Good afternoon.

It is September 3rd, 2025.

Thank you so much for joining us.

We'll begin today with an invocation from Police Chaplain Williams.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, City Council and Staff, thank you for all that you do for the city.

Please join me in a prayer of invocation, inviting the Lord to be with us today.

Lord, I'd come to you reaching out and requesting your participation in our city council meeting today.

I live to you or mayor, our city council, and their staff members.

These are precious and willing individuals that constantly have their leadership and talents given to us and the city.

Father, I ask you to draw the mayor and council close so you can grant them favor.

Wash them with your wisdom and discernment as only you can.

Lord, I ask for your protection for our city leaders and our city employees, thus keeping them healthy and safe.

And Lord, I thank you in advance for your grace and discernment and love extended to the mayor and the city council.

To you, Father, we give all the praise and all the glory.

Amen.

Thank you, Chaplain Williams.

Vice Mayor, will you lead us in the pledge?

I pledge allegiance.

And to the Republic for which you stand.

One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Vice Mayor and Chaplain.

We've been calling on you a lot lately.

Thank you for starting us off on a beautiful note.

Will the clerk please call the role?

Councilwoman Guardado.

Here.

Councilwoman Hernandez.

Here.

Councilwoman Hodge Washington.

Here.

Councilwoman Pastor.

Here.

Councilman Robinson.

Yeah.

Councilwoman Stark.

Here.

Councilman Waring.

Vice Mayor O'Brien.

Here.

Mayor Gallego.

Here.

Now we've called the meeting to order.

I'll turn to Mario Brajas to introduce the interpretation function.

Yes, Mayor, thank you.

Good afternoon, as previously said.

My name is Mario Barajas.

I'll be serving as uh one of the two interpreters together with uh my partner El C Duarte, who is downstairs doing the uh simultaneous interpretation.

We'll be uh providing this service to our Spanish speakers this afternoon.

I'll now take a moment to introduce ourselves to our Spanish speaking audience.

When I started this, you junto con my colleague El C Duarte que Staraby simultaneous a ustedes para la interpretación del Espanyol.

Itamin includendo tratar de evita qualquer distraction de fondo.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you so much, Mario.

With the city clerk, please read the 24 hour paragraph.

The titles of the following ordinance and resolution numbers on the agenda were available to the public at least 24 hours prior to this council meeting, and therefore may be read by title or agenda item only.

Ordinances number G7408 through 7416 S52234 through 5225 and resolution 22329.

Thank you, Mayor.

Members of the public may speak for up to two minutes to comment on agenda items.

Comments must be related to the agenda item and the action being considered by the council.

General comments that go beyond the scope of the agenda item should be made during the citizen comment session at the end of the agenda.

The city council and staff cannot discuss or comment on matters related to pending investigations, claims, or litigation.

Additionally, any member of the public who appears before the council in their capacity as a lobbyist must, as required by Phoenix City Code disclose this fact before addressing the council.

The city code states that speakers must express their comments respectfully and courteously.

Use of profane language threats or personal attacks on members of the public, council members, or staff are not allowed.

Such comments are disruptive and unrelated to the council's business.

Any person who violates these rules may lose the opportunity to continue to speak further and could be asked to leave.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll now go to boards and commissions.

Item one, Vice Mayor.

I move to approve mayor and city council boards and commissions nominations.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay?

Well now cock and tuck to swearing in the public.

And defend them against all enemies.

And defend them against all enemies.

And that I will faithfully and impartially.

And I will just faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of.

Discharge the duties of the office of CTC.

The Military Veterans Commission.

According to the best of my ability.

According to the best of my ability.

So help me God.

So help me God.

Congratulations.

Congratulations to our commissioners on their unanimous confirmation.

Thank you for serving our city.

We next turn to the liquor license portion of our agenda.

The city of Phoenix provides an advisory role to the state of Arizona on liquor licenses.

Vice Mayor, do we have a motion?

I move to approve items two through 19.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed nay.

Passes unanimously.

City clerk, are we ready for ordinances, resolutions, new business planning and zoning?

Yes, Mayor.

Vice Mayor.

I move to approve items 20 through 60, except for the following.

Items 31, 43, 57, 58, 59, and 60, noting that item 56 is continued to September 17th, 2025.

And can the clerk confirm if there are any other items that should be excluded for in-person public comment?

Yes, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and also excluding item 38.

That's item 38.

We have a motion and a second.

Any corrections?

Roll call.

Yes.

Hernandez.

Yes.

Yes.

Pastor.

Yes.

Robinson?

Yes.

Stark?

Yes.

Waring?

O'Brien?

Yes.

Gallego.

Yes.

Passes nine zero.

We next go to item 31, mediator contracts.

Do we have a motion?

Mayor, I move to approve item 31.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Councilwoman Hernandez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just have a few questions for Shannon on this item.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of council.

Councilwoman Hernandez.

Um, just have a few questions.

My understanding that as the Office of Accountability was built, um, it was built around demands from community organizations, family members, and other victims of Phoenix police violence to address the officer accountability um in regards to that violence and that misconduct.

Um, is that the is that also your understanding?

Is it the correct understanding?

Mayor members of council, uh councilwoman Hernandez, yes, that's my understanding is it was uh city response to concerns from the community.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um, how does the mediation piece result in more accountability in the police department um in regards to the police violence or uh changing police behavior so that the misconduct is reduced?

The intents of uh mayor, members of council, councilwoman Hernandez, members of the public.

The intention of the mediation program is to serve for a one-to-one accountability between uh the individual as it for when we're excuse me, if we're talking about individual officer mediation, it's for individual officers to sit down with impacted community members for them to have a facilitated conversation that allows for that one-to-one accountability sitting across the table.

It's very different if Ginger were to come to me and say, Hey Shannon, a member of the community said this about you, and then I just address it one to one with Ginger versus sitting down at the table with that person who I'm I've impacted by my choices in my conduct, and having to sort of explain where I was what I was doing and actually see the impact of the choices that I made and how that uh affected the person that I'm engaging with.

Okay, thank you for that for that um insight.

Um, and is there so does Oat not have currently a staff member who serves in that mediator role between um the department and the community?

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman Hernandez.

We do have a director of mediation, however, our director of mediation is one person.

We are a total team of 15 if we were fully staffed and with a department of thousands of sworn officers.

We're hoping that this program becomes robust enough that one person would not be able to sustain the demand.

Okay, thank you for that.

Because that was gonna be my next question on how many uh mediation cases uh has OAT handled in the past year.

Um I'm trying to get a sense of the idea of the amount of requests for this program.

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman Hernandez, we've completed a total of five department level mediations because department level mediations don't implicate HR issues, um, labor contracts, those sorts of things.

We're able to conduct department level mediations where we're addressing systemic issues, maybe comment concerns about lack of service, where an individual officer is unidentified, but the department can still respond to that affected community member.

We're in the process of going through a mediation development program with developing ops orders through the police department so that we can establish that individual officer mediation until we have it up and running.

We don't have an idea of exactly what the demand will be.

However, we have um asked the department and we've worked with the department to have information about the number of types of complaints that would be mediation eligible that they receive, and as part of their systems of accountability project, they're going to be better able to track those numbers.

And so we're hoping that it will be a very robust program.

The programs where this exists in other jurisdictions, there's other several large jurisdictions, Denver, Los Angeles, there's several police communication mediation programs, and they are quite successful and quite active.

Washington DC has one as well.

They also have contract mediators that uh assist them in supporting that program.

Okay, so just to just so I can confirm, the idea is this is a new program.

It would be up and running, like if it gets approved, it gets up and running with the goal of it being um requested or a higher demand on one and on one-on-one uh mediation cases between an officer and the person and the complaint.

Is that is that correct?

Mayor members of council, councilwoman Hernandez, yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Um you mentioned that in there's other bigger just like or similar size or other large jurisdictions that have programs like these.

