Some Eastmark residents fear they are being cheated out of amenities they were promised by a developer and Mesa and their fury boiled over before a subdivision plat vote at the City Council meeting March 7.

Ninety-one residents of the master planned community in southeast Mesa submitted comments opposing a subdivision of parcels south of the Apple Data Center on Elliot Road, between Signal Butte and Everton Terrace.

While their immediate concern was the land just north of their neighborhood, their outrage stemmed in part from a developer’s promise to build 106 acres of park space with various recreational amenities south of them.

So far, 65 acres of the promised park space have been built or planned, and residents are starting to worry that developers will not build the rest. 

Monica Miller, a resident of Eastmark since 2019, said neighbors were disturbed last year when they realized a large section of land previously included in plans for the 106-acre park space was being turned into a residential neighborhood.

“People realized homes were being built where Great Park was intended to go, and no notice was provided,” she said.

“Great Park” is the legal term for the large park including the 2008 Pre-Annexation Agreement signed by DMB Proving Grounds LLC and the city of Mesa.

Since the change to the Great Park plan, residents have been looking at maps of Eastmark and wondering where the rest of the promised park could go.

“A lot of us moved to Eastmark because we have young kids,” Miller said. 

Features like the promised pool and sports fields were “really valuable to a lot of home purchasers, and we just want something that is even close to what we were promised,” she said.

Miller and other residents who commented at the council meeting see the land encompassing the plat subdivision under consideration as one of the best prospects for the city and DMB to make good on their promise of 106-acres of park.

The Eastmark residents who spoke questioned whether the proper processes had been followed for approving the plat. They saw a through-road in the subdivision as evidence the developers are not setting aside park space – or even retail and office space, which the area is currently designated for in the general plan.

Miller said if parks aren’t going in, a resident-focused commercial area would at least be better than more warehouses and data centers.

Brookfield Residential, which manages Eastmark, responded to requests for information about the plans for this area. “​​We are confused by any criticism about the Mesa City Council’s recent approval of final plats to bring more technology users to the area,” Senior Vice President of Development Dea McDonald wrote.

“This involves no change in contemplated use and is consistent with existing zoning. In other words, it is another example of the continuing implementation of Eastmark’s innovative, outstanding vision,” McDonald continued. 

“We are doing exactly what we said we were going to do,” McDonald continued. “The result has been development at its best. Eastmark has come to be known for its excellence and has become a new point of pride for the State of Arizona.”

Regarding resident fears that Eastmark could fall short of the 106 acres of promised park space, the city auditor partially substantiated these concerns in a report last summer initiated after a resident complained about the changes in the park master.

“Based on the current plan available, Development Services staff acknowledged that it would be difficult for the developer to arrive at the needed acreage without receiving acreage credit from the disc golf course and/or skate park.”

The disc golf course and skate park are currently considered amenities of the Eastmark homeowners association and were not included in the Great Park plans.

According to the auditor’s finding, the city still believes there is enough space in Eastmark for DMB to fulfill its promise of 106 acres, but the report suggests the city is interested in allowing the company to make up much of the difference by changing the designation of the HOA amenities.

After resident comments were read into the record, Development Services Director Nana Appiah responded to the question of the Great Park.

“There are still areas in the development that have not been developed, and the city is holding the developer responsible for making sure they meet the requirement of the Great Park which has specific amenities,” Appiah said.

The plat subdivision also touched a nerve, Miller said, because of what residents perceive as stilted communications with the development department, which have created distrust over whether the city is following required processes.

Miller said the plat was originally scheduled for the Feb. 28 city council meeting, but the plat was removed from the agenda. Miller said she wasn’t told when it would be back on, so she had to watch out for it.

“They just said ‘it’s been pulled,’” Miller said, “We’re kind of on our own finding it, and it has residents upset because there’s been a long-standing history of changes occurring to the plan without the legal procedure being followed.

“It always feels like they’re trying to not include us in the process,” Miller said.

Appiah responded to accusations that the department had not followed proper procedures in bringing the plat to council, saying the approval of the plat was an administrative decision, and resident notification was not required. He said the plat complied with the master transportation plan.

“In the development plan, there is a specific requirement that says that modifications to the transportation plan can be made administratively by city staff,” Appiah said, “and the premise behind that is once you get specific development, that’s what determines the trip generations and basically the trip distribution.”

Appiah also said the road connecting Signal Butte and Everton Terrance roads was not necessarily in conflict with existing development plans.

“It was anticipated throughout the discussion and the project narrative in the development plan that there was likely to be a road that goes through that [area], even the green space,” he said.

Council members appeared concerned that, regardless of who was right or wrong, there was so much difference in understanding between development services staff and residents at this point in the process;

“Does this have to be approved now?” Councilmember David Luna asked Appiah. “To give residents an opportunity to weigh in – they feel like they’ve not had the opportunity to weigh in – do we wait two weeks?”

Appiah resisted delaying the plat, saying the plat would just allow the property to be sold, and there are contracts waiting to be signed. The property would still have to go through a final site plan for development, he said.

The city attorney jumped in to comment on the prospect of delaying the subdivision plat.

“This is an administrative function in which council decides whether or not the process was followed,” City Attorney Jim Smith said. “You’ve heard Dr. Appia explain why it does comply with processes. … Council could continue the case to have more outreach to the citizens, but the same case will come back in two weeks to determine whether it complies with code.”

Miller thought it was “revealing” that a two-week delay created concern for city staff, even when council members seemed open to it.

The council member who represents the district where the plat is located could have been an influential voice on the matter, but he was sitting on the sidelines.

District 6 Councilman Kevin Thompson recused himself from the discussion after realizing during the meeting that his firm Broadmore Consulting represents the designer of the plat.

According to Broadmore’s website, Thompson’s firm helps businesses navigate government processes.

“We specialize on local municipal governments,” the website states. “Whether business development, permits, policy, or procurement, we help open doors, build reputations, and shape public policy for businesses like yours.”

“It seemed convenient in the moment for him to conflict himself out,” Miller said of Thompson’s recusal from the issue.

The council approved the plat 6-0 with Thompson abstaining.