Mesa delays Title 11 zoning rewrite to February, approves 1,000-foot battery storage setback

Mesa Council Delays Landmark Zoning Code Rewrite After Developer Pushback; Battery Storage Setback Locked In at 1,000 Feet

On January 8, the Mesa City Council held an agenda review for its January 12 meeting—ostensibly a routine procedural session—but emerged having deferred a transformative 150-page rewrite of Title 11 (the zoning ordinance) and crystallized a contentious compromise on battery energy storage system (BEST) setback requirements that Jen Duff called "overkill" and lacking scientific merit.

The session highlighted a tension at the heart of municipal land-use governance: state-imposed objectives to streamline and standardize approval processes versus the practical reality that developers and their attorneys, despite months of notice, feel unprepared to digest and respond to comprehensive code changes. It also showcased deep disagreement within council over fire safety thresholds for BEST systems, ultimately resolved through a narrow compromise that all parties grudgingly accepted.

Key Speeches

On the BEST setback, Jen Duff made an extended case for a lower distance:

"I've done I spent a lot of time reading, attending webinars, doing some office hours. I spoke to five experts on energy storage and this thousand ft does not have any merit or support or evidence that is necessary. I can go into a lot of the detail on why the 100foot has met, you know, the toxins in the air for public. I can go all into that. I have documents and I can talk about it. I just think 1,000 feet is overkill and it's kind of out of the air. It's not accomplishing anything. And you think in that thousand feet three football ball fields if we could fill that with energy storage or housing or whatever, it would have an economic return to our community. land just sitting there with no purpose at all other than some arbitrary number that we created is a waste for our city." — Council Member Duff

Council Member Adams supported the compromise, noting that all parties had agreed without duress:

"I'm hearing meritorious arguments on both sides of this issue. And I think that uh I think we all recognize this is a evolving technology. And to me, it's difficult to decide whether is it a thousand, is it 100, is it 400. you can find a lot of information supporting many of these numbers. Um, my view is this. My understanding is that there's been a great deal of negotiation and discussion over the holidays. I've I've heard from some of the council who represent some of the parties here and my understanding is that uh a compromise has been reached and agreed to under no duress. None of these parties have expressed to me that they were forced under duress to agree with what we have in front of us. So it seems to me that the instant problem, the one immediately in front of us, can be resolved and everyone can move forward, these three or actually the one and know what their path forward is." — Council Member Adams

Council Member Taylor cited real-world fire data and incident reports:

"I was reflecting on our prior meetings and I remembered one of the concerns that um, Vice Mayor Scott Summers had was the not necessarily the risk of just one of the battery energy systems exploding. It was the acute inhalation. And I did a little bit of research myself and looked at UL Solutions, FM Global, National Fire Protection Association. And um there were real world incident data from Mcmckin, I think I said that right, Arizona Moss Landing, South Korea best fire series where they did see that we had um serious concerns that in a th00and ft diameter there is actual acute inhalation of toxic and poisonous gases that are emitted from these." — Council Member Taylor

On the Title 11 delay, Mark Freeman expressed trust in staff's judgment to get the code right before adoption:

"I think that is the most important part. And so even if it was at the 11th hour, uh that um for groups that were notified starting back in September that this was coming and waited until you know now to uh yeah to weigh in. The importance is though that community they are individuals that will be greatly impacted by this and so um we do need to work with them to ensure that um that we do this and so that's why I think it's a reasonable delay." — Mark Freeman

Timeline

Battery Energy Storage Systems Setback Dispute:

• Staff recommendation (prior): 1,000-foot residential setback; applicants to pursue rezoning of residential parcels to industrial/commercial to achieve compliance.
• Applicant presubmittals: Next Era (off Ellsworth, requires rezoning of RM4 parcel); IPA (two sites, Signal View and Signal, both capable of meeting 1,000-foot requirement).
• Council discussion: Extended debate (roughly 45 minutes). Jen Duff argued 100-foot or 400-foot separation sufficient, citing expert research and economic development loss. Council Members Adams and Taylor cited fire safety data from McMallen, Arizona; Moss Landing, California; and South Korea. Vice Mayor Summers raised concerns about land concentration and future economic displacement. Mark Freeman indicated Monday vote would determine final setback but noted charter prevents amendments on Monday floor; reintroduction would be required for changes.
• Compromise: Adopt 1,000-foot requirement for current projects (Next Era, IPA sites); staff to continue reviewing with utility providers, fire marshal, and industry as technology evolves; commitment to revisit standard in future.
• Vote: No formal vote on BEST setback taken during agenda review; Monday, January 12 council meeting scheduled for final ordinance vote.

