Hope everybody's had a beginning of a great new year.

Can't believe it's 2026 already, uh, a few days into it.

So uh I'm sure grateful for the cloud cover and rain that we're having in our community and and state of Arizona.

And I guess we're assembled to tackle some differ difficult issues maybe this coming year.

I hope they're not difficult, but uh it's uh what we do as council.

So with that, uh all members of our council are present.

Item one is to review the agenda we have for Monday, January 12th council meeting.

And let's go through that agenda.

Council, are there any questions regarding any of the agended items?

And not everybody speak at once.

Mayor.

Yes, Ms.

Duff.

I would like to discuss 8A on the best system.

It hasn't gone away over the holiday, it's still here.

It hasn't.

Mr.

Butler, Mary, okay.

I know there's been some uh changes on that.

Good morning, Mayor Council.

I'm not sure if there's a specific question, but since the uh meeting in December, um we've been working with the applicant um related to the next era site, which is the one off of Ellsworth.

And right now we're still introducing and recommending the 1,000 foot separation for the residential uses uh for the best systems.

The um applicant has been working with a property that is zoned residential that would have precluded them from meeting that thousand foot setback to look at a rezoning for that site.

So we've actually been um we've we've received a pre-submittal for a rezoning of that site to in an industrial use so they can meet that thousand foot setback.

So the two where we have the two pre-submittals, the one up on signal view, the one um down off of Ellsworth, both would be able to meet that requirement.

So so Mayor, Councilmember, um so the good news is uh both the IPA site that we previously um have worked on and this particular site um next era will be able to move forward with their best systems under under our proposed ordinance.

Now I think we've heard loud and clear though that council has an interest in continuing to examine that distance requirement as technology and safety uh advances around the best industry continue.

Um we're going to be you know working with the utility providers and others to um try to understand the needs moving forward, but um for this situation right now um this will allow those uh facilities to to move forward and meet the energy demands that uh Salt River Project needed for that site sites, excuse me.

Um concern is a rezone, you know that is costly and and time consuming.

It'll take quite a few months before it comes back to council.

Um they are under construction at this time, so is construction stopped.

Uh uh Mayor, Councilmember Dove.

The one that's under construction actually was approved prior to the interpretation that didn't that then did not allow the best in the city.

So the one that's currently under construction and it on signal view is moving forward.

They we've gone through that process.

They've got everything in place to be able to move forward.

They have a second site that is a little bit further inland off of Signal View that they that is the second site that they're looking at.

So that one on signal view will move forward, no issues.

We've got the the other one IPA has um proposed off a signal beauty, and then this one from next era off of Ellsworth.

So so Next ERA is the only one that is caught in this quandary of the thousand foot and requiring the um them to purchase the multifamily land and go through a rezone process.

That's correct.

The the second the second site meets the requirement of the thousand foot separation.

That's correct.

What would it take to uh put a 400 feet back on for our consideration so that a thousand feet there's a lot of energy that or some kind of land use in that thousand feet?

There's costs uh this is costing us energy, is costing us economic development.

Mayor and council member, um that would that would certainly be a legislative act of the council uh to to revisit that.

Um the direction we received from the majority of the council was to move forward with the thousand foot, and so that's why the ordinance reflects that that could be something that um now or in the future that council could could adjust if um if the thinking around this um technology changes or or different safeguards in in place, which is what we were um staff heard from the majority of council that wanted to keep this at the thousand foot.

Um, I've done I spent a lot of time reading, attending webinars, doing some office hours.

I spoke to five experts on energy storage, and this thousand feet does not have any merit or support or evidence that it's necessary.

I can go into a lot of the detail on why the hundred foot has uh met, you know, the toxins in the air for public.

I can go all into that.

I have documents and and I can talk about it.

I just think a thousand feet is overkill and it's kind of out of the air.

It's not accomplishing anything.

And you think in that thousand feet, three foot built ball fields, if we could fill that with energy storage or housing or whatever, it would have an economic return to our community.

Land just sitting there with no purpose at all, other than some arbitrary number that we created is a waste for our city.

So I have a question to uh uh in correlation with Ms.

Duff.

Uh Jim, can we make an amendment uh council meeting about the 400 foot, see where that goes on a vote, and then make a motion again on the a thousand feet because I don't know where council's really at as far as the uh linear feet of separation.

So whether it's 400 or 1,000 or somewhere in between, can council weigh in and do a vote on that.

Now I would say uh that's my first the the good news is uh the zoning, let's talk about the zoning request.

So pre-submittal has been put in for change the zoning.

What is our timeline for that?

Uh thank you, Mayor Freeman.

The rezoning um can probably it can move forward probably even before we get an application um and process an application for the best.

So that's been submitted.

We have to go to planning and zoning board for a recommendation, we have to and then back to council for a decision.

The one thing I'll say about this parcel of land that is zoned, the the RM4 that is being requested to be rezoned, it's kind of a pocket of residential in the middle of some commercial and industrial use.

So staff has no concerns with the actual rezoning request.

So we're maybe looking at two to three months for that process for the rezoning.

Okay.

And mayor, if I may add something to this for the actual next terror site to develop it for the battery energy storage systems, they would have to amend the current PAD that's in place.

So that project itself would have to come through for a rezoning to city council to address those site plan changes, um, so these can happen at the same time if they chose to, or they could process the rezoning of the RM parcel prior to um, but for the development of that site itself, it is also going to be about a three-month period for that to go through the approvals.

You know, we haven't heard from the applicant.

Uh I know they have a representation.

I don't know if anyone's here from them, but regardless, uh so we have approximately a three-month timeline for, and you're putting all those together, stacking all of them together so that be all in front of council at the same time.

Mayor Freeman, that's correct.

We can we can Mayor Freeman, that's correct.

We can move those forward concurrently.

I think the good news is uh for district six, not speaking for the vice mayor, but this was zone multifamily.

Now it's actually being converted to uh light industrial.

Is that correct?

Commercial and commercial.

Uh Mayor Freeman and Council or Vice Mayor Summers, that's correct.

They're looking at industrial on the western portion of the site, and then some kind of commercial in the in the request, it would be commercial on the east side directly adjacent to Ellsworth.

Yeah, and perhaps some retail in there as well.

I I don't know, but I think the good news is is there was multifamily stacked in the light industrial and in there, and it really didn't fit in that.

And I know the vice mayor's worked very hard and really not wanting that.

So uh by having the best system there is kind of pushed that out and allowed the uh storage of the battery energy storage system.

So I asked the question on the amendment of that, and then maybe and then go back to Miss Duff.

Yeah, mayor and council.

So in order to in order to make a change after after an ordinance is introduced, you have to uh you cannot make any change to it.

You have to reintroduce it.

So this ordinance has been introduced for a thousand feet.

So Monday night you can you can approve it or you could you can vote you not approve it, but you can't change it Monday night, sort of on the sort of on the fly.

So Monday night you can you can approve it or you could you can vote you not approve it but you can't change it Monday night sort of on the sort of on the fly that the charter prevents that the idea is is that citizens get an opportunity six days minimum to to see an ordinance before it's uh adopted by council so we'd have to reintroduce and and I'll say the the second site um and we can do that so if council you know gives us direction we can we can we can introduce another ordinance um and and go through that process I'll say this the second site has been waiting um they they this works the thousand feet works for their site um by continuing to sort of delay this they've that's could uh delaying their ability to move forward from our meetings with them they were always ahead of the third site as far as the progression so the it might take three months to rezone the the property for the third site um but they were always sort of you know third in line also as far as timing and so I don't know really how much that really delays their ultimate deadline as far as um SRP when we met with SRP the first and second site were the more sensitive side as far as timelines for SRP when we met with them.

So just consider that because you can adopt you can adopt the thousand feet what I guess what I'm saying is you can adopt the thousand feet um Monday night that allows the second site to go forward and you can change it we can we can do it the next month you know or uh you know we can we can bring back a 400 feet for discussion um along with as the the rezoning is occurring so just just a thought okay thank you Ms.

Daffo but um the applicant is going through a purchase agreement for the land based on the thousand feet so we are by delaying any decision or saying oh we can change it later they are acquiring land and going through the rezone for it so there is a certain cost to it and like I said the thousand feet just sitting there whether on this property or whatever property it could be in the future it's just a waste of land has no purpose of it this is land that could have electricity on it right now we have a severe shortage of electricity um we lost a large economic development project over the holiday because we SRP could not guarantee the electric that they had planned on the this is something that's dire and I think this thousand feet is costing us not only the cost of electricity but the cost of this project and and mayor council member def I I believe Rachel's potentially pulling it up right now and she can articulate on on this or Mary but it's just the the residential use would not be allowed you could have other industrial light industrial commercial use it would just not be residential use.

So when you when you say that about the distance requirement it's only on the residential land use I just wanted to I I don't want to think that these three projects will be the only projects that we do in the entire city for the um best systems as we know our entire nation is under this crunch of need for energy this is the quickest energy that's available right now I don't think we're gonna sit dormant after these three projects let's hear from uh Mr.

I guess from that point uh Jim or Mary it is there um an opportunity for an applicant to submit uh uh special use uh uh special use um how what do you call it use permit in the future uh to if we adopt the 1,000 foot requirement is there uh some wiggle room where an applicant say wants to build a best system in West Mesa and it's and it's within four to eight hundred feet or yeah of residence so is there a special use permit that is allowed that then comes to council and could be voted on uh based on those uh set of specific you know things that for that site maybe works right uh is that an option for the future uh I'm just thinking where is the opportunities if in the future we learn a little bit more of these systems and how they how they act um is there an opportunity for applicants to do that uh thank you uh mayor council member her idea the way the current ordinance is written we kind of followed the model we do with the data centers so they have to do a PAD in order to put it in place so council has a di a decision on on where it goes this does not affect necessarily the the two that are in that are we've got the pre-submittals for but in the future if somebody came in on the west side of the city they'd have to go through a PAD process we've also included as we did with data centers that the development standards couldn't be modified so that thousand foot couldn't be modified through that PAD.

We've also included, as we did with data centers, that the development standards couldn't be modified, so that thousand foot couldn't be modified through that PAD.

So at this point, no, it would be a thousand foot separation the way that that staff has recommended the ordinance.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Mary, we were before break, we had asked for the industry to provide us with a map because what we understand is not every power station in Mesa could support the battery systems.

So do we have that map or that kind of get lost in the Christmas season?

Um, Vice Mayor, we do have that map.

I don't know if we've got it within our presentation or not.

We just had that discussion.

I believe we might have emailed it to you, but we can we can get that to you before Monday, absolutely there.

That's something that's before before the break, there is no pretty extensive discussion on this, and practically speaking, what are we talking about?

How much is it really gonna impact?

How many sites are really gonna be impacted on this?

You know, I mean, we're talking about a thousand feet, kind of in the abstract.

I would like to see really where it comes down to affecting the land use.

And and mayor, council member, uh to that point.

That's where I think we could, I know there's some philosophical differences on this, but from a practical standpoint, I think that um you could move forward with this distance requirement with the certainty that the needs right now that SRP has identified in the area are met.

Um, they would need future substation construction and um deliberation about the uh compatibility of best systems around those substations in the future to you know to really force um uh a reexamination of the distance requirements, and so I think we basically it buys us some time.

We take care of these facilities that are needed, and then um by the time that new substations come online, which those don't happen quickly, I'm I'm sure this industry is going to evolve um substantially during that time, and we can have um we we can certainly re examine those those distance requirements because which is what I've heard from several of you, even several of you who support the thousand foot, or maybe all of you who support the thousand foot of saying we understand though that this is an evolving technology and something we just need to continue to to look at as as the future um develops.

And and Mayor Councilmember go forth if I could.

This isn't the map of the substations that we were discussing, but this is just the our zoning map.

And in the proposed ordinance, um, we're proposing that these be permitted in the GI and HI, which are these darker blue areas, and you can see that there really isn't much residential located near these, so the likelihood of them be affected by the thousand-foot separation would be very low.

Uh Mayor, if I may.

Uh I think what I was what we were asking for, at least what I was asking for was there are different transfer stations of SRP, but not all of them have the capacity to be able to feed a battery system.

And I don't we probably have to work with SRP to get that kind of information.

Yeah, but smiling.

Well, Mayor and Vice Mayor, that's that's information that SRP doesn't willingly share uh as far as compatibility necessarily of that.

