Welcome to the uh June 11, 2025 city of Mesa planning and zoning board meeting public uh public hearing. We would uh start by having a roll call. Uh Chair Ays is excused. I'm Vice Chair Pitcher. Board member Peterson here. Board member Montes is also excused. Board member Blakeman here. Board member Carpenter here. and board member Farnsworth is is uh excused as well. As uh part of today's agenda, we'll have a consent agenda. It will be read into the record and acted uh in one motion. They will not be discussed individually. And um we don't have any other matters that are coming off the consent agenda. Correct? Okay. So, um, board member Peterson has, uh kindly uh agreed to, uh, read it. Thank you. Items on the consent agenda for the Wednesday, June 11th planning zoning board meeting. Item 2A, minutes from the May 28th, 2025 planning and zoning board meeting. Take action on the following zoning case. Item 3A 025-000082 Culver's 1.5 acres located approximately 850 ft west of the northwest corner of East Mcclops Road and North Gilbert Road major site plan modification for the development of an approximately 4,1006 that's pretty specific for approximately square foot limited service restaurant with drive-thru recommendation is approval with conditions discussing takeout Action on the following preliminary plat item 6A 024-01090 Mountain Vista 24.7 acres located approximately 1900 ft west of the southwest corner of the intersection of East Hampton Avenue and South Signal Beat Road Primary Plaque to create seven commercial lots. Recommendation is approval with conditions. Item 7B, PZ25055, proposed amendments to chapters 81 and 87 of title 11 of this Mesa City Code pertaining to adaptive reuse permits. The amendments include, but are not limited to modifying terms within chapter 81 to reflect eligibility of existing commercial office and mixeduse parcels rather than buildings. Modifying the adaptive reuse permit application cap. Changing the zoning districts in which adaptive reuse permits are allowed. Clarifying the applicable development standards. Modifying the definitions for adaptive reuse adaptive reuse permit. Low-income housing, moderate income housing, multiple residence reuse. Removing the definition of existing commercial office and mixed use building and adding a definition of existing commercial office and mixeduse parcel. Recommendation is adoption. Item 7 C PZ25056 proposed amendments to chapters 30 31 and 88 87 of title 11 of the Mesa city code pertaining to accessory dwelling units detached accessory buildings or structures and home occupations. The amendments include, but are not limited to, modifying the gross floor area requirements for detached accessory buildings or structures, modifying the setback requirements for accessory dwelling units, modifying the specific use and activities standards for home occupations, adding the definition of building addition, modifying the definition of home occupations. Recommendation is adoption. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion to approve. Second. Second. Please vote. It passes unanimously. So, we will proceed with the items that were pulled off of the uh consent agenda. First matter um is the Beverly uh apartments. It's 4A on the agenda. Now do do you want to give the uh presentation? I again u unless the board doesn't want it. You want the presentation again? No. Thank you, Evan. We don't we don't need need you again. Um but what we'll do is we'll open the uh the public hearing uh portion of the meeting. We have one blue card and um Madison Reynolds. what what we'll do, you know, come on up. But what what we do is you you have three minutes uh to make your presentation if there's um then then what we'll do is we'll have the uh the applicant u also present if if need be and then we'll we'll have our uh vote. So please Good afternoon. My name is Madison Reynolds. I live off 239 North Beverly. So right down the street from uh this development and one other development. um representing the Beverly community. While we recognize that growth is part of Mesa's future, we remain deeply concerned about the scale, pace, and impact of the two proposed developments on Beverly. The Lofts development and the Beverly Apartments development. Our top priority is safety, especially for pedestrians, school children, seniors, and people with disabilities. These streets aren't just roads. They're part of daily life. People walk their dogs here. Children ride bikes. Parents push strollers. Potentially tripling traffic to over a thousand daily trips will put lives at risk and permanently change the character of this neighborhood. Let's be clear, the current traffic study only accounts for the loft's development, not both developments combined. Until a new study is done while school is in session, no claim about traffic impact is reliable. Planning decisions should be based on verified data. We appreciate the suggestion of speed cushions, but that treats the symptom, not the cause. The real issue is over density in a on a residential street never built for this volume of traffic. The city of Mesa's safer streets initiative commits to reducing deaths and serious injuries from crashes by 30% by 2030. potentially tripling traffic on Beverly, especially near schools, goes against that goal. We're not anti-growth, but growth must be responsible, balanced, and shaped by community input. We want to be part of shaping the future, not steamrolled by it. So, we offer three clear, reasonable solutions. One, reduce the density. Give 42 units to the lofts and 24 units for the Beverly apartments. Second option, add a gate on Beverly. If density can't be reduced, protect protect the street from cutth through traffic by making an exception to the policy and put a gate on Beverly. If neither of those are options, then postpone the projects. If financing only works at densities that overwhelm the neighborhood and put residents at risk, then the project isn't feasible. Postpone the projects, including Beverly Apartments, until interest rates and construction costs allow for a plan that balances density, safety, and financial viability. We urge the city to prioritize people over policy and safety over speed of development. Our community deserves development that enhances not endangers our quality of life. Thank you. Thank you. The applicant is here. Um have you come up and Thank you for your record. Taylor Earl with the law firm of Earl and Curley. Our address is 3101 North Central Avenue in Phoenix. Um I'm