Extracted text (via pymupdf)
42327 characters
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Paulo Pedrosa
To:
Christian.orr@brookfieldrp.com; Jennifer Merrill; jbulsiewicz@evgre.com
Subject:
Case #: ZON25-00693 and ZON26-00155
Date:
Friday, April 17, 2026 4:58:43 PM
Attachments:
City of Mesa Planning - Paul.docx
City of Mesa Planning & Zoning Department
Attn: Jennifer Merrill, Senior Planner
55 N. Center St.
Mesa, AZ 85201
Re: Letter of Support
Case #: ZON25-00693 and ZON26-00155
Site Plan Application / DUP Amendment
Eastmark Community Plan – Development Units 5 and 6 South
SWC of South Signal Butte Road & East Rubidium Avenue
Hi Ms. Merrill and Planning Team,
I’m a resident here in Bella Via Eastmark Community, and I wanted to voice my support
for the new mixed-use development by Evergreen (and the DUP amendment for
DU5/6S).
After looking over the plans, I think more retail/restaurants are exactly what we need (as
opposed to more industrial buildings/data centers). Mixing apartments with
neighborhood next to the planned Great Park is a great idea. Plus, it seems like a
perfect buffer between the industrial buildings to the north and the commercial spaces
on Signal Butte.
As a local resident, I look forward to seeing our community expand and hope to see this
project move forward.
Sincerely,
Paul Pedrosa
Bella Via / Eastmark Community Resident
5257 S Danta
Mesa, AZ 85212
This Message Is From an External Sender
Use caution when clicking links, attachments, or responding to information requests.
Report Suspicious
From:
Dano1988
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Case: ZON26-00155
Date:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 7:20:53 PM
I oppose the proposed apartment project. The developer appears incentivized to maximize revenue per
square foot by increasing density within the mixed-use zone; however, this approach is inconsistent with
Eastmark’s planned design and character. As proposed, the project would likely exacerbate traffic
congestion and place additional strain on an area that is already experiencing significant growth and
crowding.
Thank you,
Dan Edwards
Sent from my phone. Please excuse spelling errors and brevity.
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Jennifer Castillo
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
DU6 South
Date:
Friday, April 10, 2026 10:51:14 AM
Attachments:
image.png
Attn.: Nana Appiah and Mary Kopenski-Brown
Good morning,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the recent proposal to change the zoning
of DU6 South. There is currently a proposal to construct a large apartment complex in
this area. This letter was sent on April 1st , 2026.
According to the community plan, it clearly states:
“The residential neighborhoods of DU6 South will be single-family and/or mid-density
single-family.”
This language does not reasonably allow for the development of a large apartment
complex. My husband and I attended the meeting regarding the proposed apartments—
which would be located directly behind our home—and were told that the wording in the
community plan is “open to interpretation.” This interpretation represents a significant
departure from the stated designation of “single-family and/or mid-density” housing.
Additionally, the plan specifies that there should be a transition from lower-density to
higher-density housing. The current proposal does not provide such a transition and
instead introduces a high-density development without appropriate buffering.
In 2025, the City posted a heavily redacted version of the DU6 South Development Unit
Plan (DUP), rendering it unreadable and impossible to interpret. After concerns were
raised by residents, the redactions were removed. However, the City continues to
display only the outdated 2017 DUP on its website, despite the updated version—
approved on December 30, 2020—explicitly stating that it supersedes the 2017 plan.
This raises concerns about transparency, as the current DUP includes binding “single-
family” designations that appear to conflict with the proposed apartment development.
Furthermore, in 2018, residents were presented with a proposal indicating that the Great
Park would extend to the rear of the storage facility on Signal Butte Road. This plan
aligned with our understanding and expectations for the area’s development, including
the zoning described above.
Given these concerns, we respectfully request that all approvals for DU6 South be
paused. The Planning Director should classify this proposal as a Major Amendment and
follow the required procedures to formally change the zoning designation. This process
is essential to ensure transparency and to provide residents with a fair opportunity to
review and respond.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Jennifer Castillo
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Lorraine Goins
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Eastmark Planned Community Development Units 5/6S
Date:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 12:43:02 PM
“I object to the proposed apartment project in Eastmark. Apartments are inconsistent with the
overall demographic of Eastmark. I disagree that high density residential is appropriate for this
area. The builder is driven by profit however in my opinion it will degrade the single family
profile of Eastmark.
