Summary of Concerns Regarding Eastmark Entitlements Monica Miller

Background • The Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement states “the PCD depicts an approximate 106-acre site for the location of the Great Park.” • Per this statement, at the time the agreement was executed, the approximate 106-acre site had been selected and the location was determined. • The Great Park site was depicted in the Planned Community Districted (PCD). • Due to the fact that the Development Agreement provides land entitlement, any change to the use of the land besides park space would require an amendment to the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement and require a Major Amendment to the Planned Community District. https://www.mesaaz.gov/home/showpublis heddocument/762/635633126642200000

Key Points • The Great Park site and location was pre-selected, codified into law, and negotiated as a condition to allow the developer to build without further extractions in flexible LUGS (Land Use Groups) • Simply, the Great Park site and the requirement of the Great Park Master Plan were conditions of being permitted to develop Eastmark. The identification of the Great Park site and location allowed the City to permit the developer flexibility throughout the remainder of Eastmark. • Nothing in the development agreement grants the legal right to either the City or Developer to change The Great Park site or location without legal due process. • Eastmark Residents pay for the development of The Great Park through the CFD funds. Prior to investing in homes many residents review the Great Park Master Plan and corresponding amenities. Homebuilders present these plans to prospective customers to substantiate the $3500 CFD fee.

The Great Park Master Plan • The Master Plan is codified and was required as part of the Annexation and Development Agreement that made Eastmark part of Mesa. It is a condition to develop the Great Park and Eastmark. • The Master Plan describes 106 continuous acres running through the heart of Eastmark with numerous schools, civic spaces, restaurants, and includes the reserved 16 acres of land for City of Mesa to develop a future recreational facility site. The site location and acreage are represented in the Great Park Master Plan. • Approval of this park design was a condition of any development, was central to the $3,500 per resident CFD fee, and serves as the stable design element that allows free form LUGs.

South of Point 22 was Largely Developed to Plan • Schools, civic space, restaurants, a working farm, baseball fields, parking, and playgrounds exist in the Great Park located South of Point 22. • The community is happy these phases of the Great Park. It is what we were promised and what our funds were supposed to be used for.

North of Point 22 is Not Being Developed to Plan • The schools, civic space, and City of Mesa Recreational Facility Site are missing. • The lit multi-purpose fields and baseball diamonds are missing. • There are no restaurants or businesses. • The Great Park no longer serves as a connection to the rest of the community • The Great Park site has been reduced by over 30 acres.

Great Park Master Plan North of Point 22 2021 Announced Great Park North of Point 22 Where did the schools, civic space, urban park plazas (restaurants/amusement), and the missing 31 acres of Great Park go? Eastmark residents have paid for these amenities. Mesa negotiated for the entitlement of the location of the 106 acre Great Park Site. This land is worth tens of millions of dollars, but it is all getting converted to homes for the benefit of the developer. Where is the City of Mesa? As residents, we want the amenities we are entitled to.

What Eastmark Residents and Mesa Lost • Over 30 acres of the Great Park is being developed into homesites without amendment to the Development Agreement or the Community Plan. • The new Great Park is now mostly retention basin. • There is no reserved land for the City of Mesa to purchase for the recreational facility site—a required term of the development agreement • There is no site that has been made available for Gilbert Public Schools as represented in the community plan and the Great Park Master Plan. • There are no businesses located north of Point 22 adjacent to the Great Park as represented in the Great Park Master Plan. • There is no civic or urban spaces located North of Point 22. • Residents continue to pay the community facilities district at the full rate despite getting diminished amenities. Great Park Land that is now Single Family Homesites Great Park Master Plan Layered on New Great Park

What the Developer Gained • Tens of millions of dollars worth of residential real estate is now being developed on Great Park Land. Premiums are being charged to new homeowners for being adjacent to The Great Park. • Profits are being maximized, because land is not being set aside for schools, civic space, the Mesa Facility Recreational Site or businesses. • No investment to create a new Great Park Master Plan was required of the developer. No re-zoning hearing was required. It was as though The Great Park Master Plan never existed. It is as though the Great Park site location was never a codified term in the Pre-Annexation and Development Agreement.

Problems Created that Require Solutions (1) Where will the Missing 31+ Acres of The Great Park go? • Now that the City of Mesa and the Developers have thrown out The Great Park Master Plan, all we have left is a series of bubbles to guess what the park will look like. Furthermore, the bubbles leave Eastmark residents and the City short-changed by 31 acres. • Important Questions Left Unanswered • Where will the 31+ acres of Great Park go? • Will the park still connect to the disc golf course? • Will there still be restaurants, schools, and businesses in the remaining Great Park? • Will the 16 continuous acres within the Great Park still be reserved for the future recreational facility site? • Why is Eastmark HOA land being counted and credited toward the 106 acres of entitled land that is part of the Great Park? On Hold w/o Plan

Problems Created that Require Solutions (2) Where will Our Kids Go to School? • Now that the City of Mesa and the Developers have converted so much park space and commercial development to residential, kids and families are losing access to schools. Under the current plan, there will be more homes in Eastmark zoned for Gilbert Schools than Queen Creek Schools. • Important Questions Left Unanswered • Eastmark has a population larger than Payson, Arizona, but has no public elementary schools. Why not? • Why has Gilbert Public Schools not been consulted or provided land to build a school? • Why is land not being reserved near the Great Park for public elementary schools or any Gilbert Schools as described in the development agreement and the community plan?

Problems Created that Require Solutions (3) Where will all of the Businesses Go? • Now that the City of Mesa and the Developers have converted so much park space and commercial development to residential, there is not much space left to build the restaurants, office space, executive amenities, and large-scale employment sites with buffer/transition zones that were necessary to create 45,000 permanent jobs in Eastmark. • Important Questions Left Unanswered • Now that the Eastmark Industrial Park and Great Park land have been converted to residential, where will the employment centers go? • What will be buffer between the expanded residential and these facilities? • Where will the restaurants and services go that are needed to serve these businesses? https://vimeo.com/491285518

Problems Created that Require Solutions (4) Where did all of our CFD money go? • The residents of Eastmark are charged in CFD fees to pay for these entitlements and expedite development of Eastmark. The core entitlement is the Great Park and the surrounding amenities the City of Mesa is supposed to develop adjacent to the Great Park. • Important Questions Left Unanswered • Where have the CFD funds gone if the amenities have been reduced and why are they not being used as represented in the governing documents for our signature entitlement? • Why is the City of Mesa not fulfilling its end of the bargain and ensuring the reservation of 16 acres for the Mesa Recreational Facilities Site? • Why is the City of Mesa not holding the Developer to the terms of its agreement?

Problems Created that Require Solutions (5) Why are home buyers being misrepresented too? • The residents of Eastmark who made home purchases detrimentally relied on claims by homebuilders, the City of Mesa, and the Developer that the Great Park will be 106 acres. Currently, homebuilders are representing the Great Park as 106 acres and showing a plan that will not become a reality to justify the increase cost to live in Eastmark. • Important Questions Left Unanswered • Will the Great Park still be 106 acres? • What is the new boundary of the 106-acre Great Park? • Why are homeowners being presented with plans for the physical location and amenities of the Great Park that we know will not be a reality? • What will be done to fix the harm that has been done to Eastmark residents who relied on these claims?