Extracted text (via pymupdf)
56815 characters
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
COUNCIL MINUTES
January 8, 2026
The City Council of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main Street, on
January 8, 2026, at 7:30 a.m.
COUNCIL PRESENT
COUNCIL ABSENT
OFFICERS PRESENT
Mark Freeman
Scott Somers
Rich Adams
Jennifer Duff
Alicia Goforth
Francisco Heredia
Dorean Taylor
None
Scott Butler
Holly Moseley
Jim Smith
Mayor Freeman conducted a roll call.
1.
Review and discuss items on the agenda for the January 12, 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: None
In response to a request from Councilmember Duff regarding agenda Item 8-a, (Proposed
amendments to Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 31, 86, and 87 of Title 11 of the Mesa City Code
pertaining to Battery Energy Storage Systems. The amendments include, but are not
limited to: adding definitions for Battery Energy Storage System, Battery Energy Storage
System Facility, Augmentation, and Nameplate Capacity; modifying land use tables to add
Battery Energy Storage System and Battery Energy Storage System Facility; establishing
development and other standards specific to Battery Energy Storage System Facilities.
(Citywide)), on the Regular Council Meeting agenda, Planning Director Mary Kopaskie-Brown
provided an update on ongoing efforts related to the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) text
amendments and confirmed that the 1,000-foot separation requirement in residential areas is
moving forward for approval as discussed at the December Study Session. She reported that a
pre-application for a BESS facility had been received and determined to be consistent with the
proposed separation requirements, and that two additional compliant locations had also been
identified.
City Manager Scott Butler stated that the proposed ordinance would allow both previously
reviewed applications to move forward with their BESS facilities. He recognized Council’s interest
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 2
in continuing to evaluate the separation distance requirements as BESS technology and safety
standards evolve and advised that staff will continue working with utility providers and other
stakeholders to better understand future needs.
In response to a question from Councilmember Duff, Ms. Kopaskie-Brown clarified that the BESS
facility currently under construction near Signal Butte was approved prior to the interpretation that
temporarily restricted BESS facilities within the City and therefore may proceed. She stated that
all required approvals are in place and the project is moving forward. She noted that the applicant
is also evaluating a second site at a different location.
Mr. Butler stated that any change in the separation distance would require Council legislative
action. He noted that staff were directed by the majority of Council to proceed with the 1,000-foot
separation requirement, as reflected in the proposed ordinance. He confirmed that Council may
revisit and modify the requirement in the future as perspectives evolve or additional safeguards
become available.
Councilmember Duff expressed opposition to the proposed 1,000-foot separation requirement
which lacks supporting evidence for the proposed distance.
In response to a question from Mayor Freeman, City Attorney Jim Smith pointed out that once an
ordinance is introduced, it cannot be amended and must be reintroduced if changes are proposed.
He explained the Charter requirements related to the process of proposed ordinances, advising
that Council may direct staff to introduce a new ordinance reflecting a different separation
distance, if desired. He noted that the second site, currently under consideration, complies with
the 1,000-foot requirement and that further delay would impact the applicant’s ability to move
forward. He explained that based on discussions with the applicant, the second site is further
along in the review process than the third site, which could require up to three months for rezoning.
He reported that based on meetings with Salt River Project (SRP), the first and second sites were
more time-sensitive relative to SRP’s project timelines. He advised that Council could adopt the
1,000-foot separation requirement at the upcoming meeting to allow the second site to proceed,
and later direct staff to consider alternative separation distances, such as 400 feet, through a
future ordinance while rezoning for the third site is underway.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Heredia, Ms. Kopaskie-Brown confirmed that the
proposed ordinance was structured similar to the City’s approach for data centers, requiring a
Planned Area Development (PAD) process to locate a BESS facility, thereby providing Council
with decision-making authority over siting. She noted that this requirement does not affect the two
projects currently in pre-submittal and stated that any future BESS proposals, including those on
the west side of the City, would be subject to the PAD process. She further stated that, consistent
with the data center model, the development standards could not be modified through the PAD,
meaning the 1,000-foot separation requirement would remain in effect as recommended by staff.
Discussion ensued regarding the number of sites potentially impacted by the proposed
amendment and the site locations of the applications currently under review.
Assistant Planning Director Rachel Phillips presented the COM zoning map from the City of Mesa
(COM) website and identified the zoning types of properties located near the proposed BESS
sites. (See Attachment 1)
Vice Mayor Somers reiterated his support for the 1,000-foot separation distance and stated that
the amendment balances current energy needs with public safety considerations.
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 3
Councilmember Adams stated his support for approving the ordinance as presented and indicated
an interest in revisiting the issue as further data becomes available.
Councilmember Goforth expressed her support for the ordinance as presented.
Councilmember Taylor reflected on the proximity of residential uses near highway corridors and
expressed uncertainty regarding whether the 1,000-foot separation distance was excessive,
insufficient, or whether additional land use buffers such as light industrial or commercial zoning
would be appropriate. She reiterated that Council retains the ability to take future legislative action
to revisit the separation distance if additional information or policy considerations warrant a
change and confirmed her support of the ordinance as presented.
Mayor Freeman discussed potential updates to the International Fire Code (IFC) related to BESS
that would provide an additional framework for evaluating BESS safety. He expressed concern
regarding the 1,000-foot separation distance, stated a preference for a smaller setback, and noted
that Council would determine the appropriate standard through the upcoming vote on the
ordinance.