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Gary Smith
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Evergreen Project
Date:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 12:11:20 PM
I object to the proposed apartment project in Eastmark. Apartments are inconsistent
with the overall demographic of Eastmark. I disagree that high density residential is
appropriate for this area. The builder is driven by profit however in my opinion it will
degrade the single family profile of the
Gary Smith
Eastmark Resident since 2018
This Message Is From an External Sender
Use caution when clicking links, attachments, or responding to information requests.
Report Suspicious
From:
Christian Goehring
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Evergreen Project
Date:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 11:39:37 AM
I object to the proposed apartment project in Eastmark. Apartments are inconsistent with the
overall demographic of Eastmark. I disagree that high density residential is appropriate for this
area. The builder is driven by profit however in my opinion it will degrade the single family
profile of the area.
Regards,
Christian Goehring
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Gina Sabatini
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Evergreen project
Date:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 9:18:08 PM
As an Eastmark resident, city of Mesa resident and parent of children who attend the local
GPS school, I strongly OBJECT to the proposed apartments in Eastmark. These apartments do
not align with the vision or demographics of Eastmark.
Bringing an additional 250-600 people to our already congested parks, streets, stores and
schools is a terrible idea for the local residents.
The apartments being located near a newly constructed park will bring about safety concerns
for the local residents. We are concerned about loitering, vandalism, the safety of children
playing in the park, increased traffic, I could go on.
It is currently not zoned for high dentisty housing, and the majority of Eastmark residents are
not in agreement to change this zoning to allow these apartments. This was a poorly thought
out plan and is only based on money for the developer.
Thank you for listening to the residents of Eastmark and not putting in the apartments.
We do not want more apartments.
Sincerely,
Gina Failla
Get Outlook for iOS
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Dena Barto
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Evergreen project concerns
Date:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 3:43:26 PM
Hello,
I’m writing to voice my concerns for the Evergreen project. As an Eastmark resident I am
disinterested in additional apartments being built in an area that should have retail shopping.
The neighborhood already has a good number of less expensive rental lodging and additional
apartments are for profit not need or wants of the greater area. What would be more beneficial
to this area is small retail.
Thank you for your time,
Dena Barto
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Lynn Vittengl
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Evergreen Project
Date:
Sunday, May 3, 2026 9:08:37 PM
I object to the proposed apartment project in Eastmark. Apartments are inconsistent with
the overall demographic of Eastmark. I disagree that high density residential is appropriate
for this area. The builder is driven by profit however in my opinion it will degrade the single
family profile of the area.
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Matt Upham
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Evergreen Project in Eastmark
Date:
Friday, April 10, 2026 7:57:09 AM
Hello,
I am respectfully requesting the zoning and planning committee to delay and/or deny any
approvals related to this zoning change and project until the city and community can have a
better understanding of what is being proposed. Brookfield has a history or being deceitful to
the community and is nothing but a fraud looking to line their pockets and ignore the promises
made to the city and residents over the vision of Eastmark. Enough is enough.
Matt Upham
Eastmark resident since 2016
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Glenn Olson
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Evergreen Project in Eastmark
Date:
Thursday, April 9, 2026 9:29:50 AM
I object to the proposed apartment project in Eastmark. Apartments are inconsistent
with the overall demographic of Eastmark. I disagree that high density residential is
appropriate for this area. The builder is driven by profit however in my opinion it will
degrade the single family profile of the area.
Glenn Olson
10202 E Bergeron Ave
Mesa,Az 85212
Sent from my iPad
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Gina Romero
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Evergreen Project
Date:
Thursday, April 30, 2026 3:04:04 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
We do not support and strongly object to the proposed Evergreen Mixed use
development (apartments). Apartments are inconsistent with the overall demographic
of Eastmark. We disagree that high density residential is appropriate for this area for
a multitude of reasons.
Traffic and Road Safety: The increased volume of traffic is too high for existing
roads (Signal Butte and neighborhood arterial roadways), which will result in
congestion, dangerous access points for children and families traveling, playing
in the community shared areas with increased (and more serious) accidents
than we are already currently dealing with, considering there is a high
population of families with children in this vicinity.
