Office of Economic Development

Economic Development Advisory Board

MEETING MINUTES

Date: November 4, 2008: Time: 7:30 A.M.

MEMBERS PRESENT EX-OFFICIO STAFF PRESENT

Rich Adams Mayor Scott Smith (excused) Betsy Adams

Christian Alder Chris Brady (excused) Sue Cason

Theresa Carmichael Brian Campbell William Jabjiniak

Dale Easter Jeff Crockett Cathy Ji

Jared Langkilde Charlie Deaton (excused) Scot Rigby

Jim LeCheminant Steve Shope

Steve Parker

Jo Wilson

Steve Wood

MEMBERS ABSENT GUESTS

None None

1. Chair’s Call To Order

Chair Brian Campbell called the November 4, 2008 meeting of the Economic Development Advisory Board to order at 7:31 A.M. at the City of Mesa Council Chambers, Lower Level, 57 E. 1st Street, Mesa, Arizona 85201.

2. Approval of Minutes from October 7, 2008 board meeting.

Chair Campbell called for a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held on October 7, 2008.

MOTION: Jim LeCheminant moved that the minutes from October 7, 2008 be approved as written.

SECOND: Jo Wilson

DECISION: Passed unanimously

3. Items from Citizens Present

No comments.

4. Hear a presentation on Gateway Development

Mr. Scot Rigby, Economic Development Project Manager, gave a presentation on the Gateway development. He stated that at the last presentation several suggestions were made that included a desire for a plan with flexibility, and a need for broader areas and themes, instead of land uses. The Plan had become too prescriptive and sustainability needed to be addressed. To address these concerns they revised the goals and objectives, framework districts and the district’s vision and expectations.

Some of the goals are to:

• Capitalize on the expansion of the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport

• Create a regional employment center that is attractive to knowledge workers and corporate executives

• Establish an intra-and-inter-connected, multi-modal transportation system

• Become a model of sustainable development practices

• Develop an implementation plan that will create an environment where people want to work, live and play.

Mr. Rigby also discussed the Economic Development Scorecard which identified aerospace, airline service, computer hardware/software/high tech, and healthcare products as industries that the area should target.

The area was divided into four (4) Framework Districts which include Mixed-Use Community District, Inner Loop District, Airport/Campus District and the Logistic and Commerce District.

The Mixed-Use Community District will have:

• An area to solidify live/work/play community

• The widest variety of land uses

• Walkable mixed-use urban core areas

• Wide range of building forms

• Residential, commercial, employment, civic and recreational uses

The Inner Loop district will have:

• A variety of uses

• Employment that is more prevalent than in Mixed-Use Community District

• Village centers

• Residential uses compatible with overall goals

• Development activity that is compatible with over flight activity

The Airport/Campus District will have:

• Educational, R&D opportunities, and airport related uses

• High intensity and pedestrian oriented development

• A hub of visitor activity creating a community impression

• A smooth transition and connectivity to the rest of the area

The Logistics and Commerce District includes the following components:

• Industrial, business park, and commercial as the dominant uses

• An employment environment that is compatible with over flight activity

• Larger building masses/warehouse type buildings

The Districts’ Vision and Expectations are:

• Purpose: Establish design criteria that contributes to the way this area feels, looks, and operates

• Four Sections: Sustainability, Vision and Goals, Framework Districts and Building types

• Focus and Form: The way the development is oriented, shaped and integrates with the surrounding uses

• Goals: Identifies opportunities for implementation

• Character: Illustrating architecture and urban design integration

• Standards: Building, lighting, landscaping, signage guidelines

• Design: Illustrative development examples

Sustainability is a critical component of creating a successful, marketable and lasting future for the Mesa Gateway area. The three key principles are economic viability, response to context, and location and resources efficiency.

The District focus discusses how the area is intended to function, the intensity of development and the connection within the district.

The District form discusses the feel and scale of development, the transition and orientation and the integration with surrounding uses.

The District standards addresses the typical building height, floor area ratio, typical uses, circulation character, service areas, landscape character, light character and signage character.

Mr. Rigby discussed The Gaylord Resort and Conference Center and the Resort #2.

The Gaylord Resort will be:

• Approximately 100 acres

• A minimum of 1,200 rooms to start and likely to expand

• A 4 star/diamond quality resort

• Similar quality to D.C., Florida and Texas Gaylord properties

• 225,000 net square feet of meeting space (500,000 + gross)

• Completed with a Certificate of Occupancy no later than December 31, 2014

• Anticipated to be bordered by other hotels and to partner with Westcor

Resort #2 is expected to have:

• A minimum of 490 rooms

• A 4 star/diamond quality resort

• Similar amenities to the Hyatt Lost Pines, Hyatt Regency Hill County and the Westin Kierland hotels

• A Certificate of Occupancy no later than December 31, 2014

• An 18 hole golf course designed by Tom Fazio

A Public vote regarding the Gaylord, DMB Incentive Agreement is expected on March 10, 2009.