What um you know, yeah, it's uh industry industry secrets, I guess.

But um, but what what they have what they have shared though is that the location of the substation to the power demand is is very important to them.

And so when you look at the Elliott Road corridor and you see all of the power users along that area and and along Ellsworth, that was driving the need at those particular uh two substations that are in question with with the three sites uh today.

And so uh in the future, though, you're you're right, south of the 24, depending on the use and the location of substations, there could certainly be need uh at that time, but that doesn't exist today.

I I think there's if I may, Mayor, I think there's some truth to that, you know, from the proximity, but I also know that there's uh a legal reason that they want to do it because if they put it within a certain distance of the substation, they don't have to go to the ACC to get approval, and that costs money, that costs time.

So they're all coalescing.

Once again, we're gonna have the same problem here.

We talk about wasted land uh and a lack of use.

These these are necessary for the economy because they support the jobs and industry we want, but as they if as they start to coalesce in a single area, then they impact that area, and there's no jobs related to that site.

So now you have acres of space, no no jobs.

It's the same as as another industry that is also very necessary, that is driving the need for this power that has very few jobs and a whole lot of acres.

Right.

So talk, you know, and and it's all focused in certain areas.

So once we once we lose that land, then we can't put it to work for other jobs.

There has to be a balance of having access to information, having access to power, but still being able to achieve the economic goals of our community and and and my district.

So I think that's where the balance comes in, and what my concern is seeing a proliferation of these, in addition to the hazards that I am very familiar with and have fought fires on.

And so I I get it, but I think this for now settles the issue.

Everybody can move forward.

We can see the power, SRP can get the power that they they need out of that.

If we have to have a conversation in the future about there is new technologies, we don't see the runaway, we don't see the you know the issues that come, the contamination issues that come with some of the other chemistries that hopefully are working their way out of these systems, then we can have that conversation.

I I I don't that doesn't bother me, but for now, I'm very comfortable with this.

I suggest um getting caught up on the technology is here now, and there's been various lots of tests around this.

We can even require from the applicant to do a plume test as far as if there's anything that the the studies show that the toxins that are emitted aren't going any more than the hundred feet where they have the public safety command centers, and they're equivalent to a house fire, and the frequency is to the house fire, and the way they design these systems now, they don't have runaway because they are individually sold and they haven't seen any spread to another.

Anyway, I can go on and on.

I can go on for a half hour.

I just think given the cost of electricity, the availability of electricity, the need of our for our economic development is worth the consideration not to have this what I think is an excessive amount of separation.

And SRP is getting the three sites that they need, right?

And the potential for another one if it happens happening in the industrial area where they belong, that's that's also a possibility too.

So it's this solves the immediate need.

It provides for public safety, it provides for the energy needs, and I think it also spreads it out because if we we're gonna be nothing but information storage and battery storage, every other community can celebrate their economic development on the backs of the battery that is Mesa.

But my hope is that we get a hundred thousand high-wage jobs in the area and spreading that out.

Look what Penell County's doing.

They are denying best systems and solar systems because they don't want to be the power system that supplies Maricopa County.

We can't have additional economic development right now.

We're turning away economic development because we don't have the electricity.

SRP is quoting five to seven years.

And they are losing electricity by not being able to use the land.

So the land, you know, the what they have to turn away and not be able to generate, there isn't a replacement for this.

So they're actually negative on their commitments.

And that's that's an unfortunate consequence of a concentration of past decisions, and I don't think we should rush to a decision to fix that problem that could negatively impact economic development in the future by using pay council.

I I'm gonna switch over to Mr.

Adams, and then I think there's two ladies over here that may want to say something.

I don't know.

But uh, Mr.

Adams, you're up.

Oh good morning, thank you, Mayor.

Um I'm I'm hearing meritorious arguments on both sides of this issue, and I think that uh I think we all recognize this is uh evolving technology, and uh to me it it's difficult to decide whether is it a thousand, is it a hundred, is it four hundred?

You can find a lot of information supporting many of these numbers.

Um my view is this.

My understanding is that there's been a great deal of negotiation and discussion over the holidays.

I've I've heard from some of the counsel who represent some of the parties here.

And my understanding is that uh a compromise has been reached and agreed to under no duress.

None of these parties have expressed to me that they were forced under duress to agree with what we have in front of us.

So it seems to me that the instant problem, the one immediately in front of us, can be resolved and everyone can move forward.

These three, or actually the one, and know what their path forward is.

I think we all agree that we're gonna revisit this as technology emerges, but um we've got a solution to a problem that's been a hot ob a hot item for quite a while now, and it seems to me that everyone involved is okay with what's on the table.

So, and again, with without duress, but believe me, these these zoning council who I've known for years would tell me if somebody felt their arm was behind their back, and I haven't heard that.

So I personally I think we have a solution to the immediate problem.

I think we all agree that we're gonna revisit this again, and is as hard data comes forward.

I I don't doubt for a moment my colleague has researched this, and there's a great deal of information out there that we can take a look at again.

But I think we've got a solution to a problem that the folks involved um have said, hey, we're we're happy, we can move forward.

So that that's the way I see this, and I'm more than willing and absolutely committed to reexamine these standards as we go down the road.

So thank you.

All right.

Anything over here?

Sure.

I would I'll I would just say I I agree with Rich.

That's my understanding as well.

Um I appreciate Jen, your arguments, and I and I think um, as Rich stated, I think there's uh arguments on either side to be made, but right now uh this is a good solution, and we will probably revisit.

So I'm I'm happy to keep it on the agenda as it is.

I waited till last to just hear everyone out, and Jen, I did want to thank you for your arguments for economic development because I appreciate that you're passionate about it, and I see that you've done a lot of extensive research.

Um I also had to do a lot of reading about this particular topic because best was new to me in terms of just what it is, how it functions.

And I was reflecting on our prior meetings, and I remembered one of the concerns that um vice mayor uh Scott Summers had was the not necessarily the risk of just one of the battery energy systems exploding, it was the acute inhalation.

And I I did a little bit of research myself and looked at UL Solutions, FM Global, National Fire Protection Association, and um there were real world incident data from McKinnon, I think I said that right, Arizona Moss Landing, South Korea Best Fire Series, where they did see that we had um serious concerns that in a thousand-foot diameter, there is actual acute inhalation of toxic and poisonous gases that are emitted from these.

And I was just remembering that that was one of the reasons uh Scott said, hey, I'm concerned about this.

Um, and that the residential location was kind of in an awkward spot in that it was right by the highway.

And so I personally, after listening to your argument and listening to Mr.

Summers and Mr.

Adams, um, I was torn as to whether or not we should look at rezoning the distance.

Was a thousand feet too far?

Um, was it too close?

Did we need to have something else there uh like light industrial commercial?

And it does sound to me like in Jim, correct me if I'm wrong.

If we did in the future want to come back and take a legislative action for any reason, we can do that if we find that that is something that it would be beneficial for us and reducing the feat.

Yeah, Mayor, Mayor and Councilmember Taylor, yes, you cannot come back and change um the zoning code and change the distance.

In fact, the zoning code is probably the code that has changed the most, and we're gonna have two presentations on changing the code here.

Yeah, yeah.

So we can come back and change it.

Um so I just wanted to let everybody know.

I actually read up on it, I was doing some research.

I pulled up my little resources that I had to make sure I speak clearly on it.

I think that because we have a solution right now, it is good.

Um I appreciate that we're looking at light industrial and commercial so that we do have development in that area, we can actually use the land um going forward.

So I just that's what I was thinking of.

Those are my thoughts, and I appreciate the work that everyone did on this.

All right, everyone, thank you for your comments.

I I received a letter a couple of days ago from the Western the Western Way TWW joins the Arizona Fire Marshals Association and support of the adoption of the 2024 International Fire Code, the IFC in Arizona, specifically because of the critical importance safety updates the IFC makes for battery energy storage systems.

And so the Arizona State FARS Marshal Office is going to adopt this code here very shortly.

So with that, we'll we can work with the uh guidelines of the NFPA 55 and then the International Fire Code, and we can have a further conversation from our fire fire marshal as well as our C our chief building official, too.

And I don't I don't know if they're here, but we can have a later conversation on that.

But I you know, I just personally, you know, the the best systems are extremely important, especially in the southeast part of Mesa.

We we have the lack of infrastructure out there.

The growth has been phenomenal.

That's it is it's necessary to help up flip our economic uh development that area.

But the good news is is the site that is being questioned for next era, uh moving from RM4 to uh light industrial commercial aspects will be critical for SRP.

And I don't like the thousand feet.

I'd tell you right now, I would I would do a much lower uh setback, but uh we can decide that on Monday's vote, you know, when we vote on on the ordinance itself.

So if there's nothing else on that uh topic, council, we can move on.

Is there any other items?

I have a couple on Mary may not want to leave, but uh you need one of those lumbar pillows to get comfortable.

I I I'll just bring it.

I have a question on eight D.

That's a zoning, uh rezone from RM2 to RM4.

Do you want to handle it here over there?

Mayor and uh thank you.

Um do you would you like a presentation or do you want to just go through your questions?

How did you want to do that?

Well, let's do both.

Okay.

Let's start with Evan.

You know, when I said earlier about, you know, we looked for the new year and tackling difficult issues, you know, we we just had one of them, and we're gonna find some solutions to everything we we're gonna work on.

But uh thank you, Mayor uh counsel.

Good morning.

This um is case Z UN24 Um 998.

You're right.

This is a specific request to rezone property from multiple residents to to multiple residence four with a bonus intensity zone overlay um and site plan review, and this is for a 15-unit um multiple residence development.

The subject property is high uh cross-hatched on the map here.

We are on the east side of Mesa Drive, south of Broadway Road.

The general plan uh place type for this is urban residential, which supports a mixture of of land uses, uh, multifamily residential is a principal land use within the urban residential place type, and RM4, um RM4 is is a permitted use.

As I mentioned, this is a request for multiple residence zoning.

RM4 allows for a density up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

This proposals at 25.9 dwelling units per acre.

So within that density range for RM4.

It is an infill site that is currently vacant.

Here's a street view from Mesa Drive.

There are three uh buildings on this site.

There are the two kind of primary buildings on the east end of the site in a smaller two-unit building that fronts onto Mesa Drive.

There's a 24-foot drive aisle.

Um, this is a product that has garages, a two-car garage on the ground floor.

There are pedestrian walkways and amenity areas.

There are also four guest parking spaces uh located on the south side of the site there.

Um there are criteria for bonus intensity zone overlay.

Kind of the big one is that it provides distinctive superior quality design and that it meets some environmental performance standards.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions council might have on the deviations.

I won't go through them in in detail or outlined in your report, but again, if there are any questions, I'm I'm happy to get into that.

Uh the bonus intensity zone overlay um kind of focuses on open space and amenities, and this specific proposal includes kind of a unique uh primary open space feature, which is located at the west end of the primary building right here.

So it would be a visual terminus when you come in off of Mesa Drive, and it is a unique uh open space area that is is landscaped, it uses condensate from the air conditioners is as secondary uh water supply.

There would be seating and shade, and we included a condition of approval as as part of this request to include some additional open space.

Uh, there's private open space that the uh applicant is receiving or is exceeding, excuse me, in multiple resident zoning district, there's a uh common open space and a private open space, and the amount of private open space is is determined by the number of bedrooms.

In this scenario, a hundred square feet is required.

They're providing 120 square feet of open space.

Here you can see the landscape plan um that is is well landscaped.

We're using the the trees to kind of buffer from the the adjacent development, which is multi f multiple residents to the south and an office uh to the north.

You can see some site details.

Uh, this went to design review board in June.

Um they got some pretty substantial feedback and some comments from the design review board.

Staff and the applicant worked together to address um the comments that that were able to be addressed and to revise the elevations to uh meet meet standards.

Here you can see the elevations.

They did do citizen participation and conducted a neighborhood meeting um last January on this.

We had no neighbors in attendance.

Uh, we did receive a uh phone call from the adjacent neighbor to the north uh with some concerns about the density and and the height.

Staff does find that it complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan and the criteria for a bonus intensity zone overlay and site plan review.

Um staff is re recommending approval with conditions, the planning and zoning board also recommended approval with conditions uh five to zero.

And with that, I'm I'm happy to answer any questions council might have.

