit to that we're doing a speed bump one, but it's a consideration if we go forward on other projects.

Um let's see.

I think that's all I had on the traffic side, Eric.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So uh talking about the traffic though, this is a transit-oriented development area because it is within a quarter mile of transit and per per our general plan.

Our goal and our growth strategy plan is to increase density around transit.

That is the goal.

This project is not in the middle of a suburban area in the southeast or northeast.

This is two blocks from Main Street.

Um Main Street is a major corridor, even without transit to suppress any density is suppressing the possibility of Main Street developing into a viable business community.

Right now, it is doesn't have the density.

We have car repair, car sale, car lots everywhere.

The fries, I think is about to close.

There's the business and activities around this area staying as is really isn't a viable option.

I hate to see this area decline more by not doing any new development.

Now I realize you don't want the density, but without the density, we can't get the businesses.

And this is an affordable project, 50 to 60% of the AMI.

If you looked at our balanced housing plan, that's in severe need.

I think we need like 11,000 units.

If we reduce us that reducifin 36 to 24 units, so that we have two-story uniform, not build density close to main street, not build density near a major arterial.

I don't, first of all, I don't think it'd be a viable project.

I don't think it'll be built.

Number two, why is because they won't meet the 50 to 60% AMI.

Your development costs are gonna skyrock rocket per unit.

And for them to make affordable rents, I think it's gonna be very difficult.

I don't think it'd be a viable project.

Affordability is related to the number of units you have.

The less units you have in a project, the more expensive it is.

The more parking spaces you have in a unit, the more expensive it is, the higher rent that you pay.

Do we want it to be affordable?

Yes, we need affordable.

Do we want to kill the project?

This area needs development.

On the back side is on two-story townhomes to the to the south of it, our apartments to the east of it, our apartments across the park.

Um I think it's a great project.

COPA has an excellent reputation in the community of all the work they do.

They have other affordable um living communities, and they've gained a they're highly coveted, respected, and I'm so glad that they chose Mesa in a needed place for needed housing.

Um as far as the traffic and the trip generation, when you think about those numbers, they're not in one place.

The numbers get distributed among various streets.

Some will exit to Main Street, some will go north to 2nd Street and then go over to Alma School, some will go north on Beverly, some will go right on to go east on 2nd Street and then up onto Westwood.

I've seen a traffic study on another development to understand the distribution of where it is.

And the majority of the traffic, and it does show on the current traffic volume also states, and it follows it, the majority of your volume is between 2nd Street and Main Street, not distributed through the others.

You find that it's significantly higher between 2nd Street and Main Street at the current volume and the projected volume.

So the amount of cars that are going to be experienced in these other the other single family neighborhoods to exit the other ways is greatly reduced.

The majority will be to Main Street.

So it is a professional study, and with the numbers provided.

Does great work in the community?

It is a housing stock that we desperately need.

It is close to transit to make a living affordable.

I look forward to seeing it.

I hope that it gets built.

I can't say how excited I was when I learned about this project.

That I thought it was in the right place at a time that we desperately need affordable housing, and it's rare to see affordable housing projects at 50% AMI.

I hope that our council considers it very carefully.

I think it's appropriate for where it is.

Anytime you live 800 feet, 700 feet from Main Street, you can't expect there will be no density.

It's not in our general plan.

It's not the way that we have planned our city.

And even before light rail, can you really live within less than two blocks in Main Street and expect single family housing?

I I don't think it's a reality.

Not if you want a successful downtown, a successful main street.

So those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member.

Uh I have a couple of questions for the applicant.

Uh in the study session, I believe you said zoning before financing.

Can you explain that?

Correct.

So within the low-income housing tax credit process or LITEC as it's referred to, you need to get through the zoning process.

You get much closer to building permits before you get through the actual awarding of you can sort of start that process, but you really can't get very far into that process until the zoning is completed.

Um if there's more detail on that, the uh the representative developer can speak more to that process.

I'm not usually involved in the back end, but I had that question has come up on other light tech projects I've done, so I I know that to be the case.

Sure.

Uh you know, there's uh several zoning projects that we've approved throughout the city, and there's you know, a couple of years old, and there's been no development on the properties due to financing issues and just making that investment into the community.

So I get that.

I I also question on you talk about two and three bedroom units there for the development.