In response to a request from Mayor Freeman regarding agenda Item 8-d, (ZON24-00998 "623
S Mesa Dr" 0.6± acres located approximately 1,420 feet south of the southeast corner of
East Broadway Road and South Mesa Drive. Rezone from Multiple Residence-2 (RM-2) to
Multiple Residence-4 with a Bonus Intensity Zone overlay (RM-4-BIZ) and Site Plan Review
for a 15-unit multiple residence development. 623 South Mesa LLC, owner; Tim Boyle,
Atmosphere Architects, applicant. (District 4)), on the Regular Council Meeting agenda,
Principal Planner Evan Balmer displayed a PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 2)
Mr. Balmer provided an overview of the request to rezone a vacant infill property from Multiple
Residence-2 (RM-2) to Multiple Residence-4 (RM-4) with a Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay and
Site Plan Review to allow development of a 15-unit multiple residence project. He confirmed that
the subject property is located on the east side of Mesa Drive, south of Broadway Road, and is
designated as Urban Residential under the Mesa 2050 General Plan, which supports multi-family
residential as a principal land use. (See Pages 2 through 4 of Attachment 2)
Mr. Balmer pointed out that the RM-4 zoning permits up to 30 dwelling units per acre and that the
proposed development, at 25.9 dwelling units per acre, is within the allowable density. He
explained that the proposed project includes three residential buildings, garage parking,
pedestrian walkways, guest parking, and amenity areas. He stated that the Bonus Intensity Zone
Overlay criteria emphasize high-quality design, environmental performance, open space, and
amenities, all of which are addressed by the proposal, including a landscaped primary open space
feature at the west end of the site utilizing condensate from air-conditioning units as a secondary
water source. (See Pages 5 through 14 of Attachment 2)
Mr. Balmer reported that the applicant exceeds private open space requirements, has provided a
well-landscaped site plan to buffer adjacent uses, and addressed comments received from the
Design Review Board through revised building elevations. He discussed the community
engagement efforts that resulted in one adjacent property owner expressing concerns regarding
density and height. He verified that the proposal is consistent with the Mesa 2050 General Plan
and meets the criteria for the Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay and Site Plan Review. He confirmed
that staff recommended approval with conditions, and the Planning and Zoning Board also
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 4
recommended approval with conditions by a vote of 5-0. (See Pages 15 through 18 of Attachment
2)
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Mr. Balmer commented that parking is a key
consideration for infill development, particularly to avoid overflow where limited on-street or
overflow parking is available. He explained that this site is a unique midblock infill parcel that
requires certain concessions to be developable, and that the applicant exceeds parking
requirements by providing two spaces per unit, including two-car garages, thereby exceeding the
code standard. He acknowledged the limited opportunity for overflow parking but noted that the
site’s proximity to transit, including nearby bus stops, supports reduced reliance on on-street
parking. He explained that the site is surrounded by a mix of zoning and the proposal furthers the
goals of the Mesa 2050 General Plan by providing additional housing on a small, constrained infill
parcel that would be difficult to develop for other uses. He added that the project provides social
and economic benefits through the addition of housing and exceeds development standards,
including the use of air-conditioning condensate as a secondary irrigation water source.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
Responding to a request from Mayor Freeman regarding agenda Item 8-b, (An ordinance
amending and adopting Mesa City code park regulations sections 6-10-2, 6-10-4, 6-10-7,
and 6-10-8 to allow the use of certain electric bicycles, electric scooters and other
motorized and non-motorized vehicles in city parks and shared-use paths, subject to
certain limitations. (Citywide)), on the Regular Council Meeting agenda, Vice Mayor Somers
stated that other local jurisdictions have recently made changes to their e-bike ordinances, noting
that this amendment represents an initial step in addressing the issue. He stated his opinion that
moving forward with the ordinance as introduced is appropriate, while continuing to review best
practices and make future adjustments as needed. He added that he would be willing to continue
examining the issue through the Public Safety Committee.
Councilmember Goforth expressed her support for moving forward with the proposed ordinance
as presented.
Responding to a question from Mayor Freeman, Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities
Recreation Management Assistant II Haylie Smith confirmed that the term shared-use path
includes the canal paths, which provides consistency across the City Code as that terminology is
already used in the Transportation Code to refer to the SRP canal system.
In response to a question from Councilmember Duff, Ms. Smith confirmed that the proposed state
legislation related to e-bikes would amend the same section of the Arizona Revised Statutes. She
explained that both bills propose a maximum speed limit of 15 miles per hour on multi-use paths,
shared-use paths, and sidewalks, with a reduced speed of five miles per hour when passing
pedestrians. She further noted that the proposed legislation would allow local jurisdictions to adopt
more restrictive speed limits if desired, thereby establishing a maximum ceiling while preserving
local authority.
Discussion ensued regarding proposed state legislation addressing e-bike definitions.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Smith stated that the ordinance would
not apply to Homeowners Association (HOA) neighborhoods or parks and added that the City will
coordinate with HOAs to communicate the direction adopted by Council as they may choose to
implement similar measures.
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 5
Mr. Smith added that many of the vehicles operating at high speeds in parks are not e-bikes but
electric motorcycles, which are regulated under state statute. He noted that while such vehicles
may be located within HOA areas, they may still be subject to state regulations and clarified that
the ordinance under consideration is not intended to apply to private property.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of separate lanes for pedestrian and bicycle
use.
Councilmember Adams acknowledged the need to establish regulatory standards, including the
proposed 15-mile-per-hour speed limit, but raised concerns regarding the City’s ability to
effectively enforce such regulations on shared-use paths. He voiced that while he does not
oppose the ordinance, he views the issue as complex, evolving, and one that will require
continued attention as usage increases.
