Mesa approves Price Manor 2 rezoning 5-2 for 41-unit residential development despite notification concerns

Mesa Approves Price Manor 2 Despite Rival Claims on Citizen Notification; 287G Opposition Draws Record 113 Blue Cards

Mesa City Council voted 5-2 on September 23 to approve a 41-unit single-family residential development on a 6.5-acre parcel northeast of the intersection of East McCollum Road and North Center Street, zoned for sale-only homes starting in the high $300,000s. The decision narrowly passed amid sharp disagreement over whether the neighborhood notification process complied with city procedure and whether the project honors a 2005 step-down zoning commitment to the adjacent Lehi community. Separately, 113 citizens filed blue cards in opposition to the Mesa Police Department's continued participation in the federal 287G immigration enforcement agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, citing racial profiling concerns and erosion of immigrant trust in local law enforcement.

Key Speeches

"We don't actually oppose putting people who have been charged with violent crimes into removal proceedings…However, we do know that these agreements and cooperation and collaboration with ICE have shown policing to become less effective as communities refuse to reach out to police because they are unsure whether their constitutional rights under the US Constitution or the Constitution of Arizona will be respected." — Alyssa Owens, Mesa resident, Dobson Ranch

"My neighbors, my friends, my parents, people I don't even know are afraid to have any contact with the police because they think that they could take them to ICE. Families no longer feel safe to report a crime or testify when they witness something for fear of being arrested. That puts the whole city at risk because if people don't feel free to talk to police, the real criminals remain on the streets." — Adela Terresa Vargas, Mesa resident and 13-year-old student

"It is required that we are [included in public participation]. So, we were never reached out to…Those things should matter. Due process and process within the city should matter." — Marilyn Crosby, Lehi resident and longtime LCIA member

"The point is to provide notice through letters, through signs, through word of mouth, through posting in the newspaper so that people can participate. And so we should focus on they have participated. Now we may not have agreed on what everything that they would have liked to see but the point is I think they have participated both in the neighborhood meetings and meeting and in the planning and zoning board. They're also here tonight." — Sean B. Lake, attorney for Brighton Homes applicant, addressing the notification dispute

"I gave people who reached out to me my word and I said if you elect me, this is what I'll do and that's exactly what I'm going to do…I don't support the project." — Council Member Richard Adams, District 1 representative, explaining his opposition

"These are for sale houses, these are not rentals, which is what everyone's afraid of…When this is these are for sale houses, especially knowing and getting all the emails and hearing from you tonight that we have neighbors right next to this development that want it developed and they're not fighting it and I need to honor what they're saying as well." — Jen Duff, supporting the project

"If this area needs to grow, this is the last parcel adjoining our Lehi sub area. If anything wants to be developed in the Lehigh sub area, it has to be larger properties, either R43 or larger. This does not comply with that…Single family homes are being outpaced by multifamily by 10 to one and that's unacceptable." — Mayor John Giles, supporting the project and citing housing-affordability pressures

Timeline

Price Manor 2 Rezoning (Item 8C)

• Applicant presentation: Sean B. Lake (Pew & Lake, PLC) representing Jiren Sweeney / Brighton Homes presented a site plan for 41 single-family detached homes on 6.5 acres, rezoning from RS-9 to RS-4.5 with planned area development (PAD) overlay. Current zoning has been unviable for three prior owners since 2005. Proposed density: approximately 6.3 units per acre. Lot sizes: 7,500–10,000 sq. ft. Entry and egress off North Center Street; emergency and trash access (exit-only) to Lehi Shadows to the east. Applicant offered voluntary conditions: agricultural-proximity disclosure in CC&Rs, prohibition on short-term rentals/Airbnbs, horse trail along property frontage, private gated street, 8-foot wall around SRP water facility.

• Staff recommendation: Staff found the project consistent with the general plan's "traditional residential" designation (not the lower-density Lehi sub-area plan). Planning and Zoning Board voted 7-0 for approval. Staff provided a 1,000-foot mailing radius for notification (exceeding the state-required 500 feet).