Uh was the traffic study uh done by having one car per unit, uh, because you did say that you're gonna allow only one car per unit.

Yeah, and I want to I did want to clarify that.

So it's it's one there's one reserve space per unit, right?

So in theory, somebody could come, they wouldn't have a reverse served space, right?

So there is we are reserving one space per unit.

So I wanted to clarify that to make sure that was clear.

Um and we do have our traffic engineer who can speak to more the way that the study was was specifically calculated.

But as I mentioned, we this particular, because what can happen is if somebody's more focused on their vehicle, they'll let the rents payment slip because it's easier to get protections under the state statutory rent protections than it is on getting your car repoed.

So frankly, we we are want to be less car-focused and want people to be focused on so on the rent, frankly, and so using the bikes using the light rail is one of the perks of this particular location.

So we want to be not car-focused.

Um, and to your question on how with the methodology was used for the traffic stunning, we have Mr.

Spatifino from Civtec, who could speak to how that was calculated.

Okay.

Um I I guess my question in my mind is when you have two and three bedroom units, I'm supposing that there might be multi-generational living there.

I'm assuming that, you know, if if one, if my uh family member, two of us had uh vehicles uh for transportation, not necessarily a bike or walking or using the light rail.

I mean, how can you guarantee uh you know one reserve space per unit?

So the reserve space we can we can put into the lease.

So this this lease has one unit and it only comes with one reserve space.

So that absolutely we can guarantee.

Your question would be how can you guarantee that somebody might not bring two cars?

You can't absolutely guarantee that they wouldn't have another vehicle.

We can guarantee is that what people don't necessarily want to be doing is parking, again, parking off-site.

So we we're gonna guarantee they get one space, but we couldn't potentially guarantee that.

But what what it goes to your question too about well, what about the other bedrooms?

So if you look at the I sort of went through this kind of quickly, but the the AMIs depend on how many people you have in the family.

So if you have uh uh a husband and wife and they have a few children, so they would be under five.

Um so that they would be using those bedrooms, but not necessarily producing more drivers out of those bedrooms because um their kids aren't driving, but they do need space for those individuals.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any more questions for the applicant?

Because I'm gonna call up Mary or yeah, uh Miss Spillsbury.

Well, on that point, so if you had like three roommates, they each took a bedroom.

How's the AMI calculated for that?

Except for his name is on the lease, or would the all three of them just because then the three of them could have a car.

You could also have a an apartment with three people who none of them have cars.

I mean, I get that too.

But sure, and the question of the AMI calculation, Joe, do you want to come speak to that?

I don't want to, I don't want to say anything that's it's incorrect in terms of how they buy it.

I my my worry behind all of this is that Beverly is going to be full of parked cars.

Sure.

Which also presents a danger to the neighborhood.

So I want to make sure we're preventing that from happening by underparking this development.

Sure.

And and what I will say too is that our PAD, although we have some deviations, what we did not request a deviation on is parking.

Is parking.

Right.

And so I think it's really important to recognize that we are meeting the city's parking requirements.

So to deny it based off of parking would be to sort of have us do an ext uh above and beyond reparking requirements.

So the city has looked at what it expects in terms of parking near the light rail, and we did not seek a deviation on it.

And this is lower than a typical development because it is considered that in that transit corridor.

Correct.

And so that that is again the expectation.

So we decided we did not seek a deviation from if I do this, that helped we did not seek a deviation from the parking standard.

So we're meeting the city's parking standard as it relates to this particular site.

So I wanted to emphasize that.

I and I I absolutely appreciate that you weren't trying to get lower parking numbers.

And I think that because this is so close to transit, you're probably more correct on your numbers.

I just always, always, always am trying to be very, very aware of our neighborhoods and the impact of extra cars.

Not even the um traffic, but the parking and have it walking, you know, if kids are walking down the street or something and there's parked cars.

I mean, just anyways, I just want to be aware of that.

Did you were you gonna say anything, Mary?

Are you or he answered?

Uh mayor council members feels very sorry.

I think I need some sunglasses to sit here for the next month myself.

Thank you.

Um just wanted to say that yes, they aren't meeting the parking requirements because of the proximity to the transit station, so they are not asking for a deviation for that.

I just wanted to confirm that Mayor.

Mr.

Adams.

Mayor, uh, just looking for a little clarification.