Councilmember Duff added that the COM had previously installed cameras in parks that
experience recurring issues and utilize the Real Time Crime Center to monitor conditions and
deploy officers when necessary. She emphasized that establishing clear rules and standards
increases awareness and encourages voluntary compliance among the majority of users.
Mr. Butler stated that a revised agenda will be published to reflect the recommendation to
approve agenda Item 3-a as well as the request to approve the Charter Officer contract revisions.
Mayor Freeman reported that the Fire and Life Safety Department will be receiving two new
hazardous materials (HazMat) trucks, identified as E-1 Cyclone units, at a cost of approximately
$2.7 million each. He noted that these specialized apparatuses are critical to emergency response
and can be deployed both within the COM and to assist neighboring communities.
Mayor Freeman declared a recess at 8:36 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:43 a.m.
2-a.
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide direction on the proposed amendments to Title 2
(Boards and Commission) and Title 11 (Mesa Zoning Ordinance) related to the organization and
duties of the Planning and Zoning Board and the Design Review Board.
Ms. Kopaskie-Brown displayed a PowerPoint presentation relating to proposed amendments to
Title 2 and Title 11. (See Attachment 3)
Ms. Kopaskie-Brown stated that staff has heard ongoing concerns from City Council regarding
voting outcomes and recommendations on key items, as well as declining attendance on the
Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board. She emphasized that the Board serves a critical role as the
recommending body for many land use and development items coming before Council, and that
maintaining a fully seated board is essential to avoiding delays, ensuring transparency, and
maintaining quorums for both residents and the development community. (See Page 2 of
Attachment 3)
Ms. Kopaskie-Brown presented the proposed changes related to the P&Z Board. She
summarized the first recommendation to add three alternate members to ensure consistent
quorum, provide continuity in decision-making, and create a pipeline for future board members
through training and participation. She noted that alternates would rotate as needed and support
meeting reliability. She reviewed the second recommendation which proposed modifying the
composition of the P&Z Board to include three design professionals, one of whom would be a
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 6
contractor or developer, and four community representatives. She explained that of the proposed
alternates, at least one would be a design professional to preserve technical expertise. She stated
that this composition would more closely mirror the Design Review Board (DRB) and strengthen
design expertise at the Planning and Zoning level. She verified that the recommended changes
are in response to House Bill 2447 which requires jurisdictions to establish administrative review
processes based on objective design standards. (See Pages 3 through 5 of Attachment 3)
Ms. Kopaskie-Brown explained that staff recommended simplifying the review process for the
development community by combining the site plan and design review processes into a single
application. She stated that this approach would allow staff to present all design-related issues to
a single reviewing body and better align the roles and responsibilities of reviewing and approving
authorities. She outlined the proposed review structure, noting that the Planning Director would
be authorized to approve site plans and design reviews that meet all objective development and
design standards required by state law, noting any exceptions that may apply. She explained that
applications requesting alternative compliance with objective design standards would be reviewed
by the DRB, which would also provide recommendations on municipal projects. She confirmed
that final approval of municipal projects would be issued by the Planning Director based on the
DRB’s recommendation. She added that both Council and the Planning Director would retain the
ability to refer projects to the DRB for additional input, particularly for large or complex projects,
and that the DRB would serve as the appeal body for Planning Director design review decisions,
according to state law. She also stated that in certain zoning districts or previously approved
cases, the DRB may continue to act as the approving body where specifically required, but that
its primary role under the proposed framework would be reviewing requests for alternative
compliance and providing recommendations on municipal projects. (See Page 6 of Attachment
3)
Responding to a question from Councilmember Goforth, Ms. Kopaskie-Brown stated that staff
had identified specific criteria within the proposed objective standards that would allow a project
to be referred for additional review when it has the potential for significant economic or citywide
impacts. She verified that these criteria would be codified, ensuring that referrals are based on
defined standards rather than discretionary judgment by the Planning Director.
Ms. Kopaskie-Brown further explained that for applications involving rezoning such as a Planned
Area Development (PAD), a Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay (BIZ), a Council Use Permit (CUP), or
a Special Use Permit (SUP), design review would be conducted by the P&Z Board rather than
the DRB. She stated that the P&Z Board would review site plans, building design, landscaping,
and related elements and forward a comprehensive recommendation to City Council, streamlining
the process by eliminating an additional layer of review. She emphasized that this change
highlights the importance of the proposed P&Z Board composition, which includes design
professionals to ensure adequate technical expertise. She confirmed that the final approval
authority would rest with the Planning Director for administratively reviewed cases and with City
Council for P&Z Board cases, with the Board continuing to serve in a recommending role, not
approval. (See Page 6 of Attachment 3)
Ms. Phillips provided additional background, explaining that the proposed changes stem from
recent state requirements, mandating that development review and approval be based on
objective standards and she described how the law significantly changes the Board’s role. She
explained that the COM previously maintained two separate but overlapping processes, site plan
review and design review, requiring applicants to submit two applications that followed parallel
but not fully aligned review paths.
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 7
Ms. Phillips stated that consolidating development review into a single process would eliminate
duplication and improve efficiency. She clarified that the DRB has historically functioned in a
recommending role and that, with the transition to objective standards, the Board would only
review requests for deviations or alternative compliance as outlined in the revised criteria of the
proposed text amendments. She added that projects requiring the P&Z Board and City Council
review would continue under the existing process, with the P&Z Board reviewing building
elevations, landscaping, and design elements as part of site plan review.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed approval structure.