15-Unit Infill Development (Case Z1249998):

• Staff presentation (Evan): Rezoning from RM2 to RM4 with bonus intensity zone overlay; 15-unit multifamily on Mesa Drive south of Broadway; 25.9 dwelling units per acre (within RM4 allowance of up to 30); staff found compliance with 2050 Mesa general plan and bonus intensity zone criteria; design review board and planning and zoning board both recommended approval (5-0).
• Key staff conditions: Additional seating, shade structures, and barbecues in primary open space area; unique condensate irrigation system for landscaping.
• Council questions: Parking overflow to adjacent RM4 complex (staff noted two spaces per unit exceeds standard, mid-block location, transit access); lack of nearby amenities (grocery, pharmacy, doctor offices); open space amenities (tot lot, dog park not provided but conditions require seating and shade).
• Vote: Not taken during agenda review; on Monday, January 12 agenda as item 8D.

Major Code Amendment—Objective Design Standards (DELAYED):

• Staff presentation (Rachel, Mary, Scott): 150+ page text amendment to Title 11, affecting approximately 50% of zoning code; implements state requirement (House Bill 2447, signed March 2025) for objective design standards and administrative approvals; consolidates site plan and design review processes; redefines major vs. minor site plan modifications; establishes objective design standards (measurable, not subjective).
• Public outreach history: September 2025 — development advisory forum notified; key concepts posted online. Late September — open house (4 attendees). December — red-lined chapters posted online; planning and zoning board review December 8–10. Early January — emails to development community every two weeks. January 6 (Monday) — first substantive request for meeting from land-use attorneys; January 7 (yesterday, staff stated) — meeting with multiple attorneys representing Mesa clients; attorneys reported insufficient time to understand comprehensiveness and stated intent to submit letters requesting continuance.
• Staff recommendation: Delay introduction from January 12 to February 23, allowing 45 days for stakeholder engagement and council review.
• Council discussion: Jen Duff sought assurance council would weigh in on which design standards to codify (not all design guidelines). Council Member Go Forth asked for red-line versions (staff confirmed available on website). Vice Mayor Summers raised concerns about administrative acts vs. legislative acts and loss of local control due to state statute. Council Member Taylor asked about impact on projects in progress (staff said applicants can choose prior standards or new standards, whichever is more favorable). Mark Freeman and Scott acknowledged frustration with last-minute objections but agreed proper process and stakeholder engagement are worth delay; no formal vote on delay taken.
• Next step: Reintroduction scheduled February 23.

Opposition

To Lower BEST Setback (Supporting 1,000-foot requirement):

• Council Members Taylor and Adams (implicitly representing council majority view based on prior discussion):
  1. Real-world incident data (McMallen, Arizona; Moss Landing, California; South Korea) show acute inhalation of toxic and poisonous gases within 1,000-foot diameter.
  2. UL Solutions, FM Global, and National Fire Protection Association research support fire safety concerns.
  3. Risk of uncontrolled runaway and contamination issues, though newer designs claim individual cell containment.
  4. Precedent: Arizona Fire Marshals Association and Arizona State Fire Marshall office supporting 2024 International Fire Code adoption due to critical safety updates for BEST systems.
  5. Public safety priority outweighs incremental economic development in this case, given current SRP demand satisfied by three identified sites.

To Major Code Amendment Delay (Favoring Prompt Adoption):

• No organized formal opposition during meeting, but Mark Freeman and Scott alluded to frustration with land-use attorney community for waiting until late in process to object despite September notice.

Support

For 1,000-foot BEST Setback (Implicit Support):

• Council Member Taylor and Council Member Adams (framing as compromise solution) and Vice Mayor Summers (noting it "settles the issue" for now).
• Staff and Fire Marshal perspective (referenced by Mark Freeman): Arizona Fire Marshals Association and state fire code support stringent BEST safety standards.

For Title 11 Code Amendment Delay:

• Jen Duff and Go Forth (requesting clarity on design standards codification and time for detailed review).
• Vice Mayor Summers (expressing concern about loss of local control but agreeing delay allows council deeper review).
• Council Member Adams (supporting robust small-business technical assistance to navigate new standards).
• Mark Freeman and Planning Director Scott (emphasizing importance of getting the product right over meeting arbitrary deadline; state law required adoption by end of 2025, but most large Arizona cities have not yet adopted).