Well, I I started it, so I'll I'll ask the question.

One thing uh staff reported was you know, because it's mid-block and on an arterial roadway uh four guest parking spaces, that there could be overflow parking to the adjacent to south building.

That was one of staff's notes.

Uh, you know, I'm that's kind of frustrating when you have an additional to the south, I think a scenario apartment complex, and then potentially people who in the new development could park over there.

Um how do we handle that?

Uh that's a great question, Mayor.

So parking is is one of the things that we look at because you know, as you noted, in general, we try not to have parking overflow, and if if there is, there should be a logical area for that to overflow.

This is a really unique parcel, and when we talk about infill development, I think this is kind of a the textbook example.

If you have a a smaller bypassed parcel um that needs some concessions to be developable, so they are exceeding actually their parking requirements because it's two spaces um per unit.

So they are exceeding that.

And uh, you're correct, it is it is mid-block.

There's not a lot of place to overflow, but that's one of the things that we need to kind of weigh is with infill development is is parking standards uh versus the developability of the lot.

So um, yes, it it is it is a concern, but it is in field development, it's adjacent to uh bus stops that they're in close proximity, actually right in front of the apartment building to the south.

So transit is is an option.

They're providing a two two-car garage for each unit.

So it does exceed standards.

Yeah, that I guess that's uh maybe that would apply if it was RM2 zoning.

There might be some overflow parking.

I guess I guess where I'm at, I'm trying to understand the urban type density planning to allow, you know.

I know there's RM4 to the south, there's RM2 to the north, and then I think single family residence to the east.

That's correct.

And and with that, then when I read the biz overlay, uh, you know, it's this is your quote.

I mean, biz overlays must demonstrate and resulting development will further the goals and objectives of the general plan, specific plans, council policies, and we'll provide significant social and economic benefits to the city.

Okay.

Help help me understand what that's supposed to be.

Uh sure, Mayor Council.

So when we look at a bonus intensity zone overlay, we want to obviously further the be consistent and further the intent of the general plan.

The urban residential place type allows for a wide variety of uh zoning districts and and densities.

And when you look at this portion of Mesa Drive, it it is in in Mesa terms, it's it's pretty dense.

There are single family residents to the east, but a lot of those are duplexes that function um you know, kind of more like multifamily.

So when you look at the economic benefits of of providing additional housing, it it's it's 15 units, it's a small parcel that would have trouble developing, I think, in is another type of use as it is mid-block.

Those are some of the things that we look at, and then we say we we understand that the need for this to develop, but how can we where can we exceed standards, which is the the kind of purpose of the bonus intensity zone overlay?

This applicant is is doing it uh through open space through um a unique open space proposal.

Uh their building architecture um has a distinct style that we also feel is unique.

They did some things with uh the condensate and and how they're watering the irrigation that are exceeding standards.

And that's why staff when when we looked at this and we worked with the applicant to address the comments from the design review board, we that's how we recommended approval of this, is that we feel that it it meets the intent of the bonus intensity zone overlay.

Okay.

Uh just another question.

What's the width of the garage's uh length and depth of the meet the standards uh which is 22 feet in depth and 20 feet in width?

Okay, good well, you know the only thought I have is you know, when I look at the economic benefits, uh, you know, for that development, even for the neighborhood.

There the closest grocery store is probably a half a mile, three quarters of a mile away.

There's some fuel stations, uh, you know, very few, if not any doctor's offices.

I'm just thinking location, but that that that doesn't matter.

I I'm just thinking of the significant social and economic impacts for people who live there that need to be improved in the area.

So uh I I just had those questions.

I didn't see a dog park, I didn't see a uh tot, you know, for for kids to get out there, you know, to put all this uh development in there on a small space.

I mean people will have to look elsewhere probably for some type of enjoyment.

Um mayor, we we actually that was one of the things that we worked through with the applicant, and we included some additional um conditions of approval to make the open space that they are providing um more amenitized and and to make it a place for people to gather.

So it's it's condition of approval number three um talks about additional seating and some amenities, um, shade structures, barbecues, tables, that sort of thing.

It is 15 units, so it's a little different in scale than you know, even the apartment building to the south of that.

So I think that the open space that they're providing with that additional condition to provide places for people to gather would meet that intent.

Okay, thank you.

That's that's all I have on that.

Council, anything on 8B regarding e-bikes?

So I'm gonna switch gears on you.

Uh is anybody want to say talk on e-bikes?

Uh, any more conversation.

Thank you, Mary, Evan.

Thank you.

Any questions on that?

Wanna?

No, I I heard Glendale just made some uh changes to their ordinance on e-bikes.

This is another opportunity, I think, as you alluded to, Mayor, that this is a start on tackling the issue.

Uh other cities are doing the same thing and looking at best practices of making changes to these amendments over time uh makes a lot of sense.

What's on the table now has already been introduced, so I think we should my preference would be to move forward on it, and then we should continue to uh to look at this issue, and I'm happy to do that in the public safety committee.

I have one question just in general about it.

I mean, you had you said a couple of questions on this.

Let's go forward.

Yeah, I mean, I think for speed and type of bikes.

Um yeah, I mean, we have both, you know, we have one side that doesn't want them in the parks at all, right?

And then the other side that says uh we we like to ride in the park, ride through the park.

Um, and so I think it's a I think having that low speed limit is probably a good compromise between those.

Um I was actually on my e-bike a couple days ago and riding five five miles an hour is really still.

I had a hard time staying balanced.

It's so slow.

But um, I I do think it's a good starting point.

Again, we you know, we may not get it exactly right this first time.

Um and these have come up kind of fast and they're now proliferating, and so I think it's a good starting point, and at some point we may have to revisit this.

But my question is on can you ride your e-bike?

I know you can ride a sidewalk.

I mean a bike on a sidewalk.

Can you ride an e-bike on a sidewalk in a city of Mesa?

Yes.

And that's that will not change.

Correct.

Okay.

Good, because that's where I was.

So Haley, I have a question on this.

So Haley, I have a question on this the word I know we're changing multi-use to shared use path designation.

So does that mean the SRP canal system, Jim, or is it implied that is the SRP canal system?

Because shared use path could mean parks, but is it is it including the case?

Correct.

Uh yes, Mayor system.

Uh Mayor and Council, yes, the shared use path does include.

Um, and because that's the language that's already used in the transportation code to refer to the canal paths, so that's why we're changing it to shared use paths so that that's the same language used across all of our city code.

Okay.

She did a great job of answering the question.

So uh I think we're, you know, that's just it, yeah, it's really to make things consistent.

And in the past 10 years since I've been here, the the paths along the SRP canal along ADOT, the transportation maintains, we're calling shared use paths.

As well as the flood control uh areas too, like I think out in District 5, the uh Maricopa County flood control area, there's pathways in there.

So these are we utilizing those?

So uh the shared use paths are are specific to what Mesa has constructed and is maintaining what's out in the the current Maricopa flood control areas are not City of Mesa pathways.

People are and they're open to the public and people are utilizing them, uh, but they're not under the jurisdiction of the city of Mesa.

Okay, thank you.

Any comment, Ms.

Yeah.

Um, remember when we discussed this before the break, there was a mention that the state was creating an ordinance or updating their ordinance.

I know they already have one.

If that whenever that comes through, will it preempt ours or it I don't know how that works.

Uh Mayor, Councilmember Duff, uh I have been reviewing the uh different legislative bills that have been proposed regarding e-bikes.

And so right now there's two different bills that are that look like they're amending the same part of the Arizona revised state statutes.

Um with within both of them, they're proposing a 15 mile per hour speed limit on multi-use paths, shared use paths, sidewalks, um, and then a five-mile per hour if you're passing someone, um, but then there's always language within that legislative bill that says that local authorities and local jurisdictions can choose to implement lesser speed limits if they want.

Okay.

So it would give us the ceiling of what we can do.

Yes.

And you know, I wish I had an e-bike.

I want to have an e-bike.

But on an e-bike, you can choose not to have electric assist, is that correct?

Yeah, so um, I know the five miles per hour or something like that.

That but I would think just whatever a normal bike provides and trying to get it near five, but I I don't know.

Okay, I'm just trying to understand it a little bit more and what's on the horizon.

Thank you.

I I'll just make a final comment because I had uh I sat down with uh Dan Butler, our police chief, um and Ken Cost, our previous police chief to discuss this issue a little bit over lunch.

And and one of the things we uh we're looking at is working with our state legislature to def to significantly differentiate e-bikes, specifically one and twos, from these electric motorcycles, because that I think what the part of the problem is is recognition is that the issue a lot of folks are having isn't with e-bikes, it's with these little electric motorcycles that everybody think is an e thinks is an e-bike.

And this is where the state uh might have some great jurisdiction to in the sale registrations and licensings of these things.

So we're gonna be working on on that as well.

So uh it's important to understand the difference between a battery-assisted e-bike, like the council member drove on a sidewalk, apparently, and uh, and what is really uh an electric motorcycle.

Well, she called me old in a previous meeting, so probably more than one time, I'm sure.

Probably.

So are you making making the distinction though that the motorcycle is without pedals?

The motorcycle is without pedals.

Okay, that's and then there's that three that's a little we're gonna have to tackle.

That goes over 28.

Yeah, that's a little that's another one we're gonna have to tackle, but I think looking at the clear distinction between the two and what's causing the most issues, listening to the complaints.

When you listen to them, it's really that this is not an e-bike, this is an electric motorcycle.

And that and if we can uh get some assistance from the state, I think this is where we can make a huge dent in you know in the problem.

And uh even the enforcement we're seeing in uh I think Glendale did some, there was a lot of good stuff in Gilbert.

When you see who they're they're going after, it's like that that's a motorcycle, that's not an e-bike.

Yeah.

Yeah, Mayor, uh Vice Mayor Summers, when I was looking at the legislation, they currently don't call out the different classes of e-bikes right now, and so as I'm providing staff comments on that, I can be sure to include that as something that might be worth the state looking at at this point because it it doesn't, it doesn't cost it doesn't uh differentiate.

Maybe uh maybe having a brief meeting with uh can cost former chief Mr.

Cost, right?

Is where we're calling them now uh would be a good idea because uh we just had this meeting just a couple days ago.

Perfect thank you.

I only have one more comment and and I kind of hesitate to open those can of warbs, but I think I did last time, but I don't think I was satisfied with your air answer, Ederic.

So um the one thing that bothers me a little bit is that with the shared use path, and this is this is related to e-bikes, that we build them according to transportation guidelines or transportation um criteria, and we're regulating them under parks, right?

With the the miles per hour or 15.

Why are we doing that?

And does that make sense?

So may Mayor.

And am I correct?

Um it's it's my understanding that um the the 15 mile per hour speed limit has always existed on the shared use paths or the canal paths.

Um and so it's it's not that we're regulating, it's not that the it's not that the parks code is regulating transportation code, it's that we wanted them to be consistent and mirror each other in the language that they were using.

Um and so there's a separate speed limit requirement of that five miles per hour that's in the ordinance right now within the parks, and then the transportation code has always had that 15 mile per hour speed limit, and then they just reiterate what is supposed to be happening in the park.

So am I correct on that?

That's under transportation too.

You go ahead.

Yeah, mayor and council member, yeah.

There's remember there's two ordinances, and one is the parks and one is the transportation, and the 15 miles per hour is in the I'll call it the transportation ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hopefully that's satisfied.

Okay, thank you.

I have a really quick question.

HOA private neighborhoods, how does this impact them?

Does that law, does this ordinance apply to private neighborhoods, or do they have their own governance?

Uh so mayor, councilmember Taylor, this ordinance would not apply to HOA neighborhoods or parks.

However, we will be partnering with HOAs, letting them know what direction has come out from the city on this to see if they decide to do anything similar to that.

Okay, yeah, I'm only asking because I was in a neighborhood recently, and the kids on their little e-bikes were like ripping through their HOA park.

And I was like, oh, I'm seeing it firsthand now.

And then I thought, well, what if they call the police if they call the police?

Does this would this ordinance apply to those kids in that park?

How does that transfer over into a private neighborhood?

So mayor and council member, I think we'd have to think about a couple of these things because there's a couple other aspects to it, so it depends.

So some HOAs also have private roads and then private sidewalks, so then that's a difference as opposed to some HOAs that you're still on on a side, a city of May Sale sidewalk.