Councilmember Adams stated his support for the proposed ordinance, emphasizing the
importance of review by a full board.
Responding to a comment from Councilmember Adams, Mr. Smith stated that, in simplified terms,
legislative actions involve a high level of discretion, while administrative actions are limited to
compliance with objective standards. He agreed that when an application meets those objective
standards, additional requirements cannot be imposed. He reflected on past development review
experiences in which projects moved sequentially through staff review and the DR, often resulting
in additional comments, plan revisions, added costs, and delays before reaching P&Z Board
consideration. He stated that the proposed changes would reduce duplication, streamline
approvals where appropriate, and improve efficiency for projects eligible for administrative review,
which he identified as the overall objective of the ordinance.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation and confirmed that the consensus of the
Council is to proceed with approval of the ordinance as presented.
2-b.
Hear a presentation, discuss, and provide direction on the proposed amendments to Title 11
(Mesa Zoning Ordinance) related to administrative reviews, including updated procedures site
plan review, design review, site plan modifications, and objective design standards in compliance
with A.R.S. § 9-500.49.
Ms. Phillips displayed a PowerPoint Presentation on proposed amendments to Title 11. (See
Attachment 4)
Ms. Phillips stated that the proposed changes meet the requirements of House Bill 2447 and
respond to feedback received from City Council and the development community regarding
process improvement. She said that Council has consistently emphasized the need to improve
the development review process by increasing efficiency, eliminating redundancies,
strengthening interdepartmental coordination, using data to inform decisions, and creating a more
predictable and supportive development environment. She noted that the development
community has requested expanded administrative approvals, streamlined infill and
redevelopment projects, clearer site plan amendment criteria, reduced uncertainty in design
review, and greater transparency through published review schedules. (See Pages 2 and 3 of
Attachment 4)
Ms. Phillips pointed out that House Bill 2447, signed by the Governor last spring, requires
municipalities to allow administrative approvals without a public hearing for site plans and
development plans, with reviews and approvals based solely on objective standards. She noted
that Council has already approved the first phase of implementation through land division text
amendments. She stated that the current proposal represents the second phase of
implementation and focuses on establishing objective standards and revising the site plan and
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 8
design review processes. She explained that the amendments were organized around several
key changes, including redefining criteria for major and minor site plan modifications, developing
objective design standards, streamlining the development review process, and correcting
inconsistencies to improve clarity and usability of the code. (See Pages 4 and 5 of Attachment 4)
Ms. Phillips explained that the first set of proposed changes responds directly to feedback from
the development community. She stated that under the existing code, several thresholds, most
commonly a change of 5,000 square feet or 10 percent of total building area, automatically classify
a modification as major, often requiring the application to return to City Council for approval. She
noted that while clear thresholds provide consistency, a one-size-fits-all approach does not
account for differences in project scale and scope. She confirmed that staff is proposing to narrow
the definition of major site plan modifications. She reported that under the proposal, a modification
would be considered major if it involves a change in use shown on a site plan that was previously
approved by City Council and incorporated into an ordinance, adding that such changes would
be returned to City Council for review and action. She explained that changes in use can affect
zoning standards and may also result in external impacts such as increased traffic. She
emphasized that this approach ensures City Council retains oversight when proposed changes
alter the fundamental characteristics of a project that were relied upon during the original
legislative decision. (See Page 6 of Attachment 4)
Ms. Phillips confirmed that a change of use is defined in Chapter 86 of the Zoning Ordinance and
refers to a change from one defined use classification to another, or to a use not currently defined
in the code. She clarified that a major site plan modification requiring City Council approval would
occur only when a site plan originally approved by Council is proposed to change both the
approved site plan and the defined use and provided examples. (See Page 7 of Attachment 4)
Discussion ensued regarding the distinction between land use definitions and when a change of
use would be applicable.
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Mr. Smith explained that the City’s ability
to limit or regulate changes in end users is extremely limited unless a development agreement
specifically identifies and restricts the end user. He mentioned that the ordinance reflects current
practice and is not intended to change how the COM presently operates. He added that a site
plan change must occur before a change of use is evaluated; if the building footprint and exterior
remain unchanged, and no site plan modification is triggered, the use change would not require
additional review. He verified that increased regulation would generally require a development
agreement, which cannot be applied retroactively to previously approved sites.
Additional discussion ensued regarding development agreement standards.
Ms. Phillips explained that existing design standards were reviewed and revised to ensure
compliance with state requirements for objective standards and included converting discretionary
language such as should to shall, adding measurable criteria, and codifying standards previously
contained in qualitative design guidelines. She noted that design guidelines can no longer be
used for approval decisions unless incorporated into the zoning ordinance. (See Page 8 of
Attachment 4)
At 9:29 a.m., Mayor Freeman excused Councilmember Adams from the remainder of the meeting.
Ms. Phillips provided examples of newly codified objective standards, including minimum wall
articulation requirements, clarification that changes in color or texture alone do not constitute
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 9
distinct building materials, landscaping diversity requirements, and residential amenity standards
scaled to the size of the development. She stated that these changes are intended to ensure high-
quality development and that amenities are proportional to the scope of the project. (See Page 8
of Attachment 4)
Additional discussion ensued regarding how the increased specificity could reduce flexibility in
future development reviews.
