Extracted text (via pymupdf)
40762 characters
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK COUNCIL MINUTES March 23, 2026 The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on March 23, 2026, at 5:54 p.m. COUNCIL PRESENT COUNCIL ABSENT OFFICERS PRESENT Mark Freeman Scott Somers Rich Adams Jennifer Duff Alicia Goforth Francisco Heredia Dorean Taylor None Scott Butler Holly Moseley Jim Smith Mayor’s Welcome. Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call. Invocation by Pastor Gregory Dansby at Holy Temple Church of God in Christ. There were no awards, recognitions, or announcements. Items on the agenda were discussed out of order, but for purposes of clarity will remain as listed on the agenda. 1. Take action on all consent agenda items. All items listed with an asterisk (*) will be considered as a group by the City Council and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered as a separate item. If a citizen wants an item removed from the consent agenda, a request must be made prior to the Council’s vote on the consent agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Heredia, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that the consent agenda items be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None Carried unanimously. Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 2 *2. Approval of minutes of previous meetings as written. Minutes from the Study Session held on January 22, 2026, and the Regular Council meeting held on March 9, 2026. 3. Take action on the following liquor license applications: *3-a. Gin’s Smoke Shop A tobacco shop is requesting a new Series 10 Beer and Wine Store License for ME Global 1 LLC, 1927 North Gilbert Road, Suite 2 - Jeffrey Craig Miller, agent. There is no existing license at this location. (District 1) *3-b. Paladino’s Italian Eatery A restaurant that serves lunch and dinner is requesting a new Series 12 Restaurant License for Paladino’s Italian Eatery LLC, 2711 South Alma School Road, Suite 4 - Richard Thomas Slayton, agent. There is no existing license at this location. (District 3) *3-c. La Tienda One Stop A convenience store is requesting a new Series 10 Beer and Wine Store License for La Tienda One Stop LLC, 1620 West University Drive, Suite #1, Michael Raymond Kaffer Jr, agent. The existing license held by SRI Sairam Foods LLC will revert to the state. (District 3) *3-d. Happy Food Mart A convenience store is requesting a new Series 10 Beer and Wine Store License for Kaur B LLC, 406 North Country Club Drive - Bhupinder Kaur, agent. The existing license held by Sapra Businesses LLC will revert to the State. (District 3) *3-e. Mommas Soul Lounge LLC A restaurant that serves lunch and dinner is requesting a new Series 12 Restaurant License for Mommas Soul Lounge LLC, 1038 East Main Street - Brandon Damar Joyner, agent. There is no existing license at this location. (District 4) *3-f. Salt Sea and Land Tacos A restaurant that serves lunch and dinner is requesting a new Series 12 Restaurant License for S.A.L.T. II LLC, 2853 South Sossaman Road, Suite 108 - Enrique Uresti Apodaca, agent. There is no existing license at this location. (District 6) 4. Take action on the following contracts: *4-a. See: Items not on the Consent Agenda *4-b. Three-Year Term Contract with Two-Year Renewal Options for Streetlight Painting Services for the Transportation Department. (Citywide) The City maintains approximately 45,968 streetlights, of which 4,961 are painted. This contract covers streetlight painting services, including the preparation, painting, and Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 3 restoration of existing streetlight poles, luminaires, arms, cabinets, and related accessories. Work will be performed at designated locations, with additional services provided on an as needed, where needed basis. The Transportation Department and Procurement Services recommend awarding the contract to the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, OLS Restoration, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $118,149 annually, with an annual increase allowance of up to 5% or the adjusted Consumer Price Index. *4-c. See: Items not on the Consent Agenda *4-d. See: Items not on the Consent Agenda 5. Take action on the following resolutions: *5-a. Approving and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an option to lease and option to purchase agreement; ground lease; and purchase and sale agreement between the City of Mesa and Helix Apartments, to lease and for the development and sale of approximately 0.92-acres of City-owned land southwest of the intersection of Center Street and University Drive. (District 4) *5-b. See: Items not on the Consent Agenda *5-c. See: Items not on the Consent Agenda 6. Introduction of the following ordinances and setting April 6, 2026, as the date of the public hearing on these ordinances: *6-a. ZON25-00774 "Blue Sky Pest Control." 2.4± acres located at the northwest corner of East Ray Road and South 71st Street. Major Site Plan Modification and amending Conditions of Approval No. 1 and No. 2 of Ordinance No. 5699. This request will allow for a 26,000± square foot industrial building. (District 6) Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions P & Z Board Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0) *6-b. ZON25-00326 "RMDC Dance Studio." 