Extracted text (via pymupdf)
50681 characters
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
COUNCIL MINUTES
July 16, 2026
The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on
July 16, 2026, at 7:30 a.m.
COUNCIL PRESENT
COUNCIL ABSENT
OFFICERS PRESENT
Mark Freeman
Scott Somers
Rich Adams
Jennifer Duff*
Francisco Heredia
Alicia Goforth*
Dorean Taylor
None
Lisa Anderson
Scott Butler
Jim Smith
(*Participated in the meeting through the use of video conference equipment.)
Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call.
1.
Convene an Executive Session.
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded by Vice Mayor Somers, that the Study Session
adjourn at 7:30 a.m. and the Council enter into an Executive Session.
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Adams–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor
NAYS – None
Carried unanimously.
1-a.
Discussion or consultation with the City Attorney and City’s outside legal counsel for legal
advice regarding Falcon Field Airport’s landing fees and Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 13 complaints and investigations and pending litigation related to Falcon
Field and the landing fees. (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3) & (4)).
2.
Resume the Public Meeting.
At 8:40 a.m., the Executive Session adjourned and the Study Session reconvened.
(At 8:40 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Goforth from the remainder of the
meeting.)
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 2
3.
Review and discuss items on the agenda for the July 20, 2026 Regular Council meeting.
All of the items on the agenda were reviewed among Council and the following was noted:
Conflict of interest: None
Items removed from the consent agenda: 5-b
Responding to multiple questions from Councilmember Taylor regarding agenda Item 8-b,
(Proposed amendments to Mesa City Code, Title 11, Chapters 6, 7, 8, 31, and 86 pertaining
to the emerging technology and use of electric vehicles, specifically Fleet-Based Services
and Service Stations. The amendments include, but are not limited to: adding definitions
for Fleet-Based Services, Accessory Fleet-Based Services, Heavy Fleet-Based Services,
and Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging; modifying definitions for Light Fleet-Based
Services and Service Stations; adding Heavy Fleet-Based Services, Accessory Electric
Vehicle Charging: modifying use tables and related footnotes to reflect the new definitions;
modifying Section 11-31-25 titled, “Service Stations”; and adding Section 11-31-40 titled,
“Fleet-Based Services.” (Citywide)), on the Regular Council agenda, Chief of Emerging
Technology Ian Linssen introduced Assistant Planning Director Rachel Phillips, Assistant City
Attorney II Kirstin Dvorchak, and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1)
Mr. Linssen advised that the proposed text amendments address land uses for Fleet-Based
Services, including drone and ground vehicle operations. He noted the City of Mesa (COM)
regulates land use but does not have authority over where or when aircraft or drones operate in
the air.
Ms. Phillips provided the history and purpose of the changes to the text amendments, which will
address emerging technologies for drone and vehicle deliveries. She described the various uses
for Fleet-Based Services for businesses that rely on drones and vehicles for delivery services.
She provided an overview of the proposed changes to the text amendments and highlighted the
updates and newly created categories for Light, Heavy, and Accessory Fleet-Based Services
based on the scale of operations and new technologies. (See Pages 2 through 8 of Attachment
1)
In response to a request for clarification from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Phillips replied that the
zoning approach for a location of a fleet of Waymos depends on whether the fleet supports an
existing business or operates as a standalone and charging facility.
Ms. Phillips reviewed the updates to Land Use Tables for Fleet-Based Services, noting the types
of zoning districts permitted. (See Page 9 of Attachment 1)
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Phillips answered that Light Industrial
is the least intensive industrial zoning district, and can be located near residential areas,
accommodating lower-impact industrial uses such as warehousing, indoor storage, data center
services, and commercial uses.
In response to a question posed by Mayor Freeman, Ms. Phillips said that Limited Commercial
(LC) districts can accommodate drone delivery operations and provided examples of properties
within LC zoning. She added that drone docking stations currently can be as tall as 27 feet and
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 3
come in various designs, including ground-mounted and pole-docking systems, and technology
is expected to continue evolving.
Ms. Dvorchak provided general guidance regarding a new bill that limits the City's ability to
regulate drone operations. She discussed the ways the City can regulate commercial drone
delivery, as well as regulations applicable to other types of technology. She noted that because
drone delivery is classified as a fleet service, the City must regulate it in the same manner as
other fleet services.
In response to a question from Councilmember Adams, Ms. Dvorchak replied that existing zoning
height limits would apply to drone docking structures, so the City would not allow poles taller than
the applicable height limit.
Councilmember Adams expressed his support of drone technology and preference for drones to
land on the ground rather than using tall poles, arguing that ground pads would avoid visual
impacts associated with tall poles.
Councilmember Taylor suggested changing or limiting the proposed height.
Councilmember Duff expressed her support for elevated drone docking structures since ground-
based stations would consume valuable land that could otherwise be used more productively for
economic purposes.
Responding to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, Ms. Phillips explained that pole-mounted
systems can use vertical space more efficiently, with poles having multiple docking levels,
allowing several drones to use a smaller ground footprint than individual ground pads.
Planning Director Mary Kopaskie-Brown clarified that each pole has three docking levels on each
side of the pole, for a total of six docking positions.
Ms. Phillps reviewed the development standards for Fleet-Based services, stating that existing
zoning height limits will apply to drone facilities. She reported that the City is recommending a 30-
foot maximum height for poles, consistent with typical commercial zoning limits; however, certain
commercial and industrial zones allow 40–50 feet, depending on the zone. She discussed the
potential challenges of regulating a lower height if drone docking stations are permitted on
rooftops. (See Page 10 of Attachment 1)
City Attorney Jim Smith advised Council on the new state legislation that limits the City’s authority
regarding Fleet Services but provides a short window to adopt local regulations before the law
takes effect. He provided options for Council to consider and added that staff planned to meet
after the Council meeting to evaluate the options and requested Council’s direction so the
ordinance could be revised for introduction and potential adoption on Monday.
Mr. Smith stated that the decision must be a uniform rule for all Fleet Services, and Council can
return to approve pole docking stations in the future.
Councilmember Duff reiterated her support for pole-mounted drone stations. She mentioned that
a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in commercial areas near residences could be
included to address visual concerns.
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 4
Mr. Smith said pole-docking stations might be allowed in industrial districts and suggested
creating a uniform rule for industrial districts for Fleet Services and a different uniform rule for
lighter commercial.
Councilmember Taylor supports Mr. Smith’s suggestion since industrial locations would reduce
visual impacts and keep the stations away from residential areas, major shopping, and dining
areas.
Ms. Phillips cautioned that requiring CUPs in existing zoning districts could be a challenge under
Proposition 207.
Mayor Freeman expressed concern regarding drone stations in LC districts due to the impact in
almost every neighborhood. He recommended studying the Dallas-Fort Worth area, where
thousands of drone deliveries are already occurring.
In response to a question from Councilmember Heredia, Ms. Phillips replied that a CUP is being
recommended for Heavy Fleet-Based services within the General Commercial and Light Industrial
areas, as well as certain Accessory Fleet Based services.
Responding to a question posed by Mayor Freeman, Ms. Phillips explained that the proposed
ordinance already includes a 100-foot separation from residential areas for electric charging
infrastructure, based on concerns about humming noises, and that a waiver could be granted by
the Planning Director if a sound study demonstrates that the equipment would increase ambient
noise levels.
In response to an inquiry from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Linssen advised that setbacks must be
applied uniformly to the entire Fleet Services use category rather than specifically targeting drone
delivery.
Responding to multiple questions from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Smith advised that now is the
opportunity to establish a larger setback, such as 150 or 200 feet, and emphasized that the
Planning Director would still have authority to grant exceptions, and the increased setback would
apply uniformly to new developments.
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Linssen replied that staff conducted
significant outreach to the industry and stated that some areas outside the state have lighter
regulations. He stated that staff’s goal is to find a balance between allowing the use, establishing
reasonable guidelines, and making the regulations appropriate for Mesa.
Mr. Smith pointed out that increasing the setback to 150 feet for landing commercial drones in an
outer boundary area zoned for residential would be consistent with the state legislation and
therefore should not be a major concern for the industry.
Councilmember Taylor strongly supported a 150-foot setback, stating that greater distance from
residential areas is preferable.
Ms. Dvorchak clarified that the proposed ordinance currently applies the setback specifically to
electric charging equipment, for both ground and aerial operations. She asked whether the
Council wanted the setback to apply to all Fleet-Based services, including gasoline-powered
vehicles.
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 5
Councilmember Taylor expressed her support for a 150-foot setback for all fleets near residential
and light commercial areas to protect residents and balance economic development with quality
of life.
Councilmember Adams agreed with a 150-foot setback, noting its alignment with the distance in
the state statute.
Mr. Smith recommended applying the setback based on proximity to residential properties
regardless of the underlying zoning district.
Councilmember Duff disagreed with the 150-foot setback, arguing that it unnecessarily wastes
land. She expressed her belief that electric fleets, including robots and autonomous vehicles, are
relatively quiet and that the City should not impose large separation areas without a clear purpose.
(At 9:27 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Adams from the remainder of the
meeting.)
Ms. Phillips highlighted several development standards within the ordinance, including standards
for screenings, residential separation, and parking spaces. (See Pages 10 through 12 of
Attachment 1)
Ms. Phillips provided an overview of the updates to the definitions and modifications for Service
Stations, noting that facilities offering only EV charging are still considered service stations. She
indicated that additional gasoline-station requirements would be modified as electric vehicle (EV)
charging does not present the same safety concerns. She mentioned that staff recommended a
100-foot separation between fuel pumps/EV charging and residential uses due to potential noise
impacts. She asked Council for their direction on whether to keep or modify the 100-foot
residential separation. (See Pages 13 through 17 and 19 of Attachment 1)
Councilmember Taylor indicated her preference for consistency in the separation requirement
and suggested that businesses wanting a shorter distance could seek approval through a sound
study.
In response to a question posed by Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Phillips replied that gasoline
canopies help address fumes and fire safety and should not automatically be required for EV
charging stations. She added that EV facilities should have adequate lighting, trash provisions,
and defined queuing areas, and a waiver process to allow flexibility since EV chargers may not
need the same stacking space as gas pumps. (See Page 18 of Attachment 1)
Ms. Phillips identified the various ways staff conducted public outreach efforts, and adjustments
made based on feedback. (See Page 20 of Attachment 1)
In response to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Smith acknowledged frustration with
the state law, noting that it was industry-sponsored and limits municipal regulatory authority. He
discussed the challenges and cautioned against expecting an injunction to succeed as industry-
sponsored legislation and state preemption of local regulation have become increasingly
common.
Responding to a question posed by Mayor Freeman, Ms. Phillips said the 100-foot separation for
fuel pumps and charging stations was a recommendation intended to be consistent with
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 6
separation requirements for other land uses due to noise. She said staff also considered 150-feet
separation to match Fleet-Services standard.
Mayor Freeman stated he favors a 150-foot separation to be consistent.
Councilmember Duff disagreed, noting that traditional vehicle-related uses can be significantly
noisier than EV charging stations.
Mr. Smith advised that there will be an addition to agenda Item 4 from the Engineering Department
for Monday’s Regular Council meeting; and that agenda Item 5-b will be rescheduled to the July
27, 2026 Regular Council meeting.
In response to multiple questions posed by Councilmember Taylor regarding agenda Item 4-a,
(Use of a Cooperative Contract for the Purchase of an Electric Underground Cable Puller
(Replacement) for the Fleet Services and Energy Resources Departments (Citywide)), on
the Regular Council agenda, Business Services Director Ed Quedens replied that the existing
underground cable puller has an expected lifespan of approximately 20 years. He said that
although it is still usable, a replacement is needed because the City now needs equipment
designed for overhead work.
Councilmember Taylor explained, regarding agenda Item 4-b, (One-Year Use of a Cooperative
Term Contract with Two, One-Year Renewal Options for the Purchase of Field and Turf
Irrigation, and Landscaping Products, and Specialty Conditioners and Soils for the Parks,
Recreation and Community Facilities Department (PRCF). (Citywide)), on the Regular
Council agenda, that the City relies on one vendor for the purchase of irrigation software updates
and replacement parts and the system needs updated components, and switching vendors would
be expensive. She considers the expense justified since it helps maintain City parks and supports
the public.
Mr. Quedens added that the vendor also assists with monitoring and controlling water usage.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor regarding agenda Item 7- b, (Proposed
amendments to Mesa City Code, Title 11, Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 30, 31, 34, 43, 67, 81, 86, and
87. The amendments include, but are not limited to: modifying entryway monumentation
requirements; refining building material and color standards; updating Employment
District use tables and development standards; clarifying lot and land division
requirements; modifying standards for Detached Accessory Buildings or Structures and
Accessory Dwelling Units; updating Live/Work Unit and residential use standards in
Commercial Districts; refining screening requirements for certain specific uses and
activities; modifying landscaping and alternative landscape plan provisions; modifying
landscape diversity requirements; updating Manufactured Home and Recreational Vehicle
Accessory Structure standards; clarifying sign regulations; updating procedural
requirements related to written protests, application review, and expirations; modifying
definitions of "Home Occupations," "Live/Work Units," and "Indoor Warehousing And
Storage"; and adding a definition for "Hazardous Material Warehousing and Storage."
(Citywide)), on the Regular Council agenda, Assistant Planning Director Rachel Phillips
explained that the amendment aligns with the building code regarding fire separation. She
commented that the required distance between detached structures without a fire-rated wall would
decrease from 6 feet to 5 feet, applying to both detached accessory structures and detached
ADUs.
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 7
4-a.
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide direction on the use of HUD (Housing and Urban
Development) and human services funding for Fiscal Year 2027/2028.
Community Development Director Michelle Albanese introduced Deputy City Manager Candace
Cannistraro, Community Development Administrator Justin Boyd, and displayed a PowerPoint
presentation. (See Attachment 2)
Ms. Albanese explained that staff is seeking City Council’s direction on allocation of federal and
local annual funding for FY 27/28, following the FY 26/27 process. She noted that Council
previously suggested retaining federal funds for City-led projects and consider projects specific
to each district. She described the annual funding process and identified the federal and local
funding sources, noting A Better Community (ABC) is the utility donation program. (See Pages 2
and 3 of Attachment 2)
Ms. Albanese discussed the estimated amount of federal and local funds available and
recommendations for FY 27/28, as well as percentages retained for City-led programming,
emphasizing that final allocations will not be known until the spring. She mentioned that,
historically, Human Services and ABC funds have been distributed to nonprofits through a
competitive application process, while federal funds are typically allocated for City-led projects,
eligible activities, and to develop strategic public partnerships. She noted that all projects would
still require eligibility, readiness, and a compliance review. (See Pages 4 through 7 of Attachment
2)
Ms. Albanese discussed the next steps to establish the preferred approach for federal and local
funding with Council’s direction on City-led use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funds,
as well as continuing a competitive process for Human Services and ABC funds. She commented
that staff would return in early fall with potential projects and programs, and return in the spring
with final funding recommendations. (See Pages 8 and 9 of Attachment 2)
City Manager Scott Butler explained that the funding sources allow the City to be strategic in how
funds are allocated and to support City-led services, nonprofit partners, and adjust funding based
on specific criteria and priorities established by Council.
Mayor Freeman stated he supports the approach as a balance between City priorities and
community investment. He suggested Councilmembers identify opportunities in their districts
where funds could address underperforming areas. He encouraged Council to collaborate with
nonprofit organizations when the City lacks the capacity, adding that such partnerships could
support a more strategic approach to redevelopment in Mesa.
Councilmember Duff expressed support for the model presented and shared her concerns
regarding the challenges with spending down the CDBG funds. She requested staff identify
eligible geographic areas/census tracts so Councilmembers do not pursue projects that ultimately
cannot qualify. She noted that work is already underway in the Escobedo District with Habitat for
Humanity and neighborhood reinvestment.
Councilmember Heredia offered support in exploring the new approach while emphasizing the
importance of maintaining the City’s existing nonprofit partnerships. He suggested partnering on
projects that qualify geographically and leveraging nonprofit access to state and federal resources
to maximize the impact of City funds.
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 8
Responding to multiple questions posed by Councilmember Heredia, Ms. Cannistraro discussed
the proposed new approach to the HOME application and scoring process and shared the factors
considered to address the needs of multiple projects over several years that need HOME funds.
She shared the goal is to build a multi-year pipeline of strategic affordable-housing projects rather
than funding projects only when applications arrive. She explained that HOME decisions would
consider the City's needs, the partner's ability to successfully complete the project, and whether
the developer can secure other financing; since HOME funds generally serve as gap financing,
the City would prioritize projects that have a strong chance of securing the remaining funding.
She stated if multiple projects compete for the same funds, staff could bring the options to Council
and consult the affected districts.
Councilmember Taylor commented that she supports reserving CDBG funds for City-identified
priorities and eligible services. She added that CDBG funds can reach nonprofits through both
the County and the City and noted she has several areas in District 2 where CDBG funds can be
applied.
Mayor Freeman commented that recent federal flexibility gives cities more opportunities to invest
in low and moderate income census tracts. He proposed using funding to revitalize aging or
declining neighborhoods through cleanups, beautification, trees, and other improvements. He
also stressed supporting nonprofits and residents so neighborhoods can become more successful
and vibrant. He confirmed that Council’s direction is to move forward.
Ms. Albanese stated that staff will provide Council with a map identifying low and moderate
income census tracts, which can serve as a starting point for determining where CDBG
investments may be eligible.
Ms. Cannistraro commented that when people approach the City about affordable housing or
neighborhood revitalization, staff often directs them to look at Main Street and the surrounding
one-mile area north and south. She noted that the area has existing bus service and infrastructure,
making a potentially suitable location for projects
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
4-b.
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide direction on a proposed Development Agreement and
Government Property Lease Excise Tax agreement for the development of a mixed-use, multi-
residence project adjacent to the Sycamore Light Rail Station known as Ovio.
Downtown Transformation Manager Jeff McVay introduced Senior Economic Development
Project Manager Jeffrey Robbins and displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 3)
Mr. McVay explained that the Ovio project is unusual due to the Government Property Lease
Excise Tax (GPLET) and Development Agreement being brought forward while construction is
already underway, which normally happens before the design stage. He indicated that the City
has worked with the developer since 2021, but COVID, inflation, rising financing costs,
negotiations with Valley Metro, and a major roofline redesign delayed the agreements. He added
that the project also required coordination regarding improvements to the nearby park-and-ride
and transit facilities.
(At 9:58 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Duff from the remainder of the meeting.)
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 9
Mr. Robbins presented a site map of the location of the Ovio development, a former Tri-City Mall
site, which has been a source and a target of redevelopment efforts of the City for decades. He
described other nearby projects, which are part of the Asian District and play a strategic role. He
said Ovio would help attract more convenience shoppers who regularly visit the area,
strengthening the district's economic activity and complementing the existing Asian District
shopping traffic. He provided an overview of the Ovio project and images of renderings of the
commercial product, design, and described the visual interest with different leveling. (See Pages
2 and 3 of Attachment 3)
In response to a question from Vice Mayor Somers, Mr. Robbins presented an aerial angle of the
layout and design of the rooftop space, intended to create visual interest and activity, illustrating
the trees above the commercial area are primarily landscaping. He mentioned there will not be a
rooftop bar or similar commercial space, the primary activity will occur within the building and
commercial areas below. (See Page 6 of Attachment 3)
Mr. Robbins identified the economic impact of the Ovio project from start of construction to the
end of the eight-year term will generate approximately $136 million. He reported that construction
is expected to create approximately 500 jobs, resulting in 28 permanent jobs afterwards and a
one-time payment of $500,000 to the City for redevelopment efforts. (See Page 4 of Attachment
3)
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Butler clarified that the Mayor and City
Council would determine how the $500,000 would be allocated.
Mr. Robbins highlighted the components of the Ovio project agreements, noting the eight-year
GPLET tax abatement that has been reviewed by an independent economist to confirm that
statutory requirements have been met. He shared that the project is located in the City's Central
Business District redevelopment area, and more than doubles the property's value. He indicated
that due to the site's proximity to the transit center and park-and-ride, the developer will also
provide the City with a permanent easement for pedestrian and vehicle access along Ironwood
Drive and portions of the property's north and west sides. (See Page 5 of Attachment 3)
Mr. Robbins summarized the developer’s obligations, including one-time in lieu payments to
school districts for tax abatement and redevelopment priorities, noting any GPLET has to provide
a public benefit which the City negotiates. (See Pages 6 and 7 of Attachment 3)
Mr. Robbins identified the four primary obligations the City would undertake under the agreement,
intended to help move the review process forward more efficiently. (See Page 8 of Attachment 3)
In response to a question posed by Councilmember Taylor, Mr. McVay answered that the
developer received its initial building permits under the previous fee system, and would have been
subject to the impact fees applicable at that time. He noted that the developer is not subject to
the newer capacity fee.
Mr. McVay clarified that a GPLET could legally abate all property taxes, including school district
taxes, but the City's policy is to negotiate payments that keep the school districts financially whole
during the eight-year period. He emphasized making those payments is a City policy choice, not
a requirement.
Mr. McVay noted that staff is scheduled to return to Council for action on August 17, 2026.
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 10
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
4-c.
Appointments to various boards and committees.
It was moved by Councilmember Heredia, seconded by Councilmember Taylor, that the Council
concur with the Mayor’s recommendations and the appointments be confirmed. (See Attachment
4)
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Heredia–Taylor
NAYS – None
ABSENT – Adams–Duff–Goforth
Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.
5.
Acknowledge receipt of minutes of various boards and committees.
5-a.
Historic Preservation Advisory Board meeting held on May 5, 2026.
5-b.
Economic Development Advisory Board meeting held on May 6, 2026.
5-c.
Board of Adjustment Public Hearing meeting held on May 6, 2026.
5-d.
Board of Adjustment Study Session meeting held on May 6, 2026.
5-e.
Design Review Board meeting held on May 12, 2026.
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded by Councilmember Heredia, that receipt of the
above-listed minutes be acknowledged.
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Heredia–Taylor
NAYS – None
ABSENT – Adams–Duff–Goforth
Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.
6.
Current events summary including meetings and conferences attended.
There were no reports on meetings and/or conferences attended.
7.
Scheduling of meetings.
City Manager Scott Butler stated that the schedule of meetings is as follows:
Monday, July 20, 2026, 5:15 p.m. – Study Session
Monday, July 20, 2026, 5:45 p.m. – Regular Council meeting
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Page 11
Mr. Butler announced that due to storms expected in Mesa over the next couple of days, residents
can visit the City’s website for information on emergency preparedness resources at
Mesaaz.gov/publicsafety/emergencies.
8.
Adjournment.
Without objection, the Study Session adjourned at 10:29 a.m.
____________________________________
MARK FREEMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
LISA ANDERSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Study Session
of the City Council of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 16th day of July 2026. I further certify that the meeting
was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
_______________________________
LISA ANDERSON, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
lr
(Attachments – 4)
Fleet-Based Services & Service Stations
Text Amendments
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
Rachel Phillips, Assistant Planning Director
Sean Pesek, Senior Planner
1
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 21
2
Background & Purpose
New and Emerging Technology Driving the Changes
Fleet Services with Drone Delivery
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 21
3
Background & Purpose
New and Emerging Technology Driving the Changes
EV Service Station
Fleet Services of Robotaxis
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 21
Fleet-Based Services
Text Amendments
4
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 21
5
Fleet-Based Services – Overview of Proposed Changes
•
Updates to Land Use Classification Definitions
•
Updates to Land Use Tables
•
Introduction of fleet-specific development standards (new
Section 11-31-40)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 21
6
Fleet-Based Services – Updates to Definitions
Fleet-Based Services (NEW):
•
Primary use is the parking, storage, staging, fueling, charging, or
dispatch of fleet vehicles
•
In connection with passenger transportation services, delivery, medical
transport operations and similar businesses operating more than five
(5) vehicles
•
Includes EV charging infrastructure and accessory support facilities
•
Excludes: Towing & Impound, Vehicle Sales, Major Auto Repair,
Outdoor Storage, Airports, Heliports
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 21
7
Fleet-Based Services – Updates to Definitions
Light Fleet-Based Services:
•
50 or fewer ground- or aerial-based vehicles
•
All vehicles have a GVWR of less than 10,000 lbs
•
Less than 10,000 sq. ft. of dedicated fleet area
Heavy Fleet-Based Services (NEW):
•
One or more vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or more; or
•
More than 50 ground- or aerial-based vehicles all under 10,000 lbs; or
•
10,000 sq. ft. or more of dedicated fleet area
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 21
8
Fleet-Based Services – Updates to Definitions
Accessory Fleet-Based Services (NEW):
•
Fleet-Based Service that is accessory and
subordinate to a principal use on the same lot or
parcel
•
Serves only the operational needs of the
principal use
•
Shall not constitute the primary use of the site
•
Shall not function as an independent fleet
facility or provide fleet services to off-site
businesses
•
Fleet parking, charging, staging, etc.) shall not
exceed the area devoted to the principal use
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 21
9
Fleet-Based Services – Updates to Land Use Tables
• Light Fleet-Based Services remain permitted in the same zoning
districts as currently allowed (GC, LI, GI, and HI) and added to the LC
District
• Added Fleet-Based Services added as an accessory use in the LC, GC,
PEP, LI, GI, and HI Districts
• Heavy Fleet-Based Services permitted with a CUP in the GC and LI
Districts, and by-right in the GI and HI Districts
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 9 of 21
10
Fleet-Based Services Development Standards
Parking, Charging & Storage Standards
All Types of Fleet-Based Services (Light, Heavy, or Accessory)
• Fleet vehicles must be parked, charged, and stored in designated areas
• Fleet areas must be clearly delineated and distinct from required parking
• Not permitted in setbacks, landscape yards, maneuvering aisles, or required loading
zones
• Aerial-based vehicle parking, charging, and/or storage: 30-ft maximum height
Accessory Fleet-Based Services Only
• Must be located to the side or rear of buildings
• Not permitted between the front building façade and a public street
• May occupy up to 50% of the required on-site parking spaces for the principal use
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 10 of 21
11
Screening Standards
Ground-Based Fleet Vehicle Screening:
•
Street-side: 40-in masonry wall behind the required landscape yard
•
Internal side and rear property lines: 6-ft masonry wall
Accessory Equipment and Infrastructure:
•
Screened per ground-mounted equipment standard of Section 11-30-9(A)(4)
Screening Alternatives:
•
Alternatives may be approved by the Planning Director
Fleet-Based Services Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 11 of 21
12
Residential Separation:
• Accessory equipment and charging infrastructure must be separated
from residential uses and/or zoning districts by a distance of 100 feet
• Does not apply to residentially-zoned properties that only contain
commercial use(s)
• Planning Director may approve less than 100 feet with a sound study
showing noise at the property line stays at or below 60 dB, or doesn't
increase ambient noise where it already exceeds 60 dB
Fleet-Based Services Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 12 of 21
Services Station
Text Amendments
13
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 13 of 21
14
Service Stations – Overview of Proposed Changes
•
Updates to Land Use Classification Definitions
•
Updates to Land Use Tables
•
Updated Service Station development standards in Section 11-31-25
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 14 of 21
15
Service Station – Updates to Definitions
Service Station:
•
Modified to clarify that it includes the fueling and/or
charging for motor vehicles
•
Specifies the use serves the general public and
doesn’t include fleet fueling and charging operations
Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging (NEW):
•
Provision of electric vehicle charging within a
parking lot or parking structure which is incidental
and subordinate to the principal use
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 15 of 21
16
Accessory EV Charging – Updates to Land Use Tables
Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging
•
Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging added as a permitted accessory use in the
Commercial, Employment, and Downtown Districts
•
Footnotes:
•
Limited to 20% of required on-site parking; excess spaces may be
converted if a parking study demonstrates additional capacity exists
•
Landscaping removed for charging infrastructure must be replaced on-site
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 16 of 21
17
Service Stations – Updates to Development Standards
Fuel Pump Canopy:
•
Max 16-ft canopy height and 30-in canopy fascia width
•
Canopy lighting must be recessed and flush mounted; maximum 20
footcandles within 150 feet of residential uses
EV Shade Structures:
•
When shade structures are provided over EV charging spaces they shall
match or complements the design of the primary building (when present)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 17 of 21
18
Service Stations – Updates to Development Standards
EV Charging Lighting:
•
Can be integrated into the shade structure, canopies, charging equipment, or
other features
•
Maximum 20 footcandles within 150 feet of residential uses
Vehicle Stacking:
•
Min 20-ft stacking on both sides of fuel pump islands and 36 ft for one-way
circulation approaches
•
Modifications may be approved by the Planning Director based on a
circulation study
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 18 of 21
19
Service Stations – Updates to Development Standards
Residential Separation:
• Fuel pumps and charging stations must be separated 100 feet from
residential uses and/or zoning districts
• Planning Director may approve a reduced distance with a sound study
showing noise at the property line stays at or below 60 dB, or doesn't
increase ambient noise where it already exceeds 60 dB
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 19 of 21
20
Public Outreach & Notification
May 6
May 7
May 27
June 15
June 18
June 6
TA Draft
emailed
to
Stake-
holders
P&Z
Board
June 24
Public
Hearing
Email
Reminder
Virtual
Open
House
News-
paper Ad
Website
Updated
Draft TA
Posted to
Website
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 20 of 21
21
Questions?
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – PLANNING DIVISION
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 21 of 21
Review FY 2027/2028
HUD/Human Services
Funding Sources
MICHELLE ALBANESE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JUSTIN BOYD, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR
JULY 16, 2026
1
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 10
City Council
Direction
Needed
Approach to FY 2027/2028 Annual
Funding Allocations
2
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 10
HUD and Local Funding Sources
3
Federal Programs:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Local Programs:
Human Services
A Better Community (ABC)
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 10
FY 2027/2028
Estimated Federal
Funds Available
CDBG
Public Services - $546,859
In 26/27: 50% Retained for City-led programming
Non-Public Services - $2,290,766
In 26/27: 100% Retained for City-led
programming
ESG
Programs and Services - $298,803
In 26/27: No funds retained
HOME
Projects and Activities - $1,256,198
In 26/27: $372k retained for City-led
programming
4
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 10
Recommended
Action
CDBG
ESG
HOME
CDBG/ESG
Reserve all federal funds for City-
led priorities and eligible activities
HOME
Direct federal funds to support City-
led priorities, including strategic
public-private partnerships to
address affordable housing needs
(Do not put out a general call for projects)
5
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 10
Human Services
and
A Better
Community
(ABC)
Local funding supporting nonprofit service
providers
Human Services - $547,163
A Better Community (ABC) - $104,500
Programs address crisis services,
prevention, transitional services, and long-
term support
6
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 10
Recommended
Action
Human Services
ABC
Solicit applications from nonprofit
organizations for programs and services
that address City-identified priorities
through a competitive funding process
7
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 10
Next Steps
Establish the preferred approach for the FY
2027/2028 Human Services and ABC
competitive funding process
Seek City Council direction regarding the use
of CDBG, ESG, and HOME funds that will be
retained for City-led projects
Complete staff review and evaluation of all
proposed projects and applications to
confirm eligibility, alignment with program
priorities, and funding availability
Present funding recommendations to City
Council for final consideration
8
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 10
City Council
Direction
Needed
Reserve all federal funding for City-led
priorities and eligible activities
Solicit applications for Human Services
and ABC funding for programs and
services that address City-identified
priorities
9
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 10
Questions?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION
10
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 10 of 10
Ovio
City Council Study Session
July 16, 2026
Jeff McVay
Manager of Urban Transformation
Jeff Robbins
Senior Economic Development Project Manager
Development Agreement
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 9
OVIO - SITE IN CONTEXT
DOBSON RD.
MAIN ST.
SYCAMORE
2
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 9
OVIO - PROJECT OVERVIEW
Show all of these information graphically with icons
and minimal data. Explore infographics options via
Claude
If graphics do not work, keep text here, use graphics on
next.
• Redevelopment of 4.05± acres at 1830
West Main Street, near Dobson Road
• Urban, market-rate, mixed-use
development
• One building, five stories
• Approximately 285,890 SF
• 191 market-rate apartments
• Approximately 5,700 SF ground-floor
commercial
3
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 9
ESTIMATED ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT
Total direct
$920,310
New tax revenue
to the City
$500,000
Contribution to City’s
redevelopment
priorities
Minimum
construction
sales tax
Net rent to City
over 8 years
New residential
City utility users
$520,000
$80,000
191
Permanent
Mesa Jobs
City, county & state
tax revenue
$83 M
$5.2 M
28 Jobs
$136 M Total Impact
4
$53 M Total indirect
Source: Applied Economics, Economic and Revenue Impacts of OVIO at Sycamore Station City of Mesa AZ, June 2026
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 9
AGREEMENTS
• Development Agreement
• Government Property Lease Excise Tax
Agreement (GPLET)
• 8-year tax abatement
• Independent analysis confirms statutory
eligibility (A.R.S. § 42-6209):
• Within the City’s single Central Business District and
Redevelopment Area
• Increases the value of the property by greater than
100%
• Generates greater revenues than the property taxes
abated
• Sidewalk Easement
• Vehicular Ingress and Egress Easement
5
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 5 of 9
DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS
• Design and Construction of minimum
private improvements by July 1, 2027
• Design and Construction of public
improvements by July 1, 2027
• Enhanced landscaping
• Bus transit center improvements
• Perpetual maintenance of improvements
• Main Street trees
• Ironwood Drive improvements
• Dedicate sidewalk and vehicular
easement
• Use City water, sewer, solid waste, and
natural gas utilities
6
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 6 of 9
DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS
• One-time in-lieu payments to school
districts:
• $74,854 — Mesa Public Schools
• $12,762 — Maricopa Community College
District
• $589 — East Valley Institute of Technology
• $500,000 — One-time payment to City for
redevelopment priorities
• Potential funding source for restaurant
incubator
• Transit Center improvements
• Demolition of a restroom facility
• Sidewalk, paver and curb replacement,
irrigation, and landscaping
• TPSS Improvements (Traction Power Substation
serving Light Rail)
• Pedestrian crossing and ramp modifications
7
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 7 of 9
CITY OBLIGATIONS
CITY OBLIGATIONS
Upon project completion, Mesa
commits to four key obligations under
the DA and GPLET terms.
Provide eight-year tax abatement
Approval of a GPLET lease agreement upon developer
completing all public and private improvements
Accept Title to Public Improvements
Accept title to all dedicated public improvements made
as part of the project
Provide Municipal Utility Services
Provide water, sewer, solid waste, and natural gas
services to the project
Provide Customized Plan Review
Provide a customized review schedule for Ironwood
Drive and public improvements
8
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 8 of 9
DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS
9
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 9 of 9
July 16, 2026
TO:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM:
MAYOR MARK FREEMAN
SUBJECT:
Appointments to Boards and Committees
The following are my recommendations for appointments to the City of Mesa Advisory
Boards and Committees:
Housing & Community Development Advisory Board – Eleven-member board
including new appointments.
Leonna Anderson, District 3. Ms. Anderson is a recruiter at the Tyson & Mendes law firm.
She holds a bachelor’s degree in communication with an emphasis in public relations
from Missouri State University. Her partial term will expire June 30, 2027.
Quintin Evans, District 5. Mr. Evans is the founder and lead developer of Get Your Pet A
Vet. He earned an associate’s degree in general studies from Mesa Community College
and a bachelor’s degree in business administration from Southern New Hampshire
University and. His partial term will expire June 30, 2027.
Josh Lopeman, District 6. Mr. Lopeman is a principal architect at COLE Architects. He
earned a bachelor’s degree in architecture from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
and a master’s degree in architecture from Arizona State University. His first term will
expire June 30, 2029.
Jessica Mueller, District 1. Ms. Mueller is a policy and research administrator at the
Arizona State Board of Education. She holds bachelor’s degrees in psychology and family
and human development and a master’s degree in social work from Arizona State
University. Her partial term will expire June 30, 2028.
Tanner Nelson, District 4. Mr. Nelson is a commercial insurance producer at LeBaron
Carroll Insurance. He earned an associate’s degree in business management from Mesa
Community College and a bachelor’s degree in business legal studies from Arizona State
University. His partial term will expire June 30, 2026.
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 1 of 2
The following appointments are for Council acknowledgment:
Education and Workforce Development Roundtable – Seventeen-member board
including the new appointments.
Standing Position (ongoing; term remains with position)
Dr. Jared Ryan. Dr. Ryan, Superintendent of Gilbert Public Schools, is being appointed
to the Education and Workforce Roundtable as a standing member. Prior to his current
role, Dr. Ryan served as the executive director of strategic initiatives at Gilbert Public
Schools. He holds a bachelor’s degree in education from Westminster College in Fulton,
Missouri, a master’s degree in educational leadership from Arizona State University, a
superintendency certification from Northern Arizona University, and ABD status in
educational leadership from Northern Arizona University.
Economic Development Advisory Board – Seventeen-member board comprised of
nine voting resident members and eight nonvoting ex officio members, including the new
appointments.
GPEC Board of Directors, Ex Officio Member (ongoing; term remains with position)
Councilmember Rich Adams, District 1. Councilmember Adams began his first term
representing District 1 in January 2025. He is the president and CEO of Southwest
Business Credit Services and a founding director of Gateway Commercial Bank of Mesa.
He holds the Certified Credit Executive, Certified Credit Professional and Certified
Association Executive designations.
Mesa Local Fire Pension Board – Five-member board including the new appointments.
Benjamin Wehunt. Captain Wehunt was recently elected to the Fire Department Pension
Board by the sworn membership in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Public
Safety Personnel Retirement System of the State of Arizona. He currently serves as a
captain with the Mesa Fire and Medical Department. His first term will expire June 30,
2030.
Mesa Local Police Pension Board – Five-member board including the new
appointments.
Amanda Cook. Officer Cook was recently elected to the Police Department Pension
Board by the sworn membership in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Public
Safety Personnel Retirement System of the State of Arizona. She has served as a police
officer with the Mesa Police Department for 10 years and currently serves as a traffic
officer and field training officer in the Traffic Unit. Her first term will expire June 30, 2030.
Study Session
July 16, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 2