Ms. Phillips outlined the proposed amendment to the development plan review process. She
pointed out that staff recommended combining the site plan and design review processes to
streamline review, reduce redundancy, and shorten timelines for applicants. She noted that
applicants currently submit duplicative materials and receive overlapping comments through
separate review tracks, which the proposed consolidation would eliminate. She added that the
streamlined process would improve clarity for the public by reducing confusion about which
boards have authority over land use, site plan, and design decisions, and ensure compliance with
state law, and that the changes would reduce the number of sequential reviews by DRB, the P&Z
Board, and City Council where not required. (See Pages 9 and 10 of Attachment 4)
Ms. Phillips provided details of the public outreach efforts made since September 2025. She
confirmed that in response to feedback from the P&Z Board and the public regarding
transparency, staff converted the proposed amendments into redline format by individual chapter
and posted them online in early December for public feedback. She noted that the amendments
were presented to the P&Z Board in December and that outreach efforts continued following that
meeting. She said based on the feedback and requests received from the development
community, staff is recommending delaying introduction of the ordinance and instead scheduling
introduction for February 23, which would allow approximately 45 additional days for review,
public comment, and coordination with stakeholders prior to returning to Council for consideration.
(See Page 11 of Attachment 4)
Mr. Butler acknowledged some frustration with the timing of stakeholder feedback but noted that
the proposed changes are part of a statewide effort, as all municipalities are required to comply
with state law. He explained that the legislation was developed collaboratively among the
Legislature, the Governor’s Office, the League of Cities and Towns, and the development
community, with the shared goal of streamlining and creating greater uniformity in development
review processes across Arizona. He emphasized that the intent of the legislation is to make
processes clearer and more predictable for the development community. He stated that given the
recent feedback, staff will delay the item until February to allow continued internal discussion and
stakeholder engagement, prioritizing a well-vetted and effective process.
Councilmember Goforth emphasized the importance of ensuring that required objective standards
reflect community values, noting that while staff did not codify all design guideline standards,
those selected represent key priorities. She expressed that Council input should guide mandatory
standards, with flexibility maintained to avoid overregulation and unnecessary complexity.
Councilmember Heredia highlighted the importance of maintaining and strengthening technical
assistance programs to help small businesses understand and comply with new requirements,
particularly those that may not have the means to hire legal or consulting support. He encouraged
staff to continue considering ways to support small businesses as these process changes are
implemented.
Councilmember Duff expressed her support for the more streamlined process.
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 10
Responding to a question from Councilmember Taylor, Ms. Phillips confirmed that applications
already in progress are given the option to proceed under the standards in effect at the time of
submittal or to elect to comply with the new standards. She stated that this approach provides
flexibility, allowing applicants to continue under prior requirements or transition to the new
standards if doing so offers a benefit.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the public outreach for the proposed code amendments.
Mayor Freeman thanked staff for the presentation.
3-a.
Appointments to Council Committees, Regional Boards, and other Committees.
It was moved by Councilmember Heredia, seconded by Councilmember Goforth, that the Council
concur with the Mayor’s recommendations and the appointments be confirmed. (See Attachment
5)
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor
NAYS – None
ABSENT – Adams
Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.
4.
Acknowledge receipt of minutes of various boards and committees.
4-a.
Education and Workforce Development Roundtable meeting held on September 3, 2025.
4-b.
Human Relations Advisory Board meeting held on October 22, 2025.
It was moved by Councilmember Goforth, seconded by Councilmember Taylor, that receipt of the
above-listed minutes be acknowledged.
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Freeman–Somers–Duff–Goforth–Heredia–Taylor
NAYS – None
ABSENT – Adams
Mayor Freeman declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.
5.
Current events summary including meetings and conferences attended.
Mayor Freeman and Councilmembers highlighted the events, meetings, and conferences recently
attended.
6.
Scheduling of meetings.
City Manager Scott Butler stated that the schedule of meetings is as follows:
Monday, January 12, 2026, 5:15 p.m. – Study Session
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Page 11
Monday, January 12, 2026, 5:45 p.m. – Regular Council
Thursday, January 15, 2026, 7:30 a.m. – Study Session
Thursday, January 15, 2026, 7:30 a.m. – Audit, Finance and Enterprise Committee
7.
Adjournment.
Without objection, the Study Session adjourned at 10:03 a.m.