1± acres located approximately 350± feet east of the southeast corner of East Warner Road and South Mountain Road. Rezone from Limited Commercial (LC) to Limited Commercial with a Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay (LC-BIZ) and Site Plan Review to allow for the development of a 15,344± square foot commercial building. (District 6) Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions P & Z Board Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Vote: 6-0) Items not on the Consent Agenda 4-a. Use of a Cooperative Contract for the Purchase of Emergency Communications Eventide 911 Solution (Replacement/Upgrade) for the Department of Innovation and Technology. (Citywide) Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 4 The current Verint (911) recording system is reaching end-of-life and has experienced ongoing and unresolved performance issues, including garbled or incomplete audio, inconsistent screen captures, and missed line recordings. After a thorough review of available systems, Eventide has been identified as the most suitable replacement based on its proven reliability, user-friendly interface, and advanced capabilities, including the Critical Insights package, which will significantly improve our ability to automate quality assurance reviews and streamline public records searches and redactions. Eventide Communications’ Critical Insights AI (CI AI) is AI-driven training, automated QA, and operational analytics for public safety communications. It accelerates onboarding with simulation and e-learning, evaluates 100% of calls with automated QA and CAD validation, and provides coaching and performance dashboards. CI AI also supports workforce wellbeing and retention through stress monitoring, automated transcription and reporting, AI call summaries, and recognition of exemplary 911 calls. The solution for the Mesa Police Dispatch and the Mesa Public Safety Support Department - Call Taking, will replace an end-of-life Verint system while the solution for Mesa Fire and Medical will be an upgrade to their existing Eventide solution. The Department of Innovation and Technology and Procurement Services recommend authorizing the purchase using the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) cooperative contract with Goserco, in an amount not to exceed $647,200, based on estimated requirements. It was moved by Councilmember Heredia, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that the Cooperative Contract for the Purchase of Emergency Communications Eventide 911 Solution (Replacement/Upgrade) for the Department of Innovation and Technology be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None ABSENT– Adams Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present. 4-c. Three-Year Use of a Cooperative Term Contract with Seven One-Year Renewal Options for the Purchase of a Capital Planning and Asset Management Solution for the Department of Innovation and Technology for the Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities and Facilities Management Departments. (Citywide) This purchase will provide the Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities and Facilities Management Departments with a facility condition assessment and asset management software platform to support facility lifecycle planning and capital renewal forecasting. It includes two purchases from Gordian Group. The first will be Onsite Facility Condition Assessments to document building system conditions and identify maintenance and capital renewal needs. The second service is a Cloud-based Asset Management and Capital Planning Software to store assessment data, track facility conditions, prioritize projects, estimate costs, and support long-range capital planning. Implementing these services will establish a consistent, data-driven framework for evaluating facility conditions, prioritizing capital projects, and improving long-range financial planning. The Department of Innovation and Technology and the Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities and Facilities Management Departments and Procurement Services recommend authorizing the purchase using the Sourcewell cooperative Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 5 contract with the Gordian Group in total amounts not to exceed $1,212,028 for Years 1 - 3 combined, and $76,240 annually for Years 4 - 10, with an annual increase allowance of up to 5%, or the adjusted Consumer Price Index. It was moved by Vice Mayor Somers, seconded by Councilmember Heredia, that the Three- Year Use of a Cooperative Term Contract with Seven One-Year Renewal Options for the Purchase of a Capital Planning and Asset Management Solution for the Department of Innovation and Technology for the Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities and Facilities Management Departments be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None ABSENT– Adams Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present. 4-d. North Higley Lift Station and Thomas Road Sewer Project - Northeast Mesa, Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR). (District 5) The North Higley Lift Station and Thomas Road Sewer project’s service area is approximately 350 acres in size and includes the American Leadership Academy, Sunshine Acres, Amazon, Longbow Golf Club, Home 2 Suites, Longbow Marketplace, Ascend at Longbow Highpoint, as well as industrial uses and undeveloped land. The project’s goals are to increase capacity, as well as address underserved areas and deteriorating infrastructure. Additionally, the project will reduce flows currently sent to the Star Valley Lift Station, which is near capacity. Improvements include a lift station at the northeast corner of Higley Road and East Longbow Parkway, sanitary sewer lines and appurtenances in East Thomas Road, Higley Road and East Longbow Parkway, and CIPP lining of existing sanitary sewer force mains. Staff recommend that Council approve the