happy to answer any questions related to that. What I will say just um as a precursor is that we have a relatively very small development. We currently have 12 units on site. This has been used for multifamily for a very long time. Um our proposal is to go to 36 units. the the major thing that's changed over the past several decades is that the city invested incredible amounts of time, energy, and resources into developing the light rail. And so this area is fundamentally different than it was. Um we have had tra the city's transportation team has looked at the specific question. Um I understand that there's a development across the street and I understand that the neighbors have concern about that. I can't speak to that development. I I think it's being proposed at 66 units. Um and what that can do, we're so small, we weren't even required to do a traffic study. Um I know that there have been ongoing um email exchanges between uh Madison and the council office um regarding that that concern, the desire to maybe gate Beverly. The city has said that that's not something that the city would would do. And so you heard Madison suggest, well, maybe we just reduce the density or wait and put the projects basically on hold. Um, I would suggest to you that reducing our project by 12 units would not have any type of noticeable or significant change on that uh traffic, but it would very much put their project at risk. Um, in this area, what we need, we need density. Um, density people are absolutely the lifeblood of mixeduse and urban style communities. You can have a great light rail and you can have great restaurants, but if people don't go to them or people don't ride the light ride the light rail, the system simply doesn't work. So, we're not next not just next to the light rail, we're next to a light rail station within a quarter of a mile. This is exactly where the city would expect to see um spec density. And from what we've been told, the traffic that exists, even with the proposed projects coming online, would put the average amount of traffic into that neighborhood at a normal range, not at a high range or anything that is excessive. What the city uh council office has suggested is the notion of speed cushions, and you heard Madison reference reference to that. Um I understand that his position is that that's just uh that's not enough. Um but if the concern is that there's um either cutthrough or speed, I think that's a reasonable solution um that can be pursued to make sure that we're not cutting off a street network, which is not u not viable. Um I can tell you the one place that the city of Phoenix did that um down around Central Avenue, they had a community that they gated off um that I think I heard reference to from some of the neighborhoods. Um and I asked the city about that several years ago and the response was, "Taylor, we'll never do that again." Um it was a mistake. It's a mistake to cut off the ability for people to to go to and from. And frankly, it's unclear whether the whole community would even want to have a gate that may break and and may have issues with it. But I certainly can understand. But I think we're in a scenario where we don't have an excessive amount of traffic. The units that we're adding would not be any type of significant problem, particularly that we have a we are an affordable project. So, we are a low-inccome housing tax credit project. we expect to be at 50% AMI and we're really focusing away from car dependency in this project. Um we want our residents to be using the light rail to be using bicycle and modes of transportation. Um what can be a challenge for people who maybe um haven't had the same uh upbringing in financial literacy is that sometimes they can take on car payments um that they will prefer frankly pay first over rent because eviction can be a little bit more forgiving. you can find a new place to live, but if your car is repoed, it's a little harder. And so, frankly, we're not really interested in there being high car dependency in a in a in a in an environment we're trying to make sure people can pay their rent and and key financial literacy. We're trying to upskill them so they can potentially uh move on. Um, and so we we like this location. We think it's the right place to invest in and a building that's well past its useful life. Um, to provide emphasis and to use really use the the light rail program. And so um in particular, not only are we not adding that many units to what's already there from 12 to 36, but also the nature of our development, we will we will have a far less car ccentric development simply because of a that's the focus, but b frankly in low-income housing tax projects, you don't have a high amount of cars because it's a different income level where people don't have the same availability uh for vehicles. And that's that's national data which Miss Blakeman can certainly speak to as well. Um I know that the again the transportation department of the city has looked at this particular question. I know it involves a project in addition to ours. So we're somewhat being um kind of involved in a at a broader discussion. But I'm happy to answer any questions. Obviously I have a full presentation I can get into. But in light of I think a lot of uh stuff you'll have on your agenda today. I'm mindful of that and happy to to do what the the board would like me to do. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Thank you. Appreciate it. Sure. Yeah, let me close the public hearing and then we can have the your your question on the we can have a discussion on the board. But uh I I think uh board member Peterson has a question on the traffic engineer if he's here. Yeah. Ryan, would you mind give us your your uh assessment of the area? Evening. Uh, vice chair, board members, uh, Ryan Hudson. I'm with the city of Mesa Transportation Department, the city traffic engineer. Um, happy to answer any questions. Board member Peterson, if you were looking for something specific or just more of a an overview assessment. Yeah, just just more of that. You heard the comments just assessment of of this I and with what we have before us this particular project and uh and your your assessment of of Beverly and the adjacent streets ability to handle that capacity. Sure. So uh as mentioned before um there there was a traffic study that was conducted uh for the development this not this development the development on the east side of the road. Um and that part of that study was collecting