Project Details

Battery Energy Storage Systems Ordinance

• Applicants / Developers: Next Era (off Ellsworth); IPA (Signal View, second Signal site); Salt River Project (SRP, off-taker).
• Staff attorneys: Mary, Jim.
• Proposed standard: 1,000-foot residential setback; permitted uses in GI (General Industrial) and HI (Heavy Industrial) zones only.
• Current sites: Two presubmittals received — Next Era (Ellsworth, RM4 residential parcel requiring rezoning to light industrial/commercial); IPA (two sites, both meeting 1,000-foot requirement without rezoning).
• Timeline: Next Era rezoning — 2 to 3 months to planning and zoning board and council decision; concurrent site plan/design review for BEST facility itself — additional 3 months.
• Conditions: Staff and council to work with SRP, utility providers, and fire marshal on ongoing review; commitment to revisit standard as technology evolves and new substations constructed.

15-Unit Infill Development

• Case number: Z1249998.
• Applicant: Not named in transcript.
• Location: Mesa Drive south of Broadway Road, east side; mid-block site.
• Current zoning: RM2 (Multiple Residential 2).
• Proposed zoning: RM4 (Multiple Residential 4) with bonus intensity zone overlay.
• Density: 25.9 dwelling units per acre (RM4 allows up to 30).
• Units: 15 residential units, three buildings (two primary on east end, one two-unit building on west/Mesa Drive frontage).
• Parking: Two-car garages per unit (ground floor); four guest spaces on south side; 24-foot drive aisle.
• Open space: Unique primary open space at west end of main building using condensate irrigation from air conditioners; landscaped with seating and shade (conditions require additional amenities: barbecues, tables, shade structures).
• Private open space: 120 sq. ft. provided (100 sq. ft. required for RM4).
• Staff recommendation: Approval with conditions.
• Planning and zoning board recommendation: Approval (5-0).
• Key deviations: Mid-block location, parking overflow risk to adjacent RM4 complex, limited nearby retail/services.

Major Code Amendment—Title 11 (Objective Design Standards)

• Scope: 150+ pages; affects approximately 50% of zoning code.
• State mandate: House Bill 2447 (signed March 2025) requires municipalities to adopt objective design standards and administrative approval processes for site plans and development plans based on measurable criteria, not subjective design guidelines.
• Key changes proposed:
  1. Minor vs. major site plan modifications: Changed from 5,000 sq. ft. or 10% gross total square footage threshold to focus on change of use (defined in Chapter 86 use classifications); if use changes, modification is major and returns to council; if use does not change, modification is administrative.
  2. Objective design standards: Examples — minimum horizontal wall articulation (now measurable: 2-foot offset every 50 feet, rather than vague "articulated every 50 feet"); landscape diversity requirements (species percentage thresholds); residential amenities tied to unit count; shade and plaza requirements for commercial parking.
  3. Consolidated site plan and design review: Eliminates dual review path; design review board now makes recommendations only (on alternative compliance requests and municipal projects); planning director approves administrative site plans; planning and zoning board handles cases requiring rezoning, PD, BIS, or council use permit.
  4. Consistency: Aligns expiration/extension timelines for design review, site plan, and other entitlements (currently inconsistent — design review expires at 1 year, site plan at 2 years).
  5. Alternative compliance tightening: Applicants must justify deviations from objective standards with specific criteria (minimum necessary, equivalent or superior); design review board provides recommendation before approval.
• Public outreach: September 2025 — development advisory forum; key concepts posted. Late September — open house (4 attendees: 2 residents of Phoenix, 1 Mesa resident, 1 council member Jen Duff). December — red-lined chapters posted; PNZ review Dec. 8–10. Ongoing email reminders every two weeks. January 6–7 — land-use attorneys requested meetings and indicated letters opposing timeline.
• Scheduled introduction (original): January 12, 2026 (Monday council meeting).
• New introduction date (after delay): February 23, 2026.
• Reason for delay: Stakeholder engagement period (45 days); council deep-dive review; development community insufficient time to comprehend scope and submit meaningful comments despite September notice.

Vote Breakdown

BEST Ordinance Setback:

• Not voted on during January 8 agenda review; vote scheduled for Monday, January 12 council meeting.

15-Unit Infill Development (Case Z1249998):

• Not voted on during January 8 agenda review; on Monday agenda as item 8D.

Title 11 Major Code Amendment (Objective Design Standards):

• Not voted on during January 8 agenda review; introduction delayed to February 23; no formal vote on delay itself taken (council direction to staff was clear, but no roll-call vote recorded in transcript).

Board and Committee Appointments (Item 3):

• Motion to approve by Vice Mayor Summers (or council member); seconded by Council Member Go Forth (or Council Member Taylor — transcript does not clearly identify second); all in favor said "I" (unanimous, no dissent recorded).