Do you know that it um do you are you do you know or can you provide me with information if in those jurisdictions um those programs who is cover like who pays for that program?

Does it come out of like their their uh department, their oat department or whatever similar department they have, or does it come from the police budget?

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman Hernandez, we can definitely research that and look that up for you.

I don't have that accessible.

We'll look at the major jurisdictions.

I know uh Philadelphia, Washington, DC, um, Los Angeles Police Department, Denver, they all do have those programs.

So we'll look at those large-sized jurisdictions.

It is underneath the oat ordinance that we do have the mandate to conduct mediation, so that is why it's currently situated underneath oat and oats budget.

So the OAT ordinance that was modified timeline wise, I think it was last year, correct?

Um, that dictates that we have to have a mediation program built into the office.

Just want to confirm that piece.

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman Hernandez.

It was actually in both versions of the ordinance.

The ordinance that was enacted in May 2021 had the language of assist in mediation in May of 2024.

The ordinance was amended to say conduct mediation.

Okay.

Um, and then my last question was I mean, it was built into the order.

I mean, you're confirming that it was built into the ordinance.

So would that should how can I ask this?

Would you the assumption be or would your take be that this was something that the community still wants to see um in the OAT office?

Or I mean, I guess what has the conversations with the community been around the mediation piece specifically.

We've been at Mayor, members of council, Councilwoman Hernandez, we've been working on building the nuts and bolts of a program so that when we go into the community to discuss uh the availability of it, we can have something so we can begin enacting it every time it's been offered to a community member, uh, so long as it's been appropriate for mediation and we believe that there'll be successful outcomes from it, which the outcome is really ultimately just the conversation.

Uh, they've been receptive.

Other similar size jurisdictions show a consistent demand and need for this, and so that is why we move forward with building it.

We've been working on it.

Our mediation director was hired in uh 2022, I believe, and so has been working diligently to try to get this up and off the ground, and we're very, very close.

We have a draft operations order that's working through finalization.

So we're really hoping to be able to get this into the community and active very soon.

Okay.

Um, just sorry, just one follow-up question.

Um, the in the ordinance, you know, it's it says that we must sorry, and you and I forgot how you mentioned it, but we have to um assist in mediation.

Is there a timeline?

Is there a specific timeline of when the mediation program has to be up and running?

Um, like is there a certain date we have to meet, or is that just um at the discretion of the of the office?

Mayor, members of council and members of the public, councilwoman Hernandez, there is no mandate uh that dictates the specific amount of time that any of the mandates for OAT happened.

And when I became when I came in in February of last year, I went with what we could most likely do as quickly as possible and get that value back to the community.

So we started with our review team, we added our youth mediation, our youth outreach program, and then we've been working on mediation in the background.

But as everyone is aware, it implicates multiple city processes.

And so working with HR, working with PD, working with labor, working with procurement, working with finance, all of those things require a lot of effort and a lot of time and a lot of uh energy.

And so it's uh this is the point we're at, and we're we're very, very close.

Okay.

Um, no, I appreciate all you know, all the all the answers.

Um, thank you for that, Shannon.

And thank you, Ginger.

I I know you're you're on the uh there at the table also.

Um you know, I gotta be honest though, I am not comfortable quite voting on this contract today.

Um, I don't feel that we have enough data or that has been provided to us.

Um, and I have a lot of concerns around how we're gonna measure success in mediation.

Um, I think that just if if we're measuring success by just the mediation conversation happening, that doesn't necessarily show or demonstrate that there's gonna be change in the department behavior.

Um, you know, I think that I would appreciate more time to work with your office um on the particulars of that.

Um, also I still don't fully understand um the role of the mediators without that proper measure of success, how that is going to result in accountability um in the department, right?

Or a reduction in the police violence that our community, some of our community members are facing.

Um, I'm not comfortable on that right now.

So I would offer and move that before approving this contract um with our ville Hogan coaching and mediation, that council we come back and we require OAT to provide us data on community demand or um communication that we've had on this particular mediation program.

Um, also if we can demonstrate how the expenditure aligns with Oates mission to ensure accountability for police violence, um, in addition to exploring alternative uh uses of the funds that would go directly uh to support harmed community members um and assess the feasibility of shifting the financial responsibility, uh, if there's a path to shift that financial responsibility for any mediation services to the Phoenix Police Department current budget rather than keeping it under the Office of Accountability and Transparency.

If there's a path to shift that financial responsibility for any mediation services to the Phoenix Police Department current budget rather than keeping it under the Office of Accountability and Transparency, if though if we can't meet those conditions, I would not feel we should move forward with this contract.

Mayor, members of the council and councilman Hernandez, thank you for those points.

We can definitely take that under consideration.

The one thing that I would like to note is, and Shannon pointed out the mediation program of something that was mandated as a part of the OAT ordinance in the original ordinance language that was approved in 2021.

When Shannon was promoted to interim OAT director, we were able to get that off the ground, uh working along with Kate Oating, who was our OAP mediation director.

This contract though is just to supplement the services of the office so that we can continue to grow the mediation program.

The monies that have been allocated are coming from the OAT budget and will only be used if we have to go outside and use one of the external mediators.

So if we're not if we're able, um if the numbers don't show that we need to use external mediators, then we continue to use OAT, and then that money, those monies will be saved.

So I just want to point that out.

I think that based off of what you've expressed, there are some things that we can continue to work on jointly.

And so I would, you know, ask council respectfully if they would um consider approving this contract today, knowing that we would only spend funds if and only necessary.

The other thing that I would point out is the um the facilitated conversations, the OAT mediations that have been conducted thus far.

Um they are confidential in nature, but um, Shannon and Kate, they do do a survey from both the department as well as the um community members to basically find out what the um the experience was, and those results have been positive as well.

Um, but we can definitely follow up with your office, councilwoman, to get the information from the other um cities as far as where is the funding coming from and what success they've had, and then we can try to continue to track it as well so that we can get the data that you're requesting.

Okay.

No, thank you, Ginger.

I appreciate that.

Um, that was my biggest concern.

I mean, I've expressed those, so I still very uncomfortable with voting on it, but I will definitely take you up on working to make sure that we have um a very that we refine the mediation process and we have a proper uh measure of success um aside from just a conversation happening.

Thank you, councilwoman.

Thank you.

I think it's probably unfair to make Shannon read our minds back when we started this.

But I would say it was a council priority at the time.

We had a really effective testimony from the equivalent of OAT in Denver, and they share the office director shared how the mediation program had been helpful in.

I can't remember if this was in private or in the public testimony, but I think one of the examples was we had an officer who was quite rude with someone who was pulled over for a fairly minor infraction, and then they went to mediation, and the officer shared had white his wife had just been diagnosed with cancer, and the officer had a chance to apologize and say, you know, I it probably wasn't about you that you got that behavior.

And I think the citizen had had a rough impression of the department, but then seeing more fully what was going on and a more full understanding.

I think probably still wished the interaction had gone differently, but that they both had a chance to dialogue, did seem to have benefit to both of them.

So that was just one example we got at the time of how you might be able to have both sides learn from each other about what the other person was experiencing, and I would think that in many cases that would be helpful for both sides.

Councilwoman Hodge Washington.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just had some follow-up questions.

Um, my understanding of this is that this is the obligation to conduct mediation, it's actually codified in our city code, correct?

And how many about how many mediations do we see a year?

Mayor, members of council, councilwoman Hodge Washington.

We've only done five of the department level mediations because we cannot begin the individual officer mediations until we have the operations order in place.

We have all of those other parts and parcels because they can potentially affect discipline, they can affect processes as they go through.

So we're working on building those right now.

So we do, I'm sorry, are we saying you're we're still working on the framework, or do we have the framework in place already?

On the O side, we do have the framework in place for how we will handle those.

We are working with the department for their them to get them on their side because ultimately this requires the department sharing information with us about complaints that are coming in from the community if they don't come through O.

