Okay, council.

We're ready to start.

Well, good evening.

Welcome to the Mesa City Council Study Session for October 6, 2025.

All our council members are present.

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

I know you went over this agenda previously, but are there any additional questions on tonight's agenda?

All right.

Ms.

Bills bear.

I just want to look really quick.

Sure.

You better not voting.

I know why.

Okay.

Mayor, as as council's looking, just wanted to highlight on item three E uh on the liquor license, it is still on for denial.

The applicant did not amend or adjust or withdraw their application.

So it will remain on the agenda for denial.

Very good.

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you.

Mr.

Smith, that is not a legislative act.

Is that correct?

That's a yes or no.

It is all.

Okay.

Thank you.

So 3E is removed off.

No, it will, Mayor, I mean for denial.

It will stay on consent for denying for denial.

I didn't reload it.

I have I just can't get mine to load.

I don't think I had any questions, but I wanted to make sure.

And I think well, it wouldn't have my notes on it.

Did you guys hear yours loading?

I had to go ahead and the web version.

Mayor, I I would say that we can still have staff available after the executive session if that will give you some more time to pull up the item.

Oh well, I have mine, but you have notes on yours.

Julie.

Yeah, I know.

I just want to look at my notes.

I mean, I I think I got to all my questions on Thursday.

Are our were staff planning on staying like through?

I don't want them to sit through our recession if they don't have to.

We work for you.

We'll be here.

So mine will not load.

I turned it off of Wi-Fi comments and so do you want to hold your thoughts in for questions?

I'll just wait and hopefully it will load it.

And maybe we'll have time when we come back from e-session to answer your question.

Anything else, council?

If not, item two is to convene an executive session regarding a zoning administration interpretation of legal non-conforming procedurally conforming sites.

Is there a motion to go into e-session?

Absolutely.

Thank you, Mr.

Adam Smith Stuff.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

We will go to the room behind us.

Thank you.

Okay, like to reconvene our study session.

We're gonna move forward with 4A.

Presentation discussion on the proposed amendments to the city code pertaining to legal non-conforming sites and legally procedurally conforming sites.

Thank you, Mary.

You're welcome, Mayor.

Nana and I are here for Rachel.

Good.

I need that extraction between the two.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council members.

Um Mary Kopaski Brown Planning Director and Nana Appiah up up higher.

I got this name totally wrong, Nona.

Development Services Director.

Just call him the king.

Yes.

Um, we're here to do the presentation on the nonconforming and procedurally conforming text amendments that are before council tonight.

In looking at this text amendment, we're looking at the chapter that essentially deals with nonconforming uses, and we're looking to restructure it so that it's easier for us to as staff to administer it.

There's a lot of gaps in it, and there's some challenges with this chapter.

So in doing that, we're looking to add some new definitions as it relates to legal nonconforming uses, legal nonconforming lots are parcels, the legal nonconforming structures, and legal non-conforming sites.

So that's the non-conforming portions of the code that we're looking to modify.

Our current definitions don't really specify the difference in the conditions as it relates to each of those nonconformities on a site.

And so we're really looking to kind of make that a little bit clearer for staff and for our applicants.

In looking at that nonconforming chapter, which is chapter 36 of the code, we're looking to replace it with one that would now be related to both nonconformities and to what we're calling procedurally conforming uses.

This will help us to modernize and to simplify and clarify those regulations as it relates to these legal nonconforming uses, the lots and the parcels, the structures, and the sites.

We're also looking to add regulations as it relates to legal procedurally nonconforming uses and structures.

This is currently not in the code, so this is a new part of this chapter.

So in the proposed text amendments, again, we're looking for those regulations as it relates to legal nonconforming structures, and I'll start there.

So today, if a structure is non-conforming and it's partially destroyed, there are regulations that apply to it.

So if it's um over 50%, you're not allowed to rebuild that structure.

If it's under 50%, you can.

Questions, council.

All right, Miss Fieldsbury.

On um slide five.

Did you say so the if if it's more 70% or more is destroyed, they can't rebuild?

75%.

Okay, so the second bullet is the cost exceeds 75%, and then also it's 75% for what's destroyed.

75% of the building that's destroyed.

So the the way that it's worded today, if the the building is um destroyed up to 50%, they would be able to rebuild it at how they were built before or let to a lesser extent.

What this does is it there, but there's another provision in the code that says that the and and actually I might ask Evan.

