Mesa postpones battery storage amendment, delays Price Manor 2 rezoning over notification concerns

Mesa Council Delays Battery Storage Text Amendment After Learning of Project Hours Before Study Session; Price Manor 2 Rezoning Proceeds to Full Council Amid Notification Disputes

On September 23, the Mesa City Council study session turned into a forum for process critique and deferred decision-making on two major land-use items: a Price Manor 2 mixed-housing rezoning plagued by questions about whether all registered neighborhoods received proper legal notice, and an emergency text amendment for a battery energy storage facility already under construction that city staff had kept from most council members until the day of the study session.

The twin controversies exposed gaps in how the city verifies citizen participation in rezoning cases and how it communicates development crises to the full council. While Mayor Mark Freeman and Vice Mayor Scott Summers had known of the battery-storage situation, the broader council had not—a lapse that prompted one of the most direct rebukes of internal process heard in the session.

Key Speeches

"Well, I was going to say I guess I'm at a loss because we have an affidavit that said they were sent to the registered neighborhood and we have neighbors who said we never received notice. Isn't that what we've that's what we've been in emails that we've received and people that you've talked to?" — Council Member Adams

"I'm not a fan of a text amendment that benefits one landowner, developer, what have you. I don't think that's the right approach. And so that's what this is doing." — Vice Mayor Scott Summers

"We didn't I didn't know any of this until about three hours ago, right? And if this has to do with that situation that we didn't understand that they were tied together. So I think you're probably right where they did everything right, we'll probably understand that. But we weren't informed of that." — Council Member Goforth

"This was a learning lesson. We should do this more often when these type of things come up." — City Manager (staff response)

Timeline

Price Manor 2 Rezoning (Item 8C)

• Citizen participation process explanation: Evan from the planning department outlined the three-part notice system: informal "Hey Neighbor" letters from the applicant, formal letters mailed 15 days before planning and zoning (P&Z) board hearing to all residents within 500 feet and registered neighborhoods/HOAs within one mile, site signage, and newspaper publication. The city provides the address list; the applicant mails and returns a signed affidavit confirming delivery.

• Notification dispute raised: Council Member Adams noted that despite the affidavit, the city had received emails from residents claiming non-receipt. Council Member Goforth asked directly whether the city verifies actual receipt—the answer was no. The city relies on the affidavit and notes that the three-method approach (letters, sign, newspaper) should catch most people despite mail loss or misrouting.

• Neighborhood composition question: Council Member Spillsberry asked whether opposition came from immediately adjacent properties or those further away. Evan confirmed that immediate neighbors to the east of the site showed support; those opposing appeared not to be directly adjacent. Spillsberry noted that in emails and support, "the people that live closest to it that are going to have the biggest impact are wanting it," suggesting distant opposition should carry less weight.

• Concession and traffic reversal: Council Member Adams raised a key fact: a one-way gate concession had been made to the immediate eastern neighbors (Lehi Shadows) to prevent eastbound egress, redirecting all traffic west onto Center Street. This concession initially boosted support from the closest neighbors but then triggered opposition emails from further-west neighborhoods who would now bear the traffic impact.

• Missing Middle Housing context: Evan noted that Price Manor 2 continues a missing-middle-housing component previously approved in January as part of a 70-vote (overwhelming council support). The area is a "chessboard" of zoning—nearby mobile home parks zoned for 30 units per acre, Lehi Shadows to the east zoned R9, and mixed manufactured-home areas to the south. Price Manor 2 fits this mixed-use fabric.

• Outcome: No vote; item left on the agenda for full council discussion upstairs.

Battery Energy Storage Text Amendment (Item 9A)

• Initial agenda request: Vice Mayor Summers requested Item 9A be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion upstairs, noting information had been provided hours before the study session that he did not fully understand and had not had time to review.

• Context provided by city manager: The text amendment relates to a battery storage facility already permitted and currently under construction. A prior planning department approval had been deemed problematic by a subsequent zoning administrator interpretation that marked battery storage as a prohibited use citywide. The ordinance aims to make the existing project "procedurally conforming" to preserve financing.