Um and in addition, as the vice mayor pointed out, many of these that are ripping through the parks um aren't e-bikes, they're actually electric motorcycles, and then they're regulated under state statute, so it's possible they fall under a state statute, even though they're in an HOA.

But I'd have to parse it out and think about it.

But the but you the the concept of the ebo the what we're doing right here is um it's not intended to to apply to private property.

Um, but there are state statutes and other regulations that may apply to the to the what are effectively our motorcycles or electric motorcycles.

Okay, thank you.

Well, my friends asked me if this was gonna affect them because I told them funny that this is happening.

We're actually in discussion about this right now.

Um, and then my other question was because this is kind of it seems like a new, I don't know, a new problem we're looking for solutions to, because of the fact that I think e-bikes are not gonna stop.

We're gonna keep getting them, we're gonna see a little motorcycles everywhere as well.

Like, you know, I'm thinking people walking, and then if e-bikes outnumber individuals that are just walking or jogging or running.

I I'm just throwing this out there.

Like, is this is this war?

Is this a preemptive discussion to a future discussion of we have so many of these now we actually need to consider their own separate path pro structure?

Mayor, councilmember Taylor.

Uh I think that as with everything, this is something that we can look at in the future, but as far as capital improvement project capabilities that we would have to do that type of infrastructure required to add that within the parks would would be pretty extensive.

Um but I I definitely think it's something that we can continue to keep an eye on and see what other cities also um continue doing and addressing as as e-bikes grow in in popularity while still making sure that we're making a safe space for all patrons to enjoy enjoy our parks.

Yeah.

We you don't have any studies of any other cities that have done that specific capital improvement.

Okay.

No.

But I just I can look into that.

Thank you.

If I may, Mayor, and um uh councilmember Taylor, you I've seen this in other communities outside of Arizona, right?

You've seen this where they do have uh whether or not it's actually physically separated or it's just a demarcation by even a paint line where there is a separation between um pedestrian and um other users, and so um, especially on wider sort of shared use type paths.

You've seen this in other communities outside of Arizona.

I don't know if I I can't remember seeing it within Arizona, but I think your point is very valid that we might have to look at this on sort of the wider paths and the shared use paths.

And so you do see this in other communities outside Arizona, outside Arizona.

Mr.

Adams.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, I I think this is definitely an issue that is not gonna go away, and we're gonna see more and more of them.

And uh mayor correctly pointed out that uh a neighborhood where my son lives, Lehigh Crossing has got uh a great number of these things, and they're they're going pretty fast in there.

So, you know, my concern remains.

I I recognize that we need to we need to state some regulation here, and uh you know, fine, 15 miles an hour, we start there, but um, you know, we we have posted speed limits on all of our public streets, and we have a means of enforcing those speed limits, whether it be motor officers with radar or speed cameras or whatever.

My concern remains we we're we're putting into place uh a set of r regulations that we really don't have a means of enforcing um efficiently anyway.

I don't think we're gonna set a motor officer out on a on a bike path with a with a radar gun.

Maybe we are, I don't know.

But so the enforcement remains an issue, and another concern I have is that I think most responsible people will ride responsibly anyway.

It's the folks who are irresponsible that are causing us the problems we see in our parks, our paths.

I received an email from uh a concerned citizen saying, you know, what about what about moms and dads with strollers?

What about toddlers?

Um, this is just this is an another step towards another means for irresponsible people to be irresponsible and put other people in risk.

So I recognize that we need to put these standards in place.

My question and my concerns remain.

How do we enforce these?

Um I I certainly hope this isn't something that that that just continues to be something we debate and discuss until somebody really gets hurt or killed by one of these things.

I hope that doesn't happen.

But so uh I I guess the the the enforcement issue is we're gonna put the rules in place.

It would be as though we put our speed limits in place on our public streets and we do away with traffic enforcement, we take down the cameras.

That doesn't make sense.

So those are the concerns that remain with the that that I still have.

And I agree, I think this is an evolving thing.

I think we're gonna see many more than many less.

And uh so how do we deal with those irresponsible riders?

And uh how do we how do we handle enforcement?

So just uh this is my thoughts on the matter.

I I don't necessarily oppose this.

I just think it's a very complicated matter that isn't gonna get any easier.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Any additional Eric or Haley on it?

Council?

I'd like to make just a couple of comments as suggestions, and I we do have park rangers, although they don't issue tickets, but they have a way of monitoring um what's going on in the park.

I know in parks where we've had problems, social problems, whatever the problem is in the park.

We have been able to stand up cameras, you know, that are monitoring it and the real-time crime center, and we can have you know send out an officer if we find there's a recurring problem at a park and it needs to be addressed.

You know, it's just consistent.

So there are a few measures that we do for other um issues in parks beyond bikes that we try to control the behavior of people beyond bikes.

Anyway, there are a few things that we do do to try to control the behavior of people in parks overall, and I think implementing them.

I think the biggest thing is um just making people aware of what the ordinance is, does bring in, I think a majority of people to be in compliance, but when there is no rule, you think you know freedom.

But if there is a rule, uh just like for us when we're driving, we we try to pay attention to the speed limit and and drive at the speed that has been you know presented to us because it is with factor being safe for everybody involved and being predictable for the uh environment around us.

So I think it takes the care of the majority.

If there are bad actors, I think we have some a few tools in our tool shed to see what we can do.

Okay, I I know that some of the cities are deploying drones, and I had a conversation with Chief Butler this past week about you know they're deploying and they have the capability.

If there's a hot area that is having e-bike issues or parks issues, they can deploy drones versus you know, patrol officers or even uh motor officers, but probably everybody combined.

But regardless, we have the resources to it.

I think that we can uh flex really easily to fix a problem in neighborhoods and parks where it might be.

All right, well, thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'm just confirming on three A that's barbecued chicken.

It's uh recommended recommendation for denial, and I see on the last sentence of a yes vote is the item the consent uh order recommended disapproval of the liquor license application.

So Mayor, that was uh one of the items I was going to bring to council's attention.

We did just get notification that they have met um all their requirements, and so when you see your revised agenda that comes out uh this afternoon, it will reflect uh that it's ready for approval or suggested for approval.

Okay.

Nice.

The other one I had personally, I I take it personal, but uh so is the vice mayor.

We're getting two new hazmat trucks, uh, two E1 cyclone trucks, uh 2.7 million dollar trucks uh for our fire and life safety.

And having been on a hazmat for quite a few years, same with the vice mayor.

Know how important those apparatus are because they're specialty units and can deploy not only in our city but neighboring communities for resources.

What color are they?

Uh white.

Not red, but mayor, we'll just I would just note on that one.

One is one is a replacement, but as part of our effort with the new station 223 uh in North Mesa that will allow us to actually expand our how our hazmat coverage by bringing another hazmat unit online, and so uh one of the trucks will be for that new unit.

So it will be able to allow us to better disperse our hazmat response throughout the city.

And when are we building 223, Mr.

Well, as you know, Mayor, we are working through uh some issues on the site, but we're looking forward to construction on that starting as soon as possible.

What happened?

I got two two four.

I I don't know.

I I wanted to retire out of two twenty-three, but that never happened.

Okay, so council, any other items.

I think we tackled some big ones start the new year.

I have one question on 6B.

I just wanted to double check Scott and Jim.

This is we're all this is a lot of chapters to the Mesa City Code pertaining to administrative resume review and compliance.

What like we're only aligning the language with the Arizona revised statute.

Larry's gonna give a full presentation of the case.

So all right.

Well, we're losing council members.

But uh and and mayor, I'll I I would also just like to know um when the revised um agenda comes out this afternoon.

Uh HR and and legal have finalized the um the charter officer um revisions to their contracts that um had been discussed during the annual review, and so those will be reflected uh on the agenda that's released this afternoon as well.

All right, thank you.

All right, so I see we're done with uh item one of our review of the agenda for Monday.

We'll move over to item two A's uh presentation on the proposed amendments to Title II and Title 11 related to the organization and duties of the planning and zoning and design review board.

That gave some people time amendments to code.

This is why I ran sorry.

Actually, you can see that your my presentation is not gonna be as long as do we need a little recess for a couple of minutes.

Okay, we're gonna Mary and Rachel, we're gonna take about three or four or five minutes.

We'll be right back.

All right, we have that side.

We've got Ms.

Taylor, there we are.

We have Jimmy, and we're good now.

Yeah, we're we're good.

Here we go.

All right, man, Mr.

Adams.

Uh she's over there.

Well, okay, welcome.

We're going to hear item two A is a presentation on proposed amendments to Title II and Title 11 related to the organization and duties of the planning and zoning board and the DRB known as the design review board.

Mary and Rachel, thank you.

Uh thank you, Mayor Freeman.

Thank you, Council.

Um, so we have been hearing from City Council over the last couple of months of concerns with the votes that are coming in terms of the recommendations coming to council for some of the key items uh that council is making decisions on.

So, based on that, and and seeing that we're we're seeing some of the attendance decline for the planning and zoning board, we know they have a really important and essential function.

They are the recommending body on so many of the the at least from our our department um the items that are coming to council.

And because they're making those significant or recommendations on those significant items, it's really important that we have a fully seated board.

And so we also want to respond to the development advisory forum because when we don't have a fully seated board, it can result in delays, it can impact transparency for residents who might show up for a meeting, and we don't have a quorum.

So, in looking at what we've um options that are out there, one staff is gonna make two proposals related to the planning and zoning board today.

The first is that we add three alternate alternates to the planning and zoning board.

This will help us to ensure that we can always have a fully seated board of seven members who are making recommendations to the the city council.

It helps us to protect quorums so that all of the meetings we can provide certainty again for the development community and for our residents.

It also helps us to build a pipeline for future candidates who of uh board members who actually sit on the board and aren't alternates, so it helps us kind of in that training of future uh potential board members, and it allows the chair to see alternates on a rotating basis as needed.

In doing this, we're also looking to modify the composition of the planning and zoning board.

Currently, our design review board has recommendations or requirements for specific design professionals to sit on the design review board, and so we're looking to also have those types of qualifications on our planning and zoning board.

We're looking at the composition to be three design professionals that would include one contractor or developer, and then four community representatives, and then with the three alternates that we're proposing, we're looking to have at least one design professional to again maintain that design um uh expertise on the board.

This somewhat mirrors the DRB composition, and so that's why we're we're looking to make this recommendation because as you're all aware, and this is the presentation that Rachel is going to do next on um House Bill 2447, which the governor signed last March, it actually requires our legislative bodies in the state to establish an administrative review process related to design plans that are based on objective standards.

And so with the comp because of that that bill from the state, because of what we've heard from council, what we've done is we've looked at how the planning and zoning board can help us to streamline certain processes that are occurring within the city in terms of some of the applications we're seeing, because we have to do that administrative review.

And so in what we're proposing as it relates to design approval, is that based on the state legislation, we're looking to combine our site plan and design review processes to streamline the processes into one type of application for our our our development community.

This will align the site plan reviews and the design reviews into a process, which will make it a lot easier for our applicants because currently they go through two different processes.

It also will help the staff member to be able to bring all of the concerns to one board who are going to be making the decision on that.

It then aligns the responsibilities of those reviewing and approving bodies, and we've outlined the three bodies below.

So the planning director in the the administrative review changes at Rachel will be giving you the details on.

If they meet all of those development and design standards, those objective design standards that the state is requiring us to put in place, the planning director would be able to approve that site plan and that design review.

If they're not requesting a rezoning, any kind of a PAD, a BIS, a council use permit, or something that has to go to another body, then they would be able to have that planning director approval.

The design review board would be looking at those cases where an applicant comes in and is asking for alternative compliance, so they don't necessarily want to meet all of the design, the objective design standards, but what they're there they want it is the alternative compliance that we've provided an opportunity for in the code.

They would also be making a recommendation on the municipal projects.

They currently are the approving body of municipal projects, so we're looking to have them as recommendations to the planning director to make those those final decisions.

And then as directed by council, council can always ask or refer a project to the DRB for their for their input.

Um where we think the design review board could provide some expertise.

Um we the planning director would have that ability to refer that design review up to them.

It would only be the design review being referred up to them.

And then the planning director appeals.

So if the planning director is to deny one of their design, uh the design review uh requests, there's always got to be an appeal process.

So they would be the appeal body to the planning director's decisions.