Acknowledgment of Board Minutes (Item 4):

• Motion by Council Member Go Forth; seconded by Council Member Taylor; all in favor said "I" (unanimous, no dissent recorded).

Outcome & Next Steps

BEST Setback:

• 1,000-foot residential setback adopted for current projects (Next Era and IPA sites); staff authorized to continue review with utility providers and fire marshal; council commits to revisiting standard as technology and industry standards evolve.
• Monday, January 12 vote: Ordinance scheduled for final adoption vote (charter rules prevent amendment on floor; reintroduction would be required for any change).
• Rezoning timeline: Next Era site (Ellsworth, RM4 to light industrial/commercial) — 2 to 3 months to PNZ and council decision; concurrent 3-month site plan/design review for BEST facility itself.

15-Unit Infill Development:

• Recommended for approval with conditions (seating, shade, barbecues in open space); on Monday agenda as item 8D for council vote.

Major Code Amendment—Title 11:

• Introduction postponed from January 12 to February 23, 2026.
• Development advisory forum, land-use attorneys, and other stakeholders have 45 days to submit comments.
• Staff to meet with development community to address concerns and questions before February 23 reintroduction.
• Council to have opportunity for deeper review and input on which design standards to codify.
• State deadline: HB 2447 required adoption by end of 2025; Mesa is not alone in delay (only one or two other large Arizona cities have adopted).

E-Bike Ordinance:

• Already introduced; ordinance moved forward; 15 mph speed limit on shared-use paths; 5 mph when passing; staff to explore enforcement via park cameras and real-time crime center monitoring; council to work with state legislature on distinguishing Class 1/2 e-bikes from electric motorcycles.

Controversies & Context

BEST Setback Debate

The core dispute was over whether a 1,000-foot residential setback for battery energy storage systems is scientifically justified or economically wasteful.

Jen Duff position: She conducted extensive research, attended webinars, consulted five energy storage experts, and reviewed documents showing that 100-foot separation is sufficient to contain toxic gas emissions within acceptable limits. She argued that the 1,000-foot requirement is "overkill," "arbitrary," and "out of the air," and that it wastes developable land. She noted that Mesa is losing economic development opportunities due to SRP's inability to guarantee adequate electricity supply, and that a large industrial project was lost during the holidays because SRP could not commit to power supply. She framed the setback as preventing future housing and energy storage projects.

Council Members Taylor and Adams' position: They cited real-world incident data from McMallen, Arizona; Moss Landing, California; and South Korea showing that acute inhalation of toxic and poisonous gases has been documented within a 1,000-foot radius. They referenced research from UL Solutions, FM Global, and the National Fire Protection Association. They also cited Vice Mayor Summers' prior concerns about acute inhalation risk. Council Member Taylor noted that the Arizona Fire Marshals Association and Arizona State Fire Marshal office have endorsed the 2024 International Fire Code due to critical safety updates for BEST systems.

The compromise: Rather than resolve the underlying empirical question, the parties compromised: adopt the 1,000-foot standard now to allow SRP's three identified sites to move forward, but commit to revisiting the standard as technology improves and new substations are built. Mark Freeman noted he personally would prefer a lower setback but deferred to the council majority supporting 1,000 feet. Council Member Adams emphasized that all parties (applicants, SRP, staff) had agreed to the compromise without duress.

State and local context: Mark Freeman received a letter from the Arizona Fire Marshals Association and Arizona State Fire Marshal office supporting adoption of the 2024 International Fire Code. He indicated willingness to work with the fire marshal and chief building official on guidelines aligned with NFPA 855 and the IFC.

Code Amendment and Development Community Friction

The Title 11 rewrite is a state-imposed mandate stemming from House Bill 2447, signed in March 2025, requiring Arizona municipalities to adopt objective (measurable, not subjective) design standards and to allow administrative approvals for site plans and development plans that comply with those standards. The intent is to streamline permitting and reduce development costs and timelines.

Staff's effort: Staff has worked on this for roughly two years. They conducted public outreach starting in September 2025, including a development advisory forum meeting, an open house (poorly attended), newspaper ads with detailed change descriptions, and red-lined code chapters posted online. They sent email reminders to the development community every two weeks.

Last-minute objection: Despite this outreach, land-use attorneys representing Mesa clients did not request substantive meetings until Monday, January 6 (six days before the scheduled January 12 introduction). On January 7, several land-use attorneys met with staff and reported they did not "fully understand the comprehensiveness of the amendments" and indicated they would submit letters requesting a continuance.

