Phoenix City Council Formal Meeting. November 6, 2019


>>MAYOR GALLEGO: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE NOVEMBER 6, 2019 FORMAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: HERE.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: HERE.>>CLERK: GUARDADO:>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: HERE.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: HERE.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: HERE.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: HERE.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: HERE.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: HERE. WE HAVE AN INTERPRETER WITH US HERE TODAY. MARIO, WILL YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR. MY NAME IS MARIO BARAJAS. I WILL BE SERVING AS TODAY’S SPANISH INTERPRETER. I WILL BE GIVING A BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENT IN SPANISH. (IN SPANISH) CAL THANK YOU. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ THE 24-HOUR PARAGRAPH.>>THE TITLES OF THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE 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 NUMBERED G-6617, 6632 THROUGH 6639, S-46119 THROUGH 46158, AND RESOLUTIONS 21769, 21792 THROUGH 21797.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MARCH 20TH, 2019 FORMAL MEETINGS MEETINGS.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I HAVE. I APPROVE THE MARCH 20, 2019 MEETING MINUTES.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? COUNCILMAN DICICCIO HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE APRIL 3RD 2019 FORMAL MEETING MINUTES.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: I MOVE THEIR APPROVAL, MAYOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY. ANY OPPOSED? BOTH MOTION PASS UNANIMOUSLY. VICE MAYOR DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS?>>COUNCILMAN WARING: MOVE TO APPROVE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS NOMINATIONS.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN NOMINATED AND APPROVED FOR SERVICE. WE HAVE SEVERAL RESIDENTS HERE TO BE SWORN IN. I, STATE YOUR NAME, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR, THAT I WILL SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME, AND DEFEND THEM AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, AND THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY AND IMPARTIALLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF — ACCORDING TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY SO HELP ME GOD. CONGRATULATIONS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO YOUR COMMUNITY.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR NEW COMMISSIONERS. COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I DO. MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND TAKE ITEM 108 OUT OF ORDER.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ALL THOSE IF FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 108 IS THE SELECTION OF A NEW VICE MAYOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I HAVE A NOMINATION FOR THE NEW VICE MAYOR AND THAT WOULD BE COUNCILWOMAN BETTY GUARDADO TO BE SELECTED AS THE NEW VICE MAYOR.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: I’LL SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? I CERTAINLY WANT TO THANK VICE MAYOR WARING FOR HIS SERVICE AS VICE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX. I HAVE BEEN IMPRESSED WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE CITY AND HIS DISTRICT AND HIS NOTEWORTHY RECORD OF PUBLIC SERVICE. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND THANKS FOR NOT ALWAYS POINTING OUT BUT THAT WE ALWAYS DISAGREE, BUT RESPECTFULLY AND ALWAYS ENJOY EACH OTHER’S COMPANY.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: I WOULD LIKE TO THANK, JIM, TOO, FOR HIS SERVICE. I THINK HE HAS DONE AN EXEMPLARY JOB AS VICE MAYOR. KEPT EVERYTHING ON TRACK. EXCITED ABOUT BETTY GUARDADO BECOMING THE NEXT VICE MAYOR. I THINK SHE IS THE FASTEST VICE MAYOR WE’VE HAD BEENING ELECTED TO VICE MAYOR. IT’S IMPRESSIVE BUT ALSO TALKED ABOUT HER ABILITY TO GET THINGS DONE AT THE CITY OF PHOENIX. SO I WOULD IMAGINE YOU MAY HAVE SOME OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS HERE. BUT THEY HAVE GOT TO BE VERY PROUD OF YOU AND THE FACT THAT YOU’VE LITERALLY TAKEN SOME MAJOR STEPS THIS FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS AND YOU’VE BEEN A LEADER UP HERE ON THE COUNCIL AND I ENJOY SERVING WITH YOU. YOU ARE DOING AN AMAZING JOB.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: YES THAT.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: YES.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: I WANT TO THANK JIM WARING. I THINK YOU ARE THE LONGEST STANDING VICE MAYOR IN THE HISTORY OF PHOENIX, AND CONGRATULATIONS, BETTY. YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: COUNCILMAN WARING, YOU KNOW THERE ARE SOME VOTES IT’S 9-0 SO YOU DO AGREE AT CERTAIN TIMES. I AM A YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: I HOPE THAT VICE MAYOR/COUNCILMAN WARING GETS TO SIT NEXT TO ME. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SERVICE, VICE MAYOR. AND A YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES. AND I WANT TO THANK THE VICE MAYOR WARING. HE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. TOOK HIM A WHILE TO GET GOING, EVIDENTLY, BUT HE HAS BEEN A GREAT LEADER FOR THE CITY. SO THANK YOU AND, YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. BY A VOTE OF 8-1, CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR NEXT VICE MAYOR BETTY GUARDADO. [APPLAUSE]>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: THANK YOU. JUST TO SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS. I AM HONORED TO SERVE AS THE VICE MAYOR FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX, THE FIFTH LARGEST CITY IN THE COUNTRY. RIGHT? WE JUST GOT TO KEEP REPEATING THAT. I AM SO GRATEFUL FOR THE SUPPORT FROM MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS AND OUR MAYOR. I WOULD ALSO LEWIC TO TAKE A MINUTE TO THANK COUNCILMAN WARING FOR HIS SERVICE TO OUR CITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH, JIM, FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE DONE. I KNOW THOSE ARE BIG SHOES TO FILL, BUT I’M READY TO WORK WITH ALL OF MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY. I STILL HAVE TONS TO LEARN. I STILL HAVE TONS TO SEE. BUT I’M VERY EXCITED FOR THIS NEW ROLE, VERY HUMBLED FOR ALL THE SUPPORT I’VE GOTTEN WITH THIS APPOINTMENT, AND WITH THAT, LET’S MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYONE.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE] THE VICE MAYOR ELECT HAS ALREADY PROVEN HERSELF TO BE A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR ALL PHOENICIANS AND THIS IS THE MOST RAPID ASCENT I HAVE SEEN TO VICE MAYOR. SO CONGRATULATIONS. AT OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING SHE WILL ASSUME THE ROLE OF VICE MAYOR. VICE MAYOR WARING, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS?>>COUNCILMAN WARING: YES, MAYOR. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS 4-26 EXCEPT ITEM 23, WHICH IS RECOMMENDED FOR DISAPPROVAL, AND ITEM 24 WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 4TH, 2019, AND ITEM 26, WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED — THERE WAS CONFUSION IN THE RANKS. SO MUCH FOR SAL’S NICE COMMENT ABOUT THE SMOOTH RUNNING MEETING. ALL RIGHT. TRYING TO PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF HERE. I’M A SHORT-TIMER, MICHAEL. WHAT CAN I SAY? LET ME START OVER. MOTION TO APPROVE — SAME AS WE SAID BEFORE, MOTION TO APPROVE 4-26 EXCEPT 23 WHICH IS RECOMMENDED FOR DISAPPROVAL, ITEM 24 WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 4TH, 2019 AND ITEM 26 WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 20TH, 2019, AND THAT ITEM 25 IS AS CORRECTED.>>SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. [ CHORUS OF AYES] ANY OPPOSED? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 23, WHICH IS A LICENSE IN COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR’S DISTRICT. WE DO HAVE SEVERAL CARDS ON THE ITEM. COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED?>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT THE — THE STAFF DISAPPROVAL AND THEN AFTER THAT PROCEED IN LISTENING TO THE CARDS.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WONDERFUL THAT WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION.>>GOOD AFTERNOON. WITH ME TODAY IS KNOW WELL AS CONE FROM THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE. ITEM 23 IS A REQUEST FOR AN OWNERSHIP TRANSFER OF A SERIES 6 LIQUOR LICENSE FOR A BAR. THIS LOCATION WAS PREVIOUSLY LICENSED FOR LIQUOR SALES AND MAY CURRENTLY OPERATE WITH AN INTERIM PERMIT. STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION BASED ON A POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION FOR DISAPPROVAL.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO CARDS MARKED IN FAVOR, ONE WISHING TO SPEAK, AND CARDS FROM OUR OFFICERS. SHALL WE HEAR FROM THE OFFICERS FIRST?>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: SURE.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE CARDS FROM OFFICER VAUGHN AND OFFICER TITUS. I THINK OFFICER VAUGHN? YES.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR GALLEGO AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I’M DETECTIVE VAUGHN WITH PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS DENIAL FOR THE SERIES 6 PERSON TO PERSON TRANSFER FOR THE CARAVAN TAP ROOM LOCATED AT 4835 NORTH 15TH AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS MR. ANTONIO TOVAR THROUGH TT AND ASSOCIATES LLC. ON JUNE 13TH, 2019, MEMBERS OF THE PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A LIQUOR INSPECTION AT THE CARAVAN TAP ROOM. ONLY WORKING AT THE TIME WAS THE BARTENDER AND HE SAID MR. TOVAR WAS IN CHARGE. TWO VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND, ONE FOR FAILING TO EXHIBIT THE LIQUOR LICENSE AND THE OTHER FOR EMPLOYEE RECORDS NOT BEING AVAILABLE. WARNINGS WERE GIVEN FOR BOTH VIOLATIONS. ON JUNE 21ST AND JUNE 22ND, 2019, THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSE AND CONTROL CITED CARAVAN TAP ROOM FOR ARS4-244.32 ALLOWING ALCOHOL TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LICENSED PREMISE. MR. TOVAR HAS ACKNOWLEDGED MUSIC, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND PATRON DANCING AT THE ESTABLISHMENT BUT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A CITY OF PHOENIX USE PERMIT FOR THESE ACTIVITIES. MR. TOVAR WAS CONVICTED OF DUI IN PHOENIX IN 2018. MR. TOVAR FAILED TO DESIGNATE A MANAGER ON THE APPLICATION AS REQUIRED BY ARS 4-202.01C. ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2019, AN INTERVIEW WAS COMPLETED WITH MR. TOVAR. MR. TOVAR SAID HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT. AS OF OCTOBER 22ND, HE HAD NOT BEEN GRANTED THAT USE PERMIT. MR. TOVAR WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE LEASE STATING MR. KEITH ROLLINS, THE PRIOR OWNER CARAVAN TAP ROOM, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. MOHAMMAD [INDISCERNBLE] REFUSED TO GIVE HIM ONE. MR. TOVAR WAS EXPLAINED HIS REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A LEASE AGREEMENT STRONGLY SUGGESTS THE POSSIBILITY OF HIDDEN OWNERSHIP. MR. TOVAR WAS EXPLAINED BY PHOENIX INVESTIGATORS THERE WOULD BE LIKELY REINSPECTIONS OF THE BAR DURING THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS. HE UNDERSTOOD AND SAID THERE WOULD BE NO ISSUES AND WAS CLEANING UP THE PLACE. MR. 0 TAR DENIED BEING IN CHARGE OF THE BAR ON JULY 13TH, 2019. ON OCTOBER 5TH, 2019, MR. TOVAR SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR MORE TIME FOR THE APPLICATION REVIEW. ON OCTOBER 11TH, 2019, THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSE AND CONTROL CITED THE CARAVAN TAP ROOM FOR ONE COUNT OF VIOLATING ARS 4-241.A.1 FAILURE TO CHECK I.D, ONE COUNT OF VIOLATE WING ARS 4-244.9, SALE OF ALCOHOL TO UNDERAGE, AND ONE COUNT OF R-19-1-502, FAILURE TO MAINTAIN EMPLOYEE RECORDS. IN ADDITION, AN EMPLOYEE WORKING AT THE TIME WAS CRIMINALLY CITED FOR TWO COUNTS OF VIOLATING ARS 3-2441.A1, FAILURE TO CHECK I.D, AND TWO COUNTS OF VIOLATE ARS 4-244.9, SALE OF ALCOHOL TO UNDERAGE. A FEW DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THESE VIOLATIONS MR. TOVAR FINALLY PROVIDE THED THE LEASE FOR THE CARAVAN TAP ROOM. MR. TOVAR HAS DEMONSTRATED HE HAS LITTLE TO NO EXPERIENCE OWNING A BAR AND HIS LACK OF MANAGERIAL OVERSIGHT HAS DEMONSTRATED HE IS NOT RELIABLE, CAPABLE OR QUALIFIED TO OWN A LIQUOR LICENSE. IN ADDITION, IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST — IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY TO GRANT THIS APPROVAL. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. HALEY RITTER IS MARKED IN FAVOR. ARE THEY HERE? I SAW HALEY OUTSIDE BUT DON’T SEE AND THEN MR. TOVAR MARKED A CARD NOT TO SPEAK BUT MARKED IN FAVOR. SO I THINK WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION. HALEY RITTER? YES, SHE IS HERE.>>FORGIVE ME. I’M HAVING A SEIZURE RIGHT NOW. PLEASE DON’T MIND MY ELECTRICAL — OKAY. I’M FINE. I’VE MET TONY, MR. TOVAR, THE OWNER — CURRENT LEASING PERSON THERE, AND I HAVE A PERSONAL DEAF FRIEND OF MINE WHO IS THE FIRST DEAF BARTENDER IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA. VERY PROUD OF HIMSELF. HE HAS BEEN WORKING THERE FOR THE PAST THREE MONTHS, AND IT’S A VERY CALM ENVIRONMENT. THERE’S NOT A LOT OF LOUD ACTIVITY GOING ON. AND I RECOMMEND APPROVAL JUST BECAUSE I KNOW HE’S TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE PLACE. HE’S TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING IN LINE. HE’S TRYING TO LEARN THE BUSINESS OF OWNING A BAR AND MANAGING IT, AND I RECOMMEND THAT MAYBE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WORK WITH HIM AND TRY AND HELP HIM THROUGH SOME OF THE STRUGGLES HE HAS BEEN HAVING IF IN ESTABLISHING OWNERSHIP. HE JUST SEEMS LIKE A VERY RESPONSIBLE PERSON, AND I MET HIM PERSONALLY. SO I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE LIQUOR LICENSE. POSSIBLY ONCE HE GETS THROUGH SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT HE’S BEEN FACING AS FAR AS THE LEASE AND THE USE PERMIT AND OTHER DETAILS THAT WERE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN?>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: SO YESTERDAY I MET WITH STAFF REGARDING THE DISAPPROVAL. AFTER I MET WITH STAFF I CALLED MR. TOVAR AND LEFT HIM A MESSAGE ASKING HIM TO CALL ME BACK IN ORDER TO SPEAK WITH HIM AND TO DISCUSS THE CASE. I DID NOT RECEIVE A CALL BACK AND WANTED TO HAVE A DIALOGUE AS TO SOME OF THE CLAIMS THAT WERE PART OF THE REPORT. BUT WAS GIVING THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH ME. AT THIS MOMENT MY MOTION IS DISAPPROVAL.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND FOR OUR STAFF, DO WE NEED ADDITIONAL DETAIL IN THE MOTION OR IS –>>NO, WE’RE GOOD.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ANY ADDITIONAL COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS? ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: YES.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: YES.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: YES.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. PASSES 9-0. WE NEXT MOVE TO ORDINANCES, RESOLUTION, NEW BUSINESS PLANNING AND ZONING. CITY CLERK, ARE WE READY FOR OUR NEXT SECTION?>>YES, MAYOR.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: VICE MAYOR, DO WE HAVE A MOTION?>>COUNCILMAN WARING: YES, MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS 27 THROUGH 108 EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING, ITEMS: 39, 60, 63, 67, 68, 70, 86, 104 AND 107.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE –>>COUNCILMAN WARING: WE ALREADY DID 108.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: IT INCLUDES 104, CORRECT? IN THE OMNIBUS?>>COUNCILMAN WARING: IT DOES NOT INCLUDE. WE PULLED OUT 104.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: OH, YOU’RE HOLDING THAT ONE OUT –>>COUNCILMAN WARING: I THINK SOMEBODY GAVE A CARD.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: YES, THEN.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: I’M SORRY, I LEFT OUT 59. I SHOULD HAVE NOTED ITEM 38 IS BEING CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 30TH, 2019.>>THANK YOU.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: READY TO GO, RIGHT?>>COUNCILMAN WARING: YES, READY FOR RETIREMENT.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: YES.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: YES.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: YES.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. MOTION PASSES 9-0. ITEM 39, WILL THE CITY CLERK PLEASE READ THE TITLE.>>CLERK: (READING OF TITLE).>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: MOVE APPROVAL.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: MAYOR, I HAVE — CAN I HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ON MOVE APPROVAL.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YOU SURE CAN.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 39 AS AMENDED NOTING RULE 7C WILL GO INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST, 2021.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: SECOND.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: AGREE.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: MAYOR, AND I WANT TO TELL STAFF AND YOUR OFFICE, TOO, THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US, BECAUSE WE HAD A REALLY GOOD RELATIONSHIP ON THIS CASE HERE. THERE ARE STILL SOME THINGS IN HERE THAT I’VE GOT PROBLEMS WITH, AND THOSE ARE DEALING WITH 8 AND 9. IT DEALS WITH FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND I THINK WE’VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF AS A FRIENDLY MOTION WE WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? AND THE REASON WHY IS THAT I KNOW WE MAY NOT LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE YELL AT US AND STUFF, THERE’S STUFF IN HERE THAT SAYS WE CAN KICK THEM OUT, BUT THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PETITION THEIR — THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GOING TO COURT TO PROTECT THEIR BASIC FUND MINERAL RIGHTS OF CALLING US NAMES. I’M PROBABLY THE TARGET MORE THAN ANYBODY OF BEING CALLED A NAME OR SOMETHING BUT I STILL THINK PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT, AND THEY CAN USE BELLIGERENT WORDS, BAD WORDS, THEY CAN SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT, THEY CAN’T SAY I’M GOING TO KILL YOU BECAUSE THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT — I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS — AND I THINK IT’S COMPROMISE LANGUAGE AT LEAST FROM MY END THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND — AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. ON 8 AND 9. AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: COULD I HAVE CLARIFICATION OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID, COUNCILMAN? IS THAT INCLUDED WHAT WE JUST SET FORTH OR –>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: NO, IT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT — PRIMARILY RULE 8 AND RULE 9, AND THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES IN THERE, BUT THESE ARE THE TWO BIG ONES — THIS WAS THE BIG ONE. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS I DIDN’T FEEL THAT COMFORTABLE WITH BUT I’M WILLING TO WORK WITH. BUT JUST ON 8 AND 9, IT JUST — YOU KNOW — WHOSE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS DISRESPECTFUL? WHOSE DEFINITION OF LANGUAGE? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THAT’S MORE ALONG THE LINES OF WHERE I’M AT WITH THAT. I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE DEFINITIONS ON THAT UNLESS YOU WANT TO HAVE IT CLEAR AND PRECISE AND THEN WE KNOW WHAT WE’RE VOLING ON. BUT I JUST — AND AGAIN I’M TRYING TO MOVE TO GET THIS THING APPROVED BUT AT THE SAME TIME I’D SURE LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE JUST — YOU KNOW, I DON’T HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS WE PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. HE.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WE ARE ONLY IMPLEMENTING THINGS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION. SO THAT DOES NOT SEEM LIKE A CHANGE THAT WE NEED TO MAKE, BUT YOU MADE THE MOTION.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: MAY I ADD TO THAT, TOO, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY IMPLIED, MIGHT AS WELL STATE IT. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE — WE’RE NOT GOING TO, BUT THE ONLY OTHER ALTERNATIVE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL HAS IS TO TAKE US TO COURT FOR WHAT COULD BE A BASIC FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, AND WHY SHOULD THEY GO TO COURT? I AM TRYING TO BE AS — YOU KNOW, AS — JUST LIKE TO HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT THAT GIVES INDIVIDUALS THE RIGHT TO CALL US NAMES AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE DISRESPECTFUL TO ME AND OTHERS. THEY HAVE A RIGHT, WHETHER I LIKE IT OR NOT. I DON’T LIKE IT, BUT THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SAY, BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING, PEOPLE COME HERE FOR MANY REASONS, AND I THINK A CERTAIN DECORUM IS EXPECTED. YOU CAN SAY A LOT OF THINGS WITHOUT HAVING TO SWEAR, CUSS OR COME OUT WITH SOME DIRTY NAMES, AND I THINK WE’RE ALL VERY WILLING TO LISTEN, BUT I DO THINK FOR THE RESPECT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE AS MUCH AS ANYBODY THAT IS AS IS NECESSARY TO LET PEOPLE KNOW IT’S NOT APPROPRIATE.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: I AGREE, BUT WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN’T APPROPRIATE SHOULDN’T BE DONE BY US. AT SOME POINT YOU TELL THE PUBLIC EXACTLY WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN’T. YOU’RE BASICALLY SAYING HERE THAT THEY CAN’T BE DISRESPECTFUL. WELL, SOMETIMES THEY WANT TO DRILL A POINT HOME. I KNOW I REPEAT MYSELF BECAUSE I’M GETTING OLDER. I DON’T REMEMBER IF I SAID IT. I MEAN, THERE ARE TIMES WE’RE GOING TO BE REPETITIVE ON THINGS. YOU KNOW, I JUST — JUST DON’T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT. I’M JUST ASKING AS A FAVOR, BUT THAT’S IT.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. HALEY RITTER. FOLLOWED BY DIDI BARKER.