• Public comment: Four speakers testified—two in support (Mario Diaz, a Lehi Shadows neighbor two houses away; Tim Brown, another Lehi Shadows resident at 243 East Lehi Street, 25-year resident), two in opposition (Marilyn Crosby, Lehi Community Improvement Association leader; Michelle McCrosski, Lehi community board member and Lehi 4-H leader). Five additional blue-card speakers indicated support but did not speak. Additionally, Mayor John Giles, a Lehi resident and participant in the 2005 sub-area planning, delivered extensive remarks supporting the project.

• Council discussion: The central tension involved process and land-use policy. Council Member Goforth raised a recurring procedural concern: residents claimed they had not received required mailing notices, while the applicant's affidavit and staff asserted compliance. Goforth stated: "I can't reconcile [it]…you can tell me you sent it to the required people and neighborhoods…and yet they are up here saying, 'I didn't receive anything.'" Staff Director Mary John Giles explained that the city provides mailing labels generated through GIS and the tax assessor's office; applicants are responsible for the final mailing. Vice Mayor Summers noted the precedent risk: if projects could be denied based on claimed non-receipt, the process becomes a stall tactic. Council Member Spillsberry observed that her own wedding announcements failed to arrive despite correct mailing.

• Vote: 5-2. Yes: John Giles, Jen Duff, Francisco Heredia, Ready, Spillsberry. No: Council Members Adams, Goforth.

287G Blue-Card Submission

• Public comment: 113 blue cards submitted in opposition to the Mesa Police Department's 287G agreement with ICE (federal immigration enforcement partnership). Three speakers testified on the record: Betsy Soderquist (50-year Mesa resident), Alyssa Owens (8-year resident, naturalized U.S. citizen), and Adela Terresa Vargas (13-year-old Mesa student). Soderquist outlined four implementation models (jail enforcement, warrant service, task force, hybrid); Mesa has used the jail-enforcement model since 2009 but could expand to task force or hybrid models. Owens and Vargas emphasized that immigrant communities fear police contact and that this erosion of trust harms public safety. Vargas said: "The most painful thing to see is the fear in children and youth who go to school. They should feel protected. But instead, they are afraid that their that the police could separate their families at any time."

• Outcome: City clerk Holly King read the count into the record (113 opposed); no council motion or discussion of any 287G action occurred. The cards and testimony were submitted for the record only.

Utility Rate Adjustments (Items 10A & 10B – Notice of Intent)

• Staff presentation: Brian Ritchell (Office of Management and Budget Director) and Christopher Hazard (Water Resources Director) presented a financial forecast recommending incremental utility rate increases. Residential water usage has declined while commercial/industrial usage has increased; the city sought to accelerate equity between residential and non-residential rate revenue (moving from 55% residential / 45% non-residential revenue to parity by fiscal 2728, two years earlier than previously planned). Recommended residential water rate: 4% (or 3.5% if capacity fee is adopted). Wastewater: 8% (or 7.5% with capacity fee). Commercial landscape (non-residential): 13.6% to 20%. Effective dates: January 1, 2026. Final vote: December 1. This notice sets the maximum rate adjustment; council may vote lower in December.

• Public comment: Rick Sweck and Scott Webster both requested transparency: utility bills do not clearly disclose that 30% of revenue transfers to the general fund for public safety and other government services (a practice since 1946, unique to Mesa among Arizona cities). Webster suggested renaming the bill "utility bill and government supplement." Five speakers submitted blue cards in opposition; no others testified. James Ashley (Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona) opposed the capacity fee structure (discussed below) but not the rate adjustment itself. David L. Smith (Dreamland Villa resident) and Scott Webster both supported the capacity fee, arguing that new development should pay for its own infrastructure rather than existing ratepayers subsidizing growth.