Overloaded Schools & Services: Area schools, water supplies, emergency
services (police/fire), are already taxed on this area .
Overdevelopment/Density: The project is disproportionately large (density, bulk,
or height) for the site, creating an overbearing presence.
This proposal once more enforces the belief that the city has no concern for the
property owners in the Eastmark community that were marketed one master plan for
the area over ten years ago that has continuously had modifications that dramatically
conflict with the shared vision. It would go a long way with taxpayers/property owners
if for once our opinions were considered.
Thank you for taking these opinions into consideration with your current and future
planning.
Respectfully submitted,
Regina and Michael Romero
10737 E Stearn Ave, Mesa
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Crystal K
To:
Planning Info
Subject:
Formal Opposition to Proposed Residential Development in Eastmark
Date:
Tuesday, May 5, 2026 10:37:27 AM
To City Planning Representatives,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed high-density apartment project
currently under consideration for the Eastmark community. While I understand the developer's
interest in maximizing the land's utility, I believe the project, as proposed, is fundamentally
incompatible with the established demographic and residential profile of this area.
My objections are centered on the following critical concerns:
Infrastructure and Public Safety: The Eastmark area is already experiencing
significant traffic congestion. Introducing high-density housing will exacerbate these
conditions, placing an untenable strain on our current roadway infrastructure.
Furthermore, this corridor is already prone to traffic accidents; increasing vehicle
volume in such a concentrated manner poses a direct threat to public safety.
Preservation of Community Character: Eastmark was designed with a distinct single-
family residential profile. Transitioning toward high-density residential use is
inconsistent with the master-planned vision of this community. Such a shift would
inevitably degrade the quality of life for existing residents who invested in this area
based on its low-density, suburban character.
Economic vs. Civic Interest: While I recognize the builder’s drive for profitability,
these private gains should not come at the expense of the long-term stability and well-
being of the surrounding neighborhood.
I respectfully urge you to reconsider the appropriateness of high-density residential use for this
specific site and to prioritize the safety and quality of life of the current Eastmark residents.
Sincerely,
Crystal Kolosick
10144 E Tamery Ave, Mesa, AZ 85212
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Cassidy Welch
To:
Mary Kopaskie-Brown; Evan Balmer; Jennifer Merrill
Subject:
FW: FORMAL WRITTEN PROTEST - Eastmark Community Plan Major Amendment Required
Date:
Thursday, April 9, 2026 8:27:27 AM
From: Monica Miller <monicalkwasny@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2026 8:26 AM
To: District 6 <district6@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah <nana.appiah@mesaaz.gov>; Cassidy Welch
<cassidy.welch@mesaaz.gov>; Attorney Info <attorney.info@mesaaz.gov>; Jim Smith
<jim.smith@mesaaz.gov>; Travis Miller <travismill23@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: FORMAL WRITTEN PROTEST - Eastmark Community Plan Major Amendment Required
Cassidy: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me regarding the proposed amendment. You stated that this amendment is being processed as a major amendment to the Development Unit Plan 5/6 s but were not able to identify where that classification
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Cassidy:
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me regarding the proposed amendment. You
stated that this amendment is being processed as a major amendment to the
Development Unit Plan 5/6 s but were not able to identify where that classification is
stated in writing at this time. You also stated you were not able to identify where the new
Land Use Group designation is stated in writing either. Given that the notice lacks this
material information, it is imperative that the City provide written confirmation of the
amendment classification and the Land Use Group being applied. Time is of the
essence, I await your expedient response.
Monica Miller
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 at 19:39, Monica Miller <monicalkwasny@gmail.com> wrote:
Monica Miller
4211 S Nano, Mesa, AZ 85212
Mesa, AZ 85212
April 8, 2026
Nana Appiah, CIty of Mesa Planning
Jennifer Merrill, City of Mesa Planning
City of Mesa Planning Department
55 N. Center Street
Mesa, AZ 85201
CC: Christian Orr, Brookfield Residential — Christian.Orr@brookfieldrp.com
RE: URGENT — Formal Notice of Non-Compliance and Demand for Information
RE: Proposed DUP Amendment — Development Units 5 and 6 South (DU5/6s)
RE: Area South and East of Signal Butte and Rubidium Road, Mesa, AZ 85212
Dear Nana Appiah and Jennifer Merrill
I am a neighboring property owner within the Eastmark community. I am writing in
response to a letter dated April 2, 2026 from Christian Orr of Brookfield Residential
regarding a proposed amendment to the Development Unit Plan for DU5/6s (the
"Amendment").