>>I KNOW THERE IS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE, CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYOR GALLEGO, I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU, THERE’S SOME CHANGE IN LANGUAGE THAT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT LIMITING PUBLIC COMMENT TO FIVE MINUTES. I WONDER WHAT THAT MEANS — I GUESS I’M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT — I WOULD LIKE SOME MORE CLARIFICATION ABOUT THIS MOTION BECAUSE IT’S A LITTLE CONFUSING. YOU ALL KNOW ME. I SPEAK OUT ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT ISSUES. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW THAT MY ABILITY TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS WON’T BE LIMITED BY THIS MOTION. KIND IN ECHOING WHAT MR. DICICCIO IS SAYING. SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS GOING TO BE LIMITING PUBLIC COMMENT TO FIVE MINUTES OR IF IT’S ONLY REGARDING PUBLIC DISRUPTION AND DISRUPTIVE LANGUAGE. I’M A LITTLE CONFUSED. SO… THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. THE GOAL IS TO CODIFY WHAT THE CITY HAS BEEN DOING AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COMMENT ON THE AGENDA ITEM BEING HEARD. DIDI BARKER WILL BE FOLLOWED BY MICHELLE ROSE.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. I’M DIANE DIDI BARKER AND I HAVE BEEN COMING DOWN TO CITY COUNCIL SINCE THE ’80S. BUT DON’T TELL ANYBODY BECAUSE I STILL DO CARTWHEELS. BUT, YOU KNOW, I AM VERY MUCH FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PRESERVING DEMOCRACY, AND SINCE I HAVE BEEN COMING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CITY OF PHOENIX, I HAVE SEEN GREAT BREADTH IN ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK. SO I’M HOPING THAT WITH MAYOR KATE WE’LL CONTINUE IN THAT HONOR AND WE’LL BE REASONABLE AND ALWAYS REMEMBERING THE CONSTITUTION AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE OUR CITY MAYOR HERE — CITY ATTORNEY HERE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF, AND I WOULD IMAGINE IF A PERSON IS DESPONDENT, YOU’LL HEAR FROM THEM. YOU MAY HEAR FROM THEM THROUGH A LEGAL CAUSE.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. MICHELLE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY WADE PADGETT.>>MY NAME IS MICHELLE ROSE. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. I AM SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO RULE 9 AS IT WAS WRITTEN. I WOULD SUPPORT IT WITH REVISIONS. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A NEED FOR SOME DEGREE OF CIVILITY. I DON’T THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE CURSING AT YOU, ATTACKING YOU. NO INTERRUPTING PEOPLE. HOWEVER, ALLOWING THE MAYOR TO SELECT WHO GETS TO SPEAK AND FOR HOW LONG IS AN ATTACK ON — IN MY OPINION, AN ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH AND RIGHT TO PETITION YOUR GOVERNMENT. I REALIZE BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW IT MAY NOT BE, BUT IT EXPOSES THE CITY UNNECESSARILY TO ALLEGATIONS OF SELECTIVE APPLICATION OF THAT LAW. OF THAT CODE. THE CITY COUNCIL’S HUMAN BEINGS. UNCONSCIOUS BIASES WILL COME INTO PLAY. AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE WISHING TO GIVE THE MAYOR AUTHORITY, I WOULD SAY BE WARY THAT THESE RULES CONTINUE. YOU MAY SUPPORT MAYOR KATE GALLEGO AND THINK SHE HAS GREAT FAIRNESS AND CIVILITY, BUT SHE WON’T BE THE MAYOR FOREVER THAT. YOU MAY NOT LIKE THE NEXT PERSON AND HOW THEY APPLY IT. SO INSTEAD I WOULD SUGGEST HAVING SOMETHING LIKE THE REQUEST TO SPEAK SYSTEM THAT THE STATE OFFERS SO THAT IN A CITY OF 1.6 MILLION RESIDENTS YOU ARE GOING TO RUN LONG. SO THAT WAY EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST HAVE THEIR VOICE RECORDED ONLINE. I WILL MENTION REGARDING HAVING PHOENIX RESIDENTS HAVE PRIORITY, THAT MAKES SENSE. THIS IS THE CITY OF PHOENIX. BUT THIS IS A BIG CITY NOW. PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN MESA WORK IN PHOENIX. PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GILBERT COME INTO PHOENIX TO GO TO CONCERTS AND SUCH. ALSO, OPPOSITION TO RULE 11 WITH THE 30-MINUTE LIMIT UNTIL THIS IS IN PLACE. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. WADE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY LESLIE PICO.>>GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM SPEAKING TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO RULE 9, NOT LEAST OF WHICH HAS TO DO WITH ALL OF THE IDEAS PRESENTED UP TO THIS POINT, BUT THAT AS OF 1962 WHEN THE ARIZONA OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS ESTABLISHED, PASSED BY THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE, THE MAYOR HAD EXACTLY THE RIGHTS UNDER DISCUSSION THAT ARE BEING SPOKEN ABOUT. MY PROBLEM WITH THE INSTITUTION OF RULE 9 HAS MORE TO DO WITH ITS BEING UNNECESSARILY PROVOCATIVE. IT WILL SERVE TO PROVOKE AS WELL AS DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY FROM THIS PARTICIPATORY SYSTEM. THERE WILL BE A WIDE RANGE, DEPENDING ON THE ISSUES, OF REACTIONS FROM THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO BEAR THAT IN MIND. IN FACT, STATE LAW ACTUALLY DOES REQUIRE THAT THE CONTEXT BE BORNE IN MIND BEFORE SOMEBODY IS RESTRICTED IN TERMS OF TIME OR ORDERED TO BE REMOVED. SO I THINK THAT’S BASICALLY IT. I’M IN OPPOSITION TO RULE 9. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: LESLIE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY SEAN SEVERUD.>>HI, I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENT RESTRICTIONS THAT CLEARLY SUPPRESS A CITIZEN’S ABILITY TO SPEAK TO THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN, IN PARTICULAR DURING THE VERY PUBLIC MEETINGS WHERE OFFICIAL ARE WEIGHING THOSE ISSUES. I’M ASKING THE COUNCIL TO STOP ACTING LIKE PUBLIC COMMENT IS SOMETHING TO BE ENDURED. A PUBLIC BODY THAT REPRESENTS THE FIFTH LARGEST CITY IN THE UNITED STATES CAN MAKE TIME TO LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK AND BE HEARD, NO MATTER HOW […] OFFENSIVE YOU MAY FIND IT. I STAND IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: SEAN WILL BE FOLLOWED BY [INDISCERNIBLE] HAWES.>>MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, I JUST WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I THINK SINCE MAYOR GALLEGO HAS COME INTO OFFICE SHE HAS EXECUTED VERY EFFICIENT COUNCIL, AND IN MANY WAYS THAT’S A GOOD THING. AND IN OTHER WAYS IT’S NOT, RIGHT? SO IT’S NOT UP TO YOU TO JUST DEAL WITH THE PUBLIC AS A NUISANCE. IF YOU WANT EFFICIENCY YOU’RE PROBABLY NOT IN THE RIGHT LINE OF BUSINESS. YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET INTO PRIVATE INDUSTRY. PUBLIC SERVICE IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. YOU ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS. OR AT LEAST YOU SHOULD BE. SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN MAYOR GALLEGO CAME INTO OFFICE, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SHE DID ALREADY WHEN IT COMES TO THE PUBLIC INTERACTING WITH THE COUNCIL WAS THAT SHE HAS TAKEN THE ABILITY FOR THE COUNCIL TO ADDRESS CITIZEN PETITIONS AND PUT IT TO A SUBCOMMITTEE. SHE MOVED THE CITIZEN COMMENTS TO THE — FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THE MEETING. SO ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE GREAT IF YOU WANT AN EFFICIENT MEETING RUN WELL, AND I GET THAT, BUT IT’S EXTREMELY DISTURBING, AND I DON’T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THIS EVEN IS BECAUSE MAYOR GALLEGO’S OFFICE QUIETLY DRAFTED IT WITHOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOWING, AND WHAT IT ESSENTIALLY DOES IS IT ALLOWS THE COUNCIL, THE PRESIDING OFFICER OR THE MAYOR, OR WHOEVER IS PRESIDING OVER THE COUNCIL MEETING AT THE TIME, TO ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATE WHOEVER’S SPEAKING TIME. SO THAT’S OF GRAVE CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY. I DON’T CARE IF I FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH WHATEVER SOMEBODY IS SAYING, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO COME HERE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY TOOK OFF OF WORK TO BE HERE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL SHOULDN’T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CUT THEM OFF. AND SO I WOULD THINK LONG AND HARD BEFORE YOU APPROVE THIS. THANK YOU.>>I’M CHAMIN HAWES. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING UP WITH MY SLOW MOVEMENT. I’M HAVING HORRIBLE BACK SPASMS. BUT THERE WAS NO WAY I WOULD STAY HOME. SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE YOU MAKE THESE CHANGES TO TALK TO ME. I WAS THE PERSON THAT CAME UP HERE, KATE AND SAID YOU WERE ACTING LIKE A […], AND, SAL I TOLD YOU TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE […] UP. SO I CAN’T HELP BUT WONDER IF THERE ISN’T SOME SORT OF RETALIATORY MEASURE TO GET ME TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP, WHICH I’M NOT GOING TO DO, NEVER GOING TO DO, AND MIGHT REMIND YOU WELL BEHAVED WOMEN RARELY MAKE HISTORY AND I HAVE NO INTENTION OF GOING THROUGH THIS LIFE UNNOTICED. ALSO YOU MIGHT HEAR THAT A RIOT, A RIOT, IS A RESPONSE TO AN UNHEARD CROWD. AND THE LAST TIME WE GOT UNHEARD CAME DOWN HERE TO TALK TO CHIEF JERI ABOUT IT SHE DUCKED DOWN AND DECIDED TO DEAL WITH US WITH LRAD DEVICES WHICH YOU PROMPTLY APPROVED IN THE BUDGET. TO SAY YOU ARE SENDING THE WRONG MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REPRESENTING IS PUTTING IT A IS A LITTLE MILDLY. I THINK YOU NEED TO GET YOUR […] TOGETHER AND REMEMBER WHO YOU WORK FOR. YOU’RE A ELECTED OFFICIALS AND YOU ANSWER TO US. YOU CANNOT ANSWER TO US IF YOU NEVER LISTEN TO US. WE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE CLOSEST TO THE PROBLEM. WE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE SOLUTIONS, IF YOU WILL ONLY LISTEN TO US. LISTEN TO US. DON’T TRY TO SHUT US UP ANY MORE. DON’T PUT ANY MORE RULES ON IT. IT’S BAD ENOUGH THAT WE ONLY GET TWO MINUTES OF YOUR VALUABLE TIME. WHEN SAL GETS TO GO AND TAKE VACATIONS AND CALL IT IN FROM HIS CAR WHENEVER HE FIELDS LIKE IT. THAT’S NOT THE WAY THIS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, PEOPLE. NOT THE WAY THIS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING PAID TO WORK FOR ME SO I DON’T HAVE TO TAKE TIME OFF WORK TO COME DOWN HERE TO TELL YOU HOW THINGS NEED TO BE DONE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YOU CANNOT LIMIT PUBLIC COMMENT. WE ALREADY KNOW HOW TO BEHAVE AND WE WILL BEHAVE THE WAY WE WANT AND IF YOU DON’T WANT US TO BURN THIS PLACE DOWN, FORGET THIS OPTION.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THAT IS ALL THE CARDS WE HAVE ON THIS ITEM. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA?>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: MAYOR, I THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING THINGS TO ENCOURAGE MORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, MAYBE MOVING MEETINGS TO THE EVENINGS, PROVIDE PARKING AND ENCOURAGE MORE PARTICIPATION. SO I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: IT WAS VERY INTERESTING, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW — NOT INTERESTING, BUT I’VE BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY, AND SOME OF THE COMMUNITY COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING JUST RECENTLY, ESPECIALLY WITH THE YOUNG YOUTH, HAVE BEEN AROUND PUBLIC COMMENT, AND REALLY THE FACT THAT THEY DON’T FEEL LIKE THEY’RE BEING HEARD, AND WHEN COMING TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT SPACE THAT IT BECOMES — THEY BECOME REALLY DISCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SENSE OF US NOT BEING ABLE TO RESPOND BUT ALSO US NOT ABLE TO THEN FOLLOW UP. SOME OF US FOLLOW UP, BUT THEY’RE NOW SAYING THEY’RE BEING — THEY’RE NOW BECOMING DISENGAGED BECAUSE OF OUR PROCESS AND HOW WE PLACE — I DON’T TO USE — HOW WE JUST LIMIT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT ARENA. AND SO I DO UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT WHEN THE PUBLIC COMES UP TO US AND THEY’RE VERY UPSET THAT THEIR INAPPROPRIATE WORDS OR BEHAVIOR AT THAT MOMENT HAPPENING IN THE SENSE OF JUST PURE FRUSTRATION, AND SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT ENERGY AND SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO JUST SIT GRACEFULLY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING. AND SO I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE PIECES AND I UNDERSTAND WHY WE’RE TRYING TO CLEAN UP SOME OF OUR RULES AND PROCEEDINGS, BUT I’M JUST EXPRESSING WHAT HAS BEEN TOLD TO ME. TONY, I HAVE A QUESTION. ON RULE 8, IT SAYS CITIZEN COMMENTS. BUT THEN IT GETS CROSSED OUT AND IT SETS DEBATE AND DECORUM AND ELECTED OFFICIALS. WHERE DID THAT GET MOVED?>>MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, WE — WHEN WE INCLUDED THE NEW SECTION ON DEBATE AND DECORUM, RULE 9, IT SHIFTED AROUND THE NUMBERS. SO CITIZEN COMMENT IS STILL THERE. IT’S RULE NUMBER 11. IT HAS NOT CHANGED AT ALL. SO CITIZEN COMMENT IS STILL AT THE END OF THE MEETING FOR UP TO 30 MINUTES PROVIDED THAT THERE’S A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL. THAT RULE HAS NOT CHANGED AT ALL. IT JUST NOT NUMBER MOVED.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: NO.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: NO.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: NO.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. PASSES 6-3. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 59. ITEM 59 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION TO APPROVE 2020 DOWNTOWN ENHANCED MUNICIPAL SERVICES DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE ITEM MARKING CARDS WISHING NOT TO SPEAK. WE HAVE NO CARDS WISHING TO SPEAK. SO NOTING A WIDE VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS SUPPORTING THE ITEM WE’LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WISHING TO PROVIDE COMMENTS? ROLL CALL. SORRY, WE NEED A MOTION.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: MOVE APPROVAL.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: SECOND.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: 59, CORRECT?>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: NO.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: YES.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: NO.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. ITEM PASSES 7-2. ITEM 60?>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: MOVE APPROVAL.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ANY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: NO.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: YES.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: NO.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. ITEM PASSES 7-2. AN EXCITING TIME FOR OUR DOWNTOWN. ITEM 63.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: MAYOR, THIS IS THE MEXICO TRADE DEVELOPMENT, I BELIEVE.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: IT IS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: I TRULY SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE LAST SPRING COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR AND I WERE INVITED TO GO TO HERMOSILLO WHERE AT THAT TIME THEY WERE RUNNING OUR MEXICO OFFICE THERE, AND I’LL TELL YOU, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, DOUBTS. FIRST TIME I HAD BEEN THERE, EVER BEEN INVOLVED, BUT I WAS VERY, VERY IMPRESSED. THEY HAVE A TRAINING SESSION WITH CHRISTINE MACKAY, AND THEY WERE HOPING TO GET 75 PEOPLE COME, AND THE OBJECT WAS TO INVITE THEM TO COME SET UP A BUSINESS IN PHOENIX, BE PART OF OUR WORLD AS WE WERE DOWN THERE TALKING TO THEM. WE HAD OVER 300 SHOW UP STANDING ROOM ONLY. THEY WERE VERY GRACIOUS. THEY WERE VERY, VERY IMPRESSED WITH HOW THE OFFICE RAN. AND I THINK IT WAS A REAL ASSET. WHAT CONCERNS ME NOW IS WE’VE KIND OF GOT CAUGHT UP IN POLITICS, I THINK, AND I’M VERY WORRIED THAT MEXICO, HERMOSILLO, DOESN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT’S GOING ON HERE AND THE FACT THAT THEY THINK WE’VE ABANDONED THEM, THAT WE’RE NOT PROVIDING THE SAME TYPE OF SERVICE, THAT WE’RE BREAKING THE CONNECTION THAT WAS NOT ONLY WITH THE CITY OF PHOENIX BUT WITH THE STATE, AND I THINK IT’S A REAL LOSS TO THIS COMMUNITY FOR US TO BREAK THAT TYPE OF SITUATION AND PARTNERSHIP. SO I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THIS.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE HAVE FIVE CARDS MARKED IN FAVOR. CARMEN RONAN. CARMEN WILL BE FOLLOWED BY GLEN HAMMER.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR GALLEGO AND PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I’M CARMEN RONAN AND I’M MANAGER OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE SERVICES FORMALLY ALVAREZ. I AM HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND EMPHASIZED THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSAL WE SUBMITTED TO PROVIDE MEXICO TRADE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RECAP WHAT OUR TEAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH CITY STAFF HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE AS YOUR TRADE REPRESENTATIVES IN MEXICO FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. WE HAVE HELPED MORE THAN 140 PHOENIX COMPANIES EXPLORE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN MEXICO, CONDUCTED 31 TRADE MISSIONS, REPRESENTED PHOENIX AT 82 TRADE SHOWS AND CONFERENCES, NEGOTIATED SIX BILATERAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS AND MUCH MORE, ALL OF WHICH HELPED INCREASE TWO-WAY TRADE. OUR MISSION IS TO GROW THE NUMBER OF JOBS HERE IN PHOENIX AND GIVE PHOENIX COMPANIES A STRONGER COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AS THEY TRADE WITH MEXICO. AND WE HAVE THE EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES TO DO THIS. IN THE NEGATIVE AFTERMATH OF SB1070 PHOENIX’S REPUTATION IN MEXICO SUFFERED. THROUGH THIS CONTRACT WE REPAIRED THIS CRITICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ARIZONA’S LARGEST TRADING PARTNER AND NOW MEXICO HAS OPENED ITS DOORS TO PHOENIX. PHOENIX CAN CONTINUE TO DEMONSTRATE HOW MUCH IT VALUES ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH MEXICO AND EXPAND THE FOUNDATION OF TRUST AND DEEP RELATIONSHIPS THAT HAVE FORMED. WE RECOMMEND THE CITY SUPPORT OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORT TO BRING IN MORE JOBS AND ENHANCED TRADE OPPORTUNITIES WITH OUR VALUED NEIGHBOR. WE HAVE BEEN PROUD TO BE YOUR LIAISONS AND HOPE TO CONTINUE THIS IMPORTANT WORK. WE’RE ALSO HONORED TO HAVE THE SUPPORT OF VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS LEADERS AND WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT LETTERS OF SUPPORT ON THEIR BEHALF TO THE COUNCIL.>>THANK YOU. GLEN HAMMER WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES OF DONATED TIME. SO FOUR MINUTES. GLEN WILL BE FOLLOWED BY FABIAN VALENZUELA.>>MAYOR GALLEGO, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, MY NAME IS GLEN HAMMER, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE ARIZONA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY. FOR OVER THE LAST YEAR THE ARIZONA CHAMBER HAS BEEN THE LEADER IN ARIZONA WORKING WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO GET THE U.S.-MEXICO-CANADA AGREEMENT, USMCA, OVER THE LINE. THIS AGREEMENT CONNECTS 230,000 JOBS ACROSS THE STATE OF ARIZONA, THE BULK OF WHICH ARE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX. CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AS WE’RE PROBABLY ON THE EVE OF A BIPARTISAN MOVEMENT TO GET THIS AGREEMENT OVER THE LINE IS FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA’S LARGEST CITY, THE FIFTH LARGEST CITY IN THE UNITED STATES, TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE, AND I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THIS OFFICE WAS ESTABLISHED FIVE YEARS AGO AS SOME OTHERS HAVE ALLUDED TO IT WAS NOT THE GREATEST SITUATION IN TERMS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA OR THE CITY OF PHOENIX, AND THIS IS THE TIME TO DOUBLE DOWN. THE TEAM OF MOLERA ALVAREZ HAS DONE A BRILLIANT JOB WORKING WITH THE LEADERS IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THE LARGEST — CERTAINLY THE LARGEST BUSINESS GROUPS, AS WELL AS SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES TO REALLY MAKE THIS A VALUABLE EXERCISE AND WHAT ARE THE RESULTS? FAR AND AWAY MEXICO IS ARIZONA’S LARGEST TRADING PARTNER, FAR AND AWAY PHOENIX’S LARGEST EXPORT MARKET. IT’S AN EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT SOURCE OF JOBS ACROSS THE BOARD, WHETHER IT’S SEMICONDUCTORS OR TOURISM OR MANUFACTURERS. IN FACT, THE SHORTEST FLIGHT TO ANOTHER NATION’S CAPITAL IS TO CITY OF MEXICO CITY, 2:50. IT’S LESS THAN THAN AN HOUR TO HERMOSILLO IF THAT IN LARGE PART OF BECAUSE OF THIS COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY WE HAVE A SECOND AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT GOING TO HERMOSILLO ABOUT IF THAT FOR THE LIFE OF ME, THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO GO BACKWARDS AND THAT’S WHY YOU HAVE GROUPS LIKE THE ARIZONA CHAMBER, GREATER PHOENIX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ARIZONA TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, THE BLACK CHAMBER, THE ARIZONA HISPANIC CHAMBER, THE ARIZONA LODGING AND TOURISM ASSOCIATION SAYING WE REALLY NEED TO GO FORWARD. I WANT TO COMMEND FORMER MAYOR GREG STANTON. HE TRAVELED TO MEXICO 18 TIMES DURING THE DARKEST — SOME OF THE DARKEST TIMES IN TERMS OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH ARIZONA AND MEXICO, AND I WILL SAY THAT HE ALMOST SINGLE-HANDEDLY HELPED MEND IT AND CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT THAT MANY OF YOU HAVE HELPED PARTICIPATE IN TO BUILD IT UP, AND THIS CHAMBER HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE TRADE OFFICE ON THE STATE LEVEL FROM THE ARIZONA COMMERCE AUTHORITY AND WE HAVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE TRADE OFFICES FROM THE CITY OF PHOENIX. WE NEED TO BE DOUBLING DOWN WITH OUR FRIEND, ALLY AND NEIGHBOR MEXICO. THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO RETREAT. I WANT TO THANK THE MOLERA ALVAREZ TEAM FOR REALLY LEADING THE CHARGE AND CREATING SO MUCH VALUE. AND MY FINAL POINT, LOOK, THEY WON THIS CONTRACT FAIR AND SQUARE. WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS — THAT THERE WAS A CHALLENGE. THEY WON ON POINTS BIG TIME. I’LL SAY ON BEHALF OF THE MAINSTREAM BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, THEY’VE PRODUCED RESULTS, AND IF THIS CONTINUES, I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE CITY OF PHOENIX WILL SEE MORE FLIGHTS, MORE JOBS, MORE TOURISM, A LOT MORE GOOD THINGS WITH OUR FRIEND, NEIGHBOR AND ALLY MEXICO. I’LL CLOSE WITH, I THOUGHT MAYOR WILLIAMS COMMENTS WERE RIGHT IN MANY RESPECTS. THAT HERMOSILLO TRIP WAS A GREAT TRIP. I DON’T KNOW HOW WE WOULD EXPLAIN TO OUR FRIENDS IN HERMOSILLO AND MEXICO CITY AND MEXICO THAT AT THE EVE OF USMCA WITH ALL THIS FORWARD MOMENTUM THAT THE FIFTH LARGEST CITY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS SAYING ADIOS. IT’S THE WRONG MESSAGE, AND I WOULD URGE THE CITY COUNCIL RESPECTFULLY TO KEEP THE OFFICES OPEN. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. FABIAN WILL BE FOLLOWED BY MIKE HUCKINS.>>HI, EVERYBODY. I’M FABIAN VALENZUELA, AND I REPRESENT LABEL AND PRINTING SOLUTIONS. WE ARE BENEFICIARIES FROM THIS SERVICES FROM THEIR HELP. IN 2006, THE HERMOSILLO OFFICE APPROACHED TO US TO INVITE US TO OPEN A MANUFACTURING COMPANY HERE IN PHOENIX. THEY HELPED US. WE ARE VERY THANKFUL FOR THAT. THEY HELPED US TO LOCATE FOR A GREAT LOCATION CLOSE TO THE AIRPORT. THEY HELPED US THROUGH THE LEASE CONTRACT, WHICH CAN BE VERY COMPLEX, SO MANY PAGES. THEY HELPED US TO GIVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO THE [INDISCERNIBLE] COMPANY WHO — TO GET THE PERMITS. IT’S A GREAT HELP WE END UP INVESTING 2.4 MILLION JUST IN PRINTING EQUIPMENT. WE MAKE PACKAGING. AND 150,000 INVESTED IN JUST INSTALLATIONS. WE HAVE A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT, HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, JUST IN RENT OF THE OFFICE. WE HAVE CREATED 17 EMPLOYEES, HIRE, AND WE HAVE SO FAR A [INDISCERNIBLE] CUSTOMER THAT HAVE INCREASED OUR SALES SIGNIFICANTLY. SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I THINK SONORA IS CLOSE TO THE BORDER, BUT THEY ARE A BIGGER MARKET, BIGGER CITIES THAT THIS CAN BE EXTEND TO DO NORTH CITIES AND STATES AND YOU WILL SEE GREAT BENEFITS. THANK YOU.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MIKE HUCKINS, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS THE GREATER PHOENIX CHAMBER. I AM GOING TO SAY A FEW WORDS ON BEHALF OF THE TRADE OFFICES IN MEXICO. WE ARE HERE IN SUPPORT OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ITEM. AS GLEN MENTIONED, SINCE THE CITY OF PHOENIX OPENED THE TRADE OFFICES IN MEXICO IN 2014 THE OFFICES HAVE PUT PHOENIX ON THE MAP IN WAYS WE NEVER WERE BEFORE. THE TRADE OFFICES PROVIDE PHOENIX AND PHOENIX BUSINESS OWNERS WITH EXPOSURE AND RESOURCES IN ONE OF THE WORLD’S LARGEST MARKETS. THE TRADE OFFICES ARE AN ESSENTIAL AND VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR ARIZONA’S SMALL PANNED MEDIUM-SIZE BUSINESSES AND THEIR BUSINESS OWNERS. THE PARTNERSHIP HAS PROVIDED THEM WITH THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO BREAK INTO A FOREIGN MARKET SUCH AS MEXICO AND BE SUCCESSFUL. PHOENIX AND ARIZONA HAVE WORKED FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO BUILD AND IMPROVE RECREATIONS WITH MEXICO, SOMETHING THAT GLEN HAMMERED HOME. MEXICO IS OUR LARGEST PARTNER AND IT’S VITAL THAT THE TRADE OFFICES GET BACK UP AND RUNNING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. GIVEN WHY THE PENDING RATIFICATION OF THE US MMCA IT’S IMPORTANT THAT PHOENIX AND ARIZONA — IS A GREAT ASSET TO OUR ECONOMY. FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY, THE REGION AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH MEXICO WE URGE — RESPECTFULLY URGE THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AND GET THE TRADE OFFICE UP AND RUNNING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL OF OUR CARDS FROM THE PUBLIC. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS?>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CHRIS MACKAY SEVERAL QUESTIONS. SO THE ITEM THAT IS IN FRONT OF US, ITEM NUMBER 63, THIS WAS THROUGH AN RFP, AND IN THE PROCESS OF THE RFP, MOLERA ALVAREZ RECEIVED THE HIGHEST POINTS.>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: COULD YOU TELL ME THE PROCESS OF THE RFP AND HOW WE ALL HAD INPUT ON THE PIECES OF THE RFP AND HOW IT WENT THROUGH SUBCOMMITTEE?>>MAYOR, COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, YOU’RE CORRECT, IF WE GO BACK JUST A LITTLE BIT, 2014, THE COUNCIL FIRST AUTHORIZED A CONTRACT FOR MEXICO OFFICE. THAT MEXICO OFFICE HAD A FIVE-YEAR LIFE, WHICH ENDED ON JUNE — JULY 31ST OF 2019. IN PREPARATION FOR THAT COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT, STAFF CAME TO COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE IN MARCH OF 2019 ASKING FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE AN RFP. COUNCIL HAD SOME INPUT AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL AS TO WHAT THE RFP, HOW IT SHOULD BE CRAFTED IN LOOKING AT FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT, FOCUSING MORE ON BUSINESS TO BUSINESS, AND LOOKING AT THE EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN MEXICO, KEEPING MEXICO CITY AND HERMOSILLO OFFICES, BUT LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES IN WHICH TO DO BUSINESS THAT WE — TO LOCATE IN WHICH TO DO BUSINESS. STAFF MODIFIED THE RFP AND ISSUED IT IN MARCH OF 2019. WE HAD FIVE PROPOSERS, TWO OF WHICH WERE NONRESPONSIVE. IN MAY OF 2019 THE PANEL DID AN — AN INDEPENDENT PANEL DID SIT AND INTERVIEW THE THREE PROPOSERS AND THEY RECOMMENDED MOLERA ALVAREZ TO MOVE FORWARD.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: AND THEY RECOMMENDED IT JUNE 10TH, 2019?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: THEN ON JUNE 17TH, 2019 THE CITY RECEIVED A PROTEST. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PROTEST PROCESS AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PROTEST PROCESS?>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, IF I MIGHT, I’LL TURN IT OVER TO OUR PROCUREMENT OFFICER GRETCHEN WOLF WHO WORKED THROUGH THAT PROTEST PROCESS. GRETCHEN?>>MAYOR, COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, YES, WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED TWO PROTESTS FOR THE AWARD RECOMMENDATION. ONE WAS FROM A PROPOSER THAT DIDN’T HAVE LEGAL STANDING. ITS PROPOSAL HAD BEEN DISQUALIFIED EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. THE SECOND PROTEST THAT WE RECEIVED WAS FROM AN UNSUCCESSFUL PROPOSER. SO THEY QUESTIONED HOW WE SCORED THE FEES AND RAISED SOME OTHER ISSUES. THEY PROTESTED IN A TIMELY MANNER. WE REVIEWED THEIR PROTEST. WE DID NOT FIND A LEGAL BASIS TO OVERTURN THE PANEL’S RECOMMENDATION. WE SENT THEM THAT NOTICE. PER THE CODE, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO APPEAL THAT DECISION. WE DID RECEIVE THAT APPEAL. WE FORWARDED IT TO THE STATE’S OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. THEY REVIEWED IT AND THEY MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO US TO DISMISS THAT APPEAL. WE SENT THEM THAT NOTICE AS IT WAS THE END OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OPTIONS FOR THEM TO CHALLENGE THIS AWARD RECOMMENDATION, AND WE’RE HERE WITH YOU TODAY.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: SO THEN THERE’S TWO PROCESSES. THE FIRST PROCESS, THEY’RE ABLE TO — IF THEY DON’T LIKE THE ANSWER, THEN THERE’S A SECOND PROCESS?>>THAT’S TRUE.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I KIND OF LOOK AT IT AS YOU’RE GOING TO THE COURTS AND YOU GO TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THAT’S THE FINAL JUDGMENT. THAT’S HOW I’M RELATING IT.>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: MY OTHER QUESTION IS THAT IS HOW LONG HAS THE MEXICO TRADE OFFICE BEEN CLOSED?>>THE EXISTING CONTRACT, THE LAST DAY OF THAT CONTRACT WAS JULY 31ST, AND SO THERE WAS NO CONTRACT ON AUGUST 1ST TO KEEP OUR HERMOSILLO OFFICE OR OUR MEXICO CITY OFFICE OPEN. SO THEY’VE BEEN CLOSED SINCE THAT TIME.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: SO ABOUT THREE MONTHS?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>I’M JUST A LITTLE BIT TAKEN BACK BY THIS WHOLE PROCESS IN THE SENSE OF EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL AND GET TO THE APPEAL, AND WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THE APPEAL DEMONSTRATED THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE RFP WAS VALID AND THAT THE GROUP THAT WAS SELECTED IS A GROUP THAT WAS SELECTED. IF THIS DOES NOT PASS, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? BECAUSE THIS RFP — OR THEY’RE NOT SELECTED, THEN WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS AND HOW LONG ARE THE NEXT STEPS IN ORDER TO OPEN UP AN OFFICE IN MEXICO?>>AT THIS TIME WE HAVE AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COUNCIL TO COMPLETE THIS RFP. STAFF WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH A NEW STRATEGY TO COME FORWARD FOR COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION ON HOW WE MIGHT CONTINUE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN MEXICO. COUNCIL COULD ALSO GIVE US DIRECTION ON HOW THEY WOULD LIKE US TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN MEXICO. SO HOW LONG THAT WOULD TAKE, IF IT’S A NEW RFP, YOU KNOW, PLUS OR MINUS SIX MONTHS AS WE WORK THROUGH A NEW REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS. IF IT’S A DIFFERENT DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL, WE WOULD IMPLEMENT IT AS QUICKLY AS WE COULD.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: COULD WE DO IT INTERNALLY? I MEAN, COULD WE MANAGE THIS CONTRACT INTERNALLY?>>WE HAVE SINCE JULY 31ST BEEN DOING OUR BEST TO MANAGE WHAT ACTIVITY WE CAN IN THE MEXICO MARKET. WE WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE TO LOOK FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FROM THE COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE A CONTRACT TO THE LEVEL AT WHICH WE’VE BEEN ABLE TO EXECUTE OUR MEXICO OFFICES. WE’VE FOUND IT VERY BENEFICIAL TO HAVE BOOTS ON THE GROUND, IF YOU WILL, IN MEXICO WHERE PEOPLE CAN VISIT OUR OFFICES AND WORK DIRECTLY. SO WE WOULD NEED A BIT MORE ROBUST OF A STAFF TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE THAT EFFICIENTLY.>>THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE MORE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE — I’M ASSUMING IT WOULD BE AN OFFICE. WHAT KIND OF STAFFING IT WOULD TAKE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.>>I COULD KIND OF GIVE YOU A GENERAL IDEA. STAFF, WE WOULD NEED TO SIT DOWN WITH STAFF AND REALLY WORK ON WHAT A STRATEGY WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONTRACT WE HAVE TODAY AND THE RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL TODAY, IF WE WERE TO TRY TO REPLICATE SIMILAR ACTIVITY, WE WOULD NEED A TRADE REPRESENTATIVE IN MEXICO CITY, A TRADE REPRESENTATIVE IN HERMOSILLO, WE WOULD NEED AN INDIVIDUAL OR TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO CONDUCT THAT BUSINESS AND BE ABLE TO GUIDE THAT BUSINESS FROM THIS LOCATION. SO CERTAINLY TWO OR THREE ADDITIONAL STAFF MEMBERS, AND WE WOULD NEED SOME TIME TO WRITE SOME TIME HOW THAT STRATEGY WOULD LOOK LIKE WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL AND GAIN YOUR INPUT ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO EXECUTE. HOW LONG WOULD THIS CONTRACT BE?>>THE CONTRACT AS WE HAVE PROPOSED TO MOVE FORWARD, IT IS A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT, AND THEN IT DOES HAVE THREE ONE-YEAR RENEWALS FOR THE COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION EACH YEAR. SO THIS WOULD — THE CONTRACT SHOULD COUNCIL CHOOSE TO APPROVE IT WOULD BE IN PLACE FOR ’20 AND ’21. WE WOULD BE BACK AT COUNCIL LOOKING FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR AN EXTENSION IN ’22 SHOULD THAT BE SOMETHING YOU GIVE US DIRECTION.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: I WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ADVOCATED THIS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IT WAS BACK WITH PHIL GORDON AND THEN GREG STANTON. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT WAS SAL DICICCIO THAT CONNECTED US WITH TOM FERRIS TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE STATE SO WE COULD HAVE A JOINT OFFICE IN MEXICO CITY. SO I BELIEVE THAT WE’VE DONE A GREAT JOB, AND MORE AND MORE THAT PEOPLE HEAR ABOUT OUR GOOD WORKS IN MEXICO, WE’RE STARTING TO HEAR FROM DIFFERENT CONSULATES. I ACTUALLY SERVE AS AN HONORARY CHAIR ON THE CONSULATE — THE CORE CONSULATES AND THEY’RE SAYING WHY CAN’T WE HAVE ONE? WHY CAN’T WE HAVE ONE IN ENGLAND? WHY CAN’T WE HAVE ONE WITH ALL OUR SISTER CITIES, AND YOU ALL HAVE TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, AND LET’S THINK GLOBAL INSTEAD OF JUST MEXICO. AND I THINK IT’S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT’S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO REALLY SIT DOWN, SAME TIME-OUT, AND REALLY LOOK AT A GLOBAL WAY OF ATTRACTING BUSINESS HERE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX I MEAN, WE HAVE ONE DIRECT AIR FLIGHTS TO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES NOW WHICH MAKES IT VERY EASY FOR US TO HAVE TRADE BETWEEN THOSE COUNTRIES, AND WE HAVE OUR SISTER CITIES PROGRAM WITH — AND HOW CAN WE USE OUR SISTER CITIES. HOW CAN WE USE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE? SINCE THE OFFICE HAS BEEN CLOSED, I HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH JUAN [INDISCERNIBLE] AND INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE INTERESTED TO COME TO PHOENIX, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE MAYOR AND THE — THE GENERAL CONSULATE OF THE UNITED STATES THAT’S STATIONED IN HERMOSILLO GAVE US A CALL WHEN THERE WAS A PROBLEM IN HERMOSILLO TO SEE IF WE COULD ASSIST THEM WITH SOME EXPERTISE OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS. SO MYSELF AND OUR FUTURE VICE MAYOR WERE ABLE TO FLY DOWN THERE AND HELP THEM OUT. THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS WE SHOULD HAVE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD, NOT JUST WITH MEXICO. SO I’D LIKE TO REALLY LOOK AT A WAY TO — IF WE’RE GOING TO SPEND MORE THAN HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, THAT WE LOOK AT HOW TO MAKE IT MORE GLOBAL, WHY WE’RE NOT IN CENTRAL AMERICA ALSO. SO IF — IF THAT’S — THAT’S MY RECOMMENDATION. THAT’S WHAT I LIKE TO SEE IN THE FUTURE. MAYBE YOU CAN SET US OFF TO LOOK AT A MORE GLOBAL LOOK, AND AT THE SAME TIME, HOW DO WE CONTINUE THOSE PARTNERSHIPS. I KNOW THAT YOUR STAFF IS WORKING REALLY GOOD WITH SOME NONPROFITS HERE, LIKE CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, TO FIND SOME REVENUES AND SMALL BUSINESS LOANS FOR INDIVIDUALS LIKE WHAT WE JUST HEARD RIGHT HERE, THAT IT WAS ALL POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF A SMALL BUSINESS LOAN WE WERE ABLE TO TEAM PEOPLE UP TOGETHER. I THINK OUR STAFF IS DOING A WONDERFUL JOB, AND THE BUSINESSES ARE CONTINUING. WE’RE NOT THERE PHYSICALLY, BUT I THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY COME UP WITH THE — THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX AND DOING IT THE PHOENIX — TEAM PHOENIX APPROACH. SO WITH THAT, MAYOR, I THINK I’D LIKE TO MAYBE NOT CALL IT — CALL IT SORT OF LIKE A TIME-OUT AND JUST REALLY RETHINK THIS WHOLE TRADE — NOT JUST TRADE TO MEXICO BUT TRADE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GLOBAL WORLD.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON MEXICO ISSUES, BOTH THROUGH THE SISTER CITY PROGRAM AND THROUGH OTHER VENUES. WE’VE BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNTRY OF MEXICO FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO THAT RELATIONSHIP. COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR?>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I ACTUALLY THINK THAT’S A REALLY GOOD IDEA, BUT I JUST DON’T THINK WE SHOULD HOLD UP THE MEXICO TRADE OFFICE. I THINK THAT WE LOOK AT A GLOBAL PLAN IN THE SENSE THAT MEXICO IS HERE AND THEN WE LOOK AT CENTRAL AMERICA AND WE LOOK AT CANADA AND WE LOOK AT ALL THE DIFFERENT AREAS AND BE ABLE, THEN, TO HAVE MANY DIFFERENT RFPS GLOBALLY REACHING THE DIFFERENT MARKETS THAT WE NEED TO REACH. I THINK ONE OF THE IDEAS SHOULD BE WHICH MARKETS ARE WE GOING TO HIT. WE KNOW WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL AND WAS DOING GREAT SUCCESS WITH THE MEXICO TRADE. ONE OF THE EXPERIENCES THAT I HAD, I WAS FORTUNATE TO GO ON THREE TRADE MISSIONS, BUT ONE OF THE LAST EXPERIENCES WITH COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS WAS DEFINITELY THAT EXPOSURE TO SEEING HOW 300 PEOPLE WERE WAITING IN LINE AND STAFF — WE WENT ON TO ANOTHER EVENT, AND THE MAYOR WAS HOSTING US, OF HERMOSILLO, AND SHE WAS SAYING “I HAVE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS.” AND THE TRADE THAT CAME OUT OF THAT, BECAUSE STAFF DIDN’T ARRIVE UNTIL, I BELIEVE, 10:00, 10:30, WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING, ONCE WE DO OUR THING AND THEN WE COME BACK, WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING IS SEVERAL MONTHS LATER I GET INVITED TO HERMOSILLO’S WOMAN’S BUSINESS SUMMIT, AND I WALK IN, AND I’M JUST LIKE, OKAY. I END UP MEETING OVER 50 WOMEN THAT ARE WANTING TO COME AND SEE HOW THEY BEGIN TO TRADE BACK AND FORTH AND BEGIN TO — WHAT IS THE PROCESS. TO ME THAT’S VERY IMPRESSIVE, SPECIFICALLY THE FACT THAT THE WOMEN — NOT THAT THEY HAVEN’T, BUT THEY’RE NOW REALLY ENGAGED ON WANTING TO DO THAT. I WOULD HATE TO LOSE THE MOMENTUM, AND I WOULD HATE FOR POLITICS TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THIS, BUT IT’S UP TO THE COUNCIL. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: I THINK THE COUNCILWOMAN HAS A VERY GOOD IDEA. WHAT I LIKE — BECAUSE I HATE THE INTERRUPTION DOWN THERE. I THINK IT REFLECTS BADLY ON US AND WE LOSE MOMENTUM. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US GO WITH THE TWO YEARS WHILE WE DEVELOP A GLOBAL PLAN AND DECIDE IF WE WANT TO EXPAND OFFICES IN OTHER AREAS, BUT IT WOULD KEEP US ALIVE AND GOING IN HERMOSILLO AND MEXICO CITY. JUST MY SUGGESTION.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: MOTIONS?>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. CAN I AMEND MY MOTION?>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: TO APPROVE THIS FOR TWO YEARS?>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS A YEAR INSTEAD OF THE TWO YEARS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: WELL, I THINK YOU SAID THE CONTRACT IS FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN THREE ONE-YEAR RENEWALS.>>RIGHT.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: I KNOW GOVERNMENT MOVES SLOWLY. WE LIKE TO THINK WE’RE PRETTY SPEEDY, BUT WE’RE NOT, AND I THINK BY THE TIME YOU GET THE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY, FROM THE COUNCILMEMBERS, FROM YOUR STAFF DEVELOPING A PLAN TO GO FORWARD TO MAYBE DO MULTIPLE OFFICES IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, THAT COULD BE 18 MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD. I DON’T WANT TO SEE HERMOSILLO EMPTY FOR ANOTHER 18 MONTHS. I THINK THAT’S — IT RUINS OUR REPUTATION. IT’S JUST NOT GOOD BUSINESS FOR PHOENIX OR ARIZONA, AND I REALLY THINK IF WE COULD KEEP IT OPEN AND FLOWING FOR TWO YEARS GIVES YOU AMPLE TIME TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW AND IF NOT CAN BE BROUGHT BACK FOR RECONSIDERATION.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND IT NOW. I WOULD AGREE.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: BOTH THE MOTION MAKER AND THE SECONDER, IT WOULD BE A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT?>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: UH-HUH.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE? ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: MAYOR, EXPLANATION OF VOTE. IT’S A DIFFICULT DECISION FOR ME. I’VE BEEN CONSISTENT VOTING AGAINST LOBBYING CONTRACTS AND WILL BE VOTING NO TODAY, BUT IT’S NOT A REFLECTION ON THE FIRM AT ALL. I THINK IT’S AN AMAZING FIRM THAT’S THERE, BUT — AND IT’S HARD BECAUSE MICHAEL AND I DID APPROACH GREG AT THE TIME, MAYOR, AND GOT THIS THING STARTED, AND THIS HAS EVOLVED AND CHANGED A LOT FROM THE FIRST TIME WE HAD MULTIPLE PARTNERS, AND IT WASN’T PHOENIX GOING AT IT ALONE. WE HAD THE STATE. WE HAD OTHERS INVOLVED IN IT. AND SO IT IS A DIFFICULT THING, AND, MAYOR, YOUR LEADERSHIP ON MEXICO IS JUST — I MEAN, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED TODAY. YOU WEREN’T. BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF WORK YOU’VE DONE MAKING SURE WE RESTORE OUR TIES TO MEXICO. IT IS OUR LARGEST TRADING PARTNER, WITHOUT A DOUBT. THEY ARE — THEY’RE AN AMAZING PARTNER. THEY HAVE BEEN A GREAT PARTNER FOR US AND THEY WORK WITH US IN A LOT OF WAYS, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE TODAY ON THIS, MAYOR, VOTE YES ON IT. JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: EXPLAIN MY VOTE. AS SOMEONE BORN IN MEXICO IN SONORA, I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS COMMITMENT. A LOT OF THIS POLITICS THAT KEEPS GETTING MENTIONED HAPPENED BEFORE I GOT HERE, SO I THINK I’D WELCOME A FRESH START. IN MY VIEW I THINK AS A CITY WE SHOULD INVEST IN OUR DEPARTMENT. I WISH WE WOULD HAVE HAD MORE TIME TO KIND OF FIGURE IT OUT, WHETHER IT’S A ONE-YEAR, TWO-ARE YEAR, BUT WITH KIND OF AN AGREEMENT THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING OUR OWN FOLKS INTERNALLY AS IT’S GOING ON. AND SO I’M COMMITTED TO CONTINUING THIS PROCESS, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH MEXICO, WHATEVER. OUR OFFICE COULD DO TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. BUT UNFORTUNATELY TODAY I’M GOING TO VOTE NO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO:>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: I SAW THE NEED WHAT’S HAPPENING THERE, THE NEED, VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIPS. COMING FROM A MEXICAN FAMILY I GET IT, I UNDERSTAND. I’M VERY EXCITED TO SEE WHAT IS IT MORE WE CAN DO AS A CITY AND THEN ALSO NOW AS A COUNCILMEMBER I’D LIKE TO DEFINITELY — EXCITED TO FIGURE OUT HOW AS THE — HOW OUR OFFICE CAN BE MORE HELPFUL AND BE MORE HANDS-ON. AGAIN, LIKE, I LOVE THE PARTNERSHIPS. I LOVE OUR SISTER CITIES PROGRAM AND HOPE MOVING FORWARD WE WILL GET A FRESH START. SO I’LL BE VOTING NO.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: NO.