• Council discussion: Council members acknowledged the 30% transfer is not widely known and agreed more public education is needed. John Giles noted that 30% of the transfer funds public safety (police and fire) and infrastructure maintenance. Vice Mayor Summers discussed the bond structure and return-on-investment calculations, including a central reuse pipeline project with a 7-year payback. Council Member Spillsberry emphasized that Mesa has no primary property tax (making it unique among large U.S. cities) and is still the third-lowest-cost utility provider in the valley compared to Gilbert, Chandler, Tempe, and other neighbors. Council Member Goforth stated: "I think we need to do a better job [of education]" but supported moving forward with the notice.

• Vote: Unanimous approval (7-0) of Items 10A and 10B (Notice of Intent and adoption of notice for rate adjustment).

Water & Wastewater Capacity Fee (Items 11A & 11B – Notice of Intent)

• Staff presentation: Christopher Hazard explained the capacity fee structure: new development (or meter upsizing) pays an impact fee to fund expansion of water and wastewater infrastructure. The city's integrated master plan (2024) identifies $400 million in new capacity projects, driven by 85% buildout and remaining vacant parcels (90% commercial, 10% residential). The fee is calculated using American Waterworks Association Manual M1 methodology. Base fee (3/4-inch residential meter): $9,500 combined water and wastewater. Larger meters scale exponentially by flow rate. Mesa previously had water and wastewater impact fees but both sunset (wastewater in 2023, water in late 2024). The capacity fee is authorized under Arizona Revised Statute §9-511.01. Without the fee, existing ratepayers subsidize growth; with the fee, the residential rate increase drops from 4% to 3.5% (half a percent savings on residential bill).

• Public comment: James Ashley (Homebuilders Association) objected to the statutory framework and process, saying builders prefer the development-impact-fee statute (ARS §9-463.05), which offers greater certainty and timeline protections. Ashley stated: "We only found out about this proposal by seeing it on your September 11th study session agenda. There was no outreach to homebuilders." City staff and builders are scheduled for stakeholder meetings through November 17. David L. Smith supported the fee, arguing that those benefiting from infrastructure expansion should pay for it. Scott Webster concurred, citing his experience in California where deferred capacity fees shifted costs to elderly residents in older neighborhoods.

• Vote: Unanimous approval (7-0) of Items 11A and 11B (Notice of Intent and adoption of notice for capacity-fee establishment). John Giles hinted at exploring development-impact fees in the future.

Opposition

Price Manor 2 Rezoning:

• Number of speakers against: 2 (Marilyn Crosby, Michelle McCrosski); 5 additional blue cards indicated opposition but did not speak.

• Main concerns:

  1. Broken commitments and process: Lehi residents assert that the 2005 sub-area plan and subsequent negotiations included promises of "step-down zoning" and protection of rural character. Crosby stated the opposition is not to development per se but to "broken commitments, broken promises, and lies."
  2. Citizen participation process: Multiple council members noted that some residents claimed they did not receive required notification letters, creating doubt about whether the process met legal standards.
  3. Density and traffic: Rezoning from RS-9 to RS-4.5 reduces lot size from ~10,000 sq. ft. to ~7,500 sq. ft., creating a "step-down" in density that residents view as insufficient. Additional traffic on Lehi Road and Center Street would burden the rural neighborhood.
  4. Agricultural and equestrian lifestyle: The Lehi community values horses, livestock, crops, and an agricultural heritage. New residents unfamiliar with flies, dust, and irrigation impacts may create nuisance complaints that threaten existing agricultural operations. 4-H youth use Lehi Road for horse and livestock shows.
  5. Lehi Road safety: Michelle McCrosski emphasized that Lehi 4-H kids ride horses and walk livestock animals on Lehi Road, which has no street lights and poor visibility. New traffic threatens these activities.
  6. Traffic distribution: Residents requested left-turn access on Center Street and wanted to distribute through-traffic with Lehi Shadows (the adjacent development), rather than concentrating it through Lehi. The applicant's compromise (exit-only to the east) was deemed insufficient.
  7. Exclusion from notice and outreach: Despite being the organization most affected, the Lehi Community Improvement Association was not directly contacted before the neighborhood meeting, violating what residents view as a procedural obligation.