____________________________________
MARK FREEMAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
HOLLY MOSELEY, 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 8th day of January 2026. I further certify that the meeting
was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
_______________________________
HOLLY MOSELEY, CITY CLERK
sr
(Attachments – 5)
Battery Energy Storage Systems
(BESS) Public Meeting
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
Rachel Phillips, Assistant Planning Director
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 13
Background
• Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and BESS Facilities are not
defined uses within the Mesa Zoning Ordinance (MZO)
• BESS are electrochemical devices that:
Charge or collect energy from the grid or generation facility
Store that energy so that it can be discharged later
Provide electricity or other grid services
• BESS includes battery cells; thermal, battery, and energy management
systems; inverters; and related control and safety components
• BESS Facilities are the physical sites that store BESS and all associated
equipment and infrastructure
2
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 13
3
Background
• BESS and BESS Facilities are an emerging and increasingly
prominent land use
Provide grid stability by storing excess power for use
during peak demand periods, outages, or emergencies
• They have unique public health and safety considerations,
including but not limited to:
Fire and explosion risk
Electric shock hazard
Environmental impacts if improperly managed or
disposed of
Emergency response challenges
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 13
Purpose
• City of Mesa’s Planning Division, Building Division, Fire & Medical,
and Energy Resources Department are proposing Zoning and Fire
Code amendments to:
Mitigate potential health, safety, and environmental impacts
Ensure land use compatibility and appropriate siting of BESS
and BESS Facilities
Ensure high-quality design and address visual impacts
Support electric capacity and economic development in the city
4
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 13
Proposed MZO Amendments
• Create land use definitions for BESS and BESS Facility
• Establish criteria for BESS and BESS Facility as either a principal or
accessory use:
Principal Use - Nameplate capacity ≥5,000 kilowatts
Accessory Use - Nameplate capacity ≤ 5,000 kilowatts and exclusively
serves the subject property
• Principal use permitted in the GI and HI Districts with approval of a
Planned Area Development (PAD) Overlay District
Must comply with all BESS and BESS Facility standards
• Accessory use permitted in Agricultural, Residential, Commercial,
Employment, and Downtown Districts
Doesn’t have to comply with BESS and BESS Facilities standards
5
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 13
Proposed MZO Amendments
Additional Application Requirements
• Operational Plan which includes:
Compliance Statement - evidence of compliance with all applicable
zoning, building, fire, and federal, state and local environmental
laws
Preliminary Emergency Response Plan - procedures for safe
shutdown, de-energizing, or isolation of equipment and systems
under emergency conditions
Preliminary Decommissioning Plan - steps required for the
complete physical removal of all BESS components
• Good Neighbor Policy - compliant response procedures
• Initial Sound Study - establish baseline levels at nearest residential
zoning district, residential use, church, park, school, or other sensitive
use
6
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 13
7
Proposed MZO Amendments
Development Standards
• Underground Utilities – if deemed necessary by the Development
Services Department or the utility provider
• Site Screening
1-ft above tallest piece of equipment
Opaque wall or fence with high quality materials
Articulated every 40 ft. with an offset or landscape pocket
• Separation Requirements
1,000 ft. from residential zoning district and uses
□Planning & Zoning Board recommended 400 ft. from
residential zoning district and uses
400 ft. from churches, parks, school, and other sensitive uses
150 ft. from commercial or industrial buildings
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 13
Separation vs Setback
8
Separation
Setback
Setback -
• Fire Code
• Property line to BESS Equipment
Separation -
• Zoning Code
• Site screen wall to either:
Property line of zoning district
or use
Building
Property Line
Site Screen Wall
Property Line
Property Line
Site Screen Wall
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 13
Proposed MZO Amendments
• Substation Screening
1-ft above the tallest piece of ground-mounted equipment
Opaque wall that matches the site wall
When 10-ft. tall or less - articulated every 40 ft. with an offset or
landscape pocket
When greater than 10-ft. tall, consist of:
□
A 10-ft. masonry wall that matches the site wall; and
□
A decorate louvre, slated, or perforated upper screen, no more
than 75% opaque, mounted on the masonry wall
When located internal to the site
□Combination of 10-ft. masonry wall and louvres, slats, etc.; or
□Fully decorate louvre, slated, or perforated screen
9
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 9 of 13
Proposed MZO Amendments
Operational Requirements
• On-Going Sound Studies
Within 30-days of receiving a Certificate of Occupancy
Annual Sound Study for 5 years thereafter
• Ownership or Operator Changes
Must notify the Development Services Department within 30 days
Approval remains in effect – new owner/operator assume all
obligations
• Augmentation permitted if it complies with the approved Site Plan and
Phasing Plan
Site Plan Modification or modification to phasing plan follows
procedures in Ch. 69: Site Plan Review
Increase in Nameplate Capacity requires City Council approval
10
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 10 of 13
11
Public Participation
• 2 Open Houses
In-person at the Mark @Eastmark on October 1st
o 17 attendees
Zoom on October 13th
o 24 attendees
Comments & Questions
Environmental impacts - setbacks from waterway & detention
of water
Sound study levels
Zoning separation and Fire Code setbacks
Applicability to Eastmark
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 11 of 13
12
Public Comment
• 11 people spoke at the Planning & Zoning Board hearing - Oct 22nd
Comments & Questions
The 1-megawatt threshold is too low; the nameplate
capacity should be higher for accessory use
A 1,000-foot separation is too high; doesn’t align with
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards
The ordinance is in conflict with Mesa’s Energy and Climate
goals which site the use of battery storage
How do we address projects already in development?
• Question & Answer Summary and public comments are included in
the packet
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 12 of 13
Questions?
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 1
Page 13 of 13
City Council
ZON24-00998
December 8, 2025
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
Evan Balmer, Assistant Planning Director
1
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 22
Request
• Rezone from RM-2 to RM-
4 with a BIZ Overlay
• Site Plan Review for a 15-
unit multiple residence
development
2
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 22
Location
• South of Broadway Road
• East of Mesa Drive
3
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 22
General Plan
Urban Residential
• Diverse mixture of uses where
commercial, residential, and
public/semi-public uses coexist
• Multi-family residential is a
principal land use
• RM-4 is allowed in the Urban
Residential Placetype
4
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 22
Zoning
• Existing: RM-2
• Proposed: RM-4-BIZ
• Multiple Residences with a
max. density of 30 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac) are
permitted in the RM-4 District.
• Proposed density: 25.9 du/ac
5
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 22
Site Photo
Looking east from Mesa Drive
6
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 22
Site Photo
Looking southeast from Mesa Drive
7
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 22
Site Plan
• Three 3-story buildings
• 15 townhome units
• Access from Mesa Dr
• 24-ft-wide central drive
provides access to garages
• Pedestrian walkways
• Amenity area
• 30 garage spaces + 4
guest spaces (32 required)
8
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 22
Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay
Criteria (MZO Ch. 21):
1. Provide distinctive, superior quality design
•
Distinctive & sustainable design, context, quality open space &
exceeding standards
2. Environmental performance standards
•
Various site selection & site design criteria
3. Meet or exceed nationally recognized environmental standards (Green
Globes, LEED, etc.)