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I’M ACTUALLY GOING TO VOTE YES, AND THE REASON WHY I’M VOTING YES IS BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS. I THINK WHEN POLITICIANS GET IN THE MIDDLE OF PROCUREMENT AND START DICTATING OR QUIETLY — OR HAVE PEOPLE CALL AND DICTATE WHY THEY SHOULD VOTE NO ON A PROCESS, FOR ME IT’S ABOUT THE PURITY OF THE PROCESS. I DON’T CARE WHO GETS THIS RFP. IT’S NOT ABOUT THAT. IT’S ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A DUE PROCESS OF WHEN YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A PROPOSAL, AND YOU CAN GO THROUGH IT, AND THEN THERE’S FINDINGS AND DEMONSTRATING THAT THE STAFF DID EVERYTHING CORRECTLY IN THE PROCESS IN AWARDING A PROPOSAL. SO I’M A YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: I AM DEFINITELY A YES. I THINK THIS IS THE BEST FOR THE CITY TO KEEP THIS OPEN AND CONTINUE ON.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: NO.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: NO. MOTION FAILS 3-6. OR 6-3, I GUESS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: I WOULD MOVE ITEM 67.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE MULTIPLE TRANSPORTATION ITEMS. CITY CLERK DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS ON ITEM 67?>>CLERK: NO MAYOR.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: COULD WE HAVE A MOTION ON 67? AND A SECOND. ANY COMMENTS? ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: NO.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. ITEM PASSES 7-1.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: MOVE 68 FOR APPROVAL.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ANY COMMENTS ON 68. ANY CARDS? ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: 68, CORRECT? NO.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: NO.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. ITEM PASSES 6-2. ITEM 70 RELATED TO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS. HALEY RITTER. WHILE SHE IS COMING FORWARD WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 70.>>SECOND.>>PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF MY LIFE AS I TRAVEL BY BICYCLE EVERYWHERE. I’M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED IN THE LANG OF BICYCLE STUDIES DONE IN THINGS LIKE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. THERE’S A LOT OF — I’M A LITTLE SHORT HERE — THERE’S A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS AT THE 19TH AVENUE AND CAMELBACK AREA. I’M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT FAMILIAR WITH EXACTLY WHAT’S ON THIS ITEM, BUT I JUST WANT TO — I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. IT’S A BIG ISSUE HERE IN THE VALLEY. AND I SEE PEOPLE ON BICYCLES EVERYWHERE I GO. I THINK STREETS ARE A LITTLE BIT — STREET — CAR LANES ARE TOO WIDE. THEY DON’T NEED TO BE 12 FEET. WE CAN GET AWAY WITH HAVING 10-FOOT WIDE CAR LANES AND STILL HAVE FLOWABLE TRAFFIC FOR MOTORIZED VEHICLES WHILE ALSO HAVING BICYCLE LANES ON MOST, AND HOPEFULLY AT SOME POINT, ALL MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADS. I FEEL LIKE I’M KIND OF CAUGHT BETWEEN BEING A PEDESTRIAN AND BEING A DRIVER OR SOMETHING BECAUSE I RIDE A BICYCLE EVERYWHERE, AND IT’S VERY IMPORTANT THAT CARS RESPECT SPEED LIMITS AND THERE’S A LOT OF DRIVERS WHO COMPLETELY IGNORE STOPLIGHTS AND TURNAROUND CORNERS WITHOUT STOPPING. I SEE THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY ALL THE TIME, AND THAT CONCERNS ME. SOME OF THESE STREETS THAT ARE ACTUALLY ON THE TICKET FOR GETTING IMPROVEMENTS WITH LIGHTING AND HAWK SIGNALS AND — I WANT TO THANK THE CITY ON ALL THOSE IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE THEY’RE DOING A GREAT JOB WITH THAT. BUT AS FAR AS THE WIDENING OF — OR — AS FAR AS THE STREETS THAT ARE, LIKE INDIAN SCHOOL BETWEEN 19TH AVENUE AND 7TH AVENUE WHERE THERE IS NO BICYCLE LANE, I THINK THAT THAT AREA COULD BE SLIMMED DOWN WITH MORE NARROW CAR LANES TO FIT A BICYCLE. THE CITY NEEDS TO WORK — THE CITY STAFF MEMBERS NEED TO WORK A LITTLE BIT HARDER AND I ENCOURAGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO IN ORDER TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.>>THIS YEAR’S BUDGET PRIORITIZED PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. SO THIS ITEM WILL ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH UPGRADES INCLUDING BETTER STREETLIGHTING. COMMENTS? ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: YES.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: YES.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>>>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: YES.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. 8-0. ITEM 86.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: MAYOR, THIS ITEM GOT PULLED BECAUSE THE WRONG BOX GOT CHECKED. THE CARD WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IF NECESSARY TO SPEAK. SO ALAN HAS A PRESENTATION READY BUT I’M HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOTION AND WE CAN JUST VOTE IF THAT’S OKAY WITH ALAN.>>MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, I’M VERY HAPPY WITH THAT.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: MAYOR?>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THIS IS AN EXCITING ITEM. WE ARE HEARING FROM MANY PEOPLE IN DESERT RIDGE ABOUT THINGS THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND NOW MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. CONGRATULATIONS TO DISTRICT 2.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 86.>>COUNCILWOMAN START: SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: YES.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: [INAUDIBLE]>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: YES.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. 9-0. ITEM 104. ITEM 104 IS A CASE IN COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR’S DISTRICT. WE HAVE TWO CARDS MARKED IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION. SHALL WE TAKE A MOTION OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR THE CARDS FIRST?>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE CARDS AND THEN –>>MAYOR GALLEGO: PERFECT. DAVE JENKINS IS MARKED OPPOSED.>>HI. I’M DAVE JENKINS. I’M A PROUD LONG-TERM CARNATION NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENT. I AM FOLLOWING THIS PROJECT CLOSELY. I HAD ONE-ON-ONE TALKS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVISTS AND THE DEVELOPER. I’M NOT GOING ANYWHERE AS CARNATION IS MY HOME. I’M ASKING FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY OF PHOENIX TO HONOR CARNATION’S FAMILY ORIENTED HISTORY, TO PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND TO PROVIDE A PHYSICAL TRAFFIC DIVERSION ON THE PROPERTY’S 3RD AVENUE ACCESS. OUR CONCERN IS REAL. WE NEED MORE THAN A SIGN. WITHOUT A DIVERSION, MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS WILL BE AT RISK FOR A FATAL TRAGEDY. I DON’T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN, AND I’M SURE YOU WOULDN’T EITHER. THIS PROPERTY COULD HONESTLY CREATE OVER A THOUSAND CAR TRIPS THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD DAILY. WALKERS, JOGGERS, BIKERS AND FAMILY WITH JUNK KIDS ON A FAMILY BIKE RIDE WILL BE AT RISK. PLEASE DON’T ALLOW OUTSIDE TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. DRIVERS WANTING TO AVOID THE HEAVY TRAVELED INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD WILL DRIVE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT DESIGNED FOR OUTSIDE TRAFFIC. I’VE SEEN OTHER NEIGHBORS — NEIGHBORHOODS AND DESIGN A TRAFFIC DIVERSION THAT WORKS. I WOULD LIKE TO HAND IT TO THE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS. I AM NOT AGAINST APARTMENTS, JUST THAT THAT YOU REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO PRESERVE THE FAMILY-FRIENDLY STREETS OF CARNATION NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. MARGARET DIETRICH FOLLOWED BY STEVEN EARLE WHO MARKED AVAILABLE TO SPEAK IS NECESSARY.>>MARGARET DIETRICH. THIS CORNER IS SO IMPORTANT TO SO MANY PEOPLE BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORY. WITH THE BAYLESS STORE AND THE CARNATION DAIRY THAT USED TO BE THERE, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THIS IS A MAJOR INTERSECTION IN PHOENIX, AND IT DESERVES A REALLY BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY. NOW, TOLL BROTHERS BUILDS NICE PROPERTY AND ORIGINALLY THEY BROUGHT A QUALITY PRODUCT THAT WAS HONESTLY RATHER BORING, BUT THEY HAVE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO MAKING THIS WORTHY OF THAT CORNER WITH A CLADDING THAT’S SIMILAR TO OUR PUNCH CARD BUILDING AT CENTRAL AND OSBORN AND THEN ON THE BODEGA ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THE ARCHES THAT ARE ON THE ROUND BUILDING AT CENTRAL AND OSBORN, ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE TURNED THE ARCHES RIGHT SIDE UP. AND THE OTHER THING — SO ALL TOGETHER I THINK THIS IS A WORTHY PROJECT NOW FOR THIS CORNER. I LIVE AT CENTRAL AND ENCANTO AND HALF A MILE SOUTH OF US IS CENTRAL AND MCDOWELL. AND SINCE THE MICHIGAN MUSE PROJECT HAS BEEN THERE I HAVE NOT ACTUALLY NOTICED ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. I THINK PEOPLE THAT MOVE INTO PLACES LIKE THIS TEND TO GIVE UP THEIR CARS IN FAVOR OF HAVING A REALLY NICE PLACE TO LIVE BECAUSE THEY OFTEN HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. AS FAR AS THE 3RD AVENUE PROBLEM, I’M KIND OF A CUT-THROUGH KIND OF PERSON, AND 3RD AVENUE HAS GOT SPEED BUMPS, AND I DON’T CUT THROUGH ON 3RD AVENUE, AND I KNOW THEY HAVE HE WORKED WITH THE PEOPLE THERE TO SEE — THERE’S ONLY A LEFT TURN OUT OF IT TO GO DOWN TO INDIAN SCHOOL. SO I THINK THEY’VE WORKED AS HARD AS THEY CAN TO KEEP THE CARNATION NEIGHBORHOOD FROM BEING ANNOYED WITH TRAFFIC. THAT’S — I’M IN FAVOR.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU SO MUCH. MR. EARL.>>I DON’T WALK QUITE AS FAST AS I USED TO. APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I’M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, TOLL BROTHERS. WITH ME TONIGHT IS TODD BOWDEN, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF ALL MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN UNITED STATES. HE PERSONALLY WENT AFTER THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALL OF THESE RESIDENTS, INCLUDING MR. JENKINS, TO MAKE THEM — MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH 3RD AVENUE, BECAUSE IT HAD COME UP DURING THE DISCUSSIONS. NOW, THE VILLAGE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST. THE STAFF’S RECOMMENDING ITS APPROVAL. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING ITS APPROVAL. THERE IS A STIPULATION NUMBER 12 IN THE RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO CONTROL THE TRAFFIC AT 3RD AVENUE WITH DIVERTERS OR OTHER DESIGNS APPROVED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, AND INCLUDING A SIGN. WE THOUGHT THAT IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT A PROJECT JUST TO THE NORTH OF THIS PROJECT WHICH WAS BUILT 20 YEARS AGO CALLED THE STATION. SOME OF I DON’T YOU MAY REMEMBER IT. AND IT HAS ACCESS TO 3RD STREET GOING UP TO MONTROSE A. YOU CAN GO THEN EITHER WAY, EITHER OUT TO CENTRAL OR TO 3RD. THAT’S BEEN STUDIED. LAST FRIDAY PEAK HOUR MOVEMENT. OVER THE WEEKEND. AND YESTERDAY. AND THE DAY BEFORE. ALL OF THAT STUDY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE TRIPS THAT LEAVE THAT PROJECT, WHICH HAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME NUMBER OF TRIPS — OR UNITS THAT WE DO, AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE TURNED NORTH INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WEST OUT TO 3RD AVENUE. THE HIGHLY PREDOMINANT MOVEMENT WAS DOWN TO INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD TO GET TO THE SIGNAL. SO WE BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE GOING NORTH OUT OF THIS PROJECT WILL BE VERY RARE, BUT BECAUSE WE’RE COMMITTED TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKING SURE THAT WE DON’T HAVE ERRANT MOVEMENTS GOING NORTH, WE’RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IN COMING UP WITH A DESIGN THAT PHYSICALLY DIVERTS PEOPLE TOWARD INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD AND DOES NOT FAVOR THAT RIGHT OUT TO GO NORTH. BUT THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT MOST PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO GO NORTH. IT’S SO EASY TO TAKE EITHER INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD, WE HAVE TWO MAJOR ACCESS POINTS TO INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD, AND THEN WE HAVE THIS 3RD. I DON’T HAVE CONTROL OF THE BUTTON –>>MAYOR GALLEGO: IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR FINAL THOUGHT.>>WHAT IS THAT?>>MAYOR GALLEGO: UNLESS ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS, WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR FINAL THOUGHT? COUNCILMAN DICICCIO?>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: STEVE, I WANT YOU TO KNOW, YOU MAY HAVE BEEN MOVING A LITTLE SLOW, BUT YOU’RE STILL THE SHARPEST GUY IN THE ROOM. YOU ARE. THE KIND OF WORK YOU DO, AND YOU’RE AN HONORABLE INDIVIDUAL AND YOU’RE WORKING WITH A GREAT CLIENT WITH TOLL BROTHERS. THEY ALWAYS BRING IN GREAT PRODUCTS. BUT I ALSO KNOW THE AMOUNT WORK YOU PUT INTO IT AND COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR PUT INTO THIS PROJECT. THE FACT YOU HAVE A COMPLICATED CASE LIKE THIS AND YOU ONLY HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL, I WANT SOME OF THAT. TELL ME HOW YOU DID IT, LAURA, BECAUSE IT’S OBVIOUS YOU DID IT RIGHT.>>AND WE DID GET A HUNDRED LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: YOU HAVE DONE AN AMAZING JOB ON SOMETHING THIS COMPLICATED. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I DON’T YOU MIGHT WANT TO BRING UP, IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO, THE CURRENT ZONING UNDERNEATH IT IS A VERY INTENSE ZONING THAT COULD LITERALLY ALLOW USES YOU DON’T WANT TO SEE ON THAT CORRIDOR. THIS IS YOUR ENTRYWAY, THE GATEWAY INTO DOWNTOWN, AND THE C3 ZONING YOU HAVE ON THERE RIGHT NOW COULD ALLOW MULTIPLE OTHER USES THAT COULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALL THE THINGS YOU HAVE DONE ON BEHALF OF PROTECTING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE QUITE EXEMPLARY. THANKS FOR DOING THAT, STEVE.>>THANK YOU, SAL. WE HAVEN’T SHOWN OUR PRESENTATION, MAYOR, AND I CAN SHOW YOU A FEW SLIDES IF YOU WISH THAT SHOWS THE HEIGHT, QUALITY NATURE OF THE PROJECT AND HOW WE DID MAKE A MODERN VERSION OF THE –>>MAYOR GALLEGO: ONE, MOMENT, PLEASE.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: STEVE, I THINK IF YOU COULD SHOW FOR ME RIGHT NOW, FOR MR. JENKINS, IF YOU COULD SHOW THE 3RD –>>AVENUE?>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES, THE 3RD AVENUE AND WHAT HAS BEEN ADDED.>>WELL, THAT SITE PLAN THAT ALAN JUST PUT UP DOES SHOW THE 3RD AVENUE. THIS IS THE — I DON’T KNOW IF THIS DOCUMENT ACTUALLY WILL ALLOW ME TO HIGHLIGHT IT, BUT IT’S AT THE FAR WEST END, AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT WE CREATED A — WE’RE GOING THROUGH STAFF’S PRESENTATION, BUT — OH — IS MY –>>STEVE HOLD ON, JUST ONE SECOND. HE’LL SWITCH OVER TO YOUR PRESENTATION.>>I THOUGHT MINE WAS LOADED. IT IS. BUT THEY’RE NOT CONSECUTIVE. HE WILL SWITCH OVER.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: I WAS GOING TO DESCRIBE AS WE’RE SWITCHING OVER, BUT THAT’S OKAY. AS WE’RE WAITING, WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS TOLL BROTHERS DID HEAR THE COMMUNITY AND ALSO HEARD SOME OF THE — MY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I FELT WERE NEEDED IN THE ARCHITECTURE, AND SPECIFICALLY ON CENTRAL AND INDIAN SCHOOL ON HOW THAT WAS A CORNER THAT IS CHANGING RAPIDLY AND THE FACT THAT I WANTED IT TO ALSO BE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ARCHITECTURE TO LOOK LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SO THEY TOOK A VERY MID-CENTURY PIECE AND WERE ABLE THEN TO ADD IT ON OR BE ABLE TO REPLICATE IT WITH — ON CENTRAL AND INDIAN SCHOOL ALONG WITH VERY MODERN APARTMENTS.>>WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT SLIDE DID NOT –>>STOP THERE.>>THIS IS CENTRAL AVENUE FRONTAGE.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: IF YOU LOOK AT THE ADDITION OF THE ARCHES, ARCHITECTURE ON CENTRAL AND OSBORN OF THE FAMOUS BUILDING THAT SITS THERE –>>I’M NOT TOUCHING A THING.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: IT’S JUST GOING CRAZY. BUT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS — SAL, THANK YOU FOR THE COMPLIMENT, BUT WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS TOLL BROTHERS AND THE COMMUNITY REALLY WORKED HAND IN HAND ON CREATING THE SPACE THAT IT IS TODAY — OR WILL BE IN THE FUTURE. I WAS JUST BEHIND THE SCENES BECAUSE I REALLY LIKE WHEN COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS WORK TOGETHER WITH A DEVELOPER, AND THEN I STEP IN WHEN IT’S VERY CONTENTIOUS. I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND EVERYONE SPECIFICALLY ON THE 3RD AVENUE, AND MR. JENKINS, WE — YOUR DRAWING IS WHAT’S GOING TO END UP IN THE STIPULATIONS, AND STIPULATION 12, 13 AND 14 ARE SPEAKING TO THAT. IN ADDITION TO THAT I AM ASKING FOR A VERY — WITHIN THE GUIDELINE OR TRANSPORTATION GUIDELINE, A HIGH PHYSICAL DIVERSION SO THAT IT IS — IF ANYBODY WOULD WANT TO MAKE A RIGHT, THEY WILL DAMAGE THEIR CAR AS THEY’RE MAKING THAT RIGHT, AND BE ABLE TO DIVERT THEM TO MAKE THEIR LEFT WE ARE LOOKING AT A LEFT-TURN LANE ON THAT LIGHT, AND SO I BELIEVE THAT ALL THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS OF MR. JENKINS HAS BEEN ANSWERED. AND SO, ALAN, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY OR — BECAUSE YOU AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING CLOSELY ON THIS, AND SO –>>MAYOR, COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR, JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, THIS PARTICULAR CASE WAS NOT APPEALED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE CAN’T ADD ANY STIPULATIONS, BUT THE COMMENTS THAT YOU JUST PROVIDED ARE REALLY DIRECTION TO STAFF AND MY DEPARTMENT, THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, TO WORK ON WHAT THAT RIGHT TURN DIVIDER WOULD BE TO ENSURE THAT TRAFFIC GOES SOUTH ON 3RD AVENUE, AND SO I WILL PUT TOGETHER A MEETING WITH STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND MY STAFF AND BRING THE EXHIBIT THAT MR. JENKINS PROVIDED SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT ALONG WITH YOUR COMMENTS AS DIRECTION ON HOW WE CAN LOOK AT TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WE MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS WE LEGALLY CAN FOR SOMEONE TO TURN AND GO NORTH ON 3RD.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES, BECAUSE I DO — AS MANY OF YOU KNOW THE CENTRAL CITY IS GROWING AND IT IS THE CORE, AND WE WILL CONTINUE — OR I WILL CONTINUE ALONG WITH NEIGHBORHOODS TO DISCUSS TRAFFIC AND CUT-THROUGH AND HOW WE AS A CITY MANAGE THOSE PIECES. AND SO I WILL BE CONTINUING LEARNING MORE AND MORE ABOUT DIVERSION IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE REACHED A GREAT — TO A GREAT AGREEMENT AND ARE ABLE, THEN, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. SO I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, STEVE. I’M JUST GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION. SO I MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 104, ALONG WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THE PHYSICAL DIVERSIONS AND LOOKING AT THE LIGHT TO BE INCLUDED.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: SECOND.>>OR AND — MOTION TO APPROVE IT PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND THE STIPS BEFORE YOU AND ADOPT THE RELATED ORDINANCE.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: I’LL SECOND THAT.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: AND WHAT ALAN SAID.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY COMMENTS? ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: YES.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: YES.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: YES.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. PASSES 9-0.>>THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE NEXT MOVE TO ITEM 107, WHICH IS A CASE IN VICE MAYOR WARING’S DISTRICT. SHOULD WE BEGIN WITH THE STAFF REPORT? WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR A BRIEF STAFF REPORT.>>ITEM NUMBER 107 IS A REZONING CASE Z8618-2, THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF CANYON HIGHWAY AND DYNAMITE BOULEVARD. IT IS A REQUEST FROM S1 TO COMMERCE GENERAL PARK FOR AN 18 ACRE SITE. THE PROPOSED USE IS A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND BOAT STORAGE FACILITY ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION THAT COMES BEFORE YOU TODAY. THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE. YOU CAN SEE IT OUTLINED HERE IN YELLOW. YOU’LL RECALL THAT THIS CASE WAS BEFORE YOU IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION BACK IN JULY. AT THAT POINT THE COUNCIL REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO THE DEER VALLEY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO START THE HEARING PROCESS OVER AGAIN. THE APPLICANT DOES MAKE A CHANGE AT THAT TIME TO SWAP OUT SOME OF THE LAND AREA HERE THAT WE’LL TALK ABOUT IN JUST A SECOND. THIS IS THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. IT IS A MIX OF COMMERCE PARK DESIGNATION AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 15-PLUS AND THIS LITTLE HALF-MOON AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-17 FREEWAY AND SKUNK CREEK WASH, THAT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED IN THE EARLY 2000S AND IT IS WHAT’S ON THE GENERAL PLAN TODAY AND HAS ALLOWED THIS AREA TO DEVELOP OVER TIME WITH A MIX OF MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCE PARK TYPE USES. THIS IS THE ZONING THAT SHOWS WITHIN THE AREA. SO YOU HAVE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UP HERE ON THESE SIDES. YOU HAVE SOME MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DOWN HERE. AND THEN COMMERCE PARK AND A POD THAT WOULD ALLOW A — PUD THAT WOULD ALLOW A MIX OF USES AND FURTHER OFF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF I-17 OR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SKUNK CREEK WASH AREA. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE FROM THE ORIGINAL CASE THAT CAME BEFORE YOU IN JULY WHERE THEY WERE JUST LOOKING AT THIS FOR THE VOTE, RV STORAGE AREA. WHAT THEY DID WAS REACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER BACK HERE TO SWAP THIS LAND SO THAT THAT GENTLEMAN WILL IN THE FUTURE DEVELOP THIS POSH SOME UP HERE. THE BOAT RV STORAGE AREA WOULD BE IN FOR THESE TWO PARCELS RIGHT HERE. THAT DID GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO BE REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED. YOU CAN SEE THE PHASE I IS WHAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSED. PHASE II IS THE FUTURE PHASE. THERE IS A STIPULATION AS PART OF THIS REQUEST THAT REQUIRES THAT FUTURE PHASE TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO HAVE THE SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS APPROVED. THAT WOULD BE APPROVED THROUGH THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER AND ALSO COULD BE APPEALED TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SITE DESIGN AND HOW THAT WILL LOOK, THE USE WOULD BE APPROVED IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES THIS CASE TODAY, BUT THE HEARING WOULD BE JUST WITH THE SITE DESIGN. THIS IS THE PROPOSAL RAW SITE PLAN. THIS IS A CUTOUT OF THE AREA. THIS IS THE PIECE TO THE NORTH. AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED RV BOAT STORAGE AREA. THIS IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN, A MINIMUM 30-FOOT LANDSCAPING PER STIPULATIONS ALONG I-17. THIS IS ONE OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE FOR THE OFFICE, RENTAL AREA. THESE ARE SOME OF THE STORAGE UNITS THAT WOULD BE INSIDE FOR SOME OF THE INTERNAL STORAGE. AND THEN UP IN THIS AREA IS THE OUTSIDE STORAGE WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR RV PART UNDERNEATH THESE CANOPIES. HERE IS A RENDERING OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE I-17 FREEWAY FRONTAGE ROAD. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTION OF THE RELATED ORDINANCE. IN THIS CASE IT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE ZONING CASE WHEN IT WENT TO THE DEER VALLEY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE, THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM THE VILLAGE. WHEN IT WENT TO THEM ON SEPTEMBER 19TH. AND THAT WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS WHO VOTED AND YOU’D HAVE FIVE MEMBERS TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO THE VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE HANDBOOK THEY DID NOT ACHIEVE THAT, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A MOTION TO DENY AND A MOTION TO APPROVE, NEITHER ONE GARNERED FIVE VOTES SO OFFICIALLY THERE IS NO RECOMMENDATION FROM THE VILLAGE. WITH THAT, STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FROM OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. EACH SIDE WILL HAVE UP TO 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT AND THE — VICE MAYOR, I BELIEVE WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE APPLICANT WHO COULD THEN RESERVE TIME AT THE END TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS FROM THE OTHER SIDE? AND ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE BEGIN? AND I BELIEVE EACH SIDE HAS A PRESENTATION.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS HAD HER IN DUKES AND I’M AN ATTORNEY WITH LAZARUS SILL VIN AND BANGS 2 VOLE 6 EAST VIRGINIA AVENUE. I AM HERE THIS AFTERNOON ON BEHALF OUR CLIENTS FORTRESS RV STORAGE TO REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF OUR APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES FROM THE SUBURBAN S1 DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCE PARK DISTRICT, GENERAL COMMERCE PARK OPTION FOR PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING THIS RV BOAT STORAGE FACILITY ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE I-17 FREEWAY BETWEEN DYNAMITE AND ALSO JOMAX ROAD. OUR CLIENT IS HERE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF FORTRESS RV. THE PARTNER OF OF MY FIRM LARRY LAZARUS IS ALSO IN ATTENDANCE AND WE HAVE OUR ARCHITECT HERE, ON POINT ARCHITECTURE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SINCE APPEARING BEFORE YOU IN JULY OF THIS YEAR OUR CLIENT HAS AMENDED THIS REZONING APPLICATION BY NEGOTIATING A LAND TRADE TO RELOCATE RV BOTH STORAGE FACILITY FARTHER SOUTH AND FARTHER AWAY FROM THE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE SCREEN WE ARE SHOWING THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE PRIOR LOCATION OF THE RV BOAT STORAGE FACILITY. PREVIOUSLY WE HAD PROPOSED A FACILITY TO BE IN A NORTH-SOUTH CONFIGURATION ALONG THE I-17 FREEWAY AND IN THESE BLUE PARCELS WERE OWNED BY A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF FRED BISHOP. WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH IS WE HAVE NOW ADJUSTED OUR SITE PLAN SO THE RV BOAT STORAGE FACILITY HAS BEEN PUSHED FARTHER SOUTH. SO ON THIS SIDE OF THE SCREEN YOU CAN SEE THE YELLOW BOUNDARY AND THAT IS WHERE THE RV BOAT STORAGE FACILITY WILL BE LOCATED. THE BLUE PARCELS WILL BE ACQUIRED BY MR. BISHOP, AND AT THIS TIME WE ARE PLANNING TO REZONE ALL 18 ACRES TO THE GENERAL COMMERCE PARK OPTION. NOW, THE TWO BLUE PARCELS TO THE NORTH WILL NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN AT THIS TIME. MR. BISHOP HAS NOT PREPARED TO COMMISSION A SITE PLAN. ONCE HE DOES THAT, HE WILL BE ABLE TO SUBMIT THE SITE PLAN TO THE CITY AND HE WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH THE PHO PROCESS. WHAT’S UNIQUE ABOUT THE PHO PROCESS IS ONCE THE APPLICATION, SITE PLAN IS FILED IT WILL BE SENT TO THE DEER VALLEY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND THEY WILL HAVE THE OPTION TO HEAR AND HAVE FEEDBACK, PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT HIS SITE PLAN, AND THEN IT WILL GO TO THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER. ANY APPEALS FROM THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ARE THEN HEARD AND DECIDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE SAME DECISION-MAKING BODY FOR ALL REZONING CASES. SO IT’S A VERY SIMILAR PROCESS FOR THOSE TWO PARCELS IN THE FUTURE. WE FEEL THIS IS AND I DEAL SITE FOR AN RV AND BOAT STORAGE FACILITY BEING LOCATED ALONG THE I-17 FREEWAY ALONG THE HIGHLY TRAVELED ROUTE TO SEVERAL NATIONAL PARKS, LAKES AND RECREATIONAL GROUNDS THROUGHOUT NORTHERN ARIZONA WITH FRONTAGE ALONG THE I-17 INDIVIDUALS CAN EASILY ACCESS THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES TO AND FROM THESE VARIOUS LOCATIONS. THE NEW RV BOAT STORAGE SITE IS COMPRISED OF 3 PARCELS, TOTAL 80 APPROXIMATELY 13.14 GROSS ACRES. AND BOTH THE I-17 AND THE SKUNK CREEK WASH SERVE AS PHYSICAL BUFFERS COMPLETELY SEPARATING THE SITE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO THE WEST AND THEN ALSO TO THE EAST. THE FULL EXTENT OF INTERSTATE 17 IS APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET WIDE AND THE SKUNK CREEK WASH AT THIS LOCATION IS APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET WIDE. THESE TWO BARRIERS CREATE ALMOST AN ISLAND. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO THE FREEWAY FRONTAGE ROAD CONNECTING WITH THE JOMAX ROAD INTERCHANGE TO THE SOUTH AND DIXILETTA DRIVE INTERCHANGE TO THE NORTH. AN RV BOAT STORAGE FACILITY GENERATES VERY LITTLE DAY-TO-DAY ACTIVITY AND CONSEQUENTLY LITTLE TRAFFIC WHEN COMPARED TO THE OTHER MULTI-FAMILY AND GENERAL COMMERCE PARK USES MAKING IT THIS LOW IMPACT USE SUITABLE AND COMPATIBLE AT THIS LOCATION. ALAN WENT THROUGH THE GENERAL PLAN. ONCE AGAIN THE MAROON COLOR SHOWN ON THE SCREEN DESIGNATES MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE LIGHT GRAY COLOR IS THE COMMERCE BUSINESS PARK OPTION. BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO REZONE TO THE GENERAL COMMERCE PARK OPTION IT DOES CONFORM WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP. THIS REQUEST FOR GENERAL COMMERCE PARK ZONING IS ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ZONING IN THE AREA. ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE I-17 TO THE SOUTH THERE ARE PARCELS ALREADY ZONED GENERAL COMMERCE PARK AND PUD DISTRICT WHICH ARE CIRCLED IN GREEN. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE CIRCLED IN RED AND THERE ARE TWO EXISTING PARCELS TO THE SOUTH THAT ARE STILL ZONED S1 AND SO WITH THIS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF GENERAL COMMERCE PARK AND MULTI-FAMILY IT IS LIKELY THOSE TWO PARCELS WILL BE REZONED IN THE FUTURE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE DESIGNATIONS. TURNING NOW TO THE SITE PLAN, AND THIS ONE IS DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2019, OUR AMENDED SITE PLAN, FORTRESS RV IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A PREMIER HIGH QUALITY RV AND BOAT STORAGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF 22 ENCLOSED GARAGES AND THOSE ARE LOCATED ALONG THE I-17. 263 PARKING CANOPIES. A SALES OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH IS LOCATED RIGHT IN THIS AREA. AND THAT SALES OFFICE BUILDING WAS DESIGNED WITH MATERIALS AND COLORS WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE WITH NOT ONLY THE APARTMENTS BUT THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS IN THIS AREA AND IT WILL HAVE A SECURE GATED ACCESS. THE CLEAR HEIGHT FOR ALL ENCLOSED STORAGE AND CANOPY SPACES WILL BE 14 FEET. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. FOR INSTANCE, THE PROPERTY IS SERVED WITH ONLY ONE DRIVE WAY ACCESS FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD. SO WE HAVE PLACED OUR OFFICE BUILDING WHERE TRAFFIC WILL BE COMING IN AND OUT OF THE FACILITY RIGHT THAT MID-POINT. YOU HAVE APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH AND TWO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH AND SO THIS OFFICE BUILDING, THE DRIVEWAY HAS BEEN STRATEGICALLY LOCATED AT THAT MID-POINT. AT THE REQUEST OF THE SAGE APARTMENTS WE ALSO MOVED OUR WASTE DUMP STATIONS FARTHER WEST TO THIS AREA AND SO ONCE AGAIN THAT’S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE. THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AT THE MID-POINT BETWEEN THE APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH AND THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES TO THE SOUTH. WHEN MEASURING ALONG THE FREEWAY FRONTAGE FOR THE MOST PART THE SAGE APARTMENTS ARE NOW LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH. I’M GOING TO POINT — BECAUSE WE’VE MOVED IT FARTHER SOUTH THERE IS A 400 FOOT DISTANCE NOW SEPARATING ALMOST SIX APARTMENT BUILDINGS FROM OUR LOCATION. PREVIOUSLY OUR SITE PLAN HAD 970 LINEAR FEET BECAUSE WE BOUNDED THE APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH AND THEN ALSO TO THE WEST. NOW WE ONLY BOUND THE APARTMENTS BY 415 LINEAR FEET WHICH IS IN THIS LOCATION RIGHT HERE AND AT THAT LOCATION I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT IS THE APARTMENT POOL AND THERE IS ONLY ONE APARTMENT BUILDING. SO WE WENT FROM BEING ABUTTING SIX APARTMENT BUILDINGS TO NOW ONLY ABUTTING ONE APARTMENT BUILDING AND THE POOL AREA AND LOCATED ALONG THIS SHARED PROPERTY LINE IS AN 11-FOOT RETAINING WALL. AGAIN, OUR LAND TRADE HAS REALLY ATTEMPTED TO WORK WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT, WORK WITH THE APARTMENTS TO COME UP WITH A BETTER REZONING APPLICATION. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE OUR PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE NOISE AND LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE COMMERCE PARK DISTRICT IN SECTION 626G5 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IT REQUIRES US TO HAVE OUTDOOR LIGHTING THAT SHALL BE SHIELDED SO NO SOURCE OF ILLUMINATION IS DIRECTLY VISIBLE FROM A PUBLIC STREET OR FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AND THAT LIGHT INTENSITY DOES NOT EXCEED ONE FOOT-CANDLE ON ANY ADJACENT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. WE ALSO HAVE STIPULATION NUMBER 12 BEING RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISION. YOU CAN ALSO SEE FROM OUR PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN THAT THE LIGHTSHED ALONG THE APARTMENTS HERE WILL BE COMPLETELY CONTAINED WITHIN OUR PROPERTY. WE HAVE NO LETSHED ON TO ABUTTING PROPERTIES. THE NOISE ON SITE MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH SECTION 626G3 OF THE ZONING. NOISE SHALL NOT EXCEED 55 DECIBELS WHEN MEASURED ON A WEIGHED SOUND METER. AGAIN WE WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY’S NOISE ORDINANCE. THE PROJECT WILL BE DEVELOPED IN TWO PHASES. FIRST PHASE WILL BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE GREEN LINE HERE — LET ME GO BACK — PHASE I WILL BE IN THIS LOCATION AND THEN PHASE II WILL BE TO THE EAST OF THAT GREEN LINE. AS SHOWN BY THE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN, SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ARE BEING PROVIDED A LONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT WITH MANY BUFFERS BEING IN EXCESS OF CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARDS. WE ARE PROVIDING 30 FEET ALONG THE I-17 AND THEN WE’RE PROVIDING 20 FEET ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF OUR SITE, 20 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY, AND THEN IN THIS AREA WE’RE PUTTING SOME OF OUR ON-SITE RETENTION. I DO WANT TO NOTE THE 20 FOOT SETBACK TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, THAT IS IN EXCESS OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX REQUIREMENT IS ONLY A FIVE-FOOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT. STIPULATION NUMBER 1 IN THE STAFF REPORT REQUIRES GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THIS SETBACK EXHIBIT ON THE SCREEN WHICH INCLUDES SETBACKS FOR THE TWO BISHOP PARCELS WHICH ARE THOSE TWO BLUE PARCELS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THE BISHOP PARCELS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP ALONG THE I-17 SIMILAR TO OUR DEVELOPMENT AND THEN HE WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A 20-FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP ALONG THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH BOUNDARIES OF THIS PROPERTY. AGAIN, THAT’S IN EXCESS OF FIVE-FOOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND HE WILL BE STIPULATED TO MEET THOSE SETBACKS. THIS SITE LINE WAS PREPARED FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A SECOND STORY BALCONY LOOKING SOUTH TOWARDS THE FUTURE FOR BISHOP PROPERTY AND RV BOAT STORAGE FACILITY WHICH IS NOW FARTHER SOUTH FROM THE — SIGNIFICANT STRAINING. YOU WILL NOTICE THE PARKING CANOPIES RIGHT HERE ON THE BOTTOM PART OF THE SCREEN. THOSE PARKING CANOPIES ARE ON THE APARTMENT PROPERTY. SO THE REASON I POINT THAT OUT IS ON THE AAPARTMENT PROPERTY YOU DO NOT HAVE APARTMENT BUILDINGS THAT ARE UP AGAINST THAT ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE. YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR THE APARTMENTS. SO YOU’RE BASICALLY HAVING PARKING NOW AGAINST THE TWO FRED BISHOP PARCELS AND THEN OUR DEVELOPMENT WILL BE FARTHER SOUTH BY 400 FEET. THIS IS ANOTHER VIEWPOINT FROM THE APARTMENTS LOOKING WEST TOWARDS THE FRED BISHOP PARCELS. AS ALAN MENTIONED, THIS IS A RENDERING OF OUR OFFICE BUILDING AND THE FRONT LANDSCAPED AREAS. AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS A HIGH-END, HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT BOTH FROM A DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE STANDPOINT. IT WILL BE DEVELOPED A AS AN UPSCALE RV AND BOAT STORAGE FACILITY THAT SURPASSES ALL MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE STORAGE FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THIS PART OF THE CITY. THE QUALITY DESIGN AND MATERIALS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE APARTMENTS NORTH AND THE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS AREA AND WE ALSO PROVIDED YOU WITH THE MATERIALS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. AS YOU MENTIONED AT SOME OF OUR PRIOR HERINGS WE HAVE PREPARED AN ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBER OF VEHICULAR TRIPS GENERATED. USING INFORMATION FROM THE INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TRIP GENERATION MANUAL AND INFORM OBTAINED FROM THE COMPARABLE RV BOAT STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE AREA, THEY HAVE DETERMINED THIS USE WILL GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 44 TRIPS PER DAY DURING THE WEEK AND 63 TRIPS ON THE WEEKEND. SO 44 TRIPS PER DAY IS 22 VEHICLES. THIS USE WILL GENERATE ONLY 22 VEHICLES PER DAY. IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER USES THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED ON THIS SITE WITH THIS ZONING, YOU HAVE MANUFACTURING AT APPROXIMATELY 700 TRIPS PER DAY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER AT 1800 TRIPS PER DAY, OFFICE PARK AT 1700 TRIPS PER DAY AND THEN APARTMENTS ALSO AT 1700 TRIPS PER DAY. SO WHEN YOU COMPARE TO THAT OUR 22 TRIPS PER DAY THIS IS A VERY COMPATIBLE USE FOR THIS AREA. I WANT TO PLACE THESE TRIP NUMBERS IN CONTEXT OF THE GREATER AREA. ACCORDING TO THE ADOT 2018 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS THERE ARE 111,189 VEHICLES THAT TRAVEL ALONG THE I-17 BETWEEN THE DIXILETTA AND JOMAX INTERCHANGES EVERY DAY. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE THIS CREATES A LOT OF ACTIVITY AND NOISE ALONG THE APARTMENT FRONTAGE. IN THIS CASE WE WILL BE GENERATING APPROXIMATELY 22 VEHICLES PER DAY AND WHEN YOU COMPARE THOSE 22 VEHICLES THAT TRAVEL TO AND FROM THIS BOAT STORAGE AND RV STORAGE FACILITY AGAINST THE 111,000 TRIPS AND VEHICLES ON THE FREEWAY IT’S HIGHLY UNLIKELY THIS USE WILL IMPACT THE EXISTING APARTMENT RESIDENTS OR THE SURROUNDING AREA. I WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE UNIQUE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THIS AREA. AS I MENTIONED, OUR SITE HAS ACCESS FROM THE NORTHBOUND FREEWAY FRONTAGE ROAD. THAT FREEWAY FRONTAGE ROAD AS IT HEADS NORTH TOWARDS DIXILETTA THEN TURNS EAST. THERE IS NO WAY TO HEAD NORTH ON THE I-17 AT THIS LOCATION. SO IN ORDER TO HEAD NORTH ON THE I-17 YOU’D HAVE TO LEAVE OUR SITE, WHICH IS AT THIS YELLOW STAR, HEAD NORTH TO DIXILETTA, THEN RED WEST, HEAD SOUTH ALONG THE FRONTAGE ROAD, EAST ALONG JOMAX AND THEN ENTER THE FREEWAY TO TRAVEL ALONG THOSE NORTHBOUND TRAVEL LANES ON THE I-17. SO IT’S VERY CIRCUITOUS IN THIS AREA AND THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WHY IT’S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A HIGH GENERATING TRAFFIC USE SUCH AS EMPLOYMENT CENTERS AND ALSO MORE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AT THIS LOCATION JUST WILL NOT SUPPORT THAT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THESE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE IMPACTS TO THE HOMES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE I-17 THAT ARE CREATED BY THAT CIRCUITOUS ROUTE WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL PETITION SIGNATURES FROM THE WEST SIDE OF I-17 IN SUPPORT OF OUR REZONING CASE AND SIGNIFICANTLY LOW NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED. WE HAVE SUBMITTED 260 LETTERS AND PETITIONS IN SUPPORT THAT THE SIGNATURES HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND COMPARED AGAINST RECORDED DEEDS AND RESIDENTIAL RENTAL CERTIFICATES THAT ARE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM ONLY TWO — WELL, LET ME BACK UP. IN THIS AREA THERE ARE ONLY TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT ABUT OUR SIDE, IT’S JIM MCDONALD AND MARGIE WICK AND MARGIE WICK IS HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF OUR APPLICATION. THESE HOMEOWNERS HAVE LIVED IN THEIR HOMES FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS IF NOT MORE AND WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND TALK ABOUT OUR PROJECT AND THEY HAVE SUBMITTED LETTERS OF SUPPORT OF OUR PROJECT. FRED BISHOP WHO IS THE PERSON WE DID THE LAND TRADE WITH, HE INITIALLY WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD CUT OFF HIS ACCESS TO THE BACK — THE TWO BACK PARCELS HE OWNED. WE UNDERTOOK SIGNIFICANT NEGOTIATIONS WITH MR. BISHOP. WE MET WITH HIMSELF TIMES. WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH THIS LAND TRADE NOT ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT PLAINTIFF BISHOP BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APARTMENTS AND OUR CLIENT. IT WAS A WIN-WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR ALL THREE PARTIES. AGAIN HE CHANGED HIS POSITION FROM BEING IN OPPOSITION TO OUR CASE TO NOW BEING IN SUPPORT AND HE SUBMITTED HIS LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE RECORD. [INDISCERNIBLE] FOUTZ OF THE PRESCOTT VALLEY COMPANY IS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE. DEB’S HE LETTER IS SIGNIFICANT IN THAT SHE GOES THROUGH THE HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. I JUST WANT TO JUMP FORWARD REAL QUICK TO READ A STATEMENT FROM HER INTO THE RECORD, IF I MAY, QUICKLY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT’S COME UP IN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE SAGE APARTMENTS HAVE BEEN ASKED WHAT USE WOULD YOU MAKE OF THIS SITE? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE DEVELOPED HERE? AND THEIR CONSISTENT STATEMENT ON THE RECORD HAS EITHER BEEN EMPLOYMENT USES OR MORE MULTI-FAMILY. SO DEB FOUTZ IN HER LETTER SAYS YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT LESS THAN ONE YEAR AGO AGENTS FOR AGE LUXURY APARTMENT HOMES WERE ALSO OPPOSED TO ANOTHER REZONING PROPOSAL IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA, NUMBER Z45-18. IN THIS CASE THE ZONING REQUESTS WAS R3 FOR A PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, KNOWN AS THE VIEW AT I-17 AND JOMAX. IN A LETTER DATED AUGUST 1ST, 2018, MARK STERLING CITED VARIOUS REASONS THEY WOULD STRONGLY OBJECT TO MULTI-FAMILY REZONING IN THE AREA. OBJECTIONS INCLUDED ISSUES WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC, CAPACITY BURDENS ON WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS DUE TO PEAK DEMANDS AND NOW FAST FORWARD TO OUR CASE, DEBORAH FOUTZ NOTES AT THE DEER VALLEY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE, PEGGY NEELY SPOKE ON BEHALF OF RESIDENTS OF THE APARTMENTS AND SHE REITERATED THE PEOPLE SHE REPRESENTS ARE OPPOSED TO THIS USE AND IF APPROVED WOULD DETER OTHER MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS FROM MOVING INTO THE AREA WHICH IS WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE AREA. SO WE ARE GETTING VERY INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS HERE. ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2019, WE WENT THROUGH THE LIST OF CONCERNS THAT WE’VE HEARD FROM SAGE APARTMENTS. WE PUT IT IN A LETTER TO THE SAGE APARTMENTS REPRESENTATIVE. WE MADE IT A PART OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX FILES FOR THIS CASE. AND WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO RESOLVE EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CONCERN THAT’S BEEN RAISED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND DURING OUR MEETINGS WITH THE SAGE APARTMENTS AND, AGAIN, THAT OCTOBER 1ST LETTER GOES THROUGH ALL OF OUR EFFORTS THAT WE’VE MADE THUS FAR. LASTLY I WANT TO REMIND THIS COUNCIL THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN THROUGH ONE BUT TWO PUBLIC HEARING PROCESSES. WE’VE HAD OUR FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON THIS CASE ON DECEMBER 20TH OF 2018. WE THEN WENT TO THE DEER VALLEY VILLAGE PLANNING ON FEBRUARY 21ST AND WHAT HAPPENED ON FEBRUARY 21ST IS WE ENDED UP ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE. WE GOT A LETTER, GOT — IT WAS ANT LETTER — IT WAS NOTICE FROM THE APARTMENTS THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED OUR MAILER FOR THE FIRST NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. SO WE VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO CONTINUE THAT DEER VALLEY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING SO WE COULD MEET WITH THE APARTMENTS. WE CONTINUED TO MEET WITH THE APARTMENTS THROUGH MARCH, APRIL AND THEN IN MAY WE FINALLY WENT BACK TO THE DEER VALLEY VILLAGE. WE PRESENTED OUR CASE. AND THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION AT THAT HEARING BECAUSE OF A PROCEDURAL ERROR. ON JUNE 6, 2019, WE WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND RECEIVED A 7-0 VOTE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF OUR CASE. ON JULY 3RD WE THEN AND BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING AND IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT WE WERE REQUESTED THEN TO BACK THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, NOT JUST ONE HEARING, BUT ALL OF THE HEARINGS, WE HAD ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, TO CURE THAT PROCEDURAL ERROR THAT HAD OCCURRED AT THE MAY 16TH DEER VALLEY VILLAGE. SO THESE ARE OUR NEW HEARING DATES. ALL 18TH WE WENT BACK TO THE DEER VALLEY VILLAGE. WE ASKED FOR A CONTINUANCE SO WE CAN WORK OUT THIS LAND TRADE. SEPTEMBER 6 WE HAD ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. SEPTEMBER 19TH WE WENT BACK TO THE DEER VALLEY VILLAGE AND PRESENTED INFORMATION ON OUR LAND TRADE. SEPTEMBER — SORRY — OCTOBER 3RD WE WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND ONCE AGAIN RECEIVED A 7-0 VOTE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. AND HERE WE ARE TODAY BEFORE YOU. IN CLOSING I WANT TO BRING THE FOCUS BACK TO THE MERITS OF THIS CASE. THIS IS TRULY A UNIQUE AREA THAT IS ISOLATED FROM SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS TO BOTH THE EAST AND WEST DUE TO THE SUBSTANTIAL BARRIERS THAT ARE CREATED BY THE SKUNK CREEK WASH AND ALSO THE I-17. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IS LIMITED AT THIS LOCATION DUE TO THE FREEWAY CONFIGURATION, WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW TRAFFIC TO DIRECTLY TRAVEL FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD ON TO THE NORTHBOUND TRAVEL LANES OF THE I-17. THESE TWO FEATURES ALONE MAKE THIS SITE INAPPROPRIATE FOR HIGH INTENSITY, HIGH TRAFFIC-GENERATING USES SUCH AS AN EMPLOYMENT CENTER OR ANOTHER MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AN RV BOAT STORAGE FACILITY WILL GENERATE ONLY 22 CARS PER DAY, MAKING IT A COMPATIBLE USE. THERE IS ALSO A VERY HIGH DEMAND FOR RV BOAT STORAGE IN THIS AREA. SEVERAL SUPPORTERS OF THIS PROJECT WHO SIGNED OUR PETITION NOTED THAT THEY WANTED A PLACE NEARBY WHERE THEY COULD STORE THEIR RVS AND THEIR BOATS BECAUSE EITHER, A., THEY WERE TIRED OF LOOKING AT THOSE — THESE BOATS AND RVS BEING STORED NUT PEOPLE’S LOTS, THEY COULDN’T FIND A SPACE IN THE AREA BECAUSE ALL THE RV BOAT STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE AREA ARE IN HIGH DEMAND. OR C. THEY HAVE CC&RS THAT ARE RECORDED AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH MAKE IT UNLAWFUL OR IT’S A PROHIBITED USE TO STORE THEM ON YOUR LOT. FINALLY, THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE WHICH CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AS WE SHOWED YOU ON THE LAND USE MAP FOR ALL OF THIS REASONS WE WOULD REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS REZONING APPLICATION. AND WOULD LIKE TO RE RESERVE MY REMAINING TITLE FOR REBUTTAL. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AT THIS POINT. LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE 8:45.>>THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE WILL PROBABLY NOT PROMISE PRECISION DOWN TO SECONDS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WILL NEXT MOVE TO THE OTHER SIDE AND THAT WE’LL BEGIN WITH STUART KIMBALL FOLLOWED BY PEGGY NEELY.>>MAYOR, CITY COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAMEST STUART KIMBALL. I’M ACTUALLY HERE AS MY ROLE AS A VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBER FOR THE DEER VALLEY PLANNING COMMITTEE. TO BE HONEST, IT’S QUITE A SHOCK. I WORK IN POLITICS, MOSTLY AT THE STATE, COUNTY AND SOME FEDERAL LEVEL. I DON’T DO TOO MUCH WITH THE CITY. AND IT HAS BEEN A QUITE SHOCK IN THE PROCESS. THE AMOUNT OF MISREPRESENTATION OF BOTH FACT AND LAW IS AN ISSUE. JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER A FEW, BECAUSE THEY MADE COMMENT THERE WERE PROCEDURAL ERRORS OR THAT SOMEHOW THE REASON WHY THIS PROCESS HAS CHANGED IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DECIDE TO HAVE A DEAL WITH THE BUYER OF SOME SORT. THE TRUTH IS THEY WERE VIOLATING STATE LAW AND THE CITY STAFF WAS VIOLATING STATE LAW AND THAT WAS IDENTIFIED TO THEM, AND THEY DECIDE TO GO OUT THERE AND PREVENT YOU GUYS FROM GOING THERE AND HAVING TO DENY IT, BECAUSE HAD YOU HEARD IN HEARING ON JULY 3RD, AND BEEN ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATION OF BOTH FACTS AND LAW, THE LAW, BOTH CITY ORDINANCE AS WELL AS STATE LAW, WOULD HAVE PREVENTED YOU FROM BEING ABLE TO APPROVE IT, AND YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO DENY IT, AND AS A RESULT, IT WOULD HAVE TRIGGERED THE CITY OF PHOENIX’S POLICY THAT THEY CAN’T COME BACK FOR ANOTHER YEAR. INSTEAD THEY DECIDE TO BRING IT BACK SAYING THEY WANTED TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE’S VOTES AND THAT’S WHAT THEY TOLD YOU, AND I THINK THIS CITY COUNCIL TRULY HAD THE DESIRE THAT IT WOULD GO BACK AND ALLOW THE VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE TO PARTICIPATE AND HAVE IT. IN FACT WHAT THEY DID IS THEY ACTUALLY MADE IT WORSE. THEY EXPANDED THE PROJECT, THEY MODIFIED IT, THEY’RE MAKING ZONING CHANGES WITHOUT SITE PLANS THAT ARE THERE THAT ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN POLICIES YOU SHOULDN’T BE DOING THAT. BUT AGAIN WE FIND OUT THAT BOTH CITY POLICIES, CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAW ARE NOT AN OBSTACLE TO GETTING SOMETHING THROUGH. ON A QUICK NOTE JUST BECAUSE I WANTED TO IDENTIFY ONE OF THE ISSUES, THEY TALK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ISSUES, AND THAT’S GREAT. HOWEVER, I DON’T THINK THAT’S REALLY AN ISSUE BECAUSE AS THEY ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AND I LIVE ABOUT A MILE-AND-A-HALF AWAY FROM THIS PROJECT, THERE IS A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE OVER THERE ON THE I-17. THAT IS TRUE. HOWEVER, THAT PROBLEM DID NOT STOP THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR RECOMMENDING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY THAT HAD TO DO THE EXACT SAME ISSUE. SO WHEN THEY GO THERE AND TELL YOU THAT, OH, MY GOSH, WE SHOULDN’T ALLOW HOUSING AND THIS MAKES NO SENSE AND THAT’S WHY THIS PROJECT IS THE BEST, IT MAKES ZERO SENSE GIVEN WHAT THE CITY IS DOING OUTSIDE OF THIS CASE. JUST TO TRY TO GIVE YOU A INSTANT HAD OF THE PROCEDURAL ERROR THAT OCCURRED, IN FACT THE VOICE OF THE VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE IS NOT BEING HEARD AT ALL, NEITHER IS ALL THE CITIZENS WHO TAKE TIME OUT OF THEIR BUSY DAYS REGARDLESS IF THEY’RE FOR OR AGAINST IT AND THEY KIND OF GET AS BAD AS YOUR GUY’S MEETINGS, ALTHOUGH YOU GUYS HAVE COPS. I THINK LAST TIME — I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE CONCERNS YOU GUYS ARE DEALING WITH TODAY AND I’M GRATEFUL I’M NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. HOWEVER, AS A PUBLIC OFFICER, I DO HAVE OBLIGATIONS, AND ONE OF MY OBLIGATIONS IS TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. AND THAT’S NOT BEING DONE, AND I HAVE RAISED IT WITH CITY STAFF, I HAVE RAISED IT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. IN FACT, I HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY ON RECORD ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS ADMITTING THAT IT’S VIOLATING STATE LAW.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: MR. KIMBALL, COULD YOU GIVE US YOUR FINAL THOUGHT. WE HAVE A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE –>>I THINK, IF PEGGY WOULDN’T MIND, AND THE REASON WHY IS, JULY 2ND, THE DAY BEFORE YOUR GUY’S HEARING, ALAN STEPHENSON DECIDES HE WANTS TO PROVIDE LEGAL ANALYSIS. YOUR CITY ATTORNEY DOESN’T. HE REFUSES TO PROVIDE THE LEGAL OPINION THE VILLAGE PLANNING CHAIR HAS ASKED FOR, I HAVE ASKED FOR. HERE IS THE CLEAR THING THAT IS CLEAR. ALAN NOTES THE PC FOLLOWS CERTAIN PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS MAY PREVENT CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING APPLICATION. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. THEY GO THERE AND QUALIFY IT AND SAY IT’S ONLY THESE NOTICE PROCEDURES BUT IN FACT AS WE HAVE YOUR LAWYER ADMITTING ON RECORD THAT IT’S NOT JUST THAT, HIS OWN PRESENTATION HE PROVIDES TO US BUT WON’T GIVE US A COPY OF ADMITS THAT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM CONSIDERING THIS BECAUSE THE STATE LAW PROCEDURES HAVE NOT BEEN DONE. AND THAT IS A PROBLEM. AND THE SHENANIGANS THAT HAVE GONE ON — WE HAVE — AL BE A STEVENSON HIMSELF UNILATERALLY CANCELED A VILLAGE PLANNING MEETING TO AVOID US FROM GETTING TOGETHER TO DISCUSS ISSUES. WE HAD THE CITY STAFF GO OUT THERE AND ADMIT A SUPERVISOR CAME IN AND CHANGED THE DECISION –>>MAYOR GALLEGO: MR. KIMBALL, YOUR TIME HAS CONCLUDED.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION TO STUART. WE HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS. YOUR CONTENTION — I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU’RE SAYING EVERY ZONING CASE WE HAVE DONE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX IS ILLEGAL? CORRECT?>>ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, YES.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: SO EVERY ZONING CASE WE’VE H I THINK FIVE ZONING CASES COME UP TODAY, THEY WERE ALL ILLEGAL.>>YEAH, FROM — BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR LAWYER HASN’T TOLD YOU. SO YOU’RE NOT AS A BULB OFFICER, LIKE I’M A PUBLIC OFFICE AS PART OF THE VPC, YOU DON’T HAVE PUBLIC LIABILITY — PERSONAL LIABILITY BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT AND YOUR LAWYERS AREN’T TELLING YOU THIS. YOU HAVE STAFF PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE CITY ATTORNEY IS REFUSING TO PROVIDE THE LEGAL OPINIONS THAT STATE LAW REQUIRES TO PROTECT IT.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: AND THE OTHER THING, TOO, I MEAN, UNTIL YOU CAME UPON THIS, SO I’LL GRANT YOU THAT, BUT THEN EVERY CASE YOU VOTED ON BECAUSE THE VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE, IS ALSO ILLEGAL.>>THAT’S FOR THE REASON WE HAVE ABSTAINED. THAT’S WHY YOU SEE WHEN THEY ABSTAINED FROM IT BECAUSE WHEN THEY GOT THE INFORMATION, THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR A LEGAL OPINION. IT HASN’T BEEN FORTHCOMING. COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, THIS IS THE REASON WHY IT’S PROBLEMATIC. THAT ISN’T ONLY JUST THE SHAW NAN BEGAN THAT HAS OCCURRED. WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS REACHING OUT TO OFFICERS TO SWAY THEIR VOTE. WE HAVE HAD CITY STAFF CHANGING AND DELETING AND REMOVING CONVERSATIONS AND QUESTIONS FROM THE REPORT. WE’VE GONE OUT THERE AND WE’VE HAD UNILATERAL CLOSURE OF MEETINGS SO WE CAN’T ACTUALLY GET TOGETHER TO HEAR. THE SHAW BEGAN GANZ AREN’T JUST A SINGLE ONE. ALL SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, BUT THIS CASE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, HAS GONE OUT THERE AND THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. THE REASON WHY, AND HOPEFULLY I CAN ADMIT THIS, THE REASON WHY THEY CHANGED IT IS BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY VIOLATED THEIR OWN STIPULATIONS ON THAT VERY FIRST PLAN APPROVAL. THAT’S WHY THEY HAD TO CHANGE IT. THEY WERE TRYING TO SELL THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ON THAT VERY ORIGINAL ONE. HERE’S THE OPENING DONE. YOU CAN SEE THE DATE ON JULY 3RD, THE SAME DATE WE HAD THE MEETING. ALAN STEPHENSON WAS AWARE OF THAT, YET NONE OF THAT CAME TO CITY COUNCIL. UNFORTUNATELY STAFF IS MAKING DECISIONS, CHOOSING WHAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS AND I THINK THAT’S NOT ONLY A DISSERVICE TO YOU BUT IT’S A DISSERVICE TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THE VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IS A LEGITIMATE PROCESS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED JUST LIKE THE CITY CLAIMS –>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: I’M GOING TO ASK STAFF, HAVE WE HAD A VILLAGE PLANNING MEETING SINCE THIS THING WAS VOTED ON? HAS THERE BEEN ONE SINCE THEN? FOR HIS VILLAGE.>>MAYOR, COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, YES.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: AND HOW DID — DID THEY VOTE ON THINGS?>>SO, THEY DID VOTE. THIS LAST MEETING THAT THEY HAD THE — THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, MYSELF, WENT TO THE VILLAGE TO PROVIDE AN E SESSION DISCUSSION WITH THEM ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT MR. KIMBALL HAD RAISED. WE PROVIDED THAT IN E SESSION BECAUSE IT IS A LEGAL DISCUSSION. MR. KIMBLE WAS THERE FOR PART OF THAT BUT DID LEAVE. THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THEY HAD A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM THAT WAS DISCUSSED AFTERWARDS ON THAT AGENDA.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: SO HAVE THEY VOTED ON ZONING CASES IN THAT VILLAGE SINCE THAT TIME? OR ARE THEY GOING TO?>>MAYOR, COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, YES, THE SENTIMENTS THAT WE HEARD THAT NIGHT AND THE VOTE ON THE OTHER CASE AFTER THAT THEY DID MOTION TO — THAT CASE WAS APPROVED AND IS WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WILL LAND ON YOUR GUYS’ DOORSTEP IN DECEMBER.>>SO IF MR. KIMBLE WAS CORRECT — WE’RE GOING TO DISAGREE ON THIS POINT BECAUSE I MET WITH STAFF ON THE SAME THING. EVERY ZONING CASE WE’VE DONE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX IS ILLEGAL AND NO VESTING, NO NOTHING COULD HAVE OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF JUST THIS ONE CASE. BECAUSE HE IS TALKING NOT JUST ABOUT THIS CASE. HE IS TALKING ABOUT EVERY ZONING IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX WE HAVE EVER DONE IS ILLEGAL, CORRECT?>>MAYOR, COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, HE STARTED OUT MAKING THE ALLEGATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS CASE BUT HAS EXPANDED THOSE TO BELIEVE BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THOSE, AS HE STATED IN HIS TESTIMONY, THAT IT’S ALL ZONING CASES. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THAT, DISCUSSED IT WITH THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND WE BELIEVE WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW AND ZONING ORDINANCE.>>THEN, MAYOR, COUNCILMAN DICICCIO, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR ME TO EXPLAIN MY OWN VIEWS. WHAT I’VE REQUESTED AND HAS BEEN REFUSED ME EVEN THOUGH I AM A PUBLIC OFFICER IS A WREN LEGAL OPINION IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY IT. THEY REFUSED TO DO SO. IN FACT I HAVE TWO RECORDINGS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU’RE VIOLATING THE LAW. SO YOU CAN HAVE PEOPLE GO THERE AND DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE LAW IS, BUT, AGAIN, THE GREAT THING ABOUT THE LAW IS THERE ARE SOME PLAIN MEANING TERMS AND IF YOU ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH IT — I’M THE ONE THAT ALSO WENT THERE AND OFFERED IT AND YOU ARE WELL AWARE OF IT, COUNCILMAN DICICCIO OF GOING THERE AND SOLVING THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS, CONTRARY –>>ARE YOU TAKING TIME AWAY FROM YOUR SIDE ON THIS THESE ARE NOT QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE — IT’S ALL FAIR –>>I ASSUME THAT YOU MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT MY POSITION –>>MAYOR GALLEGO: I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO MAKE DRAMATIC CHANGES TO OUR PROCESS WHICH I CURRENTLY IS LEGAL BUT THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE VENUE AND WE HAVE PEOPLE HERE TO TESTIFY ON THIS SPECIFIC CASE.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: I AGREE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER PEOPLE HERE, TOO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: MY PREFERENCE NOW WOULD BE TO HEAR FROM PEGGY NEELY AND RESIDENTS WHO HAVE COME TO SHARE TESTIMONY. I FEEL CONFIDENT IN OUR CURRENT PROCESS, BUT IF WE DO NEED TO MAKE CHANGES, WE DO NOT HAVE THE APPROPRIATE STAKEHOLDERS HERE TODAY –>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: I’M CONTENDING WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING LEGALLY.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: I AGREE WITH YOU. WE HAVE A VERY SOLID PLANNING STAFF AND I APPRECIATE THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS CASE.>>WE’RE GOING TO HAVE THREE OF US SPEAK, PRESENTATION-WISE, AND WE HOPE TO FINISH UP SOONER THAN 20 MINUTES. MAYBE YOU CAN TAKE FIVE MINUTES WORTH OF OTHER OPPOSITION COMMENTS IF YOU WANT. SO WITH THAT I’M GOING TO HAVE MARK HIGHLAND START.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE DO HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, IS THAT RIGHT?>>YES.>>MY NAME IS MARK HIGHLAND. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TOWARDS A FEW TOPICS ON THIS REZONING. FIRST IS THE CITY’S MASTER PLAN LAND USES AND GOALS. THE CITY’S STATED GOAL IS A BALANCE BETWEEN HOUSING AND JOBS AND THIS DOES NOT MEET EITHER OF THOSE THINGS. AT MOST IT’S GOING TO GENERATE A FEW JOBS AND NO HOUSING. THE DEER VALLEY’S BROCHURE STATES IT HAS A PRINCIPLE TO BALANCE HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT AGAIN. WE DON’T SEE THAT HAPPENING HERE. A COMMERCE PARK WOULD PROVIDE NUMEROUS WELL PAYING JOBS. WE DO SOME ROUGH CALCULATIONS, LOOKING AT ABOUT 275 JOBS ON THEIR SITE, PROBABLY CLOSE TO 600 IF THE WHOLE AREA IS DEVELOPED AS A COMMERCE PARK. FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING YOU ARE LOOKING AT PROBABLY ABOUT 200 — SORRY — ABOUT 160 HOUSES, MAYBE CLOSER TO 500 WHEN IT’S ALL DONE IF EVERYTHING GOT DEVELOPED IN THAT AREA. I DO ADMIT WE DO HAVE A LETTER OUT THERE WHERE WE DID QUESTION THE TRAFFIC AT THE PREVIOUS MULTI-FAMILY USE BUT THAT’S BECAUSE THERE WAS NO HE EFFORT MADE TO MITIGATE THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. WE RECOGNIZED IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THIS AREA TO HAVE ADDITIONAL HOUSING OR A COMMERCE PARK BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME MITIGATION FOR TRAFFIC. THERE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE TO IMPROVE IT. REGARDING OUR SITE DESIGN, WE WERE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO LEAVE ROOM FOR A CUL-DE-SAC FOR THESE ROAD EXTENSIONS BECAUSE THESE WERE NECESSARY TO HELPFULLY DEVELOP THE AREA AND TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CURB CUTS ON THE SERVICE DRIVE. IF WE GET RID OF THE TWO ROADS WE’RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY SERVICE THIS AREA NOW YOU ARE LOOKING AT A LOT OF PARTIALS THAT WILL HAVE INDIVIDUAL CURB CUTS, WHICH IN MOST CASES TRAFFIC FOLKS LIKE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CURB CUTS ON TO ROADS. SO WE WERE LEFT WITH THIS CUL-DE-SAC. WE HAD TO OMIT SOME PARKING. WE HAD TO BUILD SOME CURVED WALLS, ADD A COME OF GATES AND LEAVE THIS NICE QUARTER CIRCLE THERE. NOW WE’RE BEING TOLD IT’S NOT NECESSARY. WE DESIGNED OUR SITE. WE BROUGHT WATER AND SEWER THROUGH THAT MULTIPLE PROPERTIES AND ACROSS THE WASH TO SERVE THIS AREA AS IT WOULD BE FULLY DEVELOPED. IF WE’RE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP IT AS COMMERCE PARK AND NOT GOING TO DEVELOP IT AS HOMES, THEN WHAT WE’VE GOT HERE IS A PRETTY GOOD SEWER SYSTEM AND WATER SYSTEM THAT’S NOT GOING TO SERVE TO ITS FULLEST CAPACITY AND WE’RE GOING TO HAVE A PIECE OF WHAT WAS GOING TO BE A FUTURE ROAD THAT’S GOING TO BE HARD TO RECLAIM FOR US, A LITTLE EXPENSIVE. ALSO THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO PRE-STRICT SOME OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REST OF THE AREA. IF WE HAVE IN ACTUALITY FOUR PARCELS TO THE SOUTH, EACH PARCEL HAS TWO DIFFERENT — DIFFERENT PARCEL I.D. NUMBERS. IF THE FRONT PARCEL IS DEVELOPED, THE FRONT TWO PARCELS ARE DEVELOPED, THE BACK TWO AREN’T, THIS SITE ONLY LEAVES A 20-FOOT EASEMENT TO GET TO THOSE PARCELS IN THE BACK. IT TAKES 60 FOOT FOR A ROAD. ARE WE EXPECTING THEN THAT THE HOME OWNER IS GOING TO OUT OF THE GENEROUS NATURE DEDICATE AN ADDITIONAL 40 PEOPLE, 200% MORE THAN THIS SITE IS DEDICATING, TO GIVE A ROAD TO THE BACK PARCEL? OTHERWISE, THE REMAINING PARCELS IN THE REAR ARE GOING TO BE LEFT WITHOUT THE ACCESS THEY NEED. IT’S JUST GOING TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL FOR THE REST OF ITS EXISTENCE. WE’VE BEEN IN PHOENIX A LONG TIME AND MADE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN THIS AREA. WE HAVE A PHASE II COMING UP WHICH RIGHT NOW WE’RE KIND OF ON HOLD UNTIL WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS HERE. SARAH IS GOING TO TALK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THIS USE ISN’T CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OR THE MASTER PLAN OR THE STATED DESIRE OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT’S WHAT WE BASED OUR WHOLE DEVELOPMENT ON. SOME OF THE POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ABOUT THE SITE PLAN ITSELF, AT LEAST THE TRAFFIC STUDY I HAD SEEN, STARTED WITH A DISCLAIMER THEY HAD NO REAL TRAFFIC DATA ABOUT THIS USE, SO ALL THE ANALYSIS IS GOING TO BE BASED ON SPECULATION. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THIS TRAFFIC IS NOT GOING TO BE SPREAD OUT OVER THE DAY. NOBODY STARTS THEIR RECREATIONAL VACATION WEDNESDAY AT NOON. YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE DRIVING THERE IN THE MORNING TO PICK UP STUFF, DRYING THERE IN THE EVENING TO PICK UP STUFF DURING RUSH HOUR. THE HOURS ARE STATED AS 5:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. WELL, I DON’T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS HEARD A DIRT BIKE START UP OR GET REVVED, BUT YOU CAN BET IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES OUT TO THE DESERT OR BOAT OR JET SKIS TO THE LAKE THEY’RE GOING TO START THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY RUN. THEY’RE NOT GOING TO DRIVE AN HOUR OR TWO OR THREE CROSSING THEIR FINGERS THEY’RE GOING TO START. THAT’S WHAT WE OBJECT TO TO. THIS IS GOING TO GENERATE A LOT OF LOUD NOISE AT 5:00 OR 6:00 IN THE MORNING WHEN PEOPLE ARE SLEEPING. PEOPLE ARE JUST STARTING TO GET UP. AND I DON’T THINK THAT’S APPROPRIATE USE IN THIS AREA. SO I THINK PART OF THE CONCERN THERE IS THAT WE’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC SPREAD OUT ALL OVER THE DAY. IT’S GOING TO BE A FEW HOURS IN THE MORNING, A FEW HOURS IN THE EVENING, AND IT’S ALL GOING TO BE LIKE FRIDAY NIGHT, SATURDAY MORNING OR SUNDAY NIGHT. THAT’S WHEN EVERYONE IS KIND OF WINDING DOWN FROM WORK, GETTING READY FOR THE NEXT WEEK. SO THIS SITE, YOU’RE GOING — YOU HAVE APARTMENTS, YOU HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, YOU HAVE THE DUPLEXES TO THE SOUTH. IT’S RESIDENTIAL AROUND IT, AND WE’RE GOING TO PUT THIS JOYS GENERATOR IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. I DON’T THINK THAT’S A GOOD POINT. THEN JUST THE LAST — REGARDS TO THE LETTER, WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE CONTACTS WITH THE APPLICANT. WE’VE DISCUSSED SOME OF OUR CONCERNS, THE PROBLEM, THE DISCONNECT IS THAT WE NEVER GET TO SEE WHAT THEIR FINAL DECISION IS BEFOREHAND AND MAKE COMMENTS ON HOW IT MIGHT BE APPROVED. WE ONLY GET TO SAY, WELL, WE HAVE THESE CONCERNS AND THEN OF ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE IS A PLAN THAT’S BEEN SUBMITTED, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS NEW ONE, YOU CAN SEE ALL THEIR DRIVEWAYS ARE NOW POINTED TOWARD OUR SITE. IF YOU ARE MAKING NOISE AND YOU HAVE VEHICLES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DRIVEWAY ALL THE NOISE GOES INTO OUR PROPERTY. THEY SAID THEY SWAPPED OVER 60% OF THE LAND BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE THEY TOOK THE CORNER THAT IS GOING TO BE FRED BISHOP’S PARCEL OUT, AND THEN THEY JUST MOVED IT OVER TO OUR SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. ACTUALLY A LARGER NUMBER OF ACRES IS IN THE SAME PROXIMITY TO OUR SITE. IT DIDN’T IMPROVE IT. IT JUST ADDED MORE ACREAGE TO MAKE NOISE. THEY DID PUT A LOT OF WORK TOWARDS THIS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION IT DIDN’T SOLVE PROBLEMS. IN SOME CASES IT MADE IT A LITTLE WORSE. THAT’S ONE EVERY OUR OTHER CONCERNS. WITH THAT I’LL TURN IT OVER TO SARAH.>>MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I KNOW IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR EVERYONE. I WILL MAKE MY COMMENTS AS CONCISE AS POSSIBLE. WE DO HAVE JUST A QUICK POWERPOINT. YOU’VE HEARD EVERYONE REFER TO SAGE AND THE APARTMENTS. I’D LIKE TO JUST SHED A BIT MORE LIGHT ON WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS. THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF SAGE, MICHIGAN-BASED COMPANY THAT HAS INVESTED HEAVILY IN ARIZONA FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, THEY HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING HERE SINCE 1973. SAGE IS A $50 MILLION INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITY, AND AS MARK MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE ENTITLEMENTS TO BUILD AN ADDITIONAL 225 APARTMENTS DIRECTLY NORTH. THAT WOULD REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY A $40 MILLION CONSTRUCTION COST AND IMPACT FEES OF ABOUT $5 MILLION. THAT PROJECT IS SOMEWHAT ON HOLD AT THIS STAGE. IT’S ALL CANE CONTINUE GENT UPON THE VALUES OF SAGE AND THE RENT WE CAN GET, RENTS WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IF STORAGE GOES IN NEXT DOOR. PERHAPS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THE OWNER OPERATOR CURRENTLY EMPLOYS 130 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN ARIZONA. 90% OF WHICH ARE IN METRO PHOENIX. WE ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH ADDITIONAL UPSCALE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATES IN THE MARKET THAT WILL REPRESENT ANOTHER 110 EMPLOYEES TO BE HIRED IN 2020. SO GOOD THINGS ARE COMING. EVERYBODY CAN SEE THE PROPOSED SITE. THE ORANGE STAR AT THE TOP OF THE SLIDE IS WHAT’S MO IMPORTANT. THAT REPRESENTS A BUILDING IN SAGE THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSED LAND AND OUR SITE THAT IS FURTHER NORTH. HERE’S WHY THAT’S IMPORTANT. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE APPLICANT HASN’T BEEN WITHIN THE GATED COMMUNITY OF SAGE. YOU’LL SEE AN ORANGE ARROW POINTING TO A TREE IN THIS PICTURE. THAT TREE IS APPROXIMATELY 23 FEET TALL. WE, AND I COULDN’T TELL IF IT WAS A RENDERING OR PHOTO, THE APPLICANT HAD A PICTURE OF A VIEW FROM A SECOND-STORY RESIDENCE. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WE ARE THREE STORY BUILDINGS. SO WE HAVE OVER 100 RESIDENCES THAT WOULD BE A FLOOR ABOVE THE PHOTO IN THE VIEW THAT THE APPLICANT SHOWED. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION BETWEEN SAGE AND THE LAND DIRECTLY SOUTH. ASSUMING THEY PLANT TREES THAT ARE 20 FEET TALL IN THEIR BUFFER, WOULD THAT PROVIDE A SEVEN-FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TREE THAT IS SHOWN AND THE TREE THEY ARE PROVIDING. SO OUR TREE IS ACTUALLY SEVEN-FEET TALLER. YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS BUILDING WE LOOK DIRECTLY INTO THAT LAND. WE LEW LOOK DIRECTLY OVER THE CARPORTS. I DIDN’T CHERRY PICK THE BEST UNIT TO HE SCHOTT WORST VIEW. THERE ARE EIGHT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED IN MUCH CLOSER PROXIMITY TO THE APPLICANT’S SITE THAN THIS ONE. WITH THAT IN MIND, I WANT EVERYONE TO SEE WHAT THE VIEWS WOULD LIKE LIKE. THESE ARE GOOGLE IMAGES, COVERED RV STORAGE, CURRENT VOTES IN PHOENIX. THIS IS WHAT THE VIEW WOULD LOOK LIKE. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THE REASON THAT PEOPLE — THE REASON PEOPLE CHOSE TO LIVE IN THAT ZIP CODE AND CHOSE THE ENVIRONMENT THAT THE GENERAL PLAN PROVIDED FOR. THESE ARE THE EXISTING USAA OFFICES LESS THAN TWO MILES DIRECTLY SOUTH OF SAGE. WE HAVE MANY RESIDENTS, MANY VOTING RESIDENTS THAT WORK AT USAA. WE HAVE RENTERS THAT ARE RENTERS BY CHOICE. SOME OF THEM ARE PRODUCTS OF DIVORCED FAMILIES. ONE SPOUSE MAY CONTINUE TO OWN A HOME IN THE AREA, THE OTHER RESIDES IN THE APARTMENTS. THEIR CHILDREN ATTEND THE SCHOOLS IN THE AREA. THEY LOVE THE TRANQUIL SETTING THAT THE COMMUNITY AND THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROVIDES. THEY DIDN’T KNOW THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BE LIVING NEXT DOOR TO STORAGE AND THINGS TYPICALLY FURTHER SOUTH. WITH THAT IN MIND, THIS IS A GOOGLE MAP OF SAGE THAT’S A. YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES THAT PRESENTLY EXIST. THIS IS UNEDITED. YOU HAVE SAGE. YOU HAVE UPSCALE CONDOMINIUMS. YOU HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENTS. YOU HAVE BOTH CHARTER AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS. YOU HAVE CHURCHES. THIS IS AN UNEDITED BUSINESS MAP OF THE RV AND BOAT STORAGE THAT ALREADY EXISTS FIVE MILES DIRECTLY SOUTH. YOU HAVE SCRAP METAL. YOU HAVE USED CAR DEALERSHIPS. AND YOU HAVE GOOD OL’ CASTLE BOUTIQUE. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT IS. I DON’T NEED TO ELABORATE. NO JUDGMENT. WITH THAT IN MIND WE HEARD THE APPLICANT TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR STORAGE IN THE AREA. SO I DID JUST A BIT OF HOMEWORK. I CALLED MULTIPLE STORAGE FACILITIES THAT EXIST, INCLUDING THE TWO THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED ON THAT MAP. AGAIN, FIVE MILES DIRECTLY SOUTH. HERE’S ONE OF THE STORAGE FACILITIES THAT I CALLED. YOU’LL NOTE THE ARROWS AT THE BOTTOM. THEY ARE OFFERING A 50% OFF SPECIAL FOR THE FIRST COUPLE OF MONTHS ON THEIR COVERED RV STORAGE. THEY HAVE PLENTY OF AVAILABILITY. HERE IS THE SECOND. I APOLOGIZE. MY EYES ARE GOOD BUT NOT THAT GOOD, BUT THIS IS PREMIER STORAGE. THEY SAID THEY HAD AVAILABILITY AND COULD GET ME IN THE NEXT DAY. HERE’S THE THIRD THAT WAS ALSO INDICATED ON THAT MAP. BRAND-NEW STORAGE. THEY’RE TRYING TO FILL UP. THEY OFFER SPECIALS AND COULD ALSO GET ME IN IMMEDIATELY. SO THERE IS PLENTY OF STORAGE AND AVAILABILITY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST WE SAW THE OPPOSITION — EXCUSE ME — WE SAW THE MAP IN FAVOR OF THE STORAGE FACILITY BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT’S ATTORNEY SAID I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAD 260 VOTES. THIS IS OUR COUNTED OPPOSITION MAP. WE HAVE SEVEN 20 VOTES — I SHOULDN’T SAY VOTE — WE HAVE 720 PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROJECT, AND I THINK WHAT’S MOST IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THAT 78% OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF SAGE. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE HOMEOWNERS THAT LIVE IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS. ONE OTHER THING F I CAN JUST QUICKLY GET BACK TO MY FIRST SLIDE, SO WE MENTIONED SAGE, OF COURSE DIRECTLY NORTH OF THIS SITE. WE MENTIONED THE TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES DIRECTLY SOUTH. WHAT NOBODY MENTIONED IS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THOSE TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES BUNGALOWS ON JOMAX CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED. IT IS MORE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAT WILL FLANK THIS STORAGE TO THE OTHER SIDE. IT’S ALREADY GOING IN. THEY’RE SET TO OPEN SOON. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE OPPOSITION SIGNATURES WOULD INCREASE ONCE PEOPLE ARE LIVING THERE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.>>THANK YOU, MARK AND SARAH. I’M PEGGY NEELY AND I’M HERE TODAY. I HAVEN’T GOTTEN TO PLEAD IN FRONT OF YOU HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THIS CASE. BUT SAGE APARTMENTS IS DEFINITELY AN INVESTOR IN THIS AREA. THEY HAVE BEEN. I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ACQUIRED IN 2004, BUILT OUT IN 2009. IT’S A $50 MILLION INVESTMENT. AND I’M SURE MANY OF YOU READ THE ARTICLE IN THE PAPER A COUPLE WEEKS AGO THAT FOR YOU TO KEEP UP WITH THE GROWTH THAT’S HAPPENING OF 200 PEOPLE A MONTH IN THE VALLEY, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE 10,000 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS BUILT BETWEEN NOW AND 2030 EACH YEAR. SO OUR FOLKS ARE LOOKING AT THIS AS SOMETHING THAT WE’RE CONCERNED THAT THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE. WE BELIEVE THAT THE GENERAL PLAN REALLY DOES SPECIFY THAT, YES, IT CAN BE RESIDENTIAL, EMPLOYMENT IS GOOD, AND COMMERCE PARK DOES FALL IN, THERE AND WITH A SPECIAL PERMIT, THEY CAN BUILD THEIR SELF-STORAGE. WE DON’T BELIEVE IT’S THE APPROPRIATE PLACE. IT’S NOT COMPATIBLE. AND AS WE’VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS, I FIND IT VERY INTERESTING THAT MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT RESIDENTS, APARTMENT DWELLERS, ARE NOT VOTERS AND DON’T COUNT. WELL, THEY PAY TAXES AND THEY DO COUNT, AND AS SARAH SAID, THEY DON’T LIVE THERE BECAUSE OF NECESSITY. THEY LIVE THERE BECAUSE OF CHOICE. AND THESE FOLKS — WE HAVE NUMEROUS RESIDENTS AND SOME EMPLOYEES TODAY. SO IF THEY WOULD PLEASE STAND UP, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT YOU HAVE. I THINK IT’S A PRETTY GOOD TURNOUT OF PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU, GUYS. AND WHY I’M HERE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE NOW GONE OUT AND SECURED ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES OF PEOPLE THAT ARE OPPOSED, AND SARAH DIDN’T QUITE LEAVE IT WHERE I NEED IT TO BE. I WANT TO BE ON THIS ONE. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO SECURED OUR SIGNATURES, WE HAVE THE PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN GLAD TO TALK TO IT. WE ONLY HAVE ONE STAR ON THE PROPERTY AT SAGE, BUT OVER 160 SIGNATURES CAME THAT FROM AREA. YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT ABOVE THE STAR. SO IN ADDITION TO ALL OF THOSE, YOU HAVE ONE OTHER GROUP OF 160 HOMES. 721 PEOPLE THAT ARE OPPOSED. SO I WOULD SAY TO YOU THAT THIS IS NOT A COMPATIBLE USE. IT’S NOT THE PLACE THIS SHOULD BE. SEVERAL OF THE APPLICANTS’ SIGNATURES CAME UP AND AROUND SONORAN FOOTHILLS AND TRAMANTO, AND THAT’S FIVE MILES TO THE NORTH. AND THEY REALLY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF THE RV STORAGE. WELL, MAYBE — THEY COULD LOOK FOR A SITE UP IN THAT AREA. BUT THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING NO. WE’RE REPRESENTING THAT GROUP. WE’RE SAYING THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. I JUST WANT TO TALK REAL QUICKLY ABOUT THE TRADE AND HOW THAT SCARES ME. NOW, I DID ENOUGH ZONING CASES THAT I’M DANGEROUS, BUT THE THING THAT SCARES ME HERE IS WE’RE JUST GOING TO PUT COMMERCE PARK ON IT, AND WE DON’T GET TO SAY WHAT’S GOING TO GO THERE. IT COULD BE AN UGLY, UGLY USE. WHAT THEY TOLD YOU, IF YOU LISTEN REAL CLOSELY, WELL, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE ARCHITECTURE, THEY CAN COMMENT ON THAT, IT WILL GO THROUGH THE HEARING OFFICER, AND THEN THE COUNCIL CAN LOOK AT IT, AND THEY CAN COMMENT ON THE LANDSCAPE BEING HOW THE DESIGN IS. YOU CANNOT COMMENT ON THE USE. THAT IS A PROBLEM. WHY WOULD YOU TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHAT’S GOING TO GO THERE? THEY CAN DO A TRADE. BUT WHY DOES IT NEED TO BE IN THIS PROJECT? IT SHOULD NOT. THIS IS A FAILED APPLICATION. SO, AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I WANT TO SAY — I’LL USE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE — MY BUM IS SORE. SO I CAN’T IMAGINE WHAT YOU GUYS’ IS. SO WE’RE GOING TO WRAP UP. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. PLEASE VOTE TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: COUNCILMAN DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: THANK YOU. PEGGY, IF YOU DON’T MIND. I WANT TO SEE IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS. YOU HEARD KIMBALL COME UP AND SAY EVERY ZONING CASE WE DO HERE AND ZONING CASES OF OTHER CLIENTS YOU HAVE IS ILLEGAL. DO YOU BELIEVE OUR ZONING PROCESS IS ILLEGAL?>>NO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: OKAY. I’M GLAD YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE IT MAKES HIM AN OUTLIER HERE. BASICALLY HE IS ON HIS OWN. I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF DOING THIS, THIS WHOLE PERSONAL ATTACK ON CITY STAFF, ON A PROCESS — I’M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW. STUART IS PART OF YOUR TIME TEAM –>>HE IS NOT PART OF OUR TEAM. I’M NOT SURE WHERE YOU GOT THAT.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: EITHER WAY. I’M GOING TO BE DIRECT ABOUT IT. BY MAKING IT PERSONAL, YOU GUYS HAD A SHOT GETTING MAYBE SOME OF US TO THINK ABOUT THIS. BUT THIS PERSONAL ATTACK, BASICALLY MAKE US — MAKING EVERYTHING WE DO HERE ILLEGAL, I THINK, WAS A BAD MOVE. I THINK IT WAS A PERSONAL MOVE. IT WAS WRONG. IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED. YOU SHOULD HAVE STAYED ON THE USE ITSELF. BUT I WILL TELL YOU, FROM MY END OF IT, I AM NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY THIS THING — THESE PERSONAL ATTACKS HAVE BEEN DONE. WE SEE TOO OF OF OF IT IN WASHINGTON D.C. WE SEE TOO MUCH AT ANOTHER LEVEL. IT WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY WHAT OCCURRED HERE. AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED, I’M GOOD WITH THIS CASE. THAT’S WHERE I’M AT.>>WELL, LET ME –>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: BECAUSE WHAT I THINK HAS OCCURRED HERE IS DEPLORABLE.>>LET ME JUST RESPOND. I KNOW STUART AS A MEMBER OF THE VILLAGE. YOU COULD SAY AS MUCH THAT THESE FOLKS BROUGHT STUART. I DIDN’T BRING STUART. I AM NOT COPIED ON ONE EMAIL. AND I HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE BRA ROG OF STUFF. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH US. WE’RE SAYING WE’RE OPPOSE. IF HE FALLS IN THAT CATEGORY, OKAY, BUT WE ARE OPPOSED. I’M SURE THEY TALKED TO THE VILLAGE AS MUCH AS I DID, PROBABLY MORE, BECAUSE I HEARD THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SAID. SO LET’S JUST STRAIGHTEN THE RECORD, SAL. STUART IS NOT ON MY TEAM. STUART CAME UP THERE AND SAID, CAN I PLEASE SPEAK FIRST. WELL, I DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. SO I TOLD — STUART WANTS TO SPEAK FIRST. SO THAT’S WHERE IT’S AT, SAL. DON’T PAINT ME WITH THE BRUSH.>>>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: I’LL END IT WITH THIS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS, YOU WERE WRONG. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE WHAT YOU GUYS DID. IT WAS WRONG.>>IT WAS NOT US. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE ANY CONCLUDING COMMENTS? HEATHER DUKES.>>THANK YOU, MAYOR, GALLEGO, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I WANT TO LIMIT MY REBUTTAL COMMENTS TO THE LAND USE IN THIS APPLICATION. I WANT TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THE GENERAL PLAN HAS A POLICY AND A GOAL AND ALSO THIS VILLAGE HAS A POLICY AND A GOAL WHERE YOU HAVE THIS BALANCE OF HOUSING AND JOBS. THAT IS IN THE GENERAL PLAN. BUT THAT’S NOT THE ONLY PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN. THERE IS THE LAND USE MAP, WHICH DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR GENERAL COMMERCE PARK ZONING, THIS RV BOAT STORAGE USE USE IS A PERMITTED USE IN GENERAL COMMERCE PARK ZONING. SO WE NOT ONLY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH — I’M SORRY — WE CONFORM TO THE LAND USE MAP BUT WE ALSO MEET OTHER GOALS AND POLICIES THROUGHOUT THE GENERAL PLAN. AND WITH THIS — WITH THIS SITE BEING SO UNIQUE BETWEEN THE WASH AND THE I-17 FREEWAY AND THE LIMITED TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, NOT EVERY LOCATION IN THIS VILLAGE IS GOING TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR EMPLOYMENT USE. IT’S NOT GOING TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR A HUGE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT’S WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO GET ACROSS HERE. SAGE APARTMENTS, THEY EXPENDED A LOT OF MONEY AT THEIR LOCATION. THEY INSTALLED SOME WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THIS AREA. WE ARE NOT MINIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY SPENT ON THEIR PROJECT AND IT’S A BEAUTIFUL PROJECT. WHAT WE ARE HERE DOING TODAY IS ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF A COMPATIBLE LAND USE THAT’S COMPATIBLE WITH SAGE, AND THEY HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE. INSTEAD IT’S BEEN MERE CONCLUSORY SENTENCES THAT A. THIS IS GOING TO GENERATE NOISE AND B. THIS IS NOT COMPATIBLE. BUT THERE IS NOT ONE ELEMENT OF TRUTH TO ANY OF THOSE STATEMENTS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED, WHEN YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE STIPULATIONS OF OF APPROVAL STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. WE HAVE TO MEET A NOISE ORDINANCE. WE HAVE TO MEET A LIGHTING ORDINANCE. WE HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY FROM A TRAFFIC ENGINEER WHICH STATES THAT THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT WE WILL GENERATE WILL BASICALLY BE 22 CARS PER DAY. AND SO SAGE APARTMENTS — THEY MAKE ACCUSATIONS THIS IS GOING TO BE A NOISY USE AT 5:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING, THEY ARE NEXT TO AN I-17 FREEWAY WITH NO SOUND WALL. THERE’S NO SOUND WALL. THOSE 111,000 TRIPS PER DAY ARE GOING BACK AND FORTH PAST THEIR SITE AND SO THE AMOUNT OF INTENSITY, AMOUNT OF NOISE THAT’S BEING GENERATED JUST FROM THAT FREEWAY ALONE, OUR USE IS VERY COMPATIBLE FOR THIS AREA. I WANT TO BRIEFLY GO TO THE PETITIONS. IF I CAN HAVE THE CLICKER. IN THE PETITIONS IN OPPOSITION WERE APPROXIMATELY 700 BUT WE NEED TO CALL INTO QUESTION THOSE PETITIONS FOR SEVERAL REASONS. FIRST, SEVERAL OF THEM ARE DUPLICATES AND TRIPLICATES. OUR CLIENT WENT DOWN TO THE 76, WENT THROUGH THE CITY’S RECORDS AND FOUND MULTIPLE INSTANCES WHERE THE SAME RESIDENT, THE SAME APARTMENT RESIDENT, THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER HAD SIGNED THESE PETITIONS IN OPPOSITION. SO THEY ARE NOT 700 TOTAL. THERE ARE SEVERAL DUPLICATES AND TRIPLICATES. I ALSO WANT TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE STATEMENTS ON THE RECENT PETITIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO YOU. THERE ARE FIVE STATEMENTS ON THIS PETITION. AND THEY’RE EITHER FALSE, MISLEADING OR ERRONEOUS. I WANT TO FIRST ADDRESS THE STATEMENT THAT STOPPED THE SENSELESS DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECT THE GATEWAY TO THE PHOENIX PRESERVE. THE PHOENIX PRESERVE, THE SONORAN PRESERVE, IS ALMOST TWO-AND-A-HALF MILES TO THE NORTHEAST OF THIS SITE. THIS IS NOT A GATEWAY TO A PRESERVE. THERE IS NO PRESERVE IN THIS AREA. THERE IS A WASH AND A FREEWAY THAT SEPARATES THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE AREA AND THEN YOU HAVE THE SONORAN PRESERVE VERY FAR TO THE NORTHEAST. SO THAT STATEMENT IS NOT ACCURATE. IT ALSO STATES HERE THAT THERE WILL BE A MAJOR INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. WELL, ACCORDING TO OUR TRAFFIC HE CAN NEAR THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE OF 22 CARS PER DAY. SO THAT IS NOT A MAJOR INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. THERE WILL BE NOISE FROM LARGE MOTOR HOMES AND BOATS ALONG THE NARROW FRONTAGE ROADS AND I-17. AGAIN, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THERE WILL BE NOISE GENERATED FROM THESE LARGE MOTOR HOMES. PEOPLE DO YOU MEAN THIS LOCATION. THEY’RE GOING TO HOOK UP THEIR TRAILERS, THEY’RE GOING TO DRIVE AWAY WITH THEIR MOTOR HOMES, HOOK UP THEIR BOAT TRAILERS AND GO ON THEIR VACATIONS, THEY’RE GOING TO BRING THEM BACK. THIS IS A VERY QUICK PROCESS. MARK HAS PROCEDURES, REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE WHERE THERE WILL BE NO REVVING OF ENGINE ALLOWED. AND SO WE HAVE MEASURES IN PLACE TO COMBAT THE NOISE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING RAISED BY SAGE APARTMENTS. IT ALSO STATES THAT BECAUSE THE STORAGE YARD WOULD OPERATE EARLY IN THE MORNING AND LATE INTO THE NIGHT THE BRIGHT LIGHTS WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE IS ADEQUATE LANDSCAPING BEING PROVIDED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THIS PROJECT. I HAVE SHOWN YOU OUR PHOTOMETRIC PLAN WHERE THERE IS NO LIGHTSHED THAT GOES TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES. IN ADDITION I’M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE FREEWAY. YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC WITH HEADLINES TRAVELING ALONG THE I-17 WHEN THERE’S NO BARRIER BETWEEN THE I-17 AND THESE APARTMENTS. SO THEY’RE ALREADY BEING IMPACTED BY A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF NOISE AND LIGHTS ON THE I-17. AND ALSO THIS TYPE OF USE IN THIS AREA WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES. WE HAD A BROKER RECENTLY LOOK AT — IT’S THE RV HIDEAWAY DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF THE 101 AND EAST OF CAVE CREEK ROAD AND IT WAS DEVELOPED BY 2004 AND WHAT OUR BROKER DID WAS IS HE EVALUATED LAND SALES IN YEARS 1 THROUGH 4 RIGHT AFTER THE RV HIDEAWAY DEVELOPMENT WAS CONSTRUCTED AND WHAT THIS CHART SEWS IS THAT THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT IN THOSE YEARS 1 THROUGH 4 ACTUALLY INCREASED ONCE THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS IN PLACE. AND SO AGAIN THIS STATEMENT THAT THIS TYPE OF USE IN THIS AREA WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES, THERE’S NO EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT. AND SO THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE IS WHETHER THEY SUBMIT 100 PETITIONS OR A THOUSAND PETITIONS WITH THESE STATEMENTS ON THEM, THEY’RE NOT ACCURATE. THEY WENT TO THE VOTERS. THEY WENT TO THESE HOMEOWNERS. THEY WENT TO THESE RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA AND PROVIDED THEM INACCURATE INFORMATION AND THAT’S WHAT THESE PEOPLE SIGNED. SO WHAT WE HAVE PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY ARE FACTS, A COMPATIBLE LAND USED A REQUEST FOR REZONING APPROVAL. IT HAS SEVERAL STIPULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND THAT HAVE RECEIVED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND AT THE LAST DEER VALLEY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING WE RECEIVED FOUR VOTES IN SUPPORT, ONE OPPOSED, AND THREE ABSTENTIONS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE VILLAGE MEMBERSHIP PRESENT AT OUR LAST DEER VALLEY HEARING, WE HAD FOUR SUPPORTERS, MORE SO THAN THE OTHER VOTES YOU KNOW THAT WERE BEING REQUESTED THAT EVENING. SO I AM GOING TO CUT OFF MY TIME AND ASK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS CASE, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. ANY COUNCILMEMBER QUESTIONS? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VICE MAYOR, THIS IS IN YOUR DISTRICT. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?>>COUNCILMAN WARING: I DO. I’M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: MAYOR, YOU KNOW, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. THEY TALKED ABOUT BEING THE GATEWAY INTO THE PRESERVE. IS THAT TRUE OR NOT, ALAN?>>MAYOR, COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI, I DON’T KNOW THERE WOULD BE ANY DESIGNATION OF A GAY WAY INTO THE PRESERVE THAT THE CITY HAS DESIGNATED. CERTAINLY IS A PROPERTY THAT’S VISIBLE ALONG I-17, BUT THE PRESERVE THAT IS BOTH EAST AND WEST OF THIS I-17 AREA IS FURTHER BACK TO THE EAST AROUND THE 19TH AVENUE AND GOING OVER TO 7TH AVENUE AREA IS WHERE YOU WOULD ACTUALLY SEE THE PRESERVE STARTING.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: AND I ALSO HEARD THAT IT WAS RIGHT NEXT TO A FREEWAY — IS THERE A SOUND WALL, NO SOUND WALL, AND IS THE APARTMENTS RIGHT NEXT TO A FREEWAY?>>MAYOR, COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI, IT IS RIGHT NEXT TO A FREEWAY. THERE IS NO SOUND WALL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE FREEWAY, BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS A SOUND WALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FREEWAY WHERE THERE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. SOME PORTION OF THAT SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT HAS A NOISE WALL.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: AND I REMEMBER WHEN IT FIRST CAME TO US THERE WAS ACTUALLY SIX APARTMENT COMPLEXES — OR THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE GOING TO BE AFFECTED AND NOW WITH THE LAND SWAP WE WERE INFORMED THERE WAS ONLY ONE BUILDING AND A SWIMMING POOL THAT WOULD BE RIGHT NEXT TO THIS STORAGE FACILITY. IS THAT TRUE?>>MAYOR, COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI, THE SITE PLAN, ONCE IT WAS AMENDED, HAS THE BOAT AND RV STORAGE ALONG THAT SOUTH PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE SAGE APARTMENTS HAS JUST ONE BUILDING AND A SWIMMING POOL.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: MAYOR, AFTER HEARING THE TESTIMONIES FROM BOTH SIDES, AND AFTER SEEING THAT OUR STAFF WORKED AND THERE WAS SOME COMPROMISE THERE, AND IT’S SORT OF LIKE — THERE’S NOT A REAL WIN-WIN SITUATION HERE, BUT I’D LIKE TO DO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO GO ALONG WITH STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION IN GOING WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 3RD ADOPTION OF THE RELATED ORDINANCES THAT WERE WORKED OUT.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?>>SECOND.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? JUST TO CLARIFY, I BELIEVE IT’S PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FROM OCTOBER — I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL — SORRY, COUNCILWOMAN STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROCESS? I THINK SAL’S RIGHT, WE’VE DONE THIS A MILLION TIMES AND IT’S NOT ILLEGAL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CITY OF PHOENIX HAS ENHANCED THEIR PROCESS THROUGH STATE LAW CITIES AND TOWNS AND COUNTIES ARE REQUIRED TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO THEIR GOVERNING BOARD. PHOENIX WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND AND CREATED VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEES LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE SIZE BUT WE — OUR PROCESS IS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER JURISDICTION IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, AND I DO THINK OUR STAFF DOES A GREAT JOB.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. I AGREE COMPLETELY. WE HAVE A VERY SOLID PROCESS, AS SOMEONE WHO SERVED AS A VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSIONER, IT’S GREAT WAY TO GET THE COMMUNITY INVOLVED AND GET FEEDBACK. OUR STAFF DOES A GREAT JOB. IT IS NOT BEING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN THE FASTEST GROWING CITY IN THE COUNTRY AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE EXCELLENT PROFESSIONALS WHO WORK WITH HIM. I THINK TODAY WE WILL VOTE BASED ON WHAT WE THINK IS THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE DECISION AND THAT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: YES.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: YES.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: YES.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: NO.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: I’M GOING TO VOTE NO AND STAND WITH OUR VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: NO. I’M GOING TO STAND WITH THE COUNCIL PERSON AND VICE MAYOR.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: NO.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: NO. THE MOTION FAILS 5-4. BECAUSE THE FIRST MOTION HAS FAILED, WE NOW GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY THE VICE MAYOR. THIS WILL BE A MOTION, AND I EXPECT THE SAME OUTCOME, BUT WE WILL NEED TO VOTE ON THE VICE MAYOR’S ORIGINAL MOTION. SO A YES VOTE IS NOW A VOTE TO DENY. ROLL CALL.>>CLERK: DICICCIO.>>COUNCILMAN DICICCIO: NO.>>CLERK: GARCIA.>>COUNCILMAN GARCIA: NO.>>CLERK: GUARDADO.>>COUNCILWOMAN GUARDADO: NO.>>CLERK: NOWAKOWSKI.>>COUNCILMAN NOWAKOWSKI: NO.>>CLERK: PASTOR.>>COUNCILWOMAN PASTOR: YES.>>CLERK: STARK.>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: YES.>>CLERK: WILLIAMS.>>COUNCILWOMAN WILLIAMS: YES.>>CLERK: WARING.>>COUNCILMAN WARING: YES.>>CLERK: GALLEGO.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YES. THIS MOTION PASSES 5-4.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE PUBLIC CITIZEN COMMENT PORTION OF OUR MEETING. ELIZABETH VENABLE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY LORENZO — I APOLOGIZE, I THINK IT’S STOUTMEYER.>>THANK YOU FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO REMAINED TO LISTEN TO OUR COMMENTS. I APPRECIATE THAT. I AM COMMENTING AS USUAL ON TWO RULINGS FROM THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ONE WHICH I HAVE COMMENTED A LOT WHICH IS VARNE V. BOISE WHICH ALL THE WESTERN CITIES ARE APPEALING TO THE SUPREME COURT. SO I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE RELUCTANT TO ACT UPON THAT. HOWEVER, I WANTED TO BRING UP THE TOPIC OF LE VAUGH V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME IN MARTIN V. BOISE, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW LE VAUGHN. IT’S NOT GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT. IT’S NOT GOING ANYWHERE. AND THE CURRENT SITUATION OUTSIDE OF CASS IS EVERY SINGLE WEDNESDAY THERE IS A GIGANTIC TRUCK WHICH DRIVES THROUGH CASS, ESCORTED THROUGH THE AREA AROUND CASS, ESCORTED BY POLICE, AND THESE POLICE TELL PEOPLE, AND TIMES TO THEIR FACES, SOMETIMES THESE POLICE HAVE PEOPLE RELINQUISH THEIR ITEMS, AS WAS TOLD TO ME BY SEVERAL PEOPLE, THEY WILL TELL PEOPLE TO RELINQUISH THEIR ITEMS BEFORE THEY PUT INTO THIS BIG TRUCK. FURTHERMORE, THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BE STORED AS EVIDENCE OF CAMPING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, EVIDENCE OF WHAT — IT HAS TO BE EVIDENCE OF CAMPING, RIGHT? IF IT’S BEING STORED AS EVIDENCE, WHERE IS IT GOING? IF IT’S ALL BEING THROWN INTO ONE TRUCK ALL TOGETHER, HOW CAN YOU TELL WHOSE IS WHAT? HOW CAN YOU TELL WHAT IS WHAT? HOW CAN PEOPLE ACCESS THEIR THINGS AFTER THEY ARE PUT INTO THIS TRUCK? AND THAT’S — WE HAVE A PERSON THAT HAD BEEN ORDERED NOT TO TOUCH HER THINGS, AND SHE DESPERATELY WANTS TO KNOW WHERE HER THINGS WENT TO WHEN THEY WERE TAKEN FROM HER WHEN SHE WAS ORDERED IN A OTHER TO TOUCH THEM. SO I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT MATTER THAT YOU ARE NOT ADDRESSING. THESE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE POSSESSIONS. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT SOUNDS SILLY, BUT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE POSSESSIONS. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE POSSESSIONS IN PUBLIC. I HAVE A CAR I PARK AT SOME PLACES. IT’S NOT THE CLEANEST OF CARS. BUT I’M ALLOWED TO PARK IT ALMOST ANYWHERE I CHOOSE. IT IS MY POSSESSION AND I HAVE POSSESSIONS INSIDE OF IT. I DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN IT FOR IT TO NOT BE SEIZED. YOU RESPECT MY POSSESSIONS. WE SHOULD ALSO RESPECT THE POSSESSIONS OF HOMELESS. SO IT’S NOT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A GIGANTIC TRUCK WHERE THE POSSESSIONS OF THE HOMELESS ARE JUST TOSSED IN WILLY-NILLY, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY CAN’T — YOU SAY IT’S EVIDENCE. YOU SAY THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND GET IT. HOW CAN THEY GET IT? YOU KNOW, IS IT ALL COMBINED? I JUST — NO ONE HAS TOLD HOW THEY CAN GET THEIR POSSESSIONS BACK. AND THAT’S A REALLY BIG THING. YOU CAN’T JUST STEAL PEOPLE’S POSSESSION. SO — AND LE VAUGHN EXISTS REGARDLESS OF MARTIN.>>LORENZO WILL BE FOLLOWED BY SARAH FINN REYES.>>WHERE IS THE MIRROR? MY COMMENT TODAY IS FOR THE MAYOR. BECAUSE THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE I TOLD YOU SHE HAD 168 PEOPLE HOMELESS PEOPLE DIED IN TRANSIT TRYING TO GET TO THE FOOD AND WATER BECAUSE OF HER PROGRAM FOR HER OFFICE, THE GIVE SMARTER PROGRAM. SINCE THEY TRIED TO CONTROL THE DONATIONS THAT PEOPLE GIVE HOMELESS PEOPLE DIRECTLY, FOOD AND WATER, BASIC NECESSITIES –>>COULD YOU PAUSE FOR A MOMENT. I AM SORRY. I THINK WE HAVE LOST QUORUM. MAYBE SOMEONE IS IN THE RESTROOM.>>THAT’S OKAY.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: PLEASE CONTINUE. I APOLOGIZE. I AM TRYING TO FOLLOW THE OPEN MEETING LAW. PLEASE CONTINUE. WE HAVE TO HAVE FIVE OF US –>>I’M WAITING ON THE MAYOR. THE REASON WHY I AM HERE TODAY IS I’M A VICTIM OF BEING TORTURED BY THE PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE I TOLD YOU THAT I WENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE AND FILED POLICE CORRUPTION CHARGES AGAINST THEM. I HAVEN’T HEARD ANYTHING IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE. THEY TOLD ME, THEY SAID, HEY, DO YOU KNOW WHAT, AFTER SEVEN DAYS WE DON’T HANDLE POLICE MATTERS. AND I SAID, WELL, WHO DOES? THEY SAID THE FBI. I SAID, WELL — I SAID, YOU GUYS WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FBI. SO PLEASE DO YOUR JOB. SO I LEFT AND I DON’T HEAR NOTHING FROM THEM. I GO OVER TO THE CITY HALL TODAY AND I’M BEING FLAGGED. THAT MEANS THAT ON THE RADIO THEY ANNOUNCED TO EVERYBODY IN THE BUILDING THAT LORENZO STOUTMEYER IS IN THE BUILDING, AND WHY, BECAUSE I’M TRYING TO GET JUSTICE. I’M TRYING TO PURSUE JUSTICE. I’M AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND I’M HOMELESS, AND — BUT I WANT THE MAYOR TO KNOW I HAVE BEEN TRYING FOR TWO YEARS — EVEN WHEN GREG STANTON WAS IN OFFICE, TO GET IN THERE TO TALK TO THE MAYOR, WHO STANDS WITH THE PEOPLE WHO SAYS MY DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN. BEFORE I CAN EVEN GET IN THE BUILDING I’M BEING FLAGGED. SO I THINK OTHER PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY BEING FLAGGED, TOO, BUT THEY DIDN’T NOTICE. I JUST NOTICED TODAY. SO THE SAME WITH THIS WHOLE COUNCIL JUST GOT ACCUSED OF ILLEGAL ZONING, YOU KNOW, WE’RE GOING TO INVESTIGATE THAT. WE’RE NOT GOING TO LET THAT GO. ANOTHER THING, EVERY TIME YOU GUYS OKAY — THAT IT’S OKAY FOR SOMEBODY TO DO CONSTRUCTION HERE, DID YOU KNOW THEY BREAK GROUND AND THAT RATS COME UP BECAUSE YOU GUYS — THE CONSTRUCTION PEOPLE DISTURB THE GROUND, THE NESTS OF THE RATS. HOMELESS PEOPLE LIVE ON THE GROUND. SO IN THE AREA OVER THERE BY THE LIBRARY, BY MARGARET T. HANCE PARK, SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BIT BY SCORPIONS, SPIDERS AND BUGS IN GENERAL. JUST RECENTLY WE SAW RATS. SO EVERY TIME YOU GUYS OKAY SOMEBODY TO DO CONSTRUCTION WORK, THEY’RE BREAKING GROUND, THEY’RE DISTURBING NESTS, AND THESE BUGS ARE BEING RELEASED ALL OVER THE CITY AND HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE BEING ATTACKED. SO I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE WHEN THE AMBULANCE PEOPLE COME OUT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DO? THEY TAKE THEIR VITALS. AS LONG AS THEIR VITALS ARE STABLE, THEY LEAVE THEM THERE, EVEN IF THEY SAY I IN SIX I WANT TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL, THEY LEAVE THEM THERE. PROOF, 911 CALLS. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PULL THE CALLS AND LISTEN TO THEM. AGAIN, 168 HOMELESS PEOPLE DIED IN TRANSIT TO GO AND GET BASIC NECESSITIES, THAT’S THE PEOPLE OF PHOENIX WERE BRINGING TO THEM. PROOF, LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE BEING ARRESTED. LOOK AT WHERE — WHAT THEY’RE BEING ARRESTED FOR.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.>>SLEEPING ON THE GROUND. NOT ROBBING AND KILLING PEOPLE.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: YOUR — FOLLOWED BY JIM ABRAHAM.>>I’M INTERRUPTED AGAIN. THANK YOU. WHERE IS THE MAYOR? WHY DOES SHE ALWAYS RUN WHEN SOMEBODY IS SERIOUS ABOUT HUMAN LIFE. RIGHT NOW TODAY WE HAD A COUNT OF 172 HOMELESS PEOPLE WHO DIED IN TRANSIT TO GO AND GET FOOD BECAUSE OF A PROGRAM CALLED — [NO AUDIO]>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. IS SARAH — HERE?>>[INAUDIBLE]>>MAYOR GALLEGO: WE APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY.>>[INAUDIBLE]>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THIS IS PUBLIC COMMENT –>>COULD WE HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY EXPLAIN OPEN –>>VICTIMS OF YOUR –>>COUNCILWOMAN STARK: PLEASE, CAN WE HAVE OUR ATTORNEY –>>MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE OPEN MEETING LAW PROHIBITS ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM RESPONDING TO AN OFFICIAL DURING PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PUT ON THE AGENDA. [NO AUDIO.]>>MAYOR GALLEGO: IS JIM ABRAHAM HERE?>>[INAUDIBLE]>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. MOO MY NAME IS JIM ABRAHAM. I’M OWN THE PROPERTY AT 1020 NORTH 5TH STREET, DISTRICT 8. I’VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH A TEMPORARY FENCE FOR OVER FOUR YEARS. MY COMPLAINT STARTED WITH NEIGHBORHOOD ENFORCEMENT FOR DISTRICT 8. NICE FELLOW NAMED JOE. HE AGREED THAT IT WAS OUT OF COMPLIANCE. IT WAS CAUSING PROBLEMS. PEOPLE ARE BREAKING THEIR TIRES ON THE STEEL GIRDERS. HE WOULD FOLLOW UP ON IT. HE DID TELL ME THE OWNER WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY, AS SOON AS HE GOT AHOLD OF HIM HE WOULD CALL ME BACK. THAT’S BEEN TWO YEARS. I EVENTUALLY CONTACTED COUNCILMAN GARCIA’S CHIEF OF STAFF, NICE LADY. SHE SAW THE PICTURES, SAID SHE’D FOLLOW UP ON IT, AND AGAIN THAT TOOK TWO MORE CALLS TO HER OFFICE. NEVER CALLED ME BACK. THAT LED ME TO COMING TO THE COUNCIL TODAY. I HAVE PICTURES TO SHOW YOU, BUT I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I JUST WANT TO GET THE FENCE REMOVED. IT’S AN EYESORE AND IT’S CAUSING FLAT TIRES. IF YOU WANTED TO SEE THE PICTURES, YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR IS HERE AND IS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK WITH YOU. THANK YOU. NOEL ROSEN WILL BE FOLLOWED BY MARCI LYNN.>>THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS NOEL ROSEN. I’M NOT JUST HERE AS A DOES IT EN. I’M HERE TO REPRESENT RALLY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND I’M — I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE UNJUST FIRING OF TWO PHOENIX POLICE OFFICERS, DETECTIVE SWICK AND OFFICER MEYER. NOW, IN ONE OF THE CASES, ONE OF THEM WAS FIRED BECAUSE THEY — THEY DARED TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT STOP BECAUSE THEY PUT ON A BADGE. THAT’S NUMBER ONE. I WANT TO THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR WARING, I’M SORRY, WE NEVER REALLY GOT A CHANCE TO CONNECT WITH YOU, I KNOW YOU CALLED ME. I WAS — AND I CALLED YOU BACK AND YOU MUST HAVE GOTTEN BUSY, BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGING THE CALL AND CALLING ME BACK. IT’S REALLY DISTURBING TO SEE WHAT’S HAPPENING TO THE PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I REALLY FEEL THAT CHIEF WILLIAMS — I DON’T EVEN SEE HER HERE — SHE CAN’T EVEN BE HERE TO HEAR WHAT A CITIZEN HAS TO SAY. SHE NEEDS TO BE FIRED FOR WHAT SHE IS DOING TO THAT DEPARTMENT. WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE FIRED THE CITY MANAGER. YOU HIRED HER. YOU NEED TO FIRE HER. AND WE’RE BEING — I HAVE BEEN SEEING THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, THIS ATTACK ON POLICE. SAL, I’VE SEEN YOUR POSTS. WE DON’T ALWAYS AGREE, BUT I KNOW THAT WE’VE STOOD, I THINK, TOGETHER ON THIS ISSUE. I ALSO BELIEVE, MAYOR GALLEGO, YOU NEED TO STEP DOWN FROM YOUR POSITION. IT’S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHERE YOU STOOD ON THIS WHOLE THING. YOU LISTENED TO THE OPPOSITION ON THE LEFT, BUT YOU’LL NEVER LISTEN TO US. AND COUNCILMAN GARCIA, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE BORDER AND PAY ATTENTION TO THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ISSUE THERE, AND YOU WANT TO SIT UP THERE WITH T-SHIRTS THAT SAY “F THE POLICE,” I’M NOT GOING TO SAY THE WHOLE WORD, THEN YOU NEED TO STEP DOWN, GO BACK TO PUENTE. THAT’S WHERE YOU CAME FROM. YOU ARE MISUSING YOUR POSITION OF POWER TO PROTEST, AND YOU’RE DOING THE SAME THING, MAYOR GALLEGO, AND IT’S DISGUSTING AND IT’S DESPICABLE, AND OUR OFFICERS DESERVE TO HAVE PEOPLE WATCHING THEIR BACKS. I AM REALLY TIRED THIS ATTACK ON OUR POLICE. I AM TIRED OF THIS ATTACK ON THE POLICE BY THE LEFT. AND NOW WE’VE GOT A SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER THAT NOW HAS TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR JOB BECAUSE THEY DID THE RIGHT THING IN PROTECTING THEMSELVES AND OTHERS. THIS HAS GOT TO STOP, THIS ATTACK ON OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS TO STOP. IT NEEDS TO END NOW. THANK YOU.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: MARCI LYNN.>>HIGH NAME IS MARCI LYNN AND I ACTUALLY LIVE IN DOWNTOWN PHOENIX. SO I WANT TO VOICE MY OPINION. FIRST OFF, I AM PRO LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND I DISAGREE WITH THE POLICE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY VETTED AND THEY ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE THAT CAN — YOU KNOW, THEIR OWN THAT CAN OVERSIGHT THEM, AND PEOPLE — YOU’RE HAVING CIVILIANS HAVE THAT NO IDEA — THEY DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT WE NEED MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN PHOENIX, ESPECIALLY DOWNTOWN PHOENIX WHERE I LIVE. MY PHONE — I MEAN, I’M WEARING — I WENT TO THE BARBECUE YESTERDAY AND BOUGHT THE SHIRT AND EVERYTHING FROM PLEA, AND WE JUST DON’T HAVE ENOUGH. I USED TO LIVE IN SCOTS AND WE WILL POLICE ON EVERY CORNER, AND THERE ARE SO MANY HOMELESS PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE BEFORE WERE TALKING ABOUT CASS. TWO TO 300 PEOPLE ARE BEING TURNED AWAY AT HOMELESS SHELTERS. WE DON’T HAVE HOMELESS SHELTERS. WE DON’T HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS — SOME OF THEM ARE GREAT, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE ON VIOLENT ON DRUGS OR NOT ON THEIR MEDICATION, AND I CAN’T EVEN WALK MY DOG. I GOT ATTACKED THE OTHER DAY. AND I HAVE FRIENDS THAT ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND I TRIED TO CALL 911 FROM SOMEBODY ELSE’S PHONE BECAUSE SOMEBODY GRABBED MY PHONE WHILE I WAS WALKING MY LITTLE DOG, AND THE SCREEN BROKE, AND I GRABBED IT BACK. I CAN’T EVEN LEAVE WHERE I LIVE, AND I LIVE IN REALLY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD ON ROOSEVELT, AND I CAN’T EVEN — BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH. SO I REALLY, REALLY WOULD LIKE MORE OFFICERS HIRED AND MORE DRUG ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HIRED, BECAUSE, I MEAN, IT’S RIDICULOUS. THERE ARE SYRINGES IN PLAYGROUNDS. THERE’S SYRINGES EVERYWHERE. THERE’S DRUGS EVERYWHERE. I DON’T THINK WE WOULD HAVE THAT IF WE HAD MORE OFFICERS. THAT’S IT. THAT’S IT.>>MAYOR GALLEGO: THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES TODAY’S MEETING. WE ARE ADJOURNED.