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Crosby's framing of the issue as one of "process" and "due process" rather than anti-development sentiment gave her opposition credibility.
  • McCrosski's concrete description of 4-H kids on Lehi Road and the link between traffic and child safety resonated with council members.
  • The documentation of non-receipt of notification letters, corroborated by multiple residents, created visible doubt about procedural compliance, even if ultimate validity remained unclear.

• Organized groups: Lehi Community Improvement Association (led by Crosby and McCrosski).

287G Immigration Enforcement Agreement:

• Number of speakers against: 3 (Betsy Soderquist, Alyssa Owens, Adela Terresa Vargas) representing a 113-card blue-card submission.

• Main concerns:

  1. Expansion risk: Mesa has used only the jail-enforcement model (reviewing arrested individuals for immigration status) since 2009, but could expand to more aggressive task-force or hybrid models that allow officers to pursue civil immigration violations without separate criminal charges.
  2. Erosion of community trust: Immigrants fear police contact and are less likely to report crimes, call for assistance, or testify, leaving communities vulnerable to criminals.
  3. Racial profiling: Speakers cited anecdotal reports of ICE arriving with police, interference based on appearance or accent, and violation of constitutional due-process rights.
  4. Child and family impact: Vargas emphasized the psychological toll on children who fear family separation and the disruption to youth programs and safety.
  5. Systemic overreach: Soderquist cited the Brennan Center for Justice and warnings from Syracuse University about a historic expansion of 287G and task-force deputization of local officers as a "deportation army."

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Vargas's personal testimony as a 13-year-old was emotionally powerful and shifted the framing from abstract civil-liberties concerns to concrete harm to children.
  • Owens's statement that even a naturalized U.S. citizen is uncertain whether she would call police if she lost her wallet effectively illustrated the breadth of erosion in community trust.
  • The raw count of 113 blue cards demonstrated significant organized concern, even though council took no action.

• Organized groups: Immigrant advocacy and civil-rights organizations (not named on transcript, but implied by the coordination of testimony).

Support

Price Manor 2 Rezoning:

• Number of speakers in support: 2 (Mario Diaz, Tim Brown); 5 additional blue cards indicated support but did not speak.

• Main concerns (reframed as supports):

  1. Blighted property: The current property is unsightly, with dumping and accumulated debris. Development would eliminate a neighborhood eyesore and safety concern.
  2. Neighborhood integration: Lehi Shadows, the immediately adjacent neighborhood, supports the project and is not opposing it. Residents of Lehi Shadows view the development as a logical extension of their community, not a threat.
  3. Crime and safety: The property backs up to low-income trailer parks with documented gang activity (MS-13, drug deals, abandoned vehicles, cattle rustling). Development would increase monitoring and police presence, improving safety.
  4. Quality product: The homes are for-sale (not rental), in a price range ($350k–$500k+) that is "attainable" compared to surrounding Lehi properties ($775k–$1.4M). They represent genuine homeownership opportunity for young families and first-time buyers.
  5. Housing need: Mesa faces a documented shortage of for-sale inventory, particularly in the $350k–$500k range. Regional housing studies confirm demand.
  6. Lehi Shadows precedent: When Lehi Shadows was developed (implied to be controversial at the time), it became a successful neighborhood. History suggests Price Manor 2 could do likewise.
  7. Traffic capacity: City traffic studies show Lehi Road and Center Street have adequate capacity to handle additional vehicles. Exit south to McKelps is the natural route for most residents, not through Lehi proper.
  8. Lehi sub-area exclusion: The property lies outside the official Lehi sub-area boundaries (as redrawn in 2021). Lehi's rural-character protections are not technically applicable.

• Most compelling arguments:

  • John Giles' historical account of the 2005 sub-area planning process and the property owner's explicit request to be excluded from the sub-area (because they wanted development potential) directly contradicted the Lehi residents' reading of the 2005 commitment and suggested their claim of a "promise" was overstated.
  • Diaz and Brown's lived experience as immediate Lehi Shadows neighbors, combined with their support, gave their testimony credibility and illustrated that proximity did not correlate with opposition—undercutting the framing that all neighbors must object.
  • Jen Duff housing-diversity and walkability arguments (younger households need smaller, less expensive homes to remain in the community through life transitions) articulated a compelling policy rationale beyond nimbyism.