existing traffic volumes on the street network within the neighborhood where this development sits. So Beverly as it sits in existing conditions out there today, the traffic volumes are anywhere from 500 to to 400 generally speaking on an average daily traffic volume perspective. um the development that we're talking about tonight, coming in with 36 units, taking a very very conservative perspective, not not taking reductions, but taking a conservative uh approach to what the 36 units would generate for traffic is somewhere in the range of 200 to 240 trips on an average day. and dispersing that throughout the the neighborhood. Um, you know, that would potentially put the volumes that I just spoke to on Beverly, you know, up into the the 600, maybe 700 vehicles per day range. That is very comparable to a lot of local residential streets within the city of Mesa's uh local street network. What What would the trips per day be? Um, at what point would it hit the threshold where you're like, "Hey, this is getting high. We need to look at some some treatment areas. Is it quite a bit higher than that?" Sure. Vice Chair and board member Peterson. Um, when we look at traffic volumes on a local residential street, there's kind of like four tiers you can look at. Um, just to simplify, you know, 250 vehicles per day or less is very, very low traffic volume, very quiet. you get into the 250 to 500, it's a little bit more moderate, but definitely still considered on the lower end. When we get to 500 to 750 to 800, you're kind of in that tier where it's a little bit more moderate, but definitely within, you know, acceptable range. Just for comparison, the city of Mesa does have a speed hump policy, um, which is, you know, a traffic calming strategy for, uh, local roads such as this one. And the threshold, one of the thresholds that we look at is vehicles per day. And there is a mention of a 500 vehicles kind of being a level to look at as part of the warrants. Um, and then I see the fourth tier is really that 750 to to over a,000 vehicles per day. Once you get into that thousand vehicles per day, it's not really more of a capacity issue. It's more of a, you know, quality of life type of of situation. and um what these roads ultimately serve next to residential land uses. So we feel that with the proposed development, it still falls within that kind of you know um moderate range for a local residential street. Gotcha. Thank you. And the uh there had been discussion of traffic cushions. Is that is that in process at the transportation department or is that something that residents would need to to talk with your department about? Board member Peterson, we we have received uh within the transportation department, you know, questions related to this as as um discussed before. And one of the the options that we threw out as a viable alternative to pursue is traffic calming devices and that being primarily speed cushions. U that would be something that would have to be ultimately council directed um you know at a at a future time. It's just kind of put out there as that this could be a viable option if if um staff was directed to to pursue that. Is there a certain number of residents that have to elect to do that? Uh vice chair per the speed hump Mesa speed hump policy if it was to follow that policy process. Yes, there is a very in-depth process to get speed cushions or speed humps installed on a residential local street. Um again, if um if directed by council to to take a different route, that that could be a possibility. Um but u that's kind of where we stand today. Thank you. Any other questions? Uh real quick. Um with that study, does that go both north and south on Beverly or is that looking specifically going north into the neighborhood? Sure. Vice Chair and board member Carpenter. Yeah, great question. the the traffic study looks at really all the distribution to and from the site, all the different uh routes that could be taken from from anybody accessing or leaving the site. So it would be, you know, the whole network um coming from going to Alma School or Main Street or a university and all the residential streets in between. Anything else? Thank you. Appreciate that. So, um, if there's no other questions, then I'll entertain a motion on this one. Uh, Vice Chair Pitcher, I think you could probably have a motion on 4 A and 5A together because it's the general fund amendment and the reasoning. Okay, I'll entertain a motion on 4 A and 5A. Read the whole thing. You got to read the whole thing. All right. I'll uh make a motion that uh 4 Z24-0152 Beverly Apartments, 1.3 acres located 120 North Beverly, approximately 715 ft north of the northwest corner of West Main State Street in North Beverly. reszone for multiple residents two RM2 and multiple residents three to multiple residents four with a plan area development overlay and a site plan review of a multiple residence development staff recommendation approval with conditions and also uh 5A25-00203 Beverly Apartments 1.3 acres located at 120 North Beverly approximately 715 ft north of the northwest corner of West Main Street and North Beverly. Minor minor general plan amendment to change the general plan place type from traditional residential with a sub sustained growth strategy to mix residential with sustained growth strategy. District 4 staff recommendation approval with conditions. And your motion is to approve. Is there a second? Second. Please vote. Thank you. It uh is approved unanimously with uh three members absent. So we will uh continue on then to the next matter that was uh pulled from the consent agenda. This is item 7A. Um, unless the, uh, members of the board want to have Rachel give her great presentation again, uh, I think we'll just move move straight on to the public comment. That work for everybody? All right. So, what I'll do is we've got a number of blue cards on this one. I'll uh u read your name if you you'd come up. Um we'll open the public hearing first and we'll we'll read we we'll read your name and then uh if you can come up uh you've got three minutes uh and um appreciate it. So we will start and the public hearing is open to uh with Ben Graph. Good evening, uh, Vice Chair Pitcher, members of the commission. My name is Ben Graph. I'm with the law firm of Corals and Brady to North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. I'm here tonight representing Nova Holdings LLC. Uh, in regard to their approved uh, data center at the northwest corner of Ellsworth and