9
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 22
Development Standard
MZO Required
PAD Proposed
Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot)
70%
79%
Minimum Yards
Front and Street Facing Side (6-lane arterial
– S. Mesa Dr.)
-
Interior Sides and Rear: 3 or more units
on lot
30 feet
Multiple Story: 15 feet per story (45 feet total)
15’-10”
0’ to shade structure;
3 feet per story for buildings (9 feet total)
Minimum Separation Between
Buildings on Same Lot
-
Three-Story building
35-feet
17-feet
Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay
10
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 10 of 22
Development Standard
MZO Required
PAD Proposed
Attached Garages – MZO Section 11-5-
5(B)(4)(f)(iii)
When multiple garage doors are located within
one (1) building, the maximum number of garage
doors adjacent to one another shall be limited to
three (3), unless there is a break in the building
façade between garage doors. The break shall
contain a major architectural feature, such as a
building entrance or equivalent feature.
When multiple garage doors are located within
one (1) building, the maximum number of garage
doors adjacent to one another shall be limited to
seven (7), unless there is a break in the building
façade between garage doors. The break shall
contain a major architectural feature, such as a
building entrance or equivalent feature.
Setback of Cross Drive Aisles – MZO
Section 11-32-4(A)
Parking spaces along main drive aisles
connecting directly to a street and drive aisles
that cross such main drive aisles shall be set
back at least 50 ft from the property line
abutting the street.
Parking spaces along main drive aisles
connecting directly to a street and drive aisles
that cross such main drive aisles shall be set
back at least 20 ft from the property line abutting
the street.
Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay
11
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 11 of 22
Development Standard
MZO Required
PAD Proposed
Landscaping for Non-Single Residence
Uses Adjacent to Other Non-Single
Residence uses or districts – MZO Section
11-33-3(B)(2)(a)(ii)
Properties that are not part of a group C-O-I
Development, as defined in Chapter 87, must
provide a 15-foot landscape yard except where a
cross-access drive aisle occurs within the
required landscape yard.
Properties that are not part of a group C-O-I
Development, as defined in Chapter 87, must
provide a 1’-10” landscape yard except where
a cross-access drive aisle occurs within the
required landscape yard.
Plant Material within Foundation Base –
MZO Section 11-33-5(B)(4)
Trees shall be in planters that are at least 8 feet
wide. Other plant material shall be in planters
that are at least 3 feet wide.
Trees shall be in planters that are at least 4-1/2
feet wide. Other plant material shall be in
planters that are at least 3 feet wide.
Bonus Intensity Zone Overlay
12
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 12 of 22
Bonus Intensity Zone –
Open Space / Amenities
• Landscape materials in planters watered
by a/c condensate
• Includes seating and shade
25
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 13 of 22
Bonus Intensity Zone –
Private Open Space
• 120 square feet of private open
space (100 sq. ft. required)
14
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 14 of 22
Elevations
18
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 15 of 22
Citizen Participation
• Notified property owners within
1,000’, HOAs and registered
neighborhoods
• Neighborhood meeting on January
16, 2025
• No neighbors attended
• Staff received one phone call from
adjacent neighbor expressing
concerns about density and height
20
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 16 of 22
Findings
Complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan
Criteria in Chapters 21 & 69 for BIZ & Site Plan Review
Staff recommend Approval with Conditions
Planning and Zoning Board recommends Approval with Conditions (5-0)
21
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 17 of 22
22
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 18 of 22
Elevations
19
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 19 of 22
Landscape Plan
15
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 20 of 22
Site Details
16
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 21 of 22
DRB Work Session Elevations
23
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 2
Page 22 of 22
Board Organization and Realigned Duties
Proposed Text Amendments
January 8, 2026
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
Rachel Phillips, Assistant Planning Director
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 1 of 7
• Attendance at Planning and Zoning Board declining
• P&Z has an essential role
• Recommendations on significant land use Matters
• Need for a fully seated Board
• Respond to Development Advisory Forum requests for
increased efficiency
What we have heard…
City Council
2
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 2 of 7
Staff Proposal – P&Z Alternates
• Addition of three alternates
Help ensure a full Board is seated to make key
recommendations
Protect quorum at all meetings to provide
schedule certainty for applicants and residents
Build a pipeline of trained candidates for future
full appointments
Allow the Chair to seat alternates on rotating
basis as needed
3
3
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 3 of 7
Staff Proposal – P&Z Qualifications
• Modify composition of P&Z
• Recommend for P&Z
3 design professionals including 1
contractor/developer
4 community representatives
3 alternates – at least 1 design professional or
contractor/developer
• Mirror DRB composition
4
4
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 7
Alignment with State Legislation
• HB 2447 signed by the governor on March 31, 2025
• Requires Legislative bodies
Establish administrative review processes for
approval of design plans to be based on
objective standards without public hearings
5
5
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 5 of 7
6
Proposed Design Approval Structure
Combine Site Plan and Design Review
Processes (“Development Plan Review”)
1)
Align responsibilities of reviewing and
approving bodies
• Meet all development and
design standards
• Not requesting a rezone, PAD,
BIZ, CUP, SUP, or other
deviation
• Alternative Compliance
• Municipal Projects
(recommendation)
• As Directed by Council
• Planning Director Referral
• Planning Director Appeal
• PC District Matters
• Previous Approval Condition
2)
• Rezone, PAD, BIZ, CUP, or SUP
• PC District Matters
• Project Specific Design
Guidelines & Standards
Planning Director
Design Review Board
Planning & Zoning Board
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 6 of 7
Questions?
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 3
Page 7 of 7
Administrative Review Modifications
Proposed Text Amendments
January 8, 2026
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
Rachel Phillips, Assistant Planning Director
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 1 of 12
2
What we have heard…
City Council
• Improve Development Review process and
efficiencies
• Eliminate redundancies
• Improve internal coordination
• Use data for decision-making
• Improve the development environment in the
City
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 12
3
What we have heard…
Development Community
• Improve and expand administrative approvals for
site plans and plats
• Revise stringent standards on major and minor site
plan amendment approval process
• Streamline and adopt flexible infill and
redevelopment standards
• Allow administrative approval/flexibility
• Minimize uncertainty in the Design Review Process
• Continue to publish review schedule
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 3 of 12
Changes to State Legislation
• HB 2447 signed by the governor on March 31, 2025
• Requires Legislative bodies establish administrative
review processes (no public hearing) for:
Site plans and development plans
Review and approval of design plans based on
objective standards
Land Divisions (preliminary plats, final plats, lot
splits, etc.) – Adopted by Council in July 2025
4
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 4 of 12
Proposed Amendments -
Key Changes
• Redefine minor and major site plan modifications
• Develop additional objective design standards
• Streamline Development Plan Review Process
• Clean up discrepancies and inconsistencies to
improve clarity
5
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 5 of 12
Proposed Amendments
Site Plan Modifications – Major vs. Minor
• Major Modification - Changes to a site plan that was
approved by City Council AND involves a change in use
• Capture changes that can result in different:
Zoning standards (e.g., parking requirements)
Review procedures (e.g., Special Use Permit vs. by right)
Operational impacts (e.g., increased traffic generation)
6
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 6 of 12
Proposed Amendments
Site Plan Modifications – Major vs. Minor
• Major Modification – Example
• Example 1: Full-Service Restaurant → Restaurant with
drive-thru = change of use
• Example 2: Kohls → Michael’s = retail to retail = not a
change of use
• Minor Modification- All other Site Plan
modifications
7
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 7 of 12
•
Modify existing and add additional objective standards to
ensure high-quality development
•
Examples
Add minimum required depth for horizontal changes in a
wall plane
Clarify that variations in color or texture are not a separate
material
Add landscape diversity requirements (i.e., maximum % of
plant species per tree, shrub, etc.)
Add requirement for residential amenities based on
number of units
Proposed Amendments -
Objective Design Standards
8
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 8 of 12
Proposed Amendments -
Development Plan Review Process
•
Consolidate the Site Plan Review and Design Review
processes
Reduce redundancy for applicants and staff
Shorten entitlement timelines by reducing number of
public hearings
Create a clear public review process
Provide a more holistic and coordinated review of
projects
Ensure compliance with updated state laws
9
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 9 of 12
Proposed Amendments -
Improve Clarity
• Modify expiration and extension provisions for all
entitlements
Consistent across all application types (site plan,
design review, Special Use Permits, Council Use
Permits, etc.)
• Modify Alternative Compliance process
• Reorganize and reword text for clarity and
consistency
• Modify and add definitions
10
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 10 of 12
11
Public Outreach & Notification
Sept 16
Sept 19
Sept 29
Dec 3 & 8
Dec 8
Nov 22
DAF
Website
Info
Posted
P&Z
Board
Dec 10
Email
Reminder
Open
House
News-
paper
Ad
Website
Updated
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 11 of 12
Questions?
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 4
Page 12 of 12
January 5, 2026
To:
City Councilmembers
From:
Mayor Mark Freeman
Subject:
Appointments to City Council, Regional and Other Boards and Committees
City of Mesa
AUDIT, FINANCE & ENTERPRISE
Alicia Goforth, Chairperson
Rich Adams
Scott Somers
PUBLIC SAFETY
Scott Somers, Chairperson
Rich Adams
Dorean Taylor
SUSTAINABILITY & TRANSPORTATION
Jenn Duff, Chairperson
Alicia Goforth
Dorean Taylor
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Rich Adams, Chairperson
Francisco Heredia
Alicia Goforth
COMMUNITY & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
Francisco Heredia, Chairperson
Jenn Duff
Scott Somers
CITY BENEFITS ADVISORY
Dorean Taylor
Jenn Duff
SELF INSURANCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Francisco Heredia
Regional Agency Board Assignments
MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
(MAG) - REGIONAL COUNCIL
Mark Freeman
VALLEY METRO REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSIT
AUTHORITY (RPTA) / METRO RAIL
Francisco Heredia
MAG TRANSPORTATION POLICY
Mark Freeman
EAST VALLEY PARTNERSHIP
Mark Freeman
GATEWAY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Mark Freeman
ARIZONA MUNICIPAL WATER USERS
ASSOCIATION (AMWUA)
Mark Freeman
Other Boards & Committees
DOWNTOWN MESA ASSOCIATION
Jenn Duff
MESA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Scott Somers
MESA UNITED WAY
Dorean Taylor
VISIT MESA BOARD
Alicia Goforth
ARIZONA MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY
Rich Adams
i.d.e.a. MUSEUM BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Francisco Heredia
MESA ARTS CENTER FOUNDATION BOARD
Jenn Duff
UNITED FOOD BANK
Dorean Taylor
Study Session
January 8, 2026
Attachment 5
Page 1 of 1