• Organized groups: Lehi Shadows neighborhood (informal, through direct communication with applicant).

Project Details

• Case number: 25-00304 (Price Manor 2 rezoning)

• Applicant / developer: Jiren Sweeney, Brighton Homes (local Mesa developer with decades of family history in the region; attended Mountain View High School; developed Price Manor 1 approved in January 2024)

• Attorney: Sean B. Lake, Pew & Lake, PLC (1744 South Vista Drive, Mesa, Arizona)

• Location / address: Northeast corner of East McCollum Road and North Center Street, Mesa, Arizona

• APN (if stated): Not stated in transcript

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: RS-9 (single-residence 9) with no overlay → RS-4.5 (single-residence 4.5) with planned area development (PAD) overlay and site plan review

• Density / units / square footage: 41 single-family detached homes on 6.5 acres (approximately 6.3 units per acre). Lot sizes range from 7,500 to 10,000 sq. ft. No short-term rentals permitted. Homes are for-sale only; estimated price range inferred from John Giles' comments ($350k–$500k range, lower than comparable R-9 stock at $775k–$1.4M).

• Changes from previous version (if reconsideration): Price Manor 1 (directly south, on same ownership) was approved unanimously in January 2024 as RS-3.0 single-family detached homes. Price Manor 2 represents larger lots (RS-4.5 vs. RS-3.0), fewer units per acre, and is being combined under a single HOA with Price Manor 1 for better financial sustainability. The applicant offered additional voluntary conditions: agricultural-proximity disclosure, prohibition on short-term rentals, horse trail along property frontage, exit-only eastern access (compromise with Lehi Shadows and Lehi).

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 5-2 (Price Manor 2 rezoning)

• Yes: Mayor John Giles, Jen Duff, Council Member Francisco Heredia, Council Member David Luna (called "Ready" in transcript), Council Member Christy Spillsberry

• No: Council Member Richard Adams (District 1), Council Member Bobbi Buchli Goforth

• Abstentions / absences: None noted

Outcome & Next Steps

Price Manor 2 was approved with the following conditions:

1. Disclosure requirement: CC&Rs and public report must disclose that the property is in proximity to agriculture, horse ranches, and irrigation operations, with associated flies, dust, and related impacts. Purchasers must acknowledge and waive rights to pursue nuisance claims.

2. No short-term rentals: CC&Rs restrict short-term rentals, Airbnbs, and vacation-rental models. Owner-occupied or long-term lease only.

3. Horse/pedestrian trail: Developer will construct a horse and pedestrian trail along the property frontage consistent with Lehi's equestrian and agricultural character.

4. Eastern access (exit-only): The eastern gate provides emergency and trash access (for solid-waste vehicles) and allows residents to exit; no entrance from the east.

5. Voluntary commitments: 8-foot wall around SRP water facility; private gated street; letter of support for speed-control measures on Lehi Road (decision remains with city council and transportation department).

The project now moves to final platting and construction permitting. Applicant and city staff will coordinate during platting to address any additional traffic-management refinements and confirm eastern-gate functionality.

Controversies & Context

Citizen Participation Process Breakdown

The core controversy centered on whether the required neighborhood-notification mailing was properly executed. Lehi residents claimed they received no notification letter, yet the applicant's affidavit stated that mailing labels provided by the city were used and letters were mailed. Council Member Goforth argued that this process failure undermined public trust and called for the project to be "sent back" for re-notification and renewed public process. John Giles, Vice Mayor Summers, and Council Member Spillsberry pushed back, noting that:

• The state statute requires only a 500-foot radius notification; Mesa exceeded this by doing 1,000 feet.
• Multiple notification methods (mail, neighborhood signage, newspaper notice, planning-and-zoning-board hearing) provide redundancy.
• Residents who did not receive mail often learned about the project through social networks, neighborhood meetings, or planning-and-zoning-board hearings (attendance records showed many Lehi residents present).
• Denying a project based on claimed non-receipt would set a precedent allowing opponents to simply claim non-delivery to stall approval.
• Mail delivery is inherently imperfect (Vice Mayor Summers noted his own wedding announcements failed to arrive; John Giles made the same observation about postal reliability).