Warner Roads. Now, when a text amendment like this for data centers goes through the process, there's probably more stakeholders than this, but there's usually three main parties to be concerned with. one are land owners that may have the right today to build a data center but haven't proceeded. There are existing built data centers within Mesa that will be impacted by the new law. And then there's where NOVA is, my client, which I hope you could agree is the most precarious of the three, which is they have obtained all entitlements. Uh they have received final site plan but have not yet broken ground and yet the law is about to change. Um just a little insight into that. Uh NOVA has already invested to date $100 million into the purchase of the site and the development. And although there have been comments about the lack of jobs that go with data centers, let's talk about investment for a moment because we are projected to exceed three billion billion with a B in costs and investment in Mesa construction by the time this data center is built. Uh and by the way, we appreciate the staff from or the comment from staff about the design. Nova is known for having quite frankly beautiful data centers. Um let me point out a few of the concerns that we have. Um I want to compliment uh Rachel Phillips because although you know I'd love to imagine I am the only zoning attorney in town. Rachel has been taking calls from every possible interested party and has been incredibly responsive. Um, in fact, some of the changes in your amendments tonight uh are from conversations between our senior land planner Josh Mike and Rachel just this week. Um, all of this being said, we're a little concerned that since items are being located in the text amendment in need of change just within the last 48 hours that more time is needed, especially for my client in this approval stage. Um, namely, we are concerned um that the text amendment until recently did not contemplate that the waiver could apply to someone or a developer with site plan approval. Now, that's been fixed as of tonight in one section, but we're not sure it applies across the board. Um, we're also concerned about the fact that it's not clear that someone like Nova could come in for administrative minor site plan changes that should be under the old code, old requirements, not the new. Very, very important. Um, there's a section that seems to include substations, battery storage, power generation, other equipment to be included as of right, but again, that's not clear. And just one final thing. Um, vice chair, would I be able to add one more moment? Thank you very much. Um, one item. I want to compliment staff on their vision of the waiver because it's solving a lot of the problems that aren't being solved in in other jurisdictions. But there's one thing I think staff and the board and city council need to contemplate, which is the concept is the of the waiver is to avoid a takings. So, if NOVA has LI PA AD zoning today and a site plan in hand, when this goes through, they should be able to continue to develop. But one thing we're concerned about, and my apologies to Rachel, we haven't talked to you about this yet. So, tonight I'm bringing this up, is that if you reszone from LI, you lose your rights under the waiver. If you reszone to another zoning district, that might be equitable, but what if you reszone to LI council use permit? li that's not clear if that kind of action loses your grandfathered rights to a data center. We'd like some clarity on that because the reality in that situation is your base zoning is still li and you shouldn't lose those rights. I appreciate that extra time. I can answer any questions but for now I'll sit down. Thank you. Any questions? Appreciate you. Next is Emily Rice. A little shorter than the last speaker. Good afternoon. I'm Emily Rice, vice president of government relations with B3 Strategies, 1642 East Culver Street in Phoenix. Our firm has been involved with data center policy since the initial computer data center program was established by the state legislature. I'm here today speaking on behalf of the data center coalition. The data center coalition is a membership association for the US data center industry representing leading data center owners and operators as well as companies that lease large amounts of data center capacity of data center. The data centers coalition's 36 data center members about half have a presence or planned presence in Arizona. Data centers are a foundation for the advanced manufacturing and AI economy. As the city of Mesa considers adapting an ordinance establishing standards, the data center coalition strongly encourages the planning and zoning board, city staff, and city council to continue its ongoing stakeholder engagement to identify impacts and resolve unintended consequences in the proposed ordinance. As the city council considers the ordinance, the data center coalition would respectfully request additional I accidentally tapped something if that impacted your screens. uh would respectfully request additional consideration regarding noise including utilizing a decibel level uh range appropriate for the zoning area, backup generators to establish flexibility for the city utility and data center to work together and the impact that the ordinance will have on data centers currently in development within the city to ensure that the data centers are able to continue that development data center. Uh DCC also encourages the city to permit variances to the development standards established in 113136 in order to allow the city maximum flexibility for future development decisions from semiconductors and advanced manufacturing to AI. The companies Arizona is attracting to today rely on low latency data processing which is contingent on having a nearby data center. Data centers specifically help support Arizona's $ 2.3 billion cyber security sector which relies on data centers to protect sensitive data and enable secure transactions. Our region's growing semiconductor industry in which fabs deploy machine learning and real-time analytics to optimize yield, reduce deficits, defects, and manage supply chains. Data centers are also the second largest market for semiconductors after smartphones globally. Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, the data center industry contributed 11 billion to Arizona's GDP in 2023 and directly and indirectly generated $863 million in state and local revenues. In 2023, Arizona's data center industry directly employed 14,430 workers in high wage roles, including engineering, cyber security, and facilities management. When accounting for indirect and induced effects, the industry supported 81,730 total jobs statewide, including one in 12 in every 12 jobs, specifically in the technology sector. Every direct data center job in Arizona supports five jobs elsewhere in the economy. As city staff continues through its efforts in developing this ordinance and engaging with stakeholders, I would again respectfully request a pause on this effort to ensure that a full range of stakeholders can be engaged in engaged with prior to this ordinance being considered by city council. Thank you so much. Thank you. Are there any questions? Appreciate it. Next, uh, Sean Loy. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Sean Loy. I'm with Cyrus 1. I'm here this evening to um offer some comments on the proposed amendments uh and ordinance. um realizing and and I preface all the comments realizing that uh in in a sense they're in flux. So this letter was largely drafted before um this evening uh and and hearing uh what some of the further developments have been. Um we own 68 acres within the Elliot Road Tech Corridor in East Mesa. I'm here to request on behalf of Cyrus 1 to note our concerns number one about some ambiguities as we see in the proposed text amendment in its current form. Um and two ask that you delay your recommendation to the board of supervisors or city council to allow for some modest additional time to consider our comments and suggested revisions. Um in 2018, Cyrus 1 acquired the property and thereafter invested s significant efforts um to develop the property um that included submission of a pre-submittal conference application with the city staff to gather comments from a zoning design and site planning perspective. The feedback provided by the planning department helped foster an open and transparent relationship um between Cyrus 1 and key city stakeholders and leaders. As we um move forward through entitlements um we diligently implemented recommendations we received from ple um from planning staff, excuse me, and members of the design review and planning and zoning boards. most notably um additional screening measures, enhanced landscaping, um elevated design and architectural features. Uh ultimately uh we received recommendation for approval from the design review board and final approval from the planning and zoning board in July of 2024. Relying on these approvals, we made um further investments um completing design and engineering work and pursuing um a building permit. Given these significant investments, Cyrus 1's development rights have now been vested and are thus fully grandfathered under the law in existence uh when the city approved Cyrus 1's site plan and special use permit. On this point, I'd call the board's attention to a letter submitted for the record by our council Perkins Kuey yesterday, June 10th, 2025. Based on follow-up discussions with the city, we understand that it's the city's intent to um allow property owners like Cyrus 1, who have already approved site plans and special use permits, will be permitted to continue developing, constructing, and operating their data center projects in compliance with the law that existed when the city approved their project. Our worry is that the current uh text in its uh current form, excuse me, of the ordinance does not clearly match the city's intent. The current language is um extremely broad and potentially problematic uh with new requirements including distance separation um new architectural standards, substation screening and operational regulations. And on its face, the proposed ordinance could um as read um and potentially mistakenly applied in ways um that uh deprive property owners of their vested rights. Again, uh based on our discussions with the city, we understand that the city's intent uh is to grandfather property owners like Cyrus 1 who have vested rights, but we ask that the proposed ordinance be revised to make this grandfathering explicit. We remain committed to being good neighbor and welcome continued collaboration and dialogue with the city. We just ask for some additional time so that the proposed ordinance text can be clarified uh before you forward it to city council. Thank you for your time and consideration. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next is uh Mark Bower. Good evening. My name is Mark Bower and I'm with Jones Lang Lasal and I'm a part of their uh National Data Center Solutions Site Selection Group. Um I've been in the valley here since ' 87 and became really specialized in the telecommunications and data centers in the late 90s. So I've seen the evolution of this data center which was started with you know telecommunication companies core was 120 van van beurren in downtown Phoenix and it's slowly grown over time uh I think uh most of our data centers back then and if we could find 10 acres and get you know 5 to 10 megawatts of power that was that was a data center at that time you know fast forward you know 10 years ago it was we need 50 megawws to 100 megawws the last five years it's we need as much as we can get 300 megawatts to a me you know a gigawatt um I've represented a lot of the companies that have built data centers in Mesa I think that the city of Mason should be very excited about what they've been able to put together in terms of the the the companies that actually reside within uh that corridor the Elliott Road corridor I mean you've got Microsoft Google AWS Meta you've got the major companies here. The tech investment that's been made already is in the tune of billions of dollars. Um the development of these data centers are will continue to evolve and change. Um Meta built out 200 megawatts in Mesa. Their new footprint now would be the same footprint but double their power. So 400 megawatts. And I want to be able to talk, a lot of people have talked about um utilities, but the data centers and the developers are the ones that are actually writing the checks. So, it's no longer APS and SRP with the burden of paying for utility upgrades. It's the customer. Um I'm very familiar right now with an upgrade that's a billion dollar upgrade. That billion-doll upgrade in that Elliot Road corridor is being paid for by the data center developers and the operators. It's not a direct impact on um SRP. APS is doing the same thing. As a matter of fact, APS and SRP and the developers are, you know, forming