Well, good evening, everyone.

It's time to start our Mesa City Council study session for September 22nd.

All of our council members are present.

Item one is to review the agenda for tonight's council meeting.

I know we've gone over this, but I know there's some questions from council and uh counsel uh going through the agenda.

What would be your wishes?

I'll start out.

Uh Mr.

Smith 9A.

I was told Mr.

Butler uh a continuance has been requested of some type.

Yes, Mayor, the the applicant has some I think we can probably still we could leave it off of the agenda because I think I don't want to still make under, but I think the vice mayor might want to make a motion on the precise nature of that continuance as opposed to putting it on to the consent agenda so that way we can have clarity as to the nature of the continuance.

What's your pleasure?

Yeah, we'll leave it off consent and I'll take 9A9B as one vote and I'll make a motion on it upstairs.

Okay, very good.

I know we received some requests about HC.

That would be price manner two.

Uh Ms.

Brown.

Can we talk about the participation there?

Public participation.

I know that's been a question having gone through price matter one myself as a council member.

And um Evan, can you give us some updates to that?

Uh yes, thank you, Mayor.

Uh council.

So with me tonight, I have Jennifer Merrill.

She's a senior planner with our our planning department.

And yes, we've gotten um a few questions about the citizen participation process for price manor.

There are two essentially two steps with citizen participation.

The first one we call it the hey neighbor letter, and that's an informal letter that the applicant sends out, and it's hey neighbor, we've made this application with the city of Mesa to for rezoning.

Here's my contact information.

I'd love I'd love to talk to you.

That one is a more informal letter, and then this one did a neighborhood meeting as well.

The formal letters are required by state statute to go out 15 days before the public hearing for planning and zoning board.

So there are three things public notice-wise that have to happen before a planning zoning board meeting.

One, the letters go out 15 days before.

Two, uh sign gets posted on the site, so they physically post one of those big signs on the site, and then it also needs to be published in a newspaper.

Um the city provides the applicant uh the address list for the residents within a radius, a 500-foot radius, and then also uh registered neighborhoods and and hoas within a mile of the site.

We have moved to a model where the applicant and we give the applicant instructions, reminder to post, and we outline, you know, you have to do your site posting your letters and and all the things, and that you have to send the letters to these two separate lists.

The applicant actually mails those letters and provides the city an affidavit that says I mail the letters on on this date.

Uh, we receive that affidavit uh from the applicant for the letters and also the sign posting.

Uh we also have them include a letter to the the case planner that that goes through the normal process so that we can be sure that that they actually went out and we received that that letter as well.

So uh from the city's perspective, uh the the citizen participation was was completed.

Okay, I I know there were some comments about uh registered neighborhoods.

I guess I'll ask the question is the Lehigh Community Association a registered neighborhood would have received that information.

Uh mayor, yes.

The uh neighborhood, the Lehigh neighborhood is a registered uh neighborhood.

They appear on on the list for registered neighborhoods, yes.

Um did they receive the notification?

I guess is my question.

Do you have you know that's a good question?

And and the applicant might be able to speak a little bit more to that, but what the city has is an affidavit from the applicant that says I mailed the letters and and the city gave them instructions on on who to mail the letters to.

Okay.

Ms.

Goforth you.

Well, I was just gonna say, so we don't really verify.

I mean, we have the affidavit, but we don't so if somebody says, Well, I I'm part of the registered neighborhood and I didn't get one.

Uh mayor, council member go forth.

That that's correct.

I would add that you know it it's we run into this periodically where some people just don't get mail or it goes to a P.O.

box, or there's there's a lot of of reasons, but we we provide that address list to the applicant and they gave us the affidavit that says that the letters were mailed.

So is the registered neighborhood one representative of that registered neighborhood, or everybody in the neighborhood?

Um it can go either way for this one specifically, there were a handful of of folks on that list.

Okay.

Mr.

Adams.

Well, I was gonna 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 were received and people that you've talked to?

I think that's what we're being told.

So I I'm not sure what how how we move forward from here.

So mayor and council members, if I could, one of the reasons that we have different ways to notify the neighborhoods, so they there are the letters.

The sign was also posted on the site so that people in the neighborhood would see the sign on the site before the hearing for PNC, and then it's also in the newspaper because I'm not saying it did happen, but letters get lost in the mail, they may have gone to uh you know, into their trash without looking at it.

I I I I can't speak to why the the um different neighborhood neighbors may not have received it, but that's why there's the three different methods to make sure that we're trying to capture as many people as we can for those notices.

So you have the registered neighborhood, HOAs, and the 500 foot notification.

Those are the three areas, and then also the the physical sign post is on the side and and a publication in the newspaper.

Okay, Mr.

Adams.

Well, uh, I understand all that, and uh I I guess what we potentially have here is we have uh honest people on all sides of this issue who one group of honest people say we we mailed them, delivered them.

Here's my affidavit, and another group of honest people say in fairly good number, we didn't get it.

So how do we handle that?

How have we handled that in the past where we have a situation because um I I it wouldn't be my intent to uh argue this out here in study session, but sure there are folks who want to be heard.

But it seems to me, you know, when I started playing little league, we had that thing called tie goes to the runner.

And I would I would generally side when a large number of people say we didn't know about it.

What do we do?

What have we done in the past, Evan?

If you can't sure uh that's a good uh good question, Mayor, Councilmember Adams.

So, you know, when the reason that we went to the affidavit method, and maybe if I I back up just a little bit, the way that we had did it done it previously was an applicant would would compile all of their letters, they drop them off at the city office, stamped and sealed, and then we actually take them to the post office, which got um cumbersome and and time consuming.

So we went to the affidavit method, and I think what the way that staff, at least I personally am looking at it, is that if we have a signed affidavit from an applicant that said that they did it, my inclination is is that they signed this affidavit and and they said that the letters were mailed.

And mayor council member Adams, if I can add, it's important to note that there were a lot of representatives at the PNZ hearing from the Lehigh neighborhood.

So whether they they got the notice, because you you're right, I don't know if they did or they didn't.

Again, the science site was posted, again it was in the newspaper.

That they were at the planning and zoning board hearing, they did voice their concerns about the project.

The planning and zoning board did listen to what they had to say about their concerns related to the citizen participation process and the report.

Um so the there they they did have that voice at that public hearing that P and Z held before we're bringing this project to council.

I'd like to say also in the submittal documents are some of the narrative I read from a constituent there who claimed they didn't have notice or input and but their documents are in the submittal documents.

So anyway.

I and the applicant usually provides uh address lists, and it's in the submittal documents, right?

So if their name wasn't on the address list, that would also be a point of checking.

Uh mayor council member duff.

So yes, that's that's a good point, actually.

So when this went to planning and zoning board, we got a number of emails and phone calls from constituents in the area that you know they we we weren't noticed.

So we updated, we took their emails and wanted to make sure that they were heard, they were added to the citizen participation report so that you know planning and zoning board and in city council can have all the information.

Um so yes, we we updated all of those that citizen participation report.

There is an address list in the citizen participation report document, which is the mailing, the radius mailing list um that doesn't include the HOAs in the registered neighborhoods.

Usually when they're compiling that list, it it's for an earlier step in the process.

Um we require that that be submitted to the the planning department before it goes to the planning and zoning board.

Uh the applicant might be able to shed a little bit more light on their process for the neighborhood meeting and and how they went about the mailings for that.

Well, the my thought was the the ones that are either for or against this project knew about it from the PNC meeting, and you corrected that.

You know, the word travels pretty fast in the Lehigh area, so you can't get away with anything out there, trust me, I live there.

But uh still I think it's important that the communication was done.

It sounds like it was uh from the affidavit, ensuring that message was delivered based on the information we gave the applicant to send the letters out.

So there's been uh a lot of work on both sides to approve this project or oppose it.

With that, is there any other questions, Ms.

Billsbury?

I'm I'm just wondering, we're we're getting emails um for and against this, and it sounds to me like the people we're getting emails and support are the ones that live closest to the property.

And so I'm just curious if you are aware of where the people who are opposed to it actually live.

I don't know where their houses are, so I don't know how far away their neighborhood is.

Uh good question, mayor.

Maybe you know that mayor.

I do that.

I know I know exactly where they all live.

Yes, okay.

All of us live.

Sounded ominous.

Well I haven't been to your house yet.

Uh councilmember spillsbury, at least at the public hearing, the folks that came out were the the folks immediately adjacent to the east side of the site.

Um they were they expressed support in that it it'd be redeveloped.

It's currently um, you know, it's collecting debris and it might be a bit blighted currently.

So they um were looking forward to it being developed with with um homes kind of commiserate in the area.

I don't know where the people who opposed it lived.

I got the impression that they weren't maybe directly adjacent to neighbors, and not that that discredits their opposition in any way, but at least the people who showed up at planning and zoning were the most immediate neighbors in support.

Okay.

I mean, because that's the way I'm kind of looking at this is if the people that live closest to it that are gonna have the biggest impact are wanting it and wanting it to be developed, it seems like that their voices should be louder than the ones that might live.

I don't know.

Do they live a half a mile away or a mile away?

I I don't know and further half a mile or further, like down center, is that what we're talking about?

Uh Lehigh Road, Mesa Drive East.

Okay.

So I like I'm just not sure where the claims that like traffic's gonna be so much worse will impact their neighborhood, I guess is what I'm trying to understand their opposition to this and what will directly impact them in their neighborhood if they're not even that close.

But yeah, it's your district.

So if I may, I think I think the story will we be fleshed out uh when we take this discussion upstairs, but just one quick question.

I mean, isn't it true that a concession was made to that immediate neighborhood to the east regarding ingress and egress with a one-way gate that kind of changed that level of support?

Um mayor, council member Adams.

So the the plan evolved over time and where we um and it's sorry, I should have pulled this up real quick.

And I only bring that up in response, Councilmember Spielsbury to your comment.

Yes, they are close, but concessions were made regarding traffic through their neighborhood.

Meaning that the are you saying that traffic's going to be routed out a different way that will have then affect that other neighborhood?

Meaning that rather than traffic being able to exit to the east through Lehigh Shadows, it now is going to exit exclusively to the west on the center.

When the concession was made, I saw an uptick in emails of support.

The opposition from that further.

I get that, sure.

Well, so I guess that's it still goes back to my question then is will the traffic exiting west onto center impact that neighborhood?

The Lehigh the the Lee, I don't know what the name of their neighborhood is.

The Lehigh neighborhood.

Lehigh shadows.

There is exit allowed.

You can't exit out of this project.

But the Lehigh Shadow is the closest one to the east.

I'm talking about is the traffic on center going to impact the neighborhood of the neighbors in Lehigh that are not in support of this.

Well, I'm sure Mr.

Blake will make his case.

Okay, okay.

I do I do have the uh traffic volume studies for uh Center Street, Lehigh, and Mesa Drive and McKelops as well.

But overall, we have to understand too when Price Manor One was proposed and approved.

We we were missing a middle housing component, middle housing, meaning we needed housing there uh for middle class housing, and so uh that was proposed and approved uh a 7-0 vote back in January of last year.

With that, this project still is about the same component, still the missing middle house uh missing middle housing that we need in our community, and I'll talk about it more upstairs.

But the the there's so much mixed zoning around this, so you have a similar zoning to the south, and then to the south of price matter one, you have mobile homes, which have uh zoning approved for 30 uh units per acre.

I mean immediately they don't have to do any zoning change.

So you have that to the east, you have an older uh manufactured home, mobile home park, and then you have Lehigh Shadows, which is an R9 subdivision, which is a great area, but to the south of that is the uh mixed manufactured home as well as mobile home, and to the south of that is again a mobile home park that has zoning for 30 units per acre.

So it's like chessboard there, but there's some uh parts there that we decided back in January that this would be the best housing option for this area, and and I'll address some more of it upstairs.

But uh council, is there any more questions um about this?

Yeah, okay.

We'll have the applicant prepare for some comments up there as well.

All right.

She has another item though.

Pardon?

She's another item.

Yeah, yes, go forth.

8B, I'd like to pull.

Um, I there was some information that I was just given today um a few hours ago, that I don't really fully understand how it relates to a um uh a parcel that's being developed for battery storage, and because I don't have all the information, I haven't had time to look at it.

I I'm I would like this one pulled.

Okay.

For discussion upstairs.

Okay.

So as in we're pulling it to talk about not pulling it off the agenda.

I would like more time.

I would like to um have a little bit more time to understand how this affects what's being built down in District 6.

I don't know if you feel the same, Scott, or and if you don't want to continue it, I you know I'm I'm just saying if you have information that you're concerned about, I would want to know what that information is.

Then I don't know that we can have a lot of things.

I would like to have a study session on this, and if it's okay with the city attorney, I don't know how we'd want to handle that, but I would make a motion to upstairs to continue us to the October 20 meeting, and that would give us some time to have uh for staff to schedule uh this item is a study session October 20.

I think that's a council meeting that'd give us some time because we don't have a meeting on Thursday.

The timing that we continue it to the next unless you think we can uh get in a study session before the meeting on the sixth, right?

Would be the other meeting.

So I'll say I think the the developer that this disappex um uh the battery storage facility that has already been permitted that is being constructed.

And so that the intent is to is to allow that to complete construction.

Um they they needed this for um financing it regarding the ongoing construction of that project.

And so um they were looking for this to be approved this month in order to be able to continue the financing of something that's already under construction right now.

That's what this impacts is it's really what it's doing is is it's um it's saying that the prior uh zoning administrator interpretation does not affect um effectively um something that was moving forward already and previously approved actually um through the planning department, and so that's what this that ordinance is doing.

We we're cleaning up a partial mess of our own making um and the way that the city had handled the approval of this, but it we did approve it and we gave them the green light to move ahead with it, and then there were some challenges about um how that had been applied, and so um out of fairness to them, this was to allow them to complete the financing, and but to do that, they need to be a conforming use.

If if I'm again can can um correct me on that.

So this and then to council to the vice mayor's point, we do plan on coming back.

We're looking at our whole battery storage um ordinance and the way that we're handling it.

Uh we're planning on bringing that back in late November, early December for uh discussion about other sites that are um in discussion in the Southeast Valley or in Southeast Mesa.

So um we we but this site is already under construction.

We had green lit it, and then there was some confusion that frankly we were part of, and we out of respect to the developer and to SRP and others that were involved in this.

Uh we felt we needed to fix this problem, uh, give them that clarity so that they could finalize their financing, and then we can move forward, but we can have a more robust discussion about the um future of battery storage in the city.

I think I brought this up again, and I you know if you want to if you want to go forward with it, that that's fine.

I'm not gonna be um uh uh voting to approve it.

I I I'm not a fan of a text amendment that benefits one landowner, developer, what have you.

I I don't think that that's the right approach, and so that's what this is doing.

I know it does other things, but that's essentially what this is doing for that parcel.

I understand why, but I don't agree with it.

So that's you know, if you want to continue it or if you want to vote on it, if everybody else is.

And this issue should have come to council.

The one at the project under construction.

So mayor, uh vice mayor and council.

So the the one that's under construction under the under the planning department's prior interpretation of the zoning code, it didn't require to come to council, and so it moved forward and got its permits, and then it was it was being constructed.

And then there was a zoning administrator interpretation after really looking at it in greater depth, um, and also looking at the impacts of these.

And so then after that interpretation, after it had begun construction, that altered um altered that that project that was under construction, and so then the impact of what that exactly means.

This that's what this ordinance does.

It's really just sort of clarifies it, clarifies that.

And while this ordinance does affect that particular, that particular development, it could be implemented in other circumstances where you have a zoning administrator interpretation.

Um we we saw this um also this sort of uh how an interpretation might affect on data centers and just how that interpretation, so that could come up again on something else.

The interpretation uh sort of uh was different in data centers, and so it didn't apply, but sort of legal conforming and legal non-conforming, um, this adds just another concept that it's procedurally legal conforming, and what that means is is if if right now, if you're legal non-conforming and you get 50 percent or more of your building is destroyed, you can't you can't rebuild.

And so all this does is you can rebuild, but you can't expand.

And that's all that's this is doing is saying for you who already we've already permitted and you've already under construction.

If if you get destroyed, you can you can rebuild, but you can't expand and you have to come back um for anything for any expansion.

And then on the future projects, and the idea was to come back to council and have a much more detailed conversation about this topic and a much more detailed ordinance regarding battery storage, and so um, and that's for all future battery storage um development, and so we're gonna handle those separately.

But this was to really just to address this one particular one, but it could happen in the future, and we almost saw it happen uh uh ironically almost just we almost did see it happen with uh data centers, but just by the nature of the interpretation, it didn't happen.

Is that clear?

I guess that's the point of so but you know it's up to you, Sky.

No, I I mean if council wants to move forward with it tonight, we'll just leave it off consent.

I won't support it.

Um thank you for whoever turned my mic on.

Um if you I would even be willing to hear it on the sixth, so it's a little bit tighter, so they're gonna be six days late, but they're six days late.

So if there's a willingness from the council to continue so we can hear this issue in more details and the possible ramifications of it.

Moving forward, then I'll make a motion to continue it to the sixth.

I for one would like more information.

Was there a timing concern on this?

Did I miss that?

Well, they they are actively constructing today.

That's the concern is that they uh this is impacting their financing of a project that they've already spent tens of millions of dollars on, and when they did nothing wrong, they followed our process and we're we're given the go-ahead by the city to start construction of this process of this project.

But with all due respect, I think we should have been informed of this.

So we don't we did I we 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 we weren't informed of that.

And this they're using this text amendment to go forward with their project.

Well, they are already constructing their project.

It's under construction to their representative here.

I don't believe so.

What is the council meeting upstairs and see?

What are you talking about six days late?

Is it October 1st uh deadline?

I think is our first council meeting.

When you're saying it's six days late, what is that?

So what the count city man, unless I heard them wrong, they needed they wanted it done by the end of this month.

Oh, that's what you're saying.

So if you're so they wanted it done or they needed it to be done, like what that's I'm just trying to answer.

What's the urgency of this?

Yeah, well, when we when we met with them, it was they could have they needed it done yesterday, uh, and that was weeks ago, but we told them that this was the earliest we would be able to get this drafted and get this to uh the city council um in order to do that.

So I guess my point again, Scott.

I mean, if you need the council's approval, we should have been privy to the situation.

We should have been informed of what was happening.

I had no idea how this connected to that, right?

Well, I I apologize if there is any convention.

I mean, this was added to the agenda and was available for study session, and the mayor and the vice mayor whose district is impacted were very aware of the situation and yeah, but even just reading the agenda, it was not I would never have I I didn't even know what about that that um development that battery development.

So I wouldn't have connected these two.

The mayor and I have had meetings on best systems for planning, but not on this issue.

That's that's the meeting that we had with fire protection engineer or battalion chief, I guess.

That's the meeting we had.

We didn't have it on this particular issue.

Okay.

Quick question.

Mr.

Adams.

I'm assuming there are safety issues here.

Uh uh, any anything I've ever seen with these type of batteries, when they burn, they really burn.

So uh at a minimum, I'd like a little more information about that.

Um fire's perspective on it.

I feel uh this is not a trust issue, uh not a trust issue at all.

But if if I'm putting my name on it, I want to make sure I can explain to somebody who says, Well, why did you vote on that?

What was it?

I couldn't do that right now.

That's that's the concern I have.

Is can we get any more information at the at this 11th hour if the mayor would mayor council consider it?

Um Scott, we actually think I think at this point we all have we have meetings in all of your calendars to do that briefing on the best systems and the potential issues with fire and building and safety in those meetings with you to talk about the best systems, and that was the meeting that we had today with council member Goldforth.

So we do have those on the calendars now, Scott, just so that you're aware.

Well, I apologize.

First of all, I've had a lot of briefings on it with the vice mayor on battery energy storage systems, and I believe there are two developers that this would impact.

Is that correct?

One for sure, plus one other.

This particular one that's will for the one for the one that's under construction.

Okay.

And you know, I I should apologize.

You know, this, you know, I the legal department's been heavily involved in this, and we should have we could have set um one-on-one meetings with council members to discuss it or had it brought to the study session.

Um, you know, we'll we can explain it to the developer that uh it's you know it's October 6th.

That's that's the way it's gonna, you know, that's going the way it's that's the date.

And so if you want to make a motion to October 6th, uh we can bring it back to the study session and we can talk about the topic.

Um specifically regarding this ordinance, and we can sort of preview the next ordinance.

Um, we're still in the works on drafting that, so we don't have it all set up as far as many of the safety issues, and we are looking looking at all those issues also.

So, you know, my suggestion is is you know, we'll we do a motion to continue to October 6th, and we'll we'll circle back with um the developer and their representatives and talk to them about the situation.

I think that's gonna be prudent right now.

We have council members that wish to have more information on this.

So I think this was a learning lesson.

We should do this more uh often when these type of things come up.

So with that, is there any other agenda items, council?

I just wanted to make a comment on this.

Now, this proposed text amendment is dealing with legal non-conforming structures, which is I've run across various situations over time in redevelopment or whatever, where there's legal non-conforming and is an issue, and we have to so I thought that was cleaning this up, so we didn't have this hiccup every time that we have a legal non-conforming that there's all these long delays in order to bring it up to current standards and things like that, especially in infill and redevelopment type situations.

So um if this is just specific for that project, but it's not addressing any of the other issues on legal non-conforming.

I mean, if there is an issue with legal non-conforming structures, that when they come into process, and maybe we should have a discussion about that, that um it it creates a situation where we can't do the approvals that we need to, and then we have to do some special provisions.

I thought it was cleaning up that.

Um so this is only addressing one thing, not all the other situations.

See if this is on the um so mayor, council member duff.

So the text amendment does encompass a major kind of rewrite of the whole um nonconforming chapter.

So it does not just address the procedurally conforming uses and structures.

It looks at updating the standards for all of the non-conforming uses, sites, um structures as well, and making sure that they're consistent with our processes right now in the zoning ordinance as far as how we treat legal nonconforming through our substantial conformance improvement permits, and also lessens some of the hurdles for making improvements and expansions to those non-conforming structures.

So I say in this ordinance has more than one purpose in it.

We've heard two things.

We've if I may, if I may.

We've heard two things.

It's specific for this case, and it's more general than this case.

So I think a continuance to October 6th makes sense.

They're gonna have to deal with it.

We can get some more information on how it impacts this case and possibly others.

And so I'll uh I'm happy to make that motion unless uh council members.

Does it have to be one or the other?

Well, that's what I think we need to find out.

Well, I think both anyway.

The timing I think could be specific, but the purpose is overarching.

Well, it says the ordinance change will be citywide according to it.

So I think that's one aspect.

So it'd be best to brief all of us and we'll leave it on the agenda and we'll make a motion.

Yeah, I mean, this has been on the agenda since our nine eight.

The eighth.

Ninth?

Yes, and like and like you said, my my thought is this was just another one of these cleanups that we've been doing through our text amendment, and now I'm hearing it's about a battery storage nonconforming use specific case, and now I'm hearing maybe not.

So um after the council member heard about this particular case and raised the questions.

Now I think too confused.

I I thought the same as you, Jenna, when I had the meeting today and fig and and was told that it also is in relation to this one specific battery storage.

I wanted more information.

That's all that's why I uh asked for it to be off.

I don't know enough information as it relates to that to vote for it tonight.

That that, you know, if others feel differently, we can keep it on and go forward.

I don't have enough information to support it.

So let's say that council denies it.

What happens then?

It's under construction.

Let's say it's denied.

What happens then?

Uh you know, I haven't thought through all the ramifications.

Um I I don't know what their position will be as far as being able to move forward and how it impacts their financing, they'll be able to uh complete the project.

They're not just doing this project, they're doing this project specifically for SRP.

And so they're under contract for this project.

And so um we'd have to see where they decide to take it from there.

It's not unusual that during construction or during some kind of process that something gets in the way, something comes up.

Um I I don't know.

I don't know.

I I I think we have to be really careful of the implications of it given applying it to one when it's overarching, and what does it accomplish to deny it?

Mary, can you think of any other uh uses that might be affected by this uh if it was approved or not approved for tonight that we're talking about the battery energy storage system specifically that between you and Rachel, is there something that you could think of other uses?

Sure.

So mayor Freeman Council uh as it relates to the procedurally conforming use portion, which again is a small portion of this chapter's amendments.

Um it right now would only apply to that, but it could apply to other uses across the city because it is a citywide ordinance that will be in place for any use within the city.

As it relates to the non-conforming use, we actually have a case now that that would actually assist a uh local property uh single family resident who has a non-conforming use who would be able to use some of the other changes within that code uh amendment that's being proposed.

So those two are uh would be immediately impacted by the amendment.

Um with the procedurally conforming at this point, it would just be the one case for the battery storage, but it could affect others in the future.

Okay, Mr.

Reddit.

Uh, real quick, is so I think um are we in the broader conversation than looking at these changes and then adding additional items to uh as far as Mr.

Butler, you mentioned this will come back in November, December to maybe fix other items in this uh so I'm just having uh similar to Councilmember Duff is look we do we pass it today or the eighth, but we still have we'll have a broader conversation and more detail on the overall use of battery storage ordinances.

So I'm just confused on like what's the what's the issue in trying to figure out something that we at maybe our fault was uh in passing uh and allowing this to happen and fixing that for for today, but the broader issue we're coming back a more detailed conversation.

Uh so that that's my dilemma here as far as trying to understand the uh the decision that we have for this particular project, but in a broader sense, we're coming back that engages part of this and then other potential items, right?

Maybe mayor and uh council member Haredi, if I can just give you context and then I think that kind of answers your question, at least in part.

So the interpretation said that uh battery storage is a is not a permitted use in anywhere in the city of Mesa.

So that has never occurred in the 21 years that I've been with the city of Mesa.

And so they were now constructing something that through the interpretation is a prohibited use.

So this was truly a unique situation.

This um and so they they needed a code change to be able to become uh legally procedural conforming use to just come to to erase issues regarding their financing being able to complete a project.

So we were that's why there this ordinance was was looked at was was because of the that that interpretation that prohibited um the uses effectively throughout the whole city.

That will that will apply to that particular use, and as Rachel's uh discussed, it also has some other applications too.

But as to all future battery storage um facilities, we needed to come back and look at the code and figure out how to adopt change the code to allow any potential future battery storage looking at the kind of issues that also council member Adams pointed out.

And so the that I I hear the concerns about changing the city code um and and only wanting to do it in very discrete manners.

Um and I agree with you.

Um this situation has never occurred in my time at the city.

Um it's a very unique situation.

Um, and the situation as we've discussed was created in part because of the city.

Um, and so that's why they need need need this particular change.

And I guess this kind of relates to some other potential developments along those lines, right?

The battery storage.

Not necessarily directly related, but but you know, once they have the ability to be legally conforming, um, you know, that that's gonna relate to what we do with a couple of other sites that want to do the same thing, is all I'm saying.

And the whole idea that this is obviously a lot bigger.

And the point was we didn't know about it.

You know, I you know, the I just happened to get some it was, and uh thank you, Mary, for bringing it up, but we just happened to got to get this information.

I just happened to get it today.

I this is a bigger conversation, obviously it seems like we have questions about it, and it seems like we should have known more about it, and that's why I'm saying for tonight, I don't know enough to vote on this.

That's that's it.

And I think that's a fair assessment.

I heard one council member he has concern about fire and life safety issues about a battery energy storage system and how it impacts and the zoning as well.

Uh, what we did find out that uh this one specific developer, again, whether we move forward with it or tonight or not, uh, needs this change to allow him to continue billing.

Now uh there's battery energy storage systems on site today as well as construction actively, so it's across uh from fire station 219 there on uh Ellsworth.

But um we'll take it upstairs and see what happens.

Okay.

Well, can I ask?

Aren't we making an ordinance?

There's some public outreach meetings coming up for battery storage, and so there's going to be an ordinance to control how it's stored and all that, right?

Mayor, council member duff, that's correct.

And that's why we have the briefings with the council members this week, so we can give you an update on the project that's coming in December, which is the long-term ordinance related to battery storage in the future of the city.

And there are two meetings that are coming up.

So we wanted to meet with each of the council members so you're aware of what we're proposing in the draft ordinance, along with our fire and our building and safety and our energy resource team, so that we can answer any questions before we go to the public so that you're aware in case your constituents reach out.

So battery storage is becoming kind of a norm in conversation anymore, is the electrification of vehicles and energy storage.

Um whether at homes or in businesses.

So, you know, we're having an ordinance to address that, whether or not we accept legal non-conforming.

I would like it to pass just because any old building in Mesa, I guaranteed my whole neighborhood is probably legal non-conforming.

A lot of buildings, you know, older buildings built under different codes are legal non-conforming.

And then if they go to make a change on that building, they have to go through a lot in order to come up to code.

And sometimes it's ridiculously expensive.

It doesn't make sense.

It creates um people backing out of projects because they can't improve old buildings.

So there is another thing about legal non-conforming and being friendlier, so that we don't we can improve old buildings.

And I don't disagree, but I think a two-week continuance on this so we know what the consequences of this are for this project and others, is what is expected of us uh as a council.

So that that's why I think we should it's two weeks.

I think they can wait two weeks.

I think we have to separate the conversation of battery storage and legal non-conforming.

I really think we can't treat but they are intertwined in this issue.

And at the end of the day, this may very well pass in two weeks.

But I'd like to talk about the single family residence too, right?

Because it's intertwined.

Sure.

Okay, counsel.

Uh anything else on the Mr.

Butler, did you want to say something?

No, no, and Mayor, we've we heard we'll uh we'll be sure to break uh all of you between in that two-week period and then also have that discussion as well about the particulars of this side and then kind of the overall discussion.

Uh just Mayor one to point out item three C has been withdrawn by the applicant.

So item 3C has been will be read into the record as being withdrawn.

Is that correct, Jim?

Did I say that?

Say that accurately.

So if you'll make note of that.

All right, thank you.

Anything else?

Hearing nothing else.

Item two is the acknowledge of the receipt of board minutes, and those board minutes would be the housing and community development advisory board, parks and recreation advisory board.

Is there a motion?

Thank you, Miss Spillsbury.

Thank you.

Miss Goforth, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion passes.

Next is current events and conferences attended.

Uh council, do you have anything you'd like to share?

Yeah, I don't know.

Who's going first?

You want to go first, Julie?

We're we're already out of time, but um uh councilmember Adams and the mayor and I all attended the special memorial for Balber Singh Sodi um on um September 15th, which was the anniversary of when he was killed um four days after 9-11.

That was a beautiful interfaith event um over there in East Mesa.

That was really lovely evening.

Um most of us were at the Phoenix East Valley Partnership State Persons event the next day, and then um I am uh new member well, a member of a new Maricopa County Maricopa Association of Governments Community Initiative Coordinating Committee.

That is a mouthful.

They have a new committee um to look at different initiatives across the region, and I'm um on that board, and I'm excited about that.

Um then we had our closing celebration for the Mesa Arts Center's 20th anniversary that also most of us were at.

Um and then today we went to the Arizona Athletic Grounds, had a relaunch tour um for most of us were there and getting to see what they're doing out there and all the exciting um information and future of that place.

So great, thank you, Miss Duff.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um I just wanted to mention a couple of things from last week.

Um last week I was a panelist for local leadership in action at the circular Arizona symposium, looking at um materials management as well as other uh things that we do in our city to keep a circular um environmental um system.

Um on Friday I also attended an AI policy panel with Senator Kelly and Dr.

Crow from ASU.

The Senator released a AI for America roadmap.

The plan focuses on ensuring the AI boom benefits all Americans, not just big tech companies, and um requiring AI companies to contribute it to a federal fund that would support workers and infrastructure.

So it was an interesting discussion.

Thank you.

Mr.

Adams.

Mayor, I wasn't fast enough on the approval of the minutes.

I meant to exclude myself from uh voting on the audit finance and enterprise committee minutes since I was not present.

Okay, Miss Gulf, nothing, Mr.

Edia.

Mr.

Summers, you've been busy.

I have, but we've been doing a lot of the same meetings, so how did you uh you do that?

I'll just share with you the Miss Mesa Contemporary Arts Museum fall exhibition opening spoke there.

Uh most of you did love your city day garden cleanup.

There was a lot of cleanup being done on 913.

We did that at Mesa Public Schools, uh attended with Vice Mayor at the uh Ace Hardware, one of the largest ACE hardware in the ACE Hardware Inventory, 60,000 square foot of business there at uh Eastmark.

Uh tended El Grito.

A lot of you attended El Grito.

Vice Mayor and I attended the uh IA of International Association of Firefighters Memorial in Colorado Springs over the weekend, and then the Arizona Athletic Grounds relaunched today.

Busy week.

Mr.

Butler, can you give us a schedule?

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, of course, we'll have our uh regular council meeting following the adjournment of this meeting, and then uh study session is canceled this Thursday, the 25th, and then we'll be back here for study session on Thursday, October 2nd.

Great.

Motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Miss Billsbury.

Thank you, Mr.

Reddy.

All in favor say aye.

We'll go upstairs.