So we're working on how we collect that information, assess those complaints for mediation eligibility, and then how we move the folks through the process.

Okay.

And if I heard correctly, right now you're saying we we truly have one only one person in-house to do mediations, and without the assistance of uh an outside vendor to assist us or vendor to assist us, we would not be able to conduct uh the volume of mediations that we anticipate now that we are uh much more along along the process.

Mayor members of council, councilwoman Hodge Washington.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, and then there were some questions raised by my colleague regarding um need an additional or wanted additional information.

Just out of curiosity, how long would you think it would take to get that additional information?

Mayor members of council, councilwoman Hodge Washington.

I believe we could have that within a week.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh go ahead, councilwoman.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

And you know, just to be clear, I'm not opposed fully to a mediation program.

I just want to make sure that we are doing it in a way that is it's tough as from my personal experience.

It's gonna be tough for folks that file complaints and that use the mediation path to sit across from a police officer, right?

That's a very heavy task and a very heavy path to take after there's harm there's been harm done.

I just want to make sure that if we're going to do this program that we are doing it so that we have the least emotional impact to the person to the community member or the resident, right?

Like I want to make sure that we are doing it in a way that is with them centered in it.

Um so I just want to be clear on that.

Mayor Members of Council, Councilwoman uh Hernandez, absolutely, and that's 100% the focus of the OAD office as well.

Uh Kate Odding, who is our director of mediation, is an incredibly experienced uh mediator as well as a community connected and community-minded individual.

That is the intention.

The mediators will not just come in cold off the street, they're gonna receive robust training similar to what the civilian review board did to not only understand um police community dynamics, additionally, our Office, our entire team is going to be doing trauma-informed training early in January 2026, so that we can make sure that we are being uh sufficiently responsive to those community members.

There also are parameters around the types of things that will be mediated, understanding that there are certain things that may not be appropriate to sit down at the table for.

Those are all things that we are happy to share.

Um, we can come around and do briefings for all members of council as well as the mayor's office to explain uh what those parameters are.

That's part of what's in the operations orders is identifying which items and which um types of policy violations or conduct by police are actually eligible for mediation in recognition that sometimes it may not be appropriate to sit across the table.

And if I may, mayor, one more question.

Um, usually in the world in the legal world, mediation and all forms of alternative dispute resolutions are voluntary based.

So the um the individual that may be the subject of this investigation or the complaint has to both sides have to agree to voluntarily participate in this program.

Is that the same with the program as established by oath?

Mayor members of council, councilwoman Hodge Washington, yes, absolutely.

It's voluntary and confidential.

We don't force any community member to participate in mediation.

If they do not participate in mediation, the complaint that they have or the concern they have goes through the traditional complaint resolution process.

And it's also confidential in the fact that if they do proceed to uh mediation, what transpired in that mediation is not something that can be used in and further and further uh proceedings, so it does provide some level of protection as well, correct?

Mayor members of council, councilwoman Hodge Washington.

Yes, there's a state statute that governs mediations.

Our mediations would be covered by that, and that does assure that as long as it's not a threat of violence that occurs during the course of a mediation, it's protected by confidentiality.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, apologies, Mayor, for interrupting, but I just wanted to make sure that my understanding was aligned.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I want to acknowledge Councilman Robinson has been working with professional mediators on an important mediation program as well.

So thank you, Councilman, for your leadership on this.

With that, roll call.

And the role the motion on the table is the original motion for approval.

What are the other Hodge Washington?

Yes, Pastor, yes, Robinson?

Yes, Stark, yes.

Warren?

O'Brien?

Yes.

Gallego.

Yes.

Passes 7-2.

We next go to item 38, which is an intergovernmental agreement with ASU related to greenhouse gas inventory.

Do we have a motion?

I move to approve item 38.

Second.

Leonard Clark.

Hello.

I can speak without a microphone.

But thank you, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Leonard Clark, and uh I do strongly uh hope that you'll vote for this.

Uh, I want to thank this Walton family group of people here who have donated to the uh Arizona State Universities because you know man-made global climate change is a great problem for the citizens of Phoenix and is quite germane to the citizens of Phoenix as our temperatures soar into the hundred twenties sometimes.

So anyways, I strongly hope you will vote for this.

Man-made global climate change is a problem.

Thank you to the several members of the Walton family who buck the trend and are doing something to help this world.

Thank you.

Thank you, Leonard, for that important testimony.

We want to be a data-driven city, and our partnership with ASU helps us make sure we're making smart decisions and keeping track of the accountability.

Roll call.

Yes.

And on this.

Yes.

Pastor?

Yes.

Robinson?

Yes.

Stark?

Yes.

Waring?

O'Brien?

Yes.

Gallego.

Yes.

Passes 9-0.

Thank you.

Next is item 43, which is a one-stop system memorandum of understanding and infrastructure funding agreement.

Vice Mayor.

I move to approve item 43.

Second.

We have a motion and second, noting that Councilman Waring won't be participating in this vote.

This is a support for our residents to get necessary career and job training services.

And we're thankful to our economic developers as well as the Phoenix Business and Workforce Board that provides support for residents, helping them get helping them get the jobs that they want and supporting our employers in finding the workforce that they need.

Roll call.

Yes.

Hernandez.

Yes.

Hodge Washington?

Yes.

Pastor?

Yes.

Robinson?

Yes.

Stark?

Yes.

O'Brien?

Yes.

Gallego.

Yes.

Passes 80.

We next go to the planning and zoning agenda and we'll begin with item 57, which is related to the southwest corner of 21st place in District 3.

Uh I believe we do not need a staff report, so I will open the public hearing.

We do not have any comments, so I will close the public hearing.

We do have public comments.

Did we get just I'm sorry?

I apologize.

Uh Randy, we do have public comment.

I apologize to Randy and Richard.

We'll go Randy and then Richard.

Is that afternoon?

My name is Randy Marks.

I'm at 2537 East Mercer Lane.

Um today we are proposing a rezoning on the at 13425 North 21st place to rezone from R3 to R5 in order to allow for a modern multifamily residential development.

Um this is a proposed four-story building that includes one-level parking and 24 apartment complexes that would be available for the public to rent or own.

Um and our proposal to go from R3 to R5 allows for the height increase in the area in order to accommodate the amount of parking spaces that are required in order to suit this uh multifamily residential space.

Um I provided a PowerPoint presentation with visuals as well as a citizen uh participation report, and we have spent the past six to nine months um going through and and meeting with community members to review this.

So if anybody has any questions, I'm I'm happy to answer and and uh respond to anything that comes up.

All right, uh thank you so much.

Thank you.

Afternoon.

Um there's a second.

I don't know how to do this, so be your bear with me.

Um my name is Richard Picardo.

I uh am a native Arizona.

I am seventy-seven years old.

Um I have been living at uh one three, four three five North 21st place for 42 years.

That's in district three.

Um it was my four it is my four of our home.

I bought it because it is an acre, and uh that it is an acre, and uh uh could use it for um my retirement and relax.

It's a sanctuary, it's very well developed.

On July 7th, I spoke at in opposition uh at the village planning committee hearing uh which denied the uh the motion with direction to reduce the uh height, and it was denied by a vote of nine to one.

Uh in the uh summary, there were six questions and seven comments.

Um on August 7th, I spoke in opposition at the Village Planning Commission hearing, and which passed the proposal uh six to two.

Uh I want to note that there was little very little discussion during that time or questions.

The only people that did seem to question it were the two members who voted no.

On August 14, I submitted my appeal um to the ruling, which included a signed petition that has um seven neighborhood uh citizens who are also opposed to it, primarily because of the height, four stories.

We have no three-story buildings in our neighborhood, much less four.

We do have two stories.

Uh on August 29th, in three separate emails, I shared further concerns with um the office of uh honorable Deborah Starks, uh my representative, and noted um the concerns, further concerns on that.

Um those are obviously now public record, according to the email response.

Um just pressed it and it goes to the next one.

Is that what happens?