I'm going back to the uh the staff report on 250608.

And I want to make sure I'm I'm clear in my understanding here.

It it says the proposed project is not in conformance with the Mesa 2050 general plan place type of traditional residential identified for the project site.

Um this may be a question for uh Miss Kapaski Brown or or Mr.

Uh Balmer, but I want to make sure I understand that that it's currently identified as traditional residential.

Is can someone confirm or deny that for me?

Mary, before you do, uh I'll ask the applicant to sit down for me.

Thank you.

Because I think we'll have some counsel to sorry, we lost your shade there, Mary.

Uh that's okay, Mayor.

I can have you come back if you want.

That's okay.

I'll just look at you.

Uh you guys.

I think Mr.

Adams brings up a good point because I was gonna bring that up in tonight's meeting.

So, Mayor Freeman, council um member Adams, that's correct.

The current um general plan designation is traditional residential.

So they are asking for a concurrent general plan amendment to mixed residential, which would allow for obviously a mixture of residential uses.

It's important to note for the traditional residential um general plan designation that multifamily is a supporting uh use, it's just not a principal use.

So this will take it to that multifamily is a principal use, and when we look at the current zoning on this site, which is arm two and arm three, it has maybe more of a flavor towards that mixed residential, which is why staff is supporting the general plan um modification as they proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification.

I know that a great deal of work went into the 2050 general plan, so I was paying particular attention to that.

The only other comment I'd make is if my request for uh additional information on the apparently uh large number of other successful projects COPA has initiated had been provided to me, uh, that may have influenced my uh my opinion on this case.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

I have an additional question, uh residential mix uh three versus RM4.

Tell me the dwelling units per acre between the two and why this project would qualify for RM4 and versus not just they'll do the whole thing RM3 and would that qualify without having to go through the extra step of RM4.

So mayor council be RM2, because remember there's two zoning designations on the properties.

The RM2 is a 15 units per dwelling, the RM3 is 20, and then the RM4 is 30.

They're proposing 29 dwelling units per acre, which is why they've asked for the RM4 rezoning.

Okay.

Got it.

In field development will kind of be our Achilles here as a council as we look at how we collaborate and integrate these neighborhoods.

And and what I see is a legacy heritage neighborhood fighting for their life, uh trying to maintain their quality of life.

And I know there's been discussion on density, uh traffic control.

And to me, I feel always important to sustain our neighborhoods.

And I I just I'm not really comfortable with having this uh project move forward in my personal uh discussion and study on this.

And so I'll be voting no on that, but I just want us to continue to, you know, if the project come forward with the lower density, listening to their neighborhood, then I would be more in agreement with that and understand uh all the components involved in this.

So that's where I'm gonna be at.

And uh if there's some more discussion amongst council, then we can I can call for a vote.

Ms.

Go forward.

I I have another question.

I know I asked at the study session.

The community immediately to the north is is an RM3, but it's 11 dwelling units an acre, correct, Mary?

Or Evan.

Yeah, okay.

What about to the south?

That one's RM4.

How many units per acre is that?

Do you have that?

No.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Council member, go forward.

Um, I don't have the map handy, but the area just south of this uh was formerly apartments, it was converted to two condos.

Um the density is is probably actually a little bit less than the COPA project, but that's because it it's on a much larger lot.

So the the density would would be relative.

I have a feeling it's it's a little bit less.

Um I can get that information for you if you give me just a couple minutes.

Evan, on the map.

The development just south.

Is RM4.

Oops, sorry, Roman.

Yes, it is RM4.

Let me uh mayor, council member dove.

So yes, this property here is RM4.

The property just north is RM3.

The reason it has a lower density is their platted single family residence, which you can do in RM3.

So there's single story, uh, which is why that density is less there.

There's RM4 here.

Um there is RM4 also kind of over here on the side.

When we look at where this is located, um, staff is recommending approval of the zone change to RM4 again because it it's close to main street and light rail, all those those points that everybody else mentioned.

But also if you kind of look at at how it works with the RM4 zoning, um, Eden Village right here is RM4.

It kind of works to step down in density as we move north.

And again, this one is 36 units.

The applicant did a good job of providing in excess of 80 feet of a set back to the properties to the north.

So staff is kind of looking at that as a transition to the lower density that occurs to the north and and particularly north of 2nd Street.