• Financing deadline and developer concern: City Manager (and later reiterated by Vice Mayor Summers) stated the developer had spent tens of millions of dollars and needed the text amendment passed by end of September to continue financing. The project is actively under construction today. The developer is building for SRP (Salt River Project), a major utility and off-taker.

• Council member's ignorance of the issue: Council Member Goforth stated bluntly that information about the battery storage project and its connection to the text amendment was given to her only hours before the study session. She said she lacked time to understand how it relates to a parcel being developed in District 6 (her district). Mark Freeman and Vice Mayor Summers had been aware, but the broader council had not.

• Motion for continuance: Vice Mayor Summers moved to continue Item 9A to the October 6 study session (the next study session before the October 13 council meeting, since the October 2 study session would be too tight) to allow staff to provide additional briefings and clarification on how the amendment affects the battery storage case and other future uses.

• Fire safety and expansion questions: Council Member Adams noted that battery fires "really burn" and requested more information about fire safety at minimum. He said he needed to understand the project well enough to explain his vote to constituents. City staff confirmed that briefings on battery energy storage systems, fire safety, and building/safety issues were being scheduled with council members.

• Scope of the ordinance disputed: Jen Duff questioned whether the ordinance is narrowly tailored to the one battery-storage case or broadly addresses legal non-conforming structures citywide. City Manager clarified that the text amendment has two components: (1) a "procedurally conforming use" provision narrowly applying to the battery storage case for now but available to any use citywide in the future, and (2) a broader rewrite of the non-conforming chapter addressing all non-conforming uses, sites, and structures to streamline improvements and expansions.

• Additional impact: A single-family resident with a non-conforming use would also be immediately aided by the amendments; the procedurally conforming portion, however, would only apply to the battery-storage project for the near term.

• Broader ordinance forthcoming: City staff noted that a more comprehensive battery-storage ordinance would return in November–December for discussion of future sites and safety controls. That ordinance will address multiple potential battery-storage development sites across the southeast valley and in southeast Mesa.

• Vote: Motion passed (individual votes not stated in transcript) to continue to October 6. The item was removed from the consent agenda and left for council discussion upstairs. City Manager pledged one-on-one briefings with council members and stated the developer would be informed of the October 6 timeline.

Opposition

Price Manor 2 Rezoning

• Number of speakers against: Not specified in transcript, but "a large number," per Council Member Adams's reference to "a large number of people say we didn't know about it."

• Main concerns:

  1. Lack of proper notice to registered neighborhood members despite applicant affidavit.
  2. Traffic impact from westbound egress onto Center Street affecting neighborhoods beyond Lehi Shadows.
  3. Concerns that non-adjacent residents were not properly informed of hearing opportunity.
  4. Questions about whether distant opposition should be weighted equally with immediate neighbors' support.
  5. Unclear whether notification methods (letters, sign, newspaper) actually reach all intended audiences.

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Council Member Adams's invocation of the Little League principle: "tie goes to the runner." When some residents claim they did not receive notice despite an affidavit saying they did, the presumption should favor those claiming non-receipt until verified.
  • The traffic reroute created a second opposition group: once the one-way gate concession was added to protect the immediate eastern neighbors (Lehi Shadows), opposition emails came from the further-west neighborhoods (along Center Street) who would now experience the diverted traffic.

• Organized groups: Lehi Community Association (registered neighborhood); Lehi Shadows (eastern subdivision); unnamed neighborhood west of the site (along Center Street).

Battery Energy Storage Text Amendment

• Number of speakers against: Council Member Summers stated he would not support approval. No public comment speakers are recorded in the study session (study sessions typically do not include formal public testimony).

• Main concerns:

  1. Council was not informed of the project and its connection to the text amendment until hours before the study session.
  2. Battery energy storage systems pose fire and life-safety risks requiring more detailed briefings before approval.
  3. Text amendment narrowly tailored to benefit one developer/project rather than addressing a citywide non-conforming use issue.
  4. Confusion over whether the ordinance's scope is narrow (battery storage only) or broad (all non-conforming uses), making it difficult to assess full impact.
  5. Financing deadline pressure should not override proper deliberation and council notification.
  6. The project should have come to council when originally proposed, not mid-construction via emergency ordinance.