All right.

All right.

Um on page three of the village planning committee uh summary.

Um the applicant's response to my concerns about the height being three to four stories was that the proposed buildings were a distance from the street and many more feet from Mr.

Bicardo's property.

Um how do we get to the next one?

Um the fact is the distance from my northeast property line to the proposed site is 45 steps.

I put steps versus feet to indicate how close it is.

The distance from the proposed site to the back of my property is 72 steps.

In this picture, what you see right above the blue umbrella between the green house and that bush, or that long bush, is a gray roof.

That is the roof on the site that they're planning to put four stories.

So that's from the middle of my yard.

I will now be seeing versus blue skies.

I will be seeing four stories a building there, or three stories.

Um the applicant lists three or four emails of people in support of this, although none will be impacted in that they do not live in the vicinity.

One giving a tempe address and another a South Phoenix address.

Um and I both I think both of them are uh work for or work or own nonprofits, which do good things in the community, but uh they still will not be impacted with that.

As I noted, I also have corresponded uh with uh councilman Deborah Stark's uh office, and I realize that because of the holiday and that I send it so late, she may have not had time to review it, but it is uh hopefully it's in the packet somewhere.

Uh this is from the center, this is from my mailbox facing south to the proposed site.

Um so that shows you how close it is.

Another concern that I want to point out there is that um uh let's see.

On page two of the village committee summary, uh Robert Goodhue shared concern that there would be no extra parking for guests, uh, which means they would be parking in the street.

And so if you see that curve there, uh the applicant often pounced that as being you know, kind of a positive thing that with the property, and it is as it is, but you can imagine what would happen if there are cars parked there.

The building to the um right is a two-story.

That also has evaded my privacy to some degree.

Um it is in fact a uh complex for people with disabilities or of some sort, and they oftentimes walk from that corner to the bus stop.

That's a Cape Peak Road, which I think would also uh be a concern.

This is just a picture of uh my patio that faces the building that I was talking about, which shows that I in order to assure privacy uh from that building, I'd had to in fact purchase some uh curtains to allow for that.

Uh here again, um there are pictures of my backyard, the center that shows one of them is before the storm and one's after the storm that we recently had.

But again, it shows that a four-story building there uh would definitely be uh invading my privacy.

Uh I'm also concerned uh that's it for the uh the neighbors uh as far as walking, et cetera.

Um also want to note that Miss Mark Cola at the Fairwise Village Committee had asked that there be a line of sight diagram uh from the applicant to show the uh impact of the views from fourth third or fourth floors.

And I don't know if that was provided, but I would think these pictures would show that there's definitely going to be impact.

This the building they're proposing has balconies, not just windows, it's balconies.

So you can see that people could easily just stand on their balconies and look over, uh, and that would further uh invad privacy.

So those are my let's see, there's something else.

Um page four of the summary.

Uh Mr.

Gibson asked for uh asked if the R5 zoning would allow for other than multifamily, and uh Mr.

Morrick indicated it would allow some other uses as office and other restricted uses.

Uh Mr.

Goosebar shared concern that the applicant could later come in for a planning hearing case to change the plans to allow commercial use.

That is my concern as well.

Uh, and I was wondering is there a written agreement and signed agreement that that will not occur on that site.

So those are some of my concerns, and I hope that uh the council can review the minutes to the uh first hearing, especially uh in that it I felt very um felt that they were very clear, professional, and the questions seem to relate to zoning issues, um, which is why we're here.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I believe that is all of our speakers.

We'll close the public hearing and I'll turn to Councilwoman Deborah Stark, who I can personally testify did review those comments on this, and and um yes, I did, and I have just a couple questions of staff.

So in R3 today, this property could be scraped and they could build a higher building, correct?

The development standards are pretty much similar to R5.

Mayor, Councilwoman Stark, members of the uh council.

Uh you are correct, both districts have development options that allow up to four stories and 48 feet.

And that's what I thought.

And also in the R18.

I know this area in the R18 is largely ranch, but someone could build a two-story uh under R18, correct?

Mayor Councilman Stark, members of the council, that is also correct.

So I I appreciate uh the comments of the opposition, but I mean, today they could build a high building and not have to do the rezoning.

And we at the city are taking it very seriously that we need a larger housing stock to help residents.

I think the council has done a great job over probably the last eight years that I've been on council that we have increased multifamily and single family residents in our city.

And quite frankly, we assist that our staff write stipulations so that you can mitigate any negative impacts to surrounding neighborhoods, and also to make sure that the new proposal blends in.

I've reviewed the stipulations, and I think that you certainly have addressed those.

Um, I you know, in the past eight years, I can't recall the number of units that we approved, but I will say in the last two years, we have seen rents decrease by seven percent, and that's a good thing because we are addressing the issue of housing needs.

Um I've seen it with other council members having to deal with this.

Uh, councilwoman pastor along the light rails had some very dense products, but she has always insisted that we protect our historic districts.

So I think we do a really good job of that.

I appreciate these stipulations.

And so with that, I would like to recommend that we approve the planning commission and adopt the related ordinance.

Second.

We have a motion and a second roll call.

Yes.

Fernandez yes, Hodge Washington, yes, Pastor?

Yes, Robinson, yes, Stark, yes.

Waring?

O'Brien?

Yes.

Gallego.

Yes.

Passes 9-0.

We'll next move to 58 and 59, which are related items in the baseline road corridor.

We will have one public hearing, but uh we could each one would require a separate vote.

We'll begin with a staff report.

And we've already welcomed our planning and development team, Josh and Trish.

I'll turn it over to Trish.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council.

I should know we will hear from the appellant first for five minutes.

And I'm sorry, we'll hear from the applicant first for no appellant first, then the applicant each five minutes, and then anyone who signed up to comment would get two minutes.

Now turn it to Trish.

Thank you, Mayor.

Members of the council.

So items 58 and 59 are public hearings for companion items that are located approximately 1100 and 30 feet east of the northeast corner of 23rd Avenue and Baseline Road and can be heard together, but will require separate motions.

Item 58 is GPA-SM-1-25-8.

It is a request to change the general plan land use designation from residential one to two, residential two and a half, two to three and a half, and residential three and a half to five to residential 10 to 15.

Item number 59 is Z-31-25-8.

It is a request to rezone 14.37 acres from S1 to R3 to allow multifamily residential.

To the north are single family residential zoned R110 and R18.

To the west, a single family zoned R18, and to the south across baseline is a single family subdivision and single family homes zoned S1 and approved R110.

To the east are single family homes zoned S1 and commercial uh development zone C2.

The proposal is for 188 units with a mix of one and two bedroom units.

The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard these items on June 10th, 2025 and recommended approval of GPA SM 1-25 per the staff recommendation by a vote of 7 to 4 and recommended denials filed and approved R2 with a deletion of stipulation one regarding general conformance to the site plan and modification of stipulation two to require the site plan and elevations to come back to the village planning committee for review by a vote of six to five.

The planning commission heard these items on August 7th, 2025, and recommended approval of the general plan amendment per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommendation by a vote of eight to zero and approval of the rezoning case per the staff recommendation by a vote of seven to one.

Uh the planning commission recommendation was appealed by a community community member on August 13th due to concerns with the notice requirements.

Staff recommends approval of GPA-SM-125-8 per the planning commission's recommendation and adopt the related resolution and staff recommends approval of D-31-25-8 per the planning commission recommendation and adopt related ordinance.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

Does any questions?

I just have one clarification question.

Um respect to the planning commission's decision recommendation.

They did remove the um villages recommendation regarding the R2's designation, correct?

Mayor Councilwoman Hodge Washington, members of the council.

That is correct.

They um moved uh to approve per the staff recommendation for R3.

Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you so much.

So we'll begin with uh five minutes for the appellant.

Yeah, the appellant can designate someone else to speak.

If anyone speaks during the you can have as many speakers as you want during the five minutes, but if you speak during the five minutes, then you don't get two minutes later.