I am writing today, April 8, 2026 — six days after the applicant's letter was dated. I am
advised that the Eastmark Community Plan requires a minimum of fifteen (15) days
notice prior to any administrative action on a DUP amendment. If that notice period
began running on April 2, 2026, administrative action could occur as early as April 17,
2026 — the day immediately following the applicant's scheduled open house.
I am directing this correspondence to the City of Mesa Planning Department because
it is the City — not the applicant — that bears the obligation to ensure that the notice
and procedural requirements of the Eastmark Community Plan are satisfied before
any action is taken on this Amendment. The applicant's notice letter is materially
deficient in multiple respects, and the City's acceptance of this application in its
current form without requiring corrective notice is itself a failure to uphold the
Community Plan's protections for neighboring property owners.
This is unacceptable. I demand written responses to each of the following no later
than APRIL 10, 2026.
1. THE CITY HAS ALLOWED THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A NOTICE THAT FAILS TO
IDENTIFY WHETHER THIS IS A MAJOR OR MINOR AMENDMENT.
The applicant's letter does not state whether this DUP amendment is being processed
as a major or minor amendment under the Eastmark Community Plan. This is not a
technicality. It is a threshold determination that governs the reviewing authority, the
notification requirements, and the rights of neighboring property owners to formally
contest this request.
Past amendments to the Eastmark Community Plan affecting Land Use Group
designations have been designated as major amendments requiring Planning Board
and City Council review, with formal zoning case numbers assigned and full public
notice provided. The City's acceptance of a neighbor notice letter that omits this
fundamental classification is a failure of its obligations under the Community Plan.
I demand that the City confirm in writing immediately whether this Amendment is
being processed as a MAJOR amendment requiring Planning Board review, or a MINOR
amendment subject to administrative approval by the Planning Director — and the
basis for that determination.
2. THE CITY HAS ALLOWED THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A NOTICE THAT FAILS TO
IDENTIFY THE PROPOSED LAND USE GROUP.
The applicant's letter states the Amendment will change the "District Land Use Group"
designation for the affected area but does not identify the current Land Use Group nor
the proposed Land Use Group being requested. A Land Use Group designation change
is substantive — it determines permitted uses, density, and intensity for the affected
area and directly impacts neighboring property owners.
Neighboring property owners cannot evaluate the impact of this Amendment, or make
an informed decision about whether to formally protest, without knowing precisely
what uses are being sought. The City's acceptance of a neighbor notice that omits this
information is a direct failure to protect the rights of the community it is obligated to
serve.
I demand that the City provide in writing immediately the CURRENT Land Use Group
designation for the affected area and the PROPOSED Land Use Group designation
being requested.
3. THE CITY HAS ALLOWED THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A NOTICE THAT PROVIDES
NO ZONING CASE NUMBER, NO FORMAL HEARING DATE, AND NO PROTEST
INSTRUCTIONS.
The applicant's letter references an informational open house on April 16, 2026. An
open house is not a formal hearing. It carries no legal weight and creates no formal
record. The applicant's letter provides no zoning case number, no scheduled formal
hearing date before the Planning Board or City Council, and no instruction whatsoever
regarding how and where neighboring property owners may submit a formal written
protest.
The City's obligation under the Eastmark Community Plan is to ensure that
neighboring property owners are meaningfully informed — not merely notified in form
while being denied the substance necessary to exercise their rights. The notice as
provided does not meet that standard.
I demand the City provide immediately the ZONING CASE NUMBER assigned to this
application and the DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION of any formal public hearing
scheduled in connection with this Amendment.
4. WHERE MUST A FORMAL WRITTEN PROTEST BE SUBMITTED?
If this Amendment is being processed as a minor amendment, I demand that the City
confirm in writing the correct name, title, mailing address, and deadline for
submission of a formal written protest pursuant to the Eastmark Community Plan and
applicable City of Mesa procedures. The applicant has no authority to receive or
process a formal protest on behalf of the City of Mesa.
5. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
I hereby formally reserve all rights to contest this DUP amendment through all
available channels. Nothing in this letter, and nothing arising from my attendance at
the April 16 open house, shall be construed as a waiver of any right to protest this
application, including but not limited to formal written protest, appearance at any
public hearing, and any other remedy available under the Eastmark Community Plan,
City of Mesa ordinances, and Arizona state law.
The City of Mesa is on notice that neighboring property owners are aware of the
procedural deficiencies in this application and will not allow those deficiencies to be
used to extinguish their rights. I expect written responses to each item above no later
than April 10, 2026.
Regardless of anything stated above, this shall be considered a formal written protest
pursuant to the Eastmark Community Plan. This written protest cannot be resolved, as
I do not agree with the proposed action. Therefore, pursuant to the Eastmark
Community Plan, this matter shall be treated as a major amendment requiring full
review by the Planning and Zoning Board and The Mesa City Council.
Sincerely,
Monica Miller
City of Mesa Planning & Zoning Department
Attn: Jennifer Merrill, Senior Planner
55 N. Center St.
Mesa, AZ 85201
Re: Letter of Support – Site Plan Application / DUP Amendment
Case Numbers: ZON25-00693 / ZON26-00155
Eastmark Community Plan – Development Units 5 and 6 South
SWC of South Signal Butte Road & East Rubidium Avenue
Dear Ms. Merrill and Members of the Planning & Zoning Department,
I am writing as a resident of the Eastmark community to express my support for
the proposed mixed-use development by Evergreen, as well as the associated
amendment to the Development Unit Plan for Development Units 5 and 6 South.
I was recently notified of both Evergreen's site plan application and Brookfield's
request to amend the DUP for DU5/6S, and after reviewing the information
provided, I believe this development is a positive addition to our community. The
blend of multifamily residential apartments and neighborhood retail is an
excellent mix of uses for this location. It provides residents with convenient
access to services while contributing to the vibrancy of the area.
Additionally, I appreciate that the development will serve as a thoughtful
transition and buffer between the industrial buildings to the north and the
existing commercial uses along Signal Butte Road. This type of mixed-use project
is well-suited to bridge those different land uses.
For these reasons, I support this project.
Sincerely,
James Justice
5729 S Coyote Canyon
Mesa, AZ 85212
jamessjustice04@gmail.com
928-380-8478
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Jennifer Merrill
To:
fondaraley
Subject:
RE: Rezoning ZON25-00693 Development Units 5/65
Date:
Monday, January 26, 2026 9:26:00 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
Hi Fonda,
Good morning and thank you for the email. Evergreen has submitted a request for ‘Site
Plan Review’ for a 261-unit apartment development, and two retail/restaurant buildings.
As part of that request, they provided a neighborhood meeting on December 17th.
City staff have reviewed the request and provided comments to Evergreen; these
comments are related to Planning/Zoning, Transportation, Fire Code, Building Code,
Solid Waste and other Departments and Codes. Once those comments are resolved, the
request can be placed on a Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board public hearing agenda. A
public hearing through the P&Z Board is required, and at that hearing, the P&Z Board will
vote to approve/deny/continue the request. At this time, the City staff comments have
not been adequately resolved, so the request has not yet been placed on a P&Z agenda.
Did this answer your question? Let me know if you need more information or have any
additional questions. I’m happy to help.
Thank you,
Jennifer
Jennifer Merrill│ Senior Planner | Development Services
Tel: (480) 644-6439
55 N. Center St │ Mesa │ AZ │ 85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
From: fondaraley <fonda.raley@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 8:24 AM
To: Jennifer Merrill <jennifer.merrill@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Rezoning ZON25-00693 Development Units 5/65
Hi We received a letter 12/1/25 from Evergreen development in regards to rezoning for East mark261 apartment units; are you able to provide status on this? We are homeowners in Bella Villa and we were not able to attend the neighborhood meeting
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi
We received a letter 12/1/25 from Evergreen development in regards to rezoning for East
mark261 apartment units; are you able to provide status on this?
We are homeowners in Bella Villa and we were not able to attend the neighborhood
meeting on 12/17/25.