selection of Garney Companies, Inc. as the CMAR for this project and award a Pre-Construction Services contract in the amount of $284,500. This project is funded by the Wastewater Utility Capacity Fee. Luimar Zibetti Garza, address unknown, requested clarification regarding the purpose of the proposed lift station and its relation to agenda Item 7, and what the amount allocated for pre- construction services will include. City Manager Scott Butler clarified the proposed item is not related to agenda Item 7, and the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) contract will be used for pre-construction services related to construction of the North Higley Lift Station and Thomas Road Sewer Project. Nathan Allen, a Mesa resident, expressed concern about the City of Mesa’s (COM) water conservation messaging over the past three years, and noted the contrast with approving water- intensive uses such as data centers, golf courses, and water parks during a water crisis. City Engineer Lance Webb confirmed that the proposed item is related to wastewater collection in a developing area of northeast Mesa and stated that a contractor will be engaged to initiate construction efforts. Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 6 Water Resources Director Joseph Giudice added that a sewer lift station will increase system capacity for removal of wastewater from the area and will support development on currently undeveloped land while addressing existing capacity constraints. He pointed out that the treated wastewater is delivered to the Gila River Indian Community for irrigation, in exchange for Central Arizona Project (CAP) water to meet the COM’s overall water demands. It was moved by Councilmember Goforth, seconded by Councilmember Heredia, that the contract for the North Higley Lift Station and Thomas Road Sewer Project be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None ABSENT– Adams Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present. 5-b. Modifying fees and charges for the Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities Department. (Citywide) It was moved by Councilmember Heredia, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that the modifications to fees and charges for the Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities Department be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None ABSENT– Adams Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present. 5-c. Modifying fees and charges for Falcon Field Airport. (Citywide) City Attorney Jim Smith stated that the proposed Falcon Field fees and charges include landing fees intended to help make the airport as financially self-sustaining as possible. He clarified that the fees are not being proposed to reduce noise or flight traffic, discriminate against any specific user, or favor one similarly situated user over another, noting that such actions are not permitted under Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) rates and charges policy. He asked that public comments be made with that distinction in mind. The following citizens expressed opposition to Agenda Item 5-c: • Ellie Paget, a Mesa resident • Dan Streutfert, a Fountain Hills resident and Falcon Field hangar tenant • James Maxcy, a Mesa resident • Brent Crow, a Mesa resident • Trent Heidtke, a Fountain Hills resident and long-term Falcon Field tenant • Curtis Brunjes, a Chandler resident and aircraft owner • Carl Storckman, a Mesa resident and owner of Legion Air located at Falcon Field • Todd Bristol, a Mesa resident and tenant at Falcon Field • Chris Nugent, a Mesa resident and representative for the Arizona Pilots Association Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 7 • Thomas Noon, a Mesa resident and owner of Leopard Aviation • Steven Devine, a Gilbert resident and owner of Aero Angel • Stephen Holt, a Mesa resident and representative of the Young Eagles at Falcon Field • John Keith, a Gilbert resident and representative of the FAA Safety Team • Kerry MacPherson, a Mesa resident • Chris Goetz, a Gilbert resident • Steven A. Lewis, a Mesa resident • Greg Hadley, a Mesa resident and owner of Simply Flight School • Kaye Hunsaker, a Mesa resident • David Lee Beaty, a Mesa resident • Connor Hilly, a Mesa resident • Jacob AbuKhader, a Mesa resident The above speakers offered a series of concerns with the proposed fees including, but not limited to the following: • Potential harm to the airport’s aviation ecosystem. • Reduced accessibility to pilots. • Proposed fees would change the character of Falcon Field. • Safety issues, such as pilots turning off transponders to avoid detection. • Lack of transparency. • Negative impact on nonprofit programs that provide affordable opportunities to students. • Additional costs could cause flight training activity to relocate to other airports. • Increased costs would impact flight schools and reduce access to aviation training. • Proposed fees would threaten airport users, future aviators, and the airport’s long-term viability. • Multiple touch-and-go landings are often necessary for practice and the monthly exemption may not be sufficient. • Proposed fees could shift traffic to other airports and reduce business activity at Falcon Field. • Proposed fees would increase the cost of practice and safety training, reduce flight activity, and negatively affect jobs, fuel sales, and student participation. Several speakers offered suggestions and alternatives such as: • Increasing existing revenue sources, such as fuel flowage fees and ground lease rates. • Applying landing fees only to aircraft not based at Falcon Field. • Complete a full analysis before considering fees. • Consider giving Falcon Field the same support as Mesa gives to Mesa Gateway Airport. • Engage participation from other involved stakeholders. • Establish a Falcon Field user group or advisory board to consider alternatives. • Revisit the Fly Friendly program to help address resident concerns. • Consider a fee structure that supports Falcon Field’s competitiveness without discouraging the activity that sustains the airport. • The City of Mesa should review airport staffing, spending practices, and overall fiscal management prior to implementing fees. • Explore other funding solutions, including opportunities tied to future business growth and development. Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 8 The following citizens provided comments in support of Agenda Item 5-c: • Mike Sperry, a Mesa resident • Dan Weitzel, a Mesa resident and representative for Neighbors of Falcon Field • David Winstanley, a Mesa resident • Gus Palmisano, a Mesa resident and representative for District 5 homeowners • Emanuel Lucero, a Mesa resident and designated speaker for the residents of Sky Mountain Estates • Robert Graham, a Mesa resident • James McCartney, a Mesa resident • Kevin Criddle, a Mesa resident • Mark Hunsacker, a Mesa resident • Jeff Whiteman, a Mesa resident and business owner • Justin Durand, a Mesa resident • Art Jordan, a Mesa resident • Carey Davis, a Mesa resident • Darcey Hulsh, a Mesa resident The speakers offered a series of supportive comments including, but not limited to, the following in relation to the proposed fees: • Airport users should bear the cost of airport operations. • Airport costs could be shifted to taxpayers and costs should align with the use. • Airport users, particularly for commercial purposes, should bear the cost of runway repairs and maintenance. • As the city continues to grow, costs will increase and the current airport model is not sustainable for the long term. • The proposed fee structure, including landing fees, is a reasonable way to address maintenance and funding needs and help preserve Falcon Field as a viable long-term asset. • Ongoing airport development and business activity could help offset any reduction in repetitive training flights. • Any reduction in traffic could be offset over time by other aviation activity. • The City of Mesa provides the infrastructure that supports the business activities and airport users, including flight schools, should pay the costs associated with that use. • Deferred maintenance costs of the airport must be addressed. • Increased flight training activity at Falcon Field has caused negative effects to the surrounding neighborhoods that should not be accounted for with taxpayer resources. Mr. Smith reiterated that noise and air traffic are not factors to be considered in establishing the proposed fee and stated that such comments should not form the basis for the Council’s decision. He emphasized that the fee should be evaluated only on the stated basis presented at the beginning of the discussion. Mr. Butler explained that Falcon Field operates as an enterprise fund and is intended to function as a self-sustaining business. He stated that the proposed fees are intended to support the infrastructure and maintenance that directly benefit airport operations and help ensure the airport remains financially sustainable for its users. Responding to comparisons with Mesa Gateway Airport, Mr. Butler clarified that Mesa Gateway is not comparable to Falcon Field because it is a separate legal entity governed by an airport Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 9 authority established under state statute, with Mesa participating as one of several member jurisdictions. In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor related to a public display of a waitlist, Falcon Field Airport Director Corinne Nystrom explained why the current wait list system does not support publicly displaying applicant status. She reported that staff are exploring a new database system that could allow applicants to view their place on the list using an assigned number. She added that staff can currently provide wait list status by phone or email upon request. Responding to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, Ms. Nystrom commented that Falcon Field finances were restructured using the FAA-supported cost center model, separating the airport into ground leases, city-owned hangars and tiedowns, and the airfield. She reported that the hangar and tiedown cost center was previously found not to be self-sustaining, leading to a Council-approved, multi-year rate increase plan with annual review, and identified the airfield and ground leases as the remaining cost centers. In response to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, Mr. Butler confirmed that land sale proceeds previously used to help sustain airport operations were running out and changes to the airport’s financing approach were necessary to be sustainable. Ms. Nystrom confirmed that staff had reviewed several alternatives in addition to landing fees, including an increase in the fuel flowage fee, but noted that fuel pricing is sensitive because Falcon Field has limited fuel providers and airport users have many choices in the Phoenix area. She added that setting fuel-related charges too high could require operators to pass costs on to customers and could make Falcon Field less competitive with other airports. Responding to additional questions from Vice Mayor Somers, Ms. Nystrom stated that some exemptions are included in the proposal and that medical flights, including Angel Flight, are among them. She pointed out that