Mesa unanimously adopts 17-chapter code amendments for state compliance despite attorney warnings of redevelopment burdens

State Statute Compliance Code Overhaul Passes Amid Warnings It May Reverse Its Own Objective

The Mesa Planning and Zoning Board unanimously adopted a comprehensive package of municipal code amendments on December 10, 2025, aimed at implementing Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-500.49 compliance. Yet the approval came only after a sharp critique from land-use attorney Adam Ba, who argued that the new language—despite ostensibly simplifying development review—actually reintroduces the very subjective discretion and delays that the state statute intended to eliminate, with particular impact on infill and redevelopment projects.

The board voted unanimously on both Item 6A (amendments to Chapters 66 and 67, governing planning and zoning board and design review board organization) and Item 6B (amendments to 17 chapters establishing new objective standards and administrative review pathways). However, the board attached a critical condition to 6B: that staff clarify the definition of "change of use" in Section 11-69-5 before presentation to city council, scheduled for January 12 introduction and January 26 final action.

Key Speeches

"The draft was released 48 hours ago and I really haven't had time to fully digest it… I might be the only one here today, but I think it's probably because most people don't know what this was because it was just barely released not too long ago." — Adam Ba, land-use attorney

"What I'm hearing here is when you read the text now, they've added the phrases 'change of land use' or 'uses.' And so if I'm just looking at the code, I was curious myself like what does that mean?… If I'm a bank today and those banks become something else, let's say the bank becomes a retail store or a salon—reszone. If I was a commercial entertainment use and I want to become a commercial recreation use—reszone. If I want, if I'm a restaurant and I just want to become a general market—reszone." — Adam Ba

"The first thing is the process has not changed today. If you change your use and you are stipped to an ordinance that was part of a rezoning that went to council, it is the same process that you are going through today… What we've done is we've tried to clarify what that means and that's where we brought in the change of the use and the definition of what that means." — City staff response (speaker not identified in transcript)

"I think that if there's a site plan edit, that obviously makes sense from a change of use. I still think the clarity of what it means to have a change of use is something that's going to happen." — Board Member Peterson

"If it's causing confusion here with people who work with us every day, that's definitely something that we can do as part of our recommendation because then when we bring it back to council, they'll understand why it's there." — City staff

Timeline

• Item 6A presentation and discussion: No public comment; board proceeded directly to motion.
• Item 6B—applicant/public comment: Adam Ba submitted one blue card (the sole commenter) and presented a 10-minute extemporaneous critique.
• Staff response: City staff (names not clearly stated in transcript) addressed Ba's concerns point-by-point, emphasizing that the process has not changed for projects currently in the pipeline, and that the state statute addresses objective design standards, not objective site plan standards.
• Board discussion: Board members Peterson and Farnsworth raised procedural and clarity concerns. Farnsworth questioned the 48-hour notice period and requested clarification of the true posting timeline. Peterson pressed for definition of "change of use" and voiced concern about potential litigation exposure.
• Staff clarification (second response): City staff re-emphasized that the amendments affect only projects where a site plan was stipulated to a city council ordinance, and that "change of use" is tied to any modification to the site plan itself, not mere tenant turnover within existing footprints.
• Board condition: Before voting, Chair Troy (full name not stated in transcript) inserted a condition requiring staff to clarify "change of use" in Section 11-69-5 before council presentation.
• Votes: Item 6A passed unanimously without recorded individual votes. Item 6B passed unanimously with the above condition. A seven-item consent agenda (Items 2A, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) passed unanimously without discussion.

Opposition

• Number of speakers against: 1 (Adam Ba, representing no formal opposition group)
• Main concerns:
  1. Inadequate public notice: 48-hour release of the final draft code language, compared to typical multi-week notice for project-level applications and stakeholder engagement (neighbor meetings, site postings, letters).
  2. Deviation from state statute intent: The new code language requires public hearings and subjective review for "major site plan modifications," contradicting ARS 9-500.49's directive for "objective standards without a public hearing."
  3. Ambiguous "change of use" definition: The phrase was added to the code but lacks clear definition, creating uncertainty about when a use change triggers a major site plan modification requiring rezoning.
  4. Burden on redevelopment and infill: Routine use swaps within commercial zoning categories (e.g., bank to salon, restaurant to general market, commercial entertainment to commercial recreation, personal services to office) will now require rezoning if the original approval was stipulated to a site plan. New development on greenfield sites will not face this issue, but older developed sites will.
  5. Process delay and cost: Rezoning adds time, cost, and risk to projects, particularly problematic when a Walgreens or other anchor tenant closure forces a use change in a long-approved commercial center.
  6. Unintended incentive to avoid stipulations: Developers will hesitate to agree to "site plan compliance" stipulations in future zoning approvals, knowing a future use change could force a legislative rezoning action.
  7. Low turnout attributed to poor notice: Only one commenter appeared; staff later conceded that a public open house held earlier drew only four attendees (one council member and two Phoenix residents).

Support

No speakers explicitly in support of the code amendments. Staff and the board did not articulate affirmative endorsement beyond the procedural vote; the amendments were treated as a compliance obligation imposed by state law.

Project Details

• Case numbers: Item 6A (no case number listed); Item 6B (no case number listed)
• Subject matter: Amendments to 17 chapters of Title 11 (Mesa City Code): Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 42, 46, 56, 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 80, 81, 86, and 87.
• Statute driving amendments: Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-500.49 (passed by state legislature; requires objective standards for certain land-use applications and eliminates public hearing requirements for administrative-level decisions).
• Key definitions affected: Chapter 69 (development plan review and modifications), particularly Section 11-69-5, defining "change of use" and distinguishing "major" from "minor" site plan modifications.
• Applicant/developer: Not applicable; this is a code amendment, not a specific project.
• Attorney: Adam Ba (representing private interests critical of the amendments).

Vote Breakdown

Item 6A—Proposed Amendments to Chapters 66 and 67:

• Final: Unanimous adoption (no individual votes recorded in transcript)

Item 6B—Proposed Amendments to 17 Chapters for Administrative Review and ARS 9-500.49 Compliance:

• Final: Unanimous adoption with condition (no individual votes recorded in transcript)

Board member names mentioned in roll call:

• Chair (name given as "Chairs" in transcript; full name not stated)
• Vice Chair Peterson (present)
• Board member Pitcher (present)
• Board member Blakeman (present)
• Board member Carpenter (present)
• Board member Farnsworth (present)
• Board member Montes (excused)

Individual votes by name were not recorded in the transcript.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning and Zoning Board adopted both Item 6A and Item 6B unanimously. The board attached a condition to Item 6B requiring city staff to clarify the definition of "change of use" in Section 11-69-5 before the amendments proceed to city council.

Council calendar:

• Study session: January 8, 2026 (Thursday)
• Introduction: January 12, 2026
• Final action: January 26, 2026

City staff indicated that this Planning and Zoning Board approval is the first formal step of the public process; additional opportunities for public input will occur at the council study session and at formal council meetings in January. Staff also noted a prior public open house held to discuss the concepts underlying the amendments, though attendance was minimal.

Controversies & Context

State-mandated urgency: Arizona's legislature passed Section 9-500.49, requiring municipalities to establish objective design standards and streamline administrative approval processes without public hearings. The statute was described by Ba as a legislative effort to "simplify processes, remove subjectivity and discretion and accelerate development approvals." Mesa staff appeared to react to this mandate under time pressure, rolling out the amendments on an accelerated timeline.

The irony flagged by Ba: While the state statute aims to eliminate discretion and public hearings, Ba argued that the new code language—by introducing the concept of "major site plan modifications" subject to public hearing and by adding undefined terms like "change of use"—actually reintroduces subjective discretion. When a major modification requires a public hearing, Ba noted, the applicant "loses the objective standards and it becomes purely subjective and discretionary."

Litigation risk acknowledged: Board member Farnsworth raised concern about potential litigation exposure. Staff acknowledged that a 2016–2018 court case had upheld the principle that a change of use tied to a site plan change constitutes a legislative act requiring city council approval, suggesting the current code is attempting to codify that precedent. However, the vagueness of "change of use" may invite challenge.

Redevelopment vs. new development disparity: Ba emphasized that new greenfield development will be minimally affected, as developers typically do not face use-change scenarios on newly approved sites. The burden falls on infill and adaptive reuse projects, where existing buildings change tenants or use categories. This is particularly acute in older commercial centers where anchor tenants (Walgreens, banks) have closed or relocated, forcing operators to repurpose the space. Under the new code, absent clear thresholds, such adaptations may trigger unnecessary rezoning.

Inadequate stakeholder notice: Ba objected to the 48-hour window between final draft release and the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, contrasting it with the multi-week notice periods typically required for individual projects. He noted that most developers, architects, engineers, and land-use attorneys would not have been aware of the amendments and would likely have submitted comments had they known. Staff countered that the agenda was posted on Thursday (the board meeting was on December 10, a Wednesday), implying more than 48 hours, but acknowledged that a courtesy red-line document for one chapter was posted late (Monday afternoon). Clarification from Alexis, the agenda clerk, confirmed that red-lines were posted as a courtesy to help readers visualize large replacement chapters, and the Monday posting of the missing red-line was a follow-up to requests from the public who had noticed the omission.

Only one public commenter: Ba was the sole blue-card speaker on this item. Staff attributed low turnout to the short notice window and the abstract nature of a code amendment versus a specific project. The prior public open house had drawn only four attendees. This disparity highlights the tension between the board's perception of adequate process (study sessions, council deliberation, open houses) and the practical reality that land-use professionals and the development community often learn of broad code changes too late to mobilize.

Board member uncertainty: Both Peterson and Farnsworth expressed discomfort with the clarity of the "change of use" definition and its interaction with the stipulation language. Peterson worried aloud about litigation risk and requested explicit clarification before council presentation. Farnsworth pressed the staff on the notice timeline and seemed sympathetic to Ba's procedural objection, though neither voted against the amendments.

Staff's pushback on "almost every case": In rebuttal, city staff disputed Ba's characterization that "almost every case" coming before city council includes a site plan stipulation. Staff argued that only projects involving rezoning or special use permits (i.e., projects that require a legislative action and ordinance) would be subject to the new rules; many administrative approvals and ministerial permits would not. However, staff conceded that projects Ba typically handles—those requiring a land-use attorney—likely involve rezoning or council-level decisions and thus would be affected.

Duration

• Item 6A: Minimal (no public comment, no board discussion; estimated <5 minutes)
• Item 6B: Approximately 40–50 minutes (10-minute public comment from Ba; 10–15 minutes of staff responses; 15–20 minutes of board discussion and clarification questions)
• Total meeting: Approximately 90 minutes (including consent agenda and administrative items)

Other Notable Items

The consent agenda (Items 2A, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) passed unanimously without discussion. Items of note included:

• Item 3A (Cadence DU): 3,002-unit multifamily development at the southwest corner of Chrisman Road and Williamsfield Road (17 acres), with a special use permit for parking reduction; recommendation for approval with conditions.
• Item 3B (Circle K): 5,200-square-foot service station at the southeast corner of East POS Road and Southman Road (6.3 acres); recommendation for approval with conditions.
• Items 5A and 5B (The Lincoln): 9.1-acre planned employment park redevelopment with proposed rezoning to multiresiential (113 attached single-family units) and general plan amendment; both continued to the January 14, 2026 meeting.