Is that answer your question?

Okay, great.

Uh council, uh, you want to move forward with uh discussion on uh on the motion.

Now we can uh make one motion for both 9A and B for the minor general plan amendment rezoning and site approval, or we can separate the motion.

How would you like to proceed?

Combine.

Combine them.

Is everybody good for combining two motions?

Okay.

I'll entertain a motion to approve items 9A and B for the general minor general plan amendment rezoning and site plan approval.

There's a motion by Miss Duff, second by Mr.

Heredia.

Please cast your vote.

Mayor, I vote no.

Mr.

Adams votes no.

Okay.

Motion passes.

Uh Adams and Freeman, no.

The others, yes.

Thank you very much.

Okay, with that.

Item 10A is to conduct a public hearing for the release of the petition for signatures for the proposed annexation case 25-00231, located at the southeast corner of South Hawes Road and East Musquite Street.

I declare the public hearing open.

Ms.

Mosley, do you have any requests to speak on this?

No request on this item, Mayor.

Thank you.

Do any council members wish to address it?

Okay.

Hearing none, I declare the public hearing closed.

Uh this hearing was to release the petition for signatures.

There is no other action on this item.

This item will come back to council in the future for consideration on the annexation.

With that, we'll move forward to item 11 is from items from citizen present.

As you know, we allow three speakers to speak for three minutes.

And then because of the topics that are race, most of the time they're not on our agenda, and state law generally prevents counsel from responding to the speaker.

For those watching on Channel 11, you should know that many times at the conclusion of the meeting, a council member or staff member will follow up with the speaker to get more information or look into the matter further.

So our first speaker tonight will be Jillian Ryan.

Jillian, if you want to come forward, and uh you have three minutes.

Hi, you all may recognize me from the last meeting, and glad I get a chance to speak to you.

You want to speak in the mic?

A little clearly.

Yeah, my name's Gillian.

I'm an organizer of local group, Indivisible Mesa.

My zip codes 85202.

So I'm here to talk about the 287G agreement between ICE and the Mesa PT pay Mesa PV.

I want to first clarify that we already know that there's been an agreement in place since 2009, and we do know that there's the jail enforcement model, so people can stop repeating that same information to us to start.

I also recently learned that retired police chief, Ken Cost is now an assistant city manager along with Scott Butler, making approximately 270,000 K a year, and he was the one who signed the current 287G agreement.

Okay, with that said, I'd all like to give you all a few facts.

Um, the amount of 287G agreements has increased from 135 active agreements when Biden left office to now 800 and growing under the Trump administration.

The Trump administration has also revived the aggressive task force model of the agreement.

We know that stakehold state and local jurisdictions have a choice to enter into these agreements.

Joining the program is voluntary, and it comes at a local taxpayer expense.

Reports have found that the presence of these agreements create environments of discrimination and racial profiling, specifically of Latino residents.

Immigration arrest quotas have increased, and as a result, this will increase racial profiling and distract from dealing with real violent crime in the city.

We were told there was nothing the Mesa City Council could do to end this agreement, which is incorrect.

These are optional local agreements.

And according to the Mesa Code of Ordinances, it's my understanding that the chief of police follows under the direction of the city manager and council.

We were also told that these agreements don't increase racial profiling and that they only apply to people charged with felony convictions.

That's also incorrect.

These apply to anyone being held in arrests for in detention, and a Department of Justice report and three-year investigation report in 2011 proved that Sheriff Joe Arpao practiced civil rights abuses, including extreme cases of racial profiling.

Police departments are actively helping ICE with these efforts.

Informs such as the 287G agreement.

The practice of allowing local enforcement to enforce federal immigration law increases the likelihood of racial profiling and arrests, which lead to disastrous results for entire communities.

We don't want or need fancy restaurants that are right next to each other, jobs to attract high-income earners or data centers that use up approximately 30,000 gallons of water our limited water resources.

Thank you, Jillian.

Next we'll next we'll hear from Amanda Snyder.

Why don't we try some jazz hands next time, please?

Just a little quieter so we can continue on at the meeting.

Thank you.

Amanda, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Nerve wracking up here.

And my parents are longtime Mesa residents.

Because of that, I spend a great deal of time here shopping, dining, attending events, and most importantly, turning on my boys and their teammates at soccer games.