Council response: Planning Director Scott expressed frustration—the attorneys were notified starting in September and "waited till the last minute" to engage. However, he acknowledged that the amendments are complex and that the development community should have time to review and respond if they are going to be substantially affected. He noted that most large Arizona cities have not yet adopted their own Title 11 amendments, so Mesa is not alone. Mark Freeman agreed that "getting this right is more important than approving it just for the sake of approving it and having a flawed process." The delay to February 23 allows 45 days for stakeholder comment and gives council time to weigh in on which design standards should be codified (as the staff did not codify all design guidelines, but selected key ones).

Jen Duff concern: She emphasized that council should weigh in on which design standards are codified, because those standards reflect community values. Council Member Go Forth asked for red-line versions showing all changes clearly. Vice Mayor Summers raised concerns about loss of local control due to state preemption.

Grandfathering: Staff confirmed that applicants currently in the development pipeline can choose to continue under prior standards or opt into new standards, whichever is more favorable.

E-Bike Enforcement and Distinctions

Council approved an ordinance regulating e-bikes on shared-use paths and parks with a 15 mph speed limit (5 mph when passing). However, Council Member Adams raised concerns about enforcement—the city lacks sufficient patrol resources, and the ordinance creates rules for which enforcement mechanisms are unclear.

Key issue: The distinction between Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes (pedal-assist, capped at 15 or 20 mph by federal law) and electric motorcycles (pedal-optional, often faster, more powerful). Staff and council agreed to work with the state legislature to more clearly define and differentiate these categories in registration and licensing, noting that "the issue a lot of folks are having isn't with ebikes. It's with these little electric motorcycles that everybody thinks is an ebike."

Enforcement approach: Staff indicated park rangers, park cameras, and real-time crime center monitoring could be deployed to problem areas; enforcement would focus on actual violations and bad actors rather than blanket patrols.

Infill Development vs. Parking Overflow

The 15-unit project on Mesa Drive generated questions about overflow parking to the adjacent RM4 apartment complex. Staff noted that the applicant exceeds parking standards (two spaces per unit) and that the location is mid-block on an arterial with nearby bus stops and transit access, making it a textbook infill example. Mark Freeman asked about social and economic benefits: the nearest grocery store is 0.5 to 0.75 miles away, and there are few doctor's offices or other services. Staff responded that open space amenities (seating, shade, barbecues) address that gap, and that the bonus intensity zone overlay criteria require distinctive design and environmental performance, which the applicant provides through condensate irrigation and unique open space.

Duration

• This meeting (agenda review only): Approximately 2.5 to 3 hours (transcript begins mid-morning after John Giles' opening remarks and extends through council adjournment; no precise time stamps provided).
• BEST setback discussion: Approximately 45 minutes.
• Title 11 code amendment presentations: Approximately 90 minutes (two separate staff presentations on board/commission amendments and Title 11 objective design standards).
• Other items: E-bike ordinance, infill development, appointments, board minutes, announcements (approximately 45 minutes combined).

Other Notable Items

E-Bike Regulation & Enforcement: Ordinance approved with 15 mph speed limit on shared-use paths (5 mph when passing); staff to explore enforcement via park cameras and real-time crime center; council to work with state legislature on defining and distinguishing Class 1/2 e-bikes from electric motorcycles; HOA private neighborhoods not subject to city ordinance but may adopt similar rules.

New Hazmat Trucks: City acquiring two new E1 Cyclone hazmat trucks ($2.7 million); one replaces existing truck; one supports new fire station 223 in North Mesa, expanding hazmat coverage citywide. Construction timeline for Station 223 still under discussion due to site issues.

Downtown Mesa New Year's Celebration: December 31 noon countdown event well-attended; suspended gymnast dive, band (Chucky Baby and All Stars), apple cider toast. Organized by Downtown Mesa Association with Attel Torque Productions and Fireworks Productions. Mayor Mark Freeman and Council Members Go Forth and Vice Mayor Summers attended.

Civil Air Patrol Groundbreaking: Falcon Field hosted expansion groundbreaking for CAP Falcon Composite Squadron, an auxiliary to the U.S. Air Force providing youth education and emergency services.

Police Department Outreach: Council Member Taylor toured Real Time Crime Center, performed ride-along and flyalong with police aviation crew, toured new public safety facility (shared by police and fire departments). Noted exceptional coordination between police and fire departments and use of camera networks to prevent and solve crimes pre-emptively.

Fireworks Enforcement: Council Member Adams rode along with Assistant Fire Department on New Year's Eve fireworks patrol; noted volume of illegal fireworks across city despite enforcement efforts; expressed hope state legislature would step in to help regulate fireworks.