• Most compelling arguments:

  • Vice Mayor Summers: "I'm not a fan of a text amendment that benefits one landowner, developer, what have you. I don't think that's the right approach."
  • Council Member Goforth's concern: lack of council notification is a governance failure. "With all due respect, I think we should have been informed of this."
  • Council Member Adams: fire and safety specifics remain unresolved. He cannot vote on it without understanding the risks and being able to explain them to constituents.

• Organized groups: None recorded as present; the developer is represented but no public testimony from residents for or against is noted.

Support

Price Manor 2 Rezoning

• Number of speakers for: Multiple residents, particularly those immediately adjacent to the east (Lehi Shadows area).

• Main arguments:

  1. The current site is blighted, collecting debris, and redevelopment is welcome.
  2. Immediate neighbors (those with the most direct impact) support the project and voiced that support at the P&Z hearing.
  3. Price Manor 2 addresses missing-middle housing, a component previously approved by overwhelming council vote (70-0) in January.
  4. Area zoning is already mixed—nearby mobile home parks allow 30 units per acre, so Price Manor 2's density is contextually appropriate.
  5. One-way gate concession demonstrates applicant responsiveness to neighborhood concerns.

• Most compelling argument:

  • Council Member Spillsberry noted that immediate neighbors and those most directly impacted support the project, and their voices should be weighted more heavily than opposition from residents further away (e.g., down Center Street) who may not directly experience the project's presence.

• Organized groups: Lehi Shadows neighborhood residents (immediate eastern neighbors).

Battery Energy Storage Text Amendment

• Support is implicit from:

  • City Manager: the project was properly permitted and approved by the planning department before the zoning administrator's interpretation. The developer "did nothing wrong" and is now stranded mid-construction. Fairness and the city's partial responsibility for the confusion justify the ordinance.
  • Vice Mayor Summers also acknowledges the developer's position: "They did everything right, we'll probably understand that."
  • City Manager notes the developer is contractually obligated to deliver the project to SRP and is actively constructing today; denial would leave them in legal limbo with tens of millions at risk.

• No formal support speakers recorded in the study session.

Project Details

Price Manor 2 Rezoning

• Case number: Not stated in transcript.

• Applicant / developer: Not named in transcript; referred to as "Mr. Blake" (attorney presenting for applicant upstairs).

• Attorney: Mr. Blake (referenced by name for upstairs presentation; no firm specified in transcript).

• Location / address: Lehi area (referred to as near Lehi Road, Mesa Drive); specific street address not stated.

• APN: Not stated in transcript.

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Not explicitly stated in study session; referenced as part of larger mixed-zoning fabric.

• Density / units / square footage: Not stated in study session; described as missing-middle housing.

• Changes from previous version: One-way gate egress control added to address immediate eastern neighbors' traffic concerns, redirecting all exit traffic west onto Center Street instead of east through Lehi Shadows. This change created new opposition from neighborhoods further west.

• Related approval: Continues missing-middle housing component approved in January as part of Price Manor project.

Battery Energy Storage Text Amendment

• Case number / Item: 9A (continued to October 6 study session).

• Developer / Owner: Not named in transcript; identified as already permitted by planning department and currently under construction.

• Contracting Partner / Off-Taker: SRP (Salt River Project).

• Location: District 6; near Ellsworth Street. Noted as across from Fire Station 219.

• Current status: Active construction underway. Prior planning department approval. Subsequently determined to be a prohibited use under a later zoning administrator interpretation.

• Ordinance purpose:

  1. Make the existing battery storage project "procedurally conforming" to preserve financing and allow completion of construction.
  2. Introduce broader legal non-conforming chapter revisions citywide, including streamlined improvement and expansion standards for all non-conforming uses, sites, and structures.
  3. Define "procedurally conforming uses" (a new category) to address situations where a zoning administrator interpretation changes a use's status mid-project.

• Financing deadline: End of September (now passed, making October 6 "six days late," per Vice Mayor Summers's comment that the developer had hoped for end-of-month approval; continuance to October 6 was the compromise).

• Scope: Citywide ordinance but with immediate application only to the one battery storage project; future battery storage facilities will be addressed in a separate, fuller ordinance in November–December.

Vote Breakdown

Board Minutes Acknowledgment (Item 2)

• Final: Approved unanimously.
• Yes: All present.
• No: None.
• Abstentions / Absences: Council Member Adams later noted he should have excluded himself from voting on the audit, finance, and enterprise committee minutes since he was not present at that committee meeting. His abstention was acknowledged but the minute vote result is not re-stated.

Price Manor 2 Rezoning (Item 8C)

• No vote in study session. Item left on agenda for full council discussion upstairs.

Battery Energy Storage Text Amendment (Item 9A)

• Motion to continue to October 6: Passed (individual votes not stated in transcript).
• Vice Mayor Summers stated he would not support approval if it proceeded tonight.
• Council Member Goforth stated she did not have enough information to support it and requested the continuance.
• Council Member Adams requested additional fire-safety information before voting.
• Jen Duff sought clarity on whether the ordinance is narrowly tailored or broad in scope.
• Item left on agenda for upstairs council discussion with notation that motion to continue will be made.

Outcome & Next Steps

Price Manor 2 Rezoning

No vote in study session. Item left on the full council agenda upstairs for discussion and decision. Staff (Evan from planning) will accompany the applicant (Mr. Blake, attorney) for council presentation. The citizen participation process questions—whether the Lehi Community Association and other registered neighborhood members actually received notice—remain unresolved at the study session level; city staff maintains the affidavit-based process is sufficient, but council members expressed skepticism.

Battery Energy Storage Text Amendment

• Continuance granted: Moved from consent agenda to be called as Item 9A upstairs; council will make a motion to continue to October 6 study session.
• Purpose of delay: To allow staff briefings on fire safety, building safety, financing implications, and the ordinance's scope (narrow vs. broad applicability).
• One-on-one briefings scheduled: City staff will meet individually with council members between now and October 6 to discuss battery energy storage systems, fire and safety concerns, and the specific case details.
• Developer notification: City Manager committed to informing the developer that the October 6 date is the continuance timeline. The developer will be "six days late" from the end-of-September deadline but will have had the additional clarity promised.
• Broader ordinance forthcoming: In November–December, staff will return with a more comprehensive battery storage ordinance addressing future development sites across the southeast valley and southeast Mesa. That ordinance will include fuller safety provisions and address the battery storage use citywide prospectively (not retroactively benefiting one project).
• Item 3C withdrawn: Applicant withdrew Item 3C from the agenda; it was read into the record as withdrawn.

Controversies & Context

Citizen Participation Verification Gap

The Price Manor 2 rezoning exposed a critical weakness in Mesa's notice-of-hearing process. The city provides applicants with address lists (residents within 500 feet and registered neighborhoods/HOAs within one mile) and requires the applicant to mail formal notices 15 days before the P&Z hearing. The city accepts a signed affidavit from the applicant as proof of mailing. However, the city does not independently verify that letters were actually received. When multiple registered neighborhood members reported non-receipt, the city had no mechanism to verify whether the affidavit matched reality.

Council Member Adams invoked the Little League analogy: "tie goes to the runner." When honest people on both sides make contradictory claims—applicant says they mailed, residents say they did not receive—the default should favor the residents' claim of non-receipt until independently verified. The city's staff acknowledged this gap: "we don't really verify. I mean, we have the affidavit, but we don't."

The three-method notice system (letters, site signage, newspaper publication) was offered as partial mitigation, but Goforth and Adams questioned its adequacy when residents explicitly claim non-receipt of the formal 15-day letter, which is the legally required notice under state statute.

Battery Storage Project Lapse in Council Notification

More serious than the Price Manor 2 notice issue was the city's failure to inform the full council about a battery energy storage project already under construction and its connection to an emergency text amendment until hours before the study session.

Council Member Goforth stated: "I was just given today um a few hours ago um information that I don't really fully understand how it relates to um a parcel that's being developed for battery storage." She had received no prior briefing; the amendment was added to the study session agenda without her knowledge of the underlying project crisis.

Mark Freeman and Vice Mayor Summers had been aware and had held meetings (on "best systems for planning" and fire-protection briefings), but the broader council was kept in the dark. This violated elementary governance practice: if a development is already under construction, already permitted, and now faces a legal/financial crisis requiring an emergency ordinance, the entire council should be briefed in advance—not informed via the study session agenda.

Council Member Goforth's rebuke was direct: "With all due respect, I think we should have been informed of this." City Manager acknowledged the misstep: "This was a learning lesson. We should do this more often when these type of things come up."

The Unique Battery Storage Interpretation Crisis

The battery storage ordinance was necessitated by an unprecedented zoning interpretation. According to City Manager (and staff), in 21 years at Mesa, they had never seen a zoning administrator interpret an entire use class (battery storage) as prohibited citywide. The project had been approved and was under construction when this interpretation was issued, stranding the developer mid-project. The developer is contractually obligated to SRP and has spent tens of millions of dollars. Denial of the ordinance would leave the project in legal non-conforming status with financing implications the developer cannot manage.

City Manager characterized this as "a unique situation" and accepted partial city responsibility: "this situation was in created in part because of the city." Thus, the ordinance is an emergency fix for a self-inflicted problem. However, Vice Mayor Summers resisted the emergency-fix framing, noting that the ordinance also broadly amends the legal non-conforming chapter citywide—making it a "text amendment that benefits one landowner, developer" while simultaneously changing city code for all non-conforming cases. This hybrid approach created confusion: is it a narrow emergency fix or a broad policy change? Staff eventually clarified it is both.

Traffic Reroute and Secondary Opposition

The Price Manor 2 rezoning featured an interesting dynamic: the applicant made a concession to the immediate eastern neighbors (Lehi Shadows) by installing a one-way gate to prevent eastbound exit, thereby protecting that neighborhood from internal project traffic. This concession initially boosted support from Lehi Shadows residents. However, it simultaneously redirected all exit traffic westbound onto Center Street, creating new opposition from neighborhoods further west who would now bear the traffic burden.

This illustrates a recurring land-use problem: traffic mitigation for one neighborhood can shift the burden to another. Council Member Spillsberry noted that the immediate neighbors support the project because it is blighted redevelopment. But he also asked whether traffic impacts on further-away residents (who may not have been properly noticed) should be given less weight than immediate-neighbor support. The transcript shows this tension unresolved.

Missing-Middle Housing Policy Continuity

Price Manor 2 is explicitly a continuation of a missing-middle housing component approved in January with overwhelming council support (70-0 vote). Missing-middle housing—typically duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and other low-to-medium-density multifamily units—has become a state and regional priority to address housing supply. Mesa's approval of the Price Manor missing-middle component in January signals council commitment to that goal. Price Manor 2 is positioned within a context of intentional zoning strategy, not isolated infill.

Fire and Safety Gaps

Council Member Adams flagged a critical information gap: no briefing on battery energy storage fire and safety had been provided to council before the study session. He noted that battery fires "really burn" and posed significant hazards. While city staff indicated that briefings were being scheduled, Adams correctly noted that voting on an ordinance affecting a hazardous-materials facility without understanding the fire-safety profile is indefensible to constituents.

The October 6 continuance was designed to allow those briefings and to integrate fire, building, and safety team input into council's decision-making before the vote.

Duration

• Study session (meeting length): Approximately 90 minutes from start of study session to adjournment.
• Time spent on Price Manor 2 rezoning (Item 8C): Approximately 30–40 minutes (including citizen participation process explanation, council questions, and debate over traffic, notification, and neighborhood support).
• Time spent on battery storage text amendment (Item 9A): Approximately 30–40 minutes (including context, financing concerns, notification failure, fire safety, ordinance scope confusion, and continuance motion).
• Remaining time: Board minutes approval, current events and conferences, scheduling announcements.

Other Notable Items

Item 3C Withdrawal: An applicant withdrew Item 3C from the agenda; it was read into the record as withdrawn. No details on the project or reason for withdrawal were provided in the transcript.

Current Events & Conferences: Council members reported attendance at multiple community events, including a memorial service for Balber Singh Sodi (September 15 commemoration), the Phoenix East Valley Partnership State of the Region event, Mesa Arts Center 20th anniversary celebration, Arizona Athletic Grounds relaunch, the Circular Arizona Symposium on materials management, an AI policy panel with Senator Kelly and ASU, and the International Association of Firefighters Memorial in Colorado Springs. These are routine and non-controversial; no zoning or land-use matters arose from these reports.