Mesa Planning Board reduces battery storage setback to 400 feet, clears path for 600-megawatt projects

Mesa Planning Board Cuts Battery Storage Setback in Half, Balancing Grid Needs Against Safety Fears

Vice Chair Chris Petrella and fellow board members voted 4-0 on October 22 to recommend reducing Mesa's proposed battery energy storage system (BESS) residential separation distance from 1,000 feet to 400 feet—and to increase the accessory use megawatt threshold from 1 to a minimum of 5—after 13 speakers, including Salt River Project, fire chiefs, renewable energy attorneys, and utility-scale battery developers, convinced the board that the original staff proposal was scientifically unfounded and would effectively block energy storage projects critical to the region's growth.

The meeting illuminated a profound tension in municipal energy policy: how to regulate an industry that exists because utilities have explicitly requested it, yet whose fires—though rare under modern safety protocols—carry real consequences. The board's modifications, while modest, signal that staff must justify its standards with data rather than conservative instinct, and that Mesa's zoning code cannot operate in isolation from the fire code, building code, and grid realities that developers and utilities face daily.

Key Speeches

"When it comes to deploying battery charging stations that support the use of battery energy storage systems, sometimes you might exceed the levels of the 1 megawatt hour simply just by deploying a few of these equipment... the way the proposal was written today, this amendment would actually put against that and actually restrict a lot of the community and the residents." — Victor Atlasman, Director of Engineering, EV charging infrastructure company

"The 1,000 foot requirement does not make sense. Mesa allows data centers 400 ft from homes. Those facilities are massive and have a significant neighborhood impact. Yet, standalone battery systems need to be 1,000 ft away... Mesa has already determined 400 ft to be safe for major infrastructure. Let's apply the same standard here." — Julie Moore, retired battalion chief, Surprise Fire Medical Department

"If I want to build a battery, it's because SRP said they want a battery. And the only way I'm going to put one in Mesa is if SRP is the one that asked for it and then is buying the output from that battery... These are more like substations which you'll see in your communities next to your homes, down the street, around the corner." — Court Rich, Rose Law Group, PC, energy department

"Jumping to a thousand foot setback without any data to back it up would shut down two major energy storage projects that SRP has already committed to... If this ordinance passes as written, these projects are gone. That 600 megawatts of clean energy Mesa won't get." — Linda Brady, Salt River Project

"I would love to see Mesa take a better process and take the industry folks and say, 'Hey, these 20 folks have really spoken out and said, These are our concerns. Can we get into rooms?'... I would challenge Mesa like, can we come up with a better way?" — Vice Chair Chris Petrella, describing his frustration with the adversarial process

Timeline

• Applicant/Staff presentations: Planning staff (Mary, Rachel) outlined the ordinance's intent to allow BESS in specified zoning districts (HI, GI, limited LI) while protecting residential uses; emphasized that accessory BESS (under 1 megawatt) are fully exempt from standards; clarified distinction between separation (property line to wall distance) and on-site setback (100 feet, per NFPA); noted the 1,000-foot residential separation was chosen after reviewing ordinances ranging from 100 to 3,000 feet nationwide, with no industry standard.

• Public comment: 13 speakers over approximately 60 minutes; strong alignment across industry, fire, and utility sectors against the 1,000-foot separation. Victor Atlasman, Autumn Johnson (Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association), Julie Moore (retired Surprise firefighter), Ryan Rickles, Sepand Alazada (Arizona Technology Council), Andy Tobin (Western Way), Court Rich, Aaron Brham (IPA Power), Jeff Crockett (renewable energy attorney), Nico Howard (former Phoenix planning chair), Linda Brady (SRP), and one online speaker (Nico Howard) all articulated that 1,000 feet was excessive, unsupported by safety data, and threatened two funded projects already in design and environmental review.

• Staff rebuttal and technical testimony: Mary (Planning) reframed the safety rationale, noting that separation distance differs from data center setbacks because BESS pose hazards around air and water leaching in emergencies; acknowledged hearing from residents at study sessions requesting greater protection, not less. Sean Alexander (Fire Marshal, Division Chief, Fire Prevention) testified that modern battery systems are governed by NFPA 855 with rigorous testing, advanced venting, thermal management, and 24/7 remote shutdown capabilities; noted that the battery industry was "completely upgraded" post-Surprise; explained firefighting tactics now focus on containing spread between containers rather than stopping a fire within the involved unit; and emphasized that the fire code and building code—which incorporate evolving NFPA standards—will provide site-specific hazard review regardless of zoning setbacks. John Schffer (Building Official) explained the 1-megawatt threshold was derived from the American Clean Power Association's utility-scale BESS model ordinance.

• Board discussion: Vice Chair Petrella (Chris), Board Member Blakeman (Jamie), Board Member Peterson, and Board Member Carpenter dominated the discussion. Carpenter questioned why staff changed from the original draft's 400-foot residential separation to 1,000 feet, and noted that a thousand-foot separation from City Hall reaches to the front door of a nearby building—making the distance viscerally comprehensible. Petrella articulated frustration with the lack of consensus and the adversarial tone, arguing that industry's consistent concerns (represented by career experts, not hobby observers) deserved more weight than staff's theoretical research. Blakeman emphasized the impossibility of picking arbitrary numbers when technology changes faster than ordinances can be rewritten; Peterson questioned whether a cumulative 1-megawatt threshold for accessory uses makes sense if the market is moving toward distributed, smaller battery installations in commercial spaces.

• Proposed amendments: Petrella moved to recommend adoption with two modifications: (1) reduce residential separation from 1,000 feet to 400 feet; (2) increase the accessory use cumulative capacity threshold from 1 megawatt to a minimum of 5 megawatts, with direction to staff to evaluate whether that threshold is appropriate or whether a case-by-case review process should be built in. The motion received a second and passed 4-0 (unanimous). The board clarified that the 400-foot separation would apply to both residential and all other sensitive uses (churches, parks, schools), and that staff would bring the revised language and further analysis to City Council in December.

• Outcome: BESS ordinance with modifications recommended to City Council; middle housing amendments adopted unanimously (4-0) without discussion or amendment. Vice Chair Petrella explicitly rejected the option of deferring the 1-megawatt question to staff review without a board recommendation, insisting instead on a specific number (5 megawatts) that staff was directed to validate.

Opposition

0 speakers in formal opposition. The public comment was heavily one-sided against the 1,000-foot separation requirement, though no organized opposition groups formally testified. Planning staff, implicitly, opposed the 400-foot proposal, arguing that the 1,000-foot distance was justified by the need to minimize air and water contamination impacts to residents and represented a middle ground in the absence of industry consensus standards.

Concerns voiced against the original 1,000-foot requirement (de facto opposition to staff proposal):

1. Arbitrary and scientifically unsupported: No NFPA, American Planning Association, or National Fire Protection Agency standard supports a 1,000-foot separation; NFPA itself requires only 100 feet. Jurisdictions adopting BESS ordinances range from 100 feet (NFPA baseline) to 3,000 feet (Surprise), with no consensus. The thousand-foot standard appears pulled from air rather than grounded in fire testing or hazard analysis.

2. Inconsistent with Mesa's own precedent: Mesa allows data centers 400 feet from residential uses, despite their massive footprints and neighborhood impacts. Applying a 2.5-fold greater distance to BESS facilities—which are smaller and pose less aesthetic and noise burden—is contradictory and sends a muddled signal about risk tolerance.

3. De facto moratorium on critical infrastructure: With 1,000 feet of separation plus grid interconnection proximity constraints, only a handful of sites in Mesa qualify; SRP identified two funded, designed, and permitted projects (600 megawatts total) that cannot proceed if the ordinance stands as written. Linda Brady (SRP) testified that without waiver or reduction, Mesa loses essential capacity to meet energy demand through 2029.

4. Chokes distributed energy storage and accessory uses: A cumulative 1-megawatt threshold for battery-backed EV chargers means a grocery store with three superchargers (600 kW each) triggers the "battery facility" classification. Manufacturing plants with battery-powered tools on a single campus would breach the threshold cumulatively and lose their original use designation. This conflates utility-scale grid infrastructure with behind-the-meter, distributed energy management—a category mismatch that will chill adoption of the technology Mesa and Arizona claim to encourage.

5. Inconsistent with Arizona's energy-neutral policy consensus: Multiple speakers cited Arizona's "all-of-the-above" energy strategy (advanced manufacturing, renewables, storage, nuclear development pipeline). The 1,000-foot setback contradicts state energy policy and positions Mesa as a regulatory outlier, discouraging investment and jobs.

6. Ignores industry evolution post-Surprise: As Julie Moore (retired Surprise fire chief) emphasized, the 2019 Surprise battery fire catalyzed industry-wide safety upgrades—advanced venting, thermal sensors, remote shutdown, battery management systems. Modern BESS bear little resemblance to the technology that burned in Surprise. Regulating 2025 technology based on 2019 disaster is conservative to the point of irrationality.

7. Creates precedent for municipal overreach: Andy Tobin (Western Way) and Nico Howard (former Phoenix planning chair) warned that if Mesa sets a 1,000-foot standard, it will be copied statewide, fragmenting investment certainty and creating a patchwork of overly restrictive regulations that kill the industry.

Most compelling argument against the 1,000-foot standard: Court Rich and Nico Howard jointly emphasized that BESS development is not speculative; SRP (or Mesa's own utility) must request and fund the project. These are not discretionary commercial developments—they are essential grid infrastructure that only exist because utilities have identified a need. Treating them like a shopping mall or manufacturing plant through strict setback requirements mischaracterizes the nature of the use. The closest analogy is substations, which Mesa permits near residential areas because they are grid-essential and regulated by fire and building code. The same logic applies to BESS.

Support

13 speakers in favor of reducing or eliminating the 1,000-foot separation requirement (equivalently, opposing the original staff proposal as written). No organized groups testified in formal support, but alignment across industry, utilities, fire service, and professional associations was striking.

Key supporting constituencies:

1. Renewable energy and energy storage developers: Aaron Brham (IPA Power, utility-scale battery development), Victor Atlasman (EV infrastructure), Ryan Rickles (battery manufacturing and installation), and Jeff Crockett (attorney representing renewable energy companies) all supported the ordinance in concept but insisted the 1,000-foot separation be reduced or eliminated in favor of 400 feet or NFPA 100-foot baseline.

2. Utilities and grid operators: Linda Brady (SRP) testified directly that the ordinance as written would kill two funded projects and told the board that Mesa's integrated resource plan and climate action plan explicitly call for BESS deployment. SRP's position carries weight because BESS developers cannot build without a utility off-taker and interconnection agreement; SRP's opposition effectively kills projects.

3. Fire service expertise: Julie Moore (battalion chief, Surprise Fire) provided the most credible safety testimony, arguing that modern BESS pose less fire risk than older technology; that Mesa's own 400-foot data center standard is adequate; and that the fire code, not zoning separation distances, is the proper tool for regulating battery fire risk.

4. Professional and industry associations: Autumn Johnson (Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association), Sepand Alazada (Arizona Technology Council), and Andy Tobin (Western Way) all urged the board to adopt best practices rather than outlier standards, and to recognize that energy storage is critical to Arizona's economic growth and climate goals.

5. Planning and development professionals: Nico Howard (former Phoenix planning chair and Mesa property owner) and Jeff Crockett (renewable energy attorney and frequent Arizona Corporation Commission/siting committee witness) brought municipal and regulatory expertise, warning that Mesa's approach would harm competitiveness and set a negative precedent.

Most compelling argument in support of 400-foot separation (or lower): Linda Brady's statement that two projects totaling 600 megawatts—already funded, designed, and in permitting—would be killed by the 1,000-foot standard, directly and quantifiably undermining Mesa's stated energy and climate goals. The specificity of the harm (two real projects, 600 MW, funded, designed) distinguished this from abstract policy debate and forced the board to weigh abstract safety margins against concrete economic and energy security loss.

Project Details

• Case number: PZ25-0093 (BESS ordinance); PZ25-0094 or similar (middle housing amendments)
• Applicant/Developer: City of Mesa Planning & Development Services (staff-initiated text amendments); indirect applicants include IPA Power, SRP, and two unnamed pre-submittals (on Signal View Road and elsewhere).
• Attorney: Sarah (City Attorney's Office), Kirsten (Assistant City Attorney, drafted language and advised on Prop. 207 grandfathering issues).
• Location/Jurisdiction: Citywide; specific sites mentioned include Signal View Road (one project under construction), two pre-submitted projects in design, and various LI, GI, HI districts throughout Mesa.
• Current code status: BESS are currently not defined or permitted in Mesa zoning code; the text amendment creates the use classification and standards.
• Proposed zoning districts for BESS: Primarily HI (Heavy Industrial) and GI (General Industrial), with limited LI (Light Industrial) subject to Planned Area Development (PAD) process. Residential separation triggers rezoning requirement (City Council discretion).
• Density/square footage/capacity: Not specified by applicant (this is a code text amendment, not a specific project). Two pre-submitted projects total approximately 600 megawatts; individual project sizes not disclosed.
• Changes from previous version: Original draft included 400-foot separation for all sensitive receptors (residential, schools, churches, parks). Revised version increased residential separation to 1,000 feet while keeping other sensitive receptors at 400 feet—a distinction that generated most of the controversy. Board's motion reverted residential back to 400 feet, aligning all sensitive receptors.

Vote Breakdown

Item 5A (BESS Ordinance):

• Final: 4-0 (recommended adoption with modifications)
• Yes: Vice Chair Chris Petrella (moved), Board Member Jamie Blakeman (seconded/voted yes), Board Member Peterson (yes), Board Member Carpenter (yes)
• No: None
• Abstentions/absences: Board Members Pitcher, Montess, and Farnsworth excused at roll call.

Item 5B (Middle Housing Amendments):

• Final: 4-0 (recommended adoption)
• Yes: Board Member Petrella, Vice Chair Peterson, Board Member Blakeman, Board Member Carpenter
• No: None
• Abstentions: None
• Absences: Same three members

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the BESS ordinance to City Council with two material modifications:

1. Residential separation distance: Reduced from 1,000 feet to 400 feet, matching the distance applied to other sensitive uses (schools, churches, parks). This aligns Mesa's standard with its own data center ordinance and moves toward national practice (though still significantly above the NFPA 100-foot minimum).

2. Accessory BESS cumulative capacity threshold: Increased from 1 megawatt to a minimum of 5 megawatts, with direction to staff to evaluate and report to City Council on whether 5 MW is appropriate or whether a case-by-case review mechanism should be added. Accessory BESS remain exempt from the ordinance's facility standards (separation, noise, fire hardening); only fire and building code apply.

Path to City Council: The ordinance will proceed to City Council, likely in December, carrying the board's recommendations. Staff is expected to revise the ordinance language to reflect the 400-foot separation and will provide analysis on the 5-megawatt threshold. City Council retains final discretion and may accept, reject, or further modify the recommendations. Two pre-submitted BESS projects (one under construction on Signal View, two in design) are expected to benefit from staff language (sections 15 and 16 of the draft) that allows them to proceed without rezoning if Council approves the ordinance.

Conditions attached: Board recommended adoption "with modifications" but did not attach specific project conditions; conditions will flow from fire code, building code, NFPA 855 compliance, and case-by-case hazard analysis. All BESS projects will require plan review by Fire Marshal and Building Official.

Middle housing amendment: Unanimously recommended for adoption; no conditions or modifications. Amendments permit duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses in certain circumstances with eligibility and parking standards. No continuance; expected to proceed to Council.

Controversies & Context

The 1,000-foot separation dispute originated in a study session with City Council three to four weeks prior. Planning staff presented the ordinance draft with the original 400-foot residential separation. At that meeting, some council members and residents requested greater protection, citing hypothetical air and water contamination impacts and concern over the nascent industry. Staff, in response, revised the ordinance to increase the residential separation to 1,000 feet while leaving other sensitive uses at 400 feet. This decision was made without published data or technical analysis supporting the 1,000-foot figure; Mary (Planning) acknowledged that jurisdictions nationwide range from 100 to 3,000 feet with no consensus.

The Surprise battery fire of 2019 haunts the conversation. Julie Moore's testimony reframed the danger: modern BESS—with advanced venting, thermal sensors, remote shutdown, and battery management systems—are not the same as the facility that burned in Surprise. The industry has undergone a wholesale redesign. Yet Mesa's ordinance implicitly treats 2025 technology as if it poses the same risk as 2019 technology. This regulatory lag is a known problem in emerging industries and typically leads to either overregulation (stifling growth) or eventual correction as fear recedes and data accumulates.

The data center ordinance precedent cuts both ways. Developers and fire officials argue: Mesa permits data centers 400 feet from homes; data centers are larger, noisier, and aesthetically intrusive; BESS are smaller and more remote. Why is BESS regulated 2.5 times more strictly? Staff counters: data centers are primarily an aesthetic and noise nuisance (addressed through setback and screening); BESS pose a chemical/thermal hazard (addressed through a larger separation). But staff did not present quantitative risk analysis; the distinction remains intuitive rather than evidential.

The 1-megawatt cumulative threshold generates a different category of concern. This is not a separation distance issue but a threshold that reclassifies uses. Ryan Rickles gave a cogent example: three Tesla superchargers (600 kW each) at a grocery store equal 1.8 MW, triggering the "battery facility" classification and subjecting the entire property to BESS standards and setback/separation requirements. A manufacturing campus with battery-powered tools cumulatively exceeds 1 MW and loses its zoning classification. The concern is not hypothetical; it reflects the real distribution of battery technology in the economy. Staff cited the American Clean Power Association's model ordinance (which uses 1 MW for utility-scale) but acknowledged that "utility scale" in the ACP definition is a grid-interconnected project, not a distributed installation. Board members skeptically noted that technology moves faster than ordinances; locking in 1 MW (or even 5 MW) in 2025 may be obsolete by 2027 if battery prices halve and distributed storage saturates the commercial market. The board's response—asking staff to evaluate and report back—defers the decision but signals unease with the threshold.

SRP's two funded projects at stake. Linda Brady's testimony crystallized the economic cost. SRP has committed 600 megawatts of battery storage (two projects, funded, designed, in environmental review) to the Phoenix metro area. If Mesa adopts a 1,000-foot setback, neither project can proceed; the land use conflicts are insurmountable. This is not a developer's speculation but a utility's capital plan. The loss of 600 MW delays grid stability improvements and keeps energy prices higher (SRP cited wholesale energy price reductions from BESS deployment nationally). The ordinance thus has a quantifiable opportunity cost.

State preemption and competitive dynamics: Andy Tobin and Nico Howard warned that if Mesa sets a national-high standard, other Arizona cities will copy it, and Arizona will fall behind competitors (California, Texas, Colorado) in attracting battery storage investment and the jobs that follow. Arizona's "all-of-the-above" energy strategy is meaningless if municipalities over-regulate one leg of the stool. This is a federalism/competitive federalism concern—not strictly legal preemption, but economic and policy misalignment.

Fire code vs. zoning code tension: Sean Alexander (Fire Marshal) made a subtle but important point: the fire code, updated to NFPA 855, will regulate battery systems site-by-site, with hazard-specific mitigation (thermal monitoring, isolation, suppression, etc.). The zoning separation distance is a blunt tool—a one-size-fits-all distance that does not account for the specific safety design of a project or site-specific factors (topography, wind, proximity to water sources). A strict setback may lull the city into thinking it has addressed safety, when the real safety work happens in fire code plan review. Conversely, absence of a setback might tempt the planning department to rubber-stamp projects without rigorous fire code involvement. The interplay between zoning and fire code is a source of confusion and tension in the ordinance design.

The board's idealism vs. pragmatism: Vice Chair Petrella's lengthy closing statement articulated a meta-concern about the planning process itself. He noted that on every major Mesa zoning change in recent years—drive-thru regulations, data centers, now BESS—the same pattern emerges: staff proposes; industry objects; board is caught in the middle; some members vote no in hopes of forcing better negotiation; but it passes anyway. This cycle, he suggested, is a failure of process. Instead of adversarial public hearings, Mesa should convene working groups and seek consensus before a draft goes to PNZ. This is philosophically astute but operationally difficult in a public-process-driven municipality. However, Petrella's sentiment resonates: the 13 speakers were not distributed 50-50 pro/con; they were overwhelmingly pro-400-feet or pro-industry-concern, and that alignment suggests staff did not adequately consult or iterate with stakeholders.

Middle housing as consensus item: By contrast, the middle housing amendment passed with zero objection and zero public comment (one person spoke in favor, one online commenter was unreachable). This suggests staff did adequate stakeholder engagement on the housing side. The same rigor was arguably absent on the BESS ordinance, where the planning department shifted the goalposts (400 → 1,000 feet) in response to vague council member requests rather than clear data.

Duration

• BESS ordinance (Item 5A): Approximately 90–120 minutes (public comment ~60 minutes; staff presentations ~20 minutes; board discussion and vote ~20–30 minutes).
• Middle housing amendments (Item 5B): Approximately 5–10 minutes (one public comment, unanimous approval, no debate).
• Total meeting: Approximately 2 hours 15 minutes (including consent agenda, administrative items, and breaks).

Other Notable Items

Consent Agenda (4-0 approval): Four routine zoning cases, including a 276-unit residential development at Medina Station; a 15-unit project on South Mesa Drive (continued to November); and a minor automobile service facility site plan modification. None drew public comment or board discussion.

Middle Housing Text Amendment (5B) – unanimous adoption: Amendments to chapters 31, 32, 86, and 87 of the Mesa City Code permit duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhouses in certain circumstances and zones, adding definitions and development standards (parking, eligibility, design). Aura Napoleon testified in favor, noting the amendments expand housing options for her family. No opposition. Passed 4-0 without modification.