Thank you
Fonda Raley
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Traci Smith
To:
lschube@gblaw.com; Jennifer Merrill
Subject:
RE: Site Plan Application Reference number ZON25-00693
Date:
Sunday, December 21, 2025 4:53:55 PM
Attachments:
Disc Golf Buffer Zone.png
Disc Golf-All.png
Good afternoon.
I am writing to voice our concerns regarding the proposed 261 unit apartment complex
planned for the vacant lot located at the SW corner of Signal Butte Rd and East Rubidium
Avenue in the Eastmark neighborhood. As homeowners who will be DIRECTLY impacted
by this plan, we are very upset and concerned for our home value and safety if this plan
gets approved. Our address is 10614 E Relativity Ave, which is directly south of the
proposed parking lot, which will come right against our back wall on our property.
We purchased our building lot in April 2018, at which time we were told we would have a
greenbelt with a citrus orchard behind us. Because of this, we were charged a lot
premium. Since that time, many things have changed, including building of a 3 story
storage facility and many warehouses, which have severely interrupted our mountain
views. Now, with this plan to build 3-story apartments behind us, any chance of a
peaceful view has been destroyed. In 2020, we received the attached images from
Brookfield regarding the disc golf course that was being built, which was supposed to be
a neighborhood amenity. We later found out that the property was sold by the developer
to the City of Mesa, who would be moving forward with the disc golf course plan. Since
then, the first phase of the disc golf course has been completed. The area directly north
of us was supposed to be a "buffer zone" attached to the disc golf course. (See attached
images). Since 2020, we have not received any information from the developer or the
city to make us believe that we wouldn't get this buffer zone.
Because we were out of state and not able to attend the neighborhood meeting on
December 17th, I wanted to make our concerns known. Hopefully we will get more
notice when a date for the City P&Z hearing is set so we are able to attend. We as well as
all of the neighbors on our street are strongly opposed to this plan and hope to have our
voices heard.
Thank you.
Daran and Teresa Smith
This Message Is From an Unknown Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Use caution when clicking links/attachments or
replying.
Report Suspicious
From:
Evan Balmer
To:
Mary Kopaskie-Brown; Nana Appiah
Cc:
Jennifer Merrill; Cassidy Welch
Subject:
FW: Urgent: Illegal Apartment Approval Requires Major Community Plan (Evergreen Apartments on Signal Butte)
Amendment - DU 6 South
Date:
Monday, December 8, 2025 6:54:18 AM
Attachments:
Screenshot 2025-11-06 at 9.16.41 PM.pdf
image001.png
FYI
Evan Balmer│ Assistant Planning Director | Development Services
Tel: (480) 644-6713
55 N. Center St │ Mesa │ AZ │ 85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
From: Monica Miller <monicalkwasny@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 7, 2025 12:48 PM
To: Evan Balmer <evan.balmer@mesaaz.gov>; sjcphx61@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Urgent: Illegal Apartment Approval Requires Major Community Plan (Evergreen
Apartments on Signal Butte) Amendment - DU 6 South
Urgent Attention: Mesa Planning and Zoning Board (Evan, you are the staff contact for the Planning and Zoning Board. I could not find email addresses for the board. Please provide Board members' contact information, or if direct contact
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Urgent Attention: Mesa Planning and Zoning Board (Evan, you are the staff contact
for the Planning and Zoning Board. I could not find email addresses for the board.
Please provide Board members' contact information, or if direct contact is not
permitted, please forward this correspondence to them immediately as this matter is
time-sensitive.)
I am writing to bring to your attention to serious procedural violations by the City of
Mesa that will cause irreparable harm to many residents of Eastmark. These issues
are part of a troubling and sustained pattern of planning staff’s intentional
misinterpretation of mandatory planning documents in Eastmark to the detriment of
the residents. The City is currently considering the approval of high-density apartment
development in Development Unit 6 South; despite explicit, unambiguous language in
the governing Development Unit Plan that restricts this area exclusively to single-
family residential uses. This is illegal and creates a direct harm to the residents.