staff researched numerous airports across the United States to verify fees charged and considered the information when estimating the required fee to recommend. She reported that the actual impact is unknown and that the 10 percent estimate was used as a planning assumption because a larger projected reduction would have required a higher recommended fee. She stated that, if approved, staff would monitor the data and review the results after six months to one year to better understand the actual decline and adjust future fees accordingly. Mr. Smith added that an initial assessment assumed a higher percentage reduction in activity, which would have resulted in a higher landing fee, and that the estimate was later reduced to 10 percent as a more conservative or optimistic assumption to keep the proposed fee lower. He noted that the estimate may need to be revisited after implementation and that the fee could be adjusted in the future based on actual results. Ms. Nystrom commented that it is difficult to compare airports because each airport operates under unique circumstances. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duff, Ms. Nystrom acknowledged the value of programs such as Young Eagles but stated that staff focused on exemptions that could be more clearly tied to emergency or community service functions, such as medical flights, and said it would be administratively difficult to distinguish educational or volunteer flights from regular operations. Mr. Butler reiterated that the fee would apply only after the first 10 landings. Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 10 Ms. Nystrom stated that staff initially considered using ADS-B data through a third-party vendor, but due to federal and state legislative concerns, a more traditional camera-based system to photograph aircraft on landing would likely be used instead. She reported that the airport had participated in 17 stakeholder meetings since December, including 15 hosted by the airport, to explain the proposal, answer questions, and receive feedback. Councilmember Duff suggested that, if the fees are adopted, Council may wish to revisit airport operations after a year and consider whether a stakeholder board could be helpful in evaluating what is working and what adjustments may be needed. Councilmember Adams acknowledged the difficulty of raising fees and that concerns about potential impacts on customers and airport businesses are legitimate. He described the issue as both complicated and straightforward, noting that Falcon Field is an enterprise fund that, under FAA guidance, is expected to be as self-sustaining as possible. He stated that, while many residents may never directly use the airport, the airport also has broader economic ties to the community. In response to a question from Councilmember Adams, Ms. Nystrom confirmed that deferred maintenance is beginning to affect safety at the airport and that staff have made a reasonable effort to review comparable airports, gather stakeholder input, and evaluate the issue from multiple perspectives. Councilmember Adams stated that, although the proposal is not popular and some users will be more affected than others, the COM has a responsibility to find a balanced and fiscally responsible solution. Mr. Butler added that staff had conducted thorough due diligence, carefully reviewed FAA regulations and the airport’s long-term needs, and concluded that the proposed fees are a reasonable way to support a safe, reliable, and financially sustainable airport. In response to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Jill Casson Owen, Partner at Snell & Wilmer, expressed her legal opinion that the COM has complied with applicable FAA requirements related to the adoption of new airport rates and listed certain information that was made available to aeronautical users during the consultation process per FAA requirements. She verified that this information had been posted on the COM and airport websites prior to the consultation meetings. In response to questions from Councilmember Goforth, Ms. Nystrom stated that staff reviewed a wide range of options used at other airports, including annual business fees, flight-hour charges, and fuel flowage fees, but concluded that those alternatives would not generate enough revenue to address the airfield cost center shortfall. She discussed the annual cost to operate the airfield cost center and the methods considered to apply the costs most equitably to all airport users. She reported that staff concluded that a landing fee was the most appropriate method to distribute costs more evenly and confirmed that the FAA supports the cost center approach and that many airports across the country use it. She explained that, through a third- party vendor system, landing fees would be tied to the aircraft tail number and owner, with each aircraft receiving 10 landing fee credits. Councilmember Goforth expressed appreciation for all those involved in the discussion, emphasizing that Falcon Field is an important asset to the community. She clarified that the decision is solely for the purpose of ensuring the airport remains financially sustainable. She noted that past approaches, such as relying on one-time land sales, deferring maintenance, and Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 11 implementing temporary fixes, have reached their limits and highlighted a structural gap in the airfield cost center. She explained that FAA and state grants cannot be used for ongoing maintenance, and using broader taxpayer funds to subsidize airport operations would not be consistent with how other COM assets are funded and