partnerships. It is a partnership. It's a trying to find a solution to be able to deliver the power, you know, to the sites and upgrade and getting as a developer coming in to buy a site that might be zoned and approved for a data center. That's one worry they don't have to worry about because they've got the next three to five years to worry about how do they get power to these sites. So in essence I I look at embracing the data center you know making sure that these this amendment change doesn't have a negative effect but that you work with the developers and that and the technology people because these data centers will change over time. They've changed over time over the last 25 years since I've been in the business. And um again, the footprints aren't necessarily getting bigger, but the densities are getting higher. And they're they're they're doing they're they're the ones that are running to try to find efficient ways to use less water, um to lose use less energy and be very efficient. Um, so know that there's billions of dollars being invested and a lot of those dollars, especially from a power rate perspective. The tax that comes in goes directly to that community. So, the city of Mesa is benefiting without really expending any money that could be sh, you know, used for adding to the the public uh schools to uh the fire departments, police departments. And that's about all I have to say right now. Appreciate your comment. Thank you. Next, Jay Urban. Good evening, vice chair and board members. My name is Jay Irvin. I'm with the Butler Design Group, local architecture firm here in the valley. I'm a project manager and associate. Um, wanted to thank you for the opportunity uh to speak. We truly appreciate the city's initiative to proactively address data center development through this proto proposed text amendment. While we support the intent ensuring compatibility with a community, we believe several of the proposed requirements may need further discussion to ensure they are practical, enforceable, and align with the real world function of data centers. Uh just to list a few uh the first one uh 400 foot setback is a sign significant departure from uh standards in GI HI and LI zoning. Setbacks in those areas typically range from 15 to 30 feet even when adjacent to residential. The standard is usually 20 ft plus one foot for every building uh for every foot of building height. If the project meets sound visual sound and visual screenings, it's unclear what additional benefits this 400 foot buffer provides, particularly when the space when space is at a premium in many areas. Next, the 60-oot uh height limit could unintentionally hinder functional design. Data centers often require greater internal clearances to accommodate uh equipment, cooling systems, and and structural in infrastructure. Uh we suggest re-evaluating this height limit especially if adequate architectural screening is provided. Next uh for parking the purpose of one per thousand square foot ratio could result in large underutilized lots data centers are not high capacity uh occupational facilities. Uh this approach uh may create um unnecessary paving heat island effects and poor sight aesthetics. Uh perhaps a more user uh specific or performance-based approach would be appropriate. The proposed mechanical yard location requirements also pose a challenge. Requiring yards to be placed away from entrance entrances, public facades, residential uses, and any roads makes citing these systems extremely difficult. Uh a performance-based approach focusing on effective screening could achieve the same goals goals with uh greater flexibility. Finally, mechanical screening of equipment. Um, calling uh calling for a solid masonry wall tall enough to screen uh fully screen the highest adjacent uh piece of equipment may itself become a visual issue. Uh in some cases, the screening would create more of an eyesore than the equipment. We'd encourage exploration of other solutions like architectural enclosures or integrated design elements. In closing, we respectfully ask the commission to consider delaying adoption of this amendment and convening a stakeholder meeting, a collaborative discussion involving the city staff, industry professionals, and designers uh who would help ensure these standards are balanced, practical, and reflective of both community and operational needs. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Next is uh Tom Maples. Thank you very much for the opportunity to uh to address you. I come here representing the Arizona chapter of 7 by 24 exchange and our 60 member chapter 60 member companies. We're a collaborative good neighbor and are just urging that there be a stakeholder meeting and there be some public discussion on on this issue before their their votes. There has not been a public hearing. Um and the staff is working incredibly hard but we haven't seen all the changes. It's hard to digest as someone else said you know if you come in with four fourhour old news you're out of date. So asking for that collaboration. Want to talk about three things. There is a really robust uh data center hub in Arizona and UMESA are are are good part of that and it's something to be proud of, not something to be embarrassed about. It has fostered companies like Uber. It is a data center for SRP. It is in the future for advanced air mobility. the Honey Wells and the Boeings and the the Whimos all want to be in a place that the valley is embracing that but not allowing a data center for it and it is really severely restricting. GI and HI is less than 3/4 of 1% of your land. It's not, it is restricting to say that that's where it's going to be allowed and to ask other folks to invest their money in others and chase a waiver. That that's doesn't feel good to invest billions of dollars and chase a waiver. So, need to think about that. And the last point talking about parking um and Jay Jay raised it. Um I understand that there's concern about how many bodies are permanent employees in a data center and that's been raised to take a real world confidential example. There's a 16 it's not it's not in Mesa but it's true 16 acres twotory 240,000 square feet. That's kind of a typical data center. Okay. So using numbers that we heard that there is one employee per acre and I would dispute that but that would say you should have 16 parking spaces as as written you would ask for 240 parking spaces. He talked about a heat island and he talked about um it would really not be visually uh appealing for you to require that. The truth is obviously somewhere in between. Is there one, you know, is there one per thousand or is there one employee per acre, but it's really a lot lot lot lot lot less than what's being called for. It's really a lot closer to 16 spaces being required. It's probably 30 spaces, not 240. Thank you very much for your time. Just asking for a delay so that we can have a stakeholder meeting. Appreciate it. Thank you. I'm going to try my best on this one. Uh, C pandis alisa. Am I close? Almost there. All right. Sorry. Good evening. Uh, vice chair pitcher and members of the board. My name is Sepand Alazada. I am the government relations specialist for the Arizona Technology Council, 2800 North Central Avenue, sweet 1530. And I am here to echo the comments made by all our data center partners who have spoken tonight. You know, the two phrases I keep hearing over and over uh from Mesa's leaders are economic opportunity and economic innovation. Mesa is a hub for both. We're seeing companies from all across the country come to this wonderful city, relocate, and set up operations. And we're especially seeing it in the data center world. So with data centers, you know, we want to become a hub for the AI economy. The AI economy is rooted in data centers. You can't have one without the other. These data centers help process all the information that's being used to advance the AI economy. Uh, as I said, Mayor Freeman was at the ribbon cutting for Meta's data center on January 31st, and he recognized that in his comments, and he repeated that in his state of the city on May 6th, that again, economic opportunity, economic innovation are key to Mesa's future. So, that's my sort of professional spiel, but I also want to give my personal comments. As you see, my right hand is in a brace. Uh, I was in a car accident last year in a very, very rural part of Phoenix and play part of Phoenix I'm never really in. And Phoenix Fire and Medical Rescue arrived thankfully um, to, you know, help me out and take me to the nearest hospital. And the nearest hospital is one I've never been to. When I got to that medical facility, the doctors there, the professionals there, the medical professionals, they all they all had access to my pre-existing medical conditions right away. They knew what I was allergic to. They knew what medicines I could take and couldn't take. And that was because of a server in a data center somewhere that hosted this information. You know that data center saved my life and allowed me the privilege of being here before you tonight. So as you think about this ordinance as our data center partners have said, you know, please take into account all the economics behind it, but also realize there's a personal element too and please take your time. Let's work together with the stakeholders to come up with an ordinance that helps create jobs and also saves lives. So, thank you very much and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you all. Thank you, board. Thank you. That's that's the last card I have. Is that all we've got? Okay, then I'll close the public hearing. I'll I'll open uh any discussion. We had a great discussion downstairs. Uh are there any other comments that any of you would like to make on this matter? You go. Yeah, I I I I have some I'd like to to roll through for the record on the and I am in agreement that the especially the these last changes coming through and with it sounds like things are still in flux to some degree. I don't know that this doesn't feel like it's fully baked yet and uh and even and I'll go through and I'll I'll note some uh concerns or suggestions possibly um on it. So first off what the the definition and then how that relates to some other criteria and uh so so the definition a data center a facility or portion of a facility primarily used to store and manage computer systems servers networking equipment and components related to digital data operations. Uh and this includes related infrastructure, office space, staff areas necessary to support digital data operations and um with um just this um being in flux like it is that the definition and the things that are included in there when you tie that back to the code and the criteria for accessory use um being 10 no more than 10% of the building footprint by the time you start adding in infrastructure office space staff areas you get to 10% pretty quickly and even though there was well it's the data component not just the the IT but I mean it says servers networking equipment that switches all these things it it it can pretty easily be construed to be that and uh I mean I I think of my my current employment in our business operations the the space is pretty close to that now and and uh this doesn't give a lot of room for that. So, so that's a concern is is if that's the definition that we stick with then going through the criteria in the in section 1131364 th those four criteria that it can be no more than 10% of the footprint. I think that's too too small and I'm not sure if you have if you meet the other criteria for that you don't lease data storage or processing services to third parties that seems like the primaril that the primary criteria if for your own needs it's more than 10% then then uh that's part of business and it feels like that o over the years own business you know needs that that stuff continues to grow and that um the you would hate to have a a large employer going to expand, you know, their their it or their or they need some data, however you meet the definition, expand it and then it's like, oh, you can't meet that because, you know, this this ordinance doesn't let you have more than 10%. Um and and there's and I get grandfathered and everything. It it just feels like it's like it's really low. and then the um the data center not housed in a separate standalone structure on the parcel. I'm not in my head I'm trying to picture why that's a criteria if for some reason they have their that in a small it I'm that uh that it feels like that that if as long by data center that means you're leasing storage data or process and services to third parties. So these other things I I I don't know why they're in there to add on to it. And then um the the public input as well. There was a a lot of companies listed as having public input. Some of those companies showed up today. And so it it doesn't feel like that all the parties that were listed as having dialogue that that there's an an agreement. And I'm not I'm I'm not asking staff to have full agreement from everybody on it. That's not what we do. But but uh it feels like there's still a lot of collaboration to come out with something that it is is probably a little bit better than what we have right now. Screening. I fully agree 100% on that. There should be up to some height limit or alternate means for if you have a specific piece of ground mounted equipment that's 15t high. You hate to have, you know, a a huge 15 foot high fence that then becomes unsightly around that where you can accommodate that in in other ways. The city does that on their own. Uh facilities and equipment, water systems or things if they have things taller, they don't build a 30-ft wall around a water tank. They do different things to screen around the water tank. Um so it feels like that's uh that's something that that needs some refinement. the one space per per thousand parking. So if if we go to the the P A and frankly I'm fully in support of the the P A liked it because it gives sight specific criteria. So it lets it lets staff it lets council you know dictate these criteria on a siteby-sight basis. and we're we're talking about um the preference for this ordinance being a city of Chandler ordinance. the for the last 30 years the majority of Chandler zoning cases are all PADs because it's all sight specific zoning with the P A and and so if if we're doing that then um it feels like the parking is is something that can be just determined user by user that uh because different users are going to have different and and I get different office space different staffing needs that that it's something that that each user or it's on their when they come in with their application, it's on them to to uh show, you know, what their what all those spaces are and their and and what it needs to be. Um so that so that we're we're efficiently using the the land for those things as well. and uh on on the P A um and we talked about it downstairs. I mean, if we're we're changing it already, dramatically changing to allow um these the the the way the PAD operates, I get the staff is looking at other changes down the road. But if the minimum land area is something that's a thought, I mean, why not just do it right now? It's sounds like it's going to be six months before initiating, maybe longer than that before anything happens. If it it's a pretty simple document, um if that's something in process and if there's not a compelling reason to leave the minimum site area at 5 acres, um then then suggestion to just do that now as well. And those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Can we do uh so a couple of my comments are I think listening to everyone who showed up here today and then some of the folks seem to represent organizations 30 or 60 folks that say that they're part of their organizations that they're representing just seems like there's just a lot of questions from little details bigger details people are not super sure if it applies to them or what part it doesn't apply to. We there was things brought up here on setbacks, the backup generators, what's the waiver, what if we reszone, parking, screening. I mean, I'm just hearing like a whole litany list of like things that people have questions on. I think for the most part, folks don't seem like they're totally opposed to this. I think that everyone, I would say four out of the six folks who came up today just asked for more time and the ability to kind of scour through this and make sure it it covers folks. Another concern I do have is um the the folks that have come here today and also the the information that we've received seem to all be from folks who are approved uh and haven't quite yet built. So I think it seems as though we're hearing I assume the ones who are built are good to go, right? How uh Ben first came up and said there's three groups here. Uh the ones who are built I assume they're fine and good. the ones here. We seem to be hearing from those that are approved that haven't quite built yet are wondering what's going on. I feel like we haven't heard from a group of folks who have the right today um that are are not here at this this hearing. So, I'm wondering, has that message gone to those folks or or do they all just they're they're good with what's going on or is there a group of folks that have the right today that haven't come before that or do they know about what's happening here and how that could impact potentially what what they're hoping to get approved? So, I I think I I have concerns that this is just not as foolproof um and ready to move forward. So, that's my comments. Appreciate it. I'm good. You're good. Um my my comment is is a couple of things. I I was on the um I I've been in a lot of economic development boards in the city of Mesa for the past 15 plus years. We fought really really hard to get you stakeholders here in into the into the city of Mesa. And I I think, you know, from this ordinance, I don't see anything that necessarily that that we're we're not trying to drive this drive the stakeholders out. I think it's more clarification than anything. And and I think that from what I heard, there's a lot of things, including from from the board, that need to be clarified. and and we've got three of our board members that that aren't even here and can offer, you know, this clarification as well. And so I I think that um I'm I I think we need more time. And what what I would suggest is we we table this for now uh for a period of time in order for to give not only board members the chance to review it who aren't here but also more input from from the stakeholders like you've said. So, um I I mean I um I propose and uh would move that we table this for now till we we do it for a date certain and if we have to push it again we can but why don't we table this for the the next meeting on the 25th and then uh let's see if we need to to push it out further once the uh the stakeholders and the board members get a chance to review some of these these revisions that we've talked about. So I I I move for that. Is there a second? Second. If we could vote, please. The motion is unanimously approved. So we will uh we'll we'll see this table for a couple of weeks and then uh give everyone a chance to talk. Um, that's all that's that's on the agenda today. Is there there any updates and so forth? Uh, Vice Chair Pitcher, no additional updates. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. And that is approved. Thank you everyone.