We'll begin with Brittany Conklin as the appellant, and then followed by Bray and Great House on behalf of the applicant.

Good afternoon, mayor and members of the council.

My name is Brittany Conklin.

I live at 7724, South 22nd Lane in Phoenix.

Uh I appealed the zoning approval of Yardley Baseline, and I will be presenting community opposition to the project today.

There were several um feedback and concerns about the development.

It's included in this packet, which I would like to give to the city clerk.

There are 10 copies for uh each member.

Um, and the it's 31 pages of letters from uh people in the community.

And because it is that long, I will focus on key themes in my presentation as you can see on our agenda.

Since I appealed the zoning approval, I've been engaging community members online, and also I went door to door.

I knocked on approximately 200 doors.

Uh, not everyone answered, right?

Um, spoke with roughly 50 to 70 homeowners and community members, collected opposition letters in your packets from more than seven nearby communities as listed.

Oh, there you go, as listed here.

Nearly all of the residents I engaged with said they had not heard about the project, and all were opposed except for one.

The number one concern among community members is the traffic and congestion along baseline road, which is a major artery and already over capacity.

Um the letters express daily gridlock, unsafe maneuvers, people driving in the middle lane and into lanes of oncoming traffic to get around gridlock, regular traffic accidents in the area, particularly at 19th Avenue and Baseline.

Concern that the density project would worsen congestion.

And many communities, uh many residents in the communities north of baseline explained that they go around, use vineyard as an exit because baseline is too difficult and dangerous to use.

This is our reality, and you can see some of the quotes.

One of the quotes I would like to bring attention to is I've lived in the community for 23 years, and I have never made a left-hand turn on to baseline from 24th Avenue.

Um, with this particular community in Yardley, there's only going to be one egress, one entrance, one exit.

That will be um severely difficult for them to exit onto baseline.

Another key concern revolves around emergency services in the area.

That first responders are already stretched thin.

Response times are at best inadequate, at worst, dismal, and that the adding house added housing uh creates more risk.

Here's some key quotes regarding emergency services.

Several residents shared personal anecdotes of their inability to get help during emergencies.

Emergency vehicle access is another major concern.

In the event of a fire, medical emergency or natural disaster, a single point of entry could delay response times, placing lives in property at unnecessary risk.

Infrastructure was another concern.

Too much housing, not enough retail.

Retail centers are not within a walkable distance.

Roads and utilities inadequate for the density.

Residents often mentioned that the retail is inadequate to support the area now, but um especially with additional housing and uh residents in the area.

Community character, I'm sure you've heard this before, but residents chose South Phoenix because of the rural community feel.

Um, as South Phoenix and Levine grows, much of its unique charm is disappearing.

Uh some of us are old enough to remember the orange groves and the flower gardens, and we do uh miss it.

Here are some of the key character quotes.

I am losing time here.

Uh thought I had 10 minutes like the other gentleman.

Uh additional community quotes because people are so passionate about it.

Lack of engagement.

Unfortunately, the developer did only the bare minimum to reach out to the community.

Nearly every single person I spoke with uh said they were not aware, including myself.

I served on the HOA, and our HOA was not uh aware of this, neither was our property manager.

Other concerns, where are we at here?

Mentioned crime and safety, noise, visual appeal, trash, quality of life, overcrowding.

I respectfully request that the city council either deny this or um approve a continuance.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And now we will welcome Brian for five minutes.

And when Brian is done, we'll go to Sasha for two minutes.

Thank you, Mayor.

Excuse me.

Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council.

Um I'm gonna go through a quick presentation and then I'll try to address some of the comments that were made by the speaker.

Um I'm sure you all know who Taylor Morrison is, very large, reputable, high-quality builder.

What you may not know is they have a brand called Yardley.

Yardley lives in a space for housing in between a traditional single single family home and a traditional multifamily development.

So it provides single family for rent for people that desire that type of community with high amenities.

See you can see the site outlined in blue here.

And this case is really about land use transitions and what urban planners learn in in urban planning school from day one.

You can see at the northeast corner of baseline and 19th Avenue where there's a EOS gym, there's a take five oil place and a McDonald's there.

As you transition north, it transitions into higher density townhomes, then it transitions again into single family homes.

Just that just like that same pattern occurs on the northeast corner.

It also occurs on the southwest corner where you have a commercial development, higher density mobile homes, and then a single family community.

It's very common and is good planning principles.

We are requesting to do the same thing on this 14-acre site.

And what we're requesting to build is a gated professionally managed single-family for rent community with 88 188 residences.

Most of these will be single family or single level, and those are shown as yellow on this diagram, and then some will be two-story, and those are the pink um homes in the in the center of the community.

This will be highly amenitized with dog park, activity lawns, uh, clubhouse, community pool.

It'll have attractive single family architecture that will fit the character of this area.

Um there will be high quality interiors, and um but why this community?

It's a reputable builder, it's a 40 million dollar investment in the area.

It provides needed housing in the area, it follows a land use transition that's appropriate.

It provides housing variety for the housing Phoenix plan.

Uh, multifamily communities support the growth of local business, and it's an appropriate density at only 13.1 dwelling units per acre.

Um, like the opposition speaker, we did a ton of neighborhood outreach on this on this site.

We started um, in fact, I started three years ago with a different developer and and Bill's team consulting went out into the neighborhood and knocked on, I believe it was 180 doors.

And Bill Steen consulting went out into the neighborhood and knocked on, I believe it was 180 doors.

Then when uh that that builder left and Taylor Morrison picked the site up, we did it again where tape where Tom Billstein's team went out and knocked on doors.

And he's here today, if you would like to hear from him.

Um 180 doors knocked on.

We got support letters from 15 businesses in the area that want more customers to support them.

Um and we also heard from 11 residents that signed letters in support who want more housing variety and options in the area.

With that, um we request your approval here tonight or today still.

Um I have slides and information on traffic if you would like to see that if you have some questions on that.

Yes, if you could take a little time to go over the issues that were raised by the appellant.

That would be helpful.

Absolutely.

These are the support letters.

So the new way we do rezoning cases is we have to submit a traffic study if it's required if it meets a certain threshold.

Uh, this site barely met the threshold for even needing a traffic study because there's extremely low uh traffic generation generation on this site.

But we submitted that traffic study, and your street transportation department approved it.

Uh, we were asked to do more studies at our neighborhood meeting, uh, which was well attended.

I believe there's 20 folks there um who were interested in this.

We were asked to look at baseline road and how much capacity it has and what the volume of traffic is on it today.

Um that's what this represents.

It's designed to um carry approximately 42,000 trips per day.

Um the green is the traffic counts that we did in early May.

So you're looking at about 30,000 vehicles per day on there today.

We will be adding approximately 640 vehicles per day, and that's the tiny little blue sliver in the middle, and then the yellow is the additional capacity on the right-hand side, and that's additional capacity of 11,000 vehicles per day.

We were also asked to look at a potential traffic signal at 23rd Avenue and baseline.

May I keep going?

Finish on the traffic conversation.

Go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

We're also look asked to look at the signal warrant analysis at 23rd Avenue and baseline because we heard some um traffic concerns there, and that's west of the site, about a thousand feet west.

It did not meet any of the warrants for a traffic signal.

Part of the problem for 23rd Avenue is that it's only built out in it hat in its half street condition, so there's not enough lanes for all the cars to maneuver properly there.

There is a housing development that was approved through a rezoning case on the west side of 23rd Avenue, which was stipulated to build out that half street with 23rd Avenue, and that will greatly uh improve that situation.

And one more thing.

If this if this was um a com an expansion of the commercial center, which it very well could be, um, that would generate a significant amount more of traffic than this 13.1 du per acre development.

Thank you so much.

I have a few questions for I want to start off by asking Law a question.

Um I want to make sure I understand the current parameters in which our we as council now operate when it comes to continuances.

Um, there's been recent changes by our state legislature regarding the time frame for continuances and um for these types of rezoning matter.

