All right, welcome everybody to the October 22nd, 2025 city of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. We'd like to begin by taking roll call and chair chairs as present. Vice Chair Peterson >> here. >> All right, perfect. Board member Blakeman >> here. >> Board member Carpenter >> here. And we'll excuse board members Pitcher, Montess, and Farnsworth today. So, as part of the agenda, we do have a consent agenda. This will all be read into and acted on in one motion into the record. Um, these will not be discussed individually and we had board member Blakeman reading our consent agenda today. >> Items on the consent agenda. Approval of minutes from previous meetings. Minutes from the September 23, 2025 planning and zoning board special meeting. Minutes from the September 24 25 2025 planning and zoning board meeting. Take action on the following zoning cases. Z25-0000426 parcel C Medina Station 13.5 plus minus acres located approximately 1100 ft southeast of the intersection of East Southern Avenue and South Signal but Road site plan review for the development of a 276 unit multiple residence development staff recommendation approval with conditions discuss and make recommendation to the city council on the following zoning cases. CO24-00998 623 South Mesa Drive 0.6 6 plus or minus acres located approximately 1420 ft south of the southeast corner of East Broadway Road and South Mesa Drive. Reszone from multiple residents 2 RM-2 to multiple residents 4 with a bonus intensity zone overlay RM-4 BIS and site plan review for a 15 unit multiple residence development staff recommendation continued to the November 12th 2025 planning and zoning board meeting z25-0000256 sunundevil auto signal but 5.9 plus or minus acres ers located approximately 280 ft east of the northeast corner of East Southern Avenue and South Signal View Road. Major site plan modification and amending conditions of approval numbers 1 67 and 9 of ordinance number 3884 for the development of an approximately 7,689 plus or minus square foot minor automobile/vehicle service and repair facility. Staff recommendations, approval with conditions. >> All right. Thank you, board member Blakeman. So with that, I'll look for a motion to approve the consent agenda is read. Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Board member Peterson. >> Yes. >> So that's a unanimous size. I'm not seeing our voting. So >> we did it verbally, Alexis. I think we're good. If that's or do we need to do it? >> Oh, there it goes. Oh, never mind. It went away. All right, we're good. I think we're good. All right, verbally, everyone here acknowledges their witnesses, right? It was unanimously good. All right, thank you everybody. Appreciate that. With that, we'll move into the rest of the agenda. Um, we are going to do a flip here. We're going to go like we did down in the study session. We are going to flip items 5A and 5B. Do you have a discussion? So I don't believe on item five A pertain or 5B contain or pertaining to the middle housing we would need another presentation but we do have some public comments unless anyone else would like to hear that presentation. I'm not seeing that. So with that I'm going to go ahead and open up the public hearing part and get some public comments here. I know we do have somebody online, but I'm going to go ahead and call it the blue card first. Alexa, does that sound good? All right. Um, and so as this kind of pertains, I'm just going to say this once for everybody here as far as when we have everyone come up. If you could please come up, state your name and your address for the record, and then we'll ask all of you to hold your comments to three minutes. We have quite a few blue cards, so it would be really appreciative if you could try to hold to that as best as you can. First person we have is Aura Napoleon. There she is. And I'm going to say this, too. If I mess up your names, I apologize. I'm not the sharpest tool yet. >> Hi, my name is Orura Napoleon. I live at 107 West 10th Street and Mesa, Arizona. Um, I just wanted to personally come down and say that I'm in favor of the middle housing um um project. Um because it's going to provide um additional housing for folks that are are in my family that need to have those options available to us. >> All right. >> Right. Thank you very much, Miss P. Appreciate that. >> All right, we do have one more >> chairs. We did receive a request to speak online um by Alli Barnett. I have not gotten confirmation yet that she is online. Um Ally Barnett, if you are online um you may unmute and speak. Nothing there. Okay. With that, anyone else wants to speak to this item at all the middle housing? No. All right. With that, I will go ahead and close the public comment portion of this and open up the conversation of board or if anyone would like to make a motion on this. We are making a motion. Correct. So, >> or recommendation. Sorry, not motion. Where is this one? You want me to read again? You got it. Sure. Uh, I'll make a motion to let's see proposed amendments 5B >> oh 5B proposed amendments to chapters 58 31 32 86 and 87 of title 11 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to middle housing. The amendments include but are not limited to modifying land uses tables and footnotes to permit middle housing in certain circumstances, adding eligibility requirements and development standards for middle housing. Adding parking requirements for middle housing. Modifying the definition of single residence attached. Adding definitions for duplex, forplex, middle housing, structure uh structure attached, structure detached, structure semi- detached, townhouse, and triplex. And the recommendation to approve or adopt. Sorry. Recommendation to adopt. All right. Is there a second on that? >> Second. >> All right. We'll go ahead and vote for that. Board member Peterson or Vice Chair Peterson, sorry. >> Yes. >> With that, uh, fours, zero, nos, and no abstains. We got three absent. So, we'll go ahead and pass this item. Thank you everybody on that one. >> We have no 5 A or 5B. I'm calling it 5A, though. Is that all right? Okay. >> All right. So, we're going to move back up to item 5A. If you're not seeing that a consent, that is the best uh system. Uh uh well, anyway, the best I'm just going to call that for now. Best facilities text amendment. Thank you very much. So, with that, we're also going to not do the uh public presentation on this one again, uh just to kind of move things along. I appreciate everybody's understanding on that. So, with that, um I will go ahead and open up the public comment portion of this one. Just like the last, um, we'll go through each of these. Please come up, state your name and your address. Um, and I will begin with the blue cards in this one, Alexis, so you can start looking at ones online. That sound good? All right. Again, I'm going to do my best on names here. So, first one I have is Victor Atlasman. Did I do all right? All right. That's good. Okay. I was hoping I would not be the first one, but that's fine. Um, >> sorry. I just get the pile and it goes from there. >> It's all good. So, my name is Victor Atlasman. I live at 10139 East Tilman Avenue in Mesa. Uh, not too far from the data centers that are nearby. Uh, Scott Sners is our council member, great representative for our community. And, uh, a little background on myself. I'm director of engineering for one of the largest EV charging infrastructure companies in the country, if not the world. When it comes to the the way this proposal is written, it actually would harm that. So, I'm against the way it's written, but I understand uh the spirit of it. Um, when it comes to deploying uh battery uh charging stations that support the use of battery energy storage systems, sometimes you might exceed the levels of the 1 megawatt hour simply just by deploying a few of these equipment. And why would you deploy this type of equipment? You don't have the infrastructure everywhere to deploy, especially in city communities, close to residential communities. um the grid just can't support the charging infrastructure and we know that uh the way uh the vehicle market's growing, there's a larger demand especially for residential units uh to have access to these high power and high reliable uh charging stations and they're going to require these energy storage systems to support the operations of these products. And so the way the proposal was written today, this amendment would actually put against that and actually restrict a lot of the community and the residents. So that's uh also I wanted to add um I also am chair of a committee for Arizona Technology Council. Uh I represent the e-mobility and energy ecosystem. I consider myself a subject matter expert in it. Like I said, I appreciate the spirit of the way it's written. Uh but it's written completely wrong. So that's all I wanted to share. >> Thank you, Mr. Als. Appreciate you coming up and providing input. Next up, I have Autumn Johnson. Hi, >> good afternoon board members. I'm Autumn Johnson on behalf of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association or ARISA. We're a statewide organization. I have actually had the opportunity to work on similar ordinances all over the state. We did submit uh written comments on October 15th that I believe are in your packet for today. our comments. Um, we are neutral on the ordinance. We don't tend to We understand if you want to have rules for the road. We certainly understand that Mesa wants to adopt an ordinance to move forward with battery battery energy storage as opposed to what was said in the working session where you cannot do it now. However, we do think modifications would be necessary within the ordinance to move forward for it to be successful. One of the most significant has to do with the applicability. Right now, the cutoff threshold that you have for both principal and accessory uses is a problem. We recommend actually removing the 1,00 kilowatt or 1 megawatt threshold for accessory uses. If it's an accessory use, it really should be exempt from the ordinance entirely. That's sort of a behind the meter usage for small businesses or or even medium or larger sized businesses, but the idea is that those are not utility scale and so they should be exempt from the ordinance. We do recommend that you adjust the size threshold um even within the principal usage. We've recommended five megawws within our commons. Um but other cities such as Buckeye, which just adopted a best ordinance on Tuesday, I think would be a good model for the city of Mesa. And they don't have a threshold size. They literally define it as applying to utility scale uh batteries that are used primarily for grid purposes. I know the staff uh we typically call them setbacks. I understand from the working session that you're calling them separations, I think, as opposed to setbacks. 