would lack transparency. She emphasized the importance of following FAA requirements and maintaining a self-sustaining model. She confirmed that the process had been thorough, and that further delay would not improve the situation but would likely increase costs and reduce capital investment. She confirmed that for long-term success, costs should be shared by airport users rather than subsidized by Mesa taxpayers and indicated her support for the fees. It was moved by Councilmember Adams, seconded by Councilmember Goforth, that the modification to the fees and charges for Falcon Field Airport be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor NAYS – None Carried unanimously. (Mayor Freeman declared a recess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:41 p.m.) (At 8:41 Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Adams from the remainder of the meeting.) 7. Conduct a public hearing and take action on the following minor General Plan amendment resolution, take action on the following zoning case ordinance, and take action on the following development agreement resolution, all relating to a proposed development known as "Mesa Premier RV & Boat Storage". 7-a. ZON25-00673 "Mesa Premier RV & Boat Storage Phase II GPA." 13.7± acres located approximately 265 feet east of the southeast corner of North Higley Road and East Thomas Road. Minor General Plan Amendment to change the Placetype from Local Employment Center to Industrial. (District 5) Staff Recommendation: Adoption P & Z Board Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Vote: 5-0) 7-b. ZON24-01027 "Mesa Premier RV & Boat Storage Phase II." 13.7± acres located approximately 265 feet east of the southeast corner of North Higley Road and East Thomas Road. Rezone 3.5± acres from Single Residence-90 (RS-90) to Light Industrial with a Planned Area Development Overlay (LI-PAD), Rezone 10.2± acres from LI-PAD to LI with a new PAD, modification of a Council Use Permit, and Major Site Plan Modification. This request will allow for an RV and Boat Storage Facility. (District 5) – Ordinance No. 6004 Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions P&Z Board Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Vote: 5-0) 7-c. Approving and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a First Amendment to the Development Agreement between R & S Development Group LLC and the City of Mesa Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 12 for property generally located at the southeast corner of East Thomas Road and North Higley Road. (District 5) Luimar Zibetti Garza, address unknown, requested information related to the first amendment to this agreement and questioned if this item is related to agenda Item 4-d. Mr. Smith confirmed that the two items were unrelated and had previously gone before the Council. He noted that the current request would allow the self-storage expansion to move into another phase. Reese Anderson, Attorney at Pew & Lake and representative of the property owner, explained that the project involves an existing RV and boat storage use that was approved several years ago. He stated that an agreement was already in place, permits had been pulled to begin Phase 1, and sewer connection fees had been paid. He noted that the proposed changes resulted from the acquisition of an additional four acres offered by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), increasing the site from 10 to 14 acres. He added that the additional acreage would be incorporated into the existing permitted plans and could not be used independently. Responding to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Planning Director Mary Kopaskie- Brown confirmed that no additional neighborhood meetings had been held; however, notices were mailed to properties within 1,000 feet of the site, and 41 properties in the vicinity received notice of the project. She added that while an additional meeting was not required under the Zoning Ordinance, City policy encourages applicants to seek neighborhood feedback. Councilmember Goforth requested a continuation of this item to allow additional time for the neighborhood to review the plans and ask questions. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed amendments to the Development Agreement. Mayor Freeman stated that pending no objection from the Council, agenda Items 7-a through 7- c will be voted on in one motion. It was moved by Councilmember Goforth, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that agenda items 7-a through 7-c be continued to the April 6, 2026, City Council Meeting. Discussion ensued relative to continuing the Mesa Premier RV & Boat storage items. In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Councilmember Goforth stated that one resident contacted her regarding the proposed project. Principal Planner Evan Balmer displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1) Mr. Balmer verified that while the overall use of the site remains boat and RV storage, several changes were made between Phase 1 and Phase 2, which he listed, including an amended development agreement that further restricts certain future uses on the site. He added that the project includes landscaping that exceeds code requirements to enhance the appearance along Thomas Road and meets all applicable screening and landscaping standards. He pointed out that staff recommended approval, and the Planning and Zoning Board also recommended approval by a 5-0 vote. (Page 8 of Attachment 1) Additional discussion ensued regarding changes to the project since the original Council approval. Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 13 After discussion, Councilmember Goforth amended the motion to continue agenda Items 7-a through 7-c to the April 20, 2026, Council meeting, and Vice Mayor Somers concurred with the amendment. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Somers–Goforth–Taylor NAYS – Freeman–Heredia–Duff ABSENT– Adams Mayor Freeman declared the motion failed. It was moved by Councilmember Duff, seconded by Councilmember Heredia, that agenda Items 7-a through 7-c be approved. Upon tabulation of votes, it showed: AYES – Freeman–Somers–Duff–Heredia NAYS – Goforth–Taylor ABSENT – Adams Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried by majority vote of those present. 8. Items from citizens present. Jason Smithson, a Mesa resident, encouraged the Council to take proactive steps to address drink spiking and noted that such incidents are difficult to detect and frequently go unreported. He referenced findings from an Arizona State University focus group and recommended measures such as requiring establishments that serve alcohol to provide drink-spiking prevention kits and posting clear signage about available tools and how to report concerns. Kevin Tetu, a Mesa resident, addressed the Council in opposition to the 287(g) Cooperation Agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He shared that he is an immigrant and a naturalized U.S. citizen, and spoke about the challenges, uncertainty, and unequal pathways involved in becoming a citizen. He pointed out that immigrants are often unfairly reduced to stereotypes despite being workers, neighbors, and families, and urged the Council to respond with dignity, empathy, and understanding rather than fear. David Winstanley, a Mesa resident, discussed the use of localized taxing districts to fund amenities and redevelopment, citing the Eastmark Great Park and the Palo District as examples. He said the COM should have a broader discussion about differing visions for the city’s future and suggested that district-specific amenities and transit investments should be supported through localized funding mechanisms with local representation. 9. Adjournment. Without objection, the Regular Council Meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Regular Council Meeting March 23, 2026 Page 14 ________________________________ MARK FREEMAN, MAYOR ATTEST: ___________________________________ HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of the City Council of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 23rd day of March 2026. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. ________________________________________ HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK sr (Attachment – 1) City Council ZON25-00673 March 23, 2026 Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director Evan Balmer, Assistant Planning Director 1 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 10 Request • Minor General Plan Amendment • Local Employment Center Placetype to Industrial Placetype 2 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 10 Location • East side of Higley Road • South side of Thomas Road 3 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 10 Zoning • Current: LI-PAD and RS-90 • Proposed: LI-PAD 4 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 10 General Plan Current – Local Employment Center • Support low-intensity uses compatible with residential uses • Does not support warehousing and storage land uses • Zoning districts: OC, NC, LC, GC, PEP, LI, EO, PS 5 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 10 General Plan • Industrial Areas with uses such as manufacturing, warehousing and storage, data storage, freight and distribution • Warehousing and Storage is a principal land use • Zoning districts: LI, GI, HI, EO Proposed - Industrial 6 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 6 of 10 General Plan Amendment Approval Criteria 1. The Proposed Project will not result in a shortage of land for other planned uses 2. Whether events after the adoption of the General Plan have changed the character or condition of the area 3. The degree to which the proposed amendment will impact the whole community or a portion of the community by: a. Altering existing land use patterns in a significant way that is contrary to the Vision, Guiding Principals, or Strategies identified in the General Plan b. Requiring larger or more extensive improvements to roads, sewer or water systems that may negatively impact development of other lands c. Adversely impacting existing uses due to increased traffic congestion that is not accommodated by planned roadway improvements or other planned transportation improvements such as nonmotorized transportation alternatives or transit 7 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 7 of 10 General Plan Amendment Approval Criteria 4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the Vision, Guiding Principles, or Strategies of the General Plan 5. Whether the proposed amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the General Plan and the City of Mesa 6. The extent to which the benefits of the proposed amendment outweigh any of the impacts identified by these criteria 8 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 8 of 10 Citizen Participation • Notified property owners within 1,000’ of the larger development • Posted the Site • No responses received 9 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 9 of 10 Findings Complies with the amendment criteria in Chapter 5 of the 2050 Mesa General Plan Staff recommends Adoption Planning and Zoning Board recommends Approval with Conditions (5-0) 10 Regular Council March 23, 2026 Attachment 1 Page 10 of 10