Can you tell me what that is?

Yes, Mayor, members of council, council member Hodge Washington.

So ARS um 462.11 indicates that for extenuating circumstances, the municipality may grant a one-time extension of not more than 30 days.

Additionally, if the applicant requests an extension, the municipality may grant extensions of 30 days for each extension granted.

Okay.

Thank you for the clarification.

I just wanted to make sure I understood the understanding the parameters.

Um it's uh myself, we have talked a little bit about the issues that were raised by the appellant, and I have asked um, let me ask this question.

Um you were willing to meet with the applicant, sorry, the appellant and the opposition regarding these issues prior to today's meeting, correct?

Yes, we reached out four or five times and tried to set up a meeting, and we were told they they declined the offer, and it it was they said that um it would be unproductive.

Okay.

Are you still willing to meet with the applicant?

I'm sorry, the appellant, I keep calling and the opposition regarding it to see if we can come up with if there is um information that can be exchanged and hopefully turn this into a mutually acceptable proposition.

Yes, we are open to meeting if if they will meet with us, and um perhaps we come back here in two weeks if we can do that on the 17th.

So thank you.

You actually jumped ahead to my question.

So I there are some concerns, um, and I'll just ask them for the record just to make sure we can get them.

Um we've talked about the traffic studies.

I wrote hopefully you've taken notes on what some of the oppos the concerns are that was raised by the opposition.

And um I was going to ask if you're willing to uh willing to do continuance, and you are willing to do that.

Can you tell me a little bit about what your plan would be in that time frame?

So there's clear expectations on what both sides can um anticipate during this continuance.

We can represent the traffic data that we have.

We can invite our professional traffic engineer who's licensed to study these things.

Uh we can address their notification concerns by telling them exactly.

We have maps, we have mailing lists that we get from city staff, and we posted the site with a sign.

We can talk about all the extra outreach we did, but we met all more than the minimum requirements.

We went above and beyond.

We can present that information to them.

Um tell them more about Taylor Morrison and the Yardley community, how it's managed, uh, what's in the lease, prevent you know, damage and crime in the area and all those things.

Um we can talk about amenities, how nice it'll look.

It will look really nice from the outside, and it'll be really nice to live in.

Thank you for that um overview of what they can expect.

Um, the only thing I would ask, um, I'm going to make a motion to continue.

This is the only thing I would ask is that in addition to the noted opposition, um, we would receive, I think today there were I wrote it down, but I lost my right.

And I think there was 20 or there was a number of individuals that registered in opposition to this project.

I would include that they also be invited to the conversation to ensure that we have uh a robust as comprehensive um discussion as possible.

So I want to again thank both.

Um, if I may mayor go ahead and make my motion, I would like to thank both the appellant and the applicant and the residents who share their perspective today, and your participation is what really makes this process meaningful.

In District 8, we believe it's essential that development reflects not only growth but also the voices and values of the people who call our community home.

Because I believe that more dialogue is needed, um, and to ensure that all the viewpoints are fully considered.

I will move for an continue this item to our next formal meeting on September 17th.

The goal is that this additional time will allow for further conversation and community engagement before a final decision is made.

Second.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Uh Sasha Simons hearing the motion.

Would you like to wait until the hearing?

Or if not, come you're good.

All right.

We will look forward to your comment when we hear this again.

My apologies, Sasha.

Close the public hearing.

Thank you so much to both sides for your hard work on this.

Yes.

Any for comment, Councilwoman?

No, I can just make my formal motion.

All right.

And we can do a voice vote on this.

All those in favor of the continuance, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed passes unanimously.

Uh we will.

Okay.

And councilwoman, was your motion for for both of the related items?

Correct, vote item 15.

Okay.

So we have continued both 58 and 59.

We next go to district six, item 60, which is uh 17th Street area, southeast corner with Griswold.

Uh we do not have a staff report on this one, so we'll open the public hearing.

Uh, each side will have 10 minutes.

So the applicant and the appellant.

We have two appellants in this case, but I understand Joanne uh will speak first.

Do we want to hear from the nope, we will Jim will speak first.

All right.

There was some non-verbal communication there.

Um and councilman, remind me, do we want the applicant first?

Yes.

All right, so we'll begin with the applicant and then the appellants.

And we have Mr.

Allison here on behalf of the applicant.

Good afternoon.

While my oh my presentation is up for the record, Bill Allison with you, Mora Spa, 2525 East Arizona Butmore Circle here on behalf of Sawyer Grace and Boxville Holmes, the um applicant in this case.

I've got a very quick presentation.

I will run through with you to give you the highlights of the case, and then um I'll just reserve time in case there are questions.

We are looking at the property which is at the hard southeast corner of 17th Street and Griswold.

On this map, it is the property that has a yellow star on it.

The green stars represent support for the case, and the red star represents the appellant.

Looking at the land uses in the area, immediately across the street to the west is a southwest gas office.

There is a large Catholic church campus that is northwest of that.

At the hard northwest corner of 18th Street and Northern is a small office building.

That is where my client currently offices in a portion of that office development.

Across the street from that is a 78-unit apartment project with two access points onto 18th Street.

And then obviously on the south side of Northern, there are some mix of uses condo's office hotel.

And then there are also patio homes in the neighborhood.

So it's a fairly mixed neighborhood.

We are looking at for this rezoning the property here that is highlighted with the teal outline.

My client also owns the red rectangle at the bottom of the map, but that is not part of this application.

He is on a contract to sell that to a project that is under application along 17th and Northern.

So that's not part of this application.

Looking at the zoning in the area is fairly mixed.

CO across the street to the west, CO at 18th and Northern.

Again, that's where my client currently offices.

R5 to the south.

It was an event center.

Special events happened there.

And it is under application for another classification.

This is the landscape plan for the project.

We're looking at a 9,500 square foot building.

My client is interested in a building of this size, so there's able to grow his business.

He currently has three to five people who come into his office daily.

Once a month, he has 15 people, so all of his employees will be on property for an all-hands meeting.

In the next five years, he's looking to increase his office staff by approximately five people if everything continues to chug along well.

The RO district, which is what is requested here, is a low-scale office project office zoning district.

It is intended to be a transition between commercial uses and single family.

This certainly would be the case for this particular development given the fairly large office project to the west and other uses that are in the area.

The only uses that are being introduced for this property through this rezoning are the office uses.

Every other use that is allowed in the RO district is already allowed with the current R16 zoning.

Also, there are development standards that are maximums for this district, one of which is that the building can be no more than 15 feet high.

And that is in fact the design for this project.

That is a 15-foot-tall building designed to provide a good buffer for the neighborhood.

And another look at it looking from the south.

Important, my client from the first time we met with a neighbor, which was two days before our neighborhood meeting, through the neighborhood meeting in June to the village planning committee, to the planning commission, has changed the project to address concerns that were raised by the neighborhood.

The first thing that we heard about this project was that although there was an access proposed onto Griswold, which is the east-west street on the north end of the property, the neighborhood is absolutely opposed to any kind of an access onto Griswold.

We came back to staff and asked if we could, in fact, eliminate that access point, and that was acceptable to planning and development.

It was acceptable to uh streets, it was not so acceptable to fire.

So what we're showing now on the plan is that there would be an emergency access only with a gate.

It'll be a crash gate, so only the fire department would be able to use that access onto Griswold.

No employees, no clients, no one else could actually access Griswold.

Um, there was also a discussion about what the sidewalk should be.

There is not a sidewalk in this portion of the neighborhood.

Uh, what we have proposed is that that be a detached sidewalk, so there will be a softening of the effect of the sidewalk on the neighborhood with a lot of landscaping, five feet of landscaping between the edge of the sidewalk and the curb.

Um there was a concern about what the species were that are going to be that were proposed to be planted on this property.

Uh, one of the comments we received before the Village Planning Committee was that these should only be plant materials or species that are native to the upper Sonoran Desert, and we have agreed that is actually absolutely appropriate.