However, Council Member Adams and Goforth insisted that the process is foundational and that asking for procedural transparency does not equal bad-faith stalling. The split decision (5-2 approval despite process concerns) reflected the council's reluctance to restart the process but acknowledgment that the issue is real.

2005 Sub-Area Zoning Commitment

Lehi residents and leaders (particularly Crosby) asserted that in 2005, when the Lehi sub-area plan was adopted, there were commitments or understandings that development outside the sub-area would be "stepped down" in density and that rural character would be protected. John Giles provided a countervailing narrative: in 2005, the property owner explicitly asked not to be included in the sub-area because they wanted development potential. The mayor personally suggested including them, but the owner declined. Consequently, the property was drawn outside the sub-area boundaries. This reframing undercut the claim that the owners had promised to avoid development. Nevertheless, residents felt that the intent of 2005 planning—to protect Lehi's rural identity—was being eroded.

Housing Affordability Pressure

The mayor and multiple council members cited Mesa's housing crisis (single-family homes outpaced by multifamily rentals 10-to-1, median ownership prices for comparable R-9 homes exceeding $775,000) as justification for approving a smaller-lot, more-affordable product. Jen Duff articulated the "missing middle" problem: young professionals, downsizing retirees, and first-time buyers cannot afford million-dollar homes and must leave the community. Price Manor 2 at $350k–$500k+ addresses a genuine market gap. This policy argument—growth into remaining vacant land, lower-density than multifamily alternatives, mixed-income diversity—proved persuasive to a majority.

287G and Immigration Enforcement

The 113 blue cards in opposition to the Mesa Police Department's 287G agreement reflected broader national debate over local police participation in federal immigration enforcement. The agreement, in place since 2009, has been non-controversial under the limited "jail model" but could expand to more aggressive "task force" enforcement. Speakers raised concerns about racial profiling, erosion of immigrant trust, and the chilling effect on crime reporting. However, council took no action, and no member motioned to revisit or terminate the 287G agreement. The 113-card submission was recorded and will be part of the public file, but no vote or deliberation occurred.

Duration

• Price Manor 2 rezoning: Approximately 90 minutes (including applicant presentation, staff Q&A, public testimony from 4 speakers, council discussion spanning 6 council members, and vote).

• 287G blue-card submission: Approximately 15 minutes (3 speakers on record, mayor's call for cards to be read into record).

• Utility rate adjustments (Items 10A & 10B): Approximately 75 minutes (staff presentation, 5 blue cards, 2 public speakers, council discussion across 5 council members).

• Capacity fee (Items 11A & 11B): Approximately 60 minutes (staff presentation, 3 public speakers, council discussion across 4 council members).

• Total meeting: Approximately 4.5–5 hours (including consent agenda, 5D irrigation district, 8B non-conforming-uses continuance, 9A/9B Park North multifamily continuance, and various procedural breaks).

Other Notable Items

Item 8B – Non-Conforming Uses Ordinance (Continued 6-1)

Council Member Adams voted against continuation; other council members sought more information on whether proposed amendments to the non-conforming-uses chapter would affect energy-storage systems city-wide or only specific battery installations. The item was continued to October 6 to allow staff to clarify scope and consequences.

Items 9A & 9B – Park North Multifamily (Continued Unanimously)

The applicant (Chris Webb, Rose Law Group, PC) requested continuation to date uncertain to revise the project in response to Vice Mayor Summers' detailed June 2 concerns (documented over 2.5 pages). Vice Mayor Summers made a motion requiring the project to return to the Planning and Zoning Board for review and recommendation before resubmission to council. This signals a more rigorous design-review process and reflects Vice Mayor Summers' dissatisfaction with the initial proposal.