This action requires immediate Council intervention. The Council cannot turn a blind
eye to illegal actions by the staff it is responsible for overseeing. Accepting staff's
assurance that apartments "comply with current zoning regulations" without
understanding the legal basis for this interpretation violates your fiduciary duty. To
date, the City has refused to explain how mandatory "single family" language can be
interpreted to permit apartments, or to provide any legal basis for this contradictory
interpretation. Council has a governance obligation to demand this explanation—
especially when residents paid premium prices relying on that mandatory language.
Pursuant to Arizona law, Council has a duty to act to prevent non-feasance and or
malfeasance by staff. The City of Mesa is directly liable for these actions if they do not
follow legal processes including open meeting and zoning amendment procedures
and law.
Should the City not make a Good Faith effort, Residents are preparing
collective complaints to the State Attorney General and we will pursue our legal
rights.
THE VIOLATION: APARTMENTS ON DISC GOLF COURSE
LAND
The Three Betrayals:
1. 2018: Approved as disc golf course/linear park - residents paid executive
home premiums based upon City of Mesa public plans.
2. 2022: Secretly replatted land without notice, violating Section 6's LUG
requirement and Arizona open meeting laws.
3. 2025:The City posted a heavily redacted DU 6 South DUP that was
unreadable and uninterpretable. After complaints from citizens, the City
removed the redactions. However, the City continues to post only the
outdated 2017 DUP on its website—despite the current DUP (approved
December 30, 2020) explicitly stating it supersedes the 2017 version. This
appears to be deliberate concealment of the binding "single family"
restrictions that prohibit the apartment development.
DU 6 South DUP Section 1.3.A (approved December 30, 2020) states:
“The residential neighborhoods of DU 6 South will be single family
and/or mid-density single family"
This is mandatory language ("will be"), not permissive. Staff refuses to explain how
this permits apartments and will not communicate with impacted residents in regards
to this.
Community Plan Section 6 (LUG Identification Requirement) states:
"The Site Plan and/or Subdivision are the final stage of the Community
Process. At this stage in the process whether a site plan or
subdivision plat is submitted, the selected LUG must be
identified. Development must conform to the requirements contained
within the LUGs as well as the General Development Standards."
The 2022 Open Meeting Law Violation:
By failing to identify the LUG as mandated by Section 6, planning staff violated
Arizona's Open Meeting Law. The LUG identification would have triggered required
public notice that the land use was changing from recreational Open Space land use
group (disc golf course) to residential (apartments). This notice would have informed
residents that the permitted uses in the adjacent land were increasing in intensity.
Instead, staff deliberately avoided LUG identification to circumvent notice
requirements, denying residents their legal right. This deception caused residents to
be unaware that:
· the approved disc golf course/greenspace parkland was being eliminated
· high-density residential construction was being considered
The lack of an open meeting before council prevented residents from:
· Providing public comment before a decision
· Challenge the appropriateness of a different LUG for this land.
This violation of Open Meeting Law was not inadvertent—it was strategic, designed to
keep residents in the dark until approval was fait accompli.
THE 2022 VIOLATIONS ENABLED THIS ILLEGAL APPROVAL
March 7, 2022 - Replat Without Required LUG Identification:
Community Plan Section 6 (mandatory language) states:
"At this stage in the process whether a site plan or subdivision plat is submitted,
the selected LUG must be identified."
What happened: Dr. Nana Appiah ruled LUG identification wasn't required until site
plan stage, directly contradicting "must be identified" language.
Why: If the LUG had been identified showing residential use, residents would have
known the disc golf course/linear park was being eliminated. Staff deliberately
avoided this to prevent public opposition.
My Appeal: Filed March 14, 2022. Dr. Appiah was appointed to review the complaint
and make a final binding determination. Dr. Appiah is the same person who made
the initial ruling. He denied the appeal of his own interpretation. The City of Mesa
Planning Department has no appeal process, because the same person that makes a
decision is the reviewer.
THE PATTERN: STAFF REINTERPRETS MANDATORY
LANGUAGE TO HARM RESIDENTS
The City of Mesa Planning staff has determined that apartments in DU 6 South
"comply" with the Development Unit Plan's mandatory "single family" language and is
processing the application foward for Planning and Zoning Board approval. This staff
finding of compliance—upon which all subsequent approvals depend—rests on two
fundamental misinterpretations of law and plain English.
2022: "Must be identified" was interpreted as "doesn't need to be identified yet" which
avoided mandatory notice and a public hearing requirement.
