Mesa proposes sale of three Washington Escobedo lots to Habitat for Humanity for affordable, perpetual homeownership

Mesa City Council staff and representatives from Central Arizona Habitat for Humanity on Oct. 2 presented a proposal to sell three city-owned parcels in the Washington Escobedo Heritage neighborhood to Habitat and to pair the sale with a neighborhood revitalization program for existing homeowners.

The council was told the three vacant parcels would be conveyed by negotiated sale at $40,000 per parcel; those proceeds would be reinvested in a home-repair program for the neighborhood. Habitat proposed to develop between three and six owner-occupied homes on the parcels and to use a “lasting affordability” model — a resale-restricted ground-lease approach by which Habitat retains the ground lease and limits resale appreciation so future buyers can also afford the homes.

Jeff Robbins, the city’s redevelopment administrator, said the properties are small and narrow but suitable for infill construction under the neighborhood’s ID2 infill overlay. Todd Rogers of Central Arizona Habitat for Humanity described the affiliate’s proposal to build “high-quality infill” and to guarantee that, when homeowners decide to sell, Habitat will buy back and resell the home to another qualified family under a formula-based price rather than open-market resale. Deborah Bradley, Habitat’s chief operating officer, described the resale formula as a restricted appreciation model that permits homeowners to build limited equity (1.5 percent simple interest on equity in the affiliate’s description) while preserving long-term affordability.

Habitat said the project could be funded through three elements: the negotiated sale proceeds (city to Habitat), a $400,000 city funding component that would support neighborhood revitalization and help enable construction, and Habitat’s own capital and fundraising. Habitat representatives stated construction-cost estimates that they are using for planning but said final costs will depend on the entitlement process and parcel layouts; the council and Habitat repeatedly emphasized that the total number of homes (three to six) and the final building program will be determined during site design and entitlement.

Cynthia Scura, the city’s community engagement administrator, summarized outreach to about 150 nearby homes and said roughly 20 residents attended an August meeting; surveys completed at that meeting showed strong support for Habitat’s proposal and for the neighborhood-repair program. Speakers on behalf of Habitat described the repair program as focusing on health-and-safety improvements (roofing, HVAC, electrical, plumbing) and said owner-occupants in the census tract would automatically qualify for some services because the tract is designated low-to-moderate income.

Council members asked about ownership of adjacent private parcels, property-tax status, building square footage, unit configuration on the narrow lots, and the timeline. City staff said the parcels were acquired during a revitalization effort about 40 years ago and that tax-record ownership of adjacent parcels remains private; staff offered to provide additional information on tax-payment status and any prior offers. Planning staff said the neighborhood’s ID2 overlay contains unique setback and height rules and that a special use permit could be required for two-story buildings, which would affect possible density.

Staff requested direction to draft a development agreement and a purchase-and-sale agreement with Habitat and to return to council for pre-review early next year. If council directs staff to proceed, Habitat would begin entitlement work and staff estimated construction could begin in late 2026 or into 2027 depending on permitting and site work.

Council members who spoke expressed support for the project’s objective of preserving homeownership and limiting displacement in a neighborhood concerned about downtown redevelopment pressures, but they also pressed for additional information on prior offers, tax status, and precise cost estimates before final approval.

The council did not take a final vote on the sale on Oct. 2; staff sought direction to draft agreements and return with detailed documents for council consideration.