There are also in some of our PC districts and in some of the previous uh cases that had been approved, there is but there are sometimes specific requirements that design review board has to be the approving body.

So there's kind of these offset or kind of these odd cases where once in a while they will be an approving body, but for the most part, what they're gonna be doing is recommending on municipal projects and looking at those alternative compliance.

That will probably be a bulk of what the DRB will do.

Mary, you have a question.

Mary, explain to me.

So, how is the planning director going to um refer to the DRB if the only thing that goes to the planning director is if it meets all the objective standards, and if it meets the objective standards, how do you add a layer of compliance onto that?

That's a great question.

Um, mayor uh council member go forth.

We have actually identified specific criteria that if a case maybe has significant economic impacts, and I don't those uh in the city, Medina Station, for example.

If a project came in there, they weren't they were meeting all of the objective standards.

Um that's not necessarily a good example because they have their own design standards, but we would be able to refer that up for them to be looking at it because of that significant citywide potential impact.

So there are criteria that we're building into the objective standards, into the code amendments that we are bringing forth to council, and they would have to meet those criteria for the planning director.

So it's not like the planning director could just get up one day and say, I'm in a bad mood, I'm gonna refer your project up.

They have to meet specific requirements.

And then the last piece would be the planning and zoning board, and this is why that composition recommendation from us is what we think is really important, because now if someone is asking for a rezoning, a PAD, a BIZ, a council use permit or an SUP, that design review would be done by the planning and zoning board.

So what it does is it takes the design review board out of that process, so it'd go from staff review recommendation to planning and zoning board who would look at the site plan, the building, the landscaping, all of those design elements and make a comprehensive recommendation to the city council for um for the design review, the site plan, and all of those other processes that are coming to council.

So it kind of streamlines it and we are are able to kind of remove one of those additional reviews for the applicant.

So it helps them with that.

Um they would also, if we had a a PC district come in, they would look at the design review that those types of districts sometimes require specific uh design guidelines and standards.

So similar to what we did with Medina Station or Fiesta, where they had their own design standards and guidelines.

We took that to DRB for a recommendation, but now we wouldn't be doing that.

It would just be the PNZ looking at it, which is why that composition of having those design professionals on P and Z would be would be so important if we move forward.

So now we have two different bodies that are going to be evaluating design review.

So you could have, I mean, you could have a project that got different feedback from one than the other, right?

I'm sorry, um, Mayor.

Just not on the same project.

I'm just saying we we now have two different bodies.

That's not how it works now, right?

We don't have PNZ doesn't do design review.

So now they're gonna do design.

So now we have these two separate bodies, they're gonna be different, they're gonna have different feedback.

So I don't know how that's gonna be consistent.

So mayor, council member go forth.

I I think the consistency is that um staff is going to be looking at it.

Staff is going to be making recommendations, and staff is going to bring that consistency in it.

And again, remember DRB has never been an approval authority, they've only ever been a recommending authority on cases, and then the planning director actually approves the design review based on those recommendations.

So the DRB may say, you know, the buildings are too close together.

Then the planning staff works with them to address the DRB comments, but the planning director right now is the one approving those projects, not the DRB.

They are a recommending body only.

So it's the planning director and P and Z that now will be the and and council will actually be the approval authority on those cases that go to P and Z, not P and Z.

So the planning and zoning board won't approve any of the design review.

They're making a recommendation to council on design review.

So it's the planning director and council that will be making those decisions.

Yeah.

Maybe I can if I if I could jump in maybe and and try to explain some of the background, if you did a great job.

Um part of this stems from the the changes from the state and the requirement that we review and approve based on objective standards.

And historically, the design review board has always given us additional input to consider design wise, that is beyond what's required in the code.

But we can no longer use that, those recommendations and those comments in our decision making.

So it really changes kind of the the scope of the design review board.

The other piece of this is that we had the two processes for site plan review and design review.

And design review looks specifically at building elevations, landscape plans, photometrics, which are lighting plans.

The site plan review does those also, but also has a site plan.

So there was already an overlap of what they were both reviewing.

But applicants were required to have two separate applications to go through kind of two separate paths that kind of aligned in timing, but not quite.

So this helps really consolidate that and um provide you know more expedited review.

Um but as Mary was saying, design review was only a recommending body before.

So since we can't use that subjective comments from them, we thought this was a great opportunity to then kind of align all the applications into one development review that we could use a design review board.

If if we do have some quests for deviations from standards, they could take a look at it based on the criteria that we are modifying in the text amendments and give us a recommendation.

Um, but then most of those other cases that I'm sorry, my dry mouth that would uh go to city council and need planning and zoning boards recommendation already, they could continue through that path as it is.

And and if I if I could, Mayor and Councilmember Go Forth.

I think Rachel brought up a really good point.

Planning and zoning board does look at building elevations.

They do look at landscape plans, they do look at the design.

It's all part of that site plan review, and so there was that kind of layering of the design review on those plans.

So we're we're kind of removing that at this point.

And the state statute is kind of helping the kind of you know make that happen.

Ms.

Goforth is that got you.

Yeah, uh, I mean, I'm I'm gonna work through it a little bit more on my head as you go through, but thank you for that.

Vice Mayor.

Yeah, this is a word.

This is a this is board soup soup sandwich.

Trying to figure this out because it's I thought I had in my head because there's seemed to be DRB was doing design, P and Z was doing site plan, and now it's trying to marry these two together, even though there was a little bit of overlap.

Um the part about now it comes to council, is this gonna be an administrative act of council or to legislative act of council?

So I'll start and then Jim can um chime in.

So the way that the state statute is written, um we need to have those objective standards, and we need to have site plan that is an administrative approval by staff.

It's only when they ask for any kind of a deviation that it would come to council for a decision.

So if they're asking for the PAD, the rezoning, the biz, if they need a CUP, anything where there's another decision that needs to be made outside of just site plan, then it would come to council.

Mayor and vice mayor council, I'd add one more to that is as if they're seeking to modify a stipulation on a prior zoning case, that's also would come back to council as uh as a rezoning, and and many times sometimes that involves the site plan.

So that would still say it's a legislative act and a and a rezoning and and that modification to that site plan due to a prior step.

I I've made this comment in the past, and I'm sure you remember that we seem to see quite a few administrative acts brought to council, which is like I can't change this.

It's my vote has already been predetermined.

There's no even reason to see it anymore.

If it's if it's gonna be, if it has to be approved by you or PNZ, bringing it up to us is just a waste of ink.

Um and it'd be great to clean up the council stuff.

I I don't want to see more stuff coming to us where we have no legislative authority to make a change or to vote on it.

And if that's this cleans that up, I'm very happy with with that.

Well, I think we're here built out in the next presentation, right?

Some of this in more detail, that's correct, Mayor.

Okay.

Can I ask one quick question?

Uh so is it my understanding that ultimately we are taking an applicant's work and we're consolidating the amount of applications they have to fill out, which were originally through two different boards, if you will.

One which had approval um authority, one which did not, technically.

So design review board would make recommendations, but they would not approve anything.

Whereas planning and zoning would also make recommendations, take the recommendations from design review board, and they would approve or disapprove.

Is that right?

Mayor, councilmember Taylor, it's somewhat correct.

It would depend on the application type.

A lot of times the planning and zoning board is a recommending body depending on the application type to city council.

So they would either approve or they would make a recommendation to council who would approve.

Okay, but if the applicant fits all of the objective standards that are not only required by the city but also by the state, then they would never they would not come to us for any type of approval.

Is that correct?

No, council member taylor.

The way that that works is that the state doesn't have any objective standards that have to be met.

What they've done is said the city has to identify objective standards that an applicant needs to meet.

They would still have to go through the process, they'd still have to do the site plan, submit their elevations and do all of that, and then the planning director would approve their plan if they don't ask for any deviations from anything in the Mesa zoning ordinance, which is rare.

Um it is rare.

So you said they have to meet objective standards that are set by the city.

So who all objective standards are subjective at some point?

So who created those objective standards?

And am I totally fast forwarding into the next presentation?

Counsel.

Council Taylor, you are actually going into the next presentation, but it's a good question because we currently have a lot of objective standards in our zoning code.

We also have a ser uh a lot of design guidelines that we are looking to codify.

So staff has worked based on projects that we've had based on the objective standards that are currently in the code to define those objective standards, and they're not subjective, they have to be measurable, and we have to be able to say it's this many feet, it's this many you know, square feet of open space.

So they have to be objective that are measurable.

And okay, that's what quantity tool is gonna get into um in the next presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And Mary, mayor and Mary, um, I think what the legislature was specifically trying to address there, which you would which you highlighted was the fact that there are objective standards that municipalities had, but they felt that because of other boards, other commissions that then the uh the industry was being subjected to subjective standards that that added cost, added time to their process.

And so that's exactly I don't think there was as much concern about the objective standards that municipalities have.

It was just the addition of subjective standards on top of those objective standards.

Is that correct?

Yeah, okay.

But now can I just say I think but now subjected to the objective standards?

Councilmember Taylor pointed out, it's gonna be the rare case that it's like, oh yeah, we hit every one, move on.

They're gonna end up in the same place.

Is my maybe Mr.

Adams?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um just a couple of comments.

I'm I'm fully supportive of the uh proposals here that will hopefully um allow us as a council to see votes from P and Z that uh the the uh the I's and the nays total seven as opposed to four.

Oh, five oh, we've seen way too much of that, and these are far too important matters to to not be heard by the full sitting board.

So I'm totally totally supportive of that.

Uh just for clarification, um I I think and maybe I'm wrong here, but you know, we're we're reacting here to the state, the legislature for better or worse, stepping in and removing some autonomy or ability of Mesa to determine its own destiny here by by saying not and Mr.

Butler, you're I I hear your comments, and I I think that probably was the impetus behind that, and there's sometimes unintended consequences, which means we no longer have as much local control as we used to, but so I I get that, but I want to just clarify the difference between the administrative act and the legislative act, and so this is a question for you, Mr.

Smith.

Um the the administrative act, we it's a it's it's just something that we do as a formality.

It says the statute says you shall, and therefore we shall.

The legislative act in the past, we could just simply say no.

Uh I just don't like it.

And I don't have to justify why.

Is that primarily the difference between the two?

Uh mayor and council member Adams.

I uh yes, and sort of a very simplified sense.

And I see it sort of on a scale of discretion.

And so when you're looking at a legislative act, the scale of discretion is incredibly high.

Um as you articulated.

And on the administrative on the administrative act, yeah, as long as you if you comply with the objective standards, then yes, then you can't impose an additional requirement that's not there.

And so I think you articulated accordically.

A project goes through staff, they make their comments, and then it goes to design review.

You know, the then the applicant adjusts their plans and to meet staff's approval, and then it goes to just design review and design review, has some additional comments in order to make sure that there's nothing outstanding for P and Z approval, they make those.

So there's a certain amount of frustration and cost and delay involved in that, and I think this is just tightening up it up quite a bit for those that should be a streamline approval.

So I think that's the objective.

Okay.

Thank you, counsel.

So you have direction to move forward on that.

Is that I'm hearing consensus with that?

So Mayor Fryman, this is on the agenda for Monday.

Um I think it's item 7A.

So this is on the agenda for Monday.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move next to item two B is a presentation and proposed amendments to Title 11 related to administrative reviews as required by state statute.

Mayor, you changed seats again.

Rachel.

Rachel and Mary.

All right.

Morning, Mayor Council.

So we'll kind of continue this discussion and and build upon um some of the requirements of the House bill.

But in doing so, we really wanted to discuss the the correlation between these changes, the state legislation, and what we've been hearing from council and the development community over the last couple years as we look to really improve our processes.

Um we've heard a lot from council within the last few years about um improving the development review process and making it more efficient, looking at eliminating redundancies, um, improving our internal coordination when it comes to the reviews that are done between um departments, um, using data for decision making, and then really just overall improving the environment for the development in the city.

And from the development community, we we've kind of heard a lot of the same sentiments, but more specifically to them about improving and expanding administrative approvals of site plans and plats, revising stringent standards for the major and minor site plan amendment approval criteria about streamlining infill and redevelopment within the city, about allowing more administrative approvals and a flexibility, about minimizing the uncertainty of the design review process, as we've discussed, and then really some good feedback about you know continuing to be transparent and publish our review schedules.

And then in conjunction, we we have House Bill 2447 that was signed by the governor last spring.

And what this bill does is it requires municipalities to allow administrative approvals with no public hearing for site plans and development plans, and those reviews and approvals have to be based on objective standards.

So this last beginning of summer, um, we brought to the land division text amendments.

So you have already done a part of this by approving those amendments, which now any plats, preliminary plats, final plats, land splits, those are all done as an administrative function.

So this is the second piece of this now where we are looking at the objective standards and we're looking at our uh site plan review process, our design review process.

Um so as council member Taylor mentioned, this is a really big text amendment.

I think there's maybe 150 some pages, and you know, it touches about 50% of the zoning code.

Um so I we tried to kind of break this down into some key topics and changes that you'll see in there.

So one of them is uh redefining what the minor and major site plan modifications are, the criteria for those.

Another part of this is um looking at developing objective design standards, um, also streamlining our development review process as we've been discussing, and then just cleaning up um different discrepancies and consistencies with the code to make it easier to use and really improve the the clarity of the document.

So I'll go through each one of these in a little more detail, but acknowledging that there's a lot behind each one of these as well.

Goody.

So the first part of this, and and this goes back to a lot from what we heard from the development community about our major and minor site plan criteria, and really looking at um looking at ways to streamline that and improve it.

So what we are looking at doing is is currently we have a number of criteria that determines whether a site plan modification is minor or major.

An example of that, which is probably the most common trigger of what makes something a major, is if you um have a change in your building square footage on a site plan that's 5,000 square feet or 10% of the gross total square footage of the development, which other one of those is less.

If it if it exceeds that threshold, that automatically kicks it to a major site plan modification, which often requires it to go all the way back to city council.

Um while it's great to have you know a very clear criteria, um, a one-size-fits-all doesn't really work well with a lot of projects because they're very different in scale and scope.

So when you're looking at a large industrial project, a change of 5,000 square feet is a drop in the bucket compared to if you just have a standalone retail pad.

Um so what we are proposing is to really pare this down to be that if there is a site plan that was approved by city council, and and it was stipped to an ordinance that said you must comply with this site plan.

If there was a change of use in that site plan, if they wanted to come forward, change the site plan, and they're changing a use that was shown on the site plan, that that would be a major modification that would go back to city council for your review and action.

Um so this one, this will capture a couple different things.

So when you have a change of use, it affects zoning standards.

So there's different requirements for for parking, for example, for for different uses within zoning code.

There's also different review procedures for various uses.

Um, but this also really captures some different impacts you see from various uses.

So you might see uh you know, increase in in traffic generated from one use to another.

So we feel that that will capture some of those external um effects as well.

But I think a big a big part of this is that we wanted to ensure that when council is acting in its legislative authority, and and you come before you and you have a rezoning and a site plan and you're considering whether you want to to rezone a parcel or annex a parcel into the city, it it may often depend on the project that's before you and um you know what's being presented.

And if they you know wanted to change something, if you were promised that you would have these great sit-down restaurants, and then they came back and said, no, no, no, we want to turn these three into drive-through facilities, you may have made a different decision in your original approvals.

So we want to make sure that those come back to you for consideration.

Rachel, yes, Rachel.

But isn't that the same use?

I mean, when you how are you defining use?

And I yes, I will get to that.

Yeah, um, so I I don't have a slide that specifically says, but we we did create a definition for what a change of use is, and within chapter 86 of our zoning ordinance, it is specifically all the use classifications within the city.

So it's every use that's listed and in our land use tables that you know specifically has what the process is for it.

So if they're changing from one of those defined uses to another defined use, that would be a change of use, or a change of a defined use, and maybe it's something that's not even defined in our zoning ordinance, and we have seen that recently where we have kind of emerging technologies that we don't have to find.

That also would be a change of use.

Um and I'll kind of give a couple of examples here of what this might look like.

So for example, full service restaurant is its own individual use classification.

So this would be your your sit-down restaurant.

If they wanted to change that to a restaurant with a drive-thru, which is a separate use, that's considered a change of use.

So that would be a example to get at me.

Yeah.

That would be a major modification that would have to come back to city council for their approval if they wanted to change the site plan.

Example two, if if there's a Michaels and you or a Coles and they wanted to change it to a Michaels, vice versa.

Those are both retail establishments.

That's that's not a change of use.

If they wanted to make a change to the site plan, that would be done administratively.

Um so did that kind of help distinguish between the two?

Those two examples for sure.

But what page did you say?

I'd like to look at chapter 80s.

Chapter 86.

Okay.

Um Mayor, Councilmember go forth if I can.

I think it's important to realize that we clearly define these different uses.

So in our land use tables, we have you know the residential land use table, the commercial, the employment.

There are a series of uses that are listed down in the table.

Every single one of those uses is defined in the code.

And so what Rachel is saying is Kohl's doesn't come in and have its own definition, it's retail.

And so if that gets changed to a Michaels, they don't have their own definition, they're retail.

So they sit in that definition.

But there's a lot of things that encompass retail, I from what I understand.

But I haven't looked at the definitions.

That's why I would like to a lot encompasses retail.

That that's correct.

And what we're what this is saying is if that use doesn't change in the site plan to in the site, and there's a site plan modification, that that would be an administration that would be a um an administrative change.

It wouldn't go back if they're there if it wouldn't require a council approval.

I guess I th to me, going, I mean, the example of a full service to a drive-thru, there are other examples under retail that are retail uses that are comp completely different that as a council member when I approve it the first time would not have done it had that use been a different retail use.

You know what I mean?

I do I do what you mean.

And it and it's important for me to understand how they're defined.

That's fair.

And and what I would say is the retail to retail, if it changes a site plan, that again would come back because it's the site plan changing and the change of use.

So that would go back to council if they had originally approved it.

It even retail to retail?

No.

No.

No.

Oh, sorry.

Only if the the site plan changed.

No.

It's an and though.

Yeah.

That's correct.

So I have a quick question.

Um we've got a lot of a lot of words to review here.

Many pages.

Do you guys do red lines?

Um because I I'd love to see a red line of all this.

So without having to read it word for word, I could go through and see.

And if there is one, I apologize.

I'm just just asking the question.

If there's a red line, it would be helpful, number one point I'd like to make.

I'd love to read that.

That way you don't have to go word by word.

And two, I think what council member go forth is saying is retail to retail.

Well, a coals versus an auto zone.

Yeah, they're both retail, but one is clothing and accessories, the other is car parts.

Is that is it where you're going?

Yeah.

Okay.

So I I get that.

I get that.

And you you you could probably have 10,000 pages if we tried to drill down to every possible kind of a retailer, bookstores, auto zones, uh, home debug.

I get it.

But the red line of all these text changes would be extremely helpful to me.

Sure.

Yeah, Mayor can uh council members.

So and and I see council member Duff looking because there is a red line, but that is specifically for changes that were made between when we went to PNZ and they they requested some modifications.

So we wanted to show what those changes were from when it went to planning and zoning board to city council.

But we do have all of the chapters, all the red lines on our website for the public to make it clear, so we can we can definitely upload those um into legislators.

Yes, we could do that.

Yes, and it and it's a lot because there's a lot of things moving, so anytime you see something moved, it's it's gonna show as well.

I would I would love to be able to just review that easily and see, okay, this is changing, that's not what it is.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Rachel, I had a question on Mr.

Adams brought up retail to retail.

So Coles to auto zone, is that equal by retail, or is it uh change of retail?

Mayor, yes.

So if it was strictly an auto zone where where they're just selling auto parts and they're not doing any sort of service on the car, that's retail to retail, but there's a difference between maybe a limited service um automobile facility, like a quick glue, that's a change of use.

That's not the same.

So the auto zone very specifically is retail, but um other auto-related uses 90% of the time are gonna be a change of use.

Here's a scenario.

Recently, I know the district one and I were contacted about a car wash going into a corner of a closed walgreens.

Walgreens had closed some of their corner, you know, stores.

And so they want to put an uh car wash inside the Walgreens.

And that was Walgreens is considered what a retailer.

But then we have a change of use to a car wash.

Yes.

And that would kick it back to us, correct?

If council originally approved that site plan, and there was uh a condition of approval on an ordinance that said it has to comply with this site plan, yes.

Yeah, I don't know that.

I'm just using the scenario.

Most likely, as as you know, most of the rezone and site plans that you see, they have that condition.

It's very typical.

We've done that for years.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Oh, sorry.

Do you want to go?

Um maybe this is too broad, but let's see, let's go back to the retail to retail or service to service.

The site plan is approved.

Um the the use is approved, but it it falls within kind of two different spectrums of that use, like a hair salon versus a nail salon, right?

What if we as the council member just are like, no, I don't think that's a good idea in my district that doesn't bring in the type of um crowd that I'm specifically looking for to build up my district.

That's not what my people are looking for.

So how do we work if the site plan is approved, if the use is approved, if everything looks good, but we just don't like the specific business that's going in, what's our what's our course of action as a council member?

Yeah, do you think you do?

Mayor and council um limited, incredibly limited, is there is the answer.

Um unless we have a development agreement that's uh specifies that end user, then we we don't have a means of of changing that and um or or limiting that that change in that space.

And and also go back to just uh two thoughts.

One is is realize this is intended to that this ordinance is intended to embody as to this aspect the the current practice, the current application.

It's not intended.

This is how the city's operating right now.

Um and second is is it requires a site plan change?

In other words, those all oversimplify it and Rachel will can explain it for the the footprint has to change, right?

If so, if the building is staying the same, if it's what a coals and it's turning into office and they're not changing the outside in any ways other than sort of TIs on the inside, well then if it doesn't trigger a site plan change, then you don't get to the second question, which is did it change use?

So you have to have the first first part of the question, you know, it has to be a yes before you get to the second second question.

So I just want to make sure.

And and that's you know, that's the current practice, right?

So, you know, that's that's already been happening for many, many years.

Can we change that?

Property owner rights in the state of Arizona.

I don't know.

We like lawsuits.

So mayor and council member, we we the way to affect more more regulation is uh onto those sites is through a development agreement.

So we would need to but going backwards on already previously approved um sites, um no.

And in mayor council, I I mean to build off what Jim just said, I because I don't know, Councilmember Taylor, if that would get to the example that you gave.

If it were certainly if we had approved a development because they were bringing a unique retailer, and we wanted to ensure that we embody that through the development agreement.

We think of some we've done recently and those we'll do in the future.

And and that's the way that we ensure that use or that particular retail use stays at the level that gave council comfort to approve it.

But if it was an example, like you said between a salon and uh, you know, uh different kinds of salons or or whatnot, I mean the chances of us capturing that through a development agreement would would mean that we would literally have to do a development agreement with each and every type of of uh commercial uh center in the entire city, and I I just don't know if that would be a practical expectation to have.

You still so it can't be district specific?

No.

I mean as far as doing all development agreements in just one district, yeah.

Like based on what your residents are looking for within that district, if that's what they would like to see, maybe there's a specific lifestyle within your district that you'd like to maintain and have businesses and services that reflect that.

But remember, the development agreement is only when it's first developed.

Yeah.

So if you're talking about an existing center, well, either or really, I'm talking about the can you redevelop one?

Can you choose a new one?

So mayor and council, to the extent that it would be a new development that you see development agreements going into, or in cases where they're doing some other significant rezoning and they come in and then the council has leverage to require a development agreement.

What we found through the years is is that the more restrictions you put in the development agreement, especially on end users, it sometimes kills the deal.

In other words, even the original deal.

Um and council member Goforth is correct.

Many times it's sort of what I'll call it's sort of the turn once it's what they have to open, right?

Um is it possible to do development agreements where it's not just at the moment of opening, but it continues throughout, it is possible, but that then you're gonna see a significant uh pushback from development because now you've restricted their ability to market that in the future and the and and their ability to finance even at the beginning because their finance is gonna say, wait a second, I don't know how you're gonna be able to meet all these tenant future tenant restrictions.

And so what we've seen as we've tried to uh push more restrictions and development agreements that they it affects their ability to finance the project in the beginning, and sometimes it's it's killed a deal due to the development agreement, and we've had to come back and do either amendments or the project just as on a couple cases just never happened.

So you have to balance this.

It's not as simple as just saying, Well, let's just do a lot of development agreements.

You start to impact um the ability of the developer to actually do the project.

Uh let's go over.

Um Ms.

Duff, did you have some comments?

And just uh uh commenting on the development agreements.

Um the ways sometimes on shaping a development a project is sometimes will offer incentives in order to get what we want, but we cannot deny it based on, you know, that is that's the way we just don't use legislation to pick and choose our businesses.

Um and we gotta think many times we approve site plans, especially on new developments, and it'll it might identify one or two users that are anchor um institutions on that, you know, the to make the deal go through, but there's many spaces that'll say retail or whatever like that, and they are kind of sort of the but they're not specifying which retail.

They're just saying what kind of use is on that.

So those there's a lot of site plans that we go through that are not completely committed to all the users on that.

Um, and so it kind of like we have to go forward, and then once a center is identified in operation, it is normal to have turnover.

And as long as the use isn't changing, they should be able to sign up a new tenant with ha without having to go through a city process.

Um so we're trying the the state's objective is to make things more streamlined and to be more business friendly and and not have the burden of bureaucracy.

We're trying, we're making some provisions, but we still when there are major changes, we still have that same prerogative that we have now.

So um your ask are actually going more strict than we have in place right now, let alone what the state is requiring from us.

Thank you.

Yeah, that makes sense.

It's the tenants that I'm thinking of, not necessarily the specified use.

All right.

Okay.

Uh I know Mr.

Adams is gonna depart here soon.

So Rachel, carry on.

Okay.

Okay, so the the next broad topic is objective design standards.

So staff has gone through our existing design standards to see where we need to make them objective.

So if there was a should, changing to a shall, if we need to put an actual measurement to a development standard, um, doing that, looking at adding uh additional objective standards so we can no longer use our quality development design guidelines in reviewing and approving.

So if there were any standards within those design guidelines that we want to codify, putting those within the zoning ordinance.

Um examples uh of what this means is you know, we've added a minimum requirement for the depth for what the required horizontal change in a wall.

So before it specifically said that your wall has to be articulated every 50 feet.

So what does that mean?

You need to have now a two-foot offset in that wall plane every 50 feet.

Um clarifying that just changing the color or texture of a material does not qualify as a separate building material.

Um adding diversity requirements for landscaping.

So this is to make sure we don't have debt or design like disease spreading on a on a site.

So having, you know, you can if you have X number of trees, you know this percentage of them needs to be of one species, two species, so on.

Um, and then we've also another example is added requirements for residential amenities based on the number of units.

So really looking at to ensure our development and its high quality, that what they're providing for amenities is um is in line with the scope of the development that they're proposing.

So if we have 300 units, we're not just getting a dog park out of that.

Um we're getting something substantial for for the use and benefit of those residents.

Yes, and I see that there might be a question.

So essentially we have to think of every scenario right now.

That is why the it is 150 pages and it's all throughout the code.

Instead of it actually provided more flexibility the other way, I think.

I think we're shooting they're shooting their themselves in the foot, actually, not us, but I guess we have to do it.

But we don't have to do that.

It does add some certain things.

There was some other circuit for picture mic.

Sorry.

I don't want to be heard.

Okay, be quiet.

So my the question for you though is our landscape requirements they're already in the code, correct?

They are.

But are there any landscape requirements in the design guidelines?

Yes.

The design guidelines does cover things about landscaping, yes.

So now they're gonna have to be codified in uh the objective standards in order to require them.

Okay, correct.

So is this where I bring up trees or shade if you'd like more shade?

Yes, so there was yes.

Okay.

So other examples of large commercial developments, we've added in requirements regarding amenities and plazas and the shade within and the parking lots.

Um so there have been those sort of modifications as well.

So are we gonna get to weigh in on this?

Because I think as we said, typically we weigh in each site plan.

Now we have to weigh in now.

So mayor council member go forth.

The what you weigh in on is when someone one is asking to deviate from a requirement, or if there's an ordinance.

I mean to codify the the objective standards.

That is what their operative is.

That's what we're doing now.

You're just giving us a couple examples like for this presentation.

Yeah.

So today what we did was we really wanted to focus on kind of the key themes.

We do have a full presentation that talks about some of the details of this.

And they're also in that 150-page document because you don't want 150-page presentation, I'm assuming.

So what we've tried to do is today we really wanted to pick up the key themes.

So that's the site plan modifications, the design standards, and Rachel's got a couple of other to go through.

And then there's a presentation with the text amendments that are on the agenda for Monday, and then it's the text amendment.

And so we will send you all a link to the red lines of the things that changed.

And as Rachel said, the design guidelines and standards were in a lot of different places in the code, which is why this is such a massive undertaking, and why there is such a large uh volume of pages to review.

But this is the weight in on those objective standards.

Is this are is this on the agenda for Monday?

It it is currently on the agenda, but I will I will discuss that later with these standards.

Okay.

Okay.

You're gonna have more time speaking to what Rachel's gonna say.

You're gonna have more time, so don't don't worry.

We are working against the the state requirement, though, um, which was the end of the last year.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, so moving on to the next key topic here was the development plan review process.

So we touched on this in the last presentation.

What what staff is proposing with the objective standards, which really affects kind of the the authority of the design review board.

Um, we thought this was a great opportunity to streamline processes and to combine our site plan review and our design review process.

So this really reduces redundancy for applicants.

They're currently submitting same same application submittal requirements in two places, getting review comments back on the same documents at different times.

This really kind of aligns those.

It's going to shorten the time frame by eliminating it needing to go to design review board and then PNZ and then city council.

Um, it's gonna be clear for the public because there was often a lot of confusion from the public when they go to a design review board that they do not like the use, they don't like the site plan, but that's not the purview of that board.

We and we had to say, I'm sorry, you need to go to this other board to make those sort of comments to be heard.

Um, and this you know, once again, make sure that we comply with state law.

Um, and as Mary was was mentioning, um, there's also some other places where we wanted to improve clarity.

Um so one of those has to do with the expiration and extension of our different land use entitlements.

So um currently, such as a council use permit, a site plan, a design review, they all have expiration um timelines on them, but they weren't consistent.

So despite you having to get your design review and your site plan, your design review would expire within a year.

Your site plan was good for two years.

So we wanted to make sure those aligned across the board.

Um that was another change.

Um alternative compliance.

So in the zoning ordinance, when when we did the the last really large amendment that um established a lot of these objective design standards was when the city adopted the quality development design guidelines.

At that time, we codified many of those standards, but we built in an alt in our alternative compliance process that provided some flexibility for applicants.

So if they weren't able to meet the three materials, they could say we have you know, we we want to propose this alternative with two materials, and we think it's equivalent or superior for these reasons, and if it met the qualifications, it would be it, you know, considered by the approving body.

We found that hasn't been used how it was intended, and people are using it just to deviate from standards.

So we really wanted to look at those criteria and to tighten those up, put more um put more responsibility on the applicant for identifying what those changes actually are and why they think that they're they're required, why they're the minimum necessary, why they're equivalent or superior.

So we really try to work on those requirements, and then once again, with these process changes, it will now be required to go to design review board for their recommendation before getting um any sort of approval.

And then once again, with these process changes, it will now be required to go to design review board for their recommendation before getting um any sort of approval.

So we think that's really gonna strengthen that process and help help really keep it to its intended purpose.

Um then as we were talking about the design standards, they're they're all throughout the code.

So where we could, we tried to reorganize and consolidate them into you know, one place if we could, if it made sense, um, really looked at the wording of the text to make sure they were clear, and then we finally went through and modified some definitions for clarity, and we added definitions that are used within the zoning ordinance but weren't defined.

So with the the public outreach on this process, we've we've started discussing this with the with the public in September.

So in September, our development advisory for um forum, we meet with them about every every quarter and um discuss with them these proposed text amendments that are coming forward.

We've posted on our website in September the key concepts of what this was doing as well.

We had an open house um at the end of September, um, which we did not have great attendance for um, unfortunately.

So we only had four people attend.

We had council member Duff and two residents of Phoenix and one resident from Mesa, um, which was really unfortunate.

And then um we've had our newspaper ads, so that's pretty detailed where we go through and we identify every section of the code that's gonna be changed.

Um when we had all of the all of our revisions ready.

What we did is we've heard from both our our planning and zoning board previously, um, and the public is, you know, sometimes these get adopted as repeal and replace, and so you don't see all of the changes.

So we've really been trying to make an effort to provide red lines.

So we went through and converted it all to red lines to be able to post each individual chapter for the public to see.

Um so that was done at the beginning of December.

And then we um we went to P and Z December 8th, and then or 9th, either 10th is one of those.

I'm sorry.

Um, but we've been sending out email reminders about every two weeks to let people know they're they're on the websites, there's a public comment feedback form, please provide your comments.

These are posted for review, um, and then went to the planning and zoning board.

Um, so we've we've continued to send out those emails since the planning and zoning board, and um we have now just started getting some um interest from the development community, um, unfortunately, and we've we've had a couple of requests for meetings, so we have been meeting with the the community as quickly as we can.

Um we just had a request come in on Monday, and we had a meeting yesterday with several of the um land use attorneys that represent clients and in Mesa, and unfortunately, the despite them kind of hearing in general that this was happening and out there, they they didn't they said they did not fully understand the comprehensiveness of the amendments that were before them.

Um, and they will be submitting letters requesting for this item to be continued to give them more time to digest and to respond to this.

And so I think what staff is gonna is recommending is that we do wait on the introduction of this item and then introduce it on February 23rd, and that would give them 45 days to to review and provide comment and work with staff, and we really want to make sure that we build in time there for us to meet with them and discuss comments before coming back and making a presentation on this.

So I don't know if there's anything you want to add, Scott.

Yeah, mayor and council.

I um there's a little bit of frustration, of course, that you know, wait till the last minute to um to to do the these are all very uh informed individuals who are going through the same exercise and in basically every other city uh in the Valley and in Arizona because all cities are having to comply with with state law on that.

That being said, what happened when the legislature did this, um and and it was collaborative, and Miranda can please come up and correct me if I miss stating this.

But um the desire to streamline uh process across municipalities was something that was shared both by the legislature and the governor's office, and uh they encouraged uh the League of Cities and Towns to work collaboratively with the legislature with the development community to set the framework in place in state law.

Now we don't like everything that was in there, but that's what compromise bills um look like.

You know, we we uh if if it was just a one-sided bill, we certainly would have drafted it differently.

But this is you know, this is compromise to meet the governors and and the legislature's desire to see a more uniform process uh and streamlined process um across municipalities.

So this is the um work and and Rachel goes back to September as far as the notification.

They've been working on this actually for years, right?

I mean, literally a couple of years, is that fair to say Rachel along on this?

Um so it it's a tremendous undertaking, and staff done has done a great job.

Uh council member does exactly right under state law, this was supposed to be adopted by the uh end of 2025.

So my understanding that um maybe only one other large city has actually adopted theirs.

Many of the other cities are just like us, they were going through this um in order to um because it's such a large undertaking.

But the spirit of the law too um was that um this was supposed to make things um easier and more clear to the development community.

And so because we're hearing uh questions from that very community, um we feel a delay is warranted because we would not want to pass something and then here have them run to the legislature and say, well, everything that the city of Mesa just did actually confuses us more than what the initial process was.

So that's why I think taking our time right now, getting this right is is more important than um then approving it just for the sake of approving it and having a flawed process.

A bonus to that is of course, um, I I hear from Councilmember Goforth and certainly probably more of you that you'd like to dig in a little bit deeper to some of your questions um about the content of this, and that will allow time uh for council to to meet with staff and really kind of dig into some of some of those questions as well.

So that's why staff is comfortable uh delaying this till February and and giving that time for internal discussions and then stakeholder discussions to continue.

Chapter 86.

Chapter 86.

Uh thank you for that, Scott.

I I've I have been a very strong advocate for streamlining, as you all know.

I've had many a conversation.

In fact, we have a meeting today with a developer who's gonna tell us how we can be better.

So I think this is great, and I think the intention of the state legislature was great.

Um and I've all and I've said what we should do is make sure that we have all the important aspects covered and required, and then everything else should be flexible and easy.

Um we don't want to over-regulate, we don't want to make it super complicated.

But so when we determine, okay, these are gonna be the required objective.

I think to me, that's based on the values of the community.

So to me that that has to come from the council, you know, what those because you didn't just codify the entire design standard guidelines, right?

You picked the ones you thought were most important.

Well, that's important for us to weigh in on, in my opinion, because that really comes from the community, what we value and what the community values through us.