We also had a discussion at the village planning committee about the level of lighting that is proposed for the project.

We're proposing really very low lighting, but that has now been memorialized in a stipulation that was placed at the uh planning commission, I believe.

Um there was discussion about noise that emanates from the air conditioning units on top of the Southwest gas offices.

Uh, what my client is going to be doing is not putting on old-fashioned, very noisy HVAC machines.

They will, in fact, be high efficiency, very quiet units that are on the top of the uh on the roof, but there also will be a solid parapet that will help bounce the noise away from the neighborhood.

Um, then finally, at the planning commission, there was a discussion about directing traffic to go south onto 17th Street when it exits the property, and that is absolutely the plan uh that that there would be signage to that effect, and my uh client will work with both his employees and his clients to direct them to go south on 17th Street to Northern rather than north and into the neighborhood.

Uh, we had a very robust two hour discussion at the village planning committee, which resulted in a T 1031 vote in favor of this with some modified stipulations.

Um had a shorter discussion, but still a good discussion at Planning Commission where the vote was 7-1 in favor of this 701 in favor of this project.

We are in full support of the ordinance that is before you today.

We agree with all of the changes that it made to the stipulations.

Uh, we believe that this is in fact an appropriate zoning uh for this property as a transition between the more intense development to the west and proposed to the south.

Um, and we believe this will be an asset to the neighborhood.

Uh, my client has officed in the neighborhood for many years.

He is looking to move into a building, as I said, where he can have the ability for some some growth of his company.

Um, he also is interested in owning his own office building, as I know many small business owners would uh agree.

So, with that, we are here in total agreement with what is before you and would ask for your approval.

Thank you so much.

Jim.

And you have up to 10 minutes uh for both of you.

If folks speak during this time period, that would be it.

Otherwise, you could speak for two minutes later.

Okay.

Mayor, counsel, please.

I'm Jim Feldhan.

I live at 1741 East Griswold.

The proposed address is 1705.

I'm about 300 feet from the development.

And um, I know they've talked to some of the neighbors, and I have made some objections.

Um, and since then uh the attorney has refused to talk to me or contact me.

In fact, I've called the office and left messages, even talked, left a message for Jason Morse, one of the um partners, and that was last week, and as of today, still have not returned, had a return call.

So I'm here today though to reiterate our position.

The city needs more residential.

This was rezoned as presented.

It's a mixed use of different types of residential.

Um, we were told that this particular property would not be good for residential because who would want to look at a CO building across the street, but our neighbors will have to look at this building.

I'm not necessarily opposed as much to this building as the way it's been done.

So we've the zoning has rezoned this for residential without any access to 17th Street.

And this is out of their proposal, and they're saying they're going to share an entrance from 17th for a future project that's going to go to zoning next week.

But as you can see from their own picture, they're not just sharing the entrance, they're also sharing their parking lots.

So there's uh this eastbound curve goes to a proposed new parking lot for another development.

So we're supposed to be zoning and planning.

My my objection, my major objection to this is that it's being piecemealed and they're gaming the system.

They're trying to get this zone without any access and waiting for another zoning at with a higher density, and then they're going to share parking lots.

They may even share the office building.

We don't know.

I think we need a little bit more transparency, and I think the council should send this back and bring this back as one development.

It's clearly being thought as and being planned by the legal firm and as one development.

They're sharing things, and I find it hard to believe that you can rezone a property without having access.

Now they did say when somebody wanted to put a sign, no left right turn on 17th Street.

We have that in our neighborhood.

There is a problem of people cutting through the neighborhood.

It really doesn't work.

Um, you know, it is a great neighborhood, a couple little attributes.

Um you've got great mountain views, you're 10 just minutes away from a whole bunch of uh great amenities within the within the neighborhood.

But I think if we are going to rezone this, we should put it, we should send it back and have them come back with a unified plan.

And the real solution is putting a light at 17th Street.

Northern is the only exit off of the 51 that doesn't have a light, and the only light is from about 20th Street when you exit the 51 to um 16th Street.

And it's almost impossible to make a right or a left turn on to 17th.

So I appreciate what the attorney says is he's going to tell his employees to use 17th Street and Northern, but it's nearly impossible.

And Southwest Gas, which uh tolerates a few cars in the neighborhood to cut through their um parking lot, are they not going to tolerate two commercial people and and be the solution that allows them to cut through their private property to get to 16th where there's a real light?

And with that, I I think we'll uh so I I really um would hope that you would uh make in a continuance and have this sent back so that they have a unified plan to present to the city council as well as the planning and zoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And just to confirm Joanne, you echo what he says, but don't need to speak.

Thank you.

Oh, go ahead.

And also, and if you could use Mike Mayor Gallego, Councilman Robinson, the rest of the Phoenix Council, thank you for giving me the opportunity to just say a few words.

I also live at 1741 East Griswold Road.

And what I would like to say is that um I believe this request and approval process is premature.

Um also request a continuance.

Um I've been in the neighborhood for four years, and um could I have a slide that shows the map that Jim the very involved with the zoning for each one of these changes?

This CO or Southwest Gas currently resides was a different office building when it first came in.

The CO at 18th Street and Northern, as well as the R2, which is currently um a large high-density apartment complex.

They've all come in after we built our house at um 18th Street in Griswold.

Um, and so we are very familiar with the changes that have occurred in this R16 area, as well as the R5, which used to be the Cedars Club for many many years.

But I um I I believe that these two properties are actually connected both by ingress and egress, which they're going to be using as a common um ingress and egress, and is not part of the current project that you're viewing today.

Therefore, that's why I think that this project needs to be continued so that both projects are reviewed at the same time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

With that, we will close the public hearing.

This is in Council District 6.

I'll turn to Councilman Robinson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, a couple of different things or uh a couple things, I believe.

May I ask Mr.

Allison to come back up to the podium to clarify a couple things for me, please.

Mr.

Allison, it was stated that the parcel just south of what we are discussing today.

Does that have anything to do with the partial we're discussing today as the same owner or anything along those lines?

Uh Mayor Councilman Robinson and members of council, no, there is no relationship between the projects, the property ownership.

Um there is no relationship.

Okay, could you also help me understand a little bit more completely the issue with the driveway and the parking lots?

Are they sharing the same parking lot?

Or would they share the same parking lot?

Uh Mayor Councilman Robinson and members of council.

The only thing that would be shared would be the access point.

Uh there would be no sharing of the parking lot.

Uh the proposal would be that if you're going to the project that is under consideration to the south, you would come in off of 17th Street, turn to the south, go into that project, which I believe will be gated.

There will be no parking provided or allowed for that development on my client's property.

Okay, thank you very much.

Mayor Frankford, the next question I have is for staff.

I don't know if it's Trish or Josh.

But if the appellant wants to um no, I'm sorry.

If the zoning case is either approved or denied, will the impact will that impact the ability to either approve or deny the zoning case on the neighboring property?

I mean, there is there any connection there.

Mayor, Councilman Robinson, members of the council.

No, you would be looking at this case um in its entirety, and then would be considering the case the other case separately.

All right.

Thank you.

Those are the things who are raised, and I just wanted some clarification.

So thank you very much for that.

And Mayor, with that, I'm ready to make a motion.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

Um I move to approve per the planning commission recommendation and adopt the related ordinance.

Second.

We have a motion and second.

Thank you to everyone who worked hard on this one.

Roll call.

Yes.

And on this.

Hodge Washington.

Yes.

Pastor.

Yes.

Robinson?

Yes.

Stark.

Yes.

Waring?

O'Brien.

Yes.

Gallego.

Yes.

This is 8-0.

Thank you.

I will turn to our city attorney to introduce the final portion of the meeting.

Thank you, Mayor.

During citizen comment, members of the public may speak to the city council for up to three minutes on issues of interest or concern.

However, the matters addressed must be within the jurisdiction of the Phoenix City Council and on which the council has authority to act.