Could you come up and walk walk this help me walk through this piece?

Is that okay?

I know I'm calling you up.

Sure.

We like Evan.

I just got a little confused on that part.

Yeah.

So today it cannot be reconstructed or today it can't be reconstructed or restored or restored if the cost exceeds 75% of that cost to rebuild.

What this is doing is it's it's increasing that amount to the 75%.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilmember Spillsbury.

If I could clarify just a bit, so the current requirement is 50%.

So let's say you have a non-conforming structure and it um catches fire for whatever reason, and the cost to repair that exceeds 50% of the code, it needs to be brought into conformance with current code requirements.

And that could be any number of ways.

It could be physically bringing it into conformance.

It might be a variant or some other process.

What this section of this amendment is doing is is upping that to 75% to give a little bit more latitude.

So it's just referring to the cost and not the coverage or the square footage of the building.

Correct.

Okay, that's what I was confused on.

So it doesn't matter how much of the property has been destroyed, just purely how much it costs to rebuild it.

Right.

Or how much it's worth, how much to rebuild?

Um how much it costs to rebuild.

Okay.

And it's in this is based on a structure.

So if you have a site that's got five structures and four of them are in conformance, it wouldn't apply to those.

It would only apply to the one that is is legally nonconforming.

Okay.

May I council my soulsbury?

Besides this is just one expedit of it.

So there are so many other different layers.

This is just dealing with a cost as well.

Okay, because I remember in another meeting or somewhere where we were talking about this was that they can't expand if they burn down.

They can't expand bigger than what they were originally.

They can expand to increase the nonconformity.

So if they're not totally makes sense, so if they're in if they're non-conforming, say in a setback, they can expand that nonconformity.

Okay.

Okay.

Oh, I love it.

So this has to do example, you have a 5,000 square feet building, and is it burns down?

You cannot basically build the same thing if the cost of that construction exceeds 75%.

But even with this, if you're going to be allowed to build, you still have to build within the framework, the size of the 5,000 square feet.

So you cannot build 7,000 square feet, even if the cost is less.

So there are those are the different different scenarios of basically rebuilding at legal and conform instruction.

Okay.

Anything else, council?

Mr.

Adams.

Just a couple questions.

Um I may have misheard, but uh I understand the 75% issue, but did you refer to a 50% issue uh earlier and and what did that apply to?

That's the current code is the 50%.

This this caps it at 75%.

Okay, and I'm just curious when when we present numbers like that, whether it be 50, 75 or whatever, what what is the basis of that?

What what do we use to determine it's 75 and not 82.3 or something like that?

What is the what's our basis?

Sure, thank you, Mayor.

Um council member Adams.

What we're trying to do is bring these non-conforming structures.

Again, this is about the non-conforming structures into compliance with the zoning code.

And what we're trying to do at the same time is give flexibility to an existing business.

So we want to be able to give them some some leeway to be able to rebuild their business if they are say destroyed by a fire.

So the 75% is just your your best professional judgment as opposed to 80 or 65 or whatever.

Correct.

Okay, not based on any any other.

No, there's no formula or anything.

Okay, I'm just curious.

That that makes sense to me.

Thank you.

Miss GoFord.

Yeah, just along those lines.

I was kind of wondering the same thing, why the increase.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm just kind of curious.

Have you seen that?

Are we seeing that in the city?

And so it's prohibiting the rebuild.

Um, mayor, council member go for best practice around the valley you're trying to get to.

I don't, I'm just curious.

Yeah, mayor uh council member go forth.

I think it's basically we're just trying to provide again an existing business a little bit more flexibility if something does happen to their structure.

Um I don't know if there's a trend that you know kind of led us that way, but what we were looking to do is again always just trying to streamline and and help existing businesses.

Okay.

All right, council.

Thank you.

We'll move to uh 4B.

That's a presentation discussion on the regulation of battery energy and storage systems, also known as BESS, including potential future amendments to the building fire and zoning regulations.

Mayor, council members, um, again, Mary and Nana here for the presentation on battery energy storage systems.

So battery energy storage systems and BES facilities are currently not defined in the Mesa Zoning Code.

Uh BESS is an electrochemical device that charges and collects energy from the grid or a generation facility.

The BES would store that energy so that it can be discharged at a later date, and it provides electricity into the grid system.

BES can include a battery cells that includes battery cells, thermal battery and energy management systems, inverters, and related control and safety components.

Best facilities are the physical sites that store the best and all associated equipment and and uh infrastructure.

Best and best facilities are an emerging and increasingly prominent land use.

It helps to provide the grid with stability by storing power to use during peak demand periods, outages, or emergencies.

They have a unique public health and safety consideration that can include but aren't limited to fire and explosion risks, uh electric shock risks, environmental impacts if improperly managed or disposed of, and then the emergency response challenges.

So the planning division, building division, fire and medical, and energy resources department have been working really closely together to develop a proposed zoning and fire code amendment to address best and best facilities.

What we're looking to do is to put mitigate any potential health, safety, and environmental impacts.

We want to ensure land use compatibility and appropriate siting of best facilities.

We want to ensure high quality design and address any potential visual impacts.

And we also want to support electric capacity and economic development in the city.

The proposed amendments would help us to by creating a land use definition for best and best facilities.

We're establishing criteria for best and best facilities in terms of whether they would be classified as a principal or an accessory use.

And what we're looking at is that the nameplate capacity, that is how much energy is stored on the site for principal use, would be that greater than 1,000 kilowatts.

That's one megawatt.

An accessory use would be any nameplate capacity under a thousand kilowatts, and that would be used, they they would have to exclusively serve the project.

So for example, if you had a multifamily housing project, they had solar on the building or in the parking lot, they collected their energy.

If it's under one megawatt, they would be able to have that on site, they'd have to use that energy at their site.

The principal uses in the code that we're recommending to council, and will be coming forth at a later date.

Right now, we're proposing that they be allowed in the GI and the HI districts with approval of a planned area development overlay.

You'll recognize this is similar to what we did with data centers, um, where council would then have that discretion over each of the applications as they came through.

And again, we're saying that the best and the best facility would have to comply with all the standards in that part of the ordinance.

The accessory uses would be permitted in the agricultural, residential, commercial, employment, and downtown districts.

They would not have to comply with the BES and the best facility standards that are in the proposed ordinance.

There would be additional application requirements for the BES.

The first would be that an operational plan would be required, and they would have to include a compliance statement showing that they are complying with all applicable zoning, building, fire, federal, state, and local environmental laws.

They would have to also provide a preliminary emergency response plan.

These would be the to show the procedures for safe shutdown, de-energizing or isolation of equipment in the systems if there was an emergency condition.

And then they'd also have to provide a preliminary decommissioning plan, and that is what happens once the best stops operating to ensure that they remove any physical facilities on the site as well as any potential contaminants.

They would have to again develop a good neighbor policy.

This is very similar again to the uh data centers, and they would have to show how they were going to be compliant to to answer any of the concerns from any of the neighbors.

Question, Mary.

Uh yes.

On the decommissioning, so if they if I don't know, does does it just use up all the energy and then it's done?

And then can they replace it?

So, mayor, uh council member um spilsbury.

The decommissioning plan is when the entire site stops operating as a best facility.

They will do something called an augmentation plan, which um essentially is the trade out of batteries, because we know after a while the batteries kind of lose their ability to hold the energy.

So they would also submit an augmentation plan um to show how those batteries would be changed out or phased in as those changes were made.

All of these pieces, the the um emergency response plan, the commission decommissioning plan, the augmentation plan, and the compliance statement are actually going to be part of the fire code, but in the zoning ordinance, what we were are doing is we're requiring they provide them preliminarily so that our fire department can look at those and make sure that any safety concerns are addressed as they're they're developing their site.

We don't want to catch them at the front end, not the back end of that.

So that would be a normal process is the augmentation.

That's correct.

And just as they replace, replace, replace.

But once the whole site decides they're not doing it anymore, that's the decommissioning.

That's correct, Councilmember Snowsery.

Okay.

Mr.

Adams.

Um I'll go ahead and ask these now because you've got more than half the presentation to go.

Uh, just real quickly, uh, again on the decommissioning plan.

If we considered requiring a, I'll call it a decommissioning bond, some form of uh financial assurance that if the original operator fails, that we don't end up paying for the decommissioning.

Um other question is you mentioned best facility standards.

Um, and this will probably be addressed in the ordinance, but I would be curious to know whose standards would we would we apply.

So uh mayor, council member Adams, I'll answer the second question first because that's the easier one for me.

And that is we are developing the standards as it relates to the um what the facility would look like.

So what do what are wall heights, you know, what are setbacks, what are um the um the setbacks in in in in between these best uh facilities or the best units within these the site.

So in the the fire code, we're actually looking at 10 feet between every best unit, and you can see the best are on the the best where the batteries they kind of sit in these pockets, and it's almost like a storage container size unit with all of these batteries in it.

They would have to be 10 feet apart, and again, this is gonna all be in the fire code.

Um the distance from the property line.

What is that distance from the proper line property line?

All of those standards will be built into both the zoning code and the fire code.

And then the first question is it relates to the bonding and the um we we had actually looked at that, and I'm gonna let Nana and Chris address that.

Um may advise um mayor council.

So we're still going through the IBC.

Right now, we're going through the public um here in public participation process, and we're looking for avenues to make sure that this process is secured if they're happening to be an abandonment of the site.

So the question as to whether we're going to ask for some kind of security bonds and all that, those are the things that we still exploring, because we're looking at this uses our new, so we're looking at other jurisdictions.

There's not been to the best of my knowledge, and crazy canad on this not being anyone that has lasted a long period of time for jurisdictions to see whether it's been abandoned or not, and the kind of measures they put in place, but that's a good idea, something we will continue to look in.

We are going to have a city session with the city council next um uh end of this month with the IBC, so we'll be able to provide you solid information when we come back.

Any other questions?

Chris, you had some were you gonna say something?

Uh not unless I was asked, sir.

Well, then we should ask you.

What would you like to say?

Nothing.

I was just to say that as Nana had pointed out that we are having open sessions right now.

The code we do make chine minor changes when uh people are suggesting things to the possible codes for the 2024.

So all of this is new to us, both building and fire side.

So uh every day looking at emails and addressing concerns regarding this, and we're trying to give the most updated information as possible to uh provide you when necessary.

Okay, very good.

Uh yeah, I just wanted to mention Mary, you met you uh you stated the unit uh uh uniform building code, which is good, but also look at NFPA standard 855.

The most recent addition is currently in development and should be adopted within the next few weeks.

Also, uh UL UL 9540A might be released in November if we could try to lift a copy from somebody.

There are uh new testing standards and and distances that are going to be relevant to what we're trying to do.

So everybody's working on this at the same time.

Yes, may I add to that just to help for clarifying exactly what you're talking about?

Is uh one of our proposals in the new building and fire code is that we adopt the most current code every time it comes up to address these changing uh technologies that occur.

So that would be one of the proposals we make coming going forward, is exactly that, especially if on 855.

Yeah, 855 would certainly be relevant, but the UL standard might be a little different.

We might want to look at what's in there and see if we want to put that in the in the ordinance, some of that stuff.

Yes, sir.

Very good.

Council, anything else?

All right, well, thank you.

Okay, you don't want me to finish?

Yeah, if you'd like.

I tried to let me know.

Only if you'd like me to.

I'm sorry, I don't know.

I only have a couple more slides.

I only have a couple more slides.

So um, again, similar to the data centers that we would require that initial sound studies to uh establish the baseline levels at the nearest residential zoning district.

Again, we want to make sure that we're not impacting any of those sensitive receptors.

For the development standards, we're currently looking at separation distances of 400 feet from residential districts, and I'm just going to call them sensitive receptors.

And just so that it's it's clear for the council, what we're looking at is in the fire code having a hundred-foot separation from the property line to the first battery on site.

And then the 400 feet would be from the property line to those sensitive receptors.

So we're really looking from the battery from the first battery or the closest battery to those sensitive receptors is actually going to be 500 feet.

And then we're also looking at 150 feet from commercial and industrial buildings.

So again, that would be 250 because the battery would be 100 foot set inside of the build in inside of the property line.

We've been working with the energy resource team to see if there's um a way that we could underground some of the uh utilities so that we don't have a lot of lines overhead.

Um, we're using the same type of language we had in data centers.

We had worked that that through with SRP.

So to the greatest extent possible with the development services director and SR and the utility provider saying it's okay, we would try to underground those utility um site screening.

So this is around the entire best project.

It would have to be one foot above the tallest piece of equipment.

These are not necessarily tall I I'll call it like a connex box.

Um, so uh they would have to go one foot above the that tallest piece of equipment with an opaque wall or fence, and it would have to be articulated, it has to be an attractive wall.

We're not looking at CMU walls around these facilities.

As it relates to substation screening, we would want to go again, we're mirroring the language in the data centers, one foot above that tallest piece of ground mounted equipment.

So we're not necessarily talking a lightning pole, but we're talking kind of the the um tinker toy kind of boxes that you see on a on a on a on a substation.

Um they kind of look like all those tinker toys that were put together.

That's the ground-mounted equipment we're talking.

Um they would again have to have an opaque wall that matches the site wall.

Um, when it's 10 feet or less, it would again have to be articulated or offset if it's on a an arterial, and then if they would have to do some kind of decorative louver over top, and I've got some images if anybody has any questions on what that might look like.

They're in your backup slides.

If it's located internal to the site, they could use the masonry wall and the louvers, or it could be deck fully decorative because the site wall will be um screening the the bottom 10 feet of the site.

Under the operational requirements, we would allow we would require ongoing sound studies within 30 days of receiving their certificate of occupancy and then annual sound studies for five years.

If ownership or operator changes, they would have to notify the development services director within 30 days.

The approvals remain in effect, um, and they approve they assume any of the obligations that were agreed to in any of the approvals.

The augmentation plan we've briefly spoken about.

Um this is to allow for those batteries to be changed out.

The they would have to come back to city if they the city council if they wanted to increase that nameplate capacity.

That is if the the 250 megawatts or whatever was approved, they wanted to go to 350, they'd have to come back to council for approval.

In the fire code, the amendments that we're looking at.

I talked about that 100 foot from um from the internal property line to the building's public ways and other hazards, the fire access.

Um we're looking the fire code is looking to uh maximize so that it's 300 feet of length or depth, and then it there'd have to be a break in between these 300 foot length or depth so that there we could have access for the fire equipment.

Any of the arrays over 150 feet in length and depth would have to have a 20 six 26 foot access road again to be able to get the firefighting equipment in, and then I talked briefly about the 10 feet between each bass.

The permit again requires that augmentation plan and that decommissioning plan.

And with that, we're happy to answer any questions.

And we do have members of the fire department here if you have any specific questions.

Mr.

Fine.

Mary, I'm just curious.

Typically, how tall are these systems?

The best battery boxes, I believe they're anywhere from eight to ten feet in height.

Okay, so they're not super tall.

They're not super tall.

And you again you can see from some of the images, they look really like a portable storage container.

If I may, mayor, but the but the electrical equipment, the transformers or whatnot can be considered.

That's correct.

And then uh, mayor uh councilman or vice mayor summers, that's why we that's why we've got different screening requirements for those substations to make sure that that equipment is going to be screened.

Yeah, and I think what we did with the data center ordinance uh and the screening requirements for the electrical equipment around that could apply to this pretty well.

Mayor can uh Vice Mayor Summers, you're correct.

And these images were a backup slide in the presentation, so you can see this is how we would try to screen some of that ground mounted equipment.

But you can again see the lighting poles.

We're not going to go that high.

Um, I think in our discussions with SRP, this this equipment typically ranges, you know, no more than say 26 feet high, and we don't want a 26-foot wall per se, but with some kind of decorative screening, they can actually be more attractive.

Very good.

Miss Spielsbury.

We don't currently have any of these in our city.

So um Mayor, um, council member spillsbury.

We do have one that is being built today on Signal View.

Right, but no, we don't have any existing what are all these pictures from?

Where are they?

Oh, the uh sorry, these um these pictures are just some best practices images that we had um found because we wanted to be able to explain visually what the requirement was was asking for.

So typically the fence like the walls will cover the actual battery storage, but then just higher than that are more of the power issues.

Yeah, Mayor, um, council member spills are that's correct.

The 10-foot wall typically should cover the best the best battery pack.

And what kind of sound are we talking about here?

Um so mayor council, my understanding is that these batteries um on site create that buzzing sound that we sometimes hear, and so what we want to make sure is that that that sound is not going to be um heard from it beyond the ambient noise levels at a uh sensitive receptor property line or at that use.

And the annual study would just be to make sure they're keeping is it a decibel we're trying to keep under, or is like how is it a subjector or a subjective or an objective standard?

So mayor council member uh spillsbury, when they do the sound study, what they'll do is they'll they'll um grab the the decibel level at the property line of that sensitive receptor, and then that's what they need to maintain.

And if the sound study is showing that that is increasing, they need to come in with mitigation measures and show us how they're gonna get it back down to that baseline level because there's always ambient noise, and that won't go away.

So we're not asking them to decrease the ambient noise, but just to maintain the ambient noise.

And is it um is it similar to a data center sound?

Um mayor, council member spillsbury, it might be a little more buzzy, is the way I would describe it.

A little more annoying or no, just so the the data centers have a lot of generators and different kinds of mechanical equipment.

These are just gonna be batteries on the site.

But um the buffers should be big enough that residents are not hearing it from their backyard or something.

Mayor council member spillsbury, that's the that's the purpose of this.

Um I don't know if if the someone from the building mayor council member Swissbury.

So when they do the ambient noise steady, or when they do the noise steady to identify the ambient noise level, is their responsibility as part of that application to show what kind of mitigation and sometimes is different kind of walls, is different kind of sound sound proof system.

There are different mechanisms that they were quite acoustic engineer to really show.

And sometimes they may have to sell some of the Kubernetes back, the distance may reduce it.

So there are so many different mitigations to really show to make sure they are not increasing the ambient noise level that they identify with a study.

Okay.

Mr.

Redio.

Uh as far as you know, this is an evolving topic as communities start building or looking to build or companies start looking to build more batteries.

It have we researched other communities that uh based on the standards that we're we're talking about today, uh as far as implementing is it based on some of that and then just the emerging piece of of this uh storage, right?

So mayor, council member Heradia, we've done a lot of research on what other jurisdictions are doing, not only in Arizona, but across the country, because this is an emerging technology.

And so we've looked at um surprises in the process of of working on an ordinance, so we've looked at what they're doing.

Uh Buckeye is getting close to adopting their ordinance.

Um we've looked at several um jurisdictions in in California that are doing uh ordinances.

What I'll tell you is that there's not necessarily a there is the NFPA that Vice Mayor Summers talked about as the minimum standard, and then I think each jurisdiction looks at what's required in their jurisdiction as it it may be modified, and that's where those modifications will come in in the fire code.

Mayor um Vice Mayor Councilmember Hyredia.

So the proposal before when we come to you is going to be requiring a PAD in the GI and HI district.

That means if there are additional conditions, the council has the authority to add additional conditions.

That's one thing.

The code when they adopt a new text amendment in December, nothing will stop us in the future when we identify the mitigation measures to come back and amend those standards as well.

I just wanted to clarify.

So this is your based on all the research you've done, this and and this is what you're proposing right now, and right, and you're in this community feedback stage, correct?

Are you from industry, from residents, or anybody concerned?

Yeah, that's what's happening right now, and it may change a bit based on that.

Mayor Councilmember go for it.

That's correct.

We had our first public meeting.

We had a meeting last week um out in East Mark and got some input from from residents.

We've been getting input from the from the industry.

Uh, we've been reaching out to other jurisdictions so that we make sure that whatever is in the draft that we bring to council later this year really reflects kind of the best practices.

Um, and we have another meeting on the 13th as a virtual meeting.

If anyone's interested in listening in and giving us their feedback, we'd love that.

So right now, this is the proposal.

The numbers that I presented today are just the proposal of what we have in the draft ordinance right now.

They could be subject to change.

Council may change them when we bring it in December.

Right now, this is our this is what we're putting forth at this point, so we can gather feedback.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Uh Mary, thank you for all this information.

I'm gonna refer you back to your page nine.

I'm just curious.

Um obviously sound pollution is is a concern.

So are are you going to be introducing a certain decibel level or what is the standard of measurement that these this five-year study will use as a baseline?

So that's a great question.

Mayor, uh Councilmember Adams.

That's why that initial sound study would have to be done, because what we'd want them to do is to identify the ambient noise level.

So if they're near a freeway, the ambient noise level is going to be much higher than if they're in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood in Lehigh.

And I'm not saying we're putting best in Lee High, please don't anybody think I said that.

I didn't hear that.

But the ambient level in a in a quiet residential community is going to be different than a uh industrial area near a freeway.

So the initial sound study will set the baseline for that sound that they would then have to maintain.

So we're not asking them to reduce it because they can't reduce it, but we're asking them to not increase that ambient sound level.

So the intent is to make it appropriate to the adjoining uh property use.

I would say consistent with what that level is today, so that it's not impacting adjacent land uses negatively.

And then over the course of the five years, if the noise level were to become objectionable to a residential area, we would require remediation.

So mayor, council member Adams, that's correct.

They would have to show us the mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce that noise level.

And as Nana had indicated, that can be a lot of different things that they would have to they would have to identify how they would do that.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Mary, we already have this um noise mitigation or noise standards already in our data set data center ordinance, right?

I mean, so it's kind of being consistent with a standard Mayor Councilmember Duff, yes.

We we tried to we we had come up with some some pretty good standards through the data center process, the that ordinance process.

So we mirrored a lot of them in this ordinance.

Okay.

Well, thank you.

Thanks for bringing this forward.

We looked for further conversation here in a couple three months before the end of the year.

Okay.

Uh with that said, council uh the vice mayor is leaned over.

He would like to place 9A on the consent agenda.

And I'd like to do that if possible.

And then uh if someone pulls a blue card, then we would take it off the consent, but leaving it on consent of at this moment.

Okay.

All right, with that.

Uh item five is acknowledged to receipt of board minutes.

Is there a motion to do that?

So moved.

Thank you, Miss Spielsbury.

Vice Mayor, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Uh, next is current events that conferences attended.

Council members, would you like to share anything?

Vice Mayor.

Mayor, since uh it's kind of already been mentioned, but let's bring it up again.

The battery energy storage systems will hold an online virtual meeting via Zoom October 13th, 2025 from 6 to 7 p.m.

Uh just follow the uh City of Mesa socials, and there will be a link to that site.

So I hope folks can uh join in.

Miss Spielsbury.

Yeah, last Thursday night we had our domestic violence awareness night.

It was a beautiful evening.

We got to hear from the founder um and um former domestic violence um survivor from Control Alt Delete and the great work that they're doing in our community.

And um, I just want to thank everyone that our our police department and our prosecutor's office and our um victim services department and all the people that are just doing such amazing work to help those in our community.

And we also issued you weren't able to make it there, Mayor.

So we issued the proclamation for the month of October for domestic violence awareness night, which is why we're all wearing purple tonight.

Um I also wanted to mention Mayor, Vice Mayor Summers, Councilmember Duff and I were all um able to attend um Paul Soup's funeral on Saturday morning, and that was such a beautiful event.

Um I just so appreciate the um incredible sacrifice that our public safety makes on behalf of our community um every day.

And it was really beautiful to gather as a community and to honor his life and sacrifice for us.

Um and then um today, Councilmember Duff and I attended the Compute Opt event.

Uh, they had they were um giving out 100 free laptops to families that are in need in our community, and we appreciate the work that they're doing in Mesa.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Ms.

Duff.

I'll add on after the domestic violence um event on Thursday.

I went to uh Mesa Community College in the Performing Arts Center for the community concert.

Um, the community band, Mesa City Band, the MCC band, um, I think there's another one.

Um they also did a collaboration piece of it, and um the concert was in um a celebrating piece when it uh um we're a city of peace, an initiative that Dr.

Um Ruth Tan Lim initiated.

And uh and four scholarships were awarded um that she benefited.

So um also on Friday I attended the Atlas, the Arizona Tourism Lodging Association Gala, and celebrating the economic impact that tourism has on our state and awarding the partners.

Thanks.

All right, thank you.

Hearing any nothing else, Mr.

Butler, would you share our meeting schedule future events?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor and Council.

We'll be back here for study session on Thursday, October 9th at 7:30.

I just want to note for council we will be reviewing, and this is early, we'll be reviewing the October 20th agenda this Thursday, uh, which will receive that draft and it's uh an early draft tomorrow.

It's just that study session will be canceled on the 16th, um, on Thursday, the 16th.

So that's why we're reviewing it early this Thursday, and then of course, on the study session on the 20th, we'll have another opportunity to review it.

But staff, of course, is available during that interim to answer any questions you may have about that agenda.

Okay, thank you.

We need to mention celebrate Mesa is this Saturday from 5 to 9 p.m.

Um at Red Mountain.

And that's a big deal.

If you haven't been, bring your family and friends and come celebrate Mesa.

So many, so many uh people are out there, all the different departments and all of our public safety.

And anyways, it's always a really fun event.

Lots of food, bands, all the things.

Great, thank you.

Uh, hearing nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, Mr.

Adams.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, we're adjourned.

We'll see everyone upstairs.