2024: "Will be single family" was interpreted to permit apartments
Both times: Staff refuses to explain how common language could be bent in such a
way. Instead Dr. Appiah has acted as both interpreter and appellate authority despite
no legal training and poor English competency and has denied residents due process
rights.
HARM TO RESIDENTS
Residents paid executive home premiums to be adjacent to an approved disc golf
course and parkland based upon publication by the City of Mesa.
The impacted residents received:
· No notice in 2022 when land was replatted and permitted increased potential
uses for the land adjacent to their property.
· No recourse for financial losses from eliminated amenity and taking of their
property rights
· No due process - appeals decided by same staff making initial violations or
ignored entirely
ZONING CHANGES OF THIS MAGNITUDE REQUIRES
MAJOR COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT
DU 6 Is Legally Defined as a Mandatory Transition Zone:
Community Plan Section 8:
"Density and intensity of this DU provides a transition from existing residential
neighborhoods to the east to the Urban Core to the west." [emphasis added -
mandatory "provides"]
DU 6 South DUP Sections 1.2 & 1.3:
"DU6 is designated as an 'Enclave' character and is intended to be a transitional
area... This transition area will be planned and developed to be well crafted"
(See below image that shows the current DUP. The largest greenspace to the
bottom right area that appears to be a large green oval is the land currently
proposed to be apartments).
The Required Gradient:
· East: Existing single-family neighborhoods
· DU 6 South: Executive homes, "lower density," "lower intensity" (THE
TRANSITION)
· West/North: Urban Core, high-intensity employment
Apartments eliminate this transition. High-density is not "lower density" or "lower
intensity." This substantially alters a required element of the Community Plan and
impacts property values for impacted residents.
Eastmark Community Plan Requirements
Major Amendment = "Any proposed change to the Community Plan
that substantially alters one or more components or required elements"
Required Process (Title 11, Chapter 9.1):
1. Formal amendment application
2. Public notice to affected property owners
3. Planning & Zoning Board hearing
4. City Council hearing and approval (cannot be delegated to staff or
Planning and Zoning Board)
5. Written findings
Even Minor Amendments require notice. If contested by ANY resident, it
automatically becomes a Major Amendment.
No such process has occurred. Staff is using deception and non-sense
"interpretation" of common English words to circumvent the only legal method for
eliminating required plan elements--the amendment process prescribed in the
Eastmark Community Plan.
IMMEDIATE COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
Residents are preparing collective complaints to the Arizona Attorney
General regarding these violations of Arizona law, The Eastmark Community Plan,
and the Mesa City Code.
I request the City Council immediately:
1. HALT apartment approvals in DU 6 South pending proper amendment
proceedings
2. Require the Planning Director to classify this as Major Amendment - it
substantively alters the mandatory transition zone and DUP land use
restrictions. The City of Mesa must follow the law.
3. Initiate formal Community Plan amendment per Title 11, Chapter 9.1:
• Public notice to affected property owners
• Planning & Zoning Board hearing
• City Council hearing and decision (not delegable to staff)
• Written findings addressing transition zone elimination and
traffic/safety studies to understand impact of more intensive use
4. Provide immediate notice to disc golf course adjacent residents denied
notice in 2022 and 2025
5. Establish independent appeal review - the same person cannot interpret
rules and hear appeals of their own interpretations
6. Post current DUP documents on City website as required by Arizona law and
remove redactions that hide illegal activity by the Planning Department
7. Investigate 2022 and 2025 Pattern Raising Serious Legal and Ethical
Concerns: The Planning Department's actions surrounding DU 6 South reveal a
pattern that raises serious legal concerns about deliberate circumvention of public
oversight and mandatory procedural requirements.
Time is critical. The Planning & Zoning Board hearing is forthcoming. Once
approved, reversal becomes exponentially more difficult. This hearing must be
delayed until this matter is properly investigated.
I am available to discuss this matter and provide additional documentation. I have a
wealth of information archived documenting these issues.
(I have attached the current DUP for this land. It is not published on the website.) The
final plat for the Disc Golf Course that show the land was a single tract (plat). The
result of the replat--land subdivided with no notice
Respectfully,
Monica Miller
Attached: