Exhibit 3 - Public Comment

This Message Is From an External Sender
Use caution when clicking links, attachments, or responding to information requests.
     Report Suspicious     ‌
From:
Mesa Development Services
To:
Long Range Planning
Subject:
Proposed Text Amendments Comment
Date:
Wednesday, May 27, 2026 12:26:19 PM
Proposed Text Amendments Comment
Name
JAZZMINE CLIFTON
Are you submitting
feedback as a:
Developer / Builder
I have a comment or
question regarding:
2026 Zoning Code Refinement
Fleet-Based Services & Service Station Text
Amendments
General Comments
2026 Zoning Code
Refinement - please
indicate the draft code
section and your
questions/comments
Since hazardous material quantities are
already heavily regulated through the
International Fire Code and Fire Department
review, what additional land use concerns is
the City trying to address through this zoning
change?
- Has staff evaluated whether these
amendments could unintentionally
discourage modern logistics, EV
infrastructure, and industrial users from
locating in Mesa?
Fleet-Based Services &
Service Station Text
Amendments - please
indicate the draft code
section and your
questions/comments
Is the City concerned about specific types of
Fleet based industrial users?
- The code appears to regulate fleet parking,
charging, and staging separately from
traditional parking. How does the City plan to
manage/enforce after occupancy?
- What specific operational issues,

Please provide your
general
question/comments
complaints, or enforcement challenges is the
City experiencing today that are driving these
amendments?
- Has the City compared these proposed
standards against competing markets like
Phoenix, Chandler, Gilbert, or Glendale?
Would you like a
response to your
question(s)?
Yes
Would you like to be
notified of future public
meetings?
Yes
Email
jclifton@evgre.com
Help articles | Support portal
Forms & Workflow is a Granicus product.

From:
Rachel Phillips
To:
jclifton@evgre.com
Cc:
Long Range Planning; Nana Appiah
Subject:
Proposed Text Amendment Comments Response
Date:
Wednesday, May 27, 2026 3:36:21 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Jazzmine,
   Thank you for your comments. Below are responses to your questions. Please reach out if
you have any further questions.
 
Question: Since hazardous material quantities are already heavily regulated through the
International Fire Code and Fire Department review, what additional land use concerns is
the City trying to address through this zoning change? Has staff evaluated whether these
amendments could unintentionally discourage modern logistics, EV infrastructure, and
industrial users from locating in Mesa?
 
City Response: While the International Building Code and International Fire Code regulate
occupancy classifications, control areas, and operational safety requirements for
hazardous materials, they do not address broader land use compatibility considerations
within the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments are intended to provide
additional clarity regarding where certain hazardous material warehousing and storage
uses are appropriate based on surrounding land uses and zoning districts, particularly near
residential areas and other sensitive uses.
 
Staff worked collaboratively with the Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal to identify
occupancy classifications and operational characteristics that may warrant additional
zoning review due to scale, intensity, or compatibility considerations. The amendments are
not intended to prohibit modern logistics, EV infrastructure, or industrial development, but
rather to ensure that emerging industrial uses are clearly classified and located in areas
appropriate for their operational characteristics.
 
Mesa continues to support advanced manufacturing, logistics, technology, and EV-related
industries, and staff does not believe the proposed amendments will discourage these
users from locating within the City. Instead, the amendments are intended to provide
greater predictability and transparency for both applicants and surrounding property
owners.
 
Question: Is the City concerned about specific types of Fleet based industrial users? The
code appears to regulate fleet parking, charging, and staging separately from traditional
parking. How does the City plan to manage/enforce after occupancy?

City Response: The proposed text amendments were not prompted by concerns regarding
a specific operator or business type. Rather, the amendments respond to evolving
technologies and operational models, including electric vehicle fleets, drone delivery
services, and other emerging fleet-based operations, to provide clearer use classifications
and operational standards within the Zoning Ordinance.
 
The proposed standards distinguish fleet vehicle parking, charging, and staging areas from
traditional customer or employee parking because these areas function operationally
differently and may involve specialized equipment, infrastructure, and screening
considerations.
 
As with any development, fleet-based operations would be subject to the City’s standard
planning, permitting, and inspection processes, including zoning review, Development
Plan approval where applicable, and building permits. Following occupancy, compliance
with approved plans and applicable Zoning Ordinance standards would be enforced
through the City’s Code Compliance process in coordination with Planning staff as
necessary.
 
Question: What specific operational issues, or enforcement challenges is the City
experiencing today that are driving these amendments? Has the City compared these
proposed standards against competing markets like Phoenix, Chandler, Gilbert, or
Glendale?
 
City Response: The proposed amendments were not initiated in response to a particular
enforcement issue, complaint, or operational problem. Instead, the amendments are
proactive in nature and are intended to address evolving technologies and emerging
business models that are not specifically addressed within the City’s existing use
classifications and development standards.
 
As new forms of logistics, delivery services, fleet operations, EV charging infrastructure,
and aerial-based technologies continue to emerge, staff identified a need to modernize
portions of the Zoning Ordinance to improve clarity, predictability, and consistency in how
these uses are classified and reviewed.
 
Staff has had discussions with several peer jurisdictions regarding how they are
approaching these emerging land uses. In many cases, jurisdictions are still evaluating
how to classify and regulate these operations. Mesa’s proposed amendments are intended
to position the City proactively by establishing clear definitions and standards before

significant uncertainty or inconsistency arises during the development review process.
 
 
Best Regards,
Rachel
 
 
Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays

From:
Rachel Phillips
To:
jclifton@evgre.com
Cc:
Long Range Planning
Subject:
Fleet Services Text Amendment Follow Up
Date:
Tuesday, June 2, 2026 7:58:38 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
Jazzmine,
    Our Building Official is back from break and I was able to connect with him regarding
your question on control areas and whether those would apply to the building or tenant
space. He said they would apply to the building.
 
Best Regards,
Rachel
 
 
Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays

This Message Is From an External Sender
Use caution when clicking links, attachments, or responding to information requests.
     Report Suspicious     ‌
From:
Jazzmine Clifton
To:
Rachel Phillips
Cc:
Laura Ortiz; Sean Pesek
Subject:
Re: Hazardous Warehousing and Storage amendment
Date:
Monday, June 15, 2026 4:33:30 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Rachel,
Thank you for the prompt response. I am glad to hear that you and your team were able
to discuss internally and allow hazardous material warehousing as a CUP in the LI
district.  
Thank you, 
Jazzmine Clifton  Development Manager
​
Main: 602.808.8600 | Mobile: 720.519.6577
From: Rachel Phillips <Rachel.Phillips@MesaAZ.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 4:35 PM
To: Jazzmine Clifton <jclifton@evgre.com>
Cc: Laura Ortiz <lortiz@evgre.com>; Sean Pesek <Sean.Pesek@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Hazardous Warehousing and Storage amendment
 
Jazzmine,
   I met with Laura today to discuss the upcoming text amendments. She passed along
your comments and I wanted to let you know that I discussed them with staff and we
made the change to allow Hazardous Material Warehousing in Storage in the LI District
with a CUP.
 
Best Regards,
Rachel
 
 
Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays

This Message Is From an External Sender
Use caution when clicking links, attachments, or responding to information requests.
     Report Suspicious     ‌
From:
Rachel Phillips
To:
Jake Robinson
Cc:
Hector Soliman-Valdez; Eric Daniel; Long Range Planning; Ian Linssen; Chris Tiller; Alexis Wagner; Sean Pesek
Subject:
RE: Proposed Text Amendments Comment
Date:
Thursday, June 4, 2026 4:15:04 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Fleet Services and Service Station Text Amendments(revised).pdf
image002.png
Jake,
     I wanted to follow up and share with you and your team revisions that staff has made
to the proposed text amendments in response to stakeholder comments. I hope you’ll
see that we tried to address several of your comments such as the threshold for Fleet-
Based Services and screening requirements.
 
Please let us know if you have any other thoughts/comments.
 
Best Regards,
Rachel
 
 
Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
 
 
From: Jake Robinson <jake.robinson@flyzipline.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 2:43 PM
To: Rachel Phillips <Rachel.Phillips@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Hector Soliman-Valdez <hector.soliman@flyzipline.com>; Eric Daniel
<eric.daniel@flyzipline.com>; Long Range Planning <LongRangePlanning@mesaaz.gov>; Ian Linssen
<Ian.Linssen@mesaaz.gov>; Chris Tiller <Chris.Tiller@mesaaz.gov>; Alexis Wagner
<Alexis.Wagner@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: Proposed Text Amendments Comment
 
Good afternoon, Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the proposed text amendments for Service Stations and Fleet-Based Services and how they will impact drone delivery in Mesa.   In addition to the feedback we shared on the call, I
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Good afternoon,
 
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the proposed text amendments for
Service Stations and Fleet-Based Services and how they will impact drone delivery in
Mesa.

In addition to the feedback we shared on the call, I wanted to follow up regarding the 24-
vehicle threshold that separates light from heavy fleet based services. Due to the
rapidly-changing nature of drone delivery, site infrastructure, and the number of drones
each charging site can house, we support replacing the set vehicle limit with a square
footage threshold of <10,000 sq ft. We believe this threshold likely accomplishes the
city's goal of separating large from small fleet based services while also giving Zipline
and other operators the ability to grow and iterate sites within the ordinance's confines.
 
Please let us know if there is anything else Zipline can provide going forward.
 
Best regards,
Jake Robinson, State & Local Government Affairs Manager
www.zipline.com
p: +1-830-203-9453

This Message Is From an External Sender
Use caution when clicking links, attachments, or responding to information requests.
     Report Suspicious     ‌
From:
Rachel Phillips
To:
eric.daniel@flyzipline.com
Cc:
Long Range Planning; Ian Linssen; Chris Tiller
Subject:
RE: Proposed Text Amendments Comment
Date:
Tuesday, May 19, 2026 7:28:44 AM
Attachments:
image001.png
Hi Eric,
   Thank you for your comments. It would be great to meet and hear your feedback on the
proposed text amendments. Please let me know when a good time is and I can have
someone from our team set something up.
 
Best Regards,
Rachel
 
 
Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
 
 
 
 
 
 
From: Mesa Development Services <noreply@openforms.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 7:20 AM
To: Long Range Planning <longrangeplanning@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Proposed Text Amendments Comment
 
Proposed Text Amendments Comment Name Eric Daniel Are you submitting feedback as a: Other: Drone Delivery Operator I have a comment or question regarding: Fleet-Based Services & Service Station Text Amendments 2026 Zoning Code Refinement
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Proposed Text Amendments Comment

Name
Eric Daniel
Are you submitting
feedback as a:
Other: Drone Delivery Operator
I have a comment or
question regarding:
Fleet-Based Services & Service Station Text
Amendments
2026 Zoning Code
Refinement - please
indicate the draft
code section and
your
questions/comments
Fleet-Based Services
& Service Station Text
Amendments -
please indicate the
These comments are submitted on behalf of Zipline
International Inc. ("Zipline") in connection with the
City of Mesa's proposed Fleet-Based Services &
Service Station Text Amendments. We welcome the
opportunity to offer perspective from an industry
leader actively deploying autonomous drone delivery
services across the country.
About Zipline
Zipline is a global leader in autonomous drone
delivery, with extensive operational experience
delivering medical supplies, consumer goods, and
food and beverage products in communities across
the country and around the world. It operates using a
two-part system in which a small, tethered "pod"
descends from a drone to pick up packages from
local business partners and again to deliver packages
directly to a customer's doorstep, before returning to
a Zipline Charger. This approach eliminates the need
for the drone itself to land at the pickup or delivery
point. Zipline Chargers are compact, low-profile units
purpose-built to integrate safely into commercial
environments. Zipline operates with an industry-
leading safety record in full compliance with FAA
requirements. Our platform is fully electric, produces
zero direct emissions, and reduces local vehicle

draft code section
and your
questions/comments
miles traveled making deliveries by drone instead of
conventional delivery vehicles.
Comments
As the City refines these standards, we respectfully
encourage attention to the evolving federal and state
regulatory landscape governing drone operations,
and to ensuring that local requirements complement
rather than conflict with that framework. Building
reasonable flexibility into the ordinance will help
ensure it remains workable as that landscape
continues to develop.
We would also welcome the opportunity to consult
with City staff as standards applicable to aerial-
based vehicle infrastructure are reviewed. Drone
delivery technology differs meaningfully in character,
scale, and community impact from the ground-based
fleet operations these amendments are primarily
designed to address, and we believe that early
engagement with industry can help ensure that the
City's standards are technically feasible,
appropriately calibrated to actual impacts, and
supportive of the deployment of infrastructure that
benefits Mesa residents and businesses.
Please provide your
general
question/comments
Would you like a
response to your
question(s)?
Yes
Would you like to be
notified of future
public meetings?
Yes
Email
eric.daniel@flyzipline.com

This Message Is From an External Sender
Use caution when clicking links, attachments, or responding to information requests.
     Report Suspicious     ‌
From:
Kevin Xue
To:
Rachel Phillips; Long Range Planning; Sean Pesek
Cc:
Francesca Wahl; David Ely; Drew Sartell; Ian Linssen; Chris Tiller; Kirstin Dvorchak; Nana Appiah
Subject:
Re: Tesla Comments - City of Mesa Proposed Text Amendment - Service Stations & Fleet-Based Services
Date:
Thursday, June 11, 2026 3:25:03 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
Hi Rachel,
Thank you so much for sharing this update and for working with us on this section.
The revised language ("Where provided...") is a fantastic solution. It gives us the operational
flexibility we need for challenging infill sites, while ensuring that when we do build shade
structures or solar canopies, they are high-quality and integrate well with the site's character.
We will circle back if we have additional feedback. Thank you.
Best Regards,
Kevin
Kevin Xue
Policy Analyst, North American Charging
3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304
E. zixue@tesla.com
 
From: Rachel Phillips <Rachel.Phillips@MesaAZ.gov>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 1:51 PM
To: Kevin Xue <zixue@tesla.com>; Long Range Planning <LongRangePlanning@MesaAZ.gov>; Sean
Pesek <Sean.Pesek@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Francesca Wahl <fwahl@tesla.com>; David Ely <daely@tesla.com>; Ian Linssen
<Ian.Linssen@MesaAZ.gov>; Chris Tiller <Chris.Tiller@mesaaz.gov>; Kirstin Dvorchak
<Kirstin.Dvorchak@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah <Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: RE: Tesla Comments - City of Mesa Proposed Text Amendment - Service Stations & Fleet-
Based Services
 
Kevin,
     Thank you for your input regarding the shade structure requirements. After discussing
the request, staff is proposing the following revisions:
 
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SHADE STRUCTURE DESIGN. WHERE PROVIDED,

SHADE STRUCTURES SERVING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SPACES SHALL
COMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND BE COMPATIBLE
WITH THE DESIGN OF ANY PRIMARY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. SHADE STRUCTURES,
INCLUDING SOLAR CANOPIES, SHALL UTILIZE MATERIALS, COLORS, AND DESIGN
FEATURES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO A COHESIVE AND INTEGRATED SITE DESIGN. 
 
Best Regards,
Rachel
 
 
Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
 
From: Rachel Phillips <Rachel.Phillips@MesaAZ.gov> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 4:07 PM
To: Kevin Xue <zixue@tesla.com>; Long Range Planning <LongRangePlanning@MesaAZ.gov>; Sean
Pesek <Sean.Pesek@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Francesca Wahl <fwahl@tesla.com>; David Ely <daely@tesla.com>; Ian Linssen
<Ian.Linssen@MesaAZ.gov>; Chris Tiller <Chris.Tiller@mesaaz.gov>; Kirstin Dvorchak
<Kirstin.Dvorchak@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah <Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: RE: Tesla Comments - City of Mesa Proposed Text Amendment - Service Stations & Fleet-
Based Services
 
Kevin,
    Thank you for that clarification. Let us (staff) consider that information.
 
For Accessory Vehicle Charging, yes, I can confirm it isn’t subject to the 6-foot masonry
wall requirement. When there are specific regulations for a land use their location is listed
in the “Additional Use Regulations” column. I do want to make sure that you see the
footnotes that pertain to Accessory Vehicle Charging at the bottom of the table.
 
Table 11-6-2: Commercial Districts
Proposed Use
NC
LC
GC
OC
MX
Additional Use
Regulations
…
Commercial Use Classifications

…
FLEET-BASED SERVICES
HEAVY FLEET-
BASED
SERVICES
—
—
CUP
—
—
SECTION 11-31-
40, FLEET-BASED
SERVICES
LIGHT FLEET-
BASED
SERVICES
—
P
P
—
—
…
Light Fleet-
Based Services
—
—
P
—
—
 
…
Specific Accessory Uses
…
ACCESSORY
ELECTRIC
VEHICLE
CHARGING
P (32,
33, 34)
P (32,
33, 34)
P (32,
33, 34)
P (32,
33, 34)
P (32,
33, 34)
 
…
LIGHT FLEET-
BASED
SERVICES
—
P
P
—
—
SECTION 11-31-
40, FLEET-BASED
SERVICES
…
Notes.
…

32.  ACCESSORY ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SPACES SHALL NOT OCCUPY
MORE THAN 20% OF THE REQUIRED ON-SITE PARKING UNLESS A PARKING STUDY
DEMONSTRATES THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING EXISTS. IN SUCH CASES, EXCESS
PARKING SPACES MAY BE CONVERTED TO ACCESSORY VEHICLE PARKING.
33. ACCESSORY ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SPACES SHALL NOT CONTAIN
SIGNAGE INDICATING THAT THE SPACES ARE RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING.
34. ANY REQUIRED LANDSCAPING REMOVED AS A RESULT OF EVSE INSTALLATION
SHALL BE REPLACED ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
 
In regards to the Fleet-Based Services wall and fencing requirement, Section 11-30-4
specifies permitted materials. Staff recommended the masonry wall for a couple of
reasons: 1) Due to existing Code requirements for screening of mechanical equipment; 2)
The assumption that operators would want to secure their property; 3) Because chain-link
isn’t permitted within public view it would be challenging to make the transition in
materials from street adjacent side yard toward the rear; and 4) In Mesa, unless in a group
commercial center with cross access, most commercial and industrial properties end up
installing a masonry whether for security or buffering from surrounding uses.
 
Instead, staff tried to provide a more flexible approach along street side setbacks with
requirements that mirror those for typical parking lots.
 
2. Fence Materials in Commercial and Employment Districts.
a. Materials. Walls and Fences shall be constructed of high-quality materials, such
as tinted, textured blocks; brick; stone; or ornamental metal; and shall
complement the design of an overall development and its surroundings.
i. Chain link may only be used when not visible from public view.
ii. Wood fencing is not allowed, except wood may be used in conjunction
with metal frames for gates used in conjunction with required Screening
walls.
iii. The use of barbed wire, razor wire, embedded glass shards, ultra barrier,
electrified and other hazardous fencing is prohibited in Street-facing yards
or where adjacent to any public Right-Of-Way.
 
Hope this helps explain some of the rational and provides some surety on the Accessory
Electric Vehicle Charging regulations.

Best Regards,
Rachel
 
 
Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
 
 
 
 
 
From: Kevin Xue <zixue@tesla.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 3:29 PM
To: Rachel Phillips <Rachel.Phillips@MesaAZ.gov>; Long Range Planning
<LongRangePlanning@MesaAZ.gov>; Sean Pesek <Sean.Pesek@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Francesca Wahl <fwahl@tesla.com>; David Ely <daely@tesla.com>; Ian Linssen
<Ian.Linssen@MesaAZ.gov>; Chris Tiller <Chris.Tiller@mesaaz.gov>; Kirstin Dvorchak
<Kirstin.Dvorchak@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah <Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: Tesla Comments - City of Mesa Proposed Text Amendment - Service Stations & Fleet-
Based Services
 
Hi Rachel, Thank you for confirming the 16-stall cap correction, and for the clarification regarding accessory screening. To answer your question regarding charger types: If Tesla were to operate a standalone public site (classified as a Service
Hi Rachel,
 
Thank you for confirming the 16-stall cap correction, and for the clarification regarding
accessory screening.
 
To answer your question regarding charger types: If Tesla were to operate a standalone public
site (classified as a Service Station), we would be deploying Level 3 / DC Fast Chargers (DCFC).
 
From a site design perspective, our Level 3 dispensers and power cabinets are fully NEMA-rated,
self-contained, weatherproof outdoor appliances. Unlike liquid fuel pumps, which require
canopies for fire safety, spill suppression, and to keep rainwater out of underground tanks, DC
Fast Chargers are designed specifically to sit safely exposed to the elements. This is why
mandating a shade structure for EV charging is unnecessary from a safety standpoint and why
making them optional ("may be covered") allows us to deploy capital much more efficiently on
challenging infill sites.
 
Regarding your comment on screening: It is very helpful to know that standard Accessory EV
Charging will not trigger the fleet screening rules. However, we want to clarify how the revised
code treats actual fleet uses:

Accessory Fleet Uses: If a site is approved for "Light Fleet-Based Services" as an
accessory use (which is permitted in LC, GC, LI, GI, and HI), can you confirm that this
accessory fleet use is also exempt from the internal side and rear masonry screening
walls? We want to ensure that is clear in the language.
Primary Fleet Uses (Fencing vs. Masonry): For a standalone private fleet hub, a 6-foot
masonry wall along the side and rear property lines is cost-prohibitive. Does the addition
of 11-31-40(C) Fences and Walls allow for standard commercial fencing to be used in lieu
of a masonry wall?
 
Thank you again for taking this into consideration. We have noted the June 24th Planning and
Zoning Board date and look forward to seeing the final draft!
 
Best,
Kevin
 
 
Kevin Xue
Policy Analyst, North American Charging
3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304
E. zixue@tesla.com
 
From: Rachel Phillips <Rachel.Phillips@MesaAZ.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 10:28 AM
To: Kevin Xue <zixue@tesla.com>; Long Range Planning <LongRangePlanning@MesaAZ.gov>; Sean
Pesek <Sean.Pesek@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Francesca Wahl <fwahl@tesla.com>; David Ely <daely@tesla.com>; Bill Ehrlich
<wehrlich@tesla.com>; Ian Linssen <Ian.Linssen@MesaAZ.gov>; Chris Tiller
<Chris.Tiller@mesaaz.gov>; Kirstin Dvorchak <Kirstin.Dvorchak@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah
<Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: RE: Tesla Comments - City of Mesa Proposed Text Amendment - Service Stations & Fleet-
Based Services
 
Kevin,
   Thank you for the feedback.
 
We did see this miss on the 16-stall cap and corrected that. Thank you for mentioning it.
 
Staff will take your comments on #2 into consideration. If I could ask a follow up question.
If Tesla were to operate a Service Station would they have a standardized type of charger?
(Type 1, 2,3?)

On your comment #3 I want to clarify one item. Accessory Electric Vehicle Charging is not
subject to Service Station or Fleet-Based Service development standards. That being said
they wouldn’t be required to provide any screening.
 
Thanks again for the comments and we’ll be in touch with any further revisions and a
reminder that we’re heading to the Planning and Zoning Board for their recommendation
on June 24th.
 
Best Regards,
Rachel
 
 
Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
 
From: Kevin Xue <zixue@tesla.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 9:52 AM
To: Rachel Phillips <Rachel.Phillips@MesaAZ.gov>; Long Range Planning
<LongRangePlanning@MesaAZ.gov>; Sean Pesek <Sean.Pesek@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Francesca Wahl <fwahl@tesla.com>; David Ely <daely@tesla.com>; Bill Ehrlich
<wehrlich@tesla.com>; Ian Linssen <Ian.Linssen@MesaAZ.gov>; Chris Tiller
<Chris.Tiller@mesaaz.gov>; Kirstin Dvorchak <Kirstin.Dvorchak@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah
<Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: Tesla Comments - City of Mesa Proposed Text Amendment - Service Stations & Fleet-
Based Services
 
Hi Rachel, Thank you for sharing the revised draft and for taking the time to incorporate stakeholder feedback. We appreciate you and the team working with us on this. The new allowance for EV spaces to utilize up to 20% of required parking,
Hi Rachel,
 
Thank you for sharing the revised draft and for taking the time to incorporate stakeholder
feedback. We appreciate you and the team working with us on this.
 
The new allowance for EV spaces to utilize up to 20% of required parking, as well as increasing
the Light Fleet threshold to 50 vehicles, are promising updates. These changes will significantly
help us deploy charging at commercial host sites.
 
As we reviewed the revised text, we wanted to flag one quick drafting cleanup, along with our two
primary remaining concerns regarding physical site design:
 
1. Drafting Cleanup: The 16-Stall Cap
We saw that staff successfully removed the 16-stall limit for accessory charging in the

Commercial Districts (Table 11-6-2, Note 33). However, it appears the 16-stall limit was
accidentally left intact in the Employment Districts (Table 11-7-2, Note 24) and Downtown
Districts (Table 11-8-2, Note 19). We assume the intent was to remove this universally, so we
wanted to flag those sections for consistency.
 
2. Standalone Hubs: Mandatory Shade Structures (Section 11-31-25.D)
We see that staff separated EV charging from fuel pump canopies and created a new "Shade
Structure" requirement. While we appreciate the distinction, the new text still dictates that EV
spaces "shall be covered" by a shade structure. While we frequently build solar shade structures
where site geometry allows, mandating them on every standalone site will render many urban
and infill locations physically or economically unfeasible due to underground utility conflicts,
footing setbacks, and massive civil costs. We respectfully request that Section 11-31-25(D) be
amended to state that EV spaces "may be covered" by a shade structure, keeping it optional.
 
3. Private/Fleet Hubs: Internal Masonry Screening (Section 11-31-40.B.1.b)
The requirement to build a 6-foot masonry wall along internal side and rear property lines is a
major blocker for our private charging pipeline.
 
For standalone private hubs, this is cost-prohibitive.
For accessory sites, commercial landlords will simply not allow us to build 6-foot
concrete walls in the middle of their properties.
Furthermore, because Section 11-31-40(A)(2)(b) already requires accessory fleet vehicles
to be parked on the side or rear of a building, an additional internal masonry wall is
redundant. We ask that this internal 6-foot masonry wall requirement be removed or
replaced with flexible landscaping options.
 
Thank you again for your continued partnership in helping us remove barriers to EV
infrastructure. Please let me know if you have any questions. 
 
Best,
Kevin
From: Rachel Phillips <Rachel.Phillips@MesaAZ.gov>
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 4:38 PM
To: Francesca Wahl <fwahl@tesla.com>; Long Range Planning <LongRangePlanning@MesaAZ.gov>;
Sean Pesek <Sean.Pesek@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Kevin Xue <zixue@tesla.com>; David Ely <daely@tesla.com>; Bill Ehrlich <wehrlich@tesla.com>;
Ian Linssen <Ian.Linssen@MesaAZ.gov>; Chris Tiller <Chris.Tiller@mesaaz.gov>; Kirstin Dvorchak
<Kirstin.Dvorchak@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah <Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: RE: Tesla Comments - City of Mesa Proposed Text Amendment - Service Stations & Fleet-
Based Services
 
Francesca,

I wanted to follow up and share with you and your team revisions that staff has made to
the proposed text amendments in response to stakeholder comments. I hope you’ll see
that we tried to address several of your comments such as the threshold for Accessory
Electric Vehicle Charging, the use of required parking for Accessory Vehicle Charging, and
canopy requirements for Service Stations.  
 
Please let us know if you have any other thoughts/comments.
 
Best Regards,
Rachel
 
 
Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
 
 
From: Rachel Phillips 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 8:03 AM
To: Francesca Wahl <fwahl@tesla.com>; Long Range Planning <LongRangePlanning@MesaAZ.gov>;
Sean Pesek <Sean.Pesek@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Kevin Xue <zixue@tesla.com>; David Ely <daely@tesla.com>; Bill Ehrlich <wehrlich@tesla.com>;
Ian Linssen <Ian.Linssen@MesaAZ.gov>; Chris Tiller <Chris.Tiller@mesaaz.gov>; Kirstin Dvorchak
<Kirstin.Dvorchak@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah <Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: RE: Tesla Comments - City of Mesa Proposed Text Amendment - Service Stations & Fleet-
Based Services
 
Francesca,
Thank you for your comments. We will review them in greater detail as part of our
continued evaluation of the proposed text amendment. I did, however, want to provide
clarification on a few items, as there may be some misunderstanding regarding how new
and existing language is presented within a text amendment, as well as how certain
requirements related to electric vehicle charging interact with other applicable standards
within the Zoning Ordinance.
 
If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of the comments further, please feel
free to reach out.
 
Thank you,
Rachel

Rachel Phillips, AICP │ Assistant Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-2762
55 N. Center St. | Mesa, AZ  85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
 
 
 
 
 
 
From: Francesca Wahl <fwahl@tesla.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:40 PM
To: Long Range Planning <longrangeplanning@mesaaz.gov>; Sean Pesek <Sean.Pesek@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Kevin Xue <zixue@tesla.com>; David Ely <daely@tesla.com>; Bill Ehrlich <wehrlich@tesla.com>
Subject: Tesla Comments - City of Mesa Proposed Text Amendment - Service Stations & Fleet-Based
Services
 
Please find attached Tesla’s comments on the proposed text amendments to related to Service Stations and Fleet-Based Services. We’d be happy to jump on a brief call if you have any questions regarding our comments. ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍
Please find attached Tesla’s comments on the proposed text amendments to related to
Service Stations and Fleet-Based Services.
 
We’d be happy to jump on a brief call if you have any questions regarding our comments.

City of Mesa Response : 5/27/26 
TO: City of Mesa Planning Division 
FROM: Kevin Xue, Policy Analyst, Tesla 
DATE: May 26, 2026 
SUBJECT: Public Comment – Proposed Text Amendments (Service Stations & Fleet-Based 
Services) 
 
As a provider of direct current fast charging (DCFC) infrastructure, Tesla appreciates the 
opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed text amendments that impact electric 
vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure deployment in Mesa. While incorporating EV charging 
into the zoning code is important, applying legacy gas-station standards to EV 
infrastructure will materially constrain deployments. 
 
We respectfully request the following text modifications: 
 
1. RECONSIDER "SERVICE STATION" LIMITS FOR STANDALONE DCFC 
• Code Section: 11-86-4; 11-31-25(A) and (B). 
• Issue: Standalone DCFC sites currently default to the "Service Station" 
classification, triggering legacy liquid-fuel limits like a maximum of two (2) stations 
per intersection and 100-foot frontage minimums. This directly suppresses EV hub 
deployment at high-traffic intersections. 
• Proposed Modification: Either (a) create a distinct "Electric Vehicle Charging 
Station" use classification, or (b) amend 11-31-25(A) and (B) to exempt facilities 
dispensing only electricity from the 2-per-intersection cap and 100-foot frontage 
minimum. 
 
2. REMOVE OR RAISE THE 16-STALL CAP ON ACCESSORY CHARGING 
• Code Sections: Table 11-6-2 (Notes 32, 33); Table 11-7-2 (Notes 23, 24); Table 11-8- 
2 (Notes 18, 19). 
• Issue: Capping accessory charging at 16 spaces ignores modern deployments, 
which routinely exceed 20 stalls at retail host sites. Furthermore, prohibiting EV 
stalls from counting toward the principal use's minimum parking severely 
suppresses host-site viability. 
• Proposed Modification: Strike the 16-space limit (or raise it to a minimum of 40 
spaces). Separately, amend Notes 32, 23, and 18 to allow a defined percentage of 
EV-equipped stalls to count toward the principal use's minimum parking. 
 
3. EXEMPT EV CHARGING FROM FUEL-PUMP QUEUING STANDARDS 
• Code Section: 11-31-25(G). 
• Issue: The 20- to 36-foot stacking distances are designed for physical lines at gas 
pumps. EV queuing is managed digitally, and dwell times are longer.

• Proposed Modification: Add subsection 11-31-25(G)(4): "Electric Vehicle Supply 
Equipment (EVSE) and EV charging stalls are exempt from the stacking distance 
requirements of this subsection, provided the site provides adequate internal 
circulation that does not impede the public right-of-way." 
• City Response: Please see Section 11-31-25(G)(3) which allows for the Planning 
Director to consider modifications to the stacking requirements based on, “…an 
Onsite Circulation and Stacking Study, that the proposed modifications to the 
stacking requirements are sufficient to meet the demands of the development, 
including site-specific conditions, charging technology, demonstrated demand, 
and the traffic circulation.” This exception was included with EV charging in mind 
and should already address this concern.  
 
4. MAKE CANOPIES OPTIONAL AND ADJUST DESIGN STANDARDS 
• Code Sections: 11-31-25(C)(1) and (C)(2). 
• Issue: Section 11-31-25(C) mandates that EV charging stations "shall be covered by 
a canopy." Mandating canopies for all DCFC sites is financially and physically 
unfeasible for many deployments. Furthermore, if a canopy is built, the 16-foot 
height limit restricts solar integration, and requiring fascia to match a "primary 
building" is impossible for standalone EV sites where no primary building exists. 
• Proposed Modification: 
o Amend (C) to make EV canopies optional: "Fuel pump islands shall be 
covered by a canopy... Electric Vehicle Charging Stations may be covered by 
a canopy." 
o Amend (C)(1): "The maximum height of the service station canopy shall be 16 
feet, except that canopies integrating solar photovoltaic generation may 
extend up to 20 feet, subject to administrative approval." 
o Amend (C)(2): "When a primary building is present, the canopy fascia shall 
match or complement the color and texture of the primary building. Service 
Stations without a primary building shall meet the fascia width standard but 
are exempt from the matching requirement." 
o City Response: Please see Section 11-31-25(C) which states that fuel and 
charging canopies must match and complement the design of the main 
structure (when present). The current text should already address this 
concern. 
 
5. STREAMLINE THE SOUND STUDY REQUIREMENT 
• Code Section: 11-31-25(H). 
• Issue: Requiring site-specific sound studies for the 100-foot residential setback 
adds unnecessary cost and delay, as DCFC power cabinets have standardized, 
manufacturer-published acoustic profiles. 
• Proposed Modification: Amend 11-31-25(H)(2) to allow the Planning Director to

accept a manufacturer-provided acoustic profile for standard DCFC equipment in 
lieu of a site-specific sound study, provided it demonstrates compliance with the 60 
dB property-line standard. 
6. RESOLVE FLEET-BASED SERVICES THRESHOLDS, CLASSIFICATION GRAY ZONE, 
AND SSD PROTECTIONS 
• Code Section: 11-86-4 (Service Station & Fleet-Based Services definitions). 
• Issue: The draft creates regulatory uncertainty: (1) Conflicting vehicle-count triggers 
(5 vs. 3 vs. 2). (2) An undefined "dedicated to fleet charging" exclusion creates 
ambiguity for public hubs incidentally serving fleets. (3) Failing to exclude vehicle 
delivery or mobile service dispatch puts Sales, Service, and Delivery (SSD) locations 
at risk of being reclassified as industrial Fleet-Based Services, triggering severe 
screening, parking, and setback penalties. (4) The classification gray zone runs in 
both directions: a Fleet-Based Service site that incidentally offers charging to the 
public could likewise be reclassified as a Service Station, blocking mixed-use 
deployments. 
• Proposed Modification: 
o Standardize thresholds: Conform all Fleet-Based Services definitions to a 
"more than five (5) vehicles" threshold. 
o Define "dedicated" bidirectionally: Add to the Service Station definition: "A 
Service Station that incidentally serves fleet vehicles shall not be reclassified 
as Fleet-Based Services unless the site provides fleet-only stalls, 
dispatching, or staging, or fleet use represents the majority of charging 
sessions on an annualized basis." Add a corresponding clarification to the 
Fleet-Based Services definition: "A Fleet-Based Service that incidentally 
provides charging or fueling to the general public shall not be reclassified as 
a Service Station, provided that fleet use remains the primary purpose of the 
site." 
o Extend exclusions: Append to the Fleet-Based Services exclusion list: "This 
use also does not include vehicle delivery operations, mobile service 
dispatch, or other vehicle-based activities incidental to an 
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services principal use." 
o City Response to 1: Please note that text shown as strike through is text 
that is proposed to be removed. The vehicle count threshold for Fleet 
Services used to be three (3); staff is proposing that be increased to five (5). 
o City Response to 2:  The reference to EVSE in the definition states that EVSE 
may be an accessory component of Fleet Services.  
o City Response to 3: Please note that delivery services and dispatch of 
passenger vehicle transport such as taxi and limousine services currently 
fall under the City’s definition of Fleet Services. This is not a proposed 
modification. The new definitions create a teared system based on vehicle 
count and size which allows the City to expand where Light Fleet-Based

Services may be permitted.  
o City Response to 4: Correct a business that offered charging to private 
individuals, not for its fleet service, would no longer fall under the 
definition of Fleet Services and would be subject to the standards for 
Service Stations.  
 
7. CORRECT BESS SCREENING OPACITY AND EXPAND VINYL WRAP APPLICATION 
• Code Sections: 11-31-37(F)(7); 11-31-36(F)(9); 11-30-9(D). 
• Issue: First, the BESS screening opacity language contains typographical 
contradictions (e.g., "no more LESS than 75% opaque"). Second, while we strongly 
support the forward-looking allowance for vinyl artistic wraps on transformers, this 
provision should be expanded to visually similar utility equipment (like BESS 
enclosures and switchgear) frequently co-located with EV charging. 
• Proposed Modification: 
o Correct Opacity: Amend 11-31-37(F)(7)(b)(ii)(2) to correctly read: "A 
decorative louvered, slated, or perforated upper screen, no less than 50% 
and no more than 75% opaque..." to match parallel provisions. 
o Expand Vinyl Wraps: Amend 11-30-9(D) to read: "Electrical transformers, 
Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) enclosures, switchgear, and similar 
ground-mounted utility equipment may be screened using vinyl artistic 
wrap..." 
o City Response: Please note that text shown as strikethrough is text that is 
proposed to be removed. Staff corrected 11-31-37(F)(7)(b)(ii)(2). BESS 
infrastructure that is used by EVSE likely falls under the provisions of Section 
11-31-37(B)(2) as an accessory use and therefore is not subject to the 
development standards of Section 11-31-37.  
 
8. ALLOW FLEXIBLE SCREENING AT INTERNAL PROPERTY LINES FOR FLEET-BASED 
SERVICES 
• Code Sections: 11-31-40(B)(1)(b); 11-31-40(B)(4). 
• Issue: The required six (6)-foot masonry wall along all internal side and rear property 
lines is disproportionate to visual impact where the adjacent use is commercial, 
employment, or industrial rather than residential, and where the area is already 
internally delineated by striping or signage per 11-31-40(A)(1)(b). The existing 
alternative screening path at 11-31-40(B)(4) requires a line-of-sight study and Zoning 
Administrator approval, adding cost and delay at every site. 
• Proposed Modification: 
o Amend 11-31-40(B)(1)(b): "Ground-based vehicle parking, charging, and/or 
storage areas shall be screened along internal side and rear property lines by 
a six (6) foot tall masonry wall when adjacent to a residential district or 
residential use. For all other adjacencies, screening may be provided by a

masonry wall, decorative metal fencing, landscape buffer, or building wall 
that achieves equivalent visual screening, subject to administrative review." 
o Alternatively, amend 11-31-40(B)(4) to allow alternative screening methods 
to be approved administratively without a line-of-sight study where the site is 
not adjacent to a residential district or residential use. 
 
Thank you for your time and consideration of these proposed modifications. We share the 
City of Mesa's objective of modernizing the zoning code to support evolving transportation 
technologies.

June 3, 2026 
 
Ms. Rachel Phillips 
Assistant Planning Director 
City of Mesa 
20 East Main Street 
Mesa, Arizona 85201 
 
Transmitted Via Email 
 
Dear Ms. Phillips: 
 
Thank you for the opportunity for Valley Partnership to meet with you and your team 
last week to discuss the City’s proposed 2026 Zoning Code Refinement.  
 
As you know, Valley Partnership, representing 350 Company Partners and almost 2,000 
Members advocating for responsible development, has worked for decades in 
collaboration with municipalities, including Mesa, to craft and support policies that 
create clarity and certainty in the development process.  
 
We want to recognize and thank you and your team for sharing these proposed Zoning 
Code amendments with the development community. Additionally, we truly appreciate 
your willingness to quickly schedule a meeting with us to clarify the questions we had, 
as well as your knowledgeable responses.  
 
Thank you for continuing to work with us in partnership. Please don’t hesitate to 
contact me with any questions. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
 
Clark Princell 
President & CEO 
 
Cc:  Scott Butler, Mesa City Manager  
 
Nana Appiah, Development Services Director