The citizen comment session is limited to 30 minutes.

The Arizona Open Meeting Law allows the city council to listen to comments but prohibits council members from discussing or acting on the issues presented.

However, council members may respond to criticism.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have 30 minutes for this portion.

Very occasionally we run over today.

That will not be a problem.

We have six speakers and we'll have time for all six.

We do have two people who did not have a chance to speak at the last meeting, and so they will get preference and go first.

We'll begin with Juni followed Juni Bradford followed by John Forsyth.

Juni, could you signal if you're here?

Junior all right, thank you.

Hi.

Um I always have a really hard time speaking in here.

Uh I wanted to come in last week to comment on item 81.

Um, which was the uh human trafficking um item with PD getting 500,000 more.

Um I'm a survivor and I've gone through 15 years of grooming and being sold after a very violent attack at gunpoint, and years ago, something was tried to be done about it with the city, and nobody stepped in and no action was taken, and people had to come and get me out of the situation, and put me through these past five years of EMDR of trying to put me back in my body and I've wanted to take a transformative justice approach, and I noticed that the language of the uh submission was was very much transformative justice, and then I saw the there wasn't really a demonstration of an understanding of what that process really means.

And um, and for me it's about creating circumstances where we don't continue to allow these things to happen.

Um so changed behavior and transparency and accountability.

Uh, as a survivor, my head is always underwater, and the people who reach out to try and support me can pull me up to where it's still just below the water.

Um I don't have health insurance, I don't have a home, I don't have access to transportation.

I have the support of people who can get to me for a little bit, and then I have lots and lots of threats because lots and lots of people were involved with this.

Um I don't feel safe talking to law enforcement, period.

I've been intimidated by law enforcement.

I've been tried to be pushed aside and and out of the way.

Um, and the people who did this initially to me were combat military veterans.

So thank you so much for sharing that testimony with us.

John is next, followed by Rainisha.

I am John Forsyth.

I often come here talking about civil rights, but I have a problem before I do this.

Last couple of city council meetings, I've really noticed the excessive cell phone usage by the council.

I don't think it's too much to ask for nine adults to not act like teenagers for two hours and listen to the people.

Because when you're on your cell phones, you're not listening to the people.

I have seen many times everybody's heads down when people are up here speaking.

You know, if this is too much to ask, I think you need to resign.

We need to get somebody else in here.

I do have a citizen's petition, and I'm gonna need a little help on it, even though I was born and raised here, lived here more than half my life.

I'm a property owner.

I currently reside outside of the city Phoenix.

So I'm either going to need the council to do the right thing and enact this, which is no cell phone usage during council meetings, which many cities have, or I'm gonna need a resident that speaks after me to enact it.

Democracies only work one way.

This is the chamber of the people.

This is where we come to do business with our government.

We have to listen to you.

But on the flip side, if you're not listening to us, we don't have a democracy, not a Jeffersonian democracy.

Might as well burn the flag, lock the doors, and have the police arrest everyone.

We have a real problems here in the city of Phoenix.

We have we talked about Oat earlier.

Roger Smith was appointed to be the the director of OAT in January 21.

He resigned 26 months later, over a year ago, and we're still not up and running with Oat.

That's just unacceptable.

That's a lack of leadership, and that's a lack of accountability.

Two meetings ago, residents were here talking about a rezoning.

They had their attorney again.

I saw everyone's heads down when the attorney talked.

Ms.

O'Brien, you had a well-prepared speech.

Seemed like everybody's opinion was done well in advance of public speaking.

That's not a democracy.

I studied political science in college.

I've never seen anything like this.

We have unresolved issues that we don't want to deal with.

I mean, I could talk about Mr.

McAlpin, a deaf man that was beaten by City of Phoenix for not following verbal commands.

I could talk about Mr.

Kenyon, who's tortured for four minutes last summer on hot asphalt.

Miss Rodriguez, who was denied video for three years that would have exonerated her from hitting a Phoenix police officer.

We have issues that we're just refusing to deal with.

I feel sorry for the new police chief because we haven't changed anything, and we expect him to be successful.

He's not going to be successful if this council is not committed to making sure you listen to the people and change is enacted.

I'll be back in two weeks to talk more.

Here's my tradition.

Thank you.

Rainisha is next, followed by Mahmood.

Hello, my name is Rainisha Bonds, and I work at LSG Sky Chef as a cook, and I'm a member of Unite Here Local Eleven.

American Airlines today announced that Sky Chef has lost the contract with American Airlines.

And this morning, Sky Chef told us workers that we that they're going to be laying off 59% of us.

That means hundreds of highly trained workers like myself are going to lose their jobs through no fault of our own.

Sky Cafe, the company we expect to be taking over American Airlines contact is not currently obligated to retain any of the 400 trained qualified employees who do this work every day for Sky Chef.

If nothing is done, hundreds of workers, many of us have decades of experience, and will be out of work.

This is about more than just our jobs.

This is about our safety and quality of service at the airport without any workers, retention, process protection, Sky Cafe would hire people without any prior security clearance or experience and airport operations and rules replacing hundreds of skilled, experienced workers all at once, could put the airports operation at risk.

Airport jobs are not disposable, and our employment should be protected.

We need to pass a worker retention policy for our airport contractors so that the city minimizes transition costs and so qualified and so qualified workers are not losed aside every time a contract lost aside every time a contract changes hands.

We've done our jobs and we deserve to keep them.

Thank you for that testimony.

Um it's uh morning.

Morning is that they are going to lay off lay off 59 of us where workers if the city does nothing, not only will work be broke, but they airport will lose hundreds of the experienced workers.

What does the say about no we're really that our years of surf surface don't matter that our leaves can life guns be displayed or hide?

What any protection we were asking you to post his works tradition policy not just to touch my job stablish about all airport on another airport jobs are workers keeping on build a further on thank you for us.

job stablished stabilized about about all sorts of thing um and is there another airport jobs are workers giving on build our father um thank you for thank you for that testimony ursulli is next followed by leonard uh and it's you are su l eanga do we have that person i do not see she is here okay great it's certainly very brave to come here today thank you for your testimony um my name is ursinayunka um and i work um for ls just shift uh this washing and i'm a member of uh unit unit here looked hello and caroline today i know sir as skyshift has lost it contract we found uh airline and this morning sky shift talk cost workers that they are going to be laying off 59% of us that mean 100 of higher training worker like myself are going to lose uh jobs to no fault of household sky cafe the company we expect to be taking off over diamond caroline contrast is not occurring okay obligated so we train any of uh for engine training codify and prior will do this work every day of sky shift if not is done on Joseph Walker many of us have dedicated of experience experience without work this is about mountain just hard job this is about the safety and codify of service that the airport without any work with innovation protection sky cafe could hire people without any pure security clearance or experience in the airport operation and roads repressing under the skilled experience work care or as could put airport operation at risk airport job note this portion and her project could be protect we need you to pass our work a retention policy of airport contractors so that the city meet must museum that money misses transition cost and so qualified worker are not tourist inside uh every time change and we could have war and we deserve to keep them thank you so much for that important testimony leonard clerk thank you um I just want to stand in solidarity with the workers that the sky chef company and all of the workers who sweat every day here in the Sonoran desert in the city of Phoenix um this is the issue we need to make sure that safety standards are enforced for heat and I believe it's the difference between no offense a democratic city and a republican city one group believes that workers such as these should not have to work in conditions that could cause them injury sickness or death so we need to bring back law and order and I know that many of you do care about workers I'm not saying all Republicans don't on this council just the fact that they can speak here I really appreciate that and then uh I'm gonna sit down really quick but I would like to see if we can get assurances that the city of Phoenix will not have any foreign national guard sent here by President Trump.

And I know that many of you do care about workers.

I'm not saying all Republicans don't on this council, just the fact that they can speak here.

Thank you so much.

That I believe is our final comment.

We are adjourned.