Mr. Steve Shope asked about the results of the ASU survey and the fact that the Mission Statement makes no mention of organic companies.

Mr. Rigby responded that the final results were not in yet and that ASU has 300 acres they are looking at to use as an incubator/research area.

Chair Campbell commented that the Public vote in March would be an opportunity for the Board to lay the groundwork for educating the community on this issue and to work with developing partnerships for research.

5. Project update on Fiesta District Design Guidelines

Mrs. Cathy Ji, Economic Development Specialist, gave an update on the Fiesta District Design Guidelines. The project goals were to develop a brand, identify transportation and pedestrian linkages and to identify the cost of the implementation to define a sense of place. The project components consisted of five (5) elements.

• Element #1 – Brand development

• Element #2 – Urban design

• Element #3 - Circulation

• Element #4 – Community involvement

• Element #5 – Implementation plan

The outreach process consisted of the City Staff, Business interests, property owners, other stakeholders, decision makers and the community. The District branding process resulted from an extensive participatory process with the Design Guidelines and concepts from the Public and Private realm design.

The Private Realm Design Guidelines are composed of building, structures, and private or quasi-public open spaces. The design goals are:

• To visually connect the district through integration of the District Brand and design elements.

• To physically connect the district and its users through safe circulation systems that encourages pedestrian traffic.

• To encourage a denser, high quality urban development pattern that will encourage smart growth and highly utilized sights.

The Public Realm Design Guidelines are composed of connectivity in public streets, paseo right-of-way, public parks, plazas, and civic spaces. These design goals provide;

• Visual cues and design features to physically and symbolically connect the different uses in the District.

• Ways to limit conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles by improving automobile flow.

• For the creation of a series of gateways.

• Amenities that animate and add visual interest to the streetscape.

• Facilities, planting, and other improvements that make the streetscape comfortable for pedestrians.

• For the design of individual streets to have a distinct design character and identity that reflects the District’s land use character and function.

Mr. Rich Adams asked what incentive there would be to encourage property owners to improve their property and what the time frame would be to start implementing the Guidelines.

Mrs. Ji responded that it depends on several things such as the city budget and for the guidelines to be adopted by P&Z with an eventual Ordinance being put in place. The signs can be done fairly quickly and the street landscaping is estimated to be completed in three (3) to ten (10) years.

Mr. Jared Langkilde commented that they are grand plans but fall short on implementation. He also asked about grants.

Mrs. Ji replied that the grants are slated for 2012, but finding the matching funds with the City budget is the hold up.

6. Directors Report

Mr. William Jabjiniak encouraged the Board members to look at the EDAB Handbook that was given out. He suggested they refer to it on an on-going basis and pointed out that the By-Laws were important to read and know. He commended the staff for all the hard work done in rewriting and preparing the Handbook.

Mr. Steve Wood asked if the Economic Development Department would be affected by the budget cuts and downsizing.

Mr. Jabjiniak responded that he had been given direction to prepare several scenarios in regards to the downsizing and that our department would not be spared. He did not know what the actual cuts would be for Economic Development.

Chair Campbell commented that now is the time to leverage relationships with public and private partnerships.

Mr. Jabjiniak referred to the revised handout fact sheet that Shea Joachim has put together. It was suggested at last month’s meeting that Shea add an employment figure statistic multiplied by the average annual earnings. Also a comparison of the top 50 cities was added for Mesa’s national ranking. He commented that the information would be refined as we go along.

Mr. Jabjiniak commented that the Committee Structure has been consolidated to four (4) Sub-Committees. Each member of the Board is assigned to a Committee along with public partners who can be added by the Chair of each committee.

Chair Campbell encouraged the Board and Chairs of the Sub-Committees to start by hitting the ground running. Now is the time for the Board and Sub-Committees to step-up to the plate and get moving.

MOTION: Jim LeCheminant moved to endorse and accept the Sub-Committee structure with changes along with the understanding that the structure can be changed as needed.

SECOND: Rich Adams.

DECISION: Passed unanimously.

Ms. Jo Wilson wanted to know about conducting the meetings and about the Open Meeting laws.

Chair Campbell responded that the staff assigned to the Sub-Committees would be available to help with crafting the agenda and further questions.

7. Other Business

Chair Campbell reminded the EDAB members of the next scheduled meeting on December 2, 2008. He also reminded that there would be an election of officers. Please give suggestions or comments on a slate of officers and for future meeting topics to Chair Campbell or Mr. Jabjiniak.

8. Adjournment

Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 8:44 a.m.

Submitted By:

William J. Jabjiniak

Economic Development Department Director

(Prepared by Betsy Adams)