So that's why I I would like to see those.

I'd like to because like I said, it's not the whole thing.

We've picked and choose some chosen some, and so um I hope that the rest of the council would like to weigh in on that too.

I think that's important for us to decide the the must-haves, and then let everything else um be really easy and streamlined to work with.

And I I trust your judgment, I'm sure you got it right, but it's it's our job to make sure that we do that.

So those are my comments.

Mr.

Reddy, I think uh uh I'll just add a different point as we make these changes.

Um I think we see uh not a big issue with these larger developments that can hire attorneys and uh staff to uh facilitate the process that we're we're doing, but uh for small businesses um especially navigating through my favorite software system of dimes uh that we uh look at Nana uh over there.

But I I think if we can keep on uh having a robust kind of uh program for small businesses, uh a techno assistance program for them to help identify these changes and help throughout these changes uh because uh I feel uh we leave small businesses a bit behind when we do these changes and and it's it is very costly for them to uh you know hire attorneys or or it becomes non, as I mentioned in the past, it becomes then like I'm not gonna improve my my office, my office to add, you know, a couple conference rooms and and a suite uh of uh uh for an office.

So I I just we look at those as we look at these changes uh internally as a staff that we look at ways to uh keep on supporting uh with technical assistance small businesses that don't have the means to hire, you know, like these large developments developers that can do this uh and facilitate this work.

So just a comment there.

I I think one comment that I get consistently from developers is an architects is tell me what you want from the get-go.

Tell me what you want, tell me what I need to hit.

What is the standard?

What are we going for instead of staff and then a board and then planning and zoning, and then council, because every time that it's becomes arbitrary or too open, it's causing delays and costs, and that's when we get into 18 months on sometimes getting things passed, which adds to the the expense of the project.

So I understand wanting to have input on it, but I do understand of developers saying I need to know what to hit and try to get it right the first time because I can't go through the cost and time delays because there's money you know, sitting and paying interest while we go through 18 months of satisfying everybody.

So, you know, hopefully we can get that tightened up so it makes it easier for development, reduces the cost of development, which includes housing, of course, um, and um leaves less to an arbitrary just which way the wind is blowing, what pe you know, people want, including our council, right?

We have to know what our standards are, what the ordinance is, and you know, direct from there within it at a tighter window, because right now that window's way too big as far as the developer community or anybody who's trying to create changes.

It's it's just adds to the complexity of our staff having to meet with people again and again and again and trying to get them closer, and but then that's gonna change in the next board, and that's gonna change in the next board, and that's gonna change when it gets to council.

So I can understand the benefit of it, and I understand wanting to weigh in, but I think the current standards is just too wide and we're too bureaucratic, and we add to the cost um and timeline.

Jim, I mean way in now before it gets adopted, and then we're done.

Yeah, but I'm saying, oh, you mean even now forever.

To weigh in?

No, I'm talking about where we are now and why this is necessary in order that we can type tighten it up for a number of reasons.

Okay.

Um I I want actually Jen made me think of something.

Thank you.

What happens to those who are in the middle of contractor development right now as we are going through these changes that are required by the state?

Are they gonna be grandfathered into the prior requirements?

So they don't have actually based on what she was saying, they don't have to jump through a million hoops to catch up to the new state standards.

Yeah, so mayor, council members, with all of our tax amendments.

If we have applications that are that are in the works, they we we give them a choice.

Um we say technically you have to adhere to the stand the standards that were in place at the time when you applied.

If you wanted to use the new standards, you're welcome to.

Okay.

Um so it it it gives them if there's some sort of benefit that they might receive out of the text amendments, they can use them.

Okay, so if it's easier for them to follow what was prior, they can continue in that vein.

But if there's something better for them in the new standards that we come up with, they can switch tracks, if you will.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Well, I'll just add uh welcome back, counsel from break.

With that said, I uh you know, when we get reach out to the communities and get input, uh sometimes these deadlines, these deadlines are great as far as I'm concerned.

I don't like extending them just based on a few individuals' uh comments, uh whether I don't uh regardless who they are.

Uh what I want to really hear from is our our residents, uh people in our community that work every day, and I know there's other, I'll use the word zoning attorneys that are outside the city that advocate for businesses in Mesa.

However, uh I I and looking back, are there ways that we could reach more people better?

And I don't know if it's do we go where they are.

You know, when you have a workshop, do you have a workshop?

Do we have it at a library?

Do we have it at different places in the community like we've done on our financial side uh to get input ahead of time so we can just get these things off our plate, you know, extend another what we're talking 30 days or so to February.

Yeah, roughly 45 ish days towards um towards February and sorry.

Well, we're used to doing that, but it's at the same point in the beginning.

How can we reach more people, more individuals faster than uh and getting input cleaner to help streamline our processes?

Yeah, mayor, mayor, council members.

I you know, I think the the public outreach is the hardest part of it's really getting participation in these, and and the approach varies depending on the text amendment or if it's a plan.

So, for example, you know, with planning plan efforts, we often go out to the community for those meetings.

Whereas uh a text amendment, we might specifically target certain stakeholders like an industry if we know it's really gonna affect them.

Um with the open house for this one, we tried to make it virtual so that it was easy for people to to attend.

We use all of our standard method methods, social media, try to get it out there, our email lists.

Um it's it's just a challenge of of getting people interested in participating, unfortunately.

We use Channel 11.

I'm just think about that.

We could look at, yeah, we could look at that further, yeah.

Okay.

Well, and and Mayor, I I Rachel's also being nice.

Um so I can I can be more blind about it.

That we're a little more frustrated with this particular or I am frustrated with this particular group because they they knew and they had received outreach dating back months, and so I but I'm biting my frustration right now, maybe now I'm airing it you know publicly, but uh because at the end of the day we want the product to be right, and I think that is the most important part.

And so even if it was at the 11th hour, uh that um for groups that were notified starting back in September that this was coming and waited until you know now to uh yeah to to weigh in.

The importance is though that that community are individuals that will be greatly impacted by this, and so um we we do need to work with them to ensure that um that we do this.

And so that's why I think it's a reasonable delay.

And I I also believe mayor for the for the reasons council member go forth mentioned that um it is important.

What I'm hearing from council is they love the idea of more um of making the process more easier to navigate and consistent for uh developers, but you're right.

The trade-off to that is you got to get it right on the front end, and so if there's questions that we need to answer or clarity that needs to be provided to to some of those standards, I think now is the time to do it before before it's adopted.

So uh because of that, then I I think this delay can serve both purposes.

Well, no, it's I I think we've received some emails in opposition to this text amendment, and I don't want that to really drive us to delay our votes, you know, just because you have opposition, you've had time to weigh in, and now you're you're weighing in at the last hour asking us to extend time to give you a chance to weigh in.

So I know we've had that uh comment or talk about it, but in order to streamline the conversation for these text amendments is important.

What I what I wonder, did you, Rachel, go by through every tech uh page in there and look at it, or did you use AI?

Unfortunately, it's it's a very tedious effort, yeah.

Okay.

I would use AI.

Well, uh using technology to our advantage, you help identify areas of the code that need to change, then would put the human touch to it.

Is that that's where I was at?

Okay.

Uh council, anything else.

Okay, item three is to take action on appointments to various boards and committees.

Is there a motion to approve that?

So thank you, Mr.

Reddy.

Thank you, Miss Goforth.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Item four is to acknowledge receipt of board minutes.

Is there a motion for that?

Thank you, Miss GoFord.

Thank you, Miss Taylor.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Next is current events and conferences attended.

Council members, do you have anything you wish to share?

I'd like to share about our new year's eve in downtown Mesa on December 31st at noon.

And thank you for attending Mayor, Councilmember uh Go Forth and Vice Mayor Summers were there also to help help celebrate um bringing in the new year.

At noon, we had a countdown and and the date diving lady suspended gymnastics came back and down and dove in to the ground, and then we uh celebrated the new year with a toast of apple cider.

Um there's a lot of activities for the kids to do.

There's a great band, Chucky Baby and All-Stars to celebrate.

Um Toddle Torque Productions.

Uh, I want to thank them for uh providing the diving lady again and firework productions for the pyrotechnics that we had at noon.

And of course, a big thank you to DMA Downtown Mesa Association for putting together the second annual event.

It was well attended and so much fun.

I think the band was incredible.

Yeah, I mean, there is a great band.

Yeah, and I think uh according to Jimmy, that was one of the most well attended noon years, and and we can expand on that.

So thank you, Jeff and your team and uh DMA.

That's awesome.

Anything else, Council?

Ms.

Go Ford.

Yeah, I'd like to mention I went to a groundbreaking at Falcon Field for the Civil Air Patrol.

They are um an auxiliary to the United States Air Force and do a lot of great uh work out of that.

We are lucky to have a Falcon um composite squadron there at Falcon Field, and they do education for young cadets and they provide emergency services.

So they are expanding their footprint there at Falcon.

And um, so that's exciting for them, and I was honored to be a part of that.

All right, great.

Ms.

Taylor, you have something?

Uh yes, I actually spent a lot of time with Mesa PD on our our break, and I had a really good time learning about the incredible efficiencies that we have.

Um, our city's police department is amazing.

So I toured the real-time crime center.

That was I felt like I was walking into a movie scene.

It was just I mean, it was awesome the way they showed me multiple examples of how our police department has been able to mitigate future potential crimes committed because we use our cameras so seamlessly, number one, and wisely um at the real-time crime center, and then I also did a ride-along and a fly along with our aviation crew.

And in both of those instances, I had the opportunity to see how they triangulate the police department uses the real-time crime center while the pilots are flying, while the ground patrol is working and how they they work as a unit, an organism.

And I just thought this is really amazing, and that Mesa is so privileged that we have had we have had police officers, chiefs of of um various police departments come from all over the United States to witness our ingenuity and our ingenious behavior as a city and looking at how we can best utilize various traffic cameras and business cameras to help fight crime before it gets worse.

I mean, I saw a shooting happen, it was very sad, but we got I mean, we found the gun thrown into the canal.

We were able to find the man who was fleeing the scene.

Uh he could have gone off and done even more terrible things to other people, but because we used the real-time crime center, that was mitigated amongst many other things.

Um that was just incredible.

And then I toured the public, the new public facility off of um the public safety facility off of power, and I got to see how our police department and our firefighting department work together in that same facility, and that you know that's very special.

I I didn't know this initially, but now that I'm on the council, I've had my eyes open to a few different things in that Mesa is very special in that we have a police department and a firefighting department that work very cohesively together.

And that does not always happen in every city, in every municipality.

Sometimes there's a little bit of a turf war between those two departments, and we should be so thankful that we are so privileged that those two departments are such teams that are willing to go to bat together to keep us safe and to protect us.

And just to be clear, that fire chief told me that every single day there is a fire in Mesa that they have to go address every single day.

Most people I don't think know that.

And they're very real.

This is not like oh, my you know, my phone caught fire, and that was it.

This is house fires and building fires and car fires.

So I just got to have a really good eye-opening experience.

I'm very grateful for our departments and how much they work together and how safe we are.

We're very fortunate city, so that was my my busyness amongst some other little meetings, but good.

Well, I rode along with uh assistant chief walker for uh New Year's Eve on firework patrol, and I can tell you is out of control.

So as hard as our officers and everybody try so hard to mitigate fireworks in our community, it it I was kind of blown away.

But uh especially at midnight and looking across the city, and I asked Mr.

Butler, maybe we should get a little bit of uh real-time crime center footage and just show it it was better than being at a fireworks show, actually, in our city.

So well, we would we would welcome our state legislature to intervene on that issue.

They're they're interested in a lot of things, so fireworks would be a great thing for them to be more proactive in helping us regulate.

Would they take local control from us?

They can do that.

Yeah, really.

They have taken local control from us, yes.

Okay, with that, Mr.

Butler, you want to share our future meetings?

Yeah, thank you.

Mayor and council will, of course, be here on Monday for our scheduled council meeting.

Just uh to note, and your your staffs are aware of this.

In March, we're gonna be switching the dates of the council meetings so that there's not a conflict with the National League of Cities uh meeting in in DC.

So just uh be aware that that's being changed on on your calendars.

And um then, of course, we'll be back here next Thursday uh the 15th for um study session at 7 30 that morning.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Miss Gilforth, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, we're adjourned.