As long as Mesa participates in 287G agreement with ICE and continues cooperating with ICE, I do not feel Mesa is a safe place to be.

It's not safe for my neighbors, my friends, my children's teammates, and the hard working service providers who contribute so much to our homes and our cities.

These are people I know and care about personally, and they contribute to our community every day.

They pay taxes into a system that offers them little protection in return.

They're not criminals.

Families are living under the constant threat that something as ordinary as a traffic stop or dropping off a child at school could mean never seeing their loved ones again.

That's not safety, that's terror.

And a city that allows its residents to live in that kind of fear is not a community I want to be a part of, nor support financially with my purchases.

Mesa Police Department's duty is to protect and serve all residents, but cooperation with ICE under undermines that promise.

Families now lump all law enforcement together, and calls to Mesa PD have already dropped.

When victims are too afraid to call the police because they fear ICE, we are all less safe.

And let's be clear, most of these people ICE is targeting are not criminals.

Over 70% of those currently detained by ICE have no criminal conviction at all.

They are parents, workers, and neighbors with deep roots in our communities.

Mesa stands alone in Arizona as the only city still participating in 287G.

Every neighboring city has shown it is possible to keep communities safe without partnering with ICE.

This agreement isn't just unjust, it's also expensive.

Mesa taxpayers are footing the bill for ICE's agenda while exposing the city to lawsuits like those that cost Maricopa County hundreds of millions under Sheriff Arpayo.

We must do better.

These are not statistics and campaign slogans.

These are human beings, parents, children, workers, community members, they deserve to live without fear.

I urge you to withdraw from 287G agreement and to end cooperation with ICE.

We all deserve to live in a safe community.

Mesa has an opportunity to lead with courage and compassion and join other cities that protect all of our residents.

Thank you.

Thank you, Amanda.

Well, you got a little bit better that way.

Our next one is uh Mike Ziegler.

Mike, if you want to come forward.

After Mr.

Ziegler, Ms.

Mosley, I'll ask you to read blue cards.

My name is Michael Ziggler.

I live at 1019 West 2nd Street here in Mesa.

Thing I want to talk to you about is overdevelopment.

Um the illegal immigrants that are here are starting to go home, which is going to open up lots of places for people to live.

Buy, rent.

Excuse me.

So I fear, and I was wondering why Mesa was so hip on doing all this development here in the downtown area.

And then I happened to take a look one day as we were leaving after one of the meetings, and I saw something that I believe said that uh talked about that you only had a $68,000 increase in revenue from 23 to 24.

So that started me thinking.

Uh you have all those development in your uh electric company, the electric division that you have.

You have all this development, so you're looking at more revenue from that.

I'm having hopes that with all the people that are going home, and if you look at online, there are probably over 2,000 places for rent in Mesa.

So I don't want you to overdevelop.

We're gonna have ghost cities, ghost apartment complexes like they have in in China, where they do too much development and not enough people.

So anyway, that's basically all I want to say is don't overdevelop.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Ziegler.

Miss Mosley, do we have additional requests you'd like to read into for the record?

Yes, Mayor, thank you.

I received 14 additional cards.

By subject, we have one request that was to speak from TJ Jensen regarding decriminalizing psychedelics and theogenic plants.

I have one request from Jane Wakefield regarding public safety.

And I have 12 cards regarding the 287G agreement.

Michael Stanley.

Betsy Soderquist, Charles Green, those are all marked as opposed to the agreement.

I have two marked in support of the agreement from Sherry Von Risen and Michelle Joy Wilsy.

And I have one that wasn't marked opposed or support, but it was from Mary Cornelly.

Thank you, Ms.

Mosley.

Finalized Mr.

Butler, would you like to share any comments or city manager?

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, Council, I appreciate the folks coming forward, especially those that had expressed some concern about the 2A7G program, but I think it's really important, of course, that we um go into the any discussion about this with the full context and the facts.

As was stated by one of our speakers, and we know that we've expressed this.

So while I understand the the fears and the concerns of actions that are being taken outside of our jail facility, that is in no way impacting the actions that the City of Mesa has taken over the 16 years that we've been involved with this program.

Thank you, Mr.

Butler.

Uh council, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Ms.

Duff.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Mr.

Adams.

Aye.

All right.

We're adjourned.

Thank you, everyone, for attending.