1,000 ft is extremely large. That's larger than really any of the ordinances that I'm familiar with that have been adopted. We understand that you would want to have um some separation, but the separation should be based on I think best practices. So within our recommendations, we're referencing the National Fire Protection Agency. We re reference the Arizona or the American Planning Association and we also reference um Phoenix's regional standard operating procedures for battery energy storage systems. And so our 150 foot recommendation is actually a conservative recommendation based on those data points. So to the extent um you know I re I re I understand staff's comments as the difference between the residential and um the other land uses but we would significantly um recommend reducing below 1,000 ft. We have some other changes that you can see within our comments. I'm not going to have time to get to all of them, but Eloy specifically does include a waiver provision because there might be some projects that would be great for the city otherwise and are great for the grid, but would be hung up on some other technical def, you know, deficiency based on this. And so, we recommend you do include some sort of standard broad waiver language so that the projects can be reviewed on a case- by case basis. And I know my time is up, so I'll cut it short there. Thank you. >> Thank you for keeping it. We appreciate it. >> Uh, next I have Julie Moore. Hello, I'm Julie Moore, address 522 East Desert Ranch Road. Um, again, uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Again, I'm Julie Moore. I'm a retired battalion chief with the city's, uh, Surprise Fire Medical Department. And I'd like to address Mesa's battery energy storage system ordinance, the best. I recognize Mesa is balancing best safety with growing infrastructure needs. This is the right approach and I want to directly address a couple concerns. First about safety. I was there in surprise. I have firsthand experience with what can go wrong. But here's what's critical to understand. That tragic event became a catalyst for industrywide improvements across the nation. The battery landscape today is completely upgraded. Battery systems are now governed by rigorous safety standards. specifically the International Fire Code Chapter 12 and NFPA 855. Beyond code changes, the battery industry has made dramatic safety improvements to protect our communities and first responders. Years ago, as in surprise, battery systems had no ventilation. There were walking enclosures and projects lacked comprehensive communication in emergency response plans. Now, many have been replaced by modern installations featuring advanced venting systems and remote isolation, shutdown capabilities that run 24/7, 365 days a year. Today's developers integrate sophisticated thermal management systems and early detection sensors. They also coordinate and often with coordinate and often with fire with first responders. So, we as firefighters know exactly what we are dealing with. We cannot make decisions based on outdated information when the entire industry has been rebuilt around these lessons. Lastly, I'd like to talk about setbacks. This 1,00 foot requirement does not make sense. Mesa allows data data centers 400 ft from homes. Those facilities are massive and have a significant neighborhood impact. Yet, standalone battery systems need to be 1,000 ft away. That's more than double the distance for something smaller. Mesa has already determined 400 ft to be safe for major infrastructure. Let's apply the same standard here. The science and safety protocols support it. Thank you for your time. >> Appreciate your service as well, Mr. Form. >> Uh Ryan Rickles. Good evening, board members. Uh Ryan Rickles, 823 West Tuck Lane, Phoenix, Arizona. So, in general, I'm in supportive of um zoning classifications for battery energy storage facilities that are grid scale and utility scale. Um however, what I would like to discuss today is more of the smaller batteries. And so, what I would take issue with with these proposed amendments is uh the 100 or sorry, the 10,00 kilowatt uh threshold. So I believe that this 10,00 kilowatt uh threshold can be triggered uh very easily in not just uh uh grids scale conditions but um several uh business and uh commercial and industrial facilities across the across the uh the city. So I want to give some perspective of what 1,00 kilowatt is. So um probably a container about the size of this table can fit about 1,000 kilowatts of battery. So if if on your commercial site you surpass 1,00 kilowatts, your commercial site is no longer what it's used for. It's it's now a battery energy storage facility and it's now a utility. So um that is not the nature of what you guys are trying to achieve here. So another thing is 1,00 kW that size of a battery is only enough power to power two EVs at at on a fast charger. So that that is only that that's all that's required to trigger this this uh condition. So this is um a popular EV charger across the country. So it's a EV charger coupled with a battery. Um this kind of thing like if a Starbucks or a grocery store in this community wanted to install a couple of these only three would trigger that grocery store to now become a battery energy storage facility uh principal use. So I do do not believe that that's the intention of this code, but that is the way that it's written. Um another thing is um advanced tech, advanced manufacturing facilities across this community. Um that's where I come from my industry is I build these things. I engineer, design and build them. Um it is common place where you have tools that are highowered to install smaller batteries at these tools. The way the code is written is cumulatively on your entire campus, your entire property, you have to add up the kilowatts of every single piece of battery on your site. And if that surpasses 10,000, your site is no longer its principal use. It is a battery energy storage facility. So I do not believe that that is written correctly. Uh secondly, I think that this is going to impact uh lease spaces. So multi-tenant lease spaces. I think landlords are actually going to restrict this from 1,00 to zero because landlords are not going to want to police every single tenant exactly how many batteries batteries that are in that space and they don't want to risk reaching a thousand kilowatts and and uh and triggering a sitewide uh issue. So in in general I believe the 1000 kilowatt threshold is uh not what this code is intended to do and um it's going to dramatically impact all sorts of businesses across the Mesa perspective and current. Um and uh with that that's it. Thank you, Mr. Appreciate your time. Next, I have All right, I'm gonna I apologize. Is it CPend Alazedc? Did I do it? All right, >> pretty good. How >> about >> I've had two chance. >> All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Sepand Alazada, Arizona Technology Council, uh 2800 North Central Avenue, sweet suite 1530. Um thank you to the city's development uh services team for bringing us together this afternoon. Uh as you all know, you know, Mesa has long been a leader in supporting advanced industries and has a reputation for its innovation economy. Energy storage systems are critical components to an innovation economy. Now, in early October, uh, Arizona Technology Council submitted a letter to staff with some concerns regarding the proposed ordinance, proposed update. Uh, Autumn and Victor and Ryan did a fantastic job kind of explaining those. So, I'm not going to go into detail, uh, because I think they did great. But, you know, our first concern is with the proposed setbacks. We think it's a little too excessive. Uh, also the fact that it's from property lines. that should be from best equipment. Our second concern is with noise and sound restrictions. You know, noise regulations should be based on objective decibel levels consistent across compatible land uses. And third, as Ryan mentioned, not all best facilities are utility scale. So, we can't treat the smaller ones like bigger ones and lump them all together. We need to be mindful of that in whatever ordinance we develop. Um, you know what I hear a lot in this community, uh, I'm at the Arizona Corporation Commission, I'm at city council meetings, town council meetings, is we need an all of the- above en approach to energy, especially as Arizona's growing, our manufacturing is growing. You know, best facilities are critical components to this all of the- above approach. So, let's not turn our backs on any sort of facility that helps power the electrical grid. Let's keep moving Mesa forward and let's support these facilities as best as we can. So, thank you. Uh, thank you for your service to the community. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming up and offering input. Um, Andy >> Tobias, that's good. Thank you. Couldn't tell if that last one was an S. >> That's right. I'm sorry for my uh Catholic school handwriting, Mr. Chairman, and fellow members. First off, uh, you know, my name is Andy Tobin. uh 20755 North Hackamore Lane in Paulen, Arizona. And uh I come to you as a director of Arizona for Western Way, who you've probably received a letter from. I I share with you I spend a lot of time with Western Way uh traveling the country talking about energy. You've heard about all of the above. Uh you might have remembered my career. I spent time at the legislature as speaker of the house and I was at the Arizona Corporation Commission for three years developing Arizona's energy plan. I was the guy who was trying to stop them from knocking over our coal plants prematurely so we can catch up with our technology. I didn't do a very good job as those started coming down. But thank goodness the technology has now advanced us to these incredible uh places that we are today with our energy needs. And I will share with you Mesa is especially valuable. The leadership coming out of Mesa and I don't have to tell your viewers and you folks the leadership coming out of Mesa about what you have done in this community and what you're doing on energy is watched all over. I mean we're out of Colorado and I got a call about the folks and I said this is the place out here. So I thank you for the leadership and I thank you for what the staff has done. I will share with you that in my travels I' I've not seen a setback like the thousand feet. kind of uh uh you know alarmed us a little bit but as we move forward I know you'll take those things into account it doesn't seem to fit. We're all about having best practices. That is what the leadership does. That is what you folks are doing when people are watching you. They're talking about what are the best practices because cities and towns are looking at these investments just as you are and they're they're wondering what what are we doing here in Mesa and they're going to find that this is a professional place who clearly deliberates properly and has a great opportunity to set the pace for the rest of the state of Arizona. So I come most mostly here to congratulate you and thank you for your public service and thank you for bringing Arizona into this next age. You know, I've got my my kids like your kids. Everybody's, you know, kids are moving up. We all want them to stay here. We all want to have this power. We all want to have this energy that's going to bring us into this AI world, bring us into the next step, which is already happening here in your town. So, you're setting the pace for all of these things as well. Years ago, all our power came from rural Arizona. came from long places away that you know in whether it be Paige or Springerville or Bullhead City, you know, Coochis County, a lot of these places are closing down. We're not used to seeing energy now coming in our backyards. And you know what? All the above is real. All the above technology is coming even further into the nuclear realm. It's not quite ready. It's not soup yet for that next step, but we're here with what is some incredible technology of keeping our affordability for our citizens and our businesses and to continue to bring people here. But also, we want to have that we we don't want the brownouts, right? We've seen how that affects other places. That doesn't happen here in Arizona and it doesn't happen here because of good judgment and good planning. and I'm here to congratulate you on on the work that you do and the deliberation, the wellthoughtout processes that you have. So, thank you for giving me some time here to to come down of neighbor Arizona coming down to tell you we're very proud of you and we keep watching and thank you for your service. Thank you. >> You as well, Mr. Thank you. Uh, Court Rich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, members of the commission. My name is Court Rich. I head up the energy department at the Rose Law Group, uh, 7200 East Stson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. uh in my role at at my uh law firm, I have the opportunity to represent battery energy storage developers and other energy developers all over the state of Arizona. So see a lot of cities um dealing with these issues. And I wanted to just provide a little bit of context that might be helpful as you as you um work through this. So batteries, unlike a lot of other businesses that you're probably accustomed to, um if I want to if I'm a battery energy storage developer, I can't just go decide to build a battery somewhere and see who wants to buy what I'm what I'm storing and the energy I'm putting out. I have to go through a process with a utility. And in Arizona, we have monopoly utilities and in Mesa, we have SRP. And so or or the city of Mesa has a very small utility as well. But if I want to build a battery, it's because SRP said they want a battery. And the only way I'm going to put one in Mesa is if SRP is the one that asked for it and then is buying the output from that battery. And I think that's important because you can rest assured that these are essential pieces of infrastructure and these aren't just speculators that are looking to put them wherever they want, wherever they can um to sneak them all over over Mesa. These are more like um substations which you'll see in your communities next to your homes, down the street, around the corner. Um they're essential pieces of infrastructure that only exist because the utility that's keeping your lights on here needs them. And so um I would just one I want to thank uh your staff. We've worked really closely with them on some of this language. And I think they've been um super uh responsive and you know looking at this and getting up to speed and dealing with these issues and learning a whole new language of energy and coming up with the code that's very good. I I told this backstory about SRP because I think it's important to look at their comments probably first and foremost and see what they're saying. Um they're the ones who need this and I know uh you know their needs for energy are growing exponentially. um literally uh they're looking at doubling or tripling the amount of energy that they're going to use over the next decade. And so, you know, Mesa has a great opportunity and has set a great track record of growth and capturing jobs, but you need the energy. And so, uh you know, these essential pieces of infrastructure. I I hope that uh you know, we'll have an ordinance that that works uh for SRP and obviously has to work for the city, too. So, that's those are my comments and I appreciate you listening. Thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. Appreciate it. Aaron Brham, chairman, commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Aaron Brham. I'm the senior vice president of development at IPA Power. We develop large scale or utility scale battery energy projects. Uh my address is 1810 Northwest Everett Street, Portland, Oregon, but a former resident of 27 East McKinley Street in Tempi, Arizona. Uh our company has been developing in Mesa and the Phoenix area as well as the state of Arizona for a number of years with active projects. Uh we've worked closely with staff and trying to inform the ordinance in its current iteration. And I want to provide thanks to staff because they've done a tremendous job into what is a new technology for MESA but a technology that's established around the US for a number of years. Uh while our projects uh believe we can comply with the ordinance and we support its passage, we do want you to consider that it doesn't uh short change the broader effort of bringing other capacity resources or other developers projects online. SRP, as Mr. Rich mentioned, has a very specific plan. They have near-term capacity needs. Our projects certainly cannot fill out all of those and so it would be a shame for those projects to not move forward. Um but we again appreciate the efforts on behalf of uh city planning staff and the city's attorneys to put an ordinance forward that allows for not only our project but in final form allows for all these critical resources to be brought online. Uh we also have a third party uh expert from Fire Risk Alliance with us. If you have any questions I'm happy to bring him up but otherwise I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Burn. Appreciate it. Jeff Crockett. Chairs, members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeff Crockett with Crockett Law Group, PLLC. My business address is 40 North Center Street, Sweet 106 Mesa, Arizona, 85201, just across the street. I'm also a resident of the city of Mesa. Um, appreciate the comments of those that have come before me. Um, I regularly represent renewable energy uh companies and municipalities and proceedings before the Arizona Power Plant and uh transmission line sighting committee as well as the Arizona Corporation Commission. So, I know firsthand the rigorous uh process it is to get these projects approved and rightly so. Um but also while the rigorous review is appropriate, regulators should take care not to add unnecessary or inappropriate uh non-essential requirements or conditions which may otherwise which may otherwise necessary and sensible projects impossible or uneconomical to complete. Renewable energy projects have become critical components of resource portfolios of public utilities in Arizona which are tasked with meeting the insatiable and growing demand for energy. A battery energy storage system or BES is an essential tool necessary to increase the efficiency and capacity of of the electric grid. As stated in Mesa's 2024 integrated resource plan, quote, "The massive deployment of battery resources combined with solar and wind resources has calmed energy markets since 2020 and brought wholesale energy pricing down significantly." Close quote. I applaud the city's development of an ordinance addressing best facilities. However, after reviewing the current draft ordinance, I have a concern which pertains to the separation requirement for residential zoning districts and uses. In the original version of the proposed ordinance, the separation requirement was a minimum distance of 400 ft from the property line of the nearest residential zoning district residential use, church, park, school, or other sensitive use as reasonably determined by the planning director. However, this language was recently changed to increase the separation requirement to 1,000 ft for only the residential zoning district. It is not clear why this change was made or why it is necessary. There does not appear to be a reasonable reasonable basis for treating residential areas differently from other areas with sensitive receptors such as schools, churches, and parks. I'm not aware of any public call for the change and I'm unaware of data or studies which would support such a distinction between residential areas and areas with other sensitive receptors and uses. I note also that the city's recently adopted data center ordinance includes a 400 ft separation from residential zoning and uses. It is not clear why a best facility would be treated differently than a data center. An unnecessary increase in the residential separation requirement will put more negative pressure on energy providers including Salt River project that are already struggling to supply energy at pace with economic growth. If the city moves forward with unnecessary and discriminatory uh 1,00 ft separation requirement, we risk losing a number of projects that will pay significant taxes, create good jobs, and most importantly, provide energy capacity and security to power Mesa's future. I urge the planning and zoning board to reconsider the 10,000 ft separation requirement and revert back to the original 400 ft separation in the original draft of the best ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. So, we do have some online, I believe. >> Chairs, that is correct. I have confirmed that we have two online. Um, Linda and Nico. >> All right. Linda Brady, if you are on, if you could unmute yourself and go ahead and state your name and your address for us. Linda, are you able to hear us? Okay, we'll try Nico. Should we try that one? >> I I was told that we did unmute Linda so she could speak. >> Linda, if you're there, go ahead and state your name and address for us. Oh, it looks like she might have dropped off. Okay, we'll go ahead and unmute Nico and they can speak. Nico Howard, are you able to hear us? Okay. >> Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Perfect. Um, first of all, thank you so much for having me here this evening. My name is Nico Howard and my address is 1337 South Alma School Road. Um, members of the Mesa Planning and Zoning Commission, really appreciate the opportunity to come before you. I come before you today as the former chairman of the planning and zoning commission for the city of Phoenix as well as the owner of multiple properties throughout the city of Mesa. I understand the balance that you're trying to strike here with this ordinance protecting the community while enabling responsible development and that is exactly what you should be doing. But I do have a serious concern about the proposed 1,000 ft setback requirement for battery energy storage systems. These projects are very limited in where they can be placed where they can be located. Um they must be located near interconnection to the electrical grid. There are very few places that meet these standards to begin with. But when you overlay a 1,000 ft setback requirement in addition to proximity to interconnection, there are literally no sites in the city of Mesa that can satisfy these requirements. So what starts as an attempt to protect the community very quickly becomes a de facto moratorum against these projects. But the truth is as a state we really need these projects to meet our ongoing energy needs. And without them we damage our ability to serve our citizens and to continue our economic growth. The 1,00 ft as a standard is arbitrary. I haven't seen any credible evidence or scientific data justifying why batteries need to be a thousand feet away from homes. Absent any evidence, we're essentially picking a number out of thin air, and that's really just not sound policy. Beyond that, this text amendment will set precedent that will be followed by other municipalities. If you adopt this standard, towns throughout the state will follow suit and will create a patchwork of overly restrictive regulations that effectively kill battery storage development. I would really appreciate it if you would consider reducing that setback. I believe the setback should be 100 ft. However, if you're not able to consider that, I would encourage you to consider that this standard set here uh is significantly greater than what is already required for data centers. As a number of speakers have already set out on this call, we need clear evidence-based standards that protect safety and provide the energy infrastructure our economy depends on. I strongly urge you and respectfully urge you to reconsider these setbacks. Thank you very much for your time today and for your service to the community. >> Thank you. >> There we go. Thank you, Mr. Howard. We appreciate your input. >> And chairs, I have received confirmation that Linda is back online. We'll go ahead and unmute her so she can speak. >> Linda, are you able to hear us? Okay. Hi, can you hear me? >> Yes, go ahead. >> Hello. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Linda Brady and I'm speaking today on behalf of SRP to share some concerns about the proposed death ordinance. I'll keep it focused on three key issues, each with real consequences for Mesa's future. First, this ordinance goes against Mesa's own climate action plan and your integrated resource plan. And these aren't just aspirational documents. They're the city's roadmap for a cleaner, more resilient future. The climate action plan specifically called out energy storage as a way to cut emissions and support renewables. all voted on by city council and the IRP shows how batteries help stabilize energy markets and lower costs which are both critical for attracting and keeping businesses. Second, the proposed setbacks are simply too extreme. Jumping to a thousand foot setback without any data to back it up would shut down two major energy storage projects that SRP has already committed to. And these aren't just hypothetical. They're funded, designed, and they're ready to deliver clean, reliable energy to Mesa and the Southeast Valley. If this ordinance passes as written, these projects are gone. That 600 megawatts of clean energy Mesa won't get. Third, and maybe most importantly, this ordinance sends the wrong message to the business community and to SRP. Mesa has told us time and again that energy needs to come online faster to support growth, particularly in Southeast Mesa. But this ordinance would slow down one of the best tools we have to do that. So battery storage isn't just about climate. It's also about economic development. It keeps the grid stable. It lowers peak energy costs and it makes me Mason more attractive to the high-tech industries and advanced manufacturing that it wants. So, what SIP would like to request is to revise the ordinance so that it better reflects Mesa's own climate and economic goals, don't build barriers to the solutions that we all need, and then reconsider the stepback requirements, and allow a waiver for the projects that are already underway. They're essential to meeting Mesa's energy needs through 2029. Third, bring transparency back into the process. Decisions like this should be based on data, not arbitrary numbers. There are existing NFPA fire safety codes that apply to best projects based on real data and testing. Um, Mesa deserves better and so do the developers who've worked in good faith with the city for years on these projects. So, I urge the board to take a closer look at the real world impact of this ordinance, not just on energy, but on Mesa's ability to grow, compete, and lead. SRP is happy to be a resource to ensure this ordinance is balanced and fair. Thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you, Mrs. Brad. Appreciate your input. With that, I believe we that's everybody we have. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Chairs, would it be okay once you close public comment if I address some of the the things that we heard before the board starts discussing? Would that be >> of course I think um in this situation, should we just go ahead close now or invite Rachel? Do you want to come up and speak to those now? Some of the >> If it's okay, I'll start and then Rachel, >> let's do that. >> Um, from the planning department, John Schffer, our building official, and Sean Alexander, our fire marshall, will kind of >> roll on fromwhere. Okay. So, we'll go ahead. I'm just >> If it's okay, I'd like to start. >> That's fine. I'll close public comment on this one and turn the time over to >> Thank you, chairs and board members. Um, I think it's important to note that we had a study session with the city council um, probably about three or four weeks ago where we brought the draft ordinance to them with a lot of the same information that you're receiving now. And so I kind of want to go through some of the things that we heard from them from and then from what we heard from the public. The first is as it relates to the accessory uses and the megawatts and I'm going to ask John eventually to to get into why that one megawatt was chosen. It's a clear it's important to note that accessory bests are exempt from the standards. There's no requirements for them to do anything. They are exempt and I know one of the speakers requested that they be exempt. So I just want to clarify they are exempt from the standards. The second is the definition of the um which goes handinhand with the accessory um s in that if if we we worked really closely, we did a lot of research. We looked at a lot of the best practices. Um, I understand that, you know, Buckeye doesn't have a megawatt on on, you know, in terms of what is accessory versus what is a principal. I I think the challenge with that is then you're always trying to make that that case by case determination, which we as staff don't think that that's necessarily the best approach forward. Um, I 100% agree with the um speaker who talked about the safety industry standards and how they've changed. Best are very different than the fire that there was in Surprise. So we we 100% understand and recognize that and I think that the recommendations that are coming forth not only from the planning division but from the our building official from our uh fire marshal and I need to make it clear that our energy resource director uh Scott Buchet has been involved every step of the way in this process. So, as we talk about our climate action plan, as we talk about our our our um integrated resource plan, he is involved in anything that's coming into this ordinance because we understand it's not just SRP that needs these best. Eventually, we as a utility also may need these best. So, it's really important to understand that we've gone through that that rigorous process with Scott. Also, I want to talk about separation versus setback. I think this is a something where there's a little bit of confusion. Again, the separation is not a setback on site. The separation is, as Rachel mentioned, from the wall that is enclosing the battery storage to the property line of the closest residential. So, it's not a setback on site. It's not making anybody's sight unusable. It's saying you just need to be separated by that thousand ft. um 400 feet for the sensitive receptors and 150 feet for the um commercial or industrial buildings. The setback on site will be in the fire code is it and I believe that we're following the NFPC NFPA standards and again I'll ask Sean Alexander to address that but that is the 100 ft setback on site which is different than the separation. So I I think we need to be very clear on that in terms of it. The original iteration of this ordinance did have 400 feet as a setback from all the residential districts and the sensitive receptors. The number in the research that we've done is all over the place. We've got jurisdictions like Buckeye that have 150 ft. There are jurisdictions like Irvin um Irvindale in California which is 1,000 feet. We've got c we've got jurisdictions in Virginia which are 3,000 feet. Surprise is recommending 1500 feet. There is no industry standard. And so what we're trying to do is balance the need of future best in the city with the potential safety impacts, the potential ch quality of life impacts for residents. So that that's where the thousand feet it's not an arbitrary number. It wasn't just chosen. There is no standard except for the NFPA. I I will I will recognize the NFPA standard. There is the NFPA standard, but jurisdictions and what they're putting in their ordinances, there is no best practice. It is all over the place. And we've done that research. We've got all that information if you'd like to know what those numbers are. Um, as it relates to the noise level, I think there was a a comment about setting a a a decibel level and what we're that that's if we were looking at the decibel level on site, but again, what we're looking at is we're looking at the ambient noise level as it it relates to residential and and industrial uses. Oh, I'm sorry, the residential and the sensitive uses. That ambient level may be 65. It may be 55. We're not asking the best to lower that ambient noise level. We're just asking them to maintain it at that property line. That can either be a direct um um calculation that's done or modeling so that we know what that ambient noise level is. We're not talking about the ambient noise level on site. So that's why there's no strict decibel level on the the noise level for future projects. We don't want to short change any future projects. and we've looked at the two projects that we have presubmitts that had been submitted to the city. Um, we've worked very closely with those two applicants who submitted those two presubmitts to ensure that this ordinance would not preclude them from moving forward. and what you're seeing in this this ordinance now. And we continue to work with SRP. We continue to work with those two applicants so that we're not jeopardizing the two projects that we have presubmitts for at the at this point including and there's also one that's being built on signal but so it's really important to understand that we we are not we the the idea is not to jeopardize or to put I think someone talked about a moratorum. This is not a moratorum. There are places in the city where these will occur. Um, if it if needed, they have to go through the P A process, which is a resoning process. If the land is LI and that's the right location and the city working with SRP and with an applicant to say that it's an LI district, they can ask for that resoning. It just gives council that discretion to look at the potential impacts of these uses when they're going through that process. So, we're not stopping these. We're not asking them to come into the city. We all understand the importance and the need of securing our our um energy grid system. We all understand that and we're that's why we're trying to balance the needs of the residents, the safety needs and the needs of the industry. Um I think that that may be my last comment. I don't know Rachel if I missed anything. Quick one quickly before you go on if we're going to pass over to one of the just for a clarification. One of the ones on the megawatt the one megawatt what about I understand that as an accessory use they are not required to go by these standards. Correct. What about cumulative that you didn't speak to that and that's one of the specific things that came out. Is there a cumulative restriction on that if there's more than one on one side? That was a good comment. >> Thank you chairs. Yes. Basically, it's and I think Rachel did address this downstairs. It's one cumulative one megawatt cumulative on-site. So, you could have two 500 or you could have or 1500499. So, >> my point is though is even as an accessory use, if it reaches if it's or it surpasses 1,000, >> right, then it triggers. >> That's correct. Okay. That's correct. Um Rachel, did I miss anything? >> I don't think so. So, I think you got point point. >> I don't know if I have anything to add, but I can definitely help answer any questions and I know John and and John probably have some >> and I think John wants to address the one megawatt, >> right? I just one comment regarding that. Um, we did do some research and and we >> you got to go into the mic, John. Yeah, we did some research and and and what we were able to find, this is a new technology, so there's not a ton of information out there, but one um source of information was the American Clean Power um association and they have a specific utility scale battery energy storage system model ordinance that they produced. In that ordinance that they recommend, they use 1 megawatt or 1,00 kilowatts as a threshold for utility scale. So that's in large part how we came up with >> for utility scale. That's what they consider utility scale. And that's what we're trying to distinguish between is utility scale and other uses. >> Well, and I think that's what a lot of the concern we're hearing, right, is that we're considering these smaller, which let's be honest, there's going to be a lot more of these as we go forward that are not utility scale in the sense of that definition in my opinion. So to so chairs chairs if I can clarify at one megawatt it becomes utility scale and that's what the threshold is that John is talking about and that's why the accessory use which is under the one megawatt is not required to follow any of the standards except the underlying zoning district standards. So, I did a little bit of research myself as well to I think one of the one of the people that came up was talking about what you're talking about with 1 megawatt 1,00 kilowatts. That's two chargers for two units, right? So, I mean that's what I'm saying is if you go into as an example right by my house I've got a shopping center. They've probably got and I these are not battery. So, first off, let me start there. They are not battery. I understand that they're tied into the grid, right? But you've got probably a dozen in that one spot. They're Tesla superchargers. Yes, I know they're not battery. Making that very clear. However, there's going to be more and more of these because the batteries are are obviously where we're moving, right? So, my question is is if we get the threshold, are we talking about two, three, and they're they're done? You can't have any more of those on a site. That is I think that the separation between the utilities, I mean, you know where I'm going with this. That that's a challenge for me. So, >> and so chairs, I guess what I would say is that this was staff's recommendation based on the research that we've done, based on the model ordinances that we've reviewed, based on >> everything that we've found throughout the country. >> Um, what I would suggest is if planning and zoning board thinks that 1 megawatt threshold is too low, you can always make a recommendation that is different than what staff is recommending at this point. So, that that's kind of where we we could go with that. >> Okay. And then I think I don't Well, anybody else want to talk about this one? >> I'm totally taking over here. >> You guys want >> No, I I I have some questions for planning after you guys do, too. >> Say that again, Mr. Radio Voice. >> I I have some questions for planning um after the rest of you guys do. Or jump in. >> You want to go to five first? >> Jump in, Troy. >> Yeah. So, so Mary on the uh just comparing a little bit and maybe it's not a true comparison um but with the with the data center ordinance there was the ability where they were classified as um a type of warehouse and they could go in certain districts, right? So, it was to make it more restrictive and more regulated. Is therefore these is is that a a comparable struggle right now with these battery um storage facilities? is that they there's some other element of the code that lets them go wherever they want and this makes it more rigid or or do the other elements of the code already have like what we talked about or what what's been mentioned the the the fire code and and other elements do those already have some regulation over it are are those comparable situations or not? Um, so chair, board member Peterson. So right now BSS are not defined in the zoning ordinance and are therefore not permitted in the city at all right now. So this text amendment would actually allow the facilities in that use to be developed within the city. >> Yeah, they're not there. These don't exist Troy. Well, for clarification, we do have one that is being built right now on Signal View, but Oh, >> I meant that. >> But since then, the it's been determined that these are not an allowed use in the city until this ordinance gets put in place with the standards of how they would be placed in the city. And are the uh some of the public comment um from from previous uh work sessions where uh neighbors had had issues with noise and other things. Those were then things other than battery storage. That was something else, right? That that wasn't what we're talking about here today. >> Board member Peterson, I'm not sure what what uh what study sessions are you referring to? Oh, the in in the the um packet under the public input, there were some comments from the public about how um noise and different things and so and and it it was under this case. So, I'm I'm assuming then that those may have been related more to to some some other use and not battery storage if those don't exist right now. Oh, >> okay. Thank you for the clarification. No. So the these were concerns raised by the public at those uh public meetings about BSS facilities being developed in the city in the impacts that those would have on noise and on environment and safety if a fire were to occur. So th those were in relation to best. >> Okay. But more hypothetical or other situations not based on anything in the city today. >> Yes, >> that's correct. Okay. Okay. Thank >> Okay. I'm sorry we jumped on I think you guys both came up and I totally I'm not sure if you want John you want >> here to help answer questions. >> You don't have a prepared presentation. >> No no presentation. Just here >> what about your questions? Anything? >> All right. Go. >> All right. So >> go ahead, Troy. >> Oh, no. Go ahead, Jason. Uh, okay. So, just a quick just a few quick questions. Reading through the public comments, it looks like the the separation distance was 400 for residential up until like last week or maybe this week. Is that correct? So, I'm reading through all these comments, I I see the I'll say a consternation with 400 ft and pointing out they even wanted the industry wanted smaller. Um, taking in that input and then coming back with a thousand. And I'm curious what the stimulus for that was and and maybe what spurred that. >> Um so chairs um board member Carpenter I think that again because there is no standard I think in discussions that we'd had because we did have other we did have residents at the public meeting saying this is not far enough. We did hear from, you know, other constituents outside of the industry because the industry and and in fairness to the industry, the industry is very different than when we've seen a lot of these, you know, catastrophic fight catastrophic fires. So, in fairness to the industry, absolutely. But I think there's this safety. It's with data centers, it was really about the size of the data centers because those are large buildings. It was about the aesthetics. It was about the noise. where I think there's more of a safety concern related to best even though the industry has changed if there is some type of emergency the concern is what are the air impacts what are the water leach impacts and I think that's where that thousand ft came from was just to make sure that those residential uses where people are living every day and sleeping every day that those impacts are minimized to the greatest extent possible which is I think how we came up with a th00and ft >> okay I I appreciate that and I I certainly recognize the difficult balance you're having to walk here. Um yeah, it's it's a new industry. There's a lot of learning for all of us. Uh as part of that learning, I started pulling up YouTube videos to see what a fire looks like at a be a BESS site. And typically, it appears that it's maybe one cell in one container and there's not a lot of fire. It's more smoke and they're able to shut it down. It looks like it's more contained. And maybe our fire expert can talk more to that. But I'm saying with the new safety standards, it appears that there's better monitoring, there's better technology there. There's better fire mitigation. So maybe you can trust that. >> Yes. Hello, chair and board. My name is uh Sean Alexander. I'm the uh division chief over fire prevention and I'm the city's fire marshal. Thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions today. The as has been mentioned several times here, the industry has changed significantly. Um the standards have gotten much more stringent and have required uh battery module and unit testing that just wasn't present 7 years ago um when we first started seeing these facilities. They have improved their safety requirements a great deal based on a lot of independent lab testing and um just through the sa the code development process there we have seen instances um it's very it's very sight dependent based on like any fire our topography our weather and and other conditions that impact a fire based on when it's happening. We have had here this year um in the state of Arizona smaller fires. They were different technology than what's being proposed in these current projects, but where they did spread from one container to the next. Uh those were the uh one in Tison was a wind driven event. We've had one um just the the night that we were giving our public comments on October 1st, the there was a battery fire. Again, different technology, but a battery fire that occurred uh in North Phoenix that uh did spread uh past the one unit, that's less likely to happen now given the the standards that we're looking at adopting. Um, in addition to the zoning ordinance, the fire and building departments are looking to uh change almost at the same time to the latest version of the fire and building standards to include NFPA 855, which directly speaks to best systems. Uh, we will be bringing in the latest safety standards to uh for the fire marshall's office and for the DST group to use for plan review and and site review uh prior to approval of these projects. Um so yes there is a possibility that this can spread uh from one container to the next. It is happening less frequently than what we than what you may have seen on YouTube from previous fires that that are even 3 years or more that are older. Um so it has gotten better. Um like many projects in Mesa there is often times risk that comes in in a form of a hazardous material. In this particular case, it's it's uh batteries, but we have st codes and standards to address and mitigate those risk. And then we are changing our tactics and strategies to address these as well to to be better at putting these fires out. We fight these best fires uh very differently than we would say a normal house fire that that's uh your normal residential fire. We're we're actually not going to try and stop the fire in the the involved container. allowing that container to burn actually makes the hazard go away. Um, our our firefighting tactics and and strategy are going to focus on protecting the surrounding containers around the involved one to prevent the spread uh from one container to the next. And that's where our efforts are going to be uh be focused if we have a fire on site. >> All right. I I appreciate that. Um I guess another question I have with the the difference between the separation and the uh setback. So the way I read the ordinance the separation is from property line to property line basically. So perimeter wall to property line of residential use. That's the thousand ft. No >> no board member um Carpenter. So it's from the the screen wall to the property line of the residential use or sensitive receptor. So when we when we look at like a if you have a site that's on an arterial road, we have a setback from the arterial that's 15 ft. >> So that's how far back that wall would have to be placed at least. >> So it's not from the property line itself. from >> and then the 100 ft inside the perimeter fence we'll call it begins or is it from the property line? >> That setback begins from the property line and then goes inside the property to that first battery module. >> Mhm. Okay. The the reason I bring it up is because I was looking at vacant land where a site like this might try to sight itself. And one example, I wanted to see how big 1,000 ft was, like in real terms. And so I took the the property line from city hall parcel here and went north to 1,000 ft. And it's basically to the serine front door. >> Yeah. So it's pretty far. I mean, I can appreciate that. That's a that's a good distance, but it when you see it that way, it it seems a little excessive. And I'll put it in the context of why I think it seems excessive. If I look along like our freeways like the 24, the 202, those are generally where our industrial areas are. And so if you have a freeway buffer, those freeway adopt rideways are 300 to 400 ft. And then you've got drainage and then a residential say on the north side. But if you're looking at those parcels on the south side of the 24, for example, um there's still three or 4 hundred feet that they would have to go into that those parcels before they could could do a a best site. Like it's it when I see it that way, that's a long distance with monuments in between to screen and buffer. So for example, here we'd have the post office and the development services building between and it seems like that would create a screen in a way. I if I can chairs and board member carpenter these are a little bit different than data centers in that data centers was definitely there was a lot about the aesthetics and the screening from that perspective and the noise in this case working with the fire department and working with our building official there was that added safety component which is again why it might be a little bit larger separation than a data center and why those barriers in between don't necessarily have the same fact that they might have for a different type of use. So, and I don't know if you wanted to add anything to that Rachel. >> Yeah. Um, and chair and board members, I I just wanted to talk about when we when we look about where we're proposing these to be in the hi and the GI, when you look at the surrounding uses, you you typically do not have residential uses near those zoning districts because of compatibility already. Um, and similarly, you don't really have churches or schools located in those facilities. You you may, but it's not going to be as prevalent as you would see in an LI where it starts blending kind of merging into sort of residential use. So, I don't see that there's going to be a lot of conflict just because of the zoning districts and the way that they kind of transition. And I I'll go back to we we had the study session with with city council where we had uh discussed our proposals and and and I'm going to say this because I know we we mentioned this at the public hearing but um we were asked by um a couple of council members to look at a greater setback and I know these discussions are still occurring and this is something that will probably come up at city council to be discussed amongst themselves. But as Mary had mentioned earlier, when we did our research, it really it varied from 100 feet to a thousand feet. So when we were asked to look at a greater setback, we thought that this was reasonable considering that Buckeye just did the 1500 ft. We wanted to try to land somewhere in the middle where we might be able to address multiple concerns and still have this be feasible for projects to develop. I I think part of what I'm thinking about is where the substations are located that these have to connect into. And they're typically not in heavy industrial. The majority are in light industrial. >> Yeah. And and and I guess I think a point to keep in mind is there's a lot of development still occurring down there and that's where we're going to see a lot of manufacturing and demand for higher energy too. So I don't I don't think that it means that we will not have substations down there where this might be very effective. And um >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> And chairs and board member Carpenter, one of the other things is that we may have sites that with this thousand foot setback, a portion of the site might not be able to be used, but we're or you're an oddshaped lot or something like that. So, what we're trying to do is not penalize the parcel if it's say it's an L-shaped lot and they're putting to the battery storage on the upper part of that L that that wall around that battery storage is what needs to be a thousand feet, not the property line that might be closer. So, we're trying to capture as many potential scenarios as we can. Again, remember if a lot of the substations in your right today are in an LI district because they have to go through the PED process, which is essentially a resoning, then they're going to have to at that point ask council for hi or a GI, which then council can look at these almost on that case byase basis that we've heard about, determine is this the right place, is this the right design for it. So, that's kind of what we're trying to do with it. I I'll say I think we we get that. I mean the the concerns when you look at so as an example right when the thousand ft I get that from a piece of equipment not a screening right the idea is is is there is a separation of the thing that's actually dangerous to the residential but you have a site that's going to be now your screening is going to be closer to the property much closer most of the time to a property line not always but that right so I think the thousand that's why there's the concern there and when you look at NFPA5 for example It's 100 ft, not 1,000 ft. It's not even 400, it's 100. So when we say we're using NFPA, that's So anyway, there's that question, too. And then I think of, for example, my son's high school is in an area south of of uh Mesa Gateway Airport. I guarantee you there's going to be issue down that whole stretch of schools and churches right there. So I think that's where the concerns come from. So >> sorry, I jumped to you. He's our little punch bags don't like >> my finger. Yeah. >> Always work. >> Uh so my my really my last question I really appreciate the feedback and taking my questions. Uh with the ones that are existing that maybe have presubmitts or submitts. I know at the data centers we gave we looked at waiverss. We looked at those entitlements that were run with the land. Has there been a consideration for that? Because I know there's a huge investment in just the planning stages that gets put in these. And so I'm wondering if those have the kind of the grandfather ability >> grandfather. >> Um, chair, board member Carpenter, and I think Sarah's probably lingering. If I say something wrong, she'll come up and correct me. Um, but this is a little different than the data centers because the data centers, we had previously classified them as warehousing and storage. And so there were a lot of properties out there that had rights to develop that. This is different with the BESS since they were never classified as another use or within the zoning ordinance. So, they don't have pre-existing rights that under Prop 207 that we have to extend the waiverss for. Sarah, do you want to correct me? >> No. So, that that was a good summary. So, but for the few that there are presubmitts in for, one is being developed currently than there are two with presubmitts in, we are using a different tool to allow um those to come in without needing to reszone if council decides to approve that tool in the ordinance. And you'll see that in the draft ordinance that's uploaded as sections 15 and 16. So, if those sections are included in the ordinance, those two sites wouldn't need to reszone. They would still need to have to comply with all of the development standards and all of the fire code and building code standards that have been discussed today. Troy, is there anything else from you for questions? >> Yes, actually some questions. Um, so on the and for Mr. Alexander as well on the the setback and appreciate the the uh update and information on the the codes uh evolving as this technology evolves. The the setback is one tool, right? Are are there other tools with just like with a building you can have different fire ratings on walls for you'd mentioned just like other um flammable or potentially uh hazardous uh materials that you have other other things besides the setback that that would allow this to to that would address the public safety issue as Yes, chair and and board. Thank you for the question. There the the discussion today has been focused on the setbacks. That's obviously a high priority um or a high visibility item uh surrounding this topic. But like any um building system that goes in that with these best systems uh the fire code has adapt has adapted and added uh safety requirements for these types of facilities to include the plans that were discussed in the study session. So we have an idea of augmentation what the site might look like over time. Uh guarantees that the sites will be decommissioned when they're they reach their end of life. But but as part of any project review, it we're going to it's going to go through the plan review process and and the building official and the fire marshall will provide input as necessary. Um but each site is different. So typically what we are seeing with many of these projects is they they do have um fire and explosion testing that is required to be submitted as part of the latest uh versions of the fire code and the NFPA standards. We'll be reviewing those um hazardous mitigation analyses that get submitted to talk about the specific hazards that incorporate that are part of the technology that's going in at that particular site. But many of these sites are required to have battery management systems which will detect um problem assuming that they're working properly and these systems do fail over time. But if it performs as designed that it should detect a problem in the battery long before it ever goes into runaway and and causes a fire and that technology was not present in in some of the first generation sites that we saw. So battery management systems are a key safety factor that are going to be going into all of these projects. There are um different monitoring uh systems either uh infrared um it again there there's just a whole variety of different systems safety systems that can go in uh depending on the needs of the site. So the answer to your question is yes there are additional safety measures that are going in but it's site site and project specific based on the hazard that they're going to have on that site. >> Gotcha. I really appreciate that. And um and then with this as the technology and it's been discussed that the technology today is is different than 3 years ago that that will continue to evolve and just as you said sight specific project specific criteria will continually evolve. does the the changes in the code that you referenced to for so we've talked a lot about the um these uh the the ones that meet the code that that aren't accessory uses, but for the ones that are accessory uses, those also pose a public safety risk just as much, right? Just because they're accessory doesn't mean that the the risk is any less. It just means the the zoning code treats them different. Um, but but then the fire and the building codes that you talked about are are the tools that you use to to uh to address those on a case- by case basis as well. >> Yes, that that's correct. The the fire code typically um is focused on commercial properties. It it generally it it does on rare occasions, but it it generally stays away from the residential side. There are requirements for residential systems. If someone is putting in a a Tesla battery pack into their home for uh EV charging or a different manufacturer's pack, there are requirements that say that they can't go into a closet space or an area where people are sleeping. We've seen projects when these first came out where they were putting these battery packs anywhere they could fit them inside the house. But that is no longer the case that they are required. they on the residential side they do require that there is a small separation from um other energized equipment things like that. So it depending upon the standard is written to cover a very wide range of different applications from residential, commercial, industrial all the way to this utility scale and it really provides the fire official and the building official a great deal of latitude to evaluate each site specifically. based on the hazards that are present there. So, and we do that through the plan review and the permitting process. Um, >> you and thank you for your service for our community as well. >> Thank you very much. >> Anything else, Troy, for your questions? >> I think that's all I have for right now. >> Okay. And you're good. You're good. Okay. I think we're Thank you very much to both of you guys. Actually, I already closed the public. So with that we can go ahead and open up to discussion with the board here or everybody like to make a motion I do actually I want one quick statement. So first off I want to recognize staff. I know you guys have put a lot of time into this far more than we probably can recognize right now. So I would but as far as if we were to make recommendations of changes um how loose can I be? because I'm trying to read through the ordinances right now to find the specifics. So, I do it right, but at the same time, I'm I'm doing I'm multitasking and doing it very poorly. >> Sure. So, so chairs, I think that the main concerns that we've heard from the board are related to the separation requirement and to the megawatts um and the limit for what an accessory is. >> I Yes, I would. For me, I would say that's right on. I'm not sure if you guys all agree with that. And so if you have a specific recommendation that you want to make, you could make a specific recommendation. If you is there a way to go back and ask staff to look at that if we're going to council in December. I'm I'm going to ask Kirsten to help with this one. >> I'll be just to add to that to to be honest because I'm looking through and I took a stab at like what I think for example a cumulative number would be. I'm still I mean again I'm multitasking trying to run the meeting and trying to look this up at the same time because and I so I'm not very super specific yet >> this doesn't I told you it's you got to really >> yes um chair board members so um I don't think that you have to give a >> you know pinpoint number but um for a recommendation to ensure that there isn't a problem where this ordinance would need to come back to PNZ before council could act on it. The more specificity you can um apply to your recommendations is best >> of course. >> Yes. >> And so chairs a suggestion is that you could say for example for staff to go back and evaluate the 400 foot setback to determine if the ordinance should be modified to 400 ft. and then we would go back and do some additional research. So if you can give us that that so not a specific number but a kind of a >> gotcha >> broad area for us to go back and evaluate >> and chair if I if I may just add on to that because Mary is certainly correct that you can ask staff to evaluate and provide more information to city council and they can provide that additional information to city council and inform them that it was at the board's behest. That just would not form a part of your recommendation. So, >> for it to be a part, you would have to make a specific number or >> or request tied to that. >> Got it. >> Does that make sense, guys? >> So, so just uh ju just just to comment on this too is um and I think the the four of us as board members are all very in our professional lives are all very technical oriented as well. And so so it's uh when when we see specific numbers, specific setbacks, specific requirements, we we want to see the the science behind them, the math behind them, right? Why why this is what it is. And it feels like that from from the discussion that these type of facilities and fully understand that they are part of the future energy portfolio for um businesses how they manage their their power supplies for even on on the utility side managing supplies knowing that it's something important to be in there. So, so to to have some way to to allow them to be developed um is important. Um but it it sure feels like that each one is a case by case. Let's look at it and see what it is. Let's see how we're we're using the fire code, the building code, the other codes to address the life safety issues. Um, and uh, it it's in in my head I'm having a really hard time meshing zoning code with the the technical nature of of what we're talking about and and trying to to bridge that together because it it feels like that that's the world where where it should live in. And those are my thoughts. Um, so I think just wanting to speak on on this whole thing and I certainly appreciate staff's effort. I understand the intent of what we're trying to accomplish here and appreciate everybody who's come out to speak as well and has written comments. Um, so I think I I kind of go back onto so many different things we've done at Mason. I would say some of the key things like we've talked about the drive-thru way back and then now we talked about data centers not so long ago and now we're talking about this the thing that I think I would say across the board on those three topics that I consistently have concerns with is that the industry has come out right and expressed concerns and I kind of turn and look at the folks here who have explained who they are what their roles are what committees they're on you know who they work with their experience with other locations And for all of us, although as much as I think everyone here collectively have people talk about YouTubes, Google searching, looking Buckeye does, we've done our researches, right? Maybe we spent 15 minutes, maybe we spent 15 hours. I assume the folks up here are spending careers on it versus hours and half days or days. Um I always believe that what we do. So my greatest concern becomes when there becomes the industry comes out and starts to say hey we're really concerned it's not working for us SRPs online right we've got folks who are have sat in these roles that that it really matters to them. I always feel on anything we do in any project anywhere, any place in my day job to what I do here is that there's a win when the two communities come together. And I think that it's I truly believe it's possible. And again, a lot of this is in the air, right? Like 100 feet, 1,000 ft, 300 feet. So let's pick an average, draw a middle. I think there's so much we don't know. There's so much we do know. Technology continues to change. Seven years ago, three years ago, what it is today, it continues to change. But when we put hard laws of ordinances, it sits it in this moment, this time. And often times it's highly conservative, right? And because you're trying to protect the safety and welfare, and I certainly respect that safety and welfare of folks are by far the most important thing, but at the same time, that's also the balance. Never at risk of the safety of folks. But we have to look at what's what's smart developments, right? We take a thousand feet and we put that around a property that no longer can serve Mesa residents as developable land, as something that is an amenity, something we we want to go to, visit, live, play, work, whatever it is. It takes that land away from us as residents or as an amenity. So, I think the thing I personally struggle with here is obviously there's things that I don't know like if we come up with some number while you're redlining or whatever. I don't know if 400 is a number. I don't know if a thousand is. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I think for me, rather than saying relook at the numbers, I would love to see Mesa take a better process and take the industry folks and say, "Hey, these 20 folks have really spoken out and said, "These are our concerns. Can we get into rooms?" And that might take multiple meetings, right? So, we all can come together and by the time we're sitting at this point of voting, it's not like you know discounting the work that you guys all have done in the planning side I certainly don't want to do that but I also don't want to discount folks who have come out and said this is not not good right this is this doesn't work for us it hurts us right for some reason folks are saying this and these are reputable folks saying this so it it puts us I think as a board like how do you like you know we certainly respect both sides so I would I would challenge Mesa and I I don't know if this is throwing this all out there But I would challenge Mesa like, can we come up with a better way? Like, here's we go back to the drive-throughs, we go through the data centers, and now we've got this. I don't know what our next one is, but do we keep pushing forward and we just I mean, it's certainly all of them have gotten passed. So, is that what we do? I don't know. That that's my two cents. I' I'd love to see us to come to a better way. And I'd love for us as from businesses residents schools churches that we all come together by the time it's moving forward. It's a it's a unified messa that we vision together, right? And it's a win for businesses. It's a win for residents. It's a win for all of us. It's a great community rather than we walk out of here and there's winners and losers, right? Someone won, someone lost. I think we all can win. Maybe it's too ideal idealistic, but that's usually why in the last two I I vote no because I think there's a better way. >> Sorry, long drawn out. You asked if I had thoughts. you don't have to explain yourself. >> So, okay. Um, to all the point I think to your your especially Chris what you're saying. So, what I'm going to go tohead do I'm going to go ahead and make a motion here >> and I' I'd ask Kristen to work with me maybe a little bit but here so just to start >> chair if I may I apologize if it would be helpful we could um adjourn for 10 minutes and we could work on some proposed language if that would be helpful. Let me take a stab first and then you tell me. But I'm going to start off. So here's here's where I when it comes to the um you know I'm looking at the facility standards. The setback I get that actually I I'm kind of inclined. I think a thousand is is heavyhanded personally. >> Separation. >> Sorry. Separation. Yeah. Be right here. Right. So, but I'll be honest, where my main concerns are is the accessory use that that those are where I have the ch most of the challenge personally with me. When you're looking at as an accessory, the the 1 megawatt especially is a cumulative number is a challenge. So, that that is with that. So, what I'm going to go ahead and do, I'm going to just say it first before I actually read into it. But what I'm going to say, I don't want the board kind of chime in here and tell me what you think, but what I would say is, you know, section 11-31-37, which is the facility standard, states, and from what I could tell, I believe there's two sections that have the,000 foot separation in there, but there might be more. But what I would propose is we go back to the initial draft of 400T on the separation. So, I would propose that change. um on the where I was trying to read through the rest of it as far as the accessory standards the 1 megawatt and the number there I'm not sure on that's the one I would have a challenge with putting a number but what I would push back on staff is to look at that and kind of comes come back to something when you're looking at again I think to kind of go a little bit with what you're saying here Jamie I think I I would challenge Mesa as from a staff perspective a look at it when you look at for example the You know, and I know I talked about the Tesla superchargers. They're coming in. These battery facilities are going to become far more prevalent than they are now. They're going to hap and you're shaking your head. I especially, by the way, appreciate uh, you know, Julie Moore is here from Surprise, a battalion chief, and then you as well, um, your input, but I think we're going to see more and more of this. And I understand the safety aspects of this, but that type of use is not only going to help us from the public good. Energy is the key for us growth as a city and as a as a state. energy is massive and so I know that that distribution so I have a challenge there. So that being said, I'm not sure what to put in for that one. So I don't know if we want to do go ahead and go a recess there to work on language for that. That's because I do not have a specific number there that I would >> well and chair chair to add a comment to that too is uh is with technology changing like it is one megawatt today is I mean tomorrow space and capacity and everything else it it's it's just a different animal it's just like semiconductors right that's changing so fast so it it feels like that I mean I I don't have that expertise and it feels like picking something for the sake of picking that >> and so for example I mean is is putting the the one megawatt even in the ordinance make sense does it go do we look at something else so Chris what do you think as far as >> I didn't read it specifically for that reason I want to kind of outline my thoughts and then get your thought >> right uh chair in as to the first part with the changing back to the 400 ft you wouldn't need to motion on a specific section you could just say that part of your motion is that change from the separation requirement to 400 ft rather than 1,000. >> That one's easy. >> Uh as it relates to the um 1 kilowatt. That's something that I think during a break we could excuse me. >> 1,00 kilowatt, but we I get you. I mean what you know. uh that if we take a break that I can uh work with you on some language or another option is like Mary mentioned earlier that your recommendation is the change based off of the separation requirement and that you want more data or information by the time it's brought to city council and that you would like to see the change made so it it increases that amount but not tied to a specific amount knowing that >> if there ultimately is not a change in that number it would not change your recommendation to a >> disappro. So I go back to the board vice chair Peterson's with you as well and please if you guys have thoughts what do you think about what I'm saying here >> I have a quick question so is there is there also a possibility to wrap in that like being the fact we all admit that technology changes faster than faster than fast right we don't know what's coming and we can't predict that is there a way that this come I mean for us to agree to all this by the time it puts in motion, the world also shifts. Is there a commitment that Mesa keeps up with this? Like I don't know. >> I don't know how you put that in like so I don't know. Like that's why we're putting in date 2025 October 2025 and by year 2027 that's only two years away, right? Like it could be so crazy outdated. We I I don't know this or it might be so relevant still like right on. >> So So cheers and board member Blakeman. Yes. Computers used to be the size of this building. They're now this, right? And we all know that batteries themselves are going to get smaller. We know that. >> But let's remember the amount of energy that's still stored in this, whether it's this size or it's the size of the podium that the computer is on. It's about the energy, the name plate capacity, and the amount of energy that's stored in it, and being able to address any potential >> safety impacts. And that's why the fire and build fire code will specifically talk about the NFPA which is kind of the standard in industry standard and any updates as they occur. And I know that they're building that into the fire code because we know that NFPA recommendation is changing. That being said, they're adding things to the NFPA requirements in the fire code on top of that. And so yes, we evaluate how many text amendments do we bring to the planning and zoning board. The fire and building code gets updated regularly. So as these things are changing, of course, we have to look at the new technology and what that means to the zoning code and to the fire code um as it relates to this use. >> And it's I mean it's hard because it changes so fast to get that. I'm the only thing I'd say is as sort of a rebuttal there, Mary, is when we're talking about FPA, we're 10 times the NFPA on the on the separation as an example, >> right? So, we can keep up with it and keep and say we're going to follow, but right now we're saying that we're going to be significantly more conservative than that. That's where the challenge is, I think. >> So, anything else from the rest of the board as far as what I was saying as far as moving forward, so we can kind of >> Yeah. And I also think like if anyone cares most about it not catching on fire and their safety standards or who's getting su I mean yes it could be Mesa but who more but the people who build them and create them as profitm centers and create them as their vision and their life right this is what their life is what they do right for a living who more doesn't want that safety issue on their hands I mean I don't know so to me I do put some level of trust in the industry itself and I feel like for all of us we struggle a little bit because we're not 100% in the industry Um, so that's what I tend to struggle with. I I would like to see some level of the folks out there who are in the industry saying what we're doing is a smart move by their industry as well cuz they're the ones who see the pressures every day. They're creating them every day. They're designing them every day, looking for sites every day. So that that's just me. I know I keep circling to the same thing, but Ben can make a motion. Well, and and just to comment on that too is that the the the fact of such a wide spectrum of of uh setbacks and spacings that other ordinances that other municipalities have adopted from from what was presented just seems indicative to say that the the clear answer isn't out there. And so that that's what makes it even harder is that there's not a there's not something that's that's even somewhat proven. It's it's a wide spectrum of data points right now and and everybody's trying to figure out where where's the right spot for this to be. >> Yeah. So um I'm trying I'm thinking about the options Kristen that you provided. Actually, I'm trying to figure out the best way to kind of move forward to this because I think we want to obviously move push something. Let me get the ordinance. So um All right. I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and make a motion here and and I don't think we need to pause. Let's just kind of move forward and see what we can and board hopefully you guys are feeling pretty good about this. So, um item 5B uh proposed amendments to chapters 5A 31328. Oh, I mean they're reading the wrong one. Never mind. Sorry. Item 5A, uh PZ25093 proposed amendments to chapters 45, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 31, 86, and 87 of title 11 in the Mesa City Code, excuse me, pertaining to uh pertaining to battery energy storage systems. The amendments include, but are not limited to, adding definitions for battery storage, battery energy storage system, battery energy storage system facility, augmentation and name plate capacity, modifying land use tables to add battery energy storage system and battery energy storage system facility, establishing development and other standards specific to battery energy storage systems facilities citywide. Staff recommendation is adoption. I would move to um um recommend adoption from the board with the following changes. I would re um in section 11-31-37 under the facility standards, we changed the separation that was previously in the first draft 400 ft which is now read as 1,000 ft back to the original 400 ft. I think that's a change we should propose. And then under and again I didn't write this one down but under the uh accessory uses right now we have a current one megawatt uh restriction as far as max capacity and accumulative accessory use. I would propose that we go to a minimum 5 megawatt but I would ask staff to review that to move forward to see if that number makes some sense and I would propose that we recommend adoption with those changes. Is there a second on that motion? >> I'll second. >> So, yeah. Couple of Are you okay for discussion, chair, a little bit just to clarify a couple? >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. So, the the the four the 400 ft clarify again. Is that only to a residential use or 400 ft to and I'm not looking right at the text. >> So, I could go. So, the the 400 ft uh is for the residential which is the only one that says to an residential use is 1,000 ft. currently it would match what other the uh what's um >> sensitive thank you the other sensitive which is also at 400 ft >> sensitive uses >> and then on on the megawatt side what what's your thought on the um if the the the five seems to have more flexibility um and what's your thought on a caveat to be reviewed on a case-by case basis or something like that for so that it's not a hard lid. But then if they come in on on, you know, case by case and it's something that then they show how they're meeting fire code, they show how they're meeting building code, they show how they're that the new technology is working and protecting it that it that it doesn't change the zoning code is just a thought. That was the intention of what I was trying to say is five, but asking staff to look at that to provide that whether that is a case-byase review, whatever that process might look, but that was the intention. Yes. >> So, chairs, it's important to note that they would have to meet the fire code and whatever's in the building code. So, there's no discretion on that. Um, the case by case from a planning perspective is a little bit different. So they would have to meet all of the the the their requirements and looking at it on a case by case unless we had criteria that we were looking at that on again from that quality of life perspective. >> That would be challenging. So and the fire code is already addressing that on a case- by case basis because they have to meet those requirements. >> Okay. >> What do I need to modify the motion because we we technically have >> chair. Yes. Since you had a motion and a second, you do need to take a vote on that motion. If you then doesn't pass, then you can motion again with new. Um, >> so with that, we'll go ahead and vote based on the motion as I put forward >> and as you seconded. Correct. So, go ahead and vote there. There goes. And then, uh, Vice Chair Peterson, what is your vote on the motion? >> Yes. With that, we've got the motion passing as I read into it. We're good there. Okay. U chair, just to just to clarify, that was a motion to approve your original recommendation as written. Okay, >> that is it. Okay, with that, I think we are completed with item 5A on the agenda. They are having discussion, so I'll wait a second. Uh, chair, if you would give a a moment. >> Of course, please. Chair, we've clarified. We're good. >> We're good. Okay. Thank you. With that, is there anything else that we need to discuss before we go ahead and adjourn? chair. Nothing there for us. >> Okay. I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll move that we adjurnn. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. Did you catch that? >> Second. >> All right. Uh, all in favor and board or vice chair Peterson? >> Yes. >> And there we go. We are journ